*Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page was
proposed for deletion by
be..anyone (
talk ·
contribs) on 7 March 2015 with the comment: Non-notable target of spammy wikilinks It was seconded by Miniapolis ( talk · contribs) on 2015-03-07 with the comment: Non-notable; nothing found in Google News archive, and only passing mentions in Google Books It was contested by Julian Herzog ( talk · contribs) on 2015-03-09 with the comment: Notability shown by many mentions in large non-regional online news sites, with in-depth coverage (see Talk:Red Digital Cinema Camera Company#Deletion proposal). |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
|
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think several changes need to be made here:
Eradicator ( talk) 22:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is there any information who makes them?-- Ericg33 ( talk) 11:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
I've found that RED's logo – on their 2006-website – says, that the company has been established in 1999.Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
Does anybody know about this? Has there been an idea or even paperwork before 2005?
MoryVanderbuilt (
talk) 14:00, 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)
References
the RED Digital Cinema Company spent close to five years in research and development
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)
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)
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 article asserts ( /info/en/?search=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)
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)
*Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page was
proposed for deletion by
be..anyone (
talk ·
contribs) on 7 March 2015 with the comment: Non-notable target of spammy wikilinks It was seconded by Miniapolis ( talk · contribs) on 2015-03-07 with the comment: Non-notable; nothing found in Google News archive, and only passing mentions in Google Books It was contested by Julian Herzog ( talk · contribs) on 2015-03-09 with the comment: Notability shown by many mentions in large non-regional online news sites, with in-depth coverage (see Talk:Red Digital Cinema Camera Company#Deletion proposal). |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
|
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think several changes need to be made here:
Eradicator ( talk) 22:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is there any information who makes them?-- Ericg33 ( talk) 11:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
I've found that RED's logo – on their 2006-website – says, that the company has been established in 1999.Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
Does anybody know about this? Has there been an idea or even paperwork before 2005?
MoryVanderbuilt (
talk) 14:00, 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)
References
the RED Digital Cinema Company spent close to five years in research and development
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)
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)
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 article asserts ( /info/en/?search=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)
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)