Despite all the complaints...

[Hemal Keny]

Think about this:

When RED sells 100,000 Scarlet units, how are they going to produce them? Selling to the masses (which they say they want to do) is completely different from selling to indie filmmakers (the RED ONE market) who have worked with almost every camera and format out there?

Let Jim and is team handle it. They did it for RED without a single $ spent on on traditional marketing.

The $3,000 price tag makes it affordable for everyone but can everyone handle 3k? The answer is no. And 1080p is even problematic today so now we are upping it to 3k?

Let the users decide. Thats where the business risk is.


Regards,

Keny

 

[dieseljunkie]

That's where you're wrong. Adding an interchangeable lens mount raises the price not $3000, but close to $12,000 if not more and then with added accessories is close to RED ONE in price. People have got to get used to three market sizes. RED cameras outshine every other camera in those "market-sized" categories. I came to this conclusion six months ago. For the same price in every market category, RED's camera out-performs the competition in every way, be it codec, be it resolution, be it DOF, be it price, be it performance. People have got to get real, this camera MAKES SENSE for this category.

You are talking nonsense. $12,000 for a lensmount? Let me laugh. A $600 Nikon D40 has the same lensmount as a $5000 Nikon D3. A lens mount would add a maximum of $500 to the camera. And again, if they can have a 8X T2.8 fixed lens included in the $3,000, the glass may costs $1,000 approximately. So we are not talking $10,000 glass here.

Canon XL-A1 $6,000
Canon XH-A1 $3,500

So the lens mount adds $2,000 maximum (because the XL-A1 is more advanced and bigger in size, which costs more). So invalid argument.

And how can you know that it outshines every other camera? Scarlet is a pice of aluminium brick at this moment. And it is not here. Early 2009 will likely turn into late 2009. And the other companies are not going to wait and see. So please get both of your feet back on the ground sir.

Again, I am watching RED, I am supporting them, I am most likely going to buy this camera, but it is still vaporware untill it is out there. And once samples are out and test are conducted, you can judget it. It will take at least a year for those to appear... so you can bet Sony, Panasonic, Canon and JVC are going to work really hard to have new cameras out at the end of 2008 or the beginning of 2009 to compete. And another achievement of Scarlet will be bringing the prices down of all gear it competes with.

Gotta love RED. Keep up the great work Jim. I know you can pull it off.

 

[dhazelrig]

First I would like to say that I don't see what's been going on here as "complaining" but more voicing opinion in hopes that they might influence the final product. That is, after all, the entire point of the boards. That is one of the defining attributes that sets this company (for better or for worse) apart from the big companies (Sony, Panasonic, etc.). Red actively engages in conversation with their end users. Some of the language flying around may be a tad on the annoying side, but I think we're all adults here.

My personal opinion about Scarlet is a mixed bag. Sure, I was one who immediately said "I want interchangeable lenses!", but that's because I shoot low/no budget narrative fiction and require the flexibility of what a mixed bag of prime lenses can do for me telling my story. I can always put an adapter on Scarlet, like all the other fixed lens cameras, but I figured since the camera isn't any where near production why not voice my opinion for what I would like to have.

Another issue all together comes from practicality. What is Scarlet, with its current specs, to be used for? Some say it will work great for corporate/industrial work. You're going to shoot that in 3k? I work for a company that does just that kind of work and we still shoot on BetaSP. Most of the time we deliver on standard def DVD. Why in the world would I want to have to deal with a 3k workflow, just to go to DVD? even if your delivering to HD (like what, HDCAM?) 3k is still overkill. So what good use it 3k? Why would you want it? The only realistic use for all that resolution, given todays presentation options, would be a film out. Indie people might want to shoot with Scarlet, due to their limited budgets, but again you have a camera that is limited in the narrative story telling capacity. Documentary filmmakers? Yes, but isn't that a real limited market?

We don't have 3k TV's in our homes. We don't have 3k DVD's to play on those TV's. Having that resolution isn't practical for people with few dollars.

I'm just curious who this camera is really designed for? I don't know, I don't have the answer. That's why I'm joining in the conversation.

Cheers,

-D

 

[oldphart]

...
We don't have 3k TV's in our homes. We don't have 3k DVD's to play on those TV's. Having that resolution isn't practical for people with few dollars.

I'm just curious who this camera is really designed for? I don't know, I don't have the answer. That's why I'm joining in the conversation.

Cheers,

-D

It has never been a bad idea to shoot for the next generation. Many productions for TV were made on S-16 long before anybody had HDTV. Productions were shot in colour even when they would be aired in B&W the first time around.

And TV is old fashioned. Young people in particular watch stuff on the web rather than on TV. 2k monitors are becoming affordable, and bandwidths are increasing. Things change faster than you might think. :nerd:

 

[Tyler]

You are talking nonsense. $12,000 for a lensmount? Let me laugh. A $600 Nikon D40 has the same lensmount as a $5000 Nikon D3. A lens mount would add a maximum of $500 to the camera. And again, if they can have a 8X T2.8 fixed lens included in the $3,000, the glass may costs $1,000 approximately. So we are not talking $10,000 glass here.

Canon XL-A1 $6,000
Canon XH-A1 $3,500

So the lens mount adds $2,000 maximum (because the XL-A1 is more advanced and bigger in size, which costs more). So invalid argument.

If they did that, I wouldn't be able to afford the camera. At under $3K, I can. Seriously, if this is the only way they can do a camera like this at that price point, then I have no complaints.

 

[dhazelrig]

It has never been a bad idea to shoot for the next generation. Many productions for TV were made on S-16 long before anybody had HDTV. Productions were shot in colour even when they would be aired in B&W the first time around.

And TV is old fashioned. Young people in particular watch stuff on the web rather than on TV. 2k monitors are becoming affordable, and bandwidths are increasing. Things change faster than you might think. :nerd:

I'm not so sure thing do change all that quickly. The NTSC signal we use today was established in 1953. That signal is still the standard until next year, 2009. The HD format began discussion in 1983 and HDTV's weren't available until 1998. And I still don't think that format is worked out, yet.

So how long will it be for anything close to 2k, 3k, 4k, and now 5k to be a standard?

It could, literally, be 50 years...

...or not.

-D

 

[Randall Nott]

Another issue all together comes from practicality. What is Scarlet, with its current specs, to be used for? Some say it will work great for corporate/industrial work. You're going to shoot that in 3k? I work for a company that does just that kind of work and we still shoot on BetaSP. Most of the time we deliver on standard def DVD. Why in the world would I want to have to deal with a 3k workflow, just to go to DVD? even if your delivering to HD (like what, HDCAM?) 3k is still overkill. So what good use it 3k? Why would you want it?

I'd say 90% of what I shoot is corporate/industrial/event for SD DVD output. But I always shoot in HD mode on my HDV cameras. Automatically I have a cleaner image, more latitude, and a deeper color space then the guys still shooting on BetaSP, plus I have the option to scale or crop my shots.

Once I have my "impractical" Scarlet, I've upped everything by a magnitude. I can be in a 3k wide shot at a concert event and later be able to crop to a close up of anyone in the band, even for 1080 output. For wedding, street, or documentary work I can go wide and get those edge of screen shots I otherwise would have missed.

Having a larger image to draw from is anything but overkill, it's an absolute blessing, especially for HD output, and just gives you an insane amount of options for SD output.

As far as "having to deal with a 3k workflow," have you seen the Red workflow? It's a thing of beauty, only getting better. Of course, you will have to upgrade that P4 or G4 you bought for editing the BetaSP.

Scarlet is a perfect fit for the work I do now, just as the Red One and eventually the Epic will be for the future projects I have planned.

Make it be, Jim & company, pretty please, asap.

 

[dhazelrig]

I'd say 90% of what I shoot is corporate/industrial/event for SD DVD output. But I always shoot in HD mode on my HDV cameras. Automatically I have a cleaner image, more latitude, and a deeper color space then the guys still shooting on BetaSP, plus I have the option to scale or crop my shots.

Once I have my "impractical" Scarlet, I've upped everything by a magnitude. I can be in a 3k wide shot at a concert event and later be able to crop to a close up of anyone in the band, even for 1080 output. For wedding, street, or documentary work I can go wide and get those edge of screen shots I otherwise would have missed.

Having a larger image to draw from is anything but overkill, it's an absolute blessing, especially for HD output, and just gives you an insane amount of options for SD output.

As far as "having to deal with a 3k workflow," have you seen the Red workflow? It's a thing of beauty, only getting better. Of course, you will have to upgrade that P4 or G4 you bought for editing the BetaSP.

Scarlet is a perfect fit for the work I do now, just as the Red One and eventually the Epic will be for the future projects I have planned.

Make it be, Jim & company, pretty please, asap.

You make a good point about being able to crop things. Using the full shot as a master and then cropping to close ups with consistent continuity. I hadn't thought of that.

Thanks for chiming in.

Cheers,

-D

 

[Randall Nott]

You make a good point about being able to crop things. Using the full shot as a master and then cropping to close ups with consistent continuity. I hadn't thought of that.

Thanks for chiming in.

Just as a side note, most videographers I knew three years ago told me my HDV cameras were not practical and I wouldn't need that resolution for years.
When I could only bring one camera to one of my best friend's wedding, the closest shot I could get of her and her groom was a medium two shot. Imagine her surprise on seeing the final output when it cut to individual cropped closeups. She wanted to know where I hid the other two cameras.

 

[dieseljunkie]

If they did that, I wouldn't be able to afford the camera. At under $3K, I can. Seriously, if this is the only way they can do a camera like this at that price point, then I have no complaints.

Tyler, I understand that. But you have the money to buy the proper equipment to edit 3k footage on your computer? And do you have the money to buy for let's say $1,000 - $1,500 in memory cards? And also the money for 5TB of storage space? Those things are often forgotten.

I can imagine that they include a low bandwidth like 20mbit/sec setting which can be edited in every NLE out there. But one should think about this.

 

[dieseljunkie]

Just as a side note, most videographers I knew three years ago told me my HDV cameras were not practical and I wouldn't need that resolution for years.
When I could only bring one camera to one of my best friend's wedding, the closest shot I could get of her and her groom was a medium two shot. Imagine her surprise on seeing the final output when it cut to individual cropped closeups. She wanted to know where I hid the other two cameras.

True. I think this is an advance. Shoot 3k, crop 1080p frames and have a great variety of shots with one camera. I will be buying two anyway if the fixed lens delivers. That's the risk of the fixed lens, if it is not that good or not wide enough you can't change anything about it while the rest of the camera is completely what you are dreaming off.

I hope they make the 8x a 10x and the T2.8 a T2.0. A 25 - 250mm (35mm terms) it would suffice for most people. Another thing I hope for is a telephoto and wideangle conversion lens. They could make it work like this.
But with 3k resolution, the lens has to be really good. And a fixed lens this small makes me a bit worried. But then I thrust Jim and his team.

 

[Buck Forester]

3k is still overkill. So what good use it 3k? Why would you want it?

With all due respect, I'm having difficulty understanding why 3K would be a concern? Let's say it wasn't 3K, let's say it shot the same resolution as the new Sony EX1, in MPEG2. The Sony is a bigger/heavier camera (as least by appearances), it shoots MPEG2, has a fixed lens, has slower framerates, and is well over twice the price of Scarlet. And is extremely popular and is selling like popsicles at an Al Gore "Inconvenient Truth" presentation. Now we have an announcement for a camera that is smaller, lighter, much higher resolution, shoots in RAW at a great speed, and is less than half the price of hte EX1 and you're wondering what application this might be for and that 3K is a concern because it's overkill? I guess if you're concerned about it, it must be a legit concern, but for me I'm not understanding it. Those specs blow the EX1 away (which I'll be buying an EX1 this month, so I'm not knocking it, ha!, it's still awesome!) at a lesser price. You can always shoot in 3K and downsize to whatever you want, and still have 3K for future applications if you can't use it now. I'd rather have it that way than if it shot in native SD, or HDV or something. If the vast majority of your work is shot in BetaSP, out of curiosity, why are you interested in RAW high-def specs to begin with? Seems you can get those older cameras for cheap right now and it would be great for your bottom line.

Also keep in mind that a huge percentage of these kinds of video cameras sold in this price range (and up to the EX1 range) end up as nice toys with people who have money and/or people who like to have the latest-greatest and are hobbyist videographers. Do we really need to see our 2 year olds blowing out their birthday candles in high-def? You betcha! :^D

As for Jim's terse response, I think it's obvious that he is responding to those with non-constructive, negative criticism who are just complaining and disappointed they weren't given a camera that no manufacturer in their right mind would make. I'm sure positive constructive criticism is always welcomed. But hey, I'm just blowin' smoke like everyone else, stuck with too much computer time the last couple of days, ha ha! I have no clue what I'm talking about. But it's still fun.

 

[Buck Forester]

When RED sells 100,000 Scarlet units, how are they going to produce them?

Exactly... and what kind of lead content will be in the paints? :Þ

Just as a side note, most videographers I knew three years ago told me my HDV cameras were not practical...

And they were right... HDV is so yesterday.

 

[Garth Philpot]

seconded

seconded

I hope they make the 8x a 10x and the T2.8 a T2.0. A 25 - 250mm (35mm terms) it would suffice for most people. Another thing I hope for is a telephoto and wideangle conversion lens. They could make it work like this.
But with 3k resolution, the lens has to be really good. And a fixed lens this small makes me a bit worried. But then I thrust Jim and his team.

I am also hoping that the lens is at least a 10x if it has to be a fixed lens, and that there is a high quality wide and tele adaptor available ... the only thing that concerns me on this little work of art is the glass ...

 

[dhazelrig]

With all due respect, I'm having difficulty understanding why 3K would be a concern? Let's say it wasn't 3K, let's say it shot the same resolution as the new Sony EX1, in MPEG2. The Sony is a bigger/heavier camera (as least by appearances), it shoots MPEG2, has a fixed lens, has slower framerates, and is well over twice the price of Scarlet. And is extremely popular and is selling like popsicles at an Al Gore "Inconvenient Truth" presentation. Now we have an announcement for a camera that is smaller, lighter, much higher resolution, shoots in RAW at a great speed, and is less than half the price of hte EX1 and you're wondering what application this might be for and that 3K is a concern because it's overkill? I guess if you're concerned about it, it must be a legit concern, but for me I'm not understanding it. Those specs blow the EX1 away (which I'll be buying an EX1 this month, so I'm not knocking it, ha!, it's still awesome!) at a lesser price. You can always shoot in 3K and downsize to whatever you want, and still have 3K for future applications if you can't use it now. I'd rather have it that way than if it shot in native SD, or HDV or something. If the vast majority of your work is shot in BetaSP, out of curiosity, why are you interested in RAW high-def specs to begin with? Seems you can get those older cameras for cheap right now and it would be great for your bottom line.

Also keep in mind that a huge percentage of these kinds of video cameras sold in this price range (and up to the EX1 range) end up as nice toys with people who have money and/or people who like to have the latest-greatest and are hobbyist videographers. Do we really need to see our 2 year olds blowing out their birthday candles in high-def? You betcha! :^D

As for Jim's terse response, I think it's obvious that he is responding to those with non-constructive, negative criticism who are just complaining and disappointed they weren't given a camera that no manufacturer in their right mind would make. I'm sure positive constructive criticism is always welcomed. But hey, I'm just blowin' smoke like everyone else, stuck with too much computer time the last couple of days, ha ha! I have no clue what I'm talking about. But it's still fun.

To begin with, all of my thinking and discussion at the moment is academic. I'm not really concerned with specs. Clearly Scarlet out weighs any thing on the market today (but let us not forget that Scarlet doesn't even exist yet!). I was more concerned with application. I have no experience working with 2k, 3k, 4k, etc.

Bear with me...this has a point.

I just shot my first HD short film last weekend. I've had to jump through hoops to get everything going properly and it's raised a lot of questions for me. I edit on FCP (version 5), so that was a no brainer BUT a significant issue I have is that I have no means to monitor an HD signal. After research I found that there is an inexpensive monitoring solution for HD but it requires one of the latest intel Macs. I'm still running a G4. I'm editing my project in HD, but I know that ultimately it will wind up on a sd DVD. It might potentially go on some sort of HD format for presentation should it ever go to a film festival (I'm not certain if film festivals are running HD now. It's been 3 years since my last film).

All of those issues came from me using a Panasonic HVX-200 for the first time.

Not even close to 3K.

That opens up an entire new can of worms.

Do you have adequate storage for all those huge files? Can your current system handle the through put? Do you have the time to down convert everything to a usable format for presentation (I've heard that converting the 4k raw files is number crunching time consuming)? With a raw signal, don't you have to color correct every shot? Is that extra time that you have?

Things are changing. It's not like picking up the latest Sony blah, blah, blah slapping in a tape and knowing that you can make that deadline like you always have.

For cinema work, all these hurdles aren't as big of a deal. You can take the time work all these issues out. In the commercial world, these issues become real big liabilities. That's why my boss still shoots BetaSP, she knows what to expect. Now, I'm not saying don't move forward for fear of losing comfort, but it is something to consider.

All I hear people saying is "I'm gonna buy three Scarlet's and rock n roll!!!".

There's more to it than that.

-D

 

[WesVasher]

I believe Red is very serious about the workflow. With another year of dev I'm sure the workflow will be working very smoothly, at least I hope so.

 

[HD Bubaloo]

Despite all the complaints......


720 and 1080 are so last year. 3k for $3k. What a ripoff.


I truly question the intelligence of many REDUSER.NET forum posters who have anything negative to say about the Scarlet, especially since the feature set and price have been outlined (due to change).


I know the company I work for that is Panasonic/ Sony / Canon / JVC would love to be a dealer for the Scarlet here in the East Coast. This camera will make the RED ONE waiting list look inconsequential. Available early 2009 in your hands 2010. Sony and Panny won't have anything like this for at least 10 years in 2020.

Like it, buy it. Have complaints, don't buy it. From where I am standing (in our camera showroom) if you don't like it deal with 1080 and 720 for another 10 years at a higher cost.

 

[dhazelrig]

Despite all the complaints......


720 and 1080 are so last year. 3k for $3k. What a ripoff.


I truly question the intelligence of many REDUSER.NET forum posters who have anything negative to say about the Scarlet, especially since the feature set and price have been outlined (due to change).


I know the company I work for that is Panasonic/ Sony / Canon / JVC would love to be a dealer for the Scarlet here in the East Coast. This camera will make the RED ONE waiting list look inconsequential. Available early 2009 in your hands 2010. Sony and Panny won't have anything like this for at least 10 years in 2020.

Like it, buy it. Have complaints, don't buy it. From where I am standing (in our camera showroom) if you don't like it deal with 1080 and 720 for another 10 years at a higher cost.

As acquisition 3k, 4k, 5k I understand the merits. But 1080 and 720 HD are going to be around for a while, at least the next 20 years, as home presentation formats. 25 years of research and development of the HD format aren't going to be superseded overnight by cutting edge technology that we are just now having the capacity to work with.

 

[kmikami]

Things are changing. It's not like picking up the latest Sony blah, blah, blah slapping in a tape and knowing that you can make that deadline like you always have.

For cinema work, all these hurdles aren't as big of a deal. You can take the time work all these issues out. In the commercial world, these issues become real big liabilities.

I really don't understand all of these complaints. If you're in the commercial world and fast workflow is crucial you should have the money to buy whatever top of the line equipment you need to handle 3k realtime.

If you're an indie filmmaker doing a short film for festival distribution you should have the time to do whatever you need to do to get the job done. Even if that means leaving your computer to render for a week or monitoring on a cheap computer monitor and then burning DVDs to check it on different TV systems or whatever.

It doesn't make sense to criticize Scarlet because you say you need lots of expensive infrastructure to deal with 3k footage and then turn around and say that working fast is crucial in a commercial environment. Which world are you in? You either have time or money and you should be able to plan your budget and schedule accordingly. Scarlet isn't any different from any other camera in this regard.

 

[Buck Forester]

Do you have adequate storage for all those huge files? Can your current system handle the through put? Do you have the time to down convert everything to a usable format for presentation (I've heard that converting the 4k raw files is number crunching time consuming)? With a raw signal, don't you have to color correct every shot? Is that extra time that you have?

Good points. I'm assuming you're asking these questions rhetorically (as in the general marketplace) because yes, in order to produce high-def content, from acquisition to delivery, you're already pushing the envelope. As for me, I am ordering a new Mac Pro that is pretty much max configured, with a RAID 5, and I also have an audio studio at home too. So I'll be set up to edit and render this stuff, but even then it'll obviously be a more lengthy process than SD.

I think many people who are buying the EX1 type of cameras are already reasonably savvy to what's required for editing this stuff. And if not, just like you mentioned, you jump through the initial hurdles and go through the learning curve. Working in RAW is more time intensive too, but just like with DSLR cameras, it's what the semi-serious and serious shooters (hobbyists or pros) are buying by the truckload. I know photographers are upgrading their processing power and screen size to handle the larger RAW files. A lot of moolah is being spent on this digital media stuff, and the vast majority of it is not for profressional applications. Look at a sight like Flickr... gazillions of people shooting great shots with very nice digital cameras just so they can upload them for people to see. This Scarlet costs less than many of the digital still cameras out there.

My guess is, and it's just a guess, that the people saying, "I'm buying three Scarlet's and rock 'n roll" already know to some degree what this is all about or they wouldn't be spending countless hours on the RED forums.