Jump to content


Photo

Red and Hope


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Tim Shim

Tim Shim
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 May 2006 - 02:57 AM

All this talk about RED and everyone hoping for it to be real reminded me of something a certain other Red said about hope in a film. Guess the film ... ;)

"Red: Let me tell you something my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane."

So let's not get too crazy over this, shall we?

This is a light-hearted post so please don't take this too seriously.
  • 0

#2 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 06 May 2006 - 08:14 PM

Hope is a dangerous thing.

No hope is deadly...

"Dangerous" doesn't necessarily mean deadly, it just means that there are hazards involved, which may or may not be immediately apparent.

Hope for a particular outcome in the face of strong evidence weighing against the possibility of that outcome, can lead to at best, the wasting of resources, and at worst, the hopeful person putting him/herself at physical risk for little or no possibility of useful return.

Many people doubt that the majority of the population will ever come to understand this concept, but I live in hope :)
  • 0

#3 Alex Ellerman

Alex Ellerman
  • Sustaining Members
  • 228 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 06 May 2006 - 10:30 PM

for those of you who don't do the stock thing, that's $300 bucks for a company with an approx. market cap as of Friday at $1.25billion, kids... not too shabby...
ae
  • 0

#4 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2006 - 12:09 AM

I started Oakley in 1975 with my last $300 and everyone telling me all along the way that I was making a big mistake. So I'm not sure I hear what you are saying...

Jim (OO-NYSE)

Well.... Even though I have zero experience in the field of eyewear manufacture, I'm sure I could, if pressed, turn out a workable pair of sunglasses on my home workbench. OK, maybe not something you could sell as a fashion accessory, but something that would do the job.

On the other hand, I have decades of experience with the hands-on maintenance of professional video cameras, and I can pretty much tell you how every single section of any video camera (SD HD or Digital Cinematography) works, but, apart from ratting the parts from one camera and assembling them into another one, there is no way on God's earth I could build a working video camera at home! Even for a simple door-minder application.

And from a standing start, I'm damned sure I could never build any sort of silicon image sensor either, even a totally crap experimental one like RCA produced in the early 1970s! Sure, if I had the money, I could pay some established firm to make me a sensor, but it would be just a copy of something already designed. And I can see no way that it would work any better than something I could just buy off the shelf.

I have this stock reply when someone asks me to somehow on a wet Friday Afternoon whip up a solution to a problem that seems to eluded the industry's finest minds for decades: "Well if I could do that, I wouldn't be working here!"

You know, I have a collection of old 1930s valve (vacuum tube) radios, and 1920s valves, which I sometimes fiddle around with. And even though these devices are routinely dismissed as laughably primitive by today's electronics engineers, I'd love to see one of them produce one!

2006 is the centenary of the invention of Lee De Forrest's Audion Tube", which was the forerunner of the triode vacuum tube as we know(knew) it.
To commemorate this, in recent years experimenters have tried to replicate even De Forrest's most primitive eforts, with very little sucess. Attempts at making home-made "vacuum" triodes have nearly always met with failure, even though most experimenters today have access to vastly superior resources than people like DeForrest ever did.

I don't know, Jim. If you want to do something to help the film industry, why don't you buy Panavision, and then fire about 75% of its bloodsucking waste-of-space upper management :P
I suspect Ron Perleman is getting ready to sell. I don't think it's an accident that he bought the place complete with a ludicrously unsustianable bond debt load, just before the big George Lucas Announcement of 1999.....

Edited by Jim Murdoch, 07 May 2006 - 12:15 AM.

  • 0

#5 Tim Shim

Tim Shim
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 May 2006 - 12:15 AM

Jim,

I have faith in you.

If I were in your shoes, I believe I would've done the same thing. In any case, I want you to know that we're all rooting for you, albeit some with more skepticism. Inside, I believe everyone wants this camera.

So Jim, do your thing and treat RED as if you only had that $300 to go on. Desperation can be the best of motivators.

"Andy Dufresne: Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And a good thing never dies."

I like that one better.

BTW, I just bought an Oakley to show my support (though you probably won't need it).
  • 0

#6 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2006 - 12:28 AM

for those of you who don't do the stock thing, that's $300 bucks for a company with an approx. market cap as of Friday at $1.25billion, kids... not too shabby...
ae

Wow! And they don't have any brackets around any of the figures (which indicates a loss...)
  • 0

#7 Tim Shim

Tim Shim
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 May 2006 - 12:39 AM

Jim (Jannard),

As someone with the entrepreneurial bug myself, I'd be very interested in hearing about how and why you started Oakley and now RED. I'm sure a lot of people would be interested to hear your story.

I subscribe to Greg Galant's podcast, Venture Voice (http://www.venturevoice.com), and was wondering if you'd be interested in doing an audio interview with him. Perhaps you two can hookup and work something out? I've emailed him with this suggestion.

Sorry for going off-topic there guys.

When I hear "you can't do it" from someone what I really hear is "they can't do it or don't know anyone who can do it". I'm really surprised that the only option you see of obtaining a sensor is to pay someone to copy what is out there... If that were the case I would have just gone to Fiji on an extended vacation instead of building this camera. What sensor out there that you know of does 4k @ 60fps that we would copy? Just curious.


Jim,

If I were you, I wouldn't even bother about people who say I can't do it. Dwelling on all the negativity will only make you depressed and angry.

That's all I have to say about that.
  • 0

#8 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2006 - 12:43 AM

When I hear "you can't do it" from someone what I really hear is "they can't do it or don't know anyone who can do it". I'm really surprised that the only option you see of obtaining a sensor is to pay someone to copy what is out there... If that were the case I would have just gone to Fiji on an extended vacation instead of building this camera. What sensor out there that you know of does 4k @ 60fps that we would copy? Just curious.

Can we put this discussion on hold until you actually show us this sensor, working? See, I presume you aren't actually running the wafer fabrication plant, sorting out the photolithography, adjusting the gas flows and so on. I would also imagine that you don't have any really in-depth understanding of how image sensors actually work....

I'm sure you have faith in whoever you're paying to do this for you, but unfortunately, I have heard this sort of thing before. Lots of times. I always said I couldn't see how the PV Genesis could possibly work as well as they claimed it would - some of the alleged performance figures were just flat-out impossible - but they kept the bullshit machine running right down to the wire. Now it's been revealed that there were only ever 28 Genesis cameras built, 2 no longer work, and Sony no longer make the chips required. What a great project!
  • 0

#9 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11941 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 May 2006 - 01:31 AM

Hi,

To take this a little more seriously - part of the reason people are being cautious about this is that the camera market, at least in the position that you seem to be aiming your camera, has little in common with the market you're experienced in.

It seems to me that saleability of sunglasses is not particularly determined by quality. I'm sure Oakley sunglasses are more durable, more precisely aligned and optically purer than my $20 pharmacy ones (I don't buy Oakley because I tend to sit on, drop, and generally abuse sunglasses and it would be a waste of money). The point is I'm not sure that people buy Oakley sunglasses becuase their published specs are better than any of the other brands. I'm sure you're fully aware you're selling a brand with Oakley rather than a particular product, but it's worth stating here for the purposes of discussion.

On the other hand, digital cinematography equipment lives and dies on its performance, both the spec sheet and the aesthetics of the image. Therefore, there is professional resistance in the industry to things like the F900 because, while Sony has perhaps the best brand name recognition in the market, its performance is widely considered to be wanting both technically and subjectively.

You are not attempting to sell the Red camera under the Oakley name, which seems reasonable because the product lines don't have much to do with one another and it wouldn't make much sense. Based on the above, I would go so far as to suggest that your experience manufacturing sunglasses is probably no more relevant. The digital cinematography market is absolutely nothing whatsoever like the designer sunglasses market.

Also, you've succeeded in making a very big publicity splash, which we're not really used to in this market. One reason people may be reacting negatively is that it may come off as slightly over-the-top; it seems like you're trying to sell this camera like you'd sell sunglasses. Because you're making such a lot of noise about it, I suspect that the specs of the finished camera will be very closely compared with those published at NAB. We're bastards like that in this field, and if the camera is in any way wanting, you can expect a public thrashing which will make the current controversy seem like an old ladies' afternoon tea party.

Phil
  • 0

#10 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2006 - 02:12 AM

you can expect a public thrashing which will make the current controversy seem like an old ladies' afternoon tea party.

Phil

Steer clear of little old ladies' tea parties. Some of those knitting needles are sharp; they can give you a nasty whack with their walking sticks, and you've got to watch for those little rat-like dogs that lurk under their skirts ready to take a piece out of your ankle!
  • 0

#11 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11941 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 May 2006 - 03:58 AM

Oh, be nice to the guy, at least he's doing something moderately interesting with his success.

Are you any relation to Rupert Murdoch?

Give me a shout next time you're in London, I'd like to find out if you're this gloriously curmudgeonly in real life.

Phil
  • 0

#12 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 07 May 2006 - 04:35 AM

I'm sure Oakley sunglasses are more durable, more precisely aligned and optically purer than my $20 pharmacy ones (I don't buy Oakley because I tend to sit on, drop, and generally abuse sunglasses and it would be a waste of money).


Phil,

Oakley have a policy of repairing sunglasses free!

Stephen
  • 0

#13 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 May 2006 - 05:53 AM

One thing that all hi tech projects seem to have in common , even companies with decades of experience in an area, is schedule slippage.

Some people online seem to be quoting RED's schedule as if it's written in stone. All the dates quoted is at the moment are hopes. If RED is prepared to continue hammering away with a rock hammer regardless of the set backs and keep the project funded then it could happen.

However, on the information I've seen so far, I would count it as a risky project. On the surface, it's main advantage seems to be that it has funding, as against other risky projects like the DeLoran motor car, which didn't.

BTW Is time travel going to a feature on RED? There are a few things I'd like to change.

Edited by Brian Drysdale, 07 May 2006 - 05:53 AM.

  • 0

#14 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 07 May 2006 - 06:49 AM

for those of you who don't do the stock thing, that's $300 bucks for a company with an approx. market cap as of Friday at $1.25billion, kids... not too shabby...
ae


Hi,

Actually 10 years ago the market price had a high of $27.125 and a low in early 2000 of $5.31, against a close on Friday of $18.07. That's a mega underperformance of the DOW or Nasdaq.

Whilst JJ's holding of 44,407,600 has a value $802 million, he has been a heavy buyer in February and March whilst other directors were sellers.

Just an observation, I do sincerely hope the camera is delivered on schedule.

Stephen
  • 0

#15 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2006 - 07:07 AM

Hi,


Whilst JJ's holding of 44,407,600 has a value $802 million, he has been a heavy buyer in February and March whilst other directors were sellers.

Stephen

Eww... So he's not actually a billionaire at all!
I don't know; why do we waste time with this small change riff-raff :D

I notice that he's still a "Basic" member!
  • 0

#16 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 07 May 2006 - 07:17 AM

Eww... So he's not actually a billionaire at all!
I don't know; why do we waste time with this small change riff-raff :D

I notice that he's still a "Basic" member!


Hi,

It depends on what he got from previous share sales and how he invested the proceeds. He was a billionaire and may still be.

How much cash he has to invest in the Red project is another matter.

Stephen
  • 0

#17 Alex Ellerman

Alex Ellerman
  • Sustaining Members
  • 228 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 07 May 2006 - 09:15 AM

Hi,

Actually 10 years ago the market price had a high of $27.125 and a low in early 2000 of $5.31, against a close on Friday of $18.07. That's a mega underperformance of the DOW or Nasdaq.

Whilst JJ's holding of 44,407,600 has a value $802 million, he has been a heavy buyer in February and March whilst other directors were sellers.

Just an observation, I do sincerely hope the camera is delivered on schedule.

Stephen


Well... actually, there has possibly been some dilution in the company over that 6 year time frame, so you cannot compare share price then to share price now, you can only compare market capitalization to market capitalization, or the comparison is meaningless... I would have to look at their filings to know how many shares were issued and for what purpose - insiders, acquisitions, employee compensation, dividends, spinoffs, etc., to make a meaningful analysis, and i'm not inclined to do so.

When you hold over 50% of your company, and you are a heavy buyer, that shows you have strong belief that your stock is undervalued, and this is a good thing... when you say other people were "heavy sellers," that is an opinion probably not steeped in fact. Even if someone files for sale, that does not mean they have sold. Do you have a shareholders list or a Nobo list? I'm guessing not.

anyway, as far as I know, Red is a private company. so the point to a guy like Jim is: a guy with deep pockets, successful track record in business, and serious connections has taken an interest in creating a great camera, and taken an interest in participating in the forum. What a great thing for everyone. he asks you a simple question and won't answer? where's the reciprocity? why should he answer you then?

Edited by theturnaround, 07 May 2006 - 09:21 AM.

  • 0

#18 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 07 May 2006 - 10:11 AM

Well... actually, there has possibly been some dilution in the company over that 6 year time frame, so you cannot compare share price then to share price now, you can only compare market capitalization to market capitalization, or the comparison is meaningless... I would have to look at their filings to know how many shares were issued and for what purpose - insiders, acquisitions, employee compensation, dividends, spinoffs, etc., to make a meaningful analysis, and i'm not inclined to do so.

When you hold over 50% of your company, and you are a heavy buyer, that shows you have strong belief that your stock is undervalued, and this is a good thing... when you say other people were "heavy sellers," that is an opinion probably not steeped in fact. Even if someone files for sale, that does not mean they have sold. Do you have a shareholders list or a Nobo list? I'm guessing not.

anyway, as far as I know, Red is a private company. so the point to a guy like Jim is: a guy with deep pockets, successful track record in business, and serious connections has taken an interest in creating a great camera, and taken an interest in participating in the forum. What a great thing for everyone. he asks you a simple question and won't answer? where's the reciprocity? why should he answer you then?


Hi,

The last stock split was 11 October 1996! The price range quoted was adjusted for splits. Oakley has been a poor investment over the past 10 years. With a trailing PE of 24 it's hardly cheap today. For a chart relative to Nasdaq http://finance.yahoo.....=l&c=&c=^IXIC

Being a heavy buyer when you hold a large number of shares can mean a number of things. For information the Short % of Float (as of 10-Apr-06) was 21.10%

You mis-quoted me, I said other directers were "sellers" not "heavy sellers".

Oakley is a public company. All directors dealings and SEC filings are available for you to check. It's a shame your not inclined to do so. Anybody who is interested can go to http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=OO

As Red is a private company, therefore Jim's laibility is limited.

I am unaware of any simple question Jim has asked me, that I have failed to answer.

Stephen
  • 0

#19 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 May 2006 - 11:09 AM

If any of you have real suggestions on features, details or ideas that you would like to see incorporated in the camera feature set, please email 4k@red.com. I'm really more interested in ideas than trying to convince anyone here whether or not we have the expertise and funding to do this project.

My best to you all.

Jim
  • 0

#20 Alex Ellerman

Alex Ellerman
  • Sustaining Members
  • 228 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 07 May 2006 - 11:13 AM

Stephen -

yes, I transposed your use of the word heavy, but if one is a heavy buyer, then there is heavy selling, and the juxtaposition of the two points is an easy inference to make. my apology.

My question was addressed to Jim, ie, Jim Murdoch, who did not answer Jjarrods question.

I don't care to debate your understanding of public companies on this forum so much... i cautioned you when making an analysis of the stock performance. simple as that. he threw out the symbol and i thought some people may have missed it, and it pertains to his ability as management to make a successful camera, in terms of access to capital, lines of credit, track record, success rate, bio, etc. etc. etc.
  • 0


CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Technodolly

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

CineLab

The Slider

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks