Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

vote for 3k interchangeable, scarlet-x is not future proof either

J Davis

J Davis

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
1,267
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NYC
I feel that an interchangeable 3k brain would sell well and turn a profit and I would like to see RED put it back on the agenda

I don't think it should be scrapped because it is not 'future proof'

I would also like to point out that the scarlet-x is not future proof either since it resolves 3.2k from 4k capture when at 24p /25p

edit:
this thread is not about the scarlet fixed - jim posted that it has been scrapped because it is 3k
and it also has a fatal flaw in that its lens will not hold focus thru the zoom range.
So this thread is about the interchangeable.
 
A further profit margin for 3k 2/3 interchangeable. With a pix240 to DNxHD or prores these cams would take over football which is kodaks biggest buyer of 16mm film stock.
There's huge revenue in sports and TV for this brain.
 
Just before someone start voting, I would like to ask Davis... would you buy interchangeable 3k brain if it is $9900?
 
Okay okay okay. Everybody calm down. Nobody knows if 2/3"s is dead in Red land yet. They may decide to release something down the line that might be called something else.

Scarlet just transformed into camera more geared towards high end motion picture use.

Nothing in the motion picture camera world is future proof. This is an industry that has always pushed and paved the way for new technology. What we shoot with today will not be what we use in 50 years.

4k has been the past, the present, and the future of where the industry is going. Delivery is key. 4k will make you money if you decide to work with it as well.
 
I voted for Scarlet-X with my order already.

I doubt that the 2/3 interchangeable will be feasible without volume the fixed lens unit would have added to the product line.

Unless Red chooses to go after the niche ENG market, but then don't expect 3K for 3 or 6K...
 
Dave_S said:
Just before someone start voting, I would like to ask Davis... would you buy interchangeable 3k brain if it is $9900?
Click to expand...

+1

Hehe.. At first glance I thought Dave wrote "Just before some start vomiting". That would be fitting, too, in a way. ;)
 
Jarek Zabczynski said:
Eh...the Scarlet is very future proof. What do you think the Dragon upgrade is?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. You wanna lay out the details for all of us? Because some here apparently think it means the camera's basic hardware will up upgraded to accommodate much faster bus speeds and higher frame rates while I just don't have any idea at all.
 
Kyle, please don't get me wrong(because from your posts it seems you get majority of the things wrong), it seems price point is bothering you more than the resolution. when the whole camera industry is moving forward why would you like to go backward and if you really want 3k. buy epic x today and use it in 3k mode and max frame rates. regarding learning/needing Red history lesson... Red definitely knows that who passed and who failed. I still wish you all the best and good luck with your passion and dreams. I thank Jarred, Jim and the whole Red team to give us ordinary people a wonderful camera to make a pro quality movie, which until now was just a dream.
 
Dave, I just thought your post was a little silly. $9900 for a 3k camera vs. or $9700 for a 4k+ camera. Come on, that's just a bit patronizing. I have been here quite a bit longer than you, Dave. If you want to tell me that the majority of my posts are "wrong," you should start by reading all of my posts from 2007-present. :-)
 
I vote no. I don't want to see Red look back. I have been grilling Jim over the contradictory "4k is the future and it is today" while gushing over how cool the 3k Scarlet was. I am very glad they came around and realized than 2/3rds and 3k just don't cut it. You can always window the sensor if you want small sensor characteristics, but you can't make a small sensor grow. The same is true of resolution. You can scale down just fine if needed (and even improve the image quality over shooting native 1080p), good luck scaling up from 3k capture to 4k output!

Save the extra cash. Cut down on other expenses until you can buy the more expensive model that has now been revealed. It will ultimately be in your best interest to do so.
 
Kyle, mate, I just put $9900 based on canon logic. look what they are charging for their outdated plastic box.
 
Kyle Presley said:
Dave, I just thought your post was a little silly. $9900 for a 3k camera vs. or $9700 for a 4k+ camera. Come on, that's just a bit patronizing.
Click to expand...

Depends. They traded a 3K camera that could shoot at 120 fps at its native resolution for a 5K camera that can shoot at 12 fps at its native resolution. I'd pay extra for the one that wasn't just a crippled version of the Epic.
 
Dave_S said:
Just before someone start voting, I would like to ask Davis... would you buy interchangeable 3k brain if it is $9900?
Click to expand...

lol ... knowing my luck they will bring it back and I'll still be priced out !!! It would still make others happy though.
 
Even though it would be rather obscure... Part of me still wishes that Scarlet was a 4K Super16 camera. Not 2/3", but S16.
 
NFL Films needn't be married to the 16mm frame size. I wouldn't be suprised at all to see them move to digital S35 in the near future.

They use what speed film stock, 500 ASA? With S35 digital delivering 800 and 1000 ASA equivalents, they could shoot Epic windowed at 2k, get similar focal length/FOV and DOF to what they are used to stopped down, and deliver in a fraction of the time.

I don't pretend to know all of their requirements, but I would be surprised if digital S35 were not a serious contender for them, particularly considering the frame rates now on the table with Epic.
 
Robert Jackson said:
Depends. They traded a 3K camera that could shoot at 120 fps at its native resolution for a 5K camera that can shoot at 12 fps at its native resolution. I'd pay extra for the one that wasn't just a crippled version of the Epic.
Click to expand...

Yep, if I had the money I would choose the Scarlet over the Epic lite any day of the week.
 
RED's decision about the 2/3" was probably cause of a variety of limitations: technical problems with the 8x fixed zoom, but also custom ASICs for the 2/3 chip that needed to be developped, tested, bug-free for release, etc.

Like car manufacturers who rely on a single platform for multiple models, it was probably an economic choice on RED's part to streamline their products so that one assembly can build two price tiered models.

Do I want the 2/3" interchangeable, YES. But I wouldn't be surprised if it cost just as much as the S35 Scarlet X.

Its the chips, stupid! (referring to nobody in particular, just a Clinton era phrase).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top