View Full Version : What is the CML mailing list all about?
Marcus Lundahl
10-20-2007, 03:32 PM
Hi all!
Is there anyone else out there that is subscribing to the CML mailing list and have been getting hundres of posts the last couple of days about whether you lease or buy a camera? I don't get anything at all.
It seems like a couple of people are spreading some sort of rumor about something that has happened on a set recently and its implications for us buyers. Does it have anything to do with RED? The atmosphere of discussion is rather strange there. Anyone who has some input about it all?
/Marcus
Pol Turrents
10-20-2007, 03:41 PM
I've sent a few messages there saying that this guys are turning into absurd theories of conspiracy.
I just stopped reading them...
Greg M
10-20-2007, 03:44 PM
My take is they are discussing the fact that Red is actually a computer and governed by EULA agreements...their argument is that in essence you dont own the camera, but are leasing it since the software license can be revoked.
Welcome to 2007 guys!
Most of these guys are old school film guys that are still resisting change...the basis of the discussing has some validity, but you have to consider both sides here and the tremendous investment in r&d, etc, etc...I highly doubt Red or any other software based camera manfacture would revoke an owners license unless there were extreme condition involved.
Pol Turrents
10-20-2007, 03:47 PM
And nobody talks about the EULA that you have to sign if you want to make tests with a camera of a BIG and SO MUCH loved company between the film guys...
Babu Kantamneni
10-20-2007, 03:49 PM
My take is they are discussing the fact that Red is actually a computer and governed by EULA agreements...their argument is that in essence you dont own the camera, but are leasing it since the software license can be revoked.
Welcome to 2007 guys!
Most of these guys are old school film guys that are still resisting change...the basis of the discussing has some validity, but you have to consider both sides here and the tremendous investment in r&d, etc, etc...I highly doubt Red or any other software based camera manfacture would revoke an owners license unless there were extreme condition involved.
Holy crap
Tom Lowe
10-20-2007, 04:08 PM
I can't keep up with those mailing list type things. A forum is easier to view, for me.
donatello b
10-20-2007, 04:22 PM
huh ?? i don't know who they are talking about ...
i don't see anything in the RED terms & conditions that has anything to do with the CML thread ...
has the RED warranty always been 6 months ??
Graeme Nattress
10-20-2007, 04:26 PM
CML is a place where you can get very good or very bad answers to questions. As to which you'll get and how you determine which is which, is rather tricky.....
Graeme
Adrian T.
10-20-2007, 05:39 PM
CML is a place where you can get very good or very bad answers to questions. As to which you'll get and how you determine which is which, is rather tricky.....
Graeme
Quote of the day! :tongue:
GlennChan
10-20-2007, 11:31 PM
The "new pages" posts from the listnums (e.g. David Walpole) tend to help point towards the more useful discussions. You can browse these pages on the CML site... it archives the more useful discussions.
2- Though to echo what Graeme said, there are sometimes some very good answers and sometimes some bad answers.
3- I prefer to get the non-digest and use the delete key a lot. (My mailing list equivalent to skimming forums. I skim all the forums I go through... it's too hard to read everything.)
4- The CML is supposed to be about cinematography.
Bob England
10-21-2007, 12:00 AM
Oh, THAT CML! My partner belongs to the Cadillac Mailing List... he talks about it the same way.
Stephen Webb
10-21-2007, 12:10 AM
The current "debate" on CML is indeed a bizarre one, and one that claims to be about one thing whilst in reality about being another.
The suggestion is that some unnamed Digital Cinema Camera Company with a brand new product have seized footage from a comparison test shoot on the basis that it breaches the End User License Agreement that covers the camera's software. What is being claimed is that this unnamed Digital Cinema Camera Company with a brand new product is claiming ownership of the footage under the EULA, and doesn't like the intended use of said footage and so have descended upon those who shot said footage and seized it from them.
The debate on CML purports to be a "reasoned debate" about who owns intellectual property rights to images shot with a camera that contains such an EULA (and indeed, it would be a very worrying thing if footage I shot with my camera turned out to be the IP of the manufacturer). However, in reality this "debate" is a thinly veiled (and totally unsubtle) accusation against an unnamed Digital Cinema Camera Company with a brand new product started by an individual who feels that, for some reason, he can not make the accusation outright and so is hiding behind a "hypothetical" situation based upon an undisclosed "real world" incident.
Why it's bizarre is that, apparently, people feel that they are in danger of being prosecuted if they speak openly about the incident. What no-one has taken into account is that, if said incident is a verifiable fact, there is no legal reason not to openly discuss (the best defence against accuations of slander and libel is "it's true").
And so what we end up with is a forum of alleged professionals sniping at some unnamed Digital Cinema Camera Company with a brand new product from behind a facade of an IP debate (that in itself has some merit, but is quickly answered) whilst resolutely refusing to explain what they're actually referring too (which some seem to know about and others don't). The individual who started the debate is clearly fishing for a response from the owner of an unnamed Digital Cinema Camera Company with a brand new product (one who just happens to frequent internet messageboards that discuss his product) that openly verifies what the situation is and allows the "real" debate to be aired publicly.
It is indeed rather strange.
Andrew Benz
10-21-2007, 12:28 AM
It seems I got out of the mailing list too soon ;-)...
Thanks for the update Stephen.
Marcus Lundahl
10-21-2007, 12:53 AM
Thanks for clarifying it all Stephen!
I really wish you would post exactly that on the mailing list!
What irritates me is that when the poster is saying:
"I have these questions but I don't dare to say which company its all about because then I'll get sued..." he deliberately attacks the company and continues to make people suspicous and skeptical about the company and its product.
/Marcus
Michael Brennan
10-21-2007, 03:05 AM
If the rumour is that RED? wants footage back then manufacturers seeking to control tests is nothing new.
A film manufacturer wouldn't let a f900 test that they commissioned be shown at an IBC forum without their DP, who they had apparently planned to fly (first class and 5* hotel) from the USA, to "support it" on stage in the forum.
I've been with Sony Europe execs as they cut some film scenes from their combined f900 and HD DI reel, that had been shot on film that looked too good. The film originated stuff showed up the f900s poor reproduction of skin tone.
I've also heard that early tests of a new digital camera (not RED or Sony) were edited on HDCAM when the sales push for the camera was that the recording was superior to a f900!
Panavision v Arri, Film v Video debates have tended to be cynical, personalised and ultimatly at the expense of the producer or DP.
Lets hope Red Inc and Redusers can rise above whatever hype in a friendly open and honest way.
Mike Brennan