Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

[Jason Rudd]

David, you make me ashamed that as a hobbyist, I ordered one of these. I work entirely in post production right now.

Spoken like a true professional, your reasoning is entirely true. Fully rigged, a Scarlet X will cost about $20K, and as a professional you have to be able to pay this stuff off to justify spending that much. Otherwise, one is just a well off hobbyist with not much good reason to buy rather than rent .

The Scarlet is an amazing bargain for a pro digital cinema camera... my only disappointment was that the 2/3" fixed-lens Scarlet looked FUN, pro quality with prosumer ease-of-use and size, whereas this new Scarlet looks like a serious pro camera. I look at it and I think of work, not running in my spare time around shooting my own personal projects with my friends. And I can't drop $12,000+ on a package for personal use... $7000 was more doable. To justify buying a Scarlet now I'd have to figure out how to rent it to my productions as a C-camera, and I'd probably have to invest in it with more lenses and accessories than I would care to for personal use. In the end, I may end up spending over $20,000 and I don't normally rent equipment at all so I don't have a clue as to the process of paying off such an investment in a timely fashion. A $7000 personal movie camera like the fixed-lens Scarlet, that I wouldn't have to justify spending the money on.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Kyle,

I'm sorry but the Scarlet-X is still less than $6,000 after adjusted for inflation.

Please look at the price of Gold and you will see what $6,000 buy you back then vs $9,750 to day.

Umm, nobody in their right mind uses the price of gold to measure inflation.

 

[Johnny Friday]

what do THEY use?
....or what does NOBODY not use?

 

[Jason Rudd]

CPI. Gold is currently another bubble asset. Lucrative though, if you got in early.

 

[John Byrne]

I have a feeling you will.

I'm gonna put on the ego hat for a minute - I still can't believe I won an award for cinematography using a canon t2i and a bunch of AIs primes. I have so many wild ideas screaming around in my I head about what I could do shooting with decent dynamic range. Watch out if I ever get a red !!

 

[Kyle Presley]

Kyle,

I'm sorry but the Scarlet-X is still less than $6,000 after adjusted for inflation.

Please look at the price of Gold and you will see what $6,000 buy you back then vs $9,750 today.

I'd say the Scarlet-X after adjusted for inflation is cheaper than the $6,000 back then when the idea of Scarlet was out.

The fix lens thing?

You will have an option now of what ever lens you want.

On the other hand, I respect your opinions.

It's great to be able to speak your mind.

Please let me speak mine.

The Scarlet-X is a great camera at a great price.

Please refer to David M. post for some of the reasons.

I would like to thank David for posting. His voice carries a lot of weight around here, and for good reason. As to gold prices, they do not indicate inflation on a dollar for dollar basis. I could use a similar argument for my case and say that McDouble from McDonalds still only costs a dollar, so therefore there has been no inflation. However, that too would be a flawed argument.

 

[Jeffrey Loewe]

Wow this thread has blown up, as has the Scarlet board in general. Obviously you need a balance of opinions. But i'm out for awhile until it calms down.

 

[Ruben and Sheri O.]

Good point us too

Wow this thread has blown up, as has the Scarlet board in general. Obviously you need a balance of opinions. But i'm out for awhile until it calms down.

 

[Zeb B]

That's a tagline, not a philosophy. If I remember right, back when Mr. Jannard was plugging the Scarlet he claimed that 35mm film scans have 4K of information on them and 16mm film scans have 3K. You know, back when the goal was to sell Scarlet as an alternative to 16mm. Now the philosophy is, "All recording moving images must be in Super Panavision 70!"

Robert, Do you own, actively rent or ever intend somehow invest in RED products? If not, why are you on redUSER spouting off? I see nothing in your posts other than troll bait and bullshit.

 

[Joel Kaye]

C'mon, FS100 is a PITA but for other reasons: 8-bit 4:2:0 granted the price point.

Have you ever shot one? (I've shot a RED for 3 years so I think I can compare)

I shot one for 2 weeks and even did some green screen that "worked". Screw the specs - the actual image is far better than the specs would indicate. And it sees in the dark. And you can buy a Nikon mount for $50. And the batteries are $50 and last 3 hours. And the media is cheap. And it's 2 lbs. edit - and real XLR inputs that work like you think they should. ie - redirect 1 input to 2 channels with different gain.

Shoot one, look at the images and tell me it sucks. Every under $10K person should rent one for a day with a $50 Nikon mount from eBay. It's "the" under $10K s35mm camera in my mind. I just think people lose their mind on "specs" and forget to shoot the damn things and look at the images. There's no moire', tiny noise even gained up and the skew is similar to RED. Convert the codec to something better in post and off you go. Or edit natively for a quick edit.

I've shot interviews that you could not pick from a RED at 1080P. It's not going to be a Scarlet in terms of color grading and ability to miss exposure and reframing. And RED for greenscreen will be best.

The worst thing about it for me was focusing. You need an external monitor. But same for the F3. The 1:1 magnify on a RED is a benefit no one mentions but is a big deal. The 10x zoom on Canon works also.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Here's something else to consider. Who had any interest in the interchangeable Scarlet? The fixed scarlet was a cool trick and had a lot of applications but to me the interchangeable scarlet was always kind of a Dead In the Water concept.

2/3" is mostly dead now. F65, Alexa, F-100, F-3, GH1, 5D, Epic and Penelope D. There are ZERO 2/3" cameras that are attracting attention. Throw in a fixed lens and you have a quirky little side market. But Jim said the lens had terminal issues that just could be fixed. So I think the interchangeable was only sticking around as a "might as well" product. Without the fixed lens it would have disasterous to release a 2/3" camera.

Not to mention Jim for the last year has been saying that anything less than 4k is a waste. You can't as a company be taken all that seriously when your slogan is 4k+ or death when you release a 3k camera.

I still say though that I'm surprised at how under-powered the Scarlet-X is compared to Epic. It's not 1/4 or even 1/8th the power of the Epic. It's 1/10th. That's a HUGE jump in processing power.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Wow this thread has blown up, as has the Scarlet board in general. Obviously you need a balance of opinions. But i'm out for awhile until it calms down.

There have been as matter of fact. It is our reaction, S35 supporters who have fought for what we believe

 

[David W. Jones]

I'm flashing back to when Ferrari started selling 8 cylinder cars. The outcry was huge! A real Ferrari has 12 cylinders up front, not 8 mid. Kind of silly don't you think?

 

[Emanuel A.]

Have you ever shot one? (I've shot a RED for 3 years so I think I can compare)

I shot one for 2 weeks and even did some green screen that "worked". Screw the specs - the actual image is far better than the specs would indicate. And it sees in the dark. And you can buy a Nikon mount for $50. And the batteries are $50 and last 3 hours. And the media is cheap. And it's 2 lbs.

Shoot one, look at the images and tell me it sucks. I've shot interviews that you could not pick from a RED at 1080P. It's not going to be a Scarlet in terms of color grading and ability to miss exposure and reframing. And RED for greenscreen will be best.

The worst thing about it for me was focusing. You need an external monitor. But same for the F3. The 1:1 magnify on a RED is a benefit no one mentions but is a big deal. The 10x zoom on Canon works also.

Actually not. Those specs do not help either. F3 is another cam IMO. Especially with the upgrade policy ala RED. It looks like every brand out there is trying to get a part of the RED's cake. One of the reasons why RED could only be betting in their own native product: 35mm sensor size.

 

[Emanuel A.]

2/3" is mostly dead now. F65, Alexa, F-100, F-3, GH1, 5D, Epic and Penelope D. There are ZERO 2/3" cameras that are attracting attention.

Got it. I and many others were worried until a couple of days ago.

 

[Richard_JP]

Scarlet 2/3" was over before it started. OK. But IMO, the Scarlet-X is too. Nothing impressive about this camera apart from the fact that it can produce 5k stills at 12fps.

Useless resolutions/fps mixed with semi pro processing power. I'll save my money till something good comes along.

 

[Kyle Presley]

Here's something else to consider. Who had any interest in the interchangeable Scarlet? The fixed scarlet was a cool trick and had a lot of applications but to me the interchangeable scarlet was always kind of a Dead In the Water concept.

2/3" is mostly dead now. F65, Alexa, F-100, F-3, GH1, 5D, Epic and Penelope D. There are ZERO 2/3" cameras that are attracting attention. Throw in a fixed lens and you have a quirky little side market. But Jim said the lens had terminal issues that just could be fixed. So I think the interchangeable was only sticking around as a "might as well" product. Without the fixed lens it would have disasterous to release a 2/3" camera.

Not to mention Jim for the last year has been saying that anything less than 4k is a waste. You can't as a company be taken all that seriously when your slogan is 4k+ or death when you release a 3k camera.

I still say though that I'm surprised at how under-powered the Scarlet-X is compared to Epic. It's not 1/4 or even 1/8th the power of the Epic. It's 1/10th. That's a HUGE jump in processing power.

2/3" interchangeable would have sold like hotcakes. It was the one I wanted. I have spent over a grand in c mount lenses. Yes, my loss. I guarantee you it would have been a huge success. And it still could be, if Red would see reason. I would be willing to bet that you haven't shot much 2/3" stuff. I haven't shot much either, but what I have shot looked great. You can get deep or narrow depth of field depending on what you want. It's a great format for doco shooters and indie filmmakers alike. The 2/3" interchangeable model would have been the Bolex of the 21st century.

 

[Richard_JP]

Here's something else to consider. Who had any interest in the interchangeable Scarlet? The fixed scarlet was a cool trick and had a lot of applications but to me the interchangeable scarlet was always kind of a Dead In the Water concept.

2/3" is mostly dead now.

2/3" fixed was the camera that I wanted. I'm sorry that you were unable to contemplate the capabilities of a digital 16mm replacement, some of were able too.

The Weiss Cam T is what I'm setting my sights on now. 2/3" and shooting 350fps RAW. Something that RED are unable to compete with.

 

[Zeb B]

Scarlet 2/3" was over before it started. OK. But IMO, the Scarlet-X is too. Nothing impressive about this camera apart from the fact that it can produce 5k stills at 12fps.

Useless resolutions/fps mixed with semi pro processing power. I'll save my money till something good comes along.

This just in: 24FPS@4K RAW for $15K complete is now useless

 

[Richard_JP]

This just in: 24FPS@4K RAW for $15K complete is now useless

Er, yep. Have you not been listening to Jim? Finish in 4k, so shoot in, er, wait, the Scarlet-x doesn't have anything left. Scarlet can not finish in 4k. Therefore it is not fit for cinema. Therefore, doesn't fit into RED.

And seriously, 1k 120fps. May as well get that Casio thing.