15 ms·

My Final Post

308 points by cwilson 13y ago

Gravityloss 13y ago
There have been dramatic happenings around RED for some time. http://philipbloom.net/2011/12/10/nomoreepic/ http://philipbloom.net/2011/12/10/nomoreepic/
- devindotcom 13y ago
  Understatement of the year! RED produces almost as much drama as it does cameras and accessories.
  - samstave 13y ago
    But why?
    - devindotcom 13y ago
      RED got into the cinema industry the way you or I might cannonball into a pool. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does tend to make waves. From then on, they were constantly very vocal in criticising other camera and production companies, and it has ended up being a very polarising company.
    - KaiserPro 13y ago
      They would promise a machine capable off x by a certain date, miss the date and then tell everyone that they are the best in all situations.
- lelandbatey 13y ago
  Often the net feels like a small place, but it's things like this that give me notions of just how much stuff there is going on that I truly have no notice of. On the internet, which is pretty much were I live, there are these conflicts happening that I never see, that I never even suspect are happening.
lambada 13y ago
As someone who knows nothing about cameras, that was a fascinating read.
- mistercow 13y ago
  I was really surprised to find out (because this post piqued my curiosity) that the Star Wars prequels were shot in only 1080p. I'm really surprised that that didn't look atrocious on the big screen. Hell, that's like half a centimeter per pixel.
  - justincormack 13y ago
    There are techniques to hide it, like make the prints to grainy film to alias the pixels, as it was still projected on film.
    - bpeebles 13y ago
      Both _Attack of the Clones_ and _Revenge of the Sith_ were projected digitally as well as on film. And yes, if you looked closely at some points you could see the pixels on the projection. (Although _Attack of the Clones_ was also one of the first movies shown in IMAX via process of taking a 35mm film print to IMAX film[0]. So with _Attack_, instead, they upconverted a 2K master that was derived from 1080p source to IMAX film stock (as far as I know). Yes, it had a lot of weird smoothing artifacts when seen projected on an IMAX screen.) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_DMR_films http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_DMR_films
  - KaiserPro 13y ago
    DLP cinemas (i.e. digital cinema projectors) are 2k (as in not must more than 1080) 35mm film prints are nominally 2k in resolution (4k if you put the cash in) Its only a few cinemas that are capable of 4k (thats 4098x 2160) and even fewer films released in 4k.
    - mistercow 13y ago
      Does TI even make a DMD with more than 1920 pixels across? When I was researching before, that was the biggest I saw. I suppose you could tile them, but that sounds like a nightmare.
themodelplumber 13y ago
If I understand this correctly, the guy who started Oakley (eyewear) went on to start RED (the 4K digital movie camera). Now he is bowing out and handing the reins over to a younger guy. And he is annoyed that people get annoyed with him. Anything else I should know?
- WestCoastJustin 13y ago
  Yes. Wikipedia: James "Jim" Jannard is an American designer and businessman, and founder of eyewear and apparel company Oakley, Inc. and RED Digital Cinema. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jannard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jannard
  - echohack 13y ago
    What all of this fails to mention is that Jannard was essentially forced to sell Oakley to Luxottica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica). Luxottica has a gigantic monopoly on the eyewear industry and one day refused to sell Oakley brands in their stores unless they sold out. The high price tag with the sale is to keep Jannard quiet. I think Jannard has developed a kind of healthy-paranoia here, because the work he's doing is flying in the face of titans. His persona makes him want to stand up against the big boys and say, "Told you so!" In my opinion, he's right to be super paranoid and fall into the background. He doesn't want RED to become another Oakley.
    - WestCoastJustin 13y ago
      There was actually a "60 minutes" episode entitled "Sticker shock: Why are glasses so expensive?" [1] where they talked about Luxottica / Oakley / Ray Ban. Worth a watch if you are interested in the eye wear industry. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n
    - Zoepfli 13y ago
      Apple created their own brand stores, so why didn't Oakley? This would have prevented them from being so dependent on a third party...
rfnslyr 13y ago
Can't get the stupid comments and hate get to you. I remember reading/watching somewhere where someone said (sorry for the vagueness) that you always need a solid little black box in your head you can retreat your conscience to. Where nothing can touch you. Where everything is constant. Ever since I read that I have never gotten an ounce of hate get to me. I can honestly say I'm living a 100% stress-free happy life. In fact, the more hate I get, the happier I am, I feed off it, it's my fucking life line. It meant I was doing something right. If I ever let it get to me, I'd retreat to that little black box, and it would tell me everything I accomplished in my life, the things I've been through, where my roots are from. Things nobody will ever take away from me unless they murder me, and that reassurance has helped me get through incredibly tough times. To cope with hate even further, always look at what's coming your way from their angle. Why are they spouting hate? Do they genuinely feel you have a scammy product? Why would they think that? More often than not it boils down to two things: ignorance and a result, spouting bullshit, and/or personal issues being projected. I know that myself, when I'm in a rage state of mind, I'd spout terrible things at people that I'd instantly regret after. Especially on the internet, typing terrible comments that help to vent your anger temporarily. I've always been an outsider. I've had so much time to observe people. This is what I found out. Core human values -> projected mask (either bully, asshole, something else that is fake) -> external projection. You need to see through the mask. I've dealt with huge egos before that after awhile, cried on my shoulder and spilled their guts, all just by being understanding, not getting angry at them, and truly understanding where their emotion comes from and why. By being a source of support. >Somehow... I read on CML and other idiotic forums, that I an a hypester, a scam artist. I just have to wonder what these guys are smoking. But I have to say... they have gotten to me. I don't need this. I don't deserve this. Life is short and I am tired. Revolutionized the film industry, yet lets internet comments get to him. Fuck the haters. You changed the world. Sorry if I went off topic, it's just something I wanted to get off my chest and hopefully this perspective can help others.
- wmf 13y ago
  In Red's case I don't think it's quite that simple. One of the foundations of Red has always been that the founders interact with the customers continuously through social media; that's how Red built their fanboy army. But that kind of aggressive social media presence always creates an equal and opposite backlash, and it's pretty much impossible to expose yourself only to one side.
lbarrett 13y ago
I have great respect for people who make things like the RED camera, which advances technology and allows people to make amazing films without requiring huge amounts of money. I have very little respect for people who make things like Oakleys, which allow people to spend a lot of money for a small piece of plastic so they can wear a high-status brand. I'm not sure how I feel about this guy.
- keithpeter 13y ago
  The Oakley people get their status cultural capital, the geezer accumulates real capital to take risks and you get the cameras. Seems OK to me (I don't buy brands especially).
- sfx 13y ago
  >a lot of money for a small piece of plastic Oakley lenses are practically bulletproof. They're well worth the cost if you need protective eyewear, just ask the US military. Being a fashion statement is just a byproduct of that. Some would venture to say Oakley has advanced technology more than RED.
devindotcom 13y ago
I've followed the RED story from the beginning; I have a friend who bought one of the first run and basically launched his career with it, so I've stayed informed for personal and professional reasons. They've taken a lot of flak because they make big promises and only sort of keep them (or rather, they keep them with a few galling compromises, as I understand it). But the fact is they kicked the cinema industry right in the ass and made them work for it. RED leapfrogged them into the digital era and because of the industry panic we now have amazing cameras like the Arri Alexa and Sony F35. I don't know what RED has for a future, but despite all the weirdness, hype, and inside baseball, it has a pretty glorious past. Good work, Jim, and thanks from all of us.
- lcrs 13y ago
  I'm not sure the Alexa and F35 were panicked responses to the Red... the Arri D20 and Panavision Genesis predated the Red, and are very clearly the ancestors of the Alexa and F35 respectively - they use the same resolutions, sensor layouts and colourspaces, if not the exact same chips and recording formats. Not to mention the Dalsa Origin, a 4k camera out well before the Reds.
  - stephen_g 13y ago
    It was a pretty incredible shift though - The more common cameras of the day, such as the 1080p Sony F950, was going for over $180,000 a package, and suddenly you could get a 4K camera package for $35,000. And it could record Raw footage to compact flash cards! The F900 and F950 recorded MPEG2 to HDCAM and HDCAM SR tape at that time. And they were pretty unprecedented (for the cinema industry) in the way they handled upgrades - dramatically improving many aspects in their cameras through free firmware upgrades and then offering a major sensor upgrade for the cameras, whereas their competitors would just release whole new camera models.
joeblau 13y ago
I keep getting a database Error; Here is the cached version. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?104367-My-Final-Post&p=1245087#post1245087 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
baby 13y ago
so is he the guy behind 48 fps movies? If so this guy has nothing to prove. It's the future of the cinema.
- wmf 13y ago
  James Cameron has also been talking about 48 FPS for a while.
  - baby 13y ago
    I think James Cameron is talking about 60 FPS.
    - atsaloli 13y ago
      James Cameron said in November 2012, on his possible usage of 48 FPS: “If there is acceptance of 48 [FPS], then that will pave the way for Avatar (sequels) to take advantage of it.” http://latino-review.com/2012/11/james-cameron-talks-avatar-2-3-48-fps-high-frame-rate/ http://latino-review.com/2012/11/james-cameron-talks-avatar-... There are going to be 3 Avatar sequels: http://variety.com/2013/film/news/avatar-to-get-three-sequels-foxcameron-hire-screenwriters-1200570515/ http://variety.com/2013/film/news/avatar-to-get-three-sequel... Time enough to iron out any issues with HFR (high frame rate). 48 OR 60.
      - baby 13y ago
        > Some of the word behind the scenes in the SMPTE world this summer is that 60fps could be too much of a gamble and Avatar will go out in 48fps. No one will say this publicly, and Cameron and team are still hyping 60fps in general while not committing to anything. But there are fears that if shot at 60fps, there’s no clean way to play the movie at 24fps in some theaters– an easier transition for 48fps but even untested in 48 given that that issue helped derail the move to SMPTE DCP for The Hobbit release. And fear that current playback gear can’t do 450Mb/s at 60fps. Gear manufacturers say they can do 500Mb/s, but the studios in reality have to settle for less, due to the bit-rate bottlenecks in various systems.” Never thought about that but yes it makes sense that the conversion from 48fps to 24fps is easy whereas the one from 60fps to 24fps seems impossible or cumbersome. If this is delaying the 60fps age, then I'm really sad about it :(
WestCoastJustin 13y ago
Of possible interest, RED and Jim Jannard were covered by Wired back in 2008 @ http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/ff_redcamera?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/...
- nawitus 13y ago
  Can someone explain this: >Typical 2K and HD digital movie cameras keep everything in focus. The 4K Red One is more like an analog camera, allowing depth of field control, which blurs the foreground or background.
  - wmf 13y ago
    By "Typical 2K and HD digital movie cameras" I guess they mean small sensors, which lead to large depth of field due to the laws of optics (don't ask me the details, I must have slept through that class). Larger sensors allow smaller depth of field which blurs the background (or just lets you show off your bokeh), allowing the eye to naturally focus on the subject.
    - nawitus 13y ago
      That's the part I don't understand: my run of the mill Canon DSLR (from 2010 though) can shoot at f/1.8 with a $99 50mm lens. the iPhone can shoot at f/2.0. Nikon D90 from 2008 could do HD video and have a small dof.
      - sbierwagen 13y ago
        Wrong. Depth of field is dependant on f-number and sensor size. A small sensor camera can have a fast lens, but essentially no depth of field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion
      - dylan604 13y ago
        The difference between the RED cameras and your DSLR is that the RED camera is doing it at 24fps or higher with its ability to shoot 120fps. Your DSLR might be able to do 8-10fps in burst mode.
benaiah 13y ago
HN has murdered the server, cache here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reduser.net%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3F104367-My-Final-Post http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A...
volaski 13y ago
Maybe because I don't know the full story, but I'm having hard time understanding why a guy who has built such great companies like Oakley and RED so hurt by some guy who makes movies like Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li
- lcrs 13y ago
  Geoff Boyle is probably more a commercials DoP than a feature film one, but in this context he is notable for running the CML mailing list, which is a pretty incredible resource for cinematographers. I think it's the most focussed, knowledgeable online community I've ever known. It's so on-point that you can buy a physical book of the discussions.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
beachstartup 13y ago
i would highly recommend a documentary called 'side by side' about the history of digital video cameras and analog film cameras in cinema/film. goes into the back story behind red, arri, panavision, sony, etc. it's on netflix.
- protomyth 13y ago
  I second this and would add that some outtakes (called side swipes) are available on youtube[1] and a podcast. The Steven Soderbergh one is great[2]. Side by Side is a little dated, but it is an amazing and accessible show. Red is an amazing camera, but they also had good ideas in how to deal with film makers. 1) http://bit.ly/19EQjie http://bit.ly/19EQjie 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00AEDLLzu4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00AEDLLzu4
- ddeck 13y ago
  Another vote for this. As someone who is outside the industry and knew very little about the process, I found it fascinating. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014338/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014338/
9999 13y ago
I followed RED closely when they first started and it's sad to see Jannard bow out like this. Their accomplishments as stated in his letter do sound impressive, but I think they are more noteworthy as a catalyst of change throughout the professional camera industry. Scarlet, when it was initially announced, sounded like a dream camera, but they were never able to deliver on that initial promise (at least not on the price and quality in the timeline that they initially aimed for). With that announcement alone though the other camera manufacturers suddenly had to compete at a completely new level. It's unfortunate that RED took too long to actually get their product to the market, because in many ways they defined the DSLR cinematography market without ever even entering it. Had they actually entered the market as they initially intended, we would have an even more impressive array of cameras to choose from today. Instead, many of the same artificial limitations exist (limited bitrate recording, lack of raw capability, smaller colorspace, etc. etc.). It's a pity that they didn't deliver there. It's also a pity that Jannard let the hordes of basement dwelling internet trolls and self-entitled, quasi-pro blog dorks get him down, and I wonder if he had paid less attention to these toxic non-customers if they would have been able to execute their initial vision for the Scarlet.
- KaiserPro 13y ago
  The RED user is a very strange beast. I have witnessed both sides of the mania (I attend a lot of tradeshows for media types) They swarm around Ted (from RED, who is a nice, but odd chap) They literally eat rumors for breakfast, and then troll other manufacturers. Trying to make software for "casual" red users is a devil's own job. They never really pay for anything, and are very, very moaney.
  - 9999 13y ago
    I understand how the RED owners have a vested interest in promoting the system. They benefit professionally from the regard that others have for the cameras. e.g. they can rent out their cameras, command a higher rate as an operator or DP if they have one in their kit, etc. What I don't understand is the users of reduser.net that don't own or even rent the cameras, but seem to be there to either froth at the mouth in either reverence or hatred for the company. I stopped going there a long time ago because the signal to noise ratio was just too low.
s9ix 13y ago
Cached link via HNPremii for anyone else who is getting the site down. http://hn.premii.com/#/article/6239342 http://hn.premii.com/#/article/6239342
KaiserPro 13y ago
Well, thats a turn out for the books. I've dealt with RED professionally on a few levels. Firstly I came across RED footage shortly after the cameras were released to film makers. Back then to transcode the output from the camera (jpeg2000 with some meta data) to something useful required a beefy mac pro, some free software and lots and lots of time (3-10FPS if you were lucky). Either way, it was expensive. (we used to charge £500 every ten minutes of red footage transcoded) This made me sad, especially as there was no SDK for linux to allow us to use the render farm to transcode it. You could spend £5000 on an "accelerator card" however, its £5k and prone to breaking. The annoying thing was the despite the hype the camera really wasn't all that. Yes it was 4k, but it was noisy, had rolling shutter and colours were duller than dish water. It took the Foundry "reverse engineering" the codec to bring RED to linux natively 35mm film was still far better in terms of image quality(assuming decent DoP and film lab). Yet the hype still built. (Early RED films were dark and broody for a reason....) The next generation of camera was alright, still expensive to hire/buy/use. Yes the sensor unit is relatively cheap, but you still needed to buy lenses, adapters, storage medium, handles(£250 for the cheapest handle), focus gears, etc. You then have to factor in the cost of post production. It was at the time expensive to shoot RED. On a par with film. It took at least two generations of RED cameras, and a lots of third party dev hours to make RED reasonable to use. Nowadays RED decoding is fairly trivial to do, and the modern sensors are fairly good, assuming you down res from the 5k to avoid sensor noise. One thing to note is this, RED fans are utterly fanatical. They will swear that anything RED is cheaper, better, faster, messianic compared to the competition. They are also prone to pirating software. In the annals of cinema, there will be many inches devoted to RED. Evangilising its reforming power. However the camera that really stood out is the canon 5Dmk2. It was cheaper (genuinely throwaway in cinema terms) good enough quality to get by, and has cheap high quality lenses. In short, RED camera, its alright for cinema, pain in the arse for post. REDuser.net and the surrounding noise is worse than angry 4chan. The people at RED however are lovely, its just some noisy users that are obnoxious
- Florin_Andrei 13y ago
  I still remember the initial Scarlet hype. "$3k for 3k". Man, was I ever pissed when it didn't pan out. :)
- 13y ago
dsugarman 13y ago
I thought RED was an alright movie at best. To be quite honest, I am surprised they made a sequel.
- yesplorer 13y ago
  seriously, are you high?
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    Indeed, I thought was a pretty good movie. Even Bruce Willis was awake.
  - randyrand 13y ago
    After spending the last 15 minutes slowly readying and scrolling down these comments, I'll admit, I laughed.
protomyth 13y ago
Red jumpstarted the new age of digital cameras with 4K RAW at an amazing price. They have had missteps (witness Scarlet and the late / but in the field Dragon). It is a shame Canon really hasn't learned the RAW lesson and has been dragged by people (e.g. Magic Lantern). It is a crime for any camera to deliver less than its best because of crap codecs / software. Red had software upgrades that improved already shipping products without charging an upgrade fee. Canon barely learned with the 24p for the 5Dmk2. Their back and forth with people making movies is pretty refreshing when you think about some other camera companies.
rdl 13y ago
Jim is basically the Elon of the video industry.
markdown 13y ago
Jim owns a beautiful island here in Fiji. He could retire and build an evil lair on Vatuvara Island http://vatuvara.com http://vatuvara.com
marincounty 13y ago
This film (The Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout) cured my photographic buying problem.
- mrlinx 13y ago
  how so?
marcbarros 13y ago
Congrats Jim. The world needs more creators like you to inspire the rest of us. There are few people willing to commit themselves at the level you did. For that I give you a standing ovation.

308 points by cwilson 13y ago

There have been dramatic happenings around RED for some time. http://philipbloom.net/2011/12/10/nomoreepic/ http://philipbloom.net/2011/12/10/nomoreepic/

devindotcom 13y ago
Understatement of the year! RED produces almost as much drama as it does cameras and accessories.
- samstave 13y ago
  But why?
  - devindotcom 13y ago
    RED got into the cinema industry the way you or I might cannonball into a pool. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does tend to make waves. From then on, they were constantly very vocal in criticising other camera and production companies, and it has ended up being a very polarising company.
  - KaiserPro 13y ago
    They would promise a machine capable off x by a certain date, miss the date and then tell everyone that they are the best in all situations.
lelandbatey 13y ago
Often the net feels like a small place, but it's things like this that give me notions of just how much stuff there is going on that I truly have no notice of. On the internet, which is pretty much were I live, there are these conflicts happening that I never see, that I never even suspect are happening.

lambada 13y ago

As someone who knows nothing about cameras, that was a fascinating read.

mistercow 13y ago
I was really surprised to find out (because this post piqued my curiosity) that the Star Wars prequels were shot in only 1080p. I'm really surprised that that didn't look atrocious on the big screen. Hell, that's like half a centimeter per pixel.
- justincormack 13y ago
  There are techniques to hide it, like make the prints to grainy film to alias the pixels, as it was still projected on film.
  - bpeebles 13y ago
    Both _Attack of the Clones_ and _Revenge of the Sith_ were projected digitally as well as on film. And yes, if you looked closely at some points you could see the pixels on the projection. (Although _Attack of the Clones_ was also one of the first movies shown in IMAX via process of taking a 35mm film print to IMAX film[0]. So with _Attack_, instead, they upconverted a 2K master that was derived from 1080p source to IMAX film stock (as far as I know). Yes, it had a lot of weird smoothing artifacts when seen projected on an IMAX screen.) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_DMR_films http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_DMR_films
- KaiserPro 13y ago
  DLP cinemas (i.e. digital cinema projectors) are 2k (as in not must more than 1080) 35mm film prints are nominally 2k in resolution (4k if you put the cash in) Its only a few cinemas that are capable of 4k (thats 4098x 2160) and even fewer films released in 4k.
  - mistercow 13y ago
    Does TI even make a DMD with more than 1920 pixels across? When I was researching before, that was the biggest I saw. I suppose you could tile them, but that sounds like a nightmare.

themodelplumber 13y ago

If I understand this correctly, the guy who started Oakley (eyewear) went on to start RED (the 4K digital movie camera). Now he is bowing out and handing the reins over to a younger guy. And he is annoyed that people get annoyed with him. Anything else I should know?

WestCoastJustin 13y ago
Yes. Wikipedia: James "Jim" Jannard is an American designer and businessman, and founder of eyewear and apparel company Oakley, Inc. and RED Digital Cinema. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jannard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jannard
- echohack 13y ago
  What all of this fails to mention is that Jannard was essentially forced to sell Oakley to Luxottica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica). Luxottica has a gigantic monopoly on the eyewear industry and one day refused to sell Oakley brands in their stores unless they sold out. The high price tag with the sale is to keep Jannard quiet. I think Jannard has developed a kind of healthy-paranoia here, because the work he's doing is flying in the face of titans. His persona makes him want to stand up against the big boys and say, "Told you so!" In my opinion, he's right to be super paranoid and fall into the background. He doesn't want RED to become another Oakley.
  - WestCoastJustin 13y ago
    There was actually a "60 minutes" episode entitled "Sticker shock: Why are glasses so expensive?" [1] where they talked about Luxottica / Oakley / Ray Ban. Worth a watch if you are interested in the eye wear industry. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n
  - Zoepfli 13y ago
    Apple created their own brand stores, so why didn't Oakley? This would have prevented them from being so dependent on a third party...

rfnslyr 13y ago

Can't get the stupid comments and hate get to you. I remember reading/watching somewhere where someone said (sorry for the vagueness) that you always need a solid little black box in your head you can retreat your conscience to. Where nothing can touch you. Where everything is constant. Ever since I read that I have never gotten an ounce of hate get to me. I can honestly say I'm living a 100% stress-free happy life. In fact, the more hate I get, the happier I am, I feed off it, it's my fucking life line. It meant I was doing something right. If I ever let it get to me, I'd retreat to that little black box, and it would tell me everything I accomplished in my life, the things I've been through, where my roots are from. Things nobody will ever take away from me unless they murder me, and that reassurance has helped me get through incredibly tough times. To cope with hate even further, always look at what's coming your way from their angle. Why are they spouting hate? Do they genuinely feel you have a scammy product? Why would they think that? More often than not it boils down to two things: ignorance and a result, spouting bullshit, and/or personal issues being projected. I know that myself, when I'm in a rage state of mind, I'd spout terrible things at people that I'd instantly regret after. Especially on the internet, typing terrible comments that help to vent your anger temporarily. I've always been an outsider. I've had so much time to observe people. This is what I found out. Core human values -> projected mask (either bully, asshole, something else that is fake) -> external projection. You need to see through the mask. I've dealt with huge egos before that after awhile, cried on my shoulder and spilled their guts, all just by being understanding, not getting angry at them, and truly understanding where their emotion comes from and why. By being a source of support. >Somehow... I read on CML and other idiotic forums, that I an a hypester, a scam artist. I just have to wonder what these guys are smoking. But I have to say... they have gotten to me. I don't need this. I don't deserve this. Life is short and I am tired. Revolutionized the film industry, yet lets internet comments get to him. Fuck the haters. You changed the world. Sorry if I went off topic, it's just something I wanted to get off my chest and hopefully this perspective can help others.

wmf 13y ago
In Red's case I don't think it's quite that simple. One of the foundations of Red has always been that the founders interact with the customers continuously through social media; that's how Red built their fanboy army. But that kind of aggressive social media presence always creates an equal and opposite backlash, and it's pretty much impossible to expose yourself only to one side.

lbarrett 13y ago

I have great respect for people who make things like the RED camera, which advances technology and allows people to make amazing films without requiring huge amounts of money. I have very little respect for people who make things like Oakleys, which allow people to spend a lot of money for a small piece of plastic so they can wear a high-status brand. I'm not sure how I feel about this guy.

keithpeter 13y ago
The Oakley people get their status cultural capital, the geezer accumulates real capital to take risks and you get the cameras. Seems OK to me (I don't buy brands especially).
sfx 13y ago
>a lot of money for a small piece of plastic Oakley lenses are practically bulletproof. They're well worth the cost if you need protective eyewear, just ask the US military. Being a fashion statement is just a byproduct of that. Some would venture to say Oakley has advanced technology more than RED.

devindotcom 13y ago

I've followed the RED story from the beginning; I have a friend who bought one of the first run and basically launched his career with it, so I've stayed informed for personal and professional reasons. They've taken a lot of flak because they make big promises and only sort of keep them (or rather, they keep them with a few galling compromises, as I understand it). But the fact is they kicked the cinema industry right in the ass and made them work for it. RED leapfrogged them into the digital era and because of the industry panic we now have amazing cameras like the Arri Alexa and Sony F35. I don't know what RED has for a future, but despite all the weirdness, hype, and inside baseball, it has a pretty glorious past. Good work, Jim, and thanks from all of us.

lcrs 13y ago
I'm not sure the Alexa and F35 were panicked responses to the Red... the Arri D20 and Panavision Genesis predated the Red, and are very clearly the ancestors of the Alexa and F35 respectively - they use the same resolutions, sensor layouts and colourspaces, if not the exact same chips and recording formats. Not to mention the Dalsa Origin, a 4k camera out well before the Reds.
- stephen_g 13y ago
  It was a pretty incredible shift though - The more common cameras of the day, such as the 1080p Sony F950, was going for over $180,000 a package, and suddenly you could get a 4K camera package for $35,000. And it could record Raw footage to compact flash cards! The F900 and F950 recorded MPEG2 to HDCAM and HDCAM SR tape at that time. And they were pretty unprecedented (for the cinema industry) in the way they handled upgrades - dramatically improving many aspects in their cameras through free firmware upgrades and then offering a major sensor upgrade for the cameras, whereas their competitors would just release whole new camera models.

joeblau 13y ago

I keep getting a database Error; Here is the cached version. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?104367-My-Final-Post&p=1245087#post1245087 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

baby 13y ago

so is he the guy behind 48 fps movies? If so this guy has nothing to prove. It's the future of the cinema.

wmf 13y ago
James Cameron has also been talking about 48 FPS for a while.
- baby 13y ago
  I think James Cameron is talking about 60 FPS.
  - atsaloli 13y ago
    James Cameron said in November 2012, on his possible usage of 48 FPS: “If there is acceptance of 48 [FPS], then that will pave the way for Avatar (sequels) to take advantage of it.” http://latino-review.com/2012/11/james-cameron-talks-avatar-2-3-48-fps-high-frame-rate/ http://latino-review.com/2012/11/james-cameron-talks-avatar-... There are going to be 3 Avatar sequels: http://variety.com/2013/film/news/avatar-to-get-three-sequels-foxcameron-hire-screenwriters-1200570515/ http://variety.com/2013/film/news/avatar-to-get-three-sequel... Time enough to iron out any issues with HFR (high frame rate). 48 OR 60.
    - baby 13y ago
      > Some of the word behind the scenes in the SMPTE world this summer is that 60fps could be too much of a gamble and Avatar will go out in 48fps. No one will say this publicly, and Cameron and team are still hyping 60fps in general while not committing to anything. But there are fears that if shot at 60fps, there’s no clean way to play the movie at 24fps in some theaters– an easier transition for 48fps but even untested in 48 given that that issue helped derail the move to SMPTE DCP for The Hobbit release. And fear that current playback gear can’t do 450Mb/s at 60fps. Gear manufacturers say they can do 500Mb/s, but the studios in reality have to settle for less, due to the bit-rate bottlenecks in various systems.” Never thought about that but yes it makes sense that the conversion from 48fps to 24fps is easy whereas the one from 60fps to 24fps seems impossible or cumbersome. If this is delaying the 60fps age, then I'm really sad about it :(

WestCoastJustin 13y ago

Of possible interest, RED and Jim Jannard were covered by Wired back in 2008 @ http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/ff_redcamera?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/...

nawitus 13y ago
Can someone explain this: >Typical 2K and HD digital movie cameras keep everything in focus. The 4K Red One is more like an analog camera, allowing depth of field control, which blurs the foreground or background.
- wmf 13y ago
  By "Typical 2K and HD digital movie cameras" I guess they mean small sensors, which lead to large depth of field due to the laws of optics (don't ask me the details, I must have slept through that class). Larger sensors allow smaller depth of field which blurs the background (or just lets you show off your bokeh), allowing the eye to naturally focus on the subject.
  - nawitus 13y ago
    That's the part I don't understand: my run of the mill Canon DSLR (from 2010 though) can shoot at f/1.8 with a $99 50mm lens. the iPhone can shoot at f/2.0. Nikon D90 from 2008 could do HD video and have a small dof.
    - sbierwagen 13y ago
      Wrong. Depth of field is dependant on f-number and sensor size. A small sensor camera can have a fast lens, but essentially no depth of field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion
    - dylan604 13y ago
      The difference between the RED cameras and your DSLR is that the RED camera is doing it at 24fps or higher with its ability to shoot 120fps. Your DSLR might be able to do 8-10fps in burst mode.

benaiah 13y ago

HN has murdered the server, cache here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reduser.net%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3F104367-My-Final-Post http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A...

volaski 13y ago

Maybe because I don't know the full story, but I'm having hard time understanding why a guy who has built such great companies like Oakley and RED so hurt by some guy who makes movies like Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li

lcrs 13y ago
Geoff Boyle is probably more a commercials DoP than a feature film one, but in this context he is notable for running the CML mailing list, which is a pretty incredible resource for cinematographers. I think it's the most focussed, knowledgeable online community I've ever known. It's so on-point that you can buy a physical book of the discussions.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

beachstartup 13y ago

i would highly recommend a documentary called 'side by side' about the history of digital video cameras and analog film cameras in cinema/film. goes into the back story behind red, arri, panavision, sony, etc. it's on netflix.

protomyth 13y ago
I second this and would add that some outtakes (called side swipes) are available on youtube[1] and a podcast. The Steven Soderbergh one is great[2]. Side by Side is a little dated, but it is an amazing and accessible show. Red is an amazing camera, but they also had good ideas in how to deal with film makers. 1) http://bit.ly/19EQjie http://bit.ly/19EQjie 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00AEDLLzu4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00AEDLLzu4
ddeck 13y ago
Another vote for this. As someone who is outside the industry and knew very little about the process, I found it fascinating. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014338/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014338/

9999 13y ago

I followed RED closely when they first started and it's sad to see Jannard bow out like this. Their accomplishments as stated in his letter do sound impressive, but I think they are more noteworthy as a catalyst of change throughout the professional camera industry. Scarlet, when it was initially announced, sounded like a dream camera, but they were never able to deliver on that initial promise (at least not on the price and quality in the timeline that they initially aimed for). With that announcement alone though the other camera manufacturers suddenly had to compete at a completely new level. It's unfortunate that RED took too long to actually get their product to the market, because in many ways they defined the DSLR cinematography market without ever even entering it. Had they actually entered the market as they initially intended, we would have an even more impressive array of cameras to choose from today. Instead, many of the same artificial limitations exist (limited bitrate recording, lack of raw capability, smaller colorspace, etc. etc.). It's a pity that they didn't deliver there. It's also a pity that Jannard let the hordes of basement dwelling internet trolls and self-entitled, quasi-pro blog dorks get him down, and I wonder if he had paid less attention to these toxic non-customers if they would have been able to execute their initial vision for the Scarlet.

KaiserPro 13y ago
The RED user is a very strange beast. I have witnessed both sides of the mania (I attend a lot of tradeshows for media types) They swarm around Ted (from RED, who is a nice, but odd chap) They literally eat rumors for breakfast, and then troll other manufacturers. Trying to make software for "casual" red users is a devil's own job. They never really pay for anything, and are very, very moaney.
- 9999 13y ago
  I understand how the RED owners have a vested interest in promoting the system. They benefit professionally from the regard that others have for the cameras. e.g. they can rent out their cameras, command a higher rate as an operator or DP if they have one in their kit, etc. What I don't understand is the users of reduser.net that don't own or even rent the cameras, but seem to be there to either froth at the mouth in either reverence or hatred for the company. I stopped going there a long time ago because the signal to noise ratio was just too low.

s9ix 13y ago

Cached link via HNPremii for anyone else who is getting the site down. http://hn.premii.com/#/article/6239342 http://hn.premii.com/#/article/6239342

KaiserPro 13y ago

Well, thats a turn out for the books. I've dealt with RED professionally on a few levels. Firstly I came across RED footage shortly after the cameras were released to film makers. Back then to transcode the output from the camera (jpeg2000 with some meta data) to something useful required a beefy mac pro, some free software and lots and lots of time (3-10FPS if you were lucky). Either way, it was expensive. (we used to charge £500 every ten minutes of red footage transcoded) This made me sad, especially as there was no SDK for linux to allow us to use the render farm to transcode it. You could spend £5000 on an "accelerator card" however, its £5k and prone to breaking. The annoying thing was the despite the hype the camera really wasn't all that. Yes it was 4k, but it was noisy, had rolling shutter and colours were duller than dish water. It took the Foundry "reverse engineering" the codec to bring RED to linux natively 35mm film was still far better in terms of image quality(assuming decent DoP and film lab). Yet the hype still built. (Early RED films were dark and broody for a reason....) The next generation of camera was alright, still expensive to hire/buy/use. Yes the sensor unit is relatively cheap, but you still needed to buy lenses, adapters, storage medium, handles(£250 for the cheapest handle), focus gears, etc. You then have to factor in the cost of post production. It was at the time expensive to shoot RED. On a par with film. It took at least two generations of RED cameras, and a lots of third party dev hours to make RED reasonable to use. Nowadays RED decoding is fairly trivial to do, and the modern sensors are fairly good, assuming you down res from the 5k to avoid sensor noise. One thing to note is this, RED fans are utterly fanatical. They will swear that anything RED is cheaper, better, faster, messianic compared to the competition. They are also prone to pirating software. In the annals of cinema, there will be many inches devoted to RED. Evangilising its reforming power. However the camera that really stood out is the canon 5Dmk2. It was cheaper (genuinely throwaway in cinema terms) good enough quality to get by, and has cheap high quality lenses. In short, RED camera, its alright for cinema, pain in the arse for post. REDuser.net and the surrounding noise is worse than angry 4chan. The people at RED however are lovely, its just some noisy users that are obnoxious

Florin_Andrei 13y ago
I still remember the initial Scarlet hype. "$3k for 3k". Man, was I ever pissed when it didn't pan out. :)
13y ago

dsugarman 13y ago

I thought RED was an alright movie at best. To be quite honest, I am surprised they made a sequel.

yesplorer 13y ago
seriously, are you high?
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Indeed, I thought was a pretty good movie. Even Bruce Willis was awake.
- randyrand 13y ago
  After spending the last 15 minutes slowly readying and scrolling down these comments, I'll admit, I laughed.

protomyth 13y ago

Red jumpstarted the new age of digital cameras with 4K RAW at an amazing price. They have had missteps (witness Scarlet and the late / but in the field Dragon). It is a shame Canon really hasn't learned the RAW lesson and has been dragged by people (e.g. Magic Lantern). It is a crime for any camera to deliver less than its best because of crap codecs / software. Red had software upgrades that improved already shipping products without charging an upgrade fee. Canon barely learned with the 24p for the 5Dmk2. Their back and forth with people making movies is pretty refreshing when you think about some other camera companies.

rdl 13y ago

Jim is basically the Elon of the video industry.

markdown 13y ago

Jim owns a beautiful island here in Fiji. He could retire and build an evil lair on Vatuvara Island http://vatuvara.com http://vatuvara.com

marincounty 13y ago

This film (The Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout) cured my photographic buying problem.

mrlinx 13y ago
how so?

marcbarros 13y ago

Congrats Jim. The world needs more creators like you to inspire the rest of us. There are few people willing to commit themselves at the level you did. For that I give you a standing ovation.