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 :)

Despite all the complaints...

kmikami said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wasn't complaining, I was discussing. I was raising issues which I felt people weren't addressing to hear responses. I think all of this forward looking is exciting, but I think it best served with asking questions than just accepting statements.

As far as my personal world goes, I have a day job in commercial (corporate) video production and I am an indie filmmaker on my own time...so I do both. The company I work for is small and we don't have big budgets to upgrade equipment to the latest and greatest all the time. But we still face deadlines like everyone else.

As far as my personal projects go, yes I take the time to make them work to the best of my ability, however I can. And yes, that will mean for my latest project color correcting "blind" and checking my results.

Red is calling Scarlet a camera for the masses. Everyone is touting its price as being the means to put it in the hand of "everyman". I'm simply raising the question "are they on the mark?"

I'm just trying to present constructive discussions, rather than complain or just accept. I feel it does more good in the long run.

-D
 
Buck Forester said:
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.
Click to expand...

You bring up a point I didn't think of: The Toy Factor.

There are a lot of people out here that will be excited about all this that are merely wealthy enthusiasts. I suppose for them its simply an issue of throwing money at it till it works. Then they have all the time in the world to play with their new toys. I guess I'm viewing all this in the theoretical terms of my boss telling a client "we'll have it to you in a week" and me being confident that this bleeding edge system doesn't bite me.
 
why 3k? because studios are going to use these things by the armful as D, E, F, G, all the way through Z cams. blowing up a building? litter the site with Scarlets. it's flash, so it can take a beating. your final image is 3k -- good enough for theatrical.

for the rest of us, 1080p would probably be good enough. but they're serious about making it a viable professional tool.
 
3k for $3k sounds like a no brainer for me. The only problem will be availability. No complaints at this price point/feature set.
 
"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."

This is my point by sarcastically saying 720 and 1080 are so yesterday. THey are not, I figure with a Scarlet you are getting more than you need, getting more than you're paying for, and getting more than you will ever get from Sony or Panasonic or Canon or JVC.
 
I love Scarlet too!!!

I love Scarlet too!!!

I spend the last three days at NAB asking questions about it. The fix len will surprise you how good it will be. They haven't decide yet but I hope we will be able to use the Red Drive with it.

Bob
 
HD Bubaloo said:
"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."

This is my point by sarcastically saying 720 and 1080 are so yesterday. THey are not, I figure with a Scarlet you are getting more than you need, getting more than you're paying for, and getting more than you will ever get from Sony or Panasonic or Canon or JVC.
Click to expand...

Dammit! It's hard to hear sarcasm in print. Yes! I agree!
 
Your math is right, but your theory is wrong and misguided. 1080P does not have 6,220,800 pixels. The pixels are dependent on the chip set used.

3000 lines of horizontal resolution is greater than 1920 lines of horizontal resolution. Thats the reality of it.
 
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? 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?
Exactly.......3k for the masses? get real.... to deal with 3k...there is a need for some serious investment and not to mention skill....more than your average 'masses' buyer would be prepared to handle.

Also....what sort of lens quality can you really expect at this price point?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Don't forget to also factor the DSP and what format your getting out of that 1080P camera you are using. If your going uncompressed out via HD-SDI you are still looking pretty good, but if your compressing down to HDV, DVCPRO HD, or HDCAM SR, then there is image quality that is sacrificed due to the compression Gods.

3k Bayer when the Bayer is striped out will leave a nice 2-2.5k image and if you use RedCode Raw your looking pretty.

Sound right?
 
SJD said:
Exactly.......3k for the masses? get real.... to deal with 3k...there is a need for some serious investment and not to mention skill....more than your average 'masses' buyer would be prepared to handle.

Also....what sort of lens quality can you really expect at this price point?
Click to expand...

Who says that everyone who shoots with Scarlet is going to work at 3k?
 
That's funny Gabe.


I only know because I work for a Sony / Panasonic / JVC / Canon / Apple / AJA dealership and use those cameras and FCP Studio 2 and Avid MC everday.
 
Well, i'm way behind on all this stuff. I started off wanting to be a recording engineer/mixer for music and spent years learning that stuff. I guess it will take me a few more years for this stuff too:pinch:
 
HD Bubaloo said:
Your math is right, but your theory is wrong and misguided.
Click to expand...

The post I was responding to was asking how computers could handle 3K if they are choking on 1080P. I was just showing that 3K is actually less bandwidth than 1080P. If you think I meant that 3K is worse than 1080P, that is the opposite of what I meant.

3000 lines of horizontal resolution is greater than 1920 lines of horizontal resolution. Thats the reality of it.
Click to expand...

Bayer does need to oversample, though. A 1920 x 1080 Bayer will probably yield a bit less than 1920 x 1080 full-color resolution.

It seems that you need about 1.5x more pixels in each direction, or about 2x pixels overall.
That's what the Arri D20 does. It outputs 1920 x 1080 RGB but its Bayer sensor is nearly 3K.

More reading: Actual Resolution of Bayer Sensors

But ...
You can go blind on numbers. Truthfully, I would gladly take a 2K Bayer sensor, even knowing that I will end up with the resolution of 1280x720.

After a certain point, resolution is not so important. I've read in more than one place that a 35mm release print is less than 2K. And I also have read that at comfortable movie-screen viewing distances, your eye maxes out at about 2K.
 
No. A 35mm release print still has the equivalent of 4k lines. I am a film guy, although all of this RED stuff, is making me switch faster than from PC to MAC.
 
A 4k Bayer like in RED One will produce roughly 3K after the process factoring the removal of the interpolated information (de-bayering). So if RED Scarlet is 3k as claimed by Jim, then it will have a 2k quality after the de-Bayer process is factored. Still better than most 1920x1080 cameras because even if you use a F23 at 4:4:4 you are most likely going to HDCAM SR which is 4.2:1 is SQ and 2.1:1 in HQ mode. So 2.1:1 is best your going to get with HDCAM SR with an SRW-1 with a Genesis or F35 camera or F23. Unless your going to tether uncompressed directly to a NLE and high performance/cap FC RAID.

What camera manufactures need to start doing is inventing better codecs like RED did. Canon is considering doing it and they credited RED with the idea. Canon said in a press release the other day, "maybe we will just invent our own codec like Red did" when asked about the AVCHD codec.

Its making them think. The day Scarlet is announced both Sony and Canon start talking about making new codecs and having bigger sensors. Nice.
Kind of makes the HPX-3000 look a little silly now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top