List the 5 most important things you want from scarlet

[Alberto Caprioglio]

Dear Jim,

If you don't invent a 4K Scarlet one day, we can punish you by buying our fifth Red One.
You are advised.

 

[Ameer Azari]

thanks tetsuo,

hopefully the Scarlet will be around $5,000 which means I can trick out a MAC PRO as well. I suppose a Zoom lens from RED would do if it's 2K or even 4K

by the way, do you have an account on the halo movie online forum because there's a guy called tetsuo over there

COME ONE RED GIVE US A 4K SCARLET PLEASE!!!!
or at least 2K

in like ten years i bet we'll all be asking for 1080K cameras

 

[killfilm]

thanks tetsuo,

hopefully the Scarlet will be around $5,000 which means I can trick out a MAC PRO as well. I suppose a Zoom lens from RED would do if it's 2K or even 4K

by the way, do you have an account on the halo movie online forum because there's a guy called tetsuo over there

COME ONE RED GIVE US A 4K SCARLET PLEASE!!!!
or at least 2K

in like ten years i bet we'll all be asking for 1080K cameras

we all hope for a 4k scarlet, but then red users will have temper tantrum. So i think it will be a 2k scarlet BUT with the option of upgrading to 4k in the future

Red Renders Obsolescene Obsolete

 

[Visceral_IvaN]

I believe Scarlet will be a direct competitor to SI-2K for the 3D imaging market, such that you will be able to place two Scarlets side by side at around the same width as the human eyes are apart from one another.

Out of interest, how many have ALREADY decided to cal their first scarlet, the "Johansson"?

 

[Mike Bozulich]

I'm still not sure why there's such a push for 4K on the Scarlet. Seriously, how many of those requesting 4K have worked with such material? It's a HUGE pain in the ass. I know because I've worked with 2K, 3K, and 4K material in the past. These days it takes a pretty top end system just to handle 1080p well. Just sit back and imagine working on something effectively over 4 times bigger. That's 4 times the storage, 4 times the processing power, and 4 times longer to get things done. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll personally be very happy if Scarlet is 2K. If I absolutely must have 4K, that's what the ONE is for.

I'm just hoping for a larger sensor, for nice short DOF. If they can deliver a 35mm full frame sensor size (or something close) in a compact (I refuse to use the term "pocket" since no one knows what that means) camera at a competitive price, I will be all over it. And if anyone can do it, Red can.

 

[laguun]

2k is just ok for prosumer

Just some quick thoughts...
1080p/2K is ok for being #1 in the boxoffice.
1080p/2K is ok to bring several titles into the all-time-top-10 of all movies
1080p/2K is ok for David Fincher, George Lucas, Robert Altman, Michael Mann, James Cameron, Tony Scott, Bryan Singer, Robert Rodriguez, Jean Jaques Annaud, Sindey Lumet, Lee Tamahori, David Zucker, Larry & Andi Wachowski...
1080p/2K is more than you will be able to project via 35mm cinemas using a typical distribution copy.

 

[Mike Bozulich]

Just some quick thoughts...
1080p/2K is ok for being #1 in the boxoffice.
1080p/2K is ok to bring several titles into the all-time-top-10 of all movies
1080p/2K is ok for David Fincher, George Lucas, Robert Altman, Michael Mann, James Cameron, Tony Scott, Bryan Singer, Robert Rodriguez, Jean Jaques Annaud, Sindey Lumet, Lee Tamahori, David Zucker, Larry & Andi Wachowski...
1080p/2K is more than you will be able to project via 35mm cinemas using a typical distribution copy.

I completely agree. 2K is great for most uses. As so perfectly put in laguun's post, 2K is THE distribution/working format for most film projects (Imax excluded). 4K just isn't used for distribution. I'm sure it will be someday, but that's still years away. Sony's CineAlta cameras and Panavision's Genesis, for which a lion's share of professional digital production is done, are both 1080P. So, 2K is plenty for most applications, and certainly way more than enough for a compact camera like the Scarlet.

One last bit. Red trademarked "Scarlet 2K" but not bother to trademark "Scarlet 4K" 'just in case.' I think that alone speaks volumes.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

I'm still not sure why there's such a push for 4K on the Scarlet. Seriously, how many of those requesting 4K have worked with such material? It's a HUGE pain in the ass. I know because I've worked with 2K, 3K, and 4K material in the past. These days it takes a pretty top end system just to handle 1080p well. Just sit back and imagine working on something effectively over 4 times bigger. That's 4 times the storage, 4 times the processing power, and 4 times longer to get things done. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll personally be very happy if Scarlet is 2K. If I absolutely must have 4K, that's what the ONE is for.

that's tells that you buy a camera to make you CURRENT computer happy.
Who cares if today your computer isn't fast enough?
I can't understand why one would spend a fortune for a small camera, and then doesn't even think about buying a new computer in a couple of years.
In the mean while, editing would just be slower. Be happy with that anyway.

by the way, do you have an account on the halo movie online forum because there's a guy called tetsuo over there

no

1080p/2K is ok for David Fincher, George Lucas, Robert Altman, Michael Mann, James Cameron, Tony Scott, Bryan Singer, Robert Rodriguez, Jean Jaques Annaud, Sindey Lumet, Lee Tamahori, David Zucker, Larry & Andi Wachowski...

So, again, what are we all doing at Reduser website?
Why does Red One exist? Why are you saying that? Do you think all this people will never 4k in the future? 2k was simply the maximum at that time.
Actually, this is not quite correct. They used 1080 cameras with 3 sensors, that gives probably higher resolution than 1 2K single sensor. Thay used them because they were the best available cameras.

2K is THE distribution/working format for most film projects (Imax excluded)

Imax is so much more detailed than 2K. of course you can watch Imax production on a video walkman with the same resolution of watch.
But you can not deny that is a very unnecessary waste in doing such things.
So what's the point of discussing how low your resolution can go?
Usually people like to preserve quality.

4K just isn't used for distribution.

We were talking about acquisition. For distribution, one can ruin a footage as much as he like. Pointless discussion.

So, 2K is plenty for most applications,

No, for more than 3000 Red One users (and more and more in the future), it's not.
remember that three 1080 sensors is more than 1 2k sensor, and that that 2000-1980=20.
you discard 4K and then we are enthusiastic for this magic word, 2k, as if 1080 were a thing of the past. We are in space thanks to these incredible 20 pixels in a line. I don't celebrate going backward. Thank you.

and certainly way more than enough for a compact camera like the Scarlet.

Again, it depends on what the price will be.
I would like it to be expensive enough in order to be 4k.
You don't need 4k, you are happy if it's just 2k. Fine.
But please, do not say that 2k is enough. Such an absolute declaration doesn't make much sense, because after you say it, it is already obsolete.

One last bit. Red trademarked "Scarlet 2K" but not bother to trademark "Scarlet 4K" 'just in case.' I think that alone speaks volumes.

Again, this thread is called "List the 5 most important things you want from scarlet". You are probably right thinking that Scarlet will 2K. But this won't make my wish change. A big wish can't enter a small can. ANd my big wish is a 4k Scarlet, may be via an upgrade, maybe a Scarlet II.

4K just isn't used for distribution. I'm sure it will be someday, but that's still years away.

How many years? we don't know. Well, a lot of people are using 35mm film because it is future proof, bacause conventional HD just isn't enough.

Thank you.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

would you prefer to win 4 million dollars at the lottery, or 2 million dollars?
4 millions are more difficult to handle, to invest, to take care of...
But I prefer to win 4 million anyway, thank you. Do I still have to justify my preference?

Of course 2k is better then nothing, what a surprise. Even a distribution of movies on musicassette media could be better then nothing. Is it worth another discussion? Welcome, but I'm going to bed, because I'd just like Scarlet to be 4k.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

But if it is going to be 2k, I won't cry, because I'm already happy that Red One is 4k.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

Still don't understand why as soon as one expresses his very own wishes, there is always someone who have to criticize them. Peple criticize even somone's innocent hopes and desires. You are not free to express them, and soon.
I can bet that I say that I would really like a chocolate icescream, some one comes out of a hat saying that I am wrong and that a lemonade would be more then enough to fulfill me. He knows what I want/need/should-wish more than I do... fantastic.
byebye

 

[Are Pilskog]

I am shooting wildlife, and I've been lokking for a low weight, high quality camera with variable framerates (the higher the framerates, the better), and with the possibilities of using Canons 2/3" HD lenses. It is also important with a good viewfinder for focusing.
I really hope that this Scarlet may be the solution, and if it is, I think many wildlife filmmakers may go for it. Of course low price is also important.

 

[Mike Bozulich]

that's tells that you buy a camera to make you CURRENT computer happy.
Who cares if today your computer isn't fast enough?
I can't understand why one would spend a fortune for a small camera, and then doesn't even think about buying a new computer in a couple of years.
In the mean while, editing would just be slower. Be happy with that anyway.

Ok, that confirms my question as to whether you have worked with such material. Editing 4K, is not possible in real-time, as far as I know. It would have to be scaled down quite a bit for it to be somewhat workable in real-time.

So, again, what are we all doing at Reduser website?

Speculating about a camera which Jim said not to speculate about. :wink:

Why does Red One exist?

We are not talking about the One, we are talking about Scarlet.

Why are you saying that? Do you think all this people will never 4k in the future?

Hmmm.... which part of "4K just isn't used for distribution. I'm sure it will be someday, but that's still years away" do you not understand? That statement implies that 4K will be standard... someday in the FUTURE.

They used 1080 cameras with 3 sensors, that gives probably higher resolution than 1 2K single sensor.

That's one way to think of it. Independent sensors doesn't really result in much higher resolution to my knowledge, but they do give better color fidelity. Ultimately though, the output is 1080P.

We were talking about acquisition. For distribution, one can ruin a footage as much as he like. Pointless discussion.

You got me there. However your tone is insulting. I have not insulted you, I have disagreed with your opinion. Believe it or not, my opinion has just as much validity as yours.

No, for more than 3000 Red One users (and more and more in the future), it's not.

Again we're not talking about the One, we're talking about the Scarlet. I said in my post that if I wanted or needed 4K the Red One is out there for that. The Scarlet is a much smaller, much cheaper (and therefore) much more accessible camera. It doesn't NEED to be 4K. In fact it would be better if it wasn't. Why? For the reasons I dictated in my original post: Lower overhead and faster workflow.

remember that three 1080 sensors is more than 1 2k sensor, and that that 2000-1980=20.
you discard 4K and then we are enthusiastic for this magic word, 2k, as if 1080 were a thing of the past. We are in space thanks to these incredible 20 pixels in a line. I don't celebrate going backward. Thank you.

Actually 2K is usually considered to be 2048 x 1556. At least that's what it is in the film world. How do I know? Because I work with this stuff everyday, unlike you, apparently. I know what's like to work with 2K footage, and I've had the extreme displeasure to work with 4K as well. It's painful. 2K isn't "going backward". 2K, as laguun pointed out, is the current standard. SD (or D1) is going backward.

I would like it to be expensive enough in order to be 4k.

Huh? I honestly don't understand this statement.

You don't need 4k, you are happy if it's just 2k. Fine.
But please, do not say that 2k is enough. Such an absolute declaration doesn't make much sense, because after you say it, it is already obsolete.

Funny, I've been doing film work for over 10 years and the scanning rate for most films (with very few exceptions) is 2K. The Panavision and Sony cameras output 1080P, which is less than 2K. The newest TVs out there are now just beginning to show 1080P.... yet tomorrow it will be obsolete. I don't think so. Not for many years to come. And I do say 2K is enough, because it's enough for me. Because as you correctly point out down below, this is a wish-list thread. You wish for 4K, I say 2K is enough for me.

Again, this thread is called "List the 5 most important things you want from scarlet". You are probably right thinking that Scarlet will 2K. But this won't make my wish change. A big wish can't enter a small can. ANd my big wish is a 4k Scarlet, may be via an upgrade, maybe a Scarlet II.

At last something we can agree on. I'm sure someday there will be a 4K Scarlet type camera, and who knows that day could come in April. If that's the case, I'll be very surprised and you'll have a dream come true. But odds are I will be the one that gets my wish. We'll find out in a few months.

 

[Gian Paolo Vallati]

I completely agree. 2K is great for most uses. As so perfectly put in laguun's post, 2K is THE distribution/working format for most film projects (Imax excluded). 4K just isn't used for distribution. I'm sure it will be someday, but that's still years away. Sony's CineAlta cameras and Panavision's Genesis, for which a lion's share of professional digital production is done, are both 1080P. So, 2K is plenty for most applications, and certainly way more than enough for a compact camera like the Scarlet.

One last bit. Red trademarked "Scarlet 2K" but not bother to trademark "Scarlet 4K" 'just in case.' I think that alone speaks volumes.

I completely agree with your and Laguun post.
And, by the way, many people seems to ignore that there's a huge difference between RAW format and HDV gop codec.
This is more important than resolution (IMO).

 

[Andrew Madu]

Tutsuo,

Still don't understand why as soon as one expresses his very own wishes, there is always someone who have to criticize them. Peple criticize even somone's innocent hopes and desires. You are not free to express them, and soon.
I can bet that I say that I would really like a chocolate icescream, some one comes out of a hat saying that I am wrong and that a lemonade would be more then enough to fulfill me. He knows what I want/need/should-wish more than I do... fantastic.

To quote Albert Einstein:

'Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds.'

I intend that your day is filled with joy (Ice Cream) of any and all descriptions :biggrin:

 

[swardo]

Still don't understand why as soon as one expresses his very own wishes, there is always someone who have to criticize them. Peple criticize even somone's innocent hopes and desires. You are not free to express them, and soon.
I can bet that I say that I would really like a chocolate icescream, some one comes out of a hat saying that I am wrong and that a lemonade would be more then enough to fulfill me. He knows what I want/need/should-wish more than I do... fantastic.
byebye

but isn't that exactly what you are doing?

 

[Scott Anderson]

I've said it before - 4K resolution and 35mm DOF is amazing, but increased dynamic range and especially RAW processing is much more important. I think that history will judge the intra-frame/wavelet/RAW workflow of Red as the real revolutionary development.

A Super-16mm sized sensor shooting 2K is plenty fine for every current application, up to and including feature films. The DOF is a good compromise between the challenge of 35 and the tiny sensors *most* current digital video cameras provide. And until 4K finishes become affordable, I wouldn't be surprised to see many features and episodics choose 2K. You have to do 2K for highspeed with the Red One, anyway. I see more and more people choosing 2K as a project's overall format.

Yes, sensor technology will continue to improve, and higher-resolution workflows will continue to decrease in price. However, if Scarlet is priced reasonably, I'd be happy with it becoming obsolete in, say, 5 or 10 years. :wink:

 

[killfilm]

seriously guys, we all would love 4k or even 8k on the scarlet, but you gotta be realistic. 2K max is best, with maybe the option to upgrade hardware in the future. If you want 4k with interchangable lenses, then thats what the Red is for
and you better get in line.

Hopefully there wont be a line for scarlet, that would really suck

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

Ok, that confirms my question as to whether you have worked with such material. Editing 4K, is not possible in real-time, as far as I know. It would have to be scaled down quite a bit for it to be somewhat workable in real-time.

So, what? You edit not in real time, today. and you edit in real time tomorrow.
By the way I photograph, not do the post production job myself. Anyway we are working with HDV and it is slow. It certainly doesn't make us stop using it. That would be silly.
No one really needs to work in real time at the maximum resolution. You work on a template at a workable resolution, and then apply what ever to what ever and it takes what it takes. what's the problem with it.

if you have a 4k sensor and you don't need it, you can use 1/4 of that area. But all the other people who enjoy the full area, could have it.
As mysterium is already there, this camera might even be less expensive than we imagine and still retain that magic sensor... who knows? Red One was like that.

Quote:
So, again, what are we all doing at Reduser website?

Speculating about a camera which Jim said not to speculate about.

You missed what I meant. I meant: why would people be interested in 4k anything - as a lot of people are - if 2k "is enough"?
Because, put simply, for someone 2k is enough while for others 4k is, and someone might even desire more. (not my case, but you know about that incredible japanese almost 8k system..)
Replying that this specific thread is not about Red One doesn't make sense to me, because THIS specific thread is about what people would like the new camera to be like.

Hmmm.... which part of "4K just isn't used for distribution. I'm sure it will be someday, but that's still years away" do you not understand? That statement implies that 4K will be standard... someday in the FUTURE.

So, I think it is not a stupid idea to start to make 4k content now, and it will be ok in the future. REd One is ready. I hope SCarlet to be the same, if you don't mind, of course.
Actually I do understand. I understand that you don't need 4k. F I N E.
AM I finally allowed to wish to have 4k, SIR?
Thank you.
I bet you have nothing agaist 35mm film. that is similarly future proof.
And yes, okay.. your computer is an old cheese... In 2 years computers will be 4 times as powerful. 2 years without a 4k camera, maybe? what a gain.

That's one way to think of it. Independent sensors doesn't really result in much higher resolution to my knowledge, but they do give better color fidelity. Ultimately though, the output is 1080P.

This is possibly right. But consider that usually 3ccd cameras are smaller and less performing than, say, a misterium sensor. Theoretically, 3 sensor are better than one, all things being equal.
In my experience as a photographer, a full RGB picture has double real resolution than a bayer pattern single sensor picture.
look at a picture from a digital SLR at 100% magnification, and compare it to another one at 50% magnification. In the second one you see effective perfect pixels, the true resolution. In the first one you see 50% of bla bla pixels.
You must start at least with a double resolution, if you want a perfect image in the end.
three 2k sensors would be a system twice as sharp that 1 single of them.

Quote:
We were talking about acquisition. For distribution, one can ruin a footage as much as he like. Pointless discussion.


Quote:
We were talking about acquisition. For distribution, one can ruin a footage as much as he like. Pointless discussion.

You got me there. However your tone is insulting. I have not insulted you, I have disagreed with your opinion. Believe it or not, my opinion has just as much validity as yours.

If you agree with me ("however, your tone.."), what's the problem? the tone of me saying 2k is silly, give me 4k?
And where did you find an insult in the sentence that you cited? I simply opposed your closure about and you being against my wish and my reasons in favor of 4k solution.
and i couldn't resist when I read your reason for putting down 4k.
Others preferred 2k for vary good reason, like "it's too expensive for me", and in this case, I am with them. But saying that 4k isn't generally worthwhile is just silly to me.
I you felle insulted by only this, perhaps your sensibility is set at 64000 ISO in the daylight, which is unecessarily too much. Sorry, anyway. I'm not against you of course. I am against what you are saying. Totally against it.
I believe that one should be able to shoot at very high resolution for a number of reasons, regardless the current state of the distribution (in a digital future, that can, and will change). this is why I still think the distribution factor is irrelevant for a shooter, if he keeps shooting at higher resolution. that is why is said it was a 'pointless discussion': i meant that distribution is not a limit for cameras, so it's pointless to consider it such.

Quote:
No, for more than 3000 Red One users (and more and more in the future), it's not.

Again we're not talking about the One, we're talking about the Scarlet.

Sorry, I thought we were allowed, in order to make a wish list, to make comparisons to other cameras, and therefore, cite them.
Anyway, Red Ones demostrating that 4k is a very good thing, is quite relevant to understand what Scarlet could or couldn't be like.
What we lack is information about Scarlet price, dimension, features, we still know nothing about it.

Actually 2K is usually considered to be 2048 x 1556. At least that's what it is in the film world. How do I know? Because I work with this stuff everyday, unlike you, apparently

Congratulations. in fact, I am more interested in framing and capture the best picture I can, I simply don't care much if workflow is heavy. machines are my salves, and I don't care at all how much heat the computer of in post producion can produce. problem today, solved tomorrow. and most importantly, as I don't need to have mountains of special efx, ad rather focus on acquisition. cameras are meant to fucus at acquisition first, and then come the rest. the rest is/will be always possible.

I know what's like to work with 2K footage, and I've had the extreme displeasure to work with 4K as well. It's painful.

I know how 2mp pictures look like at close distance: unwatchable.
You know nothing about what I intend to do with cameras and what sort of cameras I need for the job. I don't care what you need. We have different needs. One thing I need is videocameras that intercut perfectly with pictures originated from 12 pixel still camera and large format camera.
We will use Red One, but would like a more compact too for specific purposes.
We don't care if a computer has to work in the night. A computer is just an incredibly stupid machine, less friendly than a stone, therefore it must just work for us till it explodes, and we couldn't care less.
We want B I G P I C T U R E S , now I hope I explained myself, Boz.

Quote:
I would like it to be expensive enough in order to be 4k.
Huh? I honestly don't understand this statement.

I know, it's my english. Here I was trying to say that I would rather spend more for 4k.
but not immediately: we have choosen Red One for the moment.

Quote:
You don't need 4k, you are happy if it's just 2k. Fine.
But please, do not say that 2k is enough. Such an absolute declaration doesn't make much sense, because after you say it, it is already obsolete.

Funny, I've been doing film work for over 10 years and the scanning rate for most films (with very few exceptions) is 2K. The Panavision and Sony cameras output 1080P, which is less than 2K. The newest TVs out there are now just beginning to show 1080P.... yet tomorrow it will be obsolete. I don't think so. Not for many years to come.

4k is intended to substitutes 35mm film. If film is good, 4k is good.
So, going with less than 4k is a bit like going with less then 35mm: Now, while we are talking about cinema, why should the world in the year 2008 go with less then 35mm film? imaging should improve, not become worse.4k has the added benefit of delivering the same 4k on the screen with the next generation of 4k projectors and screen. That is, better than what we have been used to see on the traditional screen. I like it.

I must admit I quite enjoyed fighting with you, dear hard bone.
have a nice wednesday.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

To quote Albert Einstein:

'Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds.'

I intend that your day is filled with joy (Ice Cream) of any and all descriptions

Hi, thank you, but Boz is not a weak mind at all. He is a hard bone! hehehe