SCARLET / EPIC swiss army knife camera details announced

just saying that while it's nice to have, it is FAAAAAAR from essential. there is a poster here named Sean that made a beautiful (and i'm not exaggerating) little short film.... on a camera phone. he embraced the inherent "flaws" in the image and that texture was as equally compelling, in its own right, as some of the best Red footage i've seen... for different, but again, equally compelling reasons.

but maybe i should stay out of the camera threads, haha! i'm one of those guys that see beauty in damn near everything.
 
Zak Forsman said:
true. and by the same token, a motivated filmmaker could do well with less than a single Scarlet in his aresenal, as well.
Click to expand...

replace the world "Scarlet" with "any camera"

well i guess grammatically the sentence wouldn't make sense becase it'd be "...less than a single any camera..."

but you get my point.
 
Zak Forsman said:
just saying that while it's nice to have, it is FAAAAAAR from essential. there is a poster here named Sean that made a beautiful (and i'm not exaggerating) little short film.... on a camera phone. he embraced the inherent "flaws" in the image and that texture was as equally compelling, in its own right, as some of the best Red footage i've seen... for different, but again, equally compelling reasons.
Click to expand...


Agree. Content is KING.

BTW, I was looking for the "cellphone short film" in the search forums but couldn't find it. Does any one have a link???

Thanks,
 
bronxjragon said:
logic still applies. its what you do with what you have. if you have a panavision good for you, hopefully you'll create a masterpiece since you have such expensive equipment
Click to expand...

umm, hehe, i can't tell if you're countering my point or not. i don't think we're on opposite sides of this.
 
Last edited:
bronxjragon said:
logic still applies. its what you do with what you have. if you have a panavision good for you, hopefully you'll create a masterpiece since you have such expensive equipment
Click to expand...

Although one can't own a Panavision camera. And I doubt 98.3% of this board will ever touch one more or less see one.

But I digress - like Zak said, the camera is only a nicety.
 
I resent that you used the term "Swiss Army Knife" camera!!! I coined that for the HVX 200 years ago! ;)
Actually since I didn't TM it, I guess I don't own it. :)

Besides, if you have a bazillion dollars you could have it all. :(

Seriously, it is cool that you can custome build it for any thing you want it to be.
I just thought it was funny that this was the title for this thread.
Back to work I go. :thumbup:
 
Ok, I am having some trouble understanding some of the lens stuff, probably because I don't know shiy about lenses. So, I want the interchangeable lens scarlet 2/3 inch camera. And I was thinking I could save a fortune by going this route as opposed to getting, say an EX1 and then a 35mm adapter. However, will I get the same look and with what lenses? Can you use 35mm lenses with this camera and wouldn't that be the best thing to do? And what does 35mm lens refer to, is it a measure of how wide or tele a lens is or does it just mean it is used with 35mm film? Thanks.

Also, what is this that I am hearing about being able to use still camera lenses. Are those cheaper and just as good?

Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks.
 
64 thousand dollar questions there.

In theory, having a 2/3" chip will give you more control over depth of field (as in less, if you desire) than a 1/2" chip, or a 1/3" chip. But lens size (zoom), and aperture settings, plus relation of distance of subject in focus to background, are also big factors.

Using 35mm lenses won't make your video look like film. That has much more to do with lighting, the way it's shot, shooting at 24fps, using a "cinema" gamma control, etc.

Using a 35mm adapter will actually make your image less crisp and degrade it some (this should start an argument), though most people won't notice.

Shooting with a 35mm adapter cuts some light to the lens. Be aware of this.

Using a 35mm adapter takes longer camera set-ups, and is harder to hand hold, and run and gun.

Scarlet is, for the most part, a professional camera. It will shoot raw (codec) that you'll need to have a potent computer to process, and an understanding of how to deal with raw footage. Scarlet will also require a fair amount of spendy add on's. Be prepared to pay. Creature comforts that make cameras like the EX1 and HPX170 easy to use, such as built in ND filters, auto control, image stabilizer, etc. are likely to be omitted from Scarlet.

Shooting on 35mm film, as in an Arri 435es which uses actual film, and 35mm lenses, won't make your film look great. And it definitely won't make it interesting. Only a good concept, great story and character will do that. And if you're good enough at that, even a DVX100 can do wonders.
 
Yes I know, I have a DVX. I am at the point now that I wish to upgrade. I know that no camera makes or breaks your footage, I know how to light, and I have a fair amount of experience all around. I'm not pro by any means but I am definitely not a beginner either. When I said film-like I meant shallow DOF. But yes I know that is not all there is too it. Now that that's over,

Thanks for that response. But my questions are mainly about the Scarlet. Basically I am asking if using a scarlet will eliminate the need for a 35mm adapter. Can the same look be created (with the 2/3 inch sensor) and if so, how?

Thanks.
 
Can the same look be created (with the 2/3 inch sensor) and if so, how?
Click to expand...
Thought I somewhat answered that, here:

...lens size (zoom), and aperture settings, plus relation of distance of subject in focus to background, are also big factors.

This isn't directed at you, I'm just more than weary about all the indie filmmakers who spend all their time and money on more and more gear, and now 35mm adapters in order to get shallow DOF because that will (finally) make their movies look like film. Their movies that are poorly written, poorly directed, poorly acted, unoriginal, but generally look fine.

It's why I used to post all the time on here, and 2-Pop before this site even existed, but now in many ways I'm persona non grata these days.
 
Entity said:
Basically I am asking if using a scarlet will eliminate the need for a 35mm adapter. Can the same look be created (with the 2/3 inch sensor) and if so, how?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

A 2/3" camera with an f1.4 lens gives you the dof of a super35 (or a crop factor dlsr) camera at f3.5. If that is shallow enough for you, 2/3" will provide it. For comparison with your present camcorder, your dvx wide open at f1.6 gives you the dof of super35 at f8.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
A 2/3" camera with an f1.4 lens gives you the dof of a super35 (or a crop factor dlsr) camera at f3.5. If that is shallow enough for you, 2/3" will provide it. For comparison with your present camcorder, your dvx wide open at f1.6 gives you the dof of super35 at f8.
Click to expand...

sure, but you dont get the equivilent FOV. basically Entity, if you want your camera to bahave like 35 in terms of image composition you either need to use a cam with 35mm sensor, or a 35mm adaptor. thats why both of those things exist, and will continue to exist. because while achieving a shallow DOF with a smaller sensor is possible, its at the expense of other things such as FOV and or focal length. while thers a small area where the images of different cams will overlap if given the right settings you dont want to be limited to always shooting within those given settings to only match one possible setup of an actual true 35mm imager. vs shooting a real 35mm image and being able to use all of its creative control as needed or desired.

dont get me wrong here. a 2/3 sensor is better than a 1/3 by far for looking like 35 in general with more creative control and id love to have a 2/3 scarlet over a 1/3 cam, but theres just no substitute for an actual 35mm imaging system if thats what your after. hopefully the 35 scarlets will deliver, but theres 35 adaptors that already do at a fraction of the cost.
 
I can only say as I did before, if you truly must have your image look like film, then shoot on film. 99% of your audience won't tell the difference between something shot on which camera with which imager anyway. And your writing, story, characters, and shooting skills are much more important than your gear.

But no one seems to want to hear that. Or they say they believe it, while coveting and hoarding more gear and hair splitting the details along the way.

I'm out.
 
Neil Rowe said:
hopefully the 35 scarlets will deliver, but theres 35 adaptors that already do at a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...

I dont think we know enough yet. The HPX 170 and Ultimate is quite pricey. Yes the brain alone is 7K but we will have to wait and see what the final pricing will be for a fully equipped camera. You also have to take in to account the extra lighting you need b/c of light loss on using adapters.
 
Last edited:
Entity said:
So, I want the interchangeable lens scarlet 2/3 inch camera. And I was thinking I could save a fortune by going this route as opposed to getting, say an EX1 and then a 35mm adapter. However, will I get the same look and with what lenses? Can you use 35mm lenses with this camera and wouldn't that be the best thing to do? And what does 35mm lens refer to, is it a measure of how wide or tele a lens is or does it just mean it is used with 35mm film? Thanks.

Also, what is this that I am hearing about being able to use still camera lenses. Are those cheaper and just as good?

Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks.
Click to expand...

TO answer directly, 35mm lenses dont work on a 2/3" camera.

And more to the point, the 2/3" lens options arent cheap. You can use a standard zoom, or 2/3" primes which look fantastic, but are expensive. Too expensive to justify buying. I read recently someone picked up an older set of 2/3" Canon primes for a reasonable price, but anything new is $$$$$$. So, in actual fact as far as spend goes the 35 version may be a better option based on the abundance of 35mm lenses. Of course high quality cine lenses are expensive no matter what route you go.
 
snowleopard said:
I can only say as I did before, if you truly must have your image look like film, then shoot on film. 99% of your audience won't tell the difference between something shot on which camera with which imager anyway. And your writing, story, characters, and shooting skills are much more important than your gear.

But no one seems to want to hear that. Or they say they believe it, while coveting and hoarding more gear and hair splitting the details along the way.

I'm out.
Click to expand...

thats because for most people its not about actually looking like film as much as it is having the compositional properties of a 35mm image. and why would anyone want to spend all the extra money and time needed to shoot, develop, and transfer film if they can have a digital option that costs a fraction of the cost and gives them similar results? i would rather have a digital option anyday that may not have the fine grain and exact tonality of film, but carries a beautiful image in its own right that the audience can appreciate without question, and that the budget can afford.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top