Challenge: EX1 better than Scarlet 2/3"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Duke M.

Duke M.

Veteran
I've been doing a lot of thinking about this issue because too many people get caught up in the hype rather than facts.

I'd like to lay out my thoughts and welcome people to point out where I'm wrong or add their own thoughts.

RESOLUTION: As soon as people start discussing this someone always throws out the assertion that the Scarlet image will be vastly superior to the EX1 (or any other pro-prosumer camera) because the Scarlet will be 3072 wide and the EX1 is 1920 wide. That's not as certain as you might think.

The Scarlet is a single CMOS chip camera with a debayer system to separate the colors. The EX1 is a 3 CMOS chip camera and from what I've been needs no debayer system because it separates colors with prisms and separate sensors.

The thing is a debayer system reduces resolution by ~30%. For this reason people have speculated that the 3K Scarlet will really have resolution of about 2.1k. The Scarlet images will need to be down rezed to 2k or 1920.

Looking at the specs the EX1 has 'effective' resolution of 1920x1080, but the sensors have a bit more pixels and down rezed a bit.

Net result (I believe but we don't actually know) is that the actual resolution of the two cameras will be very, very similar. There's not a whole lot of difference between 1920 and 2072 (2.1k) anyway.

COMPRESSION:
It is my understanding that the RAW files are wavelet compressed. Wavelet compression is nearly (not completely) lossless. The EX1 has compression and 4.2.0 color but the codec is very hard to break. In addition a nanoflash can improve the file format and improve color to 4.2.2. In ordinary shooting the regular EX1 files look fabulous.

JELLO AND SKEW:
Another battle cry of the Scarletteers is that the Scarlet will have a much faster reading of the sensor, maybe 50% faster rate, so less jello and skew. The problem with that is the Scarlet will have 50% more pixels. We can't test yet, but the Scarlet may have similar CMOS skew characteristics as the EX1. To be fair its only an issue in a limited number of high movement situations and even the Red One has been demonstrated (at reduser) to have some skew issues in the right/wrong circumstances.

COLORS AND WORKFLOW:
One of the issues with one CMOS chips is the colors tend to be flat. The Red cameras work around this by recording RAW to allow post color correction. There are both advantages (you can push things more in post since the meta data isn't baked in) and disadvantages (your client on the set thinks it looks like crap and more post production work.)

Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage seems that is will depend on the circumstances of the project. Certainly if you can get the look nearly perfect in camera the work flow is faster. If you can't get it right in camera the end result may be better if you need to tweak a lot in post.

DOF CONTROL:
A 2/3" sensor gives better depth of field (DOF) control, right? Not automatically.

There are three factors at work. Aperture, lens length and sensor size, and two of those are interconnected. (Some people will argue the sensor size doesn't matter, but with a larger sensor the effect of the lens length changes, so it is a consideration.)

I loved Barry Green's article on DOF. One of the pertinent points is that to get a 1/2" chip to get the same DOF as a 2/3" chip you only need to open the aperture by 2/3 of a stop.

Again, we don't know for sure because the exact specs on the Scarlet lens haven't been published, but the ones that have been mentioned are a T3 8x zoom, which would be ~f2.8.

Now the EX1 goes to f1.9, which is more than 2/3 of a stop on the wide end. In short, the EX1 will have a potential for narrower DOF due to the wider aperture.

The other aspect of DOF is the length of the lens. Since the Scarlet fixed will be limited to 8x magification, the 14x of the EX1 will give many more options to control the DOF. (Sure you can throw a 2x adapter on the Scarlet, but you'll lose some resolution and there goes that resolution advantage.) Or if you go with the Scarlet 2/3" with removable lens it appears that all the little accessories start to get pricey.

CONCLUSION:
So is there really an advantage in the 2/3" Scarlet over the EX1? Resolution, minor advantage. Skew, can't tell yet, but its still a CMOS camera. Workflow, disadvange for me. Compression, slight EX1 disadvantage. DOF, scarlet disadvantage. Something you can actually use right now? EX1 huge advantage. In balance it seems like a wash to me.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Certainly your perogrative to do so...

Yep, 3K is going to be better. Maybe not a ton better, but better.

RAW workflow will be immaterial. If you understand the workflow, it's nearly as fast as anything else. Depending on NLE.

DOF, meh. 1/2, 2/3 whatever.

Compression. Not even in the same league. REDCODE vs Mpeg2... Sure you can add a Nanoflash. Now you're playing with a $10k EX1. $10k in Scarlet land should be landing you an S35 sensor and interchangeable lenses. Or thereabouts anyway. Different game altogether.

Conclusion. Two vastly different cameras for different purposes. Comparisons are just academic.
 
I agree with you that they are different cameras built for generally different purposes. However, I am in the same boat as many in that I can generally afford one good camera at a time. So yes, I/we do make comparisons for real world considerations.

(And yes there are rentals, but I gotta keep the day job. Renting a day or two at a time is too expensive.)

Pricewise, my used EX1 at $4,500 plus a Nanoflash for $2,800 is $7,300. There are used EX1s, but not used Scarlets. The S35 brain is that much. Other peoples estimates have been $12-14k for a full kit, but it depends.

For the person only doing features the S35 instantly makes the most sense. If you're doing commercial one week, a wedding the next, and your own feature whenever you can find time that isn't so clear.
 
Duke M. said:
For the person only doing features the S35 instantly makes the most sense. If you're doing commercial one week, a wedding the next, and your own feature whenever you can find time that isn't so clear.
Click to expand...

How was this dilemna solved in 1990? 1980? 1970? You buy the tool that best works for what you need to do, and you work around the issues.

I think most pros, if they could afford it, would opt for a system that has superior color, codec, and glass. And then sort out the workflow.
 
PerroneFord said:
I think most pros, if they could afford it, would opt for a system that has superior color, codec, and glass. And then sort out the workflow.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but that's the whole debate as I see it. If you are doing a wedding and they are paying an extra thousand for a same day edit (to play at the reception) the EX1 has the superior color technology for the speed. But if you want to give your feature that yellow Miami Vice look without causing banding in the skies, Red will beat it hands down.

And the superior glass? Hmmm, f1.9 with 14x zoom or f2.8 with 8x zoom. The fixed scarlet doesn't win there.

Codec? I'll grant that the Red codec is superior in extreme situations. Normal conditions will anyone notice? Even on these forums there was a Red/EX1 bluescreen comparison that pretty much everyone had wrong until the results were published (then suddenly everyone knew it all along. LOL) If I knew I was shooting an extreme condition renting a nanoflash for the day would remove that consideration.

BTW Perrone, I've often enjoyed your posts as a voice of reason so I am interested in continuing this in any details you may add.
 
great post!

Just to throw it out there. Why would the scarlet or s35 be better suited for features as opposed to an ex1r? some details, examples, etc..

Thanks.
 
What relevance is the Red One in this discussion? Both the S35 Scarlet and the Red One are at a completely different price point and focus almost exclusively on movies/documentaries. If they weren't better for feature films (and producers with more money) the Red camera company would be in real trouble.

The average user here, and on most camera boards, has several video tasks and only the occasional feature film aspirations. To me that's why an all around comparison of the Scarlet fixed and EX1 is so imporant.
 
Duke M. said:
If you're doing commercial one week, a wedding the next, and your own feature whenever you can find time that isn't so clear.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this sounds like so many other threads in the last years here on DVXuser.
Who does this kind of jumping between "genres" at a really pro level...?
If you do weddings and local commercials most cameras get the job done. The DVX did, the XL2 did, the HVX does, the EX1 does.
You still see it has been shot on video, but who cares?

The entry level Scarlet will just be another option in the lineup.
Really interesting for me will be the first sub 10K camera, that will deliver visually similar or better quality than 35mm film. (technically speaking).
So give me DOF, latitude, resolution and a codec that doesn´t break up in post.

To come back to your initial conclusion: if the Scarlet won´t deliver a "never seen before picture at the given pricetag", it will just be another option in the lineup.
My 2c.
 
Duke M. said:
Ahhh, but that's the whole debate as I see it. If you are doing a wedding and they are paying an extra thousand for a same day edit (to play at the reception) the EX1 has the superior color technology for the speed. But if you want to give your feature that yellow Miami Vice look without causing banding in the skies, Red will beat it hands down.
Click to expand...

Get yourself a few R3D files and work through a post process. It takes me about an extra 5 minutes to post RED with a basic look, over posting my XDCamEX out of the EX1. It's just not that big a deal. Especially if you are delivering 1080 or 720.

The EX1 does not possess any advantages whatsoever over REDCode for speed unless you are presently cutting on Avid MC 3.5 or above.


Duke M. said:
And the superior glass? Hmmm, f1.9 with 14x zoom or f2.8 with 8x zoom. The fixed scarlet doesn't win there.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the fixed Scarlet. But if that's the discussion, and you declare better to mean lower F-Stop and more zoom, then yes, the EX1 wins.

Duke M. said:
Codec? I'll grant that the Red codec is superior in extreme situations. Normal conditions will anyone notice? Even on these forums there was a Red/EX1 bluescreen comparison that pretty much everyone had wrong until the results were published (then suddenly everyone knew it all along. LOL) If I knew I was shooting an extreme condition renting a nanoflash for the day would remove that consideration.
Click to expand...

The codec is not better in extreme situations. It's better in EVERY situation. Whether it's noticeable is a matter of opinion. The Nanoflash can certainly improve matters. I hope to have one at the end of the month (we'll see) but I can do things with REDCODE I couldn't dream of doing with XDCam. Transcode them both and they tend to even out.

Duke M. said:
BTW Perrone, I've often enjoyed your posts as a voice of reason so I am interested in continuing this in any details you may add.
Click to expand...

Sure. I am no RED expert. I have played with some RED footage over the past couple years, and I have RedCine and RedCineX loaded, and have played with the footage in Vegas which can now cut REDCode natively. As you know I own an EX1 so I have quite a bit of experience on that end.
 
I have some experience with shooting monochromatic laser light (6328A HeNe gas lasers) with both the EX1 and an 8 megapixel D-SLR with a Beyer filter. I could not say that either camera provided a superior image. The 8MP camera had trouble resolving the intricate details in the laser light interference patterns. It also shifted the color to orange. The EX1, despite its reduced spacial resolution, resolved details almost to the pixel, and maintained the color much more accurately, producing a sweet cherry red rendering of the light from the helium-neon laser.

I too find that the few movies that I've seen, shot with the RED ONE camera, seem to have a flatness, an earth-tone look to the colors, as if the green and blue spectrum, or part of it, were missing. I observed this in KNOWING and in DISTRICT 9, as well as in sample footage I downloaded from RED User.

I think it's safe to say that the EX1 will provide more lifelike and livelier color renderings than the single-chip RED camera.

Now if you're shooting a B&W film, the RED Scarlett should be a hands-down winner. But if you're shooting a lot of intensely saturated colors, like red sports cars, and psychodelic bar scenes with intense purple lighting, the differences start to become less dramatic. Ultimately, it will come down to signal to noise ratio. With the larger chip, it MAY shift the advantage to Scarlett, but it's only ONE chip. Three half inch chips may be better still than one 2/3" chip. According to my rough calculations, the area of three 1/2" chips is nearly double the area of one 2/3" chip.

I think if you take the XDCam lossy CODEC out of the picture and capture the SDI stream to a lossless format, the differences between the two cams become even less significant.
 
I agree that if you record lossless or near lossless from the EX1, then things start to become closer. Maybe quite close. But I disagree that you can't get strong color from the RED.
(BTW, this is not my work. If anyone can tell me who the artist is, I'd like to give proper credit)

Like this:

 
Last edited:
It may be a grading issue, but in all the RED footage (and SI IIK for that matter), I've noticed a slightly unnatural rendering of color. Sure, it's capable of highly-saturated color, but I'm not sure I've seen a sample clip where the color was rendered as I see it with my own eyes. It always feels like there's a sleight beige filter on the lens. Does that make sense?
 
basspig said:
It may be a grading issue, but in all the RED footage (and SI IIK for that matter), I've noticed a slightly unnatural rendering of color. Sure, it's capable of highly-saturated color, but I'm not sure I've seen a sample clip where the color was rendered as I see it with my own eyes. It always feels like there's a sleight beige filter on the lens. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Yea, it makes sense. I don't know...
 
(Thanks Ian-T. Enjoying your 7d?)

I have tried downloading various raw footage clips to play with at the recommendation of some Red using friends in the past. I too have Vegas as well as CS3. (I need to upgrade to CS4 for that though there are some work arounds.)

There are an awful lot of Red clips on the net that look bad because of poor grading and poor saturation. I think that's why Jim J has been working on that new color science.

Throw into that mix the fact that 1/3 of the male population has a red/green color deficiency making it extremely difficult for them to color grade accurately. (I'm one of them.) I want the correct color balance out of the camera and mostly to adjust the saturation and contrast.

You can eventually get the colors right with Red, but I wouldn't say it's fast.
 
Last edited:
Are we really debating which is better even though the Scarlet isn't even out yet? With the way RED keeps pushing back their deadlines Scarlet won't be available for at least a year, if not more. And I'm not even talking about the "official" release date here. I'm talking about actually being able to order the camera and have it in your hand to shoot with. By then you're not gonna be comparing the EX1 versus Scarlet, you're gonna be comparing the EX5 or whatever it is that's gonna be released a year from now and all the specs that we're talking about here is going to be irrelevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top