Talk:Red Digital Cinema

message: I think there are still serious problems with this article. There are several paragraphs on Scarlet and Epic which, as far as anyone outside Red knows, have never existed anywhere other than Jannard's imagination.
I also fully endorse any concerns in the first "written like an ad" paragraph below that may still be extant in the article, particularly the "Genesis is 6K" issue. It's true that the camera's marketplace positioning is unique and important and this should be covered, but it's just as important that the company has generated a huge amount of controversy for its promotional style, particularly the 4K claim.
I think this is still riddled with problems that would be considered outrageous in a print encyclopedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.193.195 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, someone or group of people decided this article needed to encompass everything the company did.  Ostensibly the Red One was such a singular product that it did not deserve an article on its own, so all efforts to cover that product got diverted to this article.  Obviously now there are a lot more products and a significant historical effect the existence of their original product has had on the film industry--basically taking it out of the film realm and into digital on a budget that more people could afford.  I nominate that the articles be split into articles about the individual products--as they are done with larger camera companies like Canon or Sony.  That will reduce the jam of information here.  Previously, the consensus was against it.  I haven't really even analyzed what the article has become now after years of this misdirection. Trackinfo (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Still written like an ad" -- agreed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.99.157 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  To my mind it now reads like a badly edited product catalog rather than a succinct history of the company.  Contrast with - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_%28company%2950.99.43.77 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still written like an ad 

message: I think it should be mentioned that 1080p field monitoring is only an option as playback and not live monitoring.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.216.197 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1080p Field Monitoring 

message: Very little information on the company more about the Red One, if the Red One is that notable it should have its own article and a separate one about the company. Not the place for company articles to give a detailed description of one of the products that takes up 90% of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point.  I agree.  —EncMstr (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Red has more than one camera in production now. Before, it used to be pretty much their only product as a camera company, so the two were very related. Now there is information about the RED ONE and EPIC on here, plus a bit of information on Scarlet. If it's separated though, the article will probably get very small, and will probably just be about the RED ONE with a link to the main article, and then EPIC and Scarlet. Maybe more information about the company in general could be added first? - Wuffyz 06:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red One 

message: I think several changes need to be made here:
* The Red cameras should be divided into their own articles (Red Epic and Red One). The camera company should be a separate article.
* The film list thrown in here seems a little random and misplaced. There is a list of films that have been shot fully or partially in digital (and the associated camera used)
* The 'list of competitors' is non-standard across the articles for the cameras in that list. Some have 'see also' and some have 'other cameras'. Some don't have a links at all. This should be standardised between these pages. Perhaps there should just be a link to a 'list of digital cinema cameras'
* General clean-up
Eradicator (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Overall Quality 

message: With the Red company producing much more then just one camera the (badly written) section about the Red One camera takes to much space and just doesn't add to the overview of the company.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorushiva (talk • contribs) 10:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make Red One camera a seperate page (again) 

message: Added lots of infos and restructured the camera sections.
Still contains vast parts that were obviously either written by a Red employee himself or someone not very neutral. Overall language is another problem.
Cameras should be separated soon from the company article and the "shot on red" list should be removed/merged into this list. Technical info on them is hard to gather, info is cluttered almost randomly in the reduser forums.
Info about the lawsuit is also pretty vague at the moment.
Should this discussion page also be cleaned up? Lots of it is outdated or been solved more than two years ago.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.211.36.140 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Basically overhauled the whole article

message: Is there any information who makes them?--Ericg33 (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the article. Feel free to research this and add it yourself. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is suggested by Red (see bottom of page) that the Mysterium sensor is made by Red.  There was a blog post a year or two ago which suggested it is exclusively made to Red's specification by a few select Oriental chip companies, part of a post mentioning a theft or fire.  Sorry, I don't find anything about it now, and don't remember the specifics.  —EncMstr (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensor Manufacturer? 

message: It is misleading to say Red has never lost a lawsuit. They certainly have used it as a marketing tool.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.199.246 (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  lawsuits 

message: To the 111 people watching this page, I hope I get a response. What is going on with the number of unnotable lawsutis that are being copied-and-pasted from other sites into this article? I first became aware of this when someone posted in the Sony talk page about some kind of lawsuit filed against Sony recently. Then I come over here and I see four different IP addresses who have recently edited the article or have edited the article at the same day back in November 2012. I don't really know what to make of this IP behavior. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 01:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on? 

message: Hey Tjkeef320, just wondering what your goals are with the article. Since August 22nd you've removed 60,703 bytes of data from the article across your various edits (despite being reverted multiple times). Mind telling us what direction you're taking the article in, or at least explaining why you are removing data instead of placing a citation needed tag? It is especially odd because as of this moment you have made 30 edits to this article, and 0 edits to any other articles. 64.231.204.187 (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As of today, Tjkeef320 has removed 80,314 bytes of data from this article and the REDCODE article, has not edited any articles not related to Red, and has not stated their intent on the talk page as requested. If no one has any objections, I would propose reverting to the version prior to the blanking by Tjkeef320. 65.92.15.119 (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tjkeef320, mind telling us what your goals are? 

message: be..anyone proposed the deletion of this page with the reason: Non-notable target of spammy wikilinks.
I think this page is notable, and I think the arguments that were provided are not solid: 
* "Nothing found in Google News archive": I found 7680 results (some of which are false positives), although it's admittedly relatively difficult to search for this company only because of the annoyingly common name. Most people just refer to the company as "RED". But it's possible with mostly accurate results: Google News: RED digital cinema camera "red epic" OR "red one" OR scarlet OR dragon -"red carpet". 
:Result examples: 
:*Ars Technica: Red Digital Cinema shows off dev kit to make its cameras app-controllable
:*Yahoo Movies: The 20 Biggest People and Innovations in Movies in the Last 20 Years
:*engadget: Live from the Engadget CES Stage: an interview with Red Digital Cinema's Ted Schilowitz
:*The Hollywood Reporter: Jim Jannard Steps Aside as Public Face of Red Digital Cameras
:*CNET: Red cameras encroach on Canon, Hasselblad turf
:*WIRED: Analog Meets Its Match in Red Digital Cinema's Ultrahigh-Res Camera
:These are mostly international, non-special-interest news sources with major audiences. cnet.com has an Alexa rank of 134 globally, for example. In my opinion, these press mentions alone make the company notable.
* "only passing mentions in Google Books": There are 248 books mentioning the company by the full name. Search. That's a significant number. True, no book has been written about the company as it seems, but it's quite young so that isn't surprising. 
Generally, RED is one of five major digital camera manufacturers used in cinema today (the other ones are Arri, Sony, Panavision and, to some extent, Canon) - per List of films shot on digital video prior to 2015
. Movies such as The Social Network or The Hobbit were shot on RED cameras (more). I don't see why this isn't notable. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, you can simply remove the  on the article, and ideally fill out the contest fields in  here, i.e., con=Julian_Herzog, conreason=see below, condate=2015-03-09. PROD is supposed to be a simple "no questions asked" procedure. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. I do agree that the article needs improvement, but I removed the proposal as suggested. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case, because you care about this article, I've also "PRODded" REDCODE, maybe merge the articles, or "dePROD" also REDCODE. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion proposal 

message: I've found that RED's logo – on their 2006-website – says, that the company has been established in 1999.http://web.archive.org/web/20060505141837/http://www.red.com/
Does anybody know about this? Has there been an idea or even paperwork before 2005?
MoryVanderbuilt (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it could be 1999 to me. The actual source given says "The genesis of RED® stirred in 2005" and not that the company was actually founded then. This has been discussed off Wiki. It could be that the company was established in 1999 but didn't release a product until 2005. The logo was also a registered trademark. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding Year 

message: * "Red Digital Cinema Camera Company, located in Irvine, California, was founded in 1999 by Jim Jannard"
* "Formed by sunglasses and sportswear billionaire Jim Jannard in 1999, Red’s cameras have quickly become an industry standard in the increasingly digitally based movie business"
Something certainly doesn't add up with the founding year being 1999. From the history section, 
'As a self-described "camera fanatic" owning over 1,000 models, Jannard started the company with the intent to deliver an affordable 4K digital cinema camera.[2][3] Jannard dates this idea to a time when he bought a Sony HDR-FX1 video camera...'
The Sony HDR-FX1 wasn't released until 2004!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.143.33 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 1999

message: It would be nice to have some mention of the data storage requirements for the various image formats, i.e., megabytes per second of 4K/8K video, in the "Cameras" section. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storage 

message: The article asserts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema#DSMC2_system) "Marvel Studios' Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 was the first film to be released that was shot on the Weapon. The film was shot at the camera's full 8K resolution, and featured an equivalent workflow, supplanting director David Fincher's Gone Girl as the film with the highest-resolution post-production workflow." Not only does that assertion lack a source, but page 40 of the June 2017 digital (and probably print) issue of American Cinematographer says, "The visual-effects/DI workflow was 2K ACES 16-bit EXR." 2K isn't a record, so would people be fine with everything after the words "camera's full 8K resolution" in that section being deleted? Mostly An Improver (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 workflow assertion  

message: Okay, hopefully I'm the only one that didn't know this was actually "Red Digital Cinema Camera Company". I thought they weren't the same, until I read they were both founded in the same area. hahaha. for idiots like me, I added the full company name to the intro for easier identification. Please remove if inappropriate. Jenkie125 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Company name?