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

[Max Smith]

The question of what an upcoming product may or may not offer, and when, is largely ... IRRELEVANT!

Because if you need something now, what does it matter, in any way, as to what some future product may or may not have? That wouldn't help you today, with what you need to do.

And if you don't need it now, why bother buying at all? Something better and cheaper will always, always, always be right around the corner.

That's why I say -- ignore the Scarlet, ignore the GH2, ignore the ... what, 5D Mark III or whatever, because they don't exist. Look at the products that are on the market today, and make an evaluation: is what it offers, worth the price they're charging, to ME? Now?

If the answer's yes, get it -- you'll still have something that's way better than anything we had 10 years ago, and a lot of great films were being made 10 years ago. Just because something new comes out, doesn't make what you already have "stop working" or anything, nor does it diminish you or your skills or worth -- unless, of course, your entire ego and sense of self-worth is tied up in what equipment you happen to own, which is a pretty bad place to be in.*

On the other hand, if there's an announced product with a definite ship date that looks ideal to you (yes, AF100, I'm lookin' at you) and you have pretty strong assurances that the company will actually deliver, then there's nothing wrong with looking forward and planning on it. But that actually reinforces my original point -- if you CAN wait, then obviously you don't NEED it now... and if you don't NEED something... why are you buying it?!?


*unless you're a professional rental house, in which case you should already know all this stuff anyway, and will be making decisions based on what's available today and if you think you can make your money back on it before it's obsoleted, because it all will be obsoleted sooner or later.

I agree, completely... but come on man, speculating is fun. You know it, I know it, and that's half the reason people read threads like this in the first place :happy:

 

[Martti Ekstrand]

You eventually do need to pull the audience into the characters and you can't do that from a stunningly three-dimensional football field away. Still, I found the shallow lens work jarring.

Me too, and it doesn't at all resemble how human perception work in the actual world where we shift focus to what we look at. In fact for my part Avatar was just another movie experience ruined by headache triggered by the 3D effect and walking out I thought that if this is the best 3D experience money can buy I'll just skip it for now until some next much improved methodology appears. I was way more immersed in Blade Runner back in '82 by the sheer imagination of the images, production design and mood than I was in Avatar. Or in The Terminator for that matter.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

Me too, and it doesn't at all resemble how human perception work in the actual world where we shift focus to what we look at. In fact for my part Avatar was just another movie experience ruined by headache triggered by the 3D effect and walking out I thought that if this is the best 3D experience money can buy I'll just skip it for now until some next much improved methodology appears. I was way more immersed in Blade Runner back in '82 by the sheer imagination of the images, production design and mood than I was in Avatar. Or in The Terminator for that matter.

This is my problem with Avatar in 3D, yeah it's 3D but it's not the way we naturally experience 3D, and as another poster mentioned, the shallow-dof-3d-shots just don't work, they look cool, but just not quite right.

 

[gabrielflorit]

The question of what an upcoming product may or may not offer, and when, is largely ... IRRELEVANT!

Because if you need something now, what does it matter, in any way, as to what some future product may or may not have? That wouldn't help you today, with what you need to do.

And if you don't need it now, why bother buying at all? Something better and cheaper will always, always, always be right around the corner.

That's why I say -- ignore the Scarlet, ignore the GH2, ignore the ... what, 5D Mark III or whatever, because they don't exist. Look at the products that are on the market today, and make an evaluation: is what it offers, worth the price they're charging, to ME? Now?

If the answer's yes, get it -- you'll still have something that's way better than anything we had 10 years ago, and a lot of great films were being made 10 years ago. Just because something new comes out, doesn't make what you already have "stop working" or anything, nor does it diminish you or your skills or worth -- unless, of course, your entire ego and sense of self-worth is tied up in what equipment you happen to own, which is a pretty bad place to be in.*

On the other hand, if there's an announced product with a definite ship date that looks ideal to you (yes, AF100, I'm lookin' at you) and you have pretty strong assurances that the company will actually deliver, then there's nothing wrong with looking forward and planning on it. But that actually reinforces my original point -- if you CAN wait, then obviously you don't NEED it now... and if you don't NEED something... why are you buying it?!?


*unless you're a professional rental house, in which case you should already know all this stuff anyway, and will be making decisions based on what's available today and if you think you can make your money back on it before it's obsoleted, because it all will be obsoleted sooner or later.

Really well put.

 

[Zephyrnoid]

I'm not reading the whole thread and appreciate the question. My short answer is " No". the "DSLR Craze" has not killed Scarlet or any Video system that can shoot more than 20 minutes continuously without needing an icepack to cool the sensors down.
I'm puzzled as to why this question keeps coming up?
Phrased differently. When a DSLR can shoot at Scarlet caliber res and sustain a clip of longer than 20 minutes, THEN it will kill desire for Scarlet.
Phrased even better. Scarlet is supposed to be the bridge between DSLR's that can only shoot 12 minute clips and full blown full sensor cameras of any make.

Notice I make a big deal of the clip length. That's because most serious real world productions need the flexibility of longer shots.

Also, DSLR's are legacies from the old film camera days. DSLR bodies are not conducive to stable video without adaptation. Unless Hassleblad decides to enter the Hybrid arena :2vrolijk_08:Scarlet should end up looking like a Hassy on steriods

 

[Zephyrnoid]

It's an interesting line of thought.
I say so because the same question came up for me about 25 years ago. Are Nikon premium lenses equal to, less than or better than the resolving power of the 35mm 'film' I used? At the time, my benchmark was Kodachrome 25 and Velvia 50.
So I ran an experiment, I shot a macro with a high end Nikkor 50mm and a 50mm Apo Rodagon via some view camera hosting. Guess what?
The Enlarging lens crushed the Nikon prime lens for resolving power, therefore– information captured.

That was old school stuff but I'm going to wager that current DSLR premium prime lenses are (or should be) matched to the resolving power of the sensors. If not, the engineering departments aren't doing something right.
Further- there is virtually NO difference between the premium lenses from different high end brands. They're all using the same computer software to design the glass.

A 2/3" area corresponds to the "sweet spot" area of a 35mm lens -the center of the glass, capable of resolving more resolution than the borders- so this can't be the issue.

I also find pretty strange to read such things as "(...) still lenses from Canon or Nikon would very likely not resolve the amount of detail at 3K resolution in RAW format" ...? This means that the last generation of Nikon or Canon glass, -let's say the superb Nikon 14-24 2.8 or the Canon 85 1.2 L-, designed to be used with such cameras like the D3X -6048x4032 = 6K resolution- or the 1DsMkIII -5616x3744 = 5,5 k resolution- are not up to what these cameras sensors can deliver? Sorry, but I seriously doubt this.

In fact, and until recently, the point has been quite the opposite: what camera sensors could deliver (8-12 Mpx) fell far behind what the best still lenses in the market could resolve. I'm quite sure that when I attach my Leica R 28-90 ASPH to my 7D, the lens easily outresolves the 1920x1080 video definition and it's clearly up to the 18Mpx in still RAW mode (5K).

I'm not saying that still photography lenses are equally suited for cinema or video applications as especifically designed cinema lenses and that they do not show some unquestionable disadvantages, but to say that they are clearly inferior in terms of pure optical quality is absurd in my opinion.

 

[thisisapocalypse]

Unless Hassleblad decides to enter the Hybrid arena...

May never happen, but that would be amazing if it did. One 6x6 Sensor please, I'll even settle 6x4.5, I'm flexible. You wanna talk shallow DOF? Now you're talking!

 

[morgan_moore]

As an H1 owner with prime set I would fall off my chair for that

of course MF is modular already so it shoud be 'simple'

S

 

[Max Smith]

I'm not reading the whole thread and appreciate the question. My short answer is " No". the "DSLR Craze" has not killed Scarlet or any Video system that can shoot more than 20 minutes continuously without needing an icepack to cool the sensors down.
I'm puzzled as to why this question keeps coming up?
Phrased differently. When a DSLR can shoot at Scarlet caliber res and sustain a clip of longer than 20 minutes, THEN it will kill desire for Scarlet.
Phrased even better. Scarlet is supposed to be the bridge between DSLR's that can only shoot 12 minute clips and full blown full sensor cameras of any make.

Notice I make a big deal of the clip length. That's because most serious real world productions need the flexibility of longer shots.

Also, DSLR's are legacies from the old film camera days. DSLR bodies are not conducive to stable video without adaptation. Unless Hassleblad decides to enter the Hybrid arena :2vrolijk_08:Scarlet should end up looking like a Hassy on steriods

Frankly, I think your out of your mind. I work in the film business, I've worked in the film business since the ealy 90s and outside of Brett Ratner I can't think of anyone who needs to run a 12 minute take, much less anything longer.

If you're talking about a documentary then maybe, I don't know. But if you're talking about an actual film production, I'm calling Shenannigans.

 

[Cieloent]

Frankly, I think your out of your mind. I work in the film business, I've worked in the film business since the ealy 90s and outside of Brett Ratner I can't think of anyone who needs to run a 12 minute take, much less anything longer.

If you're talking about a documentary then maybe, I don't know. But if you're talking about an actual film production, I'm calling Shenannigans.

Exactly, I film as well and outside of some sporting event or documentary there is no need for something that long. As an editor and film maker myself there has never been a take that I have done that has run more than 10 mins and that's pushing it. Even using film cameras at the high price tag of film will they ever run a take that long and even if they did you can use a Panasonic Gh1 dslr that will allow you to record for well over 60mins ( provided a big enough memory card ) so that point that you bring up holds "ZERO" weight.

 

[deltoidjohn]

Notice I make a big deal of the clip length. That's because most serious real world productions need the flexibility of longer shots.

For any 'real world' narrative work 12 minutes is plenty. A 1000ft film reel is about 11 minutes worth so that's a limitation that film-makers are used to working with anyway.

Thats why these DSLR cameras have been taken up so keenly by narrative film-makers but less so by documentary/event shooters - they fit right into the existing expectations of narrative film set-ups (shorter takes, seperate sound, interchangable lenses) whereas they don't necassarily offer all the features that documentary producers demand (good onboard audio, flexible lens, long record times, simplicity).

 

[Cieloent]

For any 'real world' narrative work 12 minutes is plenty. A 1000ft film reel is about 11 minutes worth so that's a limitation that film-makers are used to working with anyway.

Thats why these DSLR cameras have been taken up so keenly by narrative film-makers but less so by documentary/event shooters - they fit right into the existing expectations of narrative film set-ups (shorter takes, seperate sound, interchangable lenses) whereas they don't necassarily offer all the features that documentary producers demand (good onboard audio, flexible lens, long record times, simplicity).

I agree, but just in case you missed it have people forgotten that the GH1 allows you to shoot until your memory card is full?

I think it's just people who are misinformed and do not really know what's going on with these cameras.

 

[Ian-T]

I agree, but just in case you missed it have people forgotten that the GH1 allows you to shoot until your memory card is full?

LOL...yeah...so do the Canons....but in 12 minute increments.

LOL...sorry had to go there. rogar-Happy(DBG):

 

[Cavemandude]

I agree, but just in case you missed it have people forgotten that the GH1 allows you to shoot until your memory card is full?

I think it's just people who are misinformed and do not really know what's going on with these cameras.

The GH1 can record for 4 hours using a 32GB SDHC card which is around $100. Of course, you'd need to use the AC adapter to record continuously for 4 hours though but the battery should cover at least 2 hours. Won't have any overheating problems either.

Randy

 

[Barry_Green]

People, please -- if someone wants/needs long takes, don't take it upon yourself to decree that "nobody needs that". If the DSLR is all about empowering new people and new creativity, then how do you know what any individual artist needs? If someone wants long running times, then they want long running times -- and that has to be okay with you. If the Canon can't do it, then the Canon can't do it -- and that has to be okay with you. Maybe he wants to shoot films AND do documentaries AND do events. Maybe he wants to make single-take films like "Russian Ark" and "Timecode".

Some of us want or need long recording times. Some of us want or need autofocus. Some of us want or need to be able to zoom during a shot. Some of us want or need lots of things. You can't tell someone that they don't need what they do. You can say "well, in my style of shooting I've never needed it" but that's pretty much where that ends. The whole idea of "Timecode" came about specifically because Figgis was intrigued by the idea of being able to do an entire film without any cuts. I doubt many here would be comfortable telling Mike Figgis "you don't actually need that."

 

[David G. Smith]

People, please -- if someone wants/needs long takes, don't take it upon yourself to decree that "nobody needs that". If the DSLR is all about empowering new people and new creativity, then how do you know what any individual artist needs? If someone wants long running times, then they want long running times -- and that has to be okay with you. If the Canon can't do it, then the Canon can't do it -- and that has to be okay with you. Maybe he wants to shoot films AND do documentaries AND do events. Maybe he wants to make single-take films like "Russian Ark" and "Timecode".

Some of us want or need long recording times. Some of us want or need autofocus. Some of us want or need to be able to zoom during a shot. Some of us want or need lots of things. You can't tell someone that they don't need what they do. You can say "well, in my style of shooting I've never needed it" but that's pretty much where that ends. The whole idea of "Timecode" came about specifically because Figgis was intrigued by the idea of being able to do an entire film without any cuts. I doubt many here would be comfortable telling Mike Figgis "you don't actually need that."

That is great Barry, and reinforces the point you also continually make about using the right tool for the job. Figgis could not have made "Timecode", at the time, without the introduction of the DVCAM format that ran for 90 minutes on a single tape. He was able to exploit the introduction of one technological innovation and make a great film. If all he "needed " was Super 16mm, which he shot "Leaving Las Vegas" on, he never could have made "Timecode", the way it was made.

 

[Erik Olson]

I don't know how other people shoot interviews, but we tend to run more that 12 minutes. On the P2 cameras, our interviews can easily run an hour. Depending on the talent (and the talent of the producer!), we may or may not stop at all during that time.

 

[Ian-T]

This thread gives me a feeling of dejavu....or maybe a type of Groundhog Day....I dunno.

 

[Blaine]

I don't know how other people shoot interviews, but we tend to run more that 12 minutes. On the P2 cameras, our interviews can easily run an hour. Depending on the talent (and the talent of the producer!), we may or may not stop at all during that time.

I don't know what you're doing wrong, but you shouldn't need more than 12 minutes. :evil:
:grin::grin:

 

[Chris Santucci]

Don't the P2 files get broken up into pieces anyway because of the FAT32 formatting? Surely double punching the record button on a camera would achieve almost the same thing.

.