Nov. 3rd take 2...

[Lawrence Bansbach]

What part of 4k people couldn't understand if the owner of the company says this is the right format and the one they will be producing? He did not say 3K, did he? He said 4K. Why would Scarlet has to be any different? It would not be keeping with the company's profile and real intentions.

Actually, Jim has been saying 4K is the future for at least a couple of years, and Scarlet never easily fit into that. The justification for a 3K Scarlet has always been (mostly from other forum members, not necessarily Jim) "Where else will you find a greater-than-2K camera for less than $10K (or $15K, $20K, etc.)?" So the doublethink regarding Scarlet and 4K has been firmly entrenched and viable, given that there really has been nothing else comparable in that price range. Well, if some of the rumors about Canon's November 3 announcement are true -- and it does announce an S35/APS-C 4K camera for around $15K -- then it really won't matter how cheap a 3K Scarlet is (unless maybe it's less than $3K again). From a professional point of view, 3K will become significantly less tenable.

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

4k on a 2/3" sensor doesn't make much optical sense. There aren't many lenses sharp enough for 3k resolution.

This is true, and seems to be the one thing that the march of technology has yet to conquer at a price point reasonable to mere mortals.

Sacrificing sensitivity and DR for 4k on such a small sensor doesn't make sense either.
If Red does make a 4k Scarlet it will most likely be a larger sensor.

While this may still be true, I'm not 100% convinced. Maybe Red has implemented backside illumination to overcome the sensitivity and dynamic-range issues associated with higher pixel densities.

This is true - and from before we know that they were not able to fit the electronics for a 4k camera inside a Scarlet body. That is why the s35 Scarlet was dropped and made into the Epic S.

That was nearly a year ago. Who but Red knows what has happened since then? Intervening events, such as the tsunami and earthquakes in Japan, may have forced Red to develop new designs.

In his recent posts, Jim Jannard has been as giddy as a schoolboy on holiday break. Why would he be so excited to announce the release of Scarlet if it were essentially the same camera it was two years ago? Why would November 3 the most important date in Red history, more important than that of Red One's announcement or release, or Epic's release date? Sure, he's a master of hype (no offense intended), but given the fever pitch he's whipped up, he can't just say "But don't have unrealistic expectations." He knows he has to deliver something (or things) that transcends the previously specced Scarlet.

 

[Larry Kelly]

In my opinion Jim's excitement, although centred on the much changed 4K Scarlet will likely be only one aspect of the announcement event. I think that there may be as many as two other products that will be announced together with Scarlet. Maybe in the projection/distribution dept? A number of accessories and maybe some new firmware enabled capabilities for the entire camera line will possibly round off the night of surprises.

Larry

 

[Nikhil Kamkolkar]

When a hollywood production is shoots a feature on 35mm cameras (soon to be a distant memory), even the crash cams, generally speaking, shoot 35mm. No one thinks of going to a smaller resolution just because the camera could get destroyed. Scarlet needs to fulfil the need for crashcams on a hollywood set. It has to be the same resolution as its bigger sibling, Epic. 4K is a minimum for Scarlet. No doubt. Has to be. 3K would be a disappointment.

 

[John Caballero]

Actually, Jim has been saying 4K is the future for at least a couple of years, and Scarlet never easily fit into that.

Last I heard Scarlet is an important element of the RED family, not somebody else's child. If Mr. Jannard says the vision of RED is 4K then obviously Scarlet has to be 4k. Anything less will defeat the whole philosophy and projection of the company.

 

[David Battistella]

I think RED is done with 4k cameras.

I think it's going to be 5k and above from here on in.

Jim's quote was 5k acquisition, 4k delivery, red projector, red ray. We don't have to speculate we just have to listen.

We have a very narrow target.... shoot 5K, post to 4K, deliver with REDray and display with the new RED projector, 2D and 3D. Easy stuff to understand.

Jim

David

 

[Peter Moretti]

2/3" sensor is 8.8mm wide, divided by 4096 gives pixel size 2.1 microns.

Unless you shoot with f/2.0 or wider, the image will be diffracton limited.

I believe it's even worse than that. FWIU, there is a significant non-reactive border region between pixels in all image sensors. So instead of looking like a checker board, a sensor is actually polkadoted by the pixels.

 

[Stephen Matthews]

Jim himself has pointed to an Arri paper that talks about using 4k scans for 35mm film because that is the best for the format. In the same paper Arri suggests using a 3k scan for 16mm. When they talk about the digital replacement for film they are normally referencing 35mm, for 16mm 3k should be fine as far as a 16mm replacement goes.

And to be honest you would want a 4k sensor to get a clean perfect 3k, but perhaps that's the next model. Otherwise for true 4k you would need to make the scarlet a 5k sensor. You can't take these things to literally, it's not 4k or nothing, it's(at the very least) match the technology you are replacing, scarlet's last specs do that for 16mm plain and simple.

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Last I heard Scarlet is an important element of the RED family, not somebody else's child. If Mr. Jannard says the vision of RED is 4K then obviously Scarlet has to be 4k. Anything less will defeat the whole philosophy and projection of the company.

I agree that 3K Scarlet never fit the "4K is the future" mantra, but that didn't stop Red from developing a 3K camera. Whether Scarlet remains 3K will be known on November 3.

 

[Paul S.]

In my opinion Jim's excitement, although centred on the much changed 4K Scarlet will likely be only one aspect of the announcement event. I think that there may be as many as two other products that will be announced together with Scarlet. Maybe in the projection/distribution dept? A number of accessories and maybe some new firmware enabled capabilities for the entire camera line will possibly round off the night of surprises.

Larry

My hope is that, since the announcement of Scarlet implies that the lens issues have been overcome, we will get a new set of electronic RPPs alongside mini primes, all set to take advantage of the electronic mount and Redmote.

 

[Elsie N]

Not a valid analogy. Technically, Smokin' Joe Frahzuh (Ali's enunciation) lost two out of three of the fights with Ali. But put the two of them side by side now and tell me who won. Ali is like he is today because of the punishment dealt him by Smokin' Joe.

While the Ali analogy works for his fighting days, it will be a long, long time before RED is in a comparable state to Ali in his later years.

RED has miles to go before it attains the scale of these behemoths. It has a good bunch of talented people with right leadership and so is on the right track. It takes time. So just don't expect that overnight everything will happen.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

Behemoth may not be the way of the future. It takes a lot of time and space to turn a behemoth. Like a young Ali, Red can turn on a dime and re-invent a product mid-production. It's not about scale. It's about getting the NEXT thing out the door well ahead of everyone else. They are there now.

 

[Häakon]

This is true - and from before we know that they were not able to fit the electronics for a 4k camera inside a Scarlet body. That is why the s35 Scarlet was dropped and made into the Epic S.
Get real, folks - the s35 line of RED cameras is called Epic, the 2/3" line is called Scarlet. And they have already designed lenses to cover 2/3", so it would be rather stupid not to make a camera to use them with.

That's pretty much what I've been thinking... people sure do like to run wild with their speculating around here though...

 

[David Battistella]

Yes.

I am guilty of speculating but I also have to say I have never followed, even remotely closely, the whole scarlet thing.

So I suppose we could just as easily see a 2/3" 3k camera on November 3rd.

What ever RED does, I want it to be a success.

David

 

[Jay Birch]

I seem to be in the small minority still praying for 2/3" fixed..

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Nobody has mentioned the Sony F3, it seems to me that this is the main competitor for the new Canon.

Exactly. But I don't think Canon will even beat the F3 with this new camera.

Doesn't matter really ...

Scarlet will crush that whole market in one day.

CRUSH

 

[Eki Halkka]

I seem to be in the small minority still praying for 2/3" fixed..

I don't think we're a minority, we're just staying silent and watching the rampant speculation ;-)

Seriously though, there's a market for the 2/3" fixed 3K camera. A huge one - documentary etc. non-fictional TV production, corporate and so on. That sector won't be doing 4K delivery in foreseeable future, the output will be 1080 HD at best for quite some time (likely the whole life-cycle of a camera). 3K is plenty for that, with a bit of leeway to zoom in and reframe if necessary. Smaller resolution also means smaller files, which can be a major factor in genres where one can have dozens if not hundreds of hours of footage for each project.

Bigger sensor would mean bigger lenses, and it would be pretty much a must to have an interchangeable mount, there are no small and lightweight enough zooms with enough range for the bigger formats. More stuff to haul around, less versatility with any one given setup. Pauses for lens change whenever you need to go from wide to tele and so on. Not good. 2/3" is perfect for this demographic, it allows a small form factor and at the same time can be plenty sensitive enough, and offer enough DoF control. Scarlet can be very portable, easy to work with one-man crew run-and-gun if necessary. Also, the deeper DoF of 2/3" is great for greenscreen work...

So yep, my eyes are on 2/3" fixed too ;-)

Edit: post number 500 for me, it seems. Minor celebration: "yeehaa". Done. ;-)

 

[David Rasberry]

I seem to be in the small minority still praying for 2/3" fixed..

I think RED will still make the fixed 2/3" if and when they can get the parts to do so. That really is the question. Can they manufacture it in quantity?
I agree though, what a sweet little run and gun camera to dominate the small sensor under $10k camcorder market. It is still my favorite general purpose video production format. Large enough for decent low light sensitivity and a useful range of creative image control, but able to cover a wide range of shooting situations with one compact servo zoom lens. Ideal for the solo shooter.

When the modular system was introduced, Scarlet became a line of lower cost, lower performance Red cameras though. So it is very possible they will introduce more than one.

 

[David Quinn Carder]

I seem to be in the small minority still praying for 2/3" fixed..

The fixed lens is neither a pro nor a con for me, but I definitely want a 2/3" sensor as the more depth of field I can get, the better.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

2/3" HD format standard is 9.6mm x5.4mm Red's 2/3" sensor is 10.1mm x 5.35. The 8.8 x 6.6 is the old NTSC SD standard.

I stay corrected. But, whether pixel size is 2.1 microns or 2.3 microns, it makes little difference to the point I was making.

...4k on a 2/3" sensor doesn't make much optical sense. There aren't many lenses sharp enough for 3k resolution..

As in zero, because there aren't many lenses that can defy laws of physics. Diffraction limit is diffraction limit. At f/2.0 and theoretical pixel size of 2 microns the MTF is less than 10% for red wavelengths and not much more for blue wawelengths.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

So, 2/3" and 3k.

9.6mm / 3072 = 3.1 micron pixel size, which gives the Nyquist limit at about 150 line pairs / mm.

At f/2.0 the diameter of Airy disk is about 3.4 microns. If the lens is stepped down, the resulting MTF of the lens will be lower than the Nyquist limit of the sensor.

One has to be aware that even a 2/3" 3k system will always be lens diffraction limited with apertures smaller than about f/2.8.

If shooting stepped down for deep DOF, the resolution will always suffer. At f/5.6 the size of Airy disk (the smallest point a theoretical lens can resolve) is 8.6 microns - about 4 times bigger than the pixel size!

If you want a 2/3" sensor, you probably do not want more than 3k because it will make absolutely no difference on the system MTF.

Having said that, the practicality and economies of a 2/3" camera can be very desirable. I want one