No more FF35 Scarlet?

[David Rasberry]

Canon may leech a little off of Red's market at the very bottom end. But they are dedicated to low to midrange consumer market cameras. Their most expensive top of the line camera will barely touch the bottom end of Red's market. It is apples and oranges. VDSLR's are a poor substitute for a truly flexible well made dedicated motion picture camera.
All Canon has done so far is migrate the consumer HD video features they have had for several years from their point and shoot mass market cameras into their DSLR line. They are reacting to the unexpected popularity of these cameras and adding features such as manual control and the basic minimum range of frame rates to remain competitive in their own market.

Red is more likely to eat into Canon's top of the line pro still camera market, as they offer full raw still image quality at high speed motion frame rates for those who can appreciate the unique creative opportunities such a camera offers.
As always, most consumers can't justify the cost of a serious high quality motion camera for personal use, even though RED has reduced the entry price level by more than 1/2 compared to its closest real competitors.
Canon in its entire history has never attempted to compete in the midrange and up video/film motion camera market, choosing instead to stop at the entry level pro camera price range. They only provide optics for the market that is Red's primary focus. This is not likely to change. The VDSLR's provide a lot of value for the money and Canon will make the best of it within their traditional market space. Just don't expect them to suddenly morph into something they have never been.

 

[Joseph Ward]

Back to the Original topic!:laugh: lol It seems that Scarlet FF35 comparison is not represented do to the other generation of sensor hence Monstro.

 

[David Rasberry]

Back to the Original topic!:laugh: lol It seems that Scarlet FF35 comparison is not represented do to the other generation of sensor hence Monstro.

Yeah, not a whiff of Monstro in any form yet. Maybe next year?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I've already moved the majority of my Monstro money into other ventures for the near future. It's not a fund I expect I'll need to tap for a while.

 

[toke lahti]

The difference here is that Canon didn't make a revolutionary camera in terms of video with the 5D, 7D or any of their other DSLRs in terms of technology.

The usual story here is that there is this one small revolutionary company that gets lost when the big boys want to play.

They could have added these features before with earlier cameras without significant cost. Why they didn't I can only speculate as to not wanting to cut into their other markets, especially if they can make products that require someone to buy more than one.

They are not in a hurry, since there will be lots of shooters that keep buying FF-dslr from them (bigger sensor & more resolution than S35, existing lenses & accessories) and shooting motion with S35. $5k for stepup from S35 to FF is just too much. At least now I think so, but the big question will still be The Lenses.
They still make more profits in selling those dslr's than selling FF-Scarlet-copycat.
When Red will get first true DSMC out, they will have to bring their own.
With true DSMC I mean FF with affordable price (one camera is cheaper than two cameras, one for stills, other for motion,together) with full lens lineup.

I see no reason why Red can't win with their current model because they offer something no one else has, upgradability. Let's see, in one year I can upgrade my brain to a S35 and keep all my modules that I have on my Scarlet Fixed? Yes please!

Obsoliting the obsolence is one of the best this with Red. Businesswise this just means that they are not getting so big profits. Other thing is that you can really trust that all the equipment & forkflow is fully made for us, from end to end. Cameras are not crippled, so that you would need more expensive camera just to get one small feature that is disabled in cheaper camera's firmware. No hidden costs in propritary media formats or equipment.

I think the key is focusing on a sensor that blows away the competition because this is the one spot where decisions are going to be made. I want no moire, no alias, good low light performance and drastically reduced rolling shutter problems. Seems like my checklist is good to go with the Scarlet.

Big companies will come in par with sensor in couple of years and might get past also. Economics of scale are biggest in silicon. You just can't change that. There won't be a doubt that this year will be great for Red. I believe next year also.
If there will be any problems, they will come after that. If big camera manufacturers start to offer similiar camera with pricepoint that Red can't match. Or they will have better lens lineup. Or other accessories. Or the whole packet. Or they have better support (maybe you don't even have to send camera to another country to get it fixed...!)
All of a sudden 9 out of 10 of your fellow shooters are using this notRed, Red discontinues new models and nobody wants to buy your old. This has happened with many products before.

I guess that 4/3" EVILs will be huge success in consumer market. Sensors get better all the time and the key thing here is lcd, which will be cheap, crisp & bright fullHD in couple of years.
Canon neglects EVILs now, but they will get onboard later.
Economics of scale will bring 4/3" lenses to best quality-price ratio. Modding high quality consumer lens for professional use is not very expensive. Same thing that has been traditionally done to convert eng-lenses to cine lenses can be done with 4/3".
We've been shooting with 2/3" for over two decades. Shouldn't we advance to 4/3" now when it's techincally and economically reasonable or should we still wait for another decade?
I think this question is about our different point of views. If you live & work in places like Hollywood or other high cost areas, you want to have always bigger, better and more expensive stuff. Like S35 video camera. Or FF. But in smaller economic areas (like here in Finland) you know that onlt handful of people can make their living with that expensive stuff. Other will have to do it cheaper or change occupation. So cheap 2/3" is a good start and it will replace the more expensive (and still inferior) 2/3", but they still are just 2/3".
Many people also think that if they are stuck with 2/3", why bother with new camera if the old one is still working.
The idea that if you want to shoot S16, you need to buy S35 body is just something that many people won't accept.
If Red does not offer anything between 2/3" and S35 in couple of years, they will miss most of the market they could rule.

 

[David Rasberry]

2/3" won't be replaced by anything. It is a robust and excellent motion format on its own. For doc shooters and general broadcast production it has a lot of practical advantages. The 2/3" /16mm sized format is my personal favorite for a general purpose motion camera. I neither need nor want anything larger. There is more production footage of all kinds shot on 2/3" these days than all other formats combined. The day you see some larger format replace 2/3" is the day you find the FF35 equivalent of an 18mm to 800mm f1.6 servo zoom lens that is less than 18" long and weighs less than 5lbs.
Premium quality robustly constructed high precision lenses, especially servo zoom lenses, are not cheap to make. They have to be hand assembled and aligned. There is no mass production cost savings. And true professional grade cameras of any format will never be a cheap mass market consumer item. The technical requirements necessary for them to perform their task will prevent that, even as new materials and processes bring higher performance and more value for the dollar.

 

[toke lahti]

The day you see some larger format replace 2/3" is the day you find the FF35 equivalent of an 18mm to 800mm f1.6 servo zoom lens that is less than 18" long and weighs less than 5lbs.

I hope that 4/3" would be the golden mean in this.
Bigger sensors would be more sensitive and lenses much smaller than with S35 or FF, yet you would have better control for DOF and propably wider selection of wide angle lenses.
We'll see this when consumer EVILs take over the market, if same happens to professional markets.
I have fellow shooters that now choose FF(Red or EOS) over 2/3" every time they can even in documentary work.

 

[David Rasberry]

I like 4/3 format too. But lenses would still be twice as big for the same level of performance as 2/3". Some of us prefer larger formats, some don't. It really depends on the application. There are healthy markets for all of these cameras.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I hope that 4/3" would be the golden mean in this.

I dunno how useful 4/3 would really be. The sensor is 17.3mm ×13mm with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The Epic and Scarlet S35 sensor is 30mm x 15mm with a 2:1 aspect ratio. SO the sensor height of the 4/3 and Red S35 chips is about the same, but the width of the Red sensors is considerably more (making it way more useful). I can't really see an up-side to Red adding a 4/3 sensor to their lineup.

 

[David Rasberry]

I dunno how useful 4/3 would really be. The sensor is 17.3mm ×13mm with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The Epic and Scarlet S35 sensor is 30mm x 15mm with a 2:1 aspect ratio. SO the sensor height of the 4/3 and Red S35 chips is about the same, but the width of the Red sensors is considerably more (making it way more useful). I can't really see an up-side to Red adding a 4/3 sensor to their lineup.

Thinking more of the 4/3 sensor width of around 18mm in the same 2:1 ratio as a nice step up from 2/3". Fits neatly half way between 2/3" and S35. It would also make a good 3k crop format for S35 with some very high quality compact lenses available if there was an electronic mount for it similar to the Canon and Nikon versions.

 

[Jacek Szwarc-Bronikowski]

From Canon Rumors :

" A source told me that canon have indeed created a raw video option for HDSLR’s.
It will utilize the HDMI port on the cameras to output full uncompressed HD content
for recording on an external device."

 

[Rick Burnett]

From Canon Rumors :

" A source told me that canon have indeed created a raw video option for HDSLR’s.
It will utilize the HDMI port on the cameras to output full uncompressed HD content
for recording on an external device."

I'm thinking the term RAW here is incorrect. Isn't RAW considered the exact information from the sensor and all settings? Meaning nothing is baked in to the output video. This just means the you can get away from the H.264 codec, but honestly, with a Canon DSLR, that's really the least of your problems.

 

[David Rasberry]

From Canon Rumors :

" A source told me that canon have indeed created a raw video option for HDSLR’s.
It will utilize the HDMI port on the cameras to output full uncompressed HD content
for recording on an external device."

If it is only outputting 1080p HD uncompressed they will still be sub sampling the sensor, meaning they drop 90% of a 5DII sensor's resolution one way or another before output. If they do this by the same line skipping/pixel binning method they use now it won't help the aliasing and moire issues much.

 

[Jim Retar]

May as well wait for a real announcement before starting to picking it to pieces

 

[toke lahti]

I dunno how useful 4/3 would really be. The sensor is 17.3mm ×13mm with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The Epic and Scarlet S35 sensor is 30mm x 15mm with a 2:1 aspect ratio. SO the sensor height of the 4/3 and Red S35 chips is about the same, but the width of the Red sensors is considerably more (making it way more useful). I can't really see an up-side to Red adding a 4/3 sensor to their lineup.

From wikipedia: "However, the standard only specifies the sensor diagonal, thus Four Thirds cameras using the standard 3:2 aspect ratio would be possible; notably newer Panasonic Micro Four Thirds models even offer shooting at multiple aspect ratios while maintaining the same image diagonal. For instance, the Panasonic GH1 uses a multi-aspect sensor which is designed to maximize use of the image circle at 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9; each ratio having a diagonal of 22.5mm."

 

[Rick Burnett]

From wikipedia: "However, the standard only specifies the sensor diagonal, thus Four Thirds cameras using the standard 3:2 aspect ratio would be possible; notably newer Panasonic Micro Four Thirds models even offer shooting at multiple aspect ratios while maintaining the same image diagonal. For instance, the Panasonic GH1 uses a multi-aspect sensor which is designed to maximize use of the image circle at 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9; each ratio having a diagonal of 22.5mm."

Any sensor can be multi-aspect, you just decide which pixels you care about and which you don't. You can maintain the diagonal by dropping rows or columns, which I think is the posters point and I agree with. Using the S35 sensor cropped can give you 4:3.

In terms of the GH1, it employs line skipping/pixel skipping. It's image suffers from this just like the 7D, and all the other line skipping methods. Sorry, but these cameras are never going to be as sharp as the Red in ALL circumstances until they fully sample the sensor and down convert from that.

The problem is the dead space between active pixel area and non active pixel area in terms of skipped pixels. By the time you've use a powerful enough OLPF with birefringence or diffusion, the image is going to be too soft.

The solution to me, which is what appears RED is doing, is as long as your sensor resolution is higher than your target, you can crop to any size you want or scale, since you are going from higher data to lower, there isn't a loss in quality. The less # of sensors they produce, the more time and effort can go into each one.

 

[toke lahti]

The less # of sensors they produce, the more time and effort can go into each one.

According to my estimation on sensor price S35 will cost over $2k more than what 4/3" would. What's the point if you are never going to use S35 lenses?
I'd prefer to put that $2k to lens and I believe that I'm not alone.
And some other manufacturers pixel skipping won't change this.

 

[Rick Burnett]

(1) Your price estimation means nothing. Cost is relative to sales and therefore is dependent on the number of sales a 4/3" would garner. I am not interested in one, and if the volume is relatively low, the cost to manufacture the sensor is going to be VERY prohibitive. I think the S35 is going to be VERY popular. It's the closest offering for anyone coming from a 7D, 1D or 550D and for me is the best middle ground size. I can use lens that work with APS sized sensors and that's a huge cost savings on my end.

Not to mention, they could in fact take S35 sensors that have problems in the crop regions and use them only as 4/3", similar to how they speed bin CPU chips. In the end, this could be a much cheaper solution.

(2) The performance of a sensor employing pixel skipping will always be inferior. If you can live with Moire and aliasing, or a super soft image, than you are really in a different ballpark altogether. The whole point of wanting these sensors from Red is they do not skip. All the lens in the world aren't going to fix these problems and not totally destroy the beauty of that resolution.

 

[David Rasberry]

S35 and the other 35mm motion picture formats, as well as the 2/3"/16mm format have been established for decades in the film and now the digital world.
4/3 format at this point is very new, less than ten years old. But I think it eventually will be more a more widely accepted standard. It is an open licensable standard for one thing, not proprietary to any one manufacturer, and it was conceived from the ground up as a digital format. I think it has more potential as a motion format than as a still format, offering a nice mid range solution between the others. But it is going to take some time to get established. Of all the manufacturers out there I think Panasonic may eventually wake up to this and build real practical digital motion cameras around the M4/3 format it introduced in the Lumix series. They are the first to drop the traditional still camera mirror reflex system, which is a big step in the right directon.

 

[toke lahti]

(1) Your price estimation means nothing. Cost is relative to sales and therefore is dependent on the number of sales a 4/3" would garner. I am not interested in one, and if the volume is relatively low, the cost to manufacture the sensor is going to be VERY prohibitive. I think the S35 is going to be VERY popular. It's the closest offering for anyone coming from a 7D, 1D or 550D and for me is the best middle ground size. I can use lens that work with APS sized sensors and that's a huge cost savings on my end.

Not to mention, they could in fact take S35 sensors that have problems in the crop regions and use them only as 4/3", similar to how they speed bin CPU chips. In the end, this could be a much cheaper solution.

My price estimations are rough guess, but very educated guess. Volumes will not play a big role here, since these cameras will sell only 4 or 5 digit quantities. Economy of scale will start helping in silicon when you have 7 digits. S35 will never be cheaper than 4/3". Sensor cost rises exponentially with larger chips. There's nothing you can do about it.
If there won't be 4/3" Scarlet, I guess that sales will go 95% for 2/3" and 5% for S35.
If there would be 4/3", numbers could be 67% 2/3", 30% 4/3" and 3% S35.

(2) The performance of a sensor employing pixel skipping will always be inferior. If you can live with Moire and aliasing, or a super soft image, than you are really in a different ballpark altogether. The whole point of wanting these sensors from Red is they do not skip. All the lens in the world aren't going to fix these problems and not totally destroy the beauty of that resolution.

And what if Canon & Panasonic will have noSkipping models out next year?
5Dmk3 could have 24Mpx FF, but eg. 4/3" window (19.6 x 11 mm, 6 Mpx) for video without skipping. For 60fps this would mean only 360 Mpx/s. 7D already handles 144 Mpx/s and 1Dmk4 160 Mpx/s, so it wouldn't be too massive jump ahead.