Carl Brighton

Ah yes, I do remember seeing that, now that you mention it. But that appears to be the extent of the conversation., which didn't go too far So nobody knows of anybody whose actually bought or used one of these things?

I haven't visited here for a while. This thread2009 Prime Lenses was a pretty hot topic until it was closed. Then the whole thing seemed to fizzle out. What was the actual outcome? Are they anywhere near as good (or as cheap) as the hype made out? Has anybody bought any or used any? And how do they compare to the RED lenses, anybody bought any or used any of those? (The fact that Jan was allowed to run a thread on Reduser for so long for a directly competing product, probably answers that question, but still:-)

After spending the best part of an hour wading through the usual torrent of verbal rod-whalloping that unfortunately typifies that forum, I have to confess I'm really none the wiser as to what is actually being offered, at least, as an advance on their earlier announcement. I gave up when I realized th ethread was growing faster than I could read it. People keep talking about things that I can't see Jannard has offered, and his insistence on unnecessarily posting A2-sized pictures doesn't help. The other question I hesitantly ask is: How much of this is real hardware, and how much is still vaporware? I realize the blind hatred of all things RED expressed by most members of this forum ( :lol: ) is probably the reason for the apparent total lack of interest shown, but if one of the small number of REDUSER regulars blessed with an IQ slightly greater than their shoe size wants to come over here and explain things, I'm sure many people here would be greatful. (People who can't spell need not apply:-) Thank you.

Or for someone like me who wouldn't use a Mac for a boat anchor, is there any form of non-Mac based solution? We seem to have migrated an awfully long way for the original RED concept of "democratising" film making. Why do I get the feeling that all this has been set up so Graeme Nattress & Co can have their Own Private Idaho?

I know it's getting a tad tedious on Reduser of late, (and by the way, just because people don't post there doesn't mean they don't visit), but anybody want to speculate on what the next big announcement is? My personal bet is that at long last they've found a way to make the RED put out some sort of industry standard video format that will fit into the existing workflow infrastructure. I'd also make a small side wager that you can have R3D or 1920 x 1080 but not both, rather like there was no going back to build 15.

I have only worked on commercials, but I've never found that to be the the case. Of course if somebody just keeps parroting a litany of "What everybody knows" that would send anybody to sleep, me included. Oh dear. You'll probably now find your Reduser account closed and all your posts deleted :P (And Jan von Krogh will be back here making racist comments again....)

I think they're for feeding the elephant in the room :lol:

The Aiptek C10 "Pocket Cinema" video projector has been eagerly awaited by Geek-dom with a fervor not unlike that surrounding certain video cameras :lol: This is a small self-contained video projector "about the size of an iPhone". (Typical Geek-Speak: how many non-geeks would know how big THAT is...) I managed to have a sneak-peek at one on the weekend. Basically, it's described as having "VGA" resolution, uses a high-power white LED for the lamp and an LCOS (liquid crystal on Silicon) for the light modulator, gives about 45 minutes operation per charge of its Lithium Ion battery, and accepts ordinary A-V inputs or SD cards. The concept is fascinating, but bang-for-buck wise I think it's a bit like the first MP3 players of around 8 years ago.... I haven't been able to find out the UK or US price is, in fact the only price I could find anywhere was a place in Australia which is quoting $A650! I'm not sure how that translates into other currencies, but it would appear to be around the price of a bottom-end laptop. And how did it perform? NOT all that well for something that expensive. First of all the colour rendition is diabolically bad. It looks like a CRT TV that someone's waved a magnet over! The picture brightness is quite low as you might expect. In a normally lit room, anything bigger than about 10" diagonal is unwatchable. In a darkened room you can get a much bigger image of course, but if you need to go to all that trouble, why not just use an ordinary projector? Also, it's not really "VGA". It appears to have a 640 x 480 monochrome LCD with the an RGB colour mask added, so it's more like 210 x 480, which becomes painfully obvious as the image gets bigger. It has built-in "stereo speakers" which sound like you'd expect them to sound. It's a great toy, but I don't think I'm going to be rushing out to buy one. Besides, the prices will probably drop savagely over the next few years. But watch this space....

With gerbils? Or feral goats?

But that's the beauty of it: At 1000 fps you won't have to imagine it. You'll be able to see everything in glistening detail. You can even hire more cameras so you can have slo-mo instant replays from several different angles like they do with the football. I tell ya, the possibilities are endless. What about, what about ... 1000fps 3D?!!!!!

All I can say is, if you can't cope with this relatively mild bit of badinage, might I respectfully suggest you consider another career path. Production 101 (Actually, just about anything 101): Being "serious" about your work does not exclude making jokes about it. Anybody can be a stuffed shirt, being a professional is a lot harder.

I suppose depth of field has to be a consideration. If you had someone like the late John Holmes in your film, small format imagers might give you an advantage in that the whole thing might tend to stay in focus. Best tools for the job and all that. Little known Holmes Fact: In the film "Boogie Nights" the main character was supposed to be based on John Holmes. However it unfairly portrayed Holmes as a simpleton. In reality, when he was in front of a camera, the blood tended to drain away from his brain to other parts of his body, giving the unfortunate impression of retardation.

Which means the warranty runs out, and the serious reverse engineering can begin. :D

Hardly surprising they're popping up here. As soon as someone on Reduser.net mentions the Red-Haters on "C.com" membership over here mysteriously increases ;) Jim Jannard has been posting overtime about Stephen's bet thing over on the Epic folder on Reduser. The usual suspects have been chiming in on cue. Do check it out if you haven't already, it's a good read! (Don't know what this has to do with JJ's latest piece of vaporware, but I almost missed it because I normally have better things to do than read Science Fiction comics :-)

The real telling factor is not the number of producers who decide to shoot digitally, it's the amount of repeat business they do. Give the amount of publicity this concept has had over the years it's hardly surprising that people want to give something new a try, but I suspect a lot them wind up wondering what all the fuss was about and go back to film. For example, after all his waffling about the Genesis on Superman Returns, I don't recall that Bryan Singer has shot anything else on video. I also tend to think that many people decide to give it a go, just in case the industry goes all digital sometime soon. That way they have at least some experience shooting digitally under their belt and on their CV. However I also know from experience that once they find out how much hard work is involved in overcoming the very real latitude deficiencies of video cameras, they tend to avoid it like the plague:-) For all you fanboys out there: If you have zero talent, NO camera is going to be a substitute for it. A RED or similar might allow you to make a film that nobody is going to watch, but that's about it. I'm not sure what the difference is between not making a film, and making a film that nobody watches. Some of you also badly need to learn the difference between the words "when" and "if". :rolleyes: