RieniO
Well-known member
Ok thanks for explaining, I didn't know all this, now I do. So how much is the diameter of a 35mm chip then, in inch?
Red Scarlet S35
- Thread starter skital
- Start date
Ok thanks for explaining, I didn't know all this, now I do. So how much is the diameter of a 35mm chip then, in inch?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Depends on what you mean by 35mm... do you mean the 35mm still frame, the standard 35mm cinema frame, or the super35 cinema frame? They're all different sizes.
35mm still film: 41.3mm, or 1.5" in real terms. If it was in vidicon tube terms, it'd probably be about 2.5"
Super35 cine film: 28.5mm, or 1.12" in real terms. As a vidicon tube it might be expressed as 1 2/3".
35mm movie film: 25mm, or .98" in real terms. As a vidicon tube it might measure 1.5".
RieniO
Well-known member
Barry, I meant 35mm still frame, to compare 4/3 with the 5D. According to this page the AF100 is 35mm full frame by the way:
http://equipmentroom.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/panasonics-first-full-frame-35mm-video-camera/
But that's incorrect info then, right?
Ian, I'm here to learn. I never saw this discussed before but am quite new to this site. If there is really so much confusion about it, maybe a good idea to make a sticky about sensor sizes somewhere?
http://equipmentroom.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/panasonics-first-full-frame-35mm-video-camera/
But that's incorrect info then, right?
Ian, I'm here to learn. I never saw this discussed before but am quite new to this site. If there is really so much confusion about it, maybe a good idea to make a sticky about sensor sizes somewhere?
Barry_Green
Moderator
The AF100 uses an oversized 4/3 sensor which is almost as big as 35mm cine film. It is not anywhere near the size of a "full frame" sensor.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
If we only look at horizontal size, full frame is 8/3", the s35 area is 5.33/3" and the film area used in 1,85:1 films is 4.67/3". And AF100 might be 4.22/3". Inches are a very bad way to measure sensor size. I'm using what is technically a 2/3" sensor in a project but it's 10% wider than a broadcast 2/3" 16:9 sensor so it's a 2.2/3". A 4:3 2/3" sensor shooting 16:9 is 1.83/3". And all 1/3" cameras have sensors of different size
Barry_Green
Moderator
No, it's probably exactly the same size as the one in the GH2. But the sensors in the AF100, GH1, and GH2 are all larger than a typical/standard Four Thirds sensor.
Yes, a lot of people say that. Doesn't make them right. Only thing we know for sure is that it isn't the sensor from the GH1, and that it's been optimized for video recording. It may or may not share some aspect of technology with the GH2, we don't know. It might have some core components that are the same, but then have a different color filter, OLPF filter, pixel count, or processing engine.
Point is -- people who are saying these things, don't know. So don't listen to them.
Ian-T
Veteran
Wasn't directed at you. I'm here to learn also... I just find it funny that out of the gazillion times he's answered the same question he's not lost face....yet. But a sticky is a good idea.
Ian-T
Veteran
I think statements like that often gets lost in translation. The way I've always looked at "is the same" relates to just the size of the sensor. Everything else I would expect it to be different....especially at that price.
djbigglesworth
New member
Long time reader, first time poster. Wanted to say HI. ... . Hi.
HKO
Well-known member
Estimates put it at about the old price of a Red one after you have added all the bells and whistles but that was on specs from a few years ago. Not much has since been said about the S35 to the point that some thought it was scrapped.Seems it may be out before NAB - look on Red's forum. So - perhaps North of $ 17 000 depending on your config. It can be as slim as possible with battery grip, EVF or LCD and body for just north of $ 10 000 I think. Specs have changed with the HDR mode so everything has gone up.Anyway that's your ballpark I think. All speculation.............from one in the bunker with you
HKO
Well-known member
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
I depends on what you need:
I have an old pricelist that includes:
$7,000 brain ($8,000 with the increase?)
5" touchscreen $1200
evf $3200
redmote $550
side handle $750-$950
bottom handle $300-$400
base i/o $1750-$2250
(pro i/o $2950)
module adaptor $300
two standard batteries and charger $950-$1200
1.8" SSD module $1500-$1750
1.8" 128gb SSDs $1500? for 45minute redcode42?, 2 of them would be nice
$500 per lens mount
$200 for an SSD reader (seperate power supply required?)
About $25,000 if you get what Red One users normally get. A couple of extra batteries and an extra ssd for a total of 90minutes of recording. Add base plate, lenses, etc.
Edit: $10,000 will be impossible.
$8,000 brain
CF adapter possibly?
No inputs?
Not even a handle?
2.8" monitor is $800 and who would want 2.8" on such a camera?
It needs a battery. How practical will the camera be with a tiny one that comes in a handle?
If it does support CF, CF is usually more expensive than SSD per GB and it costs more time on set.
One can get a good 2/3" package for about $20,000 by saving $4250 (2/3" brain would be $3750 after the increase).
I have an old pricelist that includes:
$7,000 brain ($8,000 with the increase?)
5" touchscreen $1200
evf $3200
redmote $550
side handle $750-$950
bottom handle $300-$400
base i/o $1750-$2250
(pro i/o $2950)
module adaptor $300
two standard batteries and charger $950-$1200
1.8" SSD module $1500-$1750
1.8" 128gb SSDs $1500? for 45minute redcode42?, 2 of them would be nice
$500 per lens mount
$200 for an SSD reader (seperate power supply required?)
About $25,000 if you get what Red One users normally get. A couple of extra batteries and an extra ssd for a total of 90minutes of recording. Add base plate, lenses, etc.
Edit: $10,000 will be impossible.
$8,000 brain
CF adapter possibly?
No inputs?
Not even a handle?
2.8" monitor is $800 and who would want 2.8" on such a camera?
It needs a battery. How practical will the camera be with a tiny one that comes in a handle?
If it does support CF, CF is usually more expensive than SSD per GB and it costs more time on set.
One can get a good 2/3" package for about $20,000 by saving $4250 (2/3" brain would be $3750 after the increase).
Last edited:
HKO
Well-known member
Thanks Otis. So to shoot DSLR style you would just need
$7,000 brain ($8,000 with the increase?)
5" touchscreen $1200
side handle $750-$950
two standard batteries and charger $950-$1200
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
I'm not sure if one needs redmote also and if CF is directly usable without a module.
A dSLR can record a lot on very cheap media. It's 8x to 12x times lower rate vs RedCode42. On the Red store there is a $300 16GB CF. That only records 6 minutes of redcode 42. $3,000 for an hour of recording on CF if you use these.
SSD is more practical. You get 90 minutes by buying two SSDs (2x$1500), an SSD module ($1500-$1750)
, and a $300 module adapter (I think). This will add $4800-$5050 to the cost. The least you can spend on SSD is $3,000-$3,250 for 40 minutes. And that's at the lowest datarate I see on the specs. 42mbyte/sec. Perhaps the cameras are capable of more. Perhaps HDR needs 2x that, so put that into the cost calculations, you will want to use it.
Basically, think of Scarlet35 as a Red One:
- Red One was $17,800 I think, and a RedDrive (using HDD) cost $900 for 640GB and a $200 cable. It would say it did come with the equivalent of RedMote, and it also inluded a lens mount and decent I/O. $18,900 total.
- Scarlet35 is $8,000, $10,900 cheaper than Red One. But you do need all the extras to match the Red One basic capability:
- 640GB in SSD will cost $9,000 now because there is no HDD option(5x128GB + SSD module),
- redmote $550,
- base i/o $1750-$2250,
- lens mount $500.
These extras cost $11,800-$12,300. This offsets the initial low cost of the s35 brain and this is done mostly because Red decided to not offer affordable HDD because they can offer expensive SSD instead. CF is an option, but it will cost the same if not more than SSD. CF actually use more expensive memory than SSDs because of the smaller form factor. CF costs a lot if you want it to be fast.
But Red One is $25,000 now and HDD based RedDrives will be phased out eventually (not a good way to make money!), so the Scarlet will not look very expensive in comparison.
A dSLR can record a lot on very cheap media. It's 8x to 12x times lower rate vs RedCode42. On the Red store there is a $300 16GB CF. That only records 6 minutes of redcode 42. $3,000 for an hour of recording on CF if you use these.
SSD is more practical. You get 90 minutes by buying two SSDs (2x$1500), an SSD module ($1500-$1750)
, and a $300 module adapter (I think). This will add $4800-$5050 to the cost. The least you can spend on SSD is $3,000-$3,250 for 40 minutes. And that's at the lowest datarate I see on the specs. 42mbyte/sec. Perhaps the cameras are capable of more. Perhaps HDR needs 2x that, so put that into the cost calculations, you will want to use it.
Basically, think of Scarlet35 as a Red One:
- Red One was $17,800 I think, and a RedDrive (using HDD) cost $900 for 640GB and a $200 cable. It would say it did come with the equivalent of RedMote, and it also inluded a lens mount and decent I/O. $18,900 total.
- Scarlet35 is $8,000, $10,900 cheaper than Red One. But you do need all the extras to match the Red One basic capability:
- 640GB in SSD will cost $9,000 now because there is no HDD option(5x128GB + SSD module),
- redmote $550,
- base i/o $1750-$2250,
- lens mount $500.
These extras cost $11,800-$12,300. This offsets the initial low cost of the s35 brain and this is done mostly because Red decided to not offer affordable HDD because they can offer expensive SSD instead. CF is an option, but it will cost the same if not more than SSD. CF actually use more expensive memory than SSDs because of the smaller form factor. CF costs a lot if you want it to be fast.
But Red One is $25,000 now and HDD based RedDrives will be phased out eventually (not a good way to make money!), so the Scarlet will not look very expensive in comparison.
