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

[Wayne Morellini]

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 resolution for a simple $4750.


What do you guys think?

I would have gone cheaper than this .

Size does matter, but it is not a linear cost equation in sensor size or lens size. s35 is close enough to 4/3rds, at 3K better latitude characteristics, however it is too late for a change I imagine.

My quibble with the 2/3rd inch version, is the amount of still resolution I will be getting, compared to that certain Canon still camera with more than a little HD quality video (and how many people shoot more than 12 minutes in a film sequence). Next version might be 60fps and 60+mb/s on the Canon. I know I like the reduced DOF, and extra lower light sensitivity and latitude a s35 3K sensor could give, but if I am going to do moderately professional stills with it also, 3K resolution might seem a bit low. 10-12mp is what is now coming to low end digital still cameras. When I suggested doing 3K many years ago it was for the market a few years ago (of the time that Sony did this through the Casio F1), we are getting closer to getting 4K prosumer (then consumer) cameras, maybe in a couple of years, as manufacturers seek to make more money over $200 HD pocket cameras.

A reasonable shooting kit is all I need (I am unsure what you mean by 'full').

Even if it was a 4K s35/4/3rds fixed focus camera with 3:2 frame ratio, that had a codec at half the data-rate of the Epic, it would still seem greater value for a lot longer. I have box brownies, and I am looking for another one .

 

[Steve G]

I have a feeling that 2/3" Scarlet will outperform 16mm film in many ways.

If Red can get the dynamic range of the scarlet up to the same as film, then yes. But I have my doubts that they can.

 

[Robert Jackson]

My quibble with the 2/3rd inch version, is the amount of still resolution I will be getting, compared to that certain Canon still camera with more than a little HD quality video (and how many people shoot more than 12 minutes in a film sequence).

I don't think anyone's gonna be grabbing the 2/3" Scarlet as a replacement for their DSLR. On the other hand, I doubt that you're going to be nearly as happy shooting video with a Canon DSLR as you'd be shooting RAW 3K with a Scarlet. I mean, we won't know until they're here, but it's likely to suffer from far less artifacts than the Canon and it's capturing to a useful acquisition format, which the Canon is not, IMO. But people are enthralled enough by the shallow DOF to shoot with it, so more power to 'em. I'd just hate to start a project knowing I had to shoot it with a 5DII.

 

[Justin Thomas]

Magic?



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.

Does RED really NEED your money?

I completely understand both arguments tho.
I See no purpose for anything less than a full frame 35 sensor when shooting 3k.
come on!

I don't think anyone's gonna be grabbing the 2/3" Scarlet as a replacement for their DSLR. On the other hand, I doubt that you're going to be nearly as happy shooting video with a Canon DSLR as you'd be shooting RAW 3K with a Scarlet. I mean, we won't know until they're here, but it's likely to suffer from far less artifacts than the Canon and it's capturing to a useful acquisition format, which the Canon is not, IMO. But people are enthralled enough by the shallow DOF to shoot with it, so more power to 'em. I'd just hate to start a project knowing I had to shoot it with a 5DII.

Honestly?!? the 5D is a phenomenal still and video camera! I too am "stuck" with a 5D Mark2 as a "placeholder" until RED feels like finishing the SCARLET. As of now I am content with my 5D and I will not buy the SCARLET with a 2/3" sensor. If the 5D has a FF sensor RED should get with the program a bit.


Not to rant on RED more, but the longer you wait, theoretically the more impossible beating the competition becomes.
Canon comes out with camera....now RED must be better...Panasonic switches up the game...now RED must change their specs once again.
Please just give us a camera.
You can beat everyother camera with numbers all day long, but what counts is when it's in out hands.

 

[Robert Jackson]

Honestly?!? the 5D is a phenomenal still and video camera!

If you don't mind the rolling shutter artifacts and the poor codec. Sounds like you've found your solution, though. If you're happy with it then there's no reason to even look at a Red.

 

[Justin Thomas]

If you don't mind the rolling shutter artifacts and the poor codec. Sounds like you've found your solution, though. If you're happy with it then there's no reason to even look at a Red.

I am content until the "Scarlet" is "released".

I want to make films and not sit on my ass until something better comes out.
For my photography and textures for 3D it's great, and the video is just a plus.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I am content until the "Scarlet" is "released".

I want to make films and not sit on my ass until something better comes out.

It's interesting that you think the Scarlet and the Canon 5D are the only two options for filmmaking until the Scarlet is "released." Red makes another camera that you can buy today.

 

[Justin Thomas]

It's interesting that you think the Scarlet and the Canon 5D are the only two options for filmmaking until the Scarlet is "released." Red makes another camera that you can buy today.

yeah it's just that the RED ONE at $17.5K is about $10K over my budget. Not includin accessories.
(I'm and unemployed college student in michigan) =D

 

[Sergio Perez]

Don't forget there's a full frame sensor camera with interchangeable lens out there shooting spectacular video for 3000 USD. Yes, with worse codec,limited frame rates and a few issues, but its there and its been used professionally, in feature shoots and even used as a B camera for the Red One/Film.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

I See no purpose for anything less than a full frame 35 sensor when shooting 3k.
come on!

I'm going to try and put this in perspective - do you realise that Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3 were shot on Sony cameras with 2/3" sensors, right? Those cameras cost over $100,000... Then there was Benjamin Button (won 13 Academy Awards) and Slumdog Millionare (won 8 Academy Awards), shot on the Viper and SI-2K respectively, also 2/3". RED are delivering a camera that has better resolution, a better codec, and the ability to shoot faster frame rates than most of these cameras, for a relatively tiny price! What the hell are you complaining about?

 

[Robert Jackson]

I'm going to try and put this in perspective - do you realise that Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3 were shot on Sony cameras with 2/3" sensors, right? Those cameras cost over $100,000... Then there was Benjamin Button (won 13 Academy Awards) and Slumdog Millionare (won 8 Academy Awards), shot on the Viper and SI-2K respectively, also 2/3". RED are delivering a camera that has better resolution, a better codec, and the ability to shoot faster frame rates than most of these cameras, for a relatively tiny price! What the hell are you complaining about?

Now the issue is whether or not the Red 2/3" system delivers. Most pro 2/3" camera systems use three sensors. We'll have to see how the Red performs with its single Bayer sensor. No reason to think it won't perform well, though. At least well enough for its 3K source to be downsampled into a very acceptable 1080p. Or so one would assume. We don't know yet.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I don't think anyone's gonna be grabbing the 2/3" Scarlet as a replacement for their DSLR. On the other hand, I doubt that you're going to be nearly as happy shooting video with a Canon DSLR as you'd be shooting RAW 3K with a Scarlet. I mean, we won't know until they're here, but it's likely to suffer from far less artifacts than the Canon and it's capturing to a useful acquisition format, which the Canon is not, IMO. But people are enthralled enough by the shallow DOF to shoot with it, so more power to 'em. I'd just hate to start a project knowing I had to shoot it with a 5DII.

This digital still motion thing lends itself to the idea of use as a still camera. It would have been handy if it had been 10-12mp s35, a real sweet spot, even if it was limited to 2K at high frame rates (lower end interfaces and slower smaller/cooler codec/recorder on the fixed lens). But whatever the case is, it is probably too late to change things.

I would like to know what the problems with the Canon's codec are? As I understand, the Canon uses 4.8Mbyte/s H264, if that is inter frame compression, that is quiet acceptable professionally for low budget, and artifacts should not be such an issue. If it is intra, then that is half as desirable. 4.8MB/s is also very desirable for low cost storage costs on the low end (a nice PC can process h264). Pity it is limited to 12 minutes of filming, would be great for events filming too. Then again, if they use an appalling implementation of h264, that would wipe out all the benefits.

I'm going to try and put this in perspective - do you realise that Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3 were shot on Sony cameras with 2/3" sensors, right? Those cameras cost over $100,000... Then there was Benjamin Button (won 13 Academy Awards) and Slumdog Millionare (won 8 Academy Awards), shot on the Viper and SI-2K respectively, also 2/3". RED are delivering a camera that has better resolution, a better codec, and the ability to shoot faster frame rates than most of these cameras, for a relatively tiny price! What the hell are you complaining about?

But they were not fixed lens, which then offers fast mountable 2/3rd inch and 16mm lens (though the non bayered 3 chip cameras might not be able to use this, was the minimum aperture any more than the fixed) and 35mm lens adapted. Star Wars was a long time ago and those cameras were not the state of the art in terms of what could be done in pricing in those days. A comparison between the Canon and the Star Wars episode 2 camera would probably be startling (unless the codec on the Canon is appalling) as well as George's opinion on 2/3rds comparative limitations. Time and cost has moved on overwhelmingly.

None of them are still cameras.

I would not tell cineform that. For the Viper, yes, for Star Wars, I thought they were asked to step the codec/datarate up a notch.

--

There has been talk about Red footage being film like, but the truth is that I have heard people say this years ago about sensor technology that is now available in $100 HD video cameras (I have one as a personal pocket camera). These people are still putting together a cheap DIY cinema camera using this technology ($1000 maybe), even still talking about ways to filter out the many artifacts { . I know of a few technologies that vastly outdo the present latitude and noise level you enjoy, and probably conventional film, meant for security and car cameras, really low end.

I was around at the beginnings of the SI and before the Red, from the time we were researching building our own cinema cameras, and know a few things about it. To put things into perspective, I continue to conceptualise new ways to make a commercial cinema camera, and am pretty sure a camera similar to the fixed Scarlet (maybe forgetting the extra high speed frame rates and datarates above 50-100MB/s), using presently existing technologies can be costed for less $1000, maybe less then $500. Using some advancements, including my own advanced sensor technology concept (that needs research for proofing, maybe throwing back the high speed frame rates and better performance) it could be nearly done for $100 in a size similar to a case of fold out matches from a bar (but I forget exactly how big they were) plus storage. 3D might be possible. However, being sick most of the time, and lacking the millions, this is not happening soon .

The way the Scarlet is possibly designed, it is likely the present pricing is good value, but a fixed s35 at less then $5K is not too unrealistic. People's minds are full of perceived value, which has little relation to actual costing, however, the fixed series is presumably costed to be much cheaper to produce in volume than the lower volume regular Scarlets, hence why it is so much cheaper.

Unless we want to wait another year for a fixed s35, all this discussion is probably counter productive. So, we wait to see how the new camera is.

 

[Justin Thomas]

Don't forget there's a full frame sensor camera with interchangeable lens out there shooting spectacular video for 3000 USD. Yes, with worse codec,limited frame rates and a few issues, but its there and its been used professionally, in feature shoots and even used as a B camera for the Red One/Film.

Yes, and i have that.

I'm going to try and put this in perspective - do you realise that Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3 were shot on Sony cameras with 2/3" sensors, right? Those cameras cost over $100,000...

yes, and it was extremely video-like, and soft.
Really pissed me off after Epi I was shot on film.

 

[billy-wayne]

4000! It sounds like a robbery!

4000! It sounds like a robbery!

But,just as you say,3k-4k is enough. But I think changeable lens is much better!

 

[David Rasberry]

This digital still motion thing lends itself to the idea of use as a still camera. It would have been handy if it had been 10-12mp s35, a real sweet spot, even if it was limited to 2K at high frame rates (lower end interfaces and slower smaller/cooler codec/recorder on the fixed lens). But whatever the case is, it is probably too late to change things.

I would like to know what the problems with the Canon's codec are? As I understand, the Canon uses 4.8Mbyte/s H264, if that is inter frame compression, that is quiet acceptable professionally for low budget, and artifacts should not be such an issue. If it is intra, then that is half as desirable. 4.8MB/s is also very desirable for low cost storage costs on the low end (a nice PC can process h264). Pity it is limited to 12 minutes of filming, would be great for events filming too. Then again, if they use an appalling implementation of h264, that would wipe out all the benefits.

Canon uses long GOP compression that line skips and sub samples the sensor resulting in unacceptable aliasing, pixel blocking, moire and other visible artifacts along with the rolling shutter problem. For 1080p its resolution is mediocre. Its only advantage is 35mm dof and good low light sensitivity. If you are shooting extreme shallow dof and scaling it down to 720p for the web, the artifacts aren't too bad, but they get annoying if you have fine detail in sharp focus with any motion at large screen sizes. Pull a still from any video clip where there is fine detail and motion and look at full size in Photoshop. Then do the same with any frame from a RED and compare them. There are several images posted from the 2/3" sensor on this site and it kills the 5D for image quality. Since these were early test bed shots captured from a monitor at 720p they do not reflect the full quality of the 3k originals, but they are still visibly better than the Canon for tonal scale, fine detail, and dynamic range.

2/3" is the most common professional production format in the world today. It has advantages, especially when it comes to reasonably compact fast zoom lenses and handheld field use in a motion friendly form factor.

 

[Michael Booth]

How does the GH1 measure up to the Canon 5D in terms of low light shooting?

 

[Aaron McAdam]

As of now I am content with my 5D and I will not buy the SCARLET with a 2/3" sensor. If the 5D has a FF sensor RED should get with the program a bit.

Seriously!!! Apples and Oranges!

Oh By the way...AFIK RED has "gotten with the program" do you need to read the http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/ page again? FF right there. Seriously...

 

[Quentin Brown]

Canon uses long GOP compression that line skips and sub samples the sensor resulting in unacceptable aliasing, pixel blocking, moire and other visible artifacts along with the rolling shutter problem. For 1080p its resolution is mediocre. Its only advantage is 35mm dof and good low light sensitivity. If you are shooting extreme shallow dof and scaling it down to 720p for the web, the artifacts aren't too bad, but they get annoying if you have fine detail in sharp focus with any motion at large screen sizes. Pull a still from any video clip where there is fine detail and motion and look at full size in Photoshop. Then do the same with any frame from a RED and compare them. There are several images posted from the 2/3" sensor on this site and it kills the 5D for image quality. Since these were early test bed shots captured from a monitor at 720p they do not reflect the full quality of the 3k originals, but they are still visibly better than the Canon for tonal scale, fine detail, and dynamic range.

2/3" is the most common professional production format in the world today. It has advantages, especially when it comes to reasonably compact fast zoom lenses and handheld field use in a motion friendly form factor.

:thumbsup:

I appreciate your comments above and they are all good points (though I would like to see the head to head image/video comparisons myself - any links?)

I do appreciate some of the sentiment expressed in this thread - the desire to have something that matches what the 5DII promises in principle for a similar price, made by RED and done properly with a good codec, variable framerates and 3k for pin sharp debayer down to 1080p or just above.

What IMO people love in the 5D is the interchangable lenses, possibilty of really shallow FF35 DOF in a wider range of shooting situations and great stills resolution.

In the existing lineup of Scarlet specs and prices there is a gap there where RED's 5D equivalent at an equivalent price is desired by many. It may not be possible for them to do it at that price but so many wish that the 5D just had those features that RED promise in their cameras because at the price they would want a 5DmkII if only it wasn't quite so awkward/poor in terms of codec, framerates etc.

I myself am looking at the Scarlet models and thinking that I really would like FF35 or S35 for DOF and stills but at 7K it's just out of my price range. The 5D II's price raised my expectations of what I could get for my money.
I had hoped to get a camera that could replace my stills cameras which I will be selling to buy a scarlet and will be used in my stills photography business/startup but also be great for professional video work as I plan working on Docs, and other TV productions.
My budget from selling my stills gear would be around $4K, I look at Scarlet with hope but see that the 2/3" I can afford, great for video, not great for stills. Hmm, S35, good for stills, also nice for extreme shallow DOF look (currently very popular due to pervasiveness of 35mm adaptors for video cams and 5DII) but, damn it's out of my price range.
What are my other options? Keep an eye on the stills camera market and their constantly improving video capabilities I guess, even though the ergonomics will never be that great for my EFP work (not without damned expensive accessory rigs that seem to cost as much as the cameras themselves yet only consist of a few metal tubes and brackets but don't get me started on that)

Hmmm, yes it does feel frustrating for me and probably the many others like me. Probably because I am just starting out and have no idea if or how I could recoup the investment I would be making in any of this gear.

Anyway enough of all this :violin: :cryin:

I'm probably wasting time :beatdeadhorse5: mumbling on about my desires for the Scarlet.



P.S. - If by some miracle the S35 did come in at a cheaper price that I could afford I would also love the framerates of the 2/3" models as well, I wish the FF35 and S35 could do those rates even if only when windowed to 3K or below.

 

[Quentin Brown]

Oh and one more scary thing with pricing are the accesories to make the current RED work - $180 for a cable to connect the EVF! - - OMG, $180 just for a cable. then there are the prices for small pieces of metal that make handles, mounts, cradles etc. All hugely expensive! I find it hard to understand how something so seemingly simple and solid could cost nearly as much as something so technically advanced and complicated as the cameras themselves. But then I haven't lived in this film world.

 

[James T Mather]

Wow the sense of outraged entitlement is staggering. Why don't red just give away cameras for free. I'm sure people would then whinge about paying for shipping.