Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...

[Mark David Williams]

But what use is 4k? How can you see the extra defination on anything other than a cinema screen and even then could you tell a difference. Wouldn't you need to strain to see differences? Who is going to blow up their film to such huge proportions. Okay it would be good for film transfers or special effects but for the consumer isnt it going to be meaningless By all means have 4k if its no extra but isnt it to allow manufacturers to sell more equipment and not really in the consumers interest isnt this all just a ploy? As everyone will need bigger hard drives peripherals editing upgrades monitors you name it will need replacing and the manufacturers can sell shed loads of new equipment. Something the consumer doesnt need to create a NEW market. great marketing but a bit of a con I would think.

[David Heath]

Part of me agrees with you, Mark. And, of course, we don't even know whether the announcement to come will mean 4k, or even a new camera at all - let alone a Red/Canon liasion.

It's also worth asking exactly what is meant by "4k"? It may sound obvious, but are we talking about a full 4k output resolution, a 4k Bayer sensor, or what? They are very different things! Just because a camera calls itself "1080p" doesn't mean it necessarily does anything like full justice to the format - just that that's the form of signal output. The AF100 doesn't even make 720p resolution, the FS100 is short of full 1080p - but they still call themselves "1080 cameras".

What I'd like to see may be a camera with a 4k sensor, and capable of recording a 4k RAW Bayer output. Because it is RAW, we're not talking about huge data rates, relatively. Even if you want to end up with 1080 as the final result, that will still give great leeway for post correction, garding etc and the final result should make the most of the 1080p output format. I'd also like to see the capability of recording 1080p as well, and would hope for a broadcast codec - XDCAM422 is the most likely from Canon - for some people who haven't got the facilities, time or resources to deal with RAW 4k, that would still be much better than AVC-HD or the hassle of an external recorder.

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

That doesn't mean that it's a Super 35 sensor Scarlet, You could have the 2/3" Scarlet, using RAW being considered superior in every respect to a 1080p Canon with a Super 35 sensor. For many productions the 2/3" sensor would be the better tool to use and there's no reason why they couldn't have a 4k sensor on such a camera. It's still a new camera in the market, even if it doesn't appear so after numerous threads on REDUser ,

When asked about his new Epic-S-less roadmap, Jannard replied, "The camera you want is later this year." I doubt those interested in it would be satisfied with a 2/3-inch camera. Unless Red announces another camera between now and the end of the year, Scarlet looks to be that camera. Besides, I find it hard to imagine that Jannard would concede sensor size to Canon (if indeed Canon's announcement concerns a video camera and it has a large sensor). Sensor size may be overhyped, but it does seem important to a lot of people.

[Brian Drysdale]

RED is great at the speculation game, although, I suspect the sales numbers would be larger for a 2/3" camera than a large sensor camera. There are a lot of EX1 & EX3 plus other cameras being used on productions that would find a lower cost 2/3" camera rather handy replacement, however, the RAW workflow isn't for everyone.

I expect RED will do whatever it feels like and perhaps RED feels it has to match the FS100, F3 and the possible Canon because the big boys now are now stepping onto their pitch.

If a large sensor Canon has a HD broadcast accepted codec in the FS100/F3 price range, it'll be interesting to see how quickly Sony responds.

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

RED is great at the speculation game, although, I suspect the sales numbers would be larger for a 2/3" camera than a large sensor camera. There are a lot of EX1 & EX3 plus other cameras being used on productions that would find a lower cost 2/3" camera rather handy replacement, however, the RAW workflow isn't for everyone.

The sales numbers are also much higher for 1/3-inch cameras. Maybe Jannard feels that 2/3-inch's time has come and gone, at least for the market he's targeting (i.e., digital cinema, not ENG or event photography).

I expect RED will do whatever it feels like and perhaps RED feels it has to match the FS100, F3 and the possible Canon because the big boys now are now stepping onto their pitch.

The weird thing is, a year ago, the price of Scarlet S35 stood at $7K or so. Then it was moved onto the Epic platform, and its price effectively doubled. But the market you cited, FS100 and F3, represents a nearly $10K spread, so maybe Scarlet will still fit in there.

[Brian Drysdale]

I wouldn't count documentaries as ENG (Electronic News Gathering) or event, RED seem to have put a lot of effort into developing a 2/3" camera, which does seem to have a market from the level of interest expressed on REDUser. I suspect there would be as many people unhappy about losing the smaller sensor camera as it being replace by a cheap large sensor camera.

I'm sure there will be people shooting events on a cheap large sensor RED camera, just as they do at present with the current such cameras.

Best not take everything at face value, just whatever and whenever it turns up.

[Robert Turchick]

4k is something ive been wishing for since getting into greenscreen and compositing. Not that 1080p is bad but the extra resolution would be nice.

Having the larger frame size would allow me to shoot full body and zoom to a head and shoulders without having to re-frame the shot since we still output to 1080p for most of our work. Instead of me operating two cameras or hiring another shooter, I would end up with some choices in the edit process that can't be done with one camera at 1080p.

So while I have no use for 4k output, 4k acquisition is a whole different use that I am looking forward to! And the ability to use my EF lenses with control is a major plus...whos gonna win my biz? Canon or Red?

[Don Parrish]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

But what use is 4k? How can you see the extra defination on anything other than a cinema screen and even then could you tell a difference. Wouldn't you need to strain to see differences? Who is going to blow up their film to such huge proportions. Okay it would be good for film transfers or special effects but for the consumer isnt it going to be meaningless By all means have 4k if its no extra but isnt it to allow manufacturers to sell more equipment and not really in the consumers interest isnt this all just a ploy? As everyone will need bigger hard drives peripherals editing upgrades monitors you name it will need replacing and the manufacturers can sell shed loads of new equipment. Something the consumer doesnt need to create a NEW market. great marketing but a bit of a con I would think.

Especially Mark when the specs are observed. Wikipedia is not always perfect, but they say that Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) is pursuing UHDTV. Which is 16 times the data of HD. Unlike current HD, 4k does not denote vertical pixels like 720p or 1080p, 4k denotes horizontal pixels. ( A confusing statement ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

UHDTV's main tentative specifications:[3]

Number of pixels: 7,680 × 4,320
Aspect ratio: 16:9
Viewing distance: 0.75H
Viewing angle: 100°
Colorimetry: under discussion
Frame rate: 120Hz progressive
Bit depth: 12
Audio system: 22.2ch
Sampling rate: 48kHz, 96kHz
Bit length: 16, 20, 24
Pre-emphasis less
Number of channels: 24
Upper layer: 9ch
Middle layer: 10ch
Lower layer: 3ch
LFE: 2ch

Hopefully it will have a selectable format for current HD.

[Mark David Williams]

Yes of course 4k has professional uses and is a real breakthrough at the high end but what use is it to the general public except to persuade them they need it and sell all the peripherals. Probably like the err 3d gimmic camera's ;)

The scarlet I was under the impression to be a prosumer camera. I dont mind if it has 4k res as long as it can do 2k and that side is well catered to.

[Brian Drysdale]

I don't think RED do prosumer as such, they say that they're aiming their cameras at professionals.

RED could make a number of announcements rather than just one, but what the products are, other than one is called Scarlet remains to be seen.There could easily be details of two cameras being announced or other products.

They may even be responding to the Sony F65, the range is pretty wide.

[Mark David Williams]

Brian I may have this wrong but I thought Jim Jannard wanted to make cameras that indie film makers could afford and to end the rip off cycle where new crippled models come out that make consumers keep having to upgrade to the next best thing. His idea of a brain and accessories,upgrades etc born from that thinking and the prime reason we ended up with the breakthrough EX1 although the F3 has seen a return to the old ways Hopefully now this ends NOV 3RD D DAY!

[Steve Connor]

Why is Sony returning to it's old ways with the F3?

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

Brian I may have this wrong but I thought Jim Jannard wanted to make cameras that indie film makers could afford and to end the rip off cycle where new crippled models come out that make consumers keep having to upgrade to the next best thing.

I guess he regards them as professional cameras at affordable prices, certainly he has declared on REDUser that they make professional cameras. The price of the Scarlet has seemed to have drifted up from the original announced, although so has the specification. I wouldn't look at the base price and think that's the cost of a shooting kit.

I think Sony regard the FS100 as the indie film maker camera, rather than the F3. Regardless, there will always be better cameras than the indie film makers can afford.

[Mark David Williams]

This post is my opinon and not neccesarily correct but believe it to be so from what is well obviously out there.

Steve the F3 is out of reach of most of us taking it back to the professional realm with pro pockets. the consumer version is in my opinion the ill made FS100.

When Jim Jannard announced the Red Sony bought out the EX1 To me it seemed almost as if fear of what he was going to do had made Sonys decision to try and pre empt it.

Brian it is not in dispute there will always be cameras indie film makers cannot afford and rightly so . I think though if Panasonic can make the NEW 250 with a fantastic lens 20bit processor 10 bit 4.2.2 out for £4000 then I'm damn sure sony can make an equivelent lens free large sensor camera instead of adding a few fancy bells and whistles and selling it for £12000 as an f3. Overpriced in my opinion but then the Pro market is happy to accept expensive equipment especially here in the UK where the BBC forces everyone with a TV to buy a licence. And it is my opinion thats what will happen on NOV 3RD D DAY for Sony and all the other manufacturers who have crippled cameras for years as slow but sure canon enter the fray Sony have kept markets seperate to please pro's and keep that market hyper inflated too.. Most if the public have been denied the opportunity to participate and make films that has changed a lot already and I believe much of this change came about purely because of Sonys fear of Jim Jannard a really big fish who had enough Sonys fearful release of the EX1 and access to real HD instead of the psuedo HDV that kept the markets seperate and then we watched the rise of the ofboard recorders heheh cant beat the ingenuity of the small fish. Yes business and capitilism takes no prisoners and that is why capitilism must always be tempered with democracy and laws. Especially competition laws and unfair practices. That is why there is competition rules and why sometimes companies get into trouble. I hope nov 3rd will hopefully be a new beginning and I will look forward to it!

[Brian Drysdale]

To be honest, people haven't been prevented from making films. It's never been easier to make films, the costs are lower than they have ever been. It's nothing to do with the cameras, you can make a successful film in every respect with a camera that came out several years ago. The hard part lies within the creative process itself and gathering the people together who will enable a good film to be made.

Waiting for the next best thing in cameras as an answer is delusional, the tools are already to hand.