Has the DSLR Hybrid craze effectively killed the desire for a Red Scarlet camera?

PerroneFord said:
Is the S35 option gone on the Scarlet? Did it somehow morph into a 2/3" only product?
Click to expand...

No, there is a S35 option for Scarlet. However, this thread is focusing on the 2/3 chip Scarlet models.

Chris Santucci said:
Make sure you tell that to Shane Hurlbut, Gale Tattersall, Jonathan Sela, Max Goldman, the DP shooting "True Blood" for HBO, Vincent Laforet, Philip Bloom, etc., etc., etc.
Click to expand...

Chris, don't get me wrong - I am not assering that HDSLR systems are not capable of producing quality footage, because they are and most people know it. My only assertion is that HDSLRs target a different market than a camera like Scarlet, and I believe this is well founded in fact. Look at the price - a Canon 7D body plus the 28-135mm stock zoom lens will run around $2,100. A basic Scarlet cinema package will run close to $11,000. How can you assert that each camera is competing for the same consumer?

I have always held the opinion that cameras are just tools. One tool might be better than another for a particular application. And in my professional opinion, as someone who has extensive experience with RED (even the new chip) and the Canon 7D and 35mm film, I think that the application where HDSLR systems excel is extremely low or no budget productions. As a cinematographer, I can honestly say that there is no situation where I wouldn't choose RED or 35mm over an HDSLR if the budget allowed it.

Side note, "True Blood" is shot on Super 35 and all of the DPs you listed have not made the mistake of saying or implying that HDSLR cameras provide better image quality than either 35mm or RED. It's just a lot cheaper to get a pretty decent amount of quality, whereas RED or 35mm film is super expensive, but it's hands down the best quality.

Another issue seems to be depth of field. A lot of people out there don't believe you can get a shallow depth of field on 2/3 cameras, which I know from experience is totally false. Head to REDuser.net and check out M. David Mullen's, ASC, thread about depth of field on the Sony F900. He posted screenshots from 4-5 different feature films he shot on that camera, and he depth of field is perfectly shallow. The truth of the matter is that 2/3 cameras have about the same depth of field as 16mm film - so are some of you saying that 16mm film isn't shallow enough for you? Here's the link to ONE of his many screenshots: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42484&page=2

Lastly, everyone points at 28 Days Later and how it made a theatrical release as some type of evidence that DV is a viable feature film format. To me, that movie looks absolutely terrible. I can't imagine how much money the studio spent getting the raw footage to a somewhat acceptable state to put on the big screen, probably a fortune. But, whoever brought that up does bring up a better issue: cameras are just tools of filmmaking. And in filmmaking, what matters is your story, not your camera. You can have the most advanced technology, or the best lenses, or the highest resolution in your film, but if your story sucks then your movie sucks.

Case in point, Primer. It has an incredible, mind boggling, complex, intricate story, but its so badly lit and so poorly shot and edited - and no one seems to care. The movie still has attained cult-status because its totally awesome.
 
Last edited:
Finnegan, nobody is arguing that the RED Scarlet will not be much better than current HDSLR's. At 5-10x the cost for a total package you would be pretty pissed off if the camera, codec and images weren't a heck of a lot better.

The question at hand is not which is better, because we all know the answer to that, but rather the effect the HDSLR's will have on Red Scarlet's release.

Like you've mentioned, the HDSLR's are aimed at a much lower market than the Scarlet. In terms of price for a shooting package, Scarlet is in the same ballpark as an EX1 or HPX170 with a 35mm adaptor setup. They are aimed at a similar user group. In fact that same group were probably the ones waiting so anxiously for Scarlet. Yet people in that user group are dumping their EX1's to shoot with 7d's or 5dmkii's and saving a few dollars in the process. And most people are very happy with that. With so many people downgrading thier gear and being entirely happy about it, you cannot deny that it will have some impact on Scarlet's release.

Look at the price - a Canon 7D body plus the 28-135mm stock zoom lens will run around $2,100. A basic Scarlet cinema package will run close to $11,000. How can you assert that each camera is competing for the same consumer
Click to expand...

Exactly. They are not (at least not anymore). Because the HDSLR's stole away so many potential Scarlet users by seperating the market into those willing to compromise, and those who are not.

Yes, lots of people still want RAW and they will get the Scarlet for that reason. Others just want the shallow DoF and lowlight ability of a big sensor and don't need or want a RAW workflow. Where Scarlet was previously their only option, now they have several.
 
Last edited:
Finnegan said:
My only assertion is that HDSLRs target a different market than a camera like Scarlet, and I believe this is well founded in fact. Look at the price - a Canon 7D body plus the 28-135mm stock zoom lens will run around $2,100. A basic Scarlet cinema package will run close to $11,000. How can you assert that each camera is competing for the same consumer?
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters anymore what the target market is when A-list DP's are choosing a pro still camera with an add-on video capability to shoot with over film and Red.

And, actually what you said was:

"Scarlet is a machine designed for a higher market - broadcast television, feature filmmaking, and other such parts of the industry which demand a high amount of image control, manipulation, and resolution - things that the HDSLR systems are not capable of delivering."

"TL; DR Comparing Scarlet to HDSLR systems is counter-productive since each is designed with entirely different markets and entirely different projects in mind."

Finnegan said:
Side note, "True Blood" is shot on Super 35 and all of the DPs you listed have not made the mistake of saying or implying that HDSLR cameras provide better image quality than either 35mm or RED.
Click to expand...

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2010/05/friday-fun-hbos-true-blood-to-be-shot-with-canon-5d-mark-iis.html

No, they're too busy shooting to talk about one camera or another (like they care). When it comes down to it, they'll shoot with whatever gives them what they want. Right now, that happens to be 5D and 7D. A close friend of mine is in St. Barths right now shooting Kate Moss for David Yurman with 7D's and 5D's.

The industry has reached a crucial point technologically speaking where producers, directors, DP's, and clients are asking "Is it good enough?" The answer I think is more than obvious - yes it is good enough. I gaffed some HMO spots last year shot on Red. Guess what they shot on this year? 5D.

Finnegan said:
Case in point, Primer. It has an incredible, mind boggling, complex, intricate story, but its so badly lit and so poorly shot and edited - and no one seems to care. The movie still has attained cult-status because its totally awesome.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with the way Primer looks and is edited. It won the Grand Jury Prize and Alfred P. Sloan award at Sundance and got a distribution deal after all.

.
 
Last edited:
Finnegan said:
My only assertion is that HDSLRs target a different market than a camera like Scarlet, and I believe this is well founded in fact. ... How can you assert that each camera is competing for the same consumer?
Click to expand...
The problem with your assertion is that the 5DII AND 7D are being used way outside of their target markets. Two pieces of equipment designed very specifically for PHOTOGRAPHERS is being welcomed by videographers and filmmakers like it was custom designed for them.

And then there's the Mt. Everest of cash flow from the PHOTOGRAPHY market that "accidentally" gave us the amazing video features in the 5DII/7D. Even if RED gets Scarlet out the door, the R&D budget for DSLRs is the real competition they will be facing.

40 million Canon SLRs sold since 1987
20 million of those since 2003
10 million of those since 2008
 
Michael Wisniewski said:
The problem with your assertion is that the 5DII AND 7D are being used way outside of their target markets. Two pieces of equipment designed very specifically for PHOTOGRAPHERS is being welcomed by videographers and filmmakers like it was custom designed for them.

And then there's the Mt. Everest of cash flow from the PHOTOGRAPHY market that "accidentally" gave us the amazing video features in the 5DII/7D. Even if RED gets Scarlet out the door, the R&D budget for DSLRs is the real competition they will be facing.

40 million Canon SLRs sold since 1987
20 million of those since 2003
10 million of those since 2008
Click to expand...

That is exactly my feelings on this subject. Folks keep throwing around that the DSLRs and the Scarlet are designed for different markets, and that is very much true. However, the adoption of the DSLRs by filmmakers has taken a lot of folks by surprise, none more, probably, than the DSLR manufactures themselves. The new DSLRs have changed the quality/price point expectations of a lot of people, and I believe the major manufactures are going to come up with some amazing cameras, with more capabilities for filmmakers, in very short order. While the Scarlet series of cameras will probably be a success, there is no doubt they will have been affected by the introduction of the new DSLRs. It is a whole different ballgame now than it was in 2008 when the Scarlet development was introduced.
 
All I can say is I bought a Canon 7D and now I won't be buying anything scarlet. I am not alone. I feel like in 1 year an updated to the 7D will come and I will spend another $1600 or so after selling my 7D body for $1000 or so. This stuff is ridiculously cheap! LOL
 
Michael Wisniewski said:
And then there's the Mt. Everest of cash flow from the PHOTOGRAPHY market that "accidentally" gave us the amazing video features in the 5DII/7D. Even if RED gets Scarlet out the door, the R&D budget for DSLRs is the real competition they will be facing.

40 million Canon SLRs sold since 1987
20 million of those since 2003
10 million of those since 2008
Click to expand...

This is a great point. I was thinking about the same thing a few weeks ago when I looked up some CIPA statistics. In 2009 alone (a recession year too), about 10 million DSLRs were shipped, at a value of almost $5 billion. 16 million interchangable lenses were shipped, at a value of $3.3 billion dollars. Holy crap!! There is obviously a huge amount of money at stake! I don't know what the video camera market is like, but it must be a tiny fraction of these numbers.

Clearly, the digital still camera market is an enormous juggernaut to be reckoned with. And the hottest trend right now in that market is HD video. Can you imagine all of the resources that could be brought to bear on this? The biggest advantage is their economy of scale. It's impossible to compete with them on volume. They can make huge amounts of DIGIC chips and large sensors for a reasonable cost because they're being used in millions of still cameras. The landscape has totally changed since the day RED was conceived.

I honestly believe we are witnessing history in the making. Years from now we see the HDSLR craze as a true turning point in camera design history. The 5D MkII is just the first generation and it already has taken on a life of its own far beyond what any of us expected in our wildest dreams. No matter how you feel about HDSLRs, you have to admit they have taken on a wild ride since late 2008 that's almost fitting for a Hollywood movie!

The ironic thing about all this (and not many people realize) is that even if RED never existed, the 5D MkII and the rest of the HDSLR "craze" would have happened anyway. DSLRs were already trending towards live view and a natural progression from that was HD video. There were rumors of video in DSLR prototypes around 4-5 years ago, but at the time I even thought the feature was just a gimmick to sell to more consumers. For some reason the DOF and low light advantages didn't even register!
 
Last edited:
Chris Santucci said:
No, they're too busy shooting to talk about one camera or another (like they care).
Click to expand...

This is actually not true. Look at Zacuto's HDSLR shootout. Look at the ASC teaching group. Look at any number of film school's faculty. There are plenty of industry professionals out there in the world making a living off consulting, teaching, or shooting and by and large its not hard to check out what they say. Most cinematographers, even the ones who are recognized as leaders in HDSLR digital filmmaking, would concede that the best image quality belongs to 35mm film, and trailing a little behind is the digital revolution fronted by Sony F23 and F35 and years ago, the F900 and F950. Nowadays, the HDSLR revolution has merely extended that situation by decreasing the cost. And that becomes an issue of where to draw the line between cost of production and quality of production, as someone else in an earlier post brought up.

HDSLR systems are extremely cheap - and that's what so great about them. It's a machine that forgives itself for skipping out on quite a few of the things that make another front-running digital camera (like RED, or Arri and the D21, or Sony's F35) the best camera overall, in favor of decreasing the cost massively.

TL;DR Cost is what tips the balance in favor of the HDSLR cameras, not quality. For practical applications such as feature filmmaking, where cost is generally not a concern for technical aspects of the process, HDSLR cameras don't quite stack up. YET.
 
As a professional stills shooter I have shot RAW images since it bacame possible (2004/5?) - before that the buffer was just too slow for it to actually be of any use

RAW gives you latitude on colour and exposure, it is the professional get out of jail free card

Considering the limitation of monitoring work in the field (compared to at the office with apple cine sceen or eizo print monitor)

I think the ability to tweak in RAW is critical to an efficient professional workflow

As I have moved to video such corrections become even more critical where shots must cut between multiple cameras and locations

Both my EX1 and DSLRs just dont give that professional ability to control and match

Therefore I wait for an affordable raw solution and remain interested in any RAW camera therefore

FF35 could be my all in one tool (enabling ejection of the nikon d3)

S35 would be fantastic because of the cheap lens choices

2/3 would be an amazing commercial tool

my 2cents


Costs ? Imprepared to pay above EX1 or nikon D3x money - but not a lot

SMM
 
By the time the scarlet comes out, there will also be new dslr's. This conversation will be totally different.

.
 
DSLRs have unquestionably satiated some of the market that was waiting for a Scarlet.

The more interesting question is: how many of those who get fed up on shooting DSLRs will switch to a Scarlet? And, will they be willing to accept a drop from S35 frame size down to 2/3" frame size?

Can't wait to see how this plays out.
 
That 120fps burst rate is VERY VERY ATTRACTIVE to me...

As is shooting (red's version of) raw footage.

As is a video-centric form factor, with viewfinder, flexible monitoring output, etc.

As is XLR audio in and full control & metering - only one DSLR does that now, with a firmware hack and with external boxes. And nowhere near the audio control & quality you can get with a plain-jane DVX.

As is the world of pro accessories waiting, in batteries, grips, view & focus options, etc.

To get a Canon to do all of the above, you'll spend close to the fixed-lens scarlet (lenses, viewfinders, monitoring, audio), and most everything will be kind of kludged together.

If the fixed-lens works as advertised and produces a crisp, gradable image with the DOF we're used to on DSLRs, I'll be in.

And I've made a big chunk of my 2010 income with a 550d - it's just frustrating at times.

(Hate to be all "me too", but I was struck by what a silly concept this thread seems to be based upon. We're seeing a lot of people who've never owned a video form-factor camera declaring DSLRs the end-all... they're awesome, beautiful, so affordable it's sick, but... they're an interim solution to an expensive problem if ya ask me).
 
A reminder: personal character attacks and "defeating" the board censor for strong language are not acceptable. Offending posts have been deleted. Thank you for understanding.
 
Barry_Green said:
DSLRs have unquestionably satiated some of the market that was waiting for a Scarlet.

The more interesting question is: how many of those who get fed up on shooting DSLRs will switch to a Scarlet? And, will they be willing to accept a drop from S35 frame size down to 2/3" frame size?

Can't wait to see how this plays out.
Click to expand...

I have used a Nikon D90 and now a Canon 7D and I'm dying for the S35 Scarlet. The image on these DSLRs is quite thin, and it makes me a little crazy. Just got finished color grading a piece shot on an F900 and was reminded how much fun it is to have room to play.
 
Postmaster said:
Since CS5 you can do exactly that.

Frank
Click to expand...

Well yes, but in the time continuum from the release of RED, to the release of CS5, this rates as a VERY new development. Avid MC5 will also be able to do this, and Vegas got this capability last year. But still, relatively new comparatively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top