Future of Panasonic and RED cameras

This is all conjecture but I can say from this more "video" type shooter, I will wait for Scarlet before makeing any type of purchase decision. Why? I know I am in the minority here in the AF-100 forum, but I am sure a lot of other video folks are seeing the Scarlet as an affordable means of 2/3" aquisition with the possibility of using existing servo-driven lenses. The fixed lens scarlet if outiftted with a servo motor would be a nice compliment to this scenario as well. So in my view, Scarlet could get a lot of play with the video crowd as well as the cinema crowd.

If Scarlet is what we expect it to be, I could see selling everything and going to an all scarlet setup. The RAW type workflow I am so used to with my still shooting would be worth it alone.
 
Predicting what Red can or will do is a futile exercise. Scarlet went from being the "Soccer mom" camera sold at Best Buy, to being the low cost indie revolution mass-market camera, to now being a limited-production higher-market unit, and it hasn't yet existed once during these transformations.

Red themselves, are in a very different position today, than they were three years ago when the Red One was released. Back then there was pretty much no competition at any price. They could do whatever they wanted and it would be "revolutionary". Today, that's not the case. Today there's serious, very stiff competition, everywhere. Arri's Alexa is, by all reports, a better camera than Red produces, so for those who want "the best at any price", that's not Red anymore. The DSLR provides a unit that's "good enough" for the low/no-budget folks, so the big base of potential Scarlet buyers just disappeared, and the AF100 is going to vacuum up most of the rest. I predict the Scarlet Fixed is not going to be a mass-market unit, and that Panasonic will sell more AF100s in a month than Red sells Scarlet Fixed in three years. And in the middle range, Sony claims they're making a "mini F35" to compete with the Red One, and they've targeted a $19,000 to $50,000 price point for it.

I was very intrigued by Red's "man up" announcement. To me it said they were abandoning any plans to try to go mass market, and were instead going to focus on making the products do exactly what they should do, and they'll cost whatever they cost in order to do it. And that they were refocusing their aim at the professional filmmaker (defined as: one to whom filmmaking is their profession, as in - they make their living at it, as opposed to the hobbyist who, by definition, does not). If Red quits the bashing of h.264 and constantly complaining about "line skipping", and instead just OFFERS AN ACTUAL ALTERNATIVE, then I think they could do some amazing things. I don't think a fixed-lens 3k 2/3" Scarlet is it though. Good luck with that.

Actually I've been thinking about Red, and I think that if they play their cards right they could make a rather incredible market shift. We all know that the stills market is massively, massively larger than the independent film market. I don't know the size difference, but it's at least 10x and maybe 100x bigger. With Red focusing so hard on their "DSMC" concept, and having their units used for dedicated photo shoots -- maybe that's what they were after all along? Maybe this whole foray into moving images was a sideline, a means to get where they wanted to be in the first place. Photography is great, but photography still depends so much on luck -- capturing the exact expression, the exact moment at the exact time from the exact angle, to make a photo that's truly magical -- like this one.

So -- what if Red's target hasn't really been the filmmaker at all? What if they've just used the filmmaker as a market to exploit while they refine their technology to go after their true market -- the stills photographer? Seriously, what stills photographer would still want to click away at a "motor drive" rate of 11fps, when they could instead be shooting picture-perfect 18-megapixel stills at a rate of 120fps? They'd NEVER miss the shot again. They're still shooting stills, but now they could pick the exact still that shows the most dramatic impact. What professional stills photographer wouldn't want that? What professional stills photographer wouldn't pay for that?

Methinks that billionaire genius Jannard may indeed know exactly what he's doing, and far from being "done", they're about to explode on the scene. However, in this move, I would expect that DVXUsers would become less and less relevant to the company. I don't expect them to ever approach the idea of "3K for 3K" again. They're moving upscale, where the dough is and where the hassles and complaints are the fewest (and I don't blame them one bit). I have the feeling that Red is maturing and instead of trying to be all things to all people, they're going to try to become the leading unit for the working pro, who can afford to pay Red's prices because they make their living off of their equipment.

In other words -- I do not expect them to release a competitor to the DSLR. I do not expect them to release a competitor to the AF100. I expect them to, effectively, abandon those markets in their efforts to go forward and create a whole new market (something that they've shown they're pretty darn good at already).
 
Barry_Green said:
Predicting what Red can or will do is a futile exercise. Scarlet went from being the "Soccer mom" camera sold at Best Buy, to being the low cost indie revolution mass-market camera, to now being a limited-production higher-market unit, and it hasn't yet existed once during these transformations.

Red themselves, are in a very different position today, than they were three years ago when the Red One was released. Back then there was pretty much no competition at any price. They could do whatever they wanted and it would be "revolutionary". Today, that's not the case. Today there's serious, very stiff competition, everywhere. Arri's Alexa is, by all reports, a better camera than Red produces, so for those who want "the best at any price", that's not Red anymore. The DSLR provides a unit that's "good enough" for the low/no-budget folks, so the big base of potential Scarlet buyers just disappeared, and the AF100 is going to vacuum up most of the rest. I predict the Scarlet Fixed is not going to be a mass-market unit, and that Panasonic will sell more AF100s in a month than Red sells Scarlet Fixed in three years. And in the middle range, Sony claims they're making a "mini F35" to compete with the Red One, and they've targeted a $19,000 to $50,000 price point for it.

I was very intrigued by Red's "man up" announcement. To me it said they were abandoning any plans to try to go mass market, and were instead going to focus on making the products do exactly what they should do, and they'll cost whatever they cost in order to do it. And that they were refocusing their aim at the professional filmmaker (defined as: one to whom filmmaking is their profession, as in - they make their living at it, as opposed to the hobbyist who, by definition, does not). If Red quits the bashing of h.264 and constantly complaining about "line skipping", and instead just OFFERS AN ACTUAL ALTERNATIVE, then I think they could do some amazing things. I don't think a fixed-lens 3k 2/3" Scarlet is it though. Good luck with that.

Actually I've been thinking about Red, and I think that if they play their cards right they could make a rather incredible market shift. We all know that the stills market is massively, massively larger than the independent film market. I don't know the size difference, but it's at least 10x and maybe 100x bigger. With Red focusing so hard on their "DSMC" concept, and having their units used for dedicated photo shoots -- maybe that's what they were after all along? Maybe this whole foray into moving images was a sideline, a means to get where they wanted to be in the first place. Photography is great, but photography still depends so much on luck -- capturing the exact expression, the exact moment at the exact time from the exact angle, to make a photo that's truly magical -- like this one.

So -- what if Red's target hasn't really been the filmmaker at all? What if they've just used the filmmaker as a market to exploit while they refine their technology to go after their true market -- the stills photographer? Seriously, what stills photographer would still want to click away at a "motor drive" rate of 11fps, when they could instead be shooting picture-perfect 18-megapixel stills at a rate of 120fps? They'd NEVER miss the shot again. They're still shooting stills, but now they could pick the exact still that shows the most dramatic impact. What professional stills photographer wouldn't want that? What professional stills photographer wouldn't pay for that?

Methinks that billionaire genius Jannard may indeed know exactly what he's doing, and far from being "done", they're about to explode on the scene. However, in this move, I would expect that DVXUsers would become less and less relevant to the company. I don't expect them to ever approach the idea of "3K for 3K" again. They're moving upscale, where the dough is and where the hassles and complaints are the fewest (and I don't blame them one bit). I have the feeling that Red is maturing and instead of trying to be all things to all people, they're going to try to become the leading unit for the working pro, who can afford to pay Red's prices because they make their living off of their equipment.

In other words -- I do not expect them to release a competitor to the DSLR. I do not expect them to release a competitor to the AF100. I expect them to, effectively, abandon those markets in their efforts to go forward and create a whole new market (something that they've shown they're pretty darn good at already).
Click to expand...

Interesting theory Barry, you could just be right.
 
The fact that RED has been spending so much time with big-name photographers recently has me wondering the same thing, Barry.

And that's really the problem with RED (or one of the problems). It's impossible to "know" anything. They could announce, at any time, "Sorry, we're scrapping the Scarlet line. We are announcing a new line - Maroon - that features FF35 sensors across the board."
 
Barry_Green said:
The DSLR provides a unit that's "good enough" for the low/no-budget folks, so the big base of potential Scarlet buyers just disappeared, and the AF100 is going to vacuum up most of the rest.
Click to expand...

I don't know why, but this statement made me burst out laughing, its so true too!
 
After the AF100 was announced I pretty much decided to skip (if it does ever come out) Scarlet 2/3 fixed.

This camera sounded like a dream back in 2008 when we were all using HVX200s and were waiting for the HPX-170.

However I still think Scarlet S35 is still poised to be the first truly affordable camera that gives results comparable or better than 35 mm film. To me that's pretty big.

As long as RED keeps the most basic Scarlet S35 kit below 10K, you can count me in for the ride as soon as it releases.

If it's a little over that, I'll save up some more and buy one after a while.

Meanwhile the AF100 is going to be a great camera to get us all used to using follow focus, switching lenses, and getting used to big sensors.

To me the AF100 is going to be just more than enough for 95% of jobs for a few years. The only thing I'd avoid using it if possible would be on a feature film, I'd probably make the effort to rent a RED MX instead.
 
Like Barry, I am one of those who bought in to RED early on (#271) and later sold it because of early work-flow and other issues. I really started thinking about selling it when I first saw Vincent LaForet's early work with the 5D (of which I bought a early one as well). At that point in time I realized their was a major shift in camera technology and awareness happening and I could get a similar look for a lot less money.

I do not shoot movies, occasionally I shoot national/regional spots, but most of my work is local; hospitals, law firms, car dealers, etc. I don't feel I need 3k/4k or raw for my work if the camera I am shooting puts out a nice filmic 1080 image and the work flow is as fast to what I am used to. With our automotive clients it's not uncommon for us to shoot and edit the same day and have the spot on local affiliate stations that evening. Our work is most often broadcast and never goes bigger than 1080/720, or it's put on DVD for corporate clients. I do believe that ultimately as JJ says it will be 4K world, but that's not now, and when that time comes I believe Panasonic, Sony, JVC, others, etc will have cameras for me at that time. By then, sure the 20K Super Epic Monstro Godzilla will be nice, but still overkill for me and my clients at many levels. It's inevitable and realistic to expect that Panasonic, Canon and others will all have reasonably affordable large sensor 4K+ cameras in the future, and at some point possibly even their own version of a raw codec.

Now with the AF100 I anticipate a large sensor camera with all the bells and whistles I need without adding on external viewfinders, separate audio recorders, etc. that I've added to my 5D. Add in a easy work flow that I am used to (own/shoot HMC150/40 as well) and it's a no brainer. For those of us who have been in the business well over 20 years or more, a $5,000 camera with these specs is a miracle at this price point compared to the $25K+ (less lens) cameras we used to purchase. And I will echo Barry's sentiment that the AF100 codec is nothing to sneeze at. Calling it consumer, junky or a crap codec is a uneducated opinion IMO. As Barry said everybody oohed and ahhed about the "House" episode and SNL open all shot on 5/7D's. The AF100 has a better and more robust codec than the Canon cameras so why wouldn't it be just as good if not better for that type of work? One of the things I tell people when I am shooting with my 5D is "they used this model camera to shoot a House episode", sure it's blatant name dropping, but my clients get it, if it's good enough for a major network episodic program it's good enough for their local hospital or law firm. I expect the AF100 to eventually be used on highly visible mainstream national projects that I can also unashamedly name drop. :)

At this point I just don't get the 2/3" Scarlet when there are other options (even with 3K and raw). And while I understand the EPIC has increased frame rates and shoots a better RedCode than Scarlet, all the while realizing it takes a lot more muscle to do so, I think many people have a hard time rationalizing how much more the Epic costs compared to a Scarlet. Sometimes I think If RED would just fold the Epic and Scarlet programs together and offer one camera with all the RED stuff at the same price point (or less) as a original R1 it would make more sense to me (particularly as other cameras at the Scarlet price start to pop up).

If you remember it was approximately around the time the 5D appeared that the first soccer mom Scarlet was scrapped and the Epic was announced, I don't think that was a coincidence. At that time I realized as nice as my RED was it was not the obsolete camera it was billed as. I felt while not necessary, I would have to step up to a Epic if I wanted to stay in the RED game. Don't get me wrong, I love what RED has done and am to this day a RED fan. I just feel they market to and engineer cameras for film DP's not us guys in small local markets (even if we can afford a RED). The Scarlet was supposed to be that bridge for us but as of today that bridge is incomplete and we must take another path.

Film and high end commercial DP's rarely buy their own cameras as they rent what is needed for the job. For those of us in smaller markets hammering out local and regional spots that must own a camera the big question is what do you as a DP/producer feel you need to satisfy your client base, weighing camera costs, quality and client expectations, all without going spending crazy.

O.k. sorry for the rant and topic deviation at times but had to get it out.
 
All I know is RED is the only camera company that I feel truly cares about trying to get every option available to their customers whatever the cost. Although I like this quality in a company, it has it's drawbacks like longer wait times. Panasonic makes great camera's don't get me wrong. I will buy the AF100 and probably the AF200 when that comes out, but the features will always be limited. It makes better business sense to not release all the bells and whistles at once or ever. Panasonic will never release a camera that shoots RAW video or one that shoots every framerate from 1-120. They will however make tons and tons of "good enough" cameras that will be released on time to keep us happy enough yet wanting more, so we buy the next one when comes out. I hope RED has something good up it's sleeve for longevity, and to stay successful. The world needs companies like RED to show it's not only about money but also about perfection and passion.
 
Last edited:
Brian@202020 said:
They will however make tons and tons of "good enough" cameras that will be released on time to keep us happy enough yet wanting more, so we buy the next one when comes out.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, Panasonic does one thing for sure that RED doesn't; they set an engineering deadline and stick to it, basically telling their people, "Alright, from this day forward the AF100 is "X" and does "X", anything else you guys come up with goes into the AF200, but for now we're shipping the AF100."
 
Brian@202020 said:
All I know is RED is the only camera company that I feel truly cares about trying to get every option available to their customers whatever the cost.
Click to expand...

Have you ever hear of Arri? How about Aaton? Seems I remember Sony coming up with something called the F35 that had no observable cost restraints. The Panasonic VariCam wasn't exactly stripped down and there were numerous other 2/3" cameras, far less expensive.

I happen to be a Red owner and supporter, but many of the "options" they sell are virtually essential, but, unfortunately, not available for purchase. Need an EVF? Sorry not available. Need storage? Sorry, the primary storage devices are not available; by the way, you can't operate with all the features of the camera with the only storage available, Red 16GB cards.

Red deserves tremendous credit for starting a large-format-for-the-masses revolution, however they are not without weaknesses. One cannot shoot with promises or CG illustrations.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
I know every, and I mean every, trick in the book to try to make 2/3" match the DOF characteristics of 35MM film, and it cannot be done.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I was thinking the same thing when I read that post. It's rediculous to even think you can gain the same shallow dof, and low light capability with a 2/3 sensor. If you could, the manufacturers would be using them instead of the larger sized sensors, because their less money.
 
Ticheli said:
Have you ever hear of Arri? How about Aaton? Seems I remember Sony coming up with something called the F35 that had no observable cost restraints. The Panasonic VariCam wasn't exactly stripped down and there were numerous other 2/3" cameras, far less expensive.

I happen to be a Red owner and supporter, but many of the "options" they sell are virtually essential, but, unfortunately, not available for purchase. Need an EVF? Sorry not available. Need storage? Sorry, the primary storage devices are not available; by the way, you can't operate with all the features of the camera with the only storage available, Red 16GB cards.

Red deserves tremendous credit for starting a large-format-for-the-masses revolution, however they are not without weaknesses. One cannot shoot with promises or CG illustrations.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...

Arri seems to have done well with the Alexa. I have a friend who just purchased one. Since it is in high demand it is working on a feature out of state, but I look forward to playing around with it soon. Aaton has recently come up with a digital back, but I don't know much about there business practices. As for Sony and the F35 I haven't used (or even seen) one, but the people I know that have were not impressed. These 3 were good examples tho. The only thing they are really missing is a higher than 1080 resolution. I'm not sure about the framerates either. Panasonic on the other hand has always came up with a price goal for a camera first and gave as much features that they could within that constraint, and they have done this very well compared to most companies. Even the Varicam was done in that way. Panasonic has never made a camera with no price limit. I do feel If they did it would probably be the most amazing camera to ever be made. You are right about RED not being able to keep up with demand and it does suck, but you have to admit there heart is in the right place.
 
Joe Walker said:
Well yeah, Panasonic does one thing for sure that RED doesn't; they set an engineering deadline and stick to it, basically telling their people, "Alright, from this day forward the AF100 is "X" and does "X", anything else you guys come up with goes into the AF200, but for now we're shipping the AF100."
Click to expand...

Easy to do when you are constantly rehashing the same technology with a few upgrades. No so easy to do when you are breaking the envelope in ways never done before with new technologies that didn't exist four years ago. Real innovation just doesn't happen on a fixed time line. Red is pushing the envelope of what is technically possible ahead of the market availability of some of the supporting technologies they need.

I think Red will sell 2/3" Scarlets, both the fixed and the interchangeable versions, in pretty significant numbers and price won't be a major issue. There are some of us who prefer the format over the larger formats for multiple reasons, especially for solo run and gun doc work or nature shoots where the bulk and weight of 35mm lenses compared to a good fast 16mm or 2/3" zoom makes them impractical. Same for a lot of fast action sports where the extra depth of field is a plus. There are good reasons broadcast never moved away from 2/3" and there were larger format options even in the 70's.
For narrative indies, maybe not the first choice, but that is such a small part of the overall market anyway. Leo is right. You won't get the easy shallow D
OF look of 35mm with a 16mm/2/3" camera, but that is not the only creative choice in the world and is not the end all be all of a "cinematic" look.

The whole "soccer mom" mass market thing came from a one line comment by Ted at a show. It was never a marketing focus for Scarlet. Scarlet was originally to be the pro B camera/ crash camera to Red one. That it would also be relatively affordable for high end prosumers was an incidental plus, but not the market focus of the camera.
 
S35 Scarlet Anticipatory Pricing
Brain - $8000
2.8" Touchscreen - $900
Side SSD Module - $1500
Side Handle + Battery - $950
SSD Reader - $250
64GB SSD - $950
Lens Mount - $500

So this an what I would consider bare bones. Small LCD, no fancy REDMOTE, no real "modules".

You'll get all the 5K love at whatever data rate you want and all the HDRx fun. You get some HD-SDI support, D-tap and so on. Pretty standard stuff. I think there is even quite a lot of TTL type stuff built in if you want to sync flashes with it.

But it costs $13,000.00. With only one 30 minute battery, with only one ~30 minute SSD, with no lenses, and with a DSLR sized monitor.

RED is not cheap. It is amazing for the cost, but that doesn't make it inexpensive.
 
Barry_Green said:
They're still shooting stills, but now they could pick the exact still that shows the most dramatic impact. What professional stills photographer wouldn't want that? What professional stills photographer wouldn't pay for that?

).
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't. It's just not the way I connect to my subject, and I dare say the client would have trouble connecting to the process that way. There is a certain flow to a photo shoot and the click of the shutter is integral to that process. There is a certain energy that exchanges between the photographer and the client with a press of the shutter. Remove that and the energy is gone. The client gets their energy from my intense attention, praise, compliments, and I reward them with a click of the shutter and they feed off that. A rattle snake doesn't strike 24 time a second. He strikes only when the time is right. It's a dance and the shutter click is part of that and the whole energy of the shoot. I just don't see many photographers embracing the flow of this way of working.

I thought when DSLRS came around, well, that's it, we're just going to have a whole bunch of lazy photographers that won't have the discipline to learn their craft in the way film forces you to do. Now with this, I think it becomes infinitely worse. Press record and "Hey, baby would you mind turning that off when your done. Just press that red button right there. I'll be in the break room."
 
Understood. But I still wonder if it won't go the way of the typewriter click of the keys.

And hey, you could always click your shutter-noisemaker anyway and keep that same exact workflow, but have 120fps to choose from instead of just one or two... :evil:
 
Barry_Green said:
Understood. But I still wonder if it won't go the way of the typewriter click of the keys.

And hey, you could always click your shutter-noisemaker anyway and keep that same exact workflow, but have 120fps to choose from instead of just one or two... :evil:
Click to expand...

Interesting, I've heard that there are many writers that still use a typewriter and it's integral to their process. When they delete a sentence, they have to retype the whole page and that gives way to new ideas and fresh phrasing etc that just wouldn't happen with a word processor. There are some work flows that are much harder, but in the end, it's hard to argue with the final result.
 
I think you are leaving out a crucial part of the still workflow, studio strobes. Shooting at ISO 100 and needing to freeze motion is not the best environment for "hot lights" so to speak. Unless you can get real strobes to fire at 120fps and not melt this is not the best scenario for studio shooting. Now for professional sports shooting it would have a place. But that is a lot of images per play for some intern to sift through!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top