Page 5 of 31 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 304
  1. Collapse Details
    #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    349
    Default
    To me it's simple. If you like the way your EX1 looks for $6000 then you'll love the way your Scarlet looks for $6000.

    Not everyone needs 35mm DOF and most of us coming from 1/3" or 1/2" chips will greatly appreciate the added DOF of 2/3" without having to bend over backwards with focus. In all aspects that don't have anything to do with 35mm DOF, the Scarlet should best the DSLR's and probably most dedicated video cameras.
    Last edited by ethan cooper; 12-01-2009 at 09:05 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #42
    Senior Member adkimery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,648
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by stephenvv View Post
    People keep talking about "3K' with Scarlet. It's not a 3k camera compared to other cameras and this number is only useful internally within Red - it's very misleading to use this term relevant to other cameras.
    To be fair you could same thing about any camera. As I understand it because of the OLPF needed to reduce aliasing a native 1920x1080 camera, for example, won't be able to resolve 1920x1080 worth of detail. To get that amount of detail a lager-than-HD imager must be used and sampled down to 1929x1080. Of course there are also cameras and formats that aren't even full faster yet we still call them "HD" even though the images they record will never contain 1280x720 or 1920x1080 'pixels worth' of information.

    I don't think calling the RED a 4k camera or the Scarlet a 3k camera is any more misleading than calling the HVX200 an HD camera (even though it can only resolve 540 lines from what I've read). I do think a distinction should be made between sensor size and actual resolved detail but that distinction is useful for all cameras, not just those from Red.


    -A


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #43
    Shallow Member William_Robinette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    3,414
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Chamber005 View Post
    In the end it's going to be about people like Phillip Bloom and some senior members here posting their take on this camera as it compares to the competition.
    In the end it should be how this camera compares to other systems for your use. If it fits your needs, who cares what anyone else thinks. If it doesn't fit your needs, who cares what anyone else thinks.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #44
    Senior Member stephenvv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Greensboro NC
    Posts
    453
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by William_Robinette View Post
    RED One is 3.2K in 4K mode, and they have now released a 4.5K mode. Until you have seen 3K from scarlet projected I don't think you can really say if it is soft or not. And show me any 1080p camera that is resolving all that is stated. If it is I would bet you the aliasing would make it unusable.
    It's 3.2k at best under ideal conditions at 4k. If focus is even slightly off, motion blur etc. it' can be well under 3k. There is no reason to believe Scarlet debayer will be any better.

    EX1 resolve 1000 lines or so. Of course, resolution is not everything. But my point here is Scarlet is not a 3K camera and people need to stop calling it that unless they are trying to differentiate the various mode internally to Red models.
    stephen v2
    "A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."
    Stanley Kubrick


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #45
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by stephenvv View Post
    3K Scarlet footage should look wonderful at 1080p or 2k. But if you projected at 3K, it would be quite soft.
    I agree with almost everything stephenvv is saying in this thread, but I wanted to examine this a bit further... 3K from the Scarlet is always going to look sharper than 2K or 1080p. Projected 3K will look sharper than 2K projected on the same screen.

    If you took a Red One and shot at 4K, and posted at 3K, then yes, the Red One's 4K should be substantially, significantly sharper than the Scarlet's 3K.

    But if you shot on the very best 1080p camera out there, the Scarlet's 3K should still be sharper.

    It won't be 50% sharper (like the difference between 2 and 3 might make you think it should be). It may only be 10% sharper. But it should still hold an advantage in sharpness. (well, in resolution, at least; "sharpness" is a more subjective term).

    Anyway -- I don't think anyone is saying the 3K mode is "bad", it's going to be better than 2K or 1080p, and it should downconvert into absolutely wonderful 1080p (which is the delivery standard worldwide right now). But no, the 3K mode won't hold 3k's worth of detail, it'll hold somewhere around 2.3k worth of detail.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #46
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ethan cooper View Post
    To me it's simple. If you like the way your EX1 looks for $6000 then you'll love the way your Scarlet looks for $6000.
    That's an excellent way to look at it.

    Not everyone needs 35mm DOF and most of us coming from 1/3" or 1/2" chips will greatly appreciate the added DOF of 2/3" without having to bend over backwards with focus. In all aspects that don't have anything to do with 35mm DOF, the Scarlet should best the DSLR's and probably most dedicated video cameras.
    But will it have the features of a dedicated video camera? Will it have the ability to adjust and paint the image, bake that into the look, and deliver that as video footage? Not as raw, but as actual video? If it does, then yeah, it looks like the whole prosumer segment will probably get its collective butt cheeks handed to it on a silver platter.

    But my question is -- what if it doesn't? If it doesn't, then doesn't that move the Scarlet into a weird category of its own? Not for broadcast, not for ENG, only for digital cinema... yet it's a digi-cine camera without cinema field of view or DOF, so... that's where my question comes in. What do people feel about that?

    If they've gone and made it a full-fledged video camera in addition to a cinema-only camera, then heck, this is absolutely a breakthrough.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    349
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post
    But my question is -- what if it doesn't? If it doesn't, then doesn't that move the Scarlet into a weird category of its own? Not for broadcast, not for ENG, only for digital cinema... yet it's a digi-cine camera without cinema field of view or DOF, so... that's where my question comes in. What do people feel about that?
    The only place I don't see Scarlet being a good fit is ENG and I don't think it was ever intended to play in that segment. I don't agree with your take of "only for digital cinema". I can see it working for commercials, events, corporate and training videos. Basically anything you were going to spend a little time editing anyway you'd just add the Raw conversion to your current workflow. Seems to me that it's an acceptable trade off for image quality and just like any other "new" format, it'll be supported better by NLE's as time goes by.

    Whenever people grumble about new formats being a pain to work with, I always think about the early days of HDV. Remember how big of a PITA that was to work with early on, now it's not much different than messing with DV. The same will eventually happen with Raw and once that's easy to work with something new will come along to upset the apple cart.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #48
    Senior Member stephenvv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Greensboro NC
    Posts
    453
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by adkimery View Post
    To be fair you could same thing about any camera. As I understand it because of the OLPF needed to reduce aliasing a native 1920x1080 camera, for example, won't be able to resolve 1920x1080 worth of detail. To get that amount of detail a lager-than-HD imager must be used and sampled down to 1929x1080. Of course there are also cameras and formats that aren't even full faster yet we still call them "HD" even though the images they record will never contain 1280x720 or 1920x1080 'pixels worth' of information.
    -A
    Saying this about any camera is incorrect and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how camera sensors work.

    Single chip Bayers work fundamentally different from 3 chip CCD or CMOS cameras. While alll camera don't meet their intended resolution due to various technical and optical issues - e.g. the EX1 is a native 1080p camera but measure around 1000 lines of 1080p while the HVX uses pixel shift from 3 540 line sensor to aim for 720p, Bayer sensor do not have 1 pixel = 1 intended line of resolution. Red (despite the name) was never 4,000 lines of resolution. The 4.5k mode just uses the full sensor but you give up some feature - it's similar to the Andromeda for the DXV.

    I could go into far more detail but this info is widely available online - including on reduser by Red shooters. Adam Wilt has great information on how resolution/sensors work.

    My 7D is single chip Bayer. It has 3500 pixels H in still mode but debayering means various reviews have measured much less - 2100 lines with extinction about 3100 lines.

    Red cameras are the same and thus can only be compared with Bayer type sensors.
    stephen v2
    "A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."
    Stanley Kubrick


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #49
    Senior Member stephenvv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Greensboro NC
    Posts
    453
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post
    I agree with almost everything stephenvv is saying in this thread, but I wanted to examine this a bit further... 3K from the Scarlet is always going to look sharper than 2K or 1080p. Projected 3K will look sharper than 2K projected on the same screen.
    Barry - I totally agree with this because it's basic oversampling principles. When I shot my Red commercials for delivery at 1080p, we shot 3K (for better slo-mo) knowing that the oversample of roughly 2.2k real resolution down to 1080p would look great - it did, very sharp but smooth without any resolution artifacts.

    Scarlet, assuming it's at least equal to Red One, should look fantastic at 1080p. But it would be soft projected at 3K.
    stephen v2
    "A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."
    Stanley Kubrick


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    349
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by stephenvv View Post
    Scarlet, assuming it's at least equal to Red One, should look fantastic at 1080p. But it would be soft projected at 3K.
    If you need more resolution, buy or rent an Epic. A good many of us don't need anything more than 1080 for the foreseeable future. If your particular application is features or festivals (in hopes of being picked up as a feature) then shoot with a better camera than the 2/3" Scarlet... in 6 months or so... when they're actually available to be used to shoot something.

    Most people in our field don't do feature films that will be projected at 3K resolutions so what's the big deal?


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 5 of 31 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •