Camera Expert
Well-known member
All I know is that an equivalent Sony camera with a big chip and similar features with the XDCAM 422 codec won't be anywhere near the price of the AF100.
Canon/Sony/JVC Responses?
- Thread starter BowiesInSpace
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
$5200 for an AF100 body with a couple of used Nikon primes and an adapter.
$5500 for an AF100 with the 14-140 lens.
So I may have been off by $59, but ... I think the point stands. You definitely don't need to go shelling out $12k to make a workable AF100 kit.
$5500 for an AF100 with the 14-140 lens.
So I may have been off by $59, but ... I think the point stands. You definitely don't need to go shelling out $12k to make a workable AF100 kit.
Sounds like about the same price as the fixed zoom Scarlet basic kit will be, give or take a few hundred.
Michael Olsen
Veteran
dmpsk8
Well-known member
A workable scarlet fixed lens kit will easily be over $7k. The $6000 fixed kit is really, really bare bones, and unlike the af100 basic accessories for scarlet (XLR module, additional batteries, etc) won't be cheap. "...count on it."
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
And if I remember right (been awhile since I checked the specs), the fixed lens scarlet will have the smaller chip, effectively negating much of the shallow DOF that the AF100 is going after.
Not to mention the interchangeable lens option is one of the big draws of the AF100 for lots of folks.
Not to mention the interchangeable lens option is one of the big draws of the AF100 for lots of folks.
Not true. With just the F3.5-f5.6 kit lens on the AF100, Scarlet fixed will pretty closely match for DOF at f2.4. There is not a radical difference in DOF between 2/3" and 4/3, about 1-1/4 to 1-1/2 f stops for the same FOV. 4/3 is about half way plus a little between 2/3" and S35 sensor widths for 16:9 HD. There is approx. 2-1/2 stops difference in DOF from 2/3" to S35. While it is not as easy to achieve shallow DOF at wider coverage angles for 2/3", it is worlds apart from your typical 1/3" camera in this respect. Just because most videographers don't typically shoot for shallow DOF with 2/3" cameras doesn't mean you can't get it at all.
Scarlet comes in two 2/3" models, fixed and interchangeable. Interchangeable (Cinema) model uses the same range of lens mounts that will be available for the S35 and Epic models, so full electronic control of Canon and Nikon lenses via their mounts will be included. For the price of a decent entry level B4 HD zoom lens or a current generation used S16mm manual zoom, about $8k, you will be able to buy both the fixed and interchangeable brains.
Last edited:
Ah yes, there are trade offs. Then if you want a decent intra-frame codec for the AF100 you will spend at least $2k for an external recorder too. For P2 AVC-Intra the price tag will be $4k.
Realistically they are both going to be $8k+ cameras for practical field packages. The AF-100 is a bit cheaper, with more typical video camera features and workflows but more limited in its imaging capabilites since it is still an 8-bit capture HD video camera. It really will depend on what is most important to you.
I like the 4/3 format a lot and the AF-100 is an excellent value no doubt. But having the creative flexibility to work with high resolution raw footage in ways that go beyond even my Nikon DSLR is by far the more attractive alternative to me.
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Well, one could argue that the Scarlet brain comes with two powered and balanced 12v audio connectors, one simply needs to buy an XLR converter to use them - a modest cost increase over the base package.
One could also argue that RED batteries aren't *so* expensive. In fact, I don't think we've seen pricing on the new REDVOLT batteries. The other battery module (not the sidehandle module included in the price), which allows for hot-swappable power, includes two batteries for a total price of $1250. Which makes me think the cost of each battery is somewhere between $300 and $500 dollars. And, unless I'm mistaken, the camera also supports d-tap power from all the usual purveyors.
And, one could even argue that, should one choose the Scarlet 2/3" Cinema, one may purchase a Canon or Nikon lens adapter which supports full metadata, as well as electronic focus and aperture control for $500 (do we have a firm price on the Birger solution for AF-100 yet?). RED can provide a T1.5 6mm or 8mm mini-prime (cinema quality glass and housing) to round out the set for $950.
And the DOF loss is really not that significant between any 2/3" camera and the m4/3 sensor. 1 and 1/4 or so stops is all it is - the difference between being at f/1.4 and f/2.2 on the shallow end.
And, really, one could also argue that a "workable" AF-100 will be more than Barry's estimates as many people will be wanting more than one battery, SD cards, and it seems like everyone is wanting a Ki Pro or other recorder.
There is no doubt - the Scarlet will end up being modestly more expensive, even on the "bare" end. The biggest price difference between the two, I think, will be in media. RED CF cards are not cheap compared to commercially available SD cards. And that, I think, is where some serious saving can happen.
Really, they are two very different cameras. After all, one's a video camera and the other is a digital cinema camera. To each his own, and rightfully so. I'm just glad the options will be out there soon enough and people can stop compromising.
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Well...that's pretty much all the topic can lead to - speculation! After all, there's not really anything firm from any company about what's coming out next and when aside from the AF-100 from Panasonic. I'm sure they are enjoying that to no end.
I don't think the camera cost difference will much of an issue vis-a-vis the AF-100 anyway. The main choice will be between HD video or digital cinema acquisition and work flows. The latter will be significantly more expensive and demanding in ways that go well beyond the differences in camera price.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
Please explain this statement. Does 3k mean cinema where 2k means video???
When will the 2/3" cinema (non-fixed lens) Scarlet be finally released? Are we certain by NAB?
erniediaz
Well-known member
I took this from an article in What's on HDTV? blog (2005):
"In the highest-definition digital TV format available over the air, 1080i, the width of the 16:9-aspect-ratio image holds fully 1,920 pixels. This number is accordingly the upper limit on "horizontal spatial resolution," which in turn means that no detail whose width is tinier than 1/1920 the screen's width — a single pixel — can be seen.
In a 2K scan, the number of pixels across the width of the scanned film frame goes up to at most 211, or 2,048. In a 4K scan, that upper limit is doubled, to 4,096.
The actual count of pixels produced horizontally in a 2K or 4K scan can be less than the stated upper limit — for example, when the aperture used by the film camera to enclose the film frame doesn't allow the image to span the whole 35-mm frame from "perforation to perforation," or when room is left along one edge of the film for a soundtrack. Furthermore, a lesser number of pixels will be generated vertically than horizontally, since the image is wider than it is tall.
Even so, 2K and 4K scans generally betoken levels of visual detail higher (though, in the case of 2K, only somewhat higher) than a so-called "HD scan" at 1920 x 1080. "
So 2k (2048) is just 128 pixels wider than Full HD (1920).
We made full features (transferred to 35mm) in HD. Well in dv also as a matter of fact.
I think that "Digital Cinema" is a way to work with Digital Cameras in order to produce a Movie with all the visual, aesthetic and artistic characteristics of a movie.
Last edited:
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Well, asked to define the two in terms of differences, I'd say that a digital cinema camera is generally built to create images which strive to equal to or surpass film at even the most critical level. Right now, that usually involves a pretty major difference in acquisition format - AVCHD v. REDCODE RAW or ARRIRAW or straight up uncompressed RAW for example. It also involves imaging differences - digital cinema cameras pretty much all resolve at least a very clean 1080p image and many are displaying a lot of dynamic range (13-14 for M-X, 15 for Alexa, ~18 for M-X with HDRx).
I believe that Digital Cinema Cameras are also built assuming a nominal degree of production support, meaning that these cameras are built for use in a traditional narrative production environment - they have PL mounts, require more frequent magazine changes, store footage in relatively large file-sizes...they are heavier, larger, and generally more capable in terms of I/O and remote operation.
RED isn't the only one with a "Digital Cinema Camera". Arri has the D20, D21, and ALEXA. Many consider the F35 a digital cinema camera. There's the SI-2K. The Phantom cameras (though I'd say these are "Specialist Digital Cinema Cameras"). And the Ikonoskop and the Drama would also qualify, I believe.
There's nothing inherently good or bad about any camera being a video camera, a digital cinema camera, an ENG camera, or an industrial camera. They all have their niche, which is great. Specialization, in my opinion, allows people to do what they want to do better.
All we can know now is that RED said that a Scarlet would probably be out by the end of the year (presumably the 2/3" Fixed). Now, we know there is to be a slight delay as HDRx is added to the Scarlet line. No certainty at all.
Last edited:
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Thanks for the info :thumbsup: The differences may be enough to sway someone one way or another, but it's good to know they aren't as big as I suspected.
Well said. You covered the ground pretty well. Raw acquisition is a significant difference to me, but high end HD acquisition in native Prores HQ 4:4:4 like Alexa, or the HDcam SR 4:4:4 codec certainly offer much more creative flexibility in post than your typical under $10k video codec.
I wasn't thinking of it in terms of camera form factor or added gear so much as in the potential differences in DR, color information and resolution of the original footage. Over sampling for HD or 2k cinema resolutions as the Alexa and Red do produces a smoother more film like quality with fewer artifacts at lower finish resolutions.
robertrogoz
Carbonite Member
I was not dissing AF100, which looks like a good product, but I am just voicing a word of caution to budget things right. This statement pretty sums it up.
Contrary to what Berry says all lenses are not equal. There are hundreds of lens reviews and some of them (both Canon and Nikon) stand out of the crowd as far as picture quality goes. And like I stated earlier they will cost quite a bit, even used. I mean what is a point of buying a large sensor camera and use mediocre glass?And F4-5.6 doesn't really cut it imo.
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Another good statement - "You get what you pay for."
Well, I don't want to be putting words in his mouth, but I really very sincerely doubt that Barry believes all lenses are equal. In fact, I know he doesn't think that.
Fact of the matter is, if a lens costs $300, chances are it's not going to match a $3000 lens in some way - f-stop, mechanics, sharpness, color representation, contrast, breathing, flaring, distortion...the list goes on. The fact of the matter remains: the objectively best things are usually amongst the most expensive.
But things which are objectively the best aren't always subjectively the best. And, frankly, a lot of people don't need really nice lenses.
dmpsk8
Well-known member
Once you remove the need for still level sharpness (we're only shooting 1080), you realize you can get a lot out of cheaper lenses. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a set to CP.2's, but I also know that its a bit overkill for af100.