Ken Cangi

I have a tip for you. Effective marketing is about subtlety and finesse - not spraying people in the face with a fire hose.

He's like the energizer bunny - tick, tick, tick..............Red, Red, Red.....................................

I have to hand it to Jannard. He is one tenacious marketer , by planting guys like Chris Kenny. Chris has been over here since September of 06. He has posted 167 times - 162 of which were to RED forums. No working cameraman would be that excited about a piece of equipment that hasn't even passed its developmental stages yet. In fact, I don't know a single indie filmmaker who is in a position to fork over an amount of money equal to the budget of many small indie films, let alone have the time to post as relentlessly as Mr. Kenny has in such a short period of time. Even a rich hobbyist wouldn't waste his time posting almost 200 sycophantic Red posts to a site, whose members clearly aren't impressed by the hype. Yes sir. The only logical answer is Red marketing-plants, and they have conveniently been bombarding this site like mosquitoes for the several weeks preceding NAB. You're not fooling me, Jim. You didn't get to be the king of eyewear by accident. I am impressed with your tenacity, although I have to wonder how many sales you actually think you can make from this site. It is quite a show, to say the least.

Thank you for making my point, Chris. I couldn't have said it better, myself.

Here is the title of this forum: RED production schedule, How is it going?. The answer is pretty simple. Only the designers and manufacturer maybe know the answer, and they have spent most of their time here bombarding us with an in-your-face promotional circus. Out of 310 posts, The few that suggested that none of this matters until the camera is available for real testing were all that were needed to wrap up this forum. Everything beyond that, including my spray, is superfluous. However, I will give the thread a C+ for its entertainment value.

Jay, If you haven't been able to gain any useful information from these forums, then your focus is most likely being disrupted by your need to have the information served to you in euphemisms. My suggestion is that you focus more on the content and less on delivery. Being a veteran of the still industry, yet new to the motion picture industry, I have scoured most of the available filmmaking sites for constructive and, more importantly, informative forums, and Cinematography.com is by far leagues above the rest. A greater percentage of its members actually make their livings in this industry, and they offer real-world advice. This is the type of information that people pay exorbitant tuitions to procure. If you can't handle the candor found here, find another hobby or career path, because this one will eat you for lunch. Cheers, Ken

What do art directors, as the final arbiters of taste, have to do with what I said? I was referring to the tools, in their capacity, or lack thereof, to better accommodate us and the clients, from whom we collect our paychecks. My post wasn't based on whether or not this was an anti-digital forum. It was meant to address particular comments in opposition to what I believe will be the inevitable demise of film as the industry standard. As for choice, it isn't always ours to make. Technological advancements ultimately play a more influential role in deciding which types of tools will become industry standards. As I said before, you develop with the times, or you get left behind.

This was the same pointless argument that took place when digital became a viable threat to film in the still industry. The case for digital became clear when art directors gained the ability to instantly preview images - as they would look in the final files - on full-size monitors instead of tiny, expensive b&w polaroids. Moreover, files could be immediately emailed to the clients for final approval. The photographer still had to know how to compose, light, color balance, and orchestrate the shoot, although the tools had become more accommodating to him/her and the client. If society eventually tires of film, then so be it. Time moves forward, and the dinosaurs get left behind. A tool is a tool is a tool. What you do with it is all that matters in the end.

Tim, Do you have a demo reel, and, if so, have you considered posting a link to it in your profile and/or signature? I've received four inquires for still work just from having my website link in my signature. Just a thought.

Kathleen, There is another very important thing to consider when contemplating a major pursuit: If you aren't willing to do whatever it takes to get there, then you have almost no chance of holding onto it if you ever do. Being at the top of any game in life never gets easier. For those who are successful, it is their ever-increasing experience that only makes it feel easier. Without a sincere passion and inexorable determination, you will be missing the fundamental tools that every person of great achievement possesses. You must come to the starting line with at least as much determination as your competitors, or you will have lost the race before it ever begins. Good luck in your pursuit. Ken

That's sound advice, Jim, and it applies to just about every grand goal in life. I have been a climber for twenty-eight years. I started in the late seventies, and I made a decision in 1990 to get sponsored and go pro. The first thing I did was to move to Boulder, Colorado, which was the breeding ground for world-class climbers. I was thirty at the time - not a kid - but I was very fit. More importantly, I was determined. Determination is the operative word, and no great goal will ever be achieved without it. The first eight months enlightened me in a way that I will never forget. The lesson is indelibly etched in my memory bank. I spent every day meeting the top climbers and asking them how to train to be a top climber. I could not have been more sincere in my pursuit, yet I was continually met with distant stares and little or no valuable advice. At first, I thought that these athletes were behaving sort of elitist, or maybe that it was my personality. They always seemed to stay in small cliques, and they almost never made small talk with anyone. Realizing that getting advice from these athletes was not going to happen made me angry. I had re-arranged my entire life in order to pursue this goal, and moving to Boulder was meant specifically for that purpose. I was determined to succeed, so I quit my professional job, canceled my climbing gym membership, and went into hiding for the winter. I got a job as a doorman at the local strip club - which paid rather handsomely for fifteen hours per week - and I built a small training wall on the patio of my apartment. I procured every book that I could find on diet, nutrition, training, etc., and I dug in. That was in September. By mid May, I have lost twenty-plus pounds of excess baggage. I weighed in at 155lbs., and less than 4 percent fat. I had gotten considerably stronger. I had made a goal, during that previous September, to climb a classic Boulder test-piece by the end of that first summer after my winter training efforts - a route on which I hadn't been able to do individual moves during my initial attempts. Not only was I now able to do the moves, I successfully *redpointed the route on my second try. This raised my confidence level to the point that I completely upgraded my hit list for that season. Within two months, I had completed four of the hardest routes on the Front Range, and my efforts were about to expose me to the greatest lesson that I have learned about what it takes to achieve top goals. While walking through Eldorado Canyon one morning, I spotted one of the top climbers, who had, hitherto, neglected to give me the time of day. I was so accustomed to his dismissal of me that I didn't bother to say hello. As I passed him, a shocking event occurred. He greeted me. It wasn't a simple hello, but rather an open acknowledgment and congratulations for my success on some of the most difficult routes. Shock immediately turned to pride, as I realized what was happening, and I said, humbly: Thank you. This started happening with all of the athletes with whom I had initially encountered brick walls, and that was when it finally hit me. I had spent the entire winter eating, sleeping, and breathing for my goal at the expense of everything else. No one told me how to do it, and in the end, success came down to wanting it more than anything else in my life. I subsequently watched an interview with the world champion at the time (Jim Karn), in which he addressed the question of what it takes to be a champion. He said, and I am paraphrasing: I am often asked, by climbers, what to eat and how to train, etc, and the answer is simple. When succeeding at your goal becomes more important than everything else in your life, then what to eat and how to train will come to you. It was a simple yet profoundly insightful statement, and I only truly understood its relevance after having gone through the process myself. I received sponsorship from several climbing companies, that season, and I continued to successfully pursue my professional climbing goals for the next seven seasons. Not only was the experience life altering, but it also opened the doors for shooting top assignments when I eventually returned to still film work. I have since made the transition to motion picture work, and I now have the key tool in my toolbox - a real-life understanding of what it takes to get there. Everything else will come down to desire and determination, and I'm excited about the journey. Kathleen, It is easy to say that doors open more easily for men in such pursuits. Whether or not that is actually ever the case is a moot point. The rules are the same for females and males. If you want something badly enough to make it your life's focus, your chances of success immediately become exponentially better than 99.9% of the population's. I was thirty when I decided to become a professional athlete. I have also become well acquainted with several female world champion climbers, who used the same passion and drive as their vehicle to success. The successful perspective is neither male nor female; it is inexorable drive and passion. Nothing less will get you there. Cheers, Ken *Redpoint means to successfully ascend a techincal route from bottom to top - without falling and in one continuous effort - after having previously worked on the route and rehearsed the moves. An on-sight ascent is when one successfully ascends a route from bottom to top, sans falls, on the first try, without having any visual or verbal information (beta) about technical movement, rock features, etc.

I'd love to claim comic intent, but it was a type-o. I wrote the post in the wee hours of the morning after having been up all night.

Hi Ralph, I just read my post again, and I realized that "who the hell are you" sounded unfriendly. I only meant it in the context of the question, so please don't be offended.

Okay, Ralph. Just admit that you work for Red. Yours is not a casual defense of the project. You have avoided answering that question several times. So many NAD's tells me that you are involved in the marketing of this rig, which would explain your bias. Here is Jannard's mistake, as I see it: He is marketing an untested product to movie industry professionals, who depend on those tools to feed their families, and he is using the same hyped-up approach that he used to market fashion accessories to the general public. Consequently, it should be no surprise to you that untested tools are regularly met with acute skepticism until they have proven themselves in the field. What you are doing is asking us to take your word, because of some footage that you've seen, that this camera is the real deal. First question: Who the hell are you that we should accept your word for anything? I have asked you, three times, what your connection to Red is, and you have conveniently avoided answering me on every occasion. If you do work for Jannard, you are making him look as bad as he made his self look last time he entered this forum. At least he was wise enough to realize that arguing the merits of a ghost, with professional camera operators, was not in his best interest. If you are looking for politically correct pillow talk, you are probably in the wrong place. It is pretty clear that the consensus on this board is that the proof will be in the pudding - or not. Let the camera speak for itself. KC

Ralph, Did it occur to you that most here are not so much trying to teach you anything, but are responding to your and other's gratuitous marketing of this not quite a product yet? I'm sure that I'm stating the obvious in pointing out that most of the members of this site are working camera operators, so why does it surprise you that we are a bit skeptical of the hyped up marketing of an untested product? Moreover, what is the motivation behind your personal crusade? I am not trying to be sarcastic. It is a sincere question.

I checked out the Redrock FF system at my local movie rental house http://www.redmanmovies.com/. It definitely had very sloppy gears, that could not be adjusted, and cheap plastic parts at a relatively high price. The rental manager there told me that they purchased two entire systems - both with sloppy gears - and they were told that they could not return them. They also weren't able to contact a rep on the phone and had to discuss the problem via Email.

I can't really say that I blame you. Neither Reifenstahl nor her film are worthy of a full-scale debate. However, I wouldn't compare this to the AA thread. There was no malice intended here - just some good, clean fun.

Come on, Robert. Sack up. You will never survive a debate - especially one on a topic this controversial - if you keep folding so easily. Don't take this stuff personally. Hang in there and organize your arguments, so that you don't have to apologize for not making yourself clear. It would also help if you weren't stoned while forming your hypotheses. LOL. Just kidding. You are mistaking reading you in excerpts for my responding to your posts point by point. I just read Sweeney's explanation of cognitivism and it corroborates almost exactly my response to you in my last post. It is not clear to me, by what you wrote in your last post, that you even understand what Sweeney is trying to say. If you do, then your problem isn't comprehension; it is a severe lack of writing skills. I know! I know! You already pointed that out. I am just driving the point home so that you will make an effort to think your arguments through more carefully. You see - the thing about cognitivism is that it is less likely that a person will subjectively interpret your message - at least to a greater extent - if it is articulated in a carefully thought out manner that explains specifically what you are trying to say. That wasn't a confrontational, acid response. It is called sarcasm, which is meant to add humor to the discussion. Live a little, laugh a little, and don't take yourself so seriously. We are discussing a seventy-three year old propaganda flick, made by a opportunistic racist, who is now pushing up daisies. It's old news. For what its worth, Robert, I hope that you stay in the game. You are a pleasant guy, and you bring up interesting topics, even if you don't understand them. JUST KIDDING! Cheers, Ken

You preface quite a few of your posts to people's responses with comments such as: and: Could it possibly be that you aren't articulating your points very effectively? Just a thought. So if I didn't completely misunderstand what you wrote this time, what you are saying is that Riefenstahl's visual promotion of racial cleansing was not criminally irresponsible because she had adopted Hitler's "moral conscience"? Interesting logic. Did you arrive at this reality during an acid trip? Here is the American Heritage definition of documentary: doc·u·men·ta·ry (dky-mnt-r) KEY ADJECTIVE: Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. NOUN: pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. Did you notice which fundamental component of that definition is missing from Riefenstahl's film? Did it also ever occur to you that many of the events portrayed in this movie might have been choreographed to coincide with its filming? Try this on for size: The portrayal of the message is developed in the filmmaking and editing process. The completed message is presented in the final cut. That message is then presented to the audience, after which time those audience members are free to interpret it in any number of ways, depending on things like personal ideology, morality, conscience, agenda, etc. Considering the fact that Hitler's regime was ultimately deemed criminally culpable for crimes against humanity, Riefenstahl's knowing participation, IMO, was no less criminally punishable - especially considering her film's initial influence on the development of the Third Reich?

For clarity, I am editing my sentence from my previous post: "She speciously argued that her film was a collection of images, yet she conveniently failed to address the composition into which those "innocuous" images were edited." I meant to say: She speciously argued that her film was a collection of art images by conveniently failing to address the composition into which those "innocuous" images were edited.

No offense, RL, but this statement is not only eminently naive; it is implausible unless Riefenstahl were a complete imbecile. The skill with which this film was crafted, in conjunction with the fact that Riefenstahl insisted on complete creative control over its creation, precludes that notion. Riefenstahl, in order to convince her detractors that she was not a Nazi propagandist, repeatedly argued that her film focused on images over ideas and was, consequently, a total work of art. She speciously argued that her film was a collection of images, yet she conveniently failed to address the composition into which those "innocuous" images were edited. She later uses this argument: "If you see this film again today you ascertain that it doesn't contain a single reconstructed scene. Everything in it is true. And it contains no tendentious commentary at all. It is history. A pure historical film? it is film-vérité. It reflects the truth that was then in 1934, history. It is therefore a documentary. Not a propaganda film. Oh! I know very well what propaganda is. That consists of recreating events in order to illustrate a thesis, or, in the face of certain events, to let one thing go in order to accentuate another. I found myself, me, at the heart of an event which was the reality of a certain time and a certain place. My film is composed of what stemmed from that." Are we also to believe that she was unaware of anti-semetic comments in her film like: "A people that does not protect its racial purity will perish." Leni Riefenstahl ? Triumph des Willens exemplifies "the propaganda film". By the duck analogy, there is no doubt that Riefenstahl had an understanding of her subject matter. Based on her arguments and all of the documented material, one could more than convincingly make the case for her having been a Nazi propagandist. For anyone to refer to this film as art is, IMO, irresponsible and despicable.

pm from Cesar: "Your just a coward SB...I wish I can meet you one day in person to see if you are so opinionated... Since you know that I am a man , and I won't comment anymore in that thread...now you have plenty to say....F Coward." Cesar Rubio is a member of the Basic Members group and has 59 posts. Sent on: Today, 02:50 PM Cesar, You are a certifiable nutbag. Can the threats before they cause you more trouble than you can handle. I am posting your pm so that the mods will see the full extent of your behavior. You are so far out of line that you should be banned from the site. You are an ignorant thug, and you have not contributed one syllable of useful information to these forums. Go the f--k away.

Cesar, I was referring to you. You have proven, without a shadow of doubt, that arrogance and ignorance are a lethal combination. You are intellectually vacuous, and a social castaway.

I think he might dig all the way through.

You obviously do care, because you brought it up, so I'll clarify for you what you failed to carefully read. I said "people like Phil", and derisive was exactly the word you used. Surprise. I am not surprised that you jumped on that portion of the post, instead of addressing the generally unprofessional behavior of the Red crowd, but then, you know the old saying: "Birds of a feather flock together." ;)