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 :)

Life after Red

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting article. He is obviously entitled to his opinion, but i have to say my experience with Red has been nothing short of excellent so far- from costumer support to the products themselves. I think lots are in the same boat. Love the workflow, love the dynamic range, the frame rates, the indie friendly Canon Mount, the absolutely ground breaking form factor and battery solution (redvolts), love the resolution, love the images and how flexible everything is in post.

Competition is good, but competition never committed to "Obsolescence Obsolete". The competition can very well bring new products with better features, but I'm sure Red will not leave us behind and offer similar or superior performing products. I feel that I'm in safe hands as a client of Red. If I purchased a C300, for example, I would be really pissed with the introduction of the C500, or a FS100 and later an FS700, or on the high end, an F23 to F35 to F65...

Another big aspect that people neglect is that Red created a different mindset in the industry, disrupted the "elitist" mentality of the High End Lobby of Film Production. It allowed for films like District 9 to appear, by relative unknowns that where supported by independent producers. This pissed off a lot of people in the High End production World, but allowed a Cinema Revolution worldwide. Places like Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, even mainland China benefited immensely with the Red Revolution and the knowhow sharing the Red mentality brought to the filmmaking and content creation World. I, for example, met redusers from around the world and they've all been helpfull and with a very proactive, boundaries pushing attitude. This is something that the others cannot "sell", because this attitude and spirit came from Red's "gut" , its heart- to empowering filmmakers independent of their background.

Business is important, but the way a company relates and speaks to you, their commitment to us clients, independent of our background, is worth my support and loyalty. From all the competition in the market, I see Red as the company with the biggest possibility to improve and push boundaries. While the other brands have big ressources, they have business models to protect. They will probably "follow" instead of "lead". Even if they do come with a superior product, it will be a niche, expensive one- a "prestige" product destined to a selected few. Red's mentality is different. It commits itself as a Digital Cinema Company pure and simple- this commitment allows it to supply tools not for a niche prestige elite but for all filmmakers, without the constraints of having to protect "consumer divisions".
 
LOL - I'll post here but I can't see the thread being here for long as I've just read the article.

The article is one person's view & that's fine. I'm sure it doesn't match that of others...

It's a shame, it starts off fairly balanced - and then degenerates towards the last few paragraphs.
 
Sergio Perez said:
It allowed for films like District 9 to appear, by relative unknowns that where supported by independent producers.
Click to expand...

Isn't this example a bit over-stating? Neill Blomkamp worked with Peter Jackson and a studio for years at a Halo-movie. When that didn't happen, Peter Jackson believed enough in Blomkamp to tell him: "make what you want to make for 30 million dollars, and I'll produce it."
They choose the RED probably because they loved lots of aspects of it. I don't think RED made THIS movie happen.

I get your point about RED democratisizing some parts of the movie-making process (and agree) but just don't think District 9 is that good of an example of it.
 
Life after RED? I seem to recall life before RED. . . I like life after RED much better! :)
 
Mathieu Ghekiere said:
Isn't this example a bit over-stating? Neill Blomkamp worked with Peter Jackson and a studio for years at a Halo-movie. When that didn't happen, Peter Jackson believed enough in Blomkamp to tell him: "make what you want to make for 30 million dollars, and I'll produce it."
They choose the RED probably because they loved lots of aspects of it. I don't think RED made THIS movie happen.

I get your point about RED democratisizing some parts of the movie-making process (and agree) but just don't think District 9 is that good of an example of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, probably not the best example, but it was a "Hollywood like " Blockbuster, big effects movie done with a very"indie" language. Those effects and the budget could only be done by the Red at that time, I think, and, also, it was the type of project I think "studios" would say immediately No. Sure it was PJ that gave him a hand but (maybe I'm wrong again) he only had a short in his resume... I know nothing about economy but I'm sure 30 million is a bit inflated for that movie. It made a lot, lot more in the B.O, and films that do so end up posting a production budget a bit "higher". That's not the issue in discussion here, so, Mathieu, appologies if this movie doesn't represent what i intended to say :) You got what I meant !
 
Yawn. He's "for all intensive purposes" (his words) looking for some "fanboy" reaction, that's all.
 
RED cameras are cinema cameras. Yes if you are comfortable with them (which is infinitely easier now than it was at the beginning) you can shoot anything from the highest budget feature to a childs birthday party.

Sure you probably would be better off doing the latter on a 5D or FS700 but you COULD do it on an EPIC and have a freakin awesome video.

However, the reverse isn't necessarily true. Ridley scott couldn't have shot an IMAX movie on a C300. We delivered a 5K video for the worlds longest screen this year, couldn't have done that on F3s.

The Epic is the swiss army knife of cameras, if swiss army knives came with a katana built in.

*Before I get accused of being a mindless fanboy, Id like to make it clear I have used, and do use, most of these cameras regularly in my work. I agree that each have its strengths, but I think the strength of the RED system is in its multi functionality, and future proofed resolution. Epics and Scarlets were made into new cameras with the latest beta, canon found a way to add 4K to the C300 then sold it as a new camera.
 
Unfortunately written by someone who neither understands resolution nor aliasing. I'm getting tired now of such articles that lacks even the most basic of technical fact checking.

" Also when you use a Bayer pattern and you de-bayer in the end your looking at approx half of the true resolution you started with. Maybe its Red’s goal to double up to 8K so in the end you have a true 4K output to work with? The only problem with that is that if you increase resolution you also increase moire opportunity. Due to that they end up putting in a stronger filter (low pass filter) on the sensor that basically softens the image. Its a never ending battle. Its best to just avoid Bayer all together which I think is what most companies are focusing on. Canon C500, Sony F65 both do not use a standard Bayer pattern and therefore can retain their native resolution. The Arri Alexa starts with a 3.5K sensor knowing that the De-Bayer will yield a nice 2K/1080P output. 4K versions of cameras coming out will have a goal of Bayer free 4K output with a 1080p output option.

"

1) Alexa isn't 3.5k starting point, it's 2880 across for making 1080p. (just as the F65 isn't 20mp it's 17.7mp)
2) 1) above contradicts his claim that you need 2x the resolution on a Bayer pattern (2280/1920 = 1.5)
3) debayering actually has minimal effect on measured resolution, much less than the optical low pass filter to avoid the worst of aliasing, and for example on Epic / MX I've measured about 80% of the linear resolution of the sensor, a figure in excess of his 50% figure which is woefully inaccurate. And OLPFs are necessary for all camera types, be they a colour filter array like Bayer, or 3chip or Foveon.
4) increasing sensor resolution makes moire and aliasing harder, not easier! The better the camera is at responding to fine detail, the better it will be able to avoid aliasing in a scene.
5) No, we didn't put in a stronger OLPF. Higher resolution without changing pixel size means the OLPF remains constant. Higher resolution while making the pixels smaller means weaker OLPF is needed, not stronger.
6) no, it's not a never-ending battle.
7) C500 is utterly standard bayer pattern.
8) F65 is utterly standard bayer rotated by 45 degrees, and for an 8k camera has only a fraction of the pixels it needs as it only has enough for about 5.6k not 8k.


Graeme
 
Last edited:
Remember Stone Cold Steve Austin? Remember that slogan they used to put all over his merchandise?

"Austin 3:16, Cause Stone Cold said so"

You should totally print Nattress 3:16 shirts.

Ok, maybe that was a little fanboy-ish.
 
Andrew clemson said:
Remember Stone Cold Steve Austin? Remember that slogan they used to put all over his merchandise?

"Austin 3:16, Cause Stone Cold said so"

You should totally print Nattress 3:16 shirts.

Ok, maybe that was a little fanboy-ish.
Click to expand...

And in a hint of irony, Steve not only bears a passing resemblance to Jim but just about every project he does these days is shot on RED. Personally, I think it would be great to have some t-shirts that say RED COLOR SCIENCE: NATTRESS OXIDE or something sillyish like that.
 
This guy's out of touch ; and so are his writing skills, with his misspellings and solecisms.. BTW, he meant "to the detriment of..." not determent of..
 
F65 appears quite aliasy, but has enough pixels for about 5.6k (not the 8k claimed). If DR is more it wasn't significantly more in that perhaps the darkest stops had a smidgen less noise, but I couldn't see any more real stops. But like a lot of the higher end cameras we see these days, it's not in a practical form-factor which makes it utterly unusable for many tasks.

Graeme
 
I would like to speak up for Red. I've never been happier dealing with an AV-company, and I've never been more amazed by any AV-product!

I also feel very loyal to Red as a phenomenon, as they propelled and finally gave us real digital cinema acquisition. The Red leader is probably eccentric, but who are not who actually makes things change?

There is no need for entrepreneurs to hide under a rock, I like that the guy is so open and frank on these forums.People who don't appreciate it, are not appreciating real innovators.

I was just at an Apple repair center, and this famous quote covered one of the walls - it always makes me happy:

Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.
Click to expand...
 
From the article....

You can shoot 4K for a web video if you want to but 1080p does a fine job.
Click to expand...

Any of us who shoot or intend to shoot for theatrical release should be very happy that Red makes digital motion picture cameras and not web cameras.

It's a strange article overall. The idea that 4k+ .R3Ds take up more space than more compressed 1080p files.... Shocker.

I don't think Red's focus has ever been to out sale any of the "big 3" camera companies. It was always marketed as film alternative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top