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 :)

Upset about not having the fixed 2/3" Scarlet??

Ruben and Sheri O. said:
DUDE SCARLET X IS THE BEST CAMERA IN THE WORLD!! STOP COMPLAINING SCARLET 2/3 IS DEAD LETS MOVE ON TO THE FUTURE!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Guys are you for real? The way you talk I just think you may be trollers or really excited teenagers.

Sorry but I wanted in the most nicest way to let you know you the way you are talking in the forum comes off as ignorant and people are kinda making fun of you and your reactions.

This have been in a lot of posts but this one made it.

There are professionals in this forum with a lot of experience in the filmmaking industry and for sure really more experience and vision than you two. People who are seriously talking about serious topics and reasons on why a 2/3" camera as a Digital S16 format was a great option.

They are giving understandable (and points on which I agree) arguments and your are answering with no real feedback but "fan boy nonsense". Like "It would have been great to have s16mm format for digital at high frame rates for its great depth of field and as a filmmaking tool" (Because as for today s16mm its a great format and tool, and its roughly the same size of 2/3") and your answer is "COME ON STOP COMPLAINING OMG THIS SCARLET IS THE BEST CAMERA YOU DONT HAVE THE MONEY SO WHATEVER WHY YOU WANT 2/3 THATS THE PAST"

That answers clearly states YOU UNDERSTAND NOTHING about what people is talking about.

I'm 22 Years old myself, so don't think I'm patronizing you (And for that matter I've shoot RED, 16mm, 35mm, Z1, EX1, etc in several film shoots as a DP and/or Camera)

To put it to a perspective maybe you guys (who shouldn't be stoned for not knowing or understanding) BLACK SWAN a movie you maybe saw, was made on a s16mm format, just like 2/3". So when you say WELCOME THE FUTURE ACCEPT IT GUYS, you are coming of as ignorant because you don't understand that its not like in the future "everyone will just shoot s35", no, those are just different tools for a way of telling a story.

Again, you shouldn't be stoned for not having the knowledge, but the way you guys come of is just childish. Can't you see this? Try to read more and learn before having this weird replies.

I think I may just wasted my time and you two are some kind of trollers having fun on the other side of the computer.

If not, please take my words as a good hearted advice.

I'm sure Jim would want you two to learn and have a greater criteria than being a blind fanboy that accepts anything put in front of them. Because with no doubt Jim is a great visionary person.

P.D. Everything said here is true. I could agree more and I'm so happy that my feellings have a backup.

The idea of a Digital Cinema S16 was amazing. Having shoot many formats, S16 easy great DOF was the main esthetic I wanted for my film. When I saw that test Jarred made I would say to my friends "Look how pretty, not that awful craze of shallow DOF, but everything from front to the back in focus, thats what I want". It makes for harder direction, thinking better the lenses, positions, objects, and It was I challenge that I knew would make the film even better.

Great DOF as a tool and present in great movies have been discussed (David Mullen for example) on the forum several times. And for no little reason.

Scarlet X seems like a great camera. Maybe I can find the way to buy it (I was expecting 12k for the Fixed). But now I've come to the (incredible turnaround on my plans for the film I'm trying to shoot) That maybe I can spend some 6k on Vision 2 16mm to get the kind of aesthetics I want for my film. Because I don't see a real greater option in the digital world in this format.

(Yes, I can buy the Scarlet X, or rent it, or rent a RED ONE, and stop down to have everything in focus and still do it. I know. That's not really the point we are making here aren't we?)

RED, I believe in you. I just think this was a bitter pill for everyone (Including Jim), and we need to let it out.
 
Yet another voice of disappointment.

Scarlet fixed would have been the perfect camera for a lot of my work, art/experimental/short and eventually feature film. Turning slightly allergic to the overuse and abuse of shallow depth of field, I see the benefits from what the 2/3" format (in RAW) would bring in both shooting and viewing, from an artistic point of view. So here's hope that it will be brought back one day.. soon.

As for the focus problem with the camera, I am in the habit of frame, focus, shoot. Using the zoom as a prime, I probably wouldn't even noticed there was a problem.

While I myself, doesn't find Scarlet-X that attractive at the moment, I am glad for all of you who find its use. For me, it's not what I want.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!
 
The Sony, Canon, Panasonic, etc. will be happy. Now they have time to make a camera that most people will buy.
 
Yes, but I'm afraid we'll have to wait for the big guys to catch up. RED is not interested in that market.
 
I've just took notice of this thread now once yesterday was a working day, for PROs ;-)

It is already answered in another thread why -- aside budget argument, a reduser.net poster with 1,881 posts but RED customer since April 25th 2006 can only think that such fixed 2/3" request is just no more than... silly!?

(Here is my humble input then:)

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...EMENT-Feedback&p=858717&viewfull=1#post858717


Emanuel A. said:
BTW, I've always thought 2/3" sensor size based camera would be a TV camera, not a digital CINEMA camera.

You don't need nothing more than that...?

Simple: crop the sensor going anything lower than 4K.

Scarlet-X is more than a TV camera, also brings a CINEMA camera incorporated.
Click to expand...
 
So, Benjamin Button is a TV movie after all. And Star Wars episodes I-III. Also Irreversible, Slumdog Millionaire, etc.

All shot on 2/3"/S16mm cameras.
 
Radoslav Karapetkov said:
So, Benjamin Button is a TV movie after all. And Star Wars episodes I-III. Also Irreversible, Slumdog Millionaire, etc.

All shot on 2/3"/S16mm cameras.
Click to expand...
Radoslav,

I cannot surely have idea :-) where you were in 2001.

But I know where I was -- @ Lisbon film school trying to convince other people that F900 was a cinema camera as much as 16mm cameras we were used to deal with.

The point is, then we could only imagine that some day we would have a digital 35mm sensor size camera.

RED made that to become possible with their RED ONE's announcement in 2006.

2/3" would be to go back, earlier than 2006... No, thanks :-)
 
Robert Rif said:
I don't think any camera really cares if you use them to shoot TV or Cinema or anything else for that matter.
Click to expand...
Even if I follow what you want to say, TV or Cinema are far away to give you aestetically the same outcome, as you previously pointed out (very well BTW :)

The deal is, apart the budget 'affair' -- once again said...

...with 35mm sensor size you can have both. Backwards, no way.
 
Emanuel A. said:
Even if I follow what you want to say, TV or Cinema are far away to give you aestetically the same outcome, as you previously pointed out (very well BTW :)

The deal is, apart the budget 'affair' -- once again said...

...with 35mm sensor size you can have both. Backwards, no way.
Click to expand...
Unless you use (a 2nd buy?) a 35mm DOF adapter as I ridiculously read over these same pages.

Or perhaps not so 'ridiculously' once the major request, after all, was affordable 35mm sensor capture in a smaller size factor than RED ONE.

BTW, what Panasonic with smaller 4/3", Sony and Canon (with HDSLRs!) even before C300 announcement, have done.

Not fair with RED IMHO (not only with Jim but also all of us, RED customers, we RED) granted the fact all this digital 35mm began with RED.

Jim is who in charge to understand better the philosophy of the company and has done the best job.
This wise announcement (even related to shipping momentum) only comes to prove this.
 
@ Emanuel A.

(Thanks :)

Yeah, 35mm the Holy Grail ;)

I am going to use trusty old still cameras as an analogy here.

I see Scarlet-X as a Hasselblad 500 (6x6) camera where you can choose to use a A12 (6x6) and s16 (4.5x6), so there's nothing new that you can get different cropped formats out of a single camera. But the Hasselblad is a pretty bulky and a slow to operate camera, so I went with a Minox 35GT (Scarlet fixed) on occations.

The 35mm Minox allowed me to capture pictures and moods I simply wasn't able to capture with the Hbl, even though the Hbl produces technically superiour pictures.

I don't always seek the technically best picture, I seek the best picture.
 
Robert Rif said:
I don't always seek the technically best picture, I seek the best picture.
Click to expand...
And you are fully right :-) And yes, budget and size factor, as for instance, count.

Now, you made me to become curious about your work. I with many others are organizing work to show, publish and so on, whether still whether motion. Feel free to let me know sending it to: mail(dot)emanuelag(at)gmail(dot)com

I'd much appreciate to take a look.

Cheers from Rome,

Emanuel :-)
 
Emanuel A. said:
Radoslav, I cannot surely have idea :-) where you were in 2001.
Click to expand...

Not too far from where I am now. ;)

But I know where I was -- @ Lisbon film school trying to convince other people that F900 was a cinema camera as much as 16mm cameras we were used to deal with.
Click to expand...

Glad we cleared up the hierarchy. :)

2/3" would be to go back. No, thanks :-)
Click to expand...

Had to try. ;)

And you're right. Going back is rarely a good idea. Especially in same cases, you could stumble upon some really interesting coincidences. Historically speaking, but that's off topic.

Anyway, to each their own. I have no problem with you buying a Scarlet-X or an Epic. Go ahead. :biggrin5:
 
Radoslav,

Sure you have no problem, how might you have? :) If any potential fraction of a virtual general disappointment of a few is budget, I believe a 2/3" option wouldn't be more affordable, I'm affraid. Perhaps rather the opposite. But only who is in the manufacturer side can drop X_omething on the subject.

I cannot be sure about your other leftover, but if you'd wonder to give a chance to yourself to make a try to see by your own eyes than only to read posted somewhere online and be part of the 'gang' instead, you'll always be welcome I guess.

We'll be in Montenegro next months, so not too far away from you. Feel free to email me if you'd appreciate to join.

Here is a rough cut of a teaser (not a trailer, the editor was too much enthusiastic when wrote that :D on the other hand, that's the problem when we are in the no-budget territory and editors/shooters coincide; my role as always with the 'gang', has been to bring the reason for the low budget side as my early suggestion for 35mm sensor size such as 5D Mark II came or this would have been shot in even lower than that) of the 1st part already shot till last month in NZ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98lueg1ZItI
(please, choose the highest 1080p HD version available)

Shot on Canon 5D Mark II as said, exactly for a budget matter.
That «Coming soon to Vimeo» is a gang's joke as usual BTW :P That will be seen @ big screen as others before, you can record my own word on it :)

Original score anyway ;)

E :-)
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Eric, if you have a system that will require customers to use many epics in future, then maybe you could ask Red if they could lend or sell you cameras at cost price.
Click to expand...

I Think they allready are...

In truth thanks to Scarlet-X its really not necessary.

E
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top