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 :)

Extra $1000 (more or less) for HDRx on Scarlet?

Extra $1000 (more or less) for HDRx on Scarlet?

  • Total voters
    486
No, EPIC is the flagship and not for everyone. Think it is really important to differentiate the camera lines... rental houses Im sure will agree.

Scarlet is for the masses and already will surpass all of its competition. Whats MORE important is that its stays as close to the original 3K for $3K as possible and certainly under $5K.
 
Agreed. I think the 2/3 can live without the hdr function without losing much of it's Intended market. The s35, however, should have this function. I believe that those waiting for the s35 wouldn't mind paying an extra 1000 to get this feature. I'm in that crowd. However, If this influences delivery schedule, say, about a year for the s35 model, than I believe that, with the fast pace the industry is changing and new cameras are introduced, this could jeopardy the camera's comercial success. Having the option to upgrade is also an interesting option. That would make everyone happy.
 
I doubt this will be setup for a send-in for upgrade camera, at least the 2/3". I was under the impression they'd be going for volume on those and probably not interested in physically upgrading a sub 6k body.

I reserve the right to be wrong.
 
The preliminary statistics confirm my feeling: The highest priority should be getting the Scarlet out there, for the price tag announced. Part of the roadmap could/should be an Scarlet-X with HDRx for some extra cash.

Benefits: a) No further delays
b) no fodder for the RED haters that already make plenty of fud out of the long obsolete "3k for 3k".
c) While I understand (also as a future Epic owner) the importance of upholding the value of the Epic, RED has never been about withholding features. Would be wrong not to give the users the option if it is feasible, affordable and wanted by the users.
 
i am all for 1000 USD HDR on scarlet, no artificial seperation between epic and scarlet, inmho if you can get 3-6 stops more for 1000 dollars, you gotta have to do it.
 
If my scarlet lacks HDR I would not see that as withholding something. I'd love to have it. I'd be mad not to. But.

There seems to be a tendency to forget all the other fantastic things it will be able to do that the competition can't do anyway. Adding yet more features to an already capable camera isn't what we need, we need a working, shipping camera. In a development path there's always more to be added, enough is enough. Want more? Get EPIC.
 
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
An extra 1000 for this function sounds very reasonable.
I'm going for a fixed scarlet, and wouldn't mind paying 10 000 $ for a camera that powerfull. So 6000 for a fixed scarlet bundle with HDR is a steal!

As for differentiating cameras, the extra 2k in resolution do that allready. I hate brands that cripple their little cams just to safeguard the most expensive ones.
I don't think that is what RED is about. Otherwise they would have screwed over the original R1 owners without hesitation and said: "You can buy the new one if you want the better sensor." EPIC will be the camera for top projects with big budgets. Everything else will be on Scarlets. That's no reason to deny Scaret of HDR. In fact, it's a reason to put it in.

Really Jim, don't hesitate.
Scarlet at double price woud still be an amazing camera at an amazing price. And the extra 1000 for a HDR mode won't slow sales. I see a lot of people running around with ex-1s and ex-3s. Once Scarlet is out you guys will see a huge chunck of that action. You won't be able to make them fast enough for quite some time.
So with HDR, pretty please. With sugar on top (of the please, not the camera).
 
My vote is that 2/3s could really use the HDR as they would be the best 16mm range cameras going (and no competition for Epic market but complementary) and the s35 is direct competition for people on the edge of deciding on Epic or going downscale.:ihih: We gotta differentiate, you know. :laugh:

I'm saddened people not interested in the 2/3s are trying to scuttle my plans. :prrr:

Seriously, if you're considering sales, there are a few 1080 cams with lesser specs compared to Scarlet 2/3, like the Panasonic whatever-100, that might be less-but-good-enough and maybe an easier workflow for the uninitiated. HDR will knock that thinking right out. It'll be the killer app.

It only improves the rentability and used market: the 16mm lenses and accessories will have new packages to join. Rental houses who also have Epics will be able to leverage media, modules and accessories.
 
Last edited:
Joseph Hutson said:
Would you or NOT be willing to pay an extra $1000 (more or less) for HDRx™ on Scarlet? I most definitely would...
Click to expand...

To me it is easily worth 1000$ or 1000€, even 1000£.

I think 500$ would be acceptable to a majority of prospective buyers.

It might be best to make this an extra cost option, since there also is a big market for the lowest possible cost Scarlet. Maybe keep the fixed as it is, and upgrade the cinema?
 
I'm surprised that it can't do at least 24fps HDR with current processing power (3K@120fps :out:). But if that is the case, I am personally interested to pay the extra 1k$. I guess that will also up the "normal" framerates available. :emote_popcorn:

With HDR, Scarlet will become the ultimate 16mm digital alternative with no compromises whatsoever.


Short answer:

Yes. :thumbup1:
 
I would pay the extra 1K IF there was NO additional delay as a result. None WHATSOEVER.

Otherwise... I'd rather just have my Scarlet as soon as possible, I'm going crazy here! :(
 
I voted "no" with mixed feelings.

Scarlet is the cheap little-brother that I can kick around "for free", and my mother can use to shoot her grandchildren for christmas - in addition to the digital-cinema-like use.

picturewise and "foolproof" wise, a scarlet with +3 stops of built in default "hdr", would be a great competitive boon, though. I just see so many not buying it at that extra expense...
 
My vote is "NO" to HDRx™ in Scarlet Fixed. This camera has to get to market at some point. The Mama is pregnant and the baby just needs to be born. Adding HDRx™ to Scarlet Fixed will just delay the camera hitting the street by another 100 to 150 days beyond its already protracted development schedule (which I totally understand, BTW).

My calculations put Scarlet at NAB 2011 at the earliest as it is. And adding a $1K to the sticker price will prevent many from adopting what by all accounts will be an amazing camera. Scarlet fixed lens will be a huge advantage in the hands of the indy crowd. Maybe it makes sense to further delay it, but I don't think so.

Even if Scarlet gets the added HDR, and she doesn't arrive for an entire year from now, her competitive edge is compromised. I'd rather see Scarlet 1.0 hit the street and make room for the development on a Scarlet 2.0 that has built in HDRx and 3D as well as still-improved optics.

If Scarlet is the only Red camera system you can afford, vote "no" to get it into your hands ASAP. HDRx™ is amazing, but not having it in the entry-level model is not a barrier to making great Indy content.
 
wrong assumptions

wrong assumptions

I repeat: Scarlet fixed is not a prosumer camera. The fixed is better suited to a lot of shooting situations in the field than the S35, and it would make a huge difference to a lot of us if we can get HDR in a compact and sturdy format. It is exactly in the difficult shooting situations that we need HDR the most. When you work in a controlled environment, well, controlling your lighting and exposure should be easy, and you don't 'need' this lifesaver. Although you of course want it.
So in my opinion, you could say that the fixed 'needs' HDR more than cameras intended for controlled situations. So, implement HDR wherever it is possible and we will make good use of it. And pay.
 
Last edited:
Mathias Erichsen said:
Maybe the best option is to keep the 2/3" Scarlet as affordable as possible and add HDR for 1000$ more on the S35... I´d go for one of each :)

Mathias
Click to expand...

Since this is a question of processing power, I think the Scarlet probably will be capable of HDR in stills mode.

I think it makes good sense to have motion HDR in the 2/3" with exchangeable lenses. It is attractive to have extra dynamic range combined with a set of lightweight primes.

I have more problems seeing why you would need it in the s35 Scarlet, for me that is a still camera or a lower spec cine camera to use where you do not need the capabilities of the Epic.
 
soren k jensen said:
I repeat: Scarlet fixed is not a prosumer camera. The fixed is better suited to a lot of shooting situations in the field than the S35, and it would make a huge difference to a lot of us if we can get HDR in a compact and sturdy format. It is exactly in the difficult shooting situations that we need HDR the most. When you work in a controlled environment, well, controlling your lighting and exposure should be easy, and you don't 'need' this lifesaver. Although you of course want it.
So in my opinion, you could say that the fixed 'needs' HDR more than cameras intended for controlled situations. So, implement HDR wherever it is possible and we will make good use of it. And pay.
Click to expand...

True. But is it worth another year of waiting? That's the real issue.
 
Count me in..... If it can be a module, that would be perfect.

But count me out if it adds 3+ extra months to develop. I absolutely have to buy a camera to shoot in June 2011... I am praying for Scarlet fixed for that (better yet s35!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top