Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

How easy will it be to upgrade Epic/Scarlet MX to Monstro ?

tillHavis said:
Ok I know Monstro is down the line but it has been the standard I have been looking for since the Epic/Scarlet was announced, full frame, electronic lenses etc.
I am looking at getting the Epic/Scarlet MX when released as I reckon the Monstro wont be here until 2012 (just a guess) and was just wondering as Epic/Scarlet is modular will the new Monstro sensor sit into the existing brain or will a new brain be required. Sorry if this has been asked but I couldn't find the answer.

Regards
Click to expand...

There have been a few mentions:

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=584888&postcount=108

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=582595&postcount=9

But no details of specific terms yet, I don't think.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Seems to me that the whole point of the modular design is that you can swap brains when you want a different sensor.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately though modularity in this instance actually costs more than upgrades. Although I suppose that's what the 2nd hand market is for.

$30k for a new epic vs $6k for a REDOne sensor upgrade. I guess you'll just have to hope that your epic holds 80% of its value when resold.
 
Dexter Gregoire said:
Reuse, Recycle, Reduce.

RED may offer sensor upgrades to the Epic brains the same way for a RED ONE.

Other companies doing the same?
Click to expand...

Just with sensor upgrade, we are not able to take full advantage of its capabilities. It has to accompanied with circuitry upgrade. Don't forget, with MX sensor in REDONE, we can not achieve 5K. It needs a new circuit to do that.
I believe in case of Epic, it will be whole brain replacement and not just sensor upgrades.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Unfortunately though modularity in this instance actually costs more than upgrades. Although I suppose that's what the 2nd hand market is for.

$30k for a new epic vs $6k for a REDOne sensor upgrade. I guess you'll just have to hope that your epic holds 80% of its value when resold.
Click to expand...

7K for a new S35 5K M-X Scarlet vs. $5750 for a red one MX upgrade. Can't see why anyone would upgrade R1 if MX S35 Scarlet was available.
 
Michael Hastings said:
7K for a new S35 5K M-X Scarlet vs. $5750 for a red one MX upgrade. Can't see why anyone would upgrade R1 if MX Scarlet was available.
Click to expand...

It has always been my sense that Epic offered several capabilities beyond what the Scarlet S35 will do. Then again, it should for a $21K difference!! Honestly can't recount what they are, though, beyond higher frame rates and data rates. :rolleyes:
 
Terry VerHaar said:
It has always been my sense that Epic offered several capabilities beyond what the Scarlet S35 will do. Then again, it should for a $21K difference!! Honestly can't recount what they are, though, beyond higher frame rates and data rates. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Higher data rates,lower compression. Higher frame rates, HD-SDI out on the brain. Anamorphic support. These at least.
 
Stephen Williams said:
Really? What's the maxamium frame rate supported?
Click to expand...

RED really hasn't said much about the uncompressed option. Jim dropped the "mathematically lossless" bomb in the middle of another thread so it didn't get a lot of attention. I asked Graeme at NAB if mathematically lossless was the same as a zip file and he said absolutely. You get out exactly what you put in.
 
uncompressed is different than mathematically lossless which is different than visually lossless. :)
 
Jarred Land said:
uncompressed is different than mathematically lossless which is different than visually lossless. :)
Click to expand...

Which is why I asked the question, thanks for the clarification.

Stephen
 
it would also make a lot of sense to keep 2 brains around, your s35 and when you get a FF brain. A lot of main stream lenses, from Arri to Panavision, to RPP and so on, don't cover FF, and you leave yourself open to more clientele giving more options like that. That is if you can afford 2 brains and not needing to sell one to offset the price of the other...

There is always the argument that everything will be FF in the times to come, but how close we are to that is left up in the air. There are still plenty of people out there that will prefer S35 over FF for many reasons...
 
I think is a mistake thinking Epic prices vs Scarlett prices... You cant look for different features, or think the differences aren't enough for the price... The fact is that higher data rates (for lower compression or higher frame rates) it's the most expensive feature of the camera... For some professionals, or for specials shots, this features are very important important. For daily shooting not at all.

RED could have done his best camera possible with its insane features, and it still be at least a third of the price of the others cameras... They could do ONLY EPIC.

Nobody will know the price of the high data rate, and all was O.K... But they also do a camera with less data rate using exactly the same system and technologie... And without this is just for half the price of the original RED ONE.

I don't believe there's nothing wrong with EPIC price. Nothing. If you need this you have it. Better and cheaper that the others. If you don't need it, you have Scarlett. Better and cheaper than the rest... They're more options, and both better for all of us.

RED shows that not for being new it should be more expensive, is more a question of manufacturing cost ... And that's very honest. Just two thumbs up for them.
 
Jarred Land said:
uncompressed is different than mathematically lossless which is different than visually lossless. :)
Click to expand...

Now I am really confused. I must have misunderstood Graeme because what he described sounded exactly like true uncompressed.
 
Justin O'Neill said:
Now I am really confused. I must have misunderstood Graeme because what he described sounded exactly like true uncompressed.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is all that complicated if you are willing to carefully consider the descriptions and believe, at face value, that they each do what they say they do.

1) Uncompressed means there is nothing at all done to the data. Every pixel coming off the sensor is faithfully recorded to the media. No compression, period.

2) Mathematically lossless means that a mathematical algorithm is applied to the data but when it is decoded from the recorded signal, it can be faithfully reconstructed to be EXACTLY as it was when it came from the sensor. So, it is inarguably "lossless" even though there has been some compression applied to reduce the data rate when recording and storing. This is not a subjective determination; it is mathematically, and thus also visually, lossless.

3) Visually lossless is much more subjective. It cannot make the same claim as being mathematically lossless because some data is forever lost when the compression algorithm is applied. However, SUBJECTIVELY, when the signal is decoded and shown, the claim is that one cannot tell that there is any visual difference between the original version and the decoded version. Hopefully, whenever someone makes that claim, they have a pretty high bar so that it doesn't just become a meaningless marketing claim. My guess is that when anyone at RED says "visually lossless" they have a pretty high standard in saying that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top