Should i buy a red scarlet

If you're considering a camera in this price range, what are you looking at in terms of features? There are no wrong answers here, and you can feel free to disagree with any of them, but I would like to try to keep this discussion as constructive as possible.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on deciding to go for this camera Joe. I was wondering if you could share some of your work with us. Googling your name got me as far as Joe Marine's shiny leather jackets. Anyway, your points seem valid.

I myself was rather interested in the FS when it came out, but somehow, from what I've seen, the footage is just too much 'video' for me. The colors and sharpness aren't there. The F5 however seems, at least on paper, to have everything I have wished for in a camera, besides the seemingly justifiable price tag. It looks like the most feature packed and versatile of the sub Probably saving up for that one, unless, once again, something bigger comes along.

The work I'm most proud of is not online for one reason or another, whether it's currently in post I have a short and a feature that are both stuck in post-production and it's been a long strange couple years since I shot them , or whether it's not done yet and I can't share it. I shot the two films at the top of this page about a year and a half ago. Wow that guy in Skin Deep is a really great actor. Great stuff Joe! Thanks for keeping me up to date on digital cinema! Awesome post however I don't understand the use of an external recorder with the Scarlet - you aren't running it thru Red Cine-X and proper debayer - how do the images hold up?

I've seen some of the results and they looked good enough, but it's hard to gauge until I really get out and test it fully. Recording through the hdsdi is very very usable, still much better than a dslr. In many instances it produces a cleaner image. Depending on your debayering setting hdsdi can look sharper than on board.

This was a great post, and definitely hit all the same points as to why I ordered a BT one as well! It's a great way to get up and running if you're fine using gently used items!

Lucky you! I couldn't even find a handle in the US. I got in on the same deal for a lot of the same reasons. Most of my projects are VFX heavy shorts going to the web, but to have the ability to shoot features, upgrade to dragon in the future , and work with RAW files was impossible to overlook.

Great post Joe. Almost an identical story to mine! The number one thing that stood out to me upon first use was the dynamic range! I film outside a lot and not having to worry about blown out highlights in the clouds is a big change from a DSLR.

It's really nice to finally pull the trigger after months of researching and analyzing, and come up happy with your decision. That's where I'm at with my new FS which as pointed out above CAN look "video" but is really all about picture profiles which are very editable. Have fun with the Scarlet! Awesome article! Another thing that I like to think of when making an investment like this is that while the One MX is not as future proof as the Scarlet, the sensor size and resolution from these cameras will be accepted in Cinema for years to come.

Congrats on your purchase! Joe, Thanks for the article. Well done. Your article is on par as to my thoughts. I'm still waiting to upgrade to a new camera. Redmx or Scarlet have my interest as they would be enough horsepower for me. However, I'm curious as to what Canon is going to do.

I know the 1DC is only 8 bit but supposedly for color grading it can be pushed to quite the limits. From the footage on line, it graded excellent. Supposedly the camera will have a dynamic range around 13 stops. I'm shooting next year my feature, which may turn out to be a dud or a short, but hey, gotta have a hobby. One thing about the Red, it is proven.

You had addressed this in the most to an extent but I'm curious as to what your and everyone else's straight forward opinion on the matter would be. Right now I shoot the doc work on a canon 60d or 5d mk II and have access to a fs but only on a very limited basis. What camera do you think best suits the combination of those 2 worlds? I want it to produce cinematic images with room for manipulation in post but I also need to be able to shoot these half day or day long doc events.

Should i continue with canon for that and get a RED for personal projects, or would the fs or c be a better investment? Hey Joe, thanks for sharing. I am about to make the same investment despite almost throw my cash for the RedOneMX the other day. The camera is just too heavy for me after seeing it on site, so I decided to look on Scarlet now. However, is it true that there is no other way to really control the Scarlet without the RED touch-screen monitor?

Because I thought all RED cameras are just like the RED One where you can still choose the settings with buttons on the body but a touch-screen is more user friendly? Correct me here. The touch screen is the easiest way to control the camera but you can also do it via redmote or use a side handle. Either way GOOD honest and informative article, great read, i like all of us in the next 3months or near future will have big decisions to make.

Twixtor only works if things aren't changing too dramatically frame to frame which means it's useless for a lot of the reasons you want slow-mo, which is to pick out those small changes otherwise invisible.

If slow mo is important, the FS is probably a better bet, but it highly compresses its footage. If you want to save money, you could also consider the GH3 which can do 60p in and could potentially support p in is the future , and has a higher bitrate than the FS Great post. Commit to getting the camera working.

As Jannard says only buy one of his cameras if you are going to use it. They need to work. That is your responsibility. Joe, this almost read like a nervous act of self-reassurance and man I can't blame to. Cameras coming out left right and centre and the depreciation is just horrible these days. Whatever camera you end up with the main thi is to make sure it ges used.

I think people get a bit lost in stats and which one is best but really all the cameras you mentioned are pretty damn good and get better with a but of understanding. You'll love the scarlet if you shoot with it, otherwise I'll just feel like this real big financial anchor round your neck. More importantly than anything, get those projects finished.

We've had a short film stuck in post do so long we'll probably have shot our feature by the time it's actually completed. Best of luck. Thanks, absolutely it's going to get used. I just felt like it might be worth a post for the readers to go a little bit into the buying decision, since I'm constantly writing about cameras and about what I'm recommending to people.

Sorry to hear about being stuck in post - obviously I feel your pain, some of my damage is self-inflicted, but it's certainly easier to start a film than it is to properly finish it. You can't quite muscle through post like you can on set - totally different worlds.

Totally, well at least you can for certain bits of it, then suddenly you're at the mercy of people whose time you really want but who can't exactly prioritise you! Interviewing a famous photographer turned director recently he said "People are way too demanding about film. The miracle isn't making a good one, the miracle is making one at all. Making a good one is so rare and to be cherished yet it's popcorn and petulance.

Best camera is always the one you ended up buying even if it isn't and you just have to make it stick. The cost of a camera could pay for several shorts The camera. How many shorts make money? Those jobs then pay off the camera. I was on the other side of the coin before I bought mine and now I obviously defend the purchase There's a reason bigger productions use the best gear and there's a reason the guy with the Scarlet will get hired over the guy with the GH2.

Ain't that the horrible horrible truth of it. I only invested in a camera package for myself two and a half years ago but now I'm neck deep in lights, batteries, filters, rods, rails and other crap. I'm just a director but having all that crap means I can just shoot whenever I want and that freedom is priceless. Some days I wish I just turned up with notes and told people what to do again.

Still, s'all good fun. For example, I bought my own camera kit Sony F55 primarily because I want to be able to film at any time I want and for however long I wish - in other words, convenience for my own productions whatever they may be at any given time. Sometimes I work for free on low or no budget indie productions and use my camera for those productions if they interest me and if my own camera is indeed the correct tool for the job.

But that's as far as it goes because I still advise hiring the rest of the gear such as lighting, cabling, sound equipemnt etc. The point I am trying to make here is the extent to which one adopts the hiring route surely depends on filming requirements over time and not blindly embrace it beyond being a general rule of the film industry - hence the term 'owner operator'.

Owner operators may do 20 or 30 jobs a year maybe and then the cost justifies the means. If one can get a whole bunch of benefits that outweigh the advantages of hiring from in house owned equipment then it's justified. At Moving Vision we've always maintained an inhouse production and post production facility, even back in the day when it really was expencive.

These days the cost of a powerful end to end post production facility is so low it's just not an issue. The people who drive it though very much are. The thing with cameras over the last few years is the pace of technological change and the demands of audiences and distributors.

It was great when for a whole decade or more Betacam SP was the standard. There's some kit that doesn't go out of fashion, even where newer and better kit has emerged, such as lighting, grips and lenses. Many DOP's own such gear but not a high end camera. As Mark rightly maintains, it's the operator and production design that make a production good or bad. People way over stress the impact of differing cameras on outcomes. In the right hands truly great films can be shot on relatively low end cameras.

When it comes to features though, it's usually paint by numbers with the best tools one can get hold of over a fixed and preordained period. Hiring the kit for such projects, unless perhaps one is giant corporation, is a no brainer on so many levels. I haven't been in the film making business very long, since in fact and as a result of an industrial accident forcing a change of career.

At present I'm only interested is shorts for my own projects. Prior to that event I was a computer programmer since '77 and photography was nothing more than a serious hobby. The feeling I get though, given my limited experience, is that just as a Director or DoP might decide on a particular camera sensor to achieve a desired 'look', the viewing audience actually appreciates the subtle sensor nuances as a 'percieved' and positive aesthetic yet possibly without realizing it.

This would possibly unknowingly influence opinions of the film to a degree and ergo - ultimately someone's balance sheet. Now if I am right, in this case I would like to use this thought as the premise of the point I wish to make in that, surely in and of itself this conclusion wholly justifies hiring the correct equipment even if other filming equipment is already owned. For example, I've had to defend my advise of using my own F55 in favour of hiring an Alexa by way of my reasoning that the F55 won't go anywhere near the stated desire for the look of a Bogart or James Cagney film even with a low pass filter installed, at which point, if positions don't change, I walk away and involve myself no further with that project - free or otherwise.

I'd welcome opinions on my trail of thought especially as I've done my homework so I know I'm asking the right people Achieving a very specific look ought not be as prescriptive a barrier to most higher end cameeras by balancing all of the visual elements that are adjustable. Yes, if the kit you own is not right for the job you should say so. If Production decides to ignore your advice ie: they are only interested in you because you have a camera and not in your skill then, its your choice to walk away or not.

I would probably walk. The problem is many filmmakers especially inexperienced ones think a camera is just a camera. As I've said elsewhere, different camera sensors should be seen as different film stocks. Each sensor or film stock will result in a different look even when paired with exactly the same lenses and it is the different looks that subconsciously affect the audiance and help tell the story.

Which is why cinematography is so important. I've always been an advocate of doing as much as possible in camera. Thanks for the feedback Mark. I appreciate the value of what your are saying. I suppose the long and short of it for me is the fact that the biggest issue I have with the film industry is the extent to which so many people are not willing to put the time in and study the art much less the hard-nosed business side of it all.

Yet their expectations are not in line with the realities whose realization comes about from actual experience. Now I feel better about walking. Shooting People. By continuing to browse this website you are agreeing to allow us to use cookies. Start a discussion. Kamran Qureshi. Paddy Robinson-Griffin. Ben Scott. Rent 5 years ago. Mark Wiggins. Dan Selakovich. Spend that saved money on production insurance.

Paul Langstaff. Without it then what is the point in writing something like this? These are my thoughts. My experiences and always take them as such. I feel this is a really important blog post, as I am reading in so many places some worryingly ill-informed comments from people. It is NOT going to make your camerawork any better. It WILL cost you more than many of you think, financially. So I just want to put down the facts on paper, so you can make a better informed choice and I also want to give my opinions…less important than facts but maybe worth listening to!

These facts are gathered from my own experience as a RED Epic owner for the past 5 months…. First off I love my Epic. The images out of it are so beautiful.

I also swear at my Epic more than I have ever cursed another camera…why? Because it goes wrong. The reliability is not the same as any other camera I have owned. Nothing close. But, this is expected and effin annoying! When you buy this you need to know this.

This will change An alpha release yesterday gave us something essential…playback. BUT it is alpha, so no way am I using this on a shoot.

But from my little bit of fiddling with it, I am impressed. Looks great and you can trim and delete clips now. This makes the camera so much better! So, what is the Scarlet? Well it is not what we were expecting.

So…unlike the Epic, the Scarlet is really a 4k camera, not 5k. At 4k you can record up 25p. Our first usable off-speed is at 3k. We can record up to 48Fps. Now remember, there is no downscaling. This is all done via cropping as you can see above. The more common up to 60FPS can only be achieved via 2k mode which is a 3. To get the rather yummy FPS, we are talking a lower than even p resolution of 1k.

Not great. This will change as the quality is improving, but currently the 2k on my Epic is rather ugly. Very blocky looking noise. I wonder what the quality of the 1k will be. For comparison, this is what my Epic does. The Epic is a lot more money.

The body only is almost 3 times the price of the Scarlet body. If the Scarlet came close to these specs then why would you buy an Epic? The differences are rather huge. So on that note, as a Scarlet user are you being short changed? Now what do you get for your money?