3k S35 Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[brainburst]

Here's the thing, The only thing that makes the 2/3" viable would be the lenses Red develops for it. All other options are way too expensive and or inappropriate. I want Red to concentrate on making cameras not lenses. Simple economic laws of comparative advantage. There are many Four Thirds lens options available.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Journalist: What makes a good story?
SF: A good story!

Good characters and great conflict?

:whistling:

 

[Alex Coelho]

Scarlet redux

s35
3k 60fps max
2k 120fps max
Price: 6-7k

 

[Zach Swena]

According to what Jim said than you are not going to get a full S35 cam at 3 K for any less than the 5K one. If you want that frame rate on the 3k mode on the 5k S35 you will probably have to go with Epic. This thread is to discuss if it is possible to make a cam for less than the 5K one. If you just want to talk or complain about the frame rate on the 5K S35 than make your own thread.

Zach

 

[brainburst]

s35
3k 60fps max
2k 120fps max
Price: 6-7k

It's the ridiculous pie in the sky requests that ruin chances for the reasonable ones.

 

[combatentropy]

brainburst,

S35 ~ APS-C

 

[Katty Galloo]

HHmm,

It would indeed has been a goed idee for the RED company just to start of at the S35
( 3K or 4K at 120fp ) at a reasonable price for Indie and dropping the 2/3. I am exited about everything ! but for the small difference there is between this they could have kicked off with an s35, 3K, this way they would leave the other companies even father behind them and get more the status as cinema camera producer only.
We can expect a reply from Sony and Panasonic on the 2/3 chip, but s35 at a reasonable price? so deep they would never dare to go, atleast not for another 5 years I gues.

Just speculation you know

 

[Alex Coelho]

It's the ridiculous pie in the sky requests that ruin chances for the reasonable ones.

Its ridiculous to request s35 sensor at a 3.5k price point.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

The price is not right, agreed.

~ 5000 $.

 

[brainburst]

I've already stated my case for NOT asking for a S35 sized 3k sensor. I really wish people would stop asking for it. These people have no idea what goes into making a sensor.

Here it is again. All of the existing sensors use either a 5.4 or 6 micron cell form factor which is fine. We don't need a bigger cell form factor. The existing cell size is fine for 3K. No one is complaining about it on any of the other sensors. So there is no compelling reason to create a larger cell structure to stretch a 3k sensor over a S35 size frame. In fact the single largest factor in the expense of a sensor is the silicon wafer. So Red would have the same materials cost as a 5k sensor plus the added expense of another design. That is simply not practical or profitable. Red is a company that deserves to be profitable. So they would have to charge the same amount for the 3k as for the 5k! Those demanding full S35 sized sensors are not being reasonable PERIOD. It doesn't matter how popular a concept is if it can't be profitable for the producer. There isn't any sensor fairy that changes that basic reality. If you people were smart you'd get behind the 4/3rds idea. It is perfectly viable for indies and more importantly more possible for RED to actually produce. 4/3s has:

Better DOF than 2/3 16mm but not as unforgiving as 35 You won't need stupid adapters for shallower DOF

A wider variety of excellent lenses to choose from. (There is NO decent and affordable 2/3" glass available)

Same image characteristcs as all of the other sensors. (The 2/3" with it's small cell size simply won't)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_thirds

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html

 

[Petros Kolyvas]

I've already stated my case for NOT asking for a S35 sized 3k sensor. I really wish people would stop asking for it. These people have no idea what goes into making a sensor.

Here it is again. All of the existing sensors use either a 5.4 or 6 micron cell form factor which is fine. We don't need a bigger cell form factor. The existing cell size is fine for 3K. No one is complaining about it on any of the other sensors. So there is no compelling reason to create a larger cell structure to stretch a 3k sensor over a S35 size frame. In fact the single largest factor in the expense of a sensor is the silicon wafer. So Red would have the same materials cost as a 5k sensor plus the added expense of another design. That is simply not practical or profitable. Red is a company that deserves to be profitable. So they would have to charge the same amount for the 3k as for the 5k! Those demanding full S35 sized sensors are not being reasonable PERIOD. It doesn't matter how popular a concept is if it can't be profitable for the producer. There isn't any sensor fairy that changes that basic reality. If you people were smart you'd get behind the 4/3rds idea. It is perfectly viable for indies and more importantly more possible for RED to actually produce. 4/3s has:

Better DOF than 2/3 16mm but not as unforgiving as 35 You won't need stupid adapters for shallower DOF

A wider variety of excellent lenses to choose from. (There is NO decent and affordable 2/3" glass available)

Same image characteristcs as all of the other sensors. (The 2/3" with it's small cell size simply won't)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_thirds

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html

I agree I think the S35 scarlet at $7K is perfect, I just wish it did 60fps at 3k and not 2K that's really all I was getting at (though I know my post really isn't in question here.)

 

[combatentropy]

the single largest factor in the expense of a sensor is the silicon wafer

That cannot be true. An S35 sensor is less than two square inches. If the largest expense of a sensor is its silicon, then silicon is thousands of dollars per square inch.

Hmmm. Here's a 100mm (almost four square inches) wafer for $8.90: [U]http://www.universitywafer.com/[/U]

Cost of silicon for S35: about $5.

 

[brainburst]

That cannot be true. An S35 sensor is less than two square inches. If the largest expense of a sensor is its silicon, then silicon is thousands of dollars per square inch.

Hmmm. Here's a 100mm (almost four square inches) wafer for $8.90: [U]http://www.universitywafer.com/[/U]

Cost of silicon for S35: about $5.

When someone talks about the cost of a silicon wafer they're talking about the entire process costs of preparing a wafer so that it can be divided into X number of sensors. That means with the photocells and associated circuits and minus any defective units. The price you saw is just for bare material.
The price for a 3k wafer at the same size as a 5k wafer is the same, plus you have added redesign costs. RED is not going to operate at a loss. They don't owe us an option that will break the bank.

A 4/3 sensor would give you almost everything you want better DOF, better dynamic range, a slew of lens options and could be done cost effectively by RED using existing fabs. The question is, for those of you demanding a S35 size sensor, WHY NOT 4/3?

 

[Jerrod Cordell]

Canon XL-H1: 1080i with 3 1/3" CCDs at 60i fps. $8999
Sony HVR-Z7U: 1080p with 3 1/3" CMOS at 30p. $5999
Panasonic HVX200: 1080i with 3 1/3" CCDs at 60i. $6500

Scarlet 2/3": 3K with 2/3" at 120p. ~$3000
Scarlet S35: 5K with S35 sensor at 30fps. $7000

I think we're getting a good enough deal.

 

[brainburst]

First of all it isn't fair to compare the cost of a sensor to a whole camera is it? And you conveniently left out the EX-1 @ 7995 with 1/2" sensors.
Also those are list prices. Street prices are lower, something that isn't true for RED gear.

Secondly, this isn't, for the reasonable ones among us about the "deal". We'd be willing to pay more for a 4/3 camera if it was offered. My place of work would buy a bunch. Not the 2/3 though, for all the reasons I've listed which no one has yet successfully refuted.
The question is still: Why not 4/3?

 

[Michael Hastings]

I've already stated my case for NOT asking for a S35 sized 3k sensor. I really wish people would stop asking for it. These people have no idea what goes into making a sensor.

Here it is again. All of the existing sensors use either a 5.4 or 6 micron cell form factor which is fine. We don't need a bigger cell form factor. The existing cell size is fine for 3K. No one is complaining about it on any of the other sensors. So there is no compelling reason to create a larger cell structure to stretch a 3k sensor over a S35 size frame. In fact the single largest factor in the expense of a sensor is the silicon wafer. So Red would have the same materials cost as a 5k sensor plus the added expense of another design. That is simply not practical or profitable. Red is a company that deserves to be profitable. So they would have to charge the same amount for the 3k as for the 5k! Those demanding full S35 sized sensors are not being reasonable PERIOD. It doesn't matter how popular a concept is if it can't be profitable for the producer. There isn't any sensor fairy that changes that basic reality. If you people were smart you'd get behind the 4/3rds idea. It is perfectly viable for indies and more importantly more possible for RED to actually produce. 4/3s has:

Better DOF than 2/3 16mm but not as unforgiving as 35 You won't need stupid adapters for shallower DOF

A wider variety of excellent lenses to choose from. (There is NO decent and affordable 2/3" glass available)

Same image characteristcs as all of the other sensors. (The 2/3" with it's small cell size simply won't)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_thirds

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html

Ditto.

First of all it isn't fair to compare the cost of a sensor to a whole camera is it? And you conveniently left out the EX-1 @ 7995 with 1/2" sensors.
Also those are list prices. Street prices are lower, something that isn't true for RED gear.

Secondly, this isn't, for the reasonable ones among us about the "deal". We'd be willing to pay more for a 4/3 camera if it was offered. My place of work would buy a bunch. Not the 2/3 though, for all the reasons I've listed which no one has yet successfully refuted.
The question is still: Why not 4/3?

and Ditto again.

 

[Cedric Akins]

Canon XL-H1: 1080i with 3 1/3" CCDs at 60i fps. $8999
Sony HVR-Z7U: 1080p with 3 1/3" CMOS at 30p. $5999
Panasonic HVX200: 1080i with 3 1/3" CCDs at 60i. $6500

Scarlet 2/3": 3K with 2/3" at 120p. ~$3000
Scarlet S35: 5K with S35 sensor at 30fps. $7000

I think we're getting a good enough deal.

Thank you angry lep... I feel the same way. Although the lens, battery and charger, audio input, recording module, and are not counted in the Scarlet the size of the image capture is more than adequate for the price. I just would like to know the prices of the major modules that I just mentioned.

I know, I know... prices TBD.

 

[Cedric Akins]

I originally opted not to participate in this thread because it is, IMHO, silly that people aren't satisfied with the the cameras that were revealed on the 13th. This is still a business and at the end of the day the Red Digital Cinema company still wants to show a profit. It is great that they are willing to sit at thier computers and discuss the cameras progress, but they don't have to listen to demands. This thread has been discussed to death on Scarletuser and here at Reduser there are at least two threads on this same subject. Please close this thread and kill this particular discussion. If Jim and the Red Crew decide to make that S35 3K camera then you are more than welcomed to buy it.

 

[brainburst]

Well It seems you are on a mission to shut down all discussion. I'm all for limiting the redundancy but the underlying issues, while they remain relevant and current, should be allowed their full opportunity to be aired someplace.

 

[Katty Galloo]

Scarlet s35

Scarlet s35

Hello people,

You dont here me complain about anything, all think it is superfine allready, all I proposed was the gamma could start from the S35 as I think the sensor would work better in low light conditions meaning night than the 2/3 I gues. But of course we should test it first to know what we talk about.
Price between 5000 or $7000 but with folowing specifications;

- a run up to 100fp,
- the benefit of changebel lensses Canon or Nicon as it is now.
If 16mm is simiular to 3K, then why not choose for 35mm 5K
you can allways downscale if you want but you can have theatre format if you like to standard , witch is better than blow up your 3K to 35mm
It could not be more pefect for indie, I think a lot of people would agree,
just an idee, and whatever I am so happy allready now with the s35:
Euro girl: :w00t: