I feel burned.

[David Mullen ASC]

Jim Jannard has no more ability to control what a RED fan posts than he does what a RED critic posts, so I don't think it's fair to suggest that he has that sort of power over others. These posts, the extreme pro and con opinions, derive from the personalities of the poster and the particularly narrow prism through which they judge everything.

 

The thing is that it is so easy to dismiss or ignore the extreme opinions because their own prejudices are so clearly on display for all to see. They are their own worst enemies for making convincing arguments -- personally, I think it's better for them to speak openly and let everyone know where they are coming from.

 

Unfortunately we live in a partisan world where taking sides is considered some sort of requirement as a human being. Reality tends to exist somewhere in the middle of these extreme views.

 

I don't see how anyone can take Keith seriously if he's going to suggest that the RED camera might not yet be functional, considering that "Che" opens in movie theaters on Friday, at least in Los Angeles, and there's a trailer for "Knowing" in front of "Twilight", and the last few nights, a TV series called "Leverage" (pilot on Genesis apparently, rest on RED) has been airing on TNT. Not to mention all my posts about my two RED features. The darn camera exists, it works, and it's being used on features, TV shows, commercials, music videos, etc. Anyone not willing to accept at least that much reality is living in some sort of fantasy world. Even if one feels that film provides a superior image, it serves no purpose to live in denial about the continuing encroachment of digital into mainstream production, as if denying that reality will somehow reverse the current trends.

 

Rather than talk seriously and honestly about the true strengths and weaknesses of all these technologies, too many people feel this need to become partisan over the issue, whether it is film vs. digital, or Sony vs. RED, or RED vs. Panavision or ARRI, whatever. It all seems a bit ridiculous.

[Jim Jannard]

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 without question be good for business.

Regards.

 

D. Goulder

 

Mr. D.

 

If you mean that we should "suck up" to the posters here in order to gain more sales... it is not in our DNA. We don't need it.

 

If we earn sales by making a product that people want, great. If not, no problem. Use something else.

 

What we will not do is put up with crap. If you have a legitimate complaint, concern or criticism about what we are doing, we will listen. But if you are here to trash us "just because"... and try to get our attention with nonsense, it won't work.

 

Let's recap. Digital is not film. RED's goal is to deliver the best digital alternative to film as possible for the lowest cost possible. RED is a young company that is learning every day. REDCODE is a compressed RAW format that gives a customer the maximum latitude possible. Our sensors offer the maximum resolution possible for the least possible price. RED does everything possible to give its customers an upgrade path for the least possible price.

 

If you have a better alternative... use it. If not, we are here to serve.

 

But if you are here just to give us poop.... GFY (good for you).

 

Jim

[Max Jacoby]

Yawn.

 

The noise to signal ratio on the Red forum is still as mind numbingly high as ever.

[Keith Walters]

Good try...

 

Maybe we should ask Tim Tyler.

 

Jim

Well if you got that information from him, maybe HE's the one who should ask for his money back :lol:

It's absolute rubbish.

Who the hell is "Mary Murdoch"?

It sounds like somebody couldn't be bothered doing the job properly and just made something up.

 

This is better than YouTube, with a fraction of the bandwidth....

[Keith Walters]

I don't see how anyone can take Keith seriously if he's going to suggest that the RED camera might not yet be functional, considering that "Che" opens in movie theaters on Friday, at least in Los Angeles, and there's a trailer for "Knowing" in front of "Twilight", and the last few nights, a TV series called "Leverage" (pilot on Genesis apparently, rest on RED) has been airing on TNT. Not to mention all my posts about my two RED features. The darn camera exists, it works, and it's being used on features, TV shows, commercials, music videos, etc. Anyone not willing to accept at least that much reality is living in some sort of fantasy world. Even if one feels that film provides a superior image, it serves no purpose to live in denial about the continuing encroachment of digital into mainstream production, as if denying that reality will somehow reverse the current trends.

You seem to have missed my point entirely.

 

Of course the RED One works! If it didn't, I think I would have heard something about it by now!

But to date, there is no obvious RED presence in my accessible world view - its ubiquity has been grossly overstated by its supporters.

 

What that means is, I have never seen a RED in action, I have never seen (to my knowledge anyway), a red-originated TV commerical, TV program or Movie. I readily accept that such things exist, but you have to get people to exhibit them, not just make them. TNT is hardly NBC, Sundance is not Cannes.

 

If the RED was not functional, I would venture to say that even if I have seen RED footage and not known it, the same footage would almost certainly have been shot with some other sort of video camera, and I still wouldn't have known the difference.

 

If something happened similar to what happened to all the robots in Star Wars III and all the RED ones in the world all suddenly stopped functioning one day, I still wouldn't notice any difference. Except on this forum perhaps:-)

 

The only comment I am making is that to date the RED's industry footprint seems remarkably small in comparison to the hype generated on Reduser and elsewhere. This is not to say it will always be the case, but to turn your own words around:

"Anyone not willing to accept at least that much reality is living in some sort of fantasy world."

 

Anyway, I've written a lot of stuff here that I would have thought actively supports the RED cause. Perhaps you and Jannard should try to pay more attention.

[Stephen Williams]

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

 

Hi Jim,

 

There have been positive statements made by several posters on this site. Those same posters have also made negative comments from time to time about Kodak, Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, GVG & RED, much the same thing at CML. You have taken constructive criticism which is appreciated.

 

Best,

 

Stephen

[Emanuel A Guedes]

The topic is hot nowadays!... Something everyone should never forget: reality and internet can have something in common, yes indeed. But, they are distinct worlds. And it is not necessary to be, or pretend to be 'any' Emmanuel or Emanuel (or anyone else) in disguise for knowing it. ;)

 

BTW, it reminds me something related to:

 

http://www.hdtrailer.eu/index.php?newsid=4

 

It is not my kind of movie, perhaps. I'm used to sleep during the screening of certain style of movies, anyway. :lol:

 

But, there, anyone can download the trailer -- 480p, 720p or 1080p versions.

 

Release Date:

20 March 2009 (USA)

 

«A teacher (Cage) opens a time capsule that has been dug up at his son's elementary school; in it are some chilling predictions -- some that have already occurred and others that are about to -- that lead him to believe his family plays a role in the events that are about to unfold.»

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448011/

 

Shot on RED but, this is not necessarily a surprise, it shouldn't be.

 

I would prefer to save my own expectations for:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...c=31211&hl=

 

As already posted, there will be a Premiere screening at Sundance next January (less than in a month and a half), not susceptible of being downloaded -- yet (even though, everyone should have nothing against the future way for deliverying some sort of media content, as well), but at the big screen in any way whatsoever.

 

Or:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...st&p=263079

[Brian Drysdale]

"Wallander" transmitted by the BBC is shot on a RED ONE.

 

http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?go=homepage...r&scope=all

 

My main complaint about the programme (at least in the first one) is that they keep crossing the line, so that quite a few scenes don't make geographical sense.

 

The RED itself looks fine, it doesn't look like film, but other than the occasional shot which has a videoy feel, it has a different look that has been described as being like a DSLR.

[David Mullen ASC]

From my perspective, this site is pretty evenly split or distributed -- two or three outright anti-digital (and anti-RED) cranks, two or three die-hard cynics who have some justifiable complaints... balanced by two or three outright pro-digital (and pro-RED) fans, two or three digital enthusiasts who can be reasonable... and the rest in the middle somewhere.

 

Of course, that's going to be a lot more of a frustrating situation for RED and Jim Jannard than the comfort of REDUser.Net or a videomaker forum like DVInfo.Net or DV.Com where, not surprisingly, most of the posters don't have attitudes against video. This site is one of the few with a mix of people that almost exclusively shoot film thrown in, so it is not surprising that the general feeling seems so slanted away from digital compared to most forums made up almost entirely of people who shoot video.

 

It's not a question of fairness, the people who are outright hostile towards RED or digital do not feel any compunction to be fair anyway, but generally it's not a crime to be a crank on the internet. I doubt Tim Tyler is going to feel that these people have crossed some sort of line into maliciousness or disruptiveness, though some skirt it. And some will feel that if anyone gets the boot for expressing extreme points of view against RED or digital in general, some of the extreme "film is dead" and RED fanatics would also have to get the boot. All of that may cross the line into over-moderation.

 

And actually, it makes more sense to moderate a site like REDUser.Net than it does here because REDUser, as it name implies, is mainly to serve people actually using the cameras, so a reduction of noise and disruption serves that purpose better. But this is a more general site about cinematography in all of its issues, so expecting a more unified viewpoint is not being realistic.

 

So far, the only response that most of the long-term cranks deserve is to be put on an IGNORE list if they get too annoying. I know that for Jim Jannard, this would probably not suffice since he's a businessman and he sees any bad press as potentially bad for business, plus he has his personal pride in his own product.

 

But it's always a tough call to over-moderate a site to remove more extreme opinions because you risk draining the life out of the forum.

 

Let's also face facts -- as film decreases in use and digital rises, this site is going to have to be more professional in attitude about shooting digitally or find itself becoming a relic of the past and should change its name to Nostalgia.Com.

[Joe Taylor]

Not to throw my original and still pending concern off track, but since Jim Jannard is posting in this topic, I'd really appreciate hearing from.

 

If you have read the first post you'll see that I am indeed a Red customer. I wired my funds the day before the Nov. 13 announcements which sort of sprinkled on my parade.

 

My concerns are simple. I have no plans to upgrade to Epic X or downgrade (money wise-- if that were possible) to Scarlett. I do enjoy working with the RED ONE and would appreciate hearing a direct pledge from you. Can you promise us RED ONE owners that Red Digital Cinema will continue offering hardware and firmware upgrades to the RED ONE that will be crucial in keeping this camera competitive with the other high-scale digital cinema cameras (including RED Cameras) after the RED ONE is discontinued and for the five years after the RED ONE's discontinuation?

 

Thank you Jim.

[Zed Griffin]

What that means is, I have never seen a RED in action, I have never seen (to my knowledge anyway), a red-originated TV commerical, TV program or Movie. I readily accept that such things exist, but you have to get people to exhibit them, not just make them. TNT is hardly NBC, Sundance is not Cannes.

 

I have never seen Keith Walters in action. And I am pretty sure I do not want to judging by his reel. Red however has a whole wheelbarrow full of big budget studio movies coming out over the next 6 months. Remember the camera did not exist a year ago, and it has already accomplished more than Keith has in his entire lifetime. For a new camera to be used on a movie like Knowing where there are so many politics trying to block the use of the camera it is really something you should be proud of Jim.

 

Don't worry Jim, If you met Keith in real life you would probably feel sorry for him. Its a crazy world out there, I think Keith is just one of those guys that has never had success in his life, so he takes it out on others.

[Stephen Williams]

Remember the camera did not exist a year ago, .

 

Hi Zed,

 

However much you dream that statement is true it's not. Delivery of cameras to paying customers started at the end of August 2007, prototypes were in use for approximately 6 months before that.

 

Stephen

[Zed Griffin]

Hi Zed,

 

However much you dream that statement is true it's not. Delivery of cameras to paying customers started at the end of August 2007, prototypes were in use for approximately 6 months before that.

 

Stephen

 

Stephen, there where less than a hundred "beta" cameras out in the world by this time last year. I would hardly count those few prototypes that RED flew around with as production cameras. And did you consider who where using those cameras? Not as part of a RED advertising campaign but because they wanted too? Steven Soderbergh, Peter Jackson, etc.

 

You guys seem to be angry at Jim and not angry at the RED camera, out of jealousy or just ignorance, which is a little sad to watch.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think we're getting too picky over the issue of dates... the relevant point is that the camera has only been available, more or less, for a year and a half, and I feel, only really beyond a beta-like testing phase for about 9 months... so one would only now start to see some serious productions finish post, find distribution, and start to get seen beyond a few screenings.

 

Expect to see more movies shot on RED in movie theaters in 2009.

 

Now on the flip side, the notion that many major studio productions are switching over to the RED is a bit premature... RED is one of many digital camera systems that studio features have been toying with. I mean, one of the most expensive digital productions, "Benjamin Button" (and perhaps the first to get an Oscar nom for cinematography) was shot on a five-year-old 3-CCD camera, the Viper. We also have had some major shows using the F23 (Speed Racer, The Spirit). Not to mention all the shows using the Genesis (recently, Forbidden Kingdom and 21).

 

But film is still the dominant player, particularly in the biggest success of the year, "Dark Knight".

 

I just saw some of "Twilight" in a movie theater, digitally projected, and the trailers for "The Spirit" and "Knowing" came up. I can tell you that not only was the quality-level very high, but most viewers probably wouldn't have noticed that "Knowing" wasn't shot on film. I think these digitally-shot movies look so much better digitally projected (truth is, I think more 35mm-shot movies look better nowadays digitally projected) that an increase in digital projectors worldwide will probably also increase the acceptance of digital cinematography worldwide, because the deficiencies seems more visible in film-outs and release prints.

 

I have to say, though, that the close-ups in "The Spirit" looked sharper in the trailer than the close-ups in "Knowing" -- maybe too sharp, I don't know, it was the Sony sort of sharpness. The "Knowing" trailer showed a few artifacts, some of the day work had somewhat weak shadow detail, and some low-light work, probably in tungsten, had some noise. But overall, it looked very clean but not in an overly HD video way, and more "film-like" than "The Spirit" (though that movie is so heavily stylized that it is pointless to compare it to the average movie.)

[DJ Joofa]

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?

 

Hi Paul,

 

I did not fully get your question. I was referring to the process of the recovery of signal distribution (probability density) for the analog data from the quantized digital data after ADC, as it has many applications including the estimation of noise performance, dither analysis, quantization effects, etc.

 

I think an example will illustrate it better. Suppose the US population is given for each year, 1900, 1901, 1902, ..., 2008. Now, if somebody accumulated the yearly stats into 5 years so that the tables are now 5-yearly, 1900, 1905, 1910, ..., 2010. Then, under what circumstances can the original yearly distribution be recovered?

 

The same is done by a quantizer during ADC as it brackets data into buckets. An ADC is an interesting device. Simple, but both non-linear and linear at the same time! Non-linear if you want quantized signal amplitudes, linear if you are looking for signal probability estimates, and therefore, linear filtering techniques such as Shannon sampling theorem can be applied here to signal distributions.

[K Borowski]

Excuse me, but why the hell are we talking about poop that happens on the RED forum off of the *RED forum*?

 

Quit giving this guy free advertising! Look up viral marketing if you want to see what is being done here.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Zed,

 

You wrote "Remember the camera did not exist a year ago," we like fact here, not fiction it's very simple, no anger just not a fanboy.

 

Best,

 

Stephen

 

There were over 25 prototypes plus the first 100 cameras delivered to paying customers. OK those cameras got replaced but that was not the intention when they were first delivered.

 

Stephen, there where less than a hundred "beta" cameras out in the world by this time last year. I would hardly count those few prototypes that RED flew around with as production cameras. And did you consider who where using those cameras? Not as part of a RED advertising campaign but because they wanted too? Steven Soderbergh, Peter Jackson, etc.

 

You guys seem to be angry at Jim and not angry at the RED camera, out of jealousy or just ignorance, which is a little sad to watch.

[Paul Bruening]

Excuse me, but why the hell are we talking about poop that happens on the RED forum off of the *RED forum*?

 

Quit giving this guy free advertising! Look up viral marketing if you want to see what is being done here.

 

Accurate assessment, Karl.

[Paul Bruening]

Hi Paul,

 

I did not fully get your question. I was referring to the process of the recovery of signal distribution (probability density) for the analog data from the quantized digital data after ADC, as it has many applications including the estimation of noise performance, dither analysis, quantization effects, etc.

 

I think an example will illustrate it better. Suppose the US population is given for each year, 1900, 1901, 1902, ..., 2008. Now, if somebody accumulated the yearly stats into 5 years so that the tables are now 5-yearly, 1900, 1905, 1910, ..., 2010. Then, under what circumstances can the original yearly distribution be recovered?

 

The same is done by a quantizer during ADC as it brackets data into buckets. An ADC is an interesting device. Simple, but both non-linear and linear at the same time! Non-linear if you want quantized signal amplitudes, linear if you are looking for signal probability estimates, and therefore, linear filtering techniques such as Shannon sampling theorem can be applied here to signal distributions.

 

Hey DJ,

 

I was just mental fishing. I tend to have an annoying habit of thinking out loud on the forum. Sorry.

 

I've had an idea mucking around in my gourd about using 3, 20+MP, monochrome, separate RGB, CMOSs running separate processing paths onto separate HDD (like mil-spec 2.5", high shock tolerance). That would allow lower bit depth, higher resolution, faster processing and storage for each color path. Attach sync and metadata to each separate color frame. That might allow for the maximum, uncompressed data to be stored and recombined later in post under more favorable conditions. With so much processing power available for cheaper and cheaper in post, why overload the camera with the task of parsing and organizing data? Separate, 8 bit RGB frames combined in post will yield the equivalent of 24 bit color. So, on and so, on with every bit speed increase you can figure out a way to cram onto the camera's HDDs in real time and uncompressed.

 

See? A goofy, mental meandering and nothing more.

[Joe Walker]

For a new camera to be used on a movie like Knowing where there are so many politics trying to block the use of the camera

 

 

???????!!!! :rolleyes:

[Keith Walters]

Welcome to the forum Zed!

 

I have never seen Keith Walters in action. And I am pretty sure I do not want to judging by his reel.

Run that by me again...

You've never seen me in action but you're pretty sure you don't want to

"Judging by his reel"?

Why? Don't you like the cover artwork?

 

What reel?

 

Hmmm... I seem to have heard something remarkably similar to this before. I just can't recall exactly where...

Stephen? You got any ideas?

 

Wait a minute.

(Taps chin thoughtfully...)

 

A RED movie, made in Australia....?

Outrageously inaccurate personal information obviously coming from a certain industry nonentity who hangs out with a certain outfit, and wouldn't know his arse from the Harbour Tunnel...

All of a sudden the pieces fit together:-)

 

Hmph. The only reel you're going to have to worry about is the one from certain cameras you obviously didn't see....

 

Red however has a whole wheelbarrow full of big budget studio movies coming out over the next 6 months. Remember the camera did not exist a year ago, and it has already accomplished more than Keith has in his entire lifetime.

Well I've seen myself on TV and on movie screens. I have yet to have the same pleasure with the RED.

By the way, this morning I was actually discussing the possibility of using the RED to make a high-resolution Blu-ray "sampler" for showing off large screen LCD and Plasma TVs, because I'm not happy with what is currently available!

 

Don't worry Jim, If you met Keith in real life you would probably feel sorry for him.

Why does he have to meet me in real life to do that? Can't he just feel sorry from a distance, or set up a video conference or something?