Did the F3 cause Red to rethink the Scarlet S35?

Agreed and understood! Hopefully get to catch up with you at NAB perhaps. It's been a long time since I've had a good chat with you.

Graeme
 
Unfortunately, the term "RAW" derives primarily from still-photography, and in still-photography Raw formats use the least-possible preprocessing coming off the sensor and are typically uncompressed or are lossless. For video there clearly is not the luxury of having every single frame uncompressed at maximum possible quality, there is neither the bandwidth nor the storage capacity to accommodate that. Which is why you start dealing with codecs and its becomes incongruous.

Its come to the point where the semantics involving uncompressed and raw have become jumbled up. This is largely due to marketing reasons and the uncoordinated usage of the term 'Raw'.
 
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
Unfortunately I see more and more clients being very picky about what camera is used on their production. They specifically ask for RED, or Canon 7D, or fill in the blank... The clients are seeing footage from cameras and saying thats what they want. And as soon as that market gets old, they want something else.

I saw people quickly go from wanting to shoot everything on RED to jumping to DSLR's, and now they will be jumping to the AF100 and F3 cameras... The market is no longer something you can wait for. I heard from a RED owner he started losing gigs just because he didn't upgrade to the MX sensor, and the client wanted someone with the MX sensor... Regardless if that client even knew what that meant, people are hearing things and ending up wanting that specific model and not budging outside of it.
Click to expand...

It reminds me of people who can't believe I don't use Pro Tools for audio mixing. They FINALLY put features in version 9 that other programs have had for years. Avid/Digidesign were resting on their laurels as being the "industry standard" and looking at their LE software I couldn't justify using their product.

If a client demands a certain camera rent the thing and line item the rental. Show them your price with the camera they demand and your price with the camera you already own. I am perfectly happy with the gear I own as it produces wonderful images and if I have to keep buying product after product and making zero return on investment I would rather work at McDonald's then be a freelance camera operator.

As it stands right now my EX1 has almost paid for itself in gigs and rentals. If you count the money I've saved in not having to rent a camera for my "passion projects" then it has paid for itself already. My Nikon D300 (not the newer D300s) still camera has more than paid for itself and made up for the EX1's loss. I will run these cameras into the ground before I buy again. Rent newer cameras? Sure, if the price is right from the client.
 
Last edited:
Steve, I agree with you mostly, but RAW in photography is not near as sizeable as LOSSLESS. Compare Canon RAW (CRW) with PNG and TIFF for instance, CRW is always smaller. LOSSLESS is a full image file with all the adjustments attached to it and the irrelevant data discarded. RAW is just the image DATA, no adjustments no nothing. So it won't necessarily take more space.
 
Luiz R said:
Steve, I agree with you mostly, but RAW in photography is not near as sizeable as LOSSLESS. Compare Canon RAW (CRW) with PNG and TIFF for instance, CRW is always smaller. LOSSLESS is a full image file with all the adjustments attached to it and the irrelevant data discarded. RAW is just the image DATA, no adjustments no nothing. So it won't necessarily take more space.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with Canon's raw implementation but with Nikon you have a few flavors of Raw. Compressed, Lossless and uncompressed NEF Nikon Raw files.

Compressed discards a lot of highlight and shadow data but still allows you to adjust settings after the fact.

Lossless retains highlight/shadow detail much more nicely than compressed but takes up more space of course.

Uncompressed is just that. If you really screw up an image's color and exposure it looks nicer than lossless but if your exposure is within a stop under or over there isn't much of a difference when pixel peeping. No difference at all when looking at the image at regular size.

You can also choose 12-bit or 14-bit RAW in the newer Nikons. Usually I go for 12-bit lossless for the best bang for my buck and because shooting 14-bit or uncompressed slows down the framerate on my camera.
 
Jesus.. Suddenly I'm on REDuser, but everything is blue! Oh well.. I can deal.

I am a very long time RED User, (and the DVD guy for RED ONE..)

I'll stick my neck out and give my humble opinion (Hope Jim doesn't catch me here).

Epic S (this is what it's called now.. Used to be Scarlet s35)..... Is a mistake.

The fixed lens scarlet needs to move up to a s35mm sensor. Only two models are needed: EPIC-X and Scarlet Fixed.

It makes no sense to have a 2/3" chip now in Scarlet. The EPIC-S is just too damn close to Epic-X. And any addition in features, or increase in price just muddy up the water for Epic-X all the more.

The fixed lens going to s35 would provide some interesting choices, lower cost, and a VERY different camera since the lens is locked onto the body.

I gotta tell ya (And this is going to get me into trouble for sure) I sometimes wonder if the potential Scarlet buyers kind of pushed RED into this new mode of thinking.. They were a pretty "Price obsessed" group. When Jim raised the price of the Scarlet $1000 to include HDRx you would have thought the world was coming to an end. RED goes so far out of it's way to keep adding more and more to it's cameras AFTER you've bought them, that I think they would like this value to be noticed. Sadly a lot of times, the cheaper you make something, the more people want put into it, and they look for more discounts at every turn. I don't think this point of view sat well with RED.

This is some MASSIVE guessing on my part. And If I am wrong, so be it. I have my own reasons for thinking as I do. Just food for thought.

I still think the Scarlet S35 was not a hot idea.. And I think making the Fixed Lens Scarlet a 2/3' camera, especially in the face of the current choices coming out, it also not a good idea.

I say once again: Kill Scarlet S35, and make the Fixed Lens Scarlet an S35 camera, and raise the price a bit.

Jay
 
I guess I'm lost on this discussion? For me the great appeal with the RED cameras is the resolution. Not to mention RAW code. Aren't all these other cameras from Sony and Panasonic just 1080p? Why would I want to spend gazillions on a 1080p camera when you can get 3k, 4k, and 5k from RED? Someone said the new Epic is not necessary/useless because they could've just stuck the chip in the old RED body? My dream is to have 5k resolution in a large DSLR format camera so I can easily take it anywhere I want to go... multi-day backpacking and kayaking trips. I must be really missing something in this discussion? This new F3 is 'just' 1080p. An EX1 with NanoFlash is pretty sweet, sure you don't get the ultra shallow DOF, but it's not $23,000 for a 1080p camera either. After my EX1 it's all Epic for me. Even the Scarlet will be at least 3k shooting raw. I wouldn't think 1080p cameras make Red "rethink" anything. Admittedly I may be saying this out of ignorance, but I just don't get it.
 
I don't think the other camera companies have had much of an effect on Epic-X buck, but I think the AF-100 and the F3 might cause them to take another look at the Fixed Lens version since it's a 2/3" chip. You are right of course, the RED cameras trump everyone on Resolution, and shooting RAW.. But it's possible to sell against those two things believe it or not (Although it's getting harder too).

Epic X is ready to roll, but I think we have not seen the end of changes for the other Epic models.

Jay
 
Even with the F3 and AF100, there is still a HUGE market for 2/3" sensor. There are many people who don't want or need a HUGE sensor and shallow DoF, but would love the capabilities of HDRx, 120fps, 3-5k resolution, 4:4:4, and REDCODE RAW. A 2/3" Scarlet priced in the 10-20k range competes with the Varicam, PMW market very well. It would surpass current offerings by both Panny and Sony, which generally hold the middle of the ENG market.

S35 Scarlet with a fixed lens sounds good/ok, but that would have to be one amazing lens to make it worth the money.
 
Buck Forester said:
For me the great appeal with the RED cameras is the resolution. Not to mention RAW code. Why would I want to spend gazillions on a 1080p camera when you can get 3k, 4k, and 5k from RED? <snip> An EX1 with NanoFlash is pretty sweet, sure you don't get the ultra shallow DOF, but it's not $23,000 for a 1080p camera either. After my EX1 it's all Epic for me. Even the Scarlet will be at least 3k shooting raw.
Click to expand...

Its a misconception that the Scarlet is a 3k camera. Its a 3k sensor that after the debayer filter is a bit above 2k. Its meant for 2k delivery. Its not much, if any, advantage.

Right now film is usually scanned to 2k. Those theaters that have digital projection are virtually all 2k. A 1920 wide image delivers what you need. Many many movies have 1080p shots in them that you don't even notice the difference.

Also, the F3 isn't $23,000, its $13,300 if you use the glass you used on your 35mm adapter. Many pros and semi pros have a Nano or KiPro, but if they don't the regular codec is very good, just like the EX1.

That's another thing, imagine being able to drop the F3 footage right into your EX1 work flow. No fuss, no muss, nothing extra to do. Red work flow, though much better, is still not as simple and for many requires some computer and storage upgrades. Then a learning curve to figure out what to do with the footage. Shooting on a Red is different too. Time is money. Blown shots on paying gigs cost you time, money and reputation.

In addition, I know you're doing a lot of nature docs where it isn't important, but a lot of people are hoping to make movies on the scarlet. They'd need a 35mm adapter if they want to do those shallow DOF shots to emphasize the actors and separate them from the background.

In short, there could be advantages with a Scarlet when/if it ever comes out, but disadvantages too. The Scarlet may never come out, or may be two years from now. Its not a real choice. In the mean time, the F3 is here now and it has advantages too.
 
HVXguy said:
I think it will be Canon or Nikon who now will build and sell something like what would have been the Scarlet.
Click to expand...

I don' t think that it will straight forward as what you are suggesting. Everyone thought that Nikon would do it because the success of the DSLR for video, but Nikon has just upgraded slowly with the D7000 the last version that is a good step but nothing ground breaking to kill the Canon. I think we will see slight improvement from most of the Dslr and then an accident again. As the processing and speed increases it is bound to happen that in the next 5 years we will see one of them by accident introduce a camera with 24-25 fps raw recording. It will create another milestone and turning point in moving image capture as has been the first dslr revolution two years ago. We will find raw movie at $ 1000 - $ 2000 camera. They might even be full rez recoding. They will come with all the shortcoming of dslr in terms of forms etc, but the image quality will be here.

There was someone talking about the studio recording industry, how in the space of 10 - 15 years, you have a better recording technology in a $ 200 equipment than one use to cost in the tens of thousand. I think that we will live the same thing in the next 5 to 10 years. There will still be high end camera system, but it will more in terms of functionality, form factor and pro support and services than in pure image quality.
 
Razz16mm said:
Red has never built or proposed any kind of native 1080p video format camera, nor is it likely they will do so. Their whole reason for existence is to push the technology well beyond HD video acquisition, even beyond the capabilities of film.
I really don't get people who wish Red would make just another HD video camera, as long as they make it cheap and now. The majors are stepping up nicely with those solutions so why should Red follow the pack?
Why should they now go backwards and produce something less than what they have already developed the hardware and software to support? Why for example would it be in Red's interest to build any camera without HDRx now that they have developed that technology? It is so refreshing to have one company at last that puts image quality and camera performance ahead of other market considerations. Let prices fall where they must to support the manufacturing and development costs. Scarlets (2/3") and Epics (S35) of whatever variety will still offer exceptional performance and value for the price.
Click to expand...


This is what every successful electronic company has been doing and it is call a line of product. I am not saying they should go as low as a 4.4.2 codec, but they could do a 2k or even 3k redcode version that would be enough to differentiate there product from the Sony and Panasonic of this world. Have a product that competes at different price point with the competition, as the example before. Put this camera (functional) at $ 5000 to $ 7000 and you kick you sell in the thousand every month. Do you think nikon makes more money on it full frame $ 7000 D3x or on its apc line of product. I am a professional photographer, so my example are more related to this market which is much more mature than the digital video one. We have the Nikon D7000 selling for a little more than $1000 which has a 16 mega pixel 14 stop sensor which is the best in its class (factoring Nikon lens etc) and selling bucket loads.

When I see what Sony is doing I see why these Japanese camera company dominate this market. They are pushing Red up and up market, where it is smaller and smaller while they capture the mainstream prosummer market, leverage there r&d on many product line and take a large part of what red was the pioneer. Red and the Dslr have carved a new market but it is going to be them that are going to profit from it. When they will have sold a lot of f3 in 1 to 2 years they will be selling them for $ 10000. The nxcam can be even more drastic, in two years it could be less than $4000 and make it a logical migration from the dslr user to upgrade.

Just an observation, has anyone seen a red camera decrease in price!!! To conclude any company can have any set of ideals, but if it is too costly and does not sell enough, or too late etc. and does not make enough money it will fail.
 
Last edited:
The audio world is slightly different, and not as cut and dried as is represented here. Yes, with GarageBand you can make compositions that put so many things to shame from 10 years ago. However, that's just the editing program. Gibson guitars are still $2000 and up. Analog tube amps are still preferred to digital modeling. I can do mix downs with a buddies ProTools LE, but it will never sound as tight, hot, and punchy as Ke$ha's latest because there is a technical knowledge AaND hardware equipment barrier.

I think some things that are tangible, such as lenses, lighting, acting talent, director talent, and tons of other gear will NOT drop so drastically. Sensors and camera bodies with their capabilities yes will become cheap and immensely good capture devices. But you won't get the *sparkle* that comes from a good Ziess lens with your $500 120fps, 5k RAW camera. Your film won't have Johnny Depp and a legendary DP at the helm.

The world is tangible, NOT digital, and computations only get you so far. At some point, the real world has to get translated but there is so much to do before it gets there.

It will become harder and harder to sift through the good movies & shooters from the bad. The same is true with digital photography right now. Anybody that invests $1000 in a camera runs their own "photography business" and can shoot your wedding. I just got married and let me tell you, I'm glad we got a talented shooter, not a soccer mom with a camera, Photoshop Elements, and a lightscribe burner that needs supplemental income while she works at home during the day.

There will ALWAYS be professional equipment and a professional market because the mass consumer CAN'T make a good movie. Maybe some good footage, but only very rarely a good movie/short.

I'm a guitarist that uses digital modeling for amplification. Did I wish I had a Matchless Tube amp? You bet. Then again, I have a Matchless preset on my processor that gets me 80% or more of the Matchless sound. I paid a total of $500 bucks for my rig, whereas the amp is $5000. Plug me into the sound system direct or mic my amp, and the difference diminishes almost entirely. Then again, I'm not John Mayer.

But I'll be fine at my gigs with what I got.

(Btw, in my mind THAT is the AF100. 10% of the cost, with 80% or more of the capability.)
 
Last edited:
I am 100% with you, but there are tipping points, where technology (affordable) just becomes... good enough for 95% of cases. We are in a pure digital domain when we talk about sensor technology, the processing of it which is different. In photography when you have a raw image, every raw program debayering have big differences from the same data. The more physical thing as the glass, build quality and form factor will still be more defining factors than the sensor and recording in 5 years time.
 
Jay A. Kelley said:
Jesus.. Suddenly I'm on REDuser, but everything is blue! Oh well.. I can deal.

I am a very long time RED User, (and the DVD guy for RED ONE..)

I'll stick my neck out and give my humble opinion (Hope Jim doesn't catch me here).

Epic S (this is what it's called now.. Used to be Scarlet s35)..... Is a mistake.

The fixed lens scarlet needs to move up to a s35mm sensor. Only two models are needed: EPIC-X and Scarlet Fixed.

It makes no sense to have a 2/3" chip now in Scarlet. The EPIC-S is just too damn close to Epic-X. And any addition in features, or increase in price just muddy up the water for Epic-X all the more.

The fixed lens going to s35 would provide some interesting choices, lower cost, and a VERY different camera since the lens is locked onto the body.

I gotta tell ya (And this is going to get me into trouble for sure) I sometimes wonder if the potential Scarlet buyers kind of pushed RED into this new mode of thinking.. They were a pretty "Price obsessed" group. When Jim raised the price of the Scarlet $1000 to include HDRx you would have thought the world was coming to an end. RED goes so far out of it's way to keep adding more and more to it's cameras AFTER you've bought them, that I think they would like this value to be noticed. Sadly a lot of times, the cheaper you make something, the more people want put into it, and they look for more discounts at every turn. I don't think this point of view sat well with RED.

This is some MASSIVE guessing on my part. And If I am wrong, so be it. I have my own reasons for thinking as I do. Just food for thought.

I still think the Scarlet S35 was not a hot idea.. And I think making the Fixed Lens Scarlet a 2/3' camera, especially in the face of the current choices coming out, it also not a good idea.

I say once again: Kill Scarlet S35, and make the Fixed Lens Scarlet an S35 camera, and raise the price a bit.

Jay
Click to expand...


I have more or less the same view in terms of red product line. The only difference is that I would have put the 3k scarlet with an s35 and ... interchangeable lens, but no hdrx. So there would still be quite a lot pf product differentiation between it and the Epic 5k hdrx camera. You want the top of the line best camera of the world with 5k and 18 stop dynamic range pay x sum, but if you can' t, we have a 13.5 stop 3k camera that is better than most out there for y sum. For me this hypothetical working scarlet package at $ 8000 to $ 12 000 would be have a huge market.

P.s I hope you forgot about putting a smiley behind your (Hope Jim doesn't catch me here), because it would be very sad that a person living in the land of the free... speech, would be that afraid to express his views.... on a camera!!!
 
Buck Forester said:
I guess I'm lost on this discussion? For me the great appeal with the RED cameras is the resolution. Not to mention RAW code. Aren't all these other cameras from Sony and Panasonic just 1080p? Why would I want to spend gazillions on a 1080p camera when you can get 3k, 4k, and 5k from RED? Someone said the new Epic is not necessary/useless because they could've just stuck the chip in the old RED body? My dream is to have 5k resolution in a large DSLR format camera so I can easily take it anywhere I want to go... multi-day backpacking and kayaking trips. I must be really missing something in this discussion? This new F3 is 'just' 1080p. An EX1 with NanoFlash is pretty sweet, sure you don't get the ultra shallow DOF, but it's not $23,000 for a 1080p camera either. After my EX1 it's all Epic for me. Even the Scarlet will be at least 3k shooting raw. I wouldn't think 1080p cameras make Red "rethink" anything. Admittedly I may be saying this out of ignorance, but I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

I might be mistaken here but the Alexa and Sony f3 have 3.5k bayer sensor that is scaled down to 1080p. So the direct red has a 4k-5k sensor compared to the 1080p output of the Alexa and f3 is not as straight forward as it is. It is known that the bayer sensor is not 1 to 1 pixel resolution. So the f3 and Alexa are sampling at 3.5 k and scaling it back to 1080p resolution, which gives better resolution. The red will out-resolve those but not as it might first look like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top