Quote from "Wanted"...

[Rick Darge]

amazing..

this camera better be better than the iphone

hehe

 

[Poi Boy]

where did that come from ?? my iphone is amazing.
Aloha
-A

 

[Ray Flynn]

jim,

that has to make you smile. i am wearing one right now.

 

[LighthouseMEdia]

R.I.P.
1888-2007
FILM a good friend, dearly beloved, who will be missed for his
contribution in life, and he will be missed in death. RED was to
great a foe.

 

[Seth Larney]

Congrats Jim, this is pretty astounding news

 

[ChristopherKenworthy]

Back in the 70s, when I was about 7 years old, I taught myself to load film into an 8mm camera. Not too difficult, but it was a bit of a hassle, especially with those tiny 4 minute spools I was using. In 1982 I got my hands on an overgrown video camera. It produced a horrendous VHS image that wasn't much better than a security camera, but you could just pop a tape in and shoot for half an hour. I remember thinking, way back then, "Wouldn't it be great to have the quality of film and the simplicity of tape." I never guessed we'd do better than that, and beat film stock in a tapeless workflow. This latest news makes me happy.

 

[Adam Jeal]

Thank you very much for this news Jim. I just wrapped a shoot for an FX laden music video shot on 5218 two days ago! - This just gets better and better!

I really appriciate all the hard work you guys are putting in

All the best,

adam

 

[Adam Jeal]

amazing..

this camera better be better than the iphone

hehe

I think that's pretty much a dead-cert Richard :biggrin:

 

[jbeale]

could not tell apart?

could not tell apart?

...did a filmout of both. When we screened side by side, we literally could not tell the difference.

This is surprising to me. Doesn't film normally show a lot more grain than the Red image? I conclude that the grain in the negative must be negligible compared with the grain in the print stock?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Awesome.... now when does it ship?

 

[JD Holloway]

5218 is typically pretty grainy and not the best dynamic range.
Now against 5201... for a tough test!

 

[Paul Hazlett]

5201...5202, whatever it takes.....

 

[Desert Rune]

Film has more of an emotional aesthetic RED will never duplicate.

</ducks>

 

[Jim Arthurs]

I conclude that the grain in the negative must be negligible compared with the grain in the print stock?

No, not with normally processed print stock. Print stock has VERY low ASA and very fine grain...

 

[ChristopherKenworthy]

Film has more of an emotional aesthetic RED will never duplicate.

</ducks>

You could be right. But I'll spend the next few years trying to prove you wrong.

 

[jaadgy akanni]

Film has more of an emotional aesthetic RED will never duplicate.

</ducks>

And vice versa!!!


So we're even:devil:

"truth is not kind...I say neither is RED....that's why love it"

 

[Paul Hazlett]

Film has more of an emotional aesthetic RED will never duplicate.

</ducks>

Now that sound like an old qoute from someone reading "Stereo Review"
in the early 80's in the CD versus LP war.

heheh

 

[Peter McCully]

Now that sound like an old qoute from someone reading "Stereo Review"
in the early 80's in the CD versus LP war.

heheh

Indeed. Except Red is to film what Super Audio is to vinyl.

 

[jaadgy akanni]

Now that sound like an old qoute from someone reading "Stereo Review"
in the early 80's in the CD versus LP war.

heheh

Ditto. That reminds me of Pearl Jam back in the '90's still trying to resuscitate Vynil. Some people find it hard to come to terms with the revolution of evolution...whatever that means...lol

 

[Poi Boy]

Film has more of an emotional aesthetic RED will never duplicate.

</ducks>

Nonsense, film has GRAIN not emotional aesthetic.

-A