Red announces Scarlet to ship in 2011

bgundu said:
I find it's hard to explain this to "filmmakers" who shoot test videos out of their parents basement.:cheesy:
Click to expand...

Come on now, it's a very nice basement. :)

And I'll have you know that my film cat sniffing flowers in basement has played in over 25 festivals and critics have specifically responded to the use of shallow dof.

It will be interesting to see if this camera is embraced. I think that all depends on price.
 
J Davis said:
even if you don't buy red you should thank them for driving down competitor prices

(there's too much hate in a lot of these posts)
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I made a mention of them adopting best practices. It appears they have. If someone doesn't want the camera, go away and annoy someone else please. Red doesn't owe anybody anything, anywhere.
 
Ok, having just read through some of these posts, does no one else find this whole "sensor wars" debate mildly ridiculous? A company comes out with a camera that doesn't fit the status quo of the moment and people start having kittens. 3 or 4 years ago everyone who wasn't a well paid, highly trained cinematographer was shooting on 1/3 or 2/3 inch chips, and amazing content was still produced on a daily basis. I'm sorry but I'm absolutely sick of hearing about f**cking shallow depth of field, it's a technique to be used when necessary in order to augment the story of whatever your shooting, you don't need to throw the background out of focus at every single opportunity.
i get the feeling that a lot of the bitching comes from people who have never even used 2/3rds systems before; it's a good size with a wide range of applications, which is why it's been the standard in TV cameras forever, and yes, if you have a fetish for out of focus footage it's relatively easy to achieve the coveted "shallow dof". The scarlet will be released, people will use it, beautiful looking films will be made with it,and the world will keep spinning. rant over.
 
Joshbalti said:
O you don't need to throw the background out of focus at every single opportunity.
Click to expand...

Shallow DOF is just a part of the big chip equation. Sure you can get shallow DOF from a smaller sensor but you have to use a 35mm adapter which just never quite looks right and you have to use a lot more light. The other parts of the equation are cost, extended dynamic range, compactness, ruggedness, ease of use, stealth factor, overall aesthetic.

When I went to film school they had a RED ONE, some EX1's, and some hulking big JVC cameras that I can't even remember the name of. The 5D was about the same size as the V-mount batteries on the JVCs. I worked on other students films with each camera and shot all of my own with the 5D. The 5D just worked for me and totally outclassed the other cameras. The RED ONE of-course looked better but it was a complete pain in the arse to work with compared to the 5D.
 
2344_2.jpg


2344_8.jpg


Just a two quick examples...no DOF adapter needed. I'm not saying that 2/3" or that 16mm is just the best thing ever - period. I'm just saying I think since people have been shooting S35 and FF35, they underestimate what can be done with 2/3" in a cinematic setting.

And some of this is aesthetic - some people like to shoot so that the tip of the actors nose and their ears are out of focus, as is everything else. Only their eyes and facial plane are in focus. And that's fine...if you want to shoot that way, 2/3" is not for you. But shooting within the range of what I would call "normal cinematic DOF" can certainly be done on 16mm and 2/3".

In relation to RED, though, 2/3" might not even mean anything anymore. They may offer both S35 and 2/3 or S16 Scarlets. Apparently a lot has changed. I just hope that their new legal woes don't slow things down.
 

Attachments

  • 2344_8.jpg
    2344_8.jpg
    208.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
2/3" and 16mm sized formats have a very broad and useful range of DOF control. No 35mm DOF adapter needed.

Cinematographer David Mullen said it best, comparing S35 and 2/3". In wide angle shots both formats are deep DOF, in telephoto and closeup shots both offer shallow DOF. It is only in medium and medium wide shots that differences show up and these can be compensated to some extent with aperture changes.

In the under $10k market right now you have a choice between what are effectively super8mm sized formats and 35mm formats, but the only 16mm sized format option is the Ikonoscope DII.
This is a big hole that Scarlet can fill nicely. I'll take 2/3" 5Mp raw at 120fps and up to 17 stops DR over 35mm Mpeg4 formats in HD any day. There is a lot more to shooting film like digital images than just shallow DOF.
 
Last edited:
Razz16mm said:
2/3" and 16mm sized formats have a very broad and useful range of DOF control. No 35mm DOF adapter needed.

Cinematographer David Mullen said it best, comparing S35 and 2/3". In wide angle shots both formats are deep DOF, in telephoto and closeup shots both offer shallow DOF. It is only in medium and medium wide shots that differences show up and these can be compensated to some extent with aperture changes.

In the under $10k market right now you have a choice between what are effectively super8mm sized formats and 35mm formats, but the only 16mm sized format option is the Ikonoscope DII.
This is a big hole that Scarlet can fill nicely. I'll take 2/3" 5Mp raw at 120fps and up to 17 stops DR over 35mm Mpeg4 formats in HD any day. There is a lot more to shooting film like digital images than just shallow DOF.
Click to expand...

+1
 
zeke said:
+1
Click to expand...

Razz16mm said:
2/3" and 16mm sized formats have a very broad and useful range of DOF control. No 35mm DOF adapter needed.

Cinematographer David Mullen said it best, comparing S35 and 2/3". In wide angle shots both formats are deep DOF, in telephoto and closeup shots both offer shallow DOF. It is only in medium and medium wide shots that differences show up and these can be compensated to some extent with aperture changes.

In the under $10k market right now you have a choice between what are effectively super8mm sized formats and 35mm formats, but the only 16mm sized format option is the Ikonoscope DII.
This is a big hole that Scarlet can fill nicely. I'll take 2/3" 5Mp raw at 120fps and up to 17 stops DR over 35mm Mpeg4 formats in HD any day. There is a lot more to shooting film like digital images than just shallow DOF.
Click to expand...

Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way!
 
Razz16mm said:
Cinematographer David Mullen said it best, comparing S35 and 2/3...
Click to expand...

Mr Mullen posted a picture on Reduser from one of his films, saying, "see, 2/3" can have shallow DoF" ... it was an actress with an out of focus background. Except it was a giant big budget set and that background was 20-30 feet away...
 
It's effectively the difference of using 16mm film versus S35mm film... however that comparison is probably lost on most.

I wouldn't really mind 2/3" because I mainly shoot my S35 sized films at a T/4... If I wanted that type of DoF on S16, I could just open the lens, since I'd be using wider lenses for the same composition, and bla, bla, bla.

I just shot a short film on the Epic, and except for a few exceptions, stayed between a T/4 and T/8.

Then again... I don't seem to be the norm these days with up-and-coming cinematographers. I'm not a fan of 5DmII dof, and well, look how many are. So does my opinion mean people won't forsake the Scarlet? Not really. We'll see just how much those shallow depth of field junkies want that shallow dof.

Can 16mm or 2/3" cameras achieve shallow DoF? Yes. But will people agree? When discussing my Cooke lenses, I've said over and over that T/2.8 is shallow. Pretty shallow. It is! (T/1.4 is super shallow, imo) But over and over there are DSLR people who continue to argue that T/2.8 stop is not open enough for their shallow DoF. So it's that same argument. The same people who think T/2.8 on S35mm isn't shallow enough will be the same people bashing 2/3" depth of field. Not everyone will be convinced, but I think many professionals will.
 
Last edited:
anyone can work out how shallow the 2/3 dof will be and see it for yourself by using a 60d, 7d or t2i

I posted a link to calculations for this - see post 97 of this thread
 
Maybe I'm stupid, but I think I'll wait until we actually know what's being sold and for how much before I decide it's not right for me.
 
Joshbalti said:
3 or 4 years ago everyone who wasn't a well paid, highly trained cinematographer was shooting on 1/3 or 2/3 inch chips
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean they were happy about it. I've wanted shallow focus since I first began shooting, in 1990. In the early 2000s, I remember looking at the digital SLRs coming out and thinking a 35mm XL-1 was maybe just around the corner.

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".

And it's easier to get deep focus from a 35mm chip than to wring shallow focus from 2/3". Depth of field is nearly infinite in all chip sizes in normal sports scenarios: f-8 or so, subject is far away, wider shots.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I wouldn't really mind 2/3" because I mainly shoot my S35 sized films at a T/4... If I wanted that type of DoF on S16, I could just open the lens, since I'd be using wider lenses for the same composition, and bla, bla, bla.

I just shot a short film on the Epic, and except for a few exceptions, stayed between a T/4 and T/8.

Then again... I don't seem to be the norm these days with up-and-coming cinematographers. I'm not a fan of 5DmII dof, and well, look how many are. So does my opinion mean people won't forsake the Scarlet? Not really. We'll see just how much those shallow depth of field junkies want that shallow dof.

Can 16mm or 2/3" cameras achieve shallow DoF? Yes. But will people agree? When discussing my Cooke lenses, I've said over and over that T/2.8 is shallow. Pretty shallow. It is! (T/1.4 is super shallow, imo) But over and over there are DSLR people who continue to argue that T/2.8 stop is not open enough for their shallow DoF. So it's that same argument. The same people who think T/2.8 on S35mm isn't shallow enough will be the same people bashing 2/3" depth of field. Not everyone will be convinced, but I think many professionals will.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100% I shoot mostly at 4/5.6 with the AF100. I would be completely happy with the Cooke set at 2.8- if I can comfortably shoot at 4 or so with a 4/3 sensor, it would be even easier with S35.

Depending on cost I might be very interested in the 2/3 Scarlet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top