Convince me why my EPIC M costs about 5 times as the Scarlet package

[Zakaree Sandberg]

prepare for the scolding of other redusers who rent their package hahaha. Thats a great price, now I know where to rent! Thanks Zakaree

lollol no i was kidding hence the troll face..

my camera by itself goes for 1500/day and rents regularly

I was totalllllyyyy kidding guys!!!

I won't low ball.. i get the rate i ask.

I don't even have standard speeds

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Really, I don't the M's and X's around me anymore than I did yesterday.

They are all lovely specimens.

I am really glad RED at least choce to paint the Scarlet grey and give it another name than Epic, so that customers have a realistic expectation as to what they get.

HDRx and up to 120 FPS at 4k (the 5k isn't that relevant for 16:9 delivery) are two very nice things about the Epic.

I do appreachiate how this move makes the whole manufacturing pipeline more streamlined.
Many models=Expensive.

I will miss for a while the dream of an8x fixed minicam @ 3k for a lot of work, though, and will probably end up not buying a Scarlet after this becuse it is too similar but just "less" than the Epic.

But I guess I am in the minority here, and the rage is all about S35.
I like S35, too - but it's not the only deciding factor.

Anyhow:
Congratulations for finally nailing down a decission!
(And if there's some 2/3" fixed protos acting as doorsteps, I can relieve you of one of them... )

Cheers!


Gunleik

I agree with most of what you say, but disagree with how 5K isn't relevant to 16:9 delivery. (I assume you meant 1080p?) It has nothing to do with resolution, but how it frames-in on the lens differently. It's simply a wider field of view, allowing different DOF characteristics.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

There were people before the announcement who were worried that Scarlet will cost too little because they don't want vimeo and youtube to be filled with Scarlet material. Those guys don't seem to know that currently the best stuff on the net can be seen from these sites and mostly camera used is DSLR. Wouldn't it be better if they shot with Scarlet instead, or were those people complaining insecure because there are 1000 of more talented people with DSLR's out there that when given Scarlet would make the less talented but richer guys material less valuable or without a value at all.

You get to be in the business even if you have no skill if you own good camera (you will be mostly watching other people using it though), but when everyone has the same camera you will have no value anymore.

Nobody suggested any of what you say - you are simply projecting your own fantasies on us. I never sell what I own to my creative clients, only what I know.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

the rental price differences for an epic x vs a scarlet are not going to be that much different.. on a professional set.. (not a small indie project) but the type of stuff Im normally on (big budget commercials)
EPIC is still going to be king..

being restricted in frame rates and resolutions are not going to cut it.. sometimes a director might say.. fuck, lets crank this shit to 150 fps..

oh wait.. this is the scarlet? we can't do that?

sure scarlet will be great, but lets face it.. its a 24fps camera and sometimes, you want more, even when you don't plan for more.

Perception is everything in the ad world, where many with power do not have specialized skills in cinematography (agency people - it's no their job so that's fair enough). Scarlet will be perceived as the "low budget Red" and they will not often want one on their sets, period. Same goes for high budget music video, although we sell MX use over Epic as "tried/tested/true - no risk" and that flies (I love Epic, but Red MX does indeed have better known limitations and is a bit more rock solid), but Scarlet has no such advantage, in fact no advantage at all, over Epic other than price.