duh, I don't understand

[Aric Mannion]

According to the engadget interview the Scarlet Brain is $2700 and shoots in 2K.
Here it says it shoots in 3k and confirms that price:
http://red.cachefly.net/N30/Nov30th.jpg

Then just below it says Scarlet S35 is $7,000??
What is S35? A different camera? Which price should I be looking at?

 

[Leaf Baimbridge]

There is the 2/3 Scarlet fixed lens, a 2/3 Scarlet with interchangeable lenses and there will be a Scarlet S35 (super 35) camera as well. The 2/3 camera's shoot 3K and the S35 will shoot 5K (but it is more expensive). Look around on the forums and the website and you will find all the answers you are looking for.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There is a 3K Scarlet with a 2/3" sensor and, as I understand it, a 5K Scarlet with a Mysterium-X sensor, which is slightly larger than Super-35 (30mm wide instead of 24mm wide) but for some reason, Red insists on calling it "S35". And the S35 sensor in the original Red One went from being called "S35" to being called "Red One". Beats me.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Beats me.

Marketing!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Maybe they should just label the MX sensor "S35+" and the old Mysterium sensor "S35".... or go with the "MX35" label I suggested a while ago. I just decide that anything in the ballpark of S35 will be called S35, though a jump from 24mm to 30mm is pretty significant -- that's halfway to FF35 in size.

 

[brian hanson]

i don't quite understand the need for the s35 when the epic is available, different pricepoints i suppose . . .

 

[Alex Mack]

According to the engadget interview the Scarlet Brain is $2700 and shoots in 2K.
Here it says it shoots in 3k and confirms that price:
http://red.cachefly.net/N30/Nov30th.jpg

Then just below it says Scarlet S35 is $7,000??
What is S35? A different camera? Which price should I be looking at?

To be clear, the minimum you will pay to get into the world of Red is $4750, for the fixed lens complete kit. The 2750 interchangeable will cost around 7000 to be ready to shoot.

From these questions, I think you'll probably want to look at the fixed kit to start, and build from there. That's the best bang for the buck.

 

[rod bradley]

Aric, I think Alex is leading you in the right direction. There's a whole slew of options, none available yet. Go to red.com and you can get a general idea of the many options and a pretty good idea of the probable pricing -- with the caveat/mantra everything subject to change -- perhaps the most often overlooked advice you'll find on reduser.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I don't quite understand why Scarlet doesn't stay 2/3". Why have an Epic S35 and a Scarlet S35? I realize you get different features, but the listed price/features seem to overlap enough to just propel you into going with an Epic purchase.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

There is a 3K Scarlet with a 2/3" sensor and, as I understand it, a 5K Scarlet with a Mysterium-X sensor, which is slightly larger than Super-35 (30mm wide instead of 24mm wide) but for some reason, Red insists on calling it "S35". And the S35 sensor in the original Red One went from being called "S35" to being called "Red One". Beats me.

Perhaps there's look around area included in that? And like the RED ONE, it may use pixels around the edge for calibration or something. So I'm guessing that the recordable area at 5K is closer to s35 than the size of the sensor suggests...

 

[J. Brennan]

I don't quite understand why Scarlet doesn't stay 2/3". Why have an Epic S35 and a Scarlet S35? I realize you get different features, but the listed price/features seem to overlap enough to just propel you into going with an Epic purchase.

What are you talking about? You're looking at around a $20,000 difference between the Epic S35 and the Scarlet S35. How can you not realize that those are two completely different markets? Plus, if you don't want or need the high frame rates that the Epic offers, RED is not forcing you to pay for them anyway. That's what the S35 scarlet is for.

Why would you not want a much cheaper version to be available to those who don't need high frame rates? It makes no sense.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Perhaps there's look around area included in that? And like the RED ONE, it may use pixels around the edge for calibration or something. So I'm guessing that the recordable area at 5K is closer to s35 than the size of the sensor suggests...

There is a look-around area or non-recordable area. 5K should be 5120x2560 and at 5.4um (0.0054mm) per pixel. So that puts the recordable area at 27.65mm x 13.83mm on a 30mm x 15mm sensor. Of course, we don't know for sure if this is 100% final for the sensor/camera combination.

Either way, 30mm or 27.65mm. It's still wider than the 24.89mm of a full aperture S35 frame. I think they need to just call it MX5K or whatever and be done with it. On the other hand, I bet that there's a ~4610 pixels-wide record mode that corresponds to 24.89mm S35, or the ability to set one manually in camera and not just by cropping in post. One of the original specs mentioned way back when for Epic was the ability to specify more frame sizes for recording. Although that feature seemed to be of greater interest on the FF35 and 645 Epic brains. That way a user could define sensor areas to match up with APS-C, APS-H or on the 645 brain could match various medium format sizes used by digital backs, Leica S1 or S2 digitals, etc..

Another way to look at is that full aperture S35 (1.33:1) at 24.89mm x 18.66mm requires a 31mm image circle to cover. 2:1 MX5K at 27.65x13.83 requires a 31mm image circle... Hmmm... Conspiracy?

Most of the talk about "covering 5K" looks more related to covering the entire 30x15 sensor for look-around purposes.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

What are you talking about? You're looking at around a $20,000 difference between the Epic S35 and the Scarlet S35. How can you not realize that those are two completely different markets? Plus, if you don't want or need the high frame rates that the Epic offers, RED is not forcing you to pay for them anyway. That's what the S35 scarlet is for.

Why would you not want a much cheaper version to be available to those who don't need high frame rates? It makes no sense.

I never said there shouldn't be a cheaper S35 camera, I just wouldn't call it Scarlet. I think EPIC branded cameras is where 35 and up formats should begin. I'd call it the EPIC AUTEUR or something and price it at $10K for the brain. I just think after you've acquired the modules, the glass, the accessories for 35mm, the difference between the brain costs aren't that great.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

I never said there shouldn't be a cheaper S35 camera, I just wouldn't call it Scarlet. I think EPIC branded cameras is where 35 and up formats should begin. I'd call it the EPIC AUTEUR or something and price it at $10K for the brain. I just think after you've acquired the modules, the glass, the accessories for 35mm, the difference between the brain costs aren't that great.

You don't think that there's much difference between packages priced around something like $45,000 and $65,000?

 

[J. Brennan]

I never said there shouldn't be a cheaper S35 camera, I just wouldn't call it Scarlet. I think EPIC branded cameras is where 35 and up formats should begin. I'd call it the EPIC AUTEUR or something and price it at $10K for the brain.

1st of all; changing the name from S35 Scarlet to EPIC Auteur is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with anything except your own personal preference. Not to mention, if it was between those two names, I think most people (I'm talking like 99%) would rather call it the S35 Scarlet. Epic Auteur is a ridicules name for a camera. (I realize that is a subjective statement)

2nd of all; let me get this straight. You are a consumer and you think red should raise the price of the S35 Scarlet $3,000 for absolutely no reason whatsoever. PLEASE explain to me why you, a CONSUMER, want red to RAISE the price $3,000. That is completely illogical. It boggles the mind. If you want to give away $3,000 for no reason, you can wire it to my bank account.

I just think after you've acquired the modules, the glass, the accessories for 35mm, the difference between the brain costs aren't that great.

No matter what the cost of the glass, the accessories, or the modules, the difference in the two brains is ALWAYS $20,000. That does not change. I can't possibly fathom how you don't realize that. You could buy the whole Red Pro Prime's set with that extra $20,000. How does that not matter? Have you put any thought at all into what you've been saying?

 

[Jeff Coatney]

There's more cost associated with shooting 35mm than just the brain cost. If you're in the market to OWN a 35mm movie camera, it doesn't make sense to me to pay thousands for a ham-strung version. I think Red should raise the price (as they DID with the fixed lens Scarlet) and add even more features to the brain, like greater frame rates, because that makes the brain more useful. I also think there's too great a jump in price from $7000 to $28,000 between models (Scarlet vs. Epic). This is a critical gap in the line up that could easily be closed by adding a model that does more, yet is still cost-effective.

I know why everyone wants a cheaper 35mm alternative. I think it should and will exist, but I question the pricing/performance. If you can marshall the resources needed to shoot 35mm, with lights, camera supports, follow focus, camera assistants, then the $7000 buy-in begins to look very lean in comparison. Now take away all the features that you get with Epic S35 and you have a system that is not capable of doing what the baseline 35mm film camera can do. All I'm saying is: add more features to it and if that raises the price, so be it.

Its clear that the Scarlet S35 is aimed at the low-budget film maker, the "Auteur", the person shooting, directing and editing their own stuff. Give that filmmaker a tool worthy of his or her limited investment, not a ham-strung box that limits their creative choices. Make no mistake, the brain's not $7000, its plus the cost of the interest on the loan or the credit card. And I'd strip out the FF35 from the Scarlet line-up altogether.

If you can afford 35mm, you can afford to rent the options that will make your film more competitive, like more dynamic range, higher frame rates, increased ISO. I just think that Scarlet-izing the 35mm format is the wrong approach. I'd like to see the effort put towards making the base model Epic more affordable. Now, if Red made a fixed lens S35mm Scarlet...

 

[J. Brennan]

There's more cost associated with shooting 35mm than just the brain cost. If you're in the market to OWN a 35mm movie camera, it doesn't make sense to me to pay thousands for a ham-strung version.

If I am someone that had NO USE for high frame rates for what I shoot how would the S35 hinder me in anyway? How is it a ham-stung camera for what I need it for? Explain that to me.

I think Red should raise the price (as they DID with the fixed lens Scarlet) and add even more features to the brain, like greater frame rates, because that makes the brain more useful.

Again, if I am someone who has no use for higher frame rates, how does that make it more useful to me? Raising the price for a feature I have no use for would make it LESS useful. You do realize that you are not the only person on the planet Earth right? Just because a camera without the option of higher frame rates would be useless to you, or deemed "ham stung" does not mean there is not a market for it. I'm shocked at how close minded you're being.

I also think there's too great a jump in price from $7000 to $28,000 between models (Scarlet vs. Epic). This is a critical gap in the line up that could easily be closed by adding a model that does more, yet is still cost-effective.

Raising the price at the lower end for the sole purpose of closing the gap with the higher end does NOTHING for anyone except alienate the market at the lower end. Do you know anything about economics? This suggestion is illogical from a consumer standpoint.

I know why everyone wants a cheaper 35mm alternative. I think it should and will exist, but I question the pricing/performance. If you can marshall the resources needed to shoot 35mm, with lights, camera supports, follow focus, camera assistants, then the $7000 buy-in begins to look very lean in comparison. Now take away all the features that you get with Epic S35 and you have a system that is not capable of doing what the baseline 35mm film camera can do. All I'm saying is: add more features to it and if that raises the price, so be it.

The main feature missing from the S35 Scarlet is the higher frame rates. If you add them, you get the EPIC. The jump in price is a direct result in the incredible amount of power needed to do high frame rates at these incredibly high resolutions.

You are suggesting that they add higher frame rates to the Scarlet for a small increase in price, but you seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that it wouldn't be a small increase in price. It would be a HUGE increase in price. The EPIC is essentially the same camera as the S35 scarlet but with higher frame rates. The price for those frame rates is HUGE. That is why the S35 scarlet exists. If you do not need those high frame rates they are not forcing you to pay for them. For some reason you are suggesting that they should force all of us to pay for them, which is just unfathomable why you would want that.

Its clear that the Scarlet S35 is aimed at the low-budget film maker, the "Auteur", the person shooting, directing and editing their own stuff. Give that filmmaker a tool worthy of his or her limited investment, not a ham-strung box that limits their creative choices.

If I don't need high frame rates, how is the S35 going to limit my creative choices? Aside from the frame rates the S35 Scarlet is a better camera than the RED ONE in every single way. You do realize that not every single person shoots the same kind of stuff you shoot right?

In fact, not only would the S35 scarlet NOT being limiting many many people's creative choice, but it will be the best camera that they have even gotten their hands on in their entire lives.

Make no mistake, the brain's not $7000, its plus the cost of the interest on the loan or the credit card.

Let me explain this to you. The brain of the S35 scarlet is always $21,000 less than the EPIC brain no matter what method you choose to pay for it with. Cash, credit, whatever. It is $21,000 cheaper.

And I'd strip out the FF35 from the Scarlet line-up altogether.

Wow, another illogical statement. Are you some multimillionaire or something and you just don't want anyone else to be able to get their hands on the nice equipment that you have been blessed to be able to use? There is really no other explanation to this whole post.

If you can afford 35mm, you can afford to rent the options that will make your film more competitive, like more dynamic range, higher frame rates, increased ISO. I just think that Scarlet-izing the 35mm format is the wrong approach. I'd like to see the effort put towards making the base model Epic more affordable. Now, if Red made a fixed lens S35mm Scarlet...

How can you STILL not understand that paying $20,000 more for a feature (higher frame rates) that you don't want or need is not a big deal?

PLAESE explain to me how getting rid of the S35 scarlet would lower the price of the EPIC? That makes no sense, which is at least consistent with everything else you've been saying.

 

[fALk Gärtner]

and price it at $10K for the brain..

So why would you price it more then it would need to cost to be profitable? So the "pros" can differentiate to the "nonpros" based on price? Because it ruins your personal bussiness model? :mad5: I don´t know if you haven´t noticed - RED is changing the business for everyone and is doing everything in its might to give creative tools of highest quality to the broadest market possible - thats their stated goal from the beginning - thats why I am on board and support them at least through word of mouth now - with a Scarlet S35 buy later.

Also they already cater to the "pros" by releasing the Epic first, test everything on the epic etc. And like many others eagerly awaiting the Scarlet (S35 or otherwise) I benefit from a market tickle down. If you don´t like that attitude I suggest you give money to Arri et al and join in the crowd that says "red sucks because its cheap" because thats what I have been hearing on sets here in germany a lot - from people who have never had a RED in their hand (just seen footage – if even) - and who fear their "business model" that is based on scarcity and expensive gear instead of creativity is falling apart.

Not saying you are like this but it sure sounds that way.

 

[fALk Gärtner]

resources needed to shoot 35mm, with lights, camera supports, follow focus, camera assistants,

You mean all these thousands of films beeing put out with a D7 all have a team like you suggest? Also you think that they all have $20.000 glass on their cams?

Let me tell you what I am doing just to get you into another mindset. I have found a box full of superb 35mm glass from 1975 - I can use that - it wil be better then anything I have ever used before glass wise (zeiss mostly btw). I have a team of 1 volunteer on my shoots who can hold a hand lamp if needed. Self made steadycam that I can operate by myself, laser range finder where I can check my focus right from behind camera and generally a more "produce more sort out later" attitude to it all on top. Right now I saved up and can just about afford a minimal shooting configuration (sans glass because I have that) of the S35. If more funds become available I will by an "automatic" zoom from RED for the point and shoot "gigs" documentary stuff that I want to make as well. For all of that I am MORE then happy with what RED offers in the S35 scarlet - more then I ever dreamed of. 5k, RAW, extremely high datarate (so high that at 1080p I have an almost unkompressed picture which is great for VFX stuff I do) 75fps (or whatever it will be in the end) - I could not be more happy with any of that - I don´t need more for the moment but I know I can get more if I really ever needed too with the add ons red supplies etc pp. And like the DSLR crowd I am sure I can produce beautiful pictures without any of the attached overhead of a 35mm Filmteam - not everybody is or wants to do high budget hollywood films.

Again why raise the price if it can be produced for at this price point? just for the "I am better then you because I have more money" feeling? - I really don´t get it?

 

[Jeff Coatney]

If you look at the target release schedule, the Scarlet S35 is a ways off. At the time it is due to be released, it is likely that competitor cameras from other companies will have been released or announced. I believe the specs on the Scarlet S35 will need to change to keep pace with similarly priced models from other companies. Jim is never wrong: specs, pricing and delivery dates will change-- I count on that. I know they will.

I believe either the capabilities of the brain in question will increase, or the cost will decrease. If the capabilities increase, I expect a price increase.

To clarify what I mean by taking the Scarlet FF35 out of the equation: We have three categories of Red cameras: The Scarlet, The Red One and The Red Epic. I see these different categories staking out their own territory based on sensor size and resolution.
This is my own desire to see the Red product line simplified somewhat, in order to reduce consumer confusion and unrealistic product expectations based on sensor size.

IMO, Scarlet should encompass the 2/3" sensor family only. When it says Scarlet on the outside, its S16 DOF on the inside. Epic should begin with the Monstro sensor at S35 and above, encompassing all the high end brains. This leaves a gap in price and performance in the mid-range for the affordable S35 camera everyone wants. This category of camera is represented by the Red One, in both price and performance currently. But what do you call it? If we equate Scarlet with 2/3" sensors and Epic with Monstro S35 sensor and advanced DR, ISO and frame rates, what could we call the mid-range of solutions that both identifies what we're getting feature-wise with a low cost buy-in? The answer is of course up to Red. So far they've drawn the line between Scarlet and Epic with pricing and features, not sensor size. I'd prefer that line to be drawn using the relative sizes of the sensors.

This is only my point of view, the cameras will be here regardless.