Whats the use of 4k in a budget camera?

[Graeme Nattress]

When I was learning, our budget was zero. Would be have enough cash left to put petrol in the car and get to the pub afterwards for a pint! Our equipment was what we could afford - VHS initially and then super-VHS. Lights were what we found or scavenged. Costumes and effects were what we made.

But then we got jobs and could begin to afford some things. I started with visual effects done on a PowerMac G3 with a capture card to a 6GB SCSI drive, which was somewhat superior to the Amiga I had been using.

But what about cameras? Well, DV was just starting, but firewire editing had not begun - this is pre-FCP days. And I wasn't that impressed with the image quality of early DV cameras, and after years of using full-sized SVHS we were after something much more professional. A Betacam was what we dreamt of, but it was utterly un-obtainable for our meagre budget, never mind the cost of the deck to play it from. High-band u-matic would also have worked well, but we didn't see any for sale. But we were offered a Panasonic MII and deck for a really affordable price. When I think what we paid for that, the deck, lens and a bunch of tapes, adjusting pounds for dollars and inflation, it's pretty much what a "ready to shoot" Scarlet rig costs today.

We were fed up with "good enough" image quality, and making excuses for the look of our productions. We found that when we got the bigger camera all the other elements of our production rose to meet it.

So to answer the above question - we'd have been Scarlet customers, had times been different.

Graeme

 

[Carter Cammack]

RED has completely changed the game.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I understand and respect the times we live in and how they compare to old times. I too learned by doing with VHS, HI8, DV etc. But Scarlet IS considered a professional camera, it's made for professionals and even if most certainly agree with the "good enough is not good enough"-argument it too will become obsolete. Technology is moving on so fast now that 4K might not be future proof at all. 8K might not be it, 28K might not or rather it most certainly will not.

How long is "future proof"? It all comes down to content. It's the experience and what you tell people that is future proof, not the quality of the camera. Star Wars is not future proof because of 35mm, it is because what it created outside of itself.

The thing is that we could have create beautiful images with all the tools needed with the 3K Scarlet, even if delivery is 1080p. We can't do it with cellphones, it doesn't have the possibility to render images that can capture the "light" of a place. But resolution when it comes down to it, is obsolete in itself. If you can create an image that touch peoples hearts in some ways it does not matter what resolution it is at. DV and VHS didn't have that picture quality, the quality that enables you to work with the image, to capture light.

What I think is the worst thing about the new Scarlet is the lack of HDRx. I pick HDRx over resolution any day. It enables me to capture the light, the image as I see it, not with blown out brights or blacks. The 3K camera was supposed to have that and 3K with HDRx is far better then 1K more resolution and not HDRx.

Photography and cinematography is about composition and light, it has never been about resolution and frankly, the fact of the matter is that no one cares about 1080p or 4K resolution other then image fanatics like ourselves. The audience, for whom we will show what we do, they want images that touch their hearts, resolution can't do that.

As I see it, there's a resolution paranoia these days. The HDRx announcement and the video where the person walks into the barn from a bright outside was jawdropping and just that little video was much bigger then any November 3 announcement. THAT was revolutionary, a 4K camera without for 15 000 USD is in my opinion not.

What survives history is content, what we pass on to coming generations, the future generations will not care shit about resolutions, if I deliver them SD resolution with a content that really touch them then they will choose that over any 4K film with no content.

What I mean is that yes, bringing good content at 4K is of course the best you can do, but the price point is beyond reason when renting better equipment with a better safenet is a better deal for a project. I can just go down to the rental house and "learn" if I need to. Keep a healthy relationship to the rental house and you save a lot of money.
You also get PL cine lenses with rental houses, something no one really can afford if they can't afford an Epic. And I would never use a Scarlet over my 5D for still photography.

The price point for the 3K camera, be it 3K or 5K or whatever the final price for that was, was a deal that made rental obsolete. The 15K camera is not, even if it's 35mm sensor and 4K.

And for resolution vs other stuff, the 3K camera had 120 fps, a point to which slow motion can be used in a very emotional and esthetic way.
HDRx and 120fps was the things that made it a killer camera. Both of these are gone in the new one.

With the Scarlet 3K we most certainly wouldn't have needed to excuse ourself for the quality infront of a client, I'm certain as hell about that.


Ten years from now we most likely will have photo realistic CGI making it less expensive to build a place in a computer then actually trying to shoot scenes at the same place in real life. Then cameras will be obsolete for large productions. Ten years after that, twenty years from now, that technology will be cheap and avalible for anyone to use. For making feature films, if CGI is as real looking as real life, why bother? The audience will not see the difference and the possibilities are much higher, the costs much lower. Heck, some video games today have such well written stories that they touch peoples hearts even if they are CGI characters. Content is everything and what is in the image, the composition light and pace is of much more importance then resolution.

So what is future proof? What is "good image quality" and for whom? We do not make images for ourselves, we make it for an audience, if we are professionals we do not make movies for ourselves.
And for commercials, most of them are broadcasted at SD resolution, a resolution where 7D's and 5D's can look very good. I've made stuff for TV on my 5D and people can't see the difference between that and a 35mm, Red or Alexa commercial. It all comes down to how you work with the image and people doesn't give a shit about resolution, not outside of "our" world.
The whole deal about DSLR's video is the pricepoint: 2208 USD for a camera that shoots 35mm images at 1080p (even if it's not the same image quality as Alexa or Red) is revolutionary and it has been changing a lot in the industry. What if the price was 8000 USD for a 35mm sensor camera the size of a DSLR that shoots 1080p with HDRx and 120 fps in a Raw codec.
Seriously, just give up the resolution for a while and look at those specs, that would have brought down Alexa, Canon and any other company who make cameras that shoot 1080p. Then they would have needed to do a better camera at a better price.

What better way to push 4K resolution then to first kill all the competition on the 1080p market? -read it one more time.


That's why I'm a little sceptic about Scarlet. It's not that it's a bad camera, it's the most awesome camera right now part from Epic, it's just that it seems misplaced, Epic is where the real things at, but Scarlet just seems stuck in the middle of nowhere. I'd rather have a 3K camera with 120 fps and HDRx. That would be a killer camera if it's priced at around 5K USD. It would be the "companion" a cinematographer would love.

I hope you understand my angle here, cameras might be obsolete for professional production 20 years from now, how do you make something future proof at all? If Red was about giving quality to more people then the big studios, then the 3K alternative WAS the real deal. Compare it to the Alexa, it would have changed the entire cinematic community even more then Red One did. And the only thing that will be saved for future generations is feature films, short films, art films, etc. who would want to future proof a commercial? Seriously?

So, the new Scarlet might now be the "hammer" that doesn't strike at all. People choose 1080p cameras like Alexa because they don't need more resolution, how ever much you scream that they need it.
So once again, if Red really want to revolutionize, killing the 1080p market with a killer 1080p camera at a low price is much better then a semi-high price 4K camera. The ones who don't care about resolution will still go for 1080p options instead.

Again, what better way to push 4K resolution then to first kill all the competition on the 1080p market?

 

[Carter Cammack]

The Scarlet seems to be a good 3K camera also. It's 3K with HDRX or 3K at 48fps. (60 would have been better, tho)
And I think it's the only 3K RAW camera in the world. (I'll be shooting it mostly in 3K mode to utilize my Nikon lenses.)

People need to watch the next year's lineup of TV Dramas, cable, indie films, and local broadcast before they declare the Scarlet to be a failure.
It might not be the best camera for you right now, but it is not a failure.

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

How long is "future proof"? It all comes down to content.

Totally agree. These days I try and not comment on technical things too much anymore, though I admit that I used to be involved in the "film vs. digital", "2k vs 4K", "red vs. arri" arguments more than I'd like to admit, both here, on other websites/forums and out there in the real world. I guess I've grown tired of it all. In the end, what really matters and what moves people who are or want to be part of this industry should be and usually is storytelling in all of its amazing and infinite ways. You can shoot the next masterpiece on Super8 film for 200$, or you can shoot the most awful piece of crap with millions of $ and the latest cameras.
The paintings in the Chauvet Cave were made with tools that could be considered obsolete, yet the importance of those drawings for us as human beings is invaluable.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I am a technical geek, I think most people in here are, but we need to look at the zeitgeist of our time and what really matters. Giving "alexa"-quality to the small people, that will change the world of cinema. Scarlet as it is now, i'm sorry to say, is too highly priced for such a revolution. It doesn't matter if it's the best and cheapest camera in it's class, it's still too pricy for normal people.

The whole purpose of Scarlet has been to give the power to the people, that is not the case now. Professional camera or not, the purpose of the camera is now somewhat of a mystery to me.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

Why are we having this discussion over and over? It´s just so much you win by shooting at high res than your delivery. I think some one earlier in this thread had a good example with still photos. Even if you're going to take pictures for the webb you still like to capture them at much higher resolution for alot of reasons. Why would you not do the same with your moving images is beyond me? Shooting 4k is a dream coming true! Thank you, thank you!!!

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Why are we having this discussion over and over? It´s just so much you win by shooting at high res than your delivery. I think some one earlier in this thread had a good example with still photos. Even if you're going to take pictures for the webb you still like to capture them at much higher resolution for alot of reasons. Why would you not do the same with your moving images is beyond me? Shooting 4k is a dream coming true! Thank you, thank you!!!

I'm speaking of the price and who will use this camera, not about how good Scarlet is, which it is. If you compare just the camera to other cameras, of course it's good. But please, get down to earth, it costs 15000 USD, it's not at the "revolutionary" price point it was supposed to be at. Read my loooong post again and you might understand what I mean.

 

[Carter Cammack]

The original 3k concept would have been better for a lot of people for a short time. Remember when it was designed:
It was going to be MUCH higher volume, and MUCH lower price.
It was going to be outsource-manufactured in Asia somewhere (my guess, Singapore or Japan) Red would not be building it here, in California.
It was supposed to be on the market 12-18 months ago. We all know this much of the story.

Having lost or never found the manufacturing partner side, be it due to simple business or natural disaster, they missed the window for that camera. Though a lot of people would buy it today, it's not here to sell. So they did what they could. They built a baby Epic that they can deliver.

The simple answer here is this. If this camera doesn't work for you, buy the Cannon, or the Sony, or whatever does. Solve your problem.
You will be back in two years or less to buy it then. Because without it, you won't be able to compete against the people that did buy it.

 

[Ruben and Sheri O.]

Interesting point =)

I understand and respect the times we live in and how they compare to old times. I too learned by doing with VHS, HI8, DV etc. But Scarlet IS considered a professional camera, it's made for professionals and even if most certainly agree with the "good enough is not good enough"-argument it too will become obsolete. Technology is moving on so fast now that 4K might not be future proof at all. 8K might not be it, 28K might not or rather it most certainly will not.

How long is "future proof"? It all comes down to content. It's the experience and what you tell people that is future proof, not the quality of the camera. Star Wars is not future proof because of 35mm, it is because what it created outside of itself.

The thing is that we could have create beautiful images with all the tools needed with the 3K Scarlet, even if delivery is 1080p. We can't do it with cellphones, it doesn't have the possibility to render images that can capture the "light" of a place. But resolution when it comes down to it, is obsolete in itself. If you can create an image that touch peoples hearts in some ways it does not matter what resolution it is at. DV and VHS didn't have that picture quality, the quality that enables you to work with the image, to capture light.

What I think is the worst thing about the new Scarlet is the lack of HDRx. I pick HDRx over resolution any day. It enables me to capture the light, the image as I see it, not with blown out brights or blacks. The 3K camera was supposed to have that and 3K with HDRx is far better then 1K more resolution and not HDRx.

Photography and cinematography is about composition and light, it has never been about resolution and frankly, the fact of the matter is that no one cares about 1080p or 4K resolution other then image fanatics like ourselves. The audience, for whom we will show what we do, they want images that touch their hearts, resolution can't do that.

As I see it, there's a resolution paranoia these days. The HDRx announcement and the video where the person walks into the barn from a bright outside was jawdropping and just that little video was much bigger then any November 3 announcement. THAT was revolutionary, a 4K camera without for 15 000 USD is in my opinion not.

What survives history is content, what we pass on to coming generations, the future generations will not care shit about resolutions, if I deliver them SD resolution with a content that really touch them then they will choose that over any 4K film with no content.

What I mean is that yes, bringing good content at 4K is of course the best you can do, but the price point is beyond reason when renting better equipment with a better safenet is a better deal for a project. I can just go down to the rental house and "learn" if I need to. Keep a healthy relationship to the rental house and you save a lot of money.
You also get PL cine lenses with rental houses, something no one really can afford if they can't afford an Epic. And I would never use a Scarlet over my 5D for still photography.

The price point for the 3K camera, be it 3K or 5K or whatever the final price for that was, was a deal that made rental obsolete. The 15K camera is not, even if it's 35mm sensor and 4K.

And for resolution vs other stuff, the 3K camera had 120 fps, a point to which slow motion can be used in a very emotional and esthetic way.
HDRx and 120fps was the things that made it a killer camera. Both of these are gone in the new one.

With the Scarlet 3K we most certainly wouldn't have needed to excuse ourself for the quality infront of a client, I'm certain as hell about that.


Ten years from now we most likely will have photo realistic CGI making it less expensive to build a place in a computer then actually trying to shoot scenes at the same place in real life. Then cameras will be obsolete for large productions. Ten years after that, twenty years from now, that technology will be cheap and avalible for anyone to use. For making feature films, if CGI is as real looking as real life, why bother? The audience will not see the difference and the possibilities are much higher, the costs much lower. Heck, some video games today have such well written stories that they touch peoples hearts even if they are CGI characters. Content is everything and what is in the image, the composition light and pace is of much more importance then resolution.

So what is future proof? What is "good image quality" and for whom? We do not make images for ourselves, we make it for an audience, if we are professionals we do not make movies for ourselves.
And for commercials, most of them are broadcasted at SD resolution, a resolution where 7D's and 5D's can look very good. I've made stuff for TV on my 5D and people can't see the difference between that and a 35mm, Red or Alexa commercial. It all comes down to how you work with the image and people doesn't give a shit about resolution, not outside of "our" world.
The whole deal about DSLR's video is the pricepoint: 2208 USD for a camera that shoots 35mm images at 1080p (even if it's not the same image quality as Alexa or Red) is revolutionary and it has been changing a lot in the industry. What if the price was 8000 USD for a 35mm sensor camera the size of a DSLR that shoots 1080p with HDRx and 120 fps in a Raw codec.
Seriously, just give up the resolution for a while and look at those specs, that would have brought down Alexa, Canon and any other company who make cameras that shoot 1080p. Then they would have needed to do a better camera at a better price.

What better way to push 4K resolution then to first kill all the competition on the 1080p market? -read it one more time.


That's why I'm a little sceptic about Scarlet. It's not that it's a bad camera, it's the most awesome camera right now part from Epic, it's just that it seems misplaced, Epic is where the real things at, but Scarlet just seems stuck in the middle of nowhere. I'd rather have a 3K camera with 120 fps and HDRx. That would be a killer camera if it's priced at around 5K USD. It would be the "companion" a cinematographer would love.

I hope you understand my angle here, cameras might be obsolete for professional production 20 years from now, how do you make something future proof at all? If Red was about giving quality to more people then the big studios, then the 3K alternative WAS the real deal. Compare it to the Alexa, it would have changed the entire cinematic community even more then Red One did. And the only thing that will be saved for future generations is feature films, short films, art films, etc. who would want to future proof a commercial? Seriously?

So, the new Scarlet might now be the "hammer" that doesn't strike at all. People choose 1080p cameras like Alexa because they don't need more resolution, how ever much you scream that they need it.
So once again, if Red really want to revolutionize, killing the 1080p market with a killer 1080p camera at a low price is much better then a semi-high price 4K camera. The ones who don't care about resolution will still go for 1080p options instead.

Again, what better way to push 4K resolution then to first kill all the competition on the 1080p market?

 

[Christoffer Glans]

The simple answer here is this. If this camera doesn't work for you, buy the Cannon, or the Sony, or whatever does. Solve your problem.

You are clearly not understanding my point here, I was talking about how Red would have revolutionized the industry with the 3K camera. Stop the "buy something else and stop complaining" argue, this forum isn't about telling people how good the camera is. The scarlet as it is now, for good or bad wouldn't have been what it is if people wouldn't have spoken out their minds about the specs.

My point is that Red would have killed the competition with a 3K camera at around 5K, because that is why the DSLR video was such a big hit, the new Scarlet is clearly not that revolutionary in this sense.

This future proof hunt for 4K has destroyed a great camera concept that would have killed all reason to use Alexa or now the Canon (even if Canons option is already obsolete).
The new Scarlet isn't really doing that, it's too pricy, it won't be what the DSLR-filmmakers gonna use because it's not priced as a DSLR. Understand who these people are, they who where going to buy it was the people who used DSLRs and wanted more quality. A huge community that is.

Who will buy the Scarlet? It's just out of reach for most people. I'm not rich, I cannot afford Scarlet, I could have afforded it if it was the old Scarlet.

My opinion is that Red lost a great oppurtunity to kill the 1080p market. Giving the same or better quality as Alexa to the people, the ones who won't pay a dime more then 8K for a working camera out of the box, would have killed the reason for anyone to use Alexa, canon, DSLR's etc. Jim is speaking about how people shouldn't use DSLR's, well, he and Red aren't delivering anything close to the price range of those cameras, so no one will listen to the arguments because at such high price it doesn't matter. DSLR's will still rule a large portion of independent filmmakers, because of the price.

Red could give out a camera that shoots ONLY 1080p but at 320 fps, HDRx, RAW etc. and it WILL KILL all the other cameras on the market. This is a fact, about how people think, not about how good the camera is. Do I make any sense?

Once again: If Red want to push for 4K resolution in the world, they cannot just speak about how good it is, they must kill and own the 1080p market first. They can only do that by giving out something at a pricepoint and quality that makes it unreasonable to buy something else. I know this for a fact because I have myself worked with DSLR's, I have worked with people who work with DSLR's and I know how they think. Scarlet is not something they are gonna buy, the old Scarlet was.

If you want to kill 1080p, own it's market. If you want to push 4K, dominate 1080p first.

Doesn't matter if you jump around screaming how good it is or how future proof, who listens to you when those who should listen get prizes for cinematography made by 1080p cameras that costs less?
Seriously, I question the logic of Scarlet. DSLRs revolutionaized a lot, because of it's price, not because it's the best camera.

I still wish for a camera from Red that has less resolution, but HDRx, 120 fps and all the picture quality you need for great images. There's too much focus on resolution, Red could dominate 1080p market and in that way push forward 4K technology, they choose not to and other companies will still dominate a large portion of the market.

 

[Brian Merlen]

As I stated a page ago, Ivy Bridge is 6 months away...It supports 4k resolution, therefore a consumer orientated 4k monitor must come along to go with these consumer devices that can display that high. Maybe it'll take a year, but 4k is right around the corner for home usage. Also your concerns about the price point don't mention there are many 1080P cameras that cost just as much or more then Scarlet. As you noted resolution is not everything, if anything I would say that codec matters just as much if not more then resolution. All the 1080p cameras in the world don't cost the same amount, and codec is a large factor in that determination on final price. Look I liked the old scarlet price point too, and I can't afford one right now either (though I can put a deposit down, I am worried about coming up with the rest when its time to). Truthfully I think the choice to stick with 4K is the right one on Reds part, though it means I personally also must try to save up for slightly longer, its not that big a deal. Considering that Scarlet comes with an SSD slot module, a/c power adapter, and mount your taking its price point out of context. The figures we were quoted on brains during development were on brains only. If you add the price for mounts and SSD slots to the Scarlet X price you'll find that though the price point is higher for the 4k brain (as opposed to the 3k prototype brain), its not significantly higher if you include the additional modules coming in the package.

Plus the price of used Red One's on ebay are cheaper then ever! If you must own a Red just wait a little longer til the ebay prices suit you better...

PS the people who "won't pay a dime more then 8 grand" wouldn't have been able to afford the 3k scarlet either. A cine brain for 4750 with no mount, batteries, modules, charger, media, etc is more then 8 grand. Even a 6 grand fixed model is pushing into the 8 grand territory once you include the needed accessories into the mix. You can't shoot with one battery and one card, at least not for very long. Also I am pretty sure you would need filters to protect the fixed model, screw ins would be cheaper then a matte box set up, but either way you cut it a whole package, whether it shoots 3k or 4k was always going to be more then 8 grand if you really analyzed what it takes to make a bare bones minimum package

 

[Christoffer Glans]

The price speculated for the 3K at 3K price was that it might end up at 5K or 8K for final package, as I said.

And once again, I'm not speaking against 4K resolution in itself, don't understand why people don't understand that, I'm sayin there's a marked not interested in 4K because even if 4K displays comes out next year, the delivery to the general audience won't be here until a few years from now. WE are NOT who will see what we do, understand that? So the people who knows this, they tend to shoot 1080p even at a bad codec because of the price of the camera, like the DSLR cameras. Why they were a success is because of their price, not because of it's superior quality, which it hasn't.

Release a 1080p camera that kills everything and you can push 4K without meeting resistance.


Another thing to consider for Red, if they dominate the 1080p market, those people will come here, read what you think about 4K and might go along with you. People out there in the real world can't hear you because you speak on a forum for dedicated people. It looks almost like a cult, we are all with Red in their thinking, the difficult part is to get THAT thinking out in the real world.

How more can I make myself clear on what I mean?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Unfortunately the only way to get full quality 1080p is to start with a lot higher rez. To think otherwise violates basic sampling theory.

Graeme

 

[Marcos Montenegro]

Christopher:

I hear you man, but Graeme is right. Shoot 4K RAW and it will amaze you how much better these files are to edit and play with than DSLR files. The direct consequence is a better image at 2K than the DSLR one, and very noticeable in 90% of shots.

On the other hand, you have a very valid point. Why not spend the 16K-20K that Scarlet-X will cost you today in better gear (lenses, lighting, jib/crane) for your current DSLR rig, thus (hopefully) enabling you to make more money and then in a year or two from now, when 4K begins to get popularized by TV manufacturers, jump to a 4K camera solution of your choice, perhaps even RED.

Food for thought

Marcos

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Yes, that is correct, but that was where the 3K came from in the beginning, 3K was supposed to downsample to 2K or 1080p as the delivery.
But that also makes the current Scarlet not very good, because if downsampling is the key to a good image, shooting 4K isn't giving you the best image. Epic has 5K with the intention of 4K delivery, it has downsampling, Scarlet has not. So if delivery with best possible image quality is still at 2K or 1080p with the current Scarlet, why not do a 3K camera with better compression, 120fps capabilites and so on?
The creative tools of having more dynamic range, higher frame rates and less compression to enable harder color grading makes it a better creative tool then pushing the limits to have it at 4K just to be able to have it at 4K. I think the loss is too great.

What would it take to have a 35mm 3K or 2K camera with 120fps and HDRx at full frame?
What might be the cost of that? If it's too expensive, how much can be pushed to reach a price point where it delivers much better results then other cameras but have a price point closer to DSLRs.
I believe that this point, reaching that, would be the revolutionary system that will change the industry for real. That is my vision at least, I just don't have the money or resourses to make such a camera, but I know Red does and they have the visonary view upon cinematography that other camera companies does not.

My wish is still to see a change in the industry where the border between rich professionals and not so rich professionals are erased and only the best creative souls survive, not those with the most money. That world can only happen if the price point reaches closer to DSLR standards, because the people who made the fuzz about DSLR video are the ones that need that type of camera, they who can't afford the current Scarlet. Imagine them able to afford a Red 35mm camera, what would happen to Canon and Alexa? Red would dominate the market.

I am in no way against 4K or believe that the new Scarlet is a bad camera, I'm just saying that there was a huge customer base that went missing with this release.

I hear you man, but Graeme is right. Shoot 4K RAW and it will amaze you how much better these files are to edit and play with than DSLR files. The direct consequence is a better image at 2K than the DSLR one, and very noticeable in 90% of shots.

I'm not talking about why it's better to shoot 4K then native 1080p, I'm speaking of a missed market, I know WHY it's better to shoot 4K. I've worked with Red since it came out.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

"because if downsampling is the key to a good image, shooting 4K isn't giving you the best image. " and that's exactly why 4k RED Footage shown as 4k looks bad.... Oops, it doesn't. That's because the display and capture resolutions match, and you're starting with enough resolution to make a nice sharp appealing image without aliasing artifacts as we set the OLPF properly. It's only when your native resolution is low do you set the OLPF too light, or omit it entirely, or excessively edge-sharpen the image to make up for the fact you don't have enough real detail there.

As you say, you know WHY 4k. If there's a missed market, that's a shame. All we can do is put out the best camera there is for the pricepoint. We found we couldn't do the original Scarlet as indeed it would have addressed a market segment that perhaps the new Scarlet does not. But no point crying over spilled milk because that Scarlet didn't and would probably never work, as Jim eluded to in his launch speech. But far better to put out a really good product, which Scarlet is then try to push a product out to market that wasn't the quality we want to put our name to. Far better to not get a customer than to permanently loose a customer.

Graeme

 

[Christoffer Glans]

So, do you agree or disagree with the fact that the market who "only needs" 1080p, which is a huge market, is missed out with the current Scarlet release? And that something 1080p-like would dominate and kill the competition in that market to the extent that 4K could be pushed by Red more easily?

As with shooting native 4K and showing native 4K, I understand resolution and sharpness, but what about color sampling and getting true 4:4:4? Isn't that why you downsample from 4K to 2K on the Red One, to get from 4:2:2 to 4:4:4?

I still think that if Red dominate 1080p market at DSLR prices, they will dominate most of the world of cinematography, not to speak of those cinematographers who aren't "there yet", who will start out with Red and probably stay with Red. I am a Red fanatic, but I can't help thinking outside of that position.

 

[Richard Goodwin]

If you'd like some historical precedents for the "future proof" effect then take a look at Vertigo and North By Northwest. Both were shot VistaVision at a time when almost every commercial dramatic film was shot 35mm. Also, they are non-effects films where a good deal of the action is 2-3 person conversations in moderately sized rooms. But the level of detail and richness of color are still stunning when you view them projected full size.

I'm not sure it was necessary to shoot VistaVison for these films. But the level of total immersion and intensity is helped by the format. And the verging on the hyper real that such accurate, high resolution images have does complement two films which share a theme of reality vs make believe.

Different films are better complimented by different technical choices. But Scarlet wise you are getting the ability to shoot Film Quality that will have an effect when viewed theatrically, and on future home mediums as well (even BluRay today)

 

[Jon Jones]

Disagree... In my humble opinion the SCARLET release is a gift from God, and it is a huge blessing for me, and many people who know me. I literally had $16,000 worth of gear in my cart at B&H and was getting ready to place order, (Panasonic AG AF-100, and gear). And I decided that I would go and check the RED website, well it was down for some reason, so I kept refreshing, and refreshing, and low and behold the SCARLET came up as "SCARLET all grown up" I clicked over to store, and saw that it was for sale, for the first time ever. I told my wife and she was like... Buy it, buy it, buy it! So I did, and many other things as well. Yes much more than $16,000 worth of gear, but hey we are committed.

This is an expensive industry my man, if you can't afford it, then do something else.

So, do you agree or disagree with the fact that the market who "only needs" 1080p, which is a huge market, is missed out with the current Scarlet release? And that something 1080p-like would dominate and kill the competition in that market to the extent that 4K could be pushed by Red more easily?