DJ Joofa

RedLake is also there: (http://www.redlake.com/)

With the possible exception of Timothy Dalton as is considered by many to be the closest of all on-screen Bonds to the character in the novels. His movie "The living daylights" is one of my favorites among Bond movies, and I severely dislike Pierce Brosnan's Bond movies.

I did try a few and it seems like, as I said before, valid in hex (0-F) -> ASCII conversion ('0'-'9' and 'A'-'F' ranges). Is there more to it? It is a clever construct. I recall using things like that a long time ago when I was active in assembly language programming. Joofa

Seems like those BCD/ASCII conversions. Right?

I loved the Amiga computer. There was this great image editing program called "Deluxe Paint", which seemed quite advanced compared to what was being offered on PCs/Dos at that time. I was so glad when finally Deluxe Paint was ported to PCs and used it extensively for my work.

I used Microsoft MASM and Borland TASM, and Debug a lot. Turbo Debugger was really revolutionary. Perhaps the first to show extended registers in 386 and 486 when these models appeared, which I think Debug would not show, and it would also let you set hardware breakpoints. IIRC, a powerful feature of the Turbo Debugger was that you could set a breakpoint in somebody's else code that I used for hacking a lot. Those were good days without any memory protection boundaries between programs so one could do that. And, when the control would return to somebody's code Turbo Debugger would sense that and breakpoint there and then I could do my hacking/debugging onwards. Very useful.

John, You reignited some fond memories of working with PCs and assembly language. Those were good days. I really liked those books by Peter "man in the pink shirt" Norton, which eventually led to Norton Utilities. Its amazing how much more 640 KB of memory seemed to appear at that time. I really miss the Turbo Debugger by Borland -- the first of its kind I had seen that will even run a program backwards! That was like seeing those "time reversal" movies, where everything flies back to its place; seeing those memory variables getting back to their original state as the program moved backward was amazing. Did you ever try Turbo Debugger? And, then that original IBM PC manual that had the full source code of the ROM BIOS. Going through that code was very instructive. They stopped listing the source code for ROM BIOS afterwards.

Red is a great camera, but unfortunately, the above claim in not true. Among some other possible camera company candidates that I have to check, we have offered a modular design where we can upgrade a sensor in less than 10 minutes, for a long time, much before Red camera was even conceived in practical terms. Please have a look at the following image that displays one of our camera that offers this design: http://www.djjoofa.com/data/images/camera.jpg BTW, the above image is of a desk in my office, and you can see the size of this camera by comparing it with the mouse next by, yet still, it offers 30% higher resolution than the Red One camera.

Hi Keith, interesting numbers and experience you have, which gave me some historical perspective. I don't know how to do a proper comparison of Red with the cameras of the early 1990s. With the current league of cameras, Red is certainly financially attractive compared to quite more expensive digital film cameras. I have based my comments on Red's specs. On the other hand I also do realize that practically what I have seen of Red footage in a few films such as "Knowing" and "The Book of Eli", was not as impressive as their specs say. I think Red has some reservations on how to do a proper "digital projection", perhaps at "real" 4K. I am hoping that if I am able to go to Red Day in Vegas this April, about which I'm not fully sure right now, I might be able to see some "real" projection, if they present it.

Having been involved in making advanced digital cameras everyday for the last several years if I have to use one word with Red camera I would say it is a great camera. I don't think Red's marketing was excessively hyperbole. I have seen more confusion among the cinematographers regarding the use of digital terminology associated with Red, but in the technical quarters what Red has advertised has always made sense. However, I do think that people at Red don't fully understand the effect of incorrect language in their marketing, which they use often, on the widespread usage of certain terms. Terminology such as "linear light", and "new color science" are all technically incorrect usages, but it is becoming widespread among cinematography community due to lack of rigor by Red. It would appear that Red is more of an "integrations company" and not a massive R&D company, so it should be possible for others, perhaps smaller companies and not necessarily big companies such as IBM, etc., to take on Red and bring competing products. It is certainly doable.

If by "digital" you have Red One in mind, then, Red is not a good model to take a sampling of the advancement of digital imaging, which is a happening in fields other than digital cinematography. Red could have been a disruptive technology, however, it chose to narrowly define its boundaries, working with a philosophy of a "better mouse trap" than film can provide. Monetarily Red is a good bargain. However, technologically, IMHO, it is more of an "integration company" than a massive R&D company to throw its weight behind the state of the art advancement in digital imaging.

ISO definition is confusing for a digital camera and sometime a distinction is based upon ISO of a camera set and ISO relating to an image sensor. For camera ISO definition is recommended to be the one given by (4) below and for sensor it is advised to use the one given by (2) below. The basic definition of ISO in digital imaging is: (1) ISO = 10 / H, where H some suitable chosen "adequate" exposure. For ISO 100 that would mean H = 0.1 lux-sec. However, it is not always clear how to properly interpret the "adequate" exposure H and there are different ways to interpret it. (2) Definition of ISO based upon saturation is based upon that exposure when image highlights are just below max possible saturation signal. H now is defined as 1/7.8 of the exposure at the saturation point. (7.8 = ratio of 141% reflectance to 18% gray.) Therefore now, ISO = 78/ Hs (3) Definition of ISO based upon noise is when the exposure generates a "reasonably clear" picture at around 40 SNR. (4) Definition of ISO when the exposure generates a picture of medium output level corresponding to 0.46 times the max output. 0.46 = (18%)^1/(2.2 sRGB gamma).

I personally think calling Red One a digital film or video camera is fine as we are already inundated with technical jargon. For e.g., is it pixels or sensels on a Bayer CFA? The context makes it clear in most circumstances that Red is not a film camera and how it differentiates with "regular" video cameras that output to standard formats. Introducing new terms such as "data cameras" are perhaps only going to add to the list of technical terminology. If tomorrow we have a camera that outputs more color channels than 3 or 4 then shall we have more terminology to define that camera: tri-color camera, penta-color camera, octa-color camera?

I was going to say "Welcome to the club", which includes distinguished alumni like myself that got banned from RedUser, but I noticed in further reading of this thread that you were restored. I guess you are high profile. ;)

Any list that does not mention "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" is invalid :lol:. Further, Tom, imho, Terrence Malick has been a great letdown in "The New World".