Finally, something to watch our RED footage on
- Thread starter Zander
- Start date
Simon Höfer
Veteran
Holy crap!
Bwahahaha, quote from the article:
Bwahahaha, quote from the article:
HorseFilms
Look ma no hands
I want one. I have no idea where I'd put it, but I want one. :thumbsup:
ilauzirika
Boring Senior Member
I have one in my living room and its great for watching blu ray.
... Well this was in my dreams yesterday.:2vrolijk_08:
... Well this was in my dreams yesterday.:2vrolijk_08:
SomewhereinLA
Well-known member
For what was meant to be an inexpensive indie solution, the RED camera is really starting to become a bit pricey. LOL
AuditoryVisuals
Well-known member
Wow. It's weird to hear somebody talking about a 4K tv on the local news.
It's going to be great. Imagine this in an editing room. Wow. It'll light up the whole room. I want to see a live feed from the RED ONE.
It's going to be great. Imagine this in an editing room. Wow. It'll light up the whole room. I want to see a live feed from the RED ONE.
ilauzirika
Boring Senior Member
My question is... How will it show sd or even hd video? will it be pixelated?
NeverColdCall
Well-known member
I was disappointed to learn from our DP that there's no real-time full-resolution output from RED.
karapetkov
Well-known member
IRecordThings
Active member
I can only imagine the format wars onces these things hit the market. HVD vs. what... SVOD? And if the major movie companies are up in arms over piracy today, just think about what they'll do once more and more people start wanting films at full-res—it'd be like owning a 35mm film print, only far more durable and far less expensive. If history is any indicator I can only trust that movie screens will get bigger and encryption schemes more obfuscating; but on that note, when does it all stop? The next decade or so will be interesting, if not repetitious.
ilauzirika
Boring Senior Member
I haven't seen the price for this, but I suppose that it has a really high price.
So IMHO this technology could be applied in new theaters (digital theaters) and not for personal use. I mean, the powerful production and distribution companies would, as do whit films, distribute it in some kind of hard drive in 4k res to be showed in this new theaters as they do in 35mm theaters. It would be easier to manage and the cost for optical print and other process that film needs would be cut.
IRecordThings
Active member
Well, the thing about that is, an expensive piece of equipment like that can't really afford to just be laying down at ground-level where it'd be prone to potential abuse from customers or bad upkeep by employees. Even in an all-digital workflow, it makes much more sense to use a projector from a secured booth than it does to house a television set in-theater. Obviously, (Moore's Law willing) the price of such sets... however steep, will fall with time and eventually they will make it into typical consumer homes. Going by the article, it looks like this is already expected, as the "Home hearth UI" seems to allow one to decorate the screen display to emulate the look of curtains, a fireplace, etc., all suggesting intentionally domestic use.
karapetkov
Well-known member
They're fighting a Goliath and they don't look like David to me. Funny thing is, that they think they are the Goliath.
The whole distribution system is obsolete and has to be reformed. "Piracy" is a symptom, not the disease.
No, lost revenues are the symptoms; piracy is the disease, and people figuring that they are entitled to have what they want, when they want it, for free, just because they want it, are the cause.
Derrick_SA
Veteran
Brilliantly put Sad Max!
- Derrick
- Derrick
karapetkov
Well-known member
From what you said I see a problem only in the "for free" part.
And actually, it's not really for free
. I'll allow myself a self-quote, from another forum.But movie downloads from the Net are far from being for free actually.
When you download a movie, you pay nothing, but you've paid a nice amount for a fast and unlimited Internet connection. You do that every month.
I made a simple calculation and it appears that, on a yearly basis - if I were to rent all the movies I watch from the DVD rentals and if I were to buy every song I download from the net, I would actually pay less than what I pay for my Internet connection.
A movie download is practically identical to a movie rental. An mp3 download is almost the same.
What people do most of the time is download a movie, watch it and then delete it. It's identical. People rarely burn movies to DVDs nowadays, cause it makes no sense. If you want to watch a movie again, you can download it again - it's available... it's one-click-away. Internet gives you this. Things like torrent-trackers and p2p technology are not the Satan, they turn the Internet into a virtual videothèque. With unlimited choices.
I don't watch an awful lot of movies, and I don't download a zillion mp3s every month. For two reasons: a) I don't have that much time and b) I'm exigent: there aren't that much good new movies every month.
I watch 10-15 movies max. every month. I often watch a single movie multiple times when i like it. I download no more than 20-30 mp3s a month. Sometimes I download several albums per month, sometimes I don't download anything for months and stick with my old downloads.
When I calculate the whole thing, I'm practically paying more, using the Internet as a distribution system.
So the real problem is not between me and Hollywood studios but between the studios and Internet providers who don't give them their rightful share.
IMHO, the whole DVD rental\sales system is antiquated and obsolete. The same goes with music. The old system will naturally disappear, giving way to the one-click-away distribution philosophy.
The Internet is the future [and actually the present
It's just that the whole thing has to be regulated and legalized. The industry has to adapt to the 21st century. For the moment it seems that it is still in the 20th.
It's funny, because the entertainment industries can actually make more money on home distribution using the Net compared to what they make now. Why fight it? It's stupid.
------------------
Juz saving some time, I haven't finished my revolutionary article yet.
rogar-Mark-12(DBG)The only thing I want to add is that if there weren't movies and mp3's I'd probably have a ISP subscription that costs 1\10 or 1\15 of what I pay now. Simply cause I'd be just using email and web browsing.
But I mean something different in mind, now I'm motivated to finish the damn text
.
IRecordThings
Active member
Well, that's certainly the image the motion picture industry is painting, but it doesn't hold up when one considers the fact that copy-protection schemes ultimately impede the paying consumer more than any pirate.
With DRM specifically, you have a set of limitations imposed upon the customer, limiting his or her movie-viewing options to that of only DRM-approved monitors, on specific inputs, without the ability to make backups, or watch on devices other than the ones the companies specify. On the other hand, the "pirates" can use and distribute these movies freely because they're the ones with the wherewithal to bypass these restrictions.
The fact of the matter is, no encryption scheme that attempts to block out the same party it is delivering information to can ever be implemented effectively. The sender has to give the decryption keys to the blocked party in order for the recipient to even get the message at all.
When "pirate" is used to refer to us, the general public, is it not appropriate to take issue with the term? Are we not entitled to play a movie on an iPod instead of a television without purchasing it twice? Are we to be jailed for inviting friends over to watch a movie with us, when they themselves have not paid for it? Would we all not benefit if the motion picture industry embraced the growing dissemination of digital content, rather than pouring money into fighting a losing battle against the consumer?
From what you said I see a problem only in the "for free" part.
And actually, it's not really for free
Okay, people who choose to grant themselves any sort of five-finger discount, whether that means "free," or merely illicitly discounted from what the legitimate copyright holder is asking.
Meaning only that you are legitimately using the service provider's service, for which you are paying. Which does not alter the fact that you are still stealing from the copyright holder, if you use that legitimately-purchased connection time to illicitly take their product.
The fact that one pays for the cab fare to a store, doesn't entitle one to shoplift once one is inside.
So what? The point is not how much you personally are paying; the point is that people who hold the rights to the work they have produced, aren't getting paid what they are owed.
Who is the money you are paying, going to? Are the creators/legitimate distributors of the content receiving anything, or is the money just going to the service provider who provides the connection required to take their content?
Which 'internet providers?' Studios (obviously) don't have a conflict with internet providers who operate in agreement with the studios. 'Internet providers' who don't, are just pirates.
The Internet is the future [and actually the present] of media distribution. This can't be stopped. And noone is actually "guilty".
Bull. People who do wrong, are guilty of wrongdoing. Taking something that's not offered for free, for no better reason than you want to have it, but don't want to pay, makes you a wrongdoer.
I bet that people helping themselves to things of value that belong to you, without compensating you in any way, would look like wrongdoers, to you...
Right now the 21st century model appears to be that people just help themselves to as much of your product as they want, when they want it, without doing the courtesy of paying for what they take. Makes for a challenging business model.
If you make your money by providing a product in exchange for payment, then not fighting people taking your product and refusing payment, is what would be stupid.