10 reasons...

[Daren Findling]

It is really easy for anyone with a basic understanding of motion images to see that Phil's posts are beyond foolish. I can understand why Jim got upset but I feel even acknowledging someone with as little understanding as Phil is a huge waste of time.

[Elhanan Matos]

It is really easy for anyone with a basic understanding of motion images to see that Phil's posts are beyond foolish. I can understand why Jim got upset but I feel even acknowledging someone with as little understanding as Phil is a huge waste of time.

 

I think everyone is taking most of Phil's posts a bit too serious, he is exaggerating quite a bit when he says the image looks like a cell phone cameras image. I believe what Phil was trying to say is that the images from the red are very soft when viewed at 100% resolution (ie. not scaling the image down) and also have a very heavily processed look to them. To me it looks like they are doing quite a bit of noise reduction as well as sharpening (or an unsharp mask) to the picture, which when not scaled down gives solid colors a very plastic or painted look to them (kind of like pictures from your cell phones, but not nearly as bad).

 

Daren I feel like you need to lurk a bit more on this forum, well not the red forums specifically, because they're like a toxic waste dump compared to the rest of the site. And once you have looked around a bit, you will notice that Phil is quite intelligent and a great contributor to this website.

 

As for my opinions of the Red camera, they are JUST OPINIONS! I have never worked with the red, I am only judging the pictures and video that I have seen posted online. I am looking forward to getting some hands on experience with the camera though. I have already turned down three jobs because they were shooting on the Red and I didn't feel comfortable working with a camera that I have never seen in person before.

[Ruairi Robinson]

I think everyone is taking most of Phil's posts a bit too serious, he is exaggerating quite a bit when he says the image looks like a cell phone cameras image. I believe what Phil was trying to say is that the images from the red are very soft when viewed at 100% resolution (ie. not scaling the image down) and also have a very heavily processed look to them. To me it looks like they are doing quite a bit of noise reduction as well as sharpening (or an unsharp mask) to the picture, which when not scaled down gives solid colors a very plastic or painted look to them (kind of like pictures from your cell phones, but not nearly as bad).

 

Daren I feel like you need to lurk a bit more on this forum, well not the red forums specifically, because they're like a toxic waste dump compared to the rest of the site. And once you have looked around a bit, you will notice that Phil is quite intelligent and a great contributor to this website.

 

As for my opinions of the Red camera, they are JUST OPINIONS! I have never worked with the red, I am only judging the pictures and video that I have seen posted online. I am looking forward to getting some hands on experience with the camera though. I have already turned down three jobs because they were shooting on the Red and I didn't feel comfortable working with a camera that I have never seen in person before.

 

I think it's funny that so many people are complaining about the images being "slight soft" viewed at 100% when not a single person doing the complaining can even view the images full size at 1:1 pixels on their monitor. They have to zoom in to do their whining.

 

Full screen on my 46" 1080p monitor, the images from this camera look amazing.

 

R.

[Carl Brighton]

Even though now the statement for me is reversed Im puzzled this doesnt make much sense because As far as Im aware Jim has been very respectful and courteous.

Several people here could tell you how "Respectful and Courteous" Jannard can be.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that Jim has seen Phil in this light? Suspicious phil is looking for a bone?

I wasn't suggesting anything of the kind!

I'm saying that specifically because some people DO NOT expect any bones will ever be thrown their way, or maybe more correctly, they can see that the "bones" that are being thrown lack any real nutritional value, (at least to them) they can see no disadvantage, in saying exactly what they think about the product.

 

The problem is, too many people seem to think that their best interests are going to be served by only telling RED and Co what they imagine they want to hear.

 

Anybody can enrol in a 5-day YMCA charm and personal grooming course, but there's no such thing as a 5-Day YMCA intellect or experience course:-)

[Mark Williams]

Carl

 

You said

 

think part of the answer is that deep down he shares the problem that besets most wealthy or famous people, the gnawing suspicion that many if not most of the supposedly "respectful" people who post on Reduser and elsewhere, are really just lapdogs hoping he'll throw them a bone.

 

Again I took your use of the word respectful to mean those we in the forum respect as our peers.

 

He is surrounded by yes men and the suspicion many agree with him because of who he is and the bones he could throw their way. Someone like Phil is important to convert because he is telling it how it is.

 

Yes I can agree with that being a fair opinion. Whether its right or not is unknown.

 

The problem is, too many people seem to think that their best interests are going to be served by only telling RED and Co what they imagine they want to hear.

 

Perhaps? And that RED followers have been over enthusiastic and have had a certain amount of fun sometimes in arguing film is dead long live RED. I also think Jim could have spoken to his supporters and reigned them in a bit. Although he cant be responsible for what others do. Phil proved the hype was wrong and I can understand his anger as many have had to sit through listening how great the RED is and its technical merits while having to listen to a stream of abuse at any questioning or disagreement. The problem was the marketing was very agressive and unchallengable as the product was not available to many. And it worked because many ordered the RED camera before it was even built. The RED marketing I believe was based on a real conviction and for all the right reasons. Now the dust will settle it can find its own place in the market that will be earned by its sales and films.

[Patrick McGowan]

So, how long until this topic gets closed?

 

People keep saying this, but this RED fighting has been dragging down this message board for like a year now. The fighting has gone from being funny to annoying to depressing. It seems like far fewer people post here anymore.

 

Sorry for the obvious, but I wish there was some way to divert this crap. How about a new topic?

 

"Kinetta... will it be the end of film?"

Edited March 12, 2008 by Patrick McGowan

[Stephen Williams]

So, how long until this topic gets closed?

 

Hi,

 

I don't want to close this topic, if I eventually do I will be accused of being anti Red.

 

Stephen

[Patrick McGowan]

Hey Stephen

 

I was kind of joking, I try not complain too much. But it is too bad to hear that the RED stuff is that personal.

Edited March 12, 2008 by Patrick McGowan

[David Sweetman]

Because if someone posts that a newly released pro camera is not better than a cell phone camera...

It's not "better" than a cell phone camera. It's different than a cell phone camera; it has more resolution than a cell phone camera, etc. To me that's the same as saying anamorphic is better than super-35, or 35 is better than 16 is better than 8.

[Elhanan Matos]

I think it's funny that so many people are complaining about the images being "slight soft" viewed at 100% when not a single person doing the complaining can even view the images full size at 1:1 pixels on their monitor. They have to zoom in to do their whining.

 

Full screen on my 46" 1080p monitor, the images from this camera look amazing.

 

R.

 

Zooming in is just fine, as long as you don't zoom in past 100%. And your 46" television (not broadcast monitor) is not really the best tool for the job either.

[John Sprung]

51. No capacity for real time HD SDI 1920 x 1080 capability, which would slaughter the opposition in the sitcom market.

Not really. We use 2/3" for sitcoms. The DOF of the tiny chips makes it a bunch easier to pull focus. Four cameras running on eight minute takes, you just about never got everything in focus in 35mm. Fortunately, in NTSC it wasn't all that easy to see that focus wasn't on the actor, it was on the fridge behind him. Re-telecine to HD, and you see that stuff now.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

Zooming in is just fine, as long as you don't zoom in past 100%. And your 46" television (not broadcast monitor) is not really the best tool for the job either.

Just going to 100% isn't enough. What you have to do is map the data pixels one to one to the display device, even if it means cropping. Any processing, and you can't rely on the resulting image to judge resolution.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Keith Walters]

Not really. We use 2/3" for sitcoms. The DOF of the tiny chips makes it a bunch easier to pull focus. Four cameras running on eight minute takes, you just about never got everything in focus in 35mm. Fortunately, in NTSC it wasn't all that easy to see that focus wasn't on the actor, it was on the fridge behind him. Re-telecine to HD, and you see that stuff now.

Ironic. The main reason a lot of sitcoms (and other shows) went back to film in the 1990s was concern for the future viability of SD originated material in a possible future HD market. (Of course it gave them other advantage, such as generally better picture quality and the ability to make superior PAL and SECAM versions).

 

When practical compact HD cameras became available in the 21st century, there was then a surge back to video capture, since it was thought that the future-proofing aspect was no longer such an issue. But now that they are starting to release HD versions of the earlier film-based shows, as you say, all the sloppy focus pulling and other defects are now making their presence felt. Some much for "archival value". Still, it has to be better than NTSC originated material!

 

Once again, I think too many network decision makers are still hopelessly mired in the 20th century. The notion of fixed resolution TV standards is still very much a by-product of the limitations of VHF and UHF transmission, and the inflexibility of vacuum-tube based technology. I rather think the days of conventional TV transmission (which includes current over-the-air digital transmissions) are numbered.

 

As for current HDTV standards, I have never believed that merely doubling the number of TV scanning lines was enough of an improvement. Most of the dramatic improvements people see in image quality with HD transmissions are more due to the perfection of the delivery systems already used for SD material. Certainly HD-sourced material properly downconverted to SD and delivered by a properly set up SD digital receiver, looks vastly better than equivalent SD sourced material.

 

It is quite likely that "4K" video delivered by some sort of cellular download system is eventually going to be the real successor to Standard Definition TV. On that basis, an affordable video camera that has the flexibility to produce realtime 1920 x 1080 for today's market, while simultaneously providing a 4K backup for future-proofing, would be a real winner.

[Phil Rhodes]

> the ability to make superior PAL and SECAM versions

 

Point of order - that's not particularly a film thing, that's a 24p capture thing.

 

P

[Keith Walters]

> the ability to make superior PAL and SECAM versions

 

Point of order - that's not particularly a film thing, that's a 24p capture thing.

 

P

In the the early 1990s there was no such thing as 24p. Film was as close as you could get.

The ideal procedure was to shoot on film, off-line on video, and finish on film. That way you could telecine direct to PAL and NTSC instead of standards converting.

[Elhanan Matos]

Just going to 100% isn't enough. What you have to do is map the data pixels one to one to the display device, even if it means cropping. Any processing, and you can't rely on the resulting image to judge resolution.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

 

John,

 

I understand exactly what you are saying and agree 100%. I wasn't aware that programs like photoshop did any processing to the image when you zoom in to 100%, if it does are you aware of any program that can?

[Phil Rhodes]

> I wasn't aware that programs like photoshop did any processing to the image when you zoom in to

> 100%

 

It doesn't.

 

P

[Chris Keth]

According to my professional retoucher girlfriend, to view accurate images in photoshop you must do so at percentage factors of half or double actual size. That way, a pixel will never represent fractional pixels due to down or upsizing, the represented number will always be whole.

[Phil Rhodes]

I see what she's getting at - Photoshop doesn't do any resampling of zoomed images. If you view at 100% ("actual pixels"), then you do get a 1:1 representation. If you view at 66% size, it leaves out every third pixel, etc. Viewing at half size leaves out every other pixel. Very straightforward, but it does make strange non-integer divisors look ugly, which is probably what your girlfriend is talking about. But then, you wouldn't be doing critical image evaluation at any scale less than 100% anyway.

 

Viewing at any scale over 100% will ensure that every pixel is prepresented, but viewing at a multiple of 100 will ensure that every pixel is equally represented.

 

Phil

[Chris Keth]

Viewing at any scale over 100% will ensure that every pixel is prepresented, but viewing at a multiple of 100 will ensure that every pixel is equally represented.

 

Phil

 

Well said. She is mainly coming from the angle of judging the quality of masks and things like sharpening so getting a proper pixel-for-pixel preview is very important. It makes sure you don't think some masking work is good and invisible, only to show up once it's printed.

[Alex Saunders]

red is the most unorganized company in the history of camera development and no one cannot say that is not the truth

[Brad Grimmett]

red is the most unorganized company in the history of camera development and no one cannot say that is not the truth

And how is it that you know this? Did you work there? I think if you're going to make a comment like that you should back it up with some facts.

And could you please give us a detailed account of what Panavision (or any other company that has developed cameras) was like when they first started developing cameras? Based on your comment I have to assume that you've been there for the development of Arri, Panavision, Moviecam, Aaton, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, Red, and every other company that has ever developed a camera, otherwise your comment would obviously be pretty dumb. You must have quite a resume!

[Michael Peploe]

red is the most unorganized company in the history of camera development and no one cannot say that is not the truth

 

I agree that this quote goes a bit too far but there is some truth to this. Jannard has posted that cameras were out of Beta but just scanning the reduser site which is a beast to deal with when it comes to being updated on camera issues i have found alot of things that would bother me if I were an owner. A long tiring read on the site recently I have read about upgrades to cameras early adopters will not get, early audio cables that will not work with phantom power, IR issues that need filter fixes, newer cameras with sensor plane markings early adopters missed out on and a bunch of other things. How many other things have I missed? Thats a organizational problem.

 

And most of this issues are brought up offhandedly by some RED worker. Its not posted or emailed out. Its mentioned three pages in on some thread.

 

I have a friend who has the cam and he's not been give email updates on these issues. so what happens when one of those issues pops up?. It seems that the only way to find out is to search reduser on a daily basis and that site is too poorly thought out to be helpful quickly. You've got to work to find relevant info. And since no one at red is keeping you abreast of these issues if you're a camera owner, you have to live on that site to find solutions.

 

The red.com site store is also confusing. No in depth descriptions and theres a 30% restocking fee if you make a mistake ordering something that won't work for you. 30%. Damn.

 

My gut feeling is they are swamped with work and bringing up an audio cable replacement will make more work for them so they whisper it instead of stating it loudly. It will add up if theresa dozen issues floating around and you have to send cameras or cables back and forth to get the upgrades. Thats an organizational problem.

 

Although I'm sure that simply calling RED will get you serviced, its not knowing the problem even exists even though RED knows it does and isn't stating it emphatically.

 

The mistake Jannard is making is thinking that dvxuser was the s**t. I suggest Jannard rethink the reduser site designed like the dvxuser fanboy paradigm. The site feels like a marketing forum designed to sell more cameras to the less knowledgeable but it isn't helpful to the guy working on a pro shoot. Its a different ballgame. This is not a dvx camera with dvx issues. Its in the pro leagues now and if it wants respect it better act accordingly and rethink how it deals with these issues to camera owners. Its great to have a forum for the fanboys to post but pros will shun it unless its organized to deal with issues before they hit someone on the set.

[David Mullen ASC]

If it doesn't exist already, some sort of service bulletin board on the RED site needs to be set up that simply lists current update issues and bugs, with links to current discussions, if helpful, on the RED User site. Or a regular email to RED owners. But all this info needs to be gathered and separated from the discussions so that it is easy to find (speaking as someone who may be doing a RED shoot this summer...)

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

I know the list should be much longer. If you believe any of these to be true or relevant, you should absolutely stay away from RED at all costs.

 

I don't understand why Jim is so emotional about some of the feedback he's getting. Let's face it, it's a first generation product with new and emerging technology, people are bound to have issues with it while others love it to death. And we all know that Red tech's are constantly hard at work, perfecting the system.

 

I'm still riding the fence since I haven't had a chance to do any extensive tests personally, but I love how it's shaking up the industry :)