5 ms·

I'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I asked for one. That being said, I'm not left with a lot of options after returning it because there aren't man

I'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I asked for one. That being said, I'm not left with a lot of options after returning it because there aren't many comparable alternatives for this class of camera. In fact, I don't know of even one camera that's as high quality without also being almost double the price. RED has a lot of leverage here.

mikeyschaefer 4y ago
Unless you need to shoot a lot of high frame (60fps+) rates I think there a lot of alternative options. There is incredible and award winning work made made with Sonys, Canons and Black Magic cameras and of course Arris. Producers and creative directors with big budgets love to get excited about Red cameras but most often the reality is they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between footage from different manufacturers. I think Red is a bit of a status symbol at this point as all the competition has pretty much caught up. I think you could spend 50% of the price on a c500ii or a FX9 and get 90% of quality. That leaves a lot of money on the table for a decent set of cinema glass. Or you can get a used Alexa Mini for the same price as a Raptor.
mindslight 4y ago
You could buy a used one where someone else already pressed "agree" on the purported contract. Installable software is only able to push bullshit EULAs on the theory that the installation process involves making a copy, which they claim requires an explicit license to do. But using a device with already installed embedded software doesn't involve making any copies of the software, and thus you don't need a license - rather you're buying the installed copy under the first sale doctrine. But ultimately this is an abstract debate, because the main point of EULAs is to disclaim legal liability for the company, as contrasted with creating it for the user. Even if you do manage to avoid entering into their bullshit contract, the company will do whatever it wants with your data, and it will be up to you to sue them. Part of that uphill battle will be proving you didn't assent to their bullshit. So really, like always, an end user's protection is ultimately of a technical nature. If the camera (or accompanying desktop software) does not have Internet access, then there is no way for RED to backhaul your footage and there is no issue to be worried about. If the camera does have Internet access, then your data will easily leave your control, and that's the real flaw with the product to focus on!
inetknght 4y ago
> I'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I asked for one. Good luck getting a full refund without some restocking fee subtracted. Something like 15% of $30,000 is... reaching outside of small claims court
BizarroLand 4y ago
I think you're also overlooking the fact of the sheer file size of RED video footage. It would take them hours or days to upload that video to their servers just to view it to see if it were worth using, and on top of that, no where in it's verbiage does it give them license to use or view your copyrighted work in any way. If you find your work on their site or in their promos, they are in violation of copyright laws and are liable. No judge would stand behind such weak boilerplate to allow RED to steal artist's work with impunity. I hate to say it, but you're far too worried about this. I understand the misgivings but the reality of the situation doesn't match your concern over the matter, or to put it another way, you're making mountains out of molehills.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

mikeyschaefer 4y ago

Unless you need to shoot a lot of high frame (60fps+) rates I think there a lot of alternative options. There is incredible and award winning work made made with Sonys, Canons and Black Magic cameras and of course Arris. Producers and creative directors with big budgets love to get excited about Red cameras but most often the reality is they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between footage from different manufacturers. I think Red is a bit of a status symbol at this point as all the competition has pretty much caught up. I think you could spend 50% of the price on a c500ii or a FX9 and get 90% of quality. That leaves a lot of money on the table for a decent set of cinema glass. Or you can get a used Alexa Mini for the same price as a Raptor.

mindslight 4y ago

You could buy a used one where someone else already pressed "agree" on the purported contract. Installable software is only able to push bullshit EULAs on the theory that the installation process involves making a copy, which they claim requires an explicit license to do. But using a device with already installed embedded software doesn't involve making any copies of the software, and thus you don't need a license - rather you're buying the installed copy under the first sale doctrine. But ultimately this is an abstract debate, because the main point of EULAs is to disclaim legal liability for the company, as contrasted with creating it for the user. Even if you do manage to avoid entering into their bullshit contract, the company will do whatever it wants with your data, and it will be up to you to sue them. Part of that uphill battle will be proving you didn't assent to their bullshit. So really, like always, an end user's protection is ultimately of a technical nature. If the camera (or accompanying desktop software) does not have Internet access, then there is no way for RED to backhaul your footage and there is no issue to be worried about. If the camera does have Internet access, then your data will easily leave your control, and that's the real flaw with the product to focus on!

inetknght 4y ago

> I'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I asked for one. Good luck getting a full refund without some restocking fee subtracted. Something like 15% of $30,000 is... reaching outside of small claims court

BizarroLand 4y ago

I think you're also overlooking the fact of the sheer file size of RED video footage. It would take them hours or days to upload that video to their servers just to view it to see if it were worth using, and on top of that, no where in it's verbiage does it give them license to use or view your copyrighted work in any way. If you find your work on their site or in their promos, they are in violation of copyright laws and are liable. No judge would stand behind such weak boilerplate to allow RED to steal artist's work with impunity. I hate to say it, but you're far too worried about this. I understand the misgivings but the reality of the situation doesn't match your concern over the matter, or to put it another way, you're making mountains out of molehills.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]