Space between Scarlet and RED ONE

[Joel Kaye]

bottom line is you're looking at a RED one .. you want the price to be between Scarlet & Red one ... IMO that would be a used Red in about 1 -1 1/2 years from now ...

In another brilliant move by RED:

Since any RED ONE has a $17,500 credit towards an EPIC the value of a RED ONE is virtually locked in at $15k+ as there will be a ready market of EPIC buyers that will want to save a couple thousand dollars on their purchase provided they have no RED to trade in.

RED would be stupid to change this policy frankly. I'd leave that deal out there indefinitely. It locks in the value of a RED ONE which only makes the company look like a better investment to potential buyers and it shields current owners. Talk about building Good Will. It also takes REDs off the street and turns them into EPICs. Brilliant I tellya.

 

[mralmostpopular]

I don't want to be rude, but seems like You are in a wrong thread. This thread is not about Scarlet, and certainly not about whether the choice of putting the fixed lens on it was right or wrong - there are plenty of threads dedicated to that...

This thread is about possible new camera that will fit between Scarlet and Red One.

Also - Scarlet is what it is - and it is revolutionary. Same way HV20 was, and I am not trying to compare the specs between the two. What we are looking for here is something what XL-H1 is to HV20, but for Scarlet. A bigger sister if I may. But not too big as to compete with Red One...

Two things. First, this is the Scarlett section of the red one forum. Second, my post was about how you're judging the camera before you've even seen it. People are bashing red for not making a red one at a lower price. Technology comes at a price, and there was an earlier post in this thread that was right. You will never be satisfied with the price.

Honestly, how nice of a product do you think you would get with a lens you got off your DSLR (anywhere from $200-2000)? If you were really that tight on a budget that you couldn't afford to buy/rent a RED One, you are most likely not going to be able to afford the type of lenses that would satisfy you in picture/image quality. I've seen the stuff shot on the HV20 that looks nice as well, and much of the really nice stuff was done using really nice lenses that you aren't going to find at your local Ritz camera. I'm certainly not saying that these are the lenses that you use, but they are probably the kind of lenses that most of the people who bought an in-between camera would use were a camera like this to exist.

The RED One is what the XL-H1 is to the HV20. RED has no reason at the moment to make a camera at the price point you want with the specs you want. I certainly understand where you are coming from, but you're talking about a much smaller market than you think. And such a product would distract away from sales of the RED One, and they need to sell a steady number of their products in order to keep the price so low.

 

[billyray]

Hit the nail on the head

Hit the nail on the head

I think Scarlet is perfect for what it is. The problem is that there are many who needs something between Scarlet and RED ONE. Do not try to tell RED how "wrong" they are with some Scarlet's features (etc), because they are not. Scarlet is exactly what it is and there is a huge market for such a camera....

RED ONE is designed for "PRO" filmmaking (please don't get started on attacking what "PRO" actually means - we all know what I am trying to say) and is out of reach for many advanced indies and people with limited budgets.

There is a void between Scarlet and RED ONE.

Thanks Peter, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Somewhere between RED ONE and Scarlet is a market for a camera that would be better suited for documentary/news/sports/wildlife/higher-end corporate/lower-end commercial/work. The Scarlet has the appropriate feature set less the ability to mount a decent ENG/EFP zoom lens. For the indies that need a 3K/$3K camera, don't change the Scarlet...it sounds perfect. But for those of us freelancers that make a living shooting a variety genres but can't justify a RED ONE (for various reasons), how about some R&D on a camera that would fill the void.

 

[kmikami]

Kmikami - please read all posts in this thread and You will realize that we are talking about 3K Scarlet's internals coupled with 35mm sensor (3K, not 4K like RED ONE) for bellow $10K - nothing like Red One, yet very realistic.

I understand. The differences from Scarlet would be:
- a physically larger chip (+$2000?)
- a lens mount added in place of the fixed lens (let's say it's a wash price wise)
- remove all auto features (no $ change)
- make the body physically larger to accommodate the new sensor and lens size (+$500 in additional metalwork)
- increased power supply, heatsinking, etc. for the larger chip ($?)
- possibly a better LCD to focus with the 35mm dof ($?)

So let's say that puts us at a $5500 price point. But that's based on Scarlet level economies of scale when in reality this camera will serve a much smaller niche market. So double the price again and we get somewhere around a $10k camera which I guess is what you're asking for.

That's a weird price point though because it takes away some of the Red One buyers and yet it's not really competitive price-wise with some of the $5k cameras coupled with one of the cheaper 35mm dof adapters. Let alone a scarlet with 35mm adapter.

Red could always design a camera with an integrated spinning ground glass design to fit this in between segment. But again, it's a pretty small segment. The DOF stuff is way overblown among the less knowledgeable end of the market. I expect a lot of the cry for "35mm dof" will dissolve when people get their hands on Scarlet.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

And what 35mm-sized single-sensor digital cine camera were you using before that cost less than a RED ONE for your professional indie work?

RED ONE was the answer for indie filmmakers who wanted such a camera without paying the $60,000 for a Varicam or $90,000 for an F900, which aren't even 35mm-sensor cameras.

But now people basically want a professional 35mm-quality camera for the cost of a high-end prosumer camera like an HVX200?

Why not start giving away RED ONE's for free? Afterall, there must be some indie filmmakers who can't afford a $2000 camera, let alone a $10,000 camera. At what point does this start to become greed, this belief that every indie filmmaker deserves maximum Hollywood-level 35mm picture quality for consumer DV prices, that a Scarlet or HVX200 or Sony XDCAM EX is not "good enough" for their low-budget productions, which are so low that they can't afford to use a RED ONE?

We're talking about wanting the equivalent of 35mm quality for Super-8 prices, because shooting 16mm is even too expensive for someone who can't afford to shoot on the RED ONE.

Within a few years we've gone from being amazed to see consumer HDTV cameras that do 24P for a few thousand dollars... to thinking even that's not good enough, now we need 35mm-sensor cameras for the same prices. Maybe RED has no one to blame but themselves for lowering the price barrier so dramatically that people want them to lower it even more. The RED ONE, in a "normal" professional camera market, would be selling for twice its price at least, but now people want basically the same basic features in a camera that costs half of the RED ONE.

 

[oldphart]

And what 35mm-sized single-sensor digital cine camera were you using before that cost less than a RED ONE for your professional indie work?

...
Within a few years we've gone from being amazed to see consumer HDTV cameras that do 24P for a few thousand dollars... to thinking even that's not good enough, now we need 35mm-sensor cameras for the same prices. Maybe RED has no one to blame but themselves for lowering the price barrier so dramatically that people want them to lower it even more. The RED ONE, in a "normal" professional camera market, would be selling for twice its price at least, but now people want basically the same basic features in a camera that costs half of the RED ONE.

And all these cheap consumer cameras are pretty good except for their lenses - and they have tiny sensors.

What some people do not seem to understand, is that the cost of any kind of chip depends much more on the size than on the complexity. This is the way it is for memory, this is the way it is for microprocessors and this is the way it is for imaging chips. The cost for processing a wafer in a given process is the same no matter what is on it. You can fit more small chips on a wafer, so there will be more sensors to share that cost.

Another factor is that a smaller chip will use less power than a big one. Add these factors, and a 35mm Scarlet-derivative would be a lot more expensive (and probably bigger) than the Scarlet.

There is, however, an obvious opening between One and Scarlet. A 9-10k USD Scarlet-sized fully manual body without a lens would probably find a market without changing sensor or electronics.

 

[Joel Kaye]

And what 35mm-sized single-sensor digital cine camera were you using before that cost less than a RED ONE for your professional indie work?

It's always nice to see the voice of reason further clarify what appears to be obvious but apparently is not.

Saying Ferrari would sell a lot more if they were only $8,000 is not news. Pricing is always about the competitive landscape for a given feature set and not as much about what would sell a zillion units.

 

[kmikami]

What some people do not seem to understand, is that the cost of any kind of chip depends much more on the size than on the complexity.

Also, what are the one time, fixed startup costs to fabricate a new chip? And what does that amount to per-camera over the lifespan of the product?

Red One might sell 2000 cameras per year and Scarlet may sell 10,000 cameras in its first year but this in-between camera might only sell 4000 units. There are probably some fixed setup costs that are similar for each chip regardless of size and R&D costs. Those costs are amortized over a much bigger number of Scarlets than they would be for this theoretical in-between camera.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Don't get me wrong, I think such a camera (35mm-single sensor digital cine camera for under $10,000) will eventually appear on the market, given current trends -- it just won't happen fast enough for some people.

RED already made a two-year (at least) leap over the competition by coming out with the RED ONE, so asking them to make another two-year leap over themselves is asking a bit much...

 

[Chris Kenny]

There is, however, an obvious opening between One and Scarlet. A 9-10k USD Scarlet-sized fully manual body without a lens would probably find a market without changing sensor or electronics.

This is much more technically plausible, but the problem is lenses. You wouldn't really want to standardize on B4 lenses, because they're designed for three chip cameras. You can't use SLR lenses, because they're designed for sensors 4x the size. Super 16 cine glass would be ideal, but it's expensive, to the point where it would quickly become cheaper to spend the extra money for a Red One which, with its larger sensor, does let you use SLR glass.

 

[Isaac Brody]

Jim already addressed this:

Just buy a RED ONE and you have every option you are all asking for.

Here is the missing point... for us to sell this package at this price, we have to sell A LOT of them. That means it has to be able to be used by many. Like it or not, that means a version that is fully auto. Interchangeable lenses means a different product that will sell in limited quantities... which means a higher price. Much higher.

This is a camera that can be sold in large quantities and deliver Pro performance at the same time.

Jim

It just doesn't make sense to create something in between Red and Scarlet, since it would basically gut the Red One market. I mean it makes sense for us the consumer to have something for cheaper, but it seems unrealistic.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Don't get me wrong, I think such a camera (35mm-single sensor digital cine camera for under $10,000) will eventually appear on the market, given current trends -- it just won't happen fast enough for some people.

RED already made a two-year (at least) leap over the competition by coming out with the RED ONE, so asking them to make another two-year leap over themselves is asking a bit much...

Right. And who else would make this product? Doubtful it will be any of the major players. They'll stick with easy to use consumer-ish products that benefit from retail distribution.

If someone else comes along they'll need to solve the workflow.

Given the way SI2k has used Cineform and the new Adobe Digital Raw standard emerging it seems plausible a smaller player could do it. But RED really sits in the best spot to do it when they see fit to obsolete RED and crunch it's value. And if I was them I'd wait for the day a legitimate competitor jumped into the market RED created. How long that'll be God only knows. Years certainly.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, but remember that the SI2K has a 2/3" sensor and sells for about $30,000 I think... I was impressed when the Sony XDCAM EX came out with 1/2" sensors for $6000, so the Scarlet with 2/3" sensors for even less is a miracle.

Besides, the extra 2.5-stops of depth of field from a 2/3" sensor will probably be a godsend for indie shooters making narrative features without professional focus-pullers... Just has the extra depth of field with Super-16 has some benefits for people working fast. No one is going to think your indie movie looks less professional because it has the depth of field equivalent of shooting 35mm a little over f/5.6 when you shoot at f/2.8 on a 2/3" sensor camera... but it will look less professional if it has a lot of focus-pulling mistakes in it.

 

[kmikami]

You also have to consider that once Scarlet and Epic come out, the Red One is the middle camera. There are a lot of ways that could play out. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a price cut in a few years. If not, perhaps the Red One will be discontinued, the Epic will take over the high end, and the Red One's successor will be positioned more comfortably in between Scarlet and Epic. But I don't think we should expect anything until after Scarlet and Epic are released. Think 2010.

 

[Joel Kaye]

No one is going to think your indie movie looks less professional because it has the depth of field equivalent of shooting 35mm a little over f/5.6 when you shoot at f/2.8 on a 2/3" sensor camera... but it will look less professional if it has a lot of focus-pulling mistakes in it.

You make a great point as to how Scarlet already may be a competitor to RED.

Add RedCode raw with potentially more dynamic range than RED and you have exactly why I may sell RED for 2 Scarlets if they truly perform. It's a cool little camera. And it really wasn't on my radar screen until I saw it at NAB.

The only thing I wonder about is the FOV. I like the feel of a wider shot that has some sense of shallower DOF. I notice it bouncing between 3K and 4K on RED.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There is always something better coming out "down the road" -- you'll go nuts thinking about it. This is why you should aways buy the camera as late as possible, just before you need it, and then don't worry about something better coming out later. You have to make the movie with the technology at hand; people understand that. Given an opportunity -- the momentum -- to make a movie, the funding, the cast, the locations, etc. all in place... you don't squander the opportunity by sitting on your hands waiting for better technology to come out later, you make do with what's available. Having the latest and greatest technology does not make you a filmmaker, making movies is what makes you a filmmaker. Don't start thinking that the camera makes the movie; it's just a tool and movies are made all the time with tools of different qualities. One of the best movies to come out last year was "Once", shot on consumer video equipment. Even if it would have looked "better" if the director had waited a few years for the Scarlet to come along, that's not the point. He made a good movie with what was available. He can use a better camera for his next movie if he wants to...

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

I tend to disagree here. Look at the number of filmmakers as the "application" goes up:

(This is not to scale - just to make the point):

X - filmmakers who shoot "hollywood" style budgets (EPIC)
XX - filmakers who shoot features, but not "hollywood" style (EPIC/RED ONE)
XXXX - filmmakers who shoot "PRO" on reasonable budget (RED ONE)
XXXXXXX - filmakers who shoot "PRO" on limited budget (RED ONE/ ???)
XXXXXXXXXXX - "semi-pro" filmmakers (???)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - targeted Scarlet audience

The "X" are not digits, just to make point of scale - which is:

The number of people who will buy EPIC is going to be very limited (my guess in hundreds or lower thousands)
Number of RED ONE's are going to be exponentially large (thousands and maybe lower tens-of-thousands) and so on for ??? with Scarlet potentially selling hundreds-of-thousands units...

I disagree with most of this, and I'll bet Jim Jannard would, too. Scarlet was conceived as a professional camera, period. It has a fixed lens for reasons that Jim has already explained. It has a 3K resolution, which far exceeds broadcast specifications (and will for probably 10 to 15 years), let alone consumer demands. You've placed Scarlet below "semi-pro" and have projected sales of possibly hundreds of thousands of units. I just don't see it happening. Twenty thousand, maybe. Aside from the price (too high for all but the most well-heeled soccer moms and dads), the workflow, even if simpler and more idiotproof than that of Red One, will probably be something that most people won't put up with.

 

[oldphart]

This is much more technically plausible, but the problem is lenses. You wouldn't really want to standardize on B4 lenses, because they're designed for three chip cameras. You can't use SLR lenses, because they're designed for sensors 4x the size. Super 16 cine glass would be ideal, but it's expensive, to the point where it would quickly become cheaper to spend the extra money for a Red One which, with its larger sensor, does let you use SLR glass.

I do not see lenses as a problem for that kind of camera, I see that camera as an opportunity to use available lenses!

Using Leica(or VistaVision)-frame (24x36mm) lenses with the One is not much different from using half-frame DSLR lenses for s-16. Or even Red primes, which could be practical for those who would buy the in-between in order to have a small secondary camera. It is workable for the telephoto end of the range.

Last I looked, good s-16 lenses were a lot less expensive than the same in a s-35 version. You can get a good prime for the same as the body. There is also a lot of 16mm lenses available for those who whould be satisfied with a somewhat smaller image. This should work fine for 2k, and it could work well for wide aspect ratios in 3k.

And the One is not a realistic alternative for much of the target-group of the in-between camera. It is way too big, and is really designed for a full crew. It is not suitable as a Bolex-replacement, and it will not be fun to carry in your backpack.

 

[Chris Kenny]

I do not see lenses as a problem for that kind of camera, I see that camera as an opportunity to use available lenses!

Using Leica(or VistaVision)-frame (24x36mm) lenses with the One is not much different from using half-frame DSLR lenses for s-16. Or even Red primes, which could be practical for those who would buy the in-between in order to have a small secondary camera. It is workable for the telephoto end of the range.

Yeah, that's the issue. SLR lenses and Red's lenses don't come very wide, by Super 16 standards.

Last I looked, good s-16 lenses were a lot less expensive than the same in a s-35 version. You can get a good prime for the same as the body.

Except Red's Super 35 glass is priced more like other vendors' Super 16 glass, or sometimes even lower. And SLR glass is certainly priced lower. This creates a rather nutty situation where, unless Red planned to introduce a line of Super 16 glass priced just as aggressively alongside this hypothetical Super 16 camera, buying a Super 35 format package, by the time you were done with lenses, could very easily be cheaper than buying a Super 16 package.

Yes, there is some fairly cheap (non-super) 16mm glass floating around. But I'm not convened the market for a $10K digital cinema camera targeted at people who want to use vintage 16mm glass is large enough to be worth Red's time.

And the One is not a realistic alternative for much of the target-group of the in-between camera. It is way too big, and is really designed for a full crew. It is not suitable as a Bolex-replacement, and it will not be fun to carry in your backpack.

I suspect a most of the size difference between the Red One and the Scarlet has no direct relationship to the sensor size. Consider that full-frame DSLR cameras, which have even larger sensors than the Red One, and 35mm lens mounts, are substantially smaller. I expect the Red One is as large as it is because there's basically a high-end computer sitting in the back of the thing, and that the Scarlet (and even the Epic!) are smaller because by next year, Red plans to have the electronics package much smaller. In other words, expect the Red Two (announced at NAB 2009 for 2010 delivery, maybe?) to be a lot smaller, but still have a Super 35 format sensor.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

RED already made a two-year (at least) leap over the competition by coming out with the RED ONE, so asking them to make another two-year leap over themselves is asking a bit much...

There is always something better coming out "down the road" -- you'll go nuts thinking about it. This is why you should aways buy the camera as late as possible, just before you need it, and then don't worry about something better coming out later. You have to make the movie with the technology at hand; people understand that. Given an opportunity -- the momentum -- to make a movie, the funding, the cast, the locations, etc. all in place... you don't squander the opportunity by sitting on your hands waiting for better technology to come out later, you make do with what's available. Having the latest and greatest technology does not make you a filmmaker, making movies is what makes you a filmmaker. Don't start thinking that the camera makes the movie; it's just a tool and movies are made all the time with tools of different qualities. One of the best movies to come out last year was "Once", shot on consumer video equipment. Even if it would have looked "better" if the director had waited a few years for the Scarlet to come along, that's not the point. He made a good movie with what was available. He can use a better camera for his next movie if he wants to...

Great posts!