The rest of the movie...?

[Kenn Christenson]

So, you got me hooked into the P.J. film, when do we get to download the entire short?

At least, make it so those who have reservations and can't attend the screenings have a chance to see it.

P.S. - I think we all know about the flaws - I'd just like to see the rest of the story.

[CVB]

You didn't miss much. Basically the guy gets the girl and the bad guy dies.

[Álex Montoya]

It's a good question. Or maybe another fragment.

[Brook Willard]

It all made sense up until the aliens landed in the last scene... but I guess that's just a creative decision.

[garageman]

You didn't miss much. Basically the guy gets the girl and the bad guy dies.

I heard he threw a ring into a volcano.

[Kenn Christenson]

Wow, did this thread get sidetracked in a hurry. How about starting a new thread - "Plot suggestions for Peter Jackson short"

[Brook Willard]

That's because there have been lots of threads and posts on downloading the entire film... and no answer. It's up to RED. They know we want it, but their reasons for not releasing it are well justified.

[Robert Sanders]

I think they're avoiding showing us the aerial bi-plane footage for a reason.

[Gabriel C.]

I got to see the movie twice at NAB, but if I hadn't, I know my longing to see it would be beyond measure. I think they may not be showing the rest because of all the negative feedback they got from the crazy weirdo's who expect their laptop monitors to project in 4k.

BUT my thinking is that they should show the whole film because the web is one of our deliverable formats. In my mind it only makes sense. Either that or make hd-dvd or blue ray disks for all the reservation holders, contributers, and fans to see.

It seems like that would be in keeping with the way RED does business. Hang your balls out there guys. :)

[Kenn Christenson]

BUT my thinking is that they should show the whole film because the web is one of our deliverable formats. In my mind it only makes sense. Either that or make hd-dvd or blue ray disks for all the reservation holders, contributers, and fans to see.

Agreed! At least for the res. holders.

[garageman]

Agreed! At least for the res. holders.

So will they hand out blu-ray players along with the discs? Even if they did hand out discs it would end up on the net anyway, so it's up to RED, and they have their reasons for doing whatever they do and we have to respect that.

[Andrew M.]

The last thing I want to see is that some guest users of this user group will take the footage and try to play it on the non reference screens, web based players and will make poor judgments and tons of negative comments. This in turn will influence 700,000 new potential clients that in turn will cut inflow of the new orders by 20% and all the extra nice camera features, development work will be compromised.
Showing it at NAB is one thing, where you have experts setting the 4K (3.8K) projector and other related adjustments.
We have to take the best from open design policy and dispersing information to the potential customers. There is a learning curve that all future users have to go through.

[Justin O'Neill]

The HVX200 got a bunch of bad press when it first came out because people were posting very noisy images shot in low light.

It doesn't seem to have effected its success in the long run, however.

[Andrew M.]

Yes, mature product groups with long history, I agree.
But revolution about to start, plus learning curve for new users could be highly influenced at very beginning. It is the future orders that I worry about. Future orders means more development money, more items on our wish-list delivered, better product.

[Häakon]

The HVX200 got a bunch of bad press when it first came out because people were posting very noisy images shot in low light.

It doesn't seem to have effected its success in the long run, however.
I'd say the success is due to it being the only tapeless HD solution that exists around the $5K pricepoint. It's still extremely noisy in low light. :bleh:

The PJ stuff is well-shot, well composed, well lit. There's no way to stop the general public from viewing material on monitors that aren't perfectly calibrated, and most technically-minded people are able to judge the footage appropriately. I think the issue is probably more just one of bandwidth, as the entire movie in 1080 would likely be a couple of gigs and it's difficult to distribute that to the thousands of users that want to see it. Jarred's original server already went down yesterday due to exceeded bandwidth.

[Andrew M.]

Jim made a comment that some scenes were made with wrong settings due to the error and had to be pushed a bit in post.
Also 1080 you said? How you can judge 4K camera by this?
And once someone will get that 1080 footage he will refer to it as a what? RED footage.
We are here on this forum for some time but I never seen more than 900 simultaneous connections before NAB.
Now we have close to 3000 of new onlookers and what do they know about the history and development. Very easy to misinterpret. Some of them are decision makers too.

[Kenn Christenson]

We are here on this forum for some time but I never seen more than 900 simultaneous connections before NAB.
Now we have close to 3000 of new onlookers and what do they know about the history and development. Very easy to misinterpret. Some of them are decision makers too.

That's why I was suggesting limiting the download to those with reservations.

[Dave Cooper]

That's why I was suggesting limiting the download to those with reservations.

That will do nothing. Also it'd easily get leaked.

[Häakon]

Also 1080 you said? How you can judge 4K camera by this?
Well, for two reasons; 1, you don't have a 4K monitor to watch the unscaled footage on, so even if you were given a 4K render, you'd probably size it down to 1080 (or less!) just so you could see it, and 2, aside from those who are distributing their movies to be shown projected in a theater (and even then, how many actually have 4K projectors?), the deliverables of most RED ONE projects are likely to be Blu-ray or HD-DVD (1080 max) or even standard-def DVD for quite awhile. That's why they released some 4K stills for people to get an idea of the frame size and quality, but as far as sample clips go, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to distribute anything at that size.

How long have you watched 35mm-acquired motion pictures at 720x480 on your DVD player at home? At some point there has to be a common denominator for the masses. One can only hope that the Blu-ray authoring software becomes financially viable for end users like us sooner than later.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I'm assuming it's because they're just too busy. Seriously though I would take an SD 864x368 copy I just want to see it and I don't care about the resolution of the RED footage. If they release a small enough copy (like the 1k) version people can't nitpick and they'll have something to blame it on "web compression." Unless they are planning on an alternate means of the average viewer of seeing it, it's sort of obnoxious to just get teased.

It had better not be because of the criticism the stills received. And I don't mean that as an attack on those who criticized it.

[Häakon]

It had better not be because of the criticism the stills received. And I don't mean that as an attack on those who criticized it.
I agree, though the 1K sample clip was received with much more favorable reviews. Wouldn't hurt to get the rest of it out there. :-)

[Andrew M.]

One can only hope that the Blu-ray authoring software becomes financially viable for end users like us sooner than later.


Actually Blue-Ray with its miserable 6MB/sec peak bit rate is good enough for true DVD quality or at best for highly compressed 720p. Most Blue-Ray releases are poorly mastered and the average bit-rate out there is 2.5MB.
Releasing stills of 4K that were taken in the good settings is the way to go I think.
But then, I rather see it in RAW RAW converted to TIFF then RED RAW converted to JPG

[Häakon]

If it makes you feel any better, it's only 3.75MB/sec for HD-DVD. :-)

Honestly, one could bash the disc formats forever as they're all highly compressed ways of getting OK-quality video into our homes. But they're the best we've got, and most people have been content with their MPEG-2 based, standard-def DVDs for years. A properly encoded Blu-ray disc looks worlds better.

Besides, what other format option do we have?

[janusz]

is there a link where the already released portion of the film you guys are talking about can be viewed?

[Häakon]

is there a link where the already released portion of the film you guys are talking about can be viewed?

Pick a mirror:

http://www.proapptips.com/redmirror/crossing1.mov
http://www.24puser.com/crossing1.mov
http://www.runjumpfly.net/crossing1.mov
http://www.pixelquestfilms.com/crossing1.mov
http://simplemente.net/crossing1.mov
http://www.3dspark.com/RED_One/crossing1.mov
http://www.appliedvisual.com/redclips/crossing1.mov

[Andrew M.]

Besides, what other format option do we have?


Well, if we use computers to play the movies RED RAW makes sense with its 27MB/sec

With holographic disks coming to the market even DPX will do.
http://www.arri.com/prod/digital/digital_systems/DIcompanion/apa.html#clip_preview

Most of the movies out there are stored in DPX format, why not to sell protected copies on the holographic disks and play it trough hardware decoder chip.
I guess my imagination is going to far….
Let’s settle on the RED RAW.

[Kevin Lang]

I think alot of people will view this also as there is something wrong with the product and it won't compress nicely. I think holding back on it is a mistake!
There already has been a lot of great press about it, let it go so the world can see!

[Häakon]

Well, if we use computers to play the movies RED RAW makes sense with its 27MB/sec
Sure, except that most of us don't have a RED RAW codec already installed on our machines. :) Even if we did, it also means that we must view all of the footage on a computer monitor, and most people are going to want a way to distribute their RED-shot material to the masses for viewing on televisions. The max res of any consumer television I'm aware of right now is 1080, and the only viable format for 1080 distribution is Blu-ray (or HD-DVD).


With holographic disks coming to the market even DPX will do.
Agreed, but we've been hearing of holographic storage miracles for years now. Until we can actually purchase and use them, they aren't much good. :-\ (This is some people's argument of the RED camera itself, I suppose!)

[janusz]

Pick a mirror:

http://www.proapptips.com/redmirror/crossing1.mov
http://www.24puser.com/crossing1.mov
http://www.runjumpfly.net/crossing1.mov
http://www.pixelquestfilms.com/crossing1.mov
http://simplemente.net/crossing1.mov
http://www.3dspark.com/RED_One/crossing1.mov
http://www.appliedvisual.com/redclips/crossing1.mov

you are amazing (aka, thank you).

[McDiver]

If Red delivered it as a 1080p, using the same codec and data rate used by HD media (1080p movie trailers) at Apple's site, a 12-minute movie would only be 800 MB, and free from any distracting compression artifacting. It would also allow an easy comparison to the many samples out there that begin in the 35mm film world.

[robinbuday]

If Red delivered it as a 1080p, using the same codec and data rate used by HD media (1080p movie trailers) at Apple's site, a 12-minute movie would only be 800 MB, and free from any distracting compression artifacting. It would also allow an easy comparison to the many samples out there that begin in the 35mm film world.

Agreed.

[Thom Steinhoff]

The HVX200 got a bunch of bad press when it first came out ...

For those demanding the release of the footage...

A bit of a reality check here. He got it right by saying "When it first came out" Red isn't even out yet. How much HVX200 footage did anyone see a month before it's release? We've already seen 10x more footage, samples, specs than any other camera manufacturer would have shown at this point in their release cycle.

If you didn't make it to NAB, it is really too bad as it was an amazing experience which you only got a taste of with the sample. Also, you have plenty of us that you now know and trust, albeit digitally, who saw it and gave universal praise and excitement for feedback.

I know--easy for me to say because I saw it. But, you know what, I paid $500 just to see that footage, not to mention losing two days of work and time away from my family and I'm sure many others paid a whole lot more. Those of you who missed it had other priorities or commitments--but that's okay--you made your choice.

But now they *have* to post it for you? give me a break. Jim spent, what... maybe a million dollars, getting the booth ready for you, the cameras ready, put everyone up in Vegas, set up a screening room with a 4k projector showing footage shot by one of the worlds best directors to show you how the camera looks and performs and just because you couldn't make it he now *has* to get the rights clearences, and compress it into a 1K quicktime so you can complain about it--think about what we're asking.

They have a tiny team that is very busy trying to get the cameras to us as fast as possible. Any other company would have saved the enhancements they're making now for next years upgrade, but not Red--I've been following them from almost the beginning and I can count dozens of features and changes most companies would have held for version 2 or 3 or 10.

With Sony we get spoon fed technology--with Red--it's a fire hose.

Gibby and the other early adopters have promised to shake it to its core for us and I'm sure more and more footage will leap out as the early cameras start shipping: some of it good and some of it not so good--but all of it useful and informative. And maybe they'll get around to posting more footage, but maybe they won't--which should be okay, too.

We just need to let them work and if footage from the first 10 cameras, then the first 20, then the first 100 cameras don't give us enough footage to drool over, then we can ask for more--but for now lets let the tired geniuses work!

[donatello b]

1) what makes most of us think that it is up to RED to release whatever they want .. i believe copyright is over with PJ ...
would you want your short released on the web ??
there was time & $$ put into it - they should get the most play out of it before it is released on the web ...
i went to a program of shorts this eve at the tribeca film fest and i would say the short could have life at film festivals ..

2) what makes persons think ( or hint) that the reason some thing is not being released is because they are perhaps hiding something , don't want us to see something ???

[Eric Maran]

I'm pretty sure that Red has the rights to show the short now and it's just a matter of whether they want to or not.

I just think that it'd be really wise to show us professionally shot and directed footage to get us salivating for their camera. Instead of waiting until any joblo with cash has his hands on it and we start seeing shots of their pets running around in the backyard. Even 35mm can look bad if shot poorly.

And we watch movies on DVD (or HD-DVD for us lucky ones) and you can tell whether or not the acquisition was quality even at those resolutions... so in my personal opinion, having a 1080P h.264 version of the short would definitely show off it's potential. How many of us get a chance to watch 35mm in 4k? It's either projected (with "theater" handling, scratches and all) or on DVD/HD-DVD.

[Michael Schrengohst]

The latest RED deliverys are like Spring of 08 now??
They don't need to show anymore footage.
Jim is flying out meeting with top directors.
Trust me, once the cameras get out there you will
see more RED footage than you can download.
As RED ships and shakesout that will be the trigger for
folks who have not committed to RED yet. And look at what the
mere announcement of the RED pocket camera did. I have seen
dozens of people say "Whoa I will wait to see what RED is doing
next before buying that HV20"....so since I said you probably
won't see anymore of the Peter Jackson RED demo....
RED will probably release it tomorrow.

[Thom Steinhoff]

so since I said you probably
won't see anymore of the Peter Jackson RED demo....
RED will probably release it tomorrow.

LOL :)

[Jarred Land]

For those demanding the release of the footage...

A bit of a reality check here. He got it right by saying "When it first came out" Red isn't even out yet. How much HVX200 footage did anyone see a month before it's release? We've already seen 10x more footage, samples, specs than any other camera manufacturer would have shown at this point in their release cycle.

If you didn't make it to NAB, it is really too bad as it was an amazing experience which you only got a taste of with the sample. Also, you have plenty of us that you now know and trust, albeit digitally, who saw it and gave universal praise and excitement for feedback.

I know--easy for me to say because I saw it. But, you know what, I paid $500 just to see that footage, not to mention losing two days of work and time away from my family and I'm sure many others paid a whole lot more. Those of you who missed it had other priorities or commitments--but that's okay--you made your choice.

But now they *have* to post it for you? give me a break. Jim spent, what... maybe a million dollars, getting the booth ready for you, the cameras ready, put everyone up in Vegas, set up a screening room with a 4k projector showing footage shot by one of the worlds best directors to show you how the camera looks and performs and just because you couldn't make it he now *has* to get the rights clearences, and compress it into a 1K quicktime so you can complain about it--think about what we're asking.

They have a tiny team that is very busy trying to get the cameras to us as fast as possible. Any other company would have saved the enhancements they're making now for next years upgrade, but not Red--I've been following them from almost the beginning and I can count dozens of features and changes most companies would have held for version 2 or 3 or 10.

With Sony we get spoon fed technology--with Red--it's a fire hose.

Gibby and the other early adopters have promised to shake it to its core for us and I'm sure more and more footage will leap out as the early cameras start shipping: some of it good and some of it not so good--but all of it useful and informative. And maybe they'll get around to posting more footage, but maybe they won't--which should be okay, too.

We just need to let them work and if footage from the first 10 cameras, then the first 20, then the first 100 cameras don't give us enough footage to drool over, then we can ask for more--but for now lets let the tired geniuses work!


I couldn't of said it better....

[Rick Darge]

yea... amen brother


For those demanding the release of the footage...

A bit of a reality check here. He got it right by saying "When it first came out" Red isn't even out yet. How much HVX200 footage did anyone see a month before it's release? We've already seen 10x more footage, samples, specs than any other camera manufacturer would have shown at this point in their release cycle.

If you didn't make it to NAB, it is really too bad as it was an amazing experience which you only got a taste of with the sample. Also, you have plenty of us that you now know and trust, albeit digitally, who saw it and gave universal praise and excitement for feedback.

I know--easy for me to say because I saw it. But, you know what, I paid $500 just to see that footage, not to mention losing two days of work and time away from my family and I'm sure many others paid a whole lot more. Those of you who missed it had other priorities or commitments--but that's okay--you made your choice.

But now they *have* to post it for you? give me a break. Jim spent, what... maybe a million dollars, getting the booth ready for you, the cameras ready, put everyone up in Vegas, set up a screening room with a 4k projector showing footage shot by one of the worlds best directors to show you how the camera looks and performs and just because you couldn't make it he now *has* to get the rights clearences, and compress it into a 1K quicktime so you can complain about it--think about what we're asking.

They have a tiny team that is very busy trying to get the cameras to us as fast as possible. Any other company would have saved the enhancements they're making now for next years upgrade, but not Red--I've been following them from almost the beginning and I can count dozens of features and changes most companies would have held for version 2 or 3 or 10.

With Sony we get spoon fed technology--with Red--it's a fire hose.

Gibby and the other early adopters have promised to shake it to its core for us and I'm sure more and more footage will leap out as the early cameras start shipping: some of it good and some of it not so good--but all of it useful and informative. And maybe they'll get around to posting more footage, but maybe they won't--which should be okay, too.

We just need to let them work and if footage from the first 10 cameras, then the first 20, then the first 100 cameras don't give us enough footage to drool over, then we can ask for more--but for now lets let the tired geniuses work!

[Steve Gibby]

I couldn't of said it better....

I'll second and third that...

Well said Thom...

[Thom Steinhoff]

I couldn't of said it better....

Glad I could save you some time from having to say it yourself...

Now--get back to work! :)

[Luke Boyce]

If you didn't make it to NAB, it is really too bad as it was an amazing experience which you only got a taste of with the sample. Also, you have plenty of us that you now know and trust, albeit digitally, who saw it and gave universal praise and excitement for feedback.

Okay, I agree with you. RED doesn't have to do a damn thing for us if they don't want to and we should all be grateful that we even got stills let alone a clip from the film. I know I certainly am, and I have ceased asking Jim for the footage.

But I have to take issue with your argument. Essentially you're telling me that it's somehow okay that they don't release the footage because they showed it at NAB for people who paid $500? You're saying "You could have seen the film. A 12 minute movie for $500. If you didn't, tough luck". Sorry but that's a little harsh. And I'm even a little offended that Jarred would agree with you on such a flippant attitude towards a lot of people who made a generous leap of faith with this project. I'm going to end up spending over $21,000 for this camera, which is great. It's a choice I made. But even though it's miles less than $200,000 it's STILL a lot of money and it's money I'm going to have to pay in a few months. So unfortunately, I couldn't AFFORD to pay $500 to go see this film (forget the cost of the flight and the hotel fare). Sorry, if I'm being melodramatic, but I feel a little offended by your flippant attitude towards those of us who weren't able to make it to NAB who are really honestly pining to see this film. We invested in the camera and I don't think it's necessarily fair to lump us together as if we were just lazy and didn't want to spend that "extra $500" to come see footage we didn't even know was going to be there".

And, please, Jim and the RED team, don't view this as anything against you. Like I said above. As much as I'd love to see the rest of the film. I'm eternally grateful enough that this camera exists, let alone that I get to be one of the first 500 purchasers, let alone that I got to see 20 seconds of the film. It's more than I could ask for. I just feel like defending both RED AND those who want them to release the film. Jim IS completely justified in holding back, and still those reservation holders who want to see the movie, I feel, are justified in wanting to see it. I just ask that everybody be respectful on both fronts.

[Luke Boyce]

I just want to add to what I just wrote before something gets out of hand. I want to admit that I may have misunderstood the tone in your post. You may or may not have intended what I got out of it as it's hard to determine tone from a written post, so before I start any kind of disagreement I want to clarify that. Essentially I'm giving an advanced apology if I may have misunderstood you. But until it is clarified, my initial point still remains that I don't think it's necessary to start attacking the people on here who are asking to release the rest of the footage. I feel they are just as justified as RED is in not releasing it.

[Thom Steinhoff]

No worries, I wasn't trying to be flip or disrespectful, I just got a little frustrated with the tone of many people insinuating that Red wasn't doing enough for them when I've never seen a company bend over backwards so far.

My point was that Jim went to great lengths and great expense to show us footage from a cinema camera in as full a cinema experience as possible in a trade show. The were all gratious enough to answer whatever questions we had, for as long as we wanted to ask them. Every member of the team, including Jim himself, was available and eager to answer any question we had.

The $500 reference (travel, hotel, food) was only to say that many of us who saw it went to some lengths and expense to get there to be a part of it and we were rewarded with our questions answered and to see the footage in all of its glory.

No one is saying you don't deserve to see what the camera is capable of before you buy it, and I'm not saying people shouldn't see it--I thought it was amazing--I want everyone to see it (especially my wife because she thinks I'm crazy to spend so much on a camera!)

But, judging by what happened the last time they posted some clips, and the firestorm of questions it raised, at this point I would rather they hold off posting any more footage, so they can spend their time finishing our cameras, rather than fielding endless questions that they have already answered for themselves and moved on.

I'm sorry if my words came off disrespectful, or devisive--they weren't intending to be. We're all in this revolution together and we're in for an amazing ride.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I'm a poor student (well, not anymore actually, but that's another story) who can't afford a RED, but I'm very interested in it and I love to see footage from the camera.
No, the Red team doesn't HAVE TO release the rest of the footage, and certainly not for me, I'm not even a reservation holder (if I would have the money, I would have been there from the first day).
So, I don't have the money to fly from Belgium to Las Vegas to see RED, I already payed to see them in IBC (was great experience, thanks to the RED Team).
It's not like 'I made the choice not to go to NAB', it's that I just don't have the choice because I don't have the money.

You already apologized for the tone that maybe arose from your post, so I don't want to bitch about it anymore, I know you didn't mean it in a bad way, but the tone was really harsh, and it's also harsh that some completely agree with this point.

This being said, I of course, RED has to be busy with releasing a camera.
It's already amazing they still post here, very frequently even.
Putting a film on the web won't be their first priority, and it's not because I and other would *like* to see the rest of the movie,, that they have to put it online. It would just be nice though...
ps: loved the first clip, it showed more from the camera's potential then the
4k frame grabs, to my opinion.

[Zk2007]

On a different note, I know that Peter Jackson filmed a WWI dogfight for his first tentative of bringing Kong to the screen. It’s in the Limited Edition DVD. Having seen some pictures of the planes and dogfight from “Crossing Lines” the whole plane sequence looks basically the same as the one he filmed some years ago. Knowing that the dogfight is 3D generated, well at least the planes, they may gave shot the aerial plate with RED, but I just thought as they had just 2 days to do it all, maybe PJ finally put his old dogfight scene to good use and that’s what’s in Crossing the Line? That would explain how they did it so fast.

[John Allardice]

. Knowing that the dogfight is 3D generated, well at least the planes, they may gave shot the aerial plate with RED, but I just thought as they had just 2 days to do it all, maybe PJ finally put his old dogfight scene to good use and that’s what’s in Crossing the Line? That would explain how they did it so fast.

That's a definite NO on that one, that stuff was obviously live air-to-air footage.
Besides, what would the point be in faking it? It would only take longer to do that way.

[Júlio Taubkin]

It's always the same thing. It was the same with the HVX. Speculation and expectation get people incredibly uneasy, to the point the camera turns into the holy grail. It should be so perfect, that people really don't even see it as a camera, it's a miracle, a work of god, salvation to the people of the world. Then, images come, and people realize that even though the images are great, close to perfect, better than anything out there for nearly the price range, they are just that, digital images from a sensor. Well, that's what we love to do, I give you that, but it's far from a miracle, no matter how good it looks. Than starts the quest for small defects and artifacts and negative qualities to explain why nobody actually had an orgasm the time they saw the images. Nothing to do with their expactations being a little crazy, but it has probably something to do with rolling shutter artifacts, or with the image looking like video. Honestly folks, VIDEO? God, who makes video look like that deserves an award.

But then people start saying the critiques are going to drive costumers away, and that is just silly. The camera is almost out there, and there will be a huge numbr of images from it shortly. Most of them won't be Peter Jackson. There is absolutely no way showing off this film will hurt RED sales. If the camera delivers it delivers (and from what we've seen it's obvious it WILL DELIVER). It will be impossible to keep the hype they did for the last year when the secrecy is bound to end and the cameras are bound to enter the market. But hey, if they want another couple of months, who am I to disagree...

[Clayton Harper]

It's always the same thing. It was the same with the HVX.

Well, said. I am having a hard time tempering my expectations. :bleh:

This Red thing is like my expectations of the HVX amplified through a peyote trip to the desert.

[McDiver]

For me, the confusion started with Jim saying they would be posting clips, (plural) (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1944), followed by Jarred saying the first one would be up soon (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1944&page=2)
Later in the same thread, Jim writes, " We have a problem here... to package this stuff . . . We'll post, but need some understanding until we can figure out a better way to deal with 8 bit delivery to all of you." (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1944&page=5).
I thought I was being encouraging with reference to how other media gets presented for web delivery. The first clip wasn't encoded as efficiently as an H264 encoding would've been. Was just trying to help, without being negative or questioning anyone (anyone believe me?).
I'd always assumed Red's primary underlying philosophy was to bring fire down from the gods for the everyday man, and assumed that showing this footage to everyone, whether they could attend NAB or not, would fit in that vein. If not, that's fine. I'm not trying to push anyone into a corner, just a misunderstanding based on what I thought I was reading.
I (and assume everyone else on this thread) certainly didn't mean to offend, or even realize it was offensive. Nor did I take it as a right or a demand, or imply that those who sacrificed so much to attend NAB shouldn't walk away with any experiences more special than those who sat at home waiting for camera-welfare (that's a joke). I was just responding to what I thought they said they were going to do. That's all. If they changed their mind, then fine. It'd have been nice to be told, instead of being berated:w00t:
Never mind . . . probably just a tempest in a teacup.

[Andrew M.]

We are all going through the learning curve here, including RED team.
Patience please patience…

[Jason Beckwith]

We are all going through the learning curve here, including RED team.
Patience please patience…

Still patiently waiting...
:)

Whatever.

[klas]

There's plenty of Red footage out there. That has nothing to do with it.. I just want to see PJ's short. Whatever camera he might've used.

And I don't recall what kind of intolerable bad things the evil ones here said about the camera, but was it really so bad it's justified to refuse to let it out?(as someone said it was) Because the soundtrack got cleared if I remember correctly.

It's a crime against humanity holding away a short made by PJ. A crime I say. Of course you don't HAVE to show it. You don't HAVE to leave the seet for old ladies on the bus either. You don't HAVE to share candy with your friend at the movies. You don't HAVE to.... You get the picture. Now show it already.

[Lucas Wilson]

Still patiently waiting...
:)

Whatever.

First post. Negative and anonymous.

Troll.

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

[Brandon Fraley]

First post. Negative and anonymous.

Troll.

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

I think "whatever." was his signature. in that context its not that negative, lets give'em another chance

[Jason Sinclair]

When you feed trolls they grow...

[Michel Hafner]

Actually Blue-Ray with its miserable 6MB/sec peak bit rate is good enough for true DVD quality or at best for highly compressed 720p.
Nonsense. 6MB/sec looks very good. You can't compare this directly with intraframe compression which is far less efficient

[Jason Beckwith]

First post. Negative and anonymous.

Troll.

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

Wow, really?

Check the sign up date. I've been a lurker since the first NAB.

I've watched the camera grow from a 'Scam' to seeing it in nearly every booth at Cinegear.

I was just thinking about the PJ short, and wanted to see it again. I searched this site and found this thread. I'm still patiently waiting for a release of the full short. In fact, I was surprised to see a post in this thread about a problem with the arial footage, as I remember it being clean and vivid in color.

I'd think that even if there was a problem with that footage, at this point it could just be disclaimered as being shot with Alpha firmware on an Alpha camera.

Your companies' product is directly married to the success of Red, so I guess I understand why you are so worried about any negative feedback that their product might get. But is it so bad that you need to read it into posts where nothing negative is implied?

"Lighten up, Francis!"

Whatever.

[Brandon Fraley]

Wow, really?

Check the sign up date. I've been a lurker since the first NAB.

I've watched the camera grow from a 'Scam' to seeing it in nearly every booth at Cinegear.

I was just thinking about the PJ short, and wanted to see it again. I searched this site and found this thread. I'm still patiently waiting for a release of the full short. In fact, I was surprised to see a post in this thread about a problem with the arial footage, as I remember it being clean and vivid in color.

I'd think that even if there was a problem with that footage, at this point it could just be disclaimered as being shot with Alpha firmware on an Alpha camera.

Your companies' product is directly married to the success of Red, so I guess I understand why you are so worried about any negative feedback that their product might get. But is it so bad that you need to read it into posts where nothing negative is implied?

"Lighten up, Francis!"

Whatever.

If you have lurked consistently as long as you say, then you should understand that Lucas isn't worried about "negative feedback" as much as lame ill informed and ill informing trolls who for some reason just want to use any opportunity to give RED a bad name. And like I tried to explain, you're previous post does appear to be very sarcastic and condescending until you realize the last portion is actually your signature (I'd do something about that to avoid this kind of response again).

But it was an honest mistake and everyone's on the same page now :) Welcome to the boards mate :)

whatever.

(see how that looks?)

[Brandon Fraley]

and as far as Crossing the Line goes, check this thread: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13133&highlight=crossing

[Anthony Gratl]

If you have lurked consistently as long as you say, then you should understand that Lucas isn't worried about "negative feedback" as much as lame ill informed and ill informing trolls who for some reason just want to use any opportunity to give RED a bad name. And like I tried to explain, you're previous post does appear to be very sarcastic and condescending until you realize the last portion is actually your signature (I'd do something about that to avoid this kind of response again).

But it was an honest mistake and everyone's on the same page now :) Welcome to the boards mate :)

whatever.

(see how that looks?)

WTF? It's called WIT. Y'all take yourselves WAY to fuckin' seriously. Brandon, that mini diatribe you just wrote is ridiculous. This place is turning into what the other sites are saying about it, a bunch of totally defensive fanboys with very little sense of humour. Guy says patiently waiting, even adds a emoticon thingy, and Luki jumps all over him. And then three other people open their traps to back Luki up. His moniker is the funniest on the site, well, tied with Acehole anyways. Sarcastic and condescending his first post was not. And what's wrong with sarcasm? "everyone's on the same page now": Oh Yeaah!!!! You sound like an high school cheerleader. And then in the next breath "welcome to the boards mate".....some mate you are......hey let me spit in your eye and intro a few rules on what to say and what we like to see, and then I'll call you mate......maybe you should think before you start writing pc nonsense. The idea here is to expand the number of redusers, not drive people away with absurd notions of conduct.

Brandon. See how boring yours is?

oh and luki, you had no legitimate reason to write that, so you should do what's right when that happens, n'est pas?

[Brandon Fraley]

wow... really?

[Anthony Gratl]

uuuhhh yeah, really

[Brandon Fraley]

Well, im not sure where all the aggression is coming from, but in case you didn't notice, I was first to come to Whatever's defense after Lucas's lashing. I agreed it was uncalled for, but only because it was read wrong. Like I said, it looks like a typical troll post, of which we see fairly routinely, but it was just a misunderstanding. I was just explaining what had happened. You on the other hand, I think really do need to lighten up. I try to be very active on these boards and ask a lot of questions as well as try to help as many other people as can. You somehow (and I'm still not sure how) misinterpreted my response.

And I never said his post was sarcastic or condescending. I said it APPEARED that way, until you figured out what happened. I completely understand that Whatever meant no ill will and is indeed not a troll.


"everyone's on the same page now": Oh Yeaah!!!! You sound like an high school cheerleader. And then in the next breath "welcome to the boards mate".....some mate you are......hey let me spit in your eye and intro a few rules on what to say and what we like to see, and then I'll call you mate......maybe you should think before you start writing pc nonsense...

Brandon. See how boring yours is?

Take a breath and reread the last page. If you still think I'm an asshole then fine. I'll try to stay out of your way.

And as for Lucas I imagine he just hasn't been back after his post. I'm sure he'd acknowledge the misunderstanding.

[Anthony Gratl]

well sorry man, not how I read your post at all.
i think my tenor was probably a little much, but for a guy writing about sarcasm and condescending tone, you had a lot of it thinly disguised. I didn't get the sense you were coming to Whatever's defense at all. You were explaining where Luki was coming from. I'm generally pretty friendly and hospitable, but wasn't too crazy about your post. So it is what it is. And sarcasm is funny
Or as your mate would say,

Whatever.

Peaceout

EDIT: i bear no ill will by the way, i just call what i see

[Brook Willard]

This is stupid.

[Jarred Land]

very.