Jump to content

I feel burned.


Joe Taylor

Recommended Posts

I suspect that with the no of RED One cameras sold, the no of people who will need to rent will fall to zero fairly quickly, so whilst it may have been historically possible, future rental returns will be less.

If your shooting a feature I don's see any advantage in using a RED One or Epic over a Scarlet S35 costing $7000 or in many cases over a 2/3 Scarlet costing rather less.

 

Well, it's worth noting a Scarlet S35 is not going to be a $7K camera by the time you add the modules required to give it the same capabilities as a red One body. And particularly not by the time you add the full set of accessories required to actually shoot with it. Most people's Red One packages ended up in the $25-30K range before lenses. While it's hard to say without pricing on all the new modules and accessories, if I had to guess I'd say you're probably looking at $18-25K for an S35 Scarlet package with most of the same stuff.

 

It is true that if your production is structured such that multiple projects are handled under the same financial umbrella, it makes far more sense to buy digital gear than to rent it. Buying a Red One camera package costs less than renting one for nine or ten weeks. It requires a pretty low volume of production before this becomes worthwhile. What keeps rental houses in business with digital gear is that not all productions are structured to make this practical. A lot of them are financially independent one-off projects.

 

There's a viable rental market for $6K prosumer camcorders. There's certainly going to be one for $18-25K Scarlet packages.

 

Plus, of course, if the S35 or FF35 Scarlet models become the standard cameras for shooting low-budget features, rental houses are going to do a lot of business renting Epic brains to those productions when they need high-speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member
Well, it's worth noting a Scarlet S35 is not going to be a $7K camera by the time you add the modules required to give it the same if I had to guess I'd say you're probably looking at $18-25K for an S35 Scarlet package with most of the same stuff.

 

Hi Chris,

 

$18-25K for a $7k camera looks very expensive, at that price I will just buy the fixed lens Scarlet ready to go at $3,750 & shoot 35mm film for the real jobs with budgets.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$18-25K for a $7k camera looks very expensive,

 

I'm figuring a typical Red One package was about $10-15K on top of the base camera price, and the Red One isn't just a brain, so you're probably looking at another couple thousand on top of that.

 

Unless the new accessories are priced much more aggressively than the old ones, of course. But I think you have to figure at least $2500 for the 1080p EVF, say $750 for the smaller LCD screen, $1000 for various support accessories, $1500 for batteries and charger, $500 for recording module, $500 for battery module, $1000 for I/O module, $1000 for media, $300 for the Redmote... that's $9050 extra right there, and I'd consider most of those price estimates to be on the low side.

 

Although it's true that the price difference between the "brain and lens" package and the "complete kit" package for the entry level Scarlet is only $750. That seems to mean there's some combination of accessories that one can add to a Red brain that lets one capture an image for only $750. The minimum you'd need to buy to do that would presumably be the Red Accessory Handle (which can hold a single battery), a CF recording module and the smaller of the LCD screens. Thing is, I'd figure that would cost at least twice that much. So maybe Red is planning to price its accessories substantially lower than is generally anticipated. Or maybe this is just a special package deal, and nothing more significant can be inferred from it.

 

Of course even if that is a special package deal and those accessories are twice the price otherwise, I suppose you could still attach them to the $7000 Scarlet and capture images for $8500. Wouldn't really want to shoot a feature with that accessory package, though.

 

Wonder how long we'll have to wait for accessory pricing to be announced.

 

at that price I will just buy the fixed lens Scarlet ready to go at $3,750 & shoot 35mm film for the real jobs with budgets.

 

If your business is structured properly for it, the most sensible option is probably to buy the $25K (or whatever) package. You make money renting it to the production on the jobs with real budgets, plus you've got a great camera for your own use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
If your business is structured properly for it, the most sensible option is probably to buy the $25K (or whatever) package. You make money renting it to the production on the jobs with real budgets, plus you've got a great camera for your own use.

 

Hi,

 

I do not want to be a rental company, I would have to spend too much time making quotes & checking out equipment. I also think its a conflict of interest, I would rather specify the best equipment for the job in hand, not convince a producer to use what I own. If I bought an Epic and the job only requires a Scarlet or EX1! I dont want to stuff a client that way.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I do not want to be a rental company, I would have to spend too much time making quotes & checking out equipment. I also think its a conflict of interest, I would rather specify the best equipment for the job in hand, not convince a producer to use what I own. If I bought an Epic and the job only requires a Scarlet or EX1! I dont want to stuff a client that way.

 

If you primarily view yourself and sell yourself as a freelance DP, then it's probably not a great idea to own lots of kit. But for a lot of lower budget jobs, there's a certain demand for a more full-service approach, where the production contracts with a company that can provide the camera, fill camera-related crew positions, and handle some post workflow and consulting. Or sometimes even produce the entire project. There are a lot of benefits to this sort of "boutique production company" model, as opposed to hiring a producer who then hires a bunch of freelancers and rents equipment from rental houses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi Chris,

 

I only put high production value material on my website or showreel, I don't have any images from facilities houses that own equipment on my reel, I wonder what the connection is! More Strangely more than half my work comes from facilities houses that own their own equipment including RED's, the "All Under One Roof" seldom leads to the highest quality, especially if the price is low.

 

Stephen

 

If you primarily view yourself and sell yourself as a freelance DP, then it's probably not a great idea to own lots of kit. But for a lot of lower budget jobs, there's a certain demand for a more full-service approach, where the production contracts with a company that can provide the camera, fill camera-related crew positions, and handle some post workflow and consulting. Or sometimes even produce the entire project. There are a lot of benefits to this sort of "boutique production company" model, as opposed to hiring a producer who then hires a bunch of freelancers and rents equipment from rental houses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's worth remembering that all this is relative.

 

I will never be a big time commercials DP (nor would I want to be given what it can turn you into). Therefore, "High production value" for me is somewhat different from "high production value" for you. There isn't much live action on my reel; most of it is animation, but what there is was largely shot on gear I own or rented myself for the job, and at the end of the day it makes me a living. Again, not as good a living as you, I suspect, but that goes back to what sort of a human being you want to be!

 

Numbers like "4K" have very little to do with any of this.

 

And Red is still not really a 4K camera.

 

P

 

PS - Oh christ, I'm responding to Red threads again. Someone increase my medication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
It's worth remembering that all this is relative....

...And Red is still not really a 4K camera.

 

And the Scarlet is presently not any sort of camera.

Neither is the Epic.

Neither is Monstro.

There is no RED Drive.

 

The RED may or may not exist, although I've never seen one. I can at least accept it as a working premise, given that it is little more than a refinement of the Arri D20, which I know definitely exists.

 

"Refinement" is probably a stretch, as it sounds to me like the RED's alleged design is too far ahead of its time. (And I don't know why people seem to always regard that particular expression as some sort of statement of virtue, since it all too often really means a product that is the result of some nerd's engineering wet dream which barely works, and is full of bugs).

 

I still have yet to see any real-world RED footage on a TV or movie screen. Given the number of Australian RED owners there are infesting REDUSER, I would have thought by now one of them would have sneeringly shot me down in flames by pointing out something that I could tune into (not downloads - I want something somebody apart from the originator thought was worth showing to people).

 

And I don't particularly want to hear about low-budget TV series from countries that nobody has never heard of, even at 1:30 Sunday morning on SBS.

 

Redcode RAW is not really RAW, it's really just a compression shortcut that allows you to store "4K" (whatever that means) images onto relatively cheap flash memory. However in the sense that no decisions are made in camera about how to interpret the results of the Bayer Analysis, I suppose it is sort of RAW. Having said that, an awful lot of perfectably acceptable images have been captured without the benefit of the RAW philosophy. Personally I think the concept is somewhat over-rated.

 

PS - Oh christ, I'm responding to Red threads again. Someone increase my medication.

The light Phil!

Go towards the light!!

No!! Not THAT light- ... Oh poop....

(Foomp!! Crash! Tinkle...)

(Darkness descends....)

 

 

 

Waugghhh! Wauggghhh!!

My hands is turning to rats!!!!

 

Oh no, sorry, it's just this meatloaf is a bit mouldy....

Sorry, sorry.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I can assure you that the RED ONE exists, there are thousands out there in the real world. Several features shot on RED will be screening at Sundance this year, and there have already been a few TV shows on cable here in the U.S. that have aired, shot with the RED ONE. Apparently some commercials and music videos shot on the camera have also aired. "Che", shot on the earliest RED prototypes, is starting to get screened for Academy consideration -- in fact, I just got a DVD screener of it in the mail the other day.

 

So it's a bit obstinate to suggest that the camera doesn't exist nor that it isn't being used just because you can't look out your window and see a RED ONE being used on your street, or flip on your TV set and immediate come across a program being shot on the RED ONE.

 

The RED hard drives also exist, and so does the new RED RAM drive. I primarily used the RED hard drives on "Manure" and "Stay Cool", we had several of them.

 

As for the bugginess, it was not as bad as the rumors suggest, in fact, it was hardly buggy at all for my two feature shoots -- they were about 12 weeks of continuous shooting on three RED ONE's. We had a few problems now and then, but we didn't lose any footage in 12 weeks of shooting and god-knows how many hours of footage. Truth is that the number of camera problems I had were not much higher than the number of incidents I've had with any camera system, film or digital. Yes, the camera was more or less beta-tested in public, hence all the rumors of problems, but by the summer of 2008, it was a fairly stable system and continues to get more and more stable. I wouldn't have recommended it for a major project in early 2008 but now have no problem recommending the RED ONE compared to any other option out there today, especially any other digital option. Certainly I ultimately found recording data to drives on a movie set no different from a practical point of view (ignoring the extra work created afterwards for the data wrangler in the camera truck) than recording to videotapes, or compared to exposing film mags either for that matter.

 

So whatever criticisms you want to level at the RED ONE, make them believable ones, not made-up ones like "I'm not sure the camera even exists, nor the hard drives..." -- those sorts of statements just undercut whatever you have to say. The camera is real and it works, just accept that much of the story and move on.

 

Yes, it's a bit of an academic discussion whether a compressed RAW Bayer file is still "RAW" (maybe we need a new word like "RARE" or "SEARED" like with ahi tuna...) but I'll accept that it can still be called RAW until it is processed into color. I'm a little more dubious of calling the image from a 10-bit LOG camera "RAW", like the Viper in FilmStream mode, just because the RGB image has hardly been processed. I tend to restrict the term "RAW" to a monochrome Bayer-filtered image pre-conversion to RGB.

 

Yes, "RAW" is somewhat overrated, it doesn't mean much in terms of getting anything "better" in terms of dynamic range or color depth, compared to, let's say, a 10-bit LOG camera like the Viper, Genesis, F23 -- that all depends on the camera, the digital processing, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yes, but I have no real proof that you exist either :P

 

And, I meant Red Ray, not Red Drive, my bad.

(I notice you've carefully skirted around the other assorted vaporware. :lol: )

 

My point is, (perhaps expressed in too ironic a way), is for all practical purposes the RED has no real existence.

 

I mean I have to take people's word for it that Mars is actually a real world and not just a reddish dot in the night sky. And if it turned out it was just a bright dot in the sky, life would go on exactly as before.

 

Same wth the RED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to restrict the term "RAW" to a monochrome Bayer-filtered image pre-conversion to RGB.

 

David, there is no reason to restrict the usage of the term Raw to Bayer. Several CMOS/CCD arrays are used without the obvious color array of Bayer-types, especially, in medical imaging. I think it is okay to consider the signal direct from the sensor as Raw, without any special regard to Bayer type color filter array, etc, i.e., a sensor signal that has not been transformed to any standard notion of display device specifications, color space, etc.

 

Yes, "RAW" is somewhat overrated, it doesn't mean much in terms of getting anything "better" in terms of dynamic range or color depth, compared to, let's say, a 10-bit LOG camera like the Viper, Genesis, F23 -- that all depends on the camera, the digital processing, etc.

 

In theory, compression applied to linear Raw should result in relatively poorer gains in comparison to a non-linear mapping that enhances certain properties of the signal that are more amenable for compression (say Log transformation applied when the signal has a good variation from dark to extremely bright). Linear data is noisy compared to smoothed data from certain non-linear transformations, and hence, even some other filtering operations, such as resampling, etc., also have to be applied more carefully.

Edited by DJ Joofa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Yes, but I have no real proof that you exist either :

I can assure you that David exists. I've seen him several times, including at the ASC. He looks like the picture you see to the left of his text on this site. ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I think it is okay to consider the signal direct from the sensor as Raw, without any special regard to Bayer type color filter array, etc, i.e., a sensor signal that has not been transformed to any standard notion of display device specifications, color space, etc.

Yes, as I understand the term, Raw has nothing to do with the spatial sampling array. To fit in the limitations of tape formats, some of the dynamic range available from the sensor has to be discarded. "Raw" means that no information that we can see is discarded. It's everything that came off the chip, via at most visually lossless compression. Practically, Raw means that we don't need to make irreversible creative choices between the sensor and the storage. That means that we don't need the on-set DIT, we do our color correction where it belongs, in post.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Yes, as I understand the term, Raw has nothing to do with the spatial sampling array. To fit in the limitations of tape formats, some of the dynamic range available from the sensor has to be discarded. "Raw" means that no information that we can see is discarded. It's everything that came off the chip, via at most visually lossless compression. Practically, Raw means that we don't need to make irreversible creative choices between the sensor and the storage. That means that we don't need the on-set DIT, we do our color correction where it belongs, in post.

 

-- J.S.

 

I know Mike Most and I had this debate on CML, because while he and Geoff Boyle will call the signal from the Viper in FilmStream mode "RAW" since it is barely processed, I tend to feel that if it were really "RAW" it wouldn't have been converted to 10-bit LOG since the signal off of the sensor is not LOG. But Mike's argument is that there is nothing thrown away in the LIN to LOG conversion, so it's still the RAW information more or less.

 

Truth is that it will always be a grey area, there's no such thing generally as a "pure" signal being recorded straight off the sensor... for one thing, it has be converted to digital, and even that could be argued is a method of throwing information away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I can assure you that David exists. I've seen him several times, including at the ASC. He looks like the picture you see to the left of his text on this site. ;-)

-- J.S.

 

Yes, but are you saying that because it's true, or because it's what you imagine I would expect you to say, since I have no real proof that you are a real person either. Oh, I can allow that there is a real person actually writing the text of your posts, but you could be Emmanuel in disguise (or he could be you). :lol:

 

All of you could be me using Opera and suffering a multiple personality disorder. How would this differ from the actual situation (as in "the information available to me of the actual situation") :lol:

 

I mean, how do you know that bald-headed person who appears on the RED stands at trade shows is really Jim Jannard? He could just be a stand-in for security purposes. Do you know Jim Jannard? As in: "did you know him when he used to sell handgrips at the race track or whatever it was he used to do"? Is he a real person, or just something created by an advertising agency?

 

Sure he can come on here and insist that he is who he says he is, but that's what the agency would do as well, with just as much vehemence.

 

Countless savage and brutal wars have been fought over what people "knew", without a skerrick of evidence to back their beliefs up. They still are.

 

Rather like Reduser really....

 

Try to understand my point: Just everything I "know" about the RED comes from what I have read on these forums. I can download all the pictures and clips I want; unless I was actually there and saw what the shooting conditions were, how can I be sure of what the camera's real-world performance is? I want to see something where the choice of shooting format took up 0.5% of the producer's time, not most of it.

 

'...a few TV shows on cable here in the U.S. that have aired, shot with the RED ONE. Apparently some commercials and music videos shot on the camera have also aired. "Che", shot on the earliest RED prototypes, is starting to get screened for Academy consideration -- in fact, I just got a DVD screener of it in the mail the other day.'

 

"A few"? "apparently"? Hardly the most impressive of CVs....

 

Let the flames begin! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I know Mike Most and I had this debate on CML, because while he and Geoff Boyle will call the signal from the Viper in FilmStream mode "RAW" since it is barely processed, I tend to feel that if it were really "RAW" it wouldn't have been converted to 10-bit LOG since the signal off of the sensor is not LOG. But Mike's argument is that there is nothing thrown away in the LIN to LOG conversion, so it's still the RAW information more or less.

 

Truth is that it will always be a grey area, there's no such thing generally as a "pure" signal being recorded straight off the sensor... for one thing, it has be converted to digital, and even that could be argued is a method of throwing information away.

Frankly I think the main motivation behind this whole Raw Panacea business starts and stops with people being being asked to explain why all those video cameras DIDN'T produce results "better than film";)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I think the main motivation behind this whole Raw Panacea business starts and stops with people being being asked to explain why all those video cameras DIDN'T produce results "better than film";)

 

Keith... you started out here as James Murdoch. You stated personally to me that you "would take us down, no matter what" after a few online jousts.

 

What motivates you to keep this up?

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's no such thing generally as a "pure" signal being recorded straight off the sensor... for one thing, it has be converted to digital, and even that could be argued is a method of throwing information away.

 

David, how a signal is defined all depends upon which properties of signal you are interested in, and actually for certain statistics nothing is lost, if a few rules are followed. For e.g., if you are interested in just pure signal amplitude values then yes, some information has been thrown away by the digital signal because of the quantizer (ADC). However, if you are interested in signal distribution (in probability estimates) then no information has been thrown away by digitization as long as the quantization step is sufficient small (bit depth is large). One can recover the original analog signal distribution from the digitized values and it has certain useful applications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
David, how a signal is defined all depends upon which properties of signal you are interested in, and actually for certain statistics nothing is lost, if a few rules are followed. For e.g., if you are interested in just pure signal amplitude values then yes, some information has been thrown away by the digital signal because of the quantizer (ADC). However, if you are interested in signal distribution (in probability estimates) then no information has been thrown away by digitization as long as the quantization step is sufficient small (bit depth is large). One can recover the original analog signal distribution from the digitized values and it has certain useful applications.

 

How big is the uncompressed data directly off the sensor with the least possible alteration during conversion from analog, trash and all? Does it absolutely have to be compressed? What if a 3 CMOS monochrome with separate storage paths was used? Would they be store-able?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

"Frankly I think the main motivation behind this whole Raw Panacea business starts and stops with people being being asked to explain why all those video cameras DIDN'T produce results "better than film";)"

 

 

Keith... you started out here as James Murdoch. You stated personally to me that you "would take us down, no matter what" after a few online jousts.

 

What motivates you to keep this up?

 

Jim

First of all you seem to be taking my statement about RAW as a criticism of the RED.

That was not what I intended.

 

I was merely commenting on the excessive optimism of certain people expecting that the availability some sort of "aftermarket" colour decoding is going to overcome the very real deficiencies of silicon sensors. My position is generally that if the captured exposure from a silicon sensor is compromised to the point where a camera's own electronics can't salvage it, no amount of afterburner software massaging is ever going to recover it.

 

Which is not the case with film.

 

Phil Rhodes is the one who keeps pointing out that REDCode Raw is not "really" RAW, I was just pointing out that that is probably not really what REDCode RAW was developed for, rather that it's just a convenient means of compression that also allows an offboard PC to do the bulk of the decoding work.

 

Sorry if you don't like my analysis, but I'm not a fanboy. How I see it is pretty much how the industry generally sees it.

Reality 101. Where's the beef and all that.

 

As for: 'You stated personally to me that you "would take us down, no matter what", after a few online jousts.'

 

Where did you get that from? I have never made any such statement to you or anyone, personally or otherwise.

 

As far as I am aware the closest proximity I have ever been to you was when you visited Masterton New Zealand some time back. (Which in itself was somewhat freaky, since I used to live there just on 30 years ago).

 

There was a post made some time back by Jim Murdoch (his first name is not James by the way) which makes some joke to the effect of: "Oh yeah, right, by talking on this forum I'm going to verbally sabotage Jannard's magnificant scheme". (This was in conjunction with a number of threats of actual physical violence to Murdoch from other posters by the way). And also, by the way, before you had ever demonstrated any working hardware...

 

You keep insisting I made the post in question, but even it had been, read in context, it does not contain any threat to you. I can dig up the the link and put it on here if you want, (plus a lot of related documentation:-).

 

I certainly don't want you to fail, but that does not mean I think you are going to succeed either.

 

Because, I am not a Fanboy. I guess I'm not the sort of person you'd want to be seated next to on a 12 hour plane trip. I can deal with that.

 

What motivates me?

Hmmm. You have all the information you need. I guess you just don't get it.

Edited by Keith Walters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Frankly I think the main motivation behind this whole Raw Panacea business starts and stops with people being being asked to explain why all those video cameras DIDN'T produce results "better than film";)"

 

 

 

First of all you seem to be taking my statement about RAW as a criticism of the RED.

That was not what I intended.

 

I was merely commenting on the excessive optimism of certain people expecting that the availability some sort of "aftermarket" colour decoding is going to overcome the very real deficiencies of silicon sensors. My position is generally that if the captured exposure from a silicon sensor is compromised to the point where a camera's own electronics can't salvage it, no amount of afterburner software massaging is ever going to recover it.

 

Which is not the case with film.

 

Phil Rhodes is the one who keeps pointing out that REDCode Raw is not "really" RAW, I was just pointing out that that is probably not really what REDCode RAW was developed for, rather that it's just a convenient means of compression that also allows an offboard PC to do the bulk of the decoding work.

 

Sorry if you don't like my analysis, but I'm not a fanboy. How I see it is pretty much how the industry generally sees it.

Reality 101. Where's the beef and all that.

 

As for: 'You stated personally to me that you "would take us down, no matter what", after a few online jousts.'

 

Where did you get that from? I have never made any such statement to you or anyone, personally or otherwise.

 

As far as I am aware the closest proximity I have ever been to you was when you visited Masterton New Zealand some time back. (Which in itself was somewhat freaky, since I used to live there just on 30 years ago).

 

There was a post made some time back by Jim Murdoch (his first name is not James by the way) which makes some joke to the effect of: "Oh yeah, right, by talking on this forum I'm going to verbally sabotage Jannard's magnificant scheme". (This was in conjunction with a number of threats of actual physical violence to Murdoch from other posters by the way). And also, by the way, before you had ever demonstrated any working hardware...

 

You keep insisting I made the post in question, but even it had been, read in context, it does not contain any threat to you. I can dig up the the link and put it on here if you want, (plus a lot of related documentation:-).

 

I certainly don't want you to fail, but that does not mean I think you are going to succeed either.

 

Because, I am not a Fanboy. I guess I'm not the sort of person you'd want to be seated next to on a 12 hour plane trip. I can deal with that.

 

What motivates me?

Hmmm. You have all the information you need. I guess you just don't get it.

 

Let's see... James Murdoch and Keith Walters have the same IP. Keith Walters lives with Mary Murdoch. I guess I just don't get it...

 

The only reason I know is because of the threats I got from IBC.

 

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Dear Mr. Jannard,

As I see you are currently online, I'd like to address this plea to you directly. Please use your power and influence to discourage your followers and supporters from coming to this forum for no other reason than to leave posts that are aimed primarily toward antagonizing the members of this forum, making personal attacks, and provoking endless fights. It doesn't reflect well on you or your company, and is responsible for so much of the bad blood directed toward your products which, in the absence of such posts, would probably not even exist. As you obviously have great influence over many of those leaving these posts, I'm sure you could go a long way toward putting this to a stop with very little effort. It would no doubt contribute to a far more positive image of your cameras and your company, which would without question be good for business.

Regards.

 

D. Goulder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Let's see... James Murdoch and Keith Walters have the same IP. Keith Walters lives with Mary Murdoch. I guess I just don't get it...

 

The only reason I know is because of the threats I got from IBC.

 

Jim

 

I think you need to hire better detectives.

 

When all the earlier garbage was going on I used a PC at work with a networked IP based in Melbourne, I also regularly used to use a MAC at a house where I used to babysit and they had a ADSL connection on Optus, and my home ADSL account is on Telstra Big Pond, which only has about 500,000 subscribers in Sydney.

 

But apparently they had "proof positive" that all these people's accounts originated on "my" computer?

 

IBC? I've never been anywhere near IBC. The only time I've ever set foot anywhere in mainland Europe was a stopover in Germany in 1992.

Give me a break; I couldn't even be bothered going to SMPTE in Sydney last year.

 

Who the hell is Mary Murdoch?

 

My 84 year old mother in law's name is Maria, but her last name is definitely not Murdoch.

My dog's name is Patsy, and as far as I know she doesn't have a last name.

Apart from my wife, whose name is not Mary either, the only other inhabitants are a couple of fruit bats who keep knocking off the plums from my tree down the back. I don't know what their names are.

 

Where do you get your information. The FBI?

 

I think you should ask for your money back :P

Edited by Keith Walters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Jannard,

As I see you are currently online, I'd like to address this plea to you directly. Please use your power and influence to discourage your followers and supporters from coming to this forum for no other reason than to leave posts that are aimed primarily toward antagonizing the members of this forum, making personal attacks, and provoking endless fights. It doesn't reflect well on you or your company, and is responsible for so much of the bad blood directed toward your products which, in the absence of such posts, would probably not even exist. As you obviously have great influence over most of those leaving these posts, I'm sure you could go a long way toward putting this to a stop with very little effort. It would no doubt contribute to a far more positive image of your cameras and your company, which would no doubt be good for business.

Regards.

 

D. Goulder

 

This board has not been friendly to RED, as you have probably noticed. What I have issue with is people that have been unreasonably harsh with RED for no good reason. If there is constructive criticism, we listen.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you need to hire better detectives.

 

When all the earlier garbage was going on I used a PC at work with a networked IP based in Melbourne, I also regularly used to use a MAC at a house where I used to babysit and they had a ADSL connection on Optus, and my home ADSL account is on Telstra Big Pond, which only has about 500,000 subscribers in Sydney.

 

But apparently they had "proof positive" that all these people's accounts originated on "my" computer?

 

IBC? I've never been anywhere near IBC. The only time I've ever set foot anywhere in mainland Europe was a stopover in Germany in 1992.

Give me a break; I couldn't even be bothered going to SMPTE in Sydney last year.

 

Who the hell is Mary Murdoch?

 

My 84 year old mother in law's name is Maria, but her last name is definitely not Murdoch.

My dog's name is Patsy, and as far as I know she doesn't have a last name.

Apart from my wife, whose name is not Mary either, the only other inhabitants are a couple of fruit bats who keep knocking off the plums from my tree down the back. I don't know what their names are.

 

Where do you get your information. The FBI?

 

I think you should ask for your money back :P

 

Good try...

 

Maybe we should ask Tim Tyler.

 

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...