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 S35 is now...

Funny. I always thought the Scarlet 2/3's closest competition was Sony's F23.
 
Sorry to play devil's advocate.... but the AF100 is not built to compete with RED at all...... they have the 4/3 standard and it was a clear and obvious move to make a 4/3 camcorder.

If RED didn't exist, the AF100 would still be launched... on the back of the huge success of the DSLR movement. It was just a blindly obvious move by Panasonic.

People on here might not like it, but the 5DII, not RED, changed everything in the sub $10k market and paved the way for these large sensor cameras.

The F3 on the other hand seems more of a step to battling the RED lineup.
 
Last edited:
I agree with most of what Jim Retar says.

That being said, I'm still a little disappointed that there's gonna be a Scarlet (S35) price jump. Not because it isn't worth it, but because I knew how much of a steal it was originally... in fact, when the S35 was <$10Gs, I couldn't help but think that it would cannibalize a lot of Epic sales (Why get another Epic for b-cam, when you could get 2 or 3 S35 scarlets for the same price?)

As for raw; raw is great if you have time and/or money... and knowledge. Without those things it'll quickly become a rendering burden for indies. The amount of people who've been saving for, and can still only barely afford, Scarlets are going to be in for a rude awakening when their 2008 iMacs can barely handle the footage. RR's are another $5000; HDD space isn't expansive, but when we're talking terabytes worth, it isn't cheap either... I think a lot of people will be biting off a little more than they can chew especially since DSLRs (and these large sensor camcorders) are comparatively drag-and-drop.

In other words, RED is not a platform for the masses (hence the identity shift back to "professional").
 
The AF-100 has the upper-hand in terms of sensor size, and that is a rather qualitative statement. When the camera was first released, I recall a significant of number of people turning from excitement, to confusion, to anger, and then to not caring about the camera at all when they learned about the implications of the 4/3" sensor - bigger, heavier lenses, and a lack of long servo zooms. Similarly, there are quite a number of people who feel quite comfortable shooting ~16mm and are sure that it can provide beautiful and "film-life" results. That has been shown here, and it has been shown elsewhere (think Academy Awards) as well.

Everything else - color reproduction, spatial resolution, skew/wobble/jello, frame rates, 3D compatibility, codec choice, dynamic range, I/O capability, and general look and feel (hello RG2 and RLF) of the footage goes to the 2/3" Scarlet. Many will consider the option of the fixed lens a great benefit.

So if you want to look at it as "in competition" with other cameras that cost half as much or five times as much (which is pretty much an exercise in futility), I believe it will pretty much hold just about everything over on most, up to and probably including the F23. Which is so expensive I don't care about how much it costs.

--

That being said, if budget is a serious concern, there are - as I see it - two real options.

1) Compromise. Give up some magic sauce and remain at one's current budget.

2) Save. Give up some little luxuries now and grow the budget to encompass what one really wants/needs.

--

I feel like this statement will probably skirt the lines of acceptable for this forum, but I believe that the DSLR movement created a number of hopes and dreams which won't be realized for some time or at all. People were looking for the next batch of DSLRs or large sensor cameras to have vastly increased performance capabilities and seriously professional quality at a price point that remained within +15% to +25% of the cost. They wanted $200,000 cameras for $5,000. It's a nice wish, but that's not going to happen right now.

And I genuinely feel that if anyone is pretty much going to give away the farm and just offer truly great technology and professional quality at the lowest reasonable price, it will be RED.
 
Jim Retar said:
Sorry to play devil's advocate.... but the AF100 is not built to compete with RED at all...... they have the 4/3 standard and it was a clear and obvious move to make a 4/3 camcorder.

If RED didn't exist, the AF100 would still be launched... on the back of the huge success of the DSLR movement. It was just a blindly obvious move by Panasonic.

People on here might not like it, but the 5DII, not RED, changed everything in the sub $10k market and paved the way for these large sensor cameras.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I thought Panasonic would be the first to make this move when the GH1 came out. Panasonic has a strong history of catering to the low end indie filmmaker crowd.

Red entered the market first with a mid-price range pro camera system aspiring to perform beyond the limitations of available alternatives with a unique aesthetic and work flow model. They have very successfully established their own market at this level. Epics and Scarlet will still it seems fall across the high end of the sub $10k market to the upper mid-range pro market as far as pricing goes. Probably a great market niche for RED to fill without compromising their performance aspirations.
The buyer's clear choice will be between HD video in one form or another vs the demands as well as image quality and creative flexibility of a true digital raw format work flow.
 
...looking forward to the update. Red Leader is supposed to update this week still..


That and, the big movie business will almost always need more resolution, which is what EPIC is all about. But the EPIClite will probably cater to the indie documentary people due to the low-light conditions in which it can function awesomely.
 
I've been following the 'news' and runours ever since the Scarlet was first announced.

A a documentary film-maker and broadcast news guy, all I wanted was a camera, that I could be hand held, offered superb film like quality, and that quality still images could be taken from.

At least I think that was the idea thrown out at NAB all those years ago.

It's not a price point thing. I've used the Red One many times. We use it for Music Video and Film production. But it's not a camera that one can use, easily, in a run-and-gun situation.

For a few of us, it's not a price point thing.

The appeal of the Red Scarlet for me, was the original spec and idea of being able to have a DSLR size camera that could provide still image quality while shooting video at the same time.

While the Scarlet S35 may have changed its name, there are still a few of us who would like a camera along the lines of what the Scarlet was originally expected to do.

Whomever gets there first, Canon, Nikon, Sony or Panasonic, or maybe even Red, will capture another market IMHO.

Keith
 
Jannard said:
The entire RED program is now dedicated to professionals, including those that aspire to become professionals. It is all about us doing our best effort and putting out the best equipment we can conceive. Scarlet 2/3" has grown into a full professional system. We also have ideas for a future Scarlet that fits well with this category.

Changing Scarlet S35 to an EPIC name is only right. It is entirely based on the EPIC S35. Many people can't afford an EPIC-X and there are features in that camera that are expensive to produce and not needed by everyone... namely frame rates and data rates (plus a few others). We probably should have done this from the beginning, but we had no idea what we were doing 3 years ago.

Jim
Click to expand...

It is good to see that you are addressing the competition and overlapped features, between the Epic and scarlet 35's. As far as a future long term format (this was called forward looking when I first mentioned it years ago, but now is coming upon us) 3K is dated. At the lower end (sub $10k) monitors go to 2560 pixels, and sub $500 cameras are coming with 4mp video to match this. Within 2 years there is likely to be SHD versions (even 3D at 60fps a second if they make a beefy chip based on this technology (though they are not the only competition). I hear that Panasonic is coming with a mainline consumer SHD Plasma next year.

When I first suggested making a camera very much like the Scarlet, alongside a camera pretty much like the red, back around 2004-2006, it was a short term thing for the next couple of years, before migration to to a SHD version, I think in 2009, to stay well ahead of where the competition was or wanted to go (maintaining brand prestige and competition etc) with the high end camera going higher that 4K. Of course the recording format and features, I think were to be technically simpler to keep the price down. Within 12-18 months Sony came to the table with a 6mp consumer sensor that did 60fps (also used in a consumer stills camera that burst the full rate). Since then they have threatened to dump a shd camera on the market, but I don't think they want to threaten their own markets. They, and Canon, are still there waiting to release SHD cameras, and this has been one thing behind my requests for 4K. Though, even if the 2/3rds was 2K, I would still request 4K+ stills.

One thing I have been saying for years, bigger formats tend to produce better images. This is simply because the extremes of a larger lens are wider spaced and sees further around objects and gives a better rendition of closer objects then the bulge you get from small formats with small lens. Some people think that 2/3rds is a substitute for 35mm, but it is not. It is a shame we wont be getting a 4/3rds 4K fixed (with newer shorter lens technology). So a optical DOF adapter (optical based to allow for detail) might be the only option for 2/rds owners.

As far aiming the cameras at professional, that is good. I hope that includes the lower end of the professional video market (and the prosumers that want to shoot like a professional) as they are much of the market.


Thanks.
 
Jannard said:
Everything going forward will have HDRx™. That is one of the things that has caused some last minute scrambling and price increase.

Jim
Click to expand...

How come Jim, is it going to 16bit+? Cheap sensors have had high latitude modes for years, and there is a cheap work around (without redesigning the senor pixel) by rapid double exposures that could fit in 24-50fps frames.
 
Somebody mentioned a revolt over at scarlet user, but I have lost the post to respond to. I can say that is was a sad day that scarlet user opened up and they closed and lost the active scarlet threads here. I avoided the scarlet user website a while because trouble makers moved over there and were dominating the site.
 
Can't wait for the EPIC-S update... It's been almost two weeks now... :-)

I secretly hope that the brain shouldn't be more than $14,000. Ad the Pro I/O for about $3,000 and you get what could be called a "RED ONE V2". I was in love with the $17,500 price of the original M sensor R1 body. Always thought that was a magical price.
 
Van Din said:
That would be twice the original price as announced though. Not fair. If confirmed, many will be out.
Click to expand...
Jannard said:
The features have changed as has the price. I'll update in the next two weeks.

Jim
Click to expand...
$14,000 for the EPIC-S brain is pure speculation based on Jim's words. In fact, it could be the same old price ($8,000 with HDRx) or just a little more. We'll have to wait for Jim's update...

But if the EPIC-S is going to be more expensive than $14,000 I would seriously consider the EPIC-X for $28,000.
 
Stefan Antonescu said:
$14,000 for the EPIC-S brain is pure speculation based on Jim's words. In fact, it could be the same old price ($8,000 with HDRx™™) or just a little more. We'll have to wait for Jim's update...

But if the EPIC-S is going to be more expensive than $14,000 I would seriously consider the EPIC-X for $28,000.
Click to expand...


IF they could make it between $8K and $14K ($12K would be very nice to me:001_rolleyes:) that would make an incredibly agressive price tag compared to the other camera makers.

For me, and pure speculation, the features would be :
- HDRx
- 3 or 4K (what's the point if it is 5K as the big sister Epic X, plus they already have 4K MX sensors...)
- 1-120 fps (2K, hoping 3K) and 1-30 (4K)
- lower maximum bit rate (let's say that Epic X could have one more high bit rate option)
- CF module integrated instead of SSD (IF they don't decide to put SSD everywhere, which would be cool ^^)

But that's just speculation. Maybe we will discover that in fact it has a module to drive a Ferrari with the aperture ring and to run a Nespresso Machine while hitting record...:devil:
 
12K is still high. 7K was the initial target. No reason for being optimistic.
 
Bastien Tribalat said:
IF they could make it between $8K and $14K ($12K would be very nice to me:001_rolleyes:) that would make an incredibly agressive price tag compared to the other camera makers.

For me, and pure speculation, the features would be :
- HDRx™™™™
- 3 or 4K (what's the point if it is 5K as the big sister Epic X, plus they already have 4K MX sensors...)
- 1-120 fps (2K, hoping 3K) and 1-30 (4K)
- lower maximum bit rate (let's say that Epic X could have one more high bit rate option)
- CF module integrated instead of SSD (IF they don't decide to put SSD everywhere, which would be cool ^^)

But that's just speculation. Maybe we will discover that in fact it has a module to drive a Ferrari with the aperture ring and to run a Nespresso Machine while hitting record...:devil:
Click to expand...
I think that the price increase would cover a few things like :

- EPIC body. Which has a better cooling system.
- EPIC-S being made in the US just like the EPIC-X.
- More features.

Don't know what new features Jim will come up with but it definitely means more features. "The features have changed as has the price" clearly means more features that cost more money.

That being said I would speculate on the following EPIC-S brain :

- HDRx. It's obviously a feature that every Scarlet and EPIC will have.
- 5K. 1-60 fps.
- SSD Module included.
- $14,000.

5K. 30 fps for the EPIC-S seems unrealistic. Both Scarlet (3K) and EPIC-X (5K) will have 120 fps...

Just my 2 cents.
 
Stefan Antonescu said:
I think that the price increase would cover a few things like :

- EPIC body. Which has a better cooling system.
- EPIC-S being made in the US just like the EPIC-X.
Click to expand...
Bigger size and more weight. Manufacturing in Asia would mean better prices. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top