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 :)

Why did they change the Scarlet schedule?

Vladimir Eugene said:
I'm assuming the greatest demand, biggest seller will be the fixed lens 2/3. If so, that's where I would focus getting into the market first.
Click to expand...
Absolutely right in my opinion.

Definitely a consumer/prosumer market entry, and that means one word is going to be the driver for it's early release: Christmas.

Dom.
 
so we can have hope??? But how buggy will the items be??? How far is the development and testing of the electronics??? Will the first buyers be the testers???
With every month of waiting there are just more questions rising ......
 
Wayne Morellini said:
it probably makes more sense to drop the 2/3rd fixed and replace it with a s35 fixed.
Click to expand...

What about all those soccer mom? They'll be priced out :001_unsure:
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Still, you could make a custom homemade prism and split the image to 4 $3-10 sensor chips (or 1/3rd chips), or four $100 cameras ;) . I don't think competing camera companies want people to pay less.
Click to expand...

Wayne Morellini said:
I forgot to post what I was going to.

Economically, it may make more sense for Red to drop the s35 model completely, so people don't get distracted from Epic. Ideally for us, it probably makes more sense to drop the 2/3rd fixed and replace it with a s35 fixed (you can use aperture to increase the DOF) and even drop the 2/3rds, and replace it with a 2/3rds lens mount on a s35 camera. Or you could just have s35 fixed, and FF35 plus 2/3rd inch lens mount item (using binning, you could maintain similar video resolutions FF). Still, if 4/3rds format is different enough to s35 in size (I don't know the measurements), as detachable, I think higher end professionals would still want to buy Epic. So many marketing options, so many. Will be interesting to see what the models physically look like in the end.
Click to expand...

None of this makes any sense. 2/3" is the most common professional HD production format in the world. There is no reason to abandon it. It is a great format in its own right.

With the Scarlet line RED is offering cameras that perform like no other camera system on the market at any price mere mortals can afford. There may be minor differences in the final designs for improved function and reliability, but I don't think we will see anything too radically different in physical terms from the renderings and prototypes we have already seen. Most differences will be in the performance specs, and Jim has said they won't be worse than what has been revealed so far. They are in the final stages of production engineering, not reinventing designs at this point.

S35 fixed? Even consumer king Canon doesn't make an APSC sized sensor in a fixed lens camera. It wouldn't be as cheap as a 2/3" by any means because the sensor costs at least 6 times as much to produce and the lens would have to be twice as large and four times as expensive to deliver equal performance. Would you pay $10k for a fixed lens camera? There is no practical market for it.
The only way to make it significantly cheaper would be to compromise every aspect of design, less rugged plastic bodies instead of metal, less processing power, lower performance, trade modularity for an all in one design that is not upgradeable, eliminate valuable features like adjustable back focus and interchangeable lens mounts. Build in a lower quality lens.

What attracts me to RED in the first place is the fact that they are not making these compromises just to meet some arbitrary market price point. They are building for image quality first coupled with rugged professional grade mechanics that can stand up to the rigors of daily field use under extreme conditions, then setting price based on their actual development and production costs.
This kind of quality costs real money, as true pro grade motion picture cameras always have. RED has already reduced these costs to a remarkably low level when compared with any other professional grade video or digital cinema camera system with similar performance and features.
We all have to live within our budgets. If you can't afford a camera of this quality, then you will have to compromise and pick a less capable camera system, whether typical small sensor video format or large sensor still camera with less than pro video features.
I for one don't expect or want RED to provide that compromise.
 
Russ Blaise said:
What about all those soccer mom? They'll be priced out :001_unsure:
Click to expand...

;) If they can afford an foxed scarlet over my $100 pocket HD camera, they can afford to go for the 2/3rd inch they can afford the minute step up in price of a larger fixed format (overall price and sensor format size is not usually linear, otherwise a $100 personal HD camera would cost closer to xdcam, and FF would cost over a hundred thousand).
 
I should point out here, some of these technical feasibility discussions might appear to be more clear cut then they actually are, to some people, there are many factors here, and some other factors. I am not saying that the scarlet is not great value for money as it is.

David Rasberry said:
None of this makes any sense. 2/3" is the most common professional HD production format in the world. There is no reason to abandon it. It is a great format in its own right.[./quote]

Does that mean it is the best, or better to have than s35 or 4/3rd's, yet I notice that everybody outside the video industry seems to want bigger sensors for various reasons.

With the Scarlet line RED is offering cameras that perform like no other camera system on the market at any price mere mortals can afford.
Click to expand...

I am yet to see it anywhere. Sure the low light was good, and it is great, but I can name sensor technology many times better.

There may be minor differences in the final designs for improved function and reliability, but I don't think we will see anything too radically different in physical terms from the renderings and prototypes we have already seen. Most differences will be in the performance specs, and Jim has said they won't be worse than what has been revealed so far. They are in the final stages of production engineering, not reinventing designs at this point.
Click to expand...

Yes, my point, but at times like this companies sometimes do drop designs or radically adapted to suite market potential, so just in case. If you look at the difference between a fixed 2/3rds, and a fixed 4/3rds, much work in both designs can be shared, and a 2/3rds can be converted to 4/3rds at a fraction of the cost of the design of the 2/3rds. As for lens, consider there must be heaps of designs floating around the market that can be easily adapted (I am expecting some advantages in using the 4/rds system, but not for it to be competitive with a top s35 film lens).

S35 fixed? Even consumer king Canon doesn't make an APSC sized sensor in a fixed lens camera. It wouldn't be as cheap as a 2/3" by any means because the sensor costs at least 6 times as much to produce and the lens would have to be twice as large and four times as expensive to deliver equal performance. Would you pay $10k for a fixed lens camera? There is no practical market for it.
Click to expand...

Go out and buy a $500 4/3rds camera and tell me that it is $10K. People seem to make the mistake of thinking that four times the size means four times the price. For starters, sensor price is only one component so the price of the rest of camera still stays similar, and the bigger the format, the less difficult it is to make the lens (which can be a bought/adapted mass market design for the fixed). Secondly, even the sensor itself does not go up linearly in price for size. It cost less per area to handle, slice, and often package (for large chips with large amounts of pins) then smaller ones, requires similar on chip support circuitry that will probably not increase much in size. So the rice might be double, and it might be $500 price difference (or even tens of dollars in enough volume). The market wants you to think that double means double the price, and the professional market wants you to think that 25% improvement is worth ten times the price (at the bleeding edge this can be true though). It all comes down to numbers, and with enough numbers we are talking about $100 price difference. As a singular fixed model, we are talking about those numbers. I know for many things, a detachable lens is not going to add much for me, and the fixed is advantageous (and even a detachable auto camera controlled after market 4/3rds lens). Would many of the existing fixed, spend an extra $100-500 for the fixed, probably so. As far as the detachable, you can get HD for a 2/3rds lens on 8 mpixel 4/3rds camera, then no real problems, swap for the type of work you want to do.

The only way to make it significantly cheaper would be to compromise every aspect of design, less rugged plastic bodies instead of metal, less processing power, lower performance, trade modularity for an all in one design that is not upgradeable, eliminate valuable features like adjustable back focus and interchangeable lens mounts. Build in a lower quality lens.
Click to expand...

Notice I did not say that for the fixed (though the lens does not have to be at the level of a top notch camera. For a bigger format detachable, everything else can remain relatively the same.

I have had a bit to do with people that custom design their silicon chips (actual foundry silicon designs, not just FPGA), may own product development, and also do with home made digital cinema camera projects, which led to the creation of the Red. I can tell you two things in particular that can hike up the price of a larger sensor. CMOS was adapted because it could take advantage of the large manufacturing volume of the CMOS chip market, but derringers found they had to customize the manufacturing process to get the performance, so that advantage evaporated a fair bit. So, low shipping volumes of the sensor can push up the price a lot ($500 increase might not even cover it). Apart from cost of some very expensive processes or materials (I assume none of them are in play here) the other major factor is supply of materials or manufacturing capacity. If you don't have hold of enough materials (and short supplies also push prices up) or manufacturing capacity is limited, then you can only do short runs which pushes the cost up (even though some chips can share a manufacturing process) and you have to retool etc for each. I should have also mentioned that designing, refining and testing the things also costs heaps of money over low runs ( but with all chips using the same basic technologies and designs the cost is shared across all cameras etc (I do have another priority scheme in mind that can further reduce costs, but am unsure wherever anybody has it).

However, this is still great cost compared to the dollars, and tens of dollars HD chips out there, and don't get me wrong, what scarlet fixed is offering is still great value for money, 4/3rds even more.

This kind of quality costs real money, as true pro grade motion picture cameras always have.
Click to expand...

We pretty much debunked this years ago, some things do cost heaps more, but other things are so doable, well understood and cheap, it does not matter that much. Go to hardware products with rugged equipment, and compare prices to pro cameras. You maybe able to find reasonably low volume complex rugged equipment, for a fraction of the cost of a pro-camera. Pricing depends on the desirability by naive customers and the amount of money going around to spend on it.


RED has already reduced these costs to a remarkably low level when compared with any other professional grade video or digital cinema camera system with similar performance and features.
Click to expand...

If you are willing to accept some compromises (2/3rds of the quality, smaller mass produced sensor), you can reduce this down to less then maybe $500+storage and battery for a still great professional HD video image acceptable for cinema. The reality is that I continue to come up with new methodologies for my own designs (which I can ill afford to implement, expensive) and now am looking at quality HD cinema at $100 that can fit in a packet of cigarettes with extremely good controllability and dof pulling (plus a couple of other things). The sensor is one of the biggest problems, I have a design concept for a revolutionary light sensor design I want to test out for scientific and engineering validity eventually, which allows for custom home production. But I do not know if it would be possible to match the best sensors available (please note this is not just a simple solution, but builds on years of work on other techniques and technologies).

Wishing you the best David.
Click to expand...
 
Last month, Ted mentioned: "if there aren’t any hiccups in engineering we will be getting the first look at the 3k Scarlet and Epic X around thanksgiving ‘09 (late November)."

:gun: http://camerarentalz.com/scarlet-release-tracker/

So let's keep our fingers crossed:drool5:
 
Wayne's staggeringly long-winded post aside, the 2/3" fixed scarlet is getting made because there is a high demand for it.

FF35 shallow depth of field is not desirable to all cinematographers, especially in documentary. Documentary likely represents the single largest professional market for RED, so why wouldn't they make a camera suited to their needs?
 
You know I keep looking at the other options out there in HD camcorders like the Sony's, Panasonic, JVC and others. I look at their specs and when I try to get close to something with a 3/4" sensor, I'm into a lot of money. Even some of the 1/3'' chip cameras are around $4.5k and up if you want something with true 1920x1080P, not something that is up res-ed.

Three more months of waiting… I might make the mistake and buy some cheap camera I don't really want. :nopity:
 
You're forgetting pixel count though Wayne. The amount of processing to handle the data coming off the sensor is going to scale linearly to the number of pixels. The pixel count between the 2/3" and the s35mm Scarlets isn't 25% it's 277%. The cost difference between 2/3" and s35mm is 280%. 277% more processing power needed. 280% increased price. Coincidence?

Could RED have designed a s35mm scarlet at $2500. Probably. But then it would have to be a completely different sensor design from the 5k epic.

Why 2/3" is desireable in video but "not other industries"?
Because of Autofocus. Autofocus isn't practical *yet* for motion images. You can shoot 645 with an autofocus lens and get the shot you want. Or you can setup the perfect shot manually. You aren't trying to hold focus on something running at the camera for an extended period of time.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
I am yet to see it anywhere. Sure the low light was good, and it is great, but I can name sensor technology many times better.
Click to expand...

Really? The few shots I've seen here out of the 2/3" sensor compares more than favourably with any still camera using a ~2/3" sensor (i.e P&S cameras). Odd then that there are better sensor technologies that no one is using...
 
Rick Presas said:
Wayne's staggeringly long-winded post aside, the 2/3" fixed scarlet is getting made because there is a high demand for it.

FF35 shallow depth of field is not desirable to all cinematographers, especially in documentary. Documentary likely represents the single largest professional market for RED, so why wouldn't they make a camera suited to their needs?
Click to expand...

Not a record, but needed to address some misconceptions long blowing in the winds of the industry, including the desirability of 2/3rds on a fixed lens, and the use of detachable 2/3rd lens on a 4/3rds camera. You know there is a simple way to widen DOF even on large format cinema cameras. You might have noticed I also pointed out how sensor size usually has limited effect on cost.

Have fun. Probably see you guys closer to November.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
You're forgetting pixel count though Wayne. The amount of processing to handle the data coming off the sensor is going to scale linearly to the number of pixels. The pixel count between the 2/3" and the s35mm Scarlets isn't 25% it's 277%. The cost difference between 2/3" and s35mm is 280%. 277% more processing power needed. 280% increased price.
Click to expand...

Gavin, this is not what I was talking about. You might also consider that people buy on perception often than actual cost, and companies make real money on high level products (I personally think Epic and Scarlet should overlap less). Pixel count and data-rate are still only small parts of the cost until you push up the high end, otherwise those cheap sensors that can do SHD dumps at 60fps (the Sony sensor used in the high speed casio a few years ago as a classic example) in cheap cameras and cheap controllers that do this, would be worth a lot more (each pardonably to be had for $30 in bulk). At the higher end you need more specialized technologies and/or usually more pins (pins are costly). For what we are looking at, even serial link technologies can cover it (not some of those weak consumer camera serial link technologies though). Classically, the higher speed/data you go though the higher the heat interference you induce in the circuit, however Red is already there.

I have mentioned 8-10mpixel still fro 4/3rds (I forget where I did here) but you can design overall pixel count so that 2/3rd image circle gets at least 1080p/2K and through pixel binning for the 4/3rds, and still for full size. This gives you around 62.5MB/s for 10bit 25fps raw, 187.5MB/s for 4:4:4, and still needs to be no faster, a lot less than 3K. I am not saying that the 4/3rds has to be conventional, wide is still acceptable. So, both formats can fit in one.


Could RED have designed a s35mm scarlet at $2500. Probably. But then it would have to be a completely different sensor design from the 5k epic.
Click to expand...

I thought the price had increased? They would not have to make much of a change, as pointed out. The same pixel cell design (size) used on all scarlets would naturally translate into higher resolutions. It is likely the sensors are begin manufactured as we speak, or have been, and have gone through a number of expensive proto fabrication test cycles that might last for 6 weeks at a time, if actual availability were late November. If NAB next year, then there is some lead time, but the still need to go through a number of proto test fabrication cycles (then the technology/cell section should be sorted by now).

About the auto-focus lens, naturally this is only for certain uses, as a lens option for detachable, and standard selectable in fixed. So, it is not an issue, as I am not advocating abandoning the use of professional detachable lens in the non-fixed cameras. I also (if anybody has read the "long winded" one, post) stated how a 2/3rd lens could be used with a 4/3rds sensor.

Christopher Polis said:
Really? The few shots I've seen here out of the 2/3" sensor compares more than favourably with any still camera using a ~2/3" sensor (i.e P&S cameras). Odd then that there are better sensor technologies that no one is using...
Click to expand...

We were talking about how good it was, not even how good it was compared to 2/3rds inch still. It was not as positive, but still good.
 
Last edited:
My guess is that the market for 2/3" is SO BIG, they will sell so many. Heck, I'm buying one. I'm trying to buy 10 or work!

Then the s35 for filmmaking!
 
Who uses 2/3 chip camera? Documentaries, ENG, TV work? Is there more?

Curious?
 
2/3" lenses won't cover a 4/3" sensor. 11mm image circle compared with 22mm image circle. You will need 4/3" native lenses or S35 or APSC still camera lenses to cover.
The optics issue is a major one. Double the image circle and you double the diameter of the lens for the same f number and focal length. Compare the size and weight of an f1.7 2.3" 12x zoom with an Angenieux 24-290mm Optimo T2.4 zoom for S35 and you will see what I mean.
35mm film has existed for nearly 100 years now, 16mm film not much less. Super 16mm is still a robust and popular production format, though less so with the emergence of viable digital alternatives. For all of the same reasons that 16mm has flourished all these years, digital 16mm (2/3") will continue to flourish also.
 
charlesN said:
Who uses 2/3 chip camera? Documentaries, ENG, TV work? Is there more?

Curious?
Click to expand...


Star Wars 2 & 3
Sin City
The Final Destination

The list is endless for films
 
Thomas Koch said:
My guess is that the market for 2/3" is SO BIG, they will sell so many. Heck, I'm buying one. I'm trying to buy 10 or work!

Then the s35 for filmmaking!
Click to expand...

But the market for 4/3rds/s35 that can take 2/3rd lens would be even bigger :) .

David Rasberry said:
2/3" lenses won't cover a 4/3" sensor. 11mm image circle compared with 22mm image circle.
Click to expand...

I don't really mind justifying whatever I truthfully say so much, or other people say for that matter, but people can at least read what they are questioning. You notice, I did not say that the 2/3rd lens would cover a 4/3rd sensor (you need a special adapter for that), it would only cover part of the sensor and that part only needs to have 1080 fullhd / 2K resolution in it for 2/3rd lens to be very useful (and how many of them are actually designed to get resolve more than fullHD anyway, let alone the SD lens many people might try to stick on the cameras). So the 4/3rds has the same pixel size, just at least four times more pixels (in 16:9) to get the 1080/2K resolution inside a 2/3rds image circle. In this way you can replace the production costs of a few models (depending on what other choices that could be done they can reduce the Scarlet range down to three models and allow the more expensive Epic to do the substitute for the others).

Interesting times ahead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top