Scarlet 2/3 Fixed at CES: What will be the "Competition's" Response?

[Michael Olsen]

When I said DSLR's aren't relevant, I meant that people primarily interested in larger sensor 35mm systems are typically not the same as those primarily interested in a 16mm sized image format. 2/3" format has its own distinct market.

Yet. I personally think there are some people who crazy the ultra-shallow depth of field, but I also think there are quite a few people who - given the choice - would take image quality and a 2/3" sensor over shallower depth of field and less quality. Especially once it is illustrated clearly just how workable 2/3" can be.

It'll all shake out in the end, and I think RED have already proven that they know how to be successful anyway.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

Lenses, tires... Sure, you can install the most appropriate one for the job at hand. But in the case of tires, if you need to go mud-bogging, the paddle tires may not be enough for that Ford Pinto to pull itself through to the other side.

Sure, the competition now has interchangeable lens options for their lower-end prosumer camcorders. That's great... I guess... So now I can put a $12K Master Prime or Cooke 5/i on the camera -- wooohooo! That fact that these cameras still can't resolve more than 800 lines on a chart and they only record 18-24Mbps AVC-Intra at 8bit 4:2:0 shouldn't matter, right?

Ah well... Who needs more than 800 lines of resolving power anyway. We're just finishing to 1080p and 800 lines is on par with most 2/3" broadcast cameras and better than the approximate 750 lines measurable from a 2Kx1080 DCP to distribution print. All good enough. ...I hear iPad 2 will be 1440x1080... Hey! Still good enough!!!!
:sarcasm:

"good enough" is what makes YouTube work so well.

Put it this way, without the metaphors. I want interchangeable lenses on my camera. I want the option to shoot at f.95, or use a fisheye, etc.

If you're shooting birds and basketball games, and documentaries about growing up gay or the water quality of the lake in your home State, this probably won't be important to you.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Yet. I personally think there are some people who crazy the ultra-shallow depth of field, but I also think there are quite a few people who - given the choice - would take image quality and a 2/3" sensor over shallower depth of field and less quality. Especially once it is illustrated clearly just how workable 2/3" can be.

Most people won't need to make a choice - they will have both. The s35/aps-c cameras are only $700 (Canon t2i - basically same video quality as any of the dSLRs) so they are easily easily justifiable as a b-cam/ shallow dof cam/ location stills cam/ family cam/ etc.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Put it this way, without the metaphors. I want interchangeable lenses on my camera. I want the option to shoot at f.95, or use a fisheye, etc.

I think you missed the point. Of course people want interchangeable lenses as an option, if it serves their needs. That is why RED is building both the fixed and interchangeable Scarlet models. Point of the overly-metaphoric commentary above was that the competitions' responses to DSLR cameras, RED, etc.. is to push camcorders in the consumer/prosumer price bracket toward the interchangeable lens and more professional I/O or monitoring and audio options. It's still the same consumer crap when it comes down to image processing, codec and recording formats.

Or to put it more plainly, they're only upgrading half of the system. They are leaving the most important half firmly anchored in consumer waters. Sorry, more metaphors. I don't know about most of you guys here, but it pisses me off. No way they're getting my money for that. Been there, done that, tired of it. I don't care how amazing they claim their new sensor is or how adaptable their mount is for various photo or cine lenses. When I have to use a third-party external device to record the best possible signal output from the camera, there's a problem. When that best possible signal output is not designed to be a recorded master, but is better suited to monitoring on an 8bit display, that's a problem. When that output is superior to the recorded image on the camera itself, which is long-GOP AVC-Intra crap at the same bit rate and bit depth of AVC recorded by my kids' $300 Sanyo camcorder I bought at Costco, that's not just a problem.. That's me saying F--k You I'll buy something else, even if I have to wait another 5 years to buy from someone else to get it.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Yeah Jeff, that's why the AF100 amazed me at first and then disappointed me right away.

Ok man, $5K for a cool system with a S35 sensor and interchangeable lens. But seeing the compression, the very NOT classy highlight handling, the noise... meh! I want Scarlet!

I'm ok paying $1K for this (GH1/2), but $5K? Hell no!

PS: I KNOW AF100 is here now-ish and Scarlet is not, however my plans are for the middle of this year, so it's another story.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

I think you missed the point. Of course people want interchangeable lenses as an option, if it serves their needs. That is why RED is building both the fixed and interchangeable Scarlet models. Point of the overly-metaphoric commentary above was that the competitions' responses to DSLR cameras, RED, etc.. is to push camcorders in the consumer/prosumer price bracket toward the interchangeable lens and more professional I/O or monitoring and audio options. It's still the same consumer crap when it comes down to image processing, codec and recording formats.

Or to put it more plainly, they're only upgrading half of the system. They are leaving the most important half firmly anchored in consumer waters. Sorry, more metaphors. I don't know about most of you guys here, but it pisses me off. No way they're getting my money for that. Been there, done that, tired of it. I don't care how amazing they claim their new sensor is or how adaptable their mount is for various photo or cine lenses. When I have to use a third-party external device to record the best possible signal output from the camera, there's a problem. When that best possible signal output is not designed to be a recorded master, but is better suited to monitoring on an 8bit display, that's a problem. When that output is superior to the recorded image on the camera itself, which is long-GOP AVC-Intra crap at the same bit rate and bit depth of AVC recorded by my kids' $300 Sanyo camcorder I bought at Costco, that's not just a problem.. That's me saying F--k You I'll buy something else, even if I have to wait another 5 years to buy from someone else to get it.

Depends on what you're doing. If you're shooting for the web or making DVDs, the DSLRs look great. Who cares about codecs and bit rates, if the footage looks good?

Sound sucks, but it's not like a DSLR has room for an xlr connection in it. it's a trade off. Pain in the ass using a separate recorder and syncing in post, for great footage at a starting cost of only 800 bucks. that's still a pretty good deal.

I'm looking at the Scarlet 2/3 as an unbelievable value for shooting 3k, which will hold up on the big screen.

But if you're shooting for the web or DVDs, you don't need 3k resolution to make some gorgeous footage.

Look at this feature, Duece of Spades. It's shot on a Panasonic HVx200 and it looks great. They even got on Netflix, which is pretty cool.

And I'm definitely not waiting 5 years. I want to shoot stuff now.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Eric, I know this argument that you don't need 3K, of course, what would we need? We could very well stick to Betacams until today.

The point is: Deuce of Spades could've been shot with anything barely able to present a decent picture, because it was a proper work of production.

People are confusing the technical side of things with the artistic and operational/administrative side.

Right here, right now, we're discussing the best approach given a certain budget. Not about one can produce a decent thing with a technically not so capable camera. Chan-wook Park produced a great short with severals iPhones 4... Should I give up on RED cameras because of that? Makes no sense!

Well, DSLRs may look good online... But not this good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFBiySaAUps

Compression, DR and color depth matters even when you further compress to web. Do not fool yourself.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

3k is now the defacto minimum for a new professional platform. Any company still directing development dollars to 1080 is wasting money. The future in motion imaging is proprietary debayering solutions and any other method one can employ to put 6x the HD signal into half the HD pipe. If you make cameras and you aren't working toward that goal, you are the next Kodachrome.
Of course you will get interchangeable lenses. In fact, you can look forward to better yet cheaper lenses. But don't settle for the AF-100's in the market- there's a much better world coming very soon. Put the brakes on owning until the market gives you something worth owning.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

Eric, I know this argument that you don't need 3K, of course, what would we need? We could very well stick to Betacams until today.

The point is: Deuce of Spades could've been shot with anything barely able to present a decent picture, because it was a proper work of production.

People are confusing the technical side of things with the artistic and operational/administrative side.

Right here, right now, we're discussing the best approach given a certain budget. Not about one can produce a decent thing with a technically not so capable camera. Chan-wook Park produced a great short with severals iPhones 4... Should I give up on RED cameras because of that? Makes no sense!

Well, DSLRs may look good online... But not this good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFBiySaAUps

Compression, DR and color depth matters even when you further compress to web. Do not fool yourself.

Looked it up on youtube. Funny to see Iphones with big lenses attached to them. Even Chan-wook likes interchangeable lenses. :wink5:

It's purely subjective, but IMO there's a point where better IQ doesn't make your project any better. I think if you're putting stuff on the web, you're there once you get to well lit HD at 1080p shot with some nice glass.

but, there's also a point where the image looks kinda crappy, like bad noisy video. I did not like the paranormal activity look with it's crappy video.

Did that footage at 4k you posted look nice? yea, it did. Did it look that much nicer than footage I've seen on the web shot with a 5d and some good glass? IMO, not really.

That doesn't mean I'm not sold on the Red Scarlet 2/3 when it releases. Again, to shoot 3k resolution which will hold up on the big screen, for under $10K is amazing. I'm hoping for an announcement on a release date at NAB.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

But don't settle for the AF-100's in the market- there's a much better world coming very soon. Put the brakes on owning until the market gives you something worth owning.

I agree. I was seriously looking at the AF100, but you don't get much better IQ than a DSLR which costs half as much or less. You get less moire, and XLR inputs, plus some video camera bells and whistles.

Doesn't seem worth it with Scarlet on the horizon (hopefully).

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Looked it up on youtube. Funny to see Iphones with big lenses attached to them. Even Chan-wook likes interchangeable lenses. :wink5:

If you think about it, it's more about focal length flexibility. Something the Fixed Scarlet offers in a classy constant f2.4.

It's purely subjective, but IMO there's a point where better IQ doesn't make your project any better. I think if you're putting stuff on the web, you're there once you get to well lit HD at 1080p shot with some nice glass.

but, there's also a point where the image looks kinda crappy, like bad noisy video. I did not like the paranormal activity look with it's crappy video.

You see, that's the point I see no reason in discussing. A camera making your project better? That doesn't even make any sense. I'm not saying you think this, but that's the heart of these kind of discussions.

I think these discussions came from the amateur level up, where joe amateur thought that the film look was all about shallow DOF and some punchy grading. It's only natural that cinematographers and filmmaking professionals discuss imaging solutions, if a project is going to benefit or suffer because of a chosen format, it's totally unrelated.

Did that footage at 4k you posted look nice? yea, it did. Did it look that much nicer than footage I've seen on the web shot with a 5d and some good glass? IMO, not really.

That doesn't mean I'm not sold on the Red Scarlet 2/3 when it releases. Again, to shoot 3k resolution which will hold up on the big screen, for under $10K is amazing. I'm hoping for an announcement on a release date at NAB.

I really can't stand the plastic-looking skin tones, moire/aliasing and rolling shutter artifacts most 5D videos present.

Regarding the RED video, f you can clearly observe its advantages on Youtube, imagine other web technologies yet to come! Web video was crappy 5 years ago, it's great now, it's going to be outstanding in the next 5 years.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

Did that footage at 4k you posted look nice? yea, it did. Did it look that much nicer than footage I've seen on the web shot with a 5d and some good glass? IMO, not really.

I only got a 720p version, but I still have to say:

I've got the 5D mkII currently with good Canon glass. I have followed the technical aspects of shooting with it and know how to set my profiles and so on. I take my 8 bit files and import them into Cineform 10 bit, but...

This RED footage looks substantially better, even for web use. It shouldn't be a surprise, and it isn't.

I don't agree that the difference is small.

Now, as we all know, that doesn't make the 5D incapable of shooting beautiful pictures. Had it not been for moiré, I had probably built a rig for it with a SmallHD DP6 screen and a follow focus.

Now I'm here, in line waiting, like everyone else...

 

[David Rasberry]

The difference between shooting Bayer raw, compressed or not, and low end long GOP video codecs is major. That is the technology shift that really sets Red apart. Being able to capture deep information in an image that no current display system can fully reveal gives one a lot of room for creative nuance in how you present that image.
Digital still photographers are quicker to grasp the potential than your typical video shooter who has grown up on prosumer video cameras.
It is a little bit funny watching the struggle of new AF100 shooters trying to get the "film" look. The camera is a big step up compared to the video from a DSLR because it is optimized for video at least and produces nice clean relatively artifact free images under the right conditions. But it seems like there is not a lot of room to play within the limits of the codec and it is not all that sensitive. Optimizing camera settings for different conditions is a bit tricky.
Light, aperture, frame rate, shutter speed. That utter simplicity to capturing images in Redcode raw is what I love most about Red. It is a pure photographic medium like film. Get it "in the can" and what you do with it afterward is up to your creative vision. I love the way Red thinks.

 

[Jim Retar]

I think alot of people on here seem to miss the point about the other companies.... they are NOT cinema camera makers (with the exception of perhaps, Sony). They make video cameras, mainly for TV work. The fact that indie film makers make up 1-2% of their sales wont make them all of a sudden be scared of Scarlet.

The ability to add a 14x lens with rocker zoom and auto focus IS important... this is just one of many, many reasons why certain 2/3" cameras will be far more popular for the majority of work than a Scarlet.

This is in no way a bash of Scarlet.... it is designed for a certain purpose and will be amazing for that purpose (cinema) and will also be great for certain amounts of tv work. But statements that it will blow $20k 2/3" cameras out of the water are not thought out, in my opinion... these cameras offer the workflow, ergononics and general ease of use that appeal to the networks.... they just work.

That said, there will be a few cameras out there at NAB that blur the lines between general tv work and cinema work and will be competition for Scarlet/Epic-S.

AF100 (maybe an announcement of a higher end model)
Sony F3 (with 4:4:4 upgrade)
Sony NEX s35
Sony 4K CCD camera
Ikonoskop
Slim chance of a Canon camera announcement
Chance of JVC 4k announcement

 

[David Rasberry]

I agree Jim. Different cameras for different markets. Broadcast TV will stick with 2/3" video cams as the preferred format, even over 35mm video cams.
However the use of 2/3" HD cameras for cinema production, or even series TV production where film like aesthetics are preferred, will decline significantly. It already has since the introduction of Red 1.
A camera rental tech at Abel said their 2/3" and S16mm rentals have both dropped significantly since Red came on the scene. At the low end the DSLR's have impacted rentals a good bit too for some types of projects. Much of that is the current popularity of 35mm format DOF. But moving to raw capture with image quality more than comparable to the high end 4:4:4 HDCAM SR systems at a small fraction of the cost will have its impact on the smaller format too.

 

[Jim Retar]

Yea, narrative tv work will move towards the larger sensors.... I know alot of people here laugh off the F3, but I can see it being a huge hit in that area.

ENG will stay happily where it is with 1/2" and 2/3" shoulder mount cams.

Scarlet will have huge success as B and C cinema cams, and A cams on lower budget productions.

Safe to say this year's NAB will be interesting. I'm still completely on the fence where my money will drop... I have a budget of around $25k, so that means bare bones Epic-S, nice F3 set up or very well set up Scarlet Cinema (or maybe some new wild card). Oh, the choices!

 

[David Rasberry]

In modest price ranges, people will still be faced with the choice of 35mm DOF with low end consumer video codec quality, or 16mm DOF with high end IQ, that includes the F3. By the time you equip an F3 for high end capture it will be a pretty expensive option, more expensive than an Epic-S.
Nice to have the new choices though.

 

[Jim Retar]

If you are talking about 4:4:4/s-log capture, then maybe, yes... we need to wait and see how much the upgrade and media will cost (cinedeck is an option at $10k).

I can live with 4:2:2 for a while though.... but I am still keeping my fingers crossed for a RED option before I shoot.

 

[Robert Rogoz]

Sorry, wake me up when actually Scarlet produces footage and is sold as a finished product. Right now it doesn't compete with anything else as it does not exist beyond a prototype. AF100 is real and is sold as we speak. And guess what? people are making money with it. When Scarlet hits the market there can be a real discussion- for now 4 more pages of wanking are going on, talking about prototype vaporware.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Sorry, wake me up when actually Scarlet produces footage and is sold as a finished product. Right now it doesn't compete with anything else as it does not exist beyond a prototype. AF100 is real and is sold as we speak. And guess what? people are making money with it. When Scarlet hits the market there can be a real discussion- for now 4 more pages of wanking are going on, talking about prototype vaporware.

Boy, REDuser would be a boring place if there weren't any speculative discussion allowed. Even Jim couldn't make posts.