Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Ambush test...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Explosive,

I guess you are absolutely right about staying classy - my bad. But Jim´s post with Kodak´s reply (whose there?) to his inquiry makes it quite difficult.

peter
 
Jim,

The competition is always going to try to show that they're better than you in any way they can. I think you want to show that you're better, too. That's normal. As David Mullens mentioned earlier, people know that tests done by Kodak are biased. You did the right thing by bringing up the issues before the test. But since the cameras are public, it's up to them to decide whether or not to go ahead even with bad firmware. You don't control that. But what you can do is get up off that prairie and go kick some ass with a great product and your own unbiased tests. Not all pioneers are faced down on the prairie, or we wouldn't have this great nation of ours.
 
Jannard said:
Here is the answer to one of the questions I posed to the Kodak team.

<<Why would the RED camera continue to be shot when we had informed the group that we had known firmware issues that could affect image quality under certain conditions?>> question from Jim

Answer... Well, Jim.... In the past, David Stump has been quoted as saying “You can always tell the pioneers... They’re the ones face down in the prairie with arrows in their backs”

That pretty much sounds like an ambush to me.

Jim
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair representation of the rest of the answers. Since the responder had no motivation or personal vested interest in seeing RED fail it's not fair to call that response indicative of Kodak's motivations. If anything it's a personal supposition on the part of the shooter and no real conclusions can be drawn from it.

You have a product out in the wild. People are going to test it. If it had been an apple commercial and the camera wasn't ready then it shouldn't have been released to shoot anything. There'll be more tests. Tests that aren't funded or orchestrated by a single vested interest. Until then it's just marketing chatter.
 
im.thatoneguy said:
If it had been an apple commercial and the camera wasn't ready then it shouldn't have been released to shoot anything.
Click to expand...

If it had been an Apple commercial, we would have been invited to make sure the camera performed well and we could supervise the firmware workarounds. Or we would have told them not to use RED this weekend based on what we learned last Thursday.

Jim
 
im.thatoneguy said:
I don't think that's a fair representation of the rest of the answers. Since the responder had no motivation or personal vested interest in seeing RED fail it's not fair to call that response indicative of Kodak's motivations. If anything it's a personal supposition on the part of the shooter and no real conclusions can be drawn from it.

You have a product out in the wild. People are going to test it. If it had been an apple commercial and the camera wasn't ready then it shouldn't have been released to shoot anything. There'll be more tests. Tests that aren't funded or orchestrated by a single vested interest. Until then it's just marketing chatter.
Click to expand...

I have to agree here with Gavin. Jim the tone of the responder was far different than you are representing.
I am as loyal a fan of your camera as they come (not to metion also a reservation holder). But, with all due respect, your responses surrounding this issue have only served to alienate people from the truth rather than help them to discover it.
 
Maybe I'm a bit lost but I thought the firmware problems were related to:
Monitor reliability, crashes and clip protection. Was there another problem specifically that needed to be avoided? None of those three would affect image quality.
 
Gregory Leno said:
I have to agree here with Gavin. Jim the tone of the responder was far different than you are representing.
I am as loyal a fan of your camera as they come (not to metion also a reservation holder). But, with all due respect, your responses surrounding this issue have only served to alienate people from the truth rather than help them to discover it.
Click to expand...

You are probably right about this snipet... it is out of context. But I saw no reason to repost the whole question and answer thread from CML. My apologies. I said there that many people had confirmed that Joe is a great guy. But all of the answers to the questions still pointed to a setup. And this did not seem like a very good response to the serious question that I had asked.

Gavin... you are almost correct. But we had discovered last week that there is a situation with the build where compression issues we had been working on got worse, not better, with this new build. You would not necessarily see these problems in "normal" shooting, but they would certainly become apparent in a test situation. When Jarred went to the set to verify the build in the camera, it was apparent that the heckling did not come from a friendly place. I do not believe Joe was there at the time.

I had received a tip from an ASC member, along with one from an insider on the set that privately told me we were being setup. The sentence I posted from Joe was not fair. But the frustration we have felt from this weekend is real. I'd also mention that while Joe was hired to watch over the digital cameras... he was not in charge of this shoot or the results that were to be posted.

Jim
 
You guys should see Adam Wilt's shoot out last year between all
the HDV/HVX cameras. I know for a fact that someone bought a
JVC HDV camera because of the results of those tests. That person
has since sold the JVC because of the incompatiblity problems of HDV tapes.
He would do a shoot for someone and hand over the tape and
90% of the time the clients could not get the JVC tapes to playback
in a Sony or Panasonic deck. Those cameras are fine if you are
in a closed loop. I can shoot on my HVX and hand a hard drive
full of footage to a client and they can about 95% of the time
get the files to work. I would much rather have data now than a tape.
Will or can I use the RED 100% of the time? Probably not.
But I know I will not have to rent expensive decks to get my footage
into my NLE of choice.
 
Jannard said:
You are probably right about this snipet... it is out of context. But I saw no reason to repost the whole question and answer thread from CML. My apologies. I said there that many people had confirmed that Joe is a great guy. But all of the answers to the questions still pointed to a setup. And this did not seem like a very good response to the serious question that I had asked.

Gavin... you are almost correct. But we had discovered last week that there is a situation with the build where compression issues we had been working on got worse, not better, with this new build. You would not necessarily see these problems in "normal" shooting, but they would certainly become apparent in a test situation. When Jarred went to the set to verify the build in the camera, it was apparent that the heckling did not come from a friendly place. I do not believe Joe was there at the time.

I had received a tip from an ASC member, along with one from an insider on the set that privately told me we were being setup. The sentence I posted from Joe was not fair. But the frustration we have felt from this weekend is real. I'd also mention that while Joe was hired to watch over the digital cameras... he was not in charge of this shoot or the results that were to be posted.

Jim
Click to expand...

Thank You Jim,

This is the kind of response I would expect from someone who is a quaility person and has a quality product...and both are true.

That said, I also completely understand the frustration at being setup and ambushed if that is the case. I can think of few things worse than being misrepresented. It goes to the core of who someone is..or isn't.

Thanks again for clarifying the issue.

~ Greg
 
Jannard said:
When Jarred went to the set to verify the build in the camera, it was apparent that the heckling did not come from a friendly place.

Jim
Click to expand...

It's wild. You guys had people on the set of the Argentine all summer as they shot a MAJOR MOTION PICUTRE and I am sure they welcomed the help your team was providing.

Jarred shows up to a CAMERA TEST and gets heckled. What a joke! It's plain unprofessional.

David
 
Panavision’s position on the “Ambush’ tests

Panavision’s position on the “Ambush’ tests

In a CML post regarding the "Ambush' tests the poster claims that lying to get cameras was necessary because Panavision does not do head to head tests. Here is our response.

Panavision’s position on the “Ambush’ tests

Let’s begin with Bill Bennett’s assertion that Panavision has refused to be involved in “Apples to Apples” comparisons. This is not true! Tony Richmond ASC tested Genesis against D20 before shooting “The Comebacks” with Genesis. Steven Poster ASC shot extensive tests with Genesis, F23, Viper and 900R recently for a picture shooting in November (and also shot Kodak’s new stock separately a few days before) and Darius Wolski ASC tested Genesis against film a few weeks ago – probably going film. What Panavision does not do is participate in tests where the outcome is clouded by the parties involved or where there is no real project involved. Actually, there are exceptions even to that. We have agreed to participate in the Academy’s testing program and are actively working with them to help create fair and meaningful tests. We have also agreed to give Geoff Boyle a camera for testing since he has consistently demonstrated a rigorous regard for “truth”.



Next, let’s talk about the tests themselves. Testing cameras is a very tricky business. The camera doesn’t finish the image it is only the first step in the chain. This has always been true but for many years masked by the fact that little could be done to the film after shooting. Recent advances have changed the situation radically. Today, the image is finished not on the set but in post and this is true regardless of the medium. Among the questions this raises are; who is supervising the post? Where is the post being done? Do they have the competence to present all the images in their best manner? What is the desired outcome of the posting process? What is the final form of presentation (film or digital) and how well will it be calibrated? What would you think when someone who is willing to lie to get equipment is also the person creating the image and further when it is being done for parties that have a stake in the outcome?



Finally, perhaps Jim Jannard has done us all a service by blowing the whistle on this test. Secret tests with hidden agendas serve no one except the ones doing them. Panavision welcomes testing in a free and open manner for every kind of project.



Andy Romanoff

EVP Technical Marketing & Strategy - Panavision Inc.

President - Panavision Remote Systems

Ph 818-316-2280
 
Andy... it is nice to have you post here. I see that we are not alone on this one. I am sure all members of reduser appreciate hearing your point of view and Panavision's perspective to proper testing of equipment.

Your post actually helps me quite a bit. I'm looking much less paranoid now. Thanks. :-)

Jim
 
Well, lets look forward to some rigorous and impartial body conducting a test that includes the RED ONE, once RED releases what they consider a stable firmware build.
Hopefully that is soon.
 
Suddenly Kodak looks like a yellow $2 disposable camera. Yawn.
 
The Third Man said:
After all definitely RED is winning any sort of today's and tomorrow “Ambush’ tests.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Yes I see what your saying, don't bother to test a Red because it is better in every possible situation!

You don't have any hidden agenda do you?

Stephen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top