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 :)

Change...

I often imagined that the Scarlet-I would become Epic 2/3. I hope not, as that will bump the price, but I could fully see it happening.
 
Steve Jobs may have stepped aside but as long as Jim J is at the helm we can all still experience the excitement of true innovation.
 
Richard_JP said:
I often imagined that the Scarlet-I would become Epic 2/3. I hope not, as that will bump the price, but I could fully see it happening.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean? I mean - like you are just talking about a name, nothing about meaningful specs or information.

Red will make something really good, at an affordable price, and if you can't afford it, then work hard and you could afford it.

I didn't think I could afford 60,000 even 3 months ago - and I did it.
 
Jannard said:
Everything changes. And it changes every day.

What seemed like a good idea 3 years ago might seem completely wrong today.

We reserve the right to change. Expect it. It is in your best interests that things change... and get better.

It shouldn't matter what we do, what we name our products or what we change... as long as it is in our customer's best interests.

RED is not normal. Quite the contrary. We hope you consider that a good thing.

In the end, we have our customers best interests 1st and foremost. That is pretty apparent in hindsight. I would hope that whatever we do going forward, you would trust us to keep that core principle alive.

RED customers are our #1 priority. Above all else. We are also RED customers. So it is in our best interests every which way you look at it to change everything we can for the better as often as possible...

Jim
Click to expand...
Jim, change whatever you want, i trust you guys in every aspect. And thats a first, i never trusted a company so much, i never waited that long for a product, i never defended a company against critics like i did for you (and i don't own a red-product yet) and i really know its all worth it.

I know you really mean what you said in that post and that makes even the policy-change-pill easier to swallow. ;)

Can't wait to be a RED-customer.
 
Kalani Prince said:
Wouldn't that put Scarlet fixed in a majorly compromised place?
Click to expand...

No, because his road map has mentioned Scarlet. It's just EPIC-S that was left out, leaving EPIC-S fans in a dither.

However, I might mention that EPIC-S was probably at least $25k as a functioning system, so the under $20k crowd may still be sad.

I think we can leave it to Jim. "Everything will be fine." We've done pretty well trusting him in the past :).

(It's just so much fun to speculate, sorry Jim :) ).

D
 
Can we please quit spreading the rumor that the EPIC-S is off the table? Because it's not...

P.S. It'd be much appreciated if such posts were deleted by the authors...
 
David Dennis said:
What does Jim think of compromises? Well, I think Superman's feelings about Kryptonite are pretty mild compared to Jim's feelings about compromise.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on the compromise. Jim has said 4K is the future, but Scarlet is 3K, and even by Jim's assessment, scaling its image up will produce only marginal 4K. So why produce a sub-4K camera? To give filmmakers a cheaper, yet professional, better-than-1080p/2K, 16-mm-ish alternative. Sounds like a compromise to me. All of Red's cameras involve some sort of trade-off of between price and features. Even the Epic-M represented compromises (for Red to get the camera out, not all features were made available at first). But, in all fairness, Red's products seem to involve fewer compromises than other manufacturers'.
 
Lawrence Bansbach said:
I guess it depends on the compromise. Jim has said 4K is the future, but Scarlet is 3K, and even by Jim's assessment, scaling its image up will produce only marginal 4K. So why produce a sub-4K camera? To give filmmakers a cheaper, yet professional, 16-mm-ish alternative. Sounds like a compromise to me.
Click to expand...

Though budget can influence one's use of 16mm film over 35mm, are there not some who choose it strictly as a creative choice? The 3K Scarlet will for some be their camera due to the budget, yes. For others, it will be but another "paintbrush" and not a compromise...
 
I think compromises must also be considered in the context of their market. There are people on other forums right now begging for a 10-bit 4:2:2 camera that resolves 1000 lines or so for less that $10,000 or $12,000. Comparatively, regardless of sensor size and difference between 3K and 4K, Scarlet is ridiculously over-specced, especially for the price.
 
Joseph Hutson said:
Though budget can influence one's use of 16mm film over 35mm, are there not some who choose it strictly as a creative choice? The 3K Scarlet will for some be their camera due to the budget, yes. For others, it will be but another "paintbrush" and not a compromise...
Click to expand...
Sure. I was talking compromise relative to specs alone, where higher resolution is considered "better" (Red considers it better).
 
Lawrence Bansbach said:
I guess it depends on the compromise. Jim has said 4K is the future, but Scarlet is 3K, and even by Jim's assessment, scaling its image up will produce only marginal 4K. So why produce a sub-4K camera? To give filmmakers a cheaper, yet professional, 16-mm-ish alternative. Sounds like a compromise to me.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would call it a compromise as much as another creative choice, provided the look of Scarlet is noticeably different from Epic. But that is one area where the comparison of digital to film breaks down a little. Smaller sensor footy seems to blend better with material shot on larger sensors than their film brethren. It will be interesting to see how well they play together.

I guess it all depends upon your criteria and how you decide when you choose Scarlet over the others. It could be viewed as a compromise, but I'm not sure Red looks at it that way. I would also guess that somewhere in Jim's Alpha competitive nature this is a matter of conflict, but I think they are continuing with Scarlet out of loyalty to it's following.

Scarlet is meant to finish at 2k, to cater to an HD crowd while keeping with the 1080 isn't good enough philosophy. For now it seems to be the line in the sand... A minimum threshold and delicate balance of resolution and quality of image that they can stand behind without regret of compromise.
 
Michael Olsen said:
I think compromises must also be considered in the context of their market. There are people on other forums right now begging for a 10-bit 4:2:2 camera that resolves 1000 lines or so for less that $10,000 or $12,000. Comparatively, regardless of sensor size and difference between 3K and 4K, Scarlet is ridiculously over-specced, especially for the price.
Click to expand...
True. But it is a compromise by Red's standards, and they're the manufacturer. But to reiterate, it's a calculated compromise. I suspect that if Red had announced their new lines in 2011 rather than 2008, a 3K camera would not be in the mix.
 
I've read every cell in your body changes in seven years. So now you have a completely different body then you did seven years ago.
How long has RED been around? I think we will all be amazed at what will have changed in just seven years in the camera world, and I'm glad
Jim is the one navigating that change.
 
Jim & RED team! We're all ready for change. Change in the status quo, change in leadership, change in the way we all get the express ourselves.. I know it sounds a little political, especially in this current climate in our country. But this is where the future of film making is headed. And we should never forget how difficult it is to be patient and wait for the change...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top