Scarlet At $10K

Brian Drysdale · November 11th, 2011, 01:56 PM

I don't think soccer moms ever entered the equation other than as a good one liner. Much of the demand for 2/3" Scarlet seems to be as a 16mm film replacement, for those more personal pieces where the control of RAW can work, The live studio and ENG is well covered and doesn't really need or have the time for that level of post involvement.

What has been shown on the REDUser threads on the Scarlet is that not everyone wants a shallow DOF effect. This works with some stories, but not others, plus the increased risk of out of focus shots when filming fast moving subjects.

The fixed zoom Scarlet did offer a lot to those documentaries that in recent years have been shot on 1/3" cameras, often because the budgets didn't allow the use of more expensive cameras. I gather there was problems maintaining the focus as it zoomed, so there appears to be some more development required. Although, RED seemed to always be upbeat about this lens until after the new Scarlet was announced.

Bart Walczak · November 12th, 2011, 03:58 AM

Personally I would welcome the 2/3" Scarlet with fixed lens. Frankly, I was waiting exactly for this, but at certain point it became obvious, that it is not going to happen. Which is a pity. As much as RED ONE was a disruptive technology, I fail to see current Scarlet as such. It is of course natural to try to increase one's yield by utilising chips that fall outside of spec, CPU companies do it all the time. But it's hardly a breakthrough in any way. A good analogy would be Intel i7 = EPIC, and i3 = Scarlet.

I think comparing 2/3" to new Canon or Epic is like comparing apples and oranges. I won't take C300 for a three weeks trip to Siberia, I won't take it to do ENG work or documentary about sport or martial arts events. Shallow DOF is not something you always want, and like other people said - there is a market for good, inexpensive 2/3" replacement of Super 16mm. To have a 2/3" sensor at 120 fps with HDR would be amazing, even if it only recorded 2K, and didn't have superb low-light peformance of 4/3".

There was a possibility to fill in that gap, but it looks like it's not going to happen, with RED being flooded with orders for their cameras. Perhaps other companies will step up, but I'm not holding my breath.

Chris Hurd · November 14th, 2011, 08:01 AM

Thanks to everyone for their input.

Please continue the discussion at RED's official forum:

Reduser.net :: The online Community for digital filmmaking

Much appreciated,

November 11th, 2011, 01:56 PM	#76
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,152	Re: Scarlet At $10K I don't think soccer moms ever entered the equation other than as a good one liner. Much of the demand for 2/3" Scarlet seems to be as a 16mm film replacement, for those more personal pieces where the control of RAW can work, The live studio and ENG is well covered and doesn't really need or have the time for that level of post involvement. What has been shown on the REDUser threads on the Scarlet is that not everyone wants a shallow DOF effect. This works with some stories, but not others, plus the increased risk of out of focus shots when filming fast moving subjects. The fixed zoom Scarlet did offer a lot to those documentaries that in recent years have been shot on 1/3" cameras, often because the budgets didn't allow the use of more expensive cameras. I gather there was problems maintaining the focus as it zoomed, so there appears to be some more development required. Although, RED seemed to always be upbeat about this lens until after the new Scarlet was announced.

November 12th, 2011, 03:58 AM	#77
Bart Walczak Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Warsaw/Poland Posts: 716	Re: Scarlet At $10K Personally I would welcome the 2/3" Scarlet with fixed lens. Frankly, I was waiting exactly for this, but at certain point it became obvious, that it is not going to happen. Which is a pity. As much as RED ONE was a disruptive technology, I fail to see current Scarlet as such. It is of course natural to try to increase one's yield by utilising chips that fall outside of spec, CPU companies do it all the time. But it's hardly a breakthrough in any way. A good analogy would be Intel i7 = EPIC, and i3 = Scarlet. I think comparing 2/3" to new Canon or Epic is like comparing apples and oranges. I won't take C300 for a three weeks trip to Siberia, I won't take it to do ENG work or documentary about sport or martial arts events. Shallow DOF is not something you always want, and like other people said - there is a market for good, inexpensive 2/3" replacement of Super 16mm. To have a 2/3" sensor at 120 fps with HDR would be amazing, even if it only recorded 2K, and didn't have superb low-light peformance of 4/3". There was a possibility to fill in that gap, but it looks like it's not going to happen, with RED being flooded with orders for their cameras. Perhaps other companies will step up, but I'm not holding my breath. __________________ Creative Impatience - The Solace of Simple Solutions. A few useful plugins for Adobe users, and my remarks on the tools and the craft in general.

November 14th, 2011, 08:01 AM	#78
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Re: Scarlet At $10K Thanks to everyone for their input. Please continue the discussion at RED's official forum: Reduser.net :: The online Community for digital filmmaking Much appreciated, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!