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!

Cenydd Ros said:
There are plenty of camcorders on the markett. If you want a fixed lens and 2/3 sensor, buy a camcorder.

Should RED design a camcorder? I don't see a point. Move forward, not backward, I say.
Click to expand...

You know of a lot of 2/3" camcorders that shoot 3K RAW, do you?

And a larger sensor is not always "moving forward." If it was then every movie made over the last few decades would have been shot in 65mm or at the very least VistaVision. Why not just always shoot everything with the largest sensor or gauge of film you can possibly lay your hands on? For that matter, why isn't all still photography done on view cameras? Why bother with 35mm film or even medium format? No, if you want to move forward you're going to shoot sheet film. No, not even just sheet film...20" x 24" sheet film...I mean, that's moving FORWARD, right?

Heh...or are there actually reasons why people use a variety of formats? Could there possibly be a reason Oliver Stone used to intercut 8mm and 16mm film into his 35mm features? Maybe there's some reason why the scenes with Tony Blair in The Queen were shot on 16mm? Maybe there's a reason doc guys don't run around with an IMAX camera (most of the time).

Don't just be a fanboy and repeat the PR. Think.
 
bernd katzmarczyk said:
interesting but no real deal... scarlet-X is the better deal, specs... and price (7700€ is more than 9750$)
Click to expand...

Now try to figure out why some of us are willing to pay more for the Ikonoskop than Red is charging for the Scarlet-X. Could it be that the smaller sensor works better for what some of us do? I know that's hard to imagine in a world where you've been taught to believe that "professionals" only work with razor-thin DOF, but there it is. Heh...
 
Jeremy Wiles said:
Steve, you're absolutely right. I couldn't agree any less. I don't think ANYONE is upset the Scarlet is a GREAT camera! They are upset because they weren't notified of their options. We're not crying, we're trying to make the best decision in a tough economy. That's all. My decision to buy the EPIC was not yesterday, nor was RED's decision to ditch the 2/3" Scarlet. RED has done alot for their customers over the years, which I am very appreciative. However, this was just not right at all.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you for one that I'm thrilled. I would have bought a Sony F3 over a 2/3 sensor anyday or another model with Super 35 sensor and PL mount option. this is a filmmaking pro cinema camera. I know in the past 2/3 sensors have in fact been used in cinema, but Red is a Pro Cinema company and they made the right choice for sure. I bought this the minute I could last night. I can't wait to shoot some films.

Also, Red doesn't owe anyone specs in advance. I know we all love this, but so much time is wasted waiting for the next thing and it was obvious Red may change things at any time based on all their past experience.

I bought the Scarlet X last night and I assume their Dec 1st ship date will dramatically change. This company is so notorious for changing things they write it in their posts and webpages.

I have plenty of video cameras that are for video and corporate stuff. I needed the Super 35mm . If you want an affordable 2/3 inch sensor camera, they are already everywhere. You don't need Red for that.
 
Cenydd Ros said:
But I do love 65mm and 70mm formats.
Click to expand...

Everybody loves big film. It's great. And yes, I'd love to be David Lean out in the desert with a refrigerator-sized camera and lenses the size of fire hydrants waiting for the desert to sculpt itself into something I wanted to see.

Which is a lovely fantasy. In reality I shoot a lot of run-and-gun stuff where a large sensor is kind of impractical. Horses for courses. 2/3" isn't "The Past"...it's a format that a lot of people use for good reason. Just like 16mm was a format a lot of people used for good reason (and some still use, but less and less).

Don't dismiss 16mm or 2/3" because some guy who failed to succeed in making a camera based on that format has been dismissive about 2/3" sensors.
 
Actually, I am dismissive of 2/3 sensors because I have an opinion. I would, even now, use a 16mm camera - have recently been pricing them. Would never consider a 2/3 sensor though. I guess they don't fall into my needs or wants. But that is me, and has nothing to do with Jim. Sorry if you think it does.
 
Cenydd Ros said:
Actually, I am dismissive of 2/3 sensors because I have an opinion. I would, even now, use a 16mm camera - have recently been pricing them. Would never consider a 2/3 sensor though. I guess they don't fall into my needs or wants. But that is me, and has nothing to do with Jim. Sorry if you think it does.
Click to expand...

And why don't they serve your needs? I'm curious. Why do you like 16mm and dismiss 2/3"? Heh...
 
2/3 is digital. Super 16mm is film. Scanned film can give higher resolusion, no? Isn't that why you wanted a 2/3 3K camera? Also, a 2/3 sensor is nearly a third smaller than super 16mm.

If the Scarlet had come out with a 2/3 sensor and fixed lens it would have been low on my list of possible cameras, even at 3K. At 4K, with an interchangable mount and a S35 sensor, it offers much fewer limitations. Now, waiting to see how it performs reliability-wise.

But, I am looking for a camera to shoot a feature with, and nothing else.
 
Last edited:
Cenydd Ros said:
2/3 is digital. Super 16mm is film. Scanned film can give higher resolusion, no? Isn't that why you wanted a 2/3 3K camera? Also, a 2/3 sensor is nearly a third smaller than super 16mm.

If the Scarlet had come out with a 2/3 sensor and fixed lens it would have been low on my list of possible cameras, even at 3K. At 4K, with an interchangable mount and a S35 sensor, it offers much fewer limitations. Now, waiting to see how it performs reliability-wise.

But, I am looking for a camera to shoot a feature with, and nothing else.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know how much resolution is there with 16mm. People do 4K scans, but I never have. I've had 1080p scans done of 16mm film for digital post and been happy with them. This is a frame of Kodak Ektachrome 7240 directly from a scan.

1719988435_a78c07cd13_o.jpg


Oversampling for 1080p delivery was the goal with 3K, yeah. I like the look of 2/3" sensors. As you get smaller than that I think there's a very funky thing that starts to happen. A little at 1/2", but certainly at 1/3"...I don't have any real gripes about 2/3", though.
 
BTW, posting that frame was to show that even at 1080p and using a very sharp reversal stock you're starting to see the limits of 16mm, IMO. The grain is visible if you "view image" and look at that frame at its native resolution.
 
Last edited:
Honestly couldn't care less for high FPS in Scarlet. Yes, there's couple shots in my short, that must be done slomo, but we may go and just rob the nearest bank to rent a Phantom for that matter. Or EPIC, which even better intercuts with Scarlet X, since it's the basically the same sensor. What I really want is HDRx at 24 FPS in 4K. I really need that highlight protection, I just love that thing about 35mil. Probably it's possible for us to work around that a bit, like expose for highlights, combine two exposures from the RAW source with luma key in post etc. I'm actually slapping my face in thought "what are you even talking about, it's frikkin Redcode RAW, okay?!". Still, to be honest, I for one would've sacrificed a bit of compression to have HDRx in 4K mode (if it's makes any sense). I'm not even a lightyear near the Peter Jackson and have no plans to shoot awesome blockbusters in 3D @ 48fps in 5K with HDRx. If you guys want that stuff - just get an Epic. Faster, smarter, badass big brother of baby Scarlet :)

I see why some people are disappointed, but I just can't help but smile thinking about Scarlet. Of course, I dream about Epic, but can't afford the package, only rent the thing for a some time. However, with Scarlet basic package going for a price around $15K, plus some appropriate glass on it... I can see this happening to me in some near future, actually. It's not like she'd be a dust collector on a shelf, oh hell no, sir. When I'm gonna get it, I'd shoot the living sweat out of this beauty. Oh, btw, the Alchemy stuff in the new Redcine is pure #redwinning.

1150kw.jpg
 
Mike Garrick said:
Maybe I'm dumb, which a lot of people accuse me of or else why is Producer/Director buying a camera & typing away on website devoted to camera's. Anyway why does everyone want a 120fps? Yes it is a nice feature to have but what are going to do with it shoot an entire feature , a doco , drama series in 120fps? Yes it would be wonderful to shoot the yellow crested sap sucker taking off in slo-mo. I get it, I appreciate it. But when you need those type of shots you plan for it, co-co-ordinate it & then hire in the camera that's capable of it ( Epic or whatever) You do not need this feature day in day out (unless your shooting something like extreme sports). So maybe, someone can explain why this feature seems to be more important than resolution, sensor size, workflow, & future proofing. Waiting to be crucified for being dumb;)
Click to expand...

It's not a stupid question, and certainly a large percentage of anyone's shooting will be at 24 FPS. And it's true that in many narrative productions, you do plan for such a shot, so it's not as much of an issue there. But (and speaking personally), as someone who shoots frequently in an improvisational manner, it's a really great thing to be able to have the flexibility to shoot at different frame rates without having to plan for a completely different camera rental in advance. Or in a doc/event setting, being able to alter framerate to match or act as a counterpoint to the action at hand; you simply can't predict what's going to happen in front of the camera, and that flexibility can be extremely valuable. 120 FPS is admittedly overkill for the vast majority of situations, and I don't care that much about that specific framerate (though the resulting 60 FPS HDRx would be pretty awesome), but then again, until recently, being able to just play around with 120 FPS wasn't terribly viable without advanced planning, so it's entirely possible that owning a relatively low-cost camera that produced high quality 120 FPS images would open up new avenues or styles of shooting that I wouldn't have thought of before.

But the whole Scarlet 2/3 interchangeable package was in many ways the perfect mixture of being relatively low-cost, high quality and incredibly flexible in terms of framerates, lenses and data rates. I saw both the 3K resolution and sensor size (though I would have preferred true S16) as enabling this mixture rather than being shortcomings. I'm a firm believer that it's tools like that being made available that lead to much of the artistic innovation in a given discipline. And I don't really see a digital camera of that type on the market currently, which is why it's a real shame to lose the 2/3 Scarlet.
 
Robert Jackson said:
Everybody loves big film. It's great. And yes, I'd love to be David Lean out in the desert with a refrigerator-sized camera and lenses the size of fire hydrants waiting for the desert to sculpt itself into something I wanted to see.

Which is a lovely fantasy. In reality I shoot a lot of run-and-gun stuff where a large sensor is kind of impractical. Horses for courses. 2/3" isn't "The Past"...it's a format that a lot of people use for good reason. Just like 16mm was a format a lot of people used for good reason (and some still use, but less and less).

Don't dismiss 16mm or 2/3" because some guy who failed to succeed in making a camera based on that format has been dismissive about 2/3" sensors.
Click to expand...

Robert, I am on your side of the fence, since a large part of my work if documentary, run n' gun type. I did place an order however, and I would like some ideas that maybe you could share as how to overcome the difficulties in the format.

I was thinking, that for certain clients and situations, where 4K would be too much data to handle, the Sound Device audio/video recorder (http://www.sounddevices.com/products/pix.htm) could provide an easy editing solution, while keeping the benefits of not cropping the sensor. This would result in less time consumed downloading of data from the cards.

Focus is probably the next big issue. Probably boils down to an extra person in the crew, really, plus the necessary accessories. Also some help could be derived from the experience of having used Magic Lantern on my T2i. Colored peaking, a live magnification box, and obviously a good viewfinder. Maybe I won't be able to afford the Bomb EVF, but I'm sure someone will develop a magnifying glass that attaches to the 5' LCD screen, like the Cinevate Cyclops (http://www.cinevate.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=239).

Sometimes I use the T2i, sometimes I don't. It depends on the client and how confident I feel about the focus issue. Maybe that will be my philosophy with the Scarlet-X. Sometimes I use 1/3 chip cameras and wonder how in the world I could pull so many shots if it wasn't for the great depth of field. I have had a strange day, passing from sad to hopeful, that it will be an issue that I can overcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top