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

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
Click to expand...

That's great! If you can edit the footage you want with the above listed stuff, that's what it's all about. I'm needing about $15 grand for my Mac Pro and my RAID storage to do what I want effeciently with the proper protection. I'm going to be processing a lot of stuff frequently so I need some decent power. Of course $15,000 USD is about a buck-fifty in Euros right now, ha ha!

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.
Click to expand...

I guess for me I don't need "long" record times, I typically shoot in short shegments, I mean, segments. Until Scarlet arrives, I'll be using the EX1 then adding the Scarlet as another camera. It won't be my exclusive camera, just another great tool. As for the Panny P2 stuff, it's great and all, but in my price range (such as the HVX200) it won't produce the specs I need for some of my intended high-def markets. I wish it did. I guess my whole point is doing whatever works best with what's available for your specific purposes. I acknowledge that some cameras are designed for certain purposes and they don't make these "one-camera-for-everyone" because you can't do it. The EX1 would not be my choice if I was doing lots of really fast action sports or was around lots of flashing cameras, I'd choose a CCD based camera in that instance. I could bitch and moan about the EX1 rolling shutter, or I could realize that there are other cameras that would work better in those conditions. It's simple. I could complain that the Panny HVX200 does not have "real" 1920x1080 native chips or hasn't gone 1/2" chips, etc., but there's other cameras that do. I could complain that the RED One isn't $5 grand, or I could complain that the Scarlet is $3 grand but doesn't have interchangeable lenses, or I could complain that they don't put enough marshmallows in Lucky Charms. There's lots of alternatives out there, rarely are they absolutely perfect, but for serious indie-makers, documentarialists (is that a word?) on a low/mid budget, the quality that RED is offering in terms of recording specs is absolutely groundbreaking and industry-changing. Am I gonna let some excuse like "you're gonna need too many CF cards" get in the way of this? Not me. Sure, I'd like a single 94,583 GB CF card for $39.99, ($34.99 with coupon), but since it's not here right now I'm gonna get 'er done anyway.
 
Will it actually be possible to edit 2K with an iMac?

Everyone keeps saying redcode raw = $8000 MAC PRO with 16GB RAM
 
So edit a 720p proxy. What's the big deal?
 
Buck Forester said:
That's great! If you can edit the footage you want with the above listed stuff, that's what it's all about. I'm needing about $15 grand for my Mac Pro and my RAID storage to do what I want effeciently with the proper protection. I'm going to be processing a lot of stuff frequently so I need some decent power. Of course $15,000 USD is about a buck-fifty in Euros right now, ha ha!
Click to expand...


if you want the full Show i understand you....

macpro
aja kona 3
raid 8 TB etc..
Monitor

and irirdiias XR for 20 000 Dollars.....here ya have a 40 000 USD DI suite....

what i want to say if someone cant afford...

buy a 17 " macbook Pro.....compress your Proxies to 2k 10bit 422 ProRes, edit....use Crimsonworkflow for onlining....
 
its important for external HDs....or raids....the faster the port...the higher the codec level you can work with...


i dont want to be misleading...

it all depends on your final delivery...

web,sd, dvd,blueray,hdcam, filmoutput....
 
I was really excited when I heard about the Red One, but then I realised it was far too expensive for someone like me. When I heard about Scarlet I was really excited once again, but having tried to find out a bit more about the camera there are two things that have really let me down.

Firstly, the interchangeable lens. This is the biggest shortcoming of most prosumer camcorders.
Secondly, there don't seem to be any manual controls on the fixed lens. This is something people complain about in a consumer camcorder, so how comes Red looks to be repeating this same mistake on a "professional" camcorder?

I know a lot of people are going to say the Scarlet is amazing and I shouldn't complain, but for making tv, 1080p is more than enough. I've been working with an international broadcaster for about two years and what I've learnt is that if you've got a good story and a good eye, the differences between cameras become less and less significant.

So why would someone spend spend $3000 on the Scarlet when they can get an HV20 for $600? The only practical feature the Scarlet has over the HV20 is variable frame rate.

I think people are too hung up about specs rather than practicality, and I think this is where Red have gone wrong. I hope that Red look at what's being said and think about what people need, rather than what specs-junkies want.

I agree with Antiquaeurope. Imagine if Red had produced a 3k HV20-like camera (pocket 1080p camera) with interchangeable lens, good manual controls and variable frame speed? If Canon can make the HV20 and sell it for less than £1000, Red could have probably done it for $3000-$4000 and swept the board with tv production companies, indies, independent filmmakers, dedicated hobbyists and all the specs-junkies.

As it is I don't expect soccer mums and normal consumers to fork out $3000 when they can get an HDV or AVCHD 1080p camera for less than a thousand dollars. I think this will be restricted to specs-junkies and their families.

I will be paying attention, however, to see if interesting modifications are made to the Scarlet, or I'll wait to see if Red get their act together and make the camera so many of us are waiting for (Scarlet 4k with interchangeable lens and good manual controls for $5000).
 
The only practical feature the Scarlet has over the HV20 is variable frame rate.
Click to expand...

Yes, but who gets to define "practical"? What may not be practical for you may very well be practical for me and thousands like me (I'm unique, but there are thousands just like me). I find the higher resolution of Scarlet VERY practical compared to the HV20. In fact I couldn't use the HV20 for my intended high-def markets, the specs aren't there. So why is that not practical? And RAW editing provides much more editorial post control. You might not need it, in a practical way, for your TV shots, but someone like me would LOVE Raw footage to tweak because I'll be shooting wilderness stuff that is ripe for good post control. Does that make me "too hung up over specs"? Maybe to you, but certainly not to me. If RED produced a 3K Hv20-like pocket camera with with interchangeable lenses, as you say, and sweep the board, maybe you're right... and they'd sweep their own profitable board of camera line-ups in the process too.

I don't mean this to sound mean or anything because I know what being on a budget is like, but if you're looking for a $3000-$4000 camera to do all the things you're asking, then how can you afford the required lenses to go with this camera, and the computer processing it'll take to edit, and the funding required to actually acquire, edit, and distribute your flick? The $3000 is "pocket" change compared to all the associated costs. So if someone is really THAT concerned about money at that price range for a serious production, one might as well go to Vegas and get better odds at a return on your dollar because most likely they won't get their production on screen. Just look at the odds. How many people here complaining about the price/features of Scarlet, or wanting a dream camera at a low price, have you heard of before? Seen 'em in Entertainment Weekly? Are they producing great quality, marketable productions right now? I'm just saying that if people can't get it done without Scarlet being their dream camera, then it's highly unlikely they're gonna get it done even IF Scarlet was their dream camera.
 
Buck Forester said:
I find the higher resolution of Scarlet VERY practical compared to the HV20. Does that make me "too hung up over specs"? Maybe to you, but certainly not to me.

If RED produced a 3K Hv20-like pocket camera with with interchangeable lenses, as you say, and sweep the board, maybe you're right... and they'd sweep their own profitable board of camera line-ups in the process too.

I don't mean this to sound mean or anything because I know what being on a budget is like, but if you're looking for a $3000-$4000 camera to do all the things you're asking, then how can you afford the required lenses to go with this camera, and the computer processing it'll take to edit, and the funding required to actually acquire, edit, and distribute your flick? The $3000 is "pocket" change compared to all the associated costs. So if someone is really THAT concerned about money at that price range for a serious production, one might as well go to Vegas and get better odds at a return on your dollar because most likely they won't get their production on screen.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the Scarlet is a waste of time. I'm saying it's aimed at a very small audience. Some people make actually find it a practical camera -as you claim you do- and many will buy it because they like the idea of 3k. But the vast majority of video production is for tv, and the vast majority of people in the developed world still watch 90% of their stuff on SD (so imagine the 3rd world). Which means that for the vast majority of professionals 3k or 4k is not a big priority. In fact, a number of films shown in cinemas have been filmed in 1080p, which means 1080p is good enough even for film. I don't know what you're dealing with, but I can't imagine many clients even having the facilities to watch 3k. And whilst I can see that 4:4:4 is a nice feature, a good colorist can work wonders on HDV and DVCPro.

Now, try and understand the point I'm making. In this new HD-broadcasting world, cameras like the Z1 and the HVX200 are popular because they cost around $5000 and produce HD quality. Independent production companies, freelancers and broadcasters are buying them at a good rate. And even many aspiring tv filmmakers are buying them.

Now, if I go to my company and say "Let's buy ten Red Ones at $25000" ($18000 plus extras) they'll laugh at me. If I say "Let's buy ten Red Scarlets at $3000" (with their lack of professional features) they'll laugh at me too. But if I go and say "Let's buy ten Red Scarlets with interchangeable lens and good manual controls at $5000" they would seriously consider the idea. This is true across the board for television production. That's my point and the point that Antiquaeurope was making.

Instead Red have ended up with a camera with good stats that's (probably) too expensive for consumers and not useful enough for the vast majority of broadcast professionals (the Scarlet), an amazing camera which is too expensive for most broadcast professionals (the Red One), and a high-end camera aimed at the film market (the Epic).

Coz the reality is that, unless we're making films for cinemas, the most we're going to output at is 1080, so resolution is less important than other features. And seeing as the vast majority of video production is increasingly in television, Red are missing the opportunity to put that market in their pocket.

Perhaps they wouldn't need to put interchangeable lens (neither the Z1 nor the HVX200 have them), but at least give us good manual controls with f-stops etc. on the lens barrel so it's a worthwhile investment for broadcast professionals.
 
I'm not saying the Scarlet is a waste of time. I'm saying it's aimed at a very small audience. Some people make actually find it a practical camera -as you claim you do- and many will buy it because they like the idea of 3k. But the vast majority of video production is for tv, and the vast majority of people in the developed world still watch 90% of their stuff on SD (so imagine the 3rd world).
Click to expand...

I hear ya, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is this... the vast majority of people buying cameras in this price range are not profitable film makers or TV producers. I'd probably say at least 95% of people are not making TV shows or marketable movies. So, to be brutally honest, I think you're in the small minority if you're actually buying this and producing TV content. Just look at how many movies are in theaters each year, and how many TV shows there are, and look at all the tens and tens of thousands of video cameras being sold that can produce broadcast quality product. You think very many of them are used for TV and movies? Most people here are (and I say this in a positive way) dreamers. I'm a dreamer too. I feel confident about being profitable (if not, my wife will be re-he-he-heeeeally pissed at me for delving into this industry), and probably many here feel they can be profitable, but reality says a teeny percentage actually are. I just got back a couple weekends ago from a 2-day seminar in Beverly Hills, put on by the Writer's Guild of America, that was about getting funding for projects (movies, documentaries, etc.). They made it clear that a very very small percentage of people buying all this stuff, and investing in movies, actually make a profit. If any company was simply marketing to working professionals at this price point, they'd go broke because there's not enough people in the industry who are making money to buy this stuff. But there are meeeellions of aspiring videographers willing to fork out the dough based on hopes and dreams. I say more power to them, gotta chase those dreams somehow or another.

Same with photography... Canon sells gazillions of high-end DSLRs but there's not that many pro photographers, relative to the number of units sold, that are in existence. If they only marketed to pro photogs, their sales would be nominal. Gotta sell the sizzle and it's up the buyer to make the steak. That's the whole reason why I question those complaining here... most of them must not be profitable nor working on serious projects with investors and such, because otherwise they would know better.
 
dvazp said:
I'm not saying the Scarlet is a waste of time. I'm saying it's aimed at a very small audience.
Click to expand...

Are you people absolutely insane? The price RED are targeting for Scarlet is under three thousand dollars. That's about two times what you can get an HV20 for here (even when factoring in exchange rates). And it has better specs than an EX1. I can pick one of them up for about nine thousand dollars around here. That's three times as much as Scarlet. How can you say that this camera is aimed at a 'very small audience'?

The big thing here (in my opinion) is that Scarlet shoots Redcode - even if it were 2K, cost $5,000 and could only (!) shoot 60fps, the flexibility that Redcode gives me would seal the deal...
 
Agreed, at that price point, the announcement of the Scarlet has done to the sub-$10K camera market what RED One did to just about every other camera.
 
if I may pitch in - from a photography point of view. Scarlet's specs are great for me. I need a camera that gives me a lot of latitude to post-process. A 3k sensor means i can crop and maybe stabilise the picture in post, when downsizing to 2k. Raw means i don't need to worry too much about white balance. wifi would be great, but there are no details yet on what it could be used for. HECK 120fps IS SUPER. I will only consider an interchangeable lens system if I can use my Canon EF glass. For those advocating for yet another proprietary mount - please give it a break - the biggest investment at this price point would be the glass - I don't want it tied to a minor manufacturer, cause lenses last longer than digital cameras. If version 1 of scarlet cannot have interchangeable lenses so be it. the other features more than make up for the loss. This is a DIGITAL camera, its life span will be a few years. After that you're going to invest in something else. maybe scarlet#3 will be out and have all the glass you want, but for now, for me this is great news as is. If you want more pay more - for something else. I can afford this
 
I will keep saying this:

$3,000 won't get you in business with the RED Scarlet. The true investment will be 2 or 3 times higher depending on your requirements.

The real problem is that for $3,000 almost ANYONE can afford this camera. And that must have been the idea. But not many of us can edit 3k on their computer, not even render it to a smaller format. And why are comparing people this with the HV-20? This camera will not eat its sales tremendously. Like 1% of HV-20 users are using it for filmmaking. The other 99% uses it for family candids and don't even know what 3k means. So how are you going to make them buy this camera from a website they don't know, with a workflow that is time consuming and far too difficult for them? Tell me please. HDV is more then enough for those people and I would stronlgy advise them not to buy a RED Scarlet. Those people also shoot JPEG on their DSLR and use the default camera settings, maybe a picture mode now and then.

The second problem: what happens when 100.000 people buy this camera? Can RED handle the service, production, software support and all those other things? We are all saying goodbye to the big companies but they have huge organisations with a high level of service WORLDWIDE and a lot of experience with dealing with consumers. The market RED is going in now is completely different from the markets for the RED One, RED Ray and RED Epic. If it goes wrong, and they have to recall 30.000 cameras, they will be in trouble.

That's why I, and I think more people here, would have loved to see them taking on the sub $10,000 indie market first. It is smaller and more similair to the market they are in with the RED One camera.

I really want to see them succeed but their are many issues to be tackled. And I still don't see what is the point of bringing 3k to the masses while big companies like Sony and JVC are struggling to get 1080p to the masses with hundreds of millions of marketing budget.

I will be buying a Scarlet but some people here really lost their common sense. With the specifications and the price, I literally think they are going to sell 100x more Scarlets then RED One's and I hope they can handle it (service, after-sales, support, warranties, worldwide coverage...). They basically have to set up a worldwide network of dealers and repair centers now. And can they do this before early 2009? Time will tell.
 
dieseljunkie said:
The real problem is that for $3,000 almost ANYONE can afford this camera. And that must have been the idea. But not many of us can edit 3k on their computer, not even render it to a smaller format. And why are comparing people this with the HV-20? This camera will not eat its sales tremendously. Like 1% of HV-20 users are using it for filmmaking. The other 99% uses it for family candids and don't even know what 3k means.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that this is going to eat into the HV20's sales. I'm just saying that for such a good camera for such a low price (even when you factor another three or four thousand for accessories) that not only is it desirable for any indie filmmaker, it will be easily within reach. So I think that they are going to sell thousands. Which leads us to the problem of service and being able to keep up with demand, which is something that RED will have to plan carefully.

I acknowledge that it could be a problem editing, but this issue will (hopefully) be long gone by 2009. We know the SDK is coming out soon, so Cineform's converter will be back on the market (which looks like a very promising workflow for PC). On Mac OS, it's already dead easy (with the log and transfer option, or even better, the Quicktime wrappers). And then of course there's REDCINE.
 
Tom said:
RAW is awesome, of course, but saying you would take RAW over interchangeable lenses seems odd to me, unless you are planning to shoot stuff other than cinema. If you were given a choice between a point and click digital camera that shot RAW, or a DLSR with pimped out lens choices that only shot JPEG, would you seriously choose the point and click??

Hehe, I'm sure you will get your cam. Just let the rest of us who want a mini cinema camera bitch and moan so we can get our camera too. :) Deal?
Click to expand...
I'm just a newbie and I may be missing something here, but isn't that pretty much what the Red One is? Why not just get that instead of Scarlet?

- Ugly.
 
dvazp said:
I hope that Red look at what's practical rather than what specs-junkies want.
Click to expand...
fixed that for you

dvazp said:
I agree with Antiquaeurope. Imagine if Red had produced a 3k HV20-like camera (pocket 1080p camera) with interchangeable lens, good manual controls and variable frame speed? If Canon can make the HV20 and sell it for less than £1000, Red could have probably done it for $3000-$4000 and swept the board with tv production companies, indies, independent filmmakers, dedicated hobbyists and all the specs-junkies.
Click to expand...
no, they couldn't have. I seriously doubt that Jim is lying to us.


dvazp said:
So why would someone spend spend $3000 on the Scarlet when they can get an HV20 for $600? The only practical feature the Scarlet has over the HV20 is variable frame rate.
Click to expand...
exactly!!! I would gladly pay $3000 for this feature in true 1080p and the fact that it's going to be available in 3k..wow. RED just put the icing on the cake with Scarlet. Oh and you forgot REDCODE, 3K, and recording to compact flash
 
dieseljunkie said:
But not many of us can edit 3k on their computer, not even render it to a smaller format.
Click to expand...

You can render it to a smaller format on any computer. It may take ages but you can do it and if you're an indie you can afford to wait.

dieseljunkie said:
And why are comparing people this with the HV-20? This camera will not eat its sales tremendously. Like 1% of HV-20 users are using it for filmmaking. The other 99% uses it for family candids and don't even know what 3k means.
Click to expand...

Scarlet is not for those people. Of course the average consumer is not going to buy it for his home movies. Who ever said they would?

dieseljunkie said:
The second problem: what happens when 100.000 people buy this camera?
Click to expand...

Didn't you just contradict yourself there? Or do you think there's a market of 100,000 filmmakers in between the consumer level and the Red One level? Could be.
 
yeah, I love that the same people saying RED missed a perfect opportunity are asking questions about what happens when Scarlet becomes a runaway success
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top