Does this mean no cheapie Scarlets?

[DaFireMedic]

I must say, i would have been happy with the original $3000 concept camera. Very happy.

I agree, I really wanted RED to succeed with the "3k for 3k" idea. My dad retired as manager of manufacturing for a major aerospace company, and he always has opinions about how to pull stuff like this off. Things like engineering only what you must, buying everything else from vendors who specialize in such components. Hiring engineers with experience in pulling off similar projects (such as hiring an engineer away from Canon to head that project), keeping the feature set to just the necessities needed by the target buyer to keep the price within range of semi-pros and serious amateurs. There are many out there right now clamoring for a DSLR (or better) sensor inside a video camera form factor.

I don't know all the inside stuff, and Jannard didn't amass a $3 billion net worth by being dumb, so he obviously knows a thing or two about business.

[1]

amass a $3 billion net worth by being dumb

Probably not, but keep in mind that it also doesn't take great intelligence to amass buckets full of cash.
There ARE plenty of dumb rich persons, you know!

MAL's life lesson #25'760:

Wealth ≠ Intelligence



...and yes, if you wondered, #25'761 is:
Dumbness ≠ Poverty

[DaFireMedic]

Probably not, but keep in mind that it also doesn't take great intelligence to amass buckets full of cash.
There ARE plenty of dumb rich persons, you know!

MAL's life lesson #25'760:

Wealth ≠ Intelligence

Yes, I know.....lol. I'm just trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

[Duke]

For the person who posted several posts back saying the Scarlet was going to cause a huge decrease in the cost of making a movie, the camera is one of the cheapest components when rented as pro companies often do.

Talent and crew are the two biggest expenses. Yeah, you can get friends to do it, but you're eating up time, trouble and hidden expenses.

Your other equipment is near as expensive as the camera.

Your work comp and liability insurance are a good size expense. Not having insurance is a really bad idea. An LLC is a good idea to add to your insurance, but out here has an $800 per year state fee.

Costumes, locations, props, media etc all have to be added in.

[Halsu]

For the person who posted several posts back saying the Scarlet was going to cause a huge decrease in the cost of making a movie, the camera is one of the cheapest components when rented as pro companies often do.

Yep.

[Duke]

Hiring engineers with experience in pulling off similar projects (such as hiring an engineer away from Canon to head that project), keeping the feature set to just the necessities needed by the target buyer to keep the price within range of semi-pros and serious amateurs. There are many out there right now clamoring for a DSLR (or better) sensor inside a video camera form factor.

Janard has already said he's not aiming at the semi-pros or serious amateurs. I'm wondering how many will move to the AF100 with its m4/3 sensor (almost S35 size) and video camera features. When I read this I thought Jim J was losing a good size piece of his market for the Scarlet.

I'm not saying the AF100 has RAW or as high a resolution, but if it works as promised it will have 35mm type DOF and get rid of most (or all) of the problems of the DSLRs. All at a price that's half that of the Scarlet S35.

[cgbier]

I'm wondering if the Pana really turns out well the "cheap" Red will still be needed at all.

[DaFireMedic]

Janard has already said he's not aiming at the semi-pros or serious amateurs.

Maybe, but for the last 2 years he's been leading on a bunch of semi-pros and serious amateurs over on the RED forum with announcements and announcements of upcoming announcements. It appears he's pulled the rug out from under them, referring to them as "almost right".

[jordanService]

I find all the conversation funny. When I first saw the barn footage that Erikbein posted I had goosebumps. I live in florida and shooting in the hot sun is crazy, so I know what it's like dealing with intense light. I am sorry duke but your example for a "flat" look just doesn't really hold up. I mean the shot doesn't come close to the lighting scenario that's in the red footage.

I bought a t2i I am super happy with it. But when the scarlet comes out, it will offer some thing that no other camera even comes close to offering. People who aren't impressed by red, just don't get it.

[1]

People who aren't impressed by red, just don't get it.

Maybe that needs some elaboration:

People who aren't impressed by RED's available products, just don't get it.
People who are impressed by RED's unavailable products, are fanbois.

[Duke]

I am sorry duke but your example for a "flat" look just doesn't really hold up. I mean the shot doesn't come close to the lighting scenario that's in the red footage.

Sorry, but that was my point. Not that I had produced increased dynamic range, but just that I handled the dynamic range differently. When you grade that footage you end up in pretty much the same place. When you make it flat you can see more details, but when you want film like blacks you lose shadow detail, etc.

Hence, my question to Erik about grading the footage. And as he admitted (and we all really know) that when its graded that footage won't hold what you assume to be the DR. I'm not saying its bad what they did, I'm just saying you can't make assumptions of the dynamic range based on that footage.

I have a lot of respect for what the Red One became. I would have been frustrated with the early models/builds though.