PDA

View Full Version : Scarlett is B.S!!!!!!



larryfine451
08-29-2009, 12:22 PM
OK ,Now I have your attention(LOL!)

I want to take a trip back from dreamland of Scarlett and those waiting for it to a trip back to earth and logistical reality.

First RED did launch their RED camera and my hats off to them on this achievement.
This fledgling company was able to produce a camera body for $17,500 which when kitted out to run probably costs $40,000....pretty rarified air

Not having privy to sales and support, lets enthusiastically estimate sales max to be 100 plus to date with back orders etc. Now step back and think of the logistics of support for this equipment ,people facilities, time, capital expenditures.

Now....... think about selling something for $3000 .....manufacturing now must scale up signifigantly while keep quality control .Sales ...100's quicky.. probably 1000's Think of the logistics of supporting this and the capital expenditures required for ... servicing etc.....

Seems to me if any thing goes wrong with Scarlett Red would have a massive fiscal issues on their hands very quicky...is it any wonder they are taking their time releasing this thing .

In the mean time the big boys Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, etc while perfectly capable of producing a "scarlett" just keep upping the game with frequent video DSLR remakes which acomplishes 2 tasks .

1) milking every last possible sales dollar

2)reducing Scarlet's possible market share .

Soon it will be gone from high end consumers eyes completely because on its release it will certainly not be available to mere mortals without probably a years waiting time.
And so it will be left for us us lunatic fringe who are willing to put up our money and wait .
BUT if you think it through that Could be the BEST thing to happen to RED as going TOO BIG TOO FAST could and most likely wiil be their biggest enemy....

larry

mcgeedigital
08-29-2009, 12:42 PM
Not having privy to sales and support, lets enthusiastically estimate sales max to be 100 plus to date with back orders etc. Now step back and think of the logistics of support for this equipment ,people facilities, time, capital expenditures.





You don't even have privy to LOGIC.

A basic internet search will show you that the latest serial numbers being shipped for the RED One are in the 6800s.

You fail.

Stephen Mick
08-29-2009, 12:52 PM
Man, I hate it when Matt drops the logic on posts like this. It just derails what would have been an entertaining, if completely humiliating for the OP, thread.

NoahK
08-29-2009, 12:58 PM
Um yeah- that's a pretty unfounded rant. Do a little research next time out. :) For example:


If everything goes according to plan, the scarlet's/epic's are targeted to be realesed in late October/November of this year with the Epic X and the 3K scarlets coming out first.

Straight from the mouth of Ted:

http://www.fxguide.com/redcentre

click on #043, it's just slightly passed the half way point.

Again this is still just a target date, but at least it's something. If this has already been posted then sorry for re-posting.

Noah

Zephyrnoid
09-06-2009, 09:22 PM
Yes I posted a nearly identical rant on this and REDuser in June. Good to know that smart biz people do think alike :engel017:


OK ,Now I have your attention(LOL!)

I want to take a trip back from dreamland of Scarlett and those waiting for it to a trip back to earth and logistical reality.

First RED did launch their RED camera and my hats off to them on this achievement.
This fledgling company was able to produce a camera body for $17,500 which when kitted out to run probably costs $40,000....pretty rarified air

Not having privy to sales and support, lets enthusiastically estimate sales max to be 100 plus to date with back orders etc. Now step back and think of the logistics of support for this equipment ,people facilities, time, capital expenditures.

Now....... think about selling something for $3000 .....manufacturing now must scale up signifigantly while keep quality control .Sales ...100's quicky.. probably 1000's Think of the logistics of supporting this and the capital expenditures required for ... servicing etc.....

Seems to me if any thing goes wrong with Scarlett Red would have a massive fiscal issues on their hands very quicky...is it any wonder they are taking their time releasing this thing .

In the mean time the big boys Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, etc while perfectly capable of producing a "scarlett" just keep upping the game with frequent video DSLR remakes which acomplishes 2 tasks .

1) milking every last possible sales dollar

2)reducing Scarlet's possible market share .

Soon it will be gone from high end consumers eyes completely because on its release it will certainly not be available to mere mortals without probably a years waiting time.
And so it will be left for us us lunatic fringe who are willing to put up our money and wait .
BUT if you think it through that Could be the BEST thing to happen to RED as going TOO BIG TOO FAST could and most likely wiil be their biggest enemy....

larry

Zephyrnoid
09-06-2009, 09:24 PM
You don't even have privy to LOGIC.

A basic internet search will show you that the latest serial numbers being shipped for the RED One are in the 6800s.

You fail.

Not to sound rude, but I'll bet $1,000 you can't come up with the names of 6800 RED owners.

Huy Vu
09-07-2009, 01:12 AM
Not to sound rude, but I'll bet $1,000 you can't come up with the names of 6800 RED owners.

What does that prove?

arrestthisman
09-14-2009, 09:52 AM
Hmmm. It's amazing when someone who speculates on an interesting, albiet different point of view gets flamed immediately.

Getting back from cameras, and also acknowledging that all things are never equal. The OP
COULD be correct in his assessment. MANY companies, and usually startups have gone broke expanding too fast. I also think it's not the best sign when the company motto, "Obsolesence Obsolete," inspires a herd of people to put down a deposit, and wait over a year past the promised delivery date, only to find that less than two years after the announcement, let alone delivery, of the RED ONE, the company is planning two new lines that directly compete with the original camera.

Granted they offer a nice upgrade plan, but the EPIC still costs another 17000+ USD after the credit from the returned RED ONE.

I think aside from the details, the OP is trying to look at their business from a different angle.

I happen to agree with the overall idea, too. red ray, red rocket, epic, scarlet, which are all modular and therefore likely require more manufacturing lines. Meanwhile RED ONE users are still dealing with crashes, and overheating.

Many red fanboys on reduser are upset that Red is spending so much effort on new releases when they haven't even gotten the red one right yet.

I think these are all signs that the company IS moving too fast. The only problem is that they have to.

Canon and Panasonic are a master quality compression scheme away from scarlet's of their own. Also they have bigger sensors, for less money. All they would need to do is release an HDSLR right now with live HDMI 10-bit 4:2:2, and a customer could add a nanoflash for near HDCAM SR quality (it's generally agreed that the new Sony DSP is between HDCAM and HDCAM SR quality, and closer to HDCAM SR, visually).

Don't get me wrong, if Scarlet came out tomorrow with their posted specs, I'd buy one in a heartbeat, but I'm not a fanboy. I don't care what company it is, I want the best product for the best value, and the best tool for me.

My post has gotten a little muddied up, but you know what, there's plenty of room for rants, and the main point is that RED is not perfect, and those who love the company the most would be wise to critique their practices, if they are detrimental to the long term solvency.

As far as I know they are not a public company, there's no 10-q to see their earnings, and if GM can go to the brink of being out of business, then a startup trying to take on the world must be very careful.

Barry_Green
09-14-2009, 11:24 AM
Canon and Panasonic are a master quality compression scheme away from scarlet's of their own.
Panasonic's already got one, with AVC-Intra... if they'd slap that on Ben's GHX100, that'd be interesting.

Canon hasn't ever forayed into their own codec development as far as I know, although they did sort of modify HDV. I'd be pretty happy with it if they'd just implement a full-power version of AVCHD, at least at this price point.


Also they have bigger sensors, for less money. All they would need to do is release an HDSLR right now with live HDMI 10-bit 4:2:2, and a customer could add a nanoflash for near HDCAM SR quality (it's generally agreed that the new Sony DSP is between HDCAM and HDCAM SR quality, and closer to HDCAM SR, visually).
Agreed. However, there's way more to a camera (or a complete camera system, I should say) than a sensor and an HDMI port. Those who recognize that, will probably be very much anticipating a full cine camera like the Scarlet or a full video camera like the EX1/HPX170. Those who value price above all else and will work around any obstacle for that low price, will be more attracted to the insanely cheap DSLRs.


As far as I know they are not a public company, there's no 10-q to see their earnings, and if GM can go to the brink of being out of business, then a startup trying to take on the world must be very careful.
Yes, but their founder has a little bit of business acumen (massive understatement). I doubt that Red will be run off course by mismanagement due to inexperience.

arrestthisman
09-15-2009, 08:03 PM
As always, all common sense from Barry :)

Regarding RED's business fragility, I don't think they would go out of business due to inexperience. Using GM as an example was a poor analogy because they dug their own grave. I'm thinking more along the lines of catastrophic American economic climate. Because of the diversity of Panny and Sony, if one branch is wiped out, or even a country, they have the whole world. One could say the same for RED, they could sell to foreign markets, I just think they'd have to paddle upstream a bit harder than global companies. I acknowledge that this is total speculation, and I could be WAY off.

And, of course there is more to a camera system than the sensor and output. But, I think we've all witnessed breakthrough cameras at low price points that all seem to have an Achilles heel. The EX-1 for example is a dream, practically a mini-red, except for the codec! (granted its implementation is way better than it has a right to be at 35mbits/sec.)

It seems that RED has kind of hit the nail on the head with what most digital cinematographers want. Specs aside, freedom of lenses, high resolution, and the most mailability in post possible for the given system looks like where the direction is going.

A properly downscaled HDSLR's 1080p output with a robust codec would get people somewhat close to that, in a smaller, much cheaper package. Different animals, but closer than what we have now at two completely different price points.

Also with tech moving so fast, I don't see anything wrong with those who chose to ride the low end. A person or company who invests in an HPX3700 is two years or less from a better product at an equal or lower price point. This is the way it is. I don't think it'll change anytime soon or maybe ever. Different than the film world where some seek out 25 year old cameras on purpose.

I think it kind of comes down to people who like to own their own equipment. We want the absolute best value, and the best picture we can afford.

I was sitting on my deck today watching the sunset, and the lake, and it kind of clicked; I realized the motive of compulsion of the tech. (At least for me.) If I was able to record the most beautiful sunset I've ever seen, I'd want it to have as much visual glory in 20 years or more as it does now.

Making movies or content of any kind is VERY hard. Of course you'd want it to look as great as possible, not just now, but in the future. And it's a losing game because photography of all kinds will always get better. And who knows, in 200 years movies may be completely usurped by other entertainment medium(s).

I think I've gone on an tangent here, and I apologize for that. But as someone who is as interested in tech as content itself, it's important. Our selection of tools are awesome as is, though. But civil debate over the direction of what we call progress is always fun.

thedigitalcurrent
09-15-2009, 11:33 PM
I am pretty sure RED has that many customers, a little while ago about 500 of them had my direct extention lol.

Tim Naylor
09-16-2009, 09:28 PM
Larry,
ranting for rants sake? I have # 5252 and there's probably at least a 100 RED productions going on in NYC alone as we speak. Customer service has been good - not great. But they're not stupid and I'm sure are planning to meet demand. Red's are so ubiquitous that people who bought it for rental alone are getting burned left and right. My HVX is much more profitable from a purchase / rental ratio. I can still get 380.00 full package with sticks. With RED people won't pay more than 1200.00 with full glass for something that runs at least five times more.

Luckily the RED goes out with either me or a business partner enough to float its boat. When Scarlet comes out, it'll probably put the lights out on most low to mid end cameras. Panasonic better act soon with a 35mm imager. The new paradigm is up and it's not going to be super expensive. RED has pretty much turned the acquisition and rental markets on their heads. In NYC it saved alot of rental houses because they had all the glass and accessories. Bodies made little money anyway. Now that new and cheaper glass is out, you'll see another shift.

mcgeedigital
09-16-2009, 09:38 PM
Not to sound rude, but I'll bet $1,000 you can't come up with the names of 6800 RED owners.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34902

Do you want my paypal address?

filmmaker's gang
09-27-2009, 06:48 AM
man.. he asks for the 6800 names.

brian hanson
10-01-2009, 02:02 PM
i don't know how many people on here follow reduser but here is a quote from jim jannard:

Details of the release schedule for EPIC and Scarlet coming sometime in October. We are taking our time so you won't be disappointed.

Jim

zijital
11-05-2009, 04:55 PM
I think cameras are getting to be like computers.

You can order the newest laptop the day after it was released, and buy the time FedEx drops it off at your house, something better has already been announced.

You buy what is good for you today today, and you buy what is good for you in the future in the future.

Getting pissed off at a company that has fewer employees than your local high school because they announced a camera at a crazy low price with great features and are taking a long time to make a reality is a waste of energy.

I think one of the best things I ever did was put all my excitement about the Scarlet on pause after the big Red announcement last year. The Scarlet will come out or it won't, either way I'm not going to really think much about it until they start taking pre-orders & shipping units.

Barry_Green
11-05-2009, 07:19 PM
I think one of the best things I ever did was put all my excitement about the Scarlet on pause after the big Red announcement last year. The Scarlet will come out or it won't, either way I'm not going to really think much about it until they start taking pre-orders & shipping units.
Down this path lies sanity.

David G. Smith
11-05-2009, 07:37 PM
Yeah, aren't there over 7000 REDS out there, at $17500, a piece, lets see, naught goes inta naught.... equals about $122, 000, 000.00 bucks... that's a whole lot of capitalization.... and with a cash flow like that, I am sure that Jim J. has a real decent credit score... I'm just sayin'

CB_Radio
11-05-2009, 07:57 PM
Not to sound rude, but I'll bet $1,000 you can't come up with the names of 6800 RED owners.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34902

Do you want my paypal address?

He's not asking if you can find somebody with the number 6732 engraved onto their camera. He's betting that nobody here can list 6800 names of Red One owners.

He's saying that you don't really know that Red has sold 6800 cameras.

Red's marketing is ALL about building hype and excitement. Their marketing has never been about releasing the most accurate information, it's always about releasing whatever information that will garner the biggest public reaction. Creating the impression that they've sold more cameras than they actually have sold would not be surprising in the least.

Duke M.
11-05-2009, 08:00 PM
Don't even think about the scarlet. When it comes, it comes.

By the same token don't even think about their spec sheet now. What matters is their spec sheet when it comes out, compared to the other cameras when they come out.

Comparing announcements of something you can't buy is a waste of time and effort.

mcgeedigital
11-05-2009, 08:09 PM
He's not asking if you can find somebody with the number 6732 engraved onto their camera. He's betting that nobody here can list 6800 names of Red One owners.

He's saying that you don't really know that Red has sold 6800 cameras.



You don't know that they HAVEN'T.

See how that works?

:2vrolijk_08:

Jason Ramsey
11-05-2009, 08:11 PM
oh, the conspiracy theories.....

:)

David G. Smith
11-05-2009, 08:34 PM
oh, the conspiracy theories.....

:)

"Back and to the left. Back and to the left...."

G.P.
11-05-2009, 11:15 PM
I happen to agree with the whole scarlet situation, in terms of both sales and vaporware... We don't know that the serial numbers actually are matched 1 for 1 with actual models shipped. But then again we dont know that they do either.

I will say this, they have the money to produce the scarlet to the specs they want, and the price they want. I personally DONT want the scarlet to become the next big camera. Think about how much that will affect the market for the cameras we just spent tens of thousands of dollars in investment on. I pop on criegslist every once and a while and in NY the only 2 cameras you ever see being asked for is an HVX200 or a RED camera. No one is asking for anything else. Now I know thats a very narrow way to look at it, but still look at the impact of even just that one part of life. Right now you eather will make money with a 200 or a RED and any other camera is well just not being asked for. Once the scarlet comes out everyone who had the HVX200 option will most likely try to dip in and get a scarlet. The whole of the productions on that site will then be only asking for products that were owned by RED. It would be a complete monopoly and hurt the people who own HPX500's HPX300's HPX2700's and other models... When a director or producer wants to shoot a movie on a budget and wants to shoot digital, you are going to want the "best" for your money... So why would any of them want to pay a DP with an HPX whatever or a Sony whatever when they could for the same price (or cheaper) get something with 4 times the resolution, more dynamic range, higher quality codec, and yadda yadda yadda. I think it will severally hurt the people who are investing in cameras now because we just cant wait for a camera to come out over the next year or 2.

Personally I don't just shoot films, I shoot reality shows as well as others that dont use RED, so I am a little bit safer when it comes to loosing clients if I don't have a RED system... but it still hurts to loose ANY kind of client.

The way I hope things pan out is all the guys who rush out to get a scarlet are doing it just because they can afford it, and they most likely aren't up to the task of handling such powerful gear. HOPEFULLY directors and producers will start to look at ACTUALLY REELS again and pick the best DP instead of looking at which camera he owns. I have seen some really horrible stuff shot on RED, and I bet you the DP was hired just because he had the system.

I dont like what red is doing to our peace of mind, its really forcing us to deal with the "kids" who have money and buying the cameras right out of film school to be at the same specs level as us now. The smart directors and producers will obviously know not to hire without seeing a good reel, but I unfortunatly know that when push comes to money, they will hire the DP who has great gear and less knowlage to save on production and figure "well hes good enough and he has RED so our marketing team can rest at the idea we have 4k in the can instead of HDV or 35mbit codecs"

These "kids" also buy the cameras and dont even shoot, they call themselfs RED Owners/techs and they get hired with the camera (so they can basically babysit it since they dont have insurance) and since they charge very small amount, they compete greatly with the DP's who do have the knowledge and maybe P2 gear that could actually be a better move for the production.

Never underestimate how CHEAP a production can get, and how they cut corners in the dumbest areas when they really shouldn't. I have seen it all, and its horrible. I don't like RED's prices, I like RED's cameras and products, and I HATE their idea of making an even cheaper camera with even better specs than the current RED One. They are really ruining us guys who know its not the camera its the DP. Sometimes it really tweaks me when I get asked for a REALLY low budget film "You have a great reel, can you shoot with RED?" And when I answer "We don't own a RED we can rent that for you though" They come back wtih, "Oh... well we don't have a large enough budget to rent a RED and higher a DP". In my head im thinking... so why are you going to shoot RED????? without a good dp behind RED its just a 15lb brick. You might as well rent an Arri 435 for the same price and have some film kid right out of school shoot on it, whats the difference?

Stop thinking RED is the answer to all, its not, its causing more problems than people are really noticing right now. It is upsetting the balance of something that we really haven't dealt with. Never in the history of film has their been an actual competitor for film that was priced at such a low and prosumer level. I really wish they charged $40,000 for the body's not the estimated $4000 the scarlet seems to be.

Ugh the headahe, Damn you RED DAMN YOUU!!!





EXT. NEW YORK CITY SIDE WALK - NIGHT

Camera cranes up. GIUSEPPE has his fist shaking up at the heavens.

GIUSEPPE
(Dramatically)
Damn you!


FADE TO BLACK.

krish
11-06-2009, 12:03 AM
i caught this thread a bit late but just have one comment... i believe jim sold his old compnay "Oakley" in 2007 for a huge some and his personal net worth is over 2 billion according to Forbes. I am sure this whole red thing is nothing more then a pocket chnage for him no matter how bad the sales plan might look like besides if the whole "experiment" works then he is probably sitting on a new business paradime in the industry and could laugh all the way to the bank for next 7 births!! not a bad bet in my opinion!!

just my 2 cents,

cheers

-krish

Huy Vu
11-06-2009, 02:45 AM
I don't like RED's prices, I like RED's cameras and products, and I HATE their idea of making an even cheaper camera with even better specs than the current RED One. They are really ruining us guys who know its not the camera its the DP.

I disagree that the pricing is the problem; having a camera with better specs for a lower price ultimately benefits the consumer. You're able to offer more for less, and eventually the big companies will be forced to take notice and respond, lowering the prices even more and giving you a much better product. So what if talentless hacks with REDs are getting the ultra low budget jobs? They'll turn in their crappy work and the people who hired them will have learned a lesson and hire you next time if you can deliver. If they don't, then well...would you have wanted to work for them in the first place?

Zephyrnoid
11-06-2009, 05:39 AM
He's not asking if you can find somebody with the number 6732 engraved onto their camera. He's betting that nobody here can list 6800 names of Red One owners.

He's saying that you don't really know that Red has sold 6800 cameras.

Red's marketing is ALL about building hype and excitement. Their marketing has never been about releasing the most accurate information, it's always about releasing whatever information that will garner the biggest public reaction. Creating the impression that they've sold more cameras than they actually have sold would not be surprising in the least.


BINGO! We have a winner!
I have a varied background, some of that is in marketing. Marketing Hype specifically. Surely you all remember your very first Check Book? You know, the one where the first check was #100?! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
RED probably started with #1000 as the maiden voyager off the assembly line.

I challenge anyone to NAME each and every entity that bought one or more REDs.
PayPal my arse! I'll openly wager $100 that no one can come up and prove all those RED owners. USPS MO ready and waiting.

Zephyrnoid
11-06-2009, 05:57 AM
Stop thinking RED is the answer to all, its not, its causing more problems than people are really noticing right now. It is upsetting the balance of something that we really haven't dealt with. Never in the history of film has their been an actual competitor for film that was priced at such a low and prosumer level. I really wish they charged $40,000 for the body's not the estimated $4000 the scarlet seems to be.

Ugh the headahe, Damn you RED DAMN YOUU!!!


I'm going to address this post in summary because of an OT project I'm working on, The OT project has nothing to do with film, everything to do with hype.

I've spent 6 years on 30 forums of various types and I've logged a number of recurring patterns. One pattern that Snr. Pugliese highlights is the equation of quality with cost of membership. This snobbery and hype is what in fact allows a company to make sunglasses for $2.00 a pair and mark them up to $200 a pair. This is a very, very old game, dating back to the ancient Romans.
Today, the Internet and asynchronous communities can poke legitimate holes in such fakery.

RED is real but the hype around resolution is contrived. See the difference?
The resolution camp ( I call them the 'f64 club') want you to believe that marketability is related to Hi-Def resolution, but history proves otherwise. I've spend years testing retention of image data. Enough research to know that the salient aspects of an image are retained and peripheral data is DUMPED almost immediately! So real money is made by the cheapest and lowest resolution camera that manages to convey as much salient information as possible. Study the history of image based advertising, print and motion and you'll realize that the chase for hyper-real images is pure hype, plus bandwidth hogging mega-sized files. That has resulted in a gross exaggeration of profits for HW & SW developers and stupid consumers chase their tails in trying to keep up with the upgrade game.
4K my butt!
IMAX was supposed to be the end of traditional theaters. It's fizzled and will vanish eventually, by way of the drive-in theater
3D is the next big thing in theater and wow! it sure is fun but the salient details that I remember from the one and only 3D film that I've ever seen were NOT related to the 3D aspect at all.
You get the picture, it's about the net production value, not the discrete resolution of the captured footage.

Dingos8mybaby
11-06-2009, 06:14 AM
Red's marketing is ALL about building hype and excitement. Their marketing has never been about releasing the most accurate information, it's always about releasing whatever information that will garner the biggest public reaction.

Yeah, because tech companies especially aren't really known for their over-hyped product launches.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/buying-guides/top-10-most-overhyped-tech-products/

Personally, I try to avoid all of the marketing hoopla and go straight to the specs page (obviously the best thing would be to actually get the cam and start shooting the sh*t out of it). Sometimes I get caught up in the hype (re: GH1), but I try to remember that even if a cam is being touted as a game-changer/revolutionary/xxxcam-killer, it all comes down to whether it's the right tool for the job (professionally) or if you like the images it can produce (personally). If it doesn't meet either of those two things, then you can look away, wait for a few seconds, and there will be another new camera out by then for you to ponder over. I guarantee it. :)

With regards to RED and product hype, I think there are two versions of it: Marketing Hype - Flashy words straight from the RED team; and Broken Telephone Hype - Super-Duper-Fantastico fish(words) that get bigger(crazier) every time someone tells the story(info). Either way, the hype goes viral, with the false hype growing exponentially faster when multiplied by people who lack basic grammar skills and/or people whose native language is not english. Even if the straight hype turns out to be wrong/grossly exaggerated, I think RED usually does a good job of admitting it (usually from Jim).

The one thing I do think is a problem with RED's marketing scheme is that since they use RedUser as their launch-pad, the forum gets quickly filled with so much user noise and so many false claims (honest mistakes probably) that I can imagine people reading an announcement ten-times removed from the horse's mouth believing it to be fact, carrying that belief around and spreading it like wildfire. For example, the other day I read a blog post for which the headline was "EPIC-X and Scarlet Cameras - Shipped Before the End of 2009". This was never stated in the OCT/30 announcement, yet 3 days after the going through the broken telephone that is the internet, this blogger has added to the false hype (also, as all things RED, this would be subject to change if true).

Those're my 2c.

Dingos8mybaby
11-06-2009, 06:19 AM
RED probably started with #1000 as the maiden voyager off the assembly line.

I think Jim owns the first five and Steve Gibby owns #008 (in addition to a couple of others), so that would mean the first one to be available to the public (i.e. non-RED employee) would have to be in the #'s 0006-0008, not in the #1000's.

Barry_Green
11-06-2009, 07:55 AM
Er, having been owner #364, and knowing who has #363, I think we can pretty much dispute the idea that #1000 was first off the assembly line.

Heck, go on RedUser, lots of folks have their serial number as part of their profile, you can see who has what number.

ethan cooper
11-06-2009, 07:59 AM
I challenge anyone to NAME each and every entity that bought one or more REDs.
PayPal my arse! I'll openly wager $100 that no one can come up and prove all those RED owners. USPS MO ready and waiting.

Isn't this Jarred Land's forum? If anyone can take you up on your challenge, I'd say it's him.

Who cares if it's 6000+ or 5000+ cameras sold, either way they're doing ok. Also remember, these are world wide sales figures, not just US. I'd say 6000+ is possible.

Barry_Green
11-06-2009, 08:04 AM
I personally DONT want the scarlet to become the next big camera. Think about how much that will affect the market for the cameras we just spent tens of thousands of dollars in investment on.
Wow.

Just wow.

Was that post meant to be taken comedic/sarcastic (as the ending implies?) I certainly hope so. If not, I think you might have a big and unpleasant reality check coming your way.

It's an awful lot easier to curse the darkness than it is to just light a candle. Whatever becomes the next big thing, you buy that. Simple. If you can't afford to, you're in the wrong business model.

But if your only connection to getting clients is by owning a piece of equipment, instead of by your skills and reputation, then that's a dead-end game right there. The days of the BVW600 staying top-dog for 10 straight years (or whatever) are done and gone, that business model is O.V.E.R. Red's Red One has only been in wide release for about a year, and they've already said they're going to end-of-line it.

If your business model is based on the idea of going out and spending tens of thousands of dollars on a piece of equipment and then hanging out a shingle saying "I have a PMW-350, come rent it", I think you need to seriously consider selling now and getting out. Thousands of Red One owners made that same mistake and found out that it just doesn't work. It used to, years ago, but it doesn't anymore. And nowadays if you can't break even on a camera purchase within a few months, you're doing something wrong. And you need to break even, because the next "big thing" will be out within a year.

CB_Radio
11-06-2009, 10:53 AM
You don't know that they HAVEN'T.

See how that works?

:2vrolijk_08:

Yeah, but that's not how it works. If Red makes claims that they've done something, they should be able to prove that they have. It's not up to me, or even possible for me, to prove that they haven't.

I drank a glass of water today from a red cup, can you prove that I haven't? No
Could I prove that I have? Absolutely

Do YOU see how that works?:2vrolijk_08:


The beauty of Red's willingness to play fast and loose with their adjectives, their ability to control the message and their disclaimer that anything they claim may end up being untrue is that they can and do say anything they want. But I don't even know if Jim Jannard has ever claimed that they sold 6800 Red One cameras. It would be easy to simply skip every third or 4th number, only sell 2000 cameras and let the reduser fan club believe what they already want to believe.

Red users want to believe that they are part of a world changing revolution even though it's not true. They want to believe that they have purchased something that is more valuable than anything else on the planet even though it's not true. They want to believe that Red was the FIRST to do digital cinema even though that's not true. They want to believe all kinds of things and there's a frightening level of selfdeception that goes on with their most fervant supporters. Do they want to believe that Red has sold 7000 cameras? Sure they do. Would it be surprising if that number was heavily inflated? Not at all.

Barry_Green
11-06-2009, 11:09 AM
And so the point of engaging in this speculation, which I think both sides find to be largely un-provable, is -- what?

To smear Red? No thanks, take that somewhere else.

To call them liars? No thanks, take that somewhere else.

Red could of course prove that they've sold whatever they've sold. They could release the names and addresses of all their buyers. Will they do that? Of course not. Should they? Of course not. Such a violation of privacy is outlandish to even speculate on.

So -- again, what's the point?

If you like Red and you want to talk about it and be excited about it, go right ahead. If you don't, why not just stop tuning in? Let folks talk about whatever they want to.

If they make factual errors in their statements, you can try correcting them and demonstrating what the truth is -- but so far it seems that all that really accomplishes is that you become vilified and hated for having done so. Sometimes people really, really don't want the facts to get in the way of what they believe.

So it all comes down to this:
Are they hurting you? No? Then why not live and let live?

Jason Ramsey
11-06-2009, 11:09 AM
RED probably started with #1000 as the maiden voyager off the assembly line.


Ok. firstly, 100 bucks would entirely not be worth the amount of work it would take to build some comprehensive list like that.

I'll give you 100 bucks if you can tell me the names of every 7d owner out there.... Did they release hundreds of camera's in their first batch or thousands that sold out so quickly? Probably some stores never even got any, it was just marketing hype to make it seem like it was wayyy more popular than it really was..... Sounds pretty silly doesn't it? b/c it is. </sarcasm>

2ndly... we're really not going to waste this forums bandwidth on silly suggestions like 1,000 was the first red off the block, are we? No... we're not... this is just kinda silly, and some of what people are saying is obviously based off of a complete lack of real info it becomes laughable. Yet, it should have to be proven down to every last serial number who bought what camera? lol.

It doesn't even matter.

You do realize that the first batch of camera's were picked up in person at RED offices, don't you?

And, Barry bought 300 and something. Off Hollywood had 6-7, Gibby has 8. and the owner of this very forum has #10...

And, I would gurantee you that finding a good chunk of the first 500-1000 RED One owners would not be that hard, if you wanted to search through alll the 25+K member profiles on reduser for their red#'s. A good many of the folks, you would also find are members of DVXuser... considering REDuser began it's days as a section on DVXuser before branching into it's own.

--

anyways... give the RED has only sold 100, or RED started with 1,000 stuff a rest please folks

CB_Radio
11-06-2009, 11:15 AM
And so the point of engaging in this speculation, which I think both sides find to be largely un-provable, is -- what?

The point of my original post in this thread was because McGee didn't understand the post that he had replied to. I clarified it for him and I think he now understands.

I posted again in this thread because McGee implied that there was no difference between proving something you have done and proving that somebody else hasn't done something. Hopefully he now understands that there is a difference. If he doesn't and he makes more posts about things I've said, then I'll probably reply again.

I won't speak for others, but that's my only point. Thanks Barry :)

SPZ
11-07-2009, 06:13 AM
there are thousands of Reds worldwide. Over here (china) should be more than 100 to 200, and in Asia alone we should be talking 1000+. Now imagine other continents and add to the US install base. It should get close to the 6000 mark.

steadicamsteel
11-07-2009, 06:31 AM
There has to be thousands of Reds out there because if you buy one don't you need to buy a back-up for every time it falls over on location, No?....LOL

Jason Adams
11-07-2009, 10:07 AM
Whatever becomes the next big thing, you buy that. Simple. If you can't afford to, you're in the wrong business model.The force is strong with Barry. Wise words.

And to the OP.

Regardless of your opinion on Red or any other company. Coming into a forum with a title like "x company is B.S" is an invitation for a flame war.

Why not just walk into the back of a church and yell. "Jesus looks like Kenny Loggins and is stupid."

Your entitled to your opinion and this is an interesting discussing. Minus all the heated feelings you have. I think its possible to raise the question how many Reds are out there without seeming like a raving crazy person. With all due respect my friend do you really have nothing better to concern yourself with?

ChipG
11-07-2009, 11:11 AM
I know several people with more than one Red then there are rental houses that have bought several, studios that bought several, I thnk I read on the reduser board that a guy was buying 9 of them for his new studio / sound stage production co.

I'd bet 2,500 -3,500 individual people account for 7,000+ cams. So no, you won't find 7,000 unique owners but I have no doubt you can find all 7,000+ cams.

steadicamsteel
11-07-2009, 12:11 PM
I know several people with more than one Red then there are rental houses that have bought several, studios that bought several, I thnk I read on the reduser board that a guy was buying 9 of them for his new studio / sound stage production co.

I'd bet 2,500 -3,500 individual people account for 7,000+ cams. So no, you won't find 7,000 unique owners but I have no doubt you can find all 7,000+ cams.

I see my sarcasm hasn't translated all that well across the pond......oops!

Zephyrnoid
11-07-2009, 12:43 PM
The title of the OP's post is "Scarlett is B.S!!!!!!"
I don't beleive Scarlet is BS but wanted to underscore that HYPE is BS.
Somehow, there's a community of people out there that are followers of hype. They are always examining the Joneses assets without learning anything about the Joneses deliverables.

RED is a fabulous company who's concept of industrial design modularity is in direct alignment with my 'day job'. Modularity is not lost on the legacy Pro /Prosumer camera makers either. They will follow suit.
This thread is about how groupthink propels a great concept, a great product , even a breakthrough technology to the status of deity.
Such Hype is counterproductive.

As a businessman, I only buy at a price-point that matched my task orders or 'funded' projects. I never buy on speculation. In fact, I generally buy the cast off, second had products of wannabee's that have more money than brains. I'm an equipment bottom feeder. High end companies hate guys like me, but I perform a valuable service, I recycle. In my recycling I realize far better profit margins since my capitalization costs are low.

Trust me. Canon, Nikon, JVC, Sony, Panasonic will borrow from the RED lead in modularity and trounce them in about 3 years. Then your precious scarlet will be worth little on the secondary market, and I'll move in on it ;)

Jason Ramsey
11-07-2009, 12:55 PM
Trust me. Canon, Nikon, JVC, Sony, Panasonic will borrow from the RED lead in modularity and trounce them in about 3 years. Then your precious scarlet will be worth little on the secondary market, and I'll move in on it ;)

Depends on how far ahead of the curve vs. price RED stays. Currently they are pretty far ahead of it, and no one has really come along yet to compete with the RED One in the price bracket in the couple of years that it has been out.

Though, as technology advances, you are right... you will be able to buy 2nd hand brains and they will probably be readily available (assuming RED sells a good amount of them)... since the system is modular, people will be moving up and down the line of DSMC's, and next generation technology will come out and people will want to stay on the cutting edge. Be it a 3rd generation mysterium sensor, or whatever.

Whether it's RED or some other company in the future that continues to drive the performance to dollar ratio, there will likely be brains to be had 2nd hand on the market.

Some folks think that the big companies can do what RED can do for cheaper b/c they are so much bigger and have so many more resources. That might be true, but it hasn't happened yet. The flip side is the larger companies have lots and lots of overhead and a lot more expenses. And, really big marketing budgets, etc.

RED doesn't have all that overhead. They probably put most of their money into R&D, and they don't really spend much on marketing. Hype is free :) Like the method or not, it keeps costs down. Hype and word of mouth and trickle down effect of big names using these products all cost little to nothing to do.

anyways, no one really knows what the market will be like in a few years. Things move to fast. One of the big companies could have gone belly up, and RED could have become a pretty sizeable force in the market. Or, they could be a memory.... Who knows.

But, if things continue as they are at the pace they are, eventually, all these cameras from these companies will do sooo much and cost so relatively little, that there will be plenty of room in the market for other players.

I do know that RED relies on staying ahead of the curve and technological innovation. I'm sure they know that. In fact, they've stated it. Their work doesn't stop when they release the first line of DSMC's... just like it won't for any company. It's a fiercely competitive market and it takes a certain group of people to want to try to get involved in that mess :)

ChipG
11-07-2009, 02:21 PM
Red also sells their cameras direct so no 30-50% mark up from a dealer. I bet half the price paid for a Panasonic camera goes to distributors and dealers then who knows how much on advertising. Red has a good business model.

Zephyrnoid
11-07-2009, 06:55 PM
Red also sells their cameras direct so no 30-50% mark up from a dealer. I bet half the price paid for a Panasonic camera goes to distributors and dealers then who knows how much on advertising. Red has a good business model.

Eh! the economics of boutique-ware don't really match the economics of OTS (off the shelf).

1) RED is a concept -not a solution to a problem, but rather- a solution looking for a problem to solve.
2) Being too far ahead of the curve is a luxury for the retired rich. That's where I feel the RED business model is a tad flawed. Keeping in mind that they are working with 'play' money that gets written off on the taxes at the end of the year, I have not seen any evidence of real profit from RED. They may prefer to loose money in fact.
3) Most end users that jumped too early on the early HDTV systems can trash them today for systems with vastly better technology, picture and energy efficiency. Moore's Law will not be kind to early RED adopters.... unless they just collect über cool video gear for their personal museums.
4) Applying the 'Cool Hunting' approach to product development, alla Oakley to the video industry may prove to be disastrous. It's not like other 'show-off' toys, not like a muscle car to shake the girlfriend's cherries with or a $2,000 Armani suit. Or even the latest greatest handheld gadget. With RED, people will inevitably ask...
"Can you show us what you've shot with it?" And THAT is what they'll judge you by.

I have a contrarian philosophy. I shoot art with toys that turns the toys into gods. With RED, you have a GODHEAD camera that is not being used to shoot godlike content. But prove me wrong. Please.

I've been known to be very wrong sometimes. Like when I referred to the first ipod as "A bar of Ivory soap on steriods". They did improve the ipod though, right ?

Zephyrnoid
11-07-2009, 07:03 PM
I forgot to mention Hassleblad and some other traditional still 2-1/4 makers. What do you suppose would happen if the 50MP Hassleblad suddenly did what Canon & Nikon did with digicams- let them capture video? Yes. Indeed!
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h3dii-50.aspx

bwwd
11-07-2009, 08:23 PM
what kind of lenses this thing takes ,not for 35mm cinema for sure

Barry_Green
11-07-2009, 08:53 PM
Red also sells their cameras direct so no 30-50% mark up from a dealer. I bet half the price paid for a Panasonic camera goes to distributors and dealers then who knows how much on advertising. Red has a good business model.
Red's business model is rather incredible -- their marketing budget is near zero, their distribution costs are near zero. There are no middlemen. There is no dealer network to support. Marketing is a HUGE expense; Red's marketing probably consists of genius businessman Jarred Land. Which is well worth it, but compared to what other companies have to spend, I'm sure it's absolutely minimal.

Red's profit margins are probably sky-high as compared to other companies in any competitive niche of this industry. Which bodes well for future R&D.

Barry_Green
11-07-2009, 09:05 PM
2) Keeping in mind that they are working with 'play' money that gets written off on the taxes at the end of the year, I have not seen any evidence of real profit from RED. They may prefer to loose money in fact.
In my most reserved way, let me state, calmly, that such a statement is completely silly. There is no tax advantage to losing money. There is no possible reason anyone would want to lose money. And billionaires do not become so by losing money.

Red is in business to make a profit. The rich are usually the most penny-watching of all (which is why, in fact, they tend to become rich). Developing a business model that does away with vast swaths of expense (no distributors, no marketing, and pretty much no in-camera hardware like all the video manufacturers put in) is a prime example. Red has developed a very, very, very profitable business, I'd bet pretty heavily on that.


3) Most end users that jumped too early on the early HDTV systems can trash them today for systems with vastly better technology, picture and energy efficiency. Moore's Law will not be kind to early RED adopters.... unless they just collect über cool video gear for their personal museums.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean -- every piece of video equipment ever bought could be trashed for newer stuff with vastly better technology, picture, and energy efficiency. How does this have anything to do with Red?

Andrew McCarrick
11-07-2009, 10:37 PM
Not their real names and not 6800 but nearly 200 users that have named their cameras.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13019

ChipG
11-08-2009, 12:21 AM
Red's business model is rather incredible -- their marketing budget is near zero, their distribution costs are near zero. There are no middlemen. There is no dealer network to support. Marketing is a HUGE expense; Red's marketing probably consists of genius businessman Jarred Land.

Did I tell you about the time I asked Jarred to cash a 4 party post dated out of state check from the bank of tijana with no ID for me? It was a $12 check, he told me only if it's an e-check (so I wouldn't spend the 0.0000001 on the paper check.)


I'm sure his kids eat good and his wife has more shoes than your wife. :)

Otis Grapsas
11-08-2009, 03:12 AM
Regarding cost, even with complete elimination of corporate and distribution expenses, the product from the small company will end up being far more expensive. It can hopefully make up for this with good support, by listening closer to user needs and by adding features the large manufacturer will not add. The last parameter is the most important. The small company does not have other products and codecs/workflows to protect and being so small in sales and units, it can probably ignore the effect of its product on the market and the video business in general.

Zephyrnoid
11-08-2009, 06:55 AM
Regarding cost, even with complete elimination of corporate and distribution expenses, the product from the small company will end up being far more expensive. It can hopefully make up for this with good support, by listening closer to user needs and by adding features the large manufacturer will not add. The last parameter is the most important. The small company does not have other products and codecs/workflows to protect and being so small in sales and units, it can probably ignore the effect of its product on the market and the video business in general.

Actually, if you use Apple Inc. as a case or benchmark. The last sentence is rather untrue isn't it? If RED has had any effect it has been to positively shift the strategic planning of camera manufacture. Kaisen and Gemba will then finally permeate the Camera business. CNC machining and rappid prototyping will mean that a great idea or need from the marketplace will appear in a short run in a month or two not a year. Moore's Law is in motion folks.

One thing I've been watching closely is IP. I rarely read about RED IP anywhere in the forums. Sales at launch are irrelevant, it's sales 5-10 years hence that really matter. Owning a handful of valuable Intellectual Property - patents - is where the pot of gold is located, not in competing with traditional camera makers.
When I have time I'll search the RED patents to see what they've got. I'm guessing off hand that it's likely to be "Combinations of prior art in a novel fashion to produce a new and unexpected end result" Which is exactly what the first Apple computer was .

Zephyrnoid
11-08-2009, 07:03 AM
what kind of lenses this thing takes ,not for 35mm cinema for sure

There are no rules about lenses. I used to shoot with my Hassy lenses on my Nikons and WOW! the resolution! shooting with the core of a lens is golden. My finest Macros (1:1 up) were done by mounting a nikon body to my Sinar 4X5 and shooting with APO 210mm up front. Just incredible! That's the whole point of RED as a company. They are pushing the envelope of what the technology can be and do.

They just need to round off the edges of the Scarlet when it comes out. It's one thing for it to look boxy, quite another for it to feel boxy.

bwwd
11-08-2009, 08:05 AM
Well there are some rules if lens is not covering whole sensor,this thing has 36×48mm sensor,i doubt it would be really useful in film making.

Dingos8mybaby
11-08-2009, 08:18 AM
I forgot to mention Hassleblad and some other traditional still 2-1/4 makers. What do you suppose would happen if the 50MP Hassleblad suddenly did what Canon & Nikon did with digicams- let them capture video? Yes. Indeed!
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h3dii-50.aspx

If that happened, it would cost more than this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644448-REG/Hasselblad_70380542_H3DII_50_Digital_SLR_Camera.ht ml).


Actually, if you use Apple Inc. as a case or benchmark. The last sentence is rather untrue isn't it?

Otis said "small company". Apple is not a "small company".


One thing I've been watching closely is IP. I rarely read about RED IP anywhere in the forums. Sales at launch are irrelevant, it's sales 5-10 years hence that really matter. Owning a handful of valuable Intellectual Property - patents - is where the pot of gold is located, not in competing with traditional camera makers.
When I have time I'll search the RED patents to see what they've got. I'm guessing off hand that it's likely to be "Combinations of prior art in a novel fashion to produce a new and unexpected end result" Which is exactly what the first Apple computer was .

If you go over to ScarletUser, look up forum member Joseph Hutson. He has pretty much posted every U.S. patent RED has ever filed (much to the annoyance of... certain people).

Otis Grapsas
11-08-2009, 09:15 AM
Actually, if you use Apple Inc. as a case or benchmark. The last sentence is rather untrue isn't it? If RED has had any effect it has been to positively shift the strategic planning of camera manufacture. Kaisen and Gemba will then finally permeate the Camera business. CNC machining and rappid prototyping will mean that a great idea or need from the marketplace will appear in a short run in a month or two not a year. Moore's Law is in motion folks.

One thing I've been watching closely is IP. I rarely read about RED IP anywhere in the forums. Sales at launch are irrelevant, it's sales 5-10 years hence that really matter. Owning a handful of valuable Intellectual Property - patents - is where the pot of gold is located, not in competing with traditional camera makers.
When I have time I'll search the RED patents to see what they've got. I'm guessing off hand that it's likely to be "Combinations of prior art in a novel fashion to produce a new and unexpected end result" Which is exactly what the first Apple computer was .

I was refering to the comments about Red affecting the industry because of the low prices in the new models. The new affordable model is a camera for a very specific market and that's where it will shine. It will be a lot more expensive and heavier than a Canon and offer advantages only a few users can appreciate. Canon will cover the needs of 95% of the users, and Red will take that 5% and be very happy with it. Canon do not even care about Red or anything else in this price range IMHO. We just live on a small island and assume the rest of the world is thinking llike us, but no, they do not care for resolution charts or codecs, they just want low weight and batteries that last long. I think Canon know that many consumers take both a DSLR and a small camcorder on vacation, and want to provide both functions with lower weight and get some lens sales on top of that. They are powerful in DSLRs, they can probably do it. Canon do not have professional cameras in their range, only a high level consumer models that gots lots of revisions and is marketed on their home user web site. They could jump to the professional market, but I don't think they are interested just yet. If they did, I think it would be a 2/3" CCD camera to compliment their HD lenses.

Red did shift the budget of the typical prosumer camera owner upwards with Red One. I believe the large companies were surprised to discover than a company could sell cameras at Red One pricing at such high volume. It's like many DVX/FX1 users were prepared to move to something that cost Nx as much. I have even met hobbyists with Red One cameras. There was obviously a hole in the market and the large companies were not aware of it. Red might have an impact there, since we have seen very expensive solutions lately.

There is certainly an investment in intellectual property when you develop software and hardware and that is sometimes an order of magnitude more important than the actual projected sales.