Scarlett is B.S!!!!!!

[ChipG]

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.

Originally Posted by ChipG

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ChipG

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]

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/product.../h3dii-50.aspx

[bwwd]

what kind of lenses this thing takes ,not for 35mm cinema for sure

[Barry_Green]

Originally Posted by ChipG

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]

Originally Posted by Zephyrnoid

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?