Question about Scarlet package

[Michael Olsen]

Everything is relative. Best how? CF will probably be slightly lighter, and will probably be pretty darn cheap in terms of total cost for a barebones basic shooting kit where long record times aren't accounted for, especially if purchasing second hand CF cards.

However, except for the more dire of penny-pinching circumstances, I think investing in SSD will bring a better long-term investment. Considering the cost per GB, it's cheaper. And considering it'll allow pretty much any REDCODE that can be thrown at it, it's more future-proof. Not to mention the sizes up to 128GB or 256GB (if you happen to be Mr. Kilgroe). I can only imagine a 512GB version will come in the future...then a 1TB and so on. In comparison the CF cards are limited to 16GB or 32GB and they won't work with the less compressed REDCODE.

Deanan quoted 3K on a 256GB SSD running over 3.5 hours of footage. So that's about 1.2GB/min. Of course, RED allows you to dial in how much you want the footage compressed. If quality can take a slight hit, you can squeeze more record time in. Conversely, you could conceivably use very little compression and have a much larger GB/min ratio.

2.8" Touchscreen LCD is just supposed to be what comes bundled with the 8x Fixed kit. There will be other sizes, as well. Up to 7", I believe, was last announced.

All of the modules and accessories from one brain will be interchangeable with another. So if you decide to buy an Fixed Scarlet with the 2.8" LCD, side handle, and an SSD module, you could use any or all of those accessories on a 2/3" Interchangeable, Epic-S, or Epic. The beauty of modularity.

Also, lets say you really needed an S35 sensor for the day to shoot some very shallow depth of field work. You should be to rent just the brain from a rental house and use your own modules. This should be comparatively cheaper than renting out an entire camera when all you really need is the sensor - you've already got everything else!

 

[Steven Caesare]

Last I remember, there was a side handle that featured pretty much all the controls you would need, including a number of user-assignable buttons, and a place for a battery. The side handle had been this way since I can recall.

There was also a bottom handle that featured only a couple of buttons and a wheel. It did not have a battery, and only served to provide an ergonomic solution for vertical shooting.

When did this change? Steven, can you link to a post or image showing the new side handle?

No, I think we are both referring to the same "dumb handle" that has fewer buttons, no LCD, and holds no battery. It can also go along the bottom, or be on the side, IIRC.

I think this is it serving as the bottom handle:

I believe I've read that it can mount on the side as well, but I can't say I've ever SEEN it that way in a pic or render.

-sc

 

[Michael Olsen]

No, I think we are both referring to the same "dumb handle" that has fewer buttons, no LCD, and holds no battery. It can also go along the bottom, or be on the side, IIRC.

I think this is it serving as the bottom handle:

I believe I've read that it can mount on the side as well, but I can't say I've ever SEEN it that way in a pic or render.

-sc

Ah, right on.

The November 30th announcement lists it as the "Bottom Handle" for a cool $500. Never thought of sticking it on the side, though... http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38274

Personally, I'll be carving my own custom side handle out of burled walnut.

 

[RayFrisby]

D

Deanan quoted 3K on a 256GB SSD running over 3.5 hours of footage. So that's about 1.2GB/min. Of course, RED allows you to dial in how much you want the footage compressed. If quality can take a slight hit, you can squeeze more record time in. Conversely, you could conceivably use very little compression and have a much larger GB/min ratio.

Thanks ! Just wondering is the 3.5 hrs that Deanna quoted for the highest Scarlet RedCode (3K) ? and how will recording in HDRx affect these times ?

Secondly, this is just my opinion, but the Red 5" monitor seems like the best viable professional option for the Scarlet Fixed. Personally I can't see how the 2.8" monitor could be suitable for any real run and gun, documentary, news gathering or touchscreen control. It just seems too small for accurate focusing and any real on the hoof shooting (studio work maybe) but trying to use such a small touchscreen and achieve accurate focus is going to be difficult from a simple physical point of view.
Just a thought. If the 2.8" monitor causes poor focusing on initial release, it could take a long while to rectify any bad publicity it might cause.
THIS IS JUST MY OPINON, but I would abandon the 2.8" and just produce the 5", 7" and 9" versions.
Looking at the camera in action it seems like the 5" would be the perfect size for the Fixed Scarlet.
Again this is just my opinion.

 

[Michael Olsen]

I don't know what REDCODE he was talking about. I'll take a guess and just say 5:1 since RED team seems to find that the "sweet spot". HDRx will cut that time in half, since it is recording 2 frames for every 1 finished frame. eHDR will not, since it is baked in.

I haven't used the RED 2.8" LCD, personally. I've used the LCD on the 7D, which is approximately the same size, and am usually able to get focus on it with some concentration. I would much rather have the 5" LCD or an EVF. The BOMB EVF, I'm assured, will be wonderful.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

Heck yeah! I couldn't afford to buy all the lenses to go with the Interchangeable system. True pros are probably going to go Epic... My understanding of the vision of Scarlet was to get a professional camera with huge versatility out for the most affordable price possible. Fixed does that. Reading through the forums, you'll see TONS of people that are very very interested in Scarlet 8X.

Feeling the same. Its gets abit pricey when you add lenses to the interchangeable. Also I do 70% of my jobs alone so changing lenses takes to much time and effort. The Fixed will be perfect for my company. Although I will save money for a Scarlet s35/or whats it called now days.

 

[Steven Caesare]

Ah, right on.

The November 30th announcement lists it as the "Bottom Handle" for a cool $500. Never thought of sticking it on the side, though... http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38274

Personally, I'll be carving my own custom side handle out of burled walnut.

Yeah, you are right, it is listed that way. I've looked for the posts, but I haven't found anything confirming it can be side-mounted too, so I could be mis-remembering as well.

Burled walnut... now we're talking! Onyx inset push buttons, I assume?

-sc

 

[David Rasberry]

Heck yeah! I couldn't afford to buy all the lenses to go with the Interchangeable system. True pros are probably going to go Epic... My understanding of the vision of Scarlet was to get a professional camera with huge versatility out for the most affordable price possible. Fixed does that. Reading through the forums, you'll see TONS of people that are very very interested in Scarlet 8X.

From statements made by current pro R1 owners who are also upgrading to Epic it seems many of them will buy at least one Scarlet fixed for B cam work and some plan to buy two or more. 2/3" is a very well established pro format.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Remember, also, that 2/3" lenses and 16mm are significantly less expensive than their s35 and FF35 counterparts. A set of 16mm Zeiss primes can be had for a relative penny.

 

[William Dempsey]

Thanks for all the info and clarification on the handle situation.

Steven, Nice to see another local Red enthusiast.

Bill

 

[Eric Gavlinski]

Are the 2/3" fixed and interchangeable due for the same release??

What are your hopes for a 2/3" interchangeable or what you're kit might consist of.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Are the 2/3" fixed and interchangeable due for the same release??

Based on everything we have been told so far, no - the Fixed was due first followed by the Interchangeable. With all the shuffling of late, it's really impossible to know exactly what will happen.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

Based on everything we have been told so far, no - the Fixed was due first followed by the Interchangeable. With all the shuffling of late, it's really impossible to know exactly what will happen.

I really see no reason that they would not ship at the same time...

 

[Robert Rogoz]

the lens covers a broad range, is fairly fast and holds it's f stop through the full Zoom (I believe).

8x is not a broad range. If this camera is for documentary/ENG type work any 2/3" camera will have 13x lens minimum (and usually 1.8 throughout the range). For most people will shoot something around 17-18x range. So in all honesty I don't know what this lens is supposed to accomplish. Plus They have separate, mechanical rings for focus, iris, zoom and have servo as well.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I really see no reason that they would not ship at the same time...

Of course there are reasons they would/could ship at different times; production issues, internal decisions, etc. But, if Jim and RED will it so, they COULD ship at the same time as well. I am citing what I think has been the information provided so far. No more. No less. We won't know any final outcomes until RED decides to tell, or show, us. :beer:

 

[Terry VerHaar]

8x is not a broad range. If this camera is for documentary/ENG type work any 2/3" camera will have 13x lens minimum (and usually 1.8 throughout the range). For most people will shoot something around 17-18x range. So in all honesty I don't know what this lens is supposed to accomplish. Plus They have separate, mechanical rings for focus, iris, zoom and have servo as well.

Wow, I would love to be shown an "affordable" 17-18X lens for a 2/3" sensor that will retain a 1.8 aperture throughout its zoom range. I am not expert on 2/3" lenses but wouldn't such a lens be in the $14K to $20K range?

Personally, I think a 24 to 200 (or so) FF35mm equivalent is a killer lens, and great for 90% of what many people need (one possible exception being wildlife), especially given RED's suggestions that they intend it to be "cine quality" all the way. It has also been said that standard lens adaptors will work when you need a longer lens. I am sure it won't fill the bill for everyone, though.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

 

[Jim Retar]

Also worth noting... if the camera resolves around 2.4k, as thought (maybe more)... you will be able to crop to 1080p/2k, so in effect, the zoom is longer.

If you crop the center of the fully zoomed out image, you will gain about 20% (?) more distance. Obviously not the same as being able to zoom an extra 20%... but worth bearing in mind.

 

[Michael Olsen]

I think the relatively limited zoom distance is a matter of economy, as Terry mentioned. 8x is certainly workable, and it accepts standard 77mm converter for additional wide/long lengths. If RED had decided to go with a 15x+ lens, I doubt the camera would have been as desirable to as many as it is now.

Plus, if one owns a nice Fujinon or something, it should be able to be mounted to the Cinema Scarlet relatively simply, no?

 

[David Rasberry]

Also worth noting... if the camera resolves around 2.4k, as thought (maybe more)... you will be able to crop to 1080p/2k, so in effect, the zoom is longer.

If you crop the center of the fully zoomed out image, you will gain about 20% (?) more distance. Obviously not the same as being able to zoom an extra 20%... but worth bearing in mind.

Are people still confused about this resolution business? As we last heard, the output file format at 3k for Scarlet will be 3072 x 1620 pixels. If you crop or scale for 2k widescreen, or some combination of the two, it will be from this file format. 16:9 HD 1080p format is scaled from 2880x1620 pixels, same as the Arri Alexa.

The optical resolution as seen on a chart will be a bit less than the pixel resolution, as it is for any digital camera system, Bayer or not. The lens, aperture, and OLPF will be the limiting factors for optical resolution, but that has nothing to do with the file format.

 

[Jim Retar]

Either you misread what I was getting at, or it seems, yes, there is still confusion. I am talking about recording in 3k and downscaling to 3K, not using the camera's in-built 1080p mode.

There is some confusion with the native ratio and using terms 2k/1080p.... but the 3k sensor will resolve MORE than 1080p/16:9 regardless of the native ratio or intended ratio (it should resolve around 1200p in 16:9)... therefore, my point stands, you will be able to crop some of the footage and get more "reach" and still have fully resolved 1080p... even more so for wide 2k.