Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: Rants

Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 111 to 116 of 116
  1. #111  
    Senior Member jimhare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    3,768
    Yes, they did plan something. Then the 5D started getting used, then the 7D came out etc. etc.

    They had to up the game to ensure they could be competitive. It suddenly looked like the low end would be serviced by Canon so they needed to up the stakes.

    Everyone wants to know what happened to 3k for $3k.

    In my opinion, this is what happened.

    What I don't understand is what everyone wants.

    If they want to vent that something they hoped would happen didn't, I completely understand.

    But many posts seem to almost be a kind of protest or suggestion of bait-n-switch.

    This is what I get frustrated reading. Red has been very generous and open, and always will be.

    The one thing they promised was everything is subject to change and that's the nature of the business. Seems like everyone was fine with that until something changed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #112  
    I can't speak for anyone else, but myself, I think RED's raw file format and superior high-speed sensors and modular design would still beat the 5D senseless in the motion picture department.

    I don't think the 5D can be considered a serious motion camera, just as I don't think even a 5K RED can be very seriously thought of as a stills camera (with <10 Mpixels).

    I loved the idea of 3K for 3K. I wasn't sure about 3.75K for 3K, but knew that the price was still subject to change. RED might have gone down in specs and price, but apparently they're going up in both.

    As RED is a young, agile, open-minded company, I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that one day they'd create a specced-down version of the fixed-lens Scarlet and squeeze it into a lower price category.

    I think the DMSC concept will only fly in the high end, simply because of resolution issues. A Scarlet will only be a stills camera as much as a 5D or a 7D can ever be a movie camera.

    I think devices below $5K will be more single-purpose (with a compromised secondary function), thus there would be room for the 5D and 7D and a low-end Scarlet; with the RED always winning in motion and Canon always winning in stills.
    <real name>
    First name: András
    Last name: Puiz
    </real name>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #113  
    Junior Member Mike Shugrue's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vancouver,BC
    Posts
    12
    I think you all have a right to complain, thats your right. But you also need to see this operation from the other side. The Red company needs to make sure they do not lose money. If they did Red would fail as did Beta Max.
    Operation costs change as does the technology and I think many of you including me get spoiled with the amount of technology that have be given to us in the last 7 years. I am not sure if many of you remember lugging around a BVU -110 tape machine or worse a BVH-500. Look at where we are now.
    The Red company has given you a opportunity to play with the big boys. Its not the perfect camera( that does not exist). Be happy they are still pushing the technology and try to understand their point of view not just yours.

    Tims post above was correct.
    Some people are builders and some are producers.
    Do I have Reds yes, in fact I ordered number 11-15.
    The way to make money is to lead not to follow.
    The camera does not make to project, the story does. You don't need all the MB,FF,filters,etc to make a project.
    Be happy they at least tell you whats going on with their ideas or directions, what other company does that?
    There was a film contest where everyone had to use a Fisher Price camera. Yes it did exist and it recorded to a Audio cassette.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #114  
    For the millionth time: I don't want RED to sell a $4000 camera for $3000. I want them to MAKE a $3000 camera and sell it for $3000.

    Sell tons of it. Make a lot of money. Get filthy rich in the process.

    And what gives you the impression that we're not shooting anything in the meantime? I've been shooting with Super8. I've been shooting shorts with Canon PowerShots, for goodness' sake. But I've been holding off buying a $2000+ cam for what's currently nothing more than a hobby to me (not shooting weddings or the like), as I hoped RED would deliver something in the $3000 segment.

    Don't know what to do, I'd hate to invest into basically any other cam that I know I'd always compare unfavorably to a RED and end up having to sell at a large loss. I guess I'll borrow and rent stuff. And keep hoping that either RED enters my segment, or I grow into RED's segment.

    No need to tell me basic truths about how cameras don't make movies (but people do). Also no need to argue that good tools aren't important. They are.
    <real name>
    First name: András
    Last name: Puiz
    </real name>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #115  
    The original Scarlet was also a marvelous camera.

    No modularity or expandability, just compact and cheaper.

    I guess RED will make a camera like this in the future, everyone will love and it's gonna be RED grade.

    Pietro Impagliazzo
    flickr.com/photos/impagliazzo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #116  
    OK. This is the rants section. So there...

    I just saw Paranormal Activity. Kindly please everyone refrain from putting this film forth as any kind of a model to follow.

    The film draws from the fact that a decade has passed since Blair Witch Project, and apparenly every ten years there's room for passing off a dreadfully lame fake amateur movie with purposefully lousy footage as some kind of cult horror.

    Oh, and there was [Rec] and its U.S. remake Quarantine and also Cloverfield with a similar hand-held cheap camera theme, though with incomparably larger budgets. So maybe I was wrong about "once every ten years," and this is a trend now (shudder).

    Paranormal Activity is a successful business venture, but a miserable failure as a film. It has no cinematography, direction, plot or acting to speak of. It's also highly unoriginal. I hope and pray that young aspiring filmmakers will not try to emulate its success.

    Besides, the cheap camera was a gimmick. If you're telling people to ignore the equipment and focus on the story instead, well, the only genre where your suggestion might work is the fake home video genre, which is a (thankfully) limited niche.

    Oh, great things announced this week, though. Gotta start saving up...
    <real name>
    First name: András
    Last name: Puiz
    </real name>
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts