Matthew W. Phillips

Yeah, cause that's what billionaires do, they spend millions ripping people off for a few hundred thousand dollars and then spend millions more on lawyers avoiding jail time. You figure smart business decisions like that are what put Jim Jannard where he is today?

 

Actually, I'm not really expecting a refund, I'm thinking that the odds are better than even that Red will get the camera finished and on the market so that I can put that money towards the purchase price. If it doesn't get to market only an addlepated fool would expect there to be a problem getting the refund.

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.

Where on earth did you obtain the facts that "Most pros use medium format, 4x5, or even 8x10", that is totally ficticious. Maybe for 'product shots' that might have been the case but more and more pros even in this field are going digital, and those specialising in this field make up only a small percentage of all professional photographers

 

Oh, and by the way Mathew, you shoot medium format on 120 film and 4"x5" and 8"x10" is known as large format

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.

Scanning s8 at 2k? What the heck for? As it has been said, do all that junk to super-8 and you might as well shoot 16 on the cheap, get a better image especially at 500T, plus have a film completed in a format that people respect as viable. I won't tell anyone what format to shoot, shoot what you want, but it doesn't make sense to me to do it that way. It certainly isn't the cheap or the easy way out! And another thing, if you don't want the super-8 look, why the heck do you want to shoot on super-8?

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.

Well if Red doesn't work out there is always this:

 

http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/

 

It's built and ready for sale, I hear the retail is lower than Red.

 

R,

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

Someday in the not too distant future (perhaps even with RED, though this remains to be seen) we will easily surpass it as we have in the still photography world.

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.

Terrific logic, dude... let's blame Jim for the break-in! While we're at it, we should blame the Jews (and other minorities) for getting killed by the Nazi's - after all, they could have taken proper precautions to defend themselves. You have no idea of what the security setup is over there at RED, you have no idea what the break-in situation is, and you obviously have no reason to be saying anything anyway as you are, in fact, not a reservation holder. Please stop making yourself look like a huge anus.

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.

Why don't you guys come help us clean up the glass? I can't believe I stayed here this long to put up with this crap.

 

Last post.

 

Jim

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.

Glad I'm not the only one.

 

R,

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

If you mean experienced DOPs get irate over the hoards of kids who think they'll be shooting Lord Of The Rings just because they have an HD camcorder, then yes, you'd be correct.

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.

I agree. But someone was.

Someone was what?

I'm a bit confused, so I'll ask you who follow Non-Confusius instead:

 

1. At which asa does the nizo professional read the vision 2 500t? Is it at 320? Some say 640, some say 320.

2. At which asa does the Nikon R10 read the vision 2 500t? Some say at 400, others at 640. I need to know so I can set my external meter correctly, as the internal meter isn't working.

 

Again, thanks for all your help so far! Hope someone will bare with my basic questions for a little while longer :-)

 

Regards, Bjarne Eldhuset, Oslo, Norway.

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.

I suggest you call the US Attorney's office, they may be intriqued by the possibility that the perp(s) could be an offshore company since several of your potential competitors are overseas.

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.

This really adds an intriguing dimension to the whole Red story. I mean could this have been done by people engaged in corporate espionage?

 

It sounds like the thieves knew exactly what they where looking for, quite possibly an inside job then.

 

I assume your offices are in a secure building, it's not like you have a retail store downtown with glass windows.

 

Very, very, strange.

 

R,

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.

Available digital technology for cheaper moviemaking?!

 

Emanuel

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.

You've an arrogant opinion of yourself if you think everyone is thinking the same way as you

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.

What is confusing me is when you say "I am rolling over here from laughing so hard."

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.

Holy smokes those look like video! Not even remotely close to the look of 35mm. I mean they look "good" as in the same as what you'd expect from a digital stills camera, but nothing like a "feature film."

 

Question: on the Red home page there appears to be smoke coming out of the Red camera. Is this what one can expect when they start using it, spontaneous camera combustion?

 

R,

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.

A gal who I have taken my Super-8 to in the past at Walmart did some checking on the possibility of processing the T64 movie film. She asked the corporate if Walmart would process E-6 super-8 film. They said ,"Yes"! That's all I have for now. Next step is to shoot some and see if it really works and they charge me $4.88 plus tax.

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.

well jim, with that shot of the ladies, you at least proved it isnt CGI footage. CGI doesnt make ladies that look that good. Looks great Jim, just need to make sure us poor folks can afford it.