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

[Graham_C]

Until you use it on epic and then realize how wickedly amazing it is

Deanan,are you able to elaborate on how HDR may be implemented in Scarlet ?
Can it ONLY be accomplished via an extra inbody board or could a module work?

Some additional info would be great.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I'd rather have HDRx than even touch focus and stills mode.

Yep. RE Scarlet 2/3rds, I'd be prepared to lose...

...touch focus
...and stills mode (a $5000 camera that takes 6 megapixel stills?)
...and HDR for stills
...and 4 different recording media (if we all agreed to use SSDs and not CF/RED-DRIVE/RED-RAM could we get the price of RED's SSDs to come down some?)
...and scaled 1080p (let alone 720p) recording (just get REDCODE 3K playing back fast without a RED-ROCKET - folks who need scaled files likely want ProRes so will go to a Ki or Ninja anyway)
...and Gigabit Ethernet stills transfer
...and X-Sync (we already have true shutter sync in/out and Genlock, right?)
...and TTL metering
...and both 802.11 Wifi and RedLink wireless (just choose one)
...and support for NATO accessories
...and 4 sizes of LCDs (3 would be fine! Plus there are all of the 3rd party ones)
...and support for the old RED EVF
...and both a REDMOTE and PRO REDMOTE
...and a GPS

How is this a KISS camera again?

Maybe all of these features are working 100% right now and HDRx would be the one thing that'd delay things. But maybe not - heck, maybe they're trying to get that scaled 720p mode working perfectly or something.

Personally I think that if RED felt like it, they could cut out a TON of stuff - and really get some economies of scale.

Of course there are features I'd love to keep - per-frame recording of motion and lens data. Easy stereo (and multi-camera) sync. But I agree:

Many posters identified K.I.S.S. principle to Scarlet and I must say that this is one of the most compelling reasons to leave HDRx out of Scarlet. I think the beauty and appeal of Scarlet is modest price and high quality of images combined with simplicity.

I wish it were more so! If RED wanted to build a simple camera that just shoots 3K and is cheap and light and small... that's my first choice. They could cut out a ton of stuff if it made it just a *little bit* lighter and cheaper... and sell more cameras.

If RED is doing the feature-rich thing - then HDRx would be a nice feature.

There - that's my 2c over.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Michael T O'Connor]

I honestly can't make up my mind on this. I said no earlier because I really want to support RED because I believe in what they're doing and love that it's an American company. I also love the fact that they do everything 100% and don't do anything half ass. I also love the entrepreneurial spirit of RED. Unfortunately, I can't afford $5k on a camera.

I know its selfish, but I really wanna be able to patronize this company. If they do go with it, I wouldn't blame them though. It'd just mean I'd have to save up a few more months.

 

[David Rasberry]

Yep. RE Scarlet 2/3rds, I'd be prepared to lose...

...touch focus
...and stills mode (a $5000 camera that takes 6 megapixel stills?)
...and HDR for stills
...and 4 different recording media (if we all agreed to use SSDs and not CF/RED-DRIVE/RED-RAM could we get the price of RED's SSDs to come down some?)
...and scaled 1080p (let alone 720p) recording (just get REDCODE 3K playing back fast without a RED-ROCKET - folks who need scaled files likely want ProRes so will go to a Ki or Ninja anyway)
...and Gigabit Ethernet stills transfer
...and X-Sync (we already have true shutter sync in/out and Genlock, right?)
...and TTL metering
...and both 802.11 Wifi and RedLink wireless (just choose one)
...and support for NATO accessories
...and 4 sizes of LCDs (3 would be fine! Plus there are all of the 3rd party ones)
...and support for the old RED EVF
...and both a REDMOTE and PRO REDMOTE
...and a GPS

How is this a KISS camera again?

Maybe all of these features are working 100% right now and HDRx™™™™ would be the one thing that'd delay things. But maybe not - heck, maybe they're trying to get that scaled 720p mode working perfectly or something.

Personally I think that if RED felt like it, they could cut out a TON of stuff - and really get some economies of scale.

Of course there are features I'd love to keep - per-frame recording of motion and lens data. Easy stereo (and multi-camera) sync. But I agree:



I wish it were more so! If RED wanted to build a simple camera that just shoots 3K and is cheap and light and small... that's my first choice. They could cut out a ton of stuff if it made it just a *little bit* lighter and cheaper... and sell more cameras.

If RED is doing the feature-rich thing - then HDRx™™™™ would be a nice feature.

There - that's my 2c over.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Scarlet has acquired most of these added features because people asked for them. There certainly is no point in going backwards.

Red Ram and Red Drives are gone, no longer available except for the used market. CF and SSD are the choices. SSD module is more expensive, but the media is cheaper on a per gig basis, and will get cheaper still as time goes on as well as offering much higher performance potential.

I appreciate the budget issue as I am more a serious hobbyist than a pro these days and Scarlet is a stretch. But I think it is unrealistic to expect this camera with all of its potential to kit out for less than a Canon XF300 series or EX1/3, even without HDR features. It is much more than just another under $10k video camera.
As a serious hobbyist I am most serious about image quality with the 2/3" Scarlet, anything that brings its performance closer to matching or exceeding film I am for within reason.
I would be quite happy with the original target of 11-1/2+ stops at 800 ISO on par with R1 MX, but HDRx™™™ would push that over the line into ecstacy. 16 stops or more? Whoa!
With the emergence of the DSLR's serving the low end market so well, moving Scarlet up market a bit with untouchably beyond low end HD video performance potential just makes sense.

 

[joshua csehak]

With the emergence of the DSLR's serving the low end market so well, moving Scarlet up market a bit with untouchably beyond low end HD video performance potential just makes sense.

ooo, very good point

 

[Deanan]

Deanan,are you able to elaborate on how HDR may be implemented in Scarlet ?
Can it ONLY be accomplished via an extra inbody board or could a module work?

Some additional info would be great.

Can't do it in a module.

 

[Liana]

Voted no.

Scarlet is aimed at a segment where people get swayed off by a hundred $ difference in product prices. Value is less understood by masses, and listening only to reduser gives an unfair impression of how educated people are, and how they make their choice in deciding which cameras/lens to buy. The typical Reduser member is far better informed than the most buyers who will compare Scarlet to other products. We will make a small percentage of people who will buy Scarlet.

Reserve HDRx for Epic. Let Scarlet be the affordable entry product to The World of Red. It is not as if without HDRx Scarlet is useless, at its price point it would still be the most powerful camera system. Good resolution, RAW workflow, great price. It is a complete package for that price bracket, and as it is would be a huge leap in features to existing products.

Better rush Scarlet to production rather than add one more feature. In fact, instead of adding features you may even consider removing/reducing a few if that can bring price down.

 

[PatrickW]

Can't do it in a module.

That answers Question number 1.

Can scarlet do HDR at a lower FPS than Epic without a large price increase?

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

I would be quite happy with the original target of 11-1/2+ stops at 800 ISO on par with R1 MX, but HDRx™™™™ would push that over the line into ecstacy. 16 stops or more? Whoa!

Any HDRx figures were quoted for the Epic, and even then Jim cautioned that real-world numbers might be a little lower. We don't really know what it will be for 2/3-inch Scarlet, or if it's even practical to implement. Before I could make an intelligent decision, I guess I'd need to know how many stops HDRx would add, how much Scarlet cost, and how much it would cost to add HDRx. And, ideally, a wealth of Scarlet HDRx A/B test footage under a variety of conditions wouldn't hurt.

 

[Ken Willinger]

No... keep the price low.

 

[Deanan]

That answers Question number 1.

Can scarlet do HDR at a lower FPS than Epic without a large price increase?

We're looking at what's possible.

Personally (not speaking for red), what I've seen and experienced with HDRx™ so far, there is no turning back. It would feel like taking out REDcode and replacing it with JPEGs.

 

[Steve Wake]

Can scarlet do HDR at a lower FPS than Epic without a large price increase?

Pending update per Deanan's answer above, here's what Jim said earlier:

We could up the processing power by adding boards... Given the change in development path, board costs, an additional ASIC and "stuff", we are probably looking at an additional $1000 more or less.

If we did this, Scarlet could have both EasyHDR™ at 30fps and HDRx™ to 60fps.

Looks like that is the Scarlet HDR upgrade package. No cheaper option. Though a more accurate estimate may be in the works.

Thinking about what I see over on DVXuser and other places, I think Liana is exactly right. There needs to be an entry level model and Scarlet Fixed would be it. HDR adds a new and unfamiliar set of decisions during shooting and post that might be beyond the needs of a lot of potential customers.

So I'm glad I voted no early on, though the only reason at the time was because I was sure it would mean a major delay since I didn't think an add-on module would be possible. Now that Deanan has confirmed a module won't do the job, I'm glad I voted no.

I still want a Scarlet 2/3 Fixed with HDR as much or more than anyone else who voted yes, but I want a Fixed asap even more. I can sell it or trade it in, in a year or so if/when RED decides to sell a Fixed HDR. In the meantime I can make money, improve my post workflow skills and accumulate modules, batteries and storage. 10 to 12 stops (or whatever the spec is) plus the latitude of RAW will be great.

 

[Kevin Marshall]

We're looking at what's possible.

That alone reassures me that whatever decision RED makes will probably be the best one.

Personally (not speaking for red), what I've seen and experienced with HDRx™™™ so far, there is no turning back. It's would feel like taking out REDcode and replacing it with JPEGs.

Strong words. And after taking a look at that early footage that got posted (and comparing it to other images of the same place), I can't say I disagree with you.

I think the point, as Jason (and others) have noted is not ultimately about "should scarlet have feature X for $X more." Rather, it's what demographic Scarlet is to find itself in. The fixed especially is straddling between several demographics, as I would argue the Red One has - HVXers looking to upgrade versus broadcast and film shooters looking for an alternative.

Adding features and cost would solidify it in the latter, while possibly loosening the former. It's possible it would gain as many (or more) customers as it could theoretically loose.

Of course I'm just spouting off here - and I'd say RED probably has a better idea than most of us about what direction to take.

Interesting times.

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

We're looking at what's possible.

Frame rates differ from Epic to Scarlet, would a 24p version of HDRx make it cheaper?

 

[Aaron Shirley]

I'm planning on buying a 2/3 body (for when I need easy to focus long depth of field) and an S35 (when I need short selectable depth of field) to practice on and use on no/low-paying gigs; and renting which ever Epic I specifically need on higher end paying gigs, and I would certainly use HDR almost all the time. And I would gladly pay an extra $1k each for HDR on both (especially on the S35, as that's the one I will be using on film like productions the most).

In fact, I've been experimenting with motion HDR for years and nearly perfected it with a 'two camera through a beam splitter through a 35mm adapter system':
http://www.youtube.com/user/44R0N?feature=mhum#p/c/766F7D9507B0D3F7/2/1tifCb3_wes for which I planned on buying two 2/3 Scarlet bodies...
...until I read that RED was working on their own HDR... so I quit. Why would a caveman finish chiseling his stone wheel if he heard that his neighbor Ford was comming out with the Model-T (or Corvette?) in a few months?

-If one of the Scarlets needs to go without HDR, I would think it would have to be the 2/3-fixed, as that one is essentially the lowest cost (after all basic necessities are bought), and the easiest to use out of the box.

-If two of the Scarlets need to go without HDR, then I would say make the other one the 2/3-body, as it is really more in competition with prosumer video cameras, price experience required, and depth of field wise, so it would still work favorably in it's general market.

-I feel like the S35 is the Scarlet most in need of HDR since it's got everything else that will replace the need of (motion) film, what's an extra grand to finish the job?

-Perhaps there could be two 2/3-body's; one without HDR and one with- for $1000 more? That way the 2/3-contrasty-fixed and 2/3-contrasty-body could come out on time, at predicted price (well you know what I mean) to make RED a house hold name; and a 2/3-HDR-body and S35-HDR-body come out later at a premium. In the mean time, I'll just slap two T2i Canons together and wait it out...

 

[Danny Lingan]

HDR adds a new and unfamiliar set of decisions during shooting and post that might be beyond the needs of a lot of potential customers.

Hi again, Steve. The same could be said for RAW and HD.

-If one of the Scarlets needs to go without HDR...it would have to be the 2/3-fixed, as ...the lowest cost... and the easiest to use out of the box.

Hey, Aaron. How is it more simple to use besides the lens? 2/3" chips are less sensitive with smaller photosites so they'd need the HDR more.

-If two of the Scarlets need to go without HDR, then I would say make the other one the 2/3-body, as it is really more in competition with prosumer video cameras, price experience required, and depth of field wise, so it would still work favorably in it's general market.

Wouldn't it just kick ass on the market with HDR? Captures that otherwise couldn't be without years of practice and money, right out of the box?

-I feel like the S35 is...most in need of HDR since it's got everything else that will replace the need of (motion) film, what's an extra grand to finish the job?

That's odd...I think the same thing about both of the 2/3s, but at 16mm.

Bah. As one of the masses, maybe I should forget HDR and embrace simplicity. Can I get a 2nd out there for an RCA/Coax video-out module? My uncle's got an old Curtis-Mathis console he says I can use as on-set monitoring. It only needs pliers to change channels and a coat of poly.

 

[Mike Gross]

The genie is out of the bottle. If we're to use scarlet as B cameras to epic's shooting HDR, then scarlets need HDR too. For sports and eng where scarlet will excel tremendously, HDR will be important.

 

[Chuck Z]

Why could Scarlet do HDRx at 60 fps but only 30 fps for EasyHDR? I thought HDRx records two streams, which would be more bandwidth intensive. Did I mix these two up?

Ever since the HDR news started spouting up, there has been an air of confusion with regards to the modes and how they differ.

 

[Matt Steinauer]

I think, perhaps, the EasyHDR is taking the two streams and combining them live in camera which would be more taxing on the system.

 

[David Rasberry]

I think, perhaps, the EasyHDR™ is taking the two streams and combining them live in camera which would be more taxing on the system.

Either way you are processing twice the data. Two file method taxes the media speed more.