He would compete his flagship product if he would do that.
I'm with you studiodrome...I think Scarlet needs to be and will be 4K. Anything less makes no sense.
How have we all as cameramen and women become producers all of a sudden, obsessed with the buzzword "4k". It's like when producers discovered the word "HD." Regardless of whether it actually added anything or was even appropriate given the situations, "let's shoot it HD" is now "nothing less than 4K is viable?" For a few people 4K may be a great bonus. For most, the beauty of the RED system is not necessarily the pixel count so much as the imager size to price-point ratio. Professional is a VERY widely defined term...but I guess since 2K scanned 35mm film isn't 4k, it's not professional.
I think we'll see what happened with the RED 1 - a prototype body that fits the word of mouth ad campaign - a "pocket professional camera," and by the time it hits the market it will grow to normal size and weight (not necessarily a bad thing). To those people who are demanding a 4K mini body with ALL the same tech specs as the R1, think for a second about the mini-bnc debacle. They used mini BNC's because the body was shaped in a way that could not physically fit full sized BNC's...do you really believe they're just keeping the body as large as it is for fun? I'm sure that if it could be made smaller...even as small as the original concept form factor, they would have! And if they could run the chip and processing system off a handy-cam style battery as opposed to a hi-draw brick, don't you think they would?
The truth is, unless RED has drastically altered the entire microprocessor industry, to miniturize a camera, they must make SOME sacrifices from their flagship product to significantly cut the heat, complexity, and power draw. If it's not 4k, who cares? If it's not a S35 sensor, who cares? Sure, it would be nice but it's certainly not essential if the goal is a compact professional. If you could put a S16 or even 2/3" chip into a camera the size of a DVX, you could sell boatloads of them. And 1080p would be FAR more than enough, as long as the image is clean. It's the same argument we've had all along in still cameras - it's a LOT easier to market using MILLIONS of pixels, whereas a leap of 2 stops in sensitivity or 2 stops of d-range sound like far smaller improvements. It's all marketing!
Hopefully they just make a good camera, regardless of resolution. And hopefully they make it in a form factor that's revoltutionary in it's ease of physical handling. There are a lot of great small cams out there, and so far NONE of them have even approached a form factor that's remotely comfortable to use.
If they make a 4k pocket camera you can still shoot 2k. Film looks awesome scanned to 2k because the source is so good. Who knows when the Scarlet will even come out. But by the time it does 4k will have already infiltrated the industry. And we will all be noticing the difference of 2k vs 4k when its projected off of a 4k projector.
honestly why would RED create a pocket camera that doesn't match the look of the RED ONE? 1/4 of the rez just doesn't make sense.
Get real: a 4k camera needs 4 times the battery size of a 2k camera. It needs to dispose of the heat from the electronics. If you try to save on size by making a 4k S-16 camera, the pixels will be too small and more important qualities like dynamic range will suffer, and it will be too small to be efficiently cooled.
If you want fast, sharp glass that can image a S35mm plane its gonna be big. Have you ever held a Cooke S4? It's HUGE.
The only thing I can see is if the FFD for this thing is TINY like on a Leica M, then we might have S35 but unless Red starts rehousing Cosina glass like they did with that Sigma stuff, I guarantee we're looking at 2K in Scarlet.
To me..and I would LOVE to be proved wrong, expecting this pocket camera to shoot 4k would be like expecting Canon to squeeze 22 megapixels from their flagship Mark III into a pocket Canon Elf. It would probably cost more to make a tiny 4k pocket camera even with features stripped down.
If Scarlet is 4k, one would have to think that the image will have a nice quality 4k image. If it does have a nice quality 4k image, it would then be comparable to a RED ONE. To expect a 4k image coming out of Scarlet that is even somewhat comparable to the Red One is unrealistic. If we start thinking this, we are going down the path of fantasizing about a smaller and cheaper RED ONE with just less features.
I would love to be proved wrong.
In regards to sound, I have been shooting with the hvx200 ever since it came out and I am extremely dependent on the built in audio capabilities. If Scarlet didn't have built in audio, I wouldn't buy it.
Red is not going to give away Red one sales by making a cheaper camera with "almost" as good specs as Red One. Scarlet at best will be 1080p
but very affordable.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|