Matthew W. Phillips

You basically said that because digital still cameras caught up to an amateur still format, that it equates to digital catching up to film. I guess I dont have to tell you that there is a big difference in creating a still camera that can come close to matching 35mm film than there is a motion picture camera matching it. There are frame rates to consider, storage, etc. I just dont think the technology is there to do it to the level that would finish film off.

One thing you havent considered Clint is that Jim could indeed give you a product, but it can be a crap product if he wanted because he makes no guarantee as to specifications or anything honestly. So you can be on the hook for the remaining 16,500 only to receive a subpar product. Not saying he would do it, but there would be nothing illegal if he did.

Ok, if you are shooting landscape, which wins out? As far as the remarks of medium format and such, the context was that someone said that digital still cameras have exceeded film cameras in quality and so forth. I was pointing out how ridiculous that is. When you step up to even 120, you are way ahead of digital. And at large format, digital is not even in the park.

I think youre right David. I shoot mostly on Super 8 but Im not going to get 2k scans and try to look like 16. I personally like the aesthetic look that comes along with super 8. And I find that standard def. scans are plenty good enough. Also, Super 8 should be a value.

Not a bad looking camera, it does do 72 fps and whatsmore, its built so they back up the words.

With all due respect, this is not an informed statement. Try taking the best digital still camera known to man and comparing it to Velvia 4x5 format film. There is no contest in that department. And, for the record, in still photography, 35mm is not a pro format. It is amateur. Most pros use medium format, 4x5, or even 8x10.

Clint, if you think people become Billionaires by being honest upright folk, you need to do your research. I quit being a business major because of the many awful and cruel stories of businessmen and their practices, which are largely acceptable in that field. For instance, car manufacturers who would rather pay out settlements instead of recalling cars because its cheaper to let people die than to recall the cars. Thats about how business works.

Why are you posting that? I already read it at DVXuser.com. I dont need to read it here too. You couldve posted a link but this is just spam.

If its such a great security setup than it makes it seem even more like an inside job. Might I also remind you that Cinematography.com has a real name policy. I have never heard of anyone named Pasty as a real name. Correct me if Im wrong.

Jim, why dont you look after your project man. If I had reserved one, I would be pissed right now. But not at the burgler but at you for not protecting our interest. Sir, it all comes down to you. You are the leader and the praise and the blame stops at you. I assume 20+ years in business taught you that much.

Richard, you already know my opinions of the "break in" so I guess that makes three.

I think the thing kids need to realize is that film is the benchmark, whether they like it or not. I know people try to bullcrap and act like not all video shooters are trying to be like film, but comeon man, lets get real. I have seen forum after forum and threads with these kids shooting on DV or HD and talking about techniques to get their footage to look like film. There even comes a time when the whole point about video being a value becomes moot. I mean, if you purchased the best video camera you can find and all the acessories and every extra that might help you look just a little more like film, you might as well have shot it on film to begin with. I actually have seen kids who will edit frame by frame on digital to tweak each frame to look like film. Do people consider their time important? If you are pro, that time you are wasting to tweak those frames is money and that all factors into the ill perceived "value" of video, at least for narrative. When the time comes that video camera users, by and large, stop trying to make their medium look like film, maybe video will become an artform instead of a cheap imitation.

I had an XL2 for awhile and they are quite stable on your shoulder if you have the endurance to carry them for long periods of time. The interchangable lense system is a cool concept too.

Someone was what?

Ok, Im a bit confused about your question. If you are using external meter, Im assuming you have manual exposure right? And if you have manual exposure and external meter, why does it matter what the Nizo thinks the film is? You just plug into your meter what speed your film is, the shutter speed, and gauge the available light and you get your exposure. It really doesnt matter what the camera thinks the film speed is if you use manual exposure and external meter.

LOL, not to be rude but all of you folks are getting way ahead of yourselves. Not saying that industrial espionage doesnt happen, but you have nothing to go by to even make that sort of accusation. It seems far more plausible that someone who has clearance "stole" the information and whatnot. As far as finding a culprit easy by if someone puts out an equivocal product, you oviously know little about business. Reverse engineering has been around for decades and thats all thats really needed to copy another product. How do you think all the IBM PC clones came to market? Certainly not from a break in.

Yeah Richard, I think it is very strange indeed. I caution those that say Sony or whatnot as you can actually be sued for saying that. I would believe Richard that this is an inside job as well. Perhaps someone who is very trusted in the organization?

I wish I could find who did it Jim, I could make enough to fund my first feature on 35mm ;) Maybe Jim would pay me in RED camera packages...I could get at least 3 packages with 100k.

I totally agree with Stephen. Why would you want one medium to imitate another? If you only buy the RED because its "cheaper than film" or at least you assume it is, that doesnt say a lot about RED. I would hope that RED is trying to be unique in its look and not just be "poor mans film substitute" but people still shooting on film if they can afford it. To me, that is like buying a BMW so it can be like a Mercedes. Its a strange and futile concept.

Wow, one would think that by your unwavering loyalty to RED, a camera that hasnt even been released yet, that you are on Jims payroll. Seriously though, I think that what has bothered me more than anything about this RED business is just the amount of arrogance put forth by the RED organization. The bloody camera hasnt even hit market yet and people have film declared dead and even have Panavision going out of business and DALSA cameras sinking and all sorts of ridiculous scenarios. You men sure do get excited at some women lighting cigars and blowing bubbles.

Tim, am not arrogant at all. Just know that there are some people who arent fooled so easy is all. Some of use know the difference between video and film. No matter how slick the video is, it is still video. Thats not bad for most but Richard is right that is doesnt look like what we typically associate with movies. At least not the way things are now. Maybe in the future, people will lose the intrinsic ability to discern with everything being mixed together. But for now, the RED does not look like what is typically attributed to movies.

Well, I was laughing hard because that statement was classic Richard and we needed that kind of bold truthfulness here. I think everyone has kind of thought what you said but didnt want to actually post it. I hope that clarifies what I mean.

Good grief Richard, I am rolling over here from laughing so hard. I was wondering when my film mate would pay a visit here and make a comment. We may not agree on Steve Irwin but with this, i have your back entirely. The images look great, but nothing like 35mm. Also, the images prove that we could use black as a set background if we wanted to.

You kidding? This gives me some incentive to stick with Ekta 64T.

12. 5000+ Watts of lights in the room 13. A person holding up bounce cards 14. Someone with a boom stand above my head everywhere I walk 15. $3,000 cash for 3 days.