AndrewThomas
Well-known member
But that isn't what was said, and the line that follows it doesn't help. Like I said, it is probably poorly worded on Jim's part and gives off an impression he probably didn't intend.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I knew this was going to be interpreted that way by some.This seems poorly worded. Surely you don't mean that a film worked on by 1000s of talented and hard working people over several years was successful due simply to the camera it was shot on?
Success is very hard to define.
But that isn't what was said, and the line that follows it doesn't help. Like I said, it is probably poorly worded on Jim's part and gives off an impression he probably didn't intend.
I think you're thinking about 10x harder than he did when he wrote it in the middle of the night. These are forum posts, not eternal Scripture. No professional or anyone who works with CEO/Owners like Jim would even imagine that he was implying Red is responsible for all the success of those movies... so if you know that isn't what he meant, why even bring it up?
I'm only responding to your posts because I truly despise tall poppy syndrome, i.e. the tendency to criticize and cut down successful people, seemingly out of spite, inferiority or boredom. Jim is giving 110% to help us customers have a world class camera, and you feel the need to ask whether he really believes Red is singly responsible for the success of movies that chose to be shot on Red cameras.
Ok, I'm done ranting. Just give Jim a break and don't hyper-analyze his posts. They are meant to bolster confidence, not define the physical laws of the universe.
Success is very hard to define.
I look at it as setting stupidly high goals and then beating them. Then setting higher goals still...
One of our goals was to put cinema-worthy cameras in the hands of many. Pros. Students. Check.
We also wanted to create a tool that the best in the industry would use on the biggest and most important projects. Projects that showed we belonged alongside the best image capture devices ever made. Check.
RED cameras, mostly EPICs in the past 2+ years, are responsible for over $7B worldwide box office. That includes 3 movies that have done over $1B each.
The cameras that did this now cost roughly $20K... and are upgradeable. When we entered the arena... film and digital cameras were well over $200K.
While we have missed the mark on many things... our big picture vision has been pretty good so far.
Just imagine (for a moment) that we are fully engaged in fixing what we have not been so good at. Remember that we are just a 7 year old...
We accept that you expect more from us. We expect more from us.
In the meantime... go shoot something that exceeds your personal expectations. You have the right tool.
Jim
RED cameras, mostly EPICs in the past 2+ years, are responsible for over $7B worldwide box office. That includes 3 movies that have done over $1B each.
Jim
In the meantime... go shoot something that exceeds your personal expectations. You have the right tool.
David, Jim knows that. It's simply catching him on the phrasing of it. If you replace "are responsible" and replace it with "have contributed to the success of $7B worldwide box office" I think that statement is valid. No doubt, it's mostly the people. The camera they chose to use for those projects were RED cameras, so I don't fault Jim for wanting to be proud of that fact.that is such a bold statement. The directors, writers, and crew are responsible for those billions of dollars. Not the camera.
Just give Jim a break and don't hyper-analyze his posts.
Like this...?
Epic-M/225fps/Canon Glass
Like this...?
Epic-M/225fps/Canon Glass