Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

3k Fixed Lens S35 Scarlet for $4750 (Full Kit) sound better?

C

Chad Ainsworth

New member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I don't know about you guys, but I really wish RED was going to offer a version of the Scarlet that looked more like this...

3K Raw Video
Fixed 8x Lens
S35 Sensor
w/ full shooting Kit

...at a total price of $4750 ($4000 for just the Brain & Lens).


To me, that would solve a LOT of my problems with trying to decide whether or not the current version of the S35 or the current fixed lens Scarlet would be better for me. I don't need 5K video, but I would like 3K. I don't need to be able to switch out lenses really, so a fixed lens would be nice. I want the shallow DOF and better Dynamic Range of a S35 sensor, but not at the cost of over $7000 for brain alone.

I could care less about the "3k for under 3k" slogan if I knew I could still get a S35 size sensor with the 3k resoltion for a simple $4750.


What do you guys think?
 
A 8 times fixed lens that isS35 T2.8 & does not breathe to badly would be very heavy. FWIW the 18-85 is a 4.72 times lens.
 
Sensor cost ratio

Sensor cost ratio

Going from a so called 2/3" sensor to S35 size sensor would make the sensor cost about 4x just from the chip space and more because the yeld would go down, sensors S35 size sell for maybe $2500 in the low runs that Scarlet will have. You cannot make the other camera parts and lens cheep enough to stay under $5000 with that size sensor, you need 4x the optical glass and mount etc as well.

I would like a lower cost camera using S35 sensor going to LAN through a FIFO like the SUMIX camera, I would put various mounts on it and shoot true RAW. But they are not going to make that, so...
 
Chad Ainsworth said:
I don't know about you guys, but I really wish RED was going to offer a version of the Scarlet that looked more like this...

3K Raw Video
Fixed 8x Lens
S35 Sensor
w/ full shooting Kit

...at a total price of $4750 ($4000 for just the Brain & Lens).
Click to expand...

How exactly do you propose they make a camera pretty much exactly the same as their $7,000 camera (apart from the lower resolution), PLUS a lens that would probably cost at least $10,000, and sell it for $4000?
 
Stephen Gentle said:
How exactly do you propose they make a camera pretty much exactly the same as their $7,000 camera (apart from the lower resolution), PLUS a lens that would probably cost at least $10,000, and sell it for $4000?
Click to expand...



Magic?

Yeah, I think it is pretty ridiculous to ask them to add an 8x zoom fixed lens, change from a 2/3 to a 35 censer, add a few accessories and oh by the way make it cost about 1/2 the price of what they will be selling the S35 brain for.

Especially when you consider that when the S35 Scarlet comes out, it's specs will be superior to camera's that cost $100K.

RED would probably lose $10K every time they sold one of these fantasy camera's the OP is asking for. It's just not realistic.
 
hmm

hmm

I think they should release maybe an 8K camera with a 5-300mm zoom lens for $500. In exchange we could give them 0.25% of the profits from whatever projects we shoot. How does that sound?

haha, j/k
 
Being happy with all of the many choices Red has been so gracious to give us sounds like the best idea to me.

Think about it, RED, a small private company having only released one extraordinary camera, is working at getting us 4 versions of the Scarlet AND 4 versions of the EPIC.

There is a reason why it's taking them time. Sony, Canon, and Panasonic have had plenty of years to work at getting these kind of products for this price but RED? I am SOOO grateful for what RED is working hard to do for us as filmmakers.

Thanks RED for doing what is best for us. :hurray:
 
jaybirch said:
Why not think bigger..... how about the FF Epic with a fixed lens for $1000.... i'd be sold.
Click to expand...

We all would be, if only that would happen
 
Paraphrasing what Jim Jannard once said: If you want a camera your way you should start your own camera company. People are just unbelievable with their crazy requests.
 
Chad Ainsworth said:
I want the shallow DOF and better Dynamic Range of a S35 sensor, but not at the cost of over $7000 for brain alone.
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Wait and see what RED deliver from 2/3" sensors. We don't have any idea what kind of dynamic range they're getting out of the sensor yet.

And 2/3" isn't as small as it might seem. It's something like 6.6mm x 8.8mm. 16mm film is 7.49mm x 10.26mm. So compared to "full frame" 24mm x 36mm sensors the crop factor for R16mm is 3.5 and for 2/3" it's around 4.1, so very similar.

These are R16 frame grabs from stuff I've shot. Not all that hard to use selective focus, even though it's not a huge "sensor." What's nice, though, is that you can pull focus without an assistant. Pulling focus for S35 solo is something you're not going to walk away from without some ego bruising. ;-)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/r_jackson/1719988435/

1719988435_a78c07cd13_o.jpg


http://www.flickr.com/photos/r_jackson/1719986737/

1719986737_074240412e_o.jpg
 
Gerald Menclik said:
damn ..... those chemical sensors are a problem ..... :incazzato:
Click to expand...

Heh...of course, to be fair this is R16 footage cropped to 16:9. Not exactly optimal use of the real estate. Of course, in motion it looks pretty good, IMO. You can get away with a lot more in motion than you can with still photographs, IMO.

Then again, it's a stock that's rated at ISO 125 Tungsten and 80 Daylight with a filter. I'd be surprised if the 2/3" Scarlet is that noisy at ISO 320. You can probably shoot with the Scarlet at ISO 500 or more before it looks that "grainy." I'm looking forward to seeing what it will do. Must be patient... :drool5:
 
The reference standard size for 2/3" HD 16:9 is 9.6 x 5.4mm. Scarlet 2/3" 2k 1.89:1 cinema widescreen is approx 9.8mm x 5.2mm. Scarlet HD is approx. 9.2mm x 5.2mm. 9.7mm is the TV projection aperture of standard 16mm film, so 16mm lenses on Scarlet will have about the same field of view they do on film. Very little crop factor for 16:9 and none for 2k format.
 
David Rasberry said:
The reference standard size for 2/3" HD 16:9 is 9.6 x 5.4mm. Scarlet 2/3" 2k 1.89:1 cinema widescreen is approx 9.8mm x 5.2mm. Scarlet HD is approx. 9.2mm x 5.2mm. 9.7mm is the TV projection aperture of standard 16mm film, so 16mm lenses on Scarlet will have about the same field of view they do on film. Very little crop factor for 16:9 and none for 2k format.
Click to expand...

With there you go. In essence, 2/3" Scarlet is "Digital 16mm" and that's not a bad thing, IMO. It's worked great for ENG for decades and for 16mm shooters even longer.

Scarlet 2/3": If you liked the way Woodstock looked you'll be fine. :thumbup1:
 
Robert Jackson said:
With there you go. In essence, 2/3" Scarlet is "Digital 16mm" and that's not a bad thing, IMO. It's worked great for ENG for decades and for 16mm shooters even longer.

Scarlet 2/3": If you liked the way Woodstock looked you'll be fine. :thumbup1:
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that 2/3" Scarlet will outperform 16mm film in many ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top