Scarlet gets injured straddling two sides of the fence

[Bing Bailey]

hell buy a scarlet, some accessories and 5k for a decent light kit and you'll be rockin for 10k

 

[Buck Forester]

However, I guess that as a viewer of your potential kind of footage that I would probably like the HV20 or HV30 (3 megapixels BTW) or something similar just about as well as with the Scarlet. You can get crisp, clear, beautiful footage with these Canon's or similar cameras, and they will be even better and cheaper next year when Scarlet comes out. They are smaller and lighter than Scarlet, run on cheap and plentiful tape and will be cheaper to replace if your camera falls in the water.

How much better do you think that this type of footage will be with the Scarlet?

Fair question. I would say working with 3K is better than 1080 in terms of resolution. I want as many options as possible with my footage, including the possibility of creating footage that may be broadcast on National Geographic HD, or Discovery HD, or Tavel Channel HD, etc. I don't think the Canon HV20 (or the Sony HC9 I have now) is up to the resolution standards for high-def broadcast on these channels. I'm a photographer and I'm familiar with RAW and the post-editing options it provides. I obviously haven't seen any footage side-by-side (Scarlet vs HV20), but merely looking at the specs I think it's fairly safe to say the Scarlet footage will be el mucho grandier-o than any cameras in that el range-o. It just seems like it'll be a fantastic little camera that will provide "professional" (there's that word again!) results in terms of specs (professional content is obviously not up to the camera itself, ha!). Hey, I just think it's a great tool and I'm excited about it for the type of shooting I plan on doing. I doubt Universal Studios will use it for Spiderman 5 or anything, unless as a crash cam or a Spidey Cam, but I don't think that's Jim's target market with this camera. Who knows.

 

[Tom Lowe]

the cheapest 2/3 sensor camera on the market right now is about 40k. so you're getting this , plus great glass, plus redcode raw , 120fps with 180 burst. wifi remote, brand new sensor with better DR and it records to cheap CF Cards for $3k. you must be nuts. attack of the clones was shot on a 2/3 sensor and that looked pretty damn good. pity bout the crap story but it did look great

If you're happy with it, cool.

Some of us have some other suggestions because we'd like to see more capabilities, even if it costs more. Hopefully you're cool with that, too.

Some people are happy with the current specs, others are not. Life goes on.

BTW, Attack of the Clones was shot on $100,000 Panny lenses, 4:4:4....etc.

 

[Many Moosh]

Those looking to use the scarlet for broadcasting shouldn't even be looking at scarlet. It's written right in the motto "Digital Cinema Camera". And I emphasize the cinema part. If your looking to use the scarlet for broadcasting, well more power to you, but that's not what it's built for. However, I can guarantee you, if you decide to use it for broadcasting or cinema, you will not find any camera with better feature/price ratio.

Everyone one would love have more capabilities, but there comes a point when adding on more features tips the equilibrium against your favor. In other words, what your really doing is just throwing your money away for capabilities that won't do anything for you. Look at the fundamentals, things like raw footage, 3k, image/color sampling, pro audio, manual features, etc, etc.

 

[robbo]

Those looking to use the scarlet for broadcasting shouldn't even be looking at scarlet. It's written right in the motto "Digital Cinema Camera". And I emphasize the cinema part. If your looking to use the scarlet for broadcasting, well more power to you, but that's not what it's built for. I can guarantee you, that for this price range you will not find a cinema camera with better specs, either for cinema or broadcasting.

The last sentence I totally agree with.

The first bit - well christ, I hope someone told Gibby.

I'll say it again, it's about options.

 

[brandon herman]

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).

 

[MADMEDIA]

Hey I just saw Scarlet up close @ NAB and I'm pumped.
It's another great new tool. I see many practical applications especially in motor sports and action sports cinematography. I think they thought it out pretty well.

The 5K Epic looks to be a step even further than Red, which is cool.
I think it's great that they are pushing the envelope on resolution.
Nice one guys.

 

[Many Moosh]

All I'm gonna say is AMEN bhtdmc. Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[Mike Bozulich]

If you're happy with it, cool.

Some of us have some other suggestions because we'd like to see more capabilities, even if it costs more. Hopefully you're cool with that, too.

So let me get this straight. You think I should be cool with them removing the lens and charging me more for the camera? Oh yeah, sign me up! :blink:

Maybe Jim can appease you guys buy offering another camera (Scarlet+ ?) that has no lens and costs thousands of dollars more. But for those of us who can't afford it, please let Scarlet be as is.

I'm not trying to be mean, but please see this from the other side. Not all of us can afford a Red One like yourself. Scarlet simply blows every other camera in its price range out of the water, and it's something I can afford. Bumping the price up by thousands of dollars and making me buy expensive glass puts the camera out of my reach.

 

[Many Moosh]

Boz,

I'm with you man. Pro glass is out of the reach for most of the people on this board asking for interchangeable lens. Most people don't know that it cost thousands of dollars just for A SINGLE lens. If you want a set, which you should have your easily looking to spend in the tens of thousands.

Noobies, listen to BOZ

 

[robbo]

That's it right there - we need two of them.

Everybody happy ? - I would be.

Lens, especially the big stuff - I've always rented, don't need to own them. fwiw.

 

[Tom Lowe]

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.

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??

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

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?

 

[Aiden Cornwell]

If you're happy with it, cool.

Some of us have some other suggestions because we'd like to see more capabilities, even if it costs more. Hopefully you're cool with that, too.

Some people are happy with the current specs, others are not. Life goes on.

BTW, Attack of the Clones was shot on $100,000 Panny lenses, 4:4:4....etc.

Tom you are asking for a redone at 1/2 price. 35mm sencor interchangeable lens. (not picking on you I see many Reduser's who were hoping for the same thing you were) Enjoy your Red One. If I could justify the cost of a Red One I would go for it but I

With Scarlet Red is not only going after people like myself who really want the raw power of Red but also the schools. Just think about how many film schools will be able to offer their students more hands on training with industry equipment and working with 2k and 3k green screen footage.

Then you have all of the extreme sports that are going to be going hardcore for this camera.

Over all I am just so pumped for this Camera and think Red made the right decision with going with a low price point of 3k over going after the 5-7k market which to be honest is more for ENG fast turnaround. I do not see Scarlet as being good for that.

 

[KeithHill]

Yeah, I agree with you to Boz. Plus, there will be plenty of thirdparty development for something like Scarlet. Letus Extreme adaptors and I'm sure much more. If someone will need to go to the next level with lenses there will be options I'm sure.

 

[Aiden Cornwell]

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?

I hope you do the more Reds out there the better.
I can see Canon and Sony CEO's now :ranting2:

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

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).

Agree with you on every view.

I very much agree with this and your other points. 3K is not even a format.

3k not even a format? What you mean?

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.

If Scarlet had all you wanted, people would start reasoning like this:

1) I can put PRO Cine Lenses on a Scarlet, just like the Red One.
2) I can record RAW, just like Red One.
3) I don't have 4k, but hey! I have 3k!
4) Scarlet has the same sensor as the Red One!

Conclusion: Why stupid people are paying 10k more for Red One?

It'd be game over for the Red One.

 

[Tom Lowe]

If Scarlet had all you wanted, people would start reasoning like this:

1) I can put PRO Cine Lenses on a Scarlet, just like the Red One.
2) I can record RAW, just like Red One.
3) I don't have 4k, but hey! I have 3k!
4) Scarlet has the same sensor as the Red One!

Conclusion: Why stupid people are paying 10k more for Red One?

It'd be game over for the Red One.

Not putting out a better camera as technology advances because you don't want to compete with your own cameras is how Sony and other major corporations operate. Why hold back what is possible?

If a market-busting "prosumer" Red mini could be put out with 2K RAW and a 35mm-size sensor that can use cine lenses, why not do it? That's what 99% of indie cinema shooters really want and have been dreaming of. I don't think it would cost a lot more than the specs already announced for Scarlet. The sensor would cost more, but you save on the fixed lens by selling it body only. 2K @ 60fps is more than enough for indie cinema shooters. Such a camera would annihilate all of Panasonic and Sony's offerings.

Plus Red One would still have the 4K>2K advantage.

For all we know, Jim is already working on such a camera.

 

[redman]

current specs $3000
Same specs with interchangeable mount $?.

Two models would probably satisfy most needs.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Not putting out a better camera as technology advances because you don't want to compete with your own cameras is how Sony and other major corporations operate. Why hold back what is possible?

If a market-busting "prosumer" Red mini could be put out with 2K RAW and a 35mm-size sensor that can use cine lenses, why not do it? That's what 99% of indie cinema shooters really want and have been dreaming of. I don't think it would cost a lot more than the specs already announced for Scarlet. The sensor would cost more, but you save on the fixed lens by selling it body only. 2K @ 60fps is more than enough for indie cinema shooters. Such a camera would annihilate all of Panasonic and Sony's offerings.

Plus Red One would still have the 4K>2K advantage.

For all we know, Jim is already working on such a camera.

But RED is barely out!

I agree with you, Jim must have great plans.
And I expect this kind of cam soon, but now is just not the right time.

Maybe on "early 2009" when Scarlet comes out, they'll announce a RED Mini or something, costing 10k with S16 sensor and interchangeable lenses.

Releasing this camera now would prematurely kill RED.

And if you stop and think about it, it can actually make sense:

King of the hill EPIC costing 40k doing 5K with S35 sensor.
Some new RED costing 10k doing 4K with S16 sensor.
Scarlet with fixed lenses doing 3k with 2/3 sensor.

Now that' s a sweet line up.

 

[Tom Lowe]

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? Red One is upgradeable, so it too will advance. Jannard has already said a sensor upgrade is on the way. It's not like Red One will stand still while a Red mini came out with 2K/35mm.

There is such a huge gap right now in prosumer cinema cameras that it baffles me no one has jumped in to fill it = 2K 35mm with overcranking. That's what most low budget indie shooters are dying for. And RAW makes it even better.