Censorship on REDUSER

[JanneJansson]

(Going totally OT)

Gee
I have a would be Demi-God-Would-Be in my extended family.

Good to know on a hard days night.

(Back on topic)

Well here is another [OT]:
A small boy eats a lot of pancakes for breakfast, and his belly is very full. Later that day he is out with his father and they run in to a pregnant woman, and the boy says and point at the woman's stummac:
- Hey I know what you have been doing!
[/OT]

:jacked:

 

[chrislancaster]

Keep Red, Red.

I am guilty of comparisons tho so i will be the change bla bla bla :beer:

 

[Christian Munoz D]

I follow your point but to my book, a professional device is what brings you an income in your daily business whatever the segment your business is.

E.

A few days ago a colleague of my shot a tsunami with a cellphone, he made an income. So, cellphones are now "professional devices" to shoot disasters?

 

[Emanuel A.]

A few days ago a colleague of my shot a tsunami with a cellphone, he made an income. So, cellphones are now "professional devices" to shoot disasters?

If your colleague will get it in a systematic way (for any reason you can read there written 'daily business'), yes.

During the Gulf War, the videophones were professional devices, despite the non-broadcast quality signal.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Hey folks, don't forget that this thread is about what should or should not be spoken about in this forum!!! Not if cellephones are or aren't professionnal tools!!!

Don't cross the line otherwise you'll get censored!!!

;-)

Pat

 

[Martin Weiss]

Don't cross the line otherwise you'll get moderated!!!

Grüße in die Schwietz

 

[Christian Munoz D]

Don't cross the line otherwise you'll get moderated!!!

Grüße in die Schwietz

If your colleague will get it in a systematic way (for any reason you can read there written 'daily business'), yes.

During the Gulf War, the videophones were professional devices, despite the non-broadcast quality signal.

You are right Martin. Sorry about that guys, this is a subject very interesting for me. The last 20 o more years I have had same talk about film super8, VHS, Video8, etc. and now about DSRL's. I think the evolution of technology is very interesting subject.

Emmanuel, perhaps in the future we can follow-up this talk.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Sure Christian. I think Martin's point is lost anyway ;-) Well, and Patrick's too

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Sure Christian. I think Martin's point is lost anyway ;-) Well, and Patrick's too

Patricks point is not lost on neither you nor me...

Martin, though....Is having a... n' other time... LOL

 

[Steve Das]

Think the point is if someone uses a camera i.e. Super 8 or nowadays
35mm HDSLR to shoot a movie. Does that make it a digital cinema camera even
if said camera was designed only for newspaper still photographers to be able to
post video to a newspaper's website but people then use it to shoot tv and films.
And when said HDSLR line skips and has resolution of only 1.4K the issue is
further muddied. But then according to red test even F35 is only 1.7K

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=550712&highlight=canon+resolution#post550712

Other point is this is a Red Digital Cinema website.
Now out of 30 some odd forums..it does not seem
unreasonable to have just one forum where all the other
digital cinema cameras can be combined in their own forum ghetto.
Of course this then comes back to what is a digital cinema camera...
do you just put a 2K number on it...or do moviemakers decide it by camera choice.

 

[Martin Weiss]

Time to move on