A-cam dII 'High Definition RAW Format Motion Picture Camera

Comparing this camera to a red is just silly. Totally different camera for totally different needs.

All I can say is at 1.5 kg and taking pl mount 16mm lenses, I am very interested. Pre-ordered it already. Should be more info after they get back from IBC.
 
You could always make sd downconverts for offline editing and then reconnect.

a small price to pay for quality.
They've stated you could record straight to an hdcam or hdcam-sr deck also, and possibly a few other more attractive recording options...
 
I just bought the rest of the pre-orders, I am charging a $5,000 premium if anyone wants one when they come out.

(a-cam serial numbers #5-#3974)


Am I having a RED flashback?!
 
delaro said:
it's sold with an optic, 9mm f/1.5
it's ready to use out of the box.
it seems to be in the same spirit as the super16s in the 70S like the one Kubrick used for the raped woman scene of clockwork orange for example. audio, and output for monitor.
Click to expand...
Every production still I've seen of that scene shows him holding an Arri 2C, a 35-mm model.
 
image_db.php


they've announced it's a ccd sensor.
 
Offhollywood said:
I had one in my hands today the show here at IBC.

It's pretty damn impressive in form factor.

Uncompressed 1920x1080 in DNG file sequence recorded to a 80G 250MB "flash module" which is most likely raided CF. HDMI out, audio in. up to 60fps.

They had some footage in the booth that looked very impressive.

Not sure how one would use this practically on any kind of long form project with uncompressed RAW, and at about $9K US - doesn't really make any scense to me with SCARLET around the corner.

And yeah, pretty cool to have something that small that you can put different lenses on.

I was impressed that these guys made this, it works, and it's VERY small.
Click to expand...

check it out.
 
Matty_g said:
Comparing this camera to a red is just silly. Totally different camera for totally different needs.
Click to expand...

Such a bizarre statement.

Those who shoot 16 instead of 35, as well as those who shoot DVX instead of RED, do so because:

(a) the engineers of the higher quality cameras cannot, or will not, sell that quality at a price these moviemakers can afford, or
(b) the engineers of the higher quality cameras cannot, or will not, package that quality in the convenient form factor of the smaller camera like the DVX

The ideal is a camera of the DVX size and shape with a 35mm picture. It's the engineers who are holding that up, not our own choice. We are comparing the A-camera and the RED to that ideal, not first and foremost to each other. Each approaches that ideal to different degrees: the RED more in quality, the A-cam more in size and price, but still there is not a camera in the world that meets that ideal in all elements: size, price, quality.
 
Last edited:
This will be a sick music video and commercial camera for today, and as long as 1080P remains the television standard for at least 5 years will be a great all around camera for years to come (as storage costs continue to drop and processors multiply and get faster) Still, the price will have to be slashed a bit once scarlet starts delivering.
 
Comparing this to the scarlet is like apples to oranges. Totally different cameras. This is for digital cinema with a sensor comparable to S16. Whereas the scarlet is a 2/3 sensor.
 
Mattykins said:
Comparing this to the scarlet is like apples to oranges. Totally different cameras. This is for digital cinema with a sensor comparable to S16. Whereas the scarlet is a 2/3 sensor.
Click to expand...

So you have pointed out they are different. Just because two things are not exactly the same doesn't mean you cannot compare them. That's what comparison is all about.

Furthermore, the A-cam's sensor (10.6 x 6 mm) is very close in size to 2/3" (9.6 x 5.4 mm).

Finally, it is in the interest of camera sellers, not camera users, to segregate us into tiers. What a user wants is one or two cameras that he can use for a variety of assignments. What a seller wants is a dozen different cameras all at different prices. That's the same reasoning behind why Microsoft has seven different versions of Vista.
 
I have no idea what your point is.

The are different cameras for different purposes. It is like those comparing the DVX to the RED. There is no point.

Here the cameras have different sensors and are made for different users. The scarlet isn't meant to be used for film. The S16mm DOF is much better than that of the 2/3 sensor camera. S16 is used in the commercial and indie film world because it is more affordable than 35mm.

2/3 cameras aren't generally used in film. The F23 and its fellow cine-altas including the Varicam are standing exceptions. At least professionally. This will be similar to shooting S16. That is the point. The scarlet isn't designed that way.

Which is why I, and a few others, said comparing them is pointless. The end use is different.
 
Mattykins said:
I have no idea what your point is.

The are different cameras for different purposes. It is like those comparing the DVX to the RED. There is no point.

Here the cameras have different sensors and are made for different users. The scarlet isn't meant to be used for film. The S16mm DOF is much better than that of the 2/3 sensor camera. S16 is used in the commercial and indie film world because it is more affordable than 35mm.

2/3 cameras aren't generally used in film. The F23 and its fellow cine-altas including the Varicam are standing exceptions. At least professionally. This will be similar to shooting S16. That is the point. The scarlet isn't designed that way.

Which is why I, and a few others, said comparing them is pointless. The end use is different.
Click to expand...

People indeed compare apples to oranges, lol. You can compare whatever you like :)

And who says scarlet is not intended film? You think 3K and RAW is for the soccer moms? and you're right that S16 is used a lot in commercials and music videos and even feature films, and 2/3 sensors have almost identical DoF characteristics as S16.

both look like great filmmaking tools, true for different folks
 
Mattykins said:
Here the cameras have different sensors and are made for different users. The scarlet isn't meant to be used for film. The S16mm DOF is much better than that of the 2/3 sensor camera. S16 is used in the commercial and indie film world because it is more affordable than 35mm.

2/3 cameras aren't generally used in film. The F23 and its fellow cine-altas including the Varicam are standing exceptions. At least professionally. This will be similar to shooting S16. That is the point. The scarlet isn't designed that way.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your terms. "Scarlet not meant for film." Film? Do you mean, feature length movies?

And your second paragraph seems to contradict your first. Your first says S16 much better than 2/3". Your second says F23 and its fellow cinealtas (2/3") . . . will be similar to shooting S16.

Well, regardless, when you say, "the cameras have been made for different uses," is my point. You say, you don't see the point. That is my point. Who says you can't use the same camera on a commercial that you use for a feature film? (In fact, most national commercials are shot on S35). That is the camera-makers talking. I can conceive of a camera, which is technically feasible today, that is better suited for shooting a variety of work than manufacturers are making for us. But it is widely rumored and believed that they don't make such a camera because they don't want to, not because they cannot. If they cripple the $5,000 camera so that it does not replace their $10,000 camera, and they cripple their $10,000 camera so that it does not compete with their $25,000 camera, and they cripple their $25,000 camera so that it does not compete with their $100,000 camera --- then they can make a lot more money.

But I do not believe that, for example, Panasonic could not technically make a camera with the size, shape, weight and features of the HMC-150 yet have, say, a 2/3" or S16 size chip. (Red's Scarlet and Ikonoskop's dII are showing us that that is possible.) With such a camera, what use would it not be suited for?
 
The F23 is a league unto it's own. All those cameras are. They are digital cinema cameras for a reason. They cost 180,000 body alone for a reason. They shot Cloverfield, the first Starwars prequel, they've been Panavised for a reason.

An F23 next to an HVX is not only a stupid comparison but a laughable one. If these camera manufactures and industry professionals wanted to use DVX's - they would.

An F23 gives you massive amounts of flexibility. There is more dynamic range then you could possibly imagine, you have full and utter control over the unit.

The scarlet is not (in my book) a digital cinema unit. The RED ONE is. This camera is geared for digital cinema. There is no stopping someone from taking a SONY handicam and shooting a feature. In fact - good for them. I would not. I like full control over my units. I like being able to dial in an overall look in camera. Get the look I want right there. I like the total control over shutter speeds, gamma, frame rates, and a vast majority of other options.

There is a reason hollywood uses Pro units and not cameras that are in the consumer realm. The Varicams and CIneAltas are used in the pro realm because of their control. The scarlet will never be used that way. Wether it is cheaper or not. Money isn't the only reason for choosing which camera to use.

EDIT:

I am not going to get in a camera argument. Different cameras for different people. Really not much else to say.
 
Last edited:
Mattykins said:
I have no idea what your point is.

The are different cameras for different purposes. It is like those comparing the DVX to the RED. There is no point.

Here the cameras have different sensors and are made for different users. The scarlet isn't meant to be used for film. The S16mm DOF is much better than that of the 2/3 sensor camera. S16 is used in the commercial and indie film world because it is more affordable than 35mm.

2/3 cameras aren't generally used in film. The F23 and its fellow cine-altas including the Varicam are standing exceptions. At least professionally. This will be similar to shooting S16. That is the point. The scarlet isn't designed that way.

Which is why I, and a few others, said comparing them is pointless. The end use is different.
Click to expand...

Is the F900 (Collateral, Ali, Me you and everyone..., etc) F950 (Youth without youth, Akheelah (sp?) and the bee, etc), and Viper (Zodiac, Curious Case of Ben.., Miami Vice, etc.) also the exception for professionally used 2/3" digital cameras?

From everything I've gathered about Scarlet is... It will definately be used as a cinema camera... Less as an ENG/ Broadcast/ TV cam/mom cam, you may think it is..

This ikonoskop cam looks bad a, if I had the dough to toss around, i'd love to grab one asap... So far this is the closest camparison to Scarlet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top