Well, Scarlet is not at all what I expected. I'm not sure what to say comparing the original "Scarlet" to the Red One Lite that was announced. So much for Red taking on the Japanese camera makers.

I was hoping Red would announce a product that would really push the sub $10K market of cameras and camcorders. It looks like the big camera makers can still dribble out features and not spend much time listening to their customers.

I'm disappointed. Not that there's anything wrong with what Red announced. It's just not the type of product that changes the way other companies do business.

When I got up today and started my normal "forum routine" during breakfast, I checked this forum first. When I didn't see a single post on this forum saying "forget the 5D Mark II," I knew Red's announcement must not have been that earth shattering.

So I went and checked out what they announced. It was nice, but overall, underwhelming. I was hoping they would announce an interchangeable lens, full frame, ready to shoot, not buy 100 accessories (it doesn't even come with a battery), camera. Basically, I was hoping for a Canon 5D Mark II with more "video" features that shot 3K RAW for about half the price of the FF35 Scarlet Brain. Oh well, didn't happen. Plus, nobody even knows that what they did announce will actually happen.

So hopefully, Canon will take their own technology one step further! With Red's announcement today, I think the market is even bigger.

I think it is an amazing change in the market out there. But for us low end "non profit" indie film makers, shelling out the $15 k or so to make the thing go, still isn't something the Mrs. will get behind..... I love the idea and modular concept, but I have seen RED accessory prices, and, frankly, I recognize, that getting paid for a project or several is what would make it work for me. HV20 still is pretty amazing for a $ 700 cam, and I was hoping against hope that Scarlet would produce a $ 4k stand alone camera with a s35mm sensor with Nikon or Canon mounts. Canon and Nikon have started to addressed it somewhat, but hopefully Sony and Panny will do so also.

The Red competed with the big boys of film by offering a camera at roughly half the cost. Neither side (digital or film) seemed to change hardly at all, and especially now with all that has been happening in the market would lead you to think, just maybe.

BUT The Scarlet is just another piece of hardware aimed at the same market, so I don't expect any major changes, once again. Until, a manufacturer targets the core of the DV market (me and you) at our price range, I don't expect changes. Canon is a prime example, the all ways lag behind in development and roll out by a few years. They are last to deliver on high tech cameras (of the digital video variety) any way. Canon and others are happy just giving us incremental updates and enhancements. IE: Canon's XL series, XL, then XL1s, now XL2 then XLH1 then we get a letter "A" then the Letter "S".

The Red is a game changer and that is what is needed, something to get everyone out of their comfort zone. Once we get competition OF SIMILAR CAMERAS things will change, and the economic situation should help.

Just my rant / spin

sure, for low-budget filmmakers scarlet is useless, the "cheap" model has a 2/3 sensor and fixed lenses, no too much advantage at all over current cameras , and the "expensive" model with 24mm sensor is too expensive!

yeah, the 2/3" sensor doesn't seem very interesting. What I would add to your list, now that we (almost) have the 5DII, is low light performance. The 5DII seems to be 4 or 5 stops better than red one. Will red still be rolling out cameras in 2010 with usable ISO 250?

Is the red market bigger than cine if they don't add good high ISO performance? Is 3K great without DOF control? Seems to me critical questions are not being asked.

the 2/3" chip size is strange to me as well - why not at least the same size as 35mm film? Would eliminate all those clunky adapters....

john

sure, for low-budget filmmakers scarlet is useless, the "cheap" model has a 2/3 sensor and fixed lenses, no too much advantage at all over current cameras , and the "expensive" model with 24mm sensor is too expensive!

Just a reality check here...

There are -NO- 2/3" HD video cameras (as a purpose built full manual control camera), kitted out, under $20,000... and defintiely no cameras that offer 120fps and a raw video codec in that price range. And if there was another body that cheap, the lens would be $10,000+...

Maybe useless to you, but not useless to the rest of us.

If this camera is useless to you, it's only because you can't afford it.

Dylan, jeez … I can afford it, but I don't need it. That's not a complaint.

Dylan is right - there is no inexpensive manual control camera with 2/3 sensor. That includes what red sells.
It's interesting how important it is to those who want to buy red that everyone else participate in the adulation. It's a tool with a price and a feature set.

Of course that whole argument breaks down to the fact that if you aren't going to get 35mm depth of field anyway, do you really need to spend the money to go 2/3 inch? With cameras like the EX1 and EX3 on the market now, it's a valid argument. I would say it's not nearly as important as it used to be.

Dylan, jeez … I can afford it, but I don't need it. That's not a complaint.

Sorry John, that comment wasn't directed to you, no offense intended.

There will be a lot of people who the 2/3" Scarlet will be useless to, but they are either in a different field or different ballpark. This camera is a godsend to the HVX200/XHA1 crowd.

And to think I can get a S35 Scarlet (which I'll be lining up outside RedCentral for as soon as Jim Jannard lets me put a tent down...) for the price of an XLH1 that uses my EF lenses? Belissimo!!!!

Having said that, I'm preordering a 5D mkII tomorrow. :)

if this camera is useless to you, it's only because you can't afford it... and if you can't afford it... stop complaining about it on internet forums and get a job! :)

I can afford a scarlet, and I don't hate RED, in fact yesterday I was shooting (just for testing) with a RED ONE (not mine actually and I can't afford it), but this is not the argument.

I'm only saying that what low-budget indie filmmakers want is a camera with shallow DOF, to differentiate their films from video. From a low-budget indie perspective, or even to shoot music videos, the scarlet still needs a 35mm adapter.

So, to shallow-DOF shooting we need a scarlet, plus proprietary expensive accesories, plus a 35mm adapter, and just to get exactly the same problems like with other cameras: lot of light loss on spinnners and grain on vibrating 35mm adapters.

RAW is nice, but not indispensable, we have seen good films shot even in miniDV (at 60i!) and later converted to 35mm "real" film. And films shot with a 100k camera going directly to trash can. I would preffer shallow DOF in HDV than a 2/3 sensor RAW. Also, you can shoot RAW with almost any camera through HDMI.

well may be the scarlet performs well with a 35mm adapter, but if the canon 5DII, or the new nikons and canons to be released next year at that price level, can get 25p and are able to record video with reasonable quality and reasonable manual controls, it will be far better.

And last but not least, as Don Miller said, the low light performance of canon and nikon DSLRs sensors are very far away from red sensors, shooting video with 35mm lens and at 12800 ISO with a $2600 camera is a dream!. This exceptional low light performance is really much more important than RAW for low-budget filmmakers.

Sorry John, that comment wasn't directed to you, no offense intended.

Oh, none taken. I just felt compelled to defend all Red consumers: pros, affluent amateurs & idiots alike.

Me, I'm a 5D2 man, 'less it turns out to make inferior pancakes or something. At that price, it's just so cool.

I'm only saying that what low-budget indie filmmakers want is a camera with shallow DOF, to differentiate their films from video. From a low-budget indie perspective, or even to shoot music videos, the scarlet still needs a 35mm adapter.



A $2500 2/3" chip video camera shooting 3k on a raw codec at 120fps is useless because you want to put a 35mm adapter on it to get a touch more shallow DOF?

You'd rather spend $4000 more on an XLH1 that shoots 1080 HDV at 30fps on a tiny 1/3" chip? Can you explain to me in detail why the Scarlet doesn't have an advantage over this?


Personally, I'll enjoy my 5DmkII for shooting still photos and travel videos, and I'll use my Red (when I get one) for shooting film/TV projects.

Dylan, a bit snippy, don't you think. There are a lot of non-professionals on this forum that make films because they love to do it, and you shouldn't blame us for dreaming about a set up that gives then what we dream about... And the camera makers know that.

That aside, the whole Scarlet/Epic idea is revolutionary, and brilliant, but probably, realistically beyond means of the non-professional. But you shouldn't be too critical of us, because I think it is the non profit indie that drives a lot of the change in this market and actually drives the prices down for you pros.... so lighten up on us a bit.

The fixed lens scarlet has no price tag yet, and the $2,500 2/3" brain is going to cost a lot more once you buy the lens, viewfinder, memory, and other accessories to make it functional.

I like the 3k feature but for me its far from priority. In fact, the majority of my clients request a DVD since bluray is not yet mainstream. I shoot at 1920x1080 and downres to 720x480. With Scarlet I would be shooting at 3k only to downres to 720x480. It does not make much sense to me at this point.

Of course if I had the option to shoot at 3K I still would, its just not vital.

I have worked with 2/3" chip cameras a lot and its not just a touch less DoF. It's considerably less.

To say the least RED's announcements are impressive. Scarlet is great and if I could buy one right now I would without hesitation. I have my eyes set on the Scarlet S35 brain, but its not yet available and wont be for a while.

The best sub $10,000 35mm sensor I am aware of just around the corner is the 5D2. It may not be perfect but I am optimistic that a work around will be found for exposure controls.

Your expectations of the perfect camera may be very different from mine or someone else.

Dylan, a bit snippy, don't you think. There are a lot of non-professionals on this forum that make films because they love to do it, and you shouldn't blame us for dreaming about a set up that gives then what we dream about... And the camera makers know that.

That aside, the whole Scarlet/Epic idea is revolutionary, and brilliant, but probably, realistically beyond means of the non-professional. But you shouldn't be too critical of us, because I think it is the non profit indie that drives a lot of the change in this market and actually drives the prices down for you pros.... so lighten up on us a bit.


I don't own a Red camera, nor am I a Red fanatic. Quite the opposite, I'm born and bred Canon.
However, to write off a camera because it doesn't offer 35mm DOF is outright ridiculous... especially when it offers bucketloads more than every other camera under 5x it's price. It's like getting offered a Ferrari for the price of a Mustang and then rejecting it because it only comes in Red, and then complaining about it being useless on the internet.

Most of us have been paying $6-$8,000 per camera for 1/3" chip cameras over the years: VX1000's, XL1's, DVX100's, HVX200, HD100's... 2/3" chip cameras were always in the $20,000+ range, and now I can buy one for $2500-$4000 that uses my EF lenses? And gives me a good HD codec? AND 120fps overcrank?

No camera is useless... just the person holding it.

I'd love to know where you are getting scarlet pricing? All I've seen is pricing on a "brain" you need to add a whole bunch of stuff for the brain to become a working camera and those prices are TBD.

The comparison to existing 3 CCD 2/3" with the single 2/3 cmos isn't necessarily valid. The current 3 ccd models don't need to use bayer. They also have 3x the sensor surface area.

I believe the current Canon single cmos $700 camcorders have 1/2" cmos. These models are not superior to Canon's more expensive 3 ccd 1/3" camcorders. (They are amazingly good for the price in good light, however)

I do think, however, that a 2/3" scarlet model is useful in the Red lineup. Both for price and for long-lens shooting that will match well with bigger Red.

Currently shooting with the EX1 and a XDR Flash on order, which will bring my high motion footage to the next level 4.2.2 100Mbps.

As for the Scarlet 2/3" with my choice of lens and RAW wow that is a winner all the way around. I see what my pro buddy does with his top of the line Canon stills and RAW and I am jealous. Raw rules and is the way of the future. Nothing burned into the footage gives some amazing creativity and cropping on top of that!

Now SDI out of the Scarlet what will that be? Could the XDR Flash work or am I missing something here?

Me personally, I would prefer higher useable ISO to a RAW codec any day.

RAW gives you about a stop and a half to push still images in post before they really start showing signs of wearing out.

High ISO & RAW would be grand, but as video goes, a slow camera is about the worst in every situation outside of a controlled studio shoot.

But I think it is easy to mix uses for the Scarlet and the 5DMII.

These two cameras seem to be more cine production vehicles than normal video production vehicles.

What the cine folks want is not neccessarily what the video folks want...

As we know, this is quite a fluid company, Even though looking at these models (are they working I haven't looked into it yet?), that given their past a lot of R&D will still pass under the bridge before it's a reality.
As far as cost, I own a HD251 with only stock lens, DRDH100, NTG2, chrosziel mb, and global media pro batts, in this config that's about $22000 Aust, currently about $14,000US.
Is it a great 1/3 camera - yes definitely. But the usual problems that plague the 1/3chip and the hdv sector. Noise and low light performance.
Would I like the new 50Mbps 4:2:2 HDXDCam, of course, but the body by it'self is $40,000Aust, a good lens $15,000Aust and up, and thats without matteboxes, and mics etc etc. I'm not sure as I don't have the stats in front of me, but this is 'only' 720p (as in I shoot 720p and it's great) and 1080p at 24/5p.
And here we have red giving us the opportunity to decide what size chip we want at what price point we decide we can afford to make a camera that is suitable for our needs.
Instead of being lumbered with a stock fixed lens (which there will be one model of this nature I understand) that may be good, but doesn't really cover the range you need it to work, with Red you end up spending $$ on what you actually want. Shallow dof is nice, but in a lot of applications isn't pertinent. Anyone who's been in the game long enough knows that stockers are either not wide enough or not long enough, and yes we then learn to work around these limitations, using WA adapters etc.
The reality is we've chosen a field that is big $$. Yes we can get more now than we ever did for our dollar, we all have in our own minds what is the perfect camera, I guess what we need to do now is translate that into constructive suggestions. The Scarlet was originally only looked at as a good POV camera I think by serious videographers, but now with the modular system can be anything you want it to be, at a price albeit.
Interesting times, I hope that they do have 'package' deals to help us all reach the functionality we require without remortgaging the house!

Adam

Just thought I'd insert some 'outsider' perspective for what it's worth. Part my day job is analyzing technology trends, innovation and enabling paradigms.
The RED/Scarlet phenomenon fits into a pattern that's familiar to me. The operative notion is:
- Create a technological breakthrough
- Seed the early adopter community with it
- Ingest and process feedback
- Develop an evolved iteration
- Refine and tune future iterations
It's known as the Waterfall Method to you IT junkies.
Manufacturers do practice this when they are in the early stages of their corporate brand definition, but they tend to drag their feet on item #1 Create a technological breakthrough. That's what opens doors for products like Red....Scarlet....
To those that are balking at the lack of fine tuning of this strategy, it's too early to complain really. Give them another year or two.
What's important is the MESSAGE it send to the Old Guard Vid-cam makers. RED is to the mainstream Prosumer/Indy community, what Apple IS & WAS to the Wintel empire.
I just hope that Red are properly patenting what is indeed their IP so as to ensure that they get all due credit where deserved.
For those that want affordable DOF in HD etc. The Still cam 5DII is the 'Gimme' option that you can jump into now.
I luxuriate in the privilege of being a midstream adopter- shunning early adoption and rarely arriving at the party too late to dine :)

.................. RED is to the mainstream Prosumer/Indy community, what Apple IS & WAS to the Wintel empire.
.......

Except that apple and microsoft started at about the same time, and Microsoft won. So how is that a valid analogy?

If you want to understand Red look at the pros and cons of being the first mover. Also determine to what extent Red invents technology they can protect and to what degree they are applying existing technology. What proprietary technology does Red have that hinders competitors? What advantages do competitors have? Digital imaging is extremely directly comparable between brands. This makes perception of Brands very volatile.


Don
a mac user

And Paul I disagree the 5DII is not the way to go yet. That maybe one or two years away also unless you can live with skew.

And Paul I disagree the 5DII is not the way to go yet. That maybe one or two years away also.

Did he say that? I wasn't sure.

Even if the fill Scarlet line was available, the products don't really sit in the same product niche as the 5DII. After Canon comes out with more products we'll see how they compare for specific work.

That said, I don't think that most people understand that the 5DII is a 5.5K sensor (in Red speak) being down sampled to 1080P (about 2K). The sensor isn't cropped except a bit off the top and bottom to make the wider aspect ratio. This down sampling from almost 18mp to about 2mp can make a very high quality video.

The small 2/3" proposed red sensor is something like 4 or 5mp down sampled to 3mp. All things being equal, in good light, the Canon image would be significantly better. But things aren't equal. The 2/3" scarlet will have tiny photo sites and Red has not demonstrated any decent low light capability. In fact the Red One does not meet the standard ASA 500 tungsten setting for studio lighting. They are about one stop short.

In the outside world Red One is nowhere close to being able to shoot a demo like the LaForet short Reverie.

This competition isn't about which cookie company has the best P.R. campaign. This is a competition for multi-billion dollars of high tech business where billions of dollars of R&D has been invested. What I see in Red's announcement is a refocus to become a specialty company. (I consider indie film making equipment a specialty). I just don't see products that are designed for broad use outside of planned, deliberate film/video making.

And Paul I disagree the 5DII is not the way to go yet. That maybe one or two years away also.


I think he was saying the opposite, that the 5DmkII is the way to go for now.

Most of us are kind of isolated in this little indiefilm niche. What will really be interesting is to see what impact Red makes on the broadcast market, which is the real show.

If I used the 5DII on a job with action I would loose my clients with how bad I see the skew. I still feel the EX1/3 out preform the 5DII and with the XDR Flash the EX series is way ahead. That does not mean Canon will not get it right next time or even the time after.

If I used the 5DII on a job with action I would loose my clients with how bad I see the skew. I still feel the EX1/3 out preform the 5DII and with the XDR Flash the EX series is way ahead. That does not mean Canon will not get it right next time or even the time after.

What exactly are you using to measure the 5D2 rolling shutter?

Based on the videos we have seen so far, including the camera mounted on the bike, the rolling shutter on the 5D2 is not prominent. It does not look much worse than the EX1. Its there to some extent but seems very manageable.

Daniel there two examples that have brought me to this conclusion.

One is on this forum under "My D90/5DMII Rig is Ready to Roll" where Dan offers this video link of what he shot saying the Skew is bad with the camera.
Tibet, six months on: 'There is no freedom here' | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/oct/01/tibet)

The other I can not post from a friend and we have been very impressed with the 5DMII camera while on a tripod but hand held next to my EX1 the EX1 wins. Also the heat issue could be a big problem running the camera for 4-6 hr shoot.

I would love to see Canon solve this and I know they will but for now the camera will not work for me where I shoot fast action most of the time.

Yes but that was shot on the D90, not the 5D2 :)

Very different cameras.

The skew on the D90 is indeed pretty bad.

Correct it was shot on the D90 and from our test I have seen the same problem on the 5D2. Sorry I can not post the results but as I said if anyone can solve it Canon can and i look forward to the next round.

What exactly are you using to measure the 5D2 rolling shutter?

Based on the videos we have seen so far, including the camera mounted on the bike, the rolling shutter on the 5D2 is not prominent. It does not look much worse than the EX1. Its there to some extent but seems very manageable.

I agree, we've seen the video mounted on bicycles doing flips, on cars driving around town, and cars driving by... I've yet to see anything too awful.

After seeing people shake the camera around like a crazy person, I got to thinking about it. I took my EX1 and started shaking it around (making sure nobody was around to see me looking like a fool) and it did the same thing! Goes to show you how vital it is, since I've had the EX1 for 8 months and never knew it did it at all!

I have a long response here, so let me start with a brief summary: I agree that the quality *could* be excellent, but to my eye, it is not. Below I'll describe the worst problems and what the causes for it are. I think many people will overlook the problems because of the positive aspects of a large sensor.

This down sampling from almost 18mp to about 2mp can make a very high quality video.


Yes, downsampling 18 MP to 2 MP can make very high quality video. Using the most advanced demosiac algorithms and post-processing techniques, the quality can be astounding. The reason for this is that noise adds in quadrature. In other words: for every four-fold decrease in resolution, noise decreases by half. Resampling an 18 MP still down to 2 MP reduces noise by a factor of almost 1.7X (sqrt(5616/1920)). With perfect processing, video from the 5D Mark II would have one and two third stops more dynamic range because of the reduction in noise compared to a 100% crop a still.

The catch is that the noise must be random and uncorrelated to get the full benefit. Furthermore, the correct demosiac algorithms must be used in order to result in images that have noise power that is random and uncorrelated at all frequencies. The best algorithms take about 15 seconds per 18 MP frame on a powerful computer, but you can use faster algorithms to get about 2-3 FPS on a quad-core computer without sacrificing quality.

The problem is that the 5D Mark II does not have a quad-core computer built in, and it has to be 10 times faster than a quad-core computer. Therefore it is necessary for Canon to take drastic measures for things to work, which include a very poor quality in-camera processing. No one knows for sure what they are doing, but the results are much worse than resampled stills.

To my eye, the worst offenders are the over-sharpening, poor resolution, moire, clipped highlights, crushed blacks, over-saturation, blocky compression, mosquito noise, and slow read-reset. I'm buying the camera anyway for stills, but I will also do some tests to see if most of these issues can be addressed with careful post-processing and resampling to 720p (the same way I address many of these issues with my XH-A1).

I think another contributor to the poor quality is that Canon did not apply the right solution to the problem. They made the same mistake when they developed their sRAW "feature". The purpose was to reduce the amount of disk space taken by a raw image without losing the "raw" feature. The correct solution would have been to remove the 4 MB of JPEG previews, use nonlinear compression (visually lossless), and truncate bit depths for each step in ISO. The combination of these result in file sizes that are 1/8th the size of the full RAW file with no decrease in quality and very little increase in in-camera software complexity. Nikon uses one of these techinques in their NEF compression.

Instead, Canon built the sRAW system which throws away over half the resolution and wastes half of the disk space on embedded JPEG previews, and doesn't even result in a significant decrease in file size. It's possible that they are using this same solution to get the RAW data down to a managable size before using a very low quality demosiac, or something else altogether.

Another exmaple is how Canon clips highlights for all ISO over 1600. In the 10D, they correctly used metadata, but in all subsequent cameras, the highlights are literally discarded. In the 50D, up to four stops of dynamic range are thrown away with no benefit in noise reduction.

Again, I think many people will overlook the image quality, control, and other issues just to get any kind of video from a VistaVision size sensor for $2700. As a video camera only, Canon got almost everything wrong except one thing: a very large sensor. Scarlet, on the other hand, gets everything right, but has a smaller sensor.

I have to admit that if not for the large sensor I would not care about the 5D2. But I think Canon got a lot of things right. Outstanding low light performance, relatively clean picture, saturated colors (this can always be adjusted in post), interchangeable lens mount, a good codec and if I'm not mistaking it's got a higher data rate than HDV at 38.6 mbit.

I do realize the importance of RAW video, would be great but I'm not sure if its practical. Support for a RAW format would require a strong post tools & workflow. It would make the camera more complex and more expensive. I would understand this as a more attractive option once Adobe's open CinemaDNG standard matures but its not even available yet.

This is a $2,600 camera, there are limitations to the hardware. I think we are getting a lot of bang for the buck, almost too good to be true. I just hope we wont be disappointed in the end.

I have to admit that if not for the large sensor I would not care about the 5D2. But I think Canon got a lot of things right. Outstanding low light performance, relatively clean picture, saturated colors (this can always be adjusted in post), interchangeable lens mount, a good codec and if I'm not mistaking it's got a higher data rate than HDV at 38.6 mbit.
.............................


I believe the "picture style" setting apply to video also. So it should be possible to back off on saturation, contrast and sharpening. I doubt most people would shoot as hot as the Reverie demo if the were planning on working on the capture in post.

Also SDI or wavelet compression is a heck of a lot easier to output than to do all the processing that is done to finish the video from the 5DII. I would be happy with outputting something pro-res 4-2-2 like. Not that this will happen with the 5D, but it's likely we will get a higher data rate and more control with whatever Canon has coming next. We will see an appearance by Sony at some point too.

I see flaws in all video. When I take my girls to some awful movie it's interesting to look at all the problems in many scenes. Even in high budget movies. So I guess some our opinion about the pre-production 5dII images is based on what bothers each of us. I'm much more interested in the high ISO performance of the 5D than a studio centric camera like Red.

My question: In considering the Red 5K Scarlet (30mm sensor) for $7000, do you think the max fps is locked at 30p for 5k, 4k, 3k, 1080P 720P?

I have a suspicion that this camera will be similar to the red ONE, in that, at lower resolutions it may offer higher framerates. Somebody can debunk this myth if they know the answer, but what I'm trying to point out is, don't jump to conclusions JUST yet.

Anyway, re. 2/3 sensor, probably with an adaptor to run Canon EOS mount lenses and 120fps @3k, and you still want a 5D MkII? Something is wrong with you!

Firstly, the 5d2 is a bit more pricey (body only too remember!)
Has no proper exposure control or viewfinder
Shoots 30p ONLY

BUT, has a bigger sensor. Doesn't mean it has better Lattitude, and 2/3 DOF when used creatively is just fine, especially if you whack on some nice 85 1.2L lenses.

(Oh and for the record, I already have a 5D2 on order, so I'm not exactly biased;) )

Jannard posted additional specs that confirm you can get 60 FPS in 2k mode on the 5k Scarlet:

Scarlet, RED ONE and EPIC specs... - Reduser.net (http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22052)

Your right, the body may be a bit more expensive. But the only other thing you would need is a lens & a memory card. Thats only about ~$450 more.

Scarlet on the other hand:

2/3" Brain - $2,500
2x fast 16gb Flash modules $550 ea. via RED store - $1,100
A nice zoom or a set of 2/3" primes - ~1,000
Viewfinder or lcd - $? (RED EVF is $3,000)
Recording module (unless the brain has one) - $?
REDhandle or REDmote to control camera functions - $?

Would it be safe to assume around $6,000 - $10,000 for a functional 2/3" Scarlet camera?

It's still a great camera at that price, no doubt about it. Besides, everything is subject to change and I'm sure it will. The only trouble is that you can't buy one yet, and the 5D2 is only a few weeks or so away.

The disadvantage of a 35mm adapter is the weight added to the camera, the size of the camera, loss of sharpness, the hot spot, and the light loss. Instead of just a f/1.2 lens, you lose 1-2 stops more with the ground glass, 1 stop more with the flip module, and finally you lose even more light with the lens mounted onto the adapter. Thats a lot of glass.

Not to mention having to buy the 35mm lens & 35mm adapter too!

For me the 5D2 is a compromise until the S35 Scarlet is available.

... a lens & a memory card. Thats only about ~$450 more.In my opinion it would be criminal to put anything less than L-series glass on
a 5D Mk. II, which pushes that figure into the $800 to $1000 range for starters.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L -- $700

EF 70-200mm f/4.0L -- $1400

EF 28-70mm f/2.8L -- $1400

Just say no to cheap glass on a full-frame D-SLR.

In my opinion it would be criminal to put anything less than L-series glass on
a 5D Mk. II, which pushes that figure into the $800 to $1000 range for starters.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L -- $700

EF 70-200mm f/4.0L -- $1400

EF 28-70mm f/2.8L -- $1400

Just say no to cheap glass on a full-frame D-SLR.

I agree that you gotta have L glass with zooms. From what I've seen there is a pretty big quality difference. Plus non L zooms are typically pretty slow. However, I don't think you need L glass for an amazing picture when it comes to prime lenses. The 50mm f/1.4 has been tested to be sharper than the 50mm f/1.2L at apertures above f/2.8.

In my opinion it would be criminal to put anything less than L-series glass on
a 5D Mk. II

That might be good enough for you, but I insist on *real* glass:

Carl Zeiss 150mm f/1.2, $25,000
Swayze 3000 mm f/4 Newt, $30,000
Fisher Price 60mm f/11, $1.99

On a more serious note, my favorite lens ever is the EF 24mm f/1.4 L; no other AF lens is wider at f/1.4, and the perspective and DOF control makes very interesting images, I think.

However, I don't think you need L glass for an amazing picture when it comes to prime lenses. The 50mm f/1.4 has been tested to be sharper than the 50mm f/1.2L at apertures above f/2.8.

If you think that's something, then get a load of this: the lowly 50mm f/1.8, at $80, is sharper than the f/1.2 in the corners at *all* apertures from f/1.8. And it's sharper 1/3rd from the center at f/2.8 and narrower. It's equally sharp in the center at f/2.8 and narrower. (I can link images if anyone would like them.)

But there's much more to "an amazing picture" than just resolution. Light gathering ability, DOF control, focus mechanics, bokeh, flare, and other considerations must be weighed. I compromised on the f/1.4 because of the price, but I would have preferred the f/1.2 for the other reasons, despite its lower resolution and abberations.

… In considering the Red 5K Scarlet … you still want a 5D MkII? Something is wrong with you! …

You could add "actually exists" to the 5D2 column. For me, that's a major feature on a camera.

I wouldn't think that 35mm still camera lenses would be good enough for 5K on a 2/3 sensor. Especially 35mm zoom.

If you think that's something, then get a load of this: the lowly 50mm f/1.8, at $80, is sharper than the f/1.2 in the corners at *all* apertures from f/1.8. And it's sharper 1/3rd from the center at f/2.8 and narrower. It's equally sharp in the center at f/2.8 and narrower. (I can link images if anyone would like them.)

I don't need images, because I have that lens. :) It takes great pictures, even if it does focus slow and feels more like a toy than my kids Fisher Price camera!

I wouldn't think that 35mm still camera lenses would be good enough for 5K on a 2/3 sensor. Especially 35mm zoom.

5K on 2/3" is only 3.2 micron pixels, that's almost the exact same as what people are using right now with the XL-H1, which has 3.3 micron pixels (it would be 2.5 microns if it had a true 1920 instead of 1440), and they seem to be getting usable results with 35mm lenses.

In any case, the MTF at the Nyquist frequency is only important if your output can show it, but I think many Scarlet users will have 1080p as the max output, and the MTF there will be much better looking.

The macro lenses such as 100mm f/2.8 would be excellent telephoto lenses lenses on Scarlet 2/3", except that their focus mechanics for normal-distance subjects leaves something to be desired. I think there are some other good options.

I don't need images, because I have that lens. :) It takes great pictures, even if it does focus slow and feels more like a toy than my kids Fisher Price camera!

Nifty Fifty, Fantastic Plastic, The Great One-Eight. :)