I've followed the Red story and conversations on Reduser for many months. This is my first post.
First let me say that I think Red is a unique company, doing amazing things. My hope is that Red will continue to make groundbreaking imaging technology and codecs to suit a variety of needs and users.
I don't think a debate about what constitutes "professional" is helpful in this regard. In the world I'm most familiar with, documentary, technical minimum imaging standards are defined by the broad- or cable-caster, say Discovery or the BBC, and what constitutes "professional" will undoubtedly be a moving target as technology advances.
As for the dimensions of the sensor, this debate is even more beside the point--it's horses for courses. 2/3" sensors have greater depth of field and require physically smaller lenses than s35, especially for long lenses. The tradeoff is a less "cinematic" look than s35 (at most focal lengths). Thus for documentary, wildlife, action/sports, and shoots with small crews, a 2/3" camera is a much more suitable choice than s35. The cost of the camera or some notion of what's "professional" is beside the point.
Would I like a camera that records 4k rather than 3k? Sure. But for my work, having to use a s35 sensor creates headaches and may require another crew member just to pull focus. This is not how I'd planned to shoot an upcoming documentary.
My hope is that Red will produce great cameras in a variety of shapes and sizes to suit a variety of "professional" needs. These might range from lipstick/helmet cameras (with say 1/2" sensors) to IMAX--all sharing the "secret sauce" of Red's codec.
After all the hard work that Red put into the 2/3" Scarlet (including the fixed lens, which seemed to have great potential), I hope some variant of this camera sees the light of day in the not-too-distant future. It would define its own market segment.
First let me say that I think Red is a unique company, doing amazing things. My hope is that Red will continue to make groundbreaking imaging technology and codecs to suit a variety of needs and users.
I don't think a debate about what constitutes "professional" is helpful in this regard. In the world I'm most familiar with, documentary, technical minimum imaging standards are defined by the broad- or cable-caster, say Discovery or the BBC, and what constitutes "professional" will undoubtedly be a moving target as technology advances.
As for the dimensions of the sensor, this debate is even more beside the point--it's horses for courses. 2/3" sensors have greater depth of field and require physically smaller lenses than s35, especially for long lenses. The tradeoff is a less "cinematic" look than s35 (at most focal lengths). Thus for documentary, wildlife, action/sports, and shoots with small crews, a 2/3" camera is a much more suitable choice than s35. The cost of the camera or some notion of what's "professional" is beside the point.
Would I like a camera that records 4k rather than 3k? Sure. But for my work, having to use a s35 sensor creates headaches and may require another crew member just to pull focus. This is not how I'd planned to shoot an upcoming documentary.
My hope is that Red will produce great cameras in a variety of shapes and sizes to suit a variety of "professional" needs. These might range from lipstick/helmet cameras (with say 1/2" sensors) to IMAX--all sharing the "secret sauce" of Red's codec.
After all the hard work that Red put into the 2/3" Scarlet (including the fixed lens, which seemed to have great potential), I hope some variant of this camera sees the light of day in the not-too-distant future. It would define its own market segment.
