STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT SCARLET SPECS!

[Benoît-Joan Clariana-Roig]

The Ikonoscope is also only a 2k camera with less capabilities all around, why not consider Scarlet for 2k?

Because of the terrible crop factor you will get. It makes most of lenses not usable, unless you're only shooting wildlife and you provide a very good stabilisation. Also the S35 sensor makes focus very problematic for such wildlife shots.

 

[Steven Veldkamp]

RED's choice makes a lot of sense - it recycles EPIC chips, builds in production efficiencies by allowing them to expand their existing lines, and allows them to get these cameras into a lot of hands FAST. It will allow them to focus their resources on 4K delivery systems across the board, that will support all of these cameras. The competition for 4K delivery is beginning to heat up - in my opinion, they should be spending their time capitalizing on a market that they practically single-handedly invented, not worrying about backwards compatability with somebody's old ENG lens sets. They have chosen consistency across their existing product line.

Personally, I've been waiting just as long for REDRay and RED affordable 4K projector as you all have been waiting on a 2/3'' SCARLET - maybe now RED can be done with cameras for awhile and focus on delivery systems to support the thousands of cameras that they have already sold.

RED has made a sensible decision which they believe is best for their business - .

You should probably do the same.

4k was there LONG before Red was in the spotlights.
Dalsa origin, announced in 2003.

The camera had a resolution of approximately 4K (4096x2048). Beyond resolution, the camera was unique in its ability to capture at a very high bit depth. The camera output an uncompressed, RAW Bayer pattern 16-bit image, which was considerably higher than other cameras which are limited to 8, 10 or 12 bits. This resulted in a linear exposure latitude equivalent to more than 13 stops. The images created by the Origin II camera were widely regarded as having more visible resolution and more dynamic range [1] than any other digital cinema camera.

The final configuration of the camera could run 1-30 frames per second. The Origin II camera featured an optical reflex viewing system with rotating mirror similar to 35 mm film cameras and uses standard PL mount 35 mm film gate lenses. The camera was approximately the same size and weight as an average 35 mm film cameras with a 400' magazine.

Just saying.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Heh...all the folks who keep saying, "Scarlet is AMAZING! They gave us MORE than we were expecting!" kind of crack me up. It's like waiting for a new compact roadster to be released and then the company releases a truck instead. You're like, "WOW! This has MUCH more storage room than the roadster we'd been hearing about!!!"

2/3" cameras are single-operator cameras. That's why ENG shooters use them. You can eyeball focus and things usually work out. 35mm cameras are cameras you use when you're shooting with a crew and have time to have your assistant help you set up focus marks and run your actors through the blocking so you can maintain critical focus. These are two completely different applications. The Scarlet was going to be Red's contribution to doc shooters. A large sensor just won't work for that. I mean, I get that it's easier and cheaper for Red to have one line of sensors and one range of cameras, but losing the 2/3" sensor isn't "amazing!"...it's a deal-breaker for those of us who aren't looking to shoot narrative fiction.

Robert,

I've been used to read your posts since dvinfo.net and appreciate them much but, the fact is you can always use a 2/3" part of the sensor as you wish.

That said, I am with the original poster as ever the majority has been.

If you'd take a look on the boards in the weeks before Nov 3rd, you'd easily get what I'm talking about.
They are thousands of posts, even fearing up Scarlet would be a 2/3" camera and with the risk to be not well seen by the brand.

Yet, as your point leaves to hint, to think 2/3" sensor size camera is more affordable is a misconception.

E

 

[Benoît-Joan Clariana-Roig]

Robert,

I've been used to read your posts since dvinfo.net and appreciate them much but, the fact is you can always use a 2/3" part of the sensor as you wish.

Say hello to terrible crop factor and say goodbye to your wide focal length.

 

[David Rasberry]

Say hello to terrible crop factor and say goodbye to your wide focal length.

You can still use 16mm PL mount or B4 glass with PL mount and adapter, something I am considering since I have a full complement of 16mm lenses to play with.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Say hello to terrible crop factor and say goodbye to your wide focal length.

I think David already answered on my behalf

You'd have the same if you'd take 35mm glass as I always heard on here.

If you have EUR1000 in your bank account, you can take EUR500, not the opposite though
(otherwise, ask to the greeks what they think about french banks

BTW c'mon, what would a RED 2/3" sensor be if not a big brother's crop, after all?!

 

[Robert Jackson]

Robert,

I've been used to read your posts since dvinfo.net and appreciate them much but, the fact is you can always use a 2/3" part of the sensor as you wish.

Interesting that you bring up DVInfo. Chris Hurd banned me from DVinfo for posting a sensor test there that was done on Cinematography.net of an early Red One prototype. I felt that the prototype was being dismissed by comparing it to the output of production cameras and made some comments about how unfair it seemed like the test was. The admins at the CML apparently got angry and contacted Chris Hurd saying that the test data was proprietary and he was violating their copyright by allowing a member to repost it, so he banned me and deleted the thread. So yeah, for defending Red I was booted from that list.

Yet, as your point leaves to hint, to think 2/3" sensor size camera is more affordable is a misconception.

Affordability has nothing to do with it. I'd pay more for a 2/3" Scarlet. If the 2/3" sensor was added as a $2000 optional extra on the existing Scarlet-X I'd pay the upcharge for that sensor.

 

[Robert Jackson]

You can still use 16mm PL mount or B4 glass with PL mount and adapter, something I am considering since I have a full complement of 16mm lenses to play with.

But to get down to that windowed size you have to shoot at around 2K and even then you still can't achieve the frame rates that were promised in the original specs for the 2/3" Scarlet.

 

[Enrique Blein]

Imagine that I have a project set for HD delivery (1920x1080). Would the image quality "feel" any changes if I worked with different crops? I could work the "tele" shots with 3K, even 2K if faster frame rates are needed or HDRx. Then, do only the wide shots in 4K, in order to use traditional wide lenses. The data amount would be reduced considerably, but, at 1920x1080, I guess no one would suspect the difference...

 

[Robert Jackson]

Imagine that I have a project set for HD delivery (1920x1080). Would the image quality "feel" any changes if I worked with different crops? I could work the "tele" shots with 3K, even 2K if faster frame rates are needed or HDRx. Then, do only the wide shots in 4K, in order to use traditional wide lenses. The data amount would be reduced considerably, but, at 1920x1080, I guess no one would suspect the difference...

Oversampling for 1080p delivery generally looks better, though. That's why 3K for 1080p was attractive. 4K for 1080p delivery would be even more attractive.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

hi robert, you have two possibilities.
1.buy a si-2k with cineform recording and or the swedish cam.
2. build yourself your dream camera.

and under every single post of jim jannard you can read that specs and delivery dates can change.

so instead of whining (yes, it is what you do) leave this place, which obviously is now dedicated to s35mm 4k+
and get whatever you want. man, whining wont bring the camera you want.
and if the available tools today (65mm,35mm,16mm,red, sony, arri, canon, phantom,ikonoskop etc.) dont allow you to capture what you want, well you should reconsider working in the moving picture industry. what a bad attitude you have. the world is great, grab the available tools and shoot.

 

[Robert Jackson]

and if the available tools today (65mm,35mm,16mm,red, sony, arri, canon, phantom,ikonoskop etc.) dont allow you to capture what you want, well you should reconsider working in the moving picture industry. what a bad attitude you have. the world is great, grab the available tools and shoot.

Pointing out a bait-and-switch isn't really a "bad attitude" in my book. And I have plenty of tools and have done plenty of shooting. And I love pretty much all the formats, from regular 8mm film to Red's Super-35 digital options. I think Red makes wonderful cameras. The disappointment comes in them backing out of making this option available after three years of plugging it relentlessly.

 

[Benoît-Joan Clariana-Roig]

Cüneyt, did you really read Robert's messages ? He's not whining at all but he just only said solid technical arguments. The bad attitude is on your side at that point and I feel sorry for you.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

get over it robert. happened. go out and shoot something nice. this will help you to see the world in a better light again. its not that the world collapsed or so hehe.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

See, this is what Jim Jannard's dismissive tone has done. His sycophants have now concluded that only Super-35 or larger sensors are desirable. Which is a testament to his skill in marketing, but a sad statement about the knowledge of Red's clientele.

To be fair - I don't think Jim did this. This "wave" has come from all the HDSLR shooters who think they are now super Hollywood film makers because they can blur the background. ;-)

 

[Emanuel A.]

I hadn't actually seen it yet. Only now. Boards grow fast

Interesting that you bring up DVInfo. Chris Hurd banned me from DVinfo for posting a sensor test there that was done on Cinematography.net of an early Red One prototype. I felt that the prototype was being dismissed by comparing it to the output of production cameras and made some comments about how unfair it seemed like the test was. The admins at the CML apparently got angry and contacted Chris Hurd saying that the test data was proprietary and he was violating their copyright by allowing a member to repost it, so he banned me and deleted the thread. So yeah, for defending Red I was booted from that list.

I remember to have spent a Christmas holidays season to trade PMs with Barry (Green) to talk about Chris Hurd interventions, so go figure the rest We are who we are. But the only time we were in touch I had the chance to say what I thought about a few of his actions. Didn't send messenger.

And yes, your posts were even subject of discussion, offline

Affordability has nothing to do with it. I'd pay more for a 2/3" Scarlet. If the 2/3" sensor was added as a $2000 optional extra on the existing Scarlet-X I'd pay the upcharge for that sensor.

You, maybe.

But what all of us need is a healthy RED, no less. You have always the SI camera. Nice one. Too much neglected currently, IMHO. And the men behind the project (now a camera academy awarded) are not less professionals than Jim. Davids' Cineform, for example, is a hit in the indie world. Almost as much as Apple's FCP Even if I could never buy SI when Jim is nearby, it is simply not very recommendable

This Scarlet-X announcement has had the merit, as well, to shut up all the doubters I also have nearby ;-)

 

[Emanuel A.]

hi robert, you have two possibilities.
1.buy a si-2k with cineform recording (...)

LOL It looks like our telepathy skills are up (E

 

[Robert Jackson]

You, maybe. But what all of us need is a healthy RED, no less. You have always SI camera. Nice one. Too much neglected currently, IMHO. And the men behind the project (now a camera academy awarded) are not less professionals than Jim. Davids' Cineform, for example, is a hit in the indie world. Almost as much as Apple's FCP Even if I could never buy SI when Jim is nearby, it is not recommendable and this Scarlet-X announcement has shut up all the doubters I also have nearby ;-)

Si makes excellent products. I haven't spent any time with them in the field, but at a couple of NAB shows I lingered in their booth longer than a person should probably linger in a booth at NAB. ;-)

 

[Emanuel A.]

To be fair - I don't think Jim did this. This "wave" has come from all the HDSLR shooters who think they are now super Hollywood film makers because they can blur the background. ;-)

Call him whatever you like but he knows very well what he's doing. My respect is higher than ever. Yes, we can trust in his vision.

My bet is that with Jim or Jarred, RED will always prevail. I was never 'the' fanboy, just a loyal customer. Even if today I could let to be the typical dude for some special reason

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...and-tell-me-it-s-raining.&p=859062#post859062

The majority appreciates it.

Exactly. Majority is measured in numbers. As much as a successful product. Losers have no place in RED program, should not have in RED clientele schedule either.

 

[Cenydd Ros]

See, this is what Jim Jannard's dismissive tone has done. His sycophants have now concluded that only Super-35 or larger sensors are desirable. Which is a testament to his skill in marketing, but a sad statement about the knowledge of Red's clientele.

You see, this is a false accusation. Calling people parrots for expressing their opinion is arrogant. When I said one should move forward rather than backward I meant I wanted a camera that came as close to being, in function and look, to a super 35mm film camera as possible-but at a price I could afford. I want a camera that allows me to use sharp prime lenses at an exact focal length. I want the best resolution I can get. And I don't want to pay $60,000 if I can help. Saying people are parrots is a sad reflection alright. Egocent6ic and flat out disingenuous. I don't want to argue, but being called a mimic and ignorant is BS.