RED DSMC specs detailed, prices start at $28,000 for EPIC-X, lower-end Scarlet still vague
By Paul Miller 
posted Oct 30th 2009 7:29PM
posted Oct 30th 2009 7:29PM
Scarlet 2/3-inch features
- Increased REDCODE data rates
- New FLUT Color, Gamma and Sensitivity Science. Now same as EPIC.
- More extensive modular system integration.
- Interchangeable Lens mounts including focus and iris control of electronic RED, Canon and Nikon lenses, along with Zoom data (Scarlet 2/3" Interchangeable)
- "Touch Focus Tracking" with electronic lens mounts and RED touchscreen LCD's (Scarlet 2/3" Interchangeable and 8x Fixed)
- Two independent microphone level channels, balanced input circuits, 48V Phantom Power, digitized at 24-bit 48KHz.
- GigaBit Ethernet port
- Scaled 1080P at 60fps
- New MYSTERIUM-X 5K sensor
- 5K (2:1) at 1-100fps
- 4K (2:1) at 1-125fps
- Quad HD at 1-120fps
- 3K (2:1) at 1-160fps
- 2K (2:1) at 1-250fps
- 1080P (scaled from full frame) at 1-60fps
- Increased Dynamic Range, reduced noise
- Time Lapse, Frame Ramping
- REDCODE 250
- ISO 200-8000
- New FLUT Color Science
- Completely Modular System, each Module individually upgradeable
- Independent Stills and Motion Modes (both record full resolution REDCODE RAW)
- 5 Axis Adjustable Sensor Plate
- Multiple Recording Media Options (Compact Flash, 1.8" SSD, RED Drives, RED RAM)
- Wireless REDMOTE control
- Touchscreen LCD control option
- Bomb-EVF, RED-EVF and RED-LCD compatible
- Multiple User Control Buttons
- Interchangeable Lens mounts including focus and iris control of electronic RED, Canon and Nikon lenses (along with Zoom data)
- "Touch Focus Tracking" with electronic lens mounts and RED Touchscreen LCDs
- LDS and /i Data enabled PL Mount
- Rollover Battery Power
- Independent LUTs on Monitor Outputs
- Independent Frame Guides and Menu overlays on Monitor Outputs
- Monitor Ports support both LCD and EVF
- True Shutter Sync In/Out and Strobe Sync Out
- 720P, 1080P and 2K monitoring support
- Gigagbit Network interface and 802.11 Wireless interface
- 3 Axis internal motion sensor, built in GPS receiver
- Enhanced Metadata
- Full size connectors on Pro I/O Module. AES Digital Audio input, single and dual link HD-SDI
- Support for RED, most Arri 19mm, Studio 15mm, 15mm Lite, Panavision and NATO accessories
- Dimensions- Approx. 4"x4"x5.5"
- Weight (Brain only)- Approx. 6 lbs (2.72kg)
(looks at price)
.....shit dude
Considering that cameras like, say, a Sony CineAlta F23 (which can't shoot at these resolutions and framerates, not even close) have a MSRP of $150,000, it should be obvious that yes, this is a killer price point... Of course all the accessories are very expensive, but that's true of any professional camera of that level.
@Marc-O
Yes I know that this is cheap relatively speaking to other professional cameras...but still. Not so used to these numbers.
I guarantee that the F23 and F35s perform better than the Epic. There's a reason the CineAltas cost that much. The CCDs in the F35 are stripped from a much higher resolution sensor - so it records at 1080p - but it is very close to film's dynamic range.
Once again, resolution isn't everything - let's not forget. You can buy a 12 megapixel camera for $400 and it won't compare to a $5,000 Nikon D3.
@Bryan F
Well thanks Brian for schooling me about how resolution isn't everything, but I'm a little bit aware of these things already, as a DP and director. My point was, at $28,000, it's very cheap in comparison, while competing with much more expensive rigs. Notice that I wasn't mentioning the F35, but let's see how they compare nonetheless when the product is actually out... I have a hunch you'll be surprised.
One thing you said leaves me wondering though: "The CCDs in the F35 are stripped from a much higher resolution sensor - so it records at 1080p - but it is very close to film's dynamic range" - what exactly do you think pixel resolution has to do with dynamic range ?
What I meant is that the sensor is stripped with a Bayer filter - so the sensor is insanely accurate in terms of color reproduction. They could have kept the high resolution - but then the CCD wouldn't have been as dynamic.
Not to say that I'm anti-Red. But you've also got CMOS rolling shutter issues on Red cameras. Major studios will probably stick with CCDs until the rolling shutter problem is improved.
Anyway, sorry if I sounded condescending - didn't mean to come off like that.
"I guarantee that the F23 and F35s perform better than the Epic."
Well, I took a look at Public Enemies, shot on the F23, and it looked like ass.
>>Well, I took a look at Public Enemies, shot on the F23, and it looked like ass.
What are you talking about? Public Enemies doesn't look like ass. Besides, the Sony F23 and F35/Genesis is commonly used for major Hollywood films. That's why its been used in movies from everything from Sin City, Star Wars, 21, to Zombieland.
The Red is still relegated to Indie films like The Argentine and Guerrilla. But that's not a bad thing. When your budget are in the millions of dollars, the cost of the camera is the last thing you want to worry about. Red serves a very important role. Its silly to compare a Red to a F35/Genesis, like it is to compare a 5DII/7D to a Red. They each serve their own niche, their own market. Same goes for equipment from Arriflex, Silicon imaging, etc.
Enter The Digital Age Short Film Competition to WIN the 2/3" Fixed RED SCARLET at http://sKarlets.com
"What are you talking about? Public Enemies doesn't look like ass."
OK, well, if you think grid noise patterns in dark areas, pink smears on lights (similar to those seen in the digital portions of Collateral), and a period movie entirely composed of close-ups and medium shots doesn't look like ass, then your standards should allow you to enjoy a wide range of crap.
It's 1930s Chicago, but you'd never know it from watching this movie. There's not one wide shot of... well, just about anything. Not an iconic street. Nothing even to validate that we're in Chicago. The Untouchables was shot on film, an an era without digital post, and it manages to encompass downtown locations.
So why would that be? Perhaps because the image quality was so poor that they couldn't afford to have the audience scrutinizing small details, like buildings in the distance. Much the same reason you don't see but one wide shot in 28 Days Later, which was shot on DV. People don't notice piss-poor resolution as much when all you have is close-ups.
Public Enemies is a claustrophobic bore.
Only $28,000??? What a steal! This will be the perfect accessory to my Xperia Pureness phone.
Whoa
/Joey Lawrence
Dammm...
Oh c'mon. $28,000. Now let's see, an overpriced piece of metal from "Terminator"... I'll pass.
Where is my Canon 5D mkII?? I will rather use the change on a new car.
What a monster.
that's what she said
^ That's what your mum said.
Why does that thing look like a G1 Megatron in an alternate transform mode?
...and you know some 16 year old is gonna be totting this one around town just to prove a point.
Transformer G1 Reflector.
what an amazing company, they say they will revolutionise the stills camera market, and all they do is say "Hey, get this, a video camera that does stills or vice versa, whoah, cool huh" and a day or so later canon reveal the 5d MKII which does just that. ,then RED go quiet and we dont see anything, then they do this, awesome, maybe RED needs telephones or the internet or something
kinda looks like a tonka toy..
wow. with the original RED i enjoyed telling productions i would need twice as many lights if they wanted it to look good maybe now i can get 4 times as many lights. i dont know about you guys, but i kind of like contrast in my frames.
I think the general trend with sensors is to get better with each iteration not worse.
"Increased Dynamic Range, reduced noise"
So why would you need more lights with this than the RED One? I've shot with the RED One and I certainly didn't need twice as many lights to get good contrast and a properly exposed image. Maybe the problem isn't that the camera needs tons more lights, but that you need to learn to light better.
The Red One suffers from washed-out images, both in terms of color and contrast. Try to find a good blue in any Red footage.
People may balk at the price point, but this camera's main competition are the $100,000+ film cameras from the likes of Arri and Panavision. And you can't even legally buy one of those. Granted a full shooting package will push the price north of say $60,000, but that is still a steal for something you can actually buy.
Film will never die, but RED is giving it a helluhva run for it's money.
you can buy Arri cameras. Panavision doesn't sell them, but plenty of places have them on loan. The reason they do it is so they can be sure they are kept maintained to their standards. I don't think there is anything legal about it, Panavision just doesn't sell them. It's the same with technocrane, fisher, and chapman-leonard; they don't sell them so that it is less likely that a badly maintained one goes to set where it could cost 100's of thousands for a lost day of work because some jackass put the wrong ground glass in.
As far as the money goes. If you're shooting anything over about 20 minutes (I forget the exact number of minutes) it costs the same or more to shoot on the Red because of the high cost of post and what not.
I don't mean to sound like I hate innovation, quite the opposite really, but I do hate it when people (kids and producers mainly) don't understand quite everything and then it screws us all on set because they didn't know the facts.
I'm not a kid or producer and have done RED DIT work. It is not more expensive to shoot on RED at all. Hell, my MacBook Pro can do the post work for the camera and I've seen plenty of much cheaper, film rivaling footage from the camera. Film is certainly not cheaper, but it is a 100 year old, well tested and know technology. Nothing against film, truly, but RED is making it so non-film industry people can make quality films (quality looking anyway...story is another matter for another day).
I've been on both film and RED sets and RED is cheaper....even if you have a Scratch system RED is still cheaper.
I can guarantee you that if you want to spend your hard earned dollars and buy a top of the line film camera from Pana/Arri/Aaton/whoever, you can do so without breaking any laws... Provided you don't buy it from the back of a truck in a back alley somewhere. ;)
But why do they have to make it look cheap and stupid?
They differentiate themselves. And they're doing it very well! :)
I love REDs, but they're too expensive for my needs. I'm still holding my breath for the Scarlet 2/3.
Engadget used a picture of the prototype camera, which doesn't accurately reflect how the finished production model looks. I think the prototype is pretty ugly looking as well, but check out red.com to see renders of what it will look like when completed and wearing black instead of silver.
(that was for Saint Dumb, above... Damn comment system.)
This post is a bit misleading about the Scarlet cameras. The features posted by Red are those that are being added to the Scarlet since the last announcement. It isn't a 1080p camera; that's just one possible resolution option. The lowest tier of Scarlet camera will shoot 3k resolution at high frame rates. It's not really in the same category as video-capable D-SLR's. I realize that Engadget is just covering today's announcement, but in the case of the Scarlet, there's a lot more to the camera than the few things Red is currently adding.
Yes, but video capable DSLRs have much larger sensors... as soon as it gets dark I suppose the DSLRs will be superior. Or if you want low DoF.
As an owner of the Red One, I speak from a position of some authority. First of all, $28,000 is a STEAL for this kind of technology. No, it's not made for shooting your cousins wedding, it's a professional camera. So the comments about the price being silly, are, well... Silly.
Secondly, to compare Scarlet to ANY DSLR that can "shoot HD" is just plain ignorant. Scarlet will absolutely, unequivocably DESTROY any DSLR. End of debate.
Third, if the F35 (200k price tag) is so hot, why wasn't "District 9" shot on it? Or "Knowing"? Or "The Informant", or "The Lovely Bones"... or "Gamer"?
Answer: because it's weak sauce compared to a camera that costs a fraction of the price.
In closing, this is some seriously groundbreaking, industry disrupting, game changing stuff.
Film isn't dead... yet... but the audiences' tastes have changed. Get on board, cause the train is leaving the station.
All aboard the fanboy train. WOOP WOOP.
Third, if the F35 (200k price tag) is so hot, why wasn't "District 9" shot on it? Or "Knowing"? Or "The Informant", or "The Lovely Bones"... or "Gamer"?
District 9 had a lot of hand held and tight indoor shots, and while I haven't seen the F35 I could only imagine it's more cumbersome than Red One.
@spaz_1 >> "District 9 had a lot of hand held and tight indoor shots, and while I haven't seen the F35 I could only imagine it's more cumbersome than Red One."
Oh, the F35 can be handheld... or shoulderheld :)
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/attachments/hd-uhd-2k-digital-cinema/10090d1229666876-sony-f35-first-experience-img_0756.jpg
"Third, if the F35 (200k price tag) is so hot, why wasn't "District 9" shot on it? Or "Knowing"? Or "The Informant", or "The Lovely Bones"... or "Gamer"? Answer: because it's weak sauce compared to a camera that costs a fraction of the price."
REAL ANSWER: Big Hollywood blockbusters never shoot on any camera because of it's price point. They shoot on it because of the look. Every time I read about a movie using RED in ICG or ASC the DP ALWAYS SAYS it's for the look of the camera. Specifically, I remember articles about D9, Knowing, and the Informant all wanting their films to have a Digital look (Aka, they didn't want it to look like film).
They don't even buy RED's anyway, so the price isn't a debate for them. They rent them, and for about the same rental price as a F35, because you aren't paying a rental house for the camera, you are paying for a guarantee that your camera is going to work.
"Secondly, to compare Scarlet to ANY DSLR that can "shoot HD" is just plain ignorant. Scarlet will absolutely, unequivocably DESTROY any DSLR. End of debate."
Interesting, have you seen footage from a Scarlet yet? I haven't.
"Secondly, to compare Scarlet to ANY DSLR that can "shoot HD" is just plain ignorant. Scarlet will absolutely, unequivocably DESTROY any DSLR. End of debate."
The Canon DSLRs ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, SOMETHINGLY FRIGGING annihilate RED ONE in low light shooting. The noise on the RED is horrible. Both camera's are great for their own merits and I'm pretty psyched about the cheapo Scarlet.
Come on RED!
Great camera. Now you need to find a good lens set- The high end T1.3 lenses that work great in candle light will set will set you back a pretty penny, a set of 5 running near six figures.
Lumatech Inc has such a set of Super35 lenses now shipping that is a little over $30k. see www.lumatechinc.com
A small company giving the industry insiders a run for their money at a quality that's tough to beat. Gotta love it!
Yeah but will it blend?
I'm sure all the fanboys will denounce my comments, but I have yet to experience a problem-free day with a Red camera... I'm sure there's some out there that work all the time without any serious problems, but I haven't seen one... I'll take one of the new Arris any day... They have what's called a track record. What the hell am I gonna do with 5K if it doesn't have the image quality of another camera, anyway? Now don't go comparing this thing, people... It's not out yet.
"Secondly, to compare Scarlet to ANY DSLR that can "shoot HD" is just plain ignorant. Scarlet will absolutely, unequivocably DESTROY any DSLR. End of debate."
dumbass... You haven't even seen a comparison...
The reason the Red One (and soon Epic and Scarlet) is such a groundbreaking piece of hardware for the film work is partially resolution but also a large part the format that it records in. It's RAW recording format (compared to YUV 4:2:2 or RGB 4:4:4 in the Sony Cinealta F23/F35) allows for much more color flexibility and range when it comes time to shoot your negative. Going from any 'video' color space to film you lose a ton of range in the highlights and shadows, the Red's RAW material can be preserved on film if done correctly.
It's not actually raw sorry.
4:4:4 RGB is raw.
Redcode is not.
rolling shutter effect would ruin this i think-- do red cameras exhibit this effect? i hope that it'd be non-existent at this price point.
All CMOS cameras are prone to rolling shutter issues.