Scarlet Announcement

Sorry Sten, I wasn't very clear at all there. That link does indeed say S35 "more details sometime". My mind was thinking about the talk on their site, and didn't articulate well.

As to the bug/delay. I do agree that all the talk and hype really came back to bite them here. Still, I honestly am hoping they can get on good footing, get the right manufacturer, and get the camera(s) into production. The specs and concept of it are good, and Even if it takes another year, as I think it will now, so be it. They just need keep their hands off the horn, and quietly get to work, and when it's passed muster and about ready to release, let us know of the date.

On a side note, has anyone heard much on Red Ranch outside of Vegas. I actually flew over the location just a few weeks ago and it made me wonder about noise from air traffic. But I guess LA itself is pretty noisy itself and the industry copes. So I'm hoping this bug delay doesn't cause too much delay there. I think it's a good location, providing they do as Jim was saying and make their studio different, and have labs for filmmakers and writers. Competing with the industry, and the fact studios already have their hands in Vegas would be pointless and "non-Red" I'd think.
 
If they put the time into development that they spend on hyped forum chatter the 12 months would be more like 2 months.
 
i would have happily gone with a Scarlet, when they were supposed to launch. after so many delays, i ended up ditching that idea entirely. waiting is one thing, and there are many in the same boat, but eventually you pick something else and dont look back.

plus given that the next round of HDSLR's are due out relatively soon, i cant see the scarlet having the sales boon it might have if it had come to market in a timely fashion; i feel they have missed the boat on this one, and frankly i wouldnt buy a scarlet when/if they do come out, as ive got my equipment and workflow sorted out already.
 
Yes, I think a lot of people are saying that. We're very close to the next round of HDSLR's, and sometime after that we'll be looking at 4:2:2 compression, minimal rolling shutter problems, XLR inputs, greater overcranking, etc. All of which could coincide, or even usurp Scarlet's release date, and undercut it's price.

As time inches along, and the delays mount, it seems plenty likely that by the time Scarlet hits the marketplace, cameras by Sony/Panny/Canon that are in development now and similar specs to Scarlet, will be released at the same time.
 
Last edited:
I said it a while ago. On this forum or elsewhere. The big players will always beat a niche company like RED as value leaders. RED know this and I hope they are not trying to be value leaders, cause they can't complete.
Having said that about a year or two ago, time has proven me to be correct. What I keep reading over and over, is the obvious..."I went with a Canon 5D or...7D cause I got tired of waiting for Scarlet" litany.
Fact is, if you are not a pro or an advanced or proven semi-pro with serious scripts and budgetary backing, you shouldn't be looking at RED products at all. They are not supposed to be for you anyway. That's why the release date of Scarlet is irrelevant. Scarlet is for customers ready to make that step professionally.
Hobbyists should stick to hobby cameras like the 5D, 7D or whatever else is in the sub $4K range.
Just to put things into perspective, I'm shoot video for my internal project support, not for public distribution and Blu-Ray is my uppermost delivery medium. No RED needed, not even 5D/7D needed by me at all.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
I said it a while ago. On this forum or elsewhere. The big players will always beat a niche company like RED as value leaders. RED know this and I hope they are not trying to be value leaders, cause they can't complete.
Having said that about a year or two ago, time has proven me to be correct. What I keep reading over and over, is the obvious..."I went with a Canon 5D or...7D cause I got tired of waiting for Scarlet" litany.
Fact is, if you are not a pro or an advanced or proven semi-pro with serious scripts and budgetary backing, you shouldn't be looking at RED products at all. They are not supposed to be for you anyway. That's why the release date of Scarlet is irrelevant. Scarlet is for customers ready to make that step professionally.
Hobbyists should stick to hobby cameras like the 5D, 7D or whatever else is in the sub $4K range.
Just to put things into perspective, I'm shoot video for my internal project support, not for public distribution and Blu-Ray is my uppermost delivery medium. No RED needed, not even 5D/7D needed by me at all.
Click to expand...

RED is a value leader but that's compared to other cameras with intraframe formats. It's cheaper than a 2/3" intraframe Sony or Panasonic, a Viper or any high end digital cinema camera. Intraframe is only important for high end projects.

A Scarlet 2/3" will also be a value leader compared to other cameras with the intraframe formats and the 2/3" sensors. Scarlet will probably be $10,000 ready to shoot, or slightly more, which is far less than a 2/3" ccd camera with an intraframe format, and even that affordable 2/3" Sony cmos camera with the GOP format. Its prime lenses will also be far less expensive than a cine prime for 2/3" HD.

A video capable dSLR body is $1000 to $3000 today. Nothing can compete with that because these cameras only make money when you buy lenses. They create a new customer for lenses that were designed years ago and have a very large profit margin, that's why these cameras are sold at such low prices. But these cameras cannot compete with Scarlet or any good 2/3" camcorder. The only advantage they have is shallow DOF and that's if you pay for expensive large aperture lenses. They are inferior in everything else, GOP compression, alias, heavier rolling shutter artifacts, usability, etc and they are full of limitations. You get what you pay for. Of course, everybody is enthusiastic about the dSLRs. They revived the accessory market. Check the blog of any dSLR enthusiast an you will see dozens of advertisements from companies that produce accessories, check any photo with a dSLR in it and you will see a large number of accessories on the very photo. You must be convinced that you actually need these accessories. These companies put a lot of money into marketing, making these cameras appear as professional tools. They fund expensive short films (the 90 seconds 30,000 euro variety or 2 minute 100,000 euro variety), they pull strings to get the cameras used on specific events that appear to have marketing value, they use their advertising dollar to push articles about the dSLRs on respected magazines, they even pay filmmakers that are icons to the filmmaking community to use their accessories and dSLRs on something, even if it's a video clip. The "dSLR revolution" is all about money/power, just like any revolution.

I had the chance to get some inside info on a famous short film shot on a dSLR. The film was sligthly over a minute of final content. Puting production expenses for rentals aside, there were more than 800 takes to get the required shots. Tell that to anyone who uses film and he will prefer to rent a film camera and shoot film. It will be cheaper. In the real world, the cost of production is factored in and that generally leads to more expensive and more capable tools. Using something cheaper does not make sense economically. The value leader might prove to be very expensive in the real world.

What is the market for dSLRs? Those who do not want a high end camcorder that allows high productivity, because these cost about 40,000 euro. Those who do not care for interframe format because that costs at least 10,000 euro even for 1/3". And frankly, the largest market is simple consumers that see large production shoots with large crews and high cost, helicopters, special effects, cranes, expensive lighting, take their credit card and order a dSLR and tons of accessories from the accessory companies. That's what feeds the "revolution."

So, those who are interested in Scarlet have no alternative really. Their alternative is a high end camcorder at 3x to 6x the cost. If they even compare Scarlet to a dSLR, they don't need a Scarlet.
 
The problem with your statement there Otis, especially the criticisms of DSLRs is when people see films like this:

The Last Three Minutes.

Or this:

Battle for Hearts and Minds.

Or they read the story about Philip Bloom going to Skywalker and Lucas, QT, McCallum being super impressed. Or they watch the Zacuta shootouts and hear great praise from some very accredited and respected filmmakers and, well, you get my point. DSLRs may be inferior, but 99.99% of the people can't tell and think they look great in almost every shot.

The other problem is that again, Scarlet isn't out yet. It may not even be out within a year, or until 2012 at the rate things are going. It stands to reason that if not DSLRs, then some camera using similar technology and components will be released at that time by Sony/Panny/Canon/JVC, etc. with specs near to, or equal to Scarlet. So it's more than a little early to say that those interested in Scarlet have no alternative, as they don't have the choice of Scarlet either, and won't for some time.
 
The dSLR/camcorder hybrids will not get high end formats so these cameras will not affect the midrange of the market. Everything will probably be low datarate GOP. But the hybrids will remove many limitations, save shots and reduce the real world production cost, so they will be a lot better than the dSLR equivalents. The price difference is very small in comparison.
 
Next -most underestimated - problem is, most major TV Stations (at least here in Europe) ruled out DSLRs for HD delivery in their production guide lines.

Absoulut NoGo!

I don´t know how strict they gonna stick to this in the future, but today if you show up with something produced on a DSLR they laugh at you and show you where the exit is.
Frank
 
Postmaster said:
Next -most underestimated - problem is, most major TV Stations (at least here in Europe) ruled out DSLRs for HD delivery in their production guide lines.

Absoulut NoGo!

I don´t know how strict they gonna stick to this in the future, but today if you show up with something produced on a DSLR they laugh at you and show you where the exit is.
Frank
Click to expand...

You can't blame them. The detail is not very clean.

http://www.byacserv.com/test_02/to_1080/canon_cam_align_mov.png

This was shot by Gunleik Groven. It is not framed with precision so the lines do not mean much, but it shows how detail is handled. The 5dII is probably the best dSLR at this time, so this is the high end of dSLRs.
 
The one thing about the current crop of video DSLRs we really have to remember is that they were not designed to be used in the way that people are currently using them and that their embrace by independent filmmakers probably comes as more of a surprise to their manufactures and designers than to anyone else. It is my understanding that the video on the 5DMkII was designed as an adjunct to photo journalists who are being asked to produce video clips, mainly for web distribution, as part of the massive sea change in the economics of journalism that we are seeing unfold now. The addition of video to the lower cost DSLR, it seems to me, was added for enthusiast home movie use. The fact that the CURRENT CROP of video DSLRs do not meet the standards of TV broadcast networks, or come up to the standards of cameras designed specifically for video use is simply because they were never designed to do that.

That was then, this is NOW..... Now that the DSLRs have been embraced by independent filmmakers, and the manufactures of these cameras are selling them as fast as they can make them, you can bet that they are going to change the design parameters, and design new cameras, integrating the lessons now being learned. I don't think we can really comprehend the changes in motion imaging that we are going to see in the next 2 years. It is exciting times.
 
Well yes, that's true. In the same sense that Paramount isn't going to start shooting feature films on DSLR's.

But I think that's besides the point. For independent filmmaking DSLR's work great. As a matter of fact, as noted before, in the right hands just about any camera since the DVX100 can work great.

As to Scarlet, it may indeed find a niche in the $10,000 package market, but we don't know what else will be around at that time to compete, whether the new cameras use technology from DSLRs (the guts of the cameras) or not, as we're likely looking 12+ plus months out.
 
Last edited:
Again we have to put things into a real world scenario.

Assume you have a low budget feature that can be shot in 2 weeks. You go to a good rental house and here is what they offer:

EX1 for 1000 euro
EX3 for 1400 euro
Canon 5dII + zeiss prime set for Canon 2800 euro
HPX500 + HD lens for 3000 euro
HPX3000 + HD lens for 3600 euro
Red One + PL prime set for 6000
Alexa + PL prime set for 8000

Add an option for Drama with a set of primes for 2000 euro:)

Does the Canon 5d II make sense? The HPX3000 is a very good camcorder and it's only slightly more expensive.

And that's for a no-budget or extreme low budget feature where 5,000 euro counts. What 2 week production with a normal budget and paid crew would attempt to save a few thousand euro by chosing an SLR? It's simply bad economy.

A single day shoot can get a top of the line camcorder with a set of primes for only 1,000 euro, Red, Alexa, whatever. All the expensive full crew shoots that produce those wonderful short clips we usually see heavily compressed on the internet, are obviously financed by a dSLR manufacturer or a dSLR accessory manufacturer. The camera choice does not make sense for the project. The image is compromised and there are no significant savings on the budget. It could make sense for something that demands a very small camera, but that's not the typical scenario.
 
I think that is one thing DSLR protangonists forget about. Sure the cams are relatively cheap. The (quality) lenses on the other hand are not.
 
Sure, and there are audio issues, rolling shutter issues, they stink to hand hold, etc.

But most people love the look of the image they capture. People like Shane Hurlbut for example. He may have been given the cameras by Canon, but I really doubt he'd just start using them because of that reason if he didn't like them. Do you?

You also left out the 7D from that list. Not to mention the T2i. How low budget indie is low budget indie? For $1500 to own the T2i and a good lens can get you a long way. Would you rent one for a $150,000 production? Probably not. But I don't think Canon, or most zero-budget filmmakers are saying they would either. Most people are just excited by the technology, nice pictures for the price, and potential.

No, DSLRs, or no other camera, is not going to replace good cinematography skills, lighting skills (and gear), and all that goes with it, no. And this entire site and all like it on the web are filled with hair-splitting analysis of which camera might, maybe, possibly look better than another, with staunch opinions accordingly - something that 99% of the population can't see, and don't care much about. It's all in the skills, production, lighting. And content above that. The blunt reality is that someone like John Toll or Emmanuel Libezki etc. could do more with a DVX100 and a small light kit than most average camera people (like, me) could do with an IMAX camera and 2-ton grip truck with crew. Or a DSLR or a non-existent Scarlet for that matter.

However, once again I'll note, this is a Scarlet thread, and because of this new delay, it's likely that there will be no Scarlet cam for probably a year, maybe until 2012. So comparing DSLRs, or IMAX cams or cell phone cams to such vaporware is futile.
 
snowleopard said:
Sure, and there are audio issues, rolling shutter issues, they stink to hand hold, etc.

But most people love the look of the image they capture. People like Shane Hurlbut for example. He may have been given the cameras by Canon, but I really doubt he'd just start using them because of that reason if he didn't like them. Do you?

You also left out the 7D from that list. Not to mention the T2i. How low budget indie is low budget indie? For $1500 to own the T2i and a good lens can get you a long way. Would you rent one for a $150,000 production? Probably not. But I don't think Canon, or most zero-budget filmmakers are saying they would either. Most people are just excited by the technology, nice pictures for the price, and potential.

No, DSLRs, or no other camera, is not going to replace good cinematography skills, lighting skills (and gear), and all that goes with it, no. And this entire site and all like it on the web are filled with hair-splitting analysis of which camera might, maybe, possibly look better than another, with staunch opinions accordingly - something that 99% of the population can't see, and don't care much about. It's all in the skills, production, lighting. And content above that. The blunt reality is that someone like John Toll or Emmanuel Libezki etc. could do more with a DVX100 and a small light kit than most average camera people (like, me) could do with an IMAX camera and 2-ton grip truck with crew. Or a DSLR or a non-existent Scarlet for that matter.

However, once again I'll note, this is a Scarlet thread, and because of this new delay, it's likely that there will be no Scarlet cam for probably a year, maybe until 2012. So comparing DSLRs, or IMAX cams or cell phone cams to such vaporware is futile.
Click to expand...

The rental house had a 7D. It would cost 200 euro cheaper for two weeks. That would be another case of false economy. It will not get the same wide angle, it will have deeper DOF, the sensitivity will be inferior, you will not get the most from the lenses. All that for 200 euro. One could use a T2i which could probably save an extra 50 euro or so and deteriorate the image quality further:) Production is expensive, it doesn't really make a difference if the camera is 2,000 or 5,000.

You can do stuff with a dSLR, but if I had >10,000 euro for a 2 week feature, I wouldn't consider one. You can accomodate very high quality cameras even on such a low budget.

Perhaps, the viewer will not see a difference (although I disagree with that), but a dSLR requires you to nail the exposure in order to get the most of the format. Check out the Reverie clips that were released by Canon. All have 100% exposure, and they didn't even receive color correction or any post processing, they look the same on the final edit. Professional camcorders have better formats which leaves some room for protecting your highlights. That makes cinematography more productive and reduces the cost of production. This alone could be worth thousands of euro in time. It's the first thing a cinematographer asks when a new camera is released. How is the latitude? And he/she means the overexposure latitude, the room for error, the protection of highlights, what negative film shines in, but the sales will always say something stupid like "The latitude is 10 stops". Then the cinematographer will find out that even half a stop of overexposure produces false colors in the highlights:)

The 2/3" cameras I mentioned have been in production for a while. They weren't replaced by dSLRs. Scarlet could get a piece of this market and a piece of the 1/3" and 1/2" camcorder market. Some people compare a dSLR with RED One or an HPX3700. Those will certainly not choose a Scarlet because they don't need the capabilities of an intraframe format.
 
The only thing I can say is that it's peculiar that you keep making the same argument over and over about the inferiority of DSLRs to other cameras costing many times the amount, and eschewing the rest of the discussion, or delays of Scarlet.

I'm reminded of all the filmmakers that refuse to shoot digital anything, as it's not that much of a savings over film. So, why shoot video at all, really?
 
Otis... you, like Jim Jannard, are trying to launch a camera that will compete, in some respect, with the DSLR marketplace.

I mean this is the best possible way as I am rooting for your company.... but I think for the sake of credibility, it is best to avoid sounding like you are bashing the DSLRs.

2/3" is a fantastic format for alot of purposes. There will be a market for Drama, Ikon, Scarlet etc... so don't worry about DSLRs (this applies to RED too).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top