What comes to the C300, for me it seems it will have quite an uphill battle with Scarlet-X. Or, as one friend of mine use to say "Good luck and best wishes".
Thanks for your thoughts everyone. I guess what I'm talking about with the 50fps is the shutter speed. When you run the shutter at double the frame rate which is what you could call a standard you would theoretically get strobing on fluro lights and potentially HMIs. In a PAL country if you want to run off speed you would generally choose say 33.333 fps or 50 fps and so at 48 fps we miss out on the 2nd higher rate - at 3K. Seems like a bit of an over sight and a little NTSC focused I guess is my point. I'm not so concerned with the loss of the 4% slow down it's more the option of versatility in 3K as I'm not too concerned with shooting in 2K :-)
Thanks Paul, I don't think I'm being greedy in having an open discussion on the pro's and con's of these camera systems :-)
These problems of framerates are nonsense to me ! Why would we need 50fps. Lots of documentaries are shot on 24fps and projected in 24fps in europe! So 48 is no problem !
A Scarlet with the pro audio module also has XLRs, and it still has all the other things that make it better, too... no way is Canon going to come outta this looking good... the alexa and F65 look pretty pricey now, even more so
Here's Vincent Laforet during yesterday's Canon event:
Here's where I have a prob with the Canon: RED cameras allow you to change the mounts; Canon makes you buy EITHER a PL camera version or a Canon camera version.
I like the internal ND filter concept, but I have to see the quality of it first. The XLRs are nice, but I have a SOUND DEVICES MIXPRE-D (http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MixPre-D/) and couldn't be happier with my setup. Glad I put down a deposit on Scarlet-X and looking forward to Dragon and a Nikon mount from RED.
The Canon is a nice camera. Its an F3 competitor. I might even give that it can have slightly better low light and dynamic range than the Scarlet. The problem I have with it is simple: Its a camera you'll pay 20k, or16k, or whatever, and that will be it- no more improvements, no sensor upgrades, no new modules... The next camera you would buy would need you another 16K or more. You already can see what that camera will come up with: T the H264 Intra codec or the Motion JPEG 4K encoding. And what will that make your one year or two years old camera? Exactly. Obsolete. The Scarlet, like Jim Jannard said, is a modular, future proof, obsolescence obsolete camera: you'll get Red's commitment to improve, more features (hopefully), and the possibility to upgrade your sensor. Its not gonna be cheap, but it should be much cheaper than buying a 16K new camera. And you get to keep all your modules and support equipment. That concept in itself is the big winner. Its a camera system created with the costumer in mind. One can only applaud this approach.
And, of course, the Scarlet current specs are spectacular: Red One MX level spectacular.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|