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 :)

STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT SCARLET SPECS!

I love the bigger sensor, love the dynamic range, all I ever wanted, but could not afford epic or red one. I just SOOO wish it had 120fps at 3k (thats all that I miss from the old scarlet design, 2/3rds was never very appealing to me, just the 120fps, and redcode). But...a worthy compromise. Plus the price increase, I have to really to sit down with the old checkbook and make some adjustments lol.
 
Robert Jackson said:
Heh...all the folks who keep saying, "Scarlet is AMAZING! They gave us MORE than we were expecting!" kind of crack me up. It's like waiting for a new compact roadster to be released and then the company releases a truck instead. You're like, "WOW! This has MUCH more storage room than the roadster we'd been hearing about!!!"

2/3" cameras are single-operator cameras. That's why ENG shooters use them. You can eyeball focus and things usually work out. 35mm cameras are cameras you use when you're shooting with a crew and have time to have your assistant help you set up focus marks and run your actors through the blocking so you can maintain critical focus. These are two completely different applications. The Scarlet was going to be Red's contribution to doc shooters. A large sensor just won't work for that. I mean, I get that it's easier and cheaper for Red to have one line of sensors and one range of cameras, but losing the 2/3" sensor isn't "amazing!"...it's a deal-breaker for those of us who aren't looking to shoot narrative fiction.
Click to expand...

Robert, I have an Epic. Sometimes I work with a crew, sometimes I work alone. Focus pulling is just part of the deal when you don't have a first. Like anything else, it just takes practice. Docs are often shot with shallow depth of field.

But none of that matters. Buy a Scarlet with a Canon mount and use autofocus. What could be easier?

My friendly response to those complaining about Scarlet specs is "Compared to what?" Red's cameras, specs, prices, capabilities, modularity, and upgradeability are truly revolutionary. What's not to like? If you can't afford one now, maybe there's one in your future.

Tim Eaton

Tim
 
Yep. Great camera at a great price. RED clearly made a decision about its identity as a Digital Cinema company. Scarlet-X is a dream for up-and coming narrative film makers. Also has stills capabilities and may replace a stills camera for some, but it is far from a complete stills replacement for everyone.

So like many who were looking for Scarlet Fixed, it's not what I need, but even then Scarlet Fixed would have needed some unreleased accessories or third party adapters to make it usable for EFP.

RED's decided on their customer base. As for me, I'm just a dabbler to RED, but I'll continue in my EFP and low budget doco world with more practical cameras.

Thanks for pushing the industry forward. Unfortunately, I think the industry's response will be more 4K S35+ cameras, not more RAW cameras, and certainly not a RAW 2/3, S16 or 4/3 camera. Good luck to RED and all those whose dreams came true last night. I'll keep an eye on developments from the sidelines. Maybe I'll rent one in the future when it's clear what the firmware will allow it to do, and what accessories do and don't work well with it.
 
Timothy Eaton said:
Robert, I have an Epic. Sometimes I work with a crew, sometimes I work alone. Focus pulling is just part of the deal when you don't have a first. Like anything else, it just takes practice. Docs are often shot with shallow depth of field.

But none of that matters. Buy a Scarlet with a Canon mount and use autofocus.
Click to expand...

Uh, I'm not interested in using autofocus. I come from a television ENG background. I'm used to pulling focus with 2/3" cameras, but I was hoping to shoot RAW with a 2/3" sensor. And I was also looking forward to the Compact Primes.

I get it, though. RED was going to have to do more R&D and a 2/3" line was a completely different line of cameras for them that they'd already plugged as being their kind of entry-level offering, so the margins weren't going to be as high. There just wasn't much motivation for them to spend a lot more money on R&D for a camera they were essentially peddling as a loss-leader. So they took existing technology, eliminated the Epic-S from their roadmap and gave us this. Which leaves me looking at Ikonoskop now as the only other "Digital 16mm" offering that shoots RAW.

It's a shame, though, because Scarlet with its range of shooting speeds and configurations was exactly the camera I'd been hoping someone would make.
 
Timothy Eaton said:
Robert, I have an Epic. Sometimes I work with a crew, sometimes I work alone. Focus pulling is just part of the deal when you don't have a first. Like anything else, it just takes practice. Docs are often shot with shallow depth of field.

But none of that matters. Buy a Scarlet with a Canon mount and use autofocus. What could be easier?

My friendly response to those complaining about Scarlet specs is "Compared to what?" Red's cameras, specs, prices, capabilities, modularity, and upgradeability are truly revolutionary. What's not to like? If you can't afford one now, maybe there's one in your future.

Tim Eaton

Tim
Click to expand...

If you own an Epic... means you do not know how we feel. To make work the Scarlet X, we need to spend around $ 20,000 for lens and storage... is a big difference that was announce..
 
Robert Jackson said:
Uh, I'm not interested in using autofocus. I come from a television ENG background. I'm used to pulling focus with 2/3" cameras, but I was hoping to shoot RAW with a 2/3" sensor. And I was also looking forward to the Compact Primes.

I get it, though. RED was going to have to do more R&D and a 2/3" line was a completely different line of cameras for them that they'd already plugged as being their kind of entry-level offering, so the margins weren't going to be as high. There just wasn't much motivation for them to spend a lot more money on R&D for a camera they were essentially peddling as a loss-leader. So they took existing technology, eliminated the Epic-S from their roadmap and gave us this. Which leaves me looking at Ikonoskop now as the only other "Digital 16mm" offering that shoots RAW.

It's a shame, though, because Scarlet with its range of shooting speeds and configurations was exactly the camera I'd been hoping someone would make.
Click to expand...

Hey man, you realize that since its windowed at lower than 5k, your effective sensor size will be much smaller and you wont have as shallow a native depth of field. Also, why not just throw ND filters on, stop up and you can basically simulate a smaller sensor?

Unless you were expecting a much lower price-point, you can get the Scarlet to do what you want, and having an EF option basically allows you to save on glass, or use already existing glass. They made a lot of people happy that never would have been with a lower resolution 2/3" camera, but, they give you the ability to emulate a 2/3" by shooting at 3k or 2k; to me, best of both worlds. And honestly, in this day and age, fixed lenses are a thing of the past.
 
Southworth said:
Hey man, you realize that since its windowed at lower than 5k, your effective sensor size will be much smaller and you wont have as shallow a native depth of field. Also, why not just throw ND filters on, stop up and you can basically simulate a smaller sensor?

Unless you were expecting a much lower price-point, you can get the Scarlet to do what you want, and having an EF option basically allows you to save on glass, or use already existing glass. They made a lot of people happy that never would have been with a lower resolution 2/3" camera, but, they give you the ability to emulate a 2/3" by shooting at 3k or 2k; to me, best of both worlds. And honestly, in this day and age, fixed lenses are a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

Now when you shoot at 120 fps the camera is shooting at 1024 x 540 where the original Scarlet spec was for 3K at 120 fps. At 3K the new Scarlet hits a whopping 48 fps (24 fps in HDRx mode). And I wasn't interested in the 8x fixed Scarlet. I was looking forward to the Compact Primes on the interchangeable lens Scarlet.

It's not the same camera. You can't really pretend it has the same capabilities now. What it will do is get your foot in the door if you were interested in shooting Super-35 and couldn't afford a Red One or an Epic. Which just wasn't all that interesting to me in the first place. I mean, I think those cameras are great, but they aren't something I have a use for.

-Rob
 
People, pleeeeeeez - why are there those who have to equate disappointment with complaining? The Scarlet-X is a fantastic camera. There is nothing in the industry that is even close - for any price. It will satisfy huge numbers of people and rightfully so. Robert Jackson had the perfect analogy above - if you were looking for the fast, sleek, light roadster, you're gonna be a little set back when they present you with a sturdy, big, state of the art truck. To those who got exactly what you were hoping, CONGRATULATIONS! We are all happy for you. Now just stop complaining about our disappointment. :-)
 
Scarlet-X is awesome.

But they promised me 3K@120fps and gave me 3K@48fps.

Why can't we acknowledge that that's a disappointment without being "haterz!11!" ? What's with the all or nothing?

I still plan to buy one...
 
well guys the problem is even Red MX doesn't do 3k at 120fps. So how would you justify the price that you got (9700$) for a camera that is much more powerful and has far more features than their 25k$ product
 
Timothy Eaton said:
My friendly response to those complaining about Scarlet specs is "Compared to what?"
Click to expand...

Only their own hype! That's what's frustrating for people, I think.

Peter Dmitriyev said:
well guys the problem is even Red MX doesn't do 3k at 120fps. So how would you justify the price that you got (9700$) for a camera that is much more powerful and has far more features than their 25k$ product
Click to expand...

That camera was released in 2007. Protecting sales of a 5 year old camera is exactly the kind of old Canon/Sony/etc thinking Red is supposed to be against.

I don't believe Red would do that. I fully believe they gave us everything they could for the price point.
 
Look all the specs we've been getting up till now were not promises but goals. Red wanted to make a specific camera at a low price point, but after 3+ years of R&D found it wasn't going to be possible. What most of us are annoyed with isn't the complaints that the camera isn't what you wanted but that Red some how owes you the camera you wanted. Red hasn't betrayed you, your unrealistic expectations have betrayed you.
 
Stephen Wheeler said:
Look all the specs we've been getting up till now were not promises but goals. Red wanted to make a specific camera at a low price point, but after 3+ years of R&D found it wasn't going to be possible. What most of us are annoyed with isn't the complaints that the camera isn't what you wanted but that Red some how owes you the camera you wanted. Red hasn't betrayed you, your unrealistic expectations have betrayed you.
Click to expand...

Heh...I'm pretty sure we only formed those expectations because Red told us that was what they were going to build and even displayed prototypes and uploaded test footage for us to check out. And then instead of saying, "We screwed up. What we promised you for three years simply isn't possible." they said the original promises weren't "future-proof" and that something much less appealing was actually an upgrade. I mean, I get why they did it and I'm disappointed, but mostly I'm disappointed in myself for buying into their hype machine. 'Cause I bought it hook, line and sinker. I've been waiting to place an order for a camera that they have no intention of building.
 
Stephen Wheeler said:
Look all the specs we've been getting up till now were not promises but goals. Red wanted to make a specific camera at a low price point, but after 3+ years of R&D found it wasn't going to be possible. What most of us are annoyed with isn't the complaints that the camera isn't what you wanted but that Red some how owes you the camera you wanted. Red hasn't betrayed you, your unrealistic expectations have betrayed you.
Click to expand...


I "get it" that these were targets, not promises. And I don't feel the least bit "betrayed." I understand what went on. But it isn't like we didn't get a lot of very clear info about what was being developed. These expectations weren't the least bit "unreasonable" as you contend. At NAB, I was told directly, individually, in person by Jon Sagud that 120 fps was conservative for the Scarlet 2/3" they were working on. He thought they'd end up with bursts over 200 - FWIW, I tweeted that info immediately after hearing it.

Again - I am not complaining... I am disappointed. There is a difference. I will probably end up buying this camera - if for no other reason than the simple fact that nothing else shoots REDCode RAW. Scarlet-X is a FABULOUS camera!! That is indisputable. But, the previous prototypes for Scarlet were also fabulous in different ways. I get that the integrated lens was unworkable. That's a real bummer because it had so much potential.

Before I decide whether I will buy a Scarlet-X - I am actually going to think hard for awhile and consider whether I should move up to Epic. Life is full of choices and options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top