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 :)

Full-frontal insidious attack on Red, by indie director Rian Johnson (2008)

Status
Not open for further replies.
And another thing - what's the first thing the HDCAM DCT block based codec does to compress the data - it will transform it from RGB to Y'CbCr - why, because then the compression can exploit the relative lack of chroma information as compared to luma information in the scene and discard accordingly. Ever wonder why a Bayer pattern actually works so well - well, there's a relative lack of chroma information in what we see, and our eyes are not as sensitive to chroma as they are to luma resolution and detail.

As for 2k being "enough", that's such a defeatist attitude. Little anecdote time:

I remember at IBC on the first showing of the RED footage. It was the first time I'd seen it in full 4k in motion. Quite an experience. I knew the footage inside out after all the work we'd all done on it, but it was just FAB to see it on that 60ft screen. But we saw other footage on that screen. We saw HD on that screen, and there was no comparison in resolution and detail. But maybe that's because I sat close enough and have better than 20:20 vision. For me, 2k is not enough on the big screen. 4k is not enough.

Graeme
 
I think the conversation of what looks better is valid. Every person will have a different take on that, and I don't have a problem with Rian saying he doesn't like the Red footage. I had someone at NAB tell me they thought the Arri D20 looked better than the Red footage they saw. He was entitled to his opinion. Where I think Rian is perhaps making a mistake, although I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, is taking on the technical side of it. As Wayno said, this could all be summed up with a simple paragraph that states after viewing tests, he does not like the look and will continue to shoot with film. But maybe he enjoys the tech too and wants to discuss it. That's fine too. Without knowing whether there are biases based on political reasons, i.e. he has shot Panavision on both films, then we have to take him at his word that he is writing this to give his take on it. Graeme knows the code more than anyone, so obviously I put my money on his technical explanations, but as long as the conversation stays civil and productive, I say welcome Rian aboard with open arms and have at it. I know I'll learn more along the way, as I seem to learn something new around here everyday.
 
I emailed him personally and his server rejects. Stop shouting man. If you are satisfied with F23 and Genesis, use them.

Sony and Panavision are good companies doing great product. Red is Rebel product with a better technical innovation. Stop talking Johnson start shooting.
 
gbalaji said:
I emailed him personally and his server rejects. Stop shouting man. If you are satisfied with F23 and Genesis, use them.

Sony and Panavision are good companies doing great product. Red is Rebel product with a better technical innovation. Stop talking Johnson start shooting.
Click to expand...

G, I've been going back and forth with him and others a bit on the forum and trying to be respectful of his opinion. Whether he's right or wrong on the technical side, he is entitled to his opinion about what he likes for imagery. And he is shooting. He's going to be making a new film called Looper. Let's give him a chance to come on here and defend himself if he chooses to do so. I'm sure he doesn't want to walk into a boiling pot, so the more open to discussion, perhaps the better chance he'll make an appearance. He did go back and make changes to the original article to clarify that he doesn't think Red is a bad camera, in fact he says it's better than most HD cameras. Just not a couple of them.
 
The question of aesthetics - which do you prefer, is totally valid, and totally personal. Discussing facts about "specs" is daft as specs are not a motion picture image, a motion picture image is a motion picture image. Discussing actual repeatable scientifically controlled measurements of cameras is very geeky, but can be interesting.

Fact is every camera ever made is a compromise in one way, form or another. But you don't pick a camera on the specs of that compromise, but how the actual image works actually in reality, as there are probably a lot more nuances to that compromise than you actually understand, unless you've designed and worked on the internals of a camera yourself, and even then you will not know all the nuances....

Graeme
 
This is silly.

He knows where this forum is. Why not come here and "school" all of us on the Red One in person? Why sit back and throw rocks from behind the shrubs?
 
Tom said:
This is silly.

He knows where this forum is. Why not come here and "school" all of us on the Red One in person? Why sit back and throw rocks from behind the shrubs?
Click to expand...

Simply because he is out of his depth on technical issues, which is patently clear from the complete nonsense that he wrote, and he has a different agenda. :ranting2:

I think he would be a complete and utter waste of time to engage into a discussion with anyway. He made his mind before making up his numbers and he does not even understand the meaning of them. He can't multiply two numbers together, for God's sake, so explaining him physics or compression algorithms, like difference between block DCT and wavelet, YUV and RAW, would be somewhat challenging, to say the least. Just ignore him. There are better things to spend time on.
 
From his forum.

Ayz wrote:
Rian, it seems your post has sparked a discussion on the Official RED forums, and amongst the obvious noise, there's also some good information on how the camera/compression actually works and what the real-world resolution may be. Here's the link:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19185

haha, you've got some people pretty upset. wow.


Actually it all seems relatively civil, and I feel that again I should reiterate: I'm not saying that the RED camera is a bad camera or that no one should use it. If you like the camera or its results, that's all that matters. And I specifically say that in the piece.

The piece was written to address the much hyped claim that RED captures more information, has more resolution and thus is higher quality than high end HD or film, which is simply not the case. But in terms of its aesthetic merits, I'd be happy to see footage that would win me over.

I will say that the couple posts on the RED forum which contained technical details merit a response. What do you guys think would be the best way to respond? I'm honestly hesitant, because I don't want to get bogged down in a never ending back and forth, but I might just post a few little responses here in this thread...

and

Ayz wrote:
Just go ahead and reply in the forum. You don't have to reply to every comeback. Just address what you want to, and leave it at that. I think they might appreciate hearing from you directly...


Really? Seems like emotions tend to run pretty high on that board, feels like it might be stepping into a bear trap...
_________________
_________________
 
Pawel Achtel said:
Just ignore him. There are better things to spend time on.
Click to expand...

Except that he made some films that are pretty popular and he is a somewhat influential member of the filmmaking community. Opinion is one thing, but it's the facts or perhaps wrong information that can affect the bottom line for people trying to make a living with the camera. Think about how many times you hear people speaking of issues that just don't exist or were fixed a long time ago. This type of thing compounds it. That's why it's better to engage in a conversation that can perhaps get some of those facts straight and help everyone understand better in the long run.
 
What is this guy, a cupcake? :)

Might be stepping into a bear trap? But he thinks it's okay to sit back and throw rocks at the bear? Lol.
 
BTW - he is getting his 15 minutes of fame here.

we are all reading/talking about him and his new movie.........you'd pay a fortune for a PR campaing like that!!

Jim - send him an invoice:tongue:
 
After reading the new article I can't help, but to come to this conclusions:

A) He did not write the article, someone else did... (or at least someone more technically oriented has proofed it)

B) Whom ever has written (or proofed) the new article is as technically incorrect as he was in the first one...

C) If nobody related to Sony had anything to do with the new article (and maybe even the old one), I am going to eat the F23 user manual... :)

D) The info about RAW is so out of topic that is like saying we use air travel, because we don't have to put gas into and maintain our own cars... Whom ever has written it has no clue what RAW means and what is the main advantage of it... I guess all the DSLR users are just plain wrong...

It is clearly pointless trying to shine some light on this for him...
He needs to open his eyes (and his mind) first to see any light...

:) Peter
 
stevesherrick said:
Except that he made some films that are pretty popular and he is a somewhat influential member of the filmmaking community.
Click to expand...

If I were in his pants I would enjoy it while it lasts. :)

The article will not gain him credibility, at least not among those that have some technical background.

stevesherrick said:
Opinion is one thing, but it's the facts or perhaps wrong information that can affect the bottom line for people trying to make a living with the camera. Think about how many times you hear people speaking of issues that just don't exist or were fixed a long time ago. This type of thing compounds it. That's why it's better to engage in a conversation that can perhaps get some of those facts straight and help everyone understand better in the long run.
Click to expand...

Oh, I fully agree, and this is exactly why I think much of his article is a case of defamation: it intentionally distorts factual (mostly technical) information in order to make a bad image of a product.

If he doesn't think Red One is a good camera, why not write article how fantastic is the camera that he likes instead. Specially that he has NFI about Red One or technology in general. It seems pretty clear he has a hidden agenda.
 
Rian's a good guy. He obviously has some strong feelings about the camera's specs, which he feels are misleading. I don't agree with him on the compression or the math, but I understand where he's coming from. If you hear "4k Camera", but then hear "well, actually 3.2K," it can smell of B.S., if taken out of context. Probably makes you weary of all the other specs too.

I don't think this has anything to do with hating the RED or wanting to put it down, but more with him and his colleagues feeling the need to do some mythbusting. The logic seems off to me, as does the argument, but the intention is not malicious at all.
 
Peter Majtan said:
C) If nobody related to Sony had anything to do with the new article (and maybe even the old one), I am going to eat the F23 user manual... :)
Click to expand...

That's funny. I'll subscribe to that too :biggrin:
 
Ayz, a lot of us here at Reduser, like Haakon and myself, have been saying for a long time to basically consider Red a 2K camera. Even Graeme posts here all the time saying that Red One does not have real, pixel-for-pixel 4K visible resolution. Rian was stating a fact that is common knowledge here.

Perhaps the Red.com website is a little over the top, but anyone in the know about Red One already knows it's not pixel-for-pixel 4K - just like DSLRs are not quite pixel-for-pixel. The guy's tone was kind of "gotcha" and needlessly antagonistic, which is probably why he ruffled feathers here.
 
If Rian does show up: I liked Brick a lot!

You're wrong about a lot of the technical issues and should probably stop writing articles about them, but by all means do continue making movies by whatever means suits you, because I expect I'd enjoy them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top