***UNDERSTAND THIS*** ..and you will have less expectations!!

[PaulClements]

If you are really in a position to buy and constantly upgrade Epic class cameras at all, you are likely to be producing enough work that they pay for themselves over those time frames. They are priced in the upper middle pro digital video camera market range. Just because a new one comes out doesn't mean the old one is automatically useless either. It stays in the inventory as a backup or B-cam or gets sold used to someone for whom it is still a step up. They won't be dumped in some landfill.
Same is true of the prosumer level gear too.

My current DV camcorder paid for itself on one project and has remained a useful production tool for 5 years despite being "obsolete" .
Short of consumer TV formats making some radical shift I don't see even an entry level Scarlet 2/3" camera becoming obsolete to the point of uselessness over a similar timeframe. 5 to 7 year product life is a practical expectation.

Hi David,

I don't disagree with your sentiments. I'm merely pointing out that the same complaints that people have about other camera developers producing new cameras with new features to replace one they bought a year or two ago could well be applied to Red as well.

Paul

 

[David Rasberry]

Hi David,

I don't disagree with your sentiments. I'm merely pointing out that the same complaints that people have about other camera developers producing new cameras with new features to replace one they bought a year or two ago could well be applied to Red as well.

Paul

Media technology development is a fast paced and ever accelerating world. We normally contract AV installations during the late planning/early construction phase of commercial buildings. Product changes so fast that by installation time most of the major components of our systems have changed models.

 

[Alan Skinner]

If you are really in a position to buy and constantly upgrade Epic class cameras at all, you are likely to be producing enough work that they pay for themselves over those time frames. They are priced in the upper middle pro digital video camera market range. Just because a new one comes out doesn't mean the old one is automatically useless either. It stays in the inventory as a backup or B-cam or gets sold used to someone for whom it is still a step up. They won't be dumped in some landfill.
Same is true of the prosumer level gear too.

My current DV camcorder paid for itself on one project and has remained a useful production tool for 5 years despite being "obsolete" .
Short of consumer TV formats making some radical shift I don't see even an entry level Scarlet 2/3" camera becoming obsolete to the point of uselessness over a similar timeframe. 5 to 7 year product life is a practical expectation.

David has it right here. I sold my XL1 and XL2 not because they weren't good tools but because I needed more money for RED Aks!

I had intended wait for my RED to go to hi-def (and beyond) but a customer wanted Blu-Ray project so I purchased the Canon XHA1. Now that camera takes "making of" when my RED is working.

Many times re-usable is my thinking on the downline for aging equipment. One of these days I will regret letting go of my SD Video Cams but I can feel good that they are in use with my Sister and her husband cranking out little indie projects.

 

[David Rasberry]

I had intended wait for my RED to go to hi-def (and beyond) but a customer wanted Blu-Ray project so I purchased the Canon XHA1. Now that camera takes "making of" when my RED is working.

I was about to buy an XH-A1 when Scarlet was announced. Been waiting on Scarlet to upgrade to HD ever since. My paid work is mostly AV engineering consulting these days, so no real rush. The HDSLR's have been tempting, but the shortcomings for general motion work are not acceptable. After spending a short afternoon with a RED 1 and playing around some clips in Redcine I was hooked. Won't ever be satisfied with less than shooting motion raw.

 

[Alan Skinner]

I was about to buy an XH-A1 when Scarlet was announced. Been waiting on Scarlet to upgrade to HD ever since. My paid work is mostly AV engineering consulting these days, so no real rush. The HDSLR's have been tempting, but the shortcomings for general motion work are not acceptable. After spending a short afternoon with a RED 1 and playing around some clips in Redcine I was hooked. Won't ever be satisfied with less than shooting motion raw.

Yes, I am with you there. I have my Canon 5D and no plans to get one that takes motion however I did buy my Wife the REBEL T1i and it does do some really nice hi-def video "for a still camera". Good toy but I won't fall into the trap of complaining that my "still" camera should take better motion video.........:ihih::beatdeadhorse5:

 

[Jim Klatt]

Everyone that I know who shoots stills for a living absolutely loathes spending any extra time in front of their computer. They want to get in and get out as quick as possible.

Keeping their gear as compact, lightweight, and discrete is also high priority.

And then there is ISO sensitivity, which is paramount. For these reasons alone, I don't see pro photographers having any reason to switch to a Scarlet for non-motion material.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Everyone that I know who shoots stills for a living absolutely loathes spending any extra time in front of their computer. They want to get in and get out as quick as possible.

And why would this be different with Scarlet versus a DSLR?

Keeping their gear as compact, lightweight, and discrete is also high priority.

And from the renders, you don't see the Scarlet as being compact and lightweight? Looks about the size of a DSLR to me in some configs.
Also can be expanded to more robust config of a job requires it, unlike DSLR. That's called flexibility, which the photographers I know, CRAVE.

And then there is ISO sensitivity, which is paramount.

Jim Jannard just addressed this ad nauseum in recent threads.

For these reasons alone, I don't see pro photographers having any reason to switch to a Scarlet for non-motion material.

For these reasons, and many more, I respectfully disagree.

 

[Jim Retar]

I think the biggest reason a pro photographer would be put off a RED camera is that, no matter how small it is, it doesn't look discrete and doesn't look like a Nikon/Canon... security will be all over it.

It's main pulling power will be for sports/live action... i'm just not sure that stadium staff will look kindly on someone pulling out a RED, especially if word spreads that they are really filming in 4k+... ESPN etc will be on the look out.

For me, as a nature cameraman, I can see huge potential for pulling stills though. Cant wait!

 

[Jeff Kieffer]

It's main pulling power will be for sports/live action... i'm just not sure that stadium staff will look kindly on someone pulling out a RED, especially if word spreads that they are really filming in 4k+... ESPN etc will be on the look out.

I'm wondering how the next Olympic Games will be organised. Until now there was a separate Photo section and different video locations.
Rights were the big issues here!!! And it was impossible to mix!

But now with the Nikon and Canons shooting video as well, and Motion cameras taking high quality stills, their only bet will become Pool pictures.
But this would be a huge draw back on creativity.
The IOC is thinking about a global rights package, but I don't see how they can control this anymore?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

It is obvious that many know by now that I particularly like and support RED, but this support is not coming from a Fanboy, as some could rightly so call me, but comes from been a fanboy of a Company and Product that has proved it self beyond any doubt, and not just to me but to an entire INDUSTRY of Pros!

However my support it is not Unconditional but again supported in return by the Company's products and service, and off course Prices.

For the past two years I have participated to various projects and learn a great deal of RED in the field, I have researched the gear extensively, both for film and still projects.

I have used and now also sold 35mm cameras as well as 4/3 and MF 645 cameras, and I just can't wait to literally TROW money at RED as soon as they release the Scarlet and the Epic, as just by the currently known specs they truly represent a leap forward in both industries, in such a way that they will no doubt the feature of Image capture, (talking more so about STill Image Capture Here and more so in the MF 645 medium).

So I presented my opinion in this thread as it seems that many just want specs on cameras that in their current manufacturing bodies and price range can not offer what they have been asked of, especially in the Raw Motion Image Capture filed, they just don't have the power in their processors to handle what it takes to deliver it, and forget about asking for increase FPS, as you will get in the Epic, it is simply unreasonable, and this is also why the Scarlet varies greatly in price from the Epic, as even RED can not make such miracles in a certain price range.

 

[Jim Klatt]

I think it will be a great and even popular tool for video pros, but what would be the photography benefit of getting a Scarlet over a D3s or 1D if you make your trade as a
still photographer?

I don't think what I am saying is very controversial. I have never heard a still photographer in the real world, or on a still photography site even mention Scarlet as an exisiting product.

I have no emotional attachment to the tool. I hope it is a useful, exciting option whenever it comes out. The more the better.

 

[Jim Klatt]

I often hear "content is king" as a saying around here. But I have always understood that statement to mean the opposite of how it is referred. Meaning that the subject matter acquired takes precedence over the quality of the acquisition format.

Content is king is definitely a mantra in the documentary filmmaker community.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I often hear "content is king" as a saying around here. But I have always understood that statement to mean the opposite of how it is referred. Meaning that the subject matter acquired takes precedence over the quality of the acquisition format.

Content is king is definitely a mantra in the documentary filmmaker community.

True, but not entirely true

As you must also provide and acquired Footage to satisfy Post-Production and Projection needs, and believe me that H2.64 will not satisfy those needs.

 

[Jim Klatt]

That depends on how it is used, and what kind of project you are working on.

I have used Nikon D90 for ALOT of B-Roll nature footage for a documentary feature. We tested it with lensbaby, macro lenses, and various shots with 28, 50, and an 85 and blew up the footage to see what it will look like when cut with EX1 1080p footage and it looked very good. It won't have any wide shots...but it wasn't used for that.

The same tests on a 42' HDTV were even better than the blowup, and my friends thought the D90 footage was shot on film.

Most regular people won't even notice alot of these deficiencies of the DSLR's.

The image quality has been much less of a concern than rolling shutter, which is what ultimately has decided if a shot has to be eliminated.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I'm talking about Motion Picture, tested with any available cameras, on a 300" screen.

The images simply don't hold. And as far a the post even using Neoscene, the HDV files shot at H2.64 simply don't cut it.

Don't give me wrong or miss understand my point, is great footage but has no use in Cinema, not for me.

 

[Jim Klatt]

I'm talking about Motion Picture, tested with any available cameras, on a 300" screen.

Oh, well than that is different. We only had it blown up big enough to be viewed on a 12' screen.

 

[Michael N. Sutton]

Still shooters are not going to be switching over to the Scarlet in droves. This doesn't make any sense.

I own a 7D, a 5DMKII and others. I will be buying the Scarlet FF when its available fall 2010 or whenever its ready. Price point, feature set, Canon or Nikon optional mounts. Why wouldn't a still photographer do that?

Top photographers are using the RED one. Why wouldn't a more compact camera with ultra def resolution and great resolve be a reasonable choice for a still photographer.

When I look at every still photographer I know, all they are talking about is how great it is that DSLR's shoot video now and how its a great option when needed.

I think its a natural progression if the form factor, lens choices, dynamic range, ISO's, FPS, and other benefits are there.

my 2cents.

 

[Steve G]

I'm talking about Motion Picture, tested with any available cameras, on a 300" screen.

The images simply don't hold. And as far a the post even using Neoscene, the HDV files shot at H2.64 simply don't cut it.

Don't give me wrong or miss understand my point, is great footage but has no use in Cinema, not for me.

How much cinema projection have you shot for ?

 

[David Rasberry]

I think it will be a great and even popular tool for video pros, but what would be the photography benefit of getting a Scarlet over a D3s or 1D if you make your trade as a
still photographer?

I don't think what I am saying is very controversial. I have never heard a still photographer in the real world, or on a still photography site even mention Scarlet as an exisiting product.

I have no emotional attachment to the tool. I hope it is a useful, exciting option whenever it comes out. The more the better.

If you have no interest in motion acquisition at a similar level of quality and creative flexibility afforded by a good digital still camera then a raw digital cinema camera is probably not worth the added cost, weight, etc. compared to a Nikon or Canon. If all you need is to shoot short motion clips with mediocre video quality then the HDSLR's will do just fine.
Red makes digital cameras that are capable of full motion frame rate acquisition without the inherent quality compromises of consumer or professional video formats. They aren't the only one, just by far the least expensive for their capabilities.
A practical digital motion camera, whether a pro level video camera like Sony ET AL, or one of the new breed of raw format cameras like Red, or Arriflex or Silicon Imaging is, like its film forebears, a very different instrument than a still camera. That you can also potentially use it for high grade professional stills, a recent Esquire cover and fashion article was shot on a RED 1 for instance, is a nice plus but not its primary reason for existence.
That a camera with the creative qualities and practical field production capabilities of a RED is for the first time affordable for ordinary filmmakers to own is amazing. This is the first new camera system I can afford that I have been truly excited about since I got my first Bolex 16mm. That old spring wind Bolex was several times the cost of a good 35mm still camera in its day.

 

[Jim Klatt]

If you have no interest in motion acquisition at a similar level of quality and creative flexibility afforded by a good digital still camera then a raw digital cinema camera is probably not worth the added cost, weight,

Yeah. That's all I am saying.

I should also state that most of the photographers I speak of are not high-end fashion photographers shooting popular magazine covers. They are mostly travel photographers, photojournalists, and a couple of wedding and nature guys.

They don't really have people telling them that they are using the wrong camera or that their images need to be higher rez as far as I know.