biding my time waitin´for 720/120p

K

kurth

Well-known member
...and I just saw why I want to wait it out. Over at Scarletuser, they´ve posted the scarlet 8x 120fps footage . Now I´m not a Redhead or a Pany fan , or Sony, or Canon, but the first company that gives me footage at 120fps lookin´that good, well I´m sellin´the farm to get that camera !
 
I once decided to wait it out for the scarlet. Hopefully you won't have to wait as long as I did before I gave up and bought something else... a working prototype is promising!
 
The only thing holding up release of Scarlet is the availability of a few of its parts due to the Japan disaster. As soon as Red can source the needed parts at good prices in real production quantities the camera will be released.
253676_10150197605770415_625665414_7225284_1469196_n.jpg
 
They made it sound like the lens for the fixed-lens model was exclusively made in japan. That adds a big question mark to the release date... again. It does look like like it's shaping up to be quite a camera, though.
 
Yes it does look like a great camera, and yes RED does say a lot as a company... I myself am more interested in the interchangeable version which they seem to have fallen silent on.

One thing that looks like a mismatch is if Scarlet is released in September it will steal a lot of thunder from the new HPX-250. 2/3" 120fps 3k vs 1/3" 60 fps 1k for probably the same price. As hyped as Scarlet has been it will make existing cameras look a bit weak.
 
I did and put it in an Edius 720p timeline. It registers as 1024x500. The image quality was fine. The draw of this camera is not that it will look so much better but that it will be more affordable than other 2/3" options along with having 120fps and RAW processing.
 
I did.
Although it was not at full res it looked good.


I'm starting to think that RAW – be it Red Raw or if Canon, Nikon, Sony or Panasonic can come up with some type of raw format – will be the true factor over pure chip size.


I'm rambling....
 
I don't think you are rambling. To me, RAW is the next phase just like what happened in the still world. In the beginning people stuck with jpeg, now I think most use RAW because it is just better and the processing software like Adobe lightroom is really nice now.

Think about buying a camera and not worring about what codec it uses, just the sensor information. Being able to adjust white balance in a controlled environment (post) is such a great feature of RAW.

What I do not know is the processing power to edit 1080p30 or 720p60 footage in RAW on a timeline. What I do not want is to have to transcode to be able to edit. It needs to be timeline RAW or I will wait until the computers catch up.
 
Yeh, definitely. A RAW-like high bit depth codec is the next logical step up in image quality for video cameras. For stills, there's no way I'd give up the flexibility, dynamic range and bit depth of RAW files and go back to JPEGs. When the sensor is capable of soooo much more than the codec, it is only a matter of time before manufacturers figure out a way to get that lovely data out for us to play with in post.

For video, the issue is how to manage the monster data rates. True RAW is a long way from being viable at the prosumer end of the market (which is where I am) but clever codecs like RED's are definitely the next big thing. 4K is mildly appealing, but unnecessary for me... but RAW-like 1080p (especially at frame rates of 120 fps and up!) are drool inducing.

I probably wouldn't buy a 1/3" cam even with RAW-like codec. I will dither a bit about a 2/3" cam, but probably hold out for a 4/3 or s35 sensor cam.

I'm making money out of my AF100 in the meantime. The AF100 is great, but I'd really like to get away from burnt-in gamma choices and 8 bit colour. When you are used to the RAW processing workflow of Canon/Hasselblad/Phocus/Aperture/Lightroom and non-destructive grades, video grading seems unbearably primitive by comparison.

If and when Scarlet and Epic-S emerge, I'm taking them for a test drive... and very possibly to talking my friendly Photolease finance company :-)

Cheers, Hywel.
 
For NFL films 16mm film shot at 120 frames per second rules over 35mm film shot at 24 frames per second. For fast action sports 120fps will be the rival format to 4K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top