Jinni.Tech vs. RED Part 4 (1hr long)

[sanveer]

1 hour ago, rawshooter said:

So, here you have the equivalency of the hot dog stand. I'm not saying that RED's business practices aren't despicable, I'm only saying that they're common in the industry.

You know someone who has committed rape, murder, genocide, hate crimes or something similar. 

So you're saying that you won't call him  out because ... there are other people doing these too, and they're apparently, common.

So because, according to you, many people do these crimes, it's not really a big deal.

Wow. What an amazing argument. 

 

[rawshooter]

9 minutes ago, sanveer said:

You know someone who has committed rape, murder, genocide, hate crimes or something similar. 

So you're saying that you won't call him  out because ... there are other people doing these too, and they're apparently, common.

So because, according to you, many people do these crimes, it's not really a big deal.

Wow. What an amazing argument. 

 

You're getting me completely wrong.

What I'm saying is: In a civil war where warlords are fighting each other, take it with a grain of salt when a small warlord accuses a bigger warlord of his crimes, don't think that those crimes are singular or exceptional - and if you want justice, put all the warlords out of business.  (And, if you go to an investigative journalist, or even to the United Nations, to make them aware of the small warlord's YouTube accusations against the big warlord, expect to be shrugged off.)

That's why I compared to Jinni Tech's videos to truther videos. They're literally repeating the Joseph Kony YouTube meme (- sticking to the warlord analogy).

[Video Hummus]

2 hours ago, rawshooter said:

Speaking of which:

Apple just took legal action against a small company for its "Prepear" app that allows to plan meals, arguing that its pear logo was an infringement of Apple's logo:

"Prepear says that it is a 'very small business' with only five team members, and explains that legal costs from the dispute have already cost thousands of dollars and the layoff of a team member."

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/08/legal-action-against-company-with-pear-logo/

 

So, here you have the equivalency of the hot dog stand. I'm not saying that RED's business practices aren't despicable, I'm only saying that they're common in the industry.

And this is preposterous.

You could even say it was Malus-cious (I hope someone gets this joke please...).

[Ed David]

6 hours ago, rawshooter said:

Speaking of which:

Apple just took legal action against a small company for its "Prepear" app that allows to plan meals, arguing that its pear logo was an infringement of Apple's logo:

"Prepear says that it is a 'very small business' with only five team members, and explains that legal costs from the dispute have already cost thousands of dollars and the layoff of a team member."

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/08/legal-action-against-company-with-pear-logo/

 

So, here you have the equivalency of the hot dog stand. I'm not saying that RED's business practices aren't despicable, I'm only saying that they're common in the industry.

Suing over a logo is fine.  Apple has legally trademarked their logo.  Suing over technology that you don't own a patent for - that is shady.

[Ed David]

4 hours ago, rawshooter said:

You're getting me completely wrong.

What I'm saying is: In a civil war where warlords are fighting each other, take it with a grain of salt when a small warlord accuses a bigger warlord of his crimes, don't think that those crimes are singular or exceptional - and if you want justice, put all the warlords out of business.  (And, if you go to an investigative journalist, or even to the United Nations, to make them aware of the small warlord's YouTube accusations against the big warlord, expect to be shrugged off.)

That's why I compared to Jinni Tech's videos to truther videos. They're literally repeating the Joseph Kony YouTube meme (- sticking to the warlord analogy).

I don't think any of us is going to convince Rawshooter of anything.  But, and I say this in kind of jest, your acquisation of Digital Bolex, which is so extremely farcical and bizarre, is the closest thing we have gotten to Qanon or Trutherism on this thread.  

Come on, dawg.  

[rawshooter]

16 hours ago, Ed David said:

To paraphrase you, @rawshooter

your defense of red is:

"Every other tech company has done illegal and/or bullying tactics before (including Olympus hiring the Yakuza) , so there is precedent for fraud and this makes it okay.  That is completely normalized behavior.

 

I haven't written this, and you grossly distort what I wrote. Please read carefully. I only wrote that Jinni Tech's disclosures are not having the shocking news value that many people here think they have.

You even distort and wrongly paraphrase what I wrote about Olympus. 

And if you think that what I wrote about Digital Bolex is factually wrong, prove it.

[Ed David]

12 minutes ago, rawshooter said:

I haven't written this, and you grossly distort what I wrote. Please read carefully. I only wrote that Jinni Tech's disclosures are not having the shocking news value that many people here think they have.

And if you think that what you wrote about Bolex is factually wrong, prove it.

I already started to.  I showed you the linked in and twitter account of Joe, the co-founder of DB.   He has 1000 followers.  That's not "social influencer" status which is 100k subscribers or more.

And here's more about digital bolex from wikipedia that, unlike you, has citations.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Bolex

Digital Bolex was a partnership between Cinemeridian, Inc. and Ienso Canada, an engineering company, to develop the Digital Bolex D16 digital cinema camera. Development was funded via a successful Kickstarter in March 2012, raising $262,661.

From Wired magazine: https://www.wired.com/2013/12/bolex-digital-16mm-film-camera/

"The camera is being produced under the name "Digital Bolex," but it's actually a joint venture between the original manufacturer, Bolex International, S.A., and Cinemeridian, Inc, a young company of digital wizards that was formed to bring this idea to fruition."

More about Cinemerdian, INC via google:

Company: Cinemeridian Inc. (Lauren Schneider)

Address: 707 S Broadway #1223 Los Angeles CA 90014 US
Phone: +1.2136283191
Email: info@digitalbolex.com

Who is Lauren, the co-founder of Digital bolex?  And also, her name is Lauren but she goes by Elle.  

Here's Vice to help:

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/aej9x8/work-in-progress-the-digital-bolex-camera-is-a-crowdfunded-filmmaking-revolution

"Elle: I started working on the project last August. Joe and I met just after Comic-Con last year, which seems kind of crazy because of how much we’ve been working on this project in the past year and how far it’s gotten.

Do you both identify as filmmakers?
Elle: Both of us went to film school and have a deep interest in film. We shot the first film on the new camera together, and we’re going to be doing another film in the fall. We’re interested in producing or helping other filmmakers use our camera to create films as well."

>>>>>>

So Joe and Elle are filmmakers who met at Comic-Con.  Joe is  DP, and Elle is a director.  And they had the idea for DB16.  Do they say they did the whole camera design themselves?  No.  

Your comment, if you wanted to argue it, but of course, who does, is completely wrong and full of falsities unless you can back up your controversial statements with proof that they are secretly social media influencers and the Canadian company came to them to deceive everyone and steal people's money on kickstater with this false premise of a homebrew-style camera that used a CCD chip instead of CMOS and recorded CinemaDNG (opensource) instead of mp4 or whatever.  

I mean, seriously, man, you might have instead said that they seemed heavily influenced by the Ikonscope DLii - or whatever it was called.  And then you could look into it.  But, come on, dude.

Anyway I gotta go back to my vacation.  EOSHD always seems to get me during the SUMMER!!!! AHHHHHRHRHRHGGGGGGGGGGG.

 

[BTM_Pix]

23 minutes ago, Ed David said:

Suing over a logo is fine.  Apple has legally trademarked their logo.  Suing over technology that you don't own a patent for - that is shady.

Apple are also very protective of that trademark due in part to the the nigh on 30 year series of legal disputes they had with Apple Corps (aka The Beatles) over the right to use it in the first place which eventually ended up with them paying a reported half a billion dollars to the loveable mop tops.

Not before Apple had flouted previous agreements through that period though.

The eventual settlement led to a fantastically awkward moment for BBC News when they invited an expert on to their live broadcast to give his insight into the case.

He shared the same name as the expert, Guy, and arrived at the BBC at the appointed hour for an interview.

Except it was for an interview for a job in the IT department.

 

[Ed David]

20 minutes ago, rawshooter said:

I haven't written this, and you grossly distort what I wrote. Please read carefully. I only wrote that Jinni Tech's disclosures are not having the shocking news value that many people here think they have.

You even distort and wrongly paraphrase what I wrote about Olympus. 

And if you think that what I wrote about Digital Bolex is factually wrong, prove it.

Oh, and one of your comments to accuse Digital Bolex of shadiness - they re-registered their company to Delaware, you say?    Well guess what - that's legal to do.  You can register your company anywhere you want.  Apple is registered in Ireland! And that is legal!!!   Unlike Red - which is doing things that are illegal.  Like putting "made in the USA" on their cameras when they are made in Asia (most likely Singapore) as well as unfair practices against competitors, harassment, doxxing, etc etc.

Dude, rawshooter, you are cornered.  And I understand, this being the internet and all - and a public forum - all we want to do is defend our ideas till death. Like the Warriors you mentioned earlier.   Fight fight fight against the dying light!

 

[rawshooter]

4 minutes ago, Ed David said:

And here's more about digital bolex from wikipedia that, unlike you, has citations.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Bolex

Digital Bolex was a partnership between Cinemeridian, Inc. and Ienso Canada, an engineering company, to develop the Digital Bolex D16 digital cinema camera. Development was funded via a successful Kickstarter in March 2012, raising $262,661.

From Wired magazine: https://www.wired.com/2013/12/bolex-digital-16mm-film-camera/

"The camera is being produced under the name "Digital Bolex," but it's actually a joint venture between the original manufacturer, Bolex International, S.A., and Cinemeridian, Inc, a young company of digital wizards that was formed to bring this idea to fruition."

More about Cinemerdian, INC via google:

Company: Cinemeridian Inc. (Lauren Schneider)

Address: 707 S Broadway #1223 Los Angeles CA 90014 US
Phone: +1.2136283191
Email: info@digitalbolex.com

 

I shouldn't even reply given the tone in which you write.

None of what you state above disproves (or is in contradiction) to what I wrote. Here's the company registration info on Cinemeridian:

https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/C3626603 

The registered company address is: 

20 MURAL ST UNIT 7
RICHMOND HILL ON CANADA L4B 1K3

...which is actually the company address of Ienso Inc.. That means that Cinemeridian (the company that produced Digital Bolex) was a full subsidiary of Ienso. The company registration page also tells Cinemeridian is: 

Branch of CINEMERIDIAN INCORPORATED (Delaware (US))

i.e., using a matroska puppet construction for the company.  If we're looking up the registration of Cinemeridian Inc. on https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_de/5047665, we get:

108 WEST 13TH ST, WILMINGTON, New Castle, DE, 19801

 

As I wrote, this was probably done for tax reasons, since Delaware is considered a tax shelter state within the U.S.: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/092515/4-reasons-why-delaware-considered-tax-shelter.asp

A company "Digital Bolex" never existed, since the trademarks for Bolex remains with the original Swiss Bolex company, and their trademark was only licensed for the D16.

One of the launch videos for D16, which was posted here in this thread before by someone else, was uploaded and advertised as " the first film shot on the new Digital Bolex" (it still says so on the Vimeo page):

 

...but if you only look at the very beginning of the video - actually right at 00:01 -, you see that it was shot with the Prosilica GX2300:

 

 

 

So, if you would use moral categories (which I didn't do, but many people here in this thread), then Digital Bolex lied to its customers. (The statement "the first film shot on the new Digital Bolex" is objectively untrue.)

But I also wrote that in the end, the D16 was a real camera and people were happy with it - in fact, I wouldn't mind having that camera myself! 

 

[rawshooter]

23 minutes ago, Ed David said:

Like putting "made in the USA" on their cameras when they are made in Asia (most likely Singapore) as well as unfair practices against competitors, harassment, doxxing, etc etc.

 

If you buy an Apple Mac Pro, it also says "Made in USA" although all the components were made in Asia. And to celebrate the "Made in USA" fact, they even pulled this stunt at the factory:

[PannySVHS]

21 minutes ago, rawshooter said:

But I also wrote that in the end, the D16 was a real camera and people were happy with it - in fact, I wouldn't mind having that camera myself! 

Wouldnt mind owning a beautiful D16 myself neither:) Woundnt mind it as well, if the tone of this discussion would become more mellow again. Towards Jinni, coming from you. And towards you, coming from Ed. And between eachother. I always start to leave threads which turn unfriendly.

[BTM_Pix]

9 minutes ago, rawshooter said:

If you buy an Apple Mac Pro, it also says "Made in USA" although all the components were made in Asia. And to celebrate the "Made in USA" fact, they even pulled this stunt at the factory:

The Mac Pro actually contains components made by a dozen different US companies so it is a different situation to the REDMAGs.

It also benefits from this somewhat opaque dispensation from the US government which allows it to satisfy the "Made In The USA" criteria.

"The US manufacturing of Mac Pro is made possible following a federal product exclusion Apple is receiving for certain necessary components. "

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apples-new-mac-pro-to-be-made-in-texas/

 

[Ed David]

1 hour ago, rawshooter said:

I shouldn't even reply given the tone in which you write.

None of what you state above disproves (or is in contradiction) to what I wrote. Here's the company registration info on Cinemeridian:

https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/C3626603 

The registered company address is: 

20 MURAL ST UNIT 7
RICHMOND HILL ON CANADA L4B 1K3

...which is actually the company address of Ienso Inc.. That means that Cinemeridian (the company that produced Digital Bolex) was a full subsidiary of Ienso. The company registration page also tells Cinemeridian is: 

Branch of CINEMERIDIAN INCORPORATED (Delaware (US))

i.e., using a matroska puppet construction for the company.  If we're looking up the registration of Cinemeridian Inc. on https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_de/5047665, we get:

108 WEST 13TH ST, WILMINGTON, New Castle, DE, 19801

 

As I wrote, this was probably done for tax reasons, since Delaware is considered a tax shelter state within the U.S.: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/092515/4-reasons-why-delaware-considered-tax-shelter.asp

A company "Digital Bolex" never existed, since the trademarks for Bolex remains with the original Swiss Bolex company, and their trademark was only licensed for the D16.

One of the launch videos for D16, which was posted here in this thread before by someone else, was uploaded and advertised as " the first film shot on the new Digital Bolex" (it still says so on the Vimeo page):

 

...but if you only look at the very beginning of the video - actually right at 00:01 -, you see that it was shot with the Prosilica GX2300:

 

 

 

So, if you would use moral categories (which I didn't do, but many people here in this thread), then Digital Bolex lied to its customers. (The statement "the first film shot on the new Digital Bolex" is objectively untrue.)

But I also wrote that in the end, the D16 was a real camera and people were happy with it - in fact, I wouldn't mind having that camera myself! 

 

@PannySVHS  Agreed - Iḿ sorry.  Itś just difficult to hear @rawshooter make acquisations that my friend Joes company was committing fraud and deception.  It felt extremely personal.  And was an emotional response by me.  Iĺl tone it down.

Okay @rawshooter maybe DB16 has an explanation for having in their BTS that they are using that camera.  Maybe it has a modified firmware or  chip or sensor that makes it the precursor to the DB16.  I can ask Joe. 

But really, again, you accused them of so many other things.  Like their kickstarter campaign was fraud and the founders were just puppets and social media influencers.  I cant, because of my weird OCD, sit back and see these words go on eoshd as public record and easily searchable by google.  

I really dont want to get Joe involved in asking him about this, but go for it if you want to ask him, I can give you his email.

 

[rawshooter]

10 minutes ago, Ed David said:

But really, again, you accused them of so many other things.  Like their kickstarter campaign was fraud and the founders were just puppets and social media influencers.  I cant, because of my weird OCD, sit back and see these words go on eoshd as public record and easily searchable by google.  

I really dont want to get Joe involved in asking him about this, but go for it if you want to ask him, I can give you his email.

 

I indeed have to withdraw my allegation that the two Digital Bolex representatives were just hired influencers. I tried to dig deeper into the matter, and it's really complicated - Cinemeridian was founded by your friend Joe, but apparently became a subsidiary of Ienso. (There are also online sources that state that Cinemeridian was a joint-venture of Ienso and Swiss Bolex:.)

There's been a discussion on the company's ownership on the Personal View forum in 2013, with Elle Schneider chiming in:

https://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/2568/digital-bolex-raw-camera-no-longer-made/p24

(But nowhere did I write that their Kickstarter campaign was fraud!)

[Ed David]

@rawshooter  from your link here is co-founder Elle explaining it all. And also earlier you said db16 was really not a homebrew product but the work of some large Canadian company. Which implies that they lied and were deceptive with their kickstarter backers. 

“6  cameras have shipped so far. We have more built, but they each need to be hand tested and calibrated before they ship. After the holiday it should be faster and probably 3 cameras a day. There are many factors that go into shipping that have nothing to do with whether the camera is ready, like customs forms, verifying addresses, printing up invoices, physical packing, that kind of boring stuff.

This pretty much says what the roles of everyone at the company are: http://www.digitalbolex.com/about/

Joe partnered with the executives at Ienso, a preexisting camera company, to create a new company called Cinemeridian. Cinemeridian has existed since 2011, which is when hardware development of the camera began. Joe, Mike (our CTO), and I essentially do the concept development of features both hardware and software, and Mike executes those. Joe is the CEO of the company. He is the actual boss. He works with Kish and Pomfort to design our lenses and software and to seek out new relationships with other companies who might want to make products for the camera, works with Mike and the engineering team to problem solve issues, does the hands-on thorough camera testing on the LA end, writes blog posts, answers questions on the forum, and does a lot of banal business stuff. Mike is a rockstar. What's funny about the suppositions in this thread is that Stelio is actually the least involved in day to day stuff on our project, as he manages the business side of Ienso and all the other projects they've done, and chimes in when we need more heads on an engineering problem. They are all awesome guys up in Canada and everyone in the company has put in a ridiculous amount of work.

Source of development funds is that Ienso is financially invested in the project, and Joe has put in the funds he received from selling his half of the successful business he founded years ago. He sold his half because his previous business partner did not want to branch out into developing new imaging technology, and he believed in the future of raw. He would not have put his own money, his financial future, into this thing if he didn't believe in it 100%, and that's a very brave thing to do.

Warranty is 1 year standard warranty like most consumer electronics, and will be serviced in Toronto. A few rental houses have asked if we would be interested in local US based warranty and servicing, and we'll definitely be looking into that once the first batch of cameras is out.

I think it's a great accomplishment that we've done what other big camera companies have done in a shorter time with far fewer resources. That's not to say that we're perfect, we've had many problems and delays, but that's all part of starting a business. But I hope that someone who has watched our journey and decides to try something they wouldn't have previously thought possible might learn something from where we've gone right and wrong.”

In summation, the company practices of digital bolex is pretty much an inverse of red. They aren’t a company that exists as a patent troll. They don’t bully or harass or threaten to sue their customers. They don’t threaten bloggers or filmmakers with legal action. And they most likely probably label their products country of origin honestly.

 

 

[IronFilm]

9 hours ago, rawshooter said:

But I also wrote that in the end, the D16 was a real camera and people were happy with it - in fact, I wouldn't mind having that camera myself! 

Same! Is a pity they still sell for so much secondhand. 
But that just proves what a smash hit in this niche the DB16 was.