4 ms·
RED has always had all sorts of BS licensing gobbleygook. When the first RED cameras finally became available, the software absolute shit. They had all sorts of
by johnklos 5y ago
RED has always had all sorts of BS licensing gobbleygook. When the first RED cameras finally became available, the software absolute shit. They had all sorts of stuff in their license agreements about not reverse engineering, not redistributing, et cetera.
I had to figure out many parts of their software and make wrappers and separate tools so that queues could be started and run without monitoring, because their software would famously have an error, then just stop, making batch transcoding a full-time job.
I intentionally posted all sorts of things that were in violation of their license agreements in hopes that they'd take note and try to make a stink, but they didn't, probably because they didn't want to raise awareness of how badly their software sucks by fighting with people who were making it better.
The company has always pretended to be much more grandiose than they really are (see their attempt at making a cell phone), but really, they're just OK.
Honestly, though, the quality of their codecs suck. The color information just isn't there. You can watch Netflix and immediately tell which things were shot on RED, because they'll be grainy (which they think is a feature) and will lack nuanced color. Compare with anything shot on, say, Arri ALEXA, and you'll never look at RED the same way again.
All of this is to say that the company probably won't do anything nefarious that would get tons of negative attention, but they do always think they're the Next Big Thing, so you never know when the crazy will outweigh the careful. If it were me, I'd return it.
- eli 5y agoDoesn't pretty much all closed-source proprietary software prohibit reverse engineering and redistribution?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoReverse engineering for interop is legal.
- ta988 5y agoNot everywhere.
- uncletammy 5y agoDo you have a source for that claim? I wasn't aware that was necessarily true.
- tomnipotent 5y agoDMCA Section 103(f).
- eli 5y agoBut after you agreed to a contract promising you wouldn’t?
- HNHatesUsers 5y ago
- bufferoverflow 5y ago> Honestly, though, the quality of their codecs suck. The color information just isn't there. You can watch Netflix and immediately tell which things were shot on RED, because they'll be grainy (which they think is a feature) and will lack nuanced color. This is all just false. Their codes allow you to record actual RAW data from the sensor in 16 bits. All the color nuance is there. RED cameras are crazy expensive and are used by Hollywood, Netflix, and thousands of professional studios. They are the golden standard, along with Arri cameras.
- rurban 5y agoBullshit. The Arri Alexa is the gold standard, the RED the cheap alternative. You can immediately see if it was shot with a good camera or a RED.
- boppo1 5y agoCan you give me some example scenes to look at?
- johnklos 5y agoHere's an article that'll tell you a few examples of what's shot on what: https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-behind-netflix-originals/ https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-behind-netflix-orig... Here's a very polite quote about some of the issues people have with RED: "We did a lot of tests with the VariCam and the RED, and I was really happy with what the VariCam was giving us. We found that we were a little afraid of how the RED camera handles greens. We were going to be surrounded in greens while shooting summer in Atlanta, and the RED just looked a little too digital."
- boppo1 5y agoNeat, thanks.
- aspyct 5y agoThe fact that the raw is 16bits says nothing about image quality.