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 to sell for under $3,000 USD?

why not just do a 35mm sized sensor so regular lenses can be used?

it's interesting but the downside is that people will be trying to put 35mm adapters on it, so why not just go full sensor size from day one?

kudos on the framerates though.
 
Sinoevil, let me give you an example of how much interchangeable lenses cost.

Canon manufacturers four pro-level HDV cameras.

The one with non-interchangeable lenses was $3,999. The professional version of that camera, with XLRs and such, was $4,999. The pro version with interchangeable lenses was $8,999.

They rejiggered their product line recently and now the cheapest interchangeable lens version is $5,999. I think that's roughly equivalent to the $3,999 model plus interchangeable lenses, while the new $7,999 model is similar to the $4,999 model with an interchangeable lens.

I think you can see from this that interchangeable lenses are a very expensive camera feature. As extra evidence, consider the cost of the "superzoom" point and shoot camera (about $300-400) versus the cheapest DSLR ($550-650 with kit lens).

Another problem with interchangeable lenses is size and weight. I don't think you could make a camera with as attractive (read: small, light) a form factor as Scarlet and still have interchangeable lenses. When many thought RED would introduce an Interchangeable lens Scarlet, there was a lot about whether you could fit the camera in your pocket with its lens. Clearly this is not feasible if you have interchangeable lenses of the size I've seen in RED ONE. Many of those lenses would not fit in a backpack, let alone a pocket! If you wanted to use smaller lenses, you would have to design a completely different range of lenses, and I think RED's staff has too much on their plate anyway.

In short, for the camera RED wanted to make, I think that even with an unlimited budget in terms of money, the budget in terms of size and weight mandated non-interchangeable lenses.

I've noticed talk on here that seems very similar to criticisms of the Macbook Air. People love the Air so much that they wish it had features they needed, like extra ports or interchangeable batteries, that would have added huge amounts of size and weight to it, making it an inferior product for its actual audience. I think both Steve Jobs and Jim Jannard should stick to their guns and produce the product that does not conflict with their existing product lines, and expands the market for their wonderful creations.

(Of course I have a conflict of interest: I think I can afford Scarlet when it comes out, but I suspect I could not afford interchangeable lens Scarlet. Furthermore, I want an effective autofocus system and that seems unlikely to be in a interchangeable lens Scarlet either.)

I'm not a big-time expert like many of you, so any counter-arguments against this would be welcome. If I'm wrong, I'd like to hear about it and understand why.

D
 
Tom said:
why not just do a 35mm sized sensor so regular lenses can be used?
Click to expand...

Because then they'd more or less be selling a Red One at a $13,000 discount.

Jannard said Scarlet wasn't going to compete with One - this is how. However, what it will do is get Redcode and Red hardware into the hands of microbudgeters, news crews, film schools, hobbyists, etc.
 
RidleyGriff said:
Because then they'd more or less be selling a Red One at a $13,000 discount.

Jannard said Scarlet wasn't going to compete with One - this is how. However, what it will do is get Redcode and Red hardware into the hands of microbudgeters, news crews, film schools, hobbyists, etc.
Click to expand...

It will also prompt 90% of the non-ENG users to slap on a 35mm adapter on it, so why not cut the middleman out and have the sensor be 35mm-size from the getgo? This is the ONE thing Sony, Panasonic, Canon... the one thing EVERYONE has failed to do = produce a prosumer camera with a 35mm-size chip. Adapters reduce image quality. The reason you mentioned sounds like something Sony would do, not Jim. Holding back technology because you're afraid to compete with yourself seems lame to me, personally. Some RED owners may bitch if Scarlet had a 35mm sensor, but oh well. Life goes on, and technology progresses.

Anyway, with Epic coming out, the gap between scarlet and epic is large enough not to worry too much about that.
 
Shooting Redcode RAW for $3000 is insane. Heck, I almost spent half of that on an HV20 last year. The Flash XDR costs $5000 for crying out loud and that's just a recording device!
 
Cameras with interchangeable lenses are $4-5K more than their fixed-lens counterparts not because it technically cost that much more to engineer, but because consumers are paying for the perceived value of interchangeable lenses.

I'm a consultant and on some projects if I charge with an hourly rate I'd end up charging $350 when in reality the job is worth $3,500 to the customer. So sometimes you charge what the end result is worth.

The interchangeable and fixed lens camera bodies probably cost the same to manufacture - subtract the cost of the glass and add the cost of the body modifications. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am ....

So that being said, Red could decide to make the mods and charge a $500 premium for the "luxury" of interchangeability - which I think is worth it!
 
Perhaps 2009 will be the birth of a product line shift- EPIC fills the place that we hold for RED ONE now, RED ONE gets 7-10 thousand dollars cheaper (which is really Scarlet + Interchangeable lenses with the added bonus of slightly more resolution...), and SCARLET is the hv20 for professionals. The real goal being that the RAW workflow catches on and we can all benefit in post. Sounds nice ehhh?

edit

in fact this is the only way that Jim's promise of a full value trade in for RED ONE bodies can make any sense to me...
 
you're all forgetting something here. besides 35mm dof the main reason we want 35mm lenses is they are great quality. well I think RED is probably going to put an amazingly quality lens on this camera. there is greater DOF with a 2/3 sensor , no its not 35mm but its about the same as 16mm. nobody said much about dof on attack of the clones and that was done with 2/3 sensor and digital lenses.

Scarlet while it may not have absolutely everything you wished is freaking amazing.

a 2/3 sensor that does 3k up to 100MB redcode raw , 1-120fps to compact flash with a custom made RED Digital fixed lens and it should take a lot of the RED accessories and it'll actually be useful for ENG , Sports , Documentary and other places were you really don't want 35mm DOF. these will be snapped up by broadcasters , wedding videographers , documentary guys , anybody shooting non narrative and even indie film makers. even now we're having to deal with crap 8bit video that we can't push very far in colour correction or effects. now we're going to the creme de la creme for $3k

even though I'm going to go for the RED ONE I'll still probably pick up scarlet as a B CAM or for high end BTS stuff.
 
Something that is really bugging me now is that the lens is only 8x. This cam is pretty much everything I want except for the short lens. That almost completely kills it for me.
 
The sensor is 2/3". Wouldn't it take a big lens for significant zooming? Besides, there doesn't seem to be a quality long zoom that isn't ridiculously priced, and the 8x lens will already be enough magnification to be close to having purple fringing/ca/distortion.
 
Dory Breaux said:
Something that is really bugging me now is that the lens is only 8x. This cam is pretty much everything I want except for the short lens. That almost completely kills it for me.
Click to expand...

"Specifications, delivery dates, and design are subject to change....count on it"

-RED Brochure from NAB 2008
 
Dory Breaux said:
Something that is really bugging me now is that the lens is only 8x. This cam is pretty much everything I want except for the short lens. That almost completely kills it for me.
Click to expand...

it's 3k. you can always "zoom in" a bit in post, if you really need to.

if it was 2k with a 10x zoom, would that be better?
 
As someone who cannot afford a RED (yet...) I pesonally appreciate Scarlet the way it is.

The price is right and the features are plenty. I can say regardless of what Sony or Panasonic release I would still buy Scarlet. It does not matter if it is a 2/3" chip, or 8x zoom.

The point is I switch it on and start filming in 3K! I had a look at the EX3 and it looks like a squished turd or something. It was a weird shape almost ripping a Canon XL2 off, but it looks horrid. Scarlet produces a better resolution image, higher frame rates and a way way way cooler design.

It has my vote the way it is. Especially the price, I would keep it as is. :-)

But things could change on the camera....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top