i hear you on the cost of adapted systems as i run a full HVX and LEX setup right now and i cant complain about the images at all but yes the light issue isnt my favorite thing, but the same lense on the 7k scarlet would cost that system the same light loss minus .5 stops because theres no actual adaptor, but id still lose the light from the lense itself wich i think is most peoples issue.. fast lenses cost more money and only really come in prime flavor which cost more production time and planning from lense switches ect. instead of just snapping in or out on a slower zoom. ..anyway yeah as far as the scarlet, ive guestimated that a complete decent cinema setup on the FF35 (for the extra latitude) would run in the 20 to 30k range once you add all the bells and whistles to your needs. but thats still an insanely affordable pro cinema camera, and if you actually *need* one you should be able to afford it, or at least absorb the cost in your production which calls for one. ..and if you just want one very badly.. well then you could get it instead of a new car, but either way its not the cost im questioning as much as the value of the images produced. ..its just a matter of paying for what you really need or want
SCARLET / EPIC swiss army knife camera details announced
- Thread starter Jack Daniel Stanley
- Start date
i hear you on the cost of adapted systems as i run a full HVX and LEX setup right now and i cant complain about the images at all but yes the light issue isnt my favorite thing, but the same lense on the 7k scarlet would cost that system the same light loss minus .5 stops because theres no actual adaptor, but id still lose the light from the lense itself wich i think is most peoples issue.. fast lenses cost more money and only really come in prime flavor which cost more production time and planning from lense switches ect. instead of just snapping in or out on a slower zoom. ..anyway yeah as far as the scarlet, ive guestimated that a complete decent cinema setup on the FF35 (for the extra latitude) would run in the 20 to 30k range once you add all the bells and whistles to your needs. but thats still an insanely affordable pro cinema camera, and if you actually *need* one you should be able to afford it, or at least absorb the cost in your production which calls for one. ..and if you just want one very badly.. well then you could get it instead of a new car, but either way its not the cost im questioning as much as the value of the images produced. ..its just a matter of paying for what you really need or want
20 to 30k seems about right if you campare it to what you need for the Red One. But if you have some of the accessories i.e. monitor, it might be cheaper. I am on the fence about if I will get the 2/3 or s35 and it will depend on how much they will charge for those mini primes. I dont see the FF35 seeing the light of day anytime soon.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
You do get the same FOV. You just use a smaller focal length according to the crop factor. 10mm f1.4 instead of 25mm f3.5. Identical results in FOV and DOF. The FOV is the same because of the focal length change and the DOF is the same because the absolute aperture is the same.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
In other words, if you match the field of view, you can get the depth of field by using the same absolute aperture (or by scaling the aperture ratio). That's how optics work. Same angle of view and same absolute aperture size = identical imaging results regardless of imager size. If you match these two parameters, everything becomes a simpleprojection of the same image in different sizes.
crop factor=24mm/9.6mm=2.5
25mm f3.5 on super35
for 2/3" you need 25mm/2.5=10mm in order to get the same field of view
The 25mm f3.5 has an absolute aperture size of 25/3.5=7.1429mm
In order to get the same absolute aperture on 10mm you need an aperture ratio of 10mm/7.1429=1.4, so f1.4 it wil be. You get the same result by scaling the aperture ratio by the crop factor: f3.5/2.5=f1.4.
crop factor=24mm/9.6mm=2.5
25mm f3.5 on super35
for 2/3" you need 25mm/2.5=10mm in order to get the same field of view
The 25mm f3.5 has an absolute aperture size of 25/3.5=7.1429mm
In order to get the same absolute aperture on 10mm you need an aperture ratio of 10mm/7.1429=1.4, so f1.4 it wil be. You get the same result by scaling the aperture ratio by the crop factor: f3.5/2.5=f1.4.
Stevet
Veteran
In the next year or two, things are about to change.
The D90 and 5DMKII are going to push these companies into improving their video capabilities in upcoming DSLR cameras..
It's going to get interesting.
right. as i said in my post youve got to sacrifice either FOV or focal length. in your equation your changing the focal length and creating a larger distance to subject in order to achieve similar image composition. but again, its not really a question of if you can get similar results under regulated composition, its a question of if you should have to regulate your composition to begin with. i mean ..a talking bird can give you quick witted remarks when you say just the right words, but it cant have a truely meaningful conversation with you. and sure a 1/3" sensor can look like 35mm when everything is just right. but it cant do it with real compositional freedom whatsoever. even changing the focal length as in your example to mimic 35mm is a creative restriction, as well as the distance to subject that the new focal length would require to maintain compositional frame size. and focal length differences yeild different compositional results do to spatial compression. although they can look similar enough under ideal circumstances. its still not the same. ..and its certainly not something that any DOP would want to be restricted to using. and do to the much larger FOv of 35mm there are alot of compositional choices that a 1/3 sensor simply cannot match do to its smaller physical size and the fact that aperture, focal length, and distance to subject are all limited in the real world. even on a huge set with lots of shooting room and a really long zoom lense and really wide max aperture you simply cannot keep backing up forever and zooming in passed full zoom and opening your iris passed wide open ...but the 35mm system can easily exceed those compositional restrictions.
..its not that im not saying a 1/3 cant look similar to 35mm DOF with the right situation cause ive done it myself many times, its just that you seem to be trying to give the impression that people can just pick up a 1/3 cam and shoot anything to look like 35mm when in reality they cannot. the two different sized imagers simply produce different images when you use them as any unrestricted DOP would. it just seems silly to pretend like the lesser can match everything that the greater can do when it in fact cannot. im all for people knowing how to use what tool they have to its greatest advantage, but theres also a real need to realise its greatest limitations as well.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
No. That's not how it works. There is no change in the distance or anything else. Just change the focal length (to keep angle of view) and the relative aperture (to keep absolute aperture size the same) and you are getting the same DOF and FOV results from the same distance. There are no additional restrictions.
You can't do that on 1/3" because the imager is much smaller and there are no f0.7 or f0.6 1/3" lenses. If you are using an f1.6 limited lens on 1/3" you can only match super35 at >f8 which will not be shallow at all. 2/3" f1.4 can reproduce everything you can get with f3.5 on super35 making it much more useful. With f1.2 lenses (some 2/3" zooms and 16mm cine lenses) you can reproduce super35 f3 results which is not very different from super35 f2.8 such as a Red One with the red zoom.
So,
super35 with 25mm f3.0 lens at point A.
Replace with 2/3" with 10mm f1.2 lens at point A.
Nothing else changes. The tripod stays at point A, subject remains at point B, you focus at the same distance etc.
IDENTICAL results for FOV and DOF. The dof character could be different because you are using different lenses but that also happens when using different f3.0 lenses on super35.
The only thing that does change, changes to your advantage. The f1.2 is gathering 6.25x as much light compared to f3.0. If the pixel size is the same (super35 has more pixels), the 2/3" has a huge advantage. If the resolution of the two sensors is the same, it's a draw because the super35 pixels are 6.25x larger in area which will cancel the light loss.
Last edited:
the image composition is still different due to spatial compression changes from varying focal length. even if you match dof and fov you still get a different image because your not matching focal length. theres just no way to match all compositional elements using two different sensor sizes. ive shot with 2/3" cams. they are great, definitel better than a 1/3, but they still arent 35mm. you just cant quite get that F2.0 medium shot sweetness. its not a big secret that if you want the results of 35 you shot shoot 35 if you have the choice. 2/3 would be next best option but its a much better match to s16, its just not quite the same as 35. ..anyway ..this horses name must be "dracula". ill just agree to disagree 
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
Neil, I'm afraid you are mistaken. There is nothing magical about a given sensor size and optics are an absolute science and not something we can debate on. There is no spatial compression because this is treated by the focal length change alone. If the angle of view is the same, the geometry at every single distance is the same, period. Check this out:
http://agentwong.com/blog/?p=4
The only difference is DOF. Additionally keeping the same absolute aperture (by reducing aperture ratio) makes sure DOF also matches. This does not change the geometry, just the DOF (blur at a given point from lens). You are well aware of how aperture has an effect on dof since you are using cameras and you can see a couple of comparison using the same focal length and different apertures on this page. No spatial compression or whatever you migth call it.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
If you still believe in spatial compression, you can try the following:
1) an actual test between super 35 and 2/3.
2) using any of the online focal length and DOF calculators for calculating geometry and DOF data.
3) if you don't have access to 2/3", try comparing a full frame dslr to a crop factor dslr, Use 1.6x the focal length and 1.6x the aperture ratio for the full frame camera and keep everything else the same.
These will all prove that results are identical if you match angle of view and absolute aperture.
http://agentwong.com/blog/?p=4
The only difference is DOF. Additionally keeping the same absolute aperture (by reducing aperture ratio) makes sure DOF also matches. This does not change the geometry, just the DOF (blur at a given point from lens). You are well aware of how aperture has an effect on dof since you are using cameras and you can see a couple of comparison using the same focal length and different apertures on this page. No spatial compression or whatever you migth call it.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
If you still believe in spatial compression, you can try the following:
1) an actual test between super 35 and 2/3.
2) using any of the online focal length and DOF calculators for calculating geometry and DOF data.
3) if you don't have access to 2/3", try comparing a full frame dslr to a crop factor dslr, Use 1.6x the focal length and 1.6x the aperture ratio for the full frame camera and keep everything else the same.
These will all prove that results are identical if you match angle of view and absolute aperture.
Last edited:
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
The only situation in which you can get a different DOF look in super35 is if you are using large aperture lenses which do not have an aperture equivalent in 2/3".
If you are using an aperture ratio>f3, on super35 I can match the results with 2/3" using f1.2 lenses (f3/2.5=f1.2). If you are using f1.5 with super35, I cannot match the dof because I do not have f0.6 lenses available on the 2/3" (f1.5/2.5=f0.6).
This cuts both ways of course. If all you have on super35 is a 24-70 f4 zoom, using <f1.6 on 2/3" (f4/2.5=f1.6) will have shallower DOF than your super35 lens because the absolute aperture will be larger.
Generally, you have to consider availability and pricing of large aperture lenses for each focal length. The super35 sensor alone does not guarantee a shallow dof.
As an example, the typical crop factor dslr kit lens is f3.5 in best case. A 2/3" can easily match everything coming out of such a combination using f1.4 lenses and it can also achieve shallower DOF on the telephoto range because that is usually f4.5 or f5.6 in these kit zooms.
If you are using an aperture ratio>f3, on super35 I can match the results with 2/3" using f1.2 lenses (f3/2.5=f1.2). If you are using f1.5 with super35, I cannot match the dof because I do not have f0.6 lenses available on the 2/3" (f1.5/2.5=f0.6).
This cuts both ways of course. If all you have on super35 is a 24-70 f4 zoom, using <f1.6 on 2/3" (f4/2.5=f1.6) will have shallower DOF than your super35 lens because the absolute aperture will be larger.
Generally, you have to consider availability and pricing of large aperture lenses for each focal length. The super35 sensor alone does not guarantee a shallow dof.
As an example, the typical crop factor dslr kit lens is f3.5 in best case. A 2/3" can easily match everything coming out of such a combination using f1.4 lenses and it can also achieve shallower DOF on the telephoto range because that is usually f4.5 or f5.6 in these kit zooms.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
Btw, don't take my word for it. From a Panavision brochure:
"In addition to requiring 2.5 times the frequency response of its cine counterpart, the smaller (2/3") target also has 2.5 times greater depth of field for the same angle of view and f-stop as the equivalent cine lens (f4 on 1.85:1 35mm film format is f1.6 in the 2/3" CCD format). In order to provide creative control over depth of field, the Primo Digital lenses have been designed to operate two stops faster than the quivalent film lenses."
"In addition to requiring 2.5 times the frequency response of its cine counterpart, the smaller (2/3") target also has 2.5 times greater depth of field for the same angle of view and f-stop as the equivalent cine lens (f4 on 1.85:1 35mm film format is f1.6 in the 2/3" CCD format). In order to provide creative control over depth of field, the Primo Digital lenses have been designed to operate two stops faster than the quivalent film lenses."
hmm i just stopped by to read the latest post and realised something ...im not sure why but i thought you were talking about the same given lense on either sensor. anyway ,that would be why i had any issue with what your saying on a technical level. but yes. no spatial compression or compositional changes assuming a lense marked relative to its target sensor size in each case. still as yet, i prefer the FF35 for its increased control over dof well beyond what 2/3 can offer, but thats just a personal shooting preference. for most standard cases im sure either would suffice the DOP perfectly fine. so just so were clear, now that were on the same page i fully agree with what you are saying in regards to 2/3 vs s35mm imaging concerning DOF. sorry about my misunderstanding of what you were saying. ive considered getting a 2/3 scarlet for these very reasons, but am waiting to see how the FF35 scarlet adds up in cost for a cine package.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
Of Course. The same lens will give different results. A 25mm f1.4 will give you 100mm FOV and f3.5 DOF.
As I mentioned, the 2/3" will not be able to match some scenarios, so it's a decision that needs to be made. If you use 25mm f1.8 on the super35m, you will not be able to match the DOF using 2/3" because there is no 10mm f0.72.
The shallower DOF does not come free. Using super35, you are taking a penalty in light gathering which could be very important in video and film production. When you need X cm of DOF for a given composition, the 2/3" can give you that DOF with 6.25x less light compared to super35. For most professionals this is a lot more important than the occational capability of extremely shallow DOF. For FF vs 2/3" this light gathering difference when the DOF is matched, is 14x. 200watt vs 2800watt is worth some thought. And using available light vs heavy lighting is worth a fortune for some low budget productions.
yzmotoxer807
Well-known member
Do my eyes deceive me?!?!? I have been away from dvxuser for a few weeks and come to find this! It is pretty much the most amazing thing that I have yet seen in my 18 years of life. I am aware that I am extremely late to viewing this thread but oh well. I thought it was a joke when I saw the 28K brain but holy crap... Of course I would have no need for the 28K but this doesn't make it any less cool. I am however very interested in the 2/3" with interchangeable lens scarlet. I cant wait to see what happens when things are more finalized over the coming year!
LuckyStudio 13
The Tapeless One
already told you guys... take whatever RED announced for production and then add 9 - 15 months to it. And in order to get a perfectly stabilize camera with sound/video/TC ... add another 15 -24 months on top of that.
Nektonic
Veteran
Well, just because they are skipping NAB this year doesn't automatically mean they won't be releasing their new cameras around the time they said they would back in Nov. 08. Yes it does make one think that maybe they are behind on the Scarlets and Epics. I've criticized RED's odd marketing strategy as well but until we hear differently I am personally going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
And if they do take longer then that is just more time for us all to save up money, write our scripts, plan our productions, and also will let the RED workflow mature some more. I would rather have to wait longer than have something rushed to meet a delivery date.
They can't wait too long though. Canon or any of the others could come out with something like a 5D mkII guts and lens mount in a pro video camera body with 24mbps AVC-HD. I think that something like this will eventually happen within the next 1 to 2 years.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Apple and Avid are skipping NAB as well. Pulling out of a trade show isn't necessarily a sign of anything being wrong, it just points more towards the death of trade shows in general. Apple announced that this Macworld would be their last, they're not going to go to Macworld any longer. And Panasonic Europe pulled out of IBC a couple of years ago, saying they could better use that money on direct visits to customers.
John Caballero
Veteran
It takes a long while to create a new camera like Scarlet from scratch. I guess that is why Canon, Panasonic or Sony are not rushing out with anything to compete with it. By the time Scarlet comes out they will be more than ready.