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

[Luc Bouvrette]

I have a feeling you would immediately void the warranty . . . just before you melt the board and brick the bitch

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Jason Murphy]

I have a feeling you would immediately void the warranty . . . just before you melt the board and brick the bitch

Not sure you'd even get that far. It would probably just flat out go to brick state without getting a chance to melt anything.

Nima, there's a substantial hardware difference between the two cameras. Software hacks can do useful things from time to time, but they're not going to turn a Scarlet into an Epic.

 

[J Davis]

You guys don't want to bring a RED in to shoot any action pro sport what-so-ever. Your going to need a camera that either has a global shutter cmos or a ccd sensor. The Rolling shutter, although miminal in the REDs, is there, and is not meant for such quick pans, especially sports. It is a motion picture camera, for usage in controlled environments, not so much spontaneous ones.

that guy was shooting film and film has a rolling shutter .
also
if memory serves my correctly the new reds have a read-reset thats so fast that is rolling shutter is now comparable to film (? might be right or wrong on this)

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I don't know that I would say MX is comparable to film yet for rolling shutter. It might be technically the same but the physical shutter has some motion blur on it so it's far less obvious. I still see a little more Jello on RED shots than 35mm. Although isn't NFL Films 16mm and wouldn't a 16mm crop be 1/2 the rolling shutter? If so then I would say it's comparable to a physical shutter's rolling nature.

 

[Phil Holland]

This is why ALL of these ring hollow:

1) The company that figured out how to squeeze 5K RAW @ 96fps into a Hasselblad size body couldn't figure out how to build a 3K camera? An uncompelling argument. It's been said the 8x lens had insurmountable challenges, which with a company like RED sounds more like a battle of will to make this camera, than an true impasse. A battle that RED lost. And abandonment of the interchangeable model...

2) Since when did Red follow the crowd? A 3K 2/3" Scarlet would compete with or beat every current S35 option out there in general image quality.

3) See point #2. 3K RAW Scarlet beats everything still. Also, there is the S35 --> 35mm and 2/3" --> 16mm analogy. Real cinematographers choose a smaller format sometimes on purpose. Not some theoretical prosumer philosophy....but instead as professional as they come.

4) Most in the true Scarlet crowd, not the EPIC-S crowd, never had $10K+ to spend. This argument about Scarlet-X beating out the competition is as useful to us as the EPIC beating out the F35 and Panavision Genesis. Nice, but we'll rarely if ever use any of them, regardless of cost to capability ratio...

5) It is not about what Red owes, but instead what they have lost. Respect. Trust. Confidence. These are intangibles that have nothing to do with anything contractual...

Interesting perspective. I think there's will be two sides of the fence for this subject for some time. To address your points:

1. When it comes to what they can squeeze into a body, Red can do whatever they want. The 8x lens had some design issues from what I understand. Costly R&D and likely more development to get it up to snuff for users. Which means that 2/3"s Scarlet would have been a later release. And potentially more expensive.

2. Except for the fact that sensor format is part of the equation here. And the industry has been moving towards larger sensors. Anybody alive since 2008 can tell you that. Crazy sales numbers. Hard to ignore. If Scarlet X was released with a S35 sensor at $6k would this really still be an issue?

3. True, 3k raw beats a bunch today. 4k raw beats more. Red makes motion pictures cameras that are used on productions. Having an affordable S35 option penetrates more of that market. You can shoot on a smaller format by choice within Scarlet X at a sacrifice of resolution. 3k works out to about 2.0 or 4/3"s size crop factore. 2k is more of a 2/3"s world. There is no other camera on the market that can do this for this price. You could make an argument for 2k @ 120fps for the Scarlet X being a nice thing due to the 2/3"s previous Scarlet's specs.

4. With R&D what we knew before was "Scarlet was around $6k". For about $3k more we get a larger sensor and higher resolution output. Sounds like a decent deal to me. I have no idea if there was a $6k body only logic there, but my guess is an outfitted $6kish Scarlet would still have been in the $10k-$12K territory.

5. This is the big and interesting argument right here. There will be some who feel the way you do. However, there are likely many who have looked at what the competition are offering in this price point and how much more of a camera Scarlet X is. Respect, trust, confidence restored to a manufacturer who is giving a future minded tool rather than stale bread. A company who is actually giving real value for this type of money. A company that clearly has been watching what's been going on around them. Why make a 2/3"s camera right now that competes against a market that desires larger sensors? (Apologies to the Gh1/2 users and whoever will buy the absurd new Nikon format, but the sales figures are clear)

I should also point out for all of those crying so hard into the night that Red has never once stated that 2/3"s was a "dead concept" yet. For me I desired a S35 solution (or bigger sensor) and don't necessarily care. On a cinematography level I prefer S35 or VistaVision (FF35) for damn near everything. But, and a huge but, there's nothing stopping Red from making a 2/3"s body down the road. Right now it was a tremendously intelligent business move to produce the highest quality S35 camera within the sub $20k bracket. The other guys flagship models are looking to be more like survival rafts at this moment.

If you focus more on what's been done right here, building on a successful S35 higher end body using similar technology and components that can be jointly developed, there's so much more right than wrong when it comes to what Scarlet X has transformed into.

 

[Emanuel A.]

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.

Success is not measured in what 'you' think it works. But in what 'the market' will put to work.

Your words... «Yes, my (...)» tell a lot

 

[Emanuel A.]

for some reason only 4K should be written in capital letter(s) vs 1k, 3k & ...even 5k

for some reason only 4K should be written in capital letter(s) vs 1k, 3k & ...even 5k

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.

Here is a point. I wish that could only be a typo. 1k doesn't make ANY sense when we're preaching the 4K and PRO label.

Moreover, the old Scarlet, whether 2/3" whether not, was 3k 120fps. It makes sense to protect the high-end, but that shouldn't be the company's philosophy.

At least when better/faster frame rates specs were previously announced and kept for years.

EPIC-M or EPIC-X customers as myself having plans to be until this December, should understand:

1) what economies of scale means;

2) what they/we have in hands;

3) that technology grows fast.

If you can't get know how to make money in a certain period of time (sometimes too fast but you CANNOT control the rhythm once competitors will do it on your behalf with the tools of your investment, it is better to start to look for another business instead.

RED follows. We all know Jim is too quick to figure out all this.

 

[Richard_JP]

Here is a point. I wish that could only be a typo. 1k doesn't make ANY sense when we're preaching the 4K and PRO label.

Moreover, the old Scarlet, whether 2/3" whether not, was 3k 120fps. It makes sense to protect the high-end, but that shouldn't be the company's philosophy.

At least when better/faster frame rates specs were previously announced and kept for years.

EPIC-M or EPIC-X customers as myself having plans to be until this December, should understand:

1) what economies of scale means;

2) what they/we have in hands;

3) that technology grows fast.

If you can't get know how to make money in a certain period of time (sometimes too fast but you CANNOT control the rhythm once competitors will do it on your behalf with the tools of your investment, it is better to start to look for another business instead.

RED follows. We all know Jim is too quick to figure out all this.

Lots of words, nothing to say.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

I think the choice is simple. If you want to shoot 1080p, then you're looking at the Canon c300, the F3, f100, the AF100, cameras in that arena. There's some pluses and minuses in all of those, some variation in price point.

If you don't have an Epic budget and you want to shoot more than 1080p, then Scarlet is your camera right now, or you can look at the new Canon DSLR that shoots 4k when it releases in a few months (maybe) and check out the specs and price.

Who cares what Red was going to make, or might make at some point in the future?

That's a lot of cameras to choose from at great prices compared to what we've had to choose from in the past.

Scarlet ended up being priced out of my budget, especially when including a full kit since I don't own any accessories already. I still want one, and I figure when it's in my budget it will just be better with some firmware upgrades and so forth.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Lots of words, nothing to say.

Try to read again. I do it every time if necessary. Then you'll probably find I was NOT speaking against your point. I was even saying you have a point. 1k is non-sense (got it now?). As much as to be aggressive, IF it was the case keep it to any other forum out of here. Thanks.

 

[Emanuel A.]

1k is non-sense (got it now?)

On the rest, when I don't understand anything I'd rather ask OR give the benefit of the doubt to the other side.

To protect the company's high-end is practice in the industry. Nothing recommendable in a company like RED known as something substantial different. RED challenges their customers to move on forward or find their own way wherever this means to be.

High-end to protect looks like BS to me. No company can stop the technology's steps nowadays. And I, as many others, we are certain that Jim (but I can say Jarred, as well) knows it very well. Reason enough why we are here and buy RED.

 

[Emanuel A.]

And as it is possible to check out, I am not alone on here.

Just distinct approaches on the subject matter,
not so much different after all,
but more or less the same POV though:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?66074-Perfect&p=860749&viewfull=1#post860749

 

[Patrick Grossien]

True! I love the irony of arguments, frustrations, expectations and complaints here on Reduser

chris, thanks for that

 

[Patrick Grossien]

hmmm... maybe all this would have been easier for some if they just used the term EPIC-S and ditched the word SCARLET along with the idea of the 2/3". Because basically, to me that's what it is.

The Scarlet was the 2/3" camera. Now we get a super cheap EPIC with less horse power. And unless they're still interested in creating an EPIC-S between SCARLET-X and EPIC-X, maybe that name would have been more suited.

edit: on second thought - it might not have been easier for the disappointed guys, but would have maybe made a clearer point of what happened.

 

[Imran Farouk]

Why does everyone take it as recycled and useless bits from EPIC? Like garbage? All RED was doing was simply using bits that wouldn't probably suit a Ferrari and put it into a Ford (probably not the greatest analogy but you get the idea)

If EVERY Sacrlet failed after it was shipped and I'm sure there are some here that will get Scarlet and hammer it as much as they have done to EPIC then we could all complain that it was useless junk thrown into the Scarlet...

But if every Scarlet holds up then its fine. Also keep in mind if they jump down to the 3K zone they are kind of contradicting that 4K is the future, RED has been and always was about 4K wasn't it? The company was built on 4K as a vision of the future...

Yes it will surpass that but for the majority of people 4K is what will be the next 1080p. So 2K,3K of course better than 1080p is still less than 4K and so uprezzing just seems a tad bit foolish...

Now if your all going get upset about the fact that they didn't bring out a 2/3s cam. Cool, I agree. I miss the fact that the camera was around 6K and a full package that would've given some awesome frame rates and capped off at 3K.

BUT a business needs to run. Jannard said that they were having issues with the fixed lens, so maybe IF they were to solve those issues you MAY see a 2/3s camera...but who knows if the camera is TOTALLY axed or not...they did have prototypes and Ketch was lucky enough to have held it so it was obviously a real possibility,

When you manufacturing in the masses a small issue can easily become a major issue so if there was a small lens issue it could've turned into a deadly PR issue, fixing that obviously has proven very difficult. Maybe they'll have a breakthrough who knows!

Lets stay on point though, like most will say here and I guess I'll repeat. Things Change. Everything Changes.


If RED was like the others and didn't even tell you AT ALL about the next gen camera I bet no one would be complaining cause NO ONE would've heard about the fixed lens and NO ONE would've heard of the 2/3s sensor. The difference is they arent but with that comes issues like this.
Simple fact is they changed route. Perhaps you say you don't need 4K but you need 3K, perhaps you want a faster frame rate at 2K and all.

Lets just think though business wise. 2 separate development platforms or one? Which is easier? The one of course. Handing out updates, which moves faster? Having two teams or one massive one that has to handle one single kind of camera? One. This benefits everyone that they can move at a faster pace now.

If you want to petition and beg RED for the 2/3s back do a Poll. See WHICH 2/3s gets the most votes and get everyone to do a +1 reply there and so on. The more people and the more attention it gets, well, RED is a company that listens, it may not happen but its better than nothing. They listen as seen by Scarlet-X.

So start a thread. Do a poll for which camera of the 2/3s you all wanted. Fixed/Interchangable 2/3s. and +1 all over that. The more the better. Civilized, happy and much more positive way of going about getting your dream camera potentially back in development

 

[Patrick Grossien]

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.

The new Canon is a disappointment, $20,000 just to get 8-bit 4:2:2 1080P at 50 mb/sec. Six years ago, that would have been something amazing, now I think most people were hoping for 4K RAW motion images out of a Canon for under $10,000.

Personally I think $10,000 or under is what the Canon and the Sony F3 really should be selling for, and that the Scarlet is a steal at that price range.

Great wording, David! So very true.

 

[Ash Worth]

As many predicted they dropped the Scarlet. They released the Epic S. But how many times have you looked at a newly released product and said what the f**k were they thinking? Not the case here. RED realised, like many naysayers on this board, that the 2/3 fixed was a dead duck and had the balls to say f**k it lets reconfigure regardless of all the resources they had invested and all the hype from Ted etc. That takes a lot for company and I have mad respect for it.

 

[Patrick Grossien]

Why does everyone take it as recycled and useless bits from EPIC? Like garbage?

Hope you don't refer to my post. Because I don't see it that way.
I guess that one post Jim made makes people hold on to it and twist it. I think it's not only smart business-wise but great for us
because of "the DRAGON deal" we get from it. And I don't know what people would think the EPIC-S would be made from

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

hmmm... maybe all this would have been easier for some if they just used the term EPIC-S and ditched the word SCARLET along with the idea of the 2/3". Because basically, to me that's what it is.

The Scarlet was the 2/3" camera. Now we get a super cheap EPIC with less horse power. And unless they're still interested in creating an EPIC-S between SCARLET-X and EPIC-X, maybe that would have been more suited.

edit: on second thought - it might not have been easier, but would have maybe made a clearer point of what happened.

This is exactly my feeling.

Scarlet was dead the day 2/3" was dropped. The renaming of of Epic S won't bring Scarlet back to life.

Personally I can carry on with our two EPIC-X and two Red-MX, but like David Mullen and many others, I was looking forward to a 21st century super 16mm camera, digital, Raw, 120FPS, and around 6K.

I do find the "new" Scarlet a rather risky investment since it will always be perceived like an inferior Camera when compared to an Epic.

The Scarlet of Old was a totally different camera, aimed for a different kind of way to shoot, it was a rather unique and ballsy approach, it was a part of the Red spirit for me… Originality in an ever swallowing DOF world.


I can't help but feel terrible for Red and the thousands of folks young and old who really dug in to that concept, some of them were depending on the release of this product, they are left in the cold night without a gentle word from the leader, next to being called unprofessional...

This is far from what I was expecting from Nov 3rd, I'm sure Jim has some feelings he would like to share with all of us, anything will be better than to pretend this was the greatest announcement in Red's history.

Emmanuel

 

[Patrick Grossien]

...but like David Mullen and many others, I was looking forward to a 21st century super 16mm camera, digital, Raw, 120FPS, and around 6K.

very true, David said it best... all the ideas for experimenting on private stuff just doesn't work anymore because you'd now have to get an EPIC to do that. and for me, right now it's too expensive.
I'm thinking about stopping the rental and investing in bigger gear. but now I just have a hard time choosing between the SCARLET because of the fps and the EPIC for it's price. but the possible
private camera doesn't make as much sense as it did with the fixed run and gun version