Late...

[Michael Olsen]

If you can get all the flexibility of 2/3rds but with added shallow DOF then isn't that going to be more sought after?

Well, you don't really get all the flexibility of 2/3rds. Those fast 20x servo zooms are pretty much nonexistent for the 4/3 mount right now.

Actually the S35 epic is quite abit larger sensor than AF100.
So Scarlet s35 should be far superior image.

I'd definitely agree that S35 would, theoretically, have a superior image. But I wouldn't say that because it has a bigger sensor. I'd say that because it has 5K, REDCODE, and HDRx on it's side whereas the other sensor is...what? 1080p (which will probably resolve a real world 850-950p), AVCHD, and 10.3 stops (last I read from Barry Green).

Now if you are the type that really likes the DOF (FF35 + f/0.95 type) then sure, the bigger sensor will be better.

 

[Stewart Rock]

Well, you don't really get all the flexibility of 2/3rds. Those fast 20x servo zooms are pretty much nonexistent for the 4/3 mount right now.




I'd definitely agree that S35 would, theoretically, have a superior image. But I wouldn't say that because it has a bigger sensor. I'd say that because it has 5K, REDCODE, and HDRx™ on it's side whereas the other sensor is...what? 1080p (which will probably resolve a real world 850-950p), AVCHD, and 10.3 stops (last I read from Barry Green).

Now if you are the type that really likes the DOF (FF35 + f/0.95 type) then sure, the bigger sensor will be better.

Your theory should be right, but when will it be practice? I'll hold out for a 20x servo zoom as if it isn't available now it likely will be before the scarlet is.

In a years time when (if) Scarlet s35 gets a release will it still be the only kid on the block with 5K? HDRx won't be such a big deal then either, other companies are working on HDR video, and I can't see the competition being to far off a good codec for their cameras. RED are going to struggle if they don't just get it together and release a camera. They have missed the Scarlet 2/3rds market, and like I said, people have work now and need a camera, those who were in the line for Scarlet are likely looking towards the AF100, and if they buy, is the Scarlet s35 going to be a big enough draw when it finally comes out? I don't think it will, especially when you consider that RED's competition are shifting units by the bucket load and are hardly likely to see that disappear just for HDR and 5K. Do you really think that next year panasonic won't be in a position to offer 4K and an uncompressed codec when you see what they are offering today? It's very risky for RED to keep with this culture of delay after delay with the tag of 'trust us'. Why would we trust RED at this point.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I would imagine that you get the same flexibility with the micro 4/3rds in the AF100 as it has been optimised for video so fixes the issues present in the DSLRs, I use 2/3rds at the minute so I know they have a place - at the minute - If you can get all the flexibility of 2/3rds but with added shallow DOF then isn't that going to be more sought after?...

My point is:
I am not allways dying for shallow DOF...

If that was my most sought after parameter, I could set a 5d on a tripod and shoot non-motion interviews with exceptionally shallow DOF. Gee. I can do that already.

So why am I not?

The 2/3" is an excellent camera for a lot of situations. Maybe not for the "allways shallow DOF because that is the filmlook" kind of mindset, but for some other work.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Yeah, EPIC advantages are way beyond sensor size in this case.

Also, I'm not sure it's intelligent to compare a camera that costs $5K to another that costs $50K.

In terms of price the AF-100 is competing with Scarlet 2/3" Fixed now.

Or if you disregard price a bit you can compare with the Scarlet S35 (but when is it going to come out?) which would still cost 2 to 3 times more.

RED philosophy of sheer image quality sets its products on another level altogether so even similar specced cameras from other companies aren't really comparable.

It's really a weird situation, because you have cameras with larger sensors and built-in features, but with compression that don't hold much information. And in the lowest end of RED you have a sensor size that is considered tiny in our post-DSLR world, but has great compression and IQ.

Tough call...

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Shold be noted that I am on the Epic bandwagon, too... I'll get Shallow DOF when I want it...

 

[Stewart Rock]

Yeah, EPIC advantages are way beyond sensor size in this case.

Also, I'm not sure it's intelligent to compare a camera that costs $5K to another that costs $50K.

In terms of price the AF-100 is competing with Scarlet 2/3" Fixed now.

Or if you disregard price a bit you can compare with the Scarlet S35 (but when is it going to come out?) which would still cost 2 to 3 times more.

RED philosophy of sheer image quality sets its products on another level altogether so even similar specced cameras from other companies aren't really comparable.

It's really a weird situation, because you have cameras with larger sensors and built-in features, but with compression that don't hold much information. And in the lowest end of RED you have a sensor size that is considered tiny in our post-DSLR world, but has great compression and IQ.

Tough call...

Yeah I have been comparing to the scarlet 2/3rds and later included s35 as I think the 2/3rds is dead in the water all things considered.

I don't know where the epic comparisons started coming into this.

If the image quality wasn't great on these other cameras they wouldn't be getting used as much as they are. Not saying that redcode doesn't produce better images but for most cases (in all cases for me) it is down sampled to 1080p and in that state when compared to the other cameras it does look better, but not far superior. The higher end of the market will want that, and won't mind paying. Scarlet was for the rest of us, and it isn't anymore, so who is it for?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Sorry, but have to disagree.

Can you show me which camera that gives a better or equal 1080 than the current R1 as to resolution and "smoothness", flexibility and grade-ability?

There are cameras with a lot better, DR, though.

 

[Stewart Rock]

My point is:
I am not allways dying for shallow DOF...

If that was my most sought after parameter, I could set a 5d on a tripod and shoot non-motion interviews with exceptionally shallow DOF. Gee. I can do that already.

So why am I not?

The 2/3" is an excellent camera for a lot of situations. Maybe not for the "allways shallow DOF because that is the filmlook" kind of mindset, but for some other work.

I'm not only talking about shallow DOF, like I said I use 2/3rds myself atm. I'm saying that it certainly looks like panasonic have dealt with the issues present in the DSLRs by optimising the 4/3rds chip for video. So this would give you all that flexibility of the 2/3rds and you would also get the shallow DOF if you wanted it, that makes it more flexible surely. That puts it in the unique position of not having the moire and aliasing troubles of the 5D and not being limited to deep DOF like the 2/3rds. And like I said regarding 3D, panasonic are really pushing for it at the minute. However it does not shot raw, not a deal breaker though for the majority.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

However it does not shot raw, not a deal breaker though for the majority.

Where the "majority" goes, I have no data to judge.

BUT I think you're partly right... (ouch. Careful so you don't end up with a "bad attitude..." LOL!)

I love RAW.
BUT I see a lot of projects being batchproccessed rather headlessly, and then RAW can be more of a sleepingpillow than an objective gain.

Luckily we now have the redlogFilm for post, taking care of most of the worst-case-scenarios. Allowing for a simpler post workflow for thos who don't want to dig into the RAW things in post.

RAW baseline results have been upped a ton, and ease of use for the initial user has been bettered by a factor of at least 10. You cannot really go really wrong with that development option, whereas that was very likely/possible for the firsttime-user up until now.

That said.
If you dig into RAW, there's no way back.

 

[Stewart Rock]

Sorry, but have to disagree.

Can you show me which camera that gives a better or equal 1080 than the current R1 as to resolution and "smoothness", flexibility and grade-ability?

There are cameras with a lot better, DR, though.

I never said there is a camera doing equal or better 1080p, i said that the RED is better.

I am looking forward to seeing the footage that comes of the hd sdi from the AF100 recorded to a nanoflash in 4:2:2 at a high bit rate. I think that it will be more than comparable. That's not here yet though.

When the image is on screen from a 5D or 7D, when handled correctly it looks great cut in with RED footage and even film, and it is actually pretty gradable too, but we know it has limitations, I'm not denying them, but it still looks great, and it is worth the savings made to lose that bit of res and gradability for most cases.

 

[Stewart Rock]

If you dig into RAW, there's no way back.

I wish it was an option for me, hence my frustration

I'm having to look at alternatives and I didn't want to, the AF100 is at least a compelling argument isn't it? I have held out a lot of time and cash for RED and they keep asking more. Not fair in my book, and certainly not trustworthy. If you scan back to my initial questions I think you will see that I would just like to hear from RED on this matter, do they even see the problem, are they working to resolve it? Is RED really not going to be an option anymore?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I actually see your point.

If I didn't shoot RED, I'd just shoot something else, as a matter of fact...
It's really that simple.

When one start to compare systems, one should be cautious, though. There is a huge difference between 8-bit rec 709 @ 422 and 10-bit log 444 for grading and compositing. It is not "as good".

BUT I'd much rather have an HVX-200 than no camera, if you see what I mean. I just don't think they're comparable entities, even though you can shoot video on both a R1 and an HVX 200 (Or a 5d, or an AF100).

There is not and will not be an ultimately "best" cam for all pockets and situations.

The only "best" thing to do, is to get some tools and use them at their best. That way I am sure you're right. We will see examples from the AF 100 that will look better than examples from the Scarlet.

the camera doesn't make the movie...

I am not amongstt those who say: Wait!

I am amongst those who say:
Thou shalt go out and shoot with whatever means you have and learn your craft....

 

[David Rasberry]

Red's mission since its founding has been to produce digital motion cameras that equal or surpass film as a motion acquisition medium in every meaningful respect: Sensitivity, dynamic range, color, aesthetics, creative flexibility, utility. They are very close to doing that with the MX generation cameras. So what if it costs a bit more and takes a little more time to get it right, to actually achieve that goal? It is not about meeting a production schedule or a market price point. It is about staying true to their mission.

The AF-100 may be here sooner, but it is just another AVCHD long GOP HD camera. I'm not knocking Panasonic, they are doing what they do very well and the camera will be very good at its price point for what it is. But there is no new technology there. It is a repackaging job for existing technology with a few improvements designed to be good enough to meet a market price point.
With the currently available Panasonic 14-150 kit lens AF-100 will have no DOF advantage over a 2/3" Scarlet and will cost about the same for the basic kit. So I think quibbling over an insignificant price difference is silly. Scarlet falls squarely into the upper half of the sub $10k market along with every other high quality HD production camera alternative: EX1/3, Canon XF series, a couple of Panasonic models, including the yet to be seen AF100.

So the real choice one is faced with is 8 bit 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 Mpeg 4 or Mpeg 2 at maximum 1080p HD and 8-10 stops DR, vs Redcode RAW, capable of encoding to 1080p video up to 16 bit 4:4:4 with I would expect at least 16 stops dynamic range with HDRx™™™™ and far more creative flexibility in post. Add to that the extra resolution needed to down scale to fully resolved 2k digital cinema formats, both 1.85:1 wide screen and 2.40:1 scope without compromise. Despite what some say about 3k, the difference in oversampled acquisition resolution is quite apparent even when scaled down to 720p web video formats.
So there will be the real choice: low end HD video formats vs a digital format that is arguably superior to S16mm film in every meaningful way and comparable to high end cameras selling for many times its entry price.

I agree with Gavin. Those for whom true high end image quality potential is a critical aspect of their art will gravitate to Scarlet. For most of those people it will not be their first camera by any means. They like many of us will have grown into their art to the point where lesser alternatives are fundamentally unsatisfactory.

I have nothing but respect and gratitude for Red for not compromising their most important goals to pander to a low end market.

 

[Stewart Rock]

Red's mission since its founding has been to produce digital motion cameras that equal or surpass film as a motion acquisition medium in every meaningful respect: Sensitivity, dynamic range, color, aesthetics, creative flexibility, utility. They are very close to doing that with the MX generation cameras. So what if it costs a bit more and takes a little more time to get it right, to actually achieve that goal? It is not about meeting a production schedule or a market price point. It is about staying true to their mission.

The AF-100 may be here sooner, but it is just another AVCHD long GOP HD camera. I'm not knocking Panasonic, they are doing what they do very well and the camera will be very good at its price point for what it is. But there is no new technology there. It is a repackaging job for existing technology with a few improvements designed to be good enough to meet a market price point.
With the currently available Panasonic 14-150 kit lens AF-100 will have no DOF advantage over a 2/3" Scarlet and will cost about the same for the basic kit. So I think quibbling over an insignificant price difference is silly. Scarlet falls squarely into the upper half of the sub $10k market along with every other high quality HD production camera alternative: EX1/3, Canon XF series, a couple of Panasonic models, including the yet to be seen AF100.

So the real choice one is faced with is 8 bit 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 Mpeg 4 or Mpeg 2 at maximum 1080p HD and 8-10 stops DR, vs Redcode RAW, capable of encoding to 1080p video up to 16 bit 4:4:4 with I would expect at least 16 stops dynamic range with HDRx™ and far more creative flexibility in post. Add to that the extra resolution needed to down scale to fully resolved 2k digital cinema formats, both 1.85:1 wide screen and 2.40:1 scope without compromise. Despite what some say about 3k, the difference in oversampled acquisition resolution is quite apparent even when scaled down to
720p web video formats.
So there will be the real choice: low end HD video formats vs a digital format that is arguably superior to S16mm film in every meaningful way and comparable to high end cameras selling for many times its entry price.

Not really an option anymore though since it has been moved so much in terms of price and release, and no matter how many specs you throw at it the images from the DSLRs look great, even when cut in with RED footage, the results look very good. Mission statements are all well and good but they don't put a camera in my hands and therefore I have to look elsewhere, if RED can show that they can deliver a Scarlet that competes in the real world given todays options then I will obviously be checking it out. So lets see it.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Stewart,

I've read all your post in this thread and I don't see why you just don't buy the Panasonic camera when it's out. Gunleik, Gavin and others gave many valid points why the Red approach is for some the better way. Others use DSLRs and whatnot an are happy. There are also folks who prefer 35mm over any digital format - and have valid points. This is not elitist but are artistic, technical and last but not least economical choices based on experiences people made.

I understand that you are frustrated by all the delay and probable slight price boost but before Red announced Scarlet people who could not afford a costly camera system had to rent. In the pro world owing a camera was rare, and even today most cameramen (or DP to make sound better) don't own a camera system because they don't want to be economical tight to a specified camera system. Owing a camera limits your choice and never makes you rich.

When you have to pay your bills with filmmaking you work and don't wait until a manufacturer builds your dream camera. When Scarlet is out there will be new tempting choices. After the game is before the game.

Hans

 

[neil hartop]

I know. It's a tricky path your have chosen. Just don't lose sight of us indi film makers who just want to tell a story and are not working DP's/cameramen

Its to late, all indie film makers are being priced out. this was originally meant to be 3k for $3k. Thats so long gone,, and as much as I love red they have lost sight of that and become fixated on more tech for the cameras. The cameras will now be in the price bracket of the original red one.

This is why I bought a 5d as I knew this would happen, and I have a feeling I will be shooting on a canon 5d mark iii (at a fraction of the price) before this camera gets released

The only people rubbing their hands left on this thread are the rich that can afford it and the rental houses looking forward to charging 500 quid a day to rent a scarlet.

Dont get me wrong, Red make the best cameras but for every one person buying a scarlet unfortunately there will be a 1000 buying a canon.

Poor show red.

 

[Mike Gross]

Its to late, all indie film makers are being priced out. this was originally meant to be 3k for $3k. Thats so long gone,, and as much as I love red they have lost sight of that and become fixated on more tech for the cameras. The cameras will now be in the price bracket of the original red one.

Every indie filmmaker I know is already shooting red one.

Unless I don't understand, what's your definition of indie?

 

[Sam Taylor]

Revolutions seems instant in retrospect...

That is a great quote, and is a good perspective giver on this thread!

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Sorry, but have to disagree.

Can you show me which camera that gives a better or equal 1080 than the current R1 as to resolution and "smoothness", flexibility and grade-ability?

There are cameras with a lot better, DR, though.

Gunleik, even if these non-RED options are technically inferior, the larger size of the sensor still gives the advantage of a vast glass selection, which is a great thing.

There's great still glass, old, new, new 4/3 zooms coming, you can shoot windowed and use C mount.

2/3" Scarlet in comparison may look more limited.

Of course the technical side can be a great thing and the main focus for many (like David Rasberry), but for me the flexibility offered with the price and the opportunity to experiment with larger sensors for filmmaking and the multitude of glasses is also very important.

I'm not sure if RED's offerings on next iteration of cameras will include a cheaper camera that is not necessarily worse.

If you consider RED One at $17,500 to Scarlet 2/3" Fixed at $5750, you see there was a huge drop, or if you want to compare directly with S35, it would be more like $15,000 for a S35 Scarlet package without lenses (from estimates I've seen over here), still quite cheap.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future RED could offer a 'no compromises' camera for even less.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

To you guys who keep jawboning here about how Scarlet has has missed the market and AF-100 is just as good, blah, blah, blah... I say - GO BUY THE AF-100 or whatever! Are you trying to convince us that you are right? Do you need us to give you permission? I have shot with a RED. I have seen and worked with RAW and I am not going back to long GOP, compressed, COMPROMISED footage. Does that mean no one should? NO. If it works for you, do it. Have fun.

Please don't keep saying "Scarlet is dead," "they have no one to sell to," etc. I know that I AM THEIR MARKET and I think there are a lot of people here who will flat out disagree with your contentions. Go hang out in the AF-100 forum where you can commune with your brothers about how great the camera is... just like the RED owners do here. I really weary of people talking and talking and talking about how RED has failed so miserably. It just ain't true - ask anyone who owns, or even shot with, a RED ONE.

It's great to have options. People make different decisions for different sets of reasons. I am shooting on my current camera now - and on the RED ONE that I have some access to - and I'll wait for Scarlet because I think it will be worth it. You don't have to (assuming AF-100 delivers on time) - because, obviously, you don't think it is worth it. Personally, that thrills me - I won't have to worry about being in line behind you when the orders flow in. I guess all I am asking is, why the need to diss RED for the way they are approaching their business? Are you that bitter that they aren't doing everything exactly as you'd like? If you are so sure RED has failed with their approach, why not wait until Scarlet ships? If you are right, they won't sell very many and you can come on here and say "I told you so." Until then, let's wait and see.