Carl Brighton Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 As opposed to the blatherings of a self-proclaimed know-it-all who comes home from working a dead-end job to parade around as an "AC"? Of what I ask AGAIN? You have NO credits to your name and I suspect that you have no credentials to show for yourself. Are you the David Gourley responsible for "Shaken"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Gourley Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 (edited) Are you the David Gourley responsible for "Shaken"? No. That would be a terrible DV movie from New Zealand. Checking up on me? I have worked in Industrial and Commercial Video for the past 10 years for clients like Compass Bank, Merc, Ritz Carlton and the like. I have shot and produce several microbudget shorts and just finished production on my first feature with an HVX200 and Redrock setup. Does that help? BTW, when I search for a Carl Brighton I get NOTHING of signifigance. Does that sum you up? Edited September 1, 2007 by Daniel Gourley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel A Guedes Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 (edited) Well, it's 9:30am in LALA. Who's got a picture? I really want to see the box they come in. You've asked it, you have it! Here is: Photos courtesy by Tonaci Cinema Edited September 1, 2007 by Emanuel A Guedes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel A Guedes Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 (edited) It is so funny to watch people who have no lives try to feel better about their existance by bashing others. At what point do you stop and realize the fact that what YOU said couldn't be done HAS been done and at a price point YOU said would never happen has happened. Carl...wow I thought you had left this forum and moved on to better things???? Carl, since you feel you are God, what AMAZING works have you done that I can see. Give me a website, or a CV or a title to rent that justifies your brilliance. Can you? Granted you quoting my post, I thought for one second you'd be talking about me! :rolleyes: LOL ;) Edited September 1, 2007 by Emanuel A Guedes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G A Kokes Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 It all of a sudden got very quiet here. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary McClurg Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 It all of a sudden got very quiet here. G Or some of us like to get a little shut eye every now and then... but really do you think your first or is this your second post here... really has added anything to the debate... Has it answered any work flow problems... any issues of what monitor I use to shoot 4k, 2k or 1080p... what happens if my camera breaks down... what happens if I rent your camera and it breaks down... how are you being the rental company going to take care of the problem... Has it answered any real questions... this is the problem... people come here to really pick a fight... I find it funny... if the camera would not have delieverd yesteray and I posted the above... I've would have been banned in 10 secs... on other sites.. Lets be real here... if you ask tough questions on redusers, dvxusers, or dviinfo... those threads get shut down pretty quick... here they get shut down because someone comes here looking to pick a fight... I want to see real answers to real questions... that's all I've ever wanted... and because I ask real tough questions does not make me a naysayer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted September 1, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 1, 2007 Ooh, look, it's three-quarters of an HD video camera! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Brighton Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Or some of us like to get a little shut eye every now and then... but really do you think your first or is this your second post here... really has added anything to the debate... Has it answered any work flow problems... any issues of what monitor I use to shoot 4k, 2k or 1080p... what happens if my camera breaks down... what happens if I rent your camera and it breaks down... how are you being the rental company going to take care of the problem... Has it answered any real questions... this is the problem... people come here to really pick a fight... I find it funny... if the camera would not have delieverd yesteray and I posted the above... I've would have been banned in 10 secs... on other sites.. Lets be real here... if you ask tough questions on redusers, dvxusers, or dviinfo... those threads get shut down pretty quick... here they get shut down because someone comes here looking to pick a fight... I want to see real answers to real questions... that's all I've ever wanted... and because I ask real tough questions does not make me a naysayer... Those questions have been asked numerous times here by me, and others. If you get a reply from anyone from RED at all, they never really answer the questions, and when you try to pull them up on that, you get buried under an avalanche of abuse (and mis-quotation) from the flannelmouth redheads. As for "picking fights", well what do you expect when you (not you specifically, but you as in "one") express the opinion that the majority of RED purchasers are simply going to waste 30 grand or so. I wouldn't care if it was their own money, but I very much suspect that in a lot of cases it's going to be somebody else's money. At least there's the possibility that the person being asked to foot the bill might do a bit of research and find out it's not such a sure thing. I guess I've seen too many parents' retirement plans ruined by their fast-talking offspring talking them into financing business ventures that I didn't think had a hope in hell of ever succeeding. My brother nearly lost his house getting involved in crap like that. But here's the thing; the casual browser, or the person who finds their way here via a Google search, still gets to see all that, and hopefully draw some conclusions, even if the conclusion is confusion. Which is a bloody sight better than they'd do on some "sanitized" forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Brighton Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Photos courtesy by Tonaci Cinema Whoah! A rare bird indeed! The lesser-speckled REDuser! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Brighton Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Ooh, look, it's three-quarters of an HD video camera! Phil And it's four-thirds as good as 35mm film! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Here are some more boxes: http://www.fxguide.com/article445.html Hopefully, someone will do some inital tests over the coming days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chad Stockfleth Posted September 1, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 1, 2007 so, somebody actually has one. this is good. i have always hoped red would succeed, but haven't been a fan of all the sensationalism. they are funny looking birds..... so i understand this is not the full camera? am i right to think this model only does 2k? (i believe it will be upgraded later) it appears in the picture they are shooting 720p....what's the fun in that? perhaps they are just scrolling through the options. is a viewfinder shipping yet? the lenses? pardon my ignorance, but i've only passively been keeping up. you guys should really take it easy on the name calling and who has what credit, etc. if we all claim to be professionals, let's act like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chad Stockfleth Posted September 1, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 1, 2007 From the article above it appears I am mistaken...the camera does shoot 4k as shipped. Which is more important to you? Dynamic Range or Resolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamo P Cultraro Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 No, it did get real quiet in here. Just wait till we get some footage on this thing. Even though I am not a fanatic, I relish the thought of the cam proving a thing or two to all the haters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Taylor Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 There's some really short test clips that someone shot with one last night. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4123 Scroll down and find the one the says "2k". Want my opinion? As a non-professional, only just started shooting 16mm film, wannabe? When I first heard about Red I was super excited! Achieving 35mm quality with a digital camera sounded great. Ever since, I've been keeping up with the forums, and looking at any framegrabs or clips that could be found. To be honest, I'm kinda disappointed! :unsure: It's really hard to judge from what little we've seen, but to me, it just looks like good video. I kept looking at pictures on flickr thinking, "If the Red can give me this quality, that'll be great!" Digital still's to me don't seem to have quite the image quality that 35mm has, but it's real close. So far, from what little I've seen, the Red looks like a step down from digital still cameras. To me, I can't see much difference between the Red and any of these other digital cinema cameras. Just that the Red has higher resolution, and is a lot cheaper! One thing I've noticed (and remember, I don't exactly have a trained eye or anything) is with any footage shot with the Red, the details look kinda smudged? I realize that what I'm watching is compressed and scaled, so maybe the Raw output doesn't look like this. I don't know. Hopefully we'll see some proper footage with better light setups, rather then just quick tests. As of right now, I feel like 35mm is still king, and is in no danger of being dethroned. But I will admit that it's great you can get the same quality of a high end digital cinema camera for a fraction of the cost now! Jay --- P.S. I'm pretty sure my post will probably piss off anyone interested in Red, and this thread, like so many others, will be closed. But just remember, I'm no professional! I've never shot on anything other then 16mm. Everything stated above is my own personal opinion. I tried my best not to type anything as being factual! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary McClurg Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Nothing special... again its the tool in the right craftsman's hands... I'm sure they can look better... But one thing... like most HD.. gee if Red is a hit... might be wise to invest in a makeup company... yes an old joke... but seems true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Hurd Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Jay, you make good points, from a position of humility (humility being the true definition of open-mindedness.) I had early faith that Graeme Nattress and Ted Schilowitz knew what they were getting into. And with Jim's passion and resources, not to mention his anti-corporate approach to things, it seemed the odds of them pulling off something revolutionary really were pretty good. So this story is as much a study on what can happen when your resources are vastly expanded (from the technician side of things), and when you're managed by someone who's business passion is based on respect and openness (with the employees, especially). I was pessimistic about the "look" initially. Everything "published" looked flat, and after many hours of trying to color-correct it, I was never happy with the results. Specifically, the contrast. And it was frustrating to realize that questions could be met with antagonism, but I just chalked it up to enthusiasm. I struggled to achieve the look I wanted, without sacrificing the exposure latitude, and couldn't do it. (I started my career as a custom-color printer, so this was disappointing to me.) So while you've just been disappointed, my view of the "hero" tif (in the above mentioned thread), has made me feel relieved. Strong contrast, good skin tone, apparently no herculean effort to get it to this "normal" state, and still lots of detail available in the shadows. (These jpgs, without color management, are terrible, but that's going to be my fault. Personally, my approach to this camera, has nothing to do with 35mm. It has to do with delivery of goods. If we're going to compare Red's qualities to 35mm, where do we make the comparison? To 35mm that's just been exposed? Red wins. (That's a joke, but I'm making a point, here.) To 35mm that's just been processed? Well, at least we have an image we can look at. Or do we compare it to 35mm that's gone through its final grade? And if we compare Red to something that's been graded, then we're really comparing Red to a very mature 35mm workflow! Comparing a fledlgling workflow to an established one, makes for a pretty precarious "comparison." At least if you want to make absolute statements. And while the 35mm comparison is a necessary one for where 35mm is already in use, the comparison tends to ignore those aspects where 35mm is completely deficient. The economic angle, alone, to this camera is crazy. Even from the digital/video side. Not only does it cost less than your typical HD deck, it provides all the advantages of a digital workflow with over-the-counter equipment. If someone buys this camera to simply shoot local-level commercials, they still come out ahead :P. I believe a lot of the "look" of this camera is going to depend on the different processes people adopt, and even discover, for it. And with 750 Reds in reservation for the LA region alone, there's going to be a lot of collaboration. That will certainly help illuminate some of the shadows surrounding Red's workflow! So don't give up hope on seeing further improvements ;) As to the smudgy look, here's a cropped post from the "eyes" tif (from the same thread above). I don't think they had applied any sharpening to the footage, but would you have objections to what I've done here in Photoshop (no color correction, just going after detail)? It's pretty heavily compressed now, due to the 100k limit, but the comparison seems to show a slight improvement in eyelash detail, without overemphasizing skin pores. Or what were you referring to specifically? (Um, that's not a leading question to spark a fight. I'm curious. And I am willing to be taught a thing or two :)) Yes, make-up would be a good investment :) There's nothing forgiving about digital highlights. Yet :) Glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Hughes Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 RED made its delivery schedule, with a working, shippable product. Congratulations all around. Whether it's a 35mm killer remains to be seen, but it's no longer merely a marketer's pipe dream. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Greenwalt Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Has it answered any work flow problems... any issues of what monitor I use to shoot 4k, 2k or 1080p... what happens if my camera breaks down... what happens if I rent your camera and it breaks down... how are you being the rental company going to take care of the problem... Has it answered any real questions... this is the problem... people come here to really pick a fight... I find it funny... if the camera would not have delieverd yesteray and I posted the above... I've would have been banned in 10 secs... on other sites.. Lets be real here... if you ask tough questions on redusers, dvxusers, or dviinfo... those threads get shut down pretty quick... here they get shut down because someone comes here looking to pick a fight... Complete bullshit. I've seen duplicates and duplicates and duplicates of those exact same questions come up again and again and again and again and I've never seen a person banned for it. There was a running thread on warrantys for the last 2 weeks (I didn't read it so I don't know what the result was. I'm not a customer so warranty isn't my problem.) What the renter does to take care of you has nothing to do with RED. That's between you and your rental contract so I don't see how RED would even be able to answer that. But that's a VERY important question to ask! How do you monitor? I could provide 10 threads under "workflow" where people discuss that question in length... strangely none of them got banned... weird! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Greenwalt Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Is it just me or does the 18-50 zoom have really bad CA in the bokeh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted September 1, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 1, 2007 Is it just me or does the 18-50 zoom have really bad CA in the bokeh? Hi Gavin, I have asked for details on the no & shape of the iris blades on Reduser, as yet no response. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Taylor Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Hey Glen, Of everything that's been posted so far, the Hero tiff looks the best to me. Although, I think I read they had a hard time nailing the focus, which is why it looks a little soft? I don't even know if "smudgy" is the right word here. Something it reminds me of, which isn't really related, is vectorized line art. Ever seen any? Say you draw a picture, and then you ink it all nice with markers. Scan that in, and then vectorize it. The actual inked drawing is all smooth, but the vectorized copy looks off. Instead of a nice curved line, you might end up with "lumps". It's not one smooth curve, it's a bunch of smaller curves. Turns the original curve into sort of a wiggle! And if you have two lines connected, it isn't a straight angle where the connection is. It ends up creating a tiny curve at the intersection. Of course, if you scale the vectorized art down, you don't notice these artifacts anymore. So I'm wondering if it's the same thing with the Red footage, and even 35mm film. Perhaps the reason I'm thinking of 35mm as being so super sharp, is because I'm always watching a scaled down ntsc version of it! If I scale down the Red frame grabs, it doesn't have the smudgy look anymore. The correction you made does look better. Perhaps I'm just not used to seeing this stuff at such high res. Anyways, I really want to see some more footage with proper lighting, framing, dof, and all the good stuff. I need a "cinematic" example to decide on if I'd like to use this camera or not! Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted September 1, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 1, 2007 Anyways, I really want to see some more footage with proper lighting, framing, dof, and all the good stuff. I need a "cinematic" example to decide on if I'd like to use this camera or not! Jay Hi Jay, Somebody once said on CLM, if you know how to light it doesn't matter what you shoot with, if you don't know how to light it doesn't matter what you shoot with. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Taylor Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Hey Stephen, Yes! I've heard that before, and I agree! Using 35mm film, or the Red, or 70mm isn't any indication of how well you can paint a shot. Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted September 1, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 1, 2007 > The actual inked drawing is all smooth, but the vectorized copy looks off. Instead of a nice curved line, you might end up with "lumps" Yes. The algorithms used to vectorise bitmaps are not a million miles away from a Bayer demosaic with rather aggressive upresolving which tends to work, in the broadest possible terms, by attempting to convert isolinearities in the data into vectors, then interpolating along them. It looks, as I've said before, like a bayer camera with rather too high a level of expectation as to its output, which is exactly what it is. I'm sure they'll get it better than this; it almost looks a bit solarised right now, exactly as the NAB demo did. Unfortunately, Jannard's commercial need to sell it as a 4K camera is much more important than his artistic interest in producing nice-looking pictures. But have you noticed how, now it's out on the ground, the world is... somehow... unchanged? Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now