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.
The American Society of Cinematographers looked to protect the future of quality large screen presentation and volunteered participating in the DCI spec for digital projection where they brought up the whole issue that 4K is needed when there were no 4K cameras or projectors. That's took a lot of guts to demand it when the manufacturers said it was not fesiable. Those cinematographers would be able to judge the results of such a test and know if the results "have been pre-determined".
 
Funny you should say that... an ASC member also tipped us off to the "shootout". Said we should "watch our back".

Biggest problem is that we informed the crew shooting that we had an issue with the firmware on that camera (see post from a day before the shoot where I delayed the delivery of anymore cameras for a firmware issue) and they wanted the RED camera to shoot anyway. We couldn't quite figure that one out. And since it was a secret shoot, we weren't invited to make sure the RED performed at its best.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
And the people he talks to... hypothetically speaking.

Jim
Click to expand...

This person who is shooting this so called test must need a soap box for his or her ego to be considered some kind of expert on image capture and cinematography. The motive is not the good of all but to just to up their day rate on regular shoots because they look on themselves as an expert.

I hope we find out who is the shooter because they are not doing themselves or the motion picture industry any good by participating in this. All I can see is personal gain by stirring the pot.
 
Jannard said:
I have a problem when someone does tests with an agenda and uses our camera with a known and published firmware issue in a "secret test". Some may discount the results, but others will not know the circumstances around the tests. I don't think the plan was to put a footnote saying, "oh, BTW, the RED camera had known firmware issues so discount these tests accordingly".

There is a big difference between continuing to improve the camera and known problems.

Jim
Click to expand...

I understand the frustration there Jim. To me, it's a short term problem. One that has to be taken seriously, because if the test is conducted in a way that intentionally tries to hurt the Red branding by using prerelease firmware or things of that nature, then that could have an impact on the camera's reputation. Long term however, I see Red being just fine because the proof will be when the Red feature films start hitting the screen. Then people will be able to make more accurate judgements. In fact, as more cameras are released, and professionals are able to get their hands on them, word of mouth will prevail there too if people are happy with the results.

Graeme made a good point about Kodak and their sensor technology. That's what I had alluded to earlier. That to me would be where they should be heading with all of this. Then they could spend less time focusing on film vs video and more time on introducing additional revenue streams, i.e. Digital cinema technology.

Steve
 
Jannard said:
Funny you should say that... an ASC member also tipped us off to the "shootout". Said we should "watch our back".

Biggest problem is that we informed the crew shooting that we had an issue with the firmware on that camera (see post from a day before the shoot where I delayed the delivery of anymore cameras for a firmware issue) and they wanted the RED camera to shoot anyway. We couldn't quite figure that one out. And since it was a secret shoot, we weren't invited to make sure the RED performed at its best.

Jim
Click to expand...

God help them if they try to make something out of that.
 
Joe diGennaro, who announced on the CML that he is the cameraman hired to shoot the test, is a fine person, friends with Scott Billups and many CML members, and shot early tests of the Viper that he then wrote about for ICG Magazine and other magazines.

He is very pro-digital and has no agenda against RED or any manufacturer and will be sure to shoot the test in a fair and unbiased manner. I've known Joe for years and can vouch for his integrity and knowledge. And obviously he is not doing this out of ego but because he is a professional shooter, because he's interested in the RED camera, and because he's done these sorts of tests before with other digital cameras. He only publically mentioned that he was shooting the test because of these accusations that he was involved in some sort of rigged test.

Now obviously Kodak is curious too about the RED, and obviously they will want to shoot subject matter that tests the limits of digital capture, i.e. high-contrast situations, where they suspect that color negative has a probable advantage, and no one should be surprised by that, they done similar comparison tests with previous digital cameras... and anyone should take anyone else's tests with a grain of salt anyway, especially since there will be further improvements to the RED camera.

I'm not saying that the Kodak test will be optimal for the RED, nor that it is an agenda-free test (they are a film stock company afterall), but on the other hand, as in the past, remember that any test that Kodak shows comparing their product favorably against a digital competitor will be accused of bias and being a marketing ploy automatically.

The camera is now out there for public use, so these sorts of things are going to happen, so it's up to the consumer to educate themselves as to how to evaluate other people's tests and to not make final judgements until they shoot their own tests. That has been true in the past with film technology and it is true today with digital technology.

I can tell you this -- the people over at Kodak over the years that I've met are all nice, and one of the things they constantly get hit with at public events, trade shows, cocktail conversations, etc. is why they don't "go after digital" more aggressively when they know they have a good product. A lot of people ask them to take the gloves off and stop rolling over and playing dead against the digital juggernaut. So depending on which "camp" you're in, if you are in a camp, either Kodak is going too far with this test or not far enough. In other words, they are in a no-win scenario.

I'm not sure why Jim is so worried that a Kodak test is going to show Kodak in a favorable manner at the expense of RED when the majority of people in the industry would expect such a result from a Kodak demo anyway and thus view it with suspicion. Are people really waiting for Kodak's blessing on the RED camera before they buy one?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The camera is now out there for public use, so these sorts of things are going to happen, so it's up to the consumer to educate themselves as to how to evaluate other people's tests and to not make final judgements until they shoot their own tests. That has been true in the past with film technology and it is true today with digital technology.
Click to expand...
That's a really good point, David. It also provides more motivation for the RED team to keep hammering away at that firmware to improve the stability and featureset at the best pace they possibly can. I do wonder, however, if Joe is an honorable man and avid digital shooter, why he would purposely reject the latest firmware build for the test? Perhaps signals are just getting crossed in heresay?
 
I wonder when the BBC will test the RED camera...

They are likely more credible than Kodak. Kodak should stop wasting their time doing this test and put their resources towards building imaging chips or whatever it is that they should be doing for the 21st century if they hope to continue as a company for the next one hundred years.
 
David... I have been told by many people in the past few hours how honorable Joe is and I have no doubt about his integrity. But Joe is not in charge. I just have a couple of questions.

Why was this test done in secrecy and camera equipment rented under false pretenses (an Apple commercial)... so I have been told.

Why was the DP insistent on continuing to shoot RED when informed that we had a firmware problem that has caused the delay of shipping more cameras?

Why did I get a tip from an ASC member and another "on set" person that this was an ambush?

Why was the RED tech heckled at the shoot when investigating the firmware issue?

I understand that RED has been shipped and we are now subject to testing and scrutiny. But the circumstances of this one seem suspect at minimum.

Many observers will discount the results for several reasons. But many more will look to the 1st "shootout" as the definitive word. Especially since it is all they have to go on.

We are passionate about our efforts. Maybe to a fault. I just don't want RED and the RED team to get hit below the belt.

Jim
 
Jim, you can't control everything that goes on outside once the camera goes public -- these sorts of whacky, controversial tests, demos, whatever, have happened with EVERY major digital camera to hit the market, and will happen in the future. Just look at the variable quality of the footage posted here -- I certainly don't take everything I see shot on the RED as some sort of final word, good or bad. If there are some lazy people who will take the Kodak test as the final word on the RED camera, well, you can only fight idiocy so far with your own public efforts.

But honestly, the negative effects from a Kodak demo that shows that its product is superior will be temporary, ephemoral -- ultimately, the quality of your product will be out there in many forms, in many products and projects, on the big and little screen, for all to see and judge. It will be an avalanche compared to one Kodak demo.

Besides, next week, it will be some Sony test shoot trying to show the superiority of the F23 to the RED that you'll be dealing with... and after that, maybe a Dalsa or Phantom shoot-out.

Checking out equipment under a false production title name is not uncommon, in order to avoid feared publicity, onlookers, whatever. I just shot a whole feature under a false title because they didn't want to get refused permission to shoot by sensitive locations due to a controversial title.
 
Jannard said:
We are passionate about our efforts. Maybe to a fault. I just don't want RED and the RED team to get hit below the belt.

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim, but this is what the all other companies will do in the next time. They only will look for faults and they will do comparisons not in a fair and objective way - they will try everything to make your work bad. This is the movie and television industry - even we as a rental, holding 5 reservations since NAB 06 can feel that in many ways.
I am sure you and your team is strong enough to "survive" these silly attacks.
 
I acknowledge that I have a lot to learn about this industry...

Jim
 
We have been `framed´ ...
It´s an ugly spin technique (thanks to the NLP folks): if they say your sister is a slut, it will not suffice to proove that you have no sister. You will spend the rest of the argument trying to tell the truth. But this has nothing to with logic: camera update refused - who cares; wrong decisions when ´correcting´ footage - nobody will ever know. The only way out will be to frame them in reverse and take the lead from there: Kodak wants to sell film, right? Kodak acknowledges Panavision and Arri as digital players, as they have film and digital cameras. Kodak cannot `overlook´ Sony, as they are too big for that. All three of them pose no threat, as only Sony sells their F23 cameras and they serve a tiny market. In comes RED and spoils the game. Camera is dirt cheap in comparison and will rip the market open from top to bottom. Bigtime Hollywood directors are already working with it, wedding photographers are pondering the investment. This IS serious.
May I therefore suggest some mantras for reverse framing:
Kodak just wants to sell film stock.
Kodak is an old company.
Kodak missed the digital revolution.
Kodak does not see the future.
Kodak is desperate.
... and so on.
(This should be what you get for biased testing)
I am totally for testing from an idependent side - after all, we all want to know where we stand. Any test by ASC and/or SMPTE will be highly appreciated. A ´shootout´ is a shortlived news item, nothing more.
 
David,

Agreed with everything you said!!

With the greatest respect it’s ok to commentate on what others are doing and raise biases/pick flaws in their processes. All the time people do this….they talk about a free world, mention the unfairness of it all & continue to talk about it not being right.....even knowing/thinking all the time it’s not their fight…!!

They’ll then do one of 2 things………


Cheers,
 
peter roehsler said:
May I therefore suggest some mantras for reverse framing:
Kodak just wants to sell film stock.
Kodak is an old company.
Kodak missed the digital revolution.
Kodak does not see the future.
Kodak is desperate.
... and so on.
Click to expand...

To do this is a horrible idea as it would make RED no better than those trying to attack them.

This is not the kind of image that Red should want to portray. Attacking illogic with further illogic.
 
Jannard said:
We are passionate about our efforts. Maybe to a fault. I just don't want RED and the RED team to get hit below the belt.
Jim
Click to expand...

Jim,

May I make one suggestion to you. Do what Henry Ford would do in this situation:

*Write a short scene.
*Rent Panavision Genesis Camera, Arri d20, a 950 and a 35mm camera ASAP.
*Bring your RED ONE along as well.
*Edit the footage.
*Get the community to help you with what they can (cameramen, editors etc etc). WE know you guys are busy.
*Release the comparison Footage on the RED website before they do.

I am sure that there are several hundred people willing to help shoot, test, edit, compare. Worthy to-be owners.

All that is needed is the cost for the other cameras, but it is a small cost to pay in my opinion to be the first FAIR full comparison test out there.

It can be done. And it would be worth it.
 
explosive said:
Jim,

May I make one suggestion to you. Do what Henry Ford would do in this situation:

*Write a short scene.
*Rent Panavision Genesis Camera, Arri d20, a 950 and a 35mm camera ASAP.
*Bring your RED ONE along as well.
*Edit the footage.
*Get the community to help you with what they can (cameramen, editors etc etc). WE know you guys are busy.
*Release the comparison Footage on the RED website before they do.

I am sure that there are several hundred people willing to help shoot, test, edit, compare. Worthy to-be owners.

All that is needed is the cost for the other cameras, but it is a small cost to pay in my opinion to be the first FAIR full comparison test out there.

It can be done. And it would be worth it.
Click to expand...
Sad But...I agree hit them hard and fast.
 
Call me crazy but I just went over to the CML website and I can't find any indication that RED was included in their last test. Did I miss something here? Did they opt not to include it or am I just not looking in the right place?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top