Now That The Dust Has Settled....
- Thread starter David G. Smith
- Start date
PabloOzzy
Active member
Its such a divide isnt it - for 1080 60p its either $5k for an FS100 / AF100 or $25k for an F3 with slog and Gemini 4:4:4 - this is where the c300 could have at least offered to compete. A great image with much stronger in camera codec, throw in 1080 60p and a slightly cheaper street price - now were talking. Such a shame :-(
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Yeah, but in the hey day of the 16mm doc, they did have one thing that I find lacking in today's line up of large sensor HD cameras and that is the availability of fast, high quality, RELATIVELY inexpensive, manual parfocal constant aperture zoom lenses. Like the Angénieux 12-120mm and the 10-150mm lenses. Now, with the S35mm sensor cameras, your choices are either still zooms, which are not really up to the task, or cinema zooms that are outrageously expensive. Or, if you are shooting docs, choosing to stay with the small sensor fixed lens cameras. The closest thing available to the ideal, that I know of, is the FS100 with kit lens. Now I did not go with the kit lens when I bought my FS100, I did not (do not) like the speed of it, and that it is not a constant aperture lens (Don't know if it is parfocal or not). I can kick my self for not getting it. Folks who are using the kit lens, for run and gun shooting, claim that it really is a good lens and that the push auto focus controls with the camera work very well. I am going to go ahead and get the kit lens, to have, just in case, but will pay a $200.00 premium over not buying it with the camera. I guess that is really where I was disappointed with the Canon. I was really expecting them to come out with some thing like the XL-1, with an integrated, interchangeable fully auto kit lens, but on a large sensor HD camera, at a price less than what they want for the C300. I guess I am a dreamer, huh?
All in all though, I am very pleased with my FS100. It is an amazing camera and a terrific value for the price.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
That the thing with S35 (or even more so with full frame) is that the glass has to be bigger/heavier .. or slower
Its a set of trade offs, the kit lens is of managble size but slow, but the sensor is more sensitive and doesnt need the speed .. its kind a of circular argument
That always ends up with big costly glass if you want speed and range
My envelope calculations lead me to believe that a 18-100 F2.8-F4 would be of managable size and price, the closest is a Stigma 18-80 - it does not have a good rep, but I might try it anyway!
As for the Kit lens - I see it as a must have - but the fly by wire focus makes me feel ill and the location ofl the controls on the camera is for people with three hands (they live on planet Sony maybe where the thing was designed)
I think sorting out the ergonomics, and probably launching a decent RnG lens is where the Canon could, for me, have become worthy trade for the Sony, but as far as I can see the ergonomics are wonko on that too so Ill keep my cash in my pocket
S
Its a set of trade offs, the kit lens is of managble size but slow, but the sensor is more sensitive and doesnt need the speed .. its kind a of circular argument
That always ends up with big costly glass if you want speed and range
My envelope calculations lead me to believe that a 18-100 F2.8-F4 would be of managable size and price, the closest is a Stigma 18-80 - it does not have a good rep, but I might try it anyway!
As for the Kit lens - I see it as a must have - but the fly by wire focus makes me feel ill and the location ofl the controls on the camera is for people with three hands (they live on planet Sony maybe where the thing was designed)
I think sorting out the ergonomics, and probably launching a decent RnG lens is where the Canon could, for me, have become worthy trade for the Sony, but as far as I can see the ergonomics are wonko on that too so Ill keep my cash in my pocket
S
Last edited:
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
That is the situation all of us are in with the large sensor cameras when it comes to zooms. I am going to pick up the kit lens and I just picked up a Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm f2.8 -3.5 that is a pretty good lens, but again, a compromise.
Grug
Veteran
I just got Premiere CS5.5, and I've started playing around with some Red One footage with surprising ease on my 4 year old Mac Pro.
I'm in the process of procuring some raw Epic footage from one of the most recent short films I worked on, and I'm going to use that to run some more extensive tests to see what my editing suite can handle.
If it can manage it as smoothly as CS5.5 seems to be handling the couple of Red One clips I've downloaded - then I will probably be won over to Scarlet (before its price rises kick in). If the footage is more of struggle on a longer editing timeline, then I'll stick with my original plan and grab the FS100 as my first ever owned video camera.
I'm in the process of procuring some raw Epic footage from one of the most recent short films I worked on, and I'm going to use that to run some more extensive tests to see what my editing suite can handle.
If it can manage it as smoothly as CS5.5 seems to be handling the couple of Red One clips I've downloaded - then I will probably be won over to Scarlet (before its price rises kick in). If the footage is more of struggle on a longer editing timeline, then I'll stick with my original plan and grab the FS100 as my first ever owned video camera.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
That is very cool. I personally can not afford a Scarlett, but best of luck to you with it. It does look like a great camera.
Well, I have to say I ordered a Scarlet. I was in the F3 price range, even contemplating a used Red One for a time, but will go Scarlet. However, I'm not putting down the Canon announcement. Not at all. One thing I know will be killer on the Canon camera will be low light and native dynamic range. Canon develops their own Cmos sensors, and they have made incredible advancements in high iso (the 1D X's videos show testament to that). FOr pure guerrila shooting, if you are talented, want to make documentaries, use natural available light a lot or want to shoot fiction with a basic lighting kit at night, the Canon will be a camera to watch out for. The F3 is also absolutely stunning in low light, and I love the Slog color balance (but dislike with a passion non log footage from it!).
If I was in the bellow 10K price range, however, I would go... 1D X. It truly is the independent filmmaker's DSMC: Its top class still performance with a much more evolved DSLR video mode. If current Canon DSLR video can shoot House M.D, I don't see this one doing worse. And, again, with much better low light, a full frame sensor with probably better dinamic range... It should prove spectacular and true bang for the buck. It also has weather sealing and almost bullet proof housing (its Canon's top of the line DSLR), so it should prove even more resistant than an F35, F65 or an Epic.
Now why did I went Scarlet? Because of the non corporate approach of Red. I'm probably naive but I bet they are going to put Red One level specs in that camera- and when I say Red One, I say 120fps 2K or 3K. Its just a matter of time. As with other Red offerings, one might have a few issues at the beginning. But I like the philosophy of always trying to improve and give better value to your costumer. I also like the possibility of being able to upgrade my sensor while keeping my accessories. I'm sure the next generation Red sensor will be absolutely stunning- its what competition is all about. it should be great in low light and dinamic range. If I went with any other camera right now, I would need to buy a completely new camera, again, for more than 10K. That just doesn't make any economical sense, for me.
The Scarlet will probably be slightly inferior in low light and native dynamic range to the Canon and the Sony F3, but it does shoot 4K (real 3.2K), which is something the others don't offer, yet. By the time they offer this Red will have a mature, fully developed workflow (it is now, already, for the Red One), and the Scarlet will probably be in a much more developed firmware with added features.
Having followed some local Red One productions, I have to say I really like the look of the Red Sensor. And having tried Red Cine X, I find it intuitive and its just like working with raw still pictures. Love the workflow. And since I do admire how Red fearlessly entered the market and made their presence known- I like underdogs, cannot help it as a low budget filmmaker- i just felt I needed to jump in the bandwagon.
If I was in the bellow 10K price range, however, I would go... 1D X. It truly is the independent filmmaker's DSMC: Its top class still performance with a much more evolved DSLR video mode. If current Canon DSLR video can shoot House M.D, I don't see this one doing worse. And, again, with much better low light, a full frame sensor with probably better dinamic range... It should prove spectacular and true bang for the buck. It also has weather sealing and almost bullet proof housing (its Canon's top of the line DSLR), so it should prove even more resistant than an F35, F65 or an Epic.
Now why did I went Scarlet? Because of the non corporate approach of Red. I'm probably naive but I bet they are going to put Red One level specs in that camera- and when I say Red One, I say 120fps 2K or 3K. Its just a matter of time. As with other Red offerings, one might have a few issues at the beginning. But I like the philosophy of always trying to improve and give better value to your costumer. I also like the possibility of being able to upgrade my sensor while keeping my accessories. I'm sure the next generation Red sensor will be absolutely stunning- its what competition is all about. it should be great in low light and dinamic range. If I went with any other camera right now, I would need to buy a completely new camera, again, for more than 10K. That just doesn't make any economical sense, for me.
The Scarlet will probably be slightly inferior in low light and native dynamic range to the Canon and the Sony F3, but it does shoot 4K (real 3.2K), which is something the others don't offer, yet. By the time they offer this Red will have a mature, fully developed workflow (it is now, already, for the Red One), and the Scarlet will probably be in a much more developed firmware with added features.
Having followed some local Red One productions, I have to say I really like the look of the Red Sensor. And having tried Red Cine X, I find it intuitive and its just like working with raw still pictures. Love the workflow. And since I do admire how Red fearlessly entered the market and made their presence known- I like underdogs, cannot help it as a low budget filmmaker- i just felt I needed to jump in the bandwagon.
Last edited:
Grug
Veteran
Lowlight definitely, but as I understand it Epic has about 13 stops of DR, which would put it above the Canon and Sony (in stock form).
It's the lowlight capabilities of the FS100 which still have me rather torn though, the ability to get by with smaller lighting packages is certainly a boon. One thing I have REALLY like with my brief play with 4K footage is the leeway the extra resolution gives for panning and zooming across shots - it certainly gives you added flexibility in editing.
NextWaveG
Well-known member
All this has solidified my decision to get the FS100. I didn't want to deal with RAW workflow. I want to get it as close to final in camera and minimize my grading in post. I did want an H.264 workflow and I just purchased a Matrox MXO2 Mini Max to speed that up. Small form factor, great low light performance, 1080p 60p and long battery life were all major pluses.
I think the C300 and Scarlet are great for their markets...I'm just not in that market right now. The FS100 fits every major need I have and will be a great addition to my tool kit...as soon as I can scrounge up $5.6K for it.
I think the C300 and Scarlet are great for their markets...I'm just not in that market right now. The FS100 fits every major need I have and will be a great addition to my tool kit...as soon as I can scrounge up $5.6K for it.
Grug
Veteran
I just got back from the Atomos offices, they had a bunch of cameras lying about testing, and the guys said their favourite camera (image-wise) after ProRes capture on their Ninjas/Samurais was the FS100.
They had an Epic recording out to Samurai too, and the image from that was very, very impressive - so if the FS100's HDMI output is better, you'll be in very good company.
As for avoiding an H.264 workflow, after seeing the ProRes workflow coming from the Atomos stuff, I'd highly recommend you get an external recorder of some sort. The ProRes workflow is amazing - drag, drop and edit. No waiting, no importing, no transcoding, no rendering - just drop and edit.
NextWaveG
Well-known member
It'll be nice to have the option (vs. not having it on DSLRs). I'm sure I'll start off with what comes out of the camera and try out an external recorder.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Oh, I wish I was able to contemplate buying the new Canon or the Scarlett, but I am don't have the check book for it, for sure. I too think that I would go with the Scarlett of the cameras in that range. Unfortunately, that is not possible, for me right now. That being said, I am very glad I went with the FS100. The low light capabilities blow my mind. When I took it out for my first proper shoot, covering a punk band in a local bar, I did a test shot before hand that took my breath away. I was at the bottom of a narrow flight of stairs and took a shot of my producing partner on the gig standing at the top of stairs. The stair way was lit by a single 100 watt household bulb in the ceiling above my bro... at 15dbs, at about f4 on a Nikkor 20mm f2.8, the scene was beautiful. Crystal clear, great shadow detail... it looked like I spent an hour lighting it. We went right away and watched the footage on a Mac Book pro, with MPEG Stream Clip and my jaw dropped. My first comment was, "What am I going to do with all of my lights?".
Now that, of course does not mean that, "With the FS100 you don't need lights". We all know that proper lighting is not just for exposure, but I did realized that I really would need to re-work my light kit. Now, I am a guerrilla/low budget... well, bottom feeder filmmaker actually. The light kit that I have is made up of 650 watt open faced tungsten lights (about 20 or so), four 1k PARs, three 750 tungsten Fresnels, a couple of 100 watt open face lights and three or four 250 watt open face lights and a huge assortment of medium base scoop clamp lights and some assorted specialty lights (Hot sticks, ect.). This kit was put together as the very minimum to shot any kind of low budget/guerrilla night exterior, after having shot a few low budget horror films. My MO with the kit, to shoot guerrilla night exteriors, is to use the 650s and PARs to blast light, as pools of light, or with a rake over architectural elements and build depth with the placement of the lights running out into the distance (Dictated by the length of power cables!!
), but still with large amounts of very dark space (That was a fight to keep from looking like mud). The main lighting reserved for the portraiture, is shot, usually, with soft light from bounced light, umbrellas, soft boxes or china balls. For modeling, I would usually rake a hard light on the talent from the side.... And so forth... When I saw what the FS100 was capable of, I knew that I would need to re-think how I light. I realized that, finally, I had a camera that I could use, with the limited lights I have, to make images the way that I have always wanted. With the FS100 I know that I can now light location interiors with augmented practicals and use my smaller lights for modeling and portraiture. On low budget/guerrilla night exteriors, within reason, I am confident that with the kit I have, I can set up, relatively, large soft sources and light larger spaces in a much more natural fashion. Right now, I am putting together a Suit case light kit, with a bunch of pocket 650s, my lower powered lights, scoops work lights, a bunch of 100 watt incandescent bulbs, CFLs, and a small grip/electric set up, that I am very confident will be my work horse light kit. It really is a new day for low budget flimmaking, IMHO.
Now that, of course does not mean that, "With the FS100 you don't need lights". We all know that proper lighting is not just for exposure, but I did realized that I really would need to re-work my light kit. Now, I am a guerrilla/low budget... well, bottom feeder filmmaker actually. The light kit that I have is made up of 650 watt open faced tungsten lights (about 20 or so), four 1k PARs, three 750 tungsten Fresnels, a couple of 100 watt open face lights and three or four 250 watt open face lights and a huge assortment of medium base scoop clamp lights and some assorted specialty lights (Hot sticks, ect.). This kit was put together as the very minimum to shot any kind of low budget/guerrilla night exterior, after having shot a few low budget horror films. My MO with the kit, to shoot guerrilla night exteriors, is to use the 650s and PARs to blast light, as pools of light, or with a rake over architectural elements and build depth with the placement of the lights running out into the distance (Dictated by the length of power cables!!
), but still with large amounts of very dark space (That was a fight to keep from looking like mud). The main lighting reserved for the portraiture, is shot, usually, with soft light from bounced light, umbrellas, soft boxes or china balls. For modeling, I would usually rake a hard light on the talent from the side.... And so forth... When I saw what the FS100 was capable of, I knew that I would need to re-think how I light. I realized that, finally, I had a camera that I could use, with the limited lights I have, to make images the way that I have always wanted. With the FS100 I know that I can now light location interiors with augmented practicals and use my smaller lights for modeling and portraiture. On low budget/guerrilla night exteriors, within reason, I am confident that with the kit I have, I can set up, relatively, large soft sources and light larger spaces in a much more natural fashion. Right now, I am putting together a Suit case light kit, with a bunch of pocket 650s, my lower powered lights, scoops work lights, a bunch of 100 watt incandescent bulbs, CFLs, and a small grip/electric set up, that I am very confident will be my work horse light kit. It really is a new day for low budget flimmaking, IMHO.
Last edited:
Damien Collier
Member
I spent 3 years reading about/monitoring the progress of Scarlet from it's original 3K/$3000 concept. I would read about it on Reduser, just to pass time while working on set. At one point I finally bought a 7D. Way too many compromises for me and then sold it!
This last spring, I went to NAB and looked at the Scarlet, along with the AF100 and FS100. I decided to wait, yet again to see if Red would really release it. (The promise of higher specs for a little more money.) I then continued to see the pictures on Reduser of the rows of Scarlets, the specific comments they were making about them, the test footage that was shot, etc. It seemed they were getting really close.
Then, I went to Red Studios on Nov. 3rd (ready to buy) with 299 other people and saw them release something entirely different for a lot more money.
Regardless of all of their disclaimers, Scarlet X simply isn't the same camera that was in the pictures, videos, or even at the trade show booths over the past couple of years. It also wasn't even close to the same price point they have been discussing.
I admit. I had bought in to all of their hype. (In spite of literally, every Local 600 member in the camera dept. I would personally talk to about it, while working on tv shows and movies.)
SIMPLY PUT: It was time to move on!
My FS100 is arriving this week! Pixel peeping is over! It's time to create and move past the marketing hype.
This last spring, I went to NAB and looked at the Scarlet, along with the AF100 and FS100. I decided to wait, yet again to see if Red would really release it. (The promise of higher specs for a little more money.) I then continued to see the pictures on Reduser of the rows of Scarlets, the specific comments they were making about them, the test footage that was shot, etc. It seemed they were getting really close.
Then, I went to Red Studios on Nov. 3rd (ready to buy) with 299 other people and saw them release something entirely different for a lot more money.
Regardless of all of their disclaimers, Scarlet X simply isn't the same camera that was in the pictures, videos, or even at the trade show booths over the past couple of years. It also wasn't even close to the same price point they have been discussing.
I admit. I had bought in to all of their hype. (In spite of literally, every Local 600 member in the camera dept. I would personally talk to about it, while working on tv shows and movies.)
SIMPLY PUT: It was time to move on!
My FS100 is arriving this week! Pixel peeping is over! It's time to create and move past the marketing hype.
KahL
Well-known member
This option IS available for DSLRs. People just seem to be allergic to Magic Lantern I guess.
stevedocmaker
Well-known member
I think what most people lost in the Canon announcement is their intention to advance the DSLR EOS line (not the C300, which is not a DSLR). Unfortunately, the specs they announced are somewhat vague, so it remains to be seen what they come up with. Given their track record I'm not holding my breath, but it's conceivable that they at least release a new 5D in the next year with no aliasing, better monitoring (both audio and video), better dynamic range, and better sensitivity.
I think that Canon will separate the camera lines. One dslr and one to their cinema class cameras. Differences will be color space 4:2:2 for cinema line 4:2:0 for dslr line as well as bit rate. There might be some crossover technology but not a significant amount. The price of the C300 says alot to me about what the future might be.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I was wondering if people think that the the wireless connectivity and control that Canon has introduced on the C300 contributes very much to its costs? That does look like a fabulous feature, but should we only look for it on high end cameras for a while?