Tom Lowe Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Hi Tom, In all fairness the post was spot on, well informed, and I have no doubt of its authenticity. There were conditions attached to that offer........ What were the conditions? I missed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted December 23, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted December 23, 2008 What were the conditions? I missed that. The poster has to be respectful, that translates to saying something is awesome when it's a pile of crap. Not allowing people to state their opinion devalues the REDUSER site IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 The poster has to be respectful, that translates to saying something is awesome when it's a pile of crap. Not allowing people to state their opinion devalues the REDUSER site IMHO. Of course it does, if true. Did the person in question contact them to establish his identity? I'm quite sure he will be reinstated if so. If someone shows up here under the name "John Toll" and starts ripping into someone's show reel, my guess is that the admins here would put his account on hold until identity could be established. It's only common sense. It mainly protects the famous person in question from being subjected to a bunch of kneejerk, "Oh yeah, John Toll, your recent _____ movie sucked balls! f-off!" kind of statements from the rank and file of the board. And BTW, I thought that the post in question was essentially correct in its assessment of the images. I did not care for the look of the spot. Normally I will never criticize anyone's work, but in this case, they kind of opened themselves up to valid criticism of the cinematography, since they were using it to proclaim the death of film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted December 23, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted December 23, 2008 Hi Tom, I was at school with 3 Stephen Williams, IMDB lists 18, 2 of whom are me. There are many thousands, probably a few hundred John Troll's too. The poster was banned because he did not say awesome or sing the praise of a very ordinary commercial shot on video. He gave top notch constructive criticism which is not allowed. Best, Stephen Of course it does, if true. Did the person in question contact them to establish his identity? I'm quite sure he will be reinstated if so. If someone shows up here under the name "John Toll" and starts ripping into someone's show reel, my guess is that the admins here would put his account on hold until identity could be established. It's only common sense. It mainly protects the famous person in question from being subjected to a bunch of kneejerk, "Oh yeah, John Toll, your recent _____ movie sucked balls! f-off!" kind of statements from the rank and file of the board. And BTW, I thought that the post in question was essentially correct in its assessment of the images. I did not care for the look of the spot. Normally I will never criticize anyone's work, but in this case, they kind of opened themselves up to valid criticism of the cinematography, since they were using it to proclaim the death of film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Teulon Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 (edited) ....... The poster was banned because he did not say awesome or sing the praise of a very ordinary commercial shot on video. He gave top notch constructive criticism which is not allowed. Hey Tom, I agree with Stephen. It definitely felt like they were banning someone for saying what they didn't want to hear. How arrogant to proclaim and encourage the notion that film is dead and that they are the ones to take the mantle......they seem so insecure that they don't even realise that there isn't a mantle. Film users are open to receiving the digital format for what it has to offer but it certainly seems that they aren't. Edited December 23, 2008 by Serge Teulon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Walker Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 I saw this clip over at Reduser and I took it as a funny little short. Do I agree with what is being said in it, that film is going to be dead and buried...sure at some point but not right away. I work with film a lot, just on the other side of it...projection (not at theaters). So I see some really good stuff shot on film and some really horrible stuff. I like working with the medium because its something you can hold in your hands and see. But as far as filmmaking goes I think digital is a huge benefit, especially for the people like me that shoot stock. For me it would be ridiculous for me to go out and shoot stock on film. I've seen people do it and it looks way to cumbersome and the cost of just going out to get some shots isn't cost effective. Plus I've seen film cameras scratch film or have some huge mechanical problem that was only found after it came back from the lab on big budget productions, not a student film. Wouldn't it be a huge help if you could spot problems like that before you moved onto another setup. Tom is right in his description of the Red. It is like a DSLR that shoots at 24fps. Look at what the DSLR has done to the 35mm SLR cameras. I use to love shooting on 35mm but I could never do the timelapse shots I do with a 35mm SLR camera. I understand that you film guys just want to hold onto film as long and as hard as you can. But trying to trash a camera that is damn close to the look of film doesn't seem very educated...it seems more fearful than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 (edited) I thought that this was an official commercial from RED!! :blink: Well, I guess if it's just a bunch of fanboys messing around then that's OK. :lol: But if they truly believe it then I rather pity them. Edited December 23, 2008 by Matthew Buick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt marek Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 I saw this clip over at Reduser and I took it as a funny little short. Do I agree with what is being said in it, that film is going to be dead and buried...sure at some point but not right away. I work with film a lot, just on the other side of it...projection (not at theaters). So I see some really good stuff shot on film and some really horrible stuff. I like working with the medium because its something you can hold in your hands and see. But as far as filmmaking goes I think digital is a huge benefit, especially for the people like me that shoot stock. For me it would be ridiculous for me to go out and shoot stock on film. I've seen people do it and it looks way to cumbersome and the cost of just going out to get some shots isn't cost effective. Plus I've seen film cameras scratch film or have some huge mechanical problem that was only found after it came back from the lab on big budget productions, not a student film. Wouldn't it be a huge help if you could spot problems like that before you moved onto another setup. ...and in the same way film can be scratched, digital drives can crash and files can get corrupted. have you had practical on set experience with film? cumbersome? does not have to be. have you seen the 'NFL films' guys out there on the field with little aaton minimas and sr3's? i believe red has a long start up time between battery swaps? (correct me if wrong here) but wouldn't that be a killer in the doc field? in that sense, cumbersome could be defined in different ways. not sure what you are talking about cost either...if going out for a couple shots, you have a mag of film loaded and on the camera, and an extra mag in the bag. no computers needed to digitize, nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Walker Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 ...and in the same way film can be scratched, digital drives can crash and files can get corrupted. have you had practical on set experience with film? cumbersome? does not have to be. have you seen the 'NFL films' guys out there on the field with little aaton minimas and sr3's? i believe red has a long start up time between battery swaps? (correct me if wrong here) but wouldn't that be a killer in the doc field? in that sense, cumbersome could be defined in different ways. not sure what you are talking about cost either...if going out for a couple shots, you have a mag of film loaded and on the camera, and an extra mag in the bag. no computers needed to digitize, nothing. Its true that drives can crash and files can get corrupted but you can backup the files and check them on set to avoid problems like this. You cannot do this with film. To be honest my onset experience with film has been running dailies. So I get to see everything that they print...or use to. Most of the stuff starts with film dailies then moves to digital files. But I've seen plenty of scratched negatives, camera malfunctions and lab errors that are only caught later on that cost big money to fix. This price far out weighs the price of drives and computers...depending on what system you get of course. The RED startup time right now is under a minute. Not sure what your doing but that isn't very long in my eyes. Plus the new cameras coming out are suppose to have even faster startup times. On the subject of getting some quick shots and having a couple mags of film, which is a little laughable to me thinking about. With my RED I can go out and shoot all day or night and come back to my place and start processing or editing clips together. I don't have to wait for a lab. My biggest wait would be render times, which I would bet is much shorter than the total lab turnaround time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted December 23, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted December 23, 2008 Plus I've seen film cameras scratch film or have some huge mechanical problem that was only found after it came back from the lab on big budget productions, not a student film. Wouldn't it be a huge help if you could spot problems like that before you moved onto another setup. Hi, I have never had a film camera scratch my film or any unknown huge menchanical problem. Equipment gets tested first, any errors are almost always human error which gets blamed on equipment. When you check the gate you can see the film emulsion, so there is a good chance of picking up scratching, also when you take the mag off the camera you can see if there is any scratching on the film, really easy & basic stuff. Best, Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted December 23, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted December 23, 2008 With my RED I can go out and shoot all day or night and come back to my place and start processing or editing clips together. I don't have to wait for a lab. My biggest wait would be render times, which I would bet is much shorter than the total lab turnaround time. Hi. I guess you need a load of batteries to shoot all day. Film processing takes around 45minutes, probably less than your rendering time. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt marek Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Its true that drives can crash and files can get corrupted but you can backup the files and check them on set to avoid problems like this. You cannot do this with film. To be honest my onset experience with film has been running dailies. So I get to see everything that they print...or use to. Most of the stuff starts with film dailies then moves to digital files. But I've seen plenty of scratched negatives, camera malfunctions and lab errors that are only caught later on that cost big money to fix. This price far out weighs the price of drives and computers...depending on what system you get of course. The RED startup time right now is under a minute. Not sure what your doing but that isn't very long in my eyes. Plus the new cameras coming out are suppose to have even faster startup times. On the subject of getting some quick shots and having a couple mags of film, which is a little laughable to me thinking about. With my RED I can go out and shoot all day or night and come back to my place and start processing or editing clips together. I don't have to wait for a lab. My biggest wait would be render times, which I would bet is much shorter than the total lab turnaround time. well, if you've ever found yourself in a rush to 'roll camera', you'll understand what i mean when i mention camera start-up time. changing an sr3 mag takes seconds...not sure what is laughable about that. i can think of one time where film was scratched due to a mag and it was due to a bad camera prep. i've encountered loads of wasted time on set due to media management, cable issues, or HD display. encountered a 'dead pixel' on one feature. that was a nice costly post fix :) one film camera problem i recall was a BL4 blowing a fuse, which the AC had to go and replace...5 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Walker Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Hi, I have never had a film camera scratch my film or any unknown huge menchanical problem. Equipment gets tested first, any errors are almost always human error which gets blamed on equipment. When you check the gate you can see the film emulsion, so there is a good chance of picking up scratching, also when you take the mag off the camera you can see if there is any scratching on the film, really easy & basic stuff. Best, Stephen It might be really easy and basic stuff but I see it quite a bit at the studios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Fritzshall Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 I understand that you film guys just want to hold onto film as long and as hard as you can. But trying to trash a camera that is damn close to the look of film doesn't seem very educated...it seems more fearful than anything else. I've seen very little in this thread that would qualify as "trashing" RED. At least for my part, I can't recall ever saying anything particularly negative about the camera at all aside from minor criticisms. But beyond that, I really don't know who you're trying to address here. This forum has plenty of working professionals in it, many of whom have been around for a while. I would venture to guess that the vast majority here who have shot film have also shot video, and are already aware of the relative strengths and weaknesses of both. But I guess the question I'd like to ask- seriously; I would like to get your take on this even though I know you came here from reduser to stir things up or whatever- is what exactly do you think film shooters are afraid of? I'm not sure whether you were addressing me or not, but if so, what do you think I'm afraid of? [since inflection doesn't carry well here, I'm not asking this in a hostile manner; again I'd really like to hear your opinion] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Walker Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 Hi. I guess you need a load of batteries to shoot all day. Film processing takes around 45minutes, probably less than your rendering time. Stephen I take four batteries out with me when I go shooting at night or during the day. Each battery last about 90 minutes depending on what you have hooked up to the camera. So that's 6 hours of straight shooting, which I never do because most of my time is spent looking for shots. So does that 45 minutes include drive time, paper work and then having to drive back to get the film. Unless you live next door to a film lab I'm sure the total time from wrap to viewing is far greater than what I have to go through with my Red footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Achterberg Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 But trying to trash a camera that is damn close to the look of film doesn't seem very educated...it seems more fearful than anything else. RED is not some secret weapon that will give everyone equal playing ground. I fear for people who feel that way, reality will hit them hard. Any camera in the right hands will create impressive images... I feel a lot of people are pushing so hard for RED success, that the man behind the lens is being ignored. When good images are captured with the red, all glory goes to the RED team. But when We see amazing photography on 35mm, we credit the cinematographer. Cameramen shall never fear a camera. It's the Camera who should fear the cameraman who will find it's weaknesses no matter what format! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonaci tran Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 Picture wise, rather depressing.... Landscape with no greens, browns, reds, yellors, colorless buds and flowers, sky without blue... :( Also, I noticed a quite a lack of faith of the creators of this commercial: If they truly belive that films days are over, why didnt' they put a 535 or panavisions in the grave? Why they decided to destroy only worthless 8mm and 16mm consumer cameras? :) You are all correct...the spot was cut on a mac 2.2 gamma so if you are viewing it on any other environment it does look way washed out. completely my fault. the spot is being uploaded with a more proper look. As for your second question..so you know..the whole spot was done for practically nothing. we had enough to cover for proper permits and permission to shoot at the cemetary..everything else was all voluntary and donated time. it was hard finding someone to lend me a 35mm film camera to bury. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonaci tran Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 Wow, we're beyond simple word-of-mouth advertising; now fanboys are actually making their own commercials for a product they like. Terrifying. spec commercials aren't anything new and hey.. I like RED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonaci tran Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 The poster has to be respectful, that translates to saying something is awesome when it's a pile of crap. Not allowing people to state their opinion devalues the REDUSER site IMHO. quote from the poster: "It is not just the budget that is to blame for your worse than a 1st-year filmschool-level obnoxious short. What are you...like 15?" hey so what if I am young. you guys had to start somewhere didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted December 24, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted December 24, 2008 I'm on a mac with 2.2 gamma and it looks washy here.... I don't think it's the gamma @ all. Check your scopes on that spot as I think something is going way off when you go to the .flv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Walker Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 I've seen very little in this thread that would qualify as "trashing" RED. At least for my part, I can't recall ever saying anything particularly negative about the camera at all aside from minor criticisms. But beyond that, I really don't know who you're trying to address here. This forum has plenty of working professionals in it, many of whom have been around for a while. I would venture to guess that the vast majority here who have shot film have also shot video, and are already aware of the relative strengths and weaknesses of both. But I guess the question I'd like to ask- seriously; I would like to get your take on this even though I know you came here from reduser to stir things up or whatever- is what exactly do you think film shooters are afraid of? I'm not sure whether you were addressing me or not, but if so, what do you think I'm afraid of? [since inflection doesn't carry well here, I'm not asking this in a hostile manner; again I'd really like to hear your opinion] To my eyes it seems that some, if not most, film shooters are afraid of change away from film. Not sure why. I also didn't come over here to stir things up. I just heard at Reduser that this clip made it over here and that you guys were freaking out about it. So I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I started to read this thread and saw that most of the film people on here were trashing the Red camera. Basically the same thing I've been hearing from the beginning, since the Red camera was announced. First the camera was vaporware and then when it came out it just wasn't good enough. Some people can never be pleased. This thread and the other ones weren't directed solely at you Scott and I'm not sure why you would think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonaci tran Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 (edited) We're going through a transition to be sure, but I can remember posts just last year saying that Red One would kill film, I can remember such posts pre-2000 when the F900 was coming out. Eventually if, when every new digital cine camera is announced, you predict it will replace film, you're eventually going to be right. If not the EPIC, it will be whatever follows the EPIC two years later... so the value of such prediction-making is limited, it's just cocktail conversation. I certainly see EPIC and whatever else comes out in the next two years as being important pieces of the puzzle of what will come to dominate eventually over film, whether they specifically will be those cameras. Now whether film can survive when it is no longer the dominant format for production, I don't know. It requires a certain amount of infrastructure from manufacturing to labs. On the other hand, I can still shoot 35mm still film and get it developed and printed. David..gotta love how you are always so calm and articulate. in reference to what David posted, I worked on 5 feature films this year and many commercials that were all shot on RED. These productions told me that they won't choose 35mm ever again. film isn't going to suddenly vanish, this is just a small example that a transition is happening for many productions who previously only chose 35mm as their chosen format. as for my commercial, it definitely wasn't meant for "i will shoot film until i die" folks. Edited December 24, 2008 by tonaci tran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Achterberg Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 To my eyes it seems that some, if not most, film shooters are afraid of change away from film. Not sure why. I also didn't come over here to stir things up. I just heard at Reduser that this clip made it over here and that you guys were freaking out about it. So I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I started to read this thread and saw that most of the film people on here were trashing the Red camera. Basically the same thing I've been hearing from the beginning, since the Red camera was announced. First the camera was vaporware and then when it came out it just wasn't good enough. Some people can never be pleased. This thread and the other ones weren't directed solely at you Scott and I'm not sure why you would think that. and what are you trying to accomplish Andrew? if people bad mouth a product then let their ignorance represent them. you don't have to DEFEND RED, let the company's reputation do so. it's all pointless. Don't be so offended by what people think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonaci tran Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 I'm on a mac with 2.2 gamma and it looks washy here.... I don't think it's the gamma @ all. Check your scopes on that spot as I think something is going way off when you go to the .flv. yeah..its the compression because I noticed a color shift. thanks for the heads up. I am working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasha Riu Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 (edited) As for your second question..so you know..the whole spot was done for practically nothing. we had enough to cover for proper permits and permission to shoot at the cemetary..everything else was all voluntary and donated time. it was hard finding someone to lend me a 35mm film camera to bury. =) Did you ever wonder why?! :) Dear Andrew, nobody is afraid of RED especialy not film shooters (they tend to be panchromatic individuals :) ) But what everybody should be afraid and cautius about is: Ignorance, bias, hype, propaganda, illusions, purposely distorded facts or even worse clames that are not based on any facts... And act accordingly like some people here do! :) Edited December 24, 2008 by Sasha Riu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts