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 :)

Wow! THR disses Red, rebuttal needed

M Most said:
Graeme, you know Carolyn (at least I think you do) just as I do. She is not in any way "ignorant of Red," and to imply such is pretty insulting. All writers are free to report what they see as they see it, and they are not obligated to mention every device that could possibly be included in every article. For the mainstream industry, the arrival of a Sony 4K camera product is pretty significant, and most likely just as much of a lightning rod for development of 4K compatible companion products, such as displays, as Red was, if not more so. Sony has a much greater reach into both the mainstream production industry and the consumer market, and thus an awful lot of influence. THAT was likely the reason for Carolyn's piece.

Not mentioning something is certainly not the same as "dissing" it, which is what is implied by this thread.
Click to expand...

Silly post... you are right. Sony invented and is revolutionizing 4K cameras.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
Silly post... you are right. Sony invented and is revolutionizing 4K cameras.

Jim
Click to expand...

Hey you're the one who patented r3d compression - they really have no choice but to invent their own version of 4k :sifone:

We'll see if they're successful or not...
 
Jake Bastian said:
Hey you're the one who patented r3d compression - they really have no choice but to invent their own version of 4k :sifone:

We'll see if they're successful or not...
Click to expand...

I've said it before. Other companies will swoop down and try to rebrand and claim 4K as their idea.
 
Robert Frank said:
I've said it before. Other companies will swoop down and try to rebrand and claim 4K as their idea.
Click to expand...

They will try, but RED seems to be developing the sort of loyal customer base that will call them on it and prevent them from ever successfully taking full credit.
 
Steve Sherrick said:
I know this is true to a certain extent but it extends even beyond these trade mags. Without getting into too many details there has been a bias against RED in certain segments of the industry, some of which had nothing to do with camera specs or trade magazine articles. RED survived a lot of it and has changed some people's minds. Execs look through accounting books, DPs look through cameras. In my opinion they should have a lot of the final say when it comes to choosing a camera system. If budget becomes an issue, DP should have say in alternate camera system. Execs should do what they do best. The DPs and Techs are on the frontlines and are the ones informed about this stuff and don't need a Hollywood Reporter article.

But alas, I know reality is you are probably correct, and there is a bit of influence from these studio trades. Wishing it weren't so.
Click to expand...

this how I see it, and this really concerns me from a lively-hood POV and nothing else. Regardless of what anyone says beyond this website/forum/thread myself and many cam owners are real Redusers, to not acknowledge our existence is a dis.
 
But... The epic *does* have uncompressed so it shouldn't be omitted for that either. It is kind of funny though it would be like writing an article on grunge music and forgetting Nirvana.

But if I suspected any agenda, the only agenda I would suspect is that the dalsa comment was an effort to generate controversy and doubt as to whether *Sony* will succeed. Its more of a diss on Sony than red. "Sony is championing their new camera but look how Dalsa turned out, it's no sure bet."
 
I would have mentioned Red if I had written the article. In any case, Red is well-known by now. So I'm not sure if the omission should be a cause for concern.

Joofa
 
Mike Most stirring the pot on Reduser? Talk about old news
This from the same self agrandizing guy who claimed 4k is years away about a year ago
If anyone should be ignored - it's mike most - who lives to stir the pot with pseudo facts and more back pedals
Than a crab - don't buy into his now 3 year old game

In a week he will be praising red and retracting these seemingly unbiased comments and saying what a big supporter of Red he has been - sad because Mike seems like a smart guy but for the years I have been on here he ALWAYS jumps on the fuck Red bandwagon when opportunity arises and if the Reduser upgrades didn't delete all his pOsts - I'd easily prove it over the past 2 - 3 years

Unfortunately unbiased reporting is about as relevant as uncompressed video

The biggest industry FUD of all time is that uncompressed means "better"

talk about marketing bullshit.

Wavelet compression rules - ask Arri. Meantime Sony just took the Lead for marketing bullshit
 
Tim Whitcomb said:
Mike Most stirring the pot on Reduser? Talk about old news
This from the same self agrandizing guy who claimed 4k is years away about a year ago
If anyone should be ignored - it's mike most - who lives to stir the pot with pseudo facts and more back pedals
Than a crab - don't buy into his now 3 year old game

In a week he will be praising red and retracting these seemingly unbiased comments and saying what a big supporter of Red he has been - sad because Mike seems like a smart guy but for the years I have been on here he ALWAYS jumps on the fuck Red bandwagon when opportunity arises and if the Reduser upgrades didn't delete all his pOsts - I'd easily prove it over the past 2 - 3 years

Unfortunately unbiased reporting is about as relevant as uncompressed video

The biggest industry FUD of all time is that uncompressed means "better"

talk about marketing bullshit.

Wavelet compression rules - ask Arri. Meantime Sony just took the Lead for marketing bullshit
Click to expand...

Wow... Post of the day (lol) jk
 
Mike Most is a solid guy with solid reasoning. I think he is only trying to be unbiased about a reporter having the right to report anything she believes factual, But I personally believe anyone who can actually dig deep to remember the Dalsa camera as a 4k camera but decides to ignore the most popular camera in Hollywood the very market she serves, fundamentally and basically has an agenda. You can slice it or dice it however you want a pig is a pig even with mascara on.
 
Well the same reporter just wrote another article on the same subject which mentions Red this time. Ahem, not sure it will put out the flames though... ;)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sony-electronics-unveils-4k-digital-176811

The bit about Red: "The rival Red camera claims that its digital cinematography cameras can handle 4K and higher resolutions, although that has been questioned by many industry leaders."
 
Steven-Marc C. said:
The bit about Red: "The rival Red camera claims that its digital cinematography cameras can handle 4K and higher resolutions, although that has been questioned by many industry leaders."
Click to expand...
I think that's even worse than not being mentioned... So now, not only is RED not important, but they're lying about what they do... remind me not to lend much credence to what Carolyn Giardina is writing.
 
Jake Bastian said:
I think that's even worse than not being mentioned... So now, not only is RED not important, but they're lying about what they do... remind me not to lend much credence to what Carolyn Giardina is writing.
Click to expand...
It's just like the dalsa quote.

Offer company claim. Counter with alternate viewpoint.

It's a disease that afflicts all journalism now. No matter what you report--instead of growing a spine and trying to evaluate the truth of your statement you just hedge your position with the opposite one. Offering diversity of opinion is great when needed. But it's become a substitute for good research and platform for rather absurd positions under the auspices of 'fairness'

'Sony is releasing a 4k camera and thinks this will be the future. But Dalsa tried and went bankrupt so Sony is in real danger.' (except that the industry has radically changed since Dalsa...)
'Red can do 4k, but can it.. really?' (Uhh.... it already has delivered 4k and higher resolutions so what is there to 'question')
'The world is round, but some say it is flat.'
etc.

It's sensationalism, not malice.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
It's just like the dalsa quote.

Offer company claim. Counter with alternate viewpoint.

It's a disease that afflicts all journalism now. No matter what you report--instead of growing a spine and trying to evaluate the truth of your statement you just hedge your position with the opposite one. Offering diversity of opinion is great when needed. But it's become a substitute for good research and platform for rather absurd positions under the auspices of 'fairness'

'Sony is releasing a 4k camera and thinks this will be the future. But Dalsa tried and went bankrupt so Sony is in real danger.' (except that the industry has radically changed since Dalsa...)
'Red can do 4k, but can it.. really?' (Uhh.... it already has delivered 4k and higher resolutions so what is there to 'question')
'The world is round, but some say it is flat.'
etc.

It's sensationalism, not malice.
Click to expand...

I would say it's fair reporting, albeit with a bit of a bow to political correctness.

A comment to Tim:
I have never personally attacked you and I don't take well to your personally attacking me for simply voicing an opinion. My impression is that very few, if any, of the posters here actually know Carolyn. I do. And while I might sometimes take issue with things that are written by any number of journalists about any number of topics, I've known her long enough to know that she reports what is presented, and offers fair rebuttal based on alternate points of view that exist among industry pros. That is fairness, not bias.

As far as the points of view expressed here, I would simply say that I really wish people here would lose the chip on their shoulder and grow a bit thicker skin. Regardless of who you are or what you do, there are going to be things said about things you might feel strongly about that you either don't like or don't agree with. And if every article about every subject was required to touch on every manufacturer, device, and issue involved in the subject being discussed, there would be no journalism at all. If one is writing about the Ford Focus, are they required to mention every single car from every other manufacturer that competes against it? If one talks about color in television, are they really required to point out that it was first developed and marketed by RCA? Is that always relevant? Relevance is something reporters struggle with in part because there is a word limit to what they can write, often imposed by the intended publisher. Facts are sorted out and the most critical ones are included, and the less critical ones often get excluded. To take this personally is the real self-aggrandizing point of view, especially in light of Red's success in the marketplace. Everyone knows what Red offers, and everyone is familiar with what their cameras can do. It doesn't have to be repeated in every article written about 4K, and it doesn't have to be repeated every time someone mentions a competitor. Red has made its mark and continues to make it. There is no longer any reason to have the shoulder chips and thin skin. But that's just my opinion, and I think everyone is entitled to that.
 
Jannard said:
Silly post... you are right. Sony invented and is revolutionizing 4K cameras.

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim, you know me better than that. That's not what I said and it's not something I even implied.
 
M Most said:
If one talks about color in television, are they really required to point out that it was first developed and marketed by RCA? Is that always relevant?
Click to expand...

Considering it is flat out wrong, no I would say it is not relevant :p
CBS developed the first color tv system, it was later replaced by the RCA color system because the CBS system lacked backward compatibility with B&W sets while the RCA system was fully compatible with all TVs currently on the market.
 
AndrewThomas said:
Considering it is flat out wrong, no I would say it is not relevant :p
CBS developed the first color tv system, it was later replaced by the RCA color system because the CBS system lacked backward compatibility with B&W sets while the RCA system was fully compatible with all TVs currently on the market.
Click to expand...

lol

I'm afraid that underlines how Mike's analogy isn't a very good one. If this was the beginning of color television and a manufacturer came and claimed to be developing "true color television" I'm sure you'd expect an article reporting it to point out that it had actually already existed in some form for 4 years. And in fact the reporter corrected her omission in the second article. There might not be any malice, but if I were Jim I'd be fairly pissed off by this kind of reporting. It's always easier to tell someone to grow a thicker skin when it's not your own hard work which is being attacked or neglected.
 
Can we agree to disagree?

Can we agree to disagree?

FWIW Mike Most is a very knowledgeable and experienced guy who seems to be getting thrown under the bus because he defended a writer who omitted RED in a situation where the motivations for that omission are pure speculation.
Does THR have a policy of ignoring products/companies that don't buy ad space? Perhaps.
Was the use of Dalsa as a reference point evidence of anti-RED bias? Perhaps, but there's at least one logical leap required to get there and that is different than objective fact.
I consider both Tim and Mike valuable contributors to our ongoing discussions here whether I fully agree with everything they post or not. With all due respect, I hope Tim can tone down the vitriol in the future and that we can all continue to benefit from Mike's perspectives, even in those instances where one thinks he is wrong.

Cheers - #19
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top