how many resolutions will Scarlett be able to shoot in?

[Nicholas Natteau]

I know that Scarlet at its best will 3K. But what are the other resolutions it will be able to shoot in?

For example, I happen to own a Power Mac G5 from 2004 which I couldn't imagine using for editing a 3K project in FCP. But it served me excellently right up to today and works great on 720p and 1080p FCP projects.

So if I got Scarlet next year, could I start out shooting in 720p or 1080p with Scarlett while I save up money to upgrade to a much more powerful Mac computer which hopefully by next year will be able to handle a 3K project as easily as FCP handles 720p and 1080p projects today.

I want that future proof camera, but would I be able to shoot with it in a lower resolution while I wait for the Power Mac desktops to catch up to the point where they can handle 3k motion as easily as Red shoots it.

 

[Noah Kadner]

I have no doubt it will be easy to do downconversions. Why not shoot in 3K and future proof. You can always downconvert. Can't upconvert without a quality loss.

Noah

 

[Ethan Cooper]

we dont know yet, give it 6 months.
________
YAMAHA YBR 125

 

[killfilm]

Hey Noah good points there, but what about clients who insist on a specific resolution, conversion is gonna add some editing time. With today's computers, probably not a lot of time, but time nonetheless.

 

[Barry Green]

Hey Noah good points there, but what about clients who insist on a specific resolution, conversion is gonna add some editing time. With today's computers, probably not a lot of time, but time nonetheless.

With Red, you WANT to do conversions. The single Bayer sensor won't deliver as much detail as the nominal system says. For example, in a Red One, "2K" mode doesn't deliver anywhere near 2K of resolution, it's more like a little better than 720P. But if you shoot in 3K and then downconvert to 2K, you get astonishingly sharp, perfectly rich, detailed thick and lush 2K footage.

You can't make 4K of detail from a 4K chip, but you can make a great 3K's worth of detail from a 4K chip. Red's Scarlet is probably 3K specifically because a 3K chip will make extremely good 2K final images.

As far as conversions "adding some editing time", yes, but the Red workflow adds a ton of editing time anyway for the final render/conform. Better be prepared for that. Red's not a video camera system, it doesn't shoot ready-to-deliver footage. You're going to want to "process" your digital negatives through RedCine before delivering the final no matter what. And yes, shooting 2K for 2K would result in less processing time, you're right -- but it'll be a lot less sharp than if you'd shot 3K for 2K.

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

As far as conversions "adding some editing time", yes, but the Red workflow adds a ton of editing time anyway for the final render/conform. Better be prepared for that. Red's not a video camera system, it doesn't shoot ready-to-deliver footage. You're going to want to "process" your digital negatives through RedCine before delivering the final no matter what. And yes, shooting 2K for 2K would result in less processing time, you're right -- but it'll be a lot less sharp than if you'd shot 3K for 2K.

Although Ted Schilowitz has said that new workflow tools are being developed for Scarlet -- I'm assuming they will, like Scarlet, be streamlined and somewhat simplified -- one of Red's strengths is the huge flexibility in image manipulation post capture. As I've said elsewhere, this strength is also its weakness, as most nonprofessionals will tolerate the workflow. That, coupled with a high cost (for a consumer camera) and a resolution that at present exceeds any consumer need, may keep Scarlet from becoming a massively popular, at least for several years.

 

[Noah Kadner]

$3,000 is a "high cost" for a 3K camera- really? :cold: If so then maybe those customers shouldn't even be looking at this. They can stick with a nice little $500 AVCHD cam and be done with it. This quality at this price is practically a giveaway....

Noah

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

$3,000 is a "high cost" for a 3K camera- really?

No, and $17,500 isn't a lot for a 4K camera, either. My point was that it's a high cost for a consumer camera. As you said, "they can stick with a nice little $500 AVCHD cam and be done with it." Sure 3K at $3K is practically a giveaway, but if you don't need it -- and arguably there will be fewer consumer outlets that can take advantage of it -- three grand is obviously a lot to spend on something.

 

[AshG]

This is not a soccer mom camera. $3K is on the low end of the "prosumer" market. Saying it is overpriced means you are ignorant of the target market. DVX, HVX, EX1, XL2, etc. are the cameras that Scarlet is aimed at. Why is this so hard for people to understand? It is arguably the most profitable sector or the industry.





ash =o)

 

[Isaac Brody]

That, coupled with a high cost (for a consumer camera) and a resolution that at present exceeds any consumer need, may keep Scarlet from becoming a massively popular, at least for several years.

I doubt that. This camera isn't filling the "consumer" camera niche. This camera is priced in the DVX range. If it delivers, all those wedding shooters, videographers, budding filmmakers, and documentary filmmakers will snatch this up. Not to mention the Red One users who want a camera for strapping on vehicles and run and gun shooting.

 

[Noah Kadner]

Yeah that's just a silly argument. Anyone who *understands* what Scarlet is will realize the absolutely rock-bottom bargain they are getting at $3,000. Anyone who doesn't get it will go buy a little Canon ZR10 or what have you and not even blink twice. And honestly- who cares about getting every last Best Buy consumer to buy this camera.

-Noah

 

[Dory Breaux]

Yeah that's just a silly argument. Anyone who *understands* what Scarlet is will realize the absolutely rock-bottom bargain they are getting at $3,000. Anyone who doesn't get it will go buy a little Canon ZR10 or what have you and not even blink twice. And honestly- who cares about getting every last Best Buy consumer to buy this camera.

-Noah

I'll drink to that. I dont want a bunch of rich "videographers" running around with a 3k camera saying there "film makers" or cinematographers...

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Yeah that's just a silly argument. Anyone who *understands* what Scarlet is will realize the absolutely rock-bottom bargain they are getting at $3,000. Anyone who doesn't get it will go buy a little Canon ZR10 or what have you and not even blink twice. And honestly- who cares about getting every last Best Buy consumer to buy this camera.

-Noah

It isn't a silly argument. Obviously, for what Scarlet does, $3,000 is a great price, and we'd even agree at $5,000 and possibly even more -- before Red One was released, we might have agreed that $30,000 or $40,000 was a steal. The point is that Scarlet is being marketed as a professional digital-cinema camera (despite Ted Schilowitz's "soccer mom" comments), and I'll guess that the other cameras mentioned as its competitive targets, regardless of the vaguely applied "prosumer" label, are largely marketed by their respective manufacturers' broadcast divisions and overwhelmingly purchased by professionals. The "anyone who doesn't get it will go buy a little Canon ZR10 or what have you and not even blink twice" argument ignores that these two cameras, aside from resolution, build quality, and price exemplify different uses and markets, as do Scarlet and the HVX, EX1, or XLH1. I think that even if people "get it" most won't buy it because it won't fit their needs, and that probably includes a lot of pros. And because it won't do HDV or AVCHD (or the DV most people still buy and use) and it costs, nominally, $3,000 and it'll have a more involved workflow, I don't think Scarlet will sell in nearly the numbers some here have been predicting (I sincerely hope I'm proved wrong). That was my original point, not that it's overpriced.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

It isn't a silly argument. Obviously, for what Scarlet does, $3,000 is a great price, and we'd even agree at $5,000 and possibly even more -- before Red One was released, we might have agreed that $30,000 or $40,000 was a steal. The point is that Scarlet is being marketed as a professional digital-cinema camera (despite Ted Schilowitz's "soccer mom" comments), and I'll guess that the other cameras mentioned as its competitive targets, regardless of the vaguely applied "prosumer" label, are largely marketed by their respective manufacturers' broadcast divisions and overwhelmingly purchased by professionals. The "anyone who doesn't get it will go buy a little Canon ZR10 or what have you and not even blink twice" argument ignores that these two cameras, aside from resolution, build quality, and price exemplify different uses and markets, as do Scarlet and the HVX, EX1, or XLH1. I think that even if people "get it" most won't buy it because it won't fit their needs, and that probably includes a lot of pros. And because it won't do HDV or AVCHD (or the DV most people still buy and use) and it costs, nominally, $3,000 and it'll have a more involved workflow, I don't think Scarlet will sell in nearly the numbers some here have been predicting (I sincerely hope I'm proved wrong). That was my original point, not that it's overpriced.

Very astute way of looking at it. I think you're right. Although the price point could firmly place it in the prosumer bracket, the camera is really for serious filmmakers/hobbyists/photographers/whatever. The operative word there being "serious." It's cool that it's available to the masses at that price, but I don't really see everyone having the same interest in the camera that the members of this board do. But if soccer moms do decide to run out en masse and pick up the camera, that's great too. In the end it'll only mean more products, faster.

People should be about as threatened of Scarlet as Fellini should have been threatened by the introduction of Super 8. It's just a new tool - like so many others have said before on this board.

 

[Noah Kadner]

It isn't a silly argument. Obviously, for what Scarlet does, $3,000 is a great price, and we'd even agree at $5,000 and possibly even more -- before Red One was released, we might have agreed that $30,000 or $40,000 was a steal. The point is that Scarlet is being marketed as a professional digital-cinema camera (despite Ted Schilowitz's "soccer mom" comments), and I'll guess that the other cameras mentioned as its competitive targets, regardless of the vaguely applied "prosumer" label, are largely marketed by their respective manufacturers' broadcast divisions and overwhelmingly purchased by professionals. The "anyone who doesn't get it will go buy a little Canon ZR10 or what have you and not even blink twice" argument ignores that these two cameras, aside from resolution, build quality, and price exemplify different uses and markets, as do Scarlet and the HVX, EX1, or XLH1. I think that even if people "get it" most won't buy it because it won't fit their needs, and that probably includes a lot of pros. And because it won't do HDV or AVCHD (or the DV most people still buy and use) and it costs, nominally, $3,000 and it'll have a more involved workflow, I don't think Scarlet will sell in nearly the numbers some here have been predicting (I sincerely hope I'm proved wrong). That was my original point, not that it's overpriced.

So what is your point then. Are you actually worried that Scarlet will sell in such small numbers that RED will somehow be in financial trouble as a result? That is silly.

I think you're mistaken: A- that people won't buy this camera in HUGE numbers- they will. B- that whether they will sell in huge numbers or not that RED will be in some sort of financial difficulties. That's a misunderstanding of the market and more of how this particular company operates. If people don't order the Scarlet by the millions, RED will just manufacture less and keep selling all the other stuff people are practically dying to get their hands on these days. But I'm sure Jim will sleep better knowing you're worried about whether the soccer moms will actually buy this camera or not.... :clown2:

Noah

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

So what is your point then. Are you actually worried that Scarlet will sell in such small numbers that RED will somehow be in financial trouble as a result? That is silly.

I told you what my point was: I simply disagreed with some projections -- that's all. I drew no conclusions other than that. I never intimated that Red would be in trouble if it didn't sell Scarlet in vast numbers, and in fact I added that I hoped Red would indeed sell the number of units predicted, not because they must to stay solvent, but because I think they should be rewarded, for being innovative and democratizing digital cinema.

I think you're mistaken: A- that people won't buy this camera in HUGE numbers- they will. B- that whether they will sell in huge numbers or not that RED will be in some sort of financial difficulties. That's a misunderstanding of the market and more of how this particular company operates.

The misunderstanding is all yours. As I said above, I never implied that Red would be in trouble if it didn't sell in vast numbers. You really can't produce a such a professional product without defining your market, and it would be foolhardy to substantially overestimate the demand. Jim's a smart guy. I doubt he'd make that mistake.

 

[Noah Kadner]

Ok...

 

[Axe]

It isn't a silly argument. Obviously, for what Scarlet does, $3,000 is a great price, and we'd even agree at $5,000 and possibly even more -- before Red One was released, we might have agreed that $30,000 or $40,000 was a steal. The point is that Scarlet is being marketed as a professional digital-cinema camera (despite Ted Schilowitz's "soccer mom" comments), and I'll guess that the other cameras mentioned as its competitive targets, regardless of the vaguely applied "prosumer" label, are largely marketed by their respective manufacturers' broadcast divisions and overwhelmingly purchased by professionals. The "anyone who doesn't get it will go buy a little Canon ZR10 or what have you and not even blink twice" argument ignores that these two cameras, aside from resolution, build quality, and price exemplify different uses and markets, as do Scarlet and the HVX, EX1, or XLH1. I think that even if people "get it" most won't buy it because it won't fit their needs, and that probably includes a lot of pros. And because it won't do HDV or AVCHD (or the DV most people still buy and use) and it costs, nominally, $3,000 and it'll have a more involved workflow, I don't think Scarlet will sell in nearly the numbers some here have been predicting (I sincerely hope I'm proved wrong). That was my original point, not that it's overpriced.

Well said.

The Scarlet buyer will not be as homogeneous as the Red One buyer with or without the Soccer Moms/Dads.

I do feel that there will be buyers who purchase Scarlet as an entree' into the the "raw" world. In fact I may resemble that customer!

 

[sceneeast]

I think it's the workflow that is the problem for the masses

I think it's the workflow that is the problem for the masses

Unless the workflow becomes much simpler I believe the average person on the street will not buy Scarlet no matter the resolution. They want to be able to shoot and see the footage on their new Digital TV not play around with contrast, color, exposure etc. If Red One Software comes out with an Auto Level Fix Button in the software for Scarlet users than I think the masses will buy this camera if not they won’t.

Bob

 

[John Caballero]

This is a senseless none ending argument. How many times you have to come back to the same? I guess is because of lack of news from the camera itself.
Can you please forget who this camera is for and isn’t. If you are interested in it and discussing it on this forum is because you are either a pro that is watching and knows what is going on in the business or somebody that is very interested in becoming part of it. Worry about yourself and what you can do with it. Forget about the soccer moms, the extraterrestrials or whoever else. If somebody else wants it, that is not your problem, it is theirs. If anybody wants to pay $3,000.00 and shoot family birthdays with it that is nobody else’s business but their own.
Be on the lookout for finding out more about its features, its accessories or anything else that comes along the information pipe. You don’t need to analyze the market because you are not the owner of Red and Co. They have professionals that do that kind of work and they are very good at it.