PDA

View Full Version : Despite all the complaints...



Joe Walker
04-15-2008, 06:01 AM
This camera takes every other palmcorder out there and squashes it flat. I can't believe some of you are complaining about this thing. 120fps at 3K to Compact Flash?! Sony's EX-1 and EX-3 can only do 30fps at 1080i and Panasonic's HVX200's max out at 60fps at 720p. This is huge! So it has a fixed lens - big deal. So it has a 2/3" sensor - big deal. What other palmcorder camera at that price is going to offer you such unprecedented features? The complainers on here have made it sound like we've re-entered the dark ages of 1/2" U-matic video or something. Grow up. If you need 35mm DOF buy an adapter for the camera just like you've done with all the previous palmcorders. Or just buy a RED ONE! The fixed-lens palmcorder design is something we've all grown accustomed to, quite frankly, I'm glad to see that RED jumped in there and made one. So stop complaining and get behind me in line cuz I want one!

WesVasher
04-15-2008, 06:06 AM
Sorry Joe, I just snuck in front of you in line while you were posting.

Zhibo Lai
04-15-2008, 06:53 AM
I'm with u. Red has done something truly spectacular, 3K for $3K, 120FPS, 2/3, wi-fi, then have exceeded what I was predicting it to be.

People don't know how to appreciate what they have and what Red has offered them. Scarlet is the greatest value you can get for a camera of this price.

2009, I'm willing to wait. With great patience comes great quality. I rather wait for 2009 for them to fine tune a really great Scarlet, then have it now and make tons of changes and fixes later.

So now, I wait with my DVX in 411 SD and practice making better films with amazing stories, and when I get my Scarlet, I will make even better films with killer resolution and picture quality.

Scarlet, I shall wait for you. Thank you Red for all you have done.

Christopher Grant Harvey
04-15-2008, 07:09 AM
I personally LOVE SCARLET!!!!!

I like that it is 2/3" it makes it cheaper and I can honestly afford Scarlet... For me RED is way too expensive. Scarlet is awesome.

The fixed lens is perfect for me too, again makes it cheaper.

I love this cameras as is and would not change it at all.

Joe Walker
04-15-2008, 12:46 PM
I'm just completely astounded at how many are dissatisfied with the camera. Its not even in production yet, the specs currently listed are MORE than fine, what's with all the fuss?:huh:

Bryan Bishop
04-15-2008, 12:53 PM
The negative chattering is pretty amusing, though not totally surprising.

Frankly, as one of those people that was going to be struggling to pay $5-7k for a camera of inferior quality, Scarlet looks to be a total gift in its specs and price.

I daresay many of the people complaining are looking to get something for nothing here -- they want a Red One, only with a $10,000 discount.

Up to 120fps, 3k, Redcode RAW, all for $3,000. Give me a break. If people weren't bitching, I'd think I was dreaming.

Randy Walters
04-15-2008, 12:57 PM
I'm with realogist.


So now, I wait [...] and practice making better films with amazing stories, and when I get my Scarlet, I will make even better films with killer resolution and picture quality.

I just got a Letus adapter for my Sony Z1U, and 8 Nikon lenses off eBay (hey! stop snickering!) and have soooo much work and learning to do. Off over the horizon, Scarlet awaits, and by the time it's available, I'll be a lot closer to being ready for it.

To all the Red folk out there - don't let the nattering nabobs get you down. A lot of people are looking at Scarlet as a godsend. I still can't believe it. More power to you - and us.

Buck Forester
04-15-2008, 01:14 PM
The complaining makes me wonder if people are really serious indie makers or just hobbyists? I don't say that condescending at all, but from a business perspective, this camera is a gift. If someone is looking to produce a flick using RAW with interchangeable lenses at 3K resolution and they 'complain' about this camera, then I wouldn't think they're in it to make a profit, but more so to make a cool flick for friends, family, or ego, and they want/demand something that makes no business sense. If someone is making a serious indie movie with profitable intentions, they're gonna need some decent equipment to invest in (or rent) and some financial backing to get it produced, finalized and distributed. So why be upset about a sub-$10,000 camera... that'll be the least of their expenses? I'm going into this high-def production business looking at it from a profitable business perspective and I'm really excited at what can be done for so little, with potentially great returns! If someone has confidence in their ability to create marketable footage/flicks and are looking in the price range of the Scarlet, the Scarlet is a dream at this price-point. I'm sure it will have plenty of DOF for 99% of the 'marketable' types of movies being produced, no matter what type of movie/documentary/video is being made. If not, the 35mm adaptors aren't very expensive considering this is a "business" and you'll have a wonderful movie to market. Or go into the next price bracket of interchangeable lens cameras, such as the RED One, which is still inexpensive for a real "business" expense considering what it can do. If it's a hobby, ouch, yes, it's expensive and your wives will probably be pissed at you for buying this stuff, ha! I just honestly don't see how a businessperson can complain about this stuff when the market is flooded with very nicely priced cameras that can produce high-end results. Coupled with the internet, it's leveling the playing field in a big way and it's changing how Hollywood makes and distributes movies and how broadcast channels acquire footage. This is a time to be excited about all this stuff! Unless it's a hobby... then ouch, do you buy a Scarlet or EX1 or do you take the family on a Disney Cruise to the Caribbean? If you take the cruise option... man, aren't those Disney cruises expensive? And they charge you for the poolside pina coladas too? Sheesh. Where's the Disney cruise forum? Somebody stop the planet, I want off! :

Gabriel Sanchez
04-15-2008, 01:17 PM
What i want to know is, WHEN CAN I BUY IT? Honestly, i hope i won't be stuck in the back of "the line". I wish i could pre-pre-order!

Ameer Azari
04-15-2008, 01:20 PM
If you need 35mm DOF buy an adapter for the camera just like you've done with all the previous palmcorders.

Hi,

I agree with most of your post but if people by a 35mm adapter that doesn't really set it apart from the EX1 or the HVX DOF wise

but we are getting 3K for $3K so it's still a good deal, but it would be perfecter with 35mm abilities

jonahlee
04-15-2008, 01:24 PM
I have no complaints for this camera at this price point, except having to wait, and fearing that demand will way outstrip supply.

Ameer Azari
04-15-2008, 01:30 PM
I have no complaints for this camera at this price point, except having to wait, and fearing that demand will way outstrip supply.

Same Here, they say Early 2009 but I want to actually have it in my hands in Summer 2009...I hope.

dieseljunkie
04-15-2008, 05:00 PM
The negative chattering is pretty amusing, though not totally surprising.

Frankly, as one of those people that was going to be struggling to pay $5-7k for a camera of inferior quality, Scarlet looks to be a total gift in its specs and price.

I daresay many of the people complaining are looking to get something for nothing here -- they want a Red One, only with a $10,000 discount.

Up to 120fps, 3k, Redcode RAW, all for $3,000. Give me a break. If people weren't bitching, I'd think I was dreaming.

Wrong. Most people want to have interchangeable lenses. It would add maybe $2,000 or $3,000 to the price. And it still would not come close to the RED ONE. And I keep saying this, the total investment, even for Scarlet, will be close to $10,000 when you factor in accessories and more importantly, a very powerful mac or pc for editing and lots of storage space.

A $3,000 Scarlet means nothing if you cannot edit the footage.

P.S. I am very excited about this camera and even with a fixed lens, I will buy it. I just hope they will change only this aspect of this camera or make a version with and without a lens mount. That would make this the ultimate HD camera for most people. Anyway, I will wait and see and am confident that Jim and his team are going to make this camera work for everyone.

Joe Walker
04-15-2008, 09:06 PM
Wrong. Most people want to have interchangeable lenses. It would add maybe $2,000 or $3,000 to the price. And it still would not come close to the RED ONE. And I keep saying this, the total investment, even for Scarlet, will be close to $10,000 when you factor in accessories and more importantly, a very powerful mac or pc for editing and lots of storage space.

A $3,000 Scarlet means nothing if you cannot edit the footage.

P.S. I am very excited about this camera and even with a fixed lens, I will buy it. I just hope they will change only this aspect of this camera or make a version with and without a lens mount. That would make this the ultimate HD camera for most people. Anyway, I will wait and see and am confident that Jim and his team are going to make this camera work for everyone.


That's where you're wrong. Adding an interchangeable lens mount raises the price not $3000, but close to $12,000 if not more and then with added accessories is close to RED ONE in price. People have got to get used to three market sizes. RED cameras outshine every other camera in those "market-sized" categories. I came to this conclusion six months ago. For the same price in every market category, RED's camera out-performs the competition in every way, be it codec, be it resolution, be it DOF, be it price, be it performance. People have got to get real, this camera MAKES SENSE for this category.

Bryan Bishop
04-15-2008, 09:50 PM
Wrong. Most people want to have interchangeable lenses. It would add maybe $2,000 or $3,000 to the price. And it still would not come close to the RED ONE. And I keep saying this, the total investment, even for Scarlet, will be close to $10,000 when you factor in accessories and more importantly, a very powerful mac or pc for editing and lots of storage space.

I disagree; I believe Scarlet is aimed at a very broad market (Auto Mode, etc) and many of the people they are looking to sell to aren't on these forums, aren't working photographers, and won't care about interchangeable lenses in the slightest. (And that's ignoring the fact that Sony and Panasonic have been selling oodles of fixed-lens cameras from the miniDV days up until today, and have been doing just fine.)

Now, of course I'd like to have as many features as possible, just like anyone. Frankly, I'd love to have a Red One, but cannot even come close to affording it in my current situation. The money matters. And you're correct that other things will be needed -- computer, etc -- to get the most out of the camera. Which is why I think adding $2,000 or $3,000 to the price -- a ton of money in this price range; you're talking about doubling the price of the camera for a feature many folks will not use -- is the wrong way to go.

By Red using a fixed lens, somebody out there can afford to get both the Scarlet AND a new Mac to edit their footage on.

But, at the end of the day, much like you I'm just excited about what Jim and his team are doing. Looking forward to the opportunity to use their technology to tell some stories.

Buck Forester
04-15-2008, 11:18 PM
Most people want to have interchangeable lenses.

(BUZZER Sound). Latest poll results are showing only 41% want interchangeable lenses. Most people want them? Now you're sounding like a Democrat politician. :

teeck
04-16-2008, 01:06 AM
I don't know if the people who are complaining stopped to even digest the information of Scarlet. 3k at 120 fps with a 2/3" sensor is INSANE! NOTHING WILL TOUCH THIS, CLOSEST IS AT $10,000 FOR 2/3 SENSOR. I can't even believe red is doing this, they are gonna literally flatten the whole industry, like a red atomic bomb, I say they have lost it (in a good way). I could care less about interchangeable lenses, as long as the fixed lens is decent.....thats the only thing I'm concerned about because Im sure everything else will be great.

I can't believe people are bitching about Scarlet. You know what Jim, bring it on I'm extremely excited about Scarlet and you guys are doing a great job. I say let the complainers go buy an HPX500 for 11k and they can have their interchangeable lenses with 1080 DVCProHD 12.5 mb/sec (1280x720 stretched LOL) while I will be shooting at 3k up to 120 fps 100 MB/sec in RAW.

-Gev

dieseljunkie
04-16-2008, 03:44 AM
Think about this:

When RED sells 100,000 Scarlet units, how are they going to produce them? Selling to the masses (which they say they want to do) is completely different from selling to indie filmmakers (the RED ONE market) who have worked with almost every camera and format out there? The $3,000 price tag makes it affordable for everyone but can everyone handle 3k? The answer is no. And 1080p is even problematic today so now we are upping it to 3k?

People blame others for being negative but there is something called reason. The idea is perfect but the execution will be hard. I think RED is the best thing that happened to the video/film business in the past 10 - 20 years but you have to stay realistic. I am still a bit struggling to see which audience they are targeting. Are they after indie filmmakers, everyday shooters, families with a lot of money, students or everyone? If the it is the last option, they become a consumer company and that's going to be huge. It will allow them to grow a factor 10 or 50 but that is also the big risk. If they can't faccilitate the growth it is game over for RED. And that's the last thing I want. That's why I am so puzzled.

This is so different from everything I have seen, so different from the other companies, so different then what I expected that I am overwhelmed.

I agree that people should be positive but you also need to stay realistic. Products that are ahead of their time or far too good can also fail.

oedipus
04-16-2008, 03:59 AM
I'd be looking at purchasing within an educational context. Fixed lens keeps the price down and I'd rather be able to afford say six @2.5k (because we Brits just factor in the fact that we'll get mugged on the currency conversion!) than three at twice that. Dieseljunkie's point is right on the money and it seems similar to Apple in that you can gain acceptance in niche markets but for longevity you need the brand awareness and volume that comes with an imac or ipod.

WesVasher
04-16-2008, 04:59 AM
Think about this:

When RED sells 100,000 Scarlet units, how are they going to produce them? Selling to the masses (which they say they want to do) is completely different from selling to indie filmmakers (the RED ONE market) who have worked with almost every camera and format out there? The $3,000 price tag makes it affordable for everyone but can everyone handle 3k? The answer is no. And 1080p is even problematic today so now we are upping it to 3k?

People blame others for being negative but there is something called reason. The idea is perfect but the execution will be hard. I think RED is the best thing that happened to the video/film business in the past 10 - 20 years but you have to stay realistic. I am still a bit struggling to see which audience they are targeting. Are they after indie filmmakers, everyday shooters, families with a lot of money, students or everyone? If the it is the last option, they become a consumer company and that's going to be huge. It will allow them to grow a factor 10 or 50 but that is also the big risk. If they can't faccilitate the growth it is game over for RED. And that's the last thing I want. That's why I am so puzzled.

This is so different from everything I have seen, so different from the other companies, so different then what I expected that I am overwhelmed.

I agree that people should be positive but you also need to stay realistic. Products that are ahead of their time or far too good can also fail.

I think there could be possible software solutions developed that could help here. Think of how iMovie imports HDV and AVCHD and transcodes on the fly to 960x540 Apple Intermediate Codec which computers from ten years ago almost can edit (My 9 year old G4 edits 720p AIC no problem). I can see a similar app being made for R3D files. Basically Redcine for the lower end user or 'Soccer Mom'.

Hemal Keny
04-16-2008, 05:32 AM
Think about this:

When RED sells 100,000 Scarlet units, how are they going to produce them? Selling to the masses (which they say they want to do) is completely different from selling to indie filmmakers (the RED ONE market) who have worked with almost every camera and format out there?


Let Jim and is team handle it. They did it for RED without a single $ spent on on traditional marketing.



The $3,000 price tag makes it affordable for everyone but can everyone handle 3k? The answer is no. And 1080p is even problematic today so now we are upping it to 3k?


Let the users decide. Thats where the business risk is.


Regards,

Keny

dieseljunkie
04-16-2008, 06:51 AM
That's where you're wrong. Adding an interchangeable lens mount raises the price not $3000, but close to $12,000 if not more and then with added accessories is close to RED ONE in price. People have got to get used to three market sizes. RED cameras outshine every other camera in those "market-sized" categories. I came to this conclusion six months ago. For the same price in every market category, RED's camera out-performs the competition in every way, be it codec, be it resolution, be it DOF, be it price, be it performance. People have got to get real, this camera MAKES SENSE for this category.

You are talking nonsense. $12,000 for a lensmount? Let me laugh. A $600 Nikon D40 has the same lensmount as a $5000 Nikon D3. A lens mount would add a maximum of $500 to the camera. And again, if they can have a 8X T2.8 fixed lens included in the $3,000, the glass may costs $1,000 approximately. So we are not talking $10,000 glass here.

Canon XL-A1 $6,000
Canon XH-A1 $3,500

So the lens mount adds $2,000 maximum (because the XL-A1 is more advanced and bigger in size, which costs more). So invalid argument.

And how can you know that it outshines every other camera? Scarlet is a pice of aluminium brick at this moment. And it is not here. Early 2009 will likely turn into late 2009. And the other companies are not going to wait and see. So please get both of your feet back on the ground sir.

Again, I am watching RED, I am supporting them, I am most likely going to buy this camera, but it is still vaporware untill it is out there. And once samples are out and test are conducted, you can judget it. It will take at least a year for those to appear... so you can bet Sony, Panasonic, Canon and JVC are going to work really hard to have new cameras out at the end of 2008 or the beginning of 2009 to compete. And another achievement of Scarlet will be bringing the prices down of all gear it competes with.

Gotta love RED. Keep up the great work Jim. I know you can pull it off.

dhazelrig
04-16-2008, 07:30 AM
First I would like to say that I don't see what's been going on here as "complaining" but more voicing opinion in hopes that they might influence the final product. That is, after all, the entire point of the boards. That is one of the defining attributes that sets this company (for better or for worse) apart from the big companies (Sony, Panasonic, etc.). Red actively engages in conversation with their end users. Some of the language flying around may be a tad on the annoying side, but I think we're all adults here.

My personal opinion about Scarlet is a mixed bag. Sure, I was one who immediately said "I want interchangeable lenses!", but that's because I shoot low/no budget narrative fiction and require the flexibility of what a mixed bag of prime lenses can do for me telling my story. I can always put an adapter on Scarlet, like all the other fixed lens cameras, but I figured since the camera isn't any where near production why not voice my opinion for what I would like to have.

Another issue all together comes from practicality. What is Scarlet, with its current specs, to be used for? Some say it will work great for corporate/industrial work. You're going to shoot that in 3k? I work for a company that does just that kind of work and we still shoot on BetaSP. Most of the time we deliver on standard def DVD. Why in the world would I want to have to deal with a 3k workflow, just to go to DVD? even if your delivering to HD (like what, HDCAM?) 3k is still overkill. So what good use it 3k? Why would you want it? The only realistic use for all that resolution, given todays presentation options, would be a film out. Indie people might want to shoot with Scarlet, due to their limited budgets, but again you have a camera that is limited in the narrative story telling capacity. Documentary filmmakers? Yes, but isn't that a real limited market?

We don't have 3k TV's in our homes. We don't have 3k DVD's to play on those TV's. Having that resolution isn't practical for people with few dollars.

I'm just curious who this camera is really designed for? I don't know, I don't have the answer. That's why I'm joining in the conversation.

Cheers,

-D

oldphart
04-16-2008, 08:14 AM
...
We don't have 3k TV's in our homes. We don't have 3k DVD's to play on those TV's. Having that resolution isn't practical for people with few dollars.

I'm just curious who this camera is really designed for? I don't know, I don't have the answer. That's why I'm joining in the conversation.

Cheers,

-D

It has never been a bad idea to shoot for the next generation. Many productions for TV were made on S-16 long before anybody had HDTV. Productions were shot in colour even when they would be aired in B&W the first time around.

And TV is old fashioned. Young people in particular watch stuff on the web rather than on TV. 2k monitors are becoming affordable, and bandwidths are increasing. Things change faster than you might think. :nerd:

Tyler
04-16-2008, 08:41 AM
You are talking nonsense. $12,000 for a lensmount? Let me laugh. A $600 Nikon D40 has the same lensmount as a $5000 Nikon D3. A lens mount would add a maximum of $500 to the camera. And again, if they can have a 8X T2.8 fixed lens included in the $3,000, the glass may costs $1,000 approximately. So we are not talking $10,000 glass here.

Canon XL-A1 $6,000
Canon XH-A1 $3,500

So the lens mount adds $2,000 maximum (because the XL-A1 is more advanced and bigger in size, which costs more). So invalid argument.

If they did that, I wouldn't be able to afford the camera. At under $3K, I can. Seriously, if this is the only way they can do a camera like this at that price point, then I have no complaints.

dhazelrig
04-16-2008, 08:56 AM
It has never been a bad idea to shoot for the next generation. Many productions for TV were made on S-16 long before anybody had HDTV. Productions were shot in colour even when they would be aired in B&W the first time around.

And TV is old fashioned. Young people in particular watch stuff on the web rather than on TV. 2k monitors are becoming affordable, and bandwidths are increasing. Things change faster than you might think. :nerd:

I'm not so sure thing do change all that quickly. The NTSC signal we use today was established in 1953. That signal is still the standard until next year, 2009. The HD format began discussion in 1983 and HDTV's weren't available until 1998. And I still don't think that format is worked out, yet.

So how long will it be for anything close to 2k, 3k, 4k, and now 5k to be a standard?

It could, literally, be 50 years...

...or not.

-D

Randall Nott
04-16-2008, 09:07 AM
Another issue all together comes from practicality. What is Scarlet, with its current specs, to be used for? Some say it will work great for corporate/industrial work. You're going to shoot that in 3k? I work for a company that does just that kind of work and we still shoot on BetaSP. Most of the time we deliver on standard def DVD. Why in the world would I want to have to deal with a 3k workflow, just to go to DVD? even if your delivering to HD (like what, HDCAM?) 3k is still overkill. So what good use it 3k? Why would you want it?

I'd say 90% of what I shoot is corporate/industrial/event for SD DVD output. But I always shoot in HD mode on my HDV cameras. Automatically I have a cleaner image, more latitude, and a deeper color space then the guys still shooting on BetaSP, plus I have the option to scale or crop my shots.

Once I have my "impractical" Scarlet, I've upped everything by a magnitude. I can be in a 3k wide shot at a concert event and later be able to crop to a close up of anyone in the band, even for 1080 output. For wedding, street, or documentary work I can go wide and get those edge of screen shots I otherwise would have missed.

Having a larger image to draw from is anything but overkill, it's an absolute blessing, especially for HD output, and just gives you an insane amount of options for SD output.

As far as "having to deal with a 3k workflow," have you seen the Red workflow? It's a thing of beauty, only getting better. Of course, you will have to upgrade that P4 or G4 you bought for editing the BetaSP.

Scarlet is a perfect fit for the work I do now, just as the Red One and eventually the Epic will be for the future projects I have planned.

Make it be, Jim & company, pretty please, asap.

dhazelrig
04-16-2008, 09:13 AM
I'd say 90% of what I shoot is corporate/industrial/event for SD DVD output. But I always shoot in HD mode on my HDV cameras. Automatically I have a cleaner image, more latitude, and a deeper color space then the guys still shooting on BetaSP, plus I have the option to scale or crop my shots.

Once I have my "impractical" Scarlet, I've upped everything by a magnitude. I can be in a 3k wide shot at a concert event and later be able to crop to a close up of anyone in the band, even for 1080 output. For wedding, street, or documentary work I can go wide and get those edge of screen shots I otherwise would have missed.

Having a larger image to draw from is anything but overkill, it's an absolute blessing, especially for HD output, and just gives you an insane amount of options for SD output.

As far as "having to deal with a 3k workflow," have you seen the Red workflow? It's a thing of beauty, only getting better. Of course, you will have to upgrade that P4 or G4 you bought for editing the BetaSP.

Scarlet is a perfect fit for the work I do now, just as the Red One and eventually the Epic will be for the future projects I have planned.

Make it be, Jim & company, pretty please, asap.

You make a good point about being able to crop things. Using the full shot as a master and then cropping to close ups with consistent continuity. I hadn't thought of that.

Thanks for chiming in.

Cheers,

-D

Randall Nott
04-16-2008, 09:33 AM
You make a good point about being able to crop things. Using the full shot as a master and then cropping to close ups with consistent continuity. I hadn't thought of that.

Thanks for chiming in.

Just as a side note, most videographers I knew three years ago told me my HDV cameras were not practical and I wouldn't need that resolution for years.
When I could only bring one camera to one of my best friend's wedding, the closest shot I could get of her and her groom was a medium two shot. Imagine her surprise on seeing the final output when it cut to individual cropped closeups. She wanted to know where I hid the other two cameras.

dieseljunkie
04-16-2008, 09:53 AM
If they did that, I wouldn't be able to afford the camera. At under $3K, I can. Seriously, if this is the only way they can do a camera like this at that price point, then I have no complaints.

Tyler, I understand that. But you have the money to buy the proper equipment to edit 3k footage on your computer? And do you have the money to buy for let's say $1,000 - $1,500 in memory cards? And also the money for 5TB of storage space? Those things are often forgotten.

I can imagine that they include a low bandwidth like 20mbit/sec setting which can be edited in every NLE out there. But one should think about this.

dieseljunkie
04-16-2008, 09:57 AM
Just as a side note, most videographers I knew three years ago told me my HDV cameras were not practical and I wouldn't need that resolution for years.
When I could only bring one camera to one of my best friend's wedding, the closest shot I could get of her and her groom was a medium two shot. Imagine her surprise on seeing the final output when it cut to individual cropped closeups. She wanted to know where I hid the other two cameras.

True. I think this is an advance. Shoot 3k, crop 1080p frames and have a great variety of shots with one camera. I will be buying two anyway if the fixed lens delivers. That's the risk of the fixed lens, if it is not that good or not wide enough you can't change anything about it while the rest of the camera is completely what you are dreaming off.

I hope they make the 8x a 10x and the T2.8 a T2.0. A 25 - 250mm (35mm terms) it would suffice for most people. Another thing I hope for is a telephoto and wideangle conversion lens. They could make it work like this.
But with 3k resolution, the lens has to be really good. And a fixed lens this small makes me a bit worried. But then I thrust Jim and his team.

Buck Forester
04-16-2008, 10:04 AM
3k is still overkill. So what good use it 3k? Why would you want it?

With all due respect, I'm having difficulty understanding why 3K would be a concern? Let's say it wasn't 3K, let's say it shot the same resolution as the new Sony EX1, in MPEG2. The Sony is a bigger/heavier camera (as least by appearances), it shoots MPEG2, has a fixed lens, has slower framerates, and is well over twice the price of Scarlet. And is extremely popular and is selling like popsicles at an Al Gore "Inconvenient Truth" presentation. Now we have an announcement for a camera that is smaller, lighter, much higher resolution, shoots in RAW at a great speed, and is less than half the price of hte EX1 and you're wondering what application this might be for and that 3K is a concern because it's overkill? I guess if you're concerned about it, it must be a legit concern, but for me I'm not understanding it. Those specs blow the EX1 away (which I'll be buying an EX1 this month, so I'm not knocking it, ha!, it's still awesome!) at a lesser price. You can always shoot in 3K and downsize to whatever you want, and still have 3K for future applications if you can't use it now. I'd rather have it that way than if it shot in native SD, or HDV or something. If the vast majority of your work is shot in BetaSP, out of curiosity, why are you interested in RAW high-def specs to begin with? Seems you can get those older cameras for cheap right now and it would be great for your bottom line.

Also keep in mind that a huge percentage of these kinds of video cameras sold in this price range (and up to the EX1 range) end up as nice toys with people who have money and/or people who like to have the latest-greatest and are hobbyist videographers. Do we really need to see our 2 year olds blowing out their birthday candles in high-def? You betcha! :^D

As for Jim's terse response, I think it's obvious that he is responding to those with non-constructive, negative criticism who are just complaining and disappointed they weren't given a camera that no manufacturer in their right mind would make. I'm sure positive constructive criticism is always welcomed. But hey, I'm just blowin' smoke like everyone else, stuck with too much computer time the last couple of days, ha ha! I have no clue what I'm talking about. But it's still fun.

Buck Forester
04-16-2008, 10:10 AM
When RED sells 100,000 Scarlet units, how are they going to produce them?

Exactly... and what kind of lead content will be in the paints? :


Just as a side note, most videographers I knew three years ago told me my HDV cameras were not practical...

And they were right... HDV is so yesterday.

Garth Philpot
04-16-2008, 10:20 AM
I hope they make the 8x a 10x and the T2.8 a T2.0. A 25 - 250mm (35mm terms) it would suffice for most people. Another thing I hope for is a telephoto and wideangle conversion lens. They could make it work like this.
But with 3k resolution, the lens has to be really good. And a fixed lens this small makes me a bit worried. But then I thrust Jim and his team.

I am also hoping that the lens is at least a 10x if it has to be a fixed lens, and that there is a high quality wide and tele adaptor available ... the only thing that concerns me on this little work of art is the glass ...

dhazelrig
04-16-2008, 11:27 AM
With all due respect, I'm having difficulty understanding why 3K would be a concern? Let's say it wasn't 3K, let's say it shot the same resolution as the new Sony EX1, in MPEG2. The Sony is a bigger/heavier camera (as least by appearances), it shoots MPEG2, has a fixed lens, has slower framerates, and is well over twice the price of Scarlet. And is extremely popular and is selling like popsicles at an Al Gore "Inconvenient Truth" presentation. Now we have an announcement for a camera that is smaller, lighter, much higher resolution, shoots in RAW at a great speed, and is less than half the price of hte EX1 and you're wondering what application this might be for and that 3K is a concern because it's overkill? I guess if you're concerned about it, it must be a legit concern, but for me I'm not understanding it. Those specs blow the EX1 away (which I'll be buying an EX1 this month, so I'm not knocking it, ha!, it's still awesome!) at a lesser price. You can always shoot in 3K and downsize to whatever you want, and still have 3K for future applications if you can't use it now. I'd rather have it that way than if it shot in native SD, or HDV or something. If the vast majority of your work is shot in BetaSP, out of curiosity, why are you interested in RAW high-def specs to begin with? Seems you can get those older cameras for cheap right now and it would be great for your bottom line.

Also keep in mind that a huge percentage of these kinds of video cameras sold in this price range (and up to the EX1 range) end up as nice toys with people who have money and/or people who like to have the latest-greatest and are hobbyist videographers. Do we really need to see our 2 year olds blowing out their birthday candles in high-def? You betcha! :^D

As for Jim's terse response, I think it's obvious that he is responding to those with non-constructive, negative criticism who are just complaining and disappointed they weren't given a camera that no manufacturer in their right mind would make. I'm sure positive constructive criticism is always welcomed. But hey, I'm just blowin' smoke like everyone else, stuck with too much computer time the last couple of days, ha ha! I have no clue what I'm talking about. But it's still fun.



To begin with, all of my thinking and discussion at the moment is academic. I'm not really concerned with specs. Clearly Scarlet out weighs any thing on the market today (but let us not forget that Scarlet doesn't even exist yet!). I was more concerned with application. I have no experience working with 2k, 3k, 4k, etc.

Bear with me...this has a point.

I just shot my first HD short film last weekend. I've had to jump through hoops to get everything going properly and it's raised a lot of questions for me. I edit on FCP (version 5), so that was a no brainer BUT a significant issue I have is that I have no means to monitor an HD signal. After research I found that there is an inexpensive monitoring solution for HD but it requires one of the latest intel Macs. I'm still running a G4. I'm editing my project in HD, but I know that ultimately it will wind up on a sd DVD. It might potentially go on some sort of HD format for presentation should it ever go to a film festival (I'm not certain if film festivals are running HD now. It's been 3 years since my last film).

All of those issues came from me using a Panasonic HVX-200 for the first time.

Not even close to 3K.

That opens up an entire new can of worms.

Do you have adequate storage for all those huge files? Can your current system handle the through put? Do you have the time to down convert everything to a usable format for presentation (I've heard that converting the 4k raw files is number crunching time consuming)? With a raw signal, don't you have to color correct every shot? Is that extra time that you have?

Things are changing. It's not like picking up the latest Sony blah, blah, blah slapping in a tape and knowing that you can make that deadline like you always have.

For cinema work, all these hurdles aren't as big of a deal. You can take the time work all these issues out. In the commercial world, these issues become real big liabilities. That's why my boss still shoots BetaSP, she knows what to expect. Now, I'm not saying don't move forward for fear of losing comfort, but it is something to consider.

All I hear people saying is "I'm gonna buy three Scarlet's and rock n roll!!!".

There's more to it than that.

-D

WesVasher
04-16-2008, 11:33 AM
I believe Red is very serious about the workflow. With another year of dev I'm sure the workflow will be working very smoothly, at least I hope so.

HD Bubaloo
04-16-2008, 11:40 AM
Despite all the complaints......


720 and 1080 are so last year. 3k for $3k. What a ripoff.


I truly question the intelligence of many REDUSER.NET forum posters who have anything negative to say about the Scarlet, especially since the feature set and price have been outlined (due to change).


I know the company I work for that is Panasonic/ Sony / Canon / JVC would love to be a dealer for the Scarlet here in the East Coast. This camera will make the RED ONE waiting list look inconsequential. Available early 2009 in your hands 2010. Sony and Panny won't have anything like this for at least 10 years in 2020.

Like it, buy it. Have complaints, don't buy it. From where I am standing (in our camera showroom) if you don't like it deal with 1080 and 720 for another 10 years at a higher cost.

dhazelrig
04-16-2008, 11:54 AM
Despite all the complaints......


720 and 1080 are so last year. 3k for $3k. What a ripoff.


I truly question the intelligence of many REDUSER.NET forum posters who have anything negative to say about the Scarlet, especially since the feature set and price have been outlined (due to change).


I know the company I work for that is Panasonic/ Sony / Canon / JVC would love to be a dealer for the Scarlet here in the East Coast. This camera will make the RED ONE waiting list look inconsequential. Available early 2009 in your hands 2010. Sony and Panny won't have anything like this for at least 10 years in 2020.

Like it, buy it. Have complaints, don't buy it. From where I am standing (in our camera showroom) if you don't like it deal with 1080 and 720 for another 10 years at a higher cost.

As acquisition 3k, 4k, 5k I understand the merits. But 1080 and 720 HD are going to be around for a while, at least the next 20 years, as home presentation formats. 25 years of research and development of the HD format aren't going to be superseded overnight by cutting edge technology that we are just now having the capacity to work with.

kmikami
04-16-2008, 11:54 AM
Things are changing. It's not like picking up the latest Sony blah, blah, blah slapping in a tape and knowing that you can make that deadline like you always have.

For cinema work, all these hurdles aren't as big of a deal. You can take the time work all these issues out. In the commercial world, these issues become real big liabilities.

I really don't understand all of these complaints. If you're in the commercial world and fast workflow is crucial you should have the money to buy whatever top of the line equipment you need to handle 3k realtime.

If you're an indie filmmaker doing a short film for festival distribution you should have the time to do whatever you need to do to get the job done. Even if that means leaving your computer to render for a week or monitoring on a cheap computer monitor and then burning DVDs to check it on different TV systems or whatever.

It doesn't make sense to criticize Scarlet because you say you need lots of expensive infrastructure to deal with 3k footage and then turn around and say that working fast is crucial in a commercial environment. Which world are you in? You either have time or money and you should be able to plan your budget and schedule accordingly. Scarlet isn't any different from any other camera in this regard.

Buck Forester
04-16-2008, 12:01 PM
Do you have adequate storage for all those huge files? Can your current system handle the through put? Do you have the time to down convert everything to a usable format for presentation (I've heard that converting the 4k raw files is number crunching time consuming)? With a raw signal, don't you have to color correct every shot? Is that extra time that you have?

Good points. I'm assuming you're asking these questions rhetorically (as in the general marketplace) because yes, in order to produce high-def content, from acquisition to delivery, you're already pushing the envelope. As for me, I am ordering a new Mac Pro that is pretty much max configured, with a RAID 5, and I also have an audio studio at home too. So I'll be set up to edit and render this stuff, but even then it'll obviously be a more lengthy process than SD.

I think many people who are buying the EX1 type of cameras are already reasonably savvy to what's required for editing this stuff. And if not, just like you mentioned, you jump through the initial hurdles and go through the learning curve. Working in RAW is more time intensive too, but just like with DSLR cameras, it's what the semi-serious and serious shooters (hobbyists or pros) are buying by the truckload. I know photographers are upgrading their processing power and screen size to handle the larger RAW files. A lot of moolah is being spent on this digital media stuff, and the vast majority of it is not for profressional applications. Look at a sight like Flickr... gazillions of people shooting great shots with very nice digital cameras just so they can upload them for people to see. This Scarlet costs less than many of the digital still cameras out there.

My guess is, and it's just a guess, that the people saying, "I'm buying three Scarlet's and rock 'n roll" already know to some degree what this is all about or they wouldn't be spending countless hours on the RED forums.

dhazelrig
04-16-2008, 12:04 PM
I really don't understand all of these complaints. If you're in the commercial world and fast workflow is crucial you should have the money to buy whatever top of the line equipment you need to handle 3k realtime.

If you're an indie filmmaker doing a short film for festival distribution you should have the time to do whatever you need to do to get the job done. Even if that means leaving your computer to render for a week or monitoring on a cheap computer monitor and then burning DVDs to check it on different TV systems or whatever.

It doesn't make sense to criticize Scarlet because you say you need lots of expensive infrastructure to deal with 3k footage and then turn around and say that working fast is crucial in a commercial environment. Which world are you in? You either have time or money and you should be able to plan your budget and schedule accordingly. Scarlet isn't any different from any other camera in this regard.

I wasn't complaining, I was discussing. I was raising issues which I felt people weren't addressing to hear responses. I think all of this forward looking is exciting, but I think it best served with asking questions than just accepting statements.

As far as my personal world goes, I have a day job in commercial (corporate) video production and I am an indie filmmaker on my own time...so I do both. The company I work for is small and we don't have big budgets to upgrade equipment to the latest and greatest all the time. But we still face deadlines like everyone else.

As far as my personal projects go, yes I take the time to make them work to the best of my ability, however I can. And yes, that will mean for my latest project color correcting "blind" and checking my results.

Red is calling Scarlet a camera for the masses. Everyone is touting its price as being the means to put it in the hand of "everyman". I'm simply raising the question "are they on the mark?"

I'm just trying to present constructive discussions, rather than complain or just accept. I feel it does more good in the long run.

-D

dhazelrig
04-16-2008, 12:18 PM
Good points. I'm assuming you're asking these questions rhetorically (as in the general marketplace) because yes, in order to produce high-def content, from acquisition to delivery, you're already pushing the envelope. As for me, I am ordering a new Mac Pro that is pretty much max configured, with a RAID 5, and I also have an audio studio at home too. So I'll be set up to edit and render this stuff, but even then it'll obviously be a more lengthy process than SD.

I think many people who are buying the EX1 type of cameras are already reasonably savvy to what's required for editing this stuff. And if not, just like you mentioned, you jump through the initial hurdles and go through the learning curve. Working in RAW is more time intensive too, but just like with DSLR cameras, it's what the semi-serious and serious shooters (hobbyists or pros) are buying by the truckload. I know photographers are upgrading their processing power and screen size to handle the larger RAW files. A lot of moolah is being spent on this digital media stuff, and the vast majority of it is not for profressional applications. Look at a sight like Flickr... gazillions of people shooting great shots with very nice digital cameras just so they can upload them for people to see. This Scarlet costs less than many of the digital still cameras out there.

My guess is, and it's just a guess, that the people saying, "I'm buying three Scarlet's and rock 'n roll" already know to some degree what this is all about or they wouldn't be spending countless hours on the RED forums.

You bring up a point I didn't think of: The Toy Factor.

There are a lot of people out here that will be excited about all this that are merely wealthy enthusiasts. I suppose for them its simply an issue of throwing money at it till it works. Then they have all the time in the world to play with their new toys. I guess I'm viewing all this in the theoretical terms of my boss telling a client "we'll have it to you in a week" and me being confident that this bleeding edge system doesn't bite me.

REDneck
04-16-2008, 12:45 PM
why 3k? because studios are going to use these things by the armful as D, E, F, G, all the way through Z cams. blowing up a building? litter the site with Scarlets. it's flash, so it can take a beating. your final image is 3k -- good enough for theatrical.

for the rest of us, 1080p would probably be good enough. but they're serious about making it a viable professional tool.

HD Bubaloo
04-16-2008, 01:16 PM
3k for $3k sounds like a no brainer for me. The only problem will be availability. No complaints at this price point/feature set.

Joe Walker
04-16-2008, 01:17 PM
3k for $3k sounds like a no brainer for me. The only problem will be availability. No complaints at this price point/feature set.

Thank you

HD Bubaloo
04-16-2008, 01:43 PM
"As acquisition 3k, 4k, 5k I understand the merits. But 1080 and 720 HD are going to be around for a while, at least the next 20 years, as home presentation formats. 25 years of research and development of the HD format aren't going to be superseded overnight by cutting edge technology that we are just now having the capacity to work with."

This is my point by sarcastically saying 720 and 1080 are so yesterday. THey are not, I figure with a Scarlet you are getting more than you need, getting more than you're paying for, and getting more than you will ever get from Sony or Panasonic or Canon or JVC.

sceneeast
04-16-2008, 02:22 PM
I spend the last three days at NAB asking questions about it. The fix len will surprise you how good it will be. They haven't decide yet but I hope we will be able to use the Red Drive with it.

Bob

dhazelrig
04-16-2008, 03:44 PM
"As acquisition 3k, 4k, 5k I understand the merits. But 1080 and 720 HD are going to be around for a while, at least the next 20 years, as home presentation formats. 25 years of research and development of the HD format aren't going to be superseded overnight by cutting edge technology that we are just now having the capacity to work with."

This is my point by sarcastically saying 720 and 1080 are so yesterday. THey are not, I figure with a Scarlet you are getting more than you need, getting more than you're paying for, and getting more than you will ever get from Sony or Panasonic or Canon or JVC.

Dammit! It's hard to hear sarcasm in print. Yes! I agree!

combatentropy
04-16-2008, 04:38 PM
1080p is even problematic today so now we are upping it to 3k?

1080p = 1920 x 1080 x 3 = 6,220,800 pixels.
3K Bayer = 3000 x 1500 = 4,500,000.

HD Bubaloo
04-16-2008, 04:54 PM
Your math is right, but your theory is wrong and misguided. 1080P does not have 6,220,800 pixels. The pixels are dependent on the chip set used.

3000 lines of horizontal resolution is greater than 1920 lines of horizontal resolution. Thats the reality of it.

Samuel Doyle
04-16-2008, 04:57 PM
[QUOTE]When RED sells 100,000 Scarlet units, how are they going to produce them? Selling to the masses (which they say they want to do) is completely different from selling to indie filmmakers (the RED ONE market) who have worked with almost every camera and format out there? The $3,000 price tag makes it affordable for everyone but can everyone handle 3k? The answer is no. And 1080p is even problematic today so now we are upping it to 3k?[QUOTE]

Exactly.......3k for the masses? get real.... to deal with 3k...there is a need for some serious investment and not to mention skill....more than your average 'masses' buyer would be prepared to handle.

Also....what sort of lens quality can you really expect at this price point?

HD Bubaloo
04-16-2008, 04:58 PM
Don't forget to also factor the DSP and what format your getting out of that 1080P camera you are using. If your going uncompressed out via HD-SDI you are still looking pretty good, but if your compressing down to HDV, DVCPRO HD, or HDCAM SR, then there is image quality that is sacrificed due to the compression Gods.

3k Bayer when the Bayer is striped out will leave a nice 2-2.5k image and if you use RedCode Raw your looking pretty.

Sound right?

WesVasher
04-16-2008, 05:04 PM
Exactly.......3k for the masses? get real.... to deal with 3k...there is a need for some serious investment and not to mention skill....more than your average 'masses' buyer would be prepared to handle.

Also....what sort of lens quality can you really expect at this price point?

Who says that everyone who shoots with Scarlet is going to work at 3k?

Gabriel Sanchez
04-16-2008, 05:11 PM
What book do i read to understand what ya'll are saying?!:huh:

HD Bubaloo
04-16-2008, 05:16 PM
That's funny Gabe.


I only know because I work for a Sony / Panasonic / JVC / Canon / Apple / AJA dealership and use those cameras and FCP Studio 2 and Avid MC everday.

Gabriel Sanchez
04-16-2008, 05:22 PM
Well, i'm way behind on all this stuff. I started off wanting to be a recording engineer/mixer for music and spent years learning that stuff. I guess it will take me a few more years for this stuff too:pinch:

combatentropy
04-16-2008, 05:36 PM
Your math is right, but your theory is wrong and misguided.

The post I was responding to was asking how computers could handle 3K if they are choking on 1080P. I was just showing that 3K is actually less bandwidth than 1080P. If you think I meant that 3K is worse than 1080P, that is the opposite of what I meant.


3000 lines of horizontal resolution is greater than 1920 lines of horizontal resolution. Thats the reality of it.

Bayer does need to oversample, though. A 1920 x 1080 Bayer will probably yield a bit less than 1920 x 1080 full-color resolution.

It seems that you need about 1.5x more pixels in each direction, or about 2x pixels overall.
That's what the Arri D20 does. It outputs 1920 x 1080 RGB but its Bayer sensor is nearly 3K.

More reading: Actual Resolution of Bayer Sensors (http://lagemaat.blogspot.com/2007/09/actual-resolution-of-bayer-sensors-you.html)

But ...
You can go blind on numbers. Truthfully, I would gladly take a 2K Bayer sensor, even knowing that I will end up with the resolution of 1280x720.

After a certain point, resolution is not so important. I've read in more than one place that a 35mm release print is less than 2K. And I also have read that at comfortable movie-screen viewing distances, your eye maxes out at about 2K.

HD Bubaloo
04-16-2008, 06:10 PM
No. A 35mm release print still has the equivalent of 4k lines. I am a film guy, although all of this RED stuff, is making me switch faster than from PC to MAC.

HD Bubaloo
04-16-2008, 06:37 PM
A 4k Bayer like in RED One will produce roughly 3K after the process factoring the removal of the interpolated information (de-bayering). So if RED Scarlet is 3k as claimed by Jim, then it will have a 2k quality after the de-Bayer process is factored. Still better than most 1920x1080 cameras because even if you use a F23 at 4:4:4 you are most likely going to HDCAM SR which is 4.2:1 is SQ and 2.1:1 in HQ mode. So 2.1:1 is best your going to get with HDCAM SR with an SRW-1 with a Genesis or F35 camera or F23. Unless your going to tether uncompressed directly to a NLE and high performance/cap FC RAID.

What camera manufactures need to start doing is inventing better codecs like RED did. Canon is considering doing it and they credited RED with the idea. Canon said in a press release the other day, "maybe we will just invent our own codec like Red did" when asked about the AVCHD codec.

Its making them think. The day Scarlet is announced both Sony and Canon start talking about making new codecs and having bigger sensors. Nice.
Kind of makes the HPX-3000 look a little silly now.