no 1/3" or 1/2" but it might help you out a bit... http://www.red.com/images/pages/cameras/technology/formats.jpg
Canon 7D killed my scarlet dreams!
- Thread starter Nik Manning
- Start date
- Status
The economy killed my Scarlet dreams that and the plummeting Pound. The original "3k for $3K" Scarlet would have come in at ~£2000 or a bit under, now it's looking more like £3500.
I'm a hobbyest, an amateur enthusiast who wants the best image I can afford, which the original Scarlet would have given me, not now, £3500 is well beyond both budget and sense, whereas £1700 or (As PB has hinted) less is both.
I already have a 5D mkI and very good it is too, the 7D would be fore cine, or where I may need / want to do both but don't want to lug two cams around.
So, the 7D looks like the first vDSLR that's both usable and affordable for me and others like me. Oh yes, before anyone mutters about Mysterium-X, remember Canon have their own sensor line and can turn out new itterations faster than Jim can brew a coffee.
And I can use the glass I've already got...Game On!
Dave
I'm a hobbyest, an amateur enthusiast who wants the best image I can afford, which the original Scarlet would have given me, not now, £3500 is well beyond both budget and sense, whereas £1700 or (As PB has hinted) less is both.
I already have a 5D mkI and very good it is too, the 7D would be fore cine, or where I may need / want to do both but don't want to lug two cams around.
So, the 7D looks like the first vDSLR that's both usable and affordable for me and others like me. Oh yes, before anyone mutters about Mysterium-X, remember Canon have their own sensor line and can turn out new itterations faster than Jim can brew a coffee.
And I can use the glass I've already got...Game On!
Dave
squig
Veteran
If I've got this right the 7D is roughly 1 and 1/4" and the MKII is almost 2" but I was never that great with Math so don't quote me.
Ian-T
Veteran
Barry_Green
Moderator
1/3" HVX approx 5.25 x 2.95mm, for 15.5mm2
1/2" Ex1 approx 33.75mm2
2/3" HPX 500 / orginal scarlet approx 9.6 x 5.4mm, for 52mm2
35mm movie film: 22x12mm, for 264mm2
1/2" Ex1 approx 33.75mm2
2/3" HPX 500 / orginal scarlet approx 9.6 x 5.4mm, for 52mm2
35mm movie film: 22x12mm, for 264mm2
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, see, the thing about the "inch" naming convention has really nothing to do with actual inch measurements. A 1/3" sensor is, in no way, 1/3". And a 2/3" sensor doesn't even begin to approach 2/3" in any direction.
If you read the specs carefully, they typically will call it something like a ' 1/3" type sensor '. And what they're getting at is, if you were using an original old tube-type camera with 1/3" tubes, then this silicon sensor will have about the same imaging surface area as that tube had.
I don't know if it's true, but I've heard the 4/3 sensor system was named that because of two reasons: a) it's a 4:3 aspect ratio, and b) it's as large as a 4/3 of an inch "type" of sensor would be (meaning 1.333 inches).
If that's the case, then 5/3 (1.67 inches) might be an appropriate name for what the 7D has.
I prefer to just say that it has a sensor the same size as 35mm movie film, and be done with the whole confusing "inch" thing.
If you read the specs carefully, they typically will call it something like a ' 1/3" type sensor '. And what they're getting at is, if you were using an original old tube-type camera with 1/3" tubes, then this silicon sensor will have about the same imaging surface area as that tube had.
I don't know if it's true, but I've heard the 4/3 sensor system was named that because of two reasons: a) it's a 4:3 aspect ratio, and b) it's as large as a 4/3 of an inch "type" of sensor would be (meaning 1.333 inches).
If that's the case, then 5/3 (1.67 inches) might be an appropriate name for what the 7D has.
I prefer to just say that it has a sensor the same size as 35mm movie film, and be done with the whole confusing "inch" thing.
Rakesh Jacob
Veteran
Cool info on the "type sensor" convention Barry.
I definetly find the surface area of the sensors the easiest way to compare size.
4/3" ~ 225mm2
Canon APS-C ~ 329mm2
Nikon DX ~ 374mm2
S35 ~ 464mm2
Canon APS-H (1.3x crop) ~ 548mm2
FF 35mm still ~ 864mm2
Obviously sensor design and DSP play extremely significant roles, and size isn't everything... depending who you ask... I'm in the how you use it camp myself
But 1/3" 15mm2 from using my HVX200a last summer to 864mm2 5Dmkii this summer HOLLY CRAP! I love life and where it's heading!
EDIT: Of course the proportions are very important also because the more square a sensor is, the more unasable surface area on it for when you shoot 16:9
Last edited:
Holy cow, it's a quote-o-rama!! 
Well sure. By "the highest standards", I didn't mean literally the highest image quality in existence. I meant more like, the highest image quality a person could afford. Obviously, if a person simply can't afford Scarlet, nothing else really matters. But if you were considering a 5DII or D7. The fixed lens Scarlet isn't that much more expensive. The S35 Scarlet may be, but at 5k, it seems like it couldn't help but deliver far superior image quality than a DSLR at 1080p with line-skipping. As for whether a dramatic increase in image quality is worth the extra money, I guess that's a matter of opinion.
But then were they really Scarlet's market in the first place? Again, it seems to me that anyone willing to forget about all the Scarlet will offer, is not the type of person Scarlet is aimed at. I mean, I think that by definition, you're not a part of Scarlet's intended market if you could afford it, but choose a 1080p line-skipping H.264 DSLR instead because you'll save a little money.
But with the line-skipping, you're not exactly getting all the advantages of a sensor that size, right? For that reason alone, could video from the 7D really be compared to video from the S35 Scarlet? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it -- it employs line-skipping, and only records heavily compressed 1080p. That's a lot different than the S35 Scarlet using all the sensor, and recording to 5k RAW, is it not?
It seems to me that the 7D is only going to take away the Scarlet sales of those who never really needed it in the first place. Again, I've said it a million times, but 1080p with line-skipping, H.264, and very limited framerates... how is that an answer for Scarlet at 3k and up resolutions, and 120 fps with the 2/3? It isn't. Anyone who's serious about needing/wanting what Scarlet will offer is simply not going to settle for a 7D instead. That's why I don't see how it's really cutting into Scarlet's market. Do you see what I'm saying here?
Well, I'm not shooting video as a job. It's purely a hobby for me right now, and I can tell you that if the Scarlet works as advertised, I wouldn't even consider getting anything less at this point. I'm getting at least a 2/3 Fixed Lens Scarlet, because image quality is simply too important to me. I mean, it's not as if it's $20,000 more expensive. At only twice the price of the 7D, I just can't justify settling for something that's "good enough". Because even if it really is, for how long will it be? It seems silly to shoot in only 1080p when such higher resolutions are becoming available for reasonable prices, especially since higher resolution displays are sure to follow. I don't want to worry about how my 1080p footage is going to look on a 4k display.
Well sure. By "the highest standards", I didn't mean literally the highest image quality in existence. I meant more like, the highest image quality a person could afford. Obviously, if a person simply can't afford Scarlet, nothing else really matters. But if you were considering a 5DII or D7. The fixed lens Scarlet isn't that much more expensive. The S35 Scarlet may be, but at 5k, it seems like it couldn't help but deliver far superior image quality than a DSLR at 1080p with line-skipping. As for whether a dramatic increase in image quality is worth the extra money, I guess that's a matter of opinion.
But then were they really Scarlet's market in the first place? Again, it seems to me that anyone willing to forget about all the Scarlet will offer, is not the type of person Scarlet is aimed at. I mean, I think that by definition, you're not a part of Scarlet's intended market if you could afford it, but choose a 1080p line-skipping H.264 DSLR instead because you'll save a little money.
But with the line-skipping, you're not exactly getting all the advantages of a sensor that size, right? For that reason alone, could video from the 7D really be compared to video from the S35 Scarlet? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it -- it employs line-skipping, and only records heavily compressed 1080p. That's a lot different than the S35 Scarlet using all the sensor, and recording to 5k RAW, is it not?
It seems to me that the 7D is only going to take away the Scarlet sales of those who never really needed it in the first place. Again, I've said it a million times, but 1080p with line-skipping, H.264, and very limited framerates... how is that an answer for Scarlet at 3k and up resolutions, and 120 fps with the 2/3? It isn't. Anyone who's serious about needing/wanting what Scarlet will offer is simply not going to settle for a 7D instead. That's why I don't see how it's really cutting into Scarlet's market. Do you see what I'm saying here?
Well, I'm not shooting video as a job. It's purely a hobby for me right now, and I can tell you that if the Scarlet works as advertised, I wouldn't even consider getting anything less at this point. I'm getting at least a 2/3 Fixed Lens Scarlet, because image quality is simply too important to me. I mean, it's not as if it's $20,000 more expensive. At only twice the price of the 7D, I just can't justify settling for something that's "good enough". Because even if it really is, for how long will it be? It seems silly to shoot in only 1080p when such higher resolutions are becoming available for reasonable prices, especially since higher resolution displays are sure to follow. I don't want to worry about how my 1080p footage is going to look on a 4k display.
Rakesh Jacob
Veteran
dantewaters
Well-known member
Thanks a lot gentlemen... I know a mm was smaller than an inch but I never really had anything tangible to compare it to so I used an inch, but looking at that pic with all the sensors I have a good Idea what I'm dealing with.
griffin86
Active member
DJK- no offense but what is the problem with shooting with a real camera that is here today and moving up if the Scarlett or who knows comes out tomorrow?
on the technical side of things I think the measurbation has gotten a little overboard, we forget sometimes that manufacturers tout performances specs beyond that of which may be in the range of human perception anyhow-
http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Demystifying_Part1.html - watch these videos given by two leading authorities (vids 1-7) to get a sense of what I am saying. Also take a read into home cinema systems and how does the human eye and brain pick up on certain things- there isn't much detail beyond 50-70 lp/mm (equates to around 1000 lp/in now that ive checked) that a human eye can detect at a normal viewing distance (1.5x the screen size) under most circumstances. (see Nyquist Theorem)
I gotta find the link but the notion of 4k displays would be nice but trust there is more to worry about than a pixel count on the screen or your acquisition- not to mention that there is more to a "pixel" than meets the eye and then you ask whats 3k and all this stuff really mean? everything and nothing;-)
that is a blurb just to state that it will be a lot more than just a cam's spec that'll make headlines at the next big film fest or whatever, it'll be a filmmaker with a vision or something clever... Let's invest a lot more time here trying to work on making these limited tools reach their full potential rather than hack away until some dream camera shows up on the scene...
I, like many of the posters here would love a Scarlett or any of these cool new cameras because they'd be cool and new things just to try out but we lose sight of what's most important when we drag ourselves into a "my cam is bigger and better than xx's" debacle.
at the end of the day if you don't like anything but the non-existent scarlett to shoot with then go and use only that- while the remainder of the community will trek with a whatever kind of cam they find to suit their budget and needs;-)
much love and all the best,
Elijah
on the technical side of things I think the measurbation has gotten a little overboard, we forget sometimes that manufacturers tout performances specs beyond that of which may be in the range of human perception anyhow-
http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Demystifying_Part1.html - watch these videos given by two leading authorities (vids 1-7) to get a sense of what I am saying. Also take a read into home cinema systems and how does the human eye and brain pick up on certain things- there isn't much detail beyond 50-70 lp/mm (equates to around 1000 lp/in now that ive checked) that a human eye can detect at a normal viewing distance (1.5x the screen size) under most circumstances. (see Nyquist Theorem)
I gotta find the link but the notion of 4k displays would be nice but trust there is more to worry about than a pixel count on the screen or your acquisition- not to mention that there is more to a "pixel" than meets the eye and then you ask whats 3k and all this stuff really mean? everything and nothing;-)
that is a blurb just to state that it will be a lot more than just a cam's spec that'll make headlines at the next big film fest or whatever, it'll be a filmmaker with a vision or something clever... Let's invest a lot more time here trying to work on making these limited tools reach their full potential rather than hack away until some dream camera shows up on the scene...
I, like many of the posters here would love a Scarlett or any of these cool new cameras because they'd be cool and new things just to try out but we lose sight of what's most important when we drag ourselves into a "my cam is bigger and better than xx's" debacle.
at the end of the day if you don't like anything but the non-existent scarlett to shoot with then go and use only that- while the remainder of the community will trek with a whatever kind of cam they find to suit their budget and needs;-)
much love and all the best,
Elijah
Last edited:
Ryan Paige
Member
The true comparison is how the resultant image looks when I'm finished with it. I hardly care what magic the gnomes that live inside the camera use to get that image.
If it doesn't mean anything for you to wait an indefinite amount of time for a camera that may be better, then more power to you. But there's always going to be something better over the horizon. At $1,700, a compromised (everything has compromises of some sort) camera that lets me shoot now (or a month from now, as the case may be) has much more value than a camera whose availability to me might be a year or more away and that may or may not live up to the specs. It's not like it costs $20,000. And even if I stop using the Canon as a video camera in favor of something better, it still has use as a still camera. But, it may well be that the $1,700 Canon does everything I need it to do, negating the need for anything better for an even longer period of time.
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Echoes what I've been saying for years - to deaf ears. Resolution wise, the human eye perceives with the equivalence of a 40 megapixel sensor. But that's only at roughly a 3mm diameter area off axis to the fovea. So in fact, we are very closely approaching content display that finally 'matches' what the eye can resolve.
But this is besides the point. In human visual perception, it's the 'impression' that a visual experience makes that matters most to our brains. That impression is resolution independent.
Keep in mind that about 90% of the data that you see in detail with your eyes is 'trashed' in a form of biochemical compression. We only vaguely recollect summary details, since the hyper-detail of the 40 megapixel sensor only serves us for a fraction of a second at a time.
This is why film making is mostly about everything OTHER than resolution. :grin:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, it obviously depends on what you consider Scarlet's market.
When Scarlet was announced, the cheapest HD camera on the market with a sensor 2/3" or larger was the HPX500, at $14,000 for the body alone.
Everyone in the indie filmmaking crowd wants a big sensor and interchangeable lenses.
So 2/3" was considered a big sensor, and the HPX500 had interchangeable lenses, and it was $14,000. Along comes the Scarlet, and suddenly *everyone* is interested. 2/3" at $2500? Why, of course, sign us all up! Ted Schilowitz is famous for saying that "soccer moms" would buy a Scarlet. Obviously professional shooters were/are interested, as were filmmakers, just about everyone other than broadcast was extremely interested in a 2/3" camera at $2500! Scarlet's potential market was massive.
Only... now, the landscape is very different. Now you don't have to pay $14,000 for a 2/3" sensor body-only camera. Now you can have a large-sensor (much larger than 2/3") interchangeable-lens HD camera for under $1000 (the D90). You can get one with a great lens and 1080/24p for $1500 (GH1). Or you can get one with a full movie-sized sensor, body-only, for $1700 (7D).
For those who were in the market for a large-sensor HD camera with interchangeable lenses, surely these provide a compelling alternative to the much-more-expensive fixed-lens Scarlet ("full shooting kit at $3750"). I dare say that that whole segment of the market, who would otherwise have gone for a Scarlet, are probably not going to anymore.
So yes, I think the DSLR video revolution is definitely cutting into Scarlet's market, unquestionably.
Thing is, the announced Scarlet offers a lot more than huge swaths of the audience would ever want or need. 3K? 4K? 5K? 6K? Do you NEED that? Are you willing to pay more for it? Maybe you are, maybe they aren't, see? Raw workflow -- do you need it? How many people shoot raw on their DSLRs, vs. just shooting JPG? I'd dare say that the overwhelming majority shoot JPG, and the hardcore pros shoot raw. And I think we'll see those same numbers reflected in adoption rates of inexpensive HD cameras.
Scarlet is a world apart from the DSLRs. It's designed as a pure cinema rig. It's extendable and modular and upgradeable and etc. etc. etc. To some people that will be very appealing. To others, you're getting a fantastic 1080p image out of a $1500 DSLR with a great autofocusing 10:1 zoom and interchangeable lenses, and that is going to be incredibly appealing. To others, you can get (potentially) even better imagery out of a $1700 DSLR, with interchangeable lenses. And that will be incredibly appealing.
So why should they pony up $3750 for a Scarlet, for features that they may not ever even use or want? A Hummer is a big vehicle and has certain offroad capability, but a Hyundai Accent will get you from point A to point B too, costs about 1/5 as much, and is better on gas. You could argue that the Hummer does everything the Accent does, plus has offroad capability, plus can haul more equipment, it's "future proof" because what if you need to go offroad someday, and it's "safer" in an accident, even if it costs more it's "better", right? -- but seriously, which one do you think sells more in the market?
Point being, there's a massive market out here, and the number of folks who can afford a $1500 camera purchase is probably 100x as large as the number of folks who can afford a $7500 body-only, and probably at least 10x as large as the number of folks who could stretch out a $3750 2/3" fixed-lens Scarlet kit.
(p.s. you keep talking about "line-skipping" -- have you seen quality GH1 or 5DMkII footage on an HDTV?)
Last edited:
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Barry, you have a great way with words. Maybe you should write a book? :beer:
Barry_Green
Moderator
(and in case anyone fails to recognize this) -- I consider myself absolutely 100% the bullseye target market for the Scarlet. Without a doubt, unquestionably. Been looking forward to since the day I sold my Red One. Definitely will be the earliest of early adopters.
But that doesn't stop me from seeing that there's a vast market out there with different priorities, needs, and budgets.
But that doesn't stop me from seeing that there's a vast market out there with different priorities, needs, and budgets.
Nik Manning
Well-known member
Thank you so much Barry. I will refer back to this post as the foundation for so many arguments in the future.
As soon as I saw the Canon 7D specs I knew that the scarlet was going to be on hold for me. I have never bought a video camera over $800 or a still camera over $500. But I was very interested in putting the money up for a scarlet. But now I feel as if I don't need it to be confident in what I will be shooting. I immediately put up the cash for a 7D. I get 2 cameras for the price of 1!It is an amazing value.
- Status