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 :)

Lame SCARLET wikipedia entry...

I'm assuming by "axe to grind" you mean it's out of date and poorly written. Apart from that, I see no particular bias although, now that this thread exists, I have no doubt that will change before the end of the night. First The List, now Wikipedia.


Meryem Ersoz said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RED_Scarlet

This wikipedia entry for the SCARLET is crap - does anyone know how to go about changing or updating it? Sounds like it was written by someone with an ax to grind.
Click to expand...
 
Arnold F. said:
I'm assuming by "axe to grind" you mean it's out of date and poorly written. Apart from that, I see no particular bias although, now that this thread exists, I have no doubt that will change before the end of the night. First The List, now Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with both the wording of the article, or at least it does in my case. Articles are supposed to be neutral, factual, and objective in perspective. This article is incredibly sparse, it refers to the Scarlet 8x in a future tense, there are numerous grammatical errors, and parts of it are written in the second-person perspective.

As far as bias goes, one example that sticks out to me is in the cost section:

"It had previously been announced that the Scarlet 8x fixed would sell in a package with all of the modules necessary to make the camera function for $5750.[SUP][6][/SUP] The Scarlet X is starting at $9700 with no lens mount."

This technically contains factual information. The way in which it is written, however, implies "You used to get everything for $X, but now you pay more for less." It doesn't read as a scholarly-written, objective piece. This is also the entirety of the "Cost" section. No listings of available options/packages/configurations, no elaboration on the difference between the product referred to in the first sentence and the product in the second sentence, no explanations for anything, really.

The article is simply poorly-written, has gaps in information, and presents the facts non-objectively. It clearly needs to be improved.

EDIT: Another example and assessment. From the article:

"At anything lower than 4k the camera will only record a window crop of the sensor so you will not get the full field of view of your lenses."

Again, while the information conveyed is technically factual (regarding sensor windowing), it is not written in a professional, objective manner. A better (though not perfect...I'm not a writer) way, I think, would be something like:

"The Scarlet achieves different recorded resolutions by a windowing of the sensor, as opposed to a scaling of the full image. As a result, Angle of View changes as the selected resolution changes - with larger resolutions offering wider Angles of View than smaller resolutions."
 
Last edited:
I don't see the bias you're seeing at all. However, as I said, I have no doubt a bias most of us recognize will be there in a hot minute. :)

Kevin Marshall said:
I think it has more to do with both the wording of the article, or at least it does in my case. Articles are supposed to be neutral, factual, and objective in perspective. This article is incredibly sparse, it refers to the Scarlet 8x in a future tense, there are numerous grammatical errors, and parts of it are written in the second-person perspective.

As far as bias goes, one example that sticks out to me is in the cost section:

"It had previously been announced that the Scarlet 8x fixed would sell in a package with all of the modules necessary to make the camera function for $5750.[SUP][6][/SUP] The Scarlet X is starting at $9700 with no lens mount."

This technically contains factual information. The way in which it is written, however, implies "You used to get everything for $X, but now you pay more for less." It doesn't read as a scholarly-written, objective piece. This is also the entirety of the "Cost" section. No listings of available options/packages/configurations, no elaboration on the difference between the product referred to in the first sentence and the product in the second sentence, no explanations for anything, really.

The article is simply poorly-written, has gaps in information, and presents the facts non-objectively. It clearly needs to be improved.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Arnold F. said:
I don't see the bias you're seeing at all. However, as I said, I have no doubt a bias most of us recognize will be there in a hot minute.
Click to expand...

Are you seeing the other inadequacies of the article I mentioned? Correcting those would likely correct any "bias" interpreted by readers.

EDIT: I feel like this may be a symptom of a bigger problem. After a little browsing through to find a better example of a Wikipedia article for a digital camera, they all seem to suffer similar problems. There are a few better-written articles, but the ones I've seen still have information gaps, and subjective opinions implied as fact. Maybe nobody knows how to write an encyclopedia entry for digital cinema cameras...or those that can write good entries don't use cameras :ihih:
 
Last edited:
I see many problems with the entry. However, as I don't equate factual error with "bias" I'll have to admit I can't at all see what you're referring to. :) If the entry erroneously said the new Scarlet was announced on November 28th, I would not feel comfortable assuming the writer is biased against the early part of November or the number Three. I would just think the writer a sloppy cluebag. Enough of my boring opinion!

Kevin Marshall said:
I think it has more to do with both the wording of the article, or at least it does in my case. Articles are supposed to be neutral, factual, and objective in perspective. This article is incredibly sparse, it refers to the Scarlet 8x in a future tense, there are numerous grammatical errors, and parts of it are written in the second-person perspective.

As far as bias goes, one example that sticks out to me is in the cost section:

"It had previously been announced that the Scarlet 8x fixed would sell in a package with all of the modules necessary to make the camera function for $5750.[SUP][6][/SUP] The Scarlet X is starting at $9700 with no lens mount."

This technically contains factual information. The way in which it is written, however, implies "You used to get everything for $X, but now you pay more for less." It doesn't read as a scholarly-written, objective piece. This is also the entirety of the "Cost" section. No listings of available options/packages/configurations, no elaboration on the difference between the product referred to in the first sentence and the product in the second sentence, no explanations for anything, really.

The article is simply poorly-written, has gaps in information, and presents the facts non-objectively. It clearly needs to be improved.
Click to expand...
 
wikipedia is editable by anyone in the world. You can write a bio for Whitney Houston and it will be applied to the page. Of course it can be removed but you can edit any entry on Wikipedia. It's not an actual Encyclopedia. There are angry people with a lot of free time who post to Wikipedia so you cant take every bit of info for truth there.
 
Matt Ryan said:
wikipedia is editable by anyone in the world. You can write a bio for Whitney Houston and it will be applied to the page. Of course it can be removed but you can edit any entry on Wikipedia. It's not an actual Encyclopedia. There are angry people with a lot of free time who post to Wikipedia so you cant take every bit of info for truth there.
Click to expand...

Clearly it's not an "actual" encyclopedia, and there are drawbacks to such an open platform. However, on the whole, I think Wikipedia is a great source of information with the capability to remain current and relevant (and free!).
 
Yep. Crap review. I noted the sentence Kevin mentioned also, but if it was written by an axe grinder... they surely need a new wet stone. RED is a pretty easy target for those who are inclined.

Personally I've been pretty astounded by the general lack of Scarlet fever out in the wild. C300 is everywhere. Looks like a very nice 1080 camera. Though if I was shooting 1080 I'd rather save 13k and get two of the new D800's and 10 bit or two FS100's and save 10k. With Scarlet though, I think RED has given us something truly unprecedented and historic at this price point. It's a cinema camera. But proofs in the pudding, so I'm looking forward to the works that will be emerging over the upcoming months and years.
 
Lliam Worthington said:
Yep. Crap review. I noted the sentence Kevin mentioned also, but if it was written by an axe grinder... they surely need a new wet stone. RED is a pretty easy target for those who are inclined.

Personally I've been pretty astounded by the general lack of Scarlet fever out in the wild. C300 is everywhere. Looks like a very nice 1080 camera. Though if I was shooting 1080 I'd rather save 13k and get two of the new D800's and 10 bit or two FS100's and save 10k. With Scarlet though, I think RED has given us something truly unprecedented and historic at this price point. It's a cinema camera. But proofs in the pudding, so I'm looking forward to the works that will be emerging over the upcoming months and years.
Click to expand...
I too am surprised that anyone would choose a more expensive/lower rez camera over Scarlet because looking ahead, I'm thinking Scarlet owners are going to get their equivalent of the Stage 2 or 3 loyalty reward when it comes time to upgrade. This is only a guess but it seems to me the Scarlet is going to get a huge upgrade in capability for a reasonable price. It just may be that a Scarlet will eventually equal the current Epic in its specs at a cost of about 2/3s of a current Epic X.
 
Yeah I hope your right Elsie. But we do certainly know that it WILL, get better. In fact it already has. You can't say that with any other camera company except RED.
Obsolescence obsolete is an incredible philosophy. Imagine if every business, shifted it's models form repeat sales focus, to paid upgrades, accessories and servicing.
It's a world i want to live in and a lesson we desperately need to relearn form our past. Massive Kudos to RED on this front.
 
Hi,

I rewrote most of the this wiki entry in the last two months including the Scarlet part.
I would be very happy if anyone would join me in improving the article, though I think it is a lot more comprehensive than it was before it is still terrible - no doubt about that.

Please make any Scarlet related edits in the big Red article, at the moment it seems better to have everything on this page. They should be splitted in the future, but for now I think its best to keep everything together.


Looking forward to other contributors - especially ones that can cite sources, they are terribly hard to find for anything RED related...

David
 
Despite Wikipedia's relative subjectivity compared to a traditional encyclopedia (which is pretty subjective already), I think it's problematic to view a Wikipedia entry as a "review." Insofar as we can't change RED the company, but can change Wikipedia, I think Wikipedia is a far easier target for the many "religious" amongst us, who are frequently fundamental in their views, than for someone who might not care for the camera or company. In my experience, the religious passion of the former make them far more inclined than the latter to spend their time re-writing history when permitted to get away with it.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my take on the pre-release history is that it's a little cloudy and not necessarily widely agreed upon, largely because the camera was never released and few know the whole story. Perhaps some careful, objective soul might at some point do some careful research in that area and publish on Wikipedia when done.



Lliam Worthington said:
Yep. Crap review. I noted the sentence Kevin mentioned also, but if it was written by an axe grinder... they surely need a new wet stone. RED is a pretty easy target for those who are inclined.

Personally I've been pretty astounded by the general lack of Scarlet fever out in the wild. C300 is everywhere. Looks like a very nice 1080 camera. Though if I was shooting 1080 I'd rather save 13k and get two of the new D800's and 10 bit or two FS100's and save 10k. With Scarlet though, I think RED has given us something truly unprecedented and historic at this price point. It's a cinema camera. But proofs in the pudding, so I'm looking forward to the works that will be emerging over the upcoming months and years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top