January 1, 2012

New RED Prices Now in Effect, Extension Until March for Accessories

It's January 1st, and that means that the price of a RED camera has gone up. While I've noted this previously for anyone who was thinking about ordering one, there's a second set of RED components that are getting a price increase: accessories. However, due partially to the fact that some of their planned accessories didn't ship before the calendar flipped to the new year, RED has extended the date for when accessories will increase in price to March 1st. In the list below, the yellow prices should already be in effect, whereas the green "new" prices won't go into effect until March.

Link: 2012 Price Adjustment reminder ( and some extensions ) - REDUSER

Your Comment

36 Comments

wow, i ordered my red scarlet on 29th dec 2011

January 1, 2012

0
Reply

17 thousand for an overrated super 35 camcorder with a cult following

no thanks, ill stick with my dslr

January 1, 2012

-1
Reply
John Jeffreys

RED fan noise, sound issues, firmware issues, product delays, back orders, marketing hype, price increases... my current pick is still the Sony PMW-F3K w/ S-Log.

SCARLET-X w/ PL mount package = $17,465 + RED Armor 2 year extended warranty $1,500 + One 35mm Lens $4,250 = $23,215
vs.
Sony PMW-F3K w/ S-Log, PL Mount, three lenses (35mm, 50mm, and 85mm) = $19,890 + BP-U60 Lithium-Ion Battery $270 + Two SBP-32 32GB SxS PRO memory cards $1,860 + 3 year extended warranty $800 = $22,820

January 1, 2012

0
Reply
Razor

Razor, you're giving misinformation. Slog is made for a 10 bit architecture so recording to the sxs card defeats the purpose. So you need to add in an external recorder that does at least 10 bit 422, then you need battery power for the recorder, so that means you need a cheese plate, battery plate, batteries, and rail support system($800) to be operational. So a proper estimate for a slog f3 is more like 20k-ish without lenses. Just wanted to make that clear.

January 1, 2012

-1
Reply
Ryan

Scarlet package vs. A used car hmmmmm?

January 1, 2012

0
Reply
Rob

Scarlet-X = 4k resolution, raw 12 bit color, full fidelity sensor (no moire, less rolling shutter, no aliasing), extreme dynamic range, upgradable future proof sensor capability, PL mountable, and superior frame rate selection = "$23,215"

Sony F3 = 1080 resolution, compressed 8 bit color, limited fidelity sensor (moire, more rolling shutter, and aliasing) standard dynamic range, more limited frame rate selection, and a typical obsolescence cycle = "$19,890"

5d = "1080" (enhanced 720) resolution, compressed 8 bit color, low fidelity sensor (heavy moire, lots of rolling shutter, more aliasing) gimped frame rate selection and is already obsolete = $3,000 - $10,000 depending on accessories.

I think the comparison between the F3 and the Scarlet is rather weak, they are in the same price bracket, but entirely different specification brackets. All new camera releases have issues, the F3 did, and the 5d didn't even have 24p for a year. Yes REDs have bugs, but they also have a shelf life at least three to four times longer than any Canon or Sony offering. Comparing a DSLR to a Scarlet as in "in no thanks, ill stick with my DSLR" is quite ridiculous, they are entirely different types of cameras for entirely different uses. A 5d will never be able to compete as a cinema camera with a Scarlet, and a Scarlet will never be able to compete with a DSLR as a convenient, cheap, run&gun.

The comparison between the F3 and Scarlet is a value assessment, and I get that. However, their prices are sufficiently similar to be in the same class, but their specs are so divergent that their relative imaging powers are very different.

I am not a RED fan boy, I love my 5d, but I acknowledged the Scarlet is the far superior camera for cinema. It's time for people to get out of their camps and look at the issues objectively. If you can't afford a RED, don't try and rationalize using a DSLR by bashing the Scarlet. The guys at RED are very arrogant, and this turns people off; I find it annoying too, and RED employees trying to censor bad press (Phil Bloom's thing) is unacceptable. However, none of that changes the facts; the specs speak, David Fincher and Peter Jackson use the Epic sensor (same one as the Scarlet's) for a reason.

January 1, 2012

0
Reply
Progman

The F-3 with S-Log is a different beast altogether. Also, the RED post workflow is a financial undertaking by itself. Your argument is clearly biased.

January 1, 2012

0
Reply
Chris

May I ask how is it biased? The facts are as they are, the Scarlet is more expensive and demands a more complex workflow, but has significantly superior specs in many key categories. Efficiently editing any video source requires an investment, albeit RED more so and with a higher barrier to entry. If you see some way to rework the math so the F3 comes out with a net spec superiority, please do so, I simply don't see it. Resolution and color depth are essential and objective (numerical) indicators of imaging power. In a shootout a Scarlet will always be sharper, deeper, and more versatile in post, this is clear. I don't care which company has the superior cinema device, all I care about is that one of the two cinema devices happens to be superior.

January 1, 2012

-1
Reply
Progman

What financial investment? A $750 laptop + CS5.5 kicked ass on a quick turn around broadcast ad for me. Sounds like you've never actually worked with the workflow, or you experienced a clunky archaic one.

January 1, 2012

0
Reply
Gabe

Quite the opposite, I have experienced both workflows, if you read my post I use the word 'efficient'. If you deal with a massive volume of footage, and want to use the full abilities of premiere, than 1200-1600 is the range for a fully optimized machine. You can certainly edit h264 on laptop, I've done that too, but its slow, you can't view in full res while you work, and you have to render repeatedly. A machine ready to work on RED Raw will be 2,000-2,300, a machine ready to -efficiently- edit h264 will be as I said, 1200-1600, still a relative investment. By no means extremely expensive for either application, but when Chris refereed to editing Raw as an "investment," I was responding relative to that assertion.

January 2, 2012

0
Reply
Progman

Sorry, just to be clear my comment was directed at Chris, not you Progman. My point was that for very low budget editors, it's still quite possible to edit Red footage, even with a quick turn around time (Asus in particular has some great punch for the money laptops...I recently bought a $750 laptop from them that's faster than my desktop and has a Mercury engine capable video card). I agree that any larger scale workflow is going to require a bigger investment, regardless of the camera system. I just wanted to point out that with CS5.5, it's quite possible to work with Red footage on smaller projects without a bunch of expensive equipment.

January 2, 2012

-1
Reply
Gabe

One thing to remember is that a 1080 film will usually only be projected at 2k (unless its used as B footage mixed with 4k). If it were to be projected at 4k (the standard for big theaters) it would be much more obvious. That's really the prime issue, as the standard for large corporate chain theaters (most modern theaters) is 4k, and thus requiring a sharpness density loss of 1/2 for 1080 footage in projection.

January 2, 2012

-1
Reply
Progman

Bah... wrong reply... good work..

January 2, 2012

0
Reply
Progman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G5pyFhmAqE

that film was shot entirely with a 5d.

just food for thought

January 1, 2012

1
Reply
John Jeffreys

Rubber is truly a bizarre freaking film... The 5d can produce a very pleasing image though, and I never denied that (that's why I bought one). I'm just making a comparison - look at it this way - 28 Days Later was shot on an XL1 (standard def Canon camcorder from 2001), it still looked pretty good, but I don't think anyone would deny the 5d is a superior camera to the XL1. So I'm just making a similar comparison between the the 5D and Scarlet.

January 1, 2012

1
Reply
Progman

I feel like the 5d and the Scarlet are about the same, just my opinion though. If you play footage from both cameras on a theater screen an average audience couldnt tell the difference

January 1, 2012

0
Reply
John Jeffreys

That is simply wrong.

January 1, 2012

0
Reply
Ryan

I'm sorry, but that comment shows that you just haven't actually done the research on this. I have seen 1080 and 2k footage projected on a big screen and there is a notable difference in sharpness. Just fundamentally if you watch a 2k film projected on a 4k screen, it will look 50% less sharp. Even at 2k, or on 1080 monitor an image recorded at 4k will look much sharper and more well defined. Go watch Che (RED 4k) and Rubber (1080) and just compare how sharp Benicio Del Toro's face looks compared to Roxane Mesquida's.

January 1, 2012

0
Reply
Progman

I think his point was an AVERAGE viewer (hint: if you think the average viewer watches two movies one after the other and compares facial sharpness, you've been pixel-peeping for too long!!)

January 2, 2012

-1
Reply

No pixel peeping needed to see the difference, to see the difference you just need to watch 5d/7d on the big screen, and I doubt that the people making or defending this claim have done so. DSLR's barely qualify for the big screen, that doesn't mean they compete.

January 2, 2012

0
Reply
Ryan

Hey guys... My two cents...
My girlfriend and I both went to see a few Like Crazy on the big screen (7d & master primes) at Arclight Pasadena. I could see the lowered dynamic range and sometimes the film took on a video-like vaneer (the aliasing/moire was actually never a problem on the big screen, the large image smooths it out according to an interview with Like Crazy's dp on fx hide.com). After the movie I asked my girlfriend what she thought about the image, and she said it looked fine, not Transformers high end but she didn't notice anything wrong with it.

This is the same girl who hated the low-budget look of Matha Marcy May Marlene, where the dp specifically tried to give the film a milky washed out look.

Just a little food for thought from an average moviegoer (my gf not me)

January 2, 2012

0
Reply
Drew

I saw like crazy with my gf as well she asked why some of the shots were out of focus, I told her the camera was soft. The wide shots were rough, resolving 700 lines isnt enough detail for quality wides, even with ultra primes. There were only a handful of wides and I think that is because the filmmakers realized the restrictions of the camera, it was a good movie though

There are better options to shoot features on with marginally higher rental fees, there aren't any good reasons to shoot a feature on dslr in 2012.

January 2, 2012

-1
Reply
Ryan

Hey Ryan
Just to be devil's advocate for a minute, what camera system would you reccomend? A low budget feature... say i was planning on a 7d shoot what direction would you sway me in?

January 3, 2012

0
Reply
drew

rent fs100 or af100 depending on the project with an atomos ninja, atomos samurai, or ki pro mini. This option is sharper, better dynamic range, less rolling shutter and aliasing, higher bit rate, easier to color correct and match, only downside is you're using a slightly larger rig.

January 3, 2012

0
Reply
Ryan

For clarification sake, what do you mean when you say REDS have a shelf life three to four times of anything offered by Canon or Sony? I'm having trouble understanding what that even means in relation to camera usage.

January 1, 2012

-1
Reply
Abersouth

Yeah, I'm sorry if that was vague, I was referring to cycles of obsolescence. RED rolls out sensor upgrades, where you send in your camera and get a new sensor without buying a new Camera, while Canon and Sony roll out new cameras every 2-3 years and make you replace the whole body.

A RED cycle seams to be closer to 4-5 years (judging from the RED One to Epic jump), which means ultimately your making a longer term investment (thus justifying high costs).

January 1, 2012

-1
Reply
Progman

This is one of the main reasons I invested in a SCARLET -- you pay for a sensor upgrade in two years and hopefully that extends the life of the camera to a total of 4-5 years. Plus you can use it as a B cam for any EPIC shoots... I suppose you could say the same about the Sony F3 as a B cam to the F65, though the former has far less resolution and the two won't be matched as closely as a SCARLET/EPIC.

The Canon C300, on the other hand... in 2-3 years will people still be satisfied with 8-bit 50Mbit? If you want to put the camera to use on a feature shoot, what is it a B camera to, with its compressed output and MXF file format?

For any business investment, it's not just upfront cost -- it's cost over time. The RED is not "obsolescence obsolete," but in my opinion the bottom part of the equation -- time -- is a larger # with the RED.

January 1, 2012

-1
Reply
avatar
Ryan Koo
Founder
Writer/Director

I think the value of the less-obvious-but-just-as-essential specs like compression and color depth really are being overlooked in all these (very repetitive) arguments. What sold me above all else for RED, was really all the freedom it affords in post. You posted last week about Fincher's whole re-framing deal with the Epic, that's case and point. The ability to really manipulate and work your footage as a "digital negative" like we can do with raw still files, (obviously to less extreme degree) is really empowering and I think just throws it over the top for me.

January 2, 2012

0
Reply
Progman

but why upgrade the sensor when you are already getting amazing images out of it? it a bit pricey for a b cam.

January 2, 2012

1
Reply
al guti

Thanks for the reply Progman. It just confused me because whenever I think of the term shelf life, food perishables is what immediately comes to mind. And that doesn't seem to transfer well (in my mind anyway) as an analogy to digital cameras.

Plus, not to be too parsing, but by your own stated numbers, the obsolescence ratio comparison isn't three to four times in favor of RED. 2 or 3 years to 4 or 5. Just a quibble. Otherwise, thanks again for your response.

January 1, 2012

-1
Reply
Abersouth

4-5 is extrapolation from the past, I personally believe that RED will work with the Epic platform much longer than the RED One platform. RED released a resolution chart in early 2011 that showed "theoretical" resolutions of up to 18k for the epic. Of course this could easily just be more of Jannard's BS, but that the whole "obsolescence obsolete" spiel, and the much larger production their putting together for the epic, makes me believe they are invested on Epic being their sensor platform for longer then the RED One. This is just my own speculation though, so perhaps 3-4 times is an unfortunate exaggeration.

January 2, 2012

0
Reply
Progman

Ditto, Progman.

January 2, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Ryan Koo
Founder
Writer/Director

Sorry if this is a dumb question but I've never bought anything off of the red site. Are those the final prices you pay or are there shipping costs, tax costs, or both added on too?

January 2, 2012

-1
Reply
Spoonman