Previous news story    Next news story

Red Digital Cinema releases Scarlet-X

By dpreview staff on Nov 4, 2011 at 18:30 GMT

Red Digital Cinema has released the Scarlet-X professional video camera with Canon EF or PL mount. With 4K video from 1-30 fps and burst modes up to 12 fps at 5K resolution, it enables users to capture motion footage and still content simultaneously. Available for pre-orders, the basic kit (which is primarily the body, or as Red calls it "The Brain") is priced at $9750 while the Scarlet-X AL Canon Mount Package is priced at $14,015 and includes such essentials as a power adaptor, 5" touch LCD, and  hand grip.

Launched the same day as Canon's new EOS C300 Digital Cinema Camera, the Scarlet-X appears competitively specified and priced. Whether an amateur or professional film-maker should use the Scarlet-X or the lower resolution Canon C300 (or perhaps Canon's forthcoming 4K DSLR) will become an interesting debate in the coming year. Read more below the fold:

Press Release:

SCARLET. ALL GROWN UP


SCARLET-X aluminum Canon EF mount package includes everything you need to start shooting. Made in the USA.

RED STUDIOS HOLLYWOOD, Hollywood, Calif., November 3, 2011 – RED Digital Cinema has officially released its third industry-changing camera, the Scarlet-X. With burst modes up to 12 fps at full 5K resolution alongside 4K motion capture from 1-30 fps, the camera allows professional photographers and cinematographers to simultaneously capture motion footage and still content. Never miss a shot. Ever. Scarlet-X’s compact design, endless modularity and advanced feature set provide a future-proof solution catering to every shooter’s needs, leaving one-dimensional DSLRs and 1080p camcorders in its wake. Priced at under $10,000, Scarlet-X advances RED’s vision to democratize superlative cinema and professional photography.

Scarlet-X comes standard with a Canon EF or PL mount, which can be swapped easily using Scarlet-X’s interchangeable lens mount system. Panavision, Anamorphic, and Nikon lenses are also compatible with the camera, providing ultimate freedom when it comes to creative decision-making. The addition of HDRx reaches up to 18 stops of dynamic range, bringing digital images closer than ever to the natural perception of the human eye.

With the innate ability to capture 5K REDCODE RAW stills and true 4K motion footage, Scarlet-X produces visually lossless files that can easily be graded and finished. Combining all of the finest qualities of cinema and photography into one camera, Scarlet-X allows the customer to have the best of both worlds. Compromise nothing. Shoot everything.

“The future is dependent on those who push… not those who react,” said Jim Jannard, founder of RED Digital Cinema.

RED is now taking orders on RED.com for Scarlet-X.

Since delivering their first camera – the RED ONE – in 2007, RED Digital Cinema has jumped ahead of the pack over camera companies that had dominated the market for decades. Feature films shot with RED cameras such as the Academy Award-winning movie “The Social Network” and the more recent “Contagion” have contributed to a lineage of cinematic success. Since the 2011 introduction of DSMC (Digital Still & Motion Camera) technology, photography icons like Bruce Weber, Greg Williams and Inez + Vinoodh have used RED cameras to shoot covers and spreads for the some of the most influential fashion magazines in the world.

Comments

Total comments: 118
Martind42
By Martind42 (Nov 11, 2011)

Scarlet can use Canon glass with full AF capabilities, the C300 cannot. So the best Canon camera is actually a RED.

2 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 7, 2011)

RED has been selling 4k videocams since 2008. The least expensive model starts at $10k. Canon, JVC, and others have "concept" 4k prototypes, but have yet to launch a production model. Canon's C300 sticks to usual HD, so the 5D Miii may do so as well. In 2012, perhaps some company will launch a competitor, but perhaps cost plenty.

Perhaps a $5k or $2.5k 4k video camera is possible, but be too big or present heat and processing problems beyond what any enthusiast can handle. I'd be tickled to have 4k video to be able to crop action video, but might not be keen if the camera cost is only a tiny fraction of the investment necessary to shoot or edit such video.

It's still an irony, though, that companies throw 3D or 1080 60p video at the market, irrespective of the display limitations, or offer $40k luxury cameras for the few, but remain scared of 4k video.

0 upvotes
arthon
By arthon (Nov 6, 2011)

fxguide.com video coverage of both the Canon and the RED events;
http://media.fxguide.com/fxguidetv/fxguidetv-ep124.mp4

0 upvotes
draschan
By draschan (Nov 6, 2011)

red seems the better choice than the canon considering the price of the canon. canon pricing seems not competetive to me...

6 upvotes
nathanleebush
By nathanleebush (Nov 7, 2011)

I agree, but the price differences aren't as great as they seem, Canon camera will likely have a much lower street price, and Scarlet requires tons of costly add-ons just to be ready to shoot, so the difference might be a couple thousand in the end, if that. Even then, though, the Scarlet wins in specs.

1 upvote
DenFilmDig
By DenFilmDig (Dec 1, 2011)

The Canon requires add-ons as well. I look forward to seeing what actual street price is. Checked B&H-- C300 not listed.

0 upvotes
arthon
By arthon (Nov 5, 2011)

More on the RED Epic-X camera and how Peter Jackson use them in capturing 3D on the set of The Hobbit; http://youtu.be/_Qwmlu2tXL4

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Nov 5, 2011)

Alexa Vs Red Epic :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH6-oZcNncE

Alexa Studio :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV_yaCtyPHw

RED Scarlet X Teaser :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNasybJAvHU

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
dougorama
By dougorama (Nov 5, 2011)

These "Ks" have me confused (remember you weren't born knowing it either). Is 2K = 1080P? 1K = 720P? The Scarlet will do 120 fps at 1K. Ok so that means 720P right?

0 upvotes
RRJackson
By RRJackson (Nov 5, 2011)

Scarlet-X's "1K" setting is 1024 x 540, so not quite 720p. 2K is 2048 x 1080. 3K is 3072 x 1620. 4K is 4096 x 2160. And 5K (which is the native resolution which is the only one not windowed and will only run at a maximum of 12 frames per second) is 5120 x 2700.

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 5, 2011)

The k's just mean horizontal resolution, not vertical. The vertical depends on your aspect ratio and not everyone uses the same.

Also, 1920x1080 is considered 'close enough' to 2k. It also doesn't have to be a power of 2 value like 1024/2048.

Anything within +/-5% of k x 1000 will suffice.

0 upvotes
aeolos
By aeolos (Nov 5, 2011)

hmm.. have you guys actually looked at some red footage?
I always thought the reds must be pretty amazing with it 5k and 4k shooting

but from a resolution standpoint the camera is pretty much crap.. the 5k looks only a little better than upscaled footage from a hacked gh2!

images from red footage
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2011/06/09/red-epic-5k-and-hdrx/

seriously look how bad the quality is even at 5k!

2 upvotes
DaSigmaGuy
By DaSigmaGuy (Nov 5, 2011)

Years before 1080p high def TV came out I saw a BBC documentary which showcased the BBC's high tech research into high def TV for the future...They specifically stated that 2000 horizontal lines was the maximum resolution the human eye could perceve and anything greater could not be detected.
So you could say that anything above 3k is totally pointless!

3 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Nov 5, 2011)

As most video seems to be viewed on browsers these days A Flip or iPhone seems all that is necessary.

3 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Nov 5, 2011)

2000 horizontal lines is the limit we can see for a display height that is about half the viewing distance but to display that consistently you need much higher resolution, about 4000 lines with intelligent sharpening algorithms could be enough. The reason for this is that if you have 2000 lines and you try to capture details of the size of those lines they will not be captured at all if they are offset by half a line, the simplest example is to imagine black and white linepairs and see if you shift those lines by half a line you will just get a solid grey image, even with 4000 lines of display resolution you will get significantly lowered contrast as you will get white grey black grey rather than two solid whites and two solid blacks so this means anything less than infinite resolution will cause a reduction in contrast which is why you will need contrast compensation or 'sharpening' to correct it. If done right this should mean that 4000 lines can be enough in theory.

3 upvotes
aeolos
By aeolos (Nov 5, 2011)

i would simply prefer really good quality 1080p insteat of bad quality 5k.. it is simply a waist of memory space and cumbersome to work with

3 upvotes
Simon21
By Simon21 (Nov 5, 2011)

The "2000 horizontal lines was the maximum resolution the human eye could perceive" from the BBC may have been true decades ago at the time when cathodic ray TV of 32" were considered as very large. Obviously this perceivable max resolution is also a function of the size of the TV and of other parameters as well (distance from the observer for instance) so I do not think 2K or 4K for the matter are "fixed" limits... 4K is just an ambiguous type of standard today and I am ready to bet that in 10 years it will be just a memory...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
arthon
By arthon (Nov 5, 2011)

When you write something like that you should take into consideration that the picture was from a motion capture test for high dynamic range without grading it for the max contrast we are used to in landscapes stills.
This is a much better example: http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2011/06/07/what-camera-did-i-use-to-make-this-still-picture/

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 6, 2011)

The resolution a human eye can resolve depends on detail density, not absolute detail. a 2k image spread across a billboard will look super soft if you're up close to it.

0 upvotes
Joshlovesphotos
By Joshlovesphotos (Nov 6, 2011)

DaSigmaGuy,

Is there truth in that claim? That 2000 horzontal lines is the max res that the humjan eye can see? I don't know. You just told us so. But I do know this. A professional print of a photograph looks wayyyy more detailed than the same shot on the best 1080p monitor you can find. I mean, heck, 1080p is 2 megapixel. And when I print out an image at 2 megapixels without stretching the pixels or changing the dpi, it sure doesn't look as detailed as a 12 megapixel print out at the same size. Maybe we aren't conscious of the difference, but we see the difference?

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 7, 2011)

4K or 8K would be useful for cropping. You cannot crop 2k (1920x1080) video without IQ loss. Thus, you could shoot a video of a swooping bird at wide angle, then crop to get a close-up, and use key-framing to keep the bird at center. This would be smoother than to "chase" the bird with optical zoom. You could also edit a 4k wide angle people scene into orchestrated close-ups.

0 upvotes
comomolo
By comomolo (Nov 10, 2011)

I'm sorry but this is pure nonsense. 2000 lines are far beyond the limit if you watch them from 30cm on an 4" smartphone screen, and look just very low res if you look at them on a IMAX screen from the front seats.

It's all a function of size and distance. There's just no absolute value whatsoever.

I can't believe no one has said this before.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
luben solev
By luben solev (Nov 5, 2011)

What i find interesting is that DPReview is happy to cover these extremely expensive video cameras that happen to also do stills, but don't cover similarly priced medium format dslrs that are all about photography.

18 upvotes
love_them_all
By love_them_all (Nov 5, 2011)

Yes indeed. Where are the reviews for the H4D or the 645D?

9 upvotes
random78
By random78 (Nov 5, 2011)

1. DPReview has not posted a review for RED, it has just posted a news item. DPReview posts similar news items for Medium format camera announcements as well, so I am not sure what the complaint is about.

2. Though DPReview has not posted a Pentax 645D review, they do have 645D image files available in the studio comparison tool. Considering that medium format cameras are not really their area of expertise, I think thats already significant that they still got hold of a 645D and produced the studio samples. Frankly even if DPReview did review a medium format camera, the actual medium format users will probably not care because they won't consider DPReview as experts in medium format cameras and might give little credibility to the review. At best what dpreview can do is to take a camera like 645D and compare it to FF cameras like D3X and 1DSIII to sort of give an FF users' view of the entry-level MF cameras.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
Boomz
By Boomz (Nov 5, 2011)

I'm having a hard time finding medium format (digital) review sites. Could you please recommend some, thanks.

1 upvote
aeolos
By aeolos (Nov 5, 2011)

thats because there were no recent annoucements!
there is no doubt they will cover the next medium format too and probably even test it.

you know this news site is pretty new..

1 upvote
Roderick5
By Roderick5 (Nov 5, 2011)

anyone looking for reviews of medium format cameras should definitely check out http://www.luminous-landscape.com (see section Product Reviews). The guys there shoot primarily with medium format and have produces tons of reviews of (not only) medium format equipment. The review style is VERY different from Dpreview - they focus more on usability rather than on pixel-peeping.

0 upvotes
uuronl
By uuronl (Nov 5, 2011)

To the first poster, you're looking at heavily compressed garbage if you are consuming it on Youtube or Vimeo. Chances are you've seen plenty of great RED footage. Most of the feature movies we see in cinemas were shot on RED and a good portion of HD television content. It gets -no better-.

As for the other comments about "is this relevant", I'd say absolutely. If this sucks customers away from the 5D II for video, then Canon will have no choice but to make the cameras at our price level like the next 5D II all the more compelling.

2 upvotes
Rick Knepper
By Rick Knepper (Nov 5, 2011)

Luminous Landscape reviews don't concentrate on pixel peeping (the derogatory euphemism for the technical aspects of a camera's IQ usually employed by folks who...well we won't get into that right now) because LL reviewers are not set up to do so. My impression of who the reviewers are is a loose gang of buddies of Mr. Reichmann.

0 upvotes
Antonio Chagin
By Antonio Chagin (Nov 5, 2011)

@ Boomz. This is the forum for Pentax 645 MF: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-medium-format-645-6x7-645d/
This is Get DPI mf forum: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=10

1 upvote
Boomz
By Boomz (Nov 5, 2011)

Thanks Antonio for those links. However, I was hoping to find actual review sites. As implied by Random78 up there, DPR is not the website for medium format, so there must be other sites and I was asking him where they are.

Roderick5 - navigation is very difficult in LL. Sadly here's no classification or proper categorization. Its all under one tab 'Product Reviews'. They need sub classifications so you're not wading through tripods, photocards, lenses, and to make matters worse, some of them are not even products! They are blog posts on how to use fill-in flash. Very messy website.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
draschan
By draschan (Nov 6, 2011)

yes indeed ! I also will get into digital medium format when the time is right (for me) and would really love to be update about the development in this field.

0 upvotes
Joshlovesphotos
By Joshlovesphotos (Nov 6, 2011)

I agree Luben. It's all a bit suspect. Although, they did cover the Pentax 645d a few months back. I think dpreview has been doing business with Canon, if you know what I mean.

0 upvotes
john
By john (Nov 5, 2011)

you know all digital device break down within 3-5 years, I just wonder how much $$$ to fix the RED after warrenty, it must be extremely expensive

0 upvotes
Paul D TV
By Paul D TV (Nov 5, 2011)

Here are my thoughts on the Scarlet & the Canon EOS C300:

http://paul-d.tv/blog/2011/11/04/the-night-of-the-long-camera-announcements/

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Nov 5, 2011)

Is rolling shutter a negative feature still of RED? (like 'jello' video of Nikon?) or of dSLR videos? or videocams for that matter?

or have they resolved this?

0 upvotes
Klarno
By Klarno (Nov 5, 2011)

So far all of these cameras still have rolling electronic shutters, but professional video systems like the RED tend to have readouts much, much faster than consumer products like DSLRs. Jello has been a non-issue on digital cinema cameras since they started becoming popular. You have to be doing something very, very silly that you wouldn't want to do anyway for good looking video to get anything resembling the jello effect.

3 upvotes
aeolos
By aeolos (Nov 5, 2011)

samsung silently already fixed the rolling shutter on their new nx200 camera (apc-s sized sensor like sony nex etc)
but the codec is not so nice already.
but they are making big improvements expect to see more from samsung in the video market soon with the nx20 which sure will have better codec options given the rate of improvement at samsung
fast pans are here for example but codec breaks apart with all that leaf footage

http://vimeo.com/31186838

1 upvote
Joshlovesphotos
By Joshlovesphotos (Nov 6, 2011)

You can fix rolling shutter in post production. Yeah, it's an extra step in the process, but there is a process for de-rolling shuttering video. There are programs and even companies out there that do it automatically for you.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 7, 2011)

I'll bet most or all of 4k video is shot with a stationary camera, with slow panning at most. The draw of 4k video is that you can shoot wide-angle without need to pan, since you can crop to closeups when editing.

1 upvote
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Nov 5, 2011)

Scarlet, you look beautiful! can I buy you a drink?

3 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Nov 5, 2011)

cinematography...?
starting non-functional at 5.3 lbs (2.4kg) bare?... ouch
add parts to make it go... 8 lbs? maybe? not including lens yet?
ouch...

i think dSLR cinematographers (low dof flexibility in any lighting plus clean low light filmlike footage) could go for something half that weight at the worst, and thus only be a bit heavier than a dSLR itself 'fully dressed'.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Nov 5, 2011)

I guess most of us have figured out that you work for Canon by now.

8 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Nov 5, 2011)

Strange, you seem to post LOTS of Canon info like you know something then you ask stupid questions that someone with your apparent cine equipment knowledge would know.

After reading your posts I just figured out a new business idea. Hire people to make spam posts about how good newly announced equipment from a certain company is as to make it backfire and make people want to hate that company because of the amount of comment spam. But I guess you beat me to it.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
DavidStone
By DavidStone (Nov 5, 2011)

Hey tinfoilhats:
Have you realized how many idiots are on the internet? It doesn't take a company hiring somebody to post spam for someone to post spam.

2 upvotes
AlanG
By AlanG (Nov 5, 2011)

I'd like to see DPReview compare this and the new Canon to the iPhone in a video shootout.

5 upvotes
Dan Tong
By Dan Tong (Nov 5, 2011)

You got that right. You can't make phone call with these video cameras, nor are they of any help when you are lost :)

1 upvote
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Nov 5, 2011)

Just wondering how DSLR afficionados would.. ho-humm... be interested in.. ho-hummm... the technical mumbo... ho-hum.... jumbo of a camera meant purely for cinematic production... yawn... ~~~

4 upvotes
jtmon
By jtmon (Nov 5, 2011)

It does 5k stills as well. Jannard says it should have both now.

0 upvotes
Jonathan F/2
By Jonathan F/2 (Nov 5, 2011)

Snooze. I thought this was photography website. Cinematography puts me to sleep.

2 upvotes
Scott Everett
By Scott Everett (Nov 5, 2011)

Cinematographers and photographers have a lot to learn from each-other actually. But if cinematography puts you to sleep, you are watching the wrong films. :)

6 upvotes
arthon
By arthon (Nov 5, 2011)

For people that want to see how the RED cameras are used in the world of DSMC (digital stills & motion capture); --> http://www.reduser.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?68-DSMC-FASHION-PHOTOGRAPHY

0 upvotes
RRJackson
By RRJackson (Nov 5, 2011)

Actually, it only does 4K at 25 fps and only 12 fps if you use the HDRx function. And that's windowed so relative to a 35mm film frame that's at a 1.6x crop in width and a 2x crop in height. Still, 24/25p at 4K is impressive for the price. It's just a shame they couldn't get the 2/3" Scarlet working properly. For a lot of people a "digital 16mm" camera was kind of a big deal. Especially since that camera was supposed to shoot full-resolution at up to 120 fps.

0 upvotes
eyewundr
By eyewundr (Nov 5, 2011)

When push comes to shove, resolution is a secondary consideration in movie, television, and advertising commercial production. BUDGET is the primary guidepost. Red camera SYSTEMS and Canon's new C300 camera SYSTEM offer the potential to approach the quality of much more expensive camera SYSTEMs within more modest budgets. Production budgets in these markets tend to be more substantial than typical still photography production budgets, with a correspondingly heavier burden of expectation to generate revenue.
And while you debate the ten and twenty K camera body price tags take a moment to consider the high five figure and six figure price tags on cinematography LENSES. Canon, for example, stands to make lots of perfectly good money selling their new lenses for use on RED and other camera bodies that can mount e

1 upvote
Steven Fierberg
By Steven Fierberg (Nov 5, 2011)

I would like to respectfully disagree with the above post. I am a cinematographer who shoots both television and features. I was at the Canon event. The Canon nowhere near approaches film, but beyond that, does not have remotely the tonal range nor sharpness of the Arri Alexa, which is the digital camera to beat at the moment. As you correctly point out, any of these cameras require lenses and support systems that greatly increase the price of actually using it. If the Canon had cost less than $10,000, then maybe someone could buy it for themselves and use it for low budget and personal projects. At $20,000 plus lenses and accessories, it is more likely to be rented, and why not rent a camera that produces a far superior image? The Alexa, possibly the Epic, and film do.
Steven Fierberg, ASC

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
eyewundr
By eyewundr (Nov 5, 2011)

When push comes to shove, resolution is a secondary consideration in movie, television, and advertising commercial production. BUDGET is THE primary guidepost. What RED camera SYSTEMS and Canon's new C300 camera SYSTEM offer is the potential to approach the production quality of much more expensive camera SYSTEMs within more modest budgets.
And while you debate the ten or twenty K camera body prices take into to consideration the high five figure and six figure prices of commercial production quality LENSES, 'cause the camera ain't really the key price tag in the system. As with still photography the useful life of a good lense can span several generations of camera bodies. Canon in particular stands to make good money selling their new lenses for RED and other cameras that can mount

0 upvotes
Devendra
By Devendra (Nov 5, 2011)

canon mounts mean, nikon lenses can be easily mounted with a simple $10 adapter.

so before someone goes gaga.. it looks like red knew what they were doing.

0 upvotes
arhmatic
By arhmatic (Nov 5, 2011)

Hey DP Review, are you adding RED in you lists of cameras? Do you plan to start reviewing these cameras? With Canon releasing their camera, and the EOS beig able to do 4k in the future, videography seems to blend more and more with what you are doing.

It's definitely a great format you are using, I'd like to be able to read about these cameras without going somewhere else.

5 upvotes
petr marek
By petr marek (Nov 4, 2011)

Canon EOS C was born with huge pomp and stayed alive only 3 hours... Until Scarlet was announced... I want to see one crazy person, who would buy Canon C instead of cheaper 4K RED :)

7 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Nov 6, 2011)

The non-interpolated RGB pixels of the EOS C might make you change your mind. Theoretically, the RGB sensor will produce true colors like the 3-CCD camcorders, with sharper pixels as well. When you down sample to 1080p (to fit on blu-ray and TV broadcast), the EOS C wins.

Further more, the EOS C isn't just a camera announcement. It's a system. Canon executives already talked about two other camera models in the pipeline, one of them does 4K.

0 upvotes
Marcel
By Marcel (Nov 4, 2011)

Those price's on RED and the Canon C300 are peanuts for people working in the Cinema Industry. For ordanairy people like me and only owning 1,2 or 3 DSLR (any brand) the prices look expensive. Still I wanne know what the prices are of separeated software which is needed to edit those video files. Also wanne know where the aspect ratio 1 -2.35 is and if 3D movie recording is available.

0 upvotes
arthon
By arthon (Nov 5, 2011)

RED has a free fully functional editor; REDCINE-X Professional. RED Raw (RD3) is supported by Premiere Pro CS5 and most other editing software.
Two Scarlet-X works well in a 3D rig.

0 upvotes
john
By john (Nov 5, 2011)

I have went through many production house, they don't own the cameras, they just rent the lights and camera

0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Nov 4, 2011)

SCARLET ROCKS!!!!

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
PhotoArtKC
By PhotoArtKC (Nov 4, 2011)

What? No Nikon mount? Those jerks! ;)

I'll take two...

0 upvotes
arthon
By arthon (Nov 5, 2011)

Electronic Nikon mounts are in the pipeline. "Dumb" mounts are available from third party.

0 upvotes
Michael Kaminski
By Michael Kaminski (Nov 4, 2011)

I'm not into video, but the HDRX mode seems a wonderful solution. Some real progress while still cameras still lack dynamic range.
Pro solutions are always expensive, but this seems something worth beeing called pro.

0 upvotes
jmmgarza
By jmmgarza (Nov 4, 2011)

I have a few projects that can benefit from a camera such as this. Lovely form factor.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 4, 2011)

please guys talk about something you know!

most of you have never touched a red epic or any cine cam.
not to mention 99% have not the money to buy one.

most of the arguments i read here the past day are just stupid or silly.....

3 upvotes
Aero Windwalker
By Aero Windwalker (Nov 4, 2011)

LOL, Canon is mad.

3 upvotes
RoyGBiv
By RoyGBiv (Nov 4, 2011)

It's really nice to see DPR chucking in some serious vid equipment into their newsfeeds, bcs, it gives folks a reality check that their perspective on imaging might not be the whole enchilada.

7 upvotes
aeolos
By aeolos (Nov 4, 2011)

in 5 years people will probably laugh how expensive 4k video cameras were.. and how huge ^^
even the 800$ hacked gh2 is already able to put out pretty awesome 1080p.. technology is improving at such fast rates that maybe a cheap gh4 or gh5 will be able to produce awesome 4k..

but photo will never die.. look how many people still use film or retro cameras.. nothing to be afraid of just embrase new technology and everybody buys what the want : )

0 upvotes
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Nov 4, 2011)

Not sure about five years, but they'll probably end up like old medium format digital backs. Too valuable to sell on cheaply, not functional enough to sell on expensively, they'll end up trapped in a storage cupboard somewhere until the company goes bust, by which time no-one will be able to use them, as the accessories and infrastructure won't exist any more to support them.

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (Nov 4, 2011)

Wasnt Scarlet suppose to be a 2/3 camera with 120fps @ 4k and costing $1700?

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Nov 4, 2011)

Originally it was "3k for $3k".
Later it was just what you said, but for $6,250 (fixed lens).
Now, it's this, and now it's in production.

2 upvotes
makofoto
By makofoto (Nov 4, 2011)

But for most folks, if you need to shoot (a lot of) video, USE A VIDEO CAMERA. Shooting a lot of out-of-focus DSLR video doesn't look good. What's the point of having "cinematic" limited depth of field if you draw the viewer out of the story by having soft shots?!

Even the 300C making-of video, shot on DSLR's has soft shots ... look at it full screen, and this was by a professional crew.

There are wonderful affordable video cameras out there, like Canon's XF100/105 or XF300/305

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 4, 2011)

I think your confusing shallow DOF with "soft shots". With shallow DOF a cinematographer can isolate the parts of the frame that are important to the story.

As small sensor video cam like the Canon XF100, are great for weddings/events, but they offer less creative possibilities than large sensor cinema style cameras that they film motion pictures on.

7 upvotes
DaSigmaGuy
By DaSigmaGuy (Nov 4, 2011)

The advantage of using a DSLR for video is they can take all your existing camera lenses and many more, including very fast primes...With the majority of camcorders, your invariably stuick with a soft, slow, wide-range, CA ridden zoom.
No contest!

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 7, 2011)

"Deep focus" has its own cinematic pedigree and sure beats video with focus hunt and blur. One can always blur a periphery when editing and have greater control. Narrow DOF may work with still photography, but in the case of video it is a problem, unless you've set control and can re-shoot scenes.

1 upvote
Kevin Sutton
By Kevin Sutton (Nov 4, 2011)

"5K" video is 5120x2700 pixels or 13.8Mp per frame. The Red's 12 RAW frames per second stills is pretty impressive. It also does 4K video at 30 fps in RAW.

The Canon SLR's (current generation) and the Canon video camera only capture MJPEG making editing more difficult.

As a video system, the RED is miles ahead and is in a completely different market space than the Canon's.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Tom Bird
By Tom Bird (Nov 4, 2011)

this is the future: grab stills from video. epic does 120 fps, each 14 MP raws

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
amonle
By amonle (Nov 4, 2011)

exactly - this is where the energy is
yesterday's news:
- canon v nikon
- plain vanilla DSLR's
etc, etc

2 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Nov 4, 2011)

The epic does 120fps at 5120x2160 but is limited to 96fps at 5120x2700.

0 upvotes
pgb
By pgb (Nov 4, 2011)

Canon is H264, far more efficient compression.
The 1DX now also offers an I frame only codec and also Mpeg2.

Canon C300 does have one advantage, RGB capture but that
all depends how they record it. Prores 444 would be nice.

Canon needs to match REDs pricing.

2 upvotes
MrAzrakino
By MrAzrakino (Nov 4, 2011)

Epic (or RED) save in raw .... Canon C300 does not even have raw support for a video cam costing 20k$ !!!

1 upvote
arthon
By arthon (Nov 5, 2011)

And c300 puts out 1/4 of the resolution in a non RAW format for higher price.

2 upvotes
DenFilmDig
By DenFilmDig (Dec 1, 2011)

Canon has LOG format which seems similar to raw

0 upvotes
DaSigmaGuy
By DaSigmaGuy (Nov 4, 2011)

I really cant see the point of buying this system at the present time because 5K TV's are at least 5-10 years away from being mainstream.
Current Canon DSLR's like the 7D and 5D mkII can already capture broadcast quality 1080P high-def video, which will continue to the be the mainstream high-def standard for years to come...And they only cost a tiny fraction of the cost.
With all the money you save by buying one of the latter DSLR's you could buy a second 7D or 5D mkII, use that for simultaneous stills instead, and still have umpteen thousand bucks left in your pocket, to buy some decent lenses, if required.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Fadhil Alsaegh
By Fadhil Alsaegh (Nov 4, 2011)

Apart from the massive resolution difference, the RED makes for better workflow which is important for professionals. Also it shoots RAW, better dynamic range.. and the list goes on.

2 upvotes
Jacques Gilbert
By Jacques Gilbert (Nov 4, 2011)

5K TVs may be a few years away, but 4K projectors are in theaters today, and more will be soon. Shooting 5K allows for cropping and editing, and still producing high quality 4K movies. The target for 5K cameras is not people who film their kids in the backyard to show grandma.

5 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Nov 4, 2011)

5k bayer is really only optimal for a 2560 real full color resolution, which is why the canon c300 has a 3840x2160 sensor to get 1920x1080 rgb resolution.
The canon dslr's line skip giving artifacts and less than optimal low light quality by discarding a large portion of the available light and ofcource they are not raw which is something most people here see as a necessity for high quality still imaging so why would it be any different for high quality video?

1 upvote
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Nov 4, 2011)

I have a 5D MkII and I've shot a fair amount of video with it, albeit not at a professional level; I have doubt it *can* produce broadcast-quality footage, and has done so in the past, but it has a lot of limitations that have to be worked around (aliasing, limited colour depth, limited shot length, no control over bit rate, no raw). Once you start adding video assist monitors and preamps and focus pulleys etc the cost mounts up. And the larger sensor format doesn't lend itself to shooting deep focus in low light.

1 upvote
pgb
By pgb (Nov 4, 2011)

Agree Malcom82, Bayer and RGB resolutions are not directly
equatable. RGB cine has been around for a long time, DPX
scans, Sony Genesis, F35. I hope Canon don't waste this
advantage with 420 files. A clean HDMI is the way to go,
leaving the user to decide the quality level they want.

1 upvote
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Nov 4, 2011)

Saying that current DSLRs are good enough because they shoot 1080p is like saying you don't need a DSLR that shoots more than 8-bit JPEG at 2400x3000 pixels because most prints are 8x10.

The reason you want the extra capability is the same reason you want a 24MP DSLR that shoots 16-bit raw. You need source quality and headroom to maintain quality as you push/pull/mangle the data during editing. DSLRs record in a moderately good quality H.264, everybody knows that isn't ideal, it falls apart faster than a pro codec unless you know what youre doing.

Another analogy is saying you don't need recording equipment that does more than 44.1KHz 16-bit because that's all a CD can reproduce. But any audio pro would think you a fool to suggest that, because again, you need the source quality and overhead flexibility for editing. That's why recording studios commonly record at 96KHz 24-bit. Even though you end up listening to highly compressed MP3s.

1 upvote
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Nov 4, 2011)

Why do you need to shoot 4K now? Two words: "Gilligan's Island." Or if you want three words: "I Love Lucy." Those shows were produced decades ago but they're still being broadcast. Television shows and movies have an infinite lifespan nowadays, so if you can't shoot on film, it's crazy to not use the latest video available.

2 upvotes
Daniel Browning
By Daniel Browning (Nov 4, 2011)

It's unfortunate they scrapped the more inexpensive 2/3" model, but for the price this one does have very high specifications.

Can anyone tell if the Red One is superior in any way to this new Scarlet-X? So far, frame rate is the only feature I can see.

0 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (Nov 4, 2011)

Maybe you find something here: http://philipbloom.net/2011/11/04/newcameras/

0 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Nov 4, 2011)

More self promo? Like on http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?238147-Philip-Bloom-s-GH2-died-a-watery-death&p=2276345&viewfull=1#post2276345

2 upvotes
makofoto
By makofoto (Nov 4, 2011)

" includes such essentials as hard drive storage"

It's not a Hard Drive, it's a SSD slot, ie. Solid State "Drive," attached to the side of the camera.

@ mpgxsvcd ... No, Canon made their announcement first, RED later in the evening. The RED site was overwhelmed and down, making it difficult for them to get their info out.

2 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Nov 4, 2011)

Yes two system 98% of us here will never need or want. Whats next rear view backup camera reviews and announcements.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Nov 4, 2011)

No silly, it'll be cams for arthroscopic surgery. ; D

0 upvotes
Karl Burke
By Karl Burke (Nov 4, 2011)

Don't whine about it because you can't afford it or are not a cinematographer - what this camera is doing now, will be what every camera will be doing in the near future, this is the way the technology is developing and as such needs to be spoken about here. Not that long ago 16MP capability cost $40K, now it's $1K and a mobile phone is 8MP.

7 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Nov 4, 2011)

I can't use that these cameras have now on my E-1 so no news here. Last time I check there no cine in DPreview

0 upvotes
Karl Burke
By Karl Burke (Nov 4, 2011)

Still photography is going to become a subset of cinematography, that's the whole point, you'll be pulling a frame from a video timeline and that will be your still photo, it's already happening at the highest levels of fashion photography. I think the concept of capturing a single "decisive moment" with one shutter click will be gone within 10 years except for purist amateurs and fine art photographers which is a shame in one way, but there you have it. I suppose we'll get used to it, like we got used to digital itself.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 4, 2011)

Five years ago I didn't think I'd ever have a full-frame DSLR shooting 1080/24p. Now I do. Maybe in five years I'll be rocking a RED.

And if the story doesn't interest you, move on to the next. Last time I checked DPR were decided what to publish. Don't worry, there are still plenty of Coolpix articles.

1 upvote
Andrei Todea
By Andrei Todea (Nov 4, 2011)

@QuarterToDoom You are right about one thing. Most viewers will never need a RED camera nor a 20.000$ Canon. Also most DSLR users will not drop their cameras and start using their phones to take pictures because dpreview says it can change your photography. However, I think it's a very good thing that we have the chance to read some news about major developments in areas that are related to photography (actually more than 'related').

0 upvotes
Joshlovesphotos
By Joshlovesphotos (Nov 6, 2011)

I have two concerns with this idea though. And maybe I'm going to end up being one of those purists who only take one shot ;-p
First, even though you can grab a single from from a video, you aren't always able to use manual settings on the entire moving subject matter of a moving, live video that is necessary for let's say, your perfect shot. Lighting changes and people and objects move. As a photographer, and not just fashion photographers, most photographer, have to sometimes spend several hours setting up light for one scene, lets say under a specific tree, with the perfect amount of light on the side of someones face, with just the perfect amount of wind blowing a strand of hair. I don't think you need a full on video camera to get that shot?

0 upvotes
Joshlovesphotos
By Joshlovesphotos (Nov 6, 2011)

I think if you are talking about fashion photography, or sports, or cinematic photography, where the entire scene is a thing to behold, than yeah, you could just grab a still frame out of the video. But then again, I wouldn't call that typical or real photography, that's cinematography. I wouldn't call sports photographers, the typical photographer. And you know what, sure they use 12fps DSLR cameras to capture every bit of motion. Give me a 5DM2 over a D3x anyday. Less price, less fps, sure.

0 upvotes
Joshlovesphotos
By Joshlovesphotos (Nov 6, 2011)

I guess what I'm saying is, sure, if they are going to include 120 fps with full manual control over all exposure settings for each and every frame, and give it to me for the price of a camera that cost's a very affordable price, than yeah, I'll take it, but I don't think there is anything organically "the way of the future or bust" about it. And I think the reason there isn't, is because of the limitations of the average human to become an expert of more than one thing at a time.

0 upvotes
Joshlovesphotos
By Joshlovesphotos (Nov 6, 2011)

My nephew may be good at his math class, but I know he can't figure out my camera settings and why I need them, for anything. Same thing with my brother, who is really good at being a salesman, but doesn't have room to think about camera settings on top of how to sell a ketchup Popsicle to a grandma wearing white gloves. On the other hand, I can figure it out, because I sit at a computer all day and data analyze.
I see a future where we have affordable cameras with 4k video capabilities on them for consumers, and so all of the settings are dumbed down, like an iphone, and so there is no manual control available, and we can sure, take a still frame grab. At the same time, when that happens, the cycle will just continue, pro-sumers will have 4k video with camera and will have manual control, but won't use it for most photography and pros will have 8k-20k video, with like 25 stops of dynamic range, and we'll all drool over the 25 stops, and the cycle will continue.

0 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Nov 4, 2011)

>Whether an amateur or professional film-maker should use the C300 or Scarlet (or perhaps Canon's forthcoming 4K DSLR) will become an interesting debate in the coming year.

Damn got paid from Canon this week?

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Nov 4, 2011)

I guess Canon paid more to get their release announced the day before?

1 upvote
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Nov 4, 2011)

No, Canon sent us a press release, Red didn't. We just saw this and we posted it as soon as we could. No one pays for news stories on dpreview, but some companies make more effort to get us information.

20 upvotes
random78
By random78 (Nov 4, 2011)

To be fair, RED's products have not much to do with the type of products dpreview traditionally deals with. The target audience for their products is very different from dpreview audience. So I wouldn't imagine RED having dpreview on its radar as a place to send the press release. Canon on the other hand is in an entirely different position. Off course with increased convergence of video and stills this might start to change

As for the guys making a remark about canon paying dpreview, well thats honestly being a jerk. Just because you can type doesn't mean you have the right to challenge someone's integrity on a whim.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Nov 5, 2011)

Whether you call it pay or not is irrelevant. You receive product from Canon that is valuable to your core business(Product reviews).

If you started posting Canon reviews and news late they would stop sending you product. Likewise if they started sending you product and news late or not at all you probably wouldn't want to put the effort in to seek the information out.

The real issue is that Dpreview didn't know about a press release that was known to the public well in advance. A suggestion is that you could crowd source this information.

If you put a simple but visible link on the front page for people to send you information "you might have missed or not known about" I am sure that you would have learned about the RED press release well in advance.

The rumor sites use this crowd sourcing model and it works well. However, I am not suggesting you become a rumor site.

If you only post news on time from the manufactures that send you product it can gives a biased impression.

2 upvotes
EssexAsh
By EssexAsh (Nov 6, 2011)

well if its good enough for Peter Jackson to use 40+ of them for shooting the Hobbit then i'd take his word over the majority of armchair nobodies posting here.

0 upvotes
brujo
By brujo (Nov 4, 2011)

Wooowww... Nice !!!

0 upvotes
Total comments: 118