I know before Red's official announcement there was a little buzz in the air about Scarlet. Event people seemed to be holding out hope that it would be a wonder camera, but since they made the announcement I've noticed a disturbing lack of noise coming from the wedding forums here. I'm assuming that the proposed camera(s) didn't seem to excite you guys. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I think the demand for 3D wedding/event videography in 6K+ will be a niche market in 2009.
However I predict that at some point this will become the standard.

George/

I love the idea of 'future-proofing' my next camera purchase, but I also believe that a camera has to be ergonomic, lightweight,and capable of clean low-light capture. Until those issues are addressed and the images revealed in a real-world scenario, its just a lot of hype.
I know more people who are excited about the video-capable DSLR's than the new offerings from Red.

I'm assuming that the proposed camera(s) didn't seem to excite you guys. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I'm much more excited about Scarlet than the 5D Mark II, but the Canon is here now, so I'm buying it.

I was really excited about it, but less so after the announcement. I'm worried about the ergonomics issue of controlling it well hand held. It looks like you will have to use it with rods, which is a pain. Whether it will have auto focus, built-in ND filters, the ability to record for long periods, and other issues.

Are the 2/3" scarlet models attractive to wedding shooters? I've only shot still photography at weddings, but as a videographer I would want excellent low light performance and dof control. Red One does not have good low light characteristics, and a 2/3" sensor does not have the ability to narrow DOF significantly.

I think there is both opportunity and risk for event photographers with the realization of low light and DOF control in a low priced cameras/camcorders. Is a bride going to prefer a clean video look or a cinema look (for lack of a better term)?

In a few years, I predict that the current look of better 1/3" 3 CCD is going to be perceived as old fashioned in a bad way. Especially for emotional, personal type events like weddings.

Are the 2/3" scarlet models attractive to wedding shooters? I've only shot still photography at weddings, but as a videographer I would want excellent low light performance and dof control. Red One does not have good low light characteristics, and a 2/3" sensor does not have the ability to narrow DOF significantly.

Since most of us are shooting with 1/3" cameras, 2/3" will offer more desirable DOF than what we're currently getting.

I think there is both opportunity and risk for event photographers with the realization of low light and DOF control in a low priced cameras/camcorders. Is a bride going to prefer a clean video look or a cinema look (for lack of a better term)?

Not sure what you mean there. Maybe if you explain what you mean by the terms "clean video look" and "cinema look" I'd be able to follow your point better.

In a few years, I predict that the current look of better 1/3" 3 CCD is going to be perceived as old fashioned in a bad way. Especially for emotional, personal type events like weddings.

Because of DOF, or resolution, or??? If you're meaning that technology will be well past the capability of current 1/3" cameras then yes, I'll agree that the 1/3" look will be dated.

Ethan, have you looked at the 5DII wedding demo on the Canon site? Have you looked at Laforet's demo called 'Reverie'? Neither could be done with a 2/3" Scarlet.

Ethan, have you looked at the 5DII wedding demo on the Canon site? Have you looked at Laforet's demo called 'Reverie'? Neither could be done with a 2/3" Scarlet.

Lets be fair here and state that we don't know the capability of the 2/3" Scarlet in regards to noise in low light. As far as I know there's been nothing said about it's ISO. I'll give you the point that it can't recreate that type of DOF. Reverie in particular used fairly fast and expensive glass that most of us who would be shooting events with Scarlet can't afford.

To claim flat out that Scarlet couldn't produce an equivalent image (minus the razor thin DOF of a fast zoom) isn't being fair since we've yet to see anything from the camera. I'd wager that the 2/3" Scarlet's video capability will be pretty darn good. Who knows how it will handle in low light though.

As an event guy, I'd say that it's a good thing in many situations that I don't have to deal with extreme shallow DOF. I'd hate to be pulling focus for someone coming down the aisle without much margin for error. I'd still take 2/3" DOF over 1/3" any day, but 35mm DOF would be a bear to deal with in fluid situations at live events. There are times when I'd like it, especially for detail shots, but all the time might be too hard to manage.

For me it boils down to price.
I'm not so shallow DOF crazy but I do appreciate the look it achieves.
I couldn't see it working too well for certains parts of weddings in this country anyway eg. people like a lot of dancing coverage. Boring I know but a lot of this footage /is simple panning and scanning of a room. Shallow DOF would be a nighmare in this situation.
I personally wouldnt like the idea of too shallow DOF in any part of coverage of people coming to and from the lens in a important part of the day eg. bride walking up the isle.
I have enough to be worrying about as it is.

So after this consideration what exactly am I getting in a Scarlet over another already available camera? I already know the answers but for this price I wouldn't see it as worth it.

I have the d90 for some creative 2nd cam stuff (im still working SD so its good enough) and wait for what comes next in the Nikon DSLR range.

I have the d90 for some creative 2nd cam stuff (im still working SD so its good enough) and wait for what comes next in the Nikon DSLR range.

I've thought about the d90 as well since I already own Nikon glass, but I work handheld much of the time and really worry about how badly that camera skews.

How do you like it?

I love the idea of 'future-proofing' my next camera purchase.

How is it future proofing when the only thing you're not replacing are the cheap components? What if say the sensor replacement costs $2000 to 6000 a pop depending on the sensor you get? Can we realistically expect the sensor upgrade to be any cheaper? For the same price that we can buy an entirely working camera, we'd only be upgrade a sensor?

Since most of us are shooting with 1/3" cameras, 2/3" will offer more desirable DOF than what we're currently getting.

The 8x zoom will probably give us less of the shallow DOF that we can achieve on our 1/3 cam + 20x zoom.

I see lots of talk about DOF, and my thoughts are that you should be careful what you ask for. As Ethan pointed out, there are a lot of situations in live "run and gun" event shooting that strong DOF would not fit well in. It works great for detail and setup shots, and some other creative shots, but not for many other types of shots where you would have to continually adjust focus on the fly (perfectly) in order to get a usable shot.

Good thing with the 5D2 is that you can always stop down to increase DOF.. with it's good high ISO performance, you can even stop down when light isn't optimal. Another reason why these video capable DSLRs are such a better alternative to using DOF adapter.

How is it future proofing when the only thing you're not replacing are the cheap components? What if say the sensor replacement costs $2000 to 6000 a pop depending on the sensor you get? Can we realistically expect the sensor upgrade to be any cheaper? For the same price that we can buy an entirely working camera, we'd only be upgrade a sensor?

Well, it's cheaper than buying the entire rig over again now isn't it?

I think we small timers have to come to grips with the fact that Scarlet and the DSMC system wasn't designed for the guys who only spend $4,000 on a camera, it seems to be aimed at the $12,000+ crowd. Sure you can get the 2/3" versions for something in the neighborhood of $3K to $5K (fixed) and $5K to $8K (interchangeable) but those don't seem to be market they're really aiming for. If I buy a 2/3" Scarlet I'll be on the low end of their food chain.

Those who are already spending $20,000 on cameras will now be able to get much nicer images for their money, but for us to get into that game, we'll need to shell out much bigger bucks than we're use to.

I think the RED looks awesome and I may end up getting one for other projects. I will almost definitely be getting a 5DII first as I need it for stills.

However, the problem for wedding/event video with the RED, 5DII and D90 is the rolling shutter and flashes going off. This seems like a deal breaker to me.

However, the problem for wedding/event video with the RED, 5DII and D90 is the rolling shutter and flashes going off. This seems like a deal breaker to me.

A lot of us have been dealing with that for a while with our CMOS based cameras. I don't find it that distracting to be honest, and I've certainly never heard a bride say anything about it. I don't think they even know it's there.

The Scarlet wasn't aimed at the Event Videographer, the Scarlet was aimed at the indie film maker, as well as the corporate videographer. The companies that make commercials for corporations and the people who make online training videos. With the resolution of the Scarlet they will be able to reframe shots in post work on their product as if it was film, and still out put it to the web or to blu-ray just as easily as if it was shot on an HD camera.

That is the market the Scarlet was produced for... I am slowly building up my equipment list to get into that market, and soon will be purchasing the Scarlet, but even after I have it, I won't be using it for any weddings... at least not for entire weddings shoots, possibly the detail shots.

I've thought about the d90 as well since I already own Nikon glass, but I work handheld much of the time and really worry about how badly that camera skews.

How do you like it?

I like it. First and foremost the stills are top class. Burnout from overexposure no longer happens from a particular point (usually on the face somewhere) but uniformly accross the photo, more like film.

In terms of video I wouldn't go so far as to recommend it, but its definately a step in the right direction. I figured at the time I bought it that both the Nikon and the Canon DSLRs video modes will need to evolve a little before we can realistically consider them for main camera A footage.
So the Nikon being the cheaper option along with the fact that I already have some glass seemed to be the logical step.
I wouldnt use it handheld though. The skew is crazy bad. A monopod is ideal and forget about panning.

I'll be playing with some canon A1 presets to match the d90 stuff this winter. Im optimitic that it can be used next season. I just have to get my hands on a 50mm f1.4 first.

Apart from the technical quality issues, the aesthetic nature of the footage it captures is groundbreaking. To have all these people looking into the lens acting so naturally simply because they dont know its recording video is a real novelty at the moment :)
heres a small eg. http://www.vimeo.com/2281358

I'll be playing with some canon A1 presets to match the d90 stuff this winter. Im optimitic that it can be used next season. I just have to get my hands on a 50mm f1.4 first.

Why do you need such a fast lens? Doesn't this camera have great low light ability as it is with however they're able to bump up the ISO without adding noise to the image?

How would you say it compares to whatever video cameras you're shooting in low light?

Its better than my A1 in low light and I've been led to believe that the less increase in iso the sharper the image remains.

I remember a referral to the term 'cartoon image' where it keeps the edges sharp but actually inside those edges soften on iso increase. So the extra couple of stops on a lens could effectively sharpen a video image far more than the optics would suggest by reducing the need to do this.

As it stands on a stills camera, the 50mm f1.4d is one of the sharpest primes in that price range. An even better bang for your buck is the 50mm f1.8d. Both are superior to the kit lens in terms of shrpness and seem to be the right choice for shooting video with this camera.

Not to mention the ridiculously shallow DOF at f1.4

Good thing with the 5D2 is that you can always stop down to increase DOF.. with it's good high ISO performance, you can even stop down when light isn't optimal.

That's a common misconception. The low light performance of the 5D Mark II is *only* because of its thin depth of field. If you take that away it actually performs *worse* than almost *any* small sensor camera from the last couple of years: even $300 digicams and 3CCD video cameras.

The reason for this is that low light capability for any given angle of view and perspective is entirely based on light gathering power, which is dependent on only three things:


Aperture of the lens in millimeters (focal length divided by T/stop)
Quantum efficiency of the sensor per square micron.
Area of the sensor in square microns


The large sensor in the 5D allows you to use very large aperture lenses, such as 85mm f/1.2, which has an aperture of 70.8mm. Scarlet at the same angle of view with an f/1.8 lens would only an has an aperture of 11mm (~19mm f/1.8). In order to get the same DOF as the Scarlet, you'd have to stop the 85mm down to f/2.8, but then both cameras will receive the same total amount of light: Scarlet with more light intensity on a small area, and the 5D with less light intensity over a larger area. In that situation there is only one variable left:

Quantum efficiency per sq. micron. And here it is very likely that Scarlet and many other sensors will be higher than the 5Dm2. The 50D and many cheap digicams already are.

Most people here, including me, plan to use the thin DOF and low light performance at the same time, so none of this is an issue. But I think people should be aware that it will perform poorly unless you take advantage of wider apertures and shallower DOF.

I've got to admit, I've been a Red fanboy, but it seems funny to me that people are buying in to their marketing speak of the DSMC system being "future proof". It's not. It can't be. Within 3 - 5 years all those bits and pieces will have to be swapped out for newer better ones. The LCD will need upgrading with one that consumes less power, the CF card slot will need to be ditched in favor or some newer, faster, larger storage, the "brain" will have to go in lieu of whatever the biggest baddest one you can afford at the time. You won't spend any less money with their gear, you'll just add and replace bits and pieces with greater frequency instead of entire cameras but in the end I'd be willing to bet it'll work out the same financially. The only difference is that you should have a technically superior camera for the same amount of money.

I'm sure it'll be great, I was looking forward to the 16mm(ish) chip, but 11mm (2/3") isn't so bad better than my current 7mm(ish) (1/3") XL1s (I shoot shorts and features more than events, so DOF options are important to me).

I'm impatient and don't want to say anything disparaging about it that'll leave me eating crow. The rest of the changes look really cool, but the smaller chip than expected leaves me able to look at the EX1's etc as alternatives that are out now (although the 120fps looks promising).

I deliver currently on DVD, so the higher resolution of 3k won't be as immediately useful to me as it will to some of you.

Daniel, we know the 35mm (36 x 24) tradeoffs with dof are perfectly workable from billions of images already made. You also didn't take in to account that diffraction limits of big lenses with big sensors are partially offset by larger pixels. Also, we use ND filters (whether built in or in the matt box) and don't use aperture to reduce light levels. Also, Red One apparently apparently has considerably less quantum efficency than similar APS sensors from Nikon and Canon. Not that I necessarily agree about the importance of quantum efficiency.

Daniel, we know the 35mm (36 x 24) tradeoffs with dof are perfectly workable from billions of images already made.


I agree that the tradeoffs are always in favor of 35mm when there is ample light. The larger format can always stop down to get the same amount of light (and DOF) as a smaller format, and can even get more light if the shutter speed in slowed or ND is removed. In other words, the larger format is more flexible.

However, I was discussing something else: low light; the factors are different there.


You also didn't take in to account that diffraction limits of big lenses with big sensors are partially offset by larger pixels.


My post did not have anything to do with diffraction, nor did it need to. I would agree that big sensors are not limited by diffraction any more than small sensors, even when stopped down so much that they have the same DOF as a smaller sensor.

However, since you brought it up, I would point out that the reason this is true has nothing to do with larger sensors having "larger pixels". In fact, they could have pixels 10 times smaller than the "small sensor" pixels and it would still be true. The reason is because of the size of the sensor itself: the image is magnified (enlarged) less for display at the same resolution and viewing distance.


Also, we use ND filters (whether built in or in the matt box) and don't use aperture to reduce light levels.


I was not addressing well-lit situations where ND filtration is applicable. Rather, I was responding to a post about low light performance.


Also, Red One apparently apparently has considerably less quantum efficency than similar APS sensors from Nikon and Canon. Not that I necessarily agree about the importance of quantum efficiency.

References?

Not that I necessarily agree about the importance of quantum efficiency.

Are we still talking video here? ;)

When I saw the first pictures of the scarlet it was clear to me that for weddings and events it would be no good, I mean, from what I saw on the pictures all controls were on the backside? OK in a controlled environment but for run and gun, forget it.

Also it required many extras to make it somewhat complete and we know what they cost. If your end product is dvd, blu-ray or webdelivery and your doing only events and weddings I'll take a hmc150 or xh-a1 over a red (with extra's) any day, I might even take both and still save some cash and deliver great looking video.

I think it's a bit strange, the complaining.

BEFORE the announcement Scarlet would be:
- a 2/3" camera
- Fixed Lens
- around 3K.

The lowest Scarlet model is STILL that. Maybe it will be a bit more with accessoires, but it will be in the same area.

But RED just gave a complete line-up, and people are drooling (understandably) over the bigger budget Scarlet-models, and some people are now saying they *need* 35mm sensor and that it isn't fair that RED isn't giving it anymore, while they are still keeping their promise (it seems) about the original Scarlet. It's just that there are now bigger models too, to choose from.

The competition is giving us 1/3" camera's with heavier compression, lower resolution then Scarlet and no variable framerates at this price point, and that are NOT upgradable. Still people are complaining...
(ow, and let's not forget the customer service at RED versus the big boys...)

Maybe the people that expected an S35 sensor with 1-200 fps variable framerates at a 3K pricepoint are dissapointed, but that's their own fault.

On the other hand, reasonable critics, that say that a Scarlet will maybe have bad ergonomics to shoot a wedding, now, that's something else. That's fair criticism (or not, we'll see).

Maybe the people that expected an S35 sensor with 1-200 fps variable framerates at a 3K pricepoint are dissapointed, but that's their own fault.

I've seen that kind of whining over on Scarletuser, but I don't think anyone in this discussion has complained in that manor.

I've seen that kind of whining over on Scarletuser, but I don't think anyone in this discussion has complained in that manor.

Yes, maybe you're right. I was reacting on the original poster, who was saying that there was a very lukewarm reaction on the Scarlet announcement in general, so I wanted to react on that.
Also, some people here do say they rather go for the Canon 5D instead of the Scarlet, and I think some of them say that because of the 35mm sensor of the 5D. But I think they aren't really comparable, but I think my post above explains enough.

You're right, though, that here, most of the times, most people are pretty rational in their complaints.

I think most people hear the name RED and think $$$$. Instant put off.

As great as the products are, not much point if the market your using them in doesnt lend itself to such high end, high priced gear.

... some people here do say they rather go for the Canon 5D instead of the Scarlet, and I think some of them say that because of the 35mm sensor of the 5D. But I think they aren't really comparable...I think the preference that some have stated for the 5D Mk. II has more to do with its immediate availability than any other factor. Among these folks there will be those who choose the 5D now and will then transition into Scarlet once it becomes available.

The lowest Scarlet model is STILL that. Maybe it will be a bit more with accessoires, but it will be in the same area.

....that it isn't fair that RED isn't giving it anymore, while they are still keeping their promise (it seems) about the original Scarlet. It's just that there are now bigger models too, to choose from.

First, Scarlet followers had been promised Scarlet 1.0 by spring. Now that looks like fall.

Second, when Jim Jannard announced a new redesign, promise was still Scartlet would be available by spring, and that there would be amazing changes.

Third, many of us speculated, rooted and lobbied for a single model workhorse with a 35mm sized chip, mass produced like Pentaxes and Minoltas of the 70's that would revolutionize for use with 35mm lenses like Nikkors and Canons.

Fourth, along comes November 13, 2008, and the announcement was made, but it is clear now that at least at the low end, there would only be a fixed lens model... so nothing changed there except a delayed release date and now, instead of the promised around $3K ( I was expecting $4K) there is not a lot on pricing. Yes there were other amazing models and variations announced. Fantastic, but not really within reach of the mere mortals. With what is going to be available in the spring, looks like the you will have a $15,000 to $20,000 investment to get up an running.

Now its not Jims fault, that this didn't happen, because its probably is a technical or financial impossibility. But it still was something we had hoped for, and for a moment with Jim's announce change coming, we had visions of "sugar plums". Now back to reality.

And so for most event and indie low and zero budget film makers, it was a sort of a thud--- a non event, in the end.

In Red's defense, the 2/3" fixed lens Scarlet is still very close to the idea they tossed out there a year ago, but now there are so many more enticing options out there that it takes some of the shine away from the low end models. 3K for $3K might be a little off, but I'm guessing you'll have a workable version with little LCD for $4K. That's not night and day different. If you want all the bells and whistles you'll have to spend more on rails, matte boxes, whatnot but you were going to have to do this with Scarlet 1.0 too.

The more I think about it, I think the reason the Event video market didn't go ga-ga on the 13th was in part due to the 5D and it's price point, the carrot of the nicer versions of Scarlet, and the realization that workflow, record times, and (possible) ergonomic problems might be something we'd have to deal with.

Anyone else feel that the idea of Scarlet being a soccer mom camera seems silly now?

With what is going to be available in the spring, looks like the you will have a $15,000 to $20,000 investment to get up an running.


You must be talking about the $7,000 Scarlet S35 + lenses, modules, and accessories, right?

I think it's worth mentioning that the $2,500 Scarlet 2/3" Brain is not that far behind: "Summer/Fall (est.)". Jim said that RED's new 2/3" lenses will be priced in line with the price of the brain, I have the feeling it will only be about $1,000 each. I would guess we'll be able to shoot Scarlet 2/3" with a 16mm f/1.4 for about $4,500 in a fully-capable configuration.

You must be talking about the $7,000 Scarlet S35 + lenses, modules, and accessories, right?



Yeah, thats what I meant. Its to the level of a 35mm sensor we dreamt of getting, though actually the FF is the one that gives the full 35mm frame..

I'm not going to get overly excited about the Scarlet until pricing comes out and we see how well it holds up in low light. I also have the storage issue that has held a lot of people back from buying the EX1. Its a great camera, but I don't have enough storage space for all of those weddings.