Kim Vickers

Interesting annecdote from Phil -- almost frightening. There's a scene in "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers" which brilliantly evinces the pathetic nature of cult psychology: Sellers goes to see a "fortune-teller" who tells him he will only be happy by bedding more women. Sellers likes the sound of that and complies. He eventually comes to trust anything the fortune teller has to say. Once this trust is established, we learn that the fortune teller is an agent-in-disguise, acting on behalf of the studios. When the studios can't get Sellers to agree to work on a project by conventional means, they use the fortune teller to pass along their wishes in the guise of sage advice. The outcome in one particular case is tragi-comic: the studio wants Sellers to make a movie with Blake Edwards, and so the fortune teller advises Sellers to pay special attention to anything that comes into his world with the initials "B.E." (Blake Edwards). But Sellers mistakes B.E. for Brit Ecklund -- and marries her! I remember thinking that Bowfinger has a pretty good sendup of Scientology -- the bits with Terrence Stamp and "MindHead"...or something like that. So don't worry Phil...not everybody is fooled.

Jesus H., Keith. For the record, I was the one who asked the question and I appreciated the answer. Between cranks like you and Jim Murdoch, I'm amazed anybody bothers to post on this site at all. The genuine information you add to the discussion is completely wiped out by your jerkwater attitude.

I second this "not suck" at 2K business. 4K is a wonderful ambition, but I don't know any indie filmmakers who can afford a 4K post. In fact, if I were Mr. Jannard, I'd save the 4K option for the optical viewfinder/mechanical shutter variant due later. 4K is overkill for a $17,500 camera.

From the specs I've read, you're in good shape -- spec-wise. I think you'll find a lot of pros will wait for the mechanical shutter version, regardless of the extra cost. Every dp I've worked with HATES electronic viewfinders. I cannot emphasize that enough. 4K doesn't make a pro camera. It's the attention to detail that separates the amateurs from the pros. If the "pro" version of the camera has an optical viewfinder/mechanical shutter and costs $100,000, you will suffer far less skepticism. Hiring a widely respected film dp to advise on this "pro" version wouldn't be a bad idea, either. May I suggest Mr. Mullen? The last thing I'd like to plead for is a proprietary workflow solution. When I buy the camera, I'm also going to want to buy some sort of security that my footage will be post-able on my quad G5. Whether this translates into some kind of "red plug-in" for Final Cut Pro that I can buy for $1,500, well, that's up to you. I just don't want to be left on my lonesome to figure out how I'm going to post my footage. I wish you all the best with Red.

Two words: OPTICAL VIEWFINDER.

How much does it cost?

Nice specs. How about putting those damn things to use in a pro d-cinema camera that we can all start using? Or are you just trying to tease me?

Your points are well taken, but isn't it possible that Jannard has LEARNED from Sony's mistakes with HDCAM? It would seem he's been listening to somebody who shoots film for a living. He's pitching a full-size sensor, 4:4:4, true 1080p, 2K, 4K. I don't see how anybody can say Jannard is making the "same" mistake Sony made. Whatever mistake he's making, it's his own, not somebody else's.

Jannard's got a track record of success with Oakley, he also has a thick enough wallet to survive for a few years if things don't go as well as hoped. I don't know if anybody's losing sleep, but if they're not, they stand to lose a market segment for their cameras in a few years. Perhaps that market segment isn't large, compared to the ENG market and the consumer market, but professional d-cinema is a growing market. Jannard obviously thinks so.

Red could hurt the current crop of high def cameras. (It shouldn't be hard to beat the F900 -- 3:1:1, 7:1 compression, 2/3 inch format, 3-chip, etc., etc.) I think the bigger question is how will companies like Sony and Panasonic respond to Red? If they don't come out with something that's roughly equivalent, with a 35mm size chip, they could lose a lot of business. If you're an episodic TV show that's having to make do with 2/3 HD today, Red will be very attractive to you. Why would you keep using your F900 or Varicam when you could have 35mm dof and 1080p -- for the price of a week's rental of the old gear? If Jannard's gambit with Red forces Sony and Panasonic and Canon to change their d-cinema strategy (which seems to based on 2/3 inch technology), then he will have truly sparked a revolution. The establishment's response to Red could be more interesting than Red itself.

Would anybody care to rate the probability that Red will see competition from one of the majors (Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Viper, etc, etc), in both features AND price-range, by the time Red actually launches?

Go to this site, scroll down a bit and click on the link that points to "Phantom HD and Phantom 65" camera information. http://www.visionresearch.com/ They're talking about a 70mm-equivalent digital camera and an HD camera, both with high-speed capabilities. Here are the quick specs on the HD version: Full frame 16:9 aspect ratio CMOS sensor composed of 1,920 x 1,800 pixels (24mm x 13.5mm) making it compatible with all 35mm equipment 1000 pictures per second full resolution with 14-bit image depth 128 Gigabyte ?Hot-Swappable? non-volatile Flash magazine w/docking station Dual fiber optic output to Image3 storage system PL lens mount (standard) And for the "Phantom 65" camera: Full frame 2.2:1 aspect ratio CMOS sensor composed of 4,096 x 2,440 pixels (51.2mm x 30.5mm) equivalent to 70mm film 125 frame per second full resolution with 14-bit image depth Competition is good.

Ditto. Sounds almost too good to be true -- and that's exactly why I'm skeptical. I'd love nothing more than to be proved wrong.

I read 66 dB on one of the other Red threads, roughly 11 stops. The specs are definitely impressive, but I want to see some real-world footage at 1080p or 2K before I get excited. Strange that they've got no footage at all to show. Kind of a waste of a marketing opportunity. Tells me this thing is more "dream" than reality. I'm not expecting it to be available for at least a full year, likely longer. Who knows, even a Leviathan like Sony might be able to beat Red to the punch, now that they see what the cine market actually wants. Any word on Final Cut or Avid support?

I'm an independent producer and editor. I've rented the Varicam and F900 for several projects. No onboard is a deal-breaker for me and nothing I've heard here has changed my view on that. If you're not bothered by the tethering, I guess the camera could be for you. Apologies if I was out of line.

I can't believe a company that needs good PR to get its gear in circulation has hired you to do it. If you and your superiors at Dalsa actually think arguing with filmmakers online is a good idea, you're in deeper trouble than you know. I'm lampooning your military excuse because it's just so desperate. Do you really think any of your customers actually CARE about where you sit on the defense contractor priority list? I'm the customer -- I don't want fancy excuses, I want what I want. Either you're going to get me what I want or you're not. If you're not, if you're so new to this business that you think you're going to impress me with your version of "the dog ate my homework" excuse, well, frankly, I suspect you're not going to be in business much longer.

I had originally posted a sarcastic response, but you made a thoughtful argument so I figured you deserve an honest reply. I have a question for you: If our mathematics is precise enough to land a man on the moon and split atoms, isn't it precise enough to interpret movement? (I think it is.) My feeling is that too much compression definitely does suck, but RAW HD is pretty impressive. RAW 4K should be that much better. Your argument seems to be based on the idea that there are certain things that are natural (like photochemical photography) while other things are not (like digital photography). One is a photochemical IMPRESSION of light, while the other is a mathematical INTERPRETATION of light. I fail to see how one is inherently more natural or Godlike. It's a bit like light itself: you can measure it as a particle or as a wave, but not both at the same time. One is not inherently better than the other, merely different. No?

Sorry. Couldn't help it. Reflex. BTW: did you read the bit about how the military/war in Iraq is preventing them from releasing their onboard recording system? Something about Apache attack helicopters and gun cameras. Where is Tom Clancy when you need him?

I take it back. You're not desperate. You're delusional.

Yawn.... OK, I'll bite -- if you had a choice between a 35mm film camera and a tethered 4k digital camera, which would you choose? And don't give me this bunk that the video tap is the same thing as cabling out to the recording media. I can always lose the video tap when it's too much hassle. I can't just "lose" the cable to the media. (Talk about ignorant.) Those of you who would PREFER to use a tethered camera, please hold up your hands. Apparently, Dalsa has a bargain for you!!!

You name four people out of the literally thousands of feature films shot on 35mm film every year. I stand by "nobody." And I repeat my question: Does Dalsa have an onboard recording system or not?

You're sounding a little desperate. Do you have an onboard recording system yet? If not, the resolution issue is a red-herring. A few more pixels here and there ain't no big thrill. Nobody's going to CHOOSE to use a tethered system when there are cable-free systems available (like film).

I agree he's one of the most intellectual. Totally disagree that he's one of the most polished. Also, Suschitzky shot Empire Strikes Back. If you can watch ESB and tell me you see one iota of his talent on display in a Cronenberg movie, I'll....well, I'm sorry, we're not watching the same the thing.

I admire it as well. Perhaps I wasn't making my point clearly enough. I DO admire his success, just happen not to like his approach to cinematography (or storytelling, but let's leave the scripts out of it). When I watched History of Violence I was stunned at how bare and "fake" the sets and setups looked. It looked like it was made for cable or something. Then I remembered this is Cronenberg and most of his films have an odd "fake" look to them, something unfinished and definitely unpolished. But this is just my eye. Do you feel the same, and simply happen to like this approach, feel that he's making an ironic point here, or do you feel the opposite, that his films in fact do look finished and polished and therefore there's no irony at all?

Can I ask you to elaborate why you liked the look of that film? I ask because I've never seen a Cronenberg film that I liked, and I really don't like the clean, sparse look he gets, but I have to respect his success. Obviously some people love it. To me his films always look bland and weak, amateurish, even. He's a postmodernist, so perhaps he's trying to make some doubly ironic point with that. But if that's the case, I still don't dig it. I'm willing to hear-out someone who will enlighten me.