Luke Haywood

So where does that leave all the prople who invested in a RED One? 5-6,000 people can't be wrong? But this is what always happens. Every generation of cameras is gnat's whisker short of being indistinguishable from reality Then the next one is always Vastly better. Great if your the rentee, Sh*thouse if your'e the rentor. Oh well, 'twas ever thus.

The fact that the poster was shot down so nicely by someone who actually WORKS on the show is the real killer :lol:

Oh drat. I realize now that that was a quote of the same post once in part, and once in full. I also spelled your name wrong! So was it you who deleted the original post then? One thing I like about cinematography.com, what is said on this forum, STAYS on this forum. But beware, nothing is ever permanently erased on the Internet!

It's no wonder the people on this forum were such "RED-haters". Look at the mean and loveless environment they grew up in. Jay A Kelly hates cinematography.com Pixelated hates cinematography.com Acehole hates cinematography.com Zakforrest hates cinematography.com MojoTrancer hates cinematography.com Kalone hates cinematography.com John Allardyce hates R.Boddington John Allardyce hates R.Boddington 2 I hope this has been a growth experience for all of us, and not a malignant one ;)

IMDB just says "2009". Of course, they have to find a distributor first. I think David said something to the effect that when he finds out, so will everybody else probably. It does sound like a pretty good film, leaving aside all considerations of how it was shot. But what a masterpiece of ironic allegory. The saga of two early '60s American businessmen, approaching late middle age and facing the bleak realization that their only (and rapidly-devaluing) business skills are based entirely around three decades of marketing ... well ... bullshit! And it's shot with the RED camera. It's all there I tell you :lol:

Well, as I just got through saying in another post, most of the storytelling skills like framing and composition are pretty universal no matter what sort of camera or medium you're shooting on. However, you can really only learn lighting with real film, but you don't need a particularly fancy camera or lenses for that. At first thought you might think that if you can light successfully for video, then it would be even better for film because of its more forgiving exposure latitude, but you usually wind up with dull and lifeless-looking images. There's no particularly easy or cheap way to learn skills like focus pulling.

So, dare we ask, what sort of film is it? Don't get me wrong; I have nothing but respect for people who actually manage to stop dreaming and actually get out there and shoot something, even if it's only on a Handycam and edited on their home computer. Even with the most basic equipment, you can still acquire a lot of valuable skills like framing, editing and script discipline, for no cost, something that simply wasn't available to earlier generations. But nooooo, your average dreamer couldn't possibly do anything like that. It's got to be all or nothing, and it's usually the latter. Well anyway, congratulations on your entry into the rarified ranks of people-who-have-actually-done-something :lol: So what did you do? Will we get to see it?

Sorry, that's Ruairi Robinson. I missed the 15 millisecond edit window:-)

I was actually doing a Google search for Information on Richard's recent indy film when I came upon that very post! R Boddington's 27 minutes of fame According to the post itself, the content was deleted by Jarred Land 27 minutes after Richard signed in, but of course may have been banned much sooner! We're coming up to the second anniversary of this momentous event. So remember Halloween also celebrates the Martyrdom of Saint Boddington.:-) That whole DVXUser thread is quite surreal with the level of sycophantic excess shown. It's hilarous in places if you have the time and stomach for it. A lot of 'blasphemers' have had their posts removed entirely my the moderators, which is really amatuerish, since the software apparently then re-numbers everything making the conversation impossible to follow. Oddly, while the original posts have gone, they remain fossilized in the responses of other posters. This thread is worth another read too if you have time on your hands. I have to thank Rauiri Robinson for the phrase: "Welcome to Club Irony Bypass". I crack up every time I think of that one. You know, I think that's one of the main differences between this forum and some others I could mention: people make jokes here that are actually funny :D Oh. And I'm still waiting to see some RED footage on the big screen.

I suppose most of you will have seen this by now: http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywo...09/ff_redcamera Bit of a Nerds-eye-view of the RED one, although the writer clearly knows little about the film industry. But at least we get a few new tidbits of information amongst the usual boiler-plate funhouse-mirror regurgitation of propoganda. "Analog Film"? Is there any other kind? And what's this? "Standing nearby is the man who developed it?a handsome guy with a neatly trimmed goatee and a pair of sunglasses perched atop his clean-shaven head. He clutches a can of Diet Coke in his left hand, an unlit Montecristo jutting from between his fingers." At least one of the cinematographers interviewed complains that he was quoted wildly out of context, but I guess we're used to that :P

Yes, this is the sort of figure that tends to get quoted on Reduser. But not everybody wants to invest in such a "beastly" computer, and if a machine like yours is taking that long to render footage, I shudder to think how long it would take on a more modest machine. Probably something they would rather not talk about. That's not to say it would be unworkable, as long as it's faster than an overnight process/HD scan of a day's footage at a processing lab. :lol:

I started a discussion about this some time back, which you can check out here in a thread about sound and the RED It was all a bit tongue-in-cheek, but some good discussion emerged!

(I know this probably belongs in the RED folder, but it does have a bearing on thevoriginal poster's question.) Is it possible for anybody to give me the straight dope on this: Say I had a 8GB Compact Flash card holding the regulation 6 Minutes of "4K" video (whatever that means) plus sound, how long would it take me to convert that to a standard 1920 x 1080 MPEG file ready for feeding into an existing HD worklfow. That is, not using any software other than RedCine, and not using a RED, just a PC. And I'm talking about using it on an ordinary high-end consumer type PC, 3GHz dual-core or thereabouts, allowing for reasonably cheap upgrades such as more RAM and a bigger Hard Disk. I'm not interested in using Macs or $10,000 supercharged setups. What are we talking about? Hours? Days? Luke 'Just the facts, Ma'am' Haywood

I never got round to seeing "Jumper" on the big screen, which is just as well. I finally saw it on DVD yesterday, and there's another 90 minutes of my life I'll never get back. What a stupid f*cking movie! OK it had some nice helicopter shots of various scenic wonders around the world, but that was all it had going for it. Basically it starts with this kid who falls through the ice on a frozen-over creek and gets carried off by the current. Just before he drowns he suddenly finds himself in the middle of the Ann Arbor Public Library, soaking wet, and having brought half the creek with him. He decided to leave town for no adequately explained reason, and discovers he can teleport himself more less at will to just about anywhere, including the inside of locked bank vaults and so on. But it turns out there are lots more people like him, constantly being hunted by some ultra-secret wacko religious cult known as the Paladins, and the battle has been going on for thousands of years. The Paladins now have an array of high-tech gizmos something like Tazers that can temporarily suspend a jumper's powers long enough to kill them, (So what did they use before?). The jumpers don't just teleport themselves, they can bring cars, buses, half an apartment building etc and throw them at the Paladins. But nearly of the clashes would have ended far more quickly and in the jumpers' favour if they had simply bothered to take a GUN with them. Or even a f*cking knife for christ's sake, but no, apparently that never occurs to any of them! (OK if the writers could come with some plausible explanation why that wasn't possible, well OK, but they don't). Our hero eventually gets the better of the head honcho Paladin, although there is no explanation as to what he could do that none of the others could. And despite the man's murdering his father and a large number of other innocent people, does our hero do the sensible thing and drop him into an active volcano or the middle of the Pacific Ocean? No, he leaves him on top of a big rock in the middle of the desert, presumably so he can starve to death, but also setting him up for a sequel, which tragically, is already in pre-production. And as for the bit at the end with his mother, I felt like throwing the remote at the TV. What really pisses me off most about this dreck, is that with better writers they could have made a really good movie for the same money, because the cinematography (when they weren't into NYPD Blue-cam mode) and special effects were excellent. Just as well not much Red footage was used on this film, it would have been a major embarrassment to them:-) I haven't seen such a load of steaming poop since "Signs".

Exactly 44 minutes elapsed between the time JJ announced that Build 16 Ver 3.1.8 was available for download, and the first (of many) aggrieved RED owner posted to claim it was worse than 3.1.5! That must surely qualify for some sort of record:-) Although I begin to wonder if these are actually hardware problems that are getting blamed on the software.