Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Scarlet gets injured straddling two sides of the fence

People, why is everyone so rude here?

Everyone has valid points. People are so excited about the pricepoint. But this is a RAW camera. This means big computers, tons of storage... are you ready to shelve out $7,000 on your editing suites? Is your Pinnacle going to handle RED RAW footage? Many amateur shooters go wild on this on e but it is not a point and shoot with an easy to work with codec. The Scarlet is a beast that requires adequate hardware and expert software to tame it. So many people will be disappointed because they simply cannot handle this camera. And all of you make the same mistake as photographers do. More resolution, more resolution, more resolution... so what? 2k/3k only makes sense when you are doing professional grading or blue screen work. Nobody can see your 2k/3k quality movie... 1080P isn't even widely spread. 80% of all content is still shown in SD to the end user. Ask the people who are earning their money right now and they will confirm this. It is shot in HD, but the delivery is more often than not in SD. And now we are going wild on 3k which cannot be viewed on any television out there.

My point is... I can understand when you release a camera with these specifications that people ask for interchangeable lenses. It gives more options. How nice would it be when you could use a fish-eye? Or when you could add an extreme tele for wildlife? Then this camera would be the swiss knife of filmmaking.

I still think this camera is for indie filmmakers, documentary makers and not for amateurs who would normally buy a HV-20 or HV-30. Why not? Because the 100Mb/sec is no joke. And working with RAW footage neither. And I bet that most computers are not up to it. And I bet that most people also do not have 5TB raids at home.

And these two sides collapse, indeed.

For me the final verdict will be:
- Image quality
- Low-light sensitivity
- Focal length (from - to )
- DOF

If those four items are taken care of I am all in and I do not care about the fixed lens anymore. But if the low-light sensitivity is not good, or the focal length to short or to long then you have the most amazing camera but can never unleash its potential because of limitations. Now that would be a pity.
 
well it seems that jim and co do buy into that mentality. The only thing they said in advance of Scarlet is that it won't be competing with the ONE so why are you so surprised and upset that they stayed true to their word. I'd be willing to bet that if Jim did deliver the cam you're asking for the roar in these forums would dwarf the current clamor. As you know RED is all about excellent customer service of current users of which the majority of would likely feel cheated. It also appears from the poll that the majority of readers prefer the specs as-is.
 
And about the glass:

If RED can include a 8X T2.8 lens with this camera for under $3,000, why on earth would they not be able to make variations on that lens for under $1,500? Most people will stick with the standard lens and people who need it / can afford it can pick the glass they want. Call it the RED mount, and you are in business. I would say make two versions. Everyone happy.
 
I just don't buy into the mentality that says you should hold back technology so as not to compete with your own camera. Technology advances so quickly now ... why hold back?
Click to expand...

Profit, that's why. Look at the automobile industry. They're the best at holding back. If they didn't, they would go broke. Another example of an industry that brought new product to the market to quickly is the PC industry. Major companies like IBM and Compaq had to sell of their computer line because it just wasn't profitable. Companies like Dell, and HP had to sell accessories, like tvs and printers, just to grow. Even Apple sales where declining until they introduced the IPOD. Basically what your asking for is not financially feasible.
 
2/3 is an excellent size.
we use 2/3, S16 and 35, and every format has advantages.
For the typical use of a pocket camera, 2/3 is sure the best choice.
35mm DOF and handheld are not a very good fit.

For me, the camera is very exciting and the pricepoint, once more, is a sensation.
 
I say to everybody that already own a Red One to stop worrying about what Scarlet can, can’t, will or won’t do. Worry about shooting at least decent stuff with your very own camera if you really have the talent. Think of bettering yourself and stepping up to the Epic when it comes out. Scarlet, I am sure, was put together for the very low or no budget dreamer that wants to start a career with a solid if not all technologically advanced tool.
The idea is that it will shoot pleasant and professional looking images. Many talented individuals are making amazing films with cameras like the HV20 and I am absolutely convinced that these same individuals will produce stuff to rival, maybe be even look better, than stuff shot with the Red One from people that mortgaged their houses to get one but lack the magic touch.
That darn thing is going to cost $3K, (or maybe $30,000 by next year, depending on inflation), for God’s sake. Is like wanting a Mercedes for a Volkswagen price.
 
I will love shooting surf videos from water with this little marvel.
I´m waiting for one scarlet camera for me.
Do you need more zoom? if you take a part of those incredible 3k you will X10 your X8, so you have X80 in SD, or for youtube sizes. X120 zoom.
This camera is really cheap and handdle. Is the perfect machine for me.
If you want a bigger camera with intercheable lenses, buy a Brevis and shot.
I would love a switch option in the lcd.
 
John, I agree with you.

But still interchangeable lenses would make it the holy grail. Look at photography. Every photography school works with (D)SLR cameras. A point and shoot is fine but also limiting. I really do not see why it would compete with the RED, especially not when they use their own mount (specific for this camera and future versions). If the T2.8 turns out to be a perfect lens, I am fine with having a fixed lens. But if the low-light is not as good as I want, or the focal length is too short, I am stuck with the most amazingly advanced 3k camera but I cannot use it. Now that would be nasty.

So for me, I am very excited but need to see the quality of the image, low light sensitivity and the focal length of the lens (hope it starts at 28mm). I guess that a 28mm - 224mm (8x) is fine for most situations. Except for wildlife shooters. And the T2.8 could be a problem but that depends on the ASA rating the camera receives. If it is better than what current camcorders like the EX1 and Z1 deliver nobody should complain.
 
I don`t give crap about philosophical stuff like these anymore. Scarlet will be cheaper than any other pro-camera. If it performs what Red promises, I`ll buy one (or two) and use it/them. period.
 
bhtdmc said:
as a semi-professional photographer I can tell you that when I moved from shooting jpgs to shooting RAW, it changed everything about my work.

People keep comparing Scarlet to the HV20 and EX1 saying 'what's the big deal about Scarlet, compared to other cameras...?" Do not overlook RAW. I would choose RAW over interchangeable lenses, any day of the week. If you haven't shot RAW, it may not seem like a big advantage, but it absolutely is.

Also, 3k is more than you'll need....this is GOOD. It means oversampling and/or reframing possibilities. With the other cams you shoot 1080 and you're locked into everything about that image.

Also, I used an XL-1 for seven years and never once needed to change lenses. Just never came up for me.

And anyone who thinks they NEED 35mm DOF to tell a story, and that 2/3 will never do, should really see ZODIAC, shot on the Viper.

And please stop offering to pay more. We get it. You have more money than me. Congrats. :greedy:

Can you please let me get an amazing camera for under $3000?

I don't want to drop $10,000 on an EX3 (with less resolution and no RAW).
Click to expand...
FTW!!! :biggrin:

RAW rules!
 
And all of you make the same mistake as photographers do. More resolution, more resolution, more resolution... so what?
Click to expand...

It's a mistake to want more resolution? Hmmm. Are you a professional photographer? You might be, I don't know. I NEED more resolution because I have more and more clients wanting bigger and bigger prints. Digital at first was okay for up to 8x10's, then 16x20's, and then onto nice 20x30's and with the latest 21 MP DSLR by Canon, you can make some huge prints from those things. People are asking for bigger prints and bigger prints are usually more profitable for the photographer. I agree with you that higher rez is overrated for soccer mom's who just want a point-n-shoot and think more pixels = better photos, especially when they're just making 4x6 prints from Wal-Mart, which it doesn't... but for professional photographers it opens up whole new revenue streams.

I'm also curious why people are looking at RAW video cameras and then sounding frustrated at the computing power required to process it? If you're in the realm of producing movies/documentaries at this level, I would think a $10-15,000 investment in a computer and storage is extremely inexpensive consider you're making moving images with quality that was pretty much only available to major studios or big-money projects a few years ago. Now you can compete with big studios for under $25,000 in gear... that's incredible! If you can only afford a $3,000 computer and you want a $3,000 RAW camera with interchangeable lenses, then I would call that whining. I'm sorry. You can't have it all and have it cheap and have it now. I am going into high-def video productions and I'm very surprised at how little of an investment this is going to be in order to produce flicks that are good enough "tech-wise" to be shown on the best high-def cable channels and (you never know) big screen releases. This is amazing, truly revolutionary, that we can now compete with the big boys at such a little price. But no, sorry, you can't compete for 20 bucks. You can still do pretty good with a $1,200 computer and an $800 HV20, but if you're even seriously considering the RAW market, c'mon, get real. $3 grand is an insane price for Scarlet, but you're still gonna hafta process the footage with a beefy computer so this is still a market for more serious videographers/cinematographers. Which is why I'm surprised at the whining... serious cinematographers should know better. Okay, I'm done.
 
$3k for a 3K raw

In one word: Amazing!

I feel sorry for the ones who don't understand how revolutionary Scarlet is. ..and all I can say to the ones who want exchangeable lenses: get a night job. :construction: Make the 17.5 grand. Period.

Jim? You are legendary. Thanks thanks thanks.

//O.
 
Buck Forester said:
It's a mistake to want more resolution? Hmmm. Are you a professional photographer? You might be, I don't know. I NEED more resolution because I have more and more clients wanting bigger and bigger prints. Digital at first was okay for up to 8x10's, then 16x20's, and then onto nice 20x30's and with the latest 21 MP DSLR by Canon, you can make some huge prints from those things. People are asking for bigger prints and bigger prints are usually more profitable for the photographer. I agree with you that higher rez is overrated for soccer mom's who just want a point-n-shoot and think more pixels = better photos, especially when they're just making 4x6 prints from Wal-Mart, which it doesn't... but for professional photographers it opens up whole new revenue streams.

I'm also curious why people are looking at RAW video cameras and then sounding frustrated at the computing power required to process it? If you're in the realm of producing movies/documentaries at this level, I would think a $10-15,000 investment in a computer and storage is extremely inexpensive consider you're making moving images with quality that was pretty much only available to major studios or big-money projects a few years ago. Now you can compete with big studios for under $25,000 in gear... that's incredible! If you can only afford a $3,000 computer and you want a $3,000 RAW camera with interchangeable lenses, then I would call that whining. I'm sorry. You can't have it all and have it cheap and have it now. I am going into high-def video productions and I'm very surprised at how little of an investment this is going to be in order to produce flicks that are good enough "tech-wise" to be shown on the best high-def cable channels and (you never know) big screen releases. This is amazing, truly revolutionary, that we can now compete with the big boys at such a little price. But no, sorry, you can't compete for 20 bucks. You can still do pretty good with a $1,200 computer and an $800 HV20, but if you're even seriously considering the RAW market, c'mon, get real. $3 grand is an insane price for Scarlet, but you're still gonna hafta process the footage with a beefy computer so this is still a market for more serious videographers/cinematographers. Which is why I'm surprised at the whining... serious cinematographers should know better. Okay, I'm done.
Click to expand...

a macbook Pro/ imac works...you have to figure out a workflow...but its not rocket science and
you dont need a 15 000 USD NLE
---i agree with the lenses
 
Buck Forester said:
I guess the most vocal people against Scarlet are "indies". For many of us who aren't indie folk we want to make saleable videos and documentaries and this is a perfect tool to have.
Click to expand...

Um...no it's not. The record times for the available CompactFlash card sizes on the market make it far from ideal for documentary. Actually, because of this, it's in a worse position than the HVX or other cameras for documentary or event recording, due to the constant need to switch out media.

How many CompactFlash Cards are you wanting to buy? Imagine the horrors.

As much as I hate to admit it, a 32GB P2 card can hold 85minutes of 720pn footage at true 24fps.

That's sexy.
 
Tom said:
I very much agree with this and your other points. 3K is not even a format. For me, the perfect baby RED would be:

2K RAW (downsampled from 3K chip perhaps)
35mm-size sensor
ability to use cine or 35mm glass
at least 60fps
$5-7K price range

That's it. Game over. A camera like that would annihilate every prosumer camera out there. And really, are any of those things I listed much more expensive to implement in a scarlet? In fact, I have lowered the resolution and framerates.
Click to expand...


YES!

THAT is a fantastic camera that I would EASILY purchase. I wouldn't be having all of these discussions with the rest of my production company.

Basically, if you got rid of the 3k, would the Scarlet be worth it? If it shot 1080p? No, it wouldn't. And as you mentioned, 3K isn't even a standard of any sort. You'll be downrezing to 2k or 1080p anyway.

I'd pay more for a bigger chip, smaller resolution, and the abilities you mentioned without hesitation. As it now stands, while we were all up in arms and pooping our pants over the Scarlet yesterday, my team and I are now looking at other cameras because of ALL THE OTHER things beside resolution.

Resolution is one part of a puzzle with many, many pieces. Red gets it right on the Epic and One, but for the Scarlet, they seem to have said, 'Ahh....resolution is all that matters!' and much to my chagrin, everyone's buying into it.
 
QManning, I feel it needs to be said again -- what you and Tom are describing here is the Red One, only with a $12,000 discount.

Nobody seems to be thinking about the fact that the different sensors cost money, and that the reason Scarlet can be at the price point it is, very likely is due to the usage of a 2/3" chip. A 35mm-size sensor would drive them price up CONSIDERABLY.

So once the team decided to hit this price point -- both for reasons of economy of scale and philosophically -- they decided on a 2/3" chip. Once that was decided on, they decided that a fixed lens, designed specifically for this chip was the best option.

Frankly, their decisions make sense to me. I mean, don't get me wrong, I would love to have a full Red One for $1,000 -- and that would annihilate everything in its price class too -- but I am also aware that it is not realistic. So am I thrilled at the opportunity to start shooting Redcode Raw at 3k resolution at one of the lowest price entry points in this market?

You bet.
 
Hi all,

well, what to make of this camera??
i do a lot of outdoor action for extreme skiers, shoot documentaries of business conventions, edit concerts, etc.
what kind of makes me wonder if i buy this one:

will there be ND's built in? or do i have to bring my matte box along?
you know, in a helicopter not too easy to change while flying...

you will not get 35mm DOF. you will get a superb glass, no question, but compared to a 1/2 inch camera DOF at 8x Scarlet will be the same as 1/2 inch at 12x zoom...(very roughly spoken..) especially when the lens is a stop slower than sony's or pana's

you have to downconvert. period. you'll never publish 3k. so either you can
work with the reference files 'til the end, or you have to do the 3k workflow
with COLOR for example. This will slow you down a bit...

the market seems to demand 35mm look. other than that i can' understand people wanting a removable lens, just to attach their 35mm adapter directly.
so people get a hv20 and a letus mini, save 1000 dollars and get almost the same look. i own a letus an i tell you you get used to the sharpness of the recent digital cams letting you question your investment...

sad that jim didn' decide to do a modular system, with a 35mm sensor part with hdsdi's out, plus an extra audio/encoder (like the convergent design flash xdr), that encodes to redcode. sold seperatley for 4-5000dollars each BOTH would be a massive seller. plus the option to stick both together and have a special RED. i posted this 'ready about a year ago, but it seems that
this wasn't a good enough idea.... ;-(


anyways, we'll see, what the final specs are...

cheers
 
btw,

did it occur to you, that a redcode at 100Mbps will give better results in 3k than in 5k?

think the other way roud: encode a dvd-sd at 4Mbps, and the same movie at 8Mbps.. then look at the differrence...

given, it will not be that extreme, but still a funny fact...
 
QManning said:
As much as I hate to admit it, a 32GB P2 card can hold 85minutes of 720pn footage at true 24fps.

That's sexy.
Click to expand...


i prefer 40 minutes of 2k redcode raw on a 16GBCF.....

16 GB cards will be next year common....32 GB CF are not far away...so you will egt 80 min. of 2k Redcode RAW onto a 32 GB CF Card....up to 120 fps


------welcome to the future
 
I´m with oddpixel

3k for 3$ means a new way for a lot of people. We are waiting for our #2168 and will visit red store when scarlet was there. Just for making off, just for my holidays, for my little sister, don´t know ... 3000$?? peanuts for a 120fps 3k!!. can not imagine same uses??

Excuse my english, again and again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top