Expectations...

[Paul Ellington]

There is no defense for sounding like a spoiled brat who just started shooting when Jim's been at this game for a long long time... You don't like the specs go build something better for less money.

 

[John Caballero]

Again, a reality check:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwVmKydHH-8

and in case you prefer reality in spanish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTvaWsmOt_c&feature=related

 

[Nikhil Kamkolkar]

Again, a reality check:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwVmKydHH-8

That was back in Jan. Its Oct now. I smell change.

 

[Steve Doll]

I am sure there are a few new things not mentioned there otherwise it wouldn't be much of an announcement. Either way, I want that camera in the demo. Something better is just icing.

Again, a reality check:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwVmKydHH-8

and in case you prefer reality in spanish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTvaWsmOt_c&feature=related

 

[John Caballero]

That was back in Jan. Its Oct now. I smell change.

In the real world it takes that long and longer to get a machine like that working properly. And even when it is out it will encounter many problems to be fixed as recent history has shown us. That was the real problem with Red, announcing something that would undoubtedly take years to develop properly. After months of testing I guess is ready. We will know pretty soon how good it really is.

 

[Felix Steinhardt]

Could you guys from red tell us (on the 3rd) how good scarlets high-ISO capabilities are (compared to other cams)?
It would be crucial to know before ordering, if you can get an acceptable image at ISO 1600.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

No, but one of Red's mottoes is...

Before you flame me...

Why would I ever "flame you"?

I was going to answer you, but Terry VerHaar already beat me to it a few posts down.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

OK - relevant to the subject of this thread, consider the following:

- On two occasions, 9/20 & 10/13, Jim posted threads about the November 3rd announcement which, he stated, was specifically to be about Scarlet (not saying it's ONLY Scarlet, but he said 11/3 was about Scarlet)

- Subsequently, REDusers went a little crazy (as they are still) with speculation about what the "new" Scarlet would be - since the assumption seemed to be that "everything has changed"

- The major gist of the assumptions centered around 3 areas:
a) Sensor size - Scarlet will have a bigger sensor (most say s35, some say 4/3rds, some even FF35),
b) Resolution - Scarlet wil no longer be 3K, but 4K ( a few conjectured 1080P but... come on)
c) Price - will either be a fabulously low price or will have Epic-like specs for a distinctly non-Epic price (10K, 12-15K, 18K, whatever)

- After much speculation was thrown about, Jim went out of his way on 10/22 to start this thread which specifically warned against ridiculously high expectations for Scarlet. Now, he could have been targeting his warning at any or all of these expectations. But clearly, something didn't feel right for him.

First, Jim never said everything had changed, just that - in line with his standard motto - things change. It could be as small as the way in which the modules connect to the body or the way the REDmote controls the focus, or it could be one or more major changes. My point is that some change doesn't mean that everything has changed. It doesn't really mean anything at all specific.

Now, if all the discussion was around sensor size, resolution and/or price, and Jim went out of his way to tamp down expectations, why is the conversation still about larger sensors, greater resolution and with, it would seem, the expectation of a price point that will compete with DSLRs or the FS100 or ??

Do you guys really think Scarlet is going to be a $12-15K camera? (Which would leave the Epic-S where - out?)
Do you really think RED has reversed itself and moved the camera with the Epic-S specs (4K/s35) back into the Scarlet body - which, early on, was apparently not able to handle everything needed to make an s35 Scarlet work)?
Do you think RED can put 4K on a 2/3" sensor? (Do a search here about the physics of this before you answer).
Do you think RED have scrapped all the work on the Scarlet they have been showing for a year and moved to a 4/3rds, s35 or FF sensor? Does this make sense?
Do you think they have abandoned the incredible specs of 120+ FPS at 3K, HDRx, broad dynamic range, a cine-quality lens (8x / f2.4) in order to introduce the low end Epic sooner?
Do you think they have completely abandoned the idea of a pro camera at $10K or under so they can give you an "almost-Epic" in the mid-teens $ range and leave it at that?

So what is the bottom line speculation for the hyper-optimists out there? Are we getting an s35, 4K camera that will do 60FPS (30fps with HDRx) in a shooting package for under $10K? Or, as Jim says, are we hoping for 1000 fps, 28K camera in a 2 lb raisin box for $800? Really. I have heard some people say s35 sensor, others 4K and still others speculate about price, but I can't recall anyone putting all three into one equation.

Thanks for actually writing what I've been aching to say for the last few days, but didn't get around to write.

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

First, Jim never said everything had changed, just that - in line with his standard motto - things change. It could be as small as the way in which the modules connect to the body or the way the REDmote controls the focus, or it could be one or more major changes. My point is that some change doesn't mean that everything has changed. It doesn't really mean anything at all specific.

You could be right. However, Jim twice said recently that what was a good idea three years ago no longer seems to be and will be changed. That was after Epic was released, so that cryptic comment would seem to apply to Scarlet. It could mean the change to modularity or the change in emphasis to a strictly professional (and hence less price-sensitive) target market, but that's old news. It seemed a little ominous to me, signifying an evolutionary change in philosophy and thus, possibly, a significant change to Scarlet.

Do you guys really think Scarlet is going to be a $12-15K camera? (Which would leave the Epic-S where - out?)
Do you really think RED has reversed itself and moved the camera with the Epic-S specs (4K/s35) back into the Scarlet body - which, early on, was apparently not able to handle everything needed to make an s35 Scarlet work)?

Recently (a few weeks ago) Jim mentioned forthcoming products and twice omitted reference to Epic-S. When questioned about it, he responded, "The camera you want is at the end of the year." A reasonable inference would be that there will be a camera with specs comparable to those previously announced for Epic-S. Whether it's still called Epic-S is immaterial. (If it is, Jim could've just said, "Oh, yeah, that's coming soon, too." His response seemed intentionally worded to skirt the camera's actual name, but I admit to be on shaky ground here.) The question is whether this camera will replace both the 2/3-inch Scarlet and the Epic-S. I concede that is unlikely.

Could Red be working on a 4K (rather than 5K) APS-C (rather than S35) Scarlet? I don't know. The problems getting all the electronics to fit and function in the Scarlet chassis happened a year ago. Moving to a slightly smaller (APS-C), slightly lower-resolution sensor may have helped to solve the problem. Is it likely? Probably not. In any case, I don't know what Red's been working on -- they have been practicing being tight-lipped.

Do you think RED can put 4K on a 2/3" sensor? (Do a search here about the physics of this before you answer).

Sure they can. Canon did it with its "hairdryer" concept, and JVC have been demoing near-4K QuadHD in an even smaller sensor. But should they do it, given the issues you referred to? That's another matter. But if anyone could make it work -- or something like QuadHD on an S16-sized sensor (as David Rasberry has suggested might be technically doable) -- my money would be on Red.

Do you think they have completely abandoned the idea of a pro camera at $10K or under so they can give you an "almost-Epic" in the mid-teens $ range and leave it at that?

I think it's likely that Red will offer both cameras.

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Why would I ever "flame you"?

I was going to answer you, but Terry VerHaar already beat me to it a few posts down.

Actually, his response seems address more generally. It doesn't specifically respond to my comments, but that's OK -- I think everyone's getting a little tired of the discussion.

I just wish that when someone raised a legitimate point, no matter how unpopular, the responses would be restricted specifically to that point, not directed at attacking the poster as a whiner. Josh Snyder raised a question and was immediately attacked, yet the issues he raised were never actually directly addressed. It's a good thing politicians running for office aren't let off that easily. They get asked tough, incisive questions, and though they frequently give pat answers to get the interview back on message, any good journalist will hammer away until the question is answered satisfactorily. True, Jim's not running for office -- and, at the risk of alienating potential customers, he doesn't have to answer any question he doesn't want to answer. But it's also unprofessional, and discourteous, for forum members to attack the person who asks it.

 

[Phil Anderson]

OK - relevant to the subject of this thread, consider the following....

Excellent post Terry. I think you have encapsulated everything I tried to surmise over the last week or so.

I think if we look back at Ted at CES (or NAB, or IBC) and read all the posts before they clammed up about it, it stands to reason to me that the Scarlet we saw in Ted's hands, and saw footage from courtesy of Jarred, is 99% the Scarlet we will see. The one hint is when Ted says that "we're still working on the specs". To me that means the hardware is what we've seen: 2/3", 3k, 8x lens, etc. But we could see more frame rates, better compression options, etc.

 

[Josh Snyder]

The expectation thing again. There isn't even 3k out there to compete against! Unless you count EPIC that is which exists in a much different market. As much as a 2/3 camera is not the direction I am heading in a 3k Scarlet could dominate TV and Indie film production.

Jim said 4K is needed for film and TV to be future proof. That's why some of us believe it will be 4K.

This.

Yes, Red (and specifically Jim) have promoted 4K and denounced 2K/1080p...in the context of replacing 35mm film. Their expressed mission is to provide a digital replacement for film. On the point of resolution, Red has seemed to agree with ARRI at 4K for 35mm and 3K for 16mm - and (as indicated by the old specs) higher resolutions for larger formats.

We saw a woking, near-complete 2/3" fixed Scarlet only months ago. I find it hard to imagine that Red would have gone from that point and basically started from the ground-up with a totally new design, throwing away the existing design (and years of R&D), and essentially created a new camera during that (limited) time.

My expectations are the last known specs, and I'm happy with those. Anything better that may or may not happen would just be gravy.

I don't remember RED promoting Scarlet as digital version of 16mm camera. Can you point me to his posts where he does so or does this just come from your head?

 

[John Caballero]

I don't remember RED promoting Scarlet as digital version of 16mm camera.

Nope. Just a 2/3" fixed kens 3K digital cinema camera.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Excellent post Terry. I think you have encapsulated everything I tried to surmise over the last week or so.

I think if we look back at Ted at CES (or NAB, or IBC) and read all the posts before they clammed up about it, it stands to reason to me that the Scarlet we saw in Ted's hands, and saw footage from courtesy of Jarred, is 99% the Scarlet we will see. The one hint is when Ted says that "we're still working on the specs". To me that means the hardware is what we've seen: 2/3", 3k, 8x lens, etc. But we could see more frame rates, better compression options, etc.

I definitely agree that you have hit the substance of the argument here. The hardware cannot have changed that much or RED would not be on the schedule to release on 11/3. Given the recent comments about upgradeability, light field technology and the Alchemy slider coming to RCX, I think the "holy shit" part of the November 3rd announcement is going to be centered around what incredible things a 3K, 2/3" sensor REDCode RAW camera can do with an 8X fixed f/2.4 lens now and going forward. If that disappoints then, as Jim put it, "you suck." :laugh:

 

[Eugene Lehnert]

Scarlet - Keep it simple

Scarlet - Keep it simple

A 2k camera with a large sensor that can take Canon or Nikon lenses would be amazing. No HDRx and no super high frame rates. Just something portable with some awesome narrow depth of field with a good codec. Something affordable. I look forward to Nov 3. It may not be what I wanted but it should be interesting.

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

A 2k camera with a large sensor that can take Canon or Nikon lenses would be amazing. No HDRx and no super high frame rates. Just something portable with some awesome narrow depth of field with a good codec. Something affordable. I look forward to Nov 3. It may not be what I wanted but it should be interesting.

Because Red is heavily promoting 4K and there has been considerable (and heated) forum discussion of the viability of 3K in light of that, I don't think Red would release a maximally 2K camera. If affordable 2K and S35 are what you want, there are other options.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Jim said 4K is needed for film and TV to be future proof. That's why some of us believe it will be 4K.

The biggest flaw in your argument is that it is completely unrealistic. It ignores the huge development, in terms of both time and money, that has already gone into the 2/3" Scarlet already. IF a 3K, 2/3" Scarlet had already been eclipsed in the market then maybe (MAYBE) you would see RED walk away from it. But the specs of the Scarlet as previously released are still a market leading camera - by far. The ONLY folks who look past the value of REDCode RAW and all the other advantages of RED's technology that is probable in Scarlet are those foolish enough to be fixated on big sensors and the believe that shallow DOF is the sole criteria for good images. And if RED had thrown away all the development to date, they would not be likely to be ready to introduce the "new and improved" Scarlet this soon.

As I said in the other post, the big deal of the 11/3 announcement will very probably be the tremendous power that can be unleashed with this camera because of REDCode RAW, HDRx, better (and constantly improving and updating) firmware, and the magic of Graeme's pixie dust technology that means R3D files will only get better with age.

 

[Steven Hammer]

It is just stunning that the very topic of this thread, "Don't let your expectations go out of control because then you'll be disappointed," is still being ignored by so many.

 

[Kevin Marshall]

I don't remember RED promoting Scarlet as digital version of 16mm camera. Can you point me to his posts where he does so or does this just come from your head?

I didn't say Red had been promoting it as such. I was bringing up the fact that the "1080p is not good enough" stuff is in reference to replacing film. While Jim's (obviously) a big advocate for 4K everything, I don't think it would be hypocritical of Red to release a 3K 2/3" camera. I think it fits into their general mission of providing digital replacements for film.

As far as posts from Jim, I did a quick search on the forum, and have some I'd like to point out. First, some in reference to replacing film (all emphasis mine):

[...] the core belief that 1080P (or 2K) is not a reasonable replacement for film. We started our business based on this belief.

We are at war with the thought of 1080P being a suitable replacement for film

The 1st question I always ask is "who made these rules anyway?" (like who decided that 1080P was a film replacement?)

I saw that the industry was going to try to replace film with 1080P. I didn't buy it.

I only started RED because I could see that none of the "big guys" were going to develop cameras to properly replace film. The DVX100 was the 1st camera to even offer 24P to the prosumer! The Varicam was 720P and Sony 900 was 1080P. When George Lucas shot 1080P on a major league feature, I was convinced that the industry would try to convince everyone that 1080P was "good enough". The Genesis was 1080P. Arri had just released a paper (still on their website) telling the industry that you should be scanning film at 4K instead of 2K because there was so much more detail. I agreed with Arri. Then they released the D-20 and all bets were off for me. The industry could have made 4K the new standard, but apparently they weren't about to. Since I am the customer and no one was going to build what I wanted, I took matters into my own hands.

All of these clearly show the very reason for Red's existence was to provide a suitable replacement for film. As for the whole 16mm thing, I wasn't trying to say that was Red's expressed opinion. I was rather trying to convey that releasing a 3K 2/3" camera wasn't the hypocrisy that some have claimed it to be. One post that I think supports this point (to an extent, and again emphasis mine):

Maybe I should clarify... I don't think that 1080P is the "Gold Standard" for digital. It isn't good enough. It doesn't mean you shouldn't ever shoot 1080P or 2K... or Super 16mm or even Super 8mm. It means that when you are shooting for the best picture... 1080P is just not good enough. It has the same measured resolution as Super 16, which is not considered the "Gold Standard" for film.

The future is a 4K digital delivery. EVERYONE knows this. So the discussion whether 1080P is good enough is over before it ever started. If the argument is whether 1080P is good enough now for HDTV or a 2K projection in theaters, the answer is still "No". Unless the project has no future value whatsoever. Then the answer is a resounding YES! (There is an exception to every rule).

Jim

So yeah, this doesn't take away from the "4K is the future" mantra, but it shows that sometimes you shoot other formats. Along with the earlier quote regarding the ARRI paper - which besides recommending 4K scans for 35mm recommended 3K scans for 16mm - would at least show a rationale for why 3K would be settled on for a 2/3" sensor.

Could the Scarlet end up being 4K? Maybe. That wasn't my point. My point was that there's nothing wrong with it being 3K (if it is still in fact 2/3"). And I'd rather bank on that and be pleasantly surprised than bet on the conjecture of something better and be disappointed.

EDIT:

It is just stunning that the very topic of this thread, "Don't let your expectations go out of control because then you'll be disappointed," is still being ignored by so many.

Exactly.

 

[Josh Snyder]

It is just stunning that the very topic of this thread, "Don't let your expectations go out of control because then you'll be disappointed," is still being ignored by so many.

RED has been saying for years that Scarlet will be 2/3 3K. When they announced the november 3. date they started to hype Scarlet announcement a lot and saying that something awesome (not the exact word) is coming in the form of Scarlet, they "can't wait for november 3rd", "one of the biggest ennouncement on RED history" etc. After that, how is changing your expections from 3K to 4K "letting expectations out of control"? Something new, something amazing is coming, and you think our expections should be the specs we have seen since 2009?