Wow! THR disses Red, rebuttal needed

[Steven-Marc C.]

Wise words Blair. I agree. And I appreciate that Mike would come out to defend a friend he feels unjustly treated, just as he ought to appreciate that some of us come out to defend a friend we feel unjustly treated (Red).

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I think the game THR is playing is to aggressively force Red into opening up its wallet and dole out some ad revenue. This is the game of "industry publications" in total. They establish a market space as the "official voice of an industry" and they shake down and extort money through omission, obfuscation and FUD those who don't pay a tribute. That is the business model at work here, make no mistake.

Magazines are part of the Hollywood publicity apparatus, and in the age of the internet and the blogosphere, their game is exposed and untenable. THR just recently underwent a facelift to try to broaden its appeal- facing huge pressure and growing irrelevance due to its untimeliness. If they had an unassailable journalistic ethic, they would not be under threat of destruction. I love magazines. I love Hollywood Reporter... but they're taking a dump on my front yard with this "ignore Red" bullshit and I don't like it. Maybe this is the karma that one sows when one destroys acres of forests to shill lies for those willing to pay up? At any rate, its not cool...

Sony deserves some kudos for finally getting their 4K act together. So, thanks, Sony. But for the article in question to draw a line in the sand at 16bit and to mention Dalsa and to have that very strategic quote from Richard Edlund is a blatant slap in the face of Red:

"At AMPAS' SciTech Awards in February, awards chair Richard Edlund told THR: "The reason that the Academy has not reached out and given an award to a digital camera is because they are 2K cameras. They don't measure up to film, and film is the bar. It seemed to me that the digital camera that comes out being the ubiquitous camera is going to be a 4K camera.""

IMO, SONY SHOULD PAY JIM JANNARD A ROYALTY FOR EVERY 4K PROJECTOR THEY'VE SOLD SINCE 2006...

 

[Humberto Rivera]

"The Sony CineAlta F65, 4K Camera” is “Vaporware”

"The Sony CineAlta F65, 4K Camera” is “Vaporware”

I keep on seeing references to “The Hollywood Reporter” and specifically to the article written by Carolyn Giardina, that’s just the way it is, there nothing Red can do about-it, except make the best camera they can. Let “The Hollywood reporter” published a Newspaper, and Red make the best camera they can, and continue to improve on-it, without much of an expense to their clients. So you cannot shoot the “The Hobbit” or “Spiderman” with the pages of “The Hollywood Reporter”, the films will eventually be released, there will be plenty of buzz when that happens. Mean while, keep on working! I have said it before, “The Sony CineAlta F65, 4K Camera” is “Vaporware”! http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?57627-RED-THE-FUTURE-AND-BEYOND

Humberto Rivera

 

[M Most]

Considering it is flat out wrong, no I would say it is not relevant
CBS developed the first color tv system, it was later replaced by the RCA color system because the CBS system lacked backward compatibility with B&W sets while the RCA system was fully compatible with all TVs currently on the market.

It's not wrong. The color system that was adopted by the NTSC and implemented as the US standard was not CBS' color wheel based system, it was the RCA developed system. Everything that was deployed and used from that time to the end of analog broadcasting two years ago was based on that. Hence my comment.

 

[M Most]

I think the game THR is playing is to aggressively force Red into opening up its wallet and dole out some ad revenue. This is the game of "industry publications" in total. They establish a market space as the "official voice of an industry" and they shake down and extort money through omission, obfuscation and FUD those who don't pay a tribute. That is the business model at work here, make no mistake.

I think that's a bit far fetched at the least, and a bit ridiculous at the most.

Just as an aside, I had a really nice talk with Jim yesterday at the booth. He understands why I said what I said, and I completely understand why he found the article a bit offensive. Whether others here understand it or not, I greatly admire and like Jim. I come away from every talk I have with him feeling strangely inspired to do something new and different, and there aren't a lot of people who can do that. I've been a strong supporter of Red's products and program for a long time (something he and Ted already know), I've worked on a lot of Red shot shows, and next week I'm doing final color on the only television pilot thusfar to have been shot on Epic (at least to my knowledge, and Deanan didn't know of any others either). Those here who think of me as some kind of enemy don't know me very well. Fortunately, Jim, Ted, Deanan, and Jarred know better. ;-D

 

[Bill Anderson]

I believe the Edlund statement is a "blatant slap in the face" for digital technology.
Using film as a standard in which to measure the accomplishments made in the science of digital technology is utterly baffling. Here is a technology that does not use film and sprockets and chemicals and whatnot, to make images, here is a technology that has revolutionized filmmaking, REVOLUTIONIZED it, and the only criteria ( a very shaky one at that) they deem worthy of measuring it against is film based.
The pessimist in me can't help but feel this logic might simply be based on time wasting tactics until the golden goose gets its act together, then it's award time. And the optimist in me feels they might just be missing the boat on this one.

Edlund himself is an exhibiting photographer and "loves digital"... . Go figure.

 

[Bill Anderson]

And the irony here is that Digital acquisition is being further forced into a competitive stance against film, an aggressive all or nothing position, rather than being allowed to exist and thrive in its own right, beside film. If we could arrange it so that film continues to exist for those who prefer it, and for those artists who might weave between digital and film in order to harness their unique characteristics, that would be a fine future. I think a nod to digital technology, independent of film technology, might not be a bad thing for both.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Mike,

We'll agree to disagree about the veracity of our respective opinions. What I find fascinating is this mind-numbing disconnect between the objective reality that Red has achieved in the industry versus how tbat reality is portrayed in the industry's most august publication. The writer puts herself in the unfortunate position of appearing either cynically biased or fairly incompetent. There is no third option in this particular case. Your defense of the article and the publication is a mystery. What vested interest are you attempting to protect? Your friend, the author's professional reputation? This is unclear to me. Surely the editorial staff of THR is aware of this glaring oversight in terms of providing an accurate context for their readers, are they not? If we are to accept their competency at face value, then no one can be surprised when accusations of bias come forward. I have nothing but the highest professional regard for THR. I would never insult their professional integrity by infering that they do not check their facts. Is this what we are to take away from your statement? That they were lazy on this story?

 

[M Most]

(my final post on this subject....)

I have no "vested interest," and the fact that you would even suggest that I do probably shows how little you know of me. My comments were intended to assert that no journalist is obligated to write what you want to read. They are obligated to write the facts as they have been gathered, report multiple points of view when they exist, provide enough information in the limited amount of space they're given to get the story they're reporting on told, and in general, inform the reader of something they might not be aware of. They are not obligated to mention your favorite company if the story they're reporting doesn't absolutely require it, or if the product being discussed isn't made by them. Errors of omission when discussing historical context don't necessarily indicate ignorance, and they don't necessarily indicate any bias. History lessons are not necessary when the primary purpose of an article is to report a new product introduction or a technology demonstration. And while such omission might be taken as a slight by those who were omitted, sometimes I think people here just need to grow up a bit and understand that the world doesn't always act the way you want it to. Red has achieved a respected position in the industry whether they're mentioned in every article ever written that references "4K" or not. The article in question was more about Curtis Clark's test shoot, Sony's adoption of IIF/ACES, and the question of whether the public really values higher resolution in cinema projection than it was about either historical context or competitors. At least that's the way I read it. And while I understand Jim's feeling slighted by it - I really do - it's not going to materially change anyone's opinion of Red, pro or con. So I guess my final line on this is, well, get over it.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I think the game THR is playing is to aggressively force Red into opening up its wallet and dole out some ad revenue. This is the game of "industry publications" in total. They establish a market space as the "official voice of an industry" and they shake down and extort money through omission, obfuscation and FUD those who don't pay a tribute.

I don't think that's true in this case. I can't remember ever seeing an Arri ad in either THR or Variety, not ever. Kodak and Panavision, occasionally -- but usually just to congratulate cinematographer award nominees and winners.

I don't think it's as political or as much of a conspiracy as you think. But I do agree that the Sony F65 is vaporware at this point, and I think even when it arrives, it's going to be impractical for all but the biggest studio productions to shoot with it just due to time, money, and storage. Dealing with 1TB per hour of footage is not for the faint-of-heart.

The bit about Red: "The rival Red camera claims that its digital cinematography cameras can handle 4K and higher resolutions, although that has been questioned by many industry leaders."

That same opinion has been expressed at some past ASC seminars on digital cinematography in general, going back at least 2 years. The general feeling is that unless the 4K is uncompressed, it's all a numbers game. (And again, that's not necessarily my opinion -- that was what was said by the panel of DPs, several of whom said they were agnostic on the choice of cameras and had no problem with shooting on Red.) Several of them have gone on to say that they felt that exposure range was a bigger issue than resolution per se; Arri promoted this heavily at NAB, but they obviously have their own agenda as well.

Mark Schubin has said essentially the same thing as the ASC in many past issues of Videography, debating the issues of Bayer filtering, line pairs per millimeter, MTF, and all that other stuff. So this is not the only time an industry magazine has made controversial statements about Red and 4K in particular. I don't think THR has an axe to grind here, but I think it would be fair for Red to send a brief letter to the editor (or the writer) and make a statement for the record.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Mike says he and Jim have spoken about this.. And that they are on the same page, and cool about it.

I would think that would be the end of it.

Jay

 

[andrewhake]

The article doesn't diss RED what so ever, it just completely ignores everything they have ever done in a way that is blatantly obvious. . .

"Sony Electronics Unveils 4K Digital Cinematography Camera at NAB"
""We'll be able to have an end-to-end 4K workflow for the first time."
"The rival Red camera claims that its digital cinematography cameras can handle 4K and higher resolutions, although that has been questioned by many industry leaders."

Uh huh...

Absolutely no journalist is obligated to write about anything in particular or make mention of other similar figures in an industry. But to write in a way that is actually factually mis-leading is a different story. I have no respect for anyone who claims to be a journalist and writes in this way. But to be honest let them write whatever they want, a journalists opinion isn't the one I am interested in. Also not interested in camera testers who claim to be cinematographers, cameras aren't testing machines in a movie industry, they are story telling machines.

Thank you RED for not feeding press releases to "journalists" and not giving money to publications like this. To be honest even if journalists HAVE done their research and don't write like their job depends on it, I couldn't care less what they have to say, I want to hear from people actually using these products and creating interesting work. RED has done themselves and their customers a huge favor by not following the terrible marketing path that the rest of this industry follows. Seriously, how lazy is the "press release"?

If companies want to actually compete with RED, they need to learn that it isn't necessarily just the technology that makes this company interesting, it is the communication.

 

[Marc Wielage]

By the way: a quick survey of the Hollywood Reporter website reveals their editorial contact info...

edit@thr.com
(323) 525-2022

Put that to reporter Carolyn Giardina's attention, and I'm sure she'll see it.

 

[David M]

Have any of you ever considered the possibility that the omission may have been deliberate?
You know, dropping a cup of black ants into the red ant nest and all that?
You need to be sure you're not just having your buttons pushed before flying into print.
I don't want to sound unkind, but some of you guys are flat-out begging to get trolled....

 

[Jarred Land]

Thank you RED for not feeding press releases to "journalists" and not giving money to publications like this. To be honest even if journalists HAVE done their research and don't write like their job depends on it, I couldn't care less what they have to say, I want to hear from people actually using these products and creating interesting work. RED has done themselves and their customers a huge favor by not following the terrible marketing path that the rest of this industry follows. Seriously, how lazy is the "press release"?

We don't do what we do for journalists like this to write about. We don't advertise in magazines. I know some really great Journalists and some really horrible ones... it a profession that anyone can claim as a title.

God love them all.. but we really don't care what people like this write.. When you write something that is completely false as fact, and reproduce incredibly bold statements without checking to make sure they are correct, you are just bad at what you do. Simple as that. The people that matter in the industry will take notice.. we don't need to waste all our time worrying about it.

Let us just move along