dustylense
Veteran
Your Af100 will buy a single 256gb Red SSD. So I'll offer you $1,500 for your AF100.
OK, so Scarlet is actually S35. This is big.
- Thread starter bhdfield
- Start date
Yeah. The AF100 can be comfortably operated by one person. If you don't get some more REDmags, you're going to need to have a dedicated DT to swap out drives and offload. Hell, you probably need one anyways unless you get like $10k worth of mags. I probably wouldn't feel comfortable pulling focus on any of their LCD's either, so I'd need a decent field monitor and hire a good AC. Then you have to beef up your computer - Redrocket + a new tower if you only have a laptop or iMac. If you're going to do production on RED you really need to have a lot of infrastructure behind it.
I think DSLR's and hybrids like the AF100 will have their place because not everyone can support the extra staff and equipment needed to shoot 4k, and not all budgets will even allow for it. If I was doing a project for $5k or less (which is the vast majority of what I shoot) there's no way RED would be suitable.
Can EOS glass even resolve 4k? I know their new cinema lenses do, but those zooms are like $50k and the primes are $7k...
That being said, I hope this lowers the price of an F3 (even though there's probably no reason to). And if all those MX users want to jump onto Scarlet, I wouldn't mind picking up a used MX brain.
I think DSLR's and hybrids like the AF100 will have their place because not everyone can support the extra staff and equipment needed to shoot 4k, and not all budgets will even allow for it. If I was doing a project for $5k or less (which is the vast majority of what I shoot) there's no way RED would be suitable.
Can EOS glass even resolve 4k? I know their new cinema lenses do, but those zooms are like $50k and the primes are $7k...
That being said, I hope this lowers the price of an F3 (even though there's probably no reason to). And if all those MX users want to jump onto Scarlet, I wouldn't mind picking up a used MX brain.
dustylense
Veteran
Well, take a 5dmk2 with EOS glass, shoot a still, open it up in photoshop, enlarge the view to 100%, and judge for yourself.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Could give my AF 101 a nice paint job - scarlet - but very probably I will shoot happily for another year or so with it and then see what comes around that will fit to my nice set of lenses ......
In the price range distinctively higher than AF 101 I do rent anyhow ...... but that's only my situation. So I sit rather relaxed and wait for more news from whatever manufacturer moves into the realms of smaller than 5K €...
In the price range distinctively higher than AF 101 I do rent anyhow ...... but that's only my situation. So I sit rather relaxed and wait for more news from whatever manufacturer moves into the realms of smaller than 5K €...
but scarlets "cropping" is %§$% . . . though atleast when it "turns into" 2/3 sensor (in 2k) we atleast have the option to swap lenses (which the old-rumored scarlet 2/3 didnt have) :-/ and canon . . . 20k $ US ? yeah. . . i guess thx 2 scarlet canon will be slashing the price down to 15k (one can dream, right? ^^)
According to a friend of mine, The Social Network was shot using 7.5:1 Compression, so you can be sure that the 3:1 or 4:1 as you stated above could hold up well
@ snowleopard's +1's and 2's also, I hope we all remember that Social network made it cause Mark Zuckerberg ripped **** up on planet earth. Not cause of the cam. Fun night but yeah, leaving forums for a while. Also a really bad time to be broke if you like this stuff.
David W. Jones
Veteran
Honesty! It's one of the key ingredients to being successful, and one of the hardest things to learn.
Above all, be honest to yourself. Buying an expensive camera is not going to instantly make you a great filmmaker, anymore than owning a bat utility belt and matching tights is going to transform you into a crime fighting super hero. You either already have those abilities, or you don't. The camera/utility belt are just tools to be used by people who already have those abilities! That being said... The new Scarlet X brings Red Raw to an all time low price point. For those that have not shot on a Red, or used their software, it offers the ability to produce truly spectacular results. It can also be very time intensive and expensive to shoot and finish. In our situation 95% of what we shoot are quickly turned broadcast TV commercials. And being honest to myself... It is highly unlikely that anything I shoot will ever see a big screen at a movie theatre. In my market there are a number of Red packages that are not getting the use they deserve, due to budgetary issues. We sold our original Red M back when they were still getting a fair price, and purchased the AF100. By the way, have you seen how low a full Red One kit is selling for used now? At any rate things in my market are very tight. Clients do not have the time or budget to shoot commercials on Red. As a matter of fact, a very high end production house here went under because of the economy. Their Red sat unused for 4 months while they shot on a 7D because of clients no longer budgeting to shoot and finish Red. So I hear you saying... You went from a Red to an AF100? Yes. But wasn't the quality of the Red higher than the AF100? Yes. But remember the honesty issue? In all honesty the AF100 was a better business decision than the Red One was for us. And that is the bottom line that many people forget. It's a business! Sure there are many "film makers" out there that will tell you it's all about their art or vision, and not about money. But they are fooling themselves. Film making is a business, that either you are successful at or you are not. And while they may not realize it, they are competing with other film makers. And by film making I am not talking about footage of your cat or the flower in your front yard posted on the Internet. So business wise purchasing the AF100 allowed us to continue to compete in our market by offering a quality level that was acceptable for broadcast TV commercials with a post production workflow that fit our clients budget, at a price point that allowed us to quickly pay off the camera and turn a profit. So with all that dribble said, will we purchase a new Scarlet X or C300? Absolutely not. With camera technology changing at such a rapid rate and prices getting lower and lower for the level of quality available, we have set a price point of spending no more than $7K for a camera body. Heck, we already know that we can get a quality level acceptable to our clients for the price of the AF100. So why would we want to pay $11K, $16K, or even $20K for a camera, when our clients will not pay more for a quality level they can not discern on the air? We would have to eat the cost difference, which would cut into our profit margin. And I know some of you will be appalled by this, but running a successful business is more than offering the latest shiny toy that comes out, it's about turning a profit! So after even more of my coffee induced dribble... Should you purchase a C300 or Scarlet X? Absolutely, if it fits your business model! It just does not happen to fit ours.
Let me close by guessing that in 3 months the Internet is going to be teaming with 120fps Scarlet footage of people's cats, and flowers with vignettes applied.
All the Best!
Dave
Above all, be honest to yourself. Buying an expensive camera is not going to instantly make you a great filmmaker, anymore than owning a bat utility belt and matching tights is going to transform you into a crime fighting super hero. You either already have those abilities, or you don't. The camera/utility belt are just tools to be used by people who already have those abilities! That being said... The new Scarlet X brings Red Raw to an all time low price point. For those that have not shot on a Red, or used their software, it offers the ability to produce truly spectacular results. It can also be very time intensive and expensive to shoot and finish. In our situation 95% of what we shoot are quickly turned broadcast TV commercials. And being honest to myself... It is highly unlikely that anything I shoot will ever see a big screen at a movie theatre. In my market there are a number of Red packages that are not getting the use they deserve, due to budgetary issues. We sold our original Red M back when they were still getting a fair price, and purchased the AF100. By the way, have you seen how low a full Red One kit is selling for used now? At any rate things in my market are very tight. Clients do not have the time or budget to shoot commercials on Red. As a matter of fact, a very high end production house here went under because of the economy. Their Red sat unused for 4 months while they shot on a 7D because of clients no longer budgeting to shoot and finish Red. So I hear you saying... You went from a Red to an AF100? Yes. But wasn't the quality of the Red higher than the AF100? Yes. But remember the honesty issue? In all honesty the AF100 was a better business decision than the Red One was for us. And that is the bottom line that many people forget. It's a business! Sure there are many "film makers" out there that will tell you it's all about their art or vision, and not about money. But they are fooling themselves. Film making is a business, that either you are successful at or you are not. And while they may not realize it, they are competing with other film makers. And by film making I am not talking about footage of your cat or the flower in your front yard posted on the Internet. So business wise purchasing the AF100 allowed us to continue to compete in our market by offering a quality level that was acceptable for broadcast TV commercials with a post production workflow that fit our clients budget, at a price point that allowed us to quickly pay off the camera and turn a profit. So with all that dribble said, will we purchase a new Scarlet X or C300? Absolutely not. With camera technology changing at such a rapid rate and prices getting lower and lower for the level of quality available, we have set a price point of spending no more than $7K for a camera body. Heck, we already know that we can get a quality level acceptable to our clients for the price of the AF100. So why would we want to pay $11K, $16K, or even $20K for a camera, when our clients will not pay more for a quality level they can not discern on the air? We would have to eat the cost difference, which would cut into our profit margin. And I know some of you will be appalled by this, but running a successful business is more than offering the latest shiny toy that comes out, it's about turning a profit! So after even more of my coffee induced dribble... Should you purchase a C300 or Scarlet X? Absolutely, if it fits your business model! It just does not happen to fit ours.
Let me close by guessing that in 3 months the Internet is going to be teaming with 120fps Scarlet footage of people's cats, and flowers with vignettes applied.
All the Best!
Dave
Last edited:
Erik Naso
Veteran
well it should kill it. It cost three times more for just the camera. As you stated the extras are killing it. Don't forget a Red Rocket card for real time editing. Tag on another $4750. I wish I could afford one. Comparing Scarlet too the AF-100 doesn't make sense. Two very different products.
Erik Naso
Veteran
+1. Nailed it!
gustavo_viral
Active member
alaskacameradude
Veteran
You nailed it. I have an FS100. The new announcements were cool, but didn't really apply to me.
Same reasons you stated. My 'bigger' shoots are 2-5k corporate videos. Or 1.5k TV spots.
Want to stay in business in a market like that? You pretty much set a budget of around 7k for
your camera. Have a better camera like a F3 or Red? Well that's cool, but you are still going
to get clients with the above budgets.....clients just aren't willing to pay more in this market.
I have seen several production companies go under, because they couldn't figure out this
very simple business idea that you expertly explained. For bigger budget things, these new
cameras are going to compete in F3 (15-20k) space. For lower budget productions, they just
don't make sense. It's easy to get caught up in what you 'want'. We all like new shiny gear.
But to stay in business, you have to be really, brutally honest with yourself. Do you REALLY
need this new camera or do you just want it? Will it really help you make more money?
In most cases, the answer is no. That's why, I just upgraded to a FS100 at the start of June.
Until then, I had so few requests for HD production that 80% of the time, I was shooting
on a ......wait for it.......PD-150. Now THAT camera paid itself off so many times it's not
even funny.
Last edited:
Is it really necessary to begin a thread with this kind of confrontation? This is why things get out of hand and out of sorts around here.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
If someone has that kind of cash to invest in Scarlet just to shoot their cats and flowers with vignettes applied, I want them to adopt me.
hscully
Veteran
Great posts. Dustylense and David W. Jones really described my sentiments. I have been reading reduser.net about Scarlet since when? 2007? I forget. I wasn't all that interested in the 2/3 deal, just the S35. Anyway, I kept shooting with what I could afford. I skipped the DSLRS for EX-1s with adapters and waited, reading and waiting. Then when the AF-100 came out I jumped because it does what I really wanted to do; interchangeable lenses, various mounts including Nikon, big sensor, HD. This camera works great. The waveform monitor, the NDs, AF in red, the audio inputs. They nailed it for me. With the TVLogic monitor, the AF-100 affords all the tools I need right now to get better working in a cinema type mode, pulling focus on manual lenses for HD, moving the camera, lighting, choosing lenses for focal length and it's affordable for me. My next purchases will be towards better glass and other non-camera stuff.
I'm glad about the new Scarlet. In a couple of years, when it makes business sense and I can afford one and all the accessories and post equipment updates (I forgot about Red Rocket!), I'd love to have a Scarlet. I'm really pleased with the AF-100 and I think it will be fine for my next project... a web series, not a 4K projected movie. Plus when I'm shooing that feature, the costs will far exceed the cost of a Scarlet. I have seen a few web series shot on RED! They look pretty good
I'm glad about the new Scarlet. In a couple of years, when it makes business sense and I can afford one and all the accessories and post equipment updates (I forgot about Red Rocket!), I'd love to have a Scarlet. I'm really pleased with the AF-100 and I think it will be fine for my next project... a web series, not a 4K projected movie. Plus when I'm shooing that feature, the costs will far exceed the cost of a Scarlet. I have seen a few web series shot on RED! They look pretty good
heavyG
Underwater Giraffe Member
So as I posted elsewhere on DVX...
After years of being a RED denier - I just successfully placed an order for a Scarlet with all the trimmings (in PL mount). Had been taking the wait and see approach, was on the fence about buying an F3 but the announcement last night had a bunch of the ad agency guys I work for all 'abuzz'. So if I want to keep a leg up in the competitive ad world I had to announce this morning that I had ordered a Scarlet...
However I expect that my AF100's will still be very busy over the next year - That's because some of the budgets won't really have room for a RED Raw post schedule / the ads (sorry branded content) will only end up online / some of my clients 'HATE' RED.
I don't for even a second think that it will make me a better cameraman - in fact it will probably accentuate my flaws… But since the superficial world of shooting advertising for multinational ad agencies is so shallow and artificial I know that this cam will get used on a spot within days of it arriving here at the studio. At this price point (just like the AF100) it will be paid off within weeks of delivery.
G.
After years of being a RED denier - I just successfully placed an order for a Scarlet with all the trimmings (in PL mount). Had been taking the wait and see approach, was on the fence about buying an F3 but the announcement last night had a bunch of the ad agency guys I work for all 'abuzz'. So if I want to keep a leg up in the competitive ad world I had to announce this morning that I had ordered a Scarlet...
However I expect that my AF100's will still be very busy over the next year - That's because some of the budgets won't really have room for a RED Raw post schedule / the ads (sorry branded content) will only end up online / some of my clients 'HATE' RED.
I don't for even a second think that it will make me a better cameraman - in fact it will probably accentuate my flaws… But since the superficial world of shooting advertising for multinational ad agencies is so shallow and artificial I know that this cam will get used on a spot within days of it arriving here at the studio. At this price point (just like the AF100) it will be paid off within weeks of delivery.
G.
Erik Naso
Veteran
Congrats! A logical decision based on a sound business plan.
metrospace
Active member
I think D. Jones really nailed the crux of the business decision we all have to make. I could sell my AF100 & PL adapter & accessories, but I still have to pay another $8-10K to get a Scarlet up and running. Now using a Scarlet may impress an agency, but other clients probably won't want to pay extra when the AF100 footage already impresses them. So in many ways it's buying it because I like the results, not because the client wants it. Either I charge the same and it takes longer to pay off, or it sits on the shelf and takes longer to pay off. I could probably deal with the former, but if it then means more post hours that a client doesn't want to pay for, then its a double whammy. I can't just eat those extra post hours.
Though the AF100 and Scarlet are very different cameras, there is that comparison to make. The step up from an AF100 to a Scarlet seems a lot more enticing than the step up to an F3 was before (and the new Canon now). It seems like it will be a substantial improvement in quality for what is really a relatively modest investment for a business.
Perhaps it also comes down to the business side of it as well - can i effectively sell the client on the advantages and extra cost of the Scarlet. If I can do that, then its a no-brainer.
Though the AF100 and Scarlet are very different cameras, there is that comparison to make. The step up from an AF100 to a Scarlet seems a lot more enticing than the step up to an F3 was before (and the new Canon now). It seems like it will be a substantial improvement in quality for what is really a relatively modest investment for a business.
Perhaps it also comes down to the business side of it as well - can i effectively sell the client on the advantages and extra cost of the Scarlet. If I can do that, then its a no-brainer.