I hate RED

[Keith Walters]

No, they're too popular. You can't always get them because other shows got there first.

-- J.S.

Wow! TWO Tena-moments in the same month!

 

So, after three decades of endless generations of video-will-solve-all-our-problems B.S. from endless generations of management, it's FINALLY happening.

Everybody wants PV video equipment, the tide has finally turnmed for film (at least for episodic Prime Time stuff), people are forced to turn to other suppliers because there isn'tt enough PV equipment to go around.

And so now, NOW, the banks decide to pull the plug!

You gotta love this business.

Particularly when you're no longer in it :lol:

Edited March 26, 2010 by Keith Walters

[georg lamshöft]

I can relate to the feelings of those who mistrust RED, not so much the camera itself but the marketing and company image.

 

Basically, there are two entirely different business concepts:

 

1.) Companies which are ruled by engineers and craftsmen. Money is just means to an end to design/manufacture products.

 

2.) Companies which are ruled by business men. The product is just means to an end to make money.

 

That might sound strange and overly simplified at first and well, it is - many companies are (or have become) mixtures of both categories.

 

Arnold&Richter is a typical "hidden champion" (family business, highly specialized, very different from shareholder-value-driven companies). They don't even try to enter a tempting mass-market, they don't have production-sites in low-wage-countries, they are very long-sighted and careful. Panavision seems to be quite similar, they even rely on their unique structure (just renting equipment instead of selling it).

 

RED is entirely different. A closed company we know very little about. Their marketing is using new communication technology brilliantly. ARRI and Panavision aren't used to this, presenting themselves on the internet, in social networks - they propably didn't even knew that you could sell a cine-style camera on the internet!

 

But there are a few hard facts and evidence that RED belongs into category 2.) and has to be handled with utmost care:

 

- the company was found by a brilliant business-man who made sunglasses, although I have to admit that creating a completely new market (prosumer cams with Super35-sensors) is uncommon for regular business people.

 

- their marketing claims. RED is better than film or any other digital camera - that was said before they released it. RED is 4k, 2 times as much as "ol' industry" cameras, it's going to have 15 stops of DR (then it was 13, then 11, with M-X it's 13 stops - no, wait ARRI claimed 13 stops, so it's 13,5 stops and monstro will have 15 stops, again)! Handling a complex technical topic like this and treating the customers like stupid is clearly a sign for category 2.) Have you ever asked a sensor designer what extreme challenge it means to achieve 2 stops more useful DR?

 

- The whole 4k-thing is based on the illusion that it's is better than all the 1080p/2k-stuff available, that it's finally beyond film, that it's a major breakthrough in technology

The truth is: 4k is easy to do with the pixel count of regular pixel-pitch sensors in Super35-size. They nearly all have 6MP-12MP but only one company (well DALSA started it on a different level somehow) screamed 4k!

We know that Sony (category 2.) tried Panavision (category 1.) to convince to squeeze 4k out of their sensor as well. They decided against it. Why the hell did they do that? It's not a lie, the pixel count is sufficient for 4k, somehow... It's because engineers won over marketing - do you have any idea how much less problems we would have in our world if this would happen more often?!

RED not only decided for 4k, but because they rather went with interpolated 4k than true 1080p/2k (with proven workflows) they have to use heavy compression (1:8-1:12?). But hey, it's 4k and we have new codecs, RED-ray will come soon and whose idea was it to record data on a HDD (wasn't it a standard 2,5" USB external with a nice RED logo on it?)?...

 

- they don't do much more than marketing and selling the equipment (how many employees do they have?) and they don't want to admit it. That's a major difference in comparison to ARRI & Panavision - these are manufacturers, RED is a brand, just like Nike or Hugo Boss.

That's a little bit hard to understand for people who haven't worked in production, living in a globalized world, love their Foxconn-made Apple, far from "real men have fabs". But RED buys components or whole products, put their name on it and sell it again. This became noticeable when they sold their "RED" 18-50 or 300mm lenses which were made by Sigma (not even special designs!). ARRI & Panavision uses suppliers as well but they are truthful about them and they are usually specialists as well (both, ELCAN and Zeiss operate on an entirely different level in comparison to Sigma - a company which never manufactured professional lenses).

The RED One is "made in Singapore", it's not even assembled by RED. I've worked in a German company which operated in Singapore as well. Nice people, impressive skyline - but not a location for high-quality production! But it's cheap... They don't have an education system for technical jobs like in Germany (the US don't have it as well, which makes craftsmanship tricky, but I suspect Panavision does it themselves like in the military business) and this work is mostly done by guest workers for very low wages and social standards. It's beyond China or Vietnam - but it's still no comparison the the sites of ARRI or Panavision!

I'm really sensitive and picky about this topic, I'm an mechanical engineer born into a family of craftsmen - it's the backbone of our society and of quality! When somebody manufactures their products by OEMs in "accidentally" low-wage-countries they do it for a reason: cuttings costs at any cost, period!

 

RED can make nice images, I'm sure. Students can do a lot with it instead of relying on camcorders with tiny sensors. But a professional tool? You can make professional images with a rebel 2ti for 600$ instead of using a 1dMkIV (nearly 10 times as expensive) - you just have to use the same lenses and professional lighting - it will basically look the same. So the MkIV is obsolete? No, it's the professional choice for many reasons.

Would have ARRI offered a 50k€-EVF-version of their Alexa without RED? What are Zeiss compact primes good for (with designs never intended for cinematography)? I'm not sure. Is this a good thing (the whole excitement RED brought to the market)? Maybe, but we have to be really, really careful! ARRI claims "3,5k" in their technical specs - why do they do that? It hasn't reached the development (it's just statement in a brochure right now - they didn't choose a smaller pixel-pitch for "more k"), yet - but for how long if customers first ask "How much k"?

You're operating in a wonderful market with wonderful companies which actually listen to your demands, not the ones from their shareholders! What a luxury! Real, professional tools!

Don't take that for granted! I have the feeling that this market slowly difts into the "marketing-era", just like the automotive industry or IT industry and RED plays a major role in it.

 

My rant is over, for now ;-) I just wanted to summarize my thoughts and maybe it's helpful for others as well (after fighting the bad grammar :rolleyes: ).

[Keith Walters]

To be fair, RED themselves never made the bulk of those claims, they mostly came out of the overheated imaginations of the RED Fanboys.

Repetition made them "fact"; the classic "House of Mirrors" scenario.

On the other hand, Jim Jannard didn't exactly go out of his way to rein in the more extreme ratbag element of his fan base, which as he is discovering now, is going to cost him in the long run.

[John Sprung]

But there are a few hard facts and evidence that RED belongs into category 2.) and has to be handled with utmost care:

 

- the company was found by a brilliant business-man who made sunglasses, although I have to admit that creating a completely new market (prosumer cams with Super35-sensors) is uncommon for regular business people.

 

Yes, he's a sharp business guy. But I think we must also admit that he has a personal passion for this project.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Phil Rhodes]

I can't help but agree with Mr Lamshöft.

 

I've said this before, but I think in general a lot of this may come from the "sunglasses salesman" thing - it isn't intended as an idle insult. My feeling is that sunglasses are not really characterised on functionality. It's a UV cut filter and a polariser or possibly just an ND filter. As long as the frame mounts it in front of your eyes without causing you pain, that's pretty much it, and critically, you can get a pair of sunglasses that will do that for very little money. The only reason you'd ever choose to buy Oakley is because you had some particular regard for the brand or the product as a fashion item. You don't pay the extra money because it works better.

 

I think Red went into camera manufacturing expecting it to be the same way; expecting it to be a fashion-led industry where the product's performance would be assumed and success would be mediated by branding and marketing, and actual functionality would not be closely inspected. In the main, of course, he's been absolutely right: the performance of the early cameras was on a level of "barely usable", and only recently have upgrades turned it into something that is, maybe, possibly something other than cripplingly average, and yet he's still succeeded.

 

Frankly, though, what's objectionable is not that this mistake was made. At first glance my reaction to Red was to applaud someone with money for doing something interesting with it. Fine. What I find objectionable is the reaction to criticism, the reaction to having had this fashion-over-function misapprehension pointed out. If you'll excuse the two-bit psychoanalysis, many highly successful people are self-assured to the point of absolute narcissism, so criticism can end up feeling more like an all-out assault on a level of self-belief that's held with, literally, religious fervour; no sect has a more devoted following than the cult of self.

 

This sort of psychological set-up seems to lead to success until you become simultaneously aware of such personal convictions as "I have made a 4K camera", and such mathematical certainties as "4096/n<4096 for all n>0". Some of us are not well equipped to deal with these contradictions, and this, I think, is where the bad feeling comes from.

 

P

[John Sprung]

and such mathematical certainties as "4096/n<4096 for all n>0".

 

I think you mean for all n>1. For instance, 4096/0.5 = 8192. 8192>4096.

 

As for Jim, I'd credit the guy with more depth and complexity than is superficially apparant. I think he honestly intends to make great cameras, and he's in the process of finding out what that means.

 

Have a look at an old Coppola movie, "Tucker". The problem is, too many people have caught his dreams.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Phil Rhodes]

I think you mean for all n>1. For instance, 4096/0.5 = 8192. 8192>4096.

 

Yes, I must learn to be more accurate when I'm being supercilious.

[Paul Bruening]

I think you mean for all n>1. For instance, 4096/0.5 = 8192. 8192>4096.

 

As for Jim, I'd credit the guy with more depth and complexity than is superficially apparant. I think he honestly intends to make great cameras, and he's in the process of finding out what that means.

 

Have a look at an old Coppola movie, "Tucker". The problem is, too many people have caught his dreams.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

Oh, John. You went to a Tucker reference. You wouldn't believe what Tucker told my step-grandfather in the bar of the Vinoy Park Hotel in St. Pete one afternoon.

[John Sprung]

Hmmm -- does it matter? I don't know about real Tucker. I only know about movie Tucker. ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Mike Gross]

Hmmm, I did some research and found out a few things about Mr. Jannard's creative body of work. I'm impressed.

I wonder who here would put their creative portfolio up against his?

[Phil Rhodes]

If I had that much money, I'd have a great reel.

 

C'mon. Must try harder.

[Mike Gross]

If I had that much money, I'd have a great reel.

 

C'mon. Must try harder.

 

This is what the Oakley CEO said about Jannard:

 

"What I can tell you about Jim is that he is more of a creative force than he is a businessman, and he is a pretty darn good businessman.

 

He authored the slogans, did the advertisements, shot the photos, directed and shot the commercials, invented the technology (over 600 patents worldwide) and designed the products by himself for the first 20 or so years of Oakley. He was a one man creative wrecking crew. He set the tempo of Oakley thinking and philosophy and taught the current designers what to do. He provided the vision for all that was and is Oakley.

 

It is easy to see his hand at RED cameras. I'm quite sure that it is the same there as it was at Oakley. I have heard that Jim wrote the original color science for the camera. That is no surprise to me. There is no doubt that the modular system for EPIC was his idea. My bet is that he is guiding the entire creative process at RED just as he did here at Oakley.

 

Colin Baden, CEO Oakley."

[Mike Gross]

If I had that much money, I'd have a great reel.

 

C'mon. Must try harder.

 

Money does not buy creativity.

 

If you had a great reel, maybe you'd have that much money.

[Saul Rodgar]

This seems like a perfect example of "appeal to authority" logical fallacy:

 

Hmmm, I did some research and found out a few things about Mr. Jannard's creative body of work. I'm impressed.

I wonder who here would put their creative portfolio up against his?

Edited March 30, 2010 by Saul Rodgar

[Phil Rhodes]

I'm afraid anyone whose worth is measured by patent count immediately loses my respect in any case - that really is about money!

[Thomas Dobbie]

I'm sure this will not be a popular view.

Although I own a Red,I'm certainly no lover of the hype that surrounds the company.Yes I think Jim has brought a lot of that upon himself,with Reduser.

Certain of his post's have been somewhat antagonistic towards the industry in general and aimed firmly at his fanbase.

 

I don't visit Reduser,so I largely avoid the fanboyism and cult status that the members of that forum attribute to Red.

It's a tool,with all the flaws any tool has,but one that's improving fairly rapidly.

 

I don't think it's easy for a man like Jim,to admit when he's made mistakes,but in his recent post's to this forum,he seems to be doing just that,and to be reaching out for dialogue from the industry.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's recognised a change in the tone.

However there are obviously those here that are very suspicious of that,and seem to be unable to cut him any slack.

 

I wonder how many of us would be able to stand up to the scrutiny that he gets,and not be found wanting.

I do agree with Mike,his creative work,while perhaps not being to everybody's cup of tea,is in my opinion,impressive.

 

While many,quite correctly,will find fault, and criticise Jim for the product he produces,and will be quick to point out any inaccuracies in his post's,I do find it very mean spirited to criticise him on a personal level for his creative output.

My twopence worth.

 

Tom.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

agreed

[Mike Gross]

To be honest, I was very skeptical also but my partner is putting funding together for 7 cameras for a project and I wanted to know what we were putting our money into. I'm still cautious but feel much better about Jim and Red after digging and talking to customers. We've done one project with rented red ones and it was smooth.

 

Our only other option for when we want to buy will be alexa or epic. Alexa looks nice and it's an Arri so that has some comfort for us.

 

The size is not a tiny as epic and it will mean we can only afford 2 alexa plus cameras instead of seven epics.

The larger alexa also means we have to bump up to a more expensive steadicam. Ugh.

 

I really wish arri had done 6k like the rumors had suggested. After all we're investing in this project, we are really nervous about shooting 3k.

 

Tough choices at this years NAB for sure!

 

Mike

[georg lamshöft]

...I really wish arri had done 6k like the rumors had suggested. After all we're investing in this project, we are really nervous about shooting 3k. ...

 

6k would result in a pixel-pitch of just over 4µm - a loss of 2 stops sensitivity, significant loss of DR and no way to record uncompressed (>>1Gb/s - even a 4x Raid0-SSD-array isn't capable of that). On the other hand, 6k downsampled to 4k are the only way to achieve usable MTF / low artifacts with a OLPF & Bayer-based system and gain actual IQ to justify the use/effort/cost of a 4k output - technology is simply not there, yet and it's not an accident that the ARRISCAN (which actually uses the older D-20/21-technology) takes 24 (!) single images (2x14Bit = 16Bit, 4x microscanning for 6k and 3x for RGB) to create a real 4k image.

 

You get what you pay for, I know the quality standards of ARRI and their suppliers and even though the sensor (as well as basic ICs) itself might be similar regarding production technology, the ALEXA appears to be a professional camera with the very same quality in design and production we got used to over the past decades. ARRI pays several hundred highly-trained "Facharbeiter" (trained for several years by ARRI and special technical schools - only a small minority of "Made in Germany" is done by "trained-on-the-job"-people) to run production instead of off-shoring it to Singapore (no Facharbeiter, 3-6x lower wages), ARRI uses a machined body to ensure tight tolerances and stability instead of using a simple die-cast-process - I'm sure there are hundreds of these differences in detail we don't even have an idea about.

 

I love the idea of one genius pulling the strings behind a product with full responsibility instead of some hired managers from business-school - that's how many great products and whole technical revolutions were started! But the RED products themself speak a different language - compressed, interpolated 4k instead of 2k, re-labeling Sigma-lenses, false claims, caring about marketing instead of production...

 

I'm sure many people have found the perfect tool in RED, many great artists "make it sing" - but please don't mix it up with the effort ARRI & Panavision has invested over the last decades to deliver professional tools, otherwise only RED-standards will continue to exist, whether the camera has RED, Arri, Panavision, Panasonic or Sony written on it. We already lost several industries that way.

Edited May 4, 2010 by georg lamshöft

[John Sprung]

... ARRI uses a machined body to ensure tight tolerances and stability instead of using a simple die-cast-process -

 

I would expect that Red puts those die castings into a CNC machine to tap the holes and mill the critical surfaces. They have to tap the holes somehow, could it be by hand?

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[georg lamshöft]

I would expect that Red puts those die castings into a CNC machine to tap the holes and mill the critical surfaces. They have to tap the holes somehow, could it be by hand?

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

Usually, that's the way it is done. But it's not the same as machining it from a solid block. ARRI has it's own casting subsidary because it was widely used in the past. But as CNC-machining, tools and alloys (with a much better choice of modern high-strength alloys than with die-casting) advanced, machining it from a solid block became the superior (but expensive) choice in many cases and the casting-subsidary continued to work only for bigger parts or other industries as well.

We as customers only see a small part of the image and these signs are quite often the only way to get a basic idea about the mindset of a product or company instead of listening to it's marketing.

[Brian Drysdale]

To be honest, I was very skeptical also but my partner is putting funding together for 7 cameras for a project and I wanted to know what we were putting our money into. I'm still cautious but feel much better about Jim and Red after digging and talking to customers. We've done one project with rented red ones and it was smooth.

 

Our only other option for when we want to buy will be alexa or epic. Alexa looks nice and it's an Arri so that has some comfort for us.

 

The size is not a tiny as epic and it will mean we can only afford 2 alexa plus cameras instead of seven epics.

 

I would be cautious of taking a basic Epic brain price as the price of an operational Epic camera.

[Jaron Berman]

Having been irrationally against RED for a long time, I have no shame admitting - it makes a great picture. And it does improve seemingly daily. As a tool, the camera is a great option for a lot of projects. At this point it's not the new kid anymore, and 3rd parties have largely patched the omissions in the initial design, meaning its fully-usable and largely dependable. That's as much as can be said about any of the electronic cameras, and was what initially had me so pissed off that I got booted from REDUSER. I couldn't believe that a guy who founded his career on ergonomics could create a camera so completely absent of ANY ergonomic consideration. But RED supported and cooperated with a huge number of accessory makers... and there are fixes that do a nice job in making the current iteration work.

 

I can't scroll back far enough, but someone pointed out that quietly RED has essentially turned a 180, and I'll join the ranks that applaud the move. They're slowing down their releases, only promising once they have proof that they can deliver. They're putting cams in the hands of WORKING filmmakers, not just the first in line with cash. And from the looks of it, they're listening to feedback not just from the people who will buy but the hordes of people who will be hired to use their gear. Bravo. The only thing here that's disturbing at all is the slow abandonment of third parties. I don't know ANYTHING about the politics or logistics that make 3rd party lens mounts like the birger or IMS void the warranty. That's a shame. RED is now promising these technologies in-house.... and from a business standpoint it's smart albeit a little bit of a back stab to the companies who created those technologies. Again - RED isn't the new kid or underdog anymore, and it seems more 3rd parties are getting frustrated with RED (based on their testimonials). That's a sad development from an ethical standpoint...but from the beginning they shouldn't have NEEDED 3rd parties to solve issues, and if they can create a product in house that covers 99% of usage situations - it's just easier and better for us to use.

 

I'd venture a guess that the majority of people on this list DON'T own reds, but have used them plenty of times. And this board has historically been seen as hostile towards the camera because of the owners, not so much the performance. You can't blame Mr. Jannard for the 150 pages of fan drivel that follow an announcement along the lines of "Epic turns on!" It's funny. And you can read between other lines and sense the frustration of the RED team dealing with the monster they've created... the people who assume the world can be purchased from the RED store. RED answered the prayers of so many indies, it must be frustrating to finally realize that they build the best gear they can as fast as they can, not necessarily catering the every last demand of the rabid fans. It bothered me to read so much fanboyism and ignorance and equipment xenophobia (I know, bizarre??). But there's a difference between those who see a block of metal as a personal savior and the people who have youthful excitement about the products they build. I stopped reading because it pissed me off so much. I'll venture another guess that a sore point for some of us is the precedent that RED has set with owning equipment. Not long ago, it was rare for an aspiring filmmaker to own a truck full of gear. Now, because of the RED, I'm actually losing steadicam gigs to guys who own knockoff rigs as part of their kits. And sometimes it's hard to step back and realize - they'll get what they pay for... but again - these are the ancillary effects of the RED "movement" not the camera itself... and that distinction is important.

 

Is the tonka truck / GI-Joe theme a bit much? yeah. Does it prevent them from making good products? A little bit (added cost adapters to square off a rounded camera???). But it makes great pics at a price point. Production is entirely about compromises, and it's more important to get the project made to the highest standard possible than to argue semantics. The RED works, for some projects its perfect, for others its not. Youth Without Youth was a fantastically awful film brilliantly shot on F900's. It's absolutely stunningly photographed, and yet it still sucked as a film. However much we argue about resolution, compression, usability, aberrations - filmmaking is still a collaborative process. No camera can make a film good. Red or otherwise.

[josef novak]

I Hate RED

 

I don't feel this way against any other digital camera.

 

...

 

Rant over. Has what I've said been fair?

 

Ok Chris then go and find some good doctor, he will help you with how to not feed your hate anymore, what is originator of it

and how to live with it. Seriously.

You can hardly be that serious victim of their "mass hysteria of marketing" without actively seeking after it and digging news and information hidden in piles of gazillion posts and threads on reduser or other forums.

There are no annoying banners, advertising an promos in other media, no boring PR announcements from RED and most media simply don`t write about it because they dont get any informations from them like others do with every unimportant improvement and they are lazy to do some research.

 

But if you dont like the camera, workflow or picture from it simply choose another one. You are free and very lucky that nowadays you can choose from many, many others. Camera is just only tool.

 

One thing is very interesting about hating something, it needs same amount of energy and passion like loving it. So be aware of it, it signalize that you are somehow attracted to it :)

 

Rather go out and shoot something nice. Cameras will change, but good picture will stay forever.

[Tony Brown]

This is like saying you hate Pepsi because they use celebrity endorsements, you won't eat at McDonald's because you hate clowns, or you won't use by an iphone because of all the hype behind it. None of that matters.

 

If you like the taste of Pepsi, drink it. If you like the images Red produces, shoot it.

 

 

You mean principles? I'd say they are a persons most admirable characteristic. You may not agree with them (though funnily enough I dislike celebrity endorsements, clowns AND iphones) but you cannot knock somebody for having them.

 

What is a person with no principles?