Late...

[Carl Weston]

3k for 3k was to good to be true...and it turn out not to be true...I guess the joke was on all of us waiting for that scarlet!

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Why is RED so late releasing EPIC and Scarlet?

1. We had no idea what we were doing.

Yes, all those Patents and Defense contracts gave you guys brain damage.

2. This is as difficult a trick as anyone could possibly pull off. 5K/120fps on a postage stamp has never been done before by anyone, let alone by a new company that has no idea what they were doing and no library of information.

Sorry, but our expectations are high, because you delivered a quantifiable success.

3. Engineers are optimistic. They think they can do stuff faster than is reasonable. And they tell us dates that they can't make.

That is the RULE. Exception: Apollo Program. "...before this decade is out."

4. Stuff changes. We have added capabilities along the way the complicated the process. This is a disruption to the program and adds time to process.

And gives your competition ulcers. Keep going, but give us some love every once in a while.

5. Nothing works like it is supposed to. The amount of boards and lines of code needed for this project are not comprehensible. Everything needs to be done several times to get it right.

I certainly hope so. If I found out you were giving us a half-assed effort, I'd demand my money back. I want this job to be exactly a micron short of impossible. Thank you for not amortizing the R&D like everyone else would.

No one is as frustrated as me over the delays. But it is what it is. The process just simply takes more time than anyone would expect.

There are several million lines of code in an EPIC and Scarlet. No excuses... just fact. Everyone is working 24/7 with catnaps. We love the program and the opportunities. But we are guessing at when we will finish.

No company loves what they are doing more than RED. No company works harder. But forgive us if we don't meet deadlines. This is really hard stuff.

Jim

I wish I could give you all Gold Medals, but all I have is my money with which to show you how much I appreciate your efforts.

Anyway you already have all the cash my wife will let me spend .

 

[Danny Lingan]

Hey, Stewart Rock.

Last I looked...
The AF100 is priced at $5k.
The nanfoflash goes for around $2k.
Non-cine lens kit for...? Couple thousand?

I'm not getting how fixed Scarlet is twice the price.

I see how a stripped down Scarlet is desirable too.

 

[Samual Murman]

Almost every indie movie at any festival is shot on red. Very few are shot on Canon.

Tiny Furniture, winner at SXSW this year was shot on the 7d. I'd say there's a fair variety of formats still being used out there... including film.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

My point about the 3K/4K, redcode and HDRx™ is that while they are great features, features that I would like, they do not justify the cost increase, especially considering that all but the HDRx™ were features in the original 3K for 3K Scarlet.

Panasonic says it'd cost $2k-$4k more just to upgrade the AF100 to 10bit AVC-I...Red's price bumps are tiny in comparison. Jesus, get some perspective...

 

[Terry VerHaar]

...

I'll make myself more clear. The features are all great, I would love them, but when I say that the market couldn't care less about them I mean when they go to purchase, and they see the cost increase in the camera that they have been waiting excitedly for. A camera that they got excited about because it seemed it was going to be in their price range. Now it is pushed further away, the price is being pushed up, and the features start to lose their sheen a bit. So much so that you look at your money and consider, 'do I really need to down sample 3K for a great image' or 'do I really need redcode when I can record to a nanoflash'


...

Well, if YOU are the market, I guess you are right. If, on the other hand, I am the market, you are dead wrong. Simple as that.

One other thought - last time I looked, Nanoflash recorders aren't free. Or did I miss something?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

3k for 3k was to good to be true...and it turn out not to be true...I guess the joke was on all of us waiting for that scarlet!

Hmm... Before the announcement of adding the $1K price bump for HDRx™, the 2/3" Scarlet Cine model (interchangeable lenses) was still $2700 for the brain. That's pretty damn close to 3K for $3K. Now it looks like it's going to be $3700.

I think people got a bit too hung up on the whole 3K for $3K marketing, maybe a bit too much. I would say that many of us who have been at this for a while would have never expected any more than the basic camera body/brain for the $3K price, and that's still what we're getting in a sense. OK, now it's 3K for $3.7K, or at least that's how I look at it. It will also match my Epics and their HDRx ability.

To be honest, if Scarlet were released without HDRx at this point, I would lose interest in it quickly if it could not provide the same DR, color and motion offered by the Epic cameras that I would want to use it with. I'm not trying to be an elitist snob, but if I were to buy another camera model from RED, I would still expect it to match color and motion attributes with its bigger brother.

RED is making the right decision by incorporating HDRx functionality into the Scarlet line-up. I really can't see it any other way. Sure, the price bump does impact every budget, some more than others. But it's a big market out there and in the 2/3" camera space, it's not just indie filmmakers. It's practically everyone. A compact 2/3" camera system with 17~18 stops of usable DR and native workflows within Premiere, Avid, Vegas (and arguably FCP) is going to become the hottest ENG, EFP and documentary camera overnight.

As for any delays the HDRx addition to Scarlet may have... I'd say that's pretty insignificant at this point. All previously announced dates have come and gone and it's obvious that Jim and his team are frustrated by this. But at this point it will just get here when it's ready and it will be worth the wait. In the mean time there are other options. I see a lot of people talking about the AF100. If that meets your needs, then go for it. It's not my cup of tea, but I understand that many may be in a position where they can't wait. Personally, I'd rent a RED MX kit to shoot with instead of buying one of those while waiting for Scarlet. RED Ones are plentiful, use that to your advantage.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

...

Personally, I'd rent a RED MX kit to shoot with instead of buying one of those while waiting for Scarlet. RED Ones are plentiful, use that to your advantage.

Jeff, I agree with everything you said but a light bulb really went on with this one. (Duh!) I have had the joy of shooting on a RED ONE for about 12 production days in the last couple of months and now I REALLY can't wait for my Scarlet. But, I realize, I really should just consider renting a RED ONE for "special occasions" until Scarlet delivers. Like I said... Duh! :hurray:

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

What I am asking is, is the market that the original "3K for 3K" scarlet was aimed at now being passed by, or do RED not consider that they are passing them by. If so where is the camera for that market?

Here is my opinion. The under $3k crowd doesn't have a critical eye. They don't really care about rolling shutter. They don't really care about compression. They don't really care about chroma sub-sampling. They don't really care about moire. They don't really care about image sharpening. They want 1080p @ 24fps with shallow DOF and low noise.

When presented with a $600 DSLR and a $3k 3k camera they think to themselves "Well both produce '1080p' deliverables so why spend 4 times as much?"

$3k is too much money for that market now. There is no $3k market anymore. The 7D killed it. It's half the price. It shoots higher resolution stills. It has a larger sensor for shallower DOF. It hit all the bullet points that they were looking for at a lower price.

Almost everyone who really cares about Moire, Jellocam, 12 bit color and compression also cares about HDRx, modularity and all the other good things that come with a higher price.

RED lost a lot of customers. But they would have lost them to the 7D anyway even if the $3k scarlet was selling today. Or at least that's my opinion.

 

[Brad Webb]

Here is my opinion. The under $3k crowd doesn't have a critical eye. They don't really care about rolling shutter. They don't really care about compression. They don't really care about chroma sub-sampling. They don't really care about moire. They don't really care about image sharpening. They want 1080p @ 24fps with shallow DOF and low noise.

When presented with a $600 DSLR and a $3k 3k camera they think to themselves "Well both produce '1080p' deliverables so why spend 4 times as much?"

$3k is too much money for that market now. There is no $3k market anymore. The 7D killed it. It's half the price. It shoots higher resolution stills. It has a larger sensor for shallower DOF. It hit all the bullet points that they were looking for at a lower price.

Almost everyone who really cares about Moire, Jellocam, 12 bit color and compression also cares about HDRx™, modularity and all the other good things that come with a higher price.

RED lost a lot of customers. But they would have lost them to the 7D anyway even if the $3k scarlet was selling today. Or at least that's my opinion.

Nail on the head.

 

[Stewart Rock]

Here is my opinion. The under $3k crowd doesn't have a critical eye. They don't really care about rolling shutter. They don't really care about compression. They don't really care about chroma sub-sampling. They don't really care about moire. They don't really care about image sharpening. They want 1080p @ 24fps with shallow DOF and low noise.

When presented with a $600 DSLR and a $3k 3k camera they think to themselves "Well both produce '1080p' deliverables so why spend 4 times as much?"

$3k is too much money for that market now. There is no $3k market anymore. The 7D killed it. It's half the price. It shoots higher resolution stills. It has a larger sensor for shallower DOF. It hit all the bullet points that they were looking for at a lower price.

Almost everyone who really cares about Moire, Jellocam, 12 bit color and compression also cares about HDRx™™, modularity and all the other good things that come with a higher price.

RED lost a lot of customers. But they would have lost them to the 7D anyway even if the $3k scarlet was selling today. Or at least that's my opinion.

Yeah I agree to an extent, but I do think if there is a market for the $5K AF100 then why is red skipping it when they had a camera that could have competed.

To the other guys pointing out price of nanoflash and so on you know you are being silly, You know there would be a lot of componants to buy for the scarlet before it would be in a usable configuration. Even with the nanoflash priced in with the AF100 it would still be thousands cheaper.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Gavin. I do apprechiate that some people can care about all the things you mention without being able to cash up for it. So they're given no choice but to work with those hassles.

 

[Felix K.]

Here is my opinion. The under $3k crowd doesn't have a critical eye. They don't really care about rolling shutter. They don't really care about compression. They don't really care about chroma sub-sampling. They don't really care about moire. They don't really care about image sharpening. They want 1080p @ 24fps with shallow DOF and low noise.

When presented with a $600 DSLR and a $3k 3k camera they think to themselves "Well both produce '1080p' deliverables so why spend 4 times as much?"

$3k is too much money for that market now. There is no $3k market anymore. The 7D killed it. It's half the price. It shoots higher resolution stills. It has a larger sensor for shallower DOF. It hit all the bullet points that they were looking for at a lower price.

Almost everyone who really cares about Moire, Jellocam, 12 bit color and compression also cares about HDRx™™, modularity and all the other good things that come with a higher price.

RED lost a lot of customers. But they would have lost them to the 7D anyway even if the $3k scarlet was selling today. Or at least that's my opinion.

I disagree. I shoot with a 7D and would sell it in an instance to purchase a 3k (naked) Scarlet or rather the fixed Scarlet for 5000$.

 

[Shane Betts]

I disagree. I shoot with a 7D and would sell it in an instance to purchase a 3k (naked) Scarlet or rather the fixed Scarlet for 5000$.

And you most likely will when the price is $6k - it will just take a little more hard work and saving.

Here is my opinion. The under $3k crowd doesn't have a critical eye. They don't really care about rolling shutter. They don't really care about compression. They don't really care about chroma sub-sampling. They don't really care about moire. They don't really care about image sharpening. They want 1080p @ 24fps with shallow DOF and low noise.

When presented with a $600 DSLR and a $3k 3k camera they think to themselves "Well both produce '1080p' deliverables so why spend 4 times as much?"

$3k is too much money for that market now. There is no $3k market anymore. The 7D killed it. It's half the price. It shoots higher resolution stills. It has a larger sensor for shallower DOF. It hit all the bullet points that they were looking for at a lower price.

Almost everyone who really cares about Moire, Jellocam, 12 bit color and compression also cares about HDRx™, modularity and all the other good things that come with a higher price.

RED lost a lot of customers. But they would have lost them to the 7D anyway even if the $3k scarlet was selling today. Or at least that's my opinion.

Gavin, the size of the pocket has no relation to the quality of the eye. But Red hasn't set the bar so high it's impossible. We're not talking Alexa here. There are those - and mind you, I'm one of them - who can tell the difference and can't afford the entry price ... YET. But I will.

It's more a matter of whether you "need" to be the first kid on the block or whether you just require the best tools.

 

[Stewart Rock]

And you most likely will when the price is $6k - it will just take a little more hard work and saving.




Gavin, the size of the pocket has no relation to the quality of the eye. But Red hasn't set the bar so high it's impossible. We're not talking Alexa here. There are those - and mind you, I'm one of them - who can tell the difference and can't afford the entry price ... YET. But I will.

It's more a matter of whether you "need" to be the first kid on the block or whether you just require the best tools.

That's a really good point. What I would say is, will you still shell out for the Scarlet 2/3rds when the micro 4/3rds AF100 is available, and a lot earlier than Scarlet.

You are talking about holding out and waiting to save more cash for scarlet, people keep saying on these forums, if you need a camera now, for work you have now, then there are other cameras available. Well surely that is everyone then, who on this forum does not have work on now that they need a camera right now for? And is there any one of you who is not disappointed that you are now expected to wait even longer to get the camera that you have been wanting for this work, we all wanted to give RED our business and support their step into the industry, but RED it seems were having us on.

When I refer to the market I am in I mean weddings, events, corporate and independent low budget film. In most cases it is preferable to own the equipment in this market, not rent, so while i would like the RED ONE it's not really of much use to me.

Saying that, the more I think about the 2/3rds the more i think it is an outdated camera now, it's only trick will be HDRx and I think that is the only reason RED are delaying it further in order to make sure it has at least one selling point.

Really the AF100 is actually more comparable with the s35 Scarlet in terms of the image it will produce, lens options etc. And the s35 is even further down the line.

Someone earlier in this thread said that RED will be deemed late when Arri release their 6K, 250fps etc etc.

Well in the case of Scarlet 2/3rds and probably s35 I would say that RED can now be deemed too late. The AF100 is available very soon at a great price, does clean 1080p (which is what the Scarlets will do, 3K isn't usable, it will be down smapled to 1080p) It has a good codec, the codec can be improved through the use of an external recorder, it has interchangeable lenses with mounts for any lens, it has a large sensor for artistic DOF choices and it is £4995.00 (body only) available in a month or so.

In all honesty can you justify holding off and using DSLRs with all their problems until the Scarlet s35 comes out, I would say you couldn't, and if the work was there you would buy the AF100 now. And in doing so, when the Scarlet s35 finally gets a release, will you see much point in selling that AF100 to buy it? Again I would say no, there isn't that deciding factor anymore with the RED cameras, they have waited too long and the competition have caught up and in fact passed RED by, as they will actually have cameras on shelves.

The case you make of waiting it out and saving the extra cash doesn't really hold up when you consider what might be available for the same or less cash by the time the Scarlets see daylight.

I am frustrated by this as I was really on board with RED and I have just watched them piss it all away.

Sure, they will still have the top end of the industry, the epic look truly awesome and I really hope I get work in the future that I can rent one and get a play with it. I just Think the Scarlet program has been a total miss. It has frustrated customers and is so long in coming that I think it will also have been a massive waste of time and resources for RED, I think they may be feeling the same, hence the higher entry price.

 

[Stewart Rock]

Here is my opinion. The under $3k crowd doesn't have a critical eye. They don't really care about rolling shutter. They don't really care about compression. They don't really care about chroma sub-sampling. They don't really care about moire. They don't really care about image sharpening. They want 1080p @ 24fps with shallow DOF and low noise.

When presented with a $600 DSLR and a $3k 3k camera they think to themselves "Well both produce '1080p' deliverables so why spend 4 times as much?"

$3k is too much money for that market now. There is no $3k market anymore. The 7D killed it. It's half the price. It shoots higher resolution stills. It has a larger sensor for shallower DOF. It hit all the bullet points that they were looking for at a lower price.

Almost everyone who really cares about Moire, Jellocam, 12 bit color and compression also cares about HDRx™™™™, modularity and all the other good things that come with a higher price.

RED lost a lot of customers. But they would have lost them to the 7D anyway even if the $3k scarlet was selling today. Or at least that's my opinion.

LOL, just re-read this.

Don't be ridiculous, quality matters but it has to be weighed with cost.

If you take time to intelligently read the points I made you will see that they are valid and worthy of being asked, I don't need elitist opinions.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

@ Stewart.

This has been discussed before, but for many uses a 2/3" is actually more fit than an s35. 3D is one of them. Shallow DOF is not the only trick of photography, and I - for one - will def get a 2/3" fixed when it comes.

The flexibility of that cam outweighes its theoretical "disadvantages" for a lot of circumstances. And I am not really dying to deal with RC 250 @ 5k @ dual streams for all projects.

The Fixed 2/3" scarlet is and still wil be a very sought after object.

As to your other arguments... Well, but I want RAW...

 

[Stewart Rock]

@ Stewart.

This has been discussed before, but for many uses a 2/3" is actually more fit than an s35. 3D is one of them. Shallow DOF is not the only trick of photography, and I - for one - will def get a 2/3" fixed when it comes.

The flexibility of that cam outweighes its theoretical "disadvantages" for a lot of circumstances. And I am not really dying to deal with RC 250 @ 5k @ dual streams for all projects.

The Fixed 2/3" scarlet is and still wil be a very sought after object.

As to your other arguments... Well, but I want RAW...

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? And in therms of 3D, panasonic are pushing that quite a bit with their new cameras and equipment, it's not perfect as of now but it will get there. Of course if the extra wait and price are worth it to you for RAW then there is no question, scarlet is going to be your answer, but that's a very shrunken market from what they started out targeting.

 

[Steve Das]

Really the AF100 is actually more comparable with the s35 Scarlet in terms of the image it will produce, lens options etc.

Actually the S35 epic is quite abit larger sensor than AF100.
So Scarlet s35 should be far superior image.
The AF 100 is smaller than even movie size 35mm.
http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

 

[Stewart Rock]

Actually the S35 epic is quite abit larger sensor than AF100.
So Scarlet s35 should be far superior image.
The AF 100 is smaller than even movie size 35mm.
http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

I'm aware of that but it is close enough to be comparable, and is available on the market now. I wouldn't say far superior either. Better, yes, I would like to think it would be better as it will only hit the market in at least another year.