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:

Where exactly have you heard that? And how exactly did tube amplifiers get into the discussion? AND, what exactly does "warmer" mean? In general, valve amplifiers tend to have higher distortion at moderate levels, but they go into clipping more gracefully than a transistor amp which subjectively sounds better to most people. However this is really only applicable to music from uncontrolled sources like phono pickups or guitar amplifiers. CD sources have much greater control over the output levels and so unexpected clipping rarely occurs. It's a great way to sell ludicrously overpriced audio equipment though. To the dedicated audiophile the system that sounds different is always the one that sounds "better". Even if its a piece of old rubbish. Of course I can hear the difference between CD and vinyl! The average record cutting lathe introduces 1-2 % harmonic distortion and analog tape recording process adds at least another 1%. I don't believe any human can demonstrate that they can detect distortion levels below .05%, but 3% I can hear quite easily. " I wonder how so many people end up having the same delusions at the same time?" I take issue with the word "same". If they all came up with the same delusion it would be worthy of more scientific research. But it's like religion, if isolated groups of primitive people all in dependently came up with the same or similar supernatural beliefs, sceptics would be less sceptical. The fact that every little group seems to come up with its own version of the God myth strongly suggests it's just wishful thinking that originates from inside the human brain, not anywhere else. Like some people of a religious bent, Audiophiles are incredible in the absolute BS that they will swallow. It seems that as long as you are doing something different, it's sure to sound better. In any case, valve amplification enthusiasts only make up a microscopic proportion of the general music listening population.

Collateral was a mixture of Viper and 35mm film (about 80:20). The odd thing was, they mostly used film for the night shots, where a video camera should have a clear advantage. Frankly I didn't like the movie OR the cinematography, and the same for Miami Vice.

As for a "heck of a lot of people" preferring vinyl, would you care to define "heck of a lot". As far as the market for new vinyl goes, on a global scale it's microscopic. In order of importance, Vinyl usage (new and old) roughly breaks down as follows: 1. Middle-aged casual music listeners who have suddenly realized that a lot of their old favourite albums are either never going to be released on CD, or the cost of replacing them is going to be way out of proportion to the amount of listening they are likely to receive. In the mid-1980s, when CDs first began to proliferate, the notion of home users being able to convert their existing LP collections to CD for next to nothing, simply did not exist. At the time, CD recorders cost in the region of £20,000 to £40,000, and the blank discs cost more than a pre-recorded album! The only practical application for them then was for recording studios to make demo CDs. But all that has changed drastically. Good blank CDs and combined CD/Dual-layer DVD burners are dirt cheap now. Turntables are indeed selling quite well at the moment, but most of them are specifically designed for transferring vinyl to CD, a good percentage being fitted with USB output and bundled copying software. It's a distortion of the true situation to interpret rising sales of turntables as being due to people "preferring" the sound of vinyl over CD. All most of them really want is to be able to hear their old favourite tracks again but with the convenience and reliability of CD or MP3, and without spending a fortune. 2. Nightclub DJs who prefer the "organic" feel of being able physically manipulate a vinyl disc. What they normally want to achieve is an unbroken rhythm as one dance track fades into the next. You can change the turntable speed to match up the beat rate of two songs easily enough, but getting the beats smoothly into sync is much harder. That?s why they do that stereotype MC thing, ?rocking? the second disc back and forth with their outstretched fingers while listening to a mix of that disc and the one currently being played to the audience. Once the sync sounds ?right? to them, they just let go of the disc and fade the main PA across to it. There have been numerous attempts to automate this process using CDs or other digital media, but it?s a bit like pulling focus, nothing seems to work as well a human operator doing what feels (or in this case sounds) right. Smoothly matching up two different drum patterns is more art than science and it?s all part of the show anyway. It's abit like film origination really, rightly or wrongly people who are seen using vinyl are perceived to be likely to put on a better show than those who don't. 3. Audiophiles who have convinced themselves that ?Vinyl? sounds better and use their self-styled status as disciples to this notion, as a substitute for a life. Like many audio fads there once was a grain of truth to this notion, but technological improvements have long since eliminated it. The reality is that when CDs first came out, everything was ?DDD? ? Digital recording, Digital Post Production, Digital playback. Since there were very few recording studios equipped to record and post-produce digitally and not many CD players around, most early releases tended to be recordings of things like Symphony orchestras or Jazz ensembles that could be recorded and released to CD more or less ?as is?. Then shock, horror, CD manufacturers started issuing ?AAD? discs, which were simply recorded and engineered on conventional multi-track analog equipment and only converted to digital at the very end of the chain. I?m not sure what the figures are now, but for many years that was the standard method of doing it, for virtually all types of music, and far more CDs have been sold (and continue to be sold) that were recorded that way. The trouble started when record companies began re-issuing their old vinyl back catalogue on CD. In a lot of cases, instead of re-mixing the original multi-track tapes for CD release, they simply used the same stereo mixdown track that was meant to operate the LP master cutting lathe. These tracks are normally pre-equalized so that by the time the music comes out ?the other end? (that is, on the consumer?s record player) the equalization cancels out the distortions introduced by the recording process. However if you play a mastering tape directly through a stereo system it can sound downright awful, and that was basically what they were doing when it was dubbed to CD. In many cases, particularly with early 4-track masters, the stereo master was the only one left in existence. This the real reason early vinyl releases have to be ?Digitally Remastered?

I don't think much of that window, as in my experience anyway, that's when the lower-budget and movie of the week stuff tends to get shot, which may skew the percentage towards digital. In any case, what are we talking about here? When it was shot, or when it was released? If you're talking about just shooting, how do you know when, it ever, a project will get released? There is already any amount of poop out there shot on video that is never going to be seen by anybody other than its producers, crew and immediate (and probably long suffering) families. My point is, at the time you're talking about I think people are still going to be in the "Honeymoon" phase with digital, and so just because they use it for one feature does not mean they are going to use it for everything. I mean, WB went Gaa-gaa over the Genesis for Superman Returns, but I notice The Dark Knight was shot entirely on film! Why not just compile a list of all the mainstream (not arthouse) multiplexes in a selection of capital cities, make a list of every film they have screened over the course of say, one year, and see what percentage of those was shot of film? Generally, anything deemed worthy of attracting sufficient custom from the great unwashed is going to have a budget in excess of $30 million. We are, I presume, talking about movies that actually MATTER. To the General public, not the Online Pubic :P

I do apologize. I'm forever confusing British Columbia with Colombia in South America. :lol: I hear it's never been the same since they sold the place to Sony. Actually, I was confusing Nevada with Arizona. Red Headquarters will probably become known as "Area 52".

Well, they're moving further away from you. That should make you feel safer :D The whole thing is probably a bit of a gamble, so they're moving to the right state. :P

Huh? I made no comment about Jannard's plans, or his cameras or anything related to them. The only thing I was making fun of was that ridiculous fanboy post about "haters having a heart attack". I occasionally dredge bits of useful information out of all the pathetic tripe that gets posted on Reduser, but man, it's hard work sometimes. The signal-to-noise ratio over here is much higher, but the stations don't broadcast as much:-)

New Red Ranch Why nitroglycerine tablets? Well, Post #87 from "Tom": Lol, the haters at cinematography.com are going to have heart-attacks when they hear this news... Are they going to call the "Epic Burger" at your restaurant "vaporware"? No, we aren't planning on blowing up anything. In small (nonexplosive) doses, nitroglycerine actually prevents heart attacks, and relieves angina. It's another of those medical treatments where you wonder how the hell they worked that out:-) So exactly who are the "haters" here, and what exactly is it that you hate? If Jannard and Co want to re-locate to Nevada, why would anybody here care? Is it possible for them to set up such a facility? Of course it is. Will it be a success? Who knows? Define "success". Why are we going to have heart attacks? Hands up everyone who owns a video production studio in the middle of a desert and feels threatened.

Same place I've always been. When there's something worth commenting on here, I'll comment on it. Hasn't happened all that much recently :P So how are you enjoying France? (As in "how is it possible"?) According to Marianne Faithful, Lucy Jordan jumped off a rooftop when she realized she was never going to ride through Paris in a sportscar with the warm wind in her hair. Sad-arsed bitch. No wonder Mick Jagger dumped her. What's the big deal? I've driven through Paris in a somewhat lackluster Renault rental car, and OK it wasn't a sports car, but I can't really see how the experience would be worth jumping out of a window over. If I really wanted to I suppose could drive through Paris in a sportscar, with the warm wind in my car, but somehow it's not on the top 37 things to do before I die. (Bit of a silly statement that, I mean you can't really do a lot after you die). But also keep in mind, it's a dubious pleasure that will be forever denied to Jim Jannard, and fellow billionaire Ron Perelman :lol:

A lot of Audio processing Algorihms are written in an esoteric programming language called TEENSPEEK. TEENSPEEK is a derivative of the late 1970s language VALGOL, specifically developed for ingenuine fork management (IFM). VALGOL was praised (by its developers) for its highly flexible repertoire of conditional branch statements. To the usual conditional variants of IF, THEN, ELSE, ELSEIF VALGOL added the IF, LIKE, YOUKNOW and WHATEVERRRRRR statements TEENSPEEK among other refinements introduced the modifiers YEAH, YEAHRIGHT and ASIF in the late 1990s and is optimized for two-thumb keypad entry in place of two-finger. TEENPEEK is noted for its easily accessible positive and negative exception handling heirachy eg: EXCEPTIONLEVEL 1 ON ERROR GO "OHMYGOD" EXCEPTIONLEVEL 2 ON ERROR GO "OHMYGODOHMYGOD" EXCEPTIONLEVEL 3 ON ERROR GO "OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGOD" etc