Red announces Scarlet to ship in 2011

I think it boils down to personal taste, production style, and picking the best tool for the job. It is not easy to get deep DOF on FF35 format under some conditions without compromising image quality in some other way, excessive under exposure in low light or softening of the image from refraction at small physical apertures for example. I have shot general documentation stills and video for stage productions where it was impossible to keep two actors in focus at the same time across a table with a 35mm still camera but the video camera could do this easily. S35 and 2/3" are close enough, about 2-1/2 stops aperture difference for the same DOF at any focal length, that either can serve well for most production purposes. 2/3" is a lot more solo shooter friendly when you have to follow focus on fast moving action toward or away from camera or when shooting very long lenses as in much nature and sports filming.

5450392846_073253d217_b.jpg



This image was shot with my 1/3" GL2 on a light overcast afternoon at the beach. Approximately 50mm focal length at f2 with 3 stops ND filter and 100 ISO. Scene illumination was around 80 foot candles. Camera was about 8 feet away. The vase is about the size of a human head. Only about the middle 3 inches of it are in focus. The hammock is about 4 feet back, the screen and railing about 8 feet. DOF is a product of focal length and aperture regardless of format. I was experimenting to see how shallow I could get with my camera at normal light levels for good exposure.
In tight quarters where you want to get both shallow and wide, 35mm definitely has an advantage. 2/3" HD could give me a tight two shot with similar DOF, S35 a medium two shot, FF35 a wide two shot.
 
2/3" is such a versatile format, I really don't understand why everyone bashes it so hard here. Large sensor is cool too, they are just different tools for different looks.

The Scarlet will be amazing, why wouldn't it be?? Look at the R1, not a shabby attempt from a camera company that has... er... never made a camera before. And with the birth of the Epic, well, that is one hell of an achievement. Lets not forget something here. All these cheap large sensor camera are a result and reflex of DOF adapters, they're not really well thought out cameras, hence all the crap that comes with them. I own a GH1 before anyone gives me ****. So I'd gladly welcome a well thought out 2/3" camera over another crappy large sensor camera. Look at the bigger picture, if the big guys have their way, they will bring out a new camera every year that is slightly better than the last. It will never be a perfect camera, but it will do the job. I'm personally sick and tired of having a dumbed down version of what could be out right now and having to invest in new tech every two years. I can't wait for the day that I hold the camera that I'll shoot with for the next ten years.

Oh, and by the way, I'm no RED fanboy. I find some of those "I love everything you do Jim" guys very weird. I'm also not a huge fan of the marketing. But, I love what the company is doing. Basically they are giving people like us, the chance to shoot super high quality digi footage for the a price that is within reach. I respect that and I look forward to it.
 
I feel some people confuse 'depth of field' with magnification of background blur. Here's a great explanation about it, see the 'Gromit' pictures:

http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html

It's true to say 2/3" sensor will give same DoF as S35 with a 2.5 wider f-stop, but - although it might be the same depth of field and same relative blur - it will look very different due to much less magnification of the shorter focal lenghts on 2/3" sensors. I just wanted to mention because some posts might make it sound like you can get the same image as S35 on a 2/3" sensor if only aperture is 2.5 stops wider.
 
 
combatentropy said:
Shallow focus can be overused, and I can't blame you for getting sick of hearing about it. But the desire for something around an S35 chip is rational. It's a matter of having a range from shallow to deep, instead of a range from medium-deep to deep. Given the same angle of view, a 2/3" camera at f-1.4 has the same depth of field as an S35 camera at f-8. Don't get me started about 1/3".
Click to expand...

I average around f/5.6-f/8 on the 5D. I'd need a Kubrick lens to get that on 2/3".
 
for example

canon 5D at 30mm at f6.7 (an f5.6 / f8 split)

will approximate the same field of view and depth of field

as a 2/3 sensor with 7.5mm lens at f1.7

miniprimes are specc'd to be 6mm and 8mm at T1.5
 
Last edited:
J Davis said:
you have to use a little common sense you know... obviously it doesn't mean at different focal lengths like in your pics
Click to expand...
Yes it does, because on a 2/3" sensor you'll have to use much shorter focal lenght than S35mm or even FF. There's a confusion going on about background separation and DoF. Some people might get the impression that one can get the same background blur aesthetics on different sized sensors by achieving same DoF.
 
stip said:
Yes it does, because on a 2/3" sensor you'll have to use much shorter focal lenght than S35mm or even FF. There's a confusion going on about background separation and DoF. Some people might get the impression that one can get the same images on different sized sensors by achieving same DoF.
Click to expand...

we posted at the same time ... see post 151
 
stip said:
Yes it does, because on a 2/3" sensor you'll have to use much shorter focal lenght than S35mm or even FF. There's a confusion going on about background separation and DoF. Some people might get the impression that one can get the same images on different sized sensors by achieving same DoF.
Click to expand...

Okay, you seem confused so let me just explain this real quick...first, this is keeping the camera in the same position. Okay, so on a larger sensor you use a particular focal length, and on the smaller sensor you use a shorter focal length to achieve the same framing. Now since the camera is in the same position, the field of view hasn't changed...you've got the same image with one exception: there is deeper DOF in the smaller sensor's image. This is because as you pointed out, the blur is less magnified because of the shorter focal length. So here's what you do to get them looking the same...you open the iris on the smaller sensor's lens which increases the blur. The amount you have to open it to achieve S35 DOF on a 2/3" is about 2.5 stops.
 
maybe we're seeing this from different angles. My point is not about shallow or deep DoF, but the 'look' of the image regarding foreground/subject and background. What many people regard as 'cinematic' is a 'magnified blur' of the background. The size of the blur itself is the same as it would be on a shorter focal lenght with equally framed subject and DoF. But the blur gets magnified with longer focal lenght, so it appears much bigger and thus more blurred. Less of the background itself is seen.
If people talk about a 2/3" sensor will give the same DoF as S35 if aperture is 2.5 stops wider, I think that some people might get the impression that means the background looks the same. Which it won't, not even close. So achieving the same DoF will not end up in achieving the same 'cinematic' image.
 
Gabrobot said:
So here's what you do to get them looking the same...you open the iris on the smaller sensor's lens which increases the blur. The amount you have to open it to achieve S35 DOF on a 2/3" is about 2.5 stops.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what I meant. It won't look the same. You'll increase the RELATIVE blur. It get's more blurred, or unsharp, but it won't increase the ABSOLUTE blur to the same amount because there's much less magnification. Or put in another way, the blur is much more far away than on a larger sensor where the background, and so the blur itself, gets closer and thus bigger.
 
J Davis said:
uh uh - my calculations took into account field of view (see post 151)
Click to expand...

yes, same FoV and DoF, but they would look different. Achieving the same DoF on 2/3" and S35 doesn't mean getting the same look, that was my point, I guess we talked past each another :)
 
If you pay attention to real movies and television shows you notice that most shallow DoF shots are done on Closeups and extreme closeups.Everything else is done on pretty low shallow DoF.
 
J Davis said:
for example

canon 5D at 30mm at f6.7 (an f5.6 / f8 split)

will approximate the same field of view and depth of field

as a 2/3 sensor with 7.5mm lens at f1.7

miniprimes are specc'd to be 6mm and 8mm at T1.5
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for that.

So I guess if you shoot a lot of POV stuff @ 18mm full frame you're shi# outta luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top