Pulled by Darren Kelly

So long and thanks for all the help over the years.

DBK

OYesterday, by 3:00pm they had collected $75,000 in reservation fees. Those are the 75 most stupid people in the free world.

I'll put money these guys will never produce a camera

A fool and his money are soon parted.

We'll see soon enough if the fools are those who reserved cameras backed by a billionaire who has no use for $75,000 or someone who'd bet money against them.

I hope you're being sarcastic, but I'm not sure....

Yeah Jim Jannard from the Forbes Billionaire list (emphasis on Billion) is scamming us. He paid 250k for the red.com domain to scam us for a 1000 deposit. That boot alone was probably 75k.

I look forward to re-reading this thread one year from now. I'll bet there will be at least 5 major film productions using the RED camera by NAB '07.

OK Guys, this is Frederic.

I have known about RED for about 2 years now and I have been totally silent on forums regarding this topic.

Jim is a dear friend of mine and if you read anything on the internet, read this:

RED IS REAL

It is time for a revolution. The mysterium exists and RED ONE will be born.

When Jim approached me 2 years ago, I thought he was nuts... But then, he showed me some things that I can't talk about here.

If you are a skeptic, no problem... don't get a reservation. Reservations are simply to evaluate the demand in order to ramp up production accordingly.

If you believe in RED, and want to get in line to receive your camera, then don't hesitate. This is the coolest camera you WILL EVER OWN.

You also get my word and Jim's that if you want your money back anytime, you got it. No questions asked.

As far as Darren's comment... well Darren is also a friend of mine and I do respect him very much. He is just not getting it which is OK. It's understandable.

My best to all of you,

Frederic Haubrich

Ok Darren,

I'll take that bet. I bet by next year there will be a Jump Start Guide on Red !!

Darren, sorry I missed seeing you this year. If you're around tomorrow, please seek me out and say hi. You're entitled to not believe in RED. You're free to not think we're going to deliver. I'm happy for you to think that "Reputable organizations like Panasonic, Sony, Ikegama and JVC have spent millions of dollars developing camera's for us." But please don't call it a scam and suggest that Frederic has been misled.

The only scam I saw this year at NAB is the price of the food, and that's the same scam we get every year :-)

Graeme

Darren - Jim Jannard doesn't strike me as a sort of snake oil salesman, not by any shake of the stick.

He's straight up, dude.
He would be one of the very few in the world who could afford to develop something like this against the oligopoly that exists at the moment - and he'll make it work.
Why - 'coz he can, he wants to and he can AFFORD to prove a point.
When he succeeds then he deserves whatever merit is his due.

Further - I really don't think the likes of Graeme Nattress and the rest of the Red team are anything other than sincere in trying to get this to market asap.

If anyone's been feeding us snake oil, it's been the big 3 - slowly but surely they've been sucking the blood out of us while pacifying us here and there with new features.

Hell - they know all about cmos - but it's not yet on their product development cycle. They could extract prolly another billion or so dollars out of their curves at the moment.
Jim's jumped the game forward around 5 years or so I'd say.

My $0.02c

I'll put money these guys will never produce a camera, and there is no FW they will ever give a dollar of that money back.


You're on.
How much are we betting?

Darren,

This is a flame war waiting to happen, you should know better. Refer to our Policy here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/network/policy.php

heath

Normally I'm among the most cynical people. Seriously. But the problem I have with the people screaming snake oil about RED is that none of the evidence fits, even from a technical standpoint.

In 2004 Cannon released the "EOS 1Ds Mark II", a 17Mpixel using a full 35mm SLR sensor. Ok, the chip is only physically capable of 4 frames a second, but this has a higher resolution than Mysterium and the light sensitive area is neerly 3 times the area of the Mysterium (Oweing to the differences between 35mm SLR and super 35mm 16:9 format sizes) and Cannon were able to sell it for about 8k US.

By the time RED gets its release the cannon will be 2 years older.

The sensor makers now have a long history of releasing SLR chips with HiDef resolution sensors (2 to 3 Mpixel) for fairly trivial money but limited to about 12 frames a second. We only want 24! Is this being done deliberatly to protect the HDTV camera market?

Now consumer camcorder level may be off topic but you have Sony producing a good start with the HC1, and then releasing the HC3 with a smaller number of pixels turned by 45 degrees. If you want snake oil, its ClearVid, and the question for me is not 'How can a camera of the price/performance of RED exist' but 'How can it NOT exist?'.

RED can work because the sort of improvement thats been forced in the digital SLR market has been missing from HDTV and a large single chip camera with enough resolution to downsample and compete directly with 4:4:4 1080p cameras is a genius move.

Here come the haters... a true visionary can see things others think not possible... if you dont get it... please step aside...



ash =o)

i think both camp are right.
The red camera will exist (at least for a while).
But building a complete industry out of nothing is a long and painfull process (not only technically).
They have to build the cam, the optics, to storage, the codec, the software.
They have the big guys against them (and not only one).
Any business, as clever it is and how smart the product would be is submitted
to some law (like the economic ones).
We have seen big players (mamiya, minolta) stopping business, despite a good reputation and dozen of good product, just because some VIP decided that the game is over.
I think Mr Jannard is not billionair because he his a lucky guy.
If somebody came and offer a good deal for the red company, he will sell it
If RED prooves to be an economic failure, he will stop it before loosing too much money.
Even if RED is an excellent business, he could sell it to ARRI, Sony, Samsung who knows who, and nobody then can say what will happen to the product.

Jim Jannard won't sell RED.

When he started Oakley and his sunglasses, the big companies laughed at him. 9 years later he all passed them in sales. Did he sell Oakley?
No.

Will he sell RED? Hell no, it's his 'precious'.

The reasons I choose to think RED is for real:

1. If it was a scam, it will be the most unsuccessful scam ever (from a financial stand point.)
2. The project got Jim Jannard backing it with his OWN money. That's BILLIONS of dollars.
3. They already got a working sensor with tests exceeding expectations.
4. Perhaps Jim will sell it, but why sell something you can make more money off? I don't see why a visionary man would sell his dream.

The reason for not believing?
The only two would be developing a camera is expensive? Well, the Drake people almost pulled it of with the same
amount Jim have as pocket money in a good pair of oakley pants. Other amazing feats would be Jaun and his DVX mod!
Reason two, would be there is no sensor capable of the things they claim. Well, there already are 4K sensors like in the Dalsa.
I'd say it's not that far fetched that they actually have a great sensor on their hands. Technology moves forward you know..

I BELIEVE

The biggest risk appears to be that a competitor will bring superior technology to market before Red is available. That risk is mitigated by the money back guarantee, and you can be certain that Red management has taken this risk into account. No company wants to invite a class action.

Thats certainly a risk for RED and possible, however slow the rest of the industry seems to be moveing currently, but its not really a risk for the buyers.

Competition can only improve things.

If RED ONE does well Jim has mentioned the possibility of a range of cameras.

I put down a $1000 for snake oil bottle #172. I look forward to posting images for you next March.

I can understand some people's skepticism, but in my opinion this isn't really rocket science. Even Jim said that once. It's just an electronic box with some circuit boards in it, so there isn't much risk as to whether or not you can physically create this camera. Most of the work is probably in testing and refining the software and internal image processing.

Also, some people may not realize this, but you can easily buy expertise if you need it. There are all kinds of consultants, engineers, and even other companies that Jim could easily contract out just for this job. If you have the money you can buy the expertise and RED no doubt has the money. As long as that money keeps flowing, the engineers can keep working and keep tweaking things until it works. Heck, engineers can do nearly anything when given enough time and enough money.

By the way, Jim owns about 44.4 million shares of Oakley, which is currently trading at about $17 each. Each time that stock goes up or down by $0.0017 (that's not even a cent), he gains or loses $75,000 on paper. Call me crazy but I bet he could care less about stealing people's deposits.

Labeling those folks whom laid down $1000 in good faith as "stupid" is not the smartest move to make, especially on a real names public forum as this. I would think a man like Jim to be smart enough to know his good reputation is on the line, or he would not be dumping his own heart and money into this effort.

No doubt timing is critcal for Red to succeed. We also know what market is, and what it's used for. You always have to take it with a grain of salt. The proof will be in the actual data when it hits the screens for all to see.

The point were missing here is that Jim is forcing the hand of his competion by setting the bar much higher than expected. If this camera delivers as promised, than the competion may have to scrap a few generations of technology and move ahead. THAT benefits all of us end users.

Jim is also raising the bar in form and fit as well. His camera is not radical by mistake. Nor is his pricing. He obviously feels that a majority of us creatives are artistic and expressive in nature, and with limiting budgets.

The technology seems real folks, and Jim seems to be the only one giving us access. We should applaud him for that.

Pulled by Darren Kelly
DBK

It really doesn't seem like you've read or understood Chris' posts on forum conduct.

Busy little thread.

HEATH: I didn't start this to be a flame war, and so far the only person being flamed is me. I did notice you or chris pulled my post in another thread. Just interested.... what number on the list are you guys?


DBK

No, it was not Chris or Heath, it was me. And you can see I have edited your post above. This type of hostility in posting is NOT ACCEPTABLE here. It's not because you are questioning the viability of RED, it's how you are going about it. It's quite okay for you to have an opinion and to publically state so in a reasonable non, hostile manner. But calling other people names for putting their money and faith in the camera and ranting along with your own diatribe is going to get your posts yanked everytime. If you continue, you won't be posting here at all.

And just for the record, I am not on 'the list'. The type of camera work I do is not what RED is aimed at. If I am on any 'list' it would be for a SONY XDCAM HD because I had a chance to use that camera during our shootout and while it may not be the cream of the crop imagewise, the workflow is something I really fell in love with and is in line with how I use videography.

Consider yourself warned.

Greg Boston

Pulled by Darren Kelly

Sorry if I offended any of the community and especially my friends Frederic or Heath or Chris

DBK

There was nothing wrong with my last post. It presented viable reasons why Red cannot be done for the price and technology point.

You've overstepped if you considered my last post hostile at all. I spent a considerable amount of time writing the post to explain my points. You've just decided to pull my posts for your own reasons. What ever they may be.

Chris....I respecfully request my last post be reposted.

I will stop posting - you don't need to pull my posts

What ever happened to free speach

DBK

The problem Darren is that while this is a public forum, you are like a visitor in Chris' house. This is his home. If there was a sign on the front door of Chris' home that said, "no cursing", and you walked in and started doing exactly that, why shouldn't he ask you to leave. Go read the posting policy again.

-gb-

Pulled by Darren Kelly

Let's just close this thread before it turns into a personal rant fest. There's no benefit here.

Forget it.

Please delete my account. It's not worth it.

Bye Bye

DBK

your answer shows how RED is building its marketing.
Enthusiasm is the word. Believing is the concept, everything is based on Faith.
The product does not exist yet, and everybody wants it.
It was described by everybody (even "non-believer") with superlative words on both extrems. Seems there is absolutely no reasoning in this history, just feelings, and that is what makes Mr Jannard a big guy.
there is no such enthussiasm for (almost) similar product that already exist.
For sur, if you come, claiming that you will build a car that looks like a Ferrari and cost like Toyota, you will get meany ears ready to listen to you.
You will get also all the skeptics saying "Naaa, that is impossible".
You probably don't have to worry for your 1000$, because anyway , somebody ready to spend 20000$ could afford to loose 1000$ to get some thrill, especially when you know that risk is low.
That gambling behavior, and Mr Jannard knows it.
The risk is not there. The risk is that this camera will never reach the state of finished product. It would be too bad, but currently i see so many reason, that it is highly probable.
After all if making a codec , a disk or memory storage and editing station for 4k or even 2k resolution , was so easy, why it is not everywhere.
I think wait and see with friendly support is the best attitude for instance.
but if you plan to shoot a movie in the next two years, you had better to find another camera.

Hi Darren,

"Freedom of speech" is alive and well here. I'm exercizing my free speech rights to run this forum as I see fit -- and I heartily encourage you to do the same with your own website / message board / blog / whatever.

I fully support Greg Boston's actions, and trust his judgement on all matters relating to DV Info Net. And I don't see any reason to close this thread.

Darren, although I know I'm not speaking on behalf of Jim, or Chris for that matter, I think you should be thankful that your post has been removed, due to the legal implications of your claims. How you would go about defending your position on the "Scam" claim is beyond me, and, need I say, faced with a cadre well schooled in the art of Jusiprudence, would also be beyond your means. You're doing Chris, and the membership at DV inf, no favors when you infer that one of our more important guests is a scam artist. There are other ways.

your answer shows how RED is building its marketing.
Enthusiasm is the word. Believing is the concept, everything is based on Faith.
The product does not exist yet, and everybody wants it.
It was described by everybody (even "non-believer") with superlative words on both extrems. Seems there is absolutely no reasoning in this history, just feelings, and that is what makes Mr Jannard a big guy.
there is no such enthussiasm for (almost) similar product that already exist.
For sur, if you come, claiming that you will build a car that looks like a Ferrari and cost like Toyota, you will get meany ears ready to listen to you.
You will get also all the skeptics saying "Naaa, that is impossible".
You probably don't have to worry for your 1000$, because anyway , somebody ready to spend 20000$ could afford to loose 1000$ to get some thrill, especially when you know that risk is low.
That gambling behavior, and Mr Jannard knows it.
The risk is not there. The risk is that this camera will never reach the state of finished product. It would be too bad, but currently i see so many reason, that it is highly probable.
After all if making a codec , a disk or memory storage and editing station for 4k or even 2k resolution , was so easy, why it is not everywhere.
I think wait and see with friendly support is the best attitude for instance.
but if you plan to shoot a movie in the next two years, you had better to find another camera.


Your points are easy to rebut. First of all, do you have any idea how much money it costs Sony to build their top of the line Cine Alta? Do you have any idea what their margins are on that item? ( I assure you they are huge!). What Mr. Jannard is doing is most likely limiting his margins, and essentialy allowing the community to benefit from the existing technology, and any new technologies he decides to incorporate in his creation. I get the sense that the profit motive isn't his primary impetus for making this camera. I sense that it is a love for techology, videomaking etc.

Yes, I put 1000 bucks down on vaporware. What do I have to lose? NOTHING. What do I have to gain---perhaps a revolutionary way to acquire moving images. You seem to suffer from what psychologists call the recency effect. It essentially says that if you have experienced something recently, you will normally make the false assumption that the event will repeat itself with the same results. You might be right, but I'm betting that you will be wrong (and it merely costs me interest of about 2% on a thousand dollar loan for 6 months) In a sense I am a speculator, and this my friend is often the way that new ideas come to market.

I get the impression he's a bit bitter about something...

As it happens the only person who's really got anything to lose on this project is Jim Jannard, and I imagine it'd hurt his reputation more than his wallet.

As for us, well Jim & Co. have been baiting us with promises of extreme goodies for the past few months, this week they have upped-the-ante somewhat by promising it all at a very inviting price-point, but at the end of the day the worst we'll get is disappointed. The best we can get is worth the attention we're giving it I reckon.

I get the impression he's a bit bitter about something...

Do you mean Darren... Steve...

Maybe I'm reading something into his first post and other posts... just my .02...

I was wondering if the person was disappointed in the fact that the camera is coming out to cost more than some had wanted it to be... myself included... because maybe we thought this would be the holy grail for the smaller guys...

But I feel that with lens, body, monitor, storage... this camera really is going to cost between $30,000 to $40,000...

For a feature film that's great... but for myself forming a production company in a smaller market... at this time I don't believe that I could recoup my costs...

I'll purchase a smaller priced HD... or HDV camera... for that...

I guess what I wanted the Red to be again was the holy grail... that would work for my smaller productions and wow give me a lot of bang for my buck for the larger ones...

We'll see in a year... then hopefully I've made enough on the smaller ones that buying a Red next year at NAB will be easy...

Do you mean Darren

Yeah, just my astute observation skills in play there...

I was wondering if the person was disappointed in the fact that the camera is coming out to cost more than some had wanted it to be... myself included... because maybe we thought this would be the holy grail for the smaller guys...

The impression I got was he was upset it was SO cheap and was saying it was therefore impossible and we shouldn't all be so enthusiastic. Difficult to say now his original post has gone though.

But I feel that with lens, body, monitor, storage... this camera really is going to cost between $30,000 to $40,000...

Spare a thought for those of us based in the UK - this thing's gonna cost over another 30% for us!

For a feature film that's great... but for myself forming a production company in a smaller market... at this time I don't believe that I could recoup my costs...

I'm one of those who tries to raise a budget to shoot as low-cost as possible but with the best equipment I can get my hands on (although I'd happily make a $200m movie if anyone wants to put up the cash?) This camera should do this for me, and the cost gets spread across several films and I could possibly rent it out to recoup some as well.

Darren, the post was pulled, but that is not a reason to leave. "Walk it off" and come on back in where the water is nice!

Difficult to say now his original post has gone though.That was Darren's own decision. He edited it himself. We were okay with it, there's certainly nothing wrong with a dissenting opinion and healthy debate -- as long as it's friendly and professional of course. The title of this thread gives you an idea of how he feels about the RED concept.

Snake oil relieves joint paint. Sounds good to me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil

Snake oil relieves joint paint. Sounds good to me!
That damned joint paint. 'Tis what makes my bones that delicate shade of lavender I hate so much.

It's amazing what a concept camera can do! And the marketing is the most spectacular I have ever seen. Serious I haven't a need for this camera but for some reason I want to buy it.

It's amazing what a concept camera can do! And the marketing is the most spectacular I have ever seen. Serious I haven't a need for this camera but for some reason I want to buy it.

I'll sell you number #97 for 2000 dollars---Just kidding! Look, HD is the future---many people around here are already making the transition. If this camera is for real, it will be the way I make the transition. If not, there are some other interesting things out there.

I can't believe people are already thinking this camera is TOO expensive - if it arrives at the price point promised it's only going to cost 10-20% of it's nearest competitor! Did anyone really think this camera was going to cost the same as a Z1?

OK you can't afford to buy it, but so what, the rental costs are going to be minimal.

For many, if not most, people here its how much we have to spend that determines if something is too expensive not how well it does its job, call this subjective if you like.

RED-ONE will be a a sizable step up in quality if it does what they say, and sizable drop in the price of high end cameras.

The price of the storage options has yet to be annouced last I checked, as has exactly what the bare camera consists of (Presumably it has a sensor in, but nowhere does it seem to say that on the site and we know it is modular) but bare seems to have no recording capacity at all.

Right now I'm thinking the price of the flash storage option must be insane at the stated capacities.

The price of the storage options has yet to be annouced last I checked, as has exactly what the bare camera consists of (Presumably it has a sensor in, but nowhere does it seem to say that on the site and we know it is modular) but bare seems to have no recording capacity at all.

I think the RED team is still finalizing what exactly will be included in the base.
If I got it right it'll be the body, sensor and LCD screen.

The talk on the floor at the moment is that recording options may go for
$1000 or less, each.

For many, if not most, people here its how much we have to spend that determines if something is too expensive not how well it does its job, call this subjective if you like.

RED-ONE will be a a sizable step up in quality if it does what they say, and sizable drop in the price of high end cameras.

Something to consider though is what the current competition for RED is price-wise - basically anything under about $30k. If they can ship in volume over the next year or two this should push a lot of tech which is currently in that price range down into the current DV/HDV range, so even if you can't afford RED you benefit from it's impact on the competition.

I agree with Evan .There are developed "markets" in the broadcast industry. There is the film makers 60K and over market, there is the 20-60K ENG market, and there is the under 10K small budget shooter market. These almost always are stratified by "chip size" and various software features.

The professional camera market, essentially being an oligopoly of two or three manufacturers, has colluded somewhat to keep the stratification of the product line and prices where they are, regardless of the actual cost of developing and manufacturing the camera.

What the RED team is doing is simply making a very formidable product and pricing it more in line with actual costs, rather than its stratified market value.

This will force the oligopoly of Sony/Panasonic to respond with better prices, or value for money.

So even if RED isn't for you, it's in your interest to see them succeed in bringing this camera to market, if only to buy cheaper Sony and Panasonic products!

John

P.S. And if this is the Evan Donn I went to film school with at U.C. Santa Cruz, drop me an email!

It wouldn't surprise me if the cost of R&D are not reflected in the price of the RED ONE. To some extent Jim and Co. have obviously been working on this for 6-7 years (though I'm assuming things have ramped up considerably in the last year).

The impression I'm getting (rightly or wrongly) is that Jim's absorbed the cost of R&D himself to make the camera HE wants, and is now looking to sell it to the rest of us at manufacturing cost + profit margin.

I think it's important to note that RED isn't that unique at this years NAB. There are a number of cameras on display that are working and don't have the same level of marketing as RED.

If you were planning to shoot a low budget feature film and you have limited funds to buy a camera kit, RED doesn't make a lot of sense. Assuming the price stays as quoted the Silicon Imaging camera would give you a lot more bang for your buck and that's just one of the new cameras.

It's not 35mm DOF that makes a good film it's the story, script and actors. No audience goes to rave over the DOF. Using 35mm kit will add to the costs, spend the difference on script development or better actors.

Are we thinking of the same SI camera Brian?

SI-1920HDVR is Q3 2006 with recording (unclear if this is with a lens) for 'under 20K US', and the RED with recording but without a lens is still substantially under 20k.

I can't quite follow the bang for buck argument. Even at worst RED-ONE should produce a much better picture for only slightly more money and a lot of features like high frame rates thrown in. There is a head only option from SI that is cheaper but that puts a shooter in a totally different place from the RED and with rather poorer hardware.

SI have a small time advantage but I can't see it selling at that price with RED-ONE competing. I'm going to watch that product carefully, RED could force the SI offering very comfortably into my price range if they don't give up on it.

It wouldn't surprise me if the cost of R&D are not reflected in the price of the RED ONE. To some extent Jim and Co. have obviously been working on this for 6-7 years (though I'm assuming things have ramped up considerably in the last year).

The impression I'm getting (rightly or wrongly) is that Jim's absorbed the cost of R&D himself to make the camera HE wants, and is now looking to sell it to the rest of us at manufacturing cost + profit margin.

There could also be some DoD money involved, considering the market for their other products.