I'd be interested to hear what others with experience with Red have to say about reliability.

In 5 days with the Epic, we had several issues that would make me nervous to buy one, or a Scarlet for that matter.

"Power spike Detected - initiating camera shutdown" at least 3 times when using the Red Brick for power

Monitor went split screen - either the Red Touchscreen or the External when punched in to magnify for focus. This happened at least twice a day. Required powering down and restart.

And one incident where the camera would not stop recording, though timecode stopped running. This required a hard reboot.

We also had a major back focus issue with the Red 18-85 lens, or the sensor. The cause is still being determined.

Just read this opinion on Scarlet from Phil Bloom

To buy a Scarlet or not to buy, that is the question… | Philip Bloom (http://philipbloom.net/2011/11/20/scarlet/)

Wow. Sobering post from P. Bloom. Good to see such honesty in the internet space.

Ditto....I have a renewed respect for Mr. Bloom.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

That was indeed a good article. There are those who would like to think this particular horse race is cut-and-dry (or already won); I think time will tell. I for one have already been burned by RED cameras on a few occasions and I can't embrace a system that does that. I have long felt that it is great for owner/operator folks who can take the time to work around issues on smaller shoots, or for large budget productions that can afford a brace of bodies (one goes down, just substitute another), but for the inbetween, where there is one or two cameras on set and plenty of time pressure, the reliability and workflow can be dodgy. I have respect for aspects of the RED cameras but I can't embrace the associated lifestyle, if ya know what I mean.

Much as the specs of the Canon DSLR's did not "add up" to the resulting images they produced, I have a sense that the C300 will prove the same on a larger scale.

Mostly: it's simply amazing that such image quality is available within this level of price range.

Barry: I was only able to stay for a couple of the films at the screening at Paramount as I had limited time--I really would have liked to see a sampler compilation of all of them. Personally I think that would have served the purpose of showing the camera off far better than the choice to present "short films".

Barry: I was only able to stay for a couple of the films at the screening at Paramount as I had limited time--I really would have liked to see a sampler compilation of all of them. Personally I think that would have served the purpose of showing the camera off far better than the choice to present "short films".

yes...I agree...10 minute films followed by a 20 minute break were a little more than I could take. I wish they would have just run them together in 40 minute blocks. There is a 1080P version of Mobius floating around out there that looks pretty nice.

Here's blog another comparing cameras, must be an industry in its own right:

Prolost - Blog - Red Scarlet, Canon C300, and the Paradox ofChoice (http://prolost.com/super35roundup)

Scarlet is such a radically different workflow than C300. I think the post really should be titled reasons to go for the C300 over F3. I think it's a lot more challenging to come up with reasons for that.

Seriously, does anyone out there personally know anyone who is planning on buying a C300?Yes.

First, if it bombs we will never know because Canon has pride and deep pockets and can absorb the production costs.
What is your criteria for "bombing," specifically? And how exactly do you arrive at
whatever number of unit sales you think it needs to reach in order to avoid that?
Canon tends to purposefully under-produce, so my guess is that they'll sell every
one they make.

Once again, without referring to mythical TV producers, does anyone know anyone who is going to buy a Canon C300?

Once again, yes. My plan is to goad at least one of these people into an exclusive review for DVi in January.

not really into defending cameras these days, there are so many good choices out there now that it's hard to make a bad choice. I would say that we have RED to thank for re-inventing the market - without RED pushing the envelope, you would be waiting a very, very long time for that F3 or C300.

One advantage to the SCARLET which has not been mentioned - the new sensor technology will be upgradeable. So it may be $20K versus $15K now, but what about in the future, when technology changes again? paying for the upgrade will cost substantially less than purchasing a new camera system, from scratch again. I have been able to re-use a lot of my RED ONE accessories on my EPIC -

especially the RED Brick batteries, which run for several hours before they need changed - people keep pointing at the RedVolts and their 35 minute run-time on this thread - but the ability to use the bricks pretty much kills off that power argument - the C300 has no advantage here whatsoever. RedVolts and Bricks are also hot-swappable, meaning if you stick in one RedVolt for the day, you never have to shut the camera down at all, while you throw on a fresh Brick - the camera will toggle seamlessly between the two power sources - I doubt the C300 has a similar functionality.

Perpetual runtime option: advantage RED.

I would say that even RED acknowledges that "obsolescense obsolete" was more of an ideal than a workable reality - things change too fast and dramatically - but they are in a pretty good groove with their upgradeable system.

I feel like I'm in good hands with RED - they have earned my trust, repeatedly.

My RED ONE is the only camera that I shot for 3 years solidly and then sold at a profit. Meanwhile, I would like to find a buyer for my XH A1, I'd be thrilled if I could get half of what I paid for it. Anyone?

And why is RED the one with an interchangeable EF/PL mount? Come on, Canon. If RED can do it, with *your* technology....the separate body thing is an outright C300 fail.

The RED Brick batteries are somewhat larger than the Canon Battery Pack BP-955. I don't know about the Scarlet, but the RED One has been pretty power hungry any time I've been on a shoot with one. Although, I'd assume it's better.

I guess how good the sensor actaully is within the C300 will decide if it becomes an item that needs upgrading during the working life of the camera.

There are a number of factors to decide when selecting a camera, because none are perfect and they all have strengths and weakness. They won't be the right camera for every project or its workflow requirements, so you need to work out which one you either rent or buy.

I would say that we have RED to thank for re-inventing the market - without RED pushing the envelope, you would be waiting a very, very long time for that F3 or C300.
Hmm. I'm not sure. I think the original Red was pushing up and competing against the higher end of the market, not really re-inventing it.

I think the real spur for the market re-invention was video coming onto stills cameras, especially DSLRs, and especially Canon. And Larry Thorpe has admitted they were taken by surprise themselves, and the C300 is the reaction to that. It was also DSLR video which spurred Panasonic and Sony on, surely?

And whilst Panasonic then just boxed a still sensor in a more ergonomic video-friendly body, then I'd say it was Sony with the F3 and FS100 who took the next really big step with a large format sensor specifically designed for video. At that time Scarlet seemed a long way away.

As far as upgradeability, then I'm reminded of computers I've bought with just that in mind. Each time, when the time came to think about it, it just seemed more sensible and cost effective to start again from scratch with everything brand new......

Hey Meryem,

Good to hear from you on this. I was on the outside looking in at Red without paying too much attention until recently when a friend bought an Epic and i had a chance to use it. So I started to look seriously at the Scarlet as it's price is do-able for my next cam. I say do-able in that the 15k base production pack seemed very reasonable. I was surprised (it didn't take too much digging) to find that the base kit was not nearly enough to get going with, and that it would be reasonable to add at least 5k in media/power to get going.

Jim Jannard pushed the technology forward. There is no doubt. In 5 short years, he has reconfigured the landscape and we all benefit. I love Red and what they've done. But personally, I'll wait a little longer before sipping the Cherry kool-aid.

One of the companies will be getting 15 or 20k from me in the next year or so, I just don't know yet which one.

Hmm. I'm not sure. I think the original Red was pushing up and competing against the higher end of the market, not really re-inventing it.

I think the real spur for the market re-invention was video coming onto stills cameras, especially DSLRs, and especially Canon. And Larry Thorpe has admitted they were taken by surprise themselves, and the C300 is the reaction to that. It was also DSLR video which spurred Panasonic and Sony on, surely?

And whilst Panasonic then just boxed a still sensor in a more ergonomic video-friendly body, then I'd say it was Sony with the F3 and FS100 who took the next really big step with a large format sensor specifically designed for video. At that time Scarlet seemed a long way away.

As far as upgradeability, then I'm reminded of computers I've bought with just that in mind. Each time, when the time came to think about it, it just seemed more sensible and cost effective to start again from scratch with everything brand new......

That's an interesting re-write of history, which effectively eliminates RED's influence entirely. I don't buy it - that's pure bias.

You should also give a shout-out to all those years of third-party 35mm ground glass adapters. People wanted 35mm imaging way before Canon surprised themselves with their first hybrid. Demand was high. The problem was that no one was giving it to them, at a price that anyone could afford.

The first RED ONE was an attempt to fill that gap - you can actually dig into the archives here in the dvinfo.net Panasonic forum and find a post by Jim Jannard feeling annoyed with the trickleware business model, expressing his frustration at how the major camera manufacturers were withholding features from their customers. That was his impetus for developing RED.

I have no bias here. I own an EX-1r and like it very much. I own a 1DsMark II and a 7D - use it primarily for timelapse, because I find it a bit fiddly for video, unless I decide to dump another bunch of money into the right accessories. I've owned a GL2, XL2, XHA1, HV-10, HV-20 - not to mention a boatload of Canon lenses. I like Sony and Canon gear. I've shot the F3 - it's a bloody marvel. I'm sure I'll wish I owned a C300, too, I like the form factor personally. It's cute.

I only chimed in, because some of the assumptions about SCARLET on this thread seemed limited or incorrect. Since there is no RED forum here, the discussions tend to be thin on reliable information about the cameras and, in some cases, oddly biased or hostile.

I can never really understand bias or hostility towards particular cameras. I love em all. I want them all. Heck, my ten-year-old and I enjoy making her short films with my Flip....everything is beautiful and nothing hurts.

to Brian - just fyi, the RED brick battery life on an EPIC isn't in any way comparable to a RED ONE. I got about 45 minutes/brick on the ONE. I get 2-1/2 - 3 hours from a Brick on my EPIC (I think - I've never timed it, but I usually only change out the battery once before lunch and have never run through two before lunch) - so they've done a remarkable job of building a more power efficient camera - also, the 8-second start-up time versus the RED ONE eternity wait, makes shutting down and re-booting very easy...you'll be amazed at the improvements, if you get your hands on an EPIC or SCARLET.

I don't expect RED cameras to be for everyone, necessarily - but I do like them to be represented honestly - I think they have earned that, at least. Never has any company inspired such loyalty and such FUD, at the same time. Kind of a wild ride, in that way.

it would be reasonable to add at least 5k in media/power to get going.

The media/power costs for a Scarlet are a real concern (and thanks to Meryem for pointing out that the Red Bricks perform better than the RedVolts). I guess I've been "spoiled" for nearly 2 years with the PMW-EX1R, which just required buying an extra battery for a couple of hundred bucks to give me close to six hours running time (along with the supplied battery). This was a welcome change from the $2,000+ I'd spent on an Anton-Bauer system with my previous camera. And it looks like Canon battery solutions (for the C300, etc.) are similarly inexpensive like the Sony.

Media costs are a similar issue. The C300 records directly to CF cards (a massive winner in terms of media costs!) and I wonder if Red will "play nice" as people seek cheaper alternate media solutions with the Scarlet. I remember waiting a year or two before jumping on the EX1 bandwagon until I knew that:

1) The alternate media solutions had matured (MXM, MXR, etc.). I think I spent about $500 on an MXM solution which gives me 4 hours of recording at 1080p25 and I haven't had a glitch in nearly 2 years (although I have an SXS card for non-repeatable events).
2) Sony would "play nice" with these alternate media solutions and not issue new firmware to "lock out" these solutions or void everyone's warranty, etc. Sony were very smart about this and I'm sure that they sold a heap more cameras because of it. I'm not so sure about RED's attitude to this with the Scarlet.

So the "hidden" media/power costs actually make the C300 seem a slightly better financial proposition overall. (Unless better alternate solutions emerge for the Scarlet.)

The biggest issue for me (always more than 50%) with any camera I buy is: my personal aesthetic response to the images the camera produces.

I can't tell a thing from the C300 footage I've seen so far. It's all so heavily stylized and graded that I have no idea what the camera by itself can do. For example, I loved it when Doug Jensen took out an F3 and shot correctly exposed footage with a really good Picture Profile (scene file) and no (or very minimal) grading.

It's a bit like the days before the Digital Intermediate. The DP would select the film stock, correctly expose the footage and the lab would develop it. Today, I would equate the old-style "film stock and development of footage" to the modern camera's processing of the footage (sensor, A/D conversion, Optical Low-Pass Filtering, quality of the internal electronics, etc.) plus the selection of the Picture Profiles.

This is what tells me "what the camera can do", rather than "what an expert colorist can do".

The footage which made me fall in love with the "look" of the Epic was shot by an early Epic-M owner who just plopped the camera on the dashboard of his car (but he really knew how to shoot) as he drove home from picking up his camera and issued it ungraded (or with very minimal grading). I love how the Epic creates its images (sensor plus electronics) and that has nothing to do with the RAW workflow (which, I feel, is more of a bonus for the colorists). I'm not so sure at this point about the Scarlet with its lesser spec'd sensor and reduced electronics. The very early Scarlet footage I've seen has left me underwhelmed to this point. But it's only early days and I look forward to other DPs shooting with it as they roll it out more broadly.

I'm really hoping that Doug Jensen (or someone similarly skilled at exposure and setting up great Picture Profiles) shoots with a C300 soon and releases the ungraded footage.

Perhaps there are two different "camps" forming up? Those who want 100% control of the final image in the camera (with only minor tweaking needed in color correction) and those who like to shoot as flat as possible to give their expert colorist the most to work with?

The cameras are certainly getting good enough these days to accommodate both.

I've been very impressed by the footage I've seen so far but I agree that we have to wait to see ungraded footage to get a better sense for the "native" sensor (realizing that there really isn't anything that's totally ungraded -- except for perhaps log or raw footage that looks horrible because it is so flat).

One thing I haven't heard mentioned much is how much the new Canon lenses had to do with the look of the footage that's out there. Certainly, the lens has a major influence on the image. I'd like to see C300 footage with a lens I can afford on it.

Slightly Off Topic, but i wonder when JVC will throw their hat in the ring? as they surely will. They're an interesting company in that they don't have any high-end models to protect and could come up with something interesting in the future.

Media costs are a similar issue. The C300 records directly to CF cards (a massive winner in terms of media costs!) and I wonder if Red will "play nice" as people seek cheaper alternate media solutions with the Scarlet. I remember waiting a year or two before jumping on the EX1 bandwagon until I knew that:

There is a Kingston 128gb 1.8" SSD for $250... Red's is $1800. It may not be as fast, but at that gap it won't be long before someone else starts cutting meat off Red's bone, esp if the Scarlet sells 10x more cameras making much more demand.

I guess I've never quite understood why people need a single battery to run all day, unless they are climbing up Everest or something. Obviously the longer the better, but after a reasonable amount of time, is there that much difference between running for two hours or three? Especially since many of the people who are the most interested in long run times are the same ones who seem content to have their camera powered by one battery, their monitor by another, any other accessories by a third, all different types of batteries requiring different chargers...that to me is true inefficiency.

Can't really see why the C300, like the F3, couldn't be powered by an external battery (gold or v-mount) in a comparable form to the RED bricks. There are plenty of inexpensive versions of these batteries out there for those who don't want to spend the money on the name brands. A quick boot-up time means powering down is not exactly diabolical, but if it is, hot swap is as simple as getting a dual battery mount.

Guess I'm not seeing why this is even a discussion point between the cameras. All three can use shorter run small batteries, and all can be powered externally by larger packs.

Hi Charles - it was only a discussion point, because so much concern was repeatedly expressed over the short run time of RedVolts, without a clear understanding that Redvolts are not the only available option. But no need to beat the horse...

As far as the quality of SCARLET footage, it is fairly identical to EPIC footage, since they use the same sensor and same ASIC. Less resolution - 5K is really only good for stills on the SCARLET, fewer compression options, less data rate - but not much that will be visible to the naked eye - probably tough to distinguish side-by-side even.

What this means is that crappy shooting will look like crappy shooting, and good imaging will look good - it will be the hands, not the camera....I feel confident saying that F3 footage, SCARLET footage, and C300 footage will all have the capacity to look amazing...or not!

I can never really understand bias or hostility towards particular cameras. I love em all. I want them all.

Best quote of the day.

Slightly Off Topic, but i wonder when JVC will throw their hat in the ring? as they surely will. They're an interesting company in that they don't have any high-end models to protect and could come up with something interesting in the future.

I agree with this Dom. For me, they hit the nail on the head with thier ergonomics. Couple that with large sensor and an ability to swap between B4 lenses and PL/EF glass (if thats scientifically possible). Throw in a great codec and then it would be the camera of my dreams.
These "build your own camera from the brain up" scenarios prove combersome, costly and have too many variables that can go wrong in a run and gun shooting enviroment.
The C300 and Scarlet both look like wonderful cameras but also look high maintenance which if fine if it's a beautiful woman but not so much for a tool of the trade.....

Guess I'm not seeing why this is even a discussion point between the cameras. All three can use shorter run small batteries, and all can be powered externally by larger packs.

I suspect it only becomes a factor when you're filming in a remote location where power for recharging batteries isn't available. The smaller capacity, but long running time can be easier manage using solar cells etc.

If you're getting 2 to 3 hours from a battery that's fine for most productions; you do start to notice the 1 hour battery changes and the RED One wasn't unique in that regard.

RED is an important player on the camera scene and have pushed the industry in new directions. Unfortunately, some of their fans seem to be blind to the reasons why not every production isn't shot with a RED.

People having strong reactions to different cameras isn't new and it can get to silly levels. One 1st camera assist insisted on having a specially ordered Selvyt lens cleaning cloth with Arri printed on it instead of the rental company's name because the Arri one was better. I guess he was blind to the fact that they were both made by the same company.

That's an interesting re-write of history, which effectively eliminates RED's influence entirely. I don't buy it - that's pure bias.
No, I'm not biased, I actually regard Red quite highly, and mine wasn't intended to be an anti-Red comment. I just think "Red re-invented the market" is over the top. There is no doubt they have had a profound effect, but until very recently mostly at the higher end, and I think it's more the $5-15,000k end that's being most referred to here.
You should also give a shout-out to all those years of third-party 35mm ground glass adapters. People wanted 35mm imaging way before Canon surprised themselves .......
Going back further, yes. But they were very much a minority interest - maybe seeding the market rather than re-inventing it. It wasn't until video on DSLRs came along that there was an explosion in the numbers of users - and that's why I'd maintain it was video DSLRs that did most to "reinvent the market".

Look at the time scales. It takes maybe a couple of years to bring a brand new camera to market, depending on how much technology gets recycled, and it's pretty obvious that Panasonic, Sony, and Canon started about the same time - the time that the use of video DSLRs started to explode.

I wasn't just referring to cameras, David, with the "RED re-invented the market" comment - I was also referring to a way of doing business - that is, withholding feature sets from their customers - as I mentioned, that was the issue underlying the invention, expressed right here at dvinfo, back in the day.

No matter how imperfectly they execute their schemes at times, RED does try to put their best technology forward at their best price points. They stay very true to that commitment. I'm pretty sure that they have forced a lot of hands in that regard.

This may change - as other companies begin to force *their* hands - in the beginning, they had no one to position themselves against, because there really wasn't anyone doing what they were doing, at the price point. DSLRs came shortly afterwards, forcing RED to re-consider the original SCARLET "pocket cam" concept, as well as 3K for $3K...and the Alexa, of course, on the other end. These have forced them to find a more refined identity for the company, beyond the desire to challenge trickleware.

But that is where it started. I respect those roots...it really did change the landscape for what other manufacturers are willing to do.

The $150 Canon BP-970 will run the C300 for about 7 hours...the XF300/305 for about 8 hours.....and it doesn't weigh anything......compared to the traditional bricks.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

The $150 Canon BP-970 will run the C300 for about 7 hours...the XF300/305 for about 8 hours.....and it doesn't weigh anything......compared to the traditional bricks.


Hmmm....the same batteries I use on my vintage (but venerable) XLH1 (never been serviced in its long life - knock wood).

I was filming with it in a swamp yesterday, and I only had to use 2 batteries throughout the whole day (plus one for a nanoflash). When you are in the field you really do appreciate a long lived compact battery (especially when filming wildlife so you have the camera on standby the whole day).

On that trip I just chucked 5 batteries in a rucksack (along with my lunch) and was good for more than a days shooting.

Regarding a 2/3" RAW cam with 3K for $3K, RED "de-invented" the market. ;) Too bad, too!

RED certainly re-invented the market above $15K and transformed the conversation - especially regarding RAW.

Nikon's D90 opened up new possibilities, and Canon brought adequate quality to truly re-invent the market from $1K to $5K. Now they're refining the market above $15k, but with a different approach from RED.

It's a great time to be shooting video. But it's a shame that Scarlet 2/3" didn't come to fruition. It certainly wasn't for a lack of effort and investment. Hopefully we will see results from that effort over time. Maybe RED will take part in re-inventing some of the sub $15K market before long...

i didn't see any so i went with RED;
I am not a fan boy of any camera brand, and I don't "love" RED team and Jim like some red forum users, i hate that flip with the fixed, and I do feel tricked into a scarlet X, but since I've touched R3Ds first time about 3 years ago, there is no question to me, i want raw, I don't even care that much if it's 4K, but I'm sure for some my clients it'll be important;
I know I can't run Scarlet all day on one small battery that weights nothing, and media is kinda expensive, but I also know that I will get image identical to R1MX, but smaller and lighter, and Epic (except for 5K and high frame rates) and that is pretty high quality for the price; I appreciate opinions from all informed sources including Mr Bloom's comments about their experience with RED cameras, but I need to have my own, i might just get rid of it after couple months or so, and get F3, or maybe even something better after NAB 2012, but not C300;

just wait until fluid lenses start reaching the market...

Going back further, yes. But they were very much a minority interest - maybe seeding the market rather than re-inventing it. It wasn't until video on DSLRs came along that there was an explosion in the numbers of users - and that's why I'd maintain it was video DSLRs that did most to "reinvent the market".

Just to clarify... You mean an explosion of people shooting S35, not an explosion of new shooters. I wouldn't say they reinvented that market, as much as redefined it. Same user, different tool. But I'd agree that it's probably the most important revolution since digital video.

The posts in the thread tend to be weighted towards the C300 because the original poster specifically asked why you would choose the C300 over the Scarlet. On paper it seems like Scarlet crushes the C300 mercilessly, but when you dig deeper into the operational aspects, the C300 can actually be much more attractive. So that's what this thread was exploring.

I didn't mention Red Bricks or large batteries in my comparison because the C300 would still run longer comparatively and using them would require building up both cameras with more accessories and cabling. At that point, power might not be big issue.

But if you're trying to keep the camera light and compact or just looking at the start up costs, then I think comparing the internal batteries is fair. It's a very big difference. Furthermore, with the C300, you don't even need the side handle to power it so you could strip it down further if you wanted, unlike Scarlet which requires the side handle or another module to power it.

I think lower power draw is a great benefit that adds convenience and lowers heat dissipation. Less batteries are needed so that's good for the environment too.

Regarding the interchangeable lens mounts, Canon did think of this but according to Larry Thorpe they made a conscious decision not to. The reasons were they didn't want issues with tolerances and a fixed mount could be made to be more rigid. It's just a decision they made. We'll see if that was the right one. A standard EF mount does have some rotational play, like Charles mentioned. I'm not sure if they did anything about this (like RED did on their Canon mount), but I'm guessing they didn't since it looks like just a standard EF mount.

Just to clarify... You mean an explosion of people shooting S35, not an explosion of new shooters. I wouldn't say they reinvented that market, as much as redefined it. Same user, different tool. But I'd agree that it's probably the most important revolution since digital video.
Arguably a bit of both - yes, an explosion of people shooting large format video, but possibly more people in total as well. The ground glass adaptors involved not just their own cost, but that of the base camera as well - with DSLR video that was a huge drop in cost, and it's quite likely led to users coming along who previously hadn't been able to afford the equipment.

And the ground glass adaptors had their issues - loss of light etc. Many people likely just put up with the depth of field of 1/3" chips to avoid the hassles and cost of adaptors. That's why I do think here it was video DSLRs that "reinvented" the market.

The initial effect of Red was at a much higher price point. A profound effect, but maybe not truly revolutionary. Not in the way of DSLRs.

It also maybe needs putting in perspective. Not everybody wants shallow depth of field, and the call for it came out mainly from those only able to afford such as 1/3" - for a lot of work 2/3" was seen as optimum. And still is for many for that matter. Large format video may have been a revolution for some - others just had no need or interest at all. Hence the continuing and large market for 1/3" - 2/3" cameras.

Another reason why the C300 might be preferable is noise. I assume the Scarlet will need the same noisy fan cooling between shots that the Epic does. For long takes you may have heat issues without the fans running.

C300 and Scarlet really are very different tools. C300 will I expect be great for quick, no fuss, portable shooting for factual programmes like documentaries, corporate etc with some cross over into shorts, while Scarlet is more suited to narrative work like drama, low budget movies and shorts. Of course you can use either for both, but it might not be the most effective solution.

Given how many of the comparisons are with the Alexa, the C300 could end up being used as the B or grab camera on TV dramas, replacing the DSLRs that have been used in recent years on those productions. Assuming that it was the size rather than the cost or fashion was reason for opting to use the DSLRs in this role.

I believe the C30 has a small fan that is not user controllable. We can assume that from the run time per battery that the C300 fan noise is not an issue.

It seems to me that buying the C300 for episodic television currently using DSLR was literally "made to order". I don't understand the position that no one's going to buy it. I expect a projects look to be dialed in "in camera" and an easy post production. Perhaps not state of the art in southern Cali, but a very real world solution for those trying to get the job done.

Part of the C300 positioning is to keep DSLR television from going F3. It's likely well positioned to fight the F3 in that market.
There are also probably many productions who would like an Alexa but can't afford it. The cost of the C300 rented or depreciated over 3 years isn't much.

Assuming the C300 is clearly more filmic than the F3, it should sell well. Specs are secondary. Canon competing in this way is historically exactly their thing. 5dII video happened because the images were beautiful, despite the many flaws.

A short answer to the O.P. is that you're going to need to shoot the Scarlet at 4K to produce great 1080p files. The C300 is easier. Time is usually money.

The posts in the thread are weighted towards the C300 because there's no RED forum here, therefore RED shooters don't tend to spend time on DVInfo. I happen to have friends and deep roots on dvinfo, so periodically wind up representing the RED viewpoint, in the absence of a larger voice.

(Not always crazy about that...but, as I said, I believe they have earned the right to be represented honestly, and, in the absence of a dvinfo presence, that does not always happen....)

A few inaccuracies that need addressed:

1) Tim, you don't need a side handle or module to power a brick. That is not accurate. My super light configuration consists of a single rod mounted to the back of an old RED ONE top handle, using a Zacuto widget and one 4'' 15mm rail. And a $200 ET battery plate. There are other 3rd party manufacturers who also have built plate systems (ViewFactor, Action Products, and also RED's own Backpack system, which I don't particularly like, I find it heavy and expensive). A lot of RED ONE users have simply recycled their RED Quickplate with v-mount...there are quite a few available options besides the ones you mention. I like my set-up because it counter-balances the lens - the EPIC can become front-heavy, with a big lens, so a bit of weight off the back can be a good thing.

2) I would say Larry Thorpe's decision not to make an interchangeable mount is simply a poor choice, whatever his rationale. Frankly, I'm a little amazed by it - we have people hacking still cams to build PL mount cameras. We have RED ONE owners, myself included, who have been falling all over themselves waiting on an affordable, workable EF solution, since 2008.

Not that many individual owners buying cameras at these price points are shooting a single style...

That he would admit that the success of the hybrid DSLR is a surprise, rather than a consequence of listening to what the customers wanted, should tell you something. I can ask Jim Jannard or Jarred Land direct questions, I tell them what I want and need. If you do it politely and respectfully, they'll respond more frequently than not. I would say they have probably given me direct answers to about 60% of my personal pestering questions on an open forum. That is pretty amazing, really. RED knows its customers very well. Not saying Canon doesn't - I own and like tons of their gear - but I think their agenda for selling product has a different approach - they watch what their competitors are doing and respond to that. Nothing wrong with that model, particularly, but I do think it puts limits and constraints on innovation.

3) I agree with Don that this will be a great broadcast camera option - I think it will be more apt to challenge Alexa than RED, in that regard, since Alexa owns more of the broadcast market....it would definitely be a great crash cam or B cam.

But Don, it isn't accurate to say that you have to shoot 4K to get good 1080 files out of a SCARLET. 3K is a very good option which saves space, still gives the advantages of oversampling, and allows faster playback and transcoding. 2K is an option - I have heard rumors about a lack of quality at 2K at 23.98, but I have not shot any EPIC at 2K, except for high-speed 300fps - and it looked frickin' amazing! (usually, I've found that people who get bad images overcranked are failing to re-calibrate the black shading of their cameras...done right, it's soooo awesome.)

Sound Devices Pix is a very popular monitoring/1080 recording device. It isn't cheap, but to say that you have to shoot 4K to get 1080 is not the full story.

4) And lastly, I can see where you and I differ on the definition of "revolutionary," David - you are measuring it by the number of units sold. I am measuring it by impact on both the industry and individuals. By your measure, number of units, I suppose you're right. But I don't know any Academy Award-winning films shot on a DSLR. Major successful businesses have originated around RED camera expertise (LightIron and Offhollywood come to mind). I don't know jack about fashion photography, but in under a year, the EPIC has been used by many of the top names in photography to shoot spreads for all of the major magazines. When you see major motion pictures like the Hobbit and Pirates 4 shot on a camera built by a company that is about five years old - well, I would call that a revolution. Not just "profound" - but totally radical, dude!

Arri, Panavision, and Aaton did not making film cameras this year because of DSLRs. It is a RED (and Alexa and Genesis and SI-2k) phenomenon. A digital cinema phenomenon. That is a paradigm-busting change.

At a personal level, I started shooting RED cameras about three years ago, and I landed my dream job shooting a Nat Geo special (would never have happened with a DSLR, never) and am friends with several A-list actors, with whom I've worked - and, remarkably, all done from Colorado, a state that doesn't even have film incentives, let alone a film industry - without RED cameras, that never happens.

I don't know what your yardstick for revolution is, but my ringside ticket to the RED sideshow has parked me next to some remarkable paradigm-shifting, revolutionizing stories.

I don't hear these same stories from DSLR shooters - I hear people being much happier with the quality of their images - but I don't hear story after story about how that the camera has launched them into new realms of experiences.

Those days may be over, to an extent, now that there are so many S35 choices - I think the window to travel through that wormhole was somewhat limited and is already closing again. But there is no doubt in my mind that RED changed the paradigm for imagining what was possible, rather than just making prettier pictures.

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong on this one - but really, I know tons of people shooting DSLRs - and for the most part, they are shooting better images of the same stuff they were shooting before - it hasn't re-defined their business.

Sorry for the lengthy post...

... there's no RED forum here, therefore RED shooters don't tend to spend time on DVInfo.

Actually it's the other way around... RED shooters don't tend to spend time on DV Info, therefore there's no RED forum here. All of the RED shooters are on reduser.net where they rightfully belong. I'm grateful that some of them such as yourself come back to DVi from time to time, but reduser.net is where Jim and Jarred are, it belongs to Jarred, and it's a real-names-only forum. *Everybody* is there, including me, I read it regularly. Therefore there's not much point to having a RED forum here.

We used to have one here, but people were using it mainly to post links to reduser.net, but that's not how DV Info works. DV Info runs message boards about gear, and how to use gear. DV Info doesn't run message boards about other message boards. That's meta-discursive, and that ain't us. So the obvious solution was to replace our RED forum, which was mostly filled with reduser links, with a direct link to reduser itself. I can't think of anything more foolish than trying to compete with reduser for its own traffic, and I sure as hell don't want to make any enemies.

fair enough, Chris - no intent to misrepresent you or DVinfo here....I was not taking issue with your decision -

but I don't think the reason that the thread tends to be weighted towards the C300 is as Tim says - because the OP asked the question about why you would choose the C300 over SCARLET - I think it tends to be weighted that way because the RED user base is absent. Otherwise, I wouldn't be the sole person trying to straighten the record. I can let it go, though.

...just happy when I have a camera in hand, that is good enough for me!

Meryem

As i recall, two weeks ago this forum was full of people moaning about the Canon's shortcomings and hailing the second coming of the Scarlet, so i don't think there is any shortage of Red fans on DVinfo. Now things have settled down, many are starting to have a second look at the C300, aided by reports of far more reasonable prices than originally suggested, and sobering articles by Red owners like Phil Bloom.

Further, AFAIK nobody here has actually seen a single frame of footage from this camera we've been hearing about for several years, and we shall be none the wiser till we do. All we know is it's more than tripled in price since all the fanfare about a 3 grand professional camera back in the day. Given that nobody has seen this camera in action it seems a little early to be comparing it with anything at all. However there are several reasons - outlined by Tim Le and others - why the Canon will make more real world sense for many users, regardless of how good the Red turns out to be.

I guess that I missed the moanfest...so I'm lacking some backstory here.

Said more than my share...and will retire my torch....don't really like playing RED defender, but hope that I added a little bit of additional information to the heap, for those of you trying to weigh options. It is a lot of money to spend, on either system, and the decisions are getting tougher to make.

Arguably a bit of both - yes, an explosion of people shooting large format video, but possibly more people in total as well. The ground glass adaptors involved not just their own cost, but that of the base camera as well - with DSLR video that was a huge drop in cost, and it's quite likely led to users coming along who previously hadn't been able to afford the equipment.


If I remember correctly, about 4 years ago, before the 5D2 came out, my Brevis cost about $1200 and the smokin hot Canon HV20 was about $800. Not exactly unaffordable compared to a $1600 7D if you wanted to shoot Super35. I can't join you in the theory that all of a sudden, tens of thousands of people woke up one day and said "Hey I can shoot Super35 on this whack form factor DSLR for under 2 grand... I think I'll become a filmmaker!"

I will say that it has migrated a lot of still photographers into the video world, since they now own tools that cover both... and at the same time has moved a lot of videographers (less so) into stills.

Assuming the C300 is clearly more filmic than the F3, it should sell well. Specs are secondary. Canon competing in this way is historically exactly their thing. 5dII video happened because the images were beautiful, despite the many flaws.

Why do you assume the C300 clearly more filmic than the F3? Some of the footage I've seen is much more video like than the F3, clipped highlights is one video trait that many are seeing from the C300. I think we need to wait before we judge image quality until more units are actually out in end users hands.

5DMkII images can be beautiful in the right conditions, but all it's issues have limited it use to a narrow range of applications and for many mean it's a non starter. It created a niche in the market that was not really there before.

Specs are not secondary. Good reliable specs will tell you a lot about how a camera will actually perform in your hands as opposed to looking at videos on the web created by experts with big budgets who can tailor the shoot to get the most from the camera, avoiding areas that may cause issues. Take the 5D, independent resolution tests tell us that the resolution falls short of what most would expect from a 1080P camera. Yet on the web this is difficult to tell. If your producing web videos then that's fine, but present on a big a screen and the difference becomes much clearer. Of course one of the issues is getting reliable and meaningful specifications as opposed to the carefully selected and sometimes ambiguous manufacturer specs.

As a complete outsider looking in ( a novice, with not a chance of owning either camera), the choice seems simpler than people are making out.

If you want a camera that will work 'out of the box', that will be much simpler to use, and will have a faster work flow without major $ investment in raw workflow then the c300 is the better choice.

Run and gun? wedding/event videography? etc then I can not imagine for one second using any red camera. the reliability issue alone woryy the hell out of me!

If you have more time to invest per shoot, have repeatable conditions, need higher res and absolutley must have raw, then of course the red is for you.

The notion that either of these camera somehow far worse, or far better images than the other seems strange to me. You could make beautiful images with either.

James

Further, AFAIK nobody here has actually seen a single frame of footage from this camera we've been hearing about for several years, and we shall be none the wiser till we do.Actually there's a lot of sample material readily available. Scarlet output = Epic output, and there are plenty of Epic clips online coming from a wide variety of sources. The only differences between Epic and Scarlet are frame rate, 5k video, window size vs. res, etc., but the image "flavor" and quality of the two cameras are identical.

Why do you assume the C300 clearly more filmic than the F3? Some of the footage I've seen is much more video like than the F3, clipped highlights is one video trait that many are seeing from the C300. I think we need to wait before we judge image quality until more units are actually out in end users hands.
................

I don't assume, I predict :)

The C300 sensor makes many more measurements compared to the F3. Also, as I've said Canon is telling us it's noticeably better by their pricing. The only people who have compared the F3 and the C300 are Canon. Either the C300 has better IQ, or the Canon people are foolish.

The trouble with specs, especially Red specs, is they don't illuminate the trade offs. What price does the Red design pay in basic IQ to do 120 fps? In power consumption? In low light capability? What's the upside of the C300's lowly specs? Are they being cheap, or making sure the 99.9% of shooting is the best it can be?

I expect the clipped highlights is from pre production cameras. It's unlikely in 2011 that Canon would build a system that has a fundamental problem with gently clipping highlights. But until the F3 and the C300 are shot side-by-side we don't know. It does seems the images from each will be distinct, which is nice.

I think in a few years debayered sensors will be old tech. Measuring just one color at each pixel will soon be better understood as a compromise. This may be a problem for Red, as I can't see them being ready to handle a 32mp quad 1080p sensor.

I'll keep pointing out that there's likely more information off the C300 sensor (pre compression) than the 4K Scarlet. And way more than the F3. Debayering is building out a bigger file, but not adding any information, just data estimates.

Good point Chris. So the images will be identical? even so, friends of mine who've been renting Reds have done so primarily due to the frame rate (slowmo) options which the Scarlet doesn't do as far as i'm aware?

James Millward

Yes, both will be wonderful cameras, and like you i can't currently justify buying either, however i'd take the Canon over the Scarlet any day. If i needed a Red i'd rent one, as everyone i know who needs one does (even though they can easliy afford to buy several). and i'd rent one with the resolution/frame rate options. This model seems to fall between two stools for me.

I'm guessing in 18 months time there will be a lot more people kicking themselves for buying a Scarlet than there will be regretting buying a C300. The Sony F3 is a formidable camera too, so it would be a Sony or Canon decision for me. Having said that, i expect there will be amazing things done with the Scarlet by a relatively small number of people, and many others buying it without really getting anything from it they couldn't have got from Sony or Canon with a lot less hassle. Just my 2 cents.

..............

I'm guessing in 18 months time there will be a lot more people kicking themselves for buying a Scarlet than there will be regretting buying a C300..........

It's surprising how many people were willing to put up with ground glass adapters. I'm amazed at the number of people shooting weddings with DSLR. I think if new Scarlet users are realistic about data/power/computer needs before purchase they will be happy. My only concern for for people who can't really afford a Scarlet, but plan to rent it out. Red One published rates don't reflect reality. Scarlet rental prices will likely follow a similar price curve.
For the corporate buyer/producer, the question is if the more expensive ongoing cost of the Scarlet makes more money than the F3/C300.

Don

But why would anyone rent a Scarlet?

There are higher end models that will only be marginally more expensive to rent and they have advantages over the Scarlet (like super high frame rates). If i didn't need those features i probably wouldn't rent a Red at all. That's what i mean about the camera falling between two stools. Rentalwise it's likely to be overpriced for what it does, So those with low budgets are likely to either go for cheaper options, while those with the cash will rent the higher spec Reds. There will also be loads on the market due to the - relatively - low cost price, so i doubt this will be much of a success for people planning to buy for rental.

Don, we will have to wait and see how the C300 sensor performs in the wild. But one thing to consider is that the Bayer process was in part developed to overcome issues created by the use of a 2x 2 sampled CFA (colour filter array) as used in the C300. Bayer has the big advantage in that it can help compensate for the leakage and cross colour contamination caused by the imperfect colour filters in a CFA. This compensation can dramatically improve colour fidelity. In addition assuming Canon are grouping the RGGB pixels under a single micro lens then there will be the issue of double green sensitivity compared to R and B. This may have an impact on noise as you must either reduce the green sensitivity or increase the R and B gain which will increase noise.There are pro's and cons to 2x2 CFA and Bayer. 2x2 CFA has been around since the 90's yet is rarely used. A really good example of the issues that can be caused when not using bayer is Sony's F35 which has 2 pixels for each colour in a stripe array, yet has some pretty bad aliasing artefacts.

Highlight handling will be a function of many factors including the sensor itself and the way the signal is processed and the gamma curve used. The blown out highlights could be many things, simply bad lighting, bad post production or web encoding. But it could also be poor signal processing in the camera. The whole lack of a 10 bit output does ring alarm bells as to what bit depth the DSP is working at.

Ultimately we'll have to wait and see, but one thing is sure sure, with only an 8 bit output your options are more limited than with cameras with a 10 bit output. However if you don't want or need to record externally the C300 ticks many boxes.