Greg Lowry

The first part of my post is not longer correct. RED has changed the format specs. The first part of my post is not longer correct. RED has changed the format specs.

RED will reportedly have the capability to do in-camera scaling of its 4K image to 2K output, thus using the full sensor for both 4K and 2K capture while maintaining the same image magnification of S35 format lenses for both 4K and 2K-scaled capture. In the 2K windowed mode, however, the sensor is cropped to about S16 format dimensions so lens image magnification will be greater when using S35 format lenses.

Looking forward to seeing the movie, David. Congratulations!

Hi Brendan, Please be careful about terms like "you all" because this forum, like the others, is comprised of individuals with varying opinions. Greg

To which I would add: who cares? RED says they'll make as many cameras as they can sell.

It'll be interesting to see RED's ratio of reservations to sales ... not that we'll ever know the precise numbers, but there will be anecdotal info.

Otto Nemenz has reserved 5, I believe. Probably others too. My point is that when counting cameras, 1 reservation is most likely to be 1 camera. If RED says they have 600 reservations, that's 600 cameras, not 635. I'm sure Otto Nemenz would be very unhappy if he didn't get 5 RED "Rs" for his $5k.

The same milkiness/flare is evident in a few scenes in FMJ, especially in the first barracks scene with the bright windows blowing out and serving as backlight. This is one of Kubrick's visual trademarks.

1 reservation = 1 camera is more likely.

post deleted by writer

Although the late, great Ed diGiulio had a most interesting collection/accumulation of stuff, my guess would be Canon, especially if the lenses were prototypes.

Bill, your question may be the only one asked here in weeks that has not resulted in a fight. Welcome.

It's a pity that you don't seem to grasp that someone else's inappropriate accusation doesn't mitigate your own.

I'm happy to let other readers of this thread decide whose posts are nasty and childish. And even more pleased not to respond to your posts again.

You're the one who previously questioned his wealth. I simply stated the facts as recently published. Mr. Jannard's wealth IS of consequence to the RED project because it means that the financial resources are available to complete the project, and it renders ridiculous any suggestion that Mr. Jannard intends to "run off" with $500,000-$1,000,000 in RED reservation deposits. Those insinuations are ridiculous, insulting, and potentionally libelous. I haven't reserved a camera, but I would have absolutely no hesitation in paying a $1000 deposit (or more) to RED. And I dare say my life, business, and financial experience far exceeds yours. I don't need someone like you to advise me on anything. Nor, I dare say, does anyone else. The only reason I have not yet reserved several cameras is that I want to use them for stereoscopic work and I'm not yet sure if they're appropriate. I've decided to wait. Presuming to tell other people what to think is just that ... presumptuous.

Forbes recently listed Jim Jannard in their top 400 wealthiest Americans, with assets of $1.4 billion if I recall correctly. But perhaps that information was "planted" as part of the elaborate RED conspiracy. I don't know why you guys presume to be the guardians of other people's money, i.e. those who may choose to put $1000 down to reserve a RED camera. It's their money, not yours. Why does what other people do with their money so offend you? Having said that, I'm embarrassed to have been sucked in by your ridiculous trolling.

Nobody who has reserved a RED camera is "on the hook" for anything. A reservation is not a commitment to purchase. The specs and performance will be known before initial deliveries. And while specs are not finalized now because the product is still in development, at some point they'll be frozen and purchasers will know what they're buying. What's the point of spinning highly unlikely hypothetical scenarios? And why are you so suspicious of J. Jannard's intentions? His history in business is one of major success and his reputation seems similarly strong. At some point caution and skepticism just twists into paranoia. It's very tedious.

More evidence that it's a Canon K35 zoom. http://images.google.ca/images?q=canon%20k...sa=N&tab=wi

I agree with John Holland. Looks like a Canon K35 zoom to me.

If you think it's "incredibly reasonable" to accuse people of dishonesty without any proof whatsoever, you'll find no peace here.

I pose the question in my previous post realizing that the DCI format applied to capture does not maximize the available spatial resolution of the RED sensor for 2.40:1. 4096 x 1714 = 7,020,544 v. 4520 x 1884 = 8,515,680 pixels. A big difference. But perhaps there is value in a standardized workflow. My usual preference would be to go with max spatial res, so it's just a question for discussion.

FYI ... The DCI spec for 4K 2.39:1 is 4096x1714; 2K 2.39:1 is 2048x858. Maybe it would be best to adopt these formats for 2.39 (2.40) spherical capture too?

The "low-light benefit of digital" is, of course, ultimately a matter of the ISO rating of the sensor, but anamorphic lenses are often slower and have less DOF than their spherical counterparts, so that's definitely a factor if you're considering low-light work.

I'd vote that way too.

Addendum to my previous post. It would be more accurate to say that the field of view of the anamorphics would be decreased when using a left-right cropped or windowed portion of the RED sensor. I'd also add that RED's approach may actually be more closely aligned with DCI's approach to 2.4:1 widescreen because I don't think DCI's spec calls for anamorphic projection lenses so anamorphically photographed content will ultimately be projected spherically (after being unsqueezed for the DI or master of course). I stand to be corrected on that.