Hmmm . . . well, Brook, I actually don't expect much to happen here. Have you noticed the number of "mea culpas" and "softened" positions over at that other forum that have been posted, post-NAB? It's virtually a complete turnaround. Plus, this is RED territory. Few skeptics seem to venture here. At least this post readily concedes RED's capabilities, vis-a-vis film (latitude, grain, etc.). Jim laid everything out on the table. And there's little argument over most of those points. Of course, there's always gonna be that one die hard, off-topic poster who'll post, "It doesn't matter what you shoot on, it's all about story!"
YES! Absolutely, Jim. To me, RED represents the holy grail of digital motion picture acquisition . . . FINALLY! Finally . . . no more excuses! FINALLY . . . no more apologizing for what my images could have, should have, would have been. I can now reserve all my excuses for my often-weak story ideas instead!
Now THAT's probably the better question. In fact, an even BETTER question would be . . . You have $100 million to make a movie. Which would you choose, RED or 35mm film? With only $10 million, you could easily argue to use the bulk of that money for sets, etc. With $100 million, the stock and processing cost becomes virtually inconsequential.
