Scarlett what? Scarlett who?
- Thread starter Mbala
- Start date
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Why on Earth would anyone need 5K resolution? Or 4K for that matter?
For projection? OK... but how often is that even happening? If you're shooting for broadcast, it's more of a pain in the arse than anything else having that kind of resolution.
.
For projection? OK... but how often is that even happening? If you're shooting for broadcast, it's more of a pain in the arse than anything else having that kind of resolution.
.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
I'm with Chris. I don't even get the point of a scarlet 2/3" - What's the diff between that and many many excellent 2/3" cameras . The Scarlet 35mm frame version made sense but seems like vaporware these days.
I'd love to shoot nature WIDE and frame in post or one cam for an interview and pull close ups out of it. Or an indy car race covering the whole track and frame per car in post.
Glad you don't need it, for some of us it's a good thing for our productions.
I'll stop at 50K res, one camera over a football stadium framing each player close up where the action is, Monday Night Football will have 6 cams in a few years, not 40+
Chris Light
Veteran
damn skippy.
people forget that what 4-5k+ can do for video is what we've been doing with stills for years. good point you make Chip.:thumbsup:
Andrew McCarrick
Carbonite Member
Umm, the $3000 price tag...
Andrew McCarrick
Carbonite Member
It'll be more frequent shortly... By 2012 almost all theaters in the US will have atleast half their screens with Digital 4k projectors. It'll cost about $25 to make a Digital print for digital projection, cause your only real cost is the harddrive to put the file on. You could do a 250 theater self-release for about $7500 for prints and another couple thousand for advertising.
Last edited:
Also, keep in mind that you can change the resolution. You can shoot 1080p 4:2:2. You can even shoot 720p!
So, a camera that allows you to shoot in such a wide range of resolutions ends up being just more flexible.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Thanks, but I'm well aware of the idea of enlarging the frame and have been doing it with 1080 footage for years.
.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Uh huh... and my point is - how often do people ever shoot stuff that ever gets projected? I think there's a point where resolution becomes unneeded and starts to become more of a pain in the arse to deal with. I've been shooting commercials as 1080 for like 2 years now and I have yet to have a client ask for the full res versions.
Try ingesting a day or two worth of 4K footage and grading and cutting it and then let me know if it was worth it just to have be downconverted to maybe 1/4 resolution in the end.
Will tv stations ever broadcast 4K resolution stuff? I'd guess not anytime soon. Can you use anything like 4K resolution on the interweb? No, not even close. Will having a low budget film shot in 4K or 5K resolution get you any points with a distributor? Doubtful. Will it make it any less painful to self distribute? Not much if at all, I'd say. Will an audience really notice the difference or even care about the difference between 4K footage over say 1K footage? I kind of doubt it.
Will Scarlet really cost $3K? In a functional, usable form? Doubtful.
.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The Scarlet question is indeed interesting. Red has had incredible success with the Red One, and clearly the Epic is the successor to the One. It should be obvious that it will be Red's bread and butter.
So whither Scarlet? The obvious companion to the Epic would be the 2/3" Scarlet, being like a 16mm "little brother" to the 35mm A-camera. However, is that what people want? Does anyone actively WANT a 2/3" sensor anymore? Two years ago (pre-DSLR) it sounded like a great idea... but today?
I'm totally sold on an S35 Scarlet, but -- does that make sense for Red? What does a $28,000 Epic do that a $8,000 S35 Scarlet doesn't do -- and do I care? The "good enough" revolution is clearly in full swing, and I find it amazing that people are willing to stomach the compromises involved to shoot with something like the 7D, but ... they do. People will jump through lots and lots and lots of hoops, to get a large sensor at a low price. Scarlet 2/3" is a small sensor at a much higher price than the DSLR, so ... what do people want more? Large sensor, or features? If they want features and capabilities, nobody would have bought a 7D or 5D! So obviously the market has spoken -- they want a large sensor.
Scarlet 2/3" isn't a large sensor. The GH1/AF100 offer sensors that are 4x larger than the Scarlet 2/3". And the 7D is even a bit larger than the GH1/AF100. And the 5D is twice as large as the 7D.
It 's kind of funny, we saw all these Red Vs. 7D comparisons, which were all headshots, which play to the DSLR's strength and totally completely ignore all its weaknesses. I predict we'll see plenty of Scarlet 2/3" vs. 7D comparisons, which will center around deep-focus shots, and the Scarlet should be shockingly better than the DSLR in that case. But will people care?
So that brings us back to the S35 Scarlet -- the ideal camera. But would it turn Epic customers into Scarlet customers? Probably. Because today's mass customer does not care about features (or, dare I say it, quality either!) but they care about large sensors and shallow DOF. If the Scarlet S35 offers Mysterium-X performance with (probably) the same sensor as the Epic, at 1/3 the price... who's gonna buy an Epic? Ten or twenty Hollywood VFX supervisors? It's like "A" series P2 cards vs. "E" series... the "E" cards are 1/3 the price, and my "conservative" estimate is that the "E" cards are outselling the "A" cards by at least 20 to 1. At least 95% of P2 card sales are "E" cards, instead of the more expensive, longer-life "A" cards.
Would the same happen to Scarlet/Epic? I think yes. Would Red want that? I think no.
Now, the fun part -- I'm not a billionaire marketing genius like Jim Jannard. He may very well school all of us shortly. I'm very, very interested in seeing how this all plays out. From where I sit, the Scarlet seems to be competing for the DSLR customer, and I think the DSLR customer has already spoken pretty loudly. And for those who won't put up with the DSLR, the choice will be small-sensor Scarlet vs. large-sensor AF100... and I think we've already shown that folks want a large sensor rather than a smaller one, at pretty much any cost (to features, to recording format, to headphone jacks... people will give up everything to get that larger sensor).
Very interested to see how this all plays out.
So whither Scarlet? The obvious companion to the Epic would be the 2/3" Scarlet, being like a 16mm "little brother" to the 35mm A-camera. However, is that what people want? Does anyone actively WANT a 2/3" sensor anymore? Two years ago (pre-DSLR) it sounded like a great idea... but today?
I'm totally sold on an S35 Scarlet, but -- does that make sense for Red? What does a $28,000 Epic do that a $8,000 S35 Scarlet doesn't do -- and do I care? The "good enough" revolution is clearly in full swing, and I find it amazing that people are willing to stomach the compromises involved to shoot with something like the 7D, but ... they do. People will jump through lots and lots and lots of hoops, to get a large sensor at a low price. Scarlet 2/3" is a small sensor at a much higher price than the DSLR, so ... what do people want more? Large sensor, or features? If they want features and capabilities, nobody would have bought a 7D or 5D! So obviously the market has spoken -- they want a large sensor.
Scarlet 2/3" isn't a large sensor. The GH1/AF100 offer sensors that are 4x larger than the Scarlet 2/3". And the 7D is even a bit larger than the GH1/AF100. And the 5D is twice as large as the 7D.
It 's kind of funny, we saw all these Red Vs. 7D comparisons, which were all headshots, which play to the DSLR's strength and totally completely ignore all its weaknesses. I predict we'll see plenty of Scarlet 2/3" vs. 7D comparisons, which will center around deep-focus shots, and the Scarlet should be shockingly better than the DSLR in that case. But will people care?
So that brings us back to the S35 Scarlet -- the ideal camera. But would it turn Epic customers into Scarlet customers? Probably. Because today's mass customer does not care about features (or, dare I say it, quality either!) but they care about large sensors and shallow DOF. If the Scarlet S35 offers Mysterium-X performance with (probably) the same sensor as the Epic, at 1/3 the price... who's gonna buy an Epic? Ten or twenty Hollywood VFX supervisors? It's like "A" series P2 cards vs. "E" series... the "E" cards are 1/3 the price, and my "conservative" estimate is that the "E" cards are outselling the "A" cards by at least 20 to 1. At least 95% of P2 card sales are "E" cards, instead of the more expensive, longer-life "A" cards.
Would the same happen to Scarlet/Epic? I think yes. Would Red want that? I think no.
Now, the fun part -- I'm not a billionaire marketing genius like Jim Jannard. He may very well school all of us shortly. I'm very, very interested in seeing how this all plays out. From where I sit, the Scarlet seems to be competing for the DSLR customer, and I think the DSLR customer has already spoken pretty loudly. And for those who won't put up with the DSLR, the choice will be small-sensor Scarlet vs. large-sensor AF100... and I think we've already shown that folks want a large sensor rather than a smaller one, at pretty much any cost (to features, to recording format, to headphone jacks... people will give up everything to get that larger sensor).
Very interested to see how this all plays out.
jls4
Veteran
LOL Wow. Too Funny
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
I don't know Barry. I think there are going to be a lot of people that would take a $5,000 professional RAW 2/3" camera over a cheaper but S35 sized sensor camera with many limitations.
As soon as they are available to buy I'm throwing the 7D out the window for video work and going 2/3' Scarlet. A trade in DoF I will gladly make for the video performance/price. I can't swing $10,000 on a S35 Scarlet right now.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Yep. Especially when it doesn't cost $40K. The 5D and 7D may be faux Red, but it's working for broadcast and web use.
.
xmephestox
Carbonite Member
there's also the argument of what people truly see as the better deal. A lot of RED owners also own a 5d/7d to work with their systems. Why? Cause it's dirt cheap HD. But they also spent 50k+ on a RED package. Why? Cause it's the cheapest full on Cinema class system they can get.
But to some people 50k is way too much money, and they settled for a 3 thousand dollar camera to hold them off until they can buy the 10 thousand dollar camera (accessories etc. S35 scarlet or above) because nothing at the moment, exists in the price range of 3 thousand to 12 thousand dollars that's CINEMA class. That competes with Genesis, Alexa, F35, etc.
All these sub 5 thousand dollar cameras, AF100, DSLRS, whatever, don't even come close. And why 4k and beyond you ask?
Well it's happening, slowly but surely. Warner Bros. is rescanning all their films in 4k. To hold on to for 4k distribution in the future and it makes a better looking blu ray. The laws of downsampling are proven, and it does work. Your noisy image at 4k will look a lot cleaner downsampled to 1080p. It's the simple fact that people want to start at the highest quality electronically possible and work from there because it will look that much better in a less resolution.
Is it harder to work with? Yes. Does it cost more? Compared to film? No. It's all give and take. You'll have a harder workflow where you need the latest and greatest tech to work with all of it natively, but you gain so much post manipulation, control, and future proofing in distribution. Sony just sold a lot of 4k projectors to AMC and a lot of other theaters.
http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1448
you will be seeing 4k projection in the next few years. All RED is doing is trying to be ahead of the game.
broadcast? broadcast is the slowest to ever change, their quality standards are also some of the worst, you can't even get a full 1080p stream over your HD channels yet. But does it stop people from shooting FILM for tv shows like Lost? Film itself is about 3.8k - 5k worth of resolution (every "expert" will give u a different answer on how much resolution film can hold) but that's still used for broadcast, commercials, etc. We've BEEN shooting at 4k for a long time, we just never quite had a way of showing it off, and this is where the times are changing.
But to some people 50k is way too much money, and they settled for a 3 thousand dollar camera to hold them off until they can buy the 10 thousand dollar camera (accessories etc. S35 scarlet or above) because nothing at the moment, exists in the price range of 3 thousand to 12 thousand dollars that's CINEMA class. That competes with Genesis, Alexa, F35, etc.
All these sub 5 thousand dollar cameras, AF100, DSLRS, whatever, don't even come close. And why 4k and beyond you ask?
Well it's happening, slowly but surely. Warner Bros. is rescanning all their films in 4k. To hold on to for 4k distribution in the future and it makes a better looking blu ray. The laws of downsampling are proven, and it does work. Your noisy image at 4k will look a lot cleaner downsampled to 1080p. It's the simple fact that people want to start at the highest quality electronically possible and work from there because it will look that much better in a less resolution.
Is it harder to work with? Yes. Does it cost more? Compared to film? No. It's all give and take. You'll have a harder workflow where you need the latest and greatest tech to work with all of it natively, but you gain so much post manipulation, control, and future proofing in distribution. Sony just sold a lot of 4k projectors to AMC and a lot of other theaters.
http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1448
you will be seeing 4k projection in the next few years. All RED is doing is trying to be ahead of the game.
broadcast? broadcast is the slowest to ever change, their quality standards are also some of the worst, you can't even get a full 1080p stream over your HD channels yet. But does it stop people from shooting FILM for tv shows like Lost? Film itself is about 3.8k - 5k worth of resolution (every "expert" will give u a different answer on how much resolution film can hold) but that's still used for broadcast, commercials, etc. We've BEEN shooting at 4k for a long time, we just never quite had a way of showing it off, and this is where the times are changing.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
I don't know. I still think unless you need the very high resolution for comp or sfx work, the allure of extra high resolution becomes really, just that - allure. Like it's a selling point for people who don't understand that they'll either end up throwing away most of those pixels or for people who think their low budget film will somehow become more desirable to an audience at 4K.
I've seen DV features projected, HD features projected as SD, film features projected as SD, and Varicam features projected on film. And as of yet, I've not heard any reviewers or audience members comment on the resolution.
Will 4K films look amazing projected in full resolution? I guess so - IF they look amazing to begin with.
.
Actually, an ebay or Mandy search for Arriflex will give you better results for "cheapest full on Cinema class system".
:lipsrseal
Zacatac
Well-known member
The Epic is around 40K for a package, Scarlet, closet to 5-6k for a working package.
3k, very easily downcoverted to 1080p, RED now is going to offer a 1080p RAW codec, so you can shoot all your 1080p stuff with no downcoverting... but have the ability to shoot 3k when someone hires you for an indie feature.... thats if you do any of those barely used "projection things"
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
From my understanding, $5-$6k MIGHT get you a working fixed lens Scarlett set up, but I can't see that for the interchangeable lens set up. Just getting the "Brain", and the EVF, with recording media and other necessary doo-dads is going to put you north of $7k, and then you get to go lens shopping.
I am sure that the lower end Scarlet will be bought by a lot of folks, but there are just going to be many other options available very soon. The AF-100 hits the end of this year, Sony is gearing up their spiffy large sensor cam and lord knows that Canon is going to do something very soon that we all will discuss ad nauseum. Buying a low end Scarlet just seems to me to be a real big gamble, at this point in time (well, when it is released). I can't help but think that it is so 2008, and there was a window of opportunity that was missed with the thing.
Now the S35 Scarlet, that is the sh*t... but.."Hey buddy, can ya spare $15 grand!"...