Jim Jannard

You also said that Jannard has been accused of all types of dishonesty, although you failed to note that he, himself, has been guilty of that and bullying people when they have offered pertinent criticism that ran counter to his agenda. He has done this on several occasions, once to at me during an unsolicited phone call to my company. Hitherto that phone call, my only correspondence with Jannard had only been in Red forums in which I offered what I believed to be non-biased, constructive criticism. He apparently didn’t appreciate my point of view. I have watched him do this to others, in these forums, who have asked him hard questions, so I do not take it personally.

From Ken's March 19th post:

I just received a phone call from Jim Jannard. He was very frustrated about having been implicated with the Red hype that has been so prevalent on this site for the past few weeks. He stated, emphatically, that he has no professional association with Chris Kenny and the others, nor is he personally acquainted with them.

He asked me why I would make the comments that I did, and I explained to him that I had done so for two reasons. I wanted him to know that, if it had in fact been him behind it, his tactics were not gaining him any respect among many on the site. On the other hand, if he had nothing to do with it, then hopefully the radical fanboys would get the message and give it a rest. In retrospect, even if the latter were the case, as it seems to have been, I realize that it still was none of my business and that I could just as easily have ignored that particular thread. In that regard, I want to apologize to Chris Kenny. He has as much right to his opinions and interests as does any one of us.

I asked Jim why he would care at all about what I had to say, and his response seemed sincere. He told me that he did not care what anyone thought about his advertising, but that he resented being called a liar. I can relate to that, and, in light of our conversation, I feel that my posts were not fair to him. Consequently, I want to publicly apologize to Jim.

I am guilty of resenting being called a liar. But it appeared to me (and you at the time of your posts) that we had gotten over that issue in an appropriate manner. I did accept your explanation, you seemed to get over my frustration and we ended the call on a very friendly note. I did, in fact, invite you to see the camera. The fact that you keep bringing up the phone call and how it seemingly has changed over time in your mind, puzzles me. If you are not happy with my responses to others here, no problem. Just say so. But please don't use our phone conversation to attempt to lend credibility to your irritation.

In another thread, you insinuated that my "I wish you the best" was only said to placate you. I'm not sure why I would do that. If I'm frustrated, I will (sometimes not so elegantly) say so.

Jim

Why not name the people whom you are accusing of wanting Red to fail? Isn?t that more credible than just citing your personal opinion about what nameless people are thinking? The latter is no better than insisting that something is so because you say it is.

 

You also said that Jannard has been accused of all types of dishonesty, although you failed to note that he, himself, has been guilty of that and bullying people when they have offered pertinent criticism that ran counter to his agenda. He has done this on several occasions, once to at me during an unsolicited phone call to my company. Hitherto that phone call, my only correspondence with Jannard had only been in Red forums in which I offered what I believed to be non-biased, constructive criticism. He apparently didn?t appreciate my point of view. I have watched him do this to others, in these forums, who have asked him hard questions, so I do not take it personally.

 

There is no rule stating that Jim Jannard is obligated to reveal trade secrets, research methods, or any other information, for that matter, although he should not be surprised or offended when his inconclusive claims are questioned by field experts on this board. Did he not invite these questions by virtue of having presented these claims, on Cinematography.com, in the first place?

 

It has been my belief all along that Jannard would have better served his quest for professional input ? if that was ever his original intention for posting here ? by having his engineers post incognito. The debates would have been more about the information and less about the promotional hype, which I can?t help but feel might have been the actual goal all along.

 

Maybe there is a contingent of cinematographers who are actually afraid that digital media will eventually render film obsolete, although I doubt that most working professional are preoccupied with that fear. As for the engineers on the board, it doesn?t surprise me that they would want to evaluate the claims based on a comprehensive and transparent set of data. That is what they do, after all.

Ken... please decide which story you are sticking to. It kind of makes you look, well...

From Ken Cangi post of March 20:

Let me set the record straight for anyone who thinks Mr. Jannard is making threats. He has in no way threatened me. He asked me why I had written what I had in a few posts, and he told me that he was bothered by it. He told me that he loves filmmaking and that he is passionate about this project. On that note, I offered him my apology for the unfriendly words, and I offered to post my apology on this site if that would assuage his concerns. He thanked me for the gesture, and then he offered me an invitation to check out his new camera. He was a perfect gentleman in spite of my inconsiderate posts.

That is all of it. There is nothing intriguing about any of this, so my suggestion is that you all let it go. His camera will be available for testing very soon, at which point the mystery will have been put to rest.

BTW, Like I said before on our phone converstaion, and you seem to acknowledge on March 20th, I still wish you the best. You are welcome anytime at RED to personally see what we are doing.

Jim

Daniel is correct, Jim. You do have an obvious habit of trying to verbally bully and slick-talk anyone who seriously questions you. Your manipulating Phil's comment is just another example of it. I find your behavior to be completely unprofessional and condescending.

 

Did you originally come to this site to procure real insight from real industry professionals, or was it to market your latest toy? If Phil's criticisms are actually complete nonsense and just an attempt to heckle you, then why do you continually respond to him? I dare say that it is because he has valid points that you are afraid to address, and you want him to go away.

 

What are your scientific credentials to argue this technology with him on any intensive level? I was actually learning something from his debates with the other experts until you started in again. Why don't you do what you do best (marketing and promotion), and leave these guys to educate those of us who are actually interested in learning something here.

 

BTW, please don't call or Email me to tell me to fu** off again, because I will post it this time.

Graeme has stated, for the record, that Phil claimed we were a 1K camera (person to person) at IBC last year. His post infers that our sensor is sub 2K 4:4:4. He has also posted that we are at best a 2K camera (does that also infer that it is less?).

As for our personal converstation, looks like you just did post it. At the end of our 20 minute "personal" conversation I told you that I only wished you the best. Still do.

Jim

> we have you on record...

 

No, you don't :)

 

Phil

Phil... from your post in Nov. 2006 it looks like we have you on record 70 times:

For the seventieth time.

Say the sensor is 4096 pixels across (it's something like this, I can't be bothered to look it up). Given the standard Bayer pattern, the green-channel "virtual sensor" is at one half that resolution, and the red and blue channels are at one quarter. The highest resolution data is at one half the total size of the sensor. One half. Zero point five. OK?

That's 2K.

The red and blue channels are at half that.

That's 1K.

So, you could consider that the picture off this sensor has a similar amount of real information to a 4:2:2 subsampled 2K image.

This is perfectly legitimate; it's how most DSLRs work, but if you're not upfront about it, you're being deceitful.

Phil

You spew out so much bs that it is no surprise that you can't remember from one day to the next what you are saying. Now why don't you go heckle somebody else?

Jim

> Ever since people began asking about Bayer stuff I've been saying you get get about > 70%

 

...yes, and I've been saying I don't believe it, and you've been pointedly and repeatedly refusing to release anything which would serve to substantiate either claim.

 

But even then, I'd be pretty cheesed off to pay for ten gallons of fuel and get seven, if you catch my meaning.

 

Phil

Phil... with all due respect, we don't really care what you choose to believe. No one that has seen the 4K footage projected has ever any complaints about the resolution from RED or thinking it is less than advertised. It is not our job to convince you of anything.

We are doing quite a few new things that you obviously haven't figured out... and we are not about to tell you, or anyone else, what that is. That just wouldn't make sense.

If you had some theory that translated to the real world... maybe people would pay more attention to your rant. But your theories just don't hold up to the big screen. You are arguing that we are 2K or less, and others in the industry are arguing if we should be compared to 65mm film. So why are we listening to you?

If you want Graeme to give you a lesson... don't bother to ask.

Jim

To be frank, the look is invariably dependent on the technical specs.

 

I think there is a general misconception that the "look" or what you watch on a playback monitor or on a big screen is all there is to it. IT'S NOT. That "look" is the result of tons of data sifting, interpreting, adulterating, etc. It's just not as simple as throwing it up on a monitor and saying "oh yeah, that's nice." That Bayer, or whatever picture data you are dealing with must be very delicately handled in order to extract the best image possible. Without knowing the technical specs, there's no way to be 100% sure you are utilizing the data to its potential. Sure, you can know a little, and because Graeme and others have done most of the hard work for you in a technical sense, still get a nice picture. But there may still be ways the picture can be improved. An example is knowing about the limitations of Bayer and demosaicing. If you're okay with just knowing the bare minimum and getting an average result, then great! But some of us are willing to invest the time to learn the craft even deeper, to extract every single little bit of quality we can.

 

The quality difference might not be obvious to the average person, but it may very well be to me. And since clients are putting their trust in me to deliver the high quality product I say I will, it's my responsibility to recognize these flaws, no matter how insignificant others may think they are, and address them. If I didn't know about the technology, I wouldn't know what to look for.

 

Case in point: my photo example a few pages back.

Sorry Thomas... I have to disagree to a point. Until someone knows every nuance of Bayer pattern and exactly what it yields (BTW, there are many variations of "Bayer" configurations... the term is often used broadly) and has a full understanding of the entire image chain... which we are not going to give out, you are not going to be able to plot the exact course of the technology and have it directly correlate to the final image. If you have enough info, you may get in the ballpark, but you won't have the whole story. You can go to science books and Wikipedia all you want, but what you will find there is history, not the present. Graeme and the team have done many things that have never been done before, let alone published. That's why one can talk tech all you want, but until you have an image to reference, you'll never get the full "picture". We have a saying here at RED. Trial and error is a valid form of development. Getting the result 1st is what matters. We use known science and technology, theories, experimentation, trial and error and blind luck as our toolset. You might be surprised what we have discovered... that other "big" companies are not doing.

I have handcuffed Graeme to some extent. He can talk about known theories and obvious techknowledge, be he is biting his tongue more than you know. Our job is to make a high quality camera at a very low price. Not necessarily to explain everything we are doing to get there.

Jim

> If you want to call RED a 1K (or a 4:2:2 subsampled 2K) camera...

 

What I call it is irrelevant. I'm interested in what you call it.

 

> that has more resolution than S35mm film scanned at 4K projected on a 60' screen,

 

I would first suggest that the size of the projected image has no bearing on its overall resolution. This suggests, if any further suggestion were required, that you're more interested in wow factor than facts.

But as I've shown, it's very easy to outresolve film.

 

> then I guess Graeme really is a genius!

 

No, Graeme is mediocre. You're mediocre. I'm mediocre. Most of humanity is. The principal distinguishing factor is that you're rich and mediocre, while I am poor and mediocre. This matters. You have, in this case, even been able to redefine the nature of truth to your own will. Read any Orwell?

 

Phil

I would suggest that you are not thinking straight. Again. It is much easier to see (which is how people view motion pictures) resolution differences the larger you project an image. It is very difficult to see a difference on a one foot screen, very easy to see on a 60' screen. And that represents the screen size that most love to see in a theater.

You may be mediocre (Geoff B. might agree with you), but Graeme is exceptional. No matter how much you would like him to be at your level...

Jim

Jim, would it be possible to utilize the increased bandwidth of the RAW PORT option to shoot higher frame rate / image resolution combinations in the future? That is, if the user was able to supply their own recording device capable of keeping up with the data? If so, that would be a very compelling reason to opt for the RAW PORT.

The size/speed constraint is the clock speed of the sensor.

Jim

I would actually love to see test charts from demosaiced REDCODE RAW footage and from a Northlight scan of 50 ASA film shot Super 35. You may say 50 ASA is not a fair comparison, but if we are saying the Red has more resolution than 4K S35, let's see if that holds true under a best case scenario.

Thomas... that sounds like a test that I'm sure someone will do. We are busy building cameras. BTW, you posted earlier stills from the PJ shoot. Please understand that we have come a long way since then. Both in demosaic quality and compression. Is there any way to post 4K images from current shoots on the forum? If you want to analyze something, it should at least be current.

My best,

Jim

Hey Jim,

 

Quick question. With regards to high speed capabilities, what would it take to be able to shoot 4k 120ish fps to redcode raw? That's probably a ways off, but I'm just curious if that's something you guys plan on tackling somewhere down the road.

Jay

Our sensor is only capable of 60fps at 4k. It is also capable 100fps at 2k windowed this month, with more 2k speed possible in the future.

Jim

> If unsharpened compressed REDCODE RAW 4K has more resolution than 35mm film scanned to 4K and projected on

> a 60' screen, how is it possible that your technical understanding differs so much from the reality of what everyone is

> seeing with their own eyes?

 

It doesn't.

 

I have spent many, many months working with 2K film scans as a QC engineer, and I know very well that many varieties of 35mm don't resolve 2K, let alone 4. One particularly good example of this was a super35 production shot on 500ISO stock, which was later nominated for the academy award in cinematography. The 2K bitmap were much higher res than the target image was. You do not need to be a true 4K device to outresolve film. None of my commentary has ever been connected to comparisons with film. I don't particularly enjoy working with film and I dispute interpretations which unconditionally hold it up to be a gold standard.

 

What I am complaining about is not even the fact that you're selling a twelve megapixel device as "4K"; I understand your use of the metric. What I am complaining about is what you've done to people to make them believe it. You have legitimised a degree of number-fudging which I consider to be completely iniquitous. And once that's done, it's impossible to take it back. You may sell your camera, hundreds of them I don't doubt, and they may or may not be excellent.

 

But never again will anyone in this industry be able to look at a "speculative" or "forward looking" press release and say "hang on, that's bullshit," because you have now legitimised more or less anything.

 

Phil

Late last year you wrote...

"Say the sensor is 4096 pixels across (it's something like this, I can't be bothered to look it up). Given the standard Bayer pattern, the green-channel "virtual sensor" is at one half that resolution, and the red and blue channels are at one quarter. The highest resolution data is at one half the total size of the sensor. One half. Zero point five. OK?

That's 2K.

The red and blue channels are at half that.

That's 1K.

So, you could consider that the picture off this sensor has a similar amount of real information to a 4:2:2 subsampled 2K image.

This is perfectly legitimate; it's how most DSLRs work, but if you're not upfront about it, you're being deceitful."

Phil

If you want to call RED a 1K (or a 4:2:2 subsampled 2K) camera that has more resolution than S35mm film scanned at 4K projected on a 60' screen, then I guess Graeme really is a genius!

Phil... call RED whatever you want. Now, do you have anything productive to add?

Jim

Personally I feel that at some point a line in the sand has to be drawn on this sort of thing. Either you are interested in upholding technical standards, or you're willing to forego them for convenience, but either way don't lie about it. I stand for cutting the crap, but other people may feel differently. But fine, okay, nobody's interested. Dismiss it as noise. I'm clearly fighting a losing battle here; Red is being discussed on the 2K-444 list of CML, a place known for the rigidity of its rules, even though the compressed output is neither 2K nor 444 nor anything like.

 

This is the beginning of a slippery slope down which producers would just love us to slide, towards a point where manufacturers can sell their products to us as anything they like, with or without reference to reality, and where the balance between cost and technical standards is hopelessly upset. This balance has been jealously guarded by generations of scientists and engineers, and it's an insult to every one of them that we are so eager to roll over for a guy who's trying to sell us a 2K camera as 4K the same way he used to persuade us that ten-dollar sunglasses are worth a hundred. I'm dismayed that Mr. Nattress, a man who I'd previously have esteemed as among those keepers of technical excellence, is willing to be involved.

 

All I can say is stand by for a plummeting of standards elsewhere, too. The precedent set here is lethally dangerous. This is an immensely sad moment; it makes me feel as if the principles I've always worked for are being dismissed out of hand.

 

Phil

You are trying to be funny... right? Is the back of your hand up to your forehead?

So I have a question for you. I know you will talk around the answer and not give a direct response, but I'll ask it anyway. If unsharpened compressed REDCODE RAW 4K has more resolution than 35mm film scanned to 4K and projected on a 60' screen, how is it possible that your technical understanding differs so much from the reality of what everyone is seeing with their own eyes?

Jim

If the high speed framerate options are not currently available, I presume there would be no point anyway buying a raw port right now...? If I ordered one today (assuming I had one of the early numbered reds already shipped) would the raw port work, right now and give me 60fps at 4.5k?

 

R.

We have RAW ports available but have not enabled that recording option in the firmware yet. We can do so as soon as we have an order, but we have other, more pressing features to enable that our customers do want now.

Hypothetically, the answer to your question is yes. Practically, not one of our customers has asked for a RAW port.

Jim

Hi Jim,

 

That would be a very good reason to wait a little & not to spend $6500 on one.

 

Stephen

Absolutely... a customer can always add the RAW port if we can't provide another solution. But we also don't want someone to buy a RAW port, then ask us for a workflow solution! :-)

Jim

Are you considering recording options to get higher than 30fps at 4k? (sorry 2 and a bit k, or whatever)

 

I'm surprised nobody has taken up the raw port option if this is (will be?)the only way to get high speed at high res...

 

Is the bottleneck preventing higher frame rates the processing power to record to redcode, or the recording media?

R.

We are working on other high speed options that don't require the RAW port. Nothing announced yet.

Jim

I have to agree that in many ways this is just noise. The discussion of Bayer pattern resolution is an academic one, just as the discussion of true MTF resolution off a 3-chip sensor block would be. Why can't we simply discuss the actual functional plus&minus of the RED camera system? Here, I'll start:

 

Hey Jim, I'm curious if anyone's taken you up on insisting on a RED One with a RAW port instead of the Redcode design. I recall you saying that you'd sit them down and try to convince them otherwise. If they did get a RAW port, where would they send the data? Just wondering, and no baiting here at all!

 

Also, what is currently shipping now? I know there is the camera and the short zoom. How about the various rails, motors, handgrips, drives, etc.? Again, just wondering.

We can certainly deliver a RAW port... we just don't have an order for one. And I continue to "not recommend" it. Our image is now so clean that you have to wonder why anyone would want to record 335MB/sec. if they don't have to. We'll sell you one, but be warned. You can use a Codex box to record to or other options. We haven't spent too much time thinking about all the other options because there is no demand. And we still have our hands full getting all the features enabled.

We are delivering the camera body, rail system, batteries and charger, 18-50mm zoom, 300mm, CF cards and some mics. extras now. The 50-150mm zoom will deliver in small quantities 1st of November, larger quantities after that. The Prime set is delayed until March 2008. The 18-85mm is now scheduled for Summer 2008.

Hope that helps,

Jim

I hear noise... I've asked for constructive suggestions that might make RED a better system (this is the RED forum) and I still haven't heard anything except the same old thing. Is it your job (Max and Phil) to save the world from RED? Do you have anything to contribute that could be considered positive? Can you actually add something to the program?

The noise you generate here is deafening.

Jim

Hi Logan,

 

I guess Jim didn't see your question... Red camera and lenses use Cooke /i Technology. There's an article here :

http://www.studentfilmmakers.com/news/article_1372.shtml

 

With my regards,

Damien

Sorry, I didn't see your question. The RED camera has a provision for /i but it is not enabled yet. Our two RED zooms (18-50mm and 50-150mm) will be /i enabled.

Jim

Yes, Jim, I suspect that Red discussions here will be more practical now that the project is past vaporware. I have looked forward to this stage for a long time now. For a short time a while back, when it became obvious that the people on both sides of most Red discussions here were not interested in the same things, I asked members to stop discussing Red until it arrived.

 

I'm glad that you and your people are here and contributing. Not many pro camera manufacturers would bother finding the time to do that.

 

It is not fair in my opinion, however, for Red to just answer non-technical, promotional questions. Obviously there are "we could tell you but we'd have to kill you" questions that must be avoided, but I think there were also serious tech questions that were not addressed, and that became frustrating after a while.

 

Unlike other forums where nine out of ten posts simply exclaim "Great job, Jim!", we're usually not interested in stroking egos here. It's not disrespect by any means; just being efficient.

Tim... there were over 5000 replies on this forum BEFORE we started shipping, so someone was interested to post something about RED. Unfortunately, it was mostly about what we "couldn't do" or if we could, why it wasn't worthy of any consideration. You can imagine the frustration of hearing that while you are busy building a camera. Even today, there seems to be more interest about whether or not we are a 1K camera, a 2K camera or a 3.2K camera. I wonder how much time was spent debating whether or not an HD Cam is really a 1440x1080P camera or a true 1080P camera. In the end, the images speak for themselves.

There are some here who profess to be experts on so many things about a camera that have never built one. Those experts told us we could never build our own sensor. Even last week saying that we had an Altasens sensor (although they don't have anything that approaches our specs). It is these experts that care more about trying to debunk a perceived myth than embracing the reality. We are doing many things that most thought were impossible for us to do. It should be no surprise that we are not keen to tell every detail how we got it done. That just doesn't make sense. People are now saying that the RED image is the cleanest they have ever seen. And these are images captured on compressed REDCODE RAW at 27MB/sec on a Compact Flash card. That seems pretty amazing to most, but not here. It has never received notice.

We are happy to be here to answer questions and listen to suggestions that might help our program along. If our program gets better, our customers will benefit. But debating whether or not we are valid is simply a waste of time. The members of this forum will determine the future of our involvement here. I came here asking for help a year and a half ago. I'm here now with the same request. But if we have to put up with Phil's nonsense, our time is better served somewhere else. That is pretty easy to understand. I don't need to hear "great job, Jim". But I don't need to hear that our program is a scam or "film is all that matters" either. I would like to hear intelligent suggestions on how we can improve our program. So far, offline suggestions from Stephen Williams are about all I have heard. And I have gained some good insight from him. It would be nice and productive to hear more from the rest of the group. We have changed our program radically throughout development because of suggestions from the industry. And we are not done listening.

Jim

Cinematography.com has not been "anti-Red".

 

Many professionals here have simply asked a lot of specific questions about Red technology over the last year or two, and most have gone unanswered or have been brushed over in much the same way that a politician will avoid being specific.

 

Since the beginning, the Red Team and fans of the project have spoken of their camera as if it has always existed. I personally remember the first Red tent at NAB with its carnival-like atmosphere. The barker outside pointed to a plasma display with computer renderings of the camera and bulleted feature lists while exclaiming "Red is this and Red is that. Red does this and Red does that." as if the camera actually existed anywhere besides on paper and in the minds of its creators.

 

As other members here have written already, it's the not the Red project that has upset many here, it's the way it's been marketed. Most camera professionals are experienced, smart, critical, and often cynical people who aren't interested in using equipment presented to them in an infomercial-like way. Red's marketing strategy is their business, but it's far from the norm when it comes to professional motion picture equipment.

Tim... with all due respect, you may not have liked how we have marketed this camera. I can understand that. I hope you can also understand that we have not liked how this forum has been allowed to be such a disrespectful environment. I certainly did not want to answer questions that were loaded for an argument.

Now that the camera is what we said it would be, maybe we can move forward with more productive discussions.

BTW, Stephen has done a very good job as moderator. Slowly but surely he has turned this board around.

Jim

> Either RED is 1K or 2K (in your mind).

 

It has long been my assumption, based on available evidence and my knowledge of how it works...

You know what they say about assumptions...

> Are you afraid that your attitude has in some way made you a candidate for "non-support"?

 

Yes.

Fear not, a change in attitude will yield a change in support. :-)

Phil

I'm not interested in a long term war. Plenty of productive things to do. Respectful (not loaded) questions should and will be answered. My presentation here may have not always been the best (I leak passion fluid) but I'm willing to make a better effort.

Jim

Graeme:

 

> Phil, you told me it was 1k last year at IBC

 

I did no such thing. I made a comment on this board to the effect that if you really wanted to be sure of every colour component, avoid aliasing to a reasonable extent and be confident in your results, you'd have to blow it way down towards 1K. And you know that to be true, if you have had the involvement in the thing you claim.

 

The thing is, a lot of this becomes moot given the amount of compression you're applying. There is no direct relationship between the resolution of the image from which you derive a wavelet set, and the resolution to which you decode it; you could claim more or less anything you liked. I'll be much more interested in this camera when it's possible to compare the compressed and uncompressed images (on scenes I specify).

 

> I know you are not very keen on shooting film, so high res video should be quite appealing to you!

 

Well yeah. As I said before, there's a show I (might, as ever) having coming up on which this would be great. I just don't think they're capable of giving me the support I'd need to make it happen, regardless of the worth or otherwise of the camera.

Phil

Phil... you would have more credibility if you stuck to the same story. Either RED is 1K or 2K (in your mind). Graeme has been clear on his position, and is much more knowledgable in this area than anyone you can point to. You certainly can properly use the word pejorative, but that does not necessarily mean you are a CMOS-bayer pattern, compression expert. I'd have to say that Graeme is. He has done what you said couldn't be done. Actually, he has done what a lot of "experts" said couldn't be done. Your "anti-RED" posts are beginning to lose credibility.

As for support, why would we be able to properly support Soderbergh and others, but not you? Are you afraid that your attitude has in some way made you a candidate for "non-support"?

I had tried to open the door for a civil and respectful dialog with you. I still hope we can get there.

Jim

I've never seen it projected since I certainly wasn't at IBC or any of that. But I have stayed active watching the RED site for every little grab or clip you put up that originated on the RED. I do not think RED looks like video in the sense of camcorder/ HD/ whatever. Why not? Too little noise (or perhaps no noise at all?) and the lattitude smokes standard video. I used to insult the RED project, Jim, and I apoligize for that because you really have made an outstanding camera that is ahead of it's time in terms of quality/ price/ and apparent stability. The idea of using practically any lense out there is another fun option which can give limitless possibility to the camera.

 

Only thing is, and I cannot really put a finger on it, is that even RED seems to lack a bit of the organic look of film. I really don't understand the technicals of it, but film just looks like the "whole milk", video looks like skim milk, and RED is like 2 percent milk (No, this isnt a pun on your milk maids LOL). I would agree that REDs pictures look prettier but Im not sure that it's always a good thing. The short of Peter Jackson's didnt seem nearly as effective in telling a war story as what Saving Private Ryan was, granted that's not a fair comparison, as the short was shot in two days practically on a whim.

 

Anyhow, congrats to you Jim and your team on a fantastic camera that can maybe help bridge the gap between the poor indies and the veteran giants of film making. Maybe in an alternate universe where I actually had the money to buy one, I would give it a shot.

Matthew... I can't disagree with anything you said. RED is not film. And it does not look like any other "video". Much of what makes film look organic is random pattern grain and no sharp edges. Some say that 65mm looks less "film-like" than 35mm. Maybe that's because 65mm has less grain on projection and greater resolution? We have a different animal on our hands. It is an new alternative. It is too easy to say, "just add some grain and it looks like film". I prefer to think of RED as a new look. A new tool. And one that can be put in the hands of many. Thanks for your comments. I apologize for any harsh exchanges in the past. This is a passionate topic.

Jim

Film guys who haven't seen footage think RED is less than 2K, those film guys who have seen it say it looks like 65mm film, and certainly doesn't look like video. Go figure.

Jim

I'm not saying that this is necessarily true for RED, but it's not unheard of by any means. I just meant to say that in the manufacturing of film equipment, the financial return can often come from unexpected sectors. If you can make money off of the actual camera body then fantastic, but it by no means is the decisive factor in becoming profitable for many companies. I'm sure that RED has a very thought out business model.

 

It will be interesting to see how the other camera companies adapt to RED's introduction.

We are anxious to see what our competition does as well... :-) We do have a plan that extends out several years.

Jim