Space between Scarlet and RED ONE

[mralmostpopular]

I think the biggest concern is the lens. Nobody knows what it's going to look like. You could have all the pixels in the world, but if you've got a bad lens, it's always going to look bad.

Allowing people to use 16mm lenses would be a great solution (there are a lot of nice 16mm lenses). However, it is understandable why they want a fixed lens. The question is, how is it going to look. Is this camera going to be a video camera or a cine camera?

I hear a lot of people comparing the Scarlett to the HV20, as if it would be reasonable for the Scarlett to have the same look as the HV20, except 3K. However, RED is supposed to be the leader in this kind of technology. The RED One is revolutionary, both for technology and certainly for price. We should be expecting the same from the Scarlett.

Forget the size for a moment. If all that we're going to be paying for is the 3K size, then Scarlett is only marginally revolutionary. However, if the image of the Scarlett is going to be similar to using a professional camera (i.e. NOT a prosumer camera), then I think we'll have something to really talk about here. Until we can start seeing some images (even if it's just some stills), we really don't know if this camera is going to be as great as some are hoping that it will be.

 

[kmikami]

1) full 35mm sensor
2) an interchangeable lens mount (Canon, Nikon, etc...)
3) variable frame rates (with time-laps option) lets say 1~120
4) compatible with most RED accessories
5) priced between $ 5~10K USD (with lens mount and basic accessories - couple of batteries, charger, LCD - no lens)

Requirements 1 - 4 are already filled by the Red One. The only thing you have changed is the price. So what do you propose to leave off from the Red One to shave an extra $10-15k off of the price?

I think the most likely possibility to hope for is a Red One price drop a couple of years down the line after Scarlet and Epic have been released.

 

[Peter Majtan]

I think the biggest concern is the lens. Nobody knows what it's going to look like. You could have all the pixels in the world, but if you've got a bad lens, it's always going to look bad.

Allowing people to use 16mm lenses would be a great solution (there are a lot of nice 16mm lenses). However, it is understandable why they want a fixed lens. The question is, how is it going to look. Is this camera going to be a video camera or a cine camera?

I hear a lot of people comparing the Scarlett to the HV20, as if it would be reasonable for the Scarlett to have the same look as the HV20, except 3K. However, RED is supposed to be the leader in this kind of technology. The RED One is revolutionary, both for technology and certainly for price. We should be expecting the same from the Scarlett.

Forget the size for a moment. If all that we're going to be paying for is the 3K size, then Scarlett is only marginally revolutionary. However, if the image of the Scarlett is going to be similar to using a professional camera (i.e. NOT a prosumer camera), then I think we'll have something to really talk about here. Until we can start seeing some images (even if it's just some stills), we really don't know if this camera is going to be as great as some are hoping that it will be.

I don't want to be rude, but seems like You are in a wrong thread. This thread is not about Scarlet, and certainly not about whether the choice of putting the fixed lens on it was right or wrong - there are plenty of threads dedicated to that...

This thread is about possible new camera that will fit between Scarlet and Red One.

Also - Scarlet is what it is - and it is revolutionary. Same way HV20 was, and I am not trying to compare the specs between the two. What we are looking for here is something what XL-H1 is to HV20, but for Scarlet. A bigger sister if I may. But not too big as to compete with Red One...

 

[Peter Majtan]

Requirements 1 - 4 are already filled by the Red One. The only thing you have changed is the price. So what do you propose to leave off from the Red One to shave an extra $10-15k off of the price?

I think the most likely possibility to hope for is a Red One price drop a couple of years down the line after Scarlet and Epic have been released.

Kmikami - please read all posts in this thread and You will realize that we are talking about 3K Scarlet's internals coupled with 35mm sensor (3K, not 4K like RED ONE) for bellow $10K - nothing like Red One, yet very realistic. More realistic that any possible price drop on RED ONE body. RED is even offering full $ 17500,- credit on the body for all EPIC buyers who buy RED ONE now. Any reduction in price is highly unlikely. Mind You - RED ONE is already priced so competitively that I don't even believe there is much room to go down with price. What they will do (most likely) is to upgrade it (for all new purchases after the release) to the new Mysterium X sensor and beef up the specs a bit...

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Requirements 1 - 4 are already filled by the Red One. The only thing you have changed is the price.

And that is why I repeat my question:

Wouldn't this future RED Mini have a S16-sized sensor?

What's the point of offering a cheaper RED One? Everyone would go for the cheaper and ONE would be out of market.

 

[Peter Majtan]

One more time for everyone:

35mm sensor at 3K (not 4K) reusing current Scarlet's internals...
It will have the specs of Scarlet, but the ability to use interchangeable lenses (which most of us already have - and something that Scarlet can't do due to the 2/3" sensor size).

Nothing like RED ONE. In fact it will be much closer to Scarlet then to RED ONE...


Doable and certainly wanted...

 

[Gordon JL]

Peter, why do you list variable FPS as an option? Have you heard that that doesn't exist on the Scarlet, or are you listing it just in case?

 

[Peter Majtan]

Peter, why do you list variable FPS as an option? Have you heard that that doesn't exist on the Scarlet, or are you listing it just in case?

I was just making point of things that matters to storytelling as such. Of course I am aware that little Scarlet can do 120 (burst 180) fps. That is why I am saying that all RED needs to do is to use the same internals from Scarlet and develop new 35 mm sensor with 3K resolution (to match the Scarlet's HW), that will allow us to use interchangeable lenses...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

RED came out with a 35mm-sensor digital cine camera for a quarter of the price of what everyone thought was possible... and now people want RED to make a 35mm-sensor camera for a quarter of the price of their RED ONE? RED has advanced the typical development cycle, but let's not get crazy here. Such a camera will arrive eventually (basically a DSLR that does cinema frame rates for under $10,000) but not for a couple of years.

Making basically a 3K version of the RED ONE and selling it for a third or half of the price does not make much sense financially for RED. You can say "but it's just a "35mm version of the Scarlet" but that suggests that the sensor is somehow one of the simpler and cheaper elements to a digital cine camera.

The subtext in some of these posts is "I can't afford a RED ONE but I want a RED ONE. I can afford a Scarlet but what I really want is a RED ONE. Why can't RED make me a Scarlet that is almost the same as a RED ONE so I can afford it?"

 

[Peter Majtan]

Making basically a 3K version of the RED ONE and selling it for a third or half of the price does not make much sense financially for RED. You can say "but it's just a "35mm version of the Scarlet" but that suggests that the sensor is somehow one of the simpler and cheaper elements to a digital cine camera.

Not the cheapest (I do know thing or two about sensor prices), but certainly the "only" missing link to allow the interchangeable lenses and therefore offer product that fits well into the gap between Scarlet and Red One.

Also is not like RED would have to reinvent the wheel. Cramping 5K into S35 is definitely a monstrous task. But "reducing" 4K to 3K is much simpler. You don't have to miniaturize any components and it is actually much cheaper to produce due the larger components (such a photosensors and electrical paths, etc...). As I've said before - doable...

The subtext in some of these posts is "I can't afford a RED ONE but I want a RED ONE. I can afford a Scarlet but what I really want is a RED ONE. Why can't RED make me a Scarlet that is almost the same as a RED ONE so I can afford it?"

This is not about whether one can or can't "afford" Red One. Frankly speaking we could afford it, but I can't justify it. Here in Mexico most clients still demand SD and few are "bravely" upgrading to HD (via HDV). It is not all about resolution. I would gladly forgo 4K for even 2K, if I can get 35mm sensor and interchangeable lenses. 2K for many is sufficient. Right now I can get two full sets of Canon XL-H1's (with the amazing 20x L lens and plenty of accessories) for the price of just the body of Red One.

I am not trying to compare the canons to reds. Just making point that not all markets are crazy about 4K. And I (as the Creative & Technical Director and principal DOP) have to make decision for our gear purchases. As much as I would love to have even EPIC (we all want the best) - the reality check tells me right now Canon. Especially since we are about to start shooting new TV series and we can't wait till EARLY 2009 (subject to change). By then the show will make enough money to buy few Scarlets and one or two Red Ones (if we can justify it then...). Affordability is a relative issue - do not pick on people...

 

[Todd Gilpin]

I was getting to the end of this thread to post, and low and behold David stepped in and basically stated my opinion. Rather well, too.

I've been reading these posts for almost a week now, and the general idea get from all of them is exactly what David says. I can't afford a Red One, so why doesn't Red make a Red One in my price range.

The specs you are asking for lead right back to the Red One. If this is not in your price range, that is something you have to work around.

Personally, I think that Scarlet is a nice move toward the low end of things for Red to make. And who knows, maybe a few years down the line they will come out with something in between. But for now it just seems like if you want interchangeable lenses, 35mm DOF, Red is making this camera already.

 

[Peter Majtan]

I was getting to the end of this thread to post, and low and behold David stepped in and basically stated my opinion. Rather well, too.

I've been reading these posts for almost a week now, and the general idea get from all of them is exactly what David says. I can't afford a Red One, so why doesn't Red make a Red One in my price range.

The specs you are asking for lead right back to the Red One. If this is not in your price range, that is something you have to work around.

Personally, I think that Scarlet is a nice move toward the low end of things for Red to make. And who knows, maybe a few years down the line they will come out with something in between. But for now it just seems like if you want interchangeable lenses, 35mm DOF, Red is making this camera already.

Just as many before You (including David) You have failed to actually read this thread from the beginning...

Personally I even believe 3K is overkill for Scarlet. And it will confuse many in adopting Scarlet. Size is not all that matters. I am going to make a new poll to prove my point. In the meantime please read this thread properly and then post Your opinion...

 

[Chris Kenny]

PS: With the above configs RED could reuse much of the stuff from Scarlet and the mounts from RED ONE. The only new thing they would have to develop is 3K 35mm Mysterium X. This should be quite easy. This new camera could be realistically out (or at east announced) at NAB 2009.

I seriously doubt it's much cheaper to make a 3K 35mm sensor than a 4K 35mm sensor. My guess is that the cost to do R&D and tool up to make another version of the sensor would dwarf any per-chip savings. So, what you're basically asking for here is a Red One with an SLR mount for half the price.

Shipping the lower-end pro camera with an SLR mount as the default is a pretty interesting idea. It makes a lot of sense, once Epic is in town, since the Epic will take a lot of the high-end customers, and a lot of the customers looking at the Red One will be the ones that can't afford PL glass. Of course, Red is already offering to install a Nikon mount at the factory, if you order one, so this isn't too far from what we've got now. Mostly it would be a change in marketing emphasis.

Cutting the price in half, though... now that this market is on computer industry time, I wouldn't believe it was totally impossible, for a camera announced at NAB 2009, to be delivered in 2010. By then, Red will have amortized initial R&D over a lot of cameras, and probably have some standardized electronics that are made in large quantities and used in multiple models.

But I also wouldn't consider it too likely.

Also, consider that if you're comparing buying a Red One + SLR mount now to buying a hypothetical similar camera in two years for half the price... if you can't generate enough income with the camera in two entire years to offset that price difference (under $10K), you're probably better off sticking with a camera cheap enough that its price can be justified entirely as indulgence of a hobby.

 

[Peter Majtan]

I seriously doubt it's much cheaper to make a 3K 35mm sensor than a 4K 35mm sensor.

It is. For few reasons:

A) Majority of the actual components are already designed for Mysterium and going "down" from 4K to 3K does not require (almost impossible) miniaturization - unlike in the case of stepping up to 5K (EPIC), which must have been gigantic task...

B) Having less "miniaturized" components require "less precise" (don't take that literarily) manufacturing process that yields less "rejects"...

C) For same reasons as (B) other fabrication plants (that could not "handle" manufacture of the more dense 4K and 5K sensors) could come to play and offer better prices...

The list could go on and on, but the point is that it is cheaper to make 35mm 3K sensor, than it is to make 35mm 4K sensor. Just ask any production supervisors (or engineers) at Canon, who makes many resolution variants of same sized sensors in both APS-C and 35mm (photo) ranges...

 

[donatello b]

"Originally Posted by Peter Majtan
1) full 35mm sensor
2) an interchangeable lens mount (Canon, Nikon, etc...)
3) variable frame rates (with time-laps option) lets say 1~120
4) compatible with most RED accessories
5) priced between $ 5~10K USD (with lens mount and basic accessories - couple of batteries, charger, LCD - no lens)"

bottom line is you're looking at a RED one .. you want the price to be between Scarlet & Red one ... IMO that would be a used Red in about 1 -1 1/2 years from now ...

seems to me that Red may bring other camera models to market ... for now it will be Epic & Scarlet .... so we're looking at least 2 - 2 1/2 years before another new model that would follow epic/scarlet would be available ....

 

[Peter Majtan]

"Originally Posted by Peter Majtan
1) full 35mm sensor
2) an interchangeable lens mount (Canon, Nikon, etc...)
3) variable frame rates (with time-laps option) lets say 1~120
4) compatible with most RED accessories
5) priced between $ 5~10K USD (with lens mount and basic accessories - couple of batteries, charger, LCD - no lens)"

bottom line is you're looking at a RED one .. you want the price to be between Scarlet & Red one ... IMO that would be a used Red in about 1 -1 1/2 years from now ...

seems to me that Red may bring other camera models to market ... for now it will be Epic & Scarlet .... so we're looking at least 2 - 2 1/2 years before another new model that would follow epic/scarlet would be available ....

Not another one (person who doesn't read the whole thread) please! :devil:
I am going to sleep - see Ya all tomorrow!

 

[Chris Kenny]

It is. For few reasons:

A) Majority of the actual components are already designed for Mysterium and going "down" from 4K to 3K does not require (almost impossible) miniaturization - unlike in the case of stepping up to 5K (EPIC), which must have been gigantic task...

B) Having less "miniaturized" components require "less precise" (don't take that literarily) manufacturing process that yields less "rejects"...

C) For same reasons as (B) other fabrication plants (that could not "handle" manufacture of the more dense 4K and 5K sensors) could come to play and offer better prices...

The list could go on and on, but the point is that it is cheaper to make 35mm 3K sensor, than it is to make 35mm 4K sensor. Just ask any production supervisors (or engineers) at Canon, who makes many resolution variants of same sized sensors in both APS-C and 35mm (photo) ranges...

Designing the new chip would have costs. Maybe not huge, but not nothing, which is what the current 4K design costs Red going forward, seeing as how they've already paid for it.

Setting up manufacturing for the new chip would have costs. Probably setting it up at a different fabrication plant would cost extra, even if it was a lower end plant, simply because of the cost of getting a new facility up to speed on everything and working out any bugs.

And, of course, there would be ongoing overhead associated with having two components instead of one: inventory management, oversight, testing, support, contract negotiations, R&D for next generation components, etc.

These concerns will all apply less to Canon, I would guess, because they sell in higher volume. It might make sense to go through all of this is you plan to sell hundreds of thousands of units of your lower end model. Canon sold over a million Rebel XT bodies. But the market for an $8-10K indie filmmaker's camera is nowhere near that large.

And even if none of the startup costs discussed above existed, it's still extremely unlikely that this 3K 35mm sensor would be so much cheaper that the price of the camera could be cut in half. I doubt the price of the camera could be cut in half if the material cost to manufacture a 4K Mysterium was $0. And if manufacturing a 4K Mysterium does cost anywhere close to $8750 (half the cost of a Red One), it's almost certainly because they're not making them in sufficiently large quantities, a problem which introducing another version of the chip would make worse, not better.

How many more cameras would Red sell if they offered a 3K version of the Red One that was all of $1500 cheaper? Practically none.

 

[rod bradley]

Going to sleep is a great idea! Happy dreaming of the half-price Red One.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Kmikami - please read all posts in this thread and You will realize that we are talking about 3K Scarlet's internals coupled with 35mm sensor (3K, not 4K like RED ONE) for bellow $10K - nothing like Red One, yet very realistic.

No, that's a lot like a RED ONE.

The second you put 35mm DOF on a camera I'm selling my RED and buying the cheaper one. I think what you've totally gotten wrong is that RED owners care about 4K. I don't think they ever did. No one asked for it. We all just wanted a 1080P camera that shot 35mm DOF. At $20k.

Did you know that there are already a BUNCH of RED ONE owners that have been BEGGING Jim to make RED ONE output 35mm DOF scaled to 1080P? At $17500 they want that. That's a lower spec than Scarlet...

RED's answer has been we would if we could BUT the computer we've got in there can't do it. My belief is they need to shoot 4K to get 35mm DOF. Scaling that down is processor intensive. 35mm DOF is about the size of the chip. End of story.

So... if they can't give us 35mm DOF at 1080P for $20,000 I think it's fair to say it's not happening for $6000 at 3K.

I'm surprised Scarlet is as cheap as it is. Unless I'm missing something its specs with the new X chip outclass RED when RED is in 3K mode other than the interchangeable lens.

To me the margin between RED and Scarlet is literally 35mm DOF and interchangeable lenses. That's it. You add those to Scarlet and you have a RED.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm completely sympathetic to the desire to own a 35mm-sensor digital cine camera for under $10,000 -- it would be lovely. I'd like to own an electric car for under $15,000....

And it may be possible in a few years (either the camera or the car). We saw the first 2/3" 24P HD camera come out eight years ago for $100,000 and now there are prosumer and consumer ones for a few thousand dollars (with 1/3" chips though). The idea of a 4K 35mm-sensor camera sold for under $20,000 (body only) seemed like an impossibility a few years ago. The RED ONE is still revolutionary today, especially considering the price.

So it certainly may be something coming down the road, the under $10,000 35mm-sized single-sensor camera, whether HD, 2K, 3K, or 4K. But considering the RED ONE is still in an early stage of distribution and Scarlet and Epic are coming next year, I'd say that unless a RED-like new company appears out of the blue, you aren't going to see this under $10,000 35mm-sized single sensor camera for a few years, so don't make plans for projects about to go into production next year around a non-existent product.

Of course, as someone else said, in a few years you may be able to get a used RED ONE for under $10,000...

Besides, some major productions have been shot on 2/3" sensor cameras (Star Wars prequels, Zodiak, Speed Racer, plus many TV series) so I don't see a problem with a low-budget feature or TV production going that route. 2.5-stops more depth of field is not the end of the world.