Elizabeth Lowrey
Well-known member
I hold a reservation for RED ONE # 2223, though I have yet to take delivery due to the once-flawed audio (recently fixed -- thanks RED!) and the depressing saga that is the Birger mount (never mind that I ordered the Nikon version, which has yet to even see a first prototype). I have to make a decision by December 1st whether to pay in full and accept delivery of my RED ONE or get a refund. With the new camera announcements of November 13th, I'm at a crossroads in terms of when I will become a true "RED User" and what type of camera will finally grant me that coveted status.
I am very reluctant to accept the RED ONE and begin the warranty time clock before there is a reasonable mount solution for those, like me, who will be using G/DX series (no aperture ring) Nikon lenses. The long-ago promise of support for these lenses by Birger is what prompted my downpayment on a RED ONE in the first place, as it meant a viable low budget path to producing visually superior images with RED and a leveraging of the investments I was already making in Nikon still lenses. The new Underhall mount gets part the way there but is still a crude solution that gives no electronic or other reliable feedback to the camera or operator on the current aperture, requires precautions before mounting a lens, and, of course, offers none of the intelligent, enhanced focus control that the Birger mount promises (and is even finally delivering for some users of equivalent Canon lenses).
The conventional wisdom says that I will be waiting at least six months (and possibly twice that long) for the first Scarlet incarnation but could take pictures right now with my current lenses and a RED outfitted with the Underhall mount. As nice as the latter would be, there is no compelling financial advantage to me, in my personal circumstances, to be able to shoot "right now" with a RED ONE. Buying the camera was always a stretch for me financially, but I made the commitment over a year ago simply because I thought the price/performance of the product couldn't be touched anywhere and because I think a business model as unique and inclusive of/beneficial to customers as the RED model deserved my financial support far more than Sony or even Panasonic. Period.
I still believe all these things, perhaps more now than ever, although the new camera announcements have complicated the calculus on what I should do:
(1) Go ahead and buy the RED ONE, knowing that it now offers four channels of usable audio and that I can be taking gorgeous footage before Christmas, even if lens control will be a major drawback until/unless Birger or Alesniak offer intelligent Nikon mounts.
(2) Wait for the release of the much smaller, lighter, and more modular Scarlet S35, which ostensibly will offer an intelligent Nikon mount, may even allow me to use my existing Cartoni fluid head (a HUGE savings), will likely require less 3rd party accessories (great but expensive ET gear), and apparently does everything the RED does that I would want except shoot at high frame rates.
That last exception is a big deal to me, however. With Jim's clarification that the Scarlet would never offer the size/framerate flexibility of the RED ONE (i.e., a Scarlet S35 will never shoot higher than 30 FPS -- windowed or otherwise), my first thought was that that was a deal breaker. Then I considered the fact that I could attain almost the functional equivalent of the RED ONE's format/frame rate flexibility in a Scarlet platform by simply augmenting the Scarlett S35 package with the purchase of an additional Scarlet 2/3" "brain" (which will offer 120 FPS shooting over an even larger area and pixel array -- 3K vs 2K-- than the RED ONE) for an additional investment of only $2,500. While detaching and reattaching brain modules will undoubtedly be much less convenient than choosing a frame rate option from a menu, that's a small tradeoff IMO for attaining high framerate capability in an overall platform/package that will likely cost me several thousand dollars less than a RED ONE package (perhaps MANY thousands less, after allowances for tripod and accessory upgrades necessitated by the bigger RED ONE form factor).
I suspect it's this realization that is fueling all the anger from certain quarters about "obsolescence [not in fact] being obsolete" with respect to the RED ONE. Of course I never took that line literally or for more than what it was: a guiding principle of the company's design philosophy, one that is aspirational but not practically attainable, now or ever; an overly-idealistic but earnest sales pitch by an idealistic, eccentric billionaire and self-described "camera geek" (not given to understatement generally) who is manically excited by his enterprise and by what the fantastic team he has assembled is doing, who is genuinely driven to make the world's best imaging technology financially accessible to the masses, and who is genuinely driven to change the rules by which inevitable technological advances are offered to loyal customers. All of that is why I want to be one of those customers, not because I believe that RED ONE, or Scarlet, or any RED camera will be the last camera I ever buy.
For those who took the obsolescence line very literally, I understand the letdown, though I question the degree to which such individuals are in tune to the realities of the world, the same realities which have made the RED ONE an attainable camera for them in the first place. For all that Jim is a benevolent dictator (and he surely is), his company is not a charity, and for all its singular qualities, RED must still operate on the same profit motives that fuel all enterprises of innovation and manufacture. There would be no RED ONE owners right now except that someone with the considerable vision, persistence, and personal and financial resources to make RED ONE happen actually made it happen. And the qualities and values evident in Jim and in his realization of the RED ONE are the very same qualities and values that have put even better technology in more compact, modular implementations on the near horizon, some at prices even lower than the original RED ONE.
That is the way it will always be with this kind of enterprise. All technology is a wasting asset from the moment it's acquired, however briefly the RED revolution may have suggested otherwise to the first adopters, who suddenly found they could sell their cameras for more than they paid for them. Consider that momentary aberration in the immutable laws of technology your karmic reward for being an early supporter of a "scammer" like Jim. Still, anyone who seriously thinks that the purchase of a working Epic tomorrow (if that were even possible) would insulate them from this "wasting asset rule" -- or from the inexorable progress of technology (especially from a company like RED) -- is simply not paying attention. Whether it's the invention of new material from which to construct sensors that double or triple existing dynamic range or radical new approaches in data compression or storage or something I can't even imagine, something will come along -- probably sooner rather than later and whether from RED or from somewhere else -- that will "render Epic obsolete" in the same way that some feel Epic/Scarlet have rendered their RED ONE obsolete. If that's too harsh a reality to face, technology acquisition is not for you.
I'll throw out -- for what it's worth -- a suggestion that might satisfy some disgruntled RED ONE owners while protecting the financial interests of RED. Don't just offer RED ONE owners an upgrade credit towards Epic: offer an "upgrade" credit towards Scarlet. Yes, an enhanced sensor, improved modularity, enhanced lens mount options, and overall size/weight reduction can easily be considered "upgrades" for RED ONE owners, upgrades that any reasonable owner should admit are worth at least several thousand dollars. From the outside, I haven't the faintest idea how to run the numbers so that everything makes sense in context (including the price of Epic and a 12% discount on a Scarlet without trade in). But I suspect there is a sweet spot between what a RED OWNER is willing to pay for these upgrades and a price that can net RED a profit when a customer returns a RED ONE (which can be refurbished and resold with shortened warranty for a tidy sum itself) for a camera package based around the Scarlet S35. Any customer who couldn't be satisfied with that kind of arrangement is not a customer worth keeping.
Back to how I'm resolving my own "RED ONE/Scarlet" dilemma. The ability to buy a two-brained Scarlet package that will functionally equal or exceed a RED ONE for less money has pretty much convinced me to forgo the RED ONE and wait for the Scarlet S35 (and its sister 2/3" 'brain'), pending more info on the new "intelligent" Nikon lens mount mentioned in the DSMC literature. And that leads me to ask . . .
. . . why no option for a Nikon (or Canon) lens mount on the Scarlet 2/3"? I understand that the smaller sensor area means a need for shorter focal length lenses in order to attain equivalent FOV to other formats and lens sizes, but that consideration is no different than what exists when shooting 3K or 2K windowed on an existing RED ONE. The only mistake I see, flat out, in the new announcements is the omission of standard (PL, Nikon, and Canon) mount capability for the 2/3" Scarlet. No, we won't be able to shoot wide with most existing lens solutions in those formats, but that's our problem. We should still have the option to leverage existing, mainstream lenses and work around the FOV limitations.
Am I missing something obvious here and thus making something out of nothing? Am I limited, on a Scarlet 2/3" brain, to using ONLY a RED Mini, B4, or C Mount? Or can I detach, say, the Nikon mount from my Scarlet S35 and put it on the front of the Scarlet 2/3"?
I am very reluctant to accept the RED ONE and begin the warranty time clock before there is a reasonable mount solution for those, like me, who will be using G/DX series (no aperture ring) Nikon lenses. The long-ago promise of support for these lenses by Birger is what prompted my downpayment on a RED ONE in the first place, as it meant a viable low budget path to producing visually superior images with RED and a leveraging of the investments I was already making in Nikon still lenses. The new Underhall mount gets part the way there but is still a crude solution that gives no electronic or other reliable feedback to the camera or operator on the current aperture, requires precautions before mounting a lens, and, of course, offers none of the intelligent, enhanced focus control that the Birger mount promises (and is even finally delivering for some users of equivalent Canon lenses).
The conventional wisdom says that I will be waiting at least six months (and possibly twice that long) for the first Scarlet incarnation but could take pictures right now with my current lenses and a RED outfitted with the Underhall mount. As nice as the latter would be, there is no compelling financial advantage to me, in my personal circumstances, to be able to shoot "right now" with a RED ONE. Buying the camera was always a stretch for me financially, but I made the commitment over a year ago simply because I thought the price/performance of the product couldn't be touched anywhere and because I think a business model as unique and inclusive of/beneficial to customers as the RED model deserved my financial support far more than Sony or even Panasonic. Period.
I still believe all these things, perhaps more now than ever, although the new camera announcements have complicated the calculus on what I should do:
(1) Go ahead and buy the RED ONE, knowing that it now offers four channels of usable audio and that I can be taking gorgeous footage before Christmas, even if lens control will be a major drawback until/unless Birger or Alesniak offer intelligent Nikon mounts.
(2) Wait for the release of the much smaller, lighter, and more modular Scarlet S35, which ostensibly will offer an intelligent Nikon mount, may even allow me to use my existing Cartoni fluid head (a HUGE savings), will likely require less 3rd party accessories (great but expensive ET gear), and apparently does everything the RED does that I would want except shoot at high frame rates.
That last exception is a big deal to me, however. With Jim's clarification that the Scarlet would never offer the size/framerate flexibility of the RED ONE (i.e., a Scarlet S35 will never shoot higher than 30 FPS -- windowed or otherwise), my first thought was that that was a deal breaker. Then I considered the fact that I could attain almost the functional equivalent of the RED ONE's format/frame rate flexibility in a Scarlet platform by simply augmenting the Scarlett S35 package with the purchase of an additional Scarlet 2/3" "brain" (which will offer 120 FPS shooting over an even larger area and pixel array -- 3K vs 2K-- than the RED ONE) for an additional investment of only $2,500. While detaching and reattaching brain modules will undoubtedly be much less convenient than choosing a frame rate option from a menu, that's a small tradeoff IMO for attaining high framerate capability in an overall platform/package that will likely cost me several thousand dollars less than a RED ONE package (perhaps MANY thousands less, after allowances for tripod and accessory upgrades necessitated by the bigger RED ONE form factor).
I suspect it's this realization that is fueling all the anger from certain quarters about "obsolescence [not in fact] being obsolete" with respect to the RED ONE. Of course I never took that line literally or for more than what it was: a guiding principle of the company's design philosophy, one that is aspirational but not practically attainable, now or ever; an overly-idealistic but earnest sales pitch by an idealistic, eccentric billionaire and self-described "camera geek" (not given to understatement generally) who is manically excited by his enterprise and by what the fantastic team he has assembled is doing, who is genuinely driven to make the world's best imaging technology financially accessible to the masses, and who is genuinely driven to change the rules by which inevitable technological advances are offered to loyal customers. All of that is why I want to be one of those customers, not because I believe that RED ONE, or Scarlet, or any RED camera will be the last camera I ever buy.
For those who took the obsolescence line very literally, I understand the letdown, though I question the degree to which such individuals are in tune to the realities of the world, the same realities which have made the RED ONE an attainable camera for them in the first place. For all that Jim is a benevolent dictator (and he surely is), his company is not a charity, and for all its singular qualities, RED must still operate on the same profit motives that fuel all enterprises of innovation and manufacture. There would be no RED ONE owners right now except that someone with the considerable vision, persistence, and personal and financial resources to make RED ONE happen actually made it happen. And the qualities and values evident in Jim and in his realization of the RED ONE are the very same qualities and values that have put even better technology in more compact, modular implementations on the near horizon, some at prices even lower than the original RED ONE.
That is the way it will always be with this kind of enterprise. All technology is a wasting asset from the moment it's acquired, however briefly the RED revolution may have suggested otherwise to the first adopters, who suddenly found they could sell their cameras for more than they paid for them. Consider that momentary aberration in the immutable laws of technology your karmic reward for being an early supporter of a "scammer" like Jim. Still, anyone who seriously thinks that the purchase of a working Epic tomorrow (if that were even possible) would insulate them from this "wasting asset rule" -- or from the inexorable progress of technology (especially from a company like RED) -- is simply not paying attention. Whether it's the invention of new material from which to construct sensors that double or triple existing dynamic range or radical new approaches in data compression or storage or something I can't even imagine, something will come along -- probably sooner rather than later and whether from RED or from somewhere else -- that will "render Epic obsolete" in the same way that some feel Epic/Scarlet have rendered their RED ONE obsolete. If that's too harsh a reality to face, technology acquisition is not for you.
I'll throw out -- for what it's worth -- a suggestion that might satisfy some disgruntled RED ONE owners while protecting the financial interests of RED. Don't just offer RED ONE owners an upgrade credit towards Epic: offer an "upgrade" credit towards Scarlet. Yes, an enhanced sensor, improved modularity, enhanced lens mount options, and overall size/weight reduction can easily be considered "upgrades" for RED ONE owners, upgrades that any reasonable owner should admit are worth at least several thousand dollars. From the outside, I haven't the faintest idea how to run the numbers so that everything makes sense in context (including the price of Epic and a 12% discount on a Scarlet without trade in). But I suspect there is a sweet spot between what a RED OWNER is willing to pay for these upgrades and a price that can net RED a profit when a customer returns a RED ONE (which can be refurbished and resold with shortened warranty for a tidy sum itself) for a camera package based around the Scarlet S35. Any customer who couldn't be satisfied with that kind of arrangement is not a customer worth keeping.
Back to how I'm resolving my own "RED ONE/Scarlet" dilemma. The ability to buy a two-brained Scarlet package that will functionally equal or exceed a RED ONE for less money has pretty much convinced me to forgo the RED ONE and wait for the Scarlet S35 (and its sister 2/3" 'brain'), pending more info on the new "intelligent" Nikon lens mount mentioned in the DSMC literature. And that leads me to ask . . .
. . . why no option for a Nikon (or Canon) lens mount on the Scarlet 2/3"? I understand that the smaller sensor area means a need for shorter focal length lenses in order to attain equivalent FOV to other formats and lens sizes, but that consideration is no different than what exists when shooting 3K or 2K windowed on an existing RED ONE. The only mistake I see, flat out, in the new announcements is the omission of standard (PL, Nikon, and Canon) mount capability for the 2/3" Scarlet. No, we won't be able to shoot wide with most existing lens solutions in those formats, but that's our problem. We should still have the option to leverage existing, mainstream lenses and work around the FOV limitations.
Am I missing something obvious here and thus making something out of nothing? Am I limited, on a Scarlet 2/3" brain, to using ONLY a RED Mini, B4, or C Mount? Or can I detach, say, the Nikon mount from my Scarlet S35 and put it on the front of the Scarlet 2/3"?
