Scarlet = 5DII still on order at DVinfo.net

Don Miller · November 13th, 2008, 05:27 PM

Well, Scarlet is not at all what I expected. I'm not sure what to say comparing the original "Scarlet" to the Red One Lite that was announced. So much for Red taking on the Japanese camera makers.

I was hoping Red would announce a product that would really push the sub $10K market of cameras and camcorders. It looks like the big camera makers can still dribble out features and not spend much time listening to their customers.

I'm disappointed. Not that there's anything wrong with what Red announced. It's just not the type of product that changes the way other companies do business.

Tyler Franco · November 13th, 2008, 05:51 PM

When I got up today and started my normal "forum routine" during breakfast, I checked this forum first. When I didn't see a single post on this forum saying "forget the 5D Mark II," I knew Red's announcement must not have been that earth shattering.

So I went and checked out what they announced. It was nice, but overall, underwhelming. I was hoping they would announce an interchangeable lens, full frame, ready to shoot, not buy 100 accessories (it doesn't even come with a battery), camera. Basically, I was hoping for a Canon 5D Mark II with more "video" features that shot 3K RAW for about half the price of the FF35 Scarlet Brain. Oh well, didn't happen. Plus, nobody even knows that what they did announce will actually happen.

So hopefully, Canon will take their own technology one step further! With Red's announcement today, I think the market is even bigger.

Chris Barcellos · November 13th, 2008, 06:14 PM

I think it is an amazing change in the market out there. But for us low end "non profit" indie film makers, shelling out the $15 k or so to make the thing go, still isn't something the Mrs. will get behind..... I love the idea and modular concept, but I have seen RED accessory prices, and, frankly, I recognize, that getting paid for a project or several is what would make it work for me. HV20 still is pretty amazing for a $ 700 cam, and I was hoping against hope that Scarlet would produce a $ 4k stand alone camera with a s35mm sensor with Nikon or Canon mounts. Canon and Nikon have started to addressed it somewhat, but hopefully Sony and Panny will do so also.

Jeff Whitley · November 13th, 2008, 07:09 PM

The Red competed with the big boys of film by offering a camera at roughly half the cost. Neither side (digital or film) seemed to change hardly at all, and especially now with all that has been happening in the market would lead you to think, just maybe.

BUT The Scarlet is just another piece of hardware aimed at the same market, so I don't expect any major changes, once again. Until, a manufacturer targets the core of the DV market (me and you) at our price range, I don't expect changes. Canon is a prime example, the all ways lag behind in development and roll out by a few years. They are last to deliver on high tech cameras (of the digital video variety) any way. Canon and others are happy just giving us incremental updates and enhancements. IE: Canon's XL series, XL, then XL1s, now XL2 then XLH1 then we get a letter "A" then the Letter "S".

The Red is a game changer and that is what is needed, something to get everyone out of their comfort zone. Once we get competition OF SIMILAR CAMERAS things will change, and the economic situation should help.

Just my rant / spin

Alberto Blades · November 13th, 2008, 08:10 PM

sure, for low-budget filmmakers scarlet is useless, the "cheap" model has a 2/3 sensor and fixed lenses, no too much advantage at all over current cameras , and the "expensive" model with 24mm sensor is too expensive!

Don Miller · November 13th, 2008, 08:56 PM

yeah, the 2/3" sensor doesn't seem very interesting. What I would add to your list, now that we (almost) have the 5DII, is low light performance. The 5DII seems to be 4 or 5 stops better than red one. Will red still be rolling out cameras in 2010 with usable ISO 250?

Is the red market bigger than cine if they don't add good high ISO performance? Is 3K great without DOF control? Seems to me critical questions are not being asked.

John Vincent · November 14th, 2008, 11:21 AM

the 2/3" chip size is strange to me as well - why not at least the same size as 35mm film? Would eliminate all those clunky adapters....

john

Dylan Couper · November 14th, 2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberto Blades

sure, for low-budget filmmakers scarlet is useless, the "cheap" model has a 2/3 sensor and fixed lenses, no too much advantage at all over current cameras , and the "expensive" model with 24mm sensor is too expensive!

Just a reality check here...

There are -NO- 2/3" HD video cameras (as a purpose built full manual control camera), kitted out, under $20,000... and defintiely no cameras that offer 120fps and a raw video codec in that price range. And if there was another body that cheap, the lens would be $10,000+...

Maybe useless to you, but not useless to the rest of us.

John Sandel · November 14th, 2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

If this camera is useless to you, it's only because you can't afford it.

Dylan, jeez … I can afford it, but I don't need it. That's not a complaint.

Don Miller · November 14th, 2008, 04:16 PM

Dylan is right - there is no inexpensive manual control camera with 2/3 sensor. That includes what red sells.
It's interesting how important it is to those who want to buy red that everyone else participate in the adulation. It's a tool with a price and a feature set.

Tyler Franco · November 14th, 2008, 04:34 PM

Of course that whole argument breaks down to the fact that if you aren't going to get 35mm depth of field anyway, do you really need to spend the money to go 2/3 inch? With cameras like the EX1 and EX3 on the market now, it's a valid argument. I would say it's not nearly as important as it used to be.

Dylan Couper · November 14th, 2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Sandel

Dylan, jeez … I can afford it, but I don't need it. That's not a complaint.

Sorry John, that comment wasn't directed to you, no offense intended.

There will be a lot of people who the 2/3" Scarlet will be useless to, but they are either in a different field or different ballpark. This camera is a godsend to the HVX200/XHA1 crowd.

And to think I can get a S35 Scarlet (which I'll be lining up outside RedCentral for as soon as Jim Jannard lets me put a tent down...) for the price of an XLH1 that uses my EF lenses? Belissimo!!!!

Having said that, I'm preordering a 5D mkII tomorrow. :)

Alberto Blades · November 14th, 2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

if this camera is useless to you, it's only because you can't afford it... and if you can't afford it... stop complaining about it on internet forums and get a job! :)

I can afford a scarlet, and I don't hate RED, in fact yesterday I was shooting (just for testing) with a RED ONE (not mine actually and I can't afford it), but this is not the argument.

I'm only saying that what low-budget indie filmmakers want is a camera with shallow DOF, to differentiate their films from video. From a low-budget indie perspective, or even to shoot music videos, the scarlet still needs a 35mm adapter.

So, to shallow-DOF shooting we need a scarlet, plus proprietary expensive accesories, plus a 35mm adapter, and just to get exactly the same problems like with other cameras: lot of light loss on spinnners and grain on vibrating 35mm adapters.

RAW is nice, but not indispensable, we have seen good films shot even in miniDV (at 60i!) and later converted to 35mm "real" film. And films shot with a 100k camera going directly to trash can. I would preffer shallow DOF in HDV than a 2/3 sensor RAW. Also, you can shoot RAW with almost any camera through HDMI.

well may be the scarlet performs well with a 35mm adapter, but if the canon 5DII, or the new nikons and canons to be released next year at that price level, can get 25p and are able to record video with reasonable quality and reasonable manual controls, it will be far better.

And last but not least, as Don Miller said, the low light performance of canon and nikon DSLRs sensors are very far away from red sensors, shooting video with 35mm lens and at 12800 ISO with a $2600 camera is a dream!. This exceptional low light performance is really much more important than RAW for low-budget filmmakers.

John Sandel · November 14th, 2008, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Sorry John, that comment wasn't directed to you, no offense intended.

Oh, none taken. I just felt compelled to defend all Red consumers: pros, affluent amateurs & idiots alike.

Me, I'm a 5D2 man, 'less it turns out to make inferior pancakes or something. At that price, it's just so cool.

Dylan Couper · November 15th, 2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberto Blades

I'm only saying that what low-budget indie filmmakers want is a camera with shallow DOF, to differentiate their films from video. From a low-budget indie perspective, or even to shoot music videos, the scarlet still needs a 35mm adapter.

A $2500 2/3" chip video camera shooting 3k on a raw codec at 120fps is useless because you want to put a 35mm adapter on it to get a touch more shallow DOF?

You'd rather spend $4000 more on an XLH1 that shoots 1080 HDV at 30fps on a tiny 1/3" chip? Can you explain to me in detail why the Scarlet doesn't have an advantage over this?

Personally, I'll enjoy my 5DmkII for shooting still photos and travel videos, and I'll use my Red (when I get one) for shooting film/TV projects.

November 13th, 2008, 05:27 PM	#1
Don Miller Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 706	Scarlet = 5DII still on order Well, Scarlet is not at all what I expected. I'm not sure what to say comparing the original "Scarlet" to the Red One Lite that was announced. So much for Red taking on the Japanese camera makers. I was hoping Red would announce a product that would really push the sub $10K market of cameras and camcorders. It looks like the big camera makers can still dribble out features and not spend much time listening to their customers. I'm disappointed. Not that there's anything wrong with what Red announced. It's just not the type of product that changes the way other companies do business.

November 13th, 2008, 06:14 PM	#3
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	I think it is an amazing change in the market out there. But for us low end "non profit" indie film makers, shelling out the $15 k or so to make the thing go, still isn't something the Mrs. will get behind..... I love the idea and modular concept, but I have seen RED accessory prices, and, frankly, I recognize, that getting paid for a project or several is what would make it work for me. HV20 still is pretty amazing for a $ 700 cam, and I was hoping against hope that Scarlet would produce a $ 4k stand alone camera with a s35mm sensor with Nikon or Canon mounts. Canon and Nikon have started to addressed it somewhat, but hopefully Sony and Panny will do so also. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

November 13th, 2008, 07:09 PM	#4
Jeff Whitley Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: USA Posts: 43	The Red competed with the big boys of film by offering a camera at roughly half the cost. Neither side (digital or film) seemed to change hardly at all, and especially now with all that has been happening in the market would lead you to think, just maybe. BUT The Scarlet is just another piece of hardware aimed at the same market, so I don't expect any major changes, once again. Until, a manufacturer targets the core of the DV market (me and you) at our price range, I don't expect changes. Canon is a prime example, the all ways lag behind in development and roll out by a few years. They are last to deliver on high tech cameras (of the digital video variety) any way. Canon and others are happy just giving us incremental updates and enhancements. IE: Canon's XL series, XL, then XL1s, now XL2 then XLH1 then we get a letter "A" then the Letter "S". The Red is a game changer and that is what is needed, something to get everyone out of their comfort zone. Once we get competition OF SIMILAR CAMERAS things will change, and the economic situation should help. Just my rant / spin __________________ Jeff Whitley <'/))))><

November 13th, 2008, 05:51 PM	#2
Tyler Franco Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Columbus, OH Posts: 172	When I got up today and started my normal "forum routine" during breakfast, I checked this forum first. When I didn't see a single post on this forum saying "forget the 5D Mark II," I knew Red's announcement must not have been that earth shattering. So I went and checked out what they announced. It was nice, but overall, underwhelming. I was hoping they would announce an interchangeable lens, full frame, ready to shoot, not buy 100 accessories (it doesn't even come with a battery), camera. Basically, I was hoping for a Canon 5D Mark II with more "video" features that shot 3K RAW for about half the price of the FF35 Scarlet Brain. Oh well, didn't happen. Plus, nobody even knows that what they did announce will actually happen. So hopefully, Canon will take their own technology one step further! With Red's announcement today, I think the market is even bigger.

November 13th, 2008, 08:10 PM	#5
Alberto Blades Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Palo(RD) Posts: 28	sure, for low-budget filmmakers scarlet is useless, the "cheap" model has a 2/3 sensor and fixed lenses, no too much advantage at all over current cameras , and the "expensive" model with 24mm sensor is too expensive!

November 13th, 2008, 08:56 PM	#6
Don Miller Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 706	yeah, the 2/3" sensor doesn't seem very interesting. What I would add to your list, now that we (almost) have the 5DII, is low light performance. The 5DII seems to be 4 or 5 stops better than red one. Will red still be rolling out cameras in 2010 with usable ISO 250? Is the red market bigger than cine if they don't add good high ISO performance? Is 3K great without DOF control? Seems to me critical questions are not being asked.

November 14th, 2008, 11:21 AM	#7
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	the 2/3" chip size is strange to me as well - why not at least the same size as 35mm film? Would eliminate all those clunky adapters.... john

November 14th, 2008, 04:16 PM	#10
Don Miller Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Chicago Posts: 706	Dylan is right - there is no inexpensive manual control camera with 2/3 sensor. That includes what red sells. It's interesting how important it is to those who want to buy red that everyone else participate in the adulation. It's a tool with a price and a feature set.

November 14th, 2008, 04:34 PM	#11
Tyler Franco Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Columbus, OH Posts: 172	Of course that whole argument breaks down to the fact that if you aren't going to get 35mm depth of field anyway, do you really need to spend the money to go 2/3 inch? With cameras like the EX1 and EX3 on the market now, it's a valid argument. I would say it's not nearly as important as it used to be.