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 :)

a non-HDRx scarlet for the other 50%

a non-HDRx scarlet for the other 50%

  • Total voters
    164
i am also voted yes, because i want to get cheap camera.its better for us that red team have to release a non version of scarlet also.i am thinking in some way that they adding great features and increasing prices continuously, it seems that finally when product will be released it's no more in indies budget. sorry sir for saying like this.
 
Ethan Cooper said:
It pains me to say this but I think we've found the Scarlet killer... her name is Scarlet.
Click to expand...

I do see why people would want the non HDR scarlet, but I hope it would be renamed something else... like PINK?

... Come to think of it, that would not be a likely name... -:)
 
Mohammed El Sharqawy said:
I would buy the old scarlet concept for $2750 cheaper..
Click to expand...

I think a lot of us would... Me included!

Thing is I see RED developing. And in a good way.

Remember those first zooms?
If they weren't RED branded, they would be utterly smart.
As it is, they have lead to a lot of bad-mouthing about RED and their glass-program. Which is sad.

Because:
1. They weren't pro-glass in the way most of us imply when talking about it
2. They were one heck of a good deal. It's a pitty they go.

Problem arises when someone takes this new glass into a traditional "pro" set and starts to get complaints. Reasonable, rational complaints as to why the glass is not up to par.

Same thing could happen with a "prosumer" Scarlet. It needs to be as robust and trustworthy as an Epic, not to reflect badly on its bigger brother.

So. A r3d cam @ 3k would be great, but as things are, it should not be branded Scarlet and possibly have "prosumer" written with big letters all over it, for the unknowing renter to know that this is in fact not an "epic-lite" but "a very nice and cheap raw camera".

I really love all the low-cost options offered at the early stages. But I can see how they have hurt REDs reputation.

At this stage the market penetration already is present. Now guarding the brand-name is more important.

Sorta...

But maybe Pink is what we'll see when all the R1 M bodies are returned as part of stage 3?

I really like the M sensor, and have been wondering what Jim is up to with all that nice sensor material with an AD behind them he will receive at stage 3...
 
Just to remind all of you again:

Jannard said:
Now comes HDRx. Remember this post and date. HDRx is just as important, if not more, than REDCODE.

We have tested it in the most demanding situations. It qualifies as one of the single most important breakthroughs of RED.

Jim
Click to expand...


I'll tell you now that without HDRx RED in the future is not going to ship any new camera Epic either Scarlet, etc...

Just take it or leave it.
 
Adjust... if you can't adjust your finances to meet the $1000 increase, adjust your timeframe. That is, put off buying the Scarlet until you can afford it. Maybe it will stay the same price after it is released in its final state

It's really unfair to ask a company to "dumb down" to meet a small number of its customer base's desires.
 
So am I right in think that before today's announcement, all of the people that are saying that the Scarlet can't be sold without HDRx™, wouldn't have purchased a Scarlet? Or that they thought it was going to be a substandard product without HDRx™?

Because before today, no one was asking for this feature. Everyone just wanted the Scarlet to materialise in, I dunno, the next year or two.

It's amazing how one statement, which are just words (no proof that the image looks and better i.e. no side by side footage comparison), can make people say "thank you so much for adding another $1000 for a feature that no one was really asking for."

Sorry, but it just seems that the only announcements are about more delays and further price increases.

I would like to see some footage and something that is concrete as to when the consumer can hold this camera and shoot with it. Till then, it's just specs and hearsay.
 
red make best products as compared with other players, in product quality as well as lesser price too, even competitors also know that sir. scarlet with hdr version is too good, we know that . but it is out of reach of indies pocket. so some people are crying, thats why. from now i am also fearing about the price of scarlet at the time of release in future. because of i having a dream of owning a best camera since when red said that they are going to release 3k raw at $3k. now they changed it to $4750 and again changed to $5750. by seeing this i may not own it. but may go for rent at all.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
I think a lot of us would... Me included!

Thing is I see RED developing. And in a good way.

Remember those first zooms?
If they weren't RED branded, they would be utterly smart.
As it is, they have lead to a lot of bad-mouthing about RED and their glass-program. Which is sad.

Because:
1. They weren't pro-glass in the way most of us imply when talking about it
2. They were one heck of a good deal. It's a pitty they go.

Problem arises when someone takes this new glass into a traditional "pro" set and starts to get complaints. Reasonable, rational complaints as to why the glass is not up to par.

Same thing could happen with a "prosumer" Scarlet. It needs to be as robust and trustworthy as an Epic, not to reflect badly on its bigger brother.

So. A r3d cam @ 3k would be great, but as things are, it should not be branded Scarlet and possibly have "prosumer" written with big letters all over it, for the unknowing renter to know that this is in fact not an "epic-lite" but "a very nice and cheap raw camera".

I really love all the low-cost options offered at the early stages. But I can see how they have hurt REDs reputation.

At this stage the market penetration already is present. Now guarding the brand-name is more important.

Sorta...

But maybe Pink is what we'll see when all the R1 M bodies are returned as part of stage 3?

I really like the M sensor, and have been wondering what Jim is up to with all that nice sensor material with an AD behind them he will receive at stage 3...
Click to expand...

everything has a price.. it only matter the available options..
the old concept scarlet would still kill any video dslr available now..
raw shooting doesn't need a name, simply if you don't understand what is raw is.. don't shoot raw..
all the new camera companies are promising on shooting cheap raw, not the old ones..
people are still paying $10K+ in an EX3.. and $2K+ in a 7D..
nothing shoots raw..
I think the main tech thing about RED is redcode.. everything comes next..
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Just to remind all of you again:




I'll tell you now that without HDRx™™ RED in the future is not going to ship any new camera Epic either Scarlet, etc...

Just take it or leave it.
Click to expand...
I maybe wouldn't have put it quite as bluntly, but I sort-of agree. I say sort-of because the Epic without HDRx™ is still the best available option and would sell. But if it were a choice between an Epic with HDRx™ and one without, I agree that the HDRx™ model would get about 99% of the sales. (The other 1 % wouldn't know what HDRx™ is).

I've delayed a project that isn't time sensitive until I can shoot it on Epic X with Magic Motion and HDRx™. It is becoming apparent to me that movies shot using these two features will make 3D a non-issue.

EDIT: Sanjin, just re-read your post and now understand you were just stating a fact. A fact that I'm sure is accurate.
 
Why do we need HDRx? Did they finish Scarlet and realize it can only hit 7 stops or something? How about we see some footage first...
 
Rather than a non-HDRx™ version of the current Scarlet at just $1000 cheaper, I think there should be a totally low-end nearly-prosumer model added in the bottom slot where 2/3" Fixed used to be, for MORE than $1000 less.

Around 3K, 60fps, RC60 maybe? Hell I'd take 1080p, 60fps, RC40. Still far better than a DSLR, which is what I'll be buying now that they've priced me out on Scarlet.
 
For me it's the little flaw in the "good enough is not good enough" philosophy. Jim doesn't like "good enough". Well, the problem with that is, it well never be perfect. In 10 years time EPICs picture quality might be achieved with every smartphone camera and the REDs of the future will be even more betterest foreverest.
Right now, 11 stops, 3k and 100 fps on the 2/3 sensor for 5000$ would have been enough.

P.S.: By the way, Sanjin, why don't you let the people talk who acutally make movies?
 
I'd pay $1,000 extra for the Scarlet to be released this year! :sifone:

As great & amazing as HDRx™ is for Scarlet, I would much rather have it now without it then buy it who knows when with it.
 
I understand what your saying J Davis, but I believe having the HDRx™ capabilities will really save you money in the long run. With the major increase in DR, you will most likely be able to get away without as much lighting or none at all in certain situations. Which means less cost on lighting and crew. RED is a professional digital cinema company, they are going to make professional products up to their standard. To me it seems like if I have to pay $6,000 for a camera that can do basically as much as a $28,000 camera with 2K less resolution and some lower frame rates, i'm thinking thats a pretty damn good deal. I hate to say this and understand your frustrated, but if it is out of your price range there are many other options out there, and many more to come. They aren't RED but I just got done shooting a feature on a T2i and a 7D, it can be done.
 
From the start Red's mission has been to produce cameras that make digital acquisition a real alternative to film, with comparable or better performance in every respect. The development of HDRx puts them comfortably across that goal line IMO. To not include this on every camera they make would be dumb.
Scarlet is still very cheap considering. If this camera were released by any of the big companies it would be priced closer to $100k than $10k.
Save your sheckles!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top