Scarlet gets injured straddling two sides of the fence

[antiquaeuropa]

Okay, question. What are the cinema crowd (I sincerely don't know, cinema is not my route), who are looking at cameras in this price range, or even triple this price range, using now? Let's say sub-$10,000 cameras... what are the cinema people offered in camera choices now?

The current cinema crowd on the cheap has to put up with 35mm adapters which cause all sorts of tedious crap. A 2/3" chip at 2.8 offers very little improvement in DoF over a 1/2" chip at 1.9, so the adapter-bit for the cinema crowd will stay for some time longer.

The reason that I think that movies made with Scarlet won't be very good is because someone with the necessary vision, passion, and drive to make a good movie should be able to figure out how to obtain access to a Red One and also understand why it is a much better choice.

But again God bless all of you who are in love with Scarlet. It won't bother me in the slightest if it gives all of the big Japanese manufacture's a massive heart attack.

 

[dvazp]

well said Antiguaeuropa, us local population in poor italy no need quality. so me buy scarlet, you buy epic!!

I don't think he meant Italy. Italy is certainly not a poor country, although television in Italy is even worse than in my native Spain.

I think he means countries where a high proportion of people actually go hungry.

 

[robbo]

The current cinema crowd on the cheap has to put up with 35mm adapters which cause all sorts of tedious crap. A 2/3" chip at 2.8 offers very little improvement in DoF over a 1/2" chip at 1.9, so the adapter-bit for the cinema crowd will stay for some time longer.

The reason that I think that movies made with Scarlet won't be very good is because someone with the necessary vision, passion, and drive to make a good movie should be able to figure out how to obtain access to a Red One and also understand why it is a much better choice.

But again God bless all of you who are in love with Scarlet. It won't bother me in the slightest if it gives all of the big Japanese manufacture's a massive heart attack.

I bet there's some very keen experienced people who will make a commercial release in the big ticket arena - using Scarlet exclusively to prove the point that it's not all about Dof - sheesh.

I bet they will NOT use adapters. Standard camera - creatively used.

Any takers ?
A box of kiwi chocolate fish (around 50 in the box, if my kids don't get to them first ) shipped to your door.

 

[robbo]

Not sure who you are replying to billyray - but there was an excellent suggestion from cholo.

Different Scarlets - wide and long. Maybe another in between - heck I don't know - up to Red. If the interchangeable lens can't/won't happen.
I thought it was a great suggestion.

I know exactly what you're saying with the hvx and any fixed lens cam up until this point - always in nowheresville. Either too wide or not wide enough. Always compromised.

 

[billyray]

What the...? What do you know about the lens? Why are you assuming it completely sucks? Do you think RED would have 3K resolution with a plastic lens?

I didn't say a thing about a plastic, low def lens, or needing to use prime lenses for that matter. I'm sure the quality of the glass is fine...but I am surprised that RED would propose 3K resolution with an 8x lens that can't be swapped for something wider or longer. I simply think that an 8x isn't enough range for the type of shooting I do...no matter how good the glass is. The HVX200 has the same problem. It's not wide enough and it's not long enough and you can't take it off. That is a weak spot in that camera and I was hoping Scarlet wouldn't make the same mistake. I love Scarlet's potential. A Red One, while well-suited for cinema, is not a great run and gun news/documentary camera (so I've read)...so I was hoping Scarlet might be adaptable to fill that niche. But with a fixed 8x lens, it won't do the job as well as it could. If I had the option to mount my own lens, like any other pro camera, it might...and I'm willing to pay more for that choice. What's wrong with that. You need to lighten up. I'm not being critical of RED, I'm just offering some feedback to make Scarlet even better...and I don't mind if it means paying more.

 

[robbo]

Hey - how did that happen - weird ...

My post to you - is now above your original ???

wtf .. anyways ...

 

[billyray]

I realized I forgot the quote so I pulled my original and re-posted...yours snuck in between in the meantime! Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Sounds like some of us are broadcasters who are hoping that Scarlet will adapt to the daily grind. I have faith that Red will consider our feedback and work on the lens issue.

 

[robbo]

Yeah - seriously.

Man, Gibby swings in from time to time to keep things real.
Some of the precious "cine" attitudes here are really ... well, what do I say ...

We are live, folks - no time to fcuk up.
I don't mean to belittle anybody or anything - just that if some people have have never been in a live environment - well, it's just different ...

 

[David Wyatt]

Scarlet just blows away the competition - what other camera for even double the money can do 120 fps in 3K. It's a struggle to find an affordable camera that will do 1080p at just 50fps - we're talking about 120fps in 3K!! 120fps footage will knock your socks off (this is a whole different kettle of fish to doing 50fps...it's proper slo-mo! It looks great on the Red One and that's only at 2K with more compression than Scarlet. And it's not just any 3K but RedCode RAW 3K, not some inferior HDV/AVCHD codec that falls apart as soon as you touch it! We're talking Graeme Natress here!!). 3K also intercuts a lot better with 4K footage than 2K (I think it amounts to nearly half the resolution of 4K), so Scarlet would even make sense as a crash cam for 4K shoots where you want to rig a camera in weird and wonderful places.

What other 2/3rd inch cameras are out there for $3,000? Try none. What other cameras are out there for $3000? The Sony FX1 lol - a consumer camera, not even prosumer. In a death match Scarlet murders the FX1...messily...complete mismatch...

I think Red have created a Frankenstein-like monster with their affordable digital cinema cameras - now people are demanding ridiculous things for no money and getting upset when they bring out an expensive camera like Epic which is still vastly cheaper then the competition. It makes your realize how many jokers there are out there & this will only magnify the more Red aims at the cheaper end of the market. Industry professionals tend to know what the worth of a camera is whereas some prosumers can have unrealistic ideas of what is possible for a $3,000 camera where you still want to turn a profit at the end of the day.

Just look at the competition and their pricing and realize what an incredible deal Red is. Go & buy 2 Scarlets for the price of one EX1!! Like the Red One it's an astonishing price for what it can do. A lot of people that are whingeing about Scarlet probably haven't even seen proper Red footage yet (at 2K or 3K on a high def screen, or projected on a 2K projector, or even transferred to 35mm film) - if Scarlet is anything like Red One the images will knock your socks off and make you laugh out loud at the so-called competitors. When you're sitting there watching your 3K footage filmed at 120fps with 100MB/sec (totally) visually lossless compression, pat yourself on the back for making a good decision. Or alternatively buy the FX1...

 

[pietro jona]

dvazp,

i was just kidding. actually i was really thinking what i said somehow, the tv quality in italy is simply sinking..
as for making films with scarlet, many good films and documentaries i've loved have been shot with pd150s, dvx100s and z1s. my only concern will be storage (as it would with p2s and other cards), the rest is just perfect!

 

[Cisaro]

This is a flame I understand in the modirators take it down, but I AM GOING NUTS AT ALL THIS DICK BAGERY! I thought we were past all this bollocks, but no. Every new product must have the crusading which burning loonies come after it. ONE OTHER THING! AGHHHHHHH

(At least not in the US. . . I do understand that other people in poorer countries around the world would not see it this way, but these people have the advantage that their local population does not have such an high expectation of quality for their local cinema as Americans have.) .

King of the doosh bags.

Here is why this Cam will be excellent for its target market. Which isn't you because your a twat!

2/3" - This is good! NOT BAD GOOD! why is it good I here you asking.
Having the 2/3" chip will save you arse when it comes time to pull focus.
I don't know about you but once I've had a few beers and groupies are about pulling focus kind of slips my mind!
Also 2/3" is near enough 16mm.

1-120 FPS (180FPS BURST) - WTF! WTF! Need I say more WTF!

WI-FI CONTROL - Dear good man they are actually thinking the thing through, and I doubt this is going to be some lame little TV remote. I put money on this sucker having a focus dial so I can actually pull focus properly. I only have one request for the WI-FI control and that is that the zoom section be removable from the focus, iris and record on and off section.

The market for this camera will following bands, doing doco's, also I bet its going to see a hell of a lot journalist work if it stays as small as they say, and all sorts of other craperly light cinema. And it will do well. I'm buying at least one and if it kicks as much but as I think it will I'll get 2 or 3.

I'm down with more lens punch, I would love everyone at Red till I'm gray and old if it can go from some where near 18mm to some where near 300mm. I will even get my girl friend to be a surrogate mother for any of the Red team that are infertile, and the good thing is shes hot and artsy, shes also cute, but she doesn't let that get in the way of her hotness. So if the kid got a bit of her DNA it wouldn't be all that bad. I'd surrogate but my whole lacking a womb makes it a little bit hard. I guess the other flaw in my offer is some one around Red needs to be barren or have a barren spouse-lover-girl or, possibly be gay and seeking children!... anyone gay??

*rustling in bushes* h34r: Cisaro - "Aghh Red Ninja!" Red Ninja - "You shut up now~!" *slash* *thud*

 

[jpp]

The reason that I think that movies made with Scarlet won't be very good is because someone with the necessary vision, passion, and drive to make a good movie should be able to figure out how to obtain access to a Red One and also understand why it is a much better choice.

You're right to the extent that anyone who chooses to shoot with Scarlet or any low cost camera is unlikely to have much money to spend on the rest of the production. So it's reasonable to expect that most features shot on Scarlet and all other low-cost cameras won't offer high-level production values or great performances.

But your claim here is still mind-boggling. If you're going to argue that anyone with the gumption to make movies will find his or her way to a better camera, you might as well abandon the whole idea of alternative non-commercial films.

You could, if you wanted, argue that the whole "democracy film making" movement is a sham, that access to the tools of production has very little to do with making films, without a large production budget. But in that case Red is no different from Scarlet. If low and ultra low budget film making is delusional as a business or artistic model, it doesn't really matter if you rent a $40K Red, or a buy a $3K camera, or spend $40K on film stock and processing. Your under-funded production will still face exactly the same challenges, and the difference between 3K and 4K, and 2/3" DoF and 35mm DoF should be the least of your worries.

 

[kmikami]

But your claim here is still mind-boggling. If you're going to argue that anyone with the gumption to make movies will find his or her way to a better camera, you might as well abandon the whole idea of alternative non-commercial films.

I think it's pretty clear that antiqueuropa doesn't have any interest in or knowledge of independent filmmaking.

 

[David Wyatt]

King of the doosh bags.

Here is why this Cam will be excellent for its target market. Which isn't you because your a twat!

Guys, a lot of you on the Scarlet forum appear to be new to RedUser - this is a site for professionals, there's no need to trade insults (this isn't like the comments pages on imdb.com!!) If you don't agree with someone, fair enough, say so, but there's no need for insults. It just becomes really tiresome for the rest of us to read and I've noticed a real descent into this recently. Read the rules on conduct:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10761

&

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12075

 

[dvazp]

You could, if you wanted, argue that the whole "democracy film making" movement is a sham.

I do think it's a bit of a sham, but not in the way you suggest. I think that it's a way to sell a lot of expensive equipment to a lot of people who do not have the know-how, or maybe lack the talent, or maybe simply lack the necessary drive and willpower to make worthwhile films. But by telling us we can have the tools to be great filmmakers we are easily deluded into thinking that if we have the tools our talent will shine through.

But the reality is that if we really could make a good film, we could make it on a $500 camera and edit it on our PC with a pirate version of Avid Xpress or Vegas or something.

When I first started working in television I thought, yeah, I'm going to make amazing documentaries, I'm going to be a legend: Phil Agland watch out, here I come! Then I started learning. I learnt how to do all the things an AP does (research, development, etc...) plus technical skills such as editing on FCP and Avid, and shooting with camera. Then I had this really good idea for a documentary: a really good character, a moving story with political significance, beautiful locations... But I realised I don't really know how to put a story together, how to get all these really interesting elements and put them together in a way which is interesting for the viewer.

My point being that if I was a good storyteller I could probably put together an interesting documentary with hardly any money. But instead I've spent money on things that will make my product look more professional, but it will still lack substance because I'm lacking the most important skill of all: storytelling.

And if you notice, most of the products we're sold are not going to improve our storytelling: they're just going to make our films look better.

Nothing against Red, or Canon, or Avid or Apple or whoever we buy stuff from. They provide a product/service and we choose to pay for it. But will the Scarlet (or any other techno item) really make us better filmmakers? Or will it just give us the illusion that we are better filmmakers?

 

[jpp]

I do think it's a bit of a sham, but not in the way you suggest.... But the reality is that if we really could make a good film, we could make it on a $500 camera and edit it on our PC with a pirate version of Avid Xpress or Vegas or something..... My point being that if I was a good storyteller I could probably put together an interesting documentary with hardly any money. But instead I've spent money on things that will make my product look more professional, but it will still lack substance because I'm lacking the most important skill of all: storytelling.

You're treading on forbidden ground here! This is the one thing that's never supposed to be spoken aloud, and the lack of storytelling skills is as true of the technically competent people in this medium as it is of the rankest beginners and ignoramuses.

It should be self-evident that telling a story requires as much specialized skill as composing a string quartet or painting a realistic portrait, but the movie business being what it is, with absolute trash sometimes achieving wild success, it's hard to make the argument persuasively, for anyone who doesn't want to hear it.

 

[casals]

Bottom line if you would have the opportunity to get this camera tomorrow for 3000 and take it home, would you take it?
It is a new step in a different direction, Way too cool. Also I believe this camera is going to be an excellent way of understanding and learning the new technologies. For those of us that haven´t had yet the opportunity to play with raw on video and how to make a good use of 3k it´s deffinetly closing some gaps by making new bridges. Two thumbs up.

 

[hard8]

I have been coveting a Red One since I first saw it when it was a foam mock up. It would have been the only camera to get me out of post and back into shooting. But I just couldn't swing $30k for the set up I wanted. I work mostly in commercials so there isn't a ton of shooting on an annual basis.

Then I saw this. That's it. I'm sold. It's perfect for what I would need it for and at $3k I might actually be able to buy some nice add ons and have a pro rig to do my shoots.

I am curious. The only drawback for me would be the fixed glass. Is it unreasonable to assume that someone isn't going to make a PL converter for it? I would think that if RED doesn't, someone will.

Even if they didn't, with that kind of resolution, I could fake most lens distortions in Shake. I'd just have to do a bit more post work to fake the DOF, but I'm doing that now with HVX source.

This is exciting to say the least. I'll take 2 right now.

 

[antiquaeuropa]

If you're going to argue that anyone with the gumption to make movies will find his or her way to a better camera, you might as well abandon the whole idea of alternative non-commercial films.

Why is that?

I have not addressed commercial v. non-commercial at all. A non-commercial film might be quite expensive if some philanthropist donated enough money for it.

I do firmly believe that a movie with rather high production values and great performance can be made for vastly less money today than even a few years ago. However, there is a minimum barrier to entry. I do not think that Scarlet cuts it quality-wise. Disagree? Super. Go make a great movie with it, and then let me know. I will go watch it.

I have watched a shocking number of movies at all budget levels and am usually least impressed at the extremes of the budget range. One of the more watchable on the cheap end was "Open Water." It looked pretty bad and cheap, but I will admit that it was more interesting to watch than some much better looking and more expensive pictures. It was made for about 130k. How much money would be needed to make an "Open Water" with fairly high production values today with the Red One? (BTW, they used some pretty cheap Sony DV cameras.) I am not sure exactly, but I will guess that I could do it for less than 1/2 million.

You will not be able to make a movie for $0.00 that will be worth a damn. I am sorry if that is a shock to you-- you may call me a snob or elitist if you like! However, you can in fact make a movie for relatively little money compared to the studios. How little is possible? I don't know; go prove it. Would "Open Water" on Scarlet look much better? Surely. Would the same on Red One look many times better still? My opinion is that it would look vastly better. Is the increased cost of Red One justified even in the low budget range? For me, absolutely. I do not know what any of your ideas for movies are, or how you want them to look. However, I can say that Scarlet will not give me what I am interested in.

 

[jpp]

I do not think that Scarlet cuts it quality-wise. Disagree? Super. Go make a great movie with it, and then let me know. I will go watch it.

Since no one has seen this camera perform, I don't on what basis you're making that claim. You might need a few other resources, but assuming you have them, it's very hard to believe that the camera in and of itself would be the main obstacle to greatness, unless its defects are so overwhelming that the dramatic illusion is shattered. You might as well say that no one can make a great film with 16mm. Or with 35mm film stocks as they were in 1933. What's "sufficient" in your view? And what do you base that judgment on? The history of cinema, and its variety of formats and iimage quality? Or just personal preferences?

You will not be able to make a movie for $0.00 that will be worth a damn. I am sorry if that is a shock to you-- you may call me a snob or elitist if you like!

I know exactly what it costs to make a movie, and you don't shock me. Nobody is talking about making a film for nothing, although in theory that's also possible.

The issue here is the camera. If there's a reason great films can't be made with it, you have yet to specify one.