Has the DSLR Hybrid craze effectively killed the desire for a Red Scarlet camera?

[PerroneFord]

I have used a Nikon D90 and now a Canon 7D and I'm dying for the S35 Scarlet. The image on these DSLRs is quite thin, and it makes me a little crazy. Just got finished color grading a piece shot on an F900 and was reminded how much fun it is to have room to play.

Zak, as I have been reminded, this discussion is (apparently) focused on the 2/3" Scarlet and not the S35. Like you, I can't wait to get hands on with one. But that might elude me for some time. So when you get yours, post up some stuff so I can live vicariously through you!

 

[Barry_Green]

I have used a Nikon D90 and now a Canon 7D and I'm dying for the S35 Scarlet. The image on these DSLRs is quite thin, and it makes me a little crazy. Just got finished color grading a piece shot on an F900 and was reminded how much fun it is to have room to play.

I'm all over that, definitely.

But the bigger question I have is: would you be willing to go down to a 2/3" sensor to get that?

Is that tradeoff worth it?

The more I watch this market, the more I become convinced that it's all about sensor size, no matter what -- so with the 2/3" Scarlet being 1/5 to 1/6 the size of the APS-C sensor, and 1/15th the size of the 5D sensor... will all its other benefits make up for that?

Or will we just wait for an S35 or FF Scarlet and ignore the 2/3" entirely?

Or will all the other benefits make it such a no-brainer that we'll swarm onto the 2/3", and just learn to live without the SLR DOF?

 

[Isaac_Brody]

Or will all the other benefits make it such a no-brainer that we'll swarm onto the 2/3", and just learn to live without the SLR DOF?

I'm guessing no, because it comes down to delivery date. Scarlet is a couple steps behind Epic in delivery dates. So if Scarlet 2/3 is delivered early next year and an AF100 is out this fall that hooks up to a nanoflash to skip AVCHD compression, going down to 2/3 looks a lot less tempting when Panasonic, Sony, and possibly Canon will have offerings that have a larger sensor then 2/3 Scarlet.

If Scarlet had been delivered two years ago, or heck even a year ago I think it would be a different story. The game has changed, at least for me it has.

 

[Ian-T]

I'm guessing no, because it comes down to delivery date. Scarlet is a couple steps behind Epic in delivery dates. So if Scarlet 2/3 is delivered early next year and an AF100 is out this fall that hooks up to a nanoflash to skip AVCHD compression, going down to 2/3 looks a lot less tempting when Panasonic, Sony, and possibly Canon will have offerings that have a larger sensor then 2/3 Scarlet.

If Scarlet had been delivered two years ago, or heck even a year ago I think it would be a different story. The game has changed, at least for me it has.

....and there it is....at least for me also.

 

[Chris Santucci]

I'm guessing Red will abandon the 2/3" Scarlet configuration by the time it's released. The DSLR craze has already forced Red to push back the Scarlet release once and now with the thirst for low light huge sensor size, they'll more than likely have to go with the flow.

.

 

[daveswan]

For me, it's debatable.
Had the original 2/3" "3K for $3K" been released within say 6 months - a year of announcement I'd have bought without question, there was nothing even remotely like it.
Now? I don't know. Yes I take on board all the benefits of its pseudo-raw codec and moire-less image, but the cost / benefit of going down to 2/3", at maybe twice- three times the cost of the next generation Canon, has become questionable for me. Perhaps, and with good reason for you, but thats your decision (You used in a general sense, and not aimed at any one person).
I say all the above with regret because I'd really like to move there, but at present, and with my shaky finances . . . .
Dave

 

[PerroneFord]

I'm guessing Red will abandon the 2/3" Scarlet configuration by the time it's released.
.

I was surprised it was still on the table by the time the 7D rolled around.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

seems like sensor size is the most important thing to many... not to me however. I'm anxious to see footage and how the things really work when they come out... 2/3 is a practical size to me, and sensor size (for me) is lower on the totem pole than other features and functionality I am looking for... Primarily, the most robust, high quality image I can get in my chosen price range.

I wonder if/when something comes that has amazing image quality but a smaller sensor if people will still feel that sensor size is most important and current workarounds and gotcha's are still worth it, or if other things begin to take precedence again. Obviously we're moving to an all S35 or larger world in the long run... But, in the meantime, there aren't sub-10k 35mm options that offer what (I) want.

Later,
Jason

 

[Zak Forsman]

I'm all over that, definitely.

But the bigger question I have is: would you be willing to go down to a 2/3" sensor to get that?

Is that tradeoff worth it?

The more I watch this market, the more I become convinced that it's all about sensor size, no matter what -- so with the 2/3" Scarlet being 1/5 to 1/6 the size of the APS-C sensor, and 1/15th the size of the 5D sensor... will all its other benefits make up for that?

Or will we just wait for an S35 or FF Scarlet and ignore the 2/3" entirely?

Or will all the other benefits make it such a no-brainer that we'll swarm onto the 2/3", and just learn to live without the SLR DOF?

If there were no other options available between a 7D and a 2/3" Scarlet, I'd take the Scarlet. That being said, I'd much rather continue renting the Red One than buy a 2/3" Scarlet or handicap a feature-length motion picture production with a 7D.

 

[Finnegan]

The more I watch this market, the more I become convinced that it's all about sensor size, no matter what --

This is absolutely correct, but I think it's an unhealthy perspective to maintain in the face of technology that has so many different things to offer. As you said, it seems like sensor size and therefore shallow depth of field is all the craze right now because people seem to think its absolutely key to the elusive "film look" - so they go onto the internet and try to find out how to get that shallow depth of field, and they end up fueling markets like the 35mm adapters and such. And that's not a bad thing. My point is that I think that most people would be satisfied with the depth of field on a 16mm camera, and therefore they'd be satisfied with the depth of field on Scarlet, or any other 2/3 camera.

In my opinion, there's a large market of people who have, before doing any practical research, already convinced themselves that nothing less than APS-C or S35 sized sensors will do because of what they've read on the internet, when in reality a large majority of them would be pleased with the amount of depth of field that 2/3 cameras offer.

The above is a screenshot that M. David Mullen, ASC, posted on the REDuser forums. It's from a feature film he shot on the Sony F-900 called The Quiet. According to Mullen, that's at F2.8 - and the depth of field looks perfectly shallow to me. Of course, Barry, I'm sure you're well aware of the ability of 2/3 chip cameras as far as depth of field but I'm mainly just pointing it out as a general thing.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I shoot with the F900 in low light conditions a lot and I'm not happy with the amount of depth of field that one can typically get. the photo above is much more than typical conditions allow. there generally is not enough room to use a focus length as long as what's being used in it. it's close, but not quite close enough to what i'm after.

 

[PerroneFord]

I shoot with the F900 in low light conditions a lot and I'm not happy with the amount of depth of field that one can typically get. the photo above is much more than typical conditions allow. there generally is not enough room to use a focus length as long as what's being used in it. it's close, but not quite close enough to what i'm after.

Exactly, if you can stand across the street and film, and HV40 will do that too. But when you've got a room full of actors, crew and gear in a 15x15 room that's not going to cut it.

I had to shoot some 1-shots in a car this weekend on the EX1. I would have given my kingdom for a 7D or a 5D in that scenario. Instead, I've got my actor, and the people jogging down the street 40ft away...

Shallow DOF is a tool, like any other. Sometimes abused, but absolutely critical when you need to isolate someone in a crowd. Masking and defocusing in post get's OLD and looks fake. As does vignetting.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

but I think it's an unhealthy perspective to maintain in the face of technology that has so many different things to offer.

I think this is a valid viewpoint. One certainly can't deny that sensor size is what it's all about to a lot of people, but is that a good thing? to let sensor size trump all else as the #1 primary consideration when considering a camera purchase to the point that one will not even consider a camera if it doesn't have at least that large of a sensor. Or, that they may be willing to accept compromises, or potential gotcha's, etc in exchange for this one single feature.

Seems like placing too much emphasis on one single thing like sensor size (in this case) can lead to extremes in viewpoint and can also be severely limiting to our options when it comes time to purchase...

I also wonder how many of the people who feel this way about sensor size feel this way from experience, or merely b/c it is something that has been repeated so much over time until it has become gospel. There are certainly valid considerations to be made, and a 2/3" might end up being a deal breaker for some sets.

Don't get me wrong, being able to get S35 frame size in an 800 dollar package is pretty much a revolution in and of itself... I just wonder if the affordable DoF revolution hasn't skewed people's priorities when it comes to their purchasing considerations.

I want S35 frame size as well... Just not at the expense of other major features or of the image, etc... So, I want the manufacturers of dslr's to not get complacent in just offering affordable dof. I want them to fix the problems with the current gen dslr's.

So, whether it's a 2nd or 3rd gen dslr that gets there, or a scarlet or whatever.... I just don't want it to stop at DoF. I want back the features, functionality, and dependable image reproduction that we all took for granted before this most recent revolution came along... I want those things *along with* the S35 sensor size...

For me... the current tradeoff's are not worth the payoffs of a larger sensor.... yet... but, it'll get there...

 

[PerroneFord]

Jason,

You might also consider that the people in this thread who aren't exactly rushing out for 2/3" sensors are people who either own, or have used those cameras. My cam is 1/2" and honestly, I can't see me dropping another $5k for a 2/3" camera. Even if it does have RAW recording. I'm close enough to that already.

If someone is going to get me to part with my money, they are going to need to bring something new to the game. The RED One brought that with 4K recording (yea I know) that many professionals could afford. That is still an advantage over something like the Alexa or the new Aaton. The DSLRs are getting there with FF35 or S35 sensors for what we used to pay for a day's worth of tapes or a 2-day camera rental.

I have absolutely zero interest in the 2/3" scarlet unless they can get it to 7D pricing. That is what it would be worth to me as a backup camera. The S35 Scarlet would probably be worth $8k to me. I have no need or interest in the FF35, but I know many people would.

 

[yoclay]

I'm sorry, but I disagree entirely. Your first point deals with lenses. It is true that 35mm lenses are unusable on Scarlet, since they will suffer crop issues. However, to assert that there is not a "multitude" of available lenses is simply incorrect. There is a whole host of awesome 16mm prime lens sets from Panavision, Cooke, and Zeiss that are perfectly 100% usable on Scarlet (or any other 2/3 chip camera), in addition to the RED mini-primes which are of MUCH higher quality than the still lenses that are available for HDSLR systems. In fact, that's one of the big selling points of Scarlet cinema (the interchangeable lens model) - the ability to use S16 lenses.

Your second point deals with price, which is in my opinion, an invalid argument. Scarlet is a camera system that is engineered and designed for a higher end production market than HDSLR systems are. The reason a lot of people purchase an HDSLR system is because its affordable way to get pretty good quality 1080p video. Scarlet is designed for much, much more. Comparing the price of an HDSLR to Scarlet and saying the HDSLR has the advantage is like comparing the price of a Porsche to a Ferrari and saying the Porsche has an advantage. Yeah, they're both Italian made sports cars, and they both kind of do the same things here and there, but they're cars made for ENTIRELY different markets.

Your last point is particularly disturbing. Everyone knows that the sensor in the RED One isn't great as far as ISO rating. RED claims it's 320, but I ran tests with John Hora, ASC, and we peg it around 160. The Mysterium-X chip (M-X) is an ENTIRELY different beast. I refer you to the following clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJpLgdD7r3c

That clip is a sequence shot by David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club) with Leonardo DiCaprio testing out the new M-X chip - ISO 2000 with the lens slightly below a T1.4 if I remember correctly. You'll notice the only key light is a match, a single match. Not only does it look properly exposed when Leo lights the match, but it looks GREAT artistically. I saw this video projected on RED's 4K projection at Renmar Studios and it is almost flawless. The noise is almost not noticeable since it looks like film grain.

In my professional opinion, no HDSLR out there is capable of delivering a product that looks flawless on a 4K projection at ISO 2000. Sure, ISO 2000 looks pretty good on a Canon 7D but you've got to remember most of the videos we watch are on our computer screens. For me, and other Scarlet potenial buyers, we are thinking feature film screen finished format - not computer screen. And the concensus is that HDSLR rigs don't cut it for a feature film going to the big screen for a theatrical release. Not enough resolution, not enough image control, big problems with rolling shutter effects, heavy moire issues, and complex artifacting.

Don't get me wrong. I own a Canon 7D and I love it. It's a cheap, affordable APS-C sized sensor that gives me a shallow depth of field, and access to pretty great lenses. But it is not geared for the high end professional filmmaking - and that is what RED is marketing Scarlet as. As I said before, comparing an HDSLR to a RED doesn't do you any good because they're made for different markets.



This is exactly my point. RED isn't coming to the table with Scarlet saying "Hey wedding videographers, come check out our new camera!" Scarlet is a machine designed for a higher market - broadcast television, feature filmmaking, and other such parts of the industry which demand a high amount of image control, manipulation, and resolution - things that the HDSLR systems are not capable of delivering.

TL; DR Comparing Scarlet to HDSLR systems is counter-productive since each is designed with entirely different markets and entirely different projects in mind.

Sorry, but your "awesome" 16mm prime sets count in the tens of thousands, the still lens market counts in the tens of millions. That pretty much counts as "multitudes" for me. I can show you still lenses that cost a fraction of what your 16mm primes costs that are every bit as good optically as the majority of those 16mm lenses, and I CAN OWN THEM - without having to spend anywhere near the price of the set from RED.

The way forward is clearly not 2/3", it is micro 4/3", S35 and FF35. No way would I invest in 16mm prime lenses at this point in the game.. The Scarlet 2/3" system risks going the way of the dinasours as far as I and a lot of other people are concerned. Panasonic, Canon and others have clearly left the 2/3" sensor behind, and the issues related to aliasing, moire etc. on the larger sensors will only continue to be hammered away at.

As for projection, I think it's pretty clear by the most recent tests posted on the Zacuto site that there are already some HDSLR's which look great projected at ISO 2000 and far, far beyond. No way a small 2/3" captor can compete. Absolutely no way.

You speak about different markets. THIS is the market for Scarlet. Scarlet is not about shooting ENG news pieces. It's about digital filmmaking.

It's very convenient of you to exclude price as an issue by simply saying it's an invalid argument. On the contrary it's the most valid argument there is for poking a hole in the Scarlet balloon, which has deflated rapidly. Cheap costs DO count or you and most of the others here would be interested in chatting about an EPIC not a Scarlet.

Let's face it, RED has marketed itself to INDIE FILMMAKERS. These people by definition need to do things cheaply. The new EPIC may be going Hollywood, but the Scarlet was definitely meant for us. It is clear to me that Jannard wasn't upset when he heard about the 5D Mark II for nothing, and he still has not come to market with his response to it.

 

[Barry_Green]

I want S35 frame size as well... Just not at the expense of other major features or of the image, etc... So, I want the manufacturers of dslr's to not get complacent in just offering affordable dof. I want them to fix the problems with the current gen dslr's.

So, whether it's a 2nd or 3rd gen dslr that gets there, or a scarlet or whatever.... I just don't want it to stop at DoF. I want back the features, functionality, and dependable image reproduction that we all took for granted before this most recent revolution came along... I want those things *along with* the S35 sensor size...

EXACTLY. Which is why I'm amped on the AF100. It promises to fix every shortcoming, but the only complaint I hear is "meh the sensor is only 90% as big as S35". And I'm all like "seriously??!!? That's the complaint? For single-system sound, HD-SDI and HDMI monitoring, alias-free imaging, a comparatively rock-solid codec, etc. etc. etc."

I think that sensor size thing is just such a big marketing point that a lot of folks can't or won't get past it. Like in my HPX370 vs. EX3 article, where I kept throwing in the line "yeah, but the Sony has a 1/2" chip" ... it seems like, in today's market, everyone is prioritizing sensor size over everything.

Which seems odd to me, but that's why I'm asking. And why I wonder about the future of the 2/3" Scarlet, now that everyone's getting addicted to APS-C or even FF35.

 

[Darky Mikado]

Jim doesn't need to answer, his answer is "no compromises" and that is all it is. If you're ready to compromise image quality from day one (which is fine for some, which I can understand) then fine -- but don't scream at Scarlet for not being whatever you thought it would be.
They're accomodating every feature request between heaven and earth and still people ***** and moan about the price...geez, give me a break.

The truth of the matter is that the market the Scarlet was (and always will be) aimed at don't factor in it's price as a deal-breaker as long as the image delivers and everything holds up to scrutiny. Anyone who dreamed the Scarlet would crush all resistance was, well, dreaming. It's the indie filmmakers dream for the right price, and I would love to shot a decent budget feature on one of these babies!

There is one (and yes, one) camera aimed at the enthusiast just starting out -- that would be the Fixed 2/3" Scarlet (which, IMHO, is awesome for it's price/features). Other than that the rest of the line is basically various versions of EPIC downscaled to fit Indie feature productions and various other markets.

What's so hard to get?

 

[Barry_Green]

Let's face it, RED has marketed itself to INDIE FILMMAKERS.

Yes, they most definitely have. But I wonder if that's the customer they really want? And, besides, there's a difference between "indie" filmmakers and "microbudget cinema" makers. Historically, "indie" has meant that the picture isn't controlled by outside financiers, and didn't have any inherent restriction on budget; by that label the ultimate "indie" films might be the George Lucas Episode I, II, and III -- because he funded those out of pocket, they were about the most independent any filmmaker can get.

So Red is in high demand in independent film, but that doesn't dictate that these films budgets have to be microscopically low. $300,000 is a pretty low budget for an independent film, and it's plenty of dough to rent a Red package (or even buy one, although that may not make much fiscal sense). So independent filmmakers are definitely a major market for Red, but I don't know that microcinema filmmakers really are.

I think they were intended to be, yes. But Red's recent attitude towards that group makes me wonder if they really want that customer or not. Red's built a pretty good business off of folks who don't mind paying $1500 for a battery charger and two batteries, or $250 for a grippable handle. But microbudget/DSLR shooters are not going to do that.

Said it before, I'll say it again, even at the peril of the "mid-may announcement" making me look like a fool, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if Red made the Scarlet S35 the entry-level model, at $10k, and left the less-expensive market to Canon and Panasonic to fight over.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

Jason,

You might also consider that the people in this thread who aren't exactly rushing out for 2/3" sensors are people who either own, or have used those cameras. My cam is 1/2" and honestly, I can't see me dropping another $5k for a 2/3" camera. Even if it does have RAW recording. I'm close enough to that already.

If someone is going to get me to part with my money, they are going to need to bring something new to the game. The RED One brought that with 4K recording (yea I know) that many professionals could afford. That is still an advantage over something like the Alexa or the new Aaton. The DSLRs are getting there with FF35 or S35 sensors for what we used to pay for a day's worth of tapes or a 2-day camera rental.

I have absolutely zero interest in the 2/3" scarlet unless they can get it to 7D pricing. That is what it would be worth to me as a backup camera. The S35 Scarlet would probably be worth $8k to me. I have no need or interest in the FF35, but I know many people would.

I have no issue with your viewpoint, and it's also a valid one for you (and many, I'm sure). My only issue with current gen tech (talking about the dslr world) is (in contrast to some of the other examples one might give) that it offered something everyone has craved, but did so at the expensive of features, and functions, and robustness that everyone had become accustomed to. So, that's my main deal. I want it too... But, only if the tradeoff(s) are acceptable in return. For, me, they are not... BUt, I'm only one person and am quite obviously in the minority in that regard.

but that's why I'm asking. And why I wonder about the future of the 2/3" Scarlet, now that everyone's getting addicted to APS-C or even FF35.

Time will tell if/when it comes to market, I suppose. I do have a (purely speculative) suspicion that once it (or something else) comes to market, that a noticeable amount of people may begin to re-examine their priorities.

 

[yoclay]

Said it before, I'll say it again, even at the peril of the "mid-may announcement" making me look like a fool, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if Red made the Scarlet S35 the entry-level model, at $10k, and left the less-expensive market to Canon and Panasonic to fight over.

It would be lovely to think that RED would do even this, but alas I fear that an S35 Scarlet may never see the light of day. There is a deafening silence where this is concerned. Too threatening for the Epic market.