vote for 3k interchangeable, scarlet-x is not future proof either

[michael beck]

I'd love to see red compete in the $6-8k market. Basically they are saying that they are only for the high end market. You are ether a high end indie and choose scarlet-x, or a high end Hollywood type and choose epic. Id love to see a s35 3K (or even 1080p) redcode raw. Basically a fs100 with redcode raw. I want RAW more than resolution. I'll take a fixed lens or interchangeable, so long as I get RAW.

 

[Jason Murphy]

It's possible they may do it, but I think for the most part it goes against the Red ideology. Unless they create a new strategy and begin to produce prosumer cameras, a 2/3 goes against the "professional cinema tool" benchmark they have set for themselves

Honestly, I really thought RED's approach to Scarlet that Jon Sagud wrote about here only a few months ago:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?22619-Scarlet-FAQs

which is that the Scarlet 2/3 would essentially be a full-power EPIC with a professional 2/3" 3K chip was a fantastic ideology. Red's new directional push - that anything under S35 and 4K is not professional cinema seems to have a very restrictive (and as a result, a very narrow-minded) view of what "professional" and "cinema" constitutes.

 

[Phil Holland]

Or take your money...

If you're producing content for:
- immediate IMAX release
- theatrical release several years down the road (when 4K cinema is the norm)
- home entertainment re-release years down the road
- long term television syndication years from now

By all means, I would shoot and master to 4K as well. But for most in video production, acquiring and mastering to 4K is superfluous.

But apparently, that is all RED cares about. Sadly, I learned this just recently. Someone had told me they were making a 3K camera...

I've been working in features since 1999. The first CCD based film scanner I worked on/with was a 4k scanner. I've been working with 4k for my entire professional career. 2k is still the industry working standard at post houses for final output, but this is changing slowly but surely. That scanner was eventually replaced by a 6k Northlight scanner, but many films never resolve close to 6k. The next stage for everybody to adopt is 4k all the way through. It's just expensive to upgrade entire pipelines at studios, post houses, and VFX studios. More resolution = more data. It's happening though. More and more each day. It's never been easier to work at higher resolutions.

I agree that today for most broadcast 4k capture is overkill. But that's today. And there are reasons to downsample from 4k to 2k for a higher quality image anyways.
But, 4k broadcast is happening in limited situations next year. For those producing content with a 4k camera this is a good thing. And by good thing I mean employed, selling footage, and hired to shoot good thing.

I have never been happier to depart with $14k honestly.

 

[Jerrod Cordell]

Alright, this is really getting annoying.

If you want to shoot with a 3K at 2/3"/S16mm, get a Scarlet-X and shoot it at 3K. With it being a crop sensor that will give you exactly a S16 image. So if you invested in 16mm glass for Scarlet your investment was not in vain. Granted it's not a 120 fps, but how often do you use that anyway?

And with being able to upgrade the sensor (which the original Scarlet or even the Epic-S couldn't do) Scarlet will just keep growing and growing through the years. Will it cost more? Of course. But if you invested in Scarlet-X you'll probably make enough to pay it off and afford the Dragon upgrade.

RED knows they couldn't compete in the lower end prosumer market. HDSLRs have claimed that. 3 years ago everyone was using 1/3" 3 CCD chips and the idea of a 2/3" sensor was amazing. When the HDSLRs came around offering S35 and FF35 sensors, 2/3" seems like nothing now. Not to mention getting that film-like DOF with cheap still lenses.

If RED came out with a 3K 2/3" Scarlet for $6750 (based on the last price point by Ted) and a shooting package for ~$11,000 (based on the ~$4000 difference between Scarlet-X and the Scarlet-X kit) Scarlet would not be nearly as good of a buy as a 4K S35 camera for $9700.

Scarlet has gone from a hot ditzy teen and turned into a beautiful intelligent woman. Everything changes. Deal with it.

 

[J Davis]

it doesn't hurt to try Jerrod so I thought I'd state my request, explain my reasoning and point out the obvious inconsistency with future proof claims.
Can you really blame me?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Of choose there is an alternative to s16. It's called the Iconoscop. And it shoots in Raw. Blinded by Red much?

$10k USD, Same as Scarlet-X
1920x1080 @ 30p compared to 2048x1080 @ 60p on the Scarlet-X
12 bit vs 16bit for Scarlet
Uncompressed compared to Scarlet's Mathematically lossless uncompressed 3:1. Identical image quality. 1/3 the size.

What is RED blinding me to? It's smaller I guess... But you also can't take 5k HDRx stills or shoot 4k S35 if you wanted to with Scarlet-X.

 

[Jerrod Cordell]

No I don't blame you. I think since I can't even afford a T3i right now I can see all of this from a different perspective.

I don't know. I figured I'd go ahead and throw my opinion into all of this so take it or leave it.

 

[Roshdi Alkadri]

$10k USD, Same as Scarlet-X
1920x1080 @ 30p compared to 2048x1080 @ 60p on the Scarlet-X
12 bit vs 16bit for Scarlet
Uncompressed compared to Scarlet's Mathematically lossless uncompressed 3:1. Identical image quality. 1/3 the size.

What is RED blinding me to? It's smaller I guess... But you also can't take 5k HDRx stills or shoot 4k S35 if you wanted to with Scarlet-X.

3.2 k, no?

 

[Eric Rodemann]

Honestly, I really thought RED's approach to Scarlet that Jon Sagud wrote about here only a few months ago:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?22619-Scarlet-FAQs

which is that the Scarlet 2/3 would essentially be a full-power EPIC with a professional 2/3" 3K chip was a fantastic ideology. Red's new directional push - that anything under S35 and 4K is not professional cinema seems to have a very restrictive (and as a result, a very narrow-minded) view of what "professional" and "cinema" constitutes.

IMO, that's just marketing mumbo jumbo, the "4k is professional" thing. Pros are using 1080p all day long.

The real deal is what camera can they make that brings in a profit.

They thought they could make a 2/3 camera that would turn a profit, but then they figured out they can't.

Scarlet is made from chips that didn't pass the Epic test, so you build some boards that are a bit slower, and bada bing, you have an entry level cam with not a lot different in teh production line. That will make a profit, not a 2/3 camera with a completely different chip that they couldn't get the lens right for, and throwing away the failed epic chips definitely wouldn't be profitable.

I don't really think the "4k is professional" thing has much to do with it. Sounds better than, we thought we could make a 2/3 cam, turns out we can't, but we can make a very good cam with the left over chips that don't pass the test for the Epic.

This is pretty cutting edge tech so there's bound to be some bumps in the road. Works out well that there's an affordable 4k option, the Scarlet. I wouldn't look for any 2/3 camera from Red. I don't think that would be profitable because of the time and effort to work out the different production line, and solve all the technical problems.

 

[J Davis]

Its 3.2k resolved resolution at 24p and 25p. I've got nothing against this resolution and its more than enough for my need.

But as far as we've been told the 3k interchangeable has been scrapped because it doesn't meet 4k future proofing yet the catch phrase of the opening speech was that scarlet-x is now future proof.

So under this logic there is no need to scrap the 3k interchangeable - its the double standard that irks me I guess.

 

[Jerrod Cordell]

3.2 k, no?

ENOUGH WITH THE 3.2K!

Go to red.com and look at the Shot on Red section. Everything on there that has come out yet has been shot in "3.2K" (aka the Red One). This includes The Social Network, Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Contagion, Pirates of the Caribbean, Leverage, ER and many, many, many more.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

3K @ 120fps is cool...

And something no one asked: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MINI-PRIMES?!

 

[Roshdi Alkadri]

ENOUGH WITH THE 3.2K!

Go to red.com and look at the Shot on Red section. Everything on there that has come out yet has been shot in "3.2K" (aka the Red One). This includes The Social Network, Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Contagion, Pirates of the Caribbean, Leverage, ER and many, many, many more.

FROM RED
4.5K RAW (2.4:1)
4K RAW (16:9, HD, 2:1, and Anamorphic 2:1)
3K RAW (16:9, 2:1, and Anamorphic 2:1)
2K RAW (16:9, 2:1, and Anamorphic 2:1)

The red ends up at 4k after processing, the scarlet x starts there, so they're not the same

 

[Jason Murphy]

3K @ 120fps is cool...

And something no one asked: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MINI-PRIMES?!

Well, without a smaller sized sensor, the mini-primes are pretty useless. I was really excited for them, too.

 

[Gabriel Winebrenner]

Of choose there is an alternative to s16. It's called the Iconoscop. And it shoots in Raw. Blinded by Red much?

$10k USD, Same as Scarlet-X
1920x1080 @ 30p compared to 2048x1080 @ 60p on the Scarlet-X
12 bit vs 16bit for Scarlet
Uncompressed compared to Scarlet's Mathematically lossless uncompressed 3:1. Identical image quality. 1/3 the size.

What is RED blinding me to? It's smaller I guess... But you also can't take 5k HDRx stills or shoot 4k S35 if you wanted to with Scarlet-X.

Actually, with charger and a basic c mount for it's Interchangeable Mount System by P+S Technik and a 80gb card, and Fed Ex shipping, your looking at around 12 thousand bucks bro. The sensor actually resolves at slightly higher than 1920X1080 but not quite 2k. Also, maximum frame rate for the Ikonoskop is actually 60fps and will hopefully be implemented at some point with a firmware update.

The main point your missing is:

The Ikonoskop image looks like Super 16. The REDs DO NOT!

The kodak ccd sensor with no rolling shutter is an analogue sensor and Super 16 simply has an analogue look whereas 35mm has less so in that regard so high resolution cmos sensors (by the way, no 35mm ccd chip exists yet), are ideal. 35mm wants punch and maximum resolution for shit like Thor and Batman. 16mm wants intimacy, not just in the framing of the shot, but the look as well which you won't get if you don't have the proper camera that can output that desired look.

RED made the right choice by not going further with the 2/3 sensor Scarlet since it would be a CMOS digital rather than an analogue ccd and would have not looked like super 16 anyways. So the Scarlet X is a win win situation. Just not a super 16 substitute, no matter if you crop or not. It's an excellent 35mm cam. But it will still look like a clean shaven baby's ass if you need the "true grit," of 16mm.

There is a reason why the Weiscamm T is planning to have a ccd sensor in their 2/3rd sensor cam and a cmos in their 35mm. They are completely different tools and output completely different desired images. I reiterate, a 35mm high resolution CMOS sensor with 2k crop will not look like super 16 film. It will still look like Thor, just zoomed in man.

Peeps that are complaining about not having a cheaper Scarlet are just shit out of luck. The Scarlet X is a much better product and bang for the buck. Those who wanted a Super 16 Scarlet and are pissed are just not informed with Super 16 enough to know that a RED cmos sensor can not deliver the required analogue look that a super 16 image requires.

 

[Ryan Farnes]

I've been working in features since 1999. The first CCD based film scanner I worked on/with was a 4k scanner. I've been working with 4k for my entire professional career. 2k is still the industry working standard at post houses for final output, but this is changing slowly but surely. That scanner was eventually replaced by a 6k Northlight scanner, but many films never resolve close to 6k. The next stage for everybody to adopt is 4k all the way through. It's just expensive to upgrade entire pipelines at studios, post houses, and VFX studios. More resolution = more data. It's happening though. More and more each day. It's never been easier to work at higher resolutions.

I agree that today for most broadcast 4k capture is overkill. But that's today. And there are reasons to downsample from 4k to 2k for a higher quality image anyways.
But, 4k broadcast is happening in limited situations next year. For those producing content with a 4k camera this is a good thing. And by good thing I mean employed, selling footage, and hired to shoot good thing.

I have never been happier to depart with $14k honestly.

I cannot draw any conclusion other than that you agree with me that a sub-4K camera is perfectly good for the current production climate for those of us not at the high end of production. So like, the 99%.

 

[Jerrod Cordell]

FROM RED
4.5K RAW (2.4:1)
4K RAW (16:9, HD, 2:1, and Anamorphic 2:1)
3K RAW (16:9, 2:1, and Anamorphic 2:1)
2K RAW (16:9, 2:1, and Anamorphic 2:1)

The red ends up at 4k after processing, the scarlet x starts there, so they're not the same

Only when shot in 4.5K RAW at 2.4:1 aspect ratio. The Scarlet-X has the same, if not better resolution in 4K than the Red One MX.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Actually, with charger and a basic c mount for it's Interchangeable Mount System by P+S Technik and a 80gb card, and Fed Ex shipping, your looking at around 12 thousand bucks bro.

Peeps that are complaining about not having a cheaper Scarlet are just shit out of luck. The Scarlet X is a much better product and bang for the buck. Those who wanted a Super 16 Scarlet and are pissed are just not informed with Super 16 enough to know that a RED cmos sensor can not deliver the required analogue look that a super 16 image requires.

Ummm CMOS and CCDs are both analogue.

Complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor (CMOS) ( /ˈsiːmɒs/) is a technology for constructing integrated circuits. CMOS technology is used in microprocessors, microcontrollers, static RAM, and other digital logic circuits. CMOS technology is also used for several analog circuits such as image sensors (CMOS sensor), data converters, and highly integrated transceivers for many types of communication. Frank Wanlass patented CMOS in 1967 (US patent 3,356,858).

It is admittedly a global shutter... but @ s16 crop the rolling shutter on MX is essentially non-existent.

And based on Ikonoscop's website:

Body + 2 Batteries, Charger, Power Adapter, Card Reader, 80 GB Card = $10k + $2658 + Interchangable lens -> PL adapter = $13,000
Scarlet-X + Grip, 2 Batteries, Charger, Power Adapter, Card Reader, 64GB Card = $14,000

Still not much of a price difference.

 

[Gabriel Winebrenner]

Ummm CMOS and CCDs are both analogue.



It is admittedly a global shutter... but @ s16 crop the rolling shutter on MX is essentially non-existent.

No, the Kodak ccd in the Ikonoskop converts analogue to digital whereas the Red's cmos is digital to digital. The RED is not global shutter, it is a rolling shutter.

And at S16 crop, image doesn't resemble a S16 look but a high res 35mm one that has just been cropped.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

No, the Kodak ccd in the Ikonoskop converts analogue to digital whereas the Red's cmos is digital to digital. The RED is not global shutter, it is a rolling shutter.

And at S16 crop, image doesn't resemble a S16 look but a high res 35mm one that has just been cropped.

That's a subjective argument defended by an incorrect empirical foundation. The definition of an imaging sensor is a device which converts voltage to a digital value. Both CMOS and CCD sensors convert an analog signal (voltage) at the photoreceptor into a digital signal. To say otherwise is simply inaccurate. Photons aren't digital. CCDs and CMOS chips do have different image qualities. The Ikonoscop is a fine camera, not one I would buy but you're making it sound silly with your nonsense.

If you want to say "I like the look of the Ikonoscop better" that's fine. That's your opinion. But to suggest one is an "analog camera" and one is a "digital camera" is simply untrue. They both are analog cameras with Analog to Digital Converters which convert an analog signal into a digital one. And this notion that "you can tell" if a sensor is 35mm vs 16 is ludicrous. If you match FOV for the lenses and you stop down a 35mm sensor and you have no grain the two will look exactly the same.

By the way, there was a 35mm 4k CCD. It was in the DALSA Origin. It even shot parts of Alice in Wonderland.