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 :)

ISO Pics analyized

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jannard said:
While the display of our low noise levels is nice, what is missing form this article is that it is a "cartoon shot" that we pulled off just to show the rubberband-like nature of our image. We certainly have not done any color matrix calibrations for that radical of under-exposure. And that fact seems to be missing in the article. If someone is going to take and use one of our images without permission, I think the least they could do is talk to us before publishing so we can make sure all the facts are there. I realize that Randall had good intentions, but this tells us we just shouldn't post anything more until we are done.

Jim
Click to expand...

Maybe a disclaimer explaining what RED has or has not done in regards to that particular test, attached to the released images, might help this misunderstanding. That way you don't have to put your customer base back in the dark as far as updates & image releases are concerned. For me, the new flood of image releases has been a great relief that real progress is being made. I'd hate to lose that again.

My .02

-CJ Roy
 
Imatest is a sophisticated tool. In order to make the results useful, you need to use it properly. If you want to compare noise levels of Red and Brand X camera in a meaningful way, you need to shoot the cameras with the same lighting and the same exposure. You need to take output in the same color space and match the pixel resolution (since downsampled images show less per-pixel noise than native res images do). Then you can run Imatest on the output and get results that mean something.

For the test in question, I believe that none of these things has been done.
 
Try harder, CCI

Try harder, CCI

CCIRandall said:
Don't worry RED heads, we're not saying it's bad.
Click to expand...

Randall, good or bad results, it's grossly inaccurate testing and equally irresponsible reporting, any which way you look at it.

Testing JPEGs off a website? Who are you kidding? I personally wouldn't accept the results of such an informal "test" no matter how positive or negative they would turn out to be.

Keep taking cheap shots like that and people who know better will stop relying on future CCI testing, no matter how serious, methodically disciplined, precise and sophisticated they may actually be.

:nuke:
 
ditto

ditto

regista said:
Randall, good or bad results, it's grossly inaccurate testing and equally irresponsible reporting, any which way you look at it.

Testing JPEGs off a website? Who are you kidding? I personally wouldn't accept the results of such an informal "test" no matter how positive or negative they would turn out to be.

Keep taking cheap shots like that and people who know better will stop relying on future CCI testing, no matter how serious, methodically disciplined, precise and sophisticated they may actually be.

:nuke:
Click to expand...

ditto
 
Jannard said:
While the display of our low noise levels is nice, what is missing form this article is that it is a "cartoon shot" that we pulled off just to show the rubberband-like nature of our image. We certainly have not done any color matrix calibrations for that radical of under-exposure. And that fact seems to be missing in the article. If someone is going to take and use one of our images without permission, I think the least they could do is talk to us before publishing so we can make sure all the facts are there. I realize that Randall had good intentions, but this tells us we just shouldn't post anything more until we are done.

Jim
Click to expand...

I agree Jim. Good intentions used off incomplete examples which ends in a complete waste of time. I'm confused that even though the article states the images weren't shot in lab-like conditions, why run a whole image testing and write a whole article on it?
 
These tests are too technical for me to understand. Can someone give a summary? Are they complimenting the RED on low noise?
 
Copyright

Copyright

I think you should still post pictures, but make sure to mention in every one of your posts that the images are copyrighted. This way any legitimate media has to ask for permission or expect the wrath of Red's lawyers.
Steven
 
The party's over, Honey.
 
regista said:
Randall, good or bad results, it's grossly inaccurate testing and equally irresponsible reporting, any which way you look at it.

Testing JPEGs off a website? Who are you kidding? I personally wouldn't accept the results of such an informal "test" no matter how positive or negative they would turn out to be.

Keep taking cheap shots like that and people who know better will stop relying on future CCI testing, no matter how serious, methodically disciplined, precise and sophisticated they may actually be.

:nuke:
Click to expand...

Ditto.

Randall, if you take your work seriously, you should put this report offline asap or at least add a big disclaimer that you used the wrong color space, that it's based on a low res JPEG, and that the camera was not calibrated for colors at this level of under-exposure. This was a noise test after all, and not a color test!

:ranting2:

Jim, please keep posting your test shoots and try to ignore such ignorant bastards. :matrix:
 
I think Randall should pull his unauthorized, copyright infringement, incomplete, misleading and poorly done article (with jpegs in wrong color space). He should also apologize to Red company and Red users for his misuse and abuse of red images.
 
Greg Voevodsky said:
I think Randall should pull his unauthorized, copyright infringement, incomplete, misleading and poorly done article (with jpegs in wrong color space). He should also apologize to Red company and Red users for his misuse and abuse of red images.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
Jim should force him to do so. :gun:
 
You guys are over-reacting. He did what he did, it will have NO EFFECT on sales or anything else. Also, he will be the first of THOUSANDS who will post images and punch holes in the picture. RED will hurt a lot of products, they will try to fight back.. Won't help, but they will try.

We better start getting a stronger stomach for this stuff, cause this is only the beginning.

Look at it this way.. Say his test stays like it is, then the camera comes out and future tests make his look wrong and unprofessional, that's the end of it. Us going bonzo like a bunch of "Red Heads" simply makes us look like we can see no fault with the camera. Like we are mindless worshippers here to grovel for all things RED.. I don't know about all of you, but that's not me. I'm here cause it's a cool camera and I am excited to get one. However it is still unproven technology in that all the promised features have yet to be operational. Do I think they will be? You bet your undies I do. However, until they are, the camera is not finished. We cannot argue that point and must respect those that say it.

Truely confident people have no need to yell for they know they have already won.

Jay
 
Jay A. Kelley said:
Truely confident people have no need to yell for they know they have already won.

Jay
Click to expand...

It's funny how upset Hollywood gets when its copyrighted movies are illegally copied, manipulated, and released to the public before they come out.

It has nothing to do with a positive or negative review, rather a proper and professional one. It was not done legally with permission nor well with fact checking and it hurts the reputation of RED and others with misinformation. That's why it should be removed with an apology.
 
Greg Voevodsky said:
It has nothing to do with a positive or negative review, rather a proper and professional one. It was not done legally with permission nor well with fact checking and it hurts the reputation of RED and others with misinformation. That's why it should be removed with an apology.
Click to expand...

I'm no attorney but it seems to me this would be covered under "Fair Use" because it's a review that's adds value (as commentary - accurate or not). You can use all kinds of stuff.

Were they crappy journalists? Possibly. They didn't contact RED for a response and they appear have posted some bogus conclusions. And why anyone would base any test of a camera that shoots compressed RAW based on a jpeg BEFORE the shipping camera is released is way beyond me. Guess they want cheap traffic - but my guess is a whole lot of us won't bother going to them for the scoop in the future.

The best response is for RED to post their side (which they've done) and forgetaboutit.

I think Peter Jackson and Soderbergh have a little more influence than whoevertheyare.com
 
Jim, rest assured no one is going to be influenced by a faulty test done with jpg's!

That link should definitely should be taken down for all concerned.
 
Jim thank you for giving us something to chew on every little while and I know my heart jumps a beat when I see a new sample from the camera but I think it's a good idea to hold off from any future tests shoots going public.
At least you could have a forum locked ONLY to registration holders where you can post anything you like and we'd be under strict NDA to do as you please :)
While at the same time you could keep posting "public-safe" samples on the general forum.
I know it's a bit late for the RED One as the cat's almost completely out of the bag but for any future projects I think it'd be worth thinking about.

I for one will be equally happy if you do not post anything else until the cameras come out of production (I know some people might hate me about saying this but what can you do, eh?) Better safe than sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top