Friday
Nov212008
I may complain a lot...
Friday, November 21, 2008 at 12:25AM …but this little guy looks pretty sweet.
This appears to be the fixed-lens Scarlet design. In this configuration it’s like a digital Bolex H16.
Remember that films shot on 16mm have won Academy Awards, and that 2/3” HD video cameras currently cost $14,000 and up.
Reader Comments (13)
Zombie mode activated. MUST HAVE BRAINS, Err, RED! MUST HAVE RED!!!
Since this is around the same sized sensor as a Panasonic LX3, how do you think the photos will come out? The only downside is an LX3 can take 11.3 Megapixel photos while this Scarlet 2/3" brain can only take 4.9 Megapixels. The upside is the RED has interchangeable lens', 120fps, and shoots 3k video (the sweet spot). Now what exactly would an image at 3072X1620 be used for? Is that enough resolution to print and is it a big enough sensor to get decent DOF?
Lastly, remember if you want to make this photo fully functioning for video you still need to add the bulky I/O module... Wish they would build a simple module just for dual mini xlr input or even better yet build it straight into the REDhandle...
Any thoughts on this Stu?
Looks sweet. I like that design.
As for 3k for stills, it still uses a better lens and should have less noise than your average 3k still camera, so... (but the sensor still seems too small, looks smaller than original four thirds, am I right?)
Having made a feature on the HVX (720p), and projected it on a ridiculously huge screen (Brendan Theaters at the Palms, Vegas, anyone? Wooo! [Takes shirt off]), I would say:
3k + RAW files and a high dynamic range... those are going to be great looking images. This footage will be less noisy and sharper than the HVX rig, which looks great when projected. And most stuff shot nowadays won't end up in a theater, it'll be on someone's HD TV or monitor, and it's going to look gorgeous and sharp on there.
Yes, it's a big enough sensor to get a decent DOF, because Super16 and the HVX+Lens adapter achieves a decent DOF. (Unless I misunderstand what decent means in this context. Do I?)
This one's clearly not a DSLR replacement, it's for those new fangled talking pictures that the kids are all jazzed about.
The comparison to the Bolex is spot on. This is a really cool rig.
I worked on an IMAX film with glorious high resolution footage and it was one of the most boring and badly produced film I have ever laid my hands on. Not even a 28k camera could have saved this turd.
Then I see films like Aronofsky's The Wrestler that was shot on S16mm and it reminds me:
Amidst all that ultra high resolution crap, content is still the key.
Stu,
Did you see that Ikonoskop finally released a tiny bit of dII footage?
http://www.ikonoskop.com/dii/footage/
Not enough to really judge the camera, but a promising start.
I never thought I'd say it, but I totally miss the Bolex H16. I remember making friends with people in the equipment room at school so I could get the few with the tripod lens mount. And changing film on the floor of a dark bathroom. Yeah, you'd curse the heavens when you wasted a day of shooting and got footage full of light leaks, but we did everything with that camera, even stop motion animation. I might have been better off (at least professionally) learning the new DVXs that were hidden away from the narrative students, but there was nothing like those moments when you got film back from the lab and threw it up on the projector.
I even fell off a log into a creek with one of them, carefully cradling the thing as I went down. Dusted the Bolex off and it kept going. Built like a tank and capable of really stunning images when you got over the learning curve.
that is pretty sweet but its still gonna be close to 6k$ with reasonable accessories no?
great price overall i guess but at that point wouldn't it be better to get the lens mount option and be able to have some more choices? i guess that adds glass price so maybe im arguing against myself in the long run.
its gonna make some nice imagery and but i just wish it could do better stills and meet in the middle somewhere specwise to a DSLR.
Yeah...there is seldom any mention of how talents plays a role. I guess we assume we all have that... "If we only had the equipment!" Ha. I know I cannot make a movie... but I still want a "high end" camera... It's difficult to explain. I keep feeling like I'll somehow accidently trip and fall with my new RED camera, and a movie will get accidentally recorded.
I don't think anyone dispute's that Red's technology isn't very cool. It's great stuff designed for maximum flexibility. However, I have a few problems with it. I'd say very conservatively the price for that rig is $4K and more realistically closer to $5K - $6K. While it kicks the ass of it's competitors in that price range it still has some serious limitations: The tiny LCD is practically useless for anything but general shot playback review, the handles give you an SLR type of feel, but you can't really use it like an SLR (no viewfinder), and the resolution pales in comparison to even the most modest SLR costing $600 - $800, not to mention the limitation of only 8x glass.
So, in the end it's kind of a mixed bag. Personally, I was willing to put up with the shortcomings given the original price, but now it's beyond my means so I look elsewhere. Both the Panasonic G1 HD and the Canon 500D will be out next year. And while they too will have limitations at least they'll be in a price range I can afford.
Hey Stu, I don't think this is the fixed lens model, but the next one: the interchangeable lens 2500$ body. I can see the interchangeable mount corner screws. It must be one of the Mini-Red mount lenses.
Besides, I think they're keeping the fixed one under wraps, trying to call your attention to the 28K in their left hand while they try to get the fixed lens design/price/provider problem fixed with their right hand.
They must be aware of the criticism, after they promised 3k for 3k.
I won't be surprised one bit if many of new announcements go the way of Red One's uncompressed port (cancelled) or their 20K$ prime set (delayed until next notice) and only the most sensible models get to the market.
WARNING:
This post is all pure speculation.
Sorry guys, try http://www.printfection.com/prolost" REL="nofollow">this link instead (thanks Brian, commissions paid in the form of beer).
Since Red's initial unveiling of Scarlet in April, the fixed-lens model has apparently been downgraded in several ways.
Scarlet 1.0 was projected to cost less than $3,000 and was said to be functional out of the box; the only extra cost would be CF cards. The redesigned Scarlet will, if all goes well, come in under $4,000, according to Jim Jannard. Does this mean $1,000 more? Who knows? The sub-$4,000 figure could refer to a configuration equivalent to the original, or it might refer only to the fixed-lens "brain." But it appears that Scarlet will cost substantially more.
Red has billed Scarlet as a 16:9 3K camera. In response to a query entitled "What does the 5k, 4k, 3k...etc. mean?????," http://www.scarletuser.com/showpost.php?p=984&postcount=3" REL="nofollow">Jon Sagud said, "Specifically, it refers to the horizontal dimension of the area captured. . . . 3K at 16:9 is 3072 x 1728 . . ." Even http://www.scarletuser.com/showpost.php?p=20642&postcount=3" REL="nofollow">Jim Jannard used the 3,072 x 1,728 figure: "3K is 2.5 times the resolution of 2K at 16:9... unless my math is suspect. 2048x1152= 2,359,296 . . . 3072x1728= 5,308,416." According to the latest information from Red, however, the 2/3-inch Mysterium-X sensor has a total pixel count of 3,072 x 1,620, or 4.9 MP. This computes to an aspect ratio of about 1.89:1, assuming that all the pixels are active. To get to the industry-standard aspect ratio of 1.85:1, the horizontal pixel count drops to 2,997, assuming again that all 1,620 vertical pixels are active (i.e., there is no vertical "padding" [inactive pixels]); for an aspect ratio of 16:9, it drops to 2,880, for a total pixel count of 4.6 MP. Thus, it seems that Red has changed not only the active pixel count but also what it means by 3K, from the "horizontal dimension of the area captured" to the "total horizontal pixel count, whether or not all of them are captured in the image." For a 16:9 aspect ratio, 2/3-inch Mysterium-X's pixel count has dropped from a minimum of 5.3 MP to a maximum of 4.6 MP.
The burst rate (5 seconds) has dropped from 180 to 150 fps, that is from 50% more than the maximum sustained frame rate (120 fps) to 25% more. Some people don't think that's important. Maybe they're right. But it is very significant statistically.
Scarlet 1.0 was supposed to support Redcode up to 100 MBps. The revised design supports Redcode 42. According to Red, these two figures can't be compared. Although Redcode 28 previously meant, I believe, 28 MBps, the new Redcode designations are quality levels, so it may be that at higher frame rates Redcode 42 needs up to 100 MBps. But Red hasn't confirm this. I suspect that Scarlet now maxes out well below 100 MBps.
The original specs also included support for 1080p RGB. I haven't seen that anywhere in the in the new specs.
The one bright spot may be that Scarlet's zoom lens is now purportedly T2.4, with a constant T-stop over the zoom range, a half stop faster than the original design's T2.8. But near the end of August, well before he announced that Scarlet was being completely redesigned, http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=277174&postcount=1" REL="nofollow">Jim Jannard said, "Scarlet has been talked about extensively. It is a 3K, 120fps camera with a built-in 8X zoom that starts at 28mm (full frame still 35mm) wide angle. The T-stop will be 'at least' as published." So a higher-speed zoom was at least considered for the original Scarlet design.
Make no mistake -- 3K Scarlet is revolutionary. But some of the current specs are less revolutionary that the original ones. Red hyped and hyped "3K for less than $3K," but it has yet to admit that made it made a big mistake in doing so. And it has been less than forthcoming about the changes in some of the specs it once trumpeted.