List the 5 most important things you want from scarlet

[killfilm]

Come on, don't be absurdly floppy now, about image quality.

IT SHOULD INTERCUT WITH RED ONE. BUT WITHOUT ALL THOSE CRAZY OPTIONS.



4K (compressed) TO FLASH CARD. 24-25. That is cinema, or at least the future of cinema.
I don't need anything more, but I certainly don't want to go back, I don't want anything less. Everyone has been dreaming, asking and waiting for the highest resolution and 24 fps... for years. that's the easiest part, because it's so low.

Image quality camera: that's the first thing we need, and quite possibly the only.
flash card would probably be the only reasonable possibility anyway, since they are so compact, and the camera has to be small. Not ultra small, just small, which is simply the opposite of big. I don't want a fragile hard disk in my pocket to look after all the time.

4K is the heart of Red Digital Cinema, from the source to the screen. The dream was and is still this one, not another boring one.


why ask for less? why ask for 2k/1080i/p when that is exaclty what we feel was not enough in existing cameras for digital cinema? At least untill Jannard revolutionized this. Let's not go back from here, please. Let's go deeper, instead.
This camera could be really unique. It doesn't have to have all the infinite options that only a super modular camera like Red One has.
Nothing would make sense for Red one's little sister as much as being able to offer comparable image quality to Red One: that is 4K.

Please, 4k Mysterium TO FLASH CARD (or at least 3K, but on the same sensor or a very similar one. Perhaps, upgradeble to 4k in the future, in order to set it free from osolescence when it would get older.)
Why design/build/buy another sensor? an inferior one, is not nice.
Just take the uncompressed raw option out.
Compression is beautiful! but the image has to be big!
otherwise, I already have a Canon XH-A1 which is amazing, in the 1920x1080 segment. (and it has 3ccd, so that resolution is optimized and real). It can't enter the pocket of my shirt, but after all, what do I want? A toy?
Not even SRL photo cameras can stay in one's pocket. What's the problem with that.


2k bayer = less than 2k optimized. So, at 2k, Scarlet would have less resolution than a good HDV.
Do you want that? For what price?
Are we talking about a prosumer pocket camera or a professional pocket camera?
I would like a professional pocket camera. With big 4k sensor, so I can use it as a second camera with my Red One without having the video quality suddenly drop.
And I don't want all those accessories and possibilities, or hundreds of frames per second. That's silly. I'd rather have great images.
Sharp also make nice little pocket videocameras for the people who don't need 4k.



Yes, while subjective, that makes sense. We can have great 4k images on a good fixed glass. If Red decide to put a fixed lens, it will be fine for me.


someone said

On a pocket camera?? you are joking. Aren't flash cards in your pocket not a good enough solution? do you prefer to stare at boring slow motions and have raw and lower resolution images than compressed, easy to handle higher resolution images at the most classic and immortal 24 fps?
I'm not going out with a video deck or computer hunging from my neck just to record video from a pocket camera.
The video has to be compressed anyway for an ergonomic reason, therefore there is no need for a deck even for when I come back home. because everything is recorded onto flash cards anyway. Just push them into the card reader of you computer.



Crash a Red camera??? Use HDV for that purpose, if it has to be only 2k/1080 something.
While if it will be 4K, as I hope it to be, I would never treat it badly.

for cinema imagery in one's pocket... please, make it pure and supreme: 4k solid state at 24-25fps.
I don't ask anything more than this.
Something like a Leica for moving images.

Agreed every word of it. I mentioned upgradable to 4k because all of us know where the future most likely will go. We have seen HVX footage up on the big screen, it looked pretty awesome. It does make one realize that 1080p is
good enough for the big screen. Red is about revolution, why not make scarlet 4k.

It was made clear that it will not compete with the red, so why not strip a few features that Red does not have so there's no competition.

A fixed lens, not as much as FPS, or something like that.

Jim, you're about to roll out your awesome 4k projectors, let us maximize our potential, give us 4k.

 

[Craig Schober]

2k scarlet

2k scarlet

Red is about revolution, why not make scarlet 4k.

It was made clear that it will not compete with the red, so why not strip a few features that Red does not have so there's no competition.

A fixed lens, not as much as FPS, or something like that.

but we've already seen red 2k and 4k footage. can you really tell the difference? will audiences really be able to tell?

why not save 4k for high-end fx and studio productions (although $30k for a red package is extremely low-end for any studio) and make 2k the prosumer choice? we know they want scarlet labeled as professional but we also know they want to sell a lot of scarlets - a lot more than red ones. so what do you do? you strip out the expensive pro features and cut the price by a third. some call it prosumer and some still call it professional. who cares so long as it is affordable, the image quality is there and people (both pros and amateurs) use it. red will sell a ton of 2k scarlets. they won't sell as many 4k scarlets because it will cost that much more to build another cam around an expensive 4k sensor.

all i want is dynamic range and sensitivity of the red in a handheld design. if they can give me that with a 4k sensor and it's less than $10k, i'd buy it. but they won't because otherwise the red one would be smaller, lighter and run cooler. the processing overhead for 4k necessitates that red one be the size and weight and pc inside that it is. 2k would free up so many restrictions we currently have with the red. it would give us higher frame rates, true run and gun abilities, longer run times (media and battery) and most importantly-low price. but if red can pump out another 4k cam that beats the red one on almost every level for half the price, bring it on and prove me wrong.

 

[killfilm]

but we've already seen red 2k and 4k footage. can you really tell the difference? will audiences really be able to tell?

why not save 4k for high-end fx and studio productions (although $30k for a red package is extremely low-end for any studio) and make 2k the prosumer choice? we know they want scarlet labeled as professional but we also know they want to sell a lot of scarlets - a lot more than red ones. so what do you do? you strip out the expensive pro features and cut the price by a third. some call it prosumer and some still call it professional. who cares so long as it is affordable, the image quality is there and people (both pros and amateurs) use it. red will sell a ton of 2k scarlets. they won't sell as many 4k scarlets because it will cost that much more to build another cam around an expensive 4k sensor.

all i want is dynamic range and sensitivity of the red in a handheld design. if they can give me that with a 4k sensor and it's less than $10k, i'd buy it. but they won't because otherwise the red one would be smaller, lighter and run cooler. the processing overhead for 4k necessitates that red one be the size and weight and pc inside that it is. 2k would free up so many restrictions we currently have with the red. it would give us higher frame rates, true run and gun abilities, longer run times (media and battery) and most importantly-low price. but if red can pump out another 4k cam that beats the red one on almost every level for half the price, bring it on and prove me wrong.

How does Red 2k look on a 4k projector? Doesnt uprezzing make it look bad or low end? Isnt 4k twice the resolution of 2k?
Questions have to be answered before we think that 2k is good enough. 2k is good on a 2k projector, thats all we know.
We dont wanna buy something that'll be old school again in a few months. I know this is normal for average prosumer cameras, but Red is different,
maybe offering 4k to start with is a good idea OR make room for an upgradable scarlet, so when want more, we can upgrade to 4k.

 

[krwl]

Being that I'm pretty sure Scarlet will revolutionize as far as technical/optical specification goes, I can narrow it down to these five things:

1) Rugged, weather-sealed, body/housing that can withstand the elements.
2) Versatile mounting capabilities.
3) Fully US in-house manufactured, no out-sourced cheap-skate BS.
4) Sub-$2500 price tag, please!
5) EOS EF lens compatibility with functional AF (assuming it wont have a fixed lens).

 

[Ameer Azari]

WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK IT'S GONNA COST LESS THAN $3,000 and still have like 4K or 2K or whatever. It costs RED about $2,000 to construct a RED ONE. Seriously, this camera WILL COST between $6-10,000 and if I'm wrong I'll split the profit I make with my first Oscar Winning Film which will be like $100,000,000 between all you guys who think that the Scarlet is gonna cost $3,000 and then you'll never buy a lottery ticket again...In fact, you'll probably all be buying the RED TWO or the RED THREE!!!

 

[killfilm]

WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK IT'S GONNA COST LESS THAN $3,000 and still have like 4K or 2K or whatever. It costs RED about $2,000 to construct a RED ONE. Seriously, this camera WILL COST between $6-10,000 and if I'm wrong I'll split the profit I make with my first Oscar Winning Film which will be like $100,000,000 between all you guys who think that the Scarlet is gonna cost $3,000 and then you'll never buy a lottery ticket again...In fact, you'll probably all be buying the RED TWO or the RED THREE!!!

Actually, not everyone thinks its sub $3000, my guess is between $5000-$10,000. I do seriously hope though that we dont spend another few thousand on accessories, then it would cost us more than si-2k, and thats not the goal. I'm sure if you made a $100,000,000 then you might be too good to hang in the scarlet forum anyways

 

[Steve White]

someone said
>2. 2k minimum
>3. RAW acquisition
>4. Variable frame rates up to highest possible.
>5. 10-bit HDMI out

On a pocket camera?? you are joking. Aren't flash cards in your pocket not a good enough solution? do you prefer to stare at boring slow motions and have raw and lower resolution images than compressed, easy to handle higher resolution images at the most classic and immortal 24 fps?

I'm definitely not joking. I didn't require that the RAW files be uncompressed. I'd be very happy with a RedCode RAW solution - but I definitely want a RAW workflow. Compression is a must for bandwidth reduction, and used intelligently, you can achieve far higher quality with compressed solutions than with uncompressed.

As for variable frame rates - it's a feature I'm definitely interested in. Having a stuck frame-rate of 24 fps limits the options quite significantly. It's not that I would shoot at other frame rates often, but I would like to have the option for extremely high framerates for certain shots, acquired into a RAM buffer and compressed in non-real time. The sky is the limit for frame rates I would be happy with. There are CMOS cameras out there with frame rates up to 10000 fps.

10-bit HDMI out may not be necessary with RAW acquisition to CF cards. If the internal quality of the compressor exceeds what HDMI is capable of, there's little point other than for monitoring - which could probably stand a reduced quality.

 

[Robert Batta]

Please, 4k Mysterium TO FLASH CARD (or at least 3K, but on the same sensor or a very similar one. Perhaps, upgradeble to 4k in the future, in order to set it free from osolescence when it would get older.)
Why design/build/buy another sensor? an inferior one, is not nice.

YES, YES, YES !

 

[ScottPictures]

As long as SCARLET records to Redcode RAW I'll be happy.

Now, when I look at the other options like the Sony EX-1 with it's long GOP compression and the new Panasonic with AVCHD, I just shake my head. These compressed formats don't handle high speed motion well, or stand up to color grading.

We have just accepted these options because there is nothing else to choose.

If SCARLET records in RAW to CF Flash that will be revolution enough for me.

P.S. 35mm DOF would be nice too.

 

[Ameer Azari]

I'm not sure if this has already been suggested but I bet they'll release better CF Cards with the scarlet. If we get some 16GB or 32GB one's that'll be awesome.
32GB seems unlikely as it's half the size of they're current flash brick but then again, they may release an even bigger Flash Disk for the RED ONE like 128GB or something. 16GB would help if you're shooting a longer scene.

Also, is there any word on cases for RED stuff, seeing as it's pretty expensive stuff to be lugging around.

When the scarlet is released and more people have RED ONEs we should organise an online film festival on the site.

Ameer

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

Hi
I couldn't agree less.

Really don't you see much difference between a given frame and another one that has 4 times the size? well, I guess you don't need 4k on the Red One either, as this resolution is almost useless.. or maybe it is difficult to justify? and never will be justified... as the human eyes do no improve with time like technology does...
Then, what are we all doing here at reduser.com, and why did Jim gave us the Red One, 4k, why are they going towards 4k projection.. etc? The audience will not notice the difference between 2k and 4k, and why some people even filmed with Imax? why Vistavision was invented? Why 65mm cameras? are all these inventions stupid?
Since I see a lot of difference between a 11 megapixel picture and a 2 megapixel half laugh, I'm sorry but I can't drink that the difference "is barely noticeable".
and the proof is that HDTV is more or less 4 times PAL/NTSC. I bet people who buy HDTVs for their home are able to notice this "little" difference.
ALso, with 4K you can resize, cut away intrusions in the frame; you have more freedom too.
Still discussing the advantage of 4k in these absolute terms seems like watching a really too obsolete film.
what about the difference between Super35 and super16? Again, it's 4 times. why bother filming S35? the difference is ONLY so much (=4 times)
Come on. we may discuss if a 1,5X size difference is noticeable - and that is still quite a lot. (Do you remember when the improvement between DVCPRO25 and DVCPRO50 seemed so important to justify the leap in the technology and in the cost?)
but A 4X difference... please, give up on this. It is painful to go back and low so much with expectations.

>list the five most important things (...)
I have listed almost 3:

1) great and big images that can easily intercut (is not the same as 'substitute' at all) with Red One. That is: 4k. (I can realize rather well if it were not)
2) solid state storage, flash card or similar. Pretty much obvious for what a pocket camera could be. So you may even not count point number 2).
3) true cinematic frame rate (why not? it's so easy and also much lighter on the processor than a high frame rate. people would happily use 24 or 25 fps all the time)

IF I REMEMBER WELL, RED ONE GOES UP TO 4.5K.

So a 3K, 3.5K (upgreadable?) or 4K Scarlet would not substitute Red One even on this matter. But at the same time, It could still intercut well, while i feel that 2k or less is too far behind.

A Canon XLH1 and a Sony f-900 have very comparable image quality, and both are very good. But maybe the Canon is not quite a substitute of the F-900 either. Even if it's so much cheaper than F-900. And also the Canon XH-A1, with its very good fixed lens, still has the same image quality as her bigger sister XLH1, and it is by no means a substitute of that, either. Do you agree?
So, have no fear that At Red they wouldn't be able to differentiate products, if they want.

I also see a little contradiction between thinking that the same pixel count would mean "substitute camera" and, at the same time, thinking that a 4x times difference in pixel count - all things being equal - is not noticeable or just barely noticeable.
It doesn't make sense to me.
(And if it were barely noticeable, it would be easily considered a substitute camera anyway, no matter if 2k or 4k, so as soon as Scarlet appears, everyone could buy it instead of Red One. There is more than resolution to make things equal. But at the same time, a lot of resolution is a requisite to get great quality enlargements in the end.)
thanks.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

I don't understand why we should ask for less then what we would be please to receive instead of asking for exactly that... if not for even more, if we are asked.
Normally, If I want 2k, I ask 4k. If I want 4k, perhaps I should even be asking for 6k if it helps to get 4k in the end (Same story as resizing; I don't like to resize my expectation from the start). But I know that asking for 6k would sound ridiculos to many, and We know Red is usually very good in fulfilling people expectations, indeed. That's why i'm asking exactly what I would be pleased to see and not more. Seriously.
If your top wish in this short list is to have at least 1080/2k, well this wish is already unnecessary, because It is almost certain that Red will make no less than 1080/2k anyway.

Here I don't care if they can or can't do what.
I am not Red. I don't know and don't want to know anything about their tools, their internal costs, and surely I don't want to/can't predict what Red has decided or will decide... I was simply called to write my own letter to Santa Klaus, and so I do. I'm not Santa Klaus either, so it's not my business to deliver those presents or not. I simply say 'please', and hopefully 'thank you'.


Can we take a minimum of 1080/2k for granted, please? (single sensor, bayer pattern)
Sometimes It sounds like begging for having battery operation, to me. I don't understand what's the point in flyng so low in a wish list.
It's so good to have the change to be heard and asked by a manufacturer, once in a while. I would like to use this chance to ask for the best possible. Then they will decide, of course, what is reasonable or not, possible or not, out of budget or not, but at least they will know what mostly the potential buyers are looking for.
Anyway Red is asking us, I suppose that is because they want to know what are our preferences. This thread is not about forseeing what Scarlet would be - there is another thread for that - Here we are asked what we would like Scarlet to be.
Then, they will decide how far to fullfil our desires.

Yes, not everyone has the same priorities.
For example, I would like maximum image quality and minimum extra(vaganza). Perhaps someone prefer 1/4 the quality (a difference "barely noticeable") and interchaneable lenses, so they can compare a 30000$ zoom with a 20000$ one, on a 2k system that would reduce their performance to a that of great system with a 100$ lens in front of it. Ask for less in order to make Scarlet some thousand cheaper and then put a lens that cost ten times without any advantage.
Someone might even decide to spend more on a 2k Scarlet + best zoom or prime set on the planet, then what he would have spent with a full optional Red One + matching quality lenses, and still have an image that is 4 times poorer.
Everyone is welcome to experiment enormous freedom with lenses on a system that starts with an unnecessarily castrated sensor.
Just like with spy cameras. Microscopic film size in front of witch you are obliged to put the most refined glass on the planet spending a lot more on glass then you spent on the camera, just to have a result that is inferior to a point and shoot toy.

FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT'S THE POINT IN HAVING THE FREEDOM TO PUT ANY LENS YOU WANT IF A MEAN 2K WOULD ALREADY START TO WASTE THE HIGHER BIT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF A NORMALLY GOOD FIXED ZOOM LENS?

Sorry, I write too long. I took up too much space.


I Remember that 2k bayer is a resolution quite comparable to HDV
From Red Scarlet, I would like more than something comparable to HDV, and I believe I'm not asking an absurd thing.

being able to put a S16 lens on the scarlet to shoot at 2k could make a quite compact system, I guess.
But being able to put also S35 lenses and shoot at 4k every time I am not constricted in someone's helicopter (as someone suggested) is so much better.
It's easy to step down. better to start with more. Always.
Plus, Mysterium is there already to serve.
I think this tread oscillates from being a generous idea to being obvious and unnecessary.
I's so obvious that Scarlet should simply be a simpler, smaller, and less versatile camera than the RedOne, but with same quality.
At least for me.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

someone still seem to think that uncompressed lower resolution offers higher quality than compressed higher resolution.
But everything proves the opposite.

How can you believe that an uncompresed stream of NTSC video could even compare to a compressed Red video?
Red's compressed video at 4.5K even takes less storage space.

In audio it is the same:
In digital multitracks, often you can choose between 8 tracks at 16 bit uncompressed (perfect for the people who "do not need 4k") or 16 tracks of 24 bit compressed. With good compression - even such a mild compression - not only the sound can be recorded at 24 bit instead of 16 without without wasting extra space, but you can record more tracks with that superior quality.
but of course, someone may still prefer to have fewer tracks, at lower quality, taking up more space.
nothing new.
we can't do anything about this. Only hope that they are not a driving force in the market, otherwise I am stuck.


it must be understood that compression is made to improve image quality, not certainly to decrease it. That is: substitute redundancy with more, new, and useful data. Unless you are more interested in recording more hours of content and do not care much if the system has to throw part of the music out of the window.
MP3 can easily reduce the size of music to 1/10 while loosing some fidelity. But if you compressed it, say just 1/2, there might be enough space for improving it, for example more with more bits or higher frequency rate, or both. Just gain and no loss, and save space.


If miniDV had no compression, and if it had to have the same data rate, it would have such a small resolution that perhaps VHS would offer a more detailed picture. who knows how bad it would get?


All this 'uncompressed 2k' begging silliness got me tired.
ahwmm... I'm loosing interest. Good night.
... you also loose the technological advantage of solid state memory and are forced to use at least 2 big hard disks with raid, only to burn a huge amount of data that offers a fraction of what could be achieved with some clever compression. And for a short playing, too.

The only reason to go for 2k is in a processing deficit, that in too a small camera, can be easily foreseen, therefore avoided: By God (sorry)... since this idea is so easy to foreseen, then, by all means, do not make a camera THAT small.

 

[killfilm]

someone still seem to think that uncompressed lower resolution offers higher quality than compressed higher resolution.
But everything proves the opposite.

How can you believe that an uncompresed stream of NTSC video could even compare to a compressed Red video?
Red's compressed video at 4.5K even takes less storage space.

In audio it is the same:
In digital multitracks, often you can choose between 8 tracks at 16 bit uncompressed (perfect for the people who "do not need 4k") or 16 tracks of 24 bit compressed. With good compression - even such a mild compression - not only the sound can be recorded at 24 bit instead of 16 without without wasting extra space, but you can record more tracks with that superior quality.
but of course, someone may still prefer to have fewer tracks, at lower quality, taking up more space.
nothing new.
we can't do anything about this. Only hope that they are not a driving force in the market, otherwise I am stuck.


it must be understood that compression is made to improve image quality, not certainly to decrease it. That is: substitute redundancy with more, new, and useful data. Unless you are more interested in recording more hours of content and do not care much if the system has to throw part of the music out of the window.
MP3 can easily reduce the size of music to 1/10 while loosing some fidelity. But if you compressed it, say just 1/2, there might be enough space for improving it, for example more with more bits or higher frequency rate, or both. Just gain and no loss, and save space.


If miniDV had no compression, and if it had to have the same data rate, it would have such a small resolution that perhaps VHS would offer a more detailed picture. who knows how bad it would get?


All this 'uncompressed 2k' begging silliness got me tired.
ahwmm... I'm loosing interest. Good night.
... you also loose the technological advantage of solid state memory and are forced to use at least 2 big hard disks with raid, only to burn a huge amount of data that offers a fraction of what could be achieved with some clever compression. And for a short playing, too.

The only reason to go for 2k is in a processing deficit, that in too a small camera, can be easily foreseen, therefore avoided: By God (sorry)... since this idea is so easy to foreseen, then, by all means, do not make a camera THAT small.

Already then, compression is good, its our friend. Good compression alogrithms help us save disk space and play nicely on your computer. Uncompressed looks best, but professional codecs like the red codec eats it for lunch. There are no visible differences so why not just...compress.

I have not seen any negative comments on the Red Codec, so this post is irrelvant. We like 2k but prefer 4k.

 

[Nathan Garofalos]

If you go to www.scarlet2k.com it takes you to reduser.net !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dont know what this means lol.

 

[Ameer Azari]

Hi, just a thought, but...doesn't the fact that they've made a Scarlet "2K" forum kind of hint at that being the resolution? I mean, if Scarlet was 4K, then wouldn't they have just made a Scarlet forum rather than Scarlet 2K?

Although, maybe he's gonna surprise us and say, "oh...woops did i accidently say 2k I meant 3K, or even 4K"

and maybe the RED can actually do 8K, but they haven't told us yet and they'll release that ability in a new update.

On a serious note, Scarlet 2K makes me think that it's gonna be 2K and that's that.

Could be wrong, so don't crucify me tesuo

 

[Ameer Azari]

oh, by the way can anyone recommend a good set of lenses for me to start out with, if say the Scarlet has interchangeable lenses. I don't think I'll be spending more the $8,000 on a set of lenses, is it worth getting one of the RED Zoom Lenses in that case? (I know this defies the point of a pocket camera, but that's not what I'm after), and one other thing. I have one of the new Super thin leopard iMacs, will that be good enough to edit 2K (or even 4K)?

RAM 2.5GB

HDD 500GB 7200RPM

Graphics card ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory

2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme

i'd be really grateful if someone could suggest something

Ameer

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

On a serious note, Scarlet 2K makes me think that it's gonna be 2K and that's that.

Could be wrong, so don't crucify me tesuo

Of course I don't. And if it is going to be 2k, I wouldn't be your fault.
if the sensor must be just one, then I think:
4k is great and professional
3k is good and professional
2k is just ok for prosumer
1.2k is not so good and it is for amateurs, the weaker kind of HDV
PAL and NTSC are barely watchable TV systems that in the fifties were probably considered ok because it was something new - and only if the antenna was perfect and in the best possible position. Usually, I can't watch TV. No problem, since I like 0.1% of what they make raining on us, the (casual) watchers. I don't know what is lower, the sub-human cultural level of the content or the technical quality of SDTV. But sub-humanism on a big HD screen would be worse.
mmm, defenetely the content reaches the abyss. it wins.
(lots of awards all the time, actually. TV assolves itself everyday. Family business.)

I went off topic.

 

[Ameer Azari]

Tetsuo,

you are the coolest guy on the forum so far

anywhoo, do you have any suggestions about the post I made before this,

oh, by the way can anyone recommend a good set of lenses for me to start out with, if say the Scarlet has interchangeable lenses. I don't think I'll be spending more the $8,000 on a set of lenses, is it worth getting one of the RED Zoom Lenses in that case? (I know this defies the point of a pocket camera, but that's not what I'm after), and one other thing. I have one of the new Super thin leopard iMacs, will that be good enough to edit 2K (or even 4K)?

RAM 2.5GB

HDD 500GB 7200RPM

Graphics card ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory

2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme

i'd be really grateful if someone could suggest something

Ameer

sorry, I know this is off topic but you guys are online, so maybe I can get a response.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

Hi, thank you
how do you do

oh, by the way can anyone recommend a good set of lenses for me to start out with, if say the Scarlet has interchangeable lenses. I don't think I'll be spending more the $8,000 on a set of lenses, is it worth getting one of the RED Zoom Lenses in that case?

I am sure you can produce good images with a Red zoom lens on the Scarlet, especially if the voice it being just 2K is true. Those lenses were design for 4K. But check also other important aspects.
If you prefer to get some primes, you may not need to buy a complete set. You may buy the two or three that you feel you would use more often.
Can you wait till Scarlet is disclosed? we don't know anything yet. We don't know if it has a fixed or interchangable lenses.

will that be good enough to edit 2K (or even 4K)?

RAM 2.5GB

this is what I know:
I can't surf the internet with less then 4GB RAM without having the computer start to use virtual memory, which is ugly. (I have perhaps hundred pages open in my browser now, I don't know how can some ones have some control and panorama and follow some links with one page at a time, they go forward and back continuosly, while I just open another page, and when is read, I close it. the net is not consequential, it's not like a book, look what a mess that is has become. some million sites should be closed, there are too many useless sites. Bad copies of bad copies. Every new born, every young boy replicates some contents without having a no good reason.)

HDD 500GB 7200RPM

only one? you should configure some hard disk (not smaller than yours) in a RAID configuration than offers both speed and reliability.
raid 0 = (almost) double speed
raid 1 = mirroring
raid 0+1 = (almost) double speed più mirroring
higher raid levels, like raid 5 ... are more sofisticated and possibly better in such aspects as speed and data recovery after fault, but I'm not an expert.

A large and highest possible resolution monitor would help a lot.