RED NAB NEWS THREAD: Scarlet pics are up

Kholi said:
Most RED owners do not own Film Lenses. In the event, sayin' it again here, that you do own a RED ONE you ought'a be bringin' in enough money to support it and your clients ought'a be ready to rent the good stuff.

In the event that they can't, you can still pick up jobs usin' Nikon lenses. Chances are, if they can't afford to rent PL glass in the first place, the Nikon glass is going to "match" the project regardless.

So, yeah, 25k is an Optimistic RED ONE package that you can shoot with.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. Maybe you should read the post that originated the discussion/comments which basically was, what constitute a RED "PRO" pkg. And a PRO pkg will include film lens. Call any rental house in L.A I doubt the RED pro pkg they rent comes with Nikon lenses in it.

Not sure I understand what you mean by "the Nikon glass is going to "match" the project regardless."

cheers.
 
SomewhereinLA said:
Of course if you are using Nikon lenses you can get away with less, but it is a bit like buying a Porsche and put a 100hp 4 cylinder engine. Nikon on a RED isn't considered a pro PKG in my book... The great thing about the red camera is the ability to use film lenses, which are engineered very differently than still photography lenses. No offense, but using a still lens on a Red is, in my opinion missing what the camera was built for. I don't mean to imply you won't get a descent result with a Nikon lens, but a film lens will give far superior results.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with you on one thing, cine lenses are designed with different user base and workflow in mind. Barring that, I have yet to read or see any empirical study that shows that cine lenses produce images that are substantially different from still lenses. If anything, its more about the design of the controls on the lens rather than the actual optical formula which is responsible for the image produced. I've leafed through quite a few optical design textbooks and I haven't come across any reason why optical designs would differ for still and film. Your analogy with the "Porsche and put a 100hp 4 cylinder engine" is not really proven in any way.

I will bet you that if you shot a single frame with a still camera with a matching still lens(same optical design, same aperture design) on the same film stock with the exact same post production work, you won't be able to tell the difference and logically, why would you?
 
SomewhereinLA said:
I couldn't agree with you more. Maybe you should read the post that originated the discussion/comments which basically was, what constitute a RED "PRO" pkg. And a PRO pkg will include film lens. Call any rental house in L.A I doubt the RED pro pkg they rent comes with Nikon lenses in it.

Not sure I understand what you mean by "the Nikon glass is going to "match" the project regardless."

cheers.
Click to expand...

Indierentals does rent a RED ONE with Nikon mount last I heard. I get what you're saying about a professional package. I don't think that those guys were calling it a professional package, more so a "working" package: you can shoot with it, doesn't mean it's the best type-of-deal.


By the comment I made: If you don't have the money to rent glass for 200 a day you probably don't have the money to do a lot of other things. Thus, the image will match the budget/production.

That's often true unless your Producer is striking sick deals.
 
shaocaholica said:
I'll agree with you on one thing, cine lenses are designed with different user base and workflow in mind. Barring that, I have yet to read or see any empirical study that shows that cine lenses produce images that are substantially different from still lenses. If anything, its more about the design of the controls on the lens rather than the actual optical formula which is responsible for the image produced. I've leafed through quite a few optical design textbooks and I haven't come across any reason why optical designs would differ for still and film. Your analogy with the "Porsche and put a 100hp 4 cylinder engine" is not really proven in any way.

I will bet you that if you shot a single frame with a still camera with a matching still lens(same optical design, same aperture design) on the same film stock with the exact same post production work, you won't be able to tell the difference and logically, why would you?
Click to expand...

Name a still lens that shoots sharp wide open (1.4), that comes close to a Speed Set wide open. That's where there's vast difference as well as edge to edge sharpness. And then there's breathing. These are the three areas where cine lenses kick still lenses asses. They are also the areas that don't mean much on a coffee table book but become a big deal on a 50 foot screen. These are also the three areas that aren't hugely important to still photography.

With zooms, however, I think the Nikon zooms compete on a cine level with cine zooms.
 
I, for one, have no problem with Scarlet having a fixed lens. Nor do I find 2/3" chips too tiny. We've long ago crossed the line of good enough, and the skills needed to make something look good will weigh in far more than this. I think it's important to remember the price point here (assuming the camera truly is $3,000).

In the end, once you build this sucker up with the Cage and batteries, Mattebox, etc, it should be the size of an HVX.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting guess. Curious as to what that would cost? I mean, for your $3,000, what do you get? And if you sunk another grand into it? Then if you beefed it up, would it cost you $6k?

My other issue is build and shipping. "Early 2009" could very well mean 12 months from now. And though Jannard has said it will ship when built, I'm a bit skeptical here judging by their past performance. Will Red guarantee that when they ship in "early 2009" if 10,000 of us order them, they'll arrive at our doorstep in a few days? Or do we have to go on another waiting list and wait another several months?
 
Jim said that no unit is shipped until it's ready to go. Thus, no Beta period or waiting in line.

That's why I don't expect this Early 2009 thing. More like late 2009 early 2010.

Beefed up? I bet you're knockin on 10k's door.
 
I have to admit, as much as waiting sucks, I think this is a smart move on Jim's part. Especially with Scarlet, as they should sell tons of them to amateur filmmakers.
 
Pettersen said:
5K EPIC


SPECIFICATIONS:

* FULL FRAME S35MM NEW MYSTERIUM X SENSOR
* 1-100 FPS
* UP TO 100 MB/SEC. REDCODE RAW AND RGB RECORDING TO REDFLASH
* FULL SIZE DUAL LINK HD-SDI, 2-XLR AUDIO INPUTS AND HDMI
* WI-FI CONTROL
* FIREWIRE 800 and USB2
* 6 POUND FULLY MACHINED ALUMINUM BODY WITH HYBRID STAINLESS PL MOUNT
* COMPATIBLE WITH MOST RED ONE ACCESSORIES
* FULLY UPGRADABLE SENSOR, BODY, BOARDS AND MOUNT.
Click to expand...
EPIC 5K? Any 5K Display available (little weird.)?
But 5K is probably the best way to shoot 4K and data-rate increase is a huge step forward.
Hummmm... 2009 means' .... Spend more for System and Storage.

Every industry needs a RED.
 
Kholi said:
Most RED owners do not own Film Lenses. In the event, sayin' it again here, that you do own a RED ONE you ought'a be bringin' in enough money to support it and your clients ought'a be ready to rent the good stuff.

In the event that they can't, you can still pick up jobs usin' Nikon lenses. Chances are, if they can't afford to rent PL glass in the first place, the Nikon glass is going to "match" the project regardless.

So, yeah, 25k is an Optimistic RED ONE package that you can shoot with.
Click to expand...

For the hell of it, i put together a RED package and priced it up, for me it was close to 40 k to have a working camera and lenses that would be sufficient for doing a short film or feature. Not sure where all these other low figure are coming from.
 
Kholi said:
You'll have to educate me on that one. Can you add it and will it be applied to Proxies and the r3d files? You really have no idea how much that would help.

But, as far as I knew, it was only for the LCD's and not for the final footages. Am I wrong? Please say I am. LOL
Click to expand...

Yep, if you create a look in camera (using the parameters in the 'VIDEO' menu - contrast, brightness, saturation, etc...) it will come up with those changes in RedAlert and even RedCine. The proxies will be affected to look like your LCD looked when you shot it... and you can always change it back to flat.

Then, you can save those looks on the SD card to reload quickly in the field without having to fiddle thru menus.
 
PaPa said:
For the hell of it, i put together a RED package and priced it up, for me it was close to 40 k to have a working camera and lenses that would be sufficient for doing a short film or feature. Not sure where all these other low figure are coming from.
Click to expand...

If you're not buying lenses and will be renting glass, then 25K is a realistic number for the body, mounts, rods, power, storage, monitor, etc...

That won't include tripod, mattebox, follow focus, and glass (like I said).... But all those things can be rented...

And don't discount the Nikon mount route. That stuff can look great (although focus pulling can be a little challenging depending on the age of the lens).
 
PaPa said:
For the hell of it, i put together a RED package and priced it up, for me it was close to 40 k to have a working camera and lenses that would be sufficient for doing a short film or feature. Not sure where all these other low figure are coming from.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you decided against the Red. I'm curious what opted for instead?
 
Here's some solid info. Sounds pretty good. I'll either be adding this or the HPX170 to my arsenal ASAP
Click to expand...

Well, if you need it ASAP, then you'll be buying something else, because the Panasonic won't be out until probably October, and Scarlet won't be released until probably a year from now.
 
Tim Naylor said:
Name a still lens that shoots sharp wide open (1.4), that comes close to a Speed Set wide open. That's where there's vast difference as well as edge to edge sharpness. And then there's breathing. These are the three areas where cine lenses kick still lenses asses. They are also the areas that don't mean much on a coffee table book but become a big deal on a 50 foot screen. These are also the three areas that aren't hugely important to still photography.

With zooms, however, I think the Nikon zooms compete on a cine level with cine zooms.
Click to expand...

My custom modified digital mounted Minolta 58/1.2 is pretty damn sharp at f/1.4 and it only cost me $200.

Here is a gallery of ~4K digital images taken with the 58/1.2 at f/1.2-2. You can load the original 4k image in that gallery and peep in on the sharpness of a dinky $200 lens from the '60s. Besides, you're never shooting wide open that frequently anyway.

Ever watch Star Wars (IV, V & VI) in HD? (There are 1080p broadcast captures floating around). Whatever Lucas used to shoot those had horrible corner softness and CA and yet they are still beautiful movies(especially the remastered). If you can do that with a crappy cine lens, why should we care about the minute differences between still and cine lenses anyway?

From all that I've read, optically, the differences are minimal and if you're going to do a lot of post work, those differences are going to be even less noticeable. What you loose is productivity from the lack of control.

I won't believe anyone who says a cine lens is sharper than a still lens unless they've seen a side by side with. Sure there are plenty of really crappy still lenses out there. Far more percentage wise than cine lenses but I can't believe that the very top tier of still lenses is that much worse if not the same or better than an equivalent era cine lens.
 
Last edited:
someone help me understand something here, are we happy that red announces cameras that we wont get out hands on until a year ( or so) from now, that pisses me off guys on the real man, many of us need equipment now, what is the benefit of knowing every detail about scarlet for example if we cant use it, someone send some light overhere because I dont get it
 
As a current HVX owner wanting an upgrade, the Scarlet hasn't solved my problems: it has added to them!

1st- Its very tempting on paper but not a World apart from the EX 3, for example. If anyone saw the Adam Witt "unfair comparison of the Red One, F23, and the EX-1" (his words!), the Red One was as sharp as an EX-1 from the stills posted (Adam stated a miscalibration on the RED, but sincerely, I don't buy it). We know how RED records "4k", and the F23, a 1920x1080 camera, smoked it in lines of resolution.

2- However, 3000 USD for 120fps 3k is just unbelievable. And bursts at 180 fps? DEAL! Slow Motion is integral to my "shooting language". May it be my TVC's or my shorts, and this immediately raised my "MUST BUY" signal :).

3- But, then another small disappointment: "Early 2009" Ok, but what about delivery? Seeing the slow distribution of the current RED ONE, and seeing there's no reservation period, this would mean Summer 2009 for delivery looking with a very optimistic eye...And it will be chaos to get one of those...

CUrrently, my plan is to keep the HVX and try out the EX3. If its as good as it sounds on paper, I'll sell my HVX and buy the EX3. And then, by summer 2009, will add a Scarlet to the setup.

I'm a bit concerned by the EX3's weight and how it would balance on my GLidecam Smooth Shooter. But the Scarlet, obviously, would fit well...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top