Talk:Red Digital Cinema

Written like an ad

This is one big advertisement for Red. They are a struggling company with serious problems. What is their future? We would all like to know. Is it true that Jannard is no longer associated with the company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.183.2 (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stick to the facts. This article reads like a diary wish list at times. This company is worth noting but right now reads like a marketing brouchure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.245.75.79 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's just take the opening paragraph:

"The Red Digital Cinema Camera Company was founded in 2005 by Jim Jannard, founder of the Oakley company."

Okay, but it's not cited.

"The company's main product is a digital cinematography camera called the 'Red One'. The camera is capable of recording compressed image data at resolutions up to 4096x2304,"

Same problem again, but this is significantly less OK. The resolution is contentious - it's a single chip camera, and by this metric, Genesis is a 6K camera, which nobody is claiming.

It's also important to keep in mind the distinction between photosites and pixels. A photosite is a small light sensitive area on a camera's sensor chip. Each photosite produces one sample, one number, per frame. A pixel is a complete set of color and brightness data for one location in a sampling grid, three numbers per frame, either RGB or luminance and two color differences. Most of us use the terms "2K" and "4K" to mean pixels. Red instead counts Bayer masked photosites. It's apples and oranges. 170.20.96.116 (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC) -- J.S.

"The camera body is priced at $17,500 USD, far below most comparable products,"

This screams advertising, and smacks of being both synthesis and pointy. It definitely needs a citation (which shouldn't be that hard to find).

"and as a result it may make high-resolution digital cinematography accessible to many more productions."

Complete synthesis and in any case untrue - the cost of the body may be low but the cost of the rest of the show remains the same, and that's the overwhelming cost. Regardless it needs citation. You can say "Foobar magazine said it's great"; you can't say "it's great."

"This aggressive pricing, and Red's approach of reaching out to potential customers through online forums"

Who says this is their policy? Again this just comes off as promotional.

"have generated considerable industry attention"

Again, uncited, this just comes off as promotional. These problems continue throughout the entire article. It needs a bit of work, and I'm concerned that it's slavishly uncritical - Red is not without its detractors, and their views should be given at least some weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.179.67 (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to want to remove all references to the Red One's marketplace positioning from the article. This information is, IMO, extremely important. If the Red One were another $150K+ camera that rented for $3000/day, it would be a vastly less interesting development. Writing a Red Wikipedia article without discussing the camera's pricing and some of the implications of that pricing would be rather like writing an article on the steam engine without mentioning anything about how it enabled the industrial revolution. (Mind you I'm not saying the Red One is as important as the steam engine, merely that there are some cases where the impact of a device is at least as important to a comprehensive understanding of it as its technical characteristics.)

And yes, it would be better if everything were nicely cited, but that doesn't mean the article is "written like an ad". The reality is that the camera is pretty new. With the exception of the fairly basic specs on Red's web site, much of the public information about it has slowly dripped out on the RedUser.net forum, or is being actively discovered by current users. A comprehensive synthesis of this information largely doesn't exist except in the heads of people who are part of the community. I'm sure the citation situation will be much better in six months. If I have time I might try to track down some RedUser posts from Red employees to cite over the next week or so.

Also, slavishly uncritical? It mentions several performance issues. I'm not sure I really see that being critical is a sensible requirement for an encyclopedia article about a camera.

--Chris Kenny (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"You seem to want to remove all references to the Red One's marketplace positioning from the article" - No, I want stuff that serves no purpose other than to aggrandise the product cited or, if it can't be, removed. Forum posts are not a reliable source even if that's the best information available, and certainly posts from employees would be the worst possible thing with which to allay concerns about an article that's overly promotional.

All I can say is that your or my opinion about what's relevant or important and what's synthesis and what's fact is neither here nor there - if it cannot be cited from a reliable source it should not be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.179.67 (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy recommending no forum links was almost certainly written without consideration of the situation that exists with Red, namely that of a company making an official forum the repository of most of the public information about its product.

When you say that "certainly posts from employees would be the worst possible thing with which to allay concerns about an article that's overly promotional", and when you mentioned above that this article didn't contain enough in the way of criticism... frankly, it looks a bit like there might be some axe grinding here. This article contains a bunch of technical information about a camera and, like some other articles on innovative cameras, it also contains a couple of sentences related to its market impact and positioning. If people want to post well-grounded criticism of the camera, that's fine (and there's already some here), but I really don't see that this is a necessary (and currently lacking) component of an encyclopedia article about a camera model. As far as trying to avoid information from Red employees... I don't get it. It's not as if this is an article about a lawsuit or something, and we're talking about quoting the plaintiff as if they're an unbiased source. This is an article about a camera model, and we're talking about linking to information about the product and/or company policy released to the public by representatives of the company.

All of that said, there is some stuff that can be cleaned up and clarified here, and I'm going to work on that a bit.

--Chris Kenny (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not axe-grinding. It's basic responsible writing -- cite your facts and keep your opinions on the editorial pages, not the encyclopedia ones. Things like this need citations to be credible or even useful. Surely you can find something, if only an online review of the product, to give credence. If you turned in a paper like this to any writing class professor, you'd hear the same arguments. Do you ever see language like this in a print-encyclopedia article? Lord, no.

Also, you seem to be particularly defensive about your verbiage in this article -- if you're an employee, you need to use citations to make yourself seem like more than a mouthpiece for your employer. If this is the case, you should have no trouble getting citable documents in this article, as well as placed on your company's site. If this isn't the case, chill. This is the freely-editable encyclopedia. ;) 161.165.196.84 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many problems with the red such as dropped frames, no resistance to heat and vibration and many films like the new bond have tried out the camera and decided not to shoot with it because of these issues. No one has made this point even though that is what all the industry professionals are saying, not that its a bad camera but there are some major issues with it. Can someone please put these down, im sure there's someone who knows more about the problems than me. And it is written like an advert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.67.247 (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are perfectly fine and warranted, provided that the statements can be cited to what we define as reliable sources. Industry hearsay in itself is insufficient, however accurate it may or may not be. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy recommending no forum links was almost certainly written without consideration of the situation that exists with Red, namely that of a company making an official forum the repository of most of the public information about its product. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with this statement. We're talking about a camera which has already been released to the public, has several thousand bodies in circulation, and has generated absolutely no shortage of press coverage. If basic and fundamental information regarding the camera, the public's perception of it, and industry reception cannot be found, I have to believe that this is due to a deficiency on the part of the editors to do their homework. Anything that the employees say will presumably be backed up with hard evidence subsequently (e.g., NAB), and it is more important that we are reliable. If anything, our policies guarantee that Wikipedia is not and should not be a place for posting "scoops". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Still written like an ad

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)

Almost a year after this comment and it's still written like an ad! Quite possibly the worst article on wikipedia!76.120.66.57 (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I browsed this article in order to learn about the company background history at its debut (1999-2006) but the article seems to describe only expansive stuff following 2008, focused on the products, and not the company. The table of contents is atrociously long, and the "History" is actually section 9 after 48 other sub-sections. What the hell? This looks like a product manual or a catalogue! Isn't this company notorious enough to have a proper history paragraph placed on the foremost of the article?--91.121.71.75 (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

"Still written like an ad" -- agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.99.157 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

1080p Field Monitoring

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)

Red One

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)

Excellent point. I agree. —EncMstr (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Article Overall Quality

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)

Make Red One camera a seperate page (again)

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)

Basically overhauled the whole article

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)

Ok so I wasn't signed in so you'll see a random IP, and it's late but I tried to at least partially fix the History section to be less biased. It seemed directly copied and pasted from the Red website's history section. This article is years old and still is in the same state it was originally. Cuba46 (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sensor Manufacturer?

Is there any information who makes them?--Ericg33 (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not in the article. Feel free to research this and add it yourself. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

lawsuits

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)

LawsuitsOn August 18, 2008, Red filed a lawsuit against the electronics company LG over its use of the name Scarlet.[35] Jannard accused LG "...of taking the "Scarlet" brand name from the camera company, despite RED's denial of their request."[36]

On September 23, 2011 Jim Jannard announced that his personal email account was compromised by former Arri executive Michael Bravin.[37] A lawsuit against Arri was filed at the end of 2011.[38] James H. Neale, attorney for defendants filed a declaration in support of Arri's opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Oct 29, 2012 saying Red has not yet identified the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets. Arri has produced nearly 3,000 pages of documents. Red wants all documents relating to ARRI's development and marketing of the Alexa camera and to its efforts to compete with RED. He also claims that Gregory Weeks (attorney for Red) mischaracterizes the parites' meet and confer discussions and their respective proposed resolutions. The evidence strongly suggests that RED's purpoted trade secret claimes are a pretext for obtaining untrammeled access to the sensitive information of its competitor, ARRI. The plaintiff RED has provided nothing in discovery.

On June 27, 2012 Red sued Wooden Camera, a manufacturer of third party accessories, for copyright infringement.[39]

Red.com sued Netcast et all Sept 16, 2008 8:2008-cv-01030 Breach of Contract (alter ego)[40]

Red.com sued Silicon for Breach of Contract June 9, 2010, case number 30-2010-00379482 Santa Ana Superior Court. Case dismissed.[citation needed] Notice to Share Holders, On June 9, 2010 the company was named in a lawsuit...Red.com alleges breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Last update to share holders; On or about February 2, 2011, the company received a proposed draft settlement agreement from Red.com. Subsequently, on March 3,2011, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was substantially different from the terms of Red.com's proposed settlement agreement. The settlement did not result in any payment by the Company and accourdingly, did not have any adverse impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flow.

Red.com sued Wind River System for Breach of Contract,Fraud, and Negligent representation (service agreement) Nov 14,2008 Superior Court Snata Clara County, State of California. dismissed.[citation needed] Notice to share holders. On Nov 14, 2008 Red.Com filed a complaint against the company in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County. The complaint assers causes of action against the company for fraud in the inducement, brach of contract and negligent representation in connection with services agreeement entered into between the company and Red in Jan 2006.....The company beleives that Red's complaint is without merit and intends to defent this matter vigorously. On Jan 2, 2009 the company filed a cross-complaint against Red for breach of contract in connection with Red's failure to pay outsatnding invoices and for breach of contract and conversion/trespass to chattels in connection with Red's unauthorized distribution of Wind River VxWorks operating system to end users.

Red.com sued Pixellexis August 2, 2011 over RedBrix Case Number 8:2011cv01155 On August 14, 2011 Pixellexis announced that it had ceased its operation and would no longer sell any products. Pixellexis went out of business. [41]

Red.com sued Usability.pro et all.(alter ego) April 7, 2010 30-2010-00360802They countered sued 2010 Orange County Superior Court System.[citation needed] However, unbeknownst to Usability.Pro at the time of entering into these arrangements with Red.com, Red.com's modus operandi is to hire outside vendors to perform valuable services, import the work product in-house, and then refuse to make all payments owned under the contracts and sue to recover whatever Red.com paid, asserting trumped up allegations of fraud and breach of contract. Red.com has failed to make good on promises it made to its customers to bring the Epic and Scarlet camera systems to the market in 2010. To cover up for its own inability to develop marketable products, Red.com launched a campaign to blame its own failfure on outside partners, designers and manufacturers with whom it contracted to assist in developing Red.com's camera products. Rather than acknowledge and address its own shortcomings, Red.com's approach to blame others rather than taking responsibility runs directly counter to the image it seeks to promote in the market as a self-reliant, visionary company that engages in "straight talk" with its customors.

Red.com sued Uniqoptics,et all in 2010, 2:11-cv-03611-VFB-JEM Trademark (Lanham Act)case dismissed. [42]

Red.com sued Uniqoptics et all in Orange County Superior Court 30-2010-00373507 May 2010, Breach of Contract, Fraud. Ongoing litigation

Red.com and Landmine Media sued Andrew Reid and EOSHD (a blogger), on Oct 6, 2010 for Slander, Publication of facts placing in false light, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. Mr Andrew Reid changed in Terms and Conditions and case was dismissed. [43]

Red.com sued Nightsky Hosting, Inc dba R3DDATA, Case No8:12-cv-00034-DOC-MLG Jan. 9, 2012.[citation needed]

Red.com sued Epic Games May 5, 2008 8:08-cv-00494-DOC-An

Red.com sued 24P LLC Sept 13, 2007 sacv 07-1013-jvs mlgx (counter claimant)

Red.com sued Sony Feb 2013 Red lost. Aug 2013

WIPO CASES Brian Schoemholz et all Trio Films/Cine Red Compalint Denied Zimrat Goldstein from Ontario Canada Redcamfilms slu (complaint denied

What is going on?

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)

Looks like the posts were made during the NAB. Even though they were copied and pasted the facts are correct. One of the IP address is from Red.com. It's an important marketing tool. Don't mess with Red or else. Don't know why it was copied over to Sony. Sony lawsuit it over. Patents were confirm to Sony. Red lost.

Copy and pasted.... I was hoping Red would go public but we can see he is trying to repeat Oakley. It won't work. It's a different industry. He sounds shocked that people are thanking him everywhere he goes. He has hurt many people by taking IP and claiming it was his. He needs to apologize in a big way to many people until then he has a curse on him and his business. This is now appearing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.12.2 (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Red has since filed more lawsuits. Why is this important information being deleted? This says more about the company that there products that have never been procuded.

Please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.163.100.130 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Tjkeef320, mind telling us what your goals are?

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)

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)

Deletion proposal

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)

Hi, you can simply remove the {{PROD}} on the article, and ideally fill out the contest fields in {{old prod full}} 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)

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)

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)

too many factual errors to mention. i own several red cameras from the early days of the company.. for instance ..the maximum resolution of the red one camera @60fps is 3k (with a 2:1 aspect ratio) ..not 4k. the red one only records 30fps at 4k (16:9) aspect ratio. the camera does have a widescreen 4.5k shooting mode also. the main point to make about the red one is that it is a fpga system that was a long way ahead of its time, and a prototype for red' future (current) cameras, which are all now ASIC based . it should have its own page for sure. as for the first comment on this page, suggesting bayer resolution is not real resolution.. it is the metric every single DSLR camera uses ..as well as arri, sony , Panasonic et al ..using the logic that bayer pattern sensors should have their resolution divided by 3 is would probably mean there are no 4k cameras in existence.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4A10:AD00:65DF:B24B:C549:4F60 (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Founding Year

I've found that RED's logo – on their 2006-website – says, that the company has been established in 1999. Does anybody know about this? Has there been an idea or even paperwork before 2005? MoryVanderbuilt (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

Interesting, RED certainly do not try to claim now that they were founded in 1999, rather than their history started in 2005: http://www.red.com/history That seems like a much more reasonable time span! And I know no one in the film industry who seriously believes RED started properly in 1999, what real proof do we have for that?! Mathmo ^Talk 05:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

1999

• [1] "Red Digital Cinema Camera Company, located in Irvine, California, was founded in 1999 by Jim Jannard"
• [2] "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"

References

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)

Storage

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)

Requested move 27 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Red Digital Cinema Camera Company → Red Digital Cinema – It's better to have a short title. 2A00:23C0:4380:E901:53E:B352:BA83:ACB5 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Support: Red Digital Cinema is the company name, which makes "Camera Company" an improper dab. Dab not necessary as no other articles share the title.--Let There Be Sunshine 17:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 workflow assertion

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)

Company name?

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)