Is T2.0 lens worth it?

[chuck colburn]

For some the glass is always half empty... :umm:

Hehehe...

 

[chuck colburn]

OK great news! Fuji Optical of Japan has a new zoom out the goes from 12.5mm to 1,100mm. Sounds like the lens for Scarlet to me.

 

[millrick]

2.8

2.8

Scarlet with a T2.0

:umm:

Question: if Red's other zooms have f/stops of 2.8, why should we expect Scarlet to be faster?

:umm:

 

[millrick]

how much

how much

12.5mm to 1,100mm

and it costs how much?
:umm:

 

[chuck colburn]

:umm:

Question: if Red's other zooms have f/stops of 2.8, why should we expect Scarlet to be faster?

:umm:

Smaller circle of coverage requierment.

 

[chuck colburn]

and it costs how much?
:umm:

I don't know. Might be alot. lol

 

[millrick]

my mistake

my mistake

Smaller circle of coverage requierment (sic) .

quite right. my mistake.
:blush:

 

[Alsone]

No it was NOT. Please red Chris's original post carefully and You will find no mention what so ever about interchangeable lenses. He was proposing to change the fixed lens with something else...

Read his poll carefully - 3 of the poll options for something else are:

Yes, and this would satisfy my desire for interchangeable lenses
Yes, but I still want interchangeable lenses
Yes, and I never wanted interchangeable lenses

As only the orginal poster can post a poll this has to have been something he posted.

Do You actually read and understand what other people post? I was specifically referring to Scarlet being the "missing" camera sought by many indies and other "prosumers". I don't see Scarlet being "cut down" in any way - are You out of Your mind? What do You want? 8K uncompressed 180 FPS with 1 to 1000 mm INTERCHANGEABLE lens and runs on Solar power? All this of course for under $ 1000,- USD and button-sized... Let me check our stock room, I have few of these laying around from my last trip to future...

Maybe you should take your own advice about reading other people's posts carefully.

I never said anything about the Scarlett being cut down. I said that prosumers / amateurs and high end consumers didn't want cut down cameras ie prosumer cameras anymore. They want full professional quality like Scarlett so they too can produce saleable films (production quality allowing). Re-read what I posted and maybe you'll get it.

 

[C.B. Lorch]

It seems to me that for some people it's never enough. I think RED has shown that if there is a way to make something better and cheaper they'll go for it. I'm guessing that 2.8 is the mark for a reason, one they've spend much time and thought on. Same thing about having fixed vs. interchangeable glass.
I go back to agree with Peter, "It's Impossible" ! Not because of any one reason but rather because it just doesn't work that way.
Constructive input is good, asking for more for the sake of more just bogs things down.

 

[Peter Majtan]

Read his poll carefully - 3 of the poll options for something else are:

Yes, and this would satisfy my desire for interchangeable lenses
Yes, but I still want interchangeable lenses
Yes, and I never wanted interchangeable lenses

As only the orginal poster can post a poll this has to have been something he posted. Maybe you should take your own advice about reading other people's posts carefully.

Man - You do not give up, do You? Here we go:

A) READ hist 1st post => No mentioning what so ever about interchangeable lenses...

B) READ the poll question => No mentioning what so ever about interchangeable lenses...

The options included were to account for someone just like You who is unable to drop this issue. In fact the toning of the options clearly corresponds to this issue by asking that IF RED CHANGED THE LENS FOR THE ONE HE IS PROPOSING would the guys like You drop this once for all - i.e. is this something to satisfy Your needs...

He has never proposed interchangeable lenses in his post or the poll question. Period. Did You get that?

LOL - I thought I am the one who speaks/read/thinks in shit English (meaning that English not being my native language... - not to be taken literarily as that English is "shit" (I better clarify things beyond reasonable doubt before You put me in front of the firing squad...))

I never said anything about the Scarlett being cut down. I said that prosumers / amateurs and high end consumers didn't want cut down cameras ie prosumer cameras anymore. They want full professional quality like Scarlett so they too can produce saleable films (production quality allowing). Re-read what I posted and maybe you'll get it.

You need to realize that when You EDIT Your post in order to prove Yourself right - it does not change what we have quoted in our posts. Somehow Your post has miraculously gained "new ending":

Your message quoted in my reply:

"These latter categories want nothing less than full professional quality to indy standards."

Your message EDITED after I have quoted it:

"These latter categories want nothing less than full professional quality to indy standards which is what makes the Scarlett ideal, focal length allowing."

Without that addition Your post could have been only interpreted that You are referring to Scarlet as being "cut down" by not offering interchangeable lenses. Notice that my post has NOT BEEN EDITED...

Please don't come onto me with raw prawns mate!!!

 

[C.B. Lorch]

I said that prosumers / amateurs and high end consumers didn't want cut down cameras ie prosumer cameras anymore. They want full professional quality like Scarlett so they too can produce saleable films

Perhaps this is the main point at which this thread diverges. The phrases "professional quality" and "prosumers / amateurs and high end consumers" do not go together. It's one or the other. You either pay for pro gear and get it , or you don't. There will always be a gap between what is considered pro and what isn't. Think what a "pro" 10 years ago would have paid or did pay for the kind of features found in half of the sub $10,000 prosumer cameras on the market today.

Not to say that someone who can't afford higher end gear is any less of an artist, ( I don't want to sound like the elitists of the film world being a video guy 100% myself who always has hated that vibe ) but just understand the limitations of the gear you're willing to pay for and make it work. I've always known the limitations of my gear and have never thought, "Why can't Panasonic give me the depth of field and color space of a film out for $25,000 since I don't have $150,000 to spend." (even though RED has done so).

It's a simple matter of getting what you're willing to pay for. And in the case of RED, alot more for your $ than anywhere else.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

"Professional" is when Windows doesn't feature talking paper clips and stoned wizards who desperately try to make your day a living hell while writing a screenplay.

 

[Peter Majtan]

"Professional" is when Windows doesn't feature talking paper clips and stoned wizards who desperately try to make your day a living hell while writing a screenplay.

Yeah! It's called Mac OS-X, iWork, but it really should include Final Draft. Writing screenplay on MS Office must be like giving a birth to hedgehog... :biggrin:

 

[oldphart]

Perhaps this is the main point at which this thread diverges. The phrases "professional quality" and "prosumers / amateurs and high end consumers" do not go together. It's one or the other. You either pay for pro gear and get it , or you don't. There will always be a gap between what is considered pro and what isn't. Think what a "pro" 10 years ago would have paid or did pay for the kind of features found in half of the sub $10,000 prosumer cameras on the market today.
...

Whether a tool is professional or not is not mainly a question of price. A professional tool will give you precise control and high reliability, but it will usually be difficult or time consuming to learn how to master it. At the very least, you must understand how it works.

A product for the wealthy dilettantes may some times be more expensive because of added bling and expensive ease of use functions which makes it unsuitable for the professional. But, of course, a professional will be able to use the consumer tool to the limits of what it is capable of once he has learned what those limits are.

 

[Peter Majtan]

You right on spot, but I in the end it's not the tool - it's what You do with it and the results that come out of Your effort. There are people who shot absolute marvels on a "consumer" equipment and there are others who gave us load of crap with ARRI-435... No matter what Scarlet is going to end up being - it will be up to us what we do with "her". Sure it will have some limitations. Does it make it any less "professional" because of that? No way, no how.

A true professional will find a way around the limitations of his tools...

 

[wardovision]

Read his poll carefully - 3 of the poll options for something else are:

Yes, and this would satisfy my desire for interchangeable lenses
Yes, but I still want interchangeable lenses
Yes, and I never wanted interchangeable lenses

As only the orginal poster can post a poll this has to have been something he posted.




Maybe you should take your own advice about reading other people's posts carefully.

I never said anything about the Scarlett being cut down. I said that prosumers / amateurs and high end consumers didn't want cut down cameras ie prosumer cameras anymore. They want full professional quality like Scarlett so they too can produce saleable films (production quality allowing). Re-read what I posted and maybe you'll get it.

uhh, he was asking the people that want interchangeable lenses if the option he's proposing would satisify their desire. All of this is a moot point anyways. The lens design is set in stone. When you design a camera you start with the sensor and lens then build the electronics to suit it. Any change to the lens design is going to set back production immensely. Personally I'd rather actually own a Scarlet in 2009 then have RED go back to the drawing board.

Alsone- I'd start looking elsewhere instead of being letdown that they released the camera they said they were. The chances of Scarlet incorporating a lens that suits your needs is zero. Maybe on the next camera but not Scarlet.

 

[Alsone]

Man - You do not give up, do You? Here we go:

A) READ hist 1st post => No mentioning what so ever about interchangeable lenses...

B) READ the poll question => No mentioning what so ever about interchangeable lenses...

It was in his poll options which brings the subject up which is what the argument was about. The poll answers clearly have options which allow the responder to state that they still want interchangeable lenses. That makes it fair game to mention this as a possibility for finding mid ground.

You need to realize that when You EDIT Your post in order to prove Yourself right - it does not change what we have quoted in our posts. Somehow Your post has miraculously gained "new ending"

No I didn't edit I summarised the meaning on the previous page to explain it more clearly to you as you obviously hadn't read the original post clearly. It just shows how desperate you are to avoid accepting you read it wrong, when you have to make such accusations.

My original post on page 7:

Copied and pasted from this board:

Last edited by Alsone : Yesterday at 07:17 AM

Your response:

Yesterday, 04:38 PM

Note the time difference. Check the posts - page 7 as I said.

Maybe it is your grasp of English which is fair enough, a foreign language can be difficult, but re-read my original post on page 7 as per my instruction and you'll see the meaning is exactly the same as what I summaried on the previous page to aid your understanding.

 

[Alsone]

Thank you for your reply wardovision.

Its nice to see that someone on here doesn't feel the need to flame. Whereas I don't know if it would mean going back to the drawing board, or whether it could be changed more simply, I appreciate your point of view on timescale.

Perhaps this is the main point at which this thread diverges. The phrases "professional quality" and "prosumers / amateurs and high end consumers" do not go together. It's one or the other. You either pay for pro gear and get it , or you don't.

I think the point I was trying to make is that there are many semi pros / prosumers / high end consumers who are prepared to pay $3K for a Scarlett provided it delivers a focal length we can use as well. I know many HV20/30 users are queuing up to buy a Scarlett if it proves suitable despite the price difference. I certainly would buy one if lens wise it fulfilled my needs, and I'm sure on that score, time allowing, RED could find common ground one way or another.

 

[Dawson]

My wish list...

My wish list...

How about a B4 mount for 2/3 zoom broadcast lenses!!

 

[chuck colburn]

That could be a problem. B4 mounted lens are for 3 chip cameras that incorperate an optical beam splitting block to send the image to the different sensors. One could incorperate an optical device within the camera to accept B4 lenses but it's somewhat self defeating as you loose light due to that assembly. Lots of lenses out there on the used market though which could make it tempting for an aftermarket product.