RED camera... 4k shooting...

[Justin Lovell]

http://red.com/index.htm



Didn't believe it till I saw it.

[audadvnc]

I still don't believe it.

The "other" forum has recently banned further discussions of hype-driven vaporware cameras until they actually go into production. IMHO - That's a great idea. Call us back when we can buy one.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Didn't believe it till I saw it.

Wow, you saw the camera shooting live footage, and then saw the playback? And this framegrab is from that shooting? :?:

Or what was it you saw (because I guess it was something else than the usual propaganda pushed from RED themselves)?

[reflex]

The "other" forum has recently banned further discussions of hype-driven vaporware cameras until they actually go into production. IMHO - That's a great idea. Call us back when we can buy one.

That's a bit harsh. The "other" forum has the screws tightened down a bit too much. People should have the right to discuss unreleased hardware if they wish, and they should also be allowed to post without including their full name to maintain a modicum of personal privacy.

[mattias]

People should have the right to discuss unreleased hardware if they wish

i agree.

they should also be allowed to post without including their full name to maintain a modicum of personal privacy.

in this particular case i disagree. we're talking about a professional forum, not a social club, and the credibility and verifiablity of any opinion or advice is very important. i think aliases could maybe be allowed since it's easier to remember people that way, but then only with a proper signature.

/matt

[mattias]

oh, and regarding the red camera, that kind of image quality isn't hard to achieve, try any low end dslr, the problem is to do it 24 or 25 times a second for hours and hours. ccd's get very very hot.

/matt

[reflex]

we're talking about a professional forum, not a social club, and the credibility and verifiablity of any opinion or advice is very important. i think aliases could maybe be allowed since it's easier to remember people that way, but then only with a proper signature.

I have no issue with people being required to provide verifiable contact information to the forum admin, but I get mildly concerned about the need to attach a name to every post because there are some absolute nut balls out there.

I can think of one instance within the past couple of years where threats were made against an individual and spilled over into the real world. The victim was on the receiving end of some delusional (and quite irrational) behaviour and was deeply concerned about the safety of his family.

[mattias]

I have no issue with people being required to provide verifiable contact information to the forum admin

what good would that make, for the sake of what i just wrote i mean?

I can think of one instance within the past couple of years where threats were made against an individual and spilled over into the real world. The victim was on the receiving end of some delusional (and quite irrational) behaviour and was deeply concerned about the safety of his family.

yeah, that sounds exactly like what the average professional cinematographer would do towards another professional cinematographer. you got me convinced. :-)

if the name thing can keep some camera collectors, dv delusionals and line pair lovers away i'm all for it. (did i mention that i just read an article about the power of alliteration in rhetorics?)

/matt

[wado1942]

Yeah, for any single CCD camera, take the resolution, divide by 3 and that's closer to the real resolution. It's also still short a couple of stops of lattitude.

[reflex]

yeah, that sounds exactly like what the average professional cinematographer would do towards another professional cinematographer. you got me convinced.

Are you always this pedantic?

Surely you've noticed by now that a large percentage of people obsessed with Super 8 and 16mm film tend to be a bit strange, even while earning a living at it?

[low grade moron]

There is a tiny handful of full time professional cinematographers who are not "wedding guys" on a website such as cinematography.com. Actual professional cinematographers in the film and television industry might use sites such as http://www.cinematography.net , although even there recently a couple of prosumer and general forums have opened up to encourage higher site traffic (and therefore advertising revenue which is based on numbers).

The fact is, professional filmmaking is highly unionized. And it requires qualifications and varifiable, legitimate identities on which governments can hang taxation. There are no web boards open to public viewing.

The idea that cinematography.com, with its wide open policy is a gathering point for, and largely exclusive to, filmmaking professionals, has no basis in fact and, with simple analysis of the threads, demonstrates it is exactly the opposite, and such people make up a neglible percentage. And, as is obvious, any person can make up any name they wish, using any variety of free email providers. They need the traffic, or the preception of traffic, for advertisement revenue. Which makes it as potentially dangerous as is any other public webboard or forum. One of a dozen stories this month:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/ ... ME_2382494

Demanding and declaring that people use their "real names" on a wide open webboard is delusional and a fantasy created for advertisers. And a potentially very dangerous one, as example after example shows us.

As to the RED camera -- so what?

[russta]

dunno how this got onto a debate over the use of people's full name in a forum, people can do what they want.

As for the RED camera, i heard of it a while ago and it all seems very dodgy to me, a little too good to be true. All the shots of the camera are cg and the images supposedly showing the capabilities of the camera can easily be mocked up with your average dslr. If it is as good as they say and for, what did they say? $17,000, then theoretically it will make all other cameras pretty much obsolete in the professional field.

But in my experience things that look too good to be true usually aren't true. probably a load of bolex

[mattias]

Surely you've noticed by now that a large percentage of people obsessed with Super 8 and 16mm film tend to be a bit strange, even while earning a living at it?

hehe, sure. but fact is that cinematography.com is one of the more civilized places in cyberspace, and i think this is a good policy for keeping it that way.

/matt

[mattias]

The idea that cinematography.com, with its wide open policy is a gathering point for, and largely exclusive to, filmmaking professionals, has no basis in fact...

i'm not claiming that. i'm saying it's aimed at and meant as a tool for filmmaking professionals, that's why they limit their "wide open policy" in this way. it's harder to be a troll or a cocky newbie posing as a pro if you have to provide a real name that can easily be looked up on imdb or google. and it's harder to come down hard on someone who's shot ten features, even if they're wrong. ;-)

/matt

[low grade moron]

Your clarification certainly makes sense.