Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

VDSLRs have changed the Scarlet approach?

I think this comparison between the Scarlet and the DSLR with video options is silly. The Scarlet will give us indie filmmakers a real tool that can produce an image that is worthy of the BIG screen. Even if it cost 10 grand for everything, that's cheap! Really cheap to have Hollywood quality. VDSLRs are fun toys, great for little shorts and the web, but they are not real movie cameras! Really they aren't!
 
the only reason why people compare VDSLR agains the Scarlet, is because you can get a 7D, or 5D or nikon, or what ever, today- Scarlet you can't- that, in a nut shell is why people compare them- when we see the Scarlet in the wild, then the rhetoric will change.

09 was kind of a let down on so many fronts- I understand why Red changed their plans, why the epic/scarlet delay happened- and theres no one to be angry with, other then the wind- economics, like the weather change- economies collapse, hurricanes hit, things change- but man, it would be nice for things to start working out again in a big way- 2010 should be better

my 2 cents ;)
 
To me, the VDSLR vs Scarlet comparison is valid - what do you get for how much money is one question, what does the market PERCEIVE is apples to apples is another. VDSLRs shoot fantastic stills and interestingly characteristic (depth of field) but compromised (codec, aliasing, jello-cam) video. You get optical viewfinder you hold up to your eye, S35 sized sensor (D90, D300S, 7D, etc.) or FF35/FX/APS-F (D3S, 5D MkII, almost the 1D Mk IV), and a "Hey lookie there, that looks cool! ....but odd" video camera with VERY limited record times (5 minutes max on some of these). They are stills oriented cameras that can also shoot video.

Scarlet, especially the models Jim notes (the 2/3" and the 2/3" fixed lens) is going to be a video oriented camera that shoots stills. Why do I say that? Lets compare:
-sensor is 2/3", not DX/APS-C, and a far cry from FF35/FX - VERY different depth of field characteristics, closer to Super16 film than FF35 stills camera.
-no optical viewfinder - you have to buy an LCD to see anything, or the pricey EVF to hold it up to your eye.
-video should be pretty amazing, if Red holds true to what I expect of them. The frame rate options, the sustained recording, the superior codec with minimal rolling shutter (hope hope hope), the lack of aliasing, the ability to resolve a SOLID (non-aliased) 1080p from source, etc.
-but stills will be 3K, roughly 6MP, vs 12-21MP for these other cameras.
-with no optical viewfinder and mechanical shutter, no hiding behind the shutter during sensor readout - AFAIK, that is a significant factor for image quality as compared to "exposed to the light all the time" with an "open sensor" design as video cameras use.

There are of course deeper issues - integration into accessories, esp. professional ones (like audio!), variable frame rates, modularity, etc. etc. etc, but for a fair chunk of the buying public, and the press, analysis won't go too much further, unfortunately (I suspect).

So they are really two separate kinds of animals - do you want awesome stills and compromised video, or awesome video and compromised stills?

This is not to disparage either the stills cameras with video capability nor Red's program, just pointing out the differences in priority/usages - horses for courses, as they say.

I can understand how Red wants to bump up some features on their lowest end cameras - they don't have S35 of FF35 coverage for depth of field, they don't have optical viewfinders, they don't have very high resolution stills capabilities, they don't have mechanical shutters to protect the sensor during readout (and AFAIK that's significant), but they do take really good video. And considering a $1600 Canon 7D has an optical viewfinder, three times the stills resolution, includes a side grip, has a bigger sensor for shallower depth of field, and will cost notably less ($1700 vs $2500 brain only) than the 2/3" Scarlet brain, I'd say that's enough of an industry shift that I think Red is appropriately responding by goosing the capabilities. Bravo, Jim et al, kudos for keeping a close eye on the market and responding in your usual way - by offering a helluva bang for the buck. Since it doesn't appear to be delaying the product, merely increasing the capabilities and bumping the price slightly, I'm all for it.

-mike, getting ready to post an article along these lines over at PVC

EDIT - NOTE STUART'S POINTS THREE COMMENTS BELOW!!!
 
Well, 120fps/125fps in high quality is what kills me.
 
I am a little sad, because my dream of beeing able to shoot artifact-free video now seems farther than before...

I am willing to forego a bunch of features for a basic s16mm equivalent digital camera shooting @ 1-25fps for a price I can afford.
 
VDSLR

VDSLR

VDSLRs shoot fantastic stills ...you get optical viewfinder you hold up to your eye ...

.. with no optical viewfinder and mechanical shutter, no hiding behind the shutter during sensor readout - AFAIK, that is a significant factor for image quality as compared to "exposed to the light all the time" with an "open sensor" design as video cameras use.
Click to expand...

Hi Mike, good to hear from you.

if you are posting check out these two issues. I think that you will find that -

a) in video mode the VDSLR shutter is "open" so it also works in ""exposed to the light all the time" mode.

b) in video mode the VDSLR optical viewfinder is not available because of the same reason (i.e the shutter is open)

So now you are working with a low-res LCD; and that must be tough to nail critical focus with.


Or do you mean those are only stills side features?
 
Last edited:
HD DSLRs are an afterthought or a proposal from the newspaper world to include this feature so they can save money by not having to buy video cameras. If they were a threat they would have sound controls, mini XLR inputs, swivel Hi-Rez LCDs, audio metering need I say more, photographers have always enjoyed shallow depth of field (SDoF) the same simple process that seems to be driving HD DSLRs...in a nutshell HD DSLRs have 2 things going for them SDoF and low light filming. The sooner we can get decent Film Like camcorders like Scarlet the sooner we can get past this HD DSLR phase.
 
Hi Stuart! Excellent clarifications, and while I could claim "I meant to do that" you are completely correct! I was thinking about stills but presumably applying it to video as well without thinking it through, even though I now own two of the fool things (a D90 and a recently purchased D300S, more for the intervalometer and wider bracketing). I'll be sure to include those points in my write-up, thanks for the timely commentary!

Phillip - well summarized and true and I totally agree.

-mike
 
dansh - why sad? why do you think you won't be getting artifact free video? Or are you saying you won't be shooting Scarlet?
 
Red Team Member!

Red Team Member!

Stuart English said:
Hi Mike, good to hear from you.

if you are posting check out these two issues. I think that you will find that -

a) in video mode the VDSLR shutter is "open" so it also works in ""exposed to the light all the time" mode.

b) in video mode the VDSLR optical viewfinder is not available because of the same reason (i.e the shutter is open)

So now you are working with a low-res LCD; and that must be tough to nail critical focus with.


Or do you mean those are only stills side features?
Click to expand...

Stuart, thanks for that! I did not know that the Viewfinder was unavailable in video mode. Maybe you can shed just a little light. When Jim was talking about upping the capabilities of the Scarlet due to new VDSLR releases, what did that mean? All we are doing here is speculating, and I was hoping you could clear this up. Is the Scarlet being improved in order to distance itself from VDSLRs?
 
MikeCurtis said:
dansh - why sad? why do you think you won't be getting artifact free video? Or are you saying you won't be shooting Scarlet?
Click to expand...

The latter - Scarlet was originally aimed at non-professionals who were serious enough about getting good looking images -- If my memory is not failing me, it was supposed to cost ~3K.

I was very excited at the prospect of a Red camera I could afford.

Now, its price is creeping up (and so are its features) to the point it is no longer within the price range of the original target audience. For professionals I am sure all this is great news. It will far surpass anything else for the price, but for us amateurs with a prosumer budget of ~3K there will be nothing out there.

If Red would limit the range of available frame rates in the goal of lowering the price of a real entry-level Scarlet, I would be thrilled.
 
dansh said:
Now, its price is creeping up (and so are its features) to the point it is no longer within the price range of the original target audience. For professionals I am sure all this is great news. It will far surpass anything else for the price, but for us amateurs with a prosumer budget of ~3K there will be nothing out there.
Click to expand...

How is $3K a prosumer budget? Most prosumer cameras (Sony EX1R, Sony EX3, Canon XL-H1a and XL-H1s, Canon XH-G1, Panasonic HPX150, JVC HD2000 and so on) are between $5,000 and $8,000...
 
Stephen Gentle said:
How is $3K a prosumer budget? Most prosumer cameras (Sony EX1R, Sony EX3, Canon XL-H1a and XL-H1s, Canon XH-G1, Panasonic HPX150, JVC HD2000 and so on) are between $5,000 and $8,000...
Click to expand...

True.
And the customerbase would nevertheless pretty much double for each 1k$ you go bellow 5k$ - I guess... again.

But there are of course technical limits to how low you can go!

The fun thing, now, is that Red is no more pitted against Sony/Canon/JVC, but against the expectaitions Red have built around themself after actually reeasing the R1 @ 17,5k - which was the pricepoint they announced. And that's a pretty hard bar to beat....

But for them that still remember a couple of years back:
What was in that 17,5k$ price, changed a lot as the design evolved.
Originally it was announced that you woud have a recordable system, less optics for 17,5k. So history repeats itself. But in a good way, me thinks...

More features isn't the prie thing. Better signalchains and lower weight is. The continued development of the format is even more important.

And that has its price...
 
Stephen Gentle said:
How is $3K a prosumer budget? Most prosumer cameras (Sony EX1R, Sony EX3, Canon XL-H1a and XL-H1s, Canon XH-G1, Panasonic HPX150, JVC HD2000 and so on) are between $5,000 and $8,000...
Click to expand...

You can get some pretty good deals on camcorders right now. Lots of people jumping ship to HDSLR's and all. Still, even if most prosumer HD camcorders do run in the $5k-$8k range, remember that they include a lens, battery, and a few accessories.

Nevertheless, I'm confident that Jim & RED will do what they think is best for the customer and most viable for the company. I honestly doubt discussions now will majorly affect their Scarlet plans, but who knows?

Many people have mentioned how the 2/3" Scarlet is meant to be an indy filmmaker's dream, a no-compromise, entry-level cinema camera. My impression was that the S35 Scarlet was designed to be that next low-budget cinema behemoth. I always envisioned the 2/3" Scarlet as a revolutionary prosumer tool--something for the wedding videographers, local producers, film students, and anti-moire hobbyists. I always thought that RED was being quite clever in using similar technology (which they've worked hard to R&D) to target a huge swath of the motion picture market: prosumer with 2/3", entry-level with S35, and pro with Epic.

But, time will tell. I'm sure that many more details will be revealed at the end of this month. Until then, I'm cautiously optimistic.

:driving:
 
james anselm said:
Soderbergh has gone back to film and many will follow.
Click to expand...

Then he's as dumb as my friend who just spent $8000 on a Leica M8. Nikon has already stopped making film SLRs except for one high end model, there are fewer films on the market every day. We're not so far away from the point that there are none and everyone is forced to go digital.

The 'motion' market may be a few years behind the 'stills' market in this regard, but it's not too far off, man.
 
Film is not dead. But that's for another thread.....
In the mean time I'm trying to save enough for a basic 2/3" Fixed kit, It should give me stonking video / cine and stills that are "good enough" for some of my needs (Remember when 6Mp was the std, not that long ago).
Maybe in two generations time I'll be able to get a vDSLR that will give me stonking stills and "good enough" (Ie no moire / aliasing) video, again for certain aplications.
Just wish I could afford a FF35 Scarlet which could do both.
Dave
 
Soderbergh has gone back to film and many will follow.
Click to expand...

What is Soderbergh shooting on film? Not that it matters. At his level filmmakers pick the medium that best suits the individual project.

For those who think that 2/3" Scarlet is not intended for feature production. The camera shoots native 1.89:1 wide screen digital cinema without cropping the sensor and exceeds the resolution of the 2k DPI/DPX digital format that is the industry standard for finishing both film and digital originated projects. The camera was originally introduced as the go anywhere do anything rugged Hollywood B-cam/crash cam alternative to RED 1, not as a home movie camera for soccer moms. That hasn't changed. Scarlet has just been massively improved from that original concept at a very moderate price increase. Should be quite possible to assemble a decent sub $10k field package. Even at the original 3k for 3k target, a practical field package would have been more like $5-6k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top