antiquaeuropa
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
At under 3k it may compete well next year. Who knows until we see Scarlet and the competition that will be. However, it does not seem very well positioned to me. On the one hand, it is likely too expensive for all but the wealthiest of consumers for their home movie purposes. On the other hand, it seems within too great of reach of the long-established companies likely offerings.
Perhaps the record times will make it less than ideal for event, news, and documentary. The 2/3" is a poor compromise for feature cinema. Wouldn't almost all of the people interested in this Scarlet for $3k be even more interested a better camera for $5k or more. I mean the problem for most people dedicated to realizing their dream of cinema is not gathering together $5k-8k. (At least not in the US. . . I do understand that other people in poorer countries around the world would not see it this way, but these people have the advantage that their local population does not have such an high expectation of quality for their local cinema as Americans have.) If Jannard can do this Scarlet for 3k, then why not deliver a more robust camera for more money. Why shoot so slow when the higher quality levels of the market have not yet been fully addressed?
I think that S16 instead of 2/3" would be highly valued (many people will not settle for less than 35mm). A faster lens seeing as how indies are alway short on lighting is almost necessary. What about an EVF? I can't imagine how focus will be good enough to merit 3k. Alternatives for longer recording. If the lens could not be absolutely super, then make a couple at different levels and sell them separately with interchangeability. 3k and 120fps are very cool but that is not really what we poor independents need to make features great. 72fps and 2k would more than suffice for most situations.
I, a huge Red nut who drives all of his loved ones crazy talking about it all of the time, for one can easily imagine Panasonic releasing a camera that even I would choose over Scarlet (though I probably still would not want even this imagined Panny). I don't know whether Panasonic will choose to get its act together, but they could if they wanted. How about an HVX 300 2/3" 1080p DVC Pro HD 72fps, interchangeable lens or a really nice included lens at least 1.9 with some automatic image correction (like CA reduction, removal of geometric distortion, etc.), nicer ergonomics because of weight distribution and more space for button placement. You can easily imagine a very robust and stable camera that would be much less of a headache to deal with (easy to go right into Final Cut Studio all the way through without anything else). You can choose your look and just bake it in. I realize that the image would still probably not be quite as good as Scarlet, but would the difference be enough to justify it? The difference between 3k and the likely 6k from Panasonic would not mean so much to me even though I don't have very much money because I am dedicated to realizing my cinematic dreams and 3k does not require so much dedicate to make in the US.
Obviously, Red was going to announce something that would be better than the competition to date-- that was expected. After all, who in the hell would choose some new upstart instead of a long-established big firm without a few damn good reasons. Red certainly has given some good reasons for Scarlet, but I still have a tough time imagining what group will find this camera the perfect compromise for their needs. By contrast, Red One promises to be exactly what those who don't have access to large capital, who yet still aspire to create highly artistic cinema have yearned for. Red One is of course not perfect but the imperfections are not so much due to the choice of what market it aims to compete, but rather they are chronological, technological, monetary, or practical limitations. The worst aspect of the Scarlet announcement for me is that it is the signal that Red is going to stop focusing as much on its core audience, which can only come at this core's expense. All the same, I am still saving as fast as I can to purchase a Red One and the needed accessories.
Perhaps the record times will make it less than ideal for event, news, and documentary. The 2/3" is a poor compromise for feature cinema. Wouldn't almost all of the people interested in this Scarlet for $3k be even more interested a better camera for $5k or more. I mean the problem for most people dedicated to realizing their dream of cinema is not gathering together $5k-8k. (At least not in the US. . . I do understand that other people in poorer countries around the world would not see it this way, but these people have the advantage that their local population does not have such an high expectation of quality for their local cinema as Americans have.) If Jannard can do this Scarlet for 3k, then why not deliver a more robust camera for more money. Why shoot so slow when the higher quality levels of the market have not yet been fully addressed?
I think that S16 instead of 2/3" would be highly valued (many people will not settle for less than 35mm). A faster lens seeing as how indies are alway short on lighting is almost necessary. What about an EVF? I can't imagine how focus will be good enough to merit 3k. Alternatives for longer recording. If the lens could not be absolutely super, then make a couple at different levels and sell them separately with interchangeability. 3k and 120fps are very cool but that is not really what we poor independents need to make features great. 72fps and 2k would more than suffice for most situations.
I, a huge Red nut who drives all of his loved ones crazy talking about it all of the time, for one can easily imagine Panasonic releasing a camera that even I would choose over Scarlet (though I probably still would not want even this imagined Panny). I don't know whether Panasonic will choose to get its act together, but they could if they wanted. How about an HVX 300 2/3" 1080p DVC Pro HD 72fps, interchangeable lens or a really nice included lens at least 1.9 with some automatic image correction (like CA reduction, removal of geometric distortion, etc.), nicer ergonomics because of weight distribution and more space for button placement. You can easily imagine a very robust and stable camera that would be much less of a headache to deal with (easy to go right into Final Cut Studio all the way through without anything else). You can choose your look and just bake it in. I realize that the image would still probably not be quite as good as Scarlet, but would the difference be enough to justify it? The difference between 3k and the likely 6k from Panasonic would not mean so much to me even though I don't have very much money because I am dedicated to realizing my cinematic dreams and 3k does not require so much dedicate to make in the US.
Obviously, Red was going to announce something that would be better than the competition to date-- that was expected. After all, who in the hell would choose some new upstart instead of a long-established big firm without a few damn good reasons. Red certainly has given some good reasons for Scarlet, but I still have a tough time imagining what group will find this camera the perfect compromise for their needs. By contrast, Red One promises to be exactly what those who don't have access to large capital, who yet still aspire to create highly artistic cinema have yearned for. Red One is of course not perfect but the imperfections are not so much due to the choice of what market it aims to compete, but rather they are chronological, technological, monetary, or practical limitations. The worst aspect of the Scarlet announcement for me is that it is the signal that Red is going to stop focusing as much on its core audience, which can only come at this core's expense. All the same, I am still saving as fast as I can to purchase a Red One and the needed accessories.
