Tom York

Apparently on Reduser.net Jim Jannard posted a cryptic rant against Sony and how they would be going against them because they were fed up with what Sony did to them. The thread then shortly disappeared along with at least another one who asked what happened to that one. Now any mention of this Sony vs. Red is promptly 'disappeared' over there. I was curious to know if anyone knows what happened. From what I hear Sony has forbidden ALL Sony funded Features and TV programing from using the Red (and the ban applies only to the Red). Is this true? What is going on?

Now that the cameras are out, why can't someone else do this and let Jim and company keep working. I mean, isn't it part of a DP's job to test cameras and stuff? Why can't someone like Phil take the camera for a spin and test the hell out of it to his heart's content. If he is a DP or equivalent film professional then he will most likely have a preexisting relationship with a rental house that will be getting the Red. He then could publish his results here for all of us to scrutinize. I just don't see why the Red company should fall all over them selves to appease a few people. As far as I know Panasonic or Sony don't publish test charts. They just keep cranking out newer and better models each year. And that is what Red should be focused on now that they are close to finishing with the Red one.

This is getting good... er, I mean bad. :) I think everyone has the right to post whatever they want. However, I must say that I was actually also learning a lot from the firts few posts. Is there any way to get back to that discussion? The posts from Keith Walters and Graeme Nattress are very informative. I now have just one question: How do you get from 1K red, 1K blue, 2K green to "4,000 horizontal pixels (with all three colors independently present and accounted for) that can differ significantly from each other". I realize that there are several tricks like 'macro-pixel-shifting' and that a low-pass filter, while imperceptally blurring or taking away from the image, takes care of the gap-problem between the photo sensors on the chip. But my question is if it is still possible to get a full 4,000 pixels that are original and a true representation of what is being digitally photographed with the Red Misterium. I do want to say, however, that if it isn't possible... this in no way diminishes the quality of the images that I have seen from the Red and that I am planning on being a heavy user. I judge the image by what I and audiences will ultimatelly see in the final product, even if 'technically speaking' the math indicates another thing. Many thanks in advance to those who share their knowledge with the rest of us.

So... Can anyone authoritatively say if the Red camera is able to deliver 4,000 horizontal pixels that can differ significantly from each other? Keith, by the way, that was a very excellent post. The health meter of this forum has just gone up a bit. :)

:lol: Don't worry. I'm pretty sure that some of my 'Citizen-Cane-calliber' productions will end up as bonafide schlock. Then I can send you a copy and have at least one fan.

What about the 8-64?

It looks like this topic's sister thread (or is it brother?) over at reduser got locked down. I guess they don't want people discussing this anymore.

I guess there was an incident after all. It has been confirmed by the man himself: "We had over 25 Sony employees visit our booth with no difficulty. We let them in, even though the show rules don't require you let competitors in... then it got ugly. When it got disrespectful, we turned the last ones away." Jim http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1862 (Post #7) EDIT: Oops, didn't see Stephen's post above.

Oh yea, that's right. I forgot about that. That definitely shook things up.

Can anyone think of a recent example of this with another product? The earliest example that I can think of of an invention causing 'major alterations to the power structure' was with the original "Cotton 'Gin" a few centuries ago. But has anything like this ever happened in the camera world before?

I have a feeling that by the time the dust settles this site will have a very thorough rundown of its abilities and limitations.

Yes, I was looking at it right now and the focus ring keeps going well beyond the last marking of 0.6m.

I liked the trailer on your site. Now I'll have to read those first 10 pages that you posted. By the way, I was very interested by your film equipment list. What kind of dolly and crane do you have? But anyway, getting back to the stills... It seems that some people over at reduser didn't like them so now they are trying to color correct them to make them look more like 'film'. Interesting.

:lol: I can feel my subversiveness boil to a sugar rush high.

Oh, you are right. I went in the wrong direction. :rolleyes: It's good to know that both lenses are good. I am now even happier with our purchase. Thanks Stephen for your insight.

Thanks for the reply. We will definitely test it. A DoP told me that this particular lens was discontinued and replaced by Canon with a 9mm-65mm zoom, but that the original design was better (the 8-64mm one). I'm still wondering why.

My bad. I think I somehow misread your post then. I appologize. You are right that there is a lot to take in right now with this whole Red business. Especially for someone like me who is not a cinematographer but who wants to understand all this better to make better decisions when it comes time to working with new formats. I think that the more a producer understands about the crafts of the people he works with, the better the chances of the production actually not sucking in the end. Many times it is the producer who ruins things by forcing an ill-informed decision on everyone. Hopefully the P. Jackson short will be just that, since it has a lot of aerial photography (at least I think so).

Here is a nice shot of what the inside looks like of Red's EVF. http://www.imagehosting.com/show.php/503047_666.jpg.html Enjoy while you can, since at reduser a similar thread got 'rubbed out' because someone didn't like the fact that fans were taking pictures of the camera's "most sacred of holes". :lol:

I also think that the Sony people at the Red screening where just grunt employees genuenly interested in the Peter Jackon short and Red's accomplishments in general (I know I would be). Just because you work for Sony doesn't make you evil. From what I've seen the Red camp can be too touchy-feely and with no sense of humor when it comes to anything that might disparage their baby. Over at the Reduser forum I have seen several posts dissapear just because they contained something slightly negative. They even took down a thread that contained a link to a picture of their EVF that was not approved even though the camera has already been shown in the open. First the link itself had been removed, but then people started to question their touchy-feelyness so they just took the whole thread down. Kind of reminds me of the Chinese government.

Do you think the images are better than all the other D cameras? The reason I ask is because I also didn't like the look of Superman returns (as I mentioned in a previous post). I am not an expert in comparing still images and knowing which camera is superior. But I would love to find out if this camera can produce organic looking images that don't scream out digital (or is this imposible with digital cameras?). From the stills so far I can't tell. I think the 'digitalness' comes through more in the movement from frame to frame.

I think I read somewhere that Mr. Jannard did take along the Red lenses but that Peter Jackson used the Cooke's instead because that's what they were confortable with.

We resently aquired a s16 camera package that came with a Canon Super 16mm zoom 8mm-64mm T2.4. Is this lense good enough for a feature?

Didn't someone already steal a Red prototype a while back from their HQ? I wonder if it was a competitor.

Actually almost everyone makes it a priority to get along, except a couple of people here it seems (that's what promted my first post because Mr. Boddington seems so hellbent on not getting along). But what's strange now is that you suddenly switched sides in your argument. First you were saying it didn't matter if people got along because they've got 'talent'. Now you are all pro on getting along. So which is it? Huh? Did I miss something? What does this have to do with... never mind. I sense that the tone of sarcasm in this part of your post might be linked (in my opinion) to your sense of having lost an argument. But don't feel bad; we're just having a difference of opinion.

P.S.2 It always amazes me how people always think this industry is foremost about talent or quality. If this were the case we'd see nothing but excellent, intellectually stimulating films (the scripts are certainly out there). But we don't. The industry churns out a high degree of shlock because that's what most people want to see. Stuff that you don't have to invest yourself too much in. Yes. But to be fair, they were not american crew. Not every country has the same work ethic.