Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
Looks like it will be 3k...
Red Scarlet Announcement Info
- Thread starter Noel Evans
- Start date
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Yup 3k 2/3", that's my bet.
John Caballero
Veteran
And at what cost remains to be seen.
If it's 3K 2/3rds, with a price increase.... Why are they hyping it so much?
I'm not sure what extra features they could add to the already amazing specs that have been around for the last year or so. Are people really going to care if they boosted it to 180fps at 3K, for instance? Or if they added a 2 year warranty.
All great improvements, but not really "the most important announcement of their history".
Anyway, i've actually been dreaming about Nov 3rd... which is very sad... So i'm gonna shut off for 3 days
I'm not sure what extra features they could add to the already amazing specs that have been around for the last year or so. Are people really going to care if they boosted it to 180fps at 3K, for instance? Or if they added a 2 year warranty.
All great improvements, but not really "the most important announcement of their history".
Anyway, i've actually been dreaming about Nov 3rd... which is very sad... So i'm gonna shut off for 3 days
Barry_Green
Moderator
I'm betting Scarlet is 4k and 2/3". Scarlet is supposed to be all about 2/3". When they discontinued the "S35 scarlet" they moved it over to the Epic line, drawing a clear distinction -- Epic was for S35, Scarlet was for 2/3".
If the Scarlet has migrated to S35, then there's no longer a real distinction between them. So -- my crystal ball says there's no chance on earth that the "Scarlet" will be S35. But I think it's entirely reasonable to think that it's now 4K instead of 3K, as per Jim's comments about it now being "professional" and Red's earlier disdain for anything lower than 4K.
As for "the biggest announcement in the history of Red" and "3 of a kind beats two pairs" -- surely that's obviously some reference to an "oh yeah, and one more thing" kind of announcement... As in, we'll have three announcements, beating Canon's two (if there's any truth to the rumors that Canon will be introducing two new camcorders)...
If the Scarlet has migrated to S35, then there's no longer a real distinction between them. So -- my crystal ball says there's no chance on earth that the "Scarlet" will be S35. But I think it's entirely reasonable to think that it's now 4K instead of 3K, as per Jim's comments about it now being "professional" and Red's earlier disdain for anything lower than 4K.
As for "the biggest announcement in the history of Red" and "3 of a kind beats two pairs" -- surely that's obviously some reference to an "oh yeah, and one more thing" kind of announcement... As in, we'll have three announcements, beating Canon's two (if there's any truth to the rumors that Canon will be introducing two new camcorders)...
I agree, they've been rather unsubtle about having more "secret" developments.
You will probably know better than me on this.... But I have heard alot of talk that increasing the resolution to 4K on a 2/3" chip is almost worthless due to the fact that no lens will be able to resolve the full 4K?
The world has yet to see a Mysterium X, 2/3 chip on the market, so maybe it will resolve 4K. It's all speculation at this point. It sounds to me like Scarlet will be replacing the Red One somehow. The Red One camera is over 4 years old now ...
4k on 2/3" is a waste. You will give up DR and sensitivity for no visible increase in optical resolution at normal working apertures due to diffraction limits of lenses. This is pure physics, no way around it.
I expect Scarlet will remain 3k. Some time back when the question was posed Jannard posted that 3k is as good as it gets for less than $10k.
3k S35 is more likely than 4k 2/3" I think. But there may be more than one camera announced.
I expect Scarlet will remain 3k. Some time back when the question was posed Jannard posted that 3k is as good as it gets for less than $10k.
3k S35 is more likely than 4k 2/3" I think. But there may be more than one camera announced.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Red's 4K mode doesn't resolve a full 4K anyway. When they say "4K" it's actually about 3.2k.
dustylense
Veteran
What? No lens can resolve a 4k image? Then what is my 17mm canon T/S doing on my 5dmk2 when shooting stills? Seems to be resolving just fine. My 70-200 EOS II is doing just fine too. Now, put that to a 24fps capture at 4k with a sort of CR2 raw like codec....
It would be QUITE strange to be if Scarlet ends up being less than 4K for this very reason.
Also, again, I think one of those announcements is going to be the arrival of the mini-primes for Scarlet, and a Servo lens option (pushing the lenses). Probably wrong, but I can't see why you'd introduce a new camera that resolves 4K, which would probably overpower most 2/3" glass on the market, and not have your own glass ready to sell for it that's optimized for the platform.
On the other hand, it could be cool to use some vintage 16mm Zeiss 1.4's on it.
Barry_Green
Moderator
That may be your opinion, but there are companies doing it already -- Canon has shown the 4K 2/3" "hairdryer" concept as a working prototype, and JVC has shown an even-smaller 1/2" 4K prototype, including footage from it. And they already have cameras on the market using an even smaller-than-that chip; for example, this one is a 1/2.3" 4K chip. 12.75 megapixels, and can do 4K stills at 60fps(!). And it's $800.
Well, that also depends on what you consider a normal working aperture. You're not going to go to f/11, certainly. But to say that 4K is useless or impossible at 2/3" is to imply that HD is useless or impossible at 1/3", and I can assure you that that's simply not true. The HPX370, AC130/160, and HPX250 all have 1/3" 1080p imagers and they produce hella sharp images. 2/3" is 4x the surface area of 1/3", and 4K is 4x the res of 1080p, so -- if it can be done on 1/3" HD, the exact same resolving capability is possible on 2/3" at 4K.
On a 1/3" "full HD" camera you do have to keep the iris no more stopped down than f/5.6, and ideally you'd keep it to f/4 at the most-closed to avoid diffraction. As long as you do, these camcorder lenses are resolving a full 1080p HD signal just fine, and comparable optics on a 2/3" sensor would resolve 4K on 2/3" just fine. It's not impossible, heck, it's not even all that hard. The HMC40 has an obscenely sharp image, and it's a 1/4" sensor. Yes you have to keep it to f/2.8 or more to get the full benefit of the sharpness, but if you do, it can and will deliver a full-resolution true 1080p HD image off of that tiny 1/4" sensor. Which means that it is not impossible, or necessarily even impractical, to see 4K coming off of a 1/2" sensor; the 1/2" sensor is 4x the surface area of the 1/4" sensor, same proportions as the 1/3" to 2/3". And, as already mentioned, JVC already has a 1/2" 4K camera on the market so you can actually test it out and see whether it delivers the resolution it's claiming.
I'm pretty certain there will be more than one announced. And I'm also pretty sure that if Canon has already announced 4K 2/3", that Jannard's not going to stand there and say "we believe 4K is the only professional format, but we're also telling you to buy our 3K system even though our competitors are offering 4k". There's no reasonable way to justify that, that I can see. Ergo, Scarlet must now be 4K.
Barry_Green
Moderator
That's not what he said. He said no lens would resolve a 4K image *on a 2/3" sensor* at reasonable apertures. The bigger the sensor, the softer the lens can be, because the necessary sharpness is spread over more surface area. But when you have a very small sensor, then the lens has to be that much sharper to resolve the higher pixel count in the smaller space of the sensor.
It's trivial to make a sharp lens for a 5D Mark II. It's difficult to make a comparably-sharp lens on a 1/3" chip.
With that said, I reiterate it's far from impossible, as Panasonic's got true HD coming off a 1/4" chip in the HMC40 and HMC80, and true HD coming off 1/3" chips in the 130/160/250/370. It's certainly possible, but it may require lenses designed specifically for those imagers. You may not be able to use an old vintage 16mm movie lens (which was never designed for more than HD sharpness) on a 4K camera and get full resolution out of it.
But then again, Red's introducing their own line of lenses, so this is probably all a non-issue.
I think we were postin' at the same time.
They actually resolve 1.92k?
I think the guys chatting about this on RED are saying that no lens could actually resolve the full 4K (well... 3.4k? due to bayer sensor)