Red Scarlet vs F3

eddavid

eddavid

Carbonite Member
So I own the F3 with S log and I'm looking into the Red Scarlet as well now.

What interests me in the scarlet is the increase in resolution - but of course - how much perceived resolution will come around when I would deliver footage at 16x9 1080p.

Shooting at 4k with the Red Scarlet, you get an aspect ratio of 4096 x 2160. which is 2:1. To get to 16:9, you would crop I believe to around 3844 x 2048. And then you would downconvert it to 1080p.

Would it still appear sharper than the F3?

What other advantages do you think the Red Scarlet would have over the F3 with s log? Obviously the workflow would not be as easy. But would it be worth it?
 
4K HD is what you've described, but you don't have to do it in post. It's an in-camera solution, so that when you do go to 1080 master it converts for pixel.

I think that you would find the Scarlet resolves more detail without suffering from aliasing or moire, but the only way to truly know is to check charts and such.

IMO, though, the major advantage Scarlet has over the F3 w/S-Log is the free post application from RED, REDCINE-X Pro. I've found that I can get close to what I want in a matter of moments using RC-X (others as well). I can't say the same for other programs that deal with grading this type of footage.

Also, well, Scarlet's still gonna be a smaller kit.

Just my two cents.
 
You are right about the Quad (4k) HD thing - that's a nice feature.

In essence though, you must grade the footage after you shoot it and render it to the format the post house wants it? So you are saying you have more control over the images you send out? That is nice. But is really that it, at this point. I guess you get 4:4:4 12-bit color information and improved perceived resolution and less aliasing or moire - if we look at charts. So I guess until the charts come out that's when we will see the results.

However the F3 still probably has better low-light performance.

Oh well I guess I will wait for tests and comparisons before I put down $20,000
 
eddavid said:
You are right about the Quad (4k) HD thing - that's a nice feature.

In essence though, you must grade the footage after you shoot it and render it to the format the post house wants it? So you are saying you have more control over the images you send out? That is nice. But is really that it, at this point. I guess you get 4:4:4 12-bit color information and improved perceived resolution and less aliasing or moire - if we look at charts. So I guess until the charts come out that's when we will see the results.

However the F3 still probably has better low-light performance.

Oh well I guess I will wait for tests and comparisons before I put down $20,000
Click to expand...

Definitely think the F3 has better out of the box low-light performance. I will say that 4K/5K + Denoise and 1080/2K master is pretty nice. It's an extra step, but you can do that automagically in Redcine-X pro as part of the process.

I see too much aliasing in F3 footage, for what it costs. Way too much. I also am not a fan of the extra bulk of recorders, powering them, so on and so forth. And, the log looks unpleasant and is going to take the same amount of work/time to mess with as Redcode.

At the end of the day, you really will have to test it yourself. Most people are probably going to want to shoot Scarlet just to say they shoot 4K and Raw. Guess it is how it is.
 
Here it's what I've been wondering:
With all the talk about Quad HD scaling nicely to 1080...
given about 80%(?) efficiency of debayer do you:
1. Scale before debayer
2. debayer QHD and then scale?
either way you won't end up with full 1080 lines after binning 2 pixels in QHD to get 1080.
So do you :
1. Need to shoot 20% over QHD, then debayer and scale for even straight HD downconversion.
2. Shoot QHD, debayer to about 3.2K and then scale to 1080? that would not be a straight binning and you would potentially end up with "phasing"(?) artifacts that randomly soften image where they overlap.
Has anyone tried it?
Isn't it better to just have 1080 resolution derived from the sensor?
 
optitek said:
Here it's what I've been wondering:
With all the talk about Quad HD scaling nicely to 1080...
given about 80%(?) efficiency of debayer do you:
1. Scale before debayer
2. debayer QHD and then scale?
either way you won't end up with full 1080 lines after binning 2 pixels in QHD to get 1080.
So do you :
1. Need to shoot 20% over QHD, then debayer and scale for even straight HD downconversion.
2. Shoot QHD, debayer to about 3.2K and then scale to 1080? that would not be a straight binning and you would potentially end up with "phasing"(?) artifacts that randomly soften image where they overlap.
Has anyone tried it?
Isn't it better to just have 1080 resolution derived from the sensor?
Click to expand...

I think that was RED's reason as to why they would not allow it to be done in camera. You'll have better results doing it in post than any camera at this price level could do in hardware? I have to go back and look.

For the record, though, Alexa and C300 are pretty convincing cases (the most convincing) for a 4K sensor to 1080 conversion in camera.
 
Which brings an interesting point again - would this make the C300 have the same perceived resolution potentially as a scarlet but without the post issues? I'm also curious if you can hook up a 10 bit sdi out from the guy. I know you cant export at 444 or 422 10 bit from it like the f3, but maybe the camera has less aliasing and moire than the f3 and will look sharper. all very interesting.
 
eddavid said:
Which brings an interesting point again - would this make the C300 have the same perceived resolution potentially as a scarlet but without the post issues? I'm also curious if you can hook up a 10 bit sdi out from the guy. I know you cant export at 444 or 422 10 bit from it like the f3, but maybe the camera has less aliasing and moire than the f3 and will look sharper. all very interesting.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting question, and one I've thought about. The only way to really know would be to test both the C300 and the Scarlet-X and see. The reason I say this is that with the Scarlet, a Red pixel can affect the value of the green pixel to the left and right of it, but on the C300, it will affect only one location. (And by that, I mean how they take the red/green/blue values and interpolate the other pixels that don't have values for that during a debayer). However, does it really matter? If you are then taking the Scarlet footage and making it 1080p? Does that sharing of the red or blue data to adjacent pixels make any difference in the down converted image?

To me, it would seem the debayer from a larger resolution would reduce aliasing/moire since you are interpolating values where none exists, but it's been claimed that the C300 doesn't suffer from moire/aliasing as well, given it starts at 4k from a sampling standpoint. Also, because the OLPF plays a huge role in the aliasing/moire of a camera, it just adds more unknowns since an OLPF is not the same in all cameras.

In other words, sounds like to know some of these answers we'll have to wait for the cameras to be released and someone to take a look!
 
eddavid said:
So I own the F3 with S log and I'm looking into the Red Scarlet as well now.

What interests me in the scarlet is the increase in resolution - but of course - how much perceived resolution will come around when I would deliver footage at 16x9 1080p.

Shooting at 4k with the Red Scarlet, you get an aspect ratio of 4096 x 2160. which is 2:1. To get to 16:9, you would crop I believe to around 3844 x 2048. And then you would downconvert it to 1080p.
Click to expand...

There is a 16:9 mode, so you have to do less dancing in post.

eddavid said:
Would it still appear sharper than the F3?
Click to expand...

I owned a Red for 2 years. I don't miss it. The F3 without S-log doesn't look as good as a Red. With S-Log I think it's superior. If all your deliveries are 1080p, "4K" resolution is moot, unless you plan on doing lots of repos in post (which, btw, can be a pain in the ass for a given post flow).

One thing about the way Red does things is that while it has 11 or 12 stops of latitude, it's more difficult to dig it out with the tools available. S-Log gives 13.5, and it's right there, much easier to put to work.

eddavid said:
What other advantages do you think the Red Scarlet would have over the F3 with s log? Obviously the workflow would not be as easy. But would it be worth it?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think the only thing a Scarlet has over the F3 is that viewing options and AKS is more evolved. You won't have as much trouble getting a good EVF on it, or getting the thing into a workable handheld rig. It will be somewhat more durable, but not any lighter for a working rig.

One of the reasons I like my F3 is that it is very adaptable to the job at hand. I can strip it down and just roll with the body, batt, and an 18-50 zoom, and be editing and outputting that night if I need to from SxS. You can do the same with a Red but it is a fair amount more work, and while it might be novel enough to enjoy or put up with it for a while, eventually you will pine for an easier way (5D, F3, etc)

I've done the pixel peeping ad nauseam on all the cameras. The Red is superior on resolution, but you hardly ever need it. F3 w/slog and Alexa are superior on latitude, and I appreciate and put that to use on every shoot. In an ideal world I'd have both, but I'm not crying that I don't have a Red anymore.

BTW, that Scarlet, by the time you have a working kit ready to shoot, will be at least 17K and likely way more. Media is another 2 levels more money for them. I don't think I'd start building a Scarlet kit with any less than $25K in the bank, minus lenses.
 
nateweaver said:
There is a 16:9 mode, so you have to do less dancing in post.



I owned a Red for 2 years. I don't miss it. The F3 without S-log doesn't look as good as a Red. With S-Log I think it's superior. If all your deliveries are 1080p, "4K" resolution is moot, unless you plan on doing lots of repos in post (which, btw, can be a pain in the ass for a given post flow).

One thing about the way Red does things is that while it has 11 or 12 stops of latitude, it's more difficult to dig it out with the tools available. S-Log gives 13.5, and it's right there, much easier to put to work.



Honestly, I think the only thing a Scarlet has over the F3 is that viewing options and AKS is more evolved. You won't have as much trouble getting a good EVF on it, or getting the thing into a workable handheld rig. It will be somewhat more durable, but not any lighter for a working rig.

One of the reasons I like my F3 is that it is very adaptable to the job at hand. I can strip it down and just roll with the body, batt, and an 18-50 zoom, and be editing and outputting that night if I need to from SxS. You can do the same with a Red but it is a fair amount more work, and while it might be novel enough to enjoy or put up with it for a while, eventually you will pine for an easier way (5D, F3, etc)

I've done the pixel peeping ad nauseam on all the cameras. The Red is superior on resolution, but you hardly ever need it. F3 w/slog and Alexa are superior on latitude, and I appreciate and put that to use on every shoot. In an ideal world I'd have both, but I'm not crying that I don't have a Red anymore.

BTW, that Scarlet, by the time you have a working kit ready to shoot, will be at least 17K and likely way more. Media is another 2 levels more money for them. I don't think I'd start building a Scarlet kit with any less than $25K in the bank, minus lenses.
Click to expand...


Thank you for a fair assessment, exactly my point(s)...
It's hard not to be hothead in discussion like this. Just don't repost your answer on Red forum.LOL...
 
The hardest part in these discussions is that what is important for one person, may not be for another, and people get really worked up when something they think doesn't really matter means a lot more to other people.

I think redraw is a perfect example. Some people don't mind working with it, other people do. Same thing working with an F3 and an external recorder, some people don't mind the added kit, other people can't stand it. There in lies the issue, we all have different requirements and values on those requirements.

I do have one question though, the Epic was rated at 13.5 by Red and I think ~13 by ProCoalitionVideo (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/freshdv/story/epic_vs_alexa_dynamic_range/) and from what Red is saying, the Scarlet-X has the same DR as the Epic. Are you comparing the Red One? From what I've heard, the MX sensor is a huge improvement to the original Red One sensor. And in the Epic, even more improved. I don't have experience with the Red Epic or One, so I can't say myself, just curious for clarity on the comments.
 
SCCE tested the Red One MX DR at 12.5, but you really can't compare one type of test to another. And frankly subconscious bias plays a part. I' in favor of machine tests rather than value judgement tests as much as possible and not machines designed by, or set up by the manufacturer of the camera. I'd like to see the Epic tested on the same scope by Andy at Abelcine.

Low light capability is another matter.
 
Very true. One of the problems I have with DR tests is that they don't take into consideration the aesthetic of the noise at the lower stops. At that point, there is a lot of opinion about what is acceptable and what isn't. The article I posted talks about the noise in the lower two stops of the Alexa, which is absolutely an opinion and is what the article even says. And, as you point out, DR doesn't take into consideration sensitivity which is another matter altogether.

I've looked at tests between the AF100 and FS100, of which I owned both, and the chart differences for me were A LOT more extreme than the differences I observed using both. That was an eye-opener.

I guess with regards to the original question, it really depends what you want. I think even at 1080p that the Scarlet-X is probably going to give you more resolution, but, is that extra resolution worth giving up your low light handling that the F3 appears to be better at? What about moving the SSD/RedVolt and their limited capacities. Is that okay?

At the same time, with the Sony you'll need an external recorder. How does that play in? Do you mind having more equipment to work with?

One thing to consider is that the Scarlet-X hasn't fallen into a lot of hands yet. Given the workflow is different, maybe rent one for a weekend and try it out. That way, you can make THE BEST informed decision, hands on!!! :)
 
Well.....

I own a F3 w/ Slog, and all the goodies. I have a Scarlet on order. Not because im dissatisfied with the F3, its just that its a different tool. I think the sLog looks simply amazing, in the end. Yes maybe it looks flat on set, but its like viewing the RED in RAW only. you apply the 709 space to see a punchy image. After grading, the F3 just looks stunning, pure and simple. Now this is partially a personal taste issue. I dont like the over blown punchy footage RED USERS tend to apply to their footage. The RED is VERY good at that. I prefer the Alexa like soft, pastel images. Not that its impossible on a RED but the noise floor on the MX sensor is not as low as they claim. The 13.5 number figures in what is in my opinion un-useable bottom 2 stops. I think the Epic is a 12.5 stop camera at best. The noise in the shadows, and limited highlight retention favors a punchier look, cause as we all know from the HVX200, master pedestal -8 and BPRESS is your friend for clean footage, its also made everything look like the film Se7en unless you packed in truckloads off fill light.

The F3 with its clean low end, and useable highlight retention to the clipping point, lends itself to softly capturing contrasty lighting schemes. Its the kind of image i prefer. I'm a sucker for old 70's and 80's 64D and 250D epic features... The smooth contrast, muted color, lens diffusion all the good stuff......

example: softer pastel
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ing-Points-quot-F3-sLOG-Cooke-18-100-Panchros.

What alot of REDuers seem to like:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...o-with-a-Scarlet-X.../page3&highlight=gunleik


Two different tools. The feature i linked to above, is a drama. Soft, beauty, and cooler look. Favors the F3 w/LOG. In the coming months im going to be shooting a film with a edgier look. Sex, Drugs, Rocka nd Roll kind of look. that says to me... Scarlet. Punchy, saturated, razor sharp.

There is no best nowadays. There is just different. The days of "Best" are over.
 
One thing I love about this board is that we can have these intelligent discussions and mention the good and bad portions of all products. If this thread were on Reduser or Scarletuser the fanbois would turn this into a flame war. We may love the F3, but we're willing to discuss it's faults.

As far as an external recorder goes, I used a Nano on the EX1 before buying the F3. Never had a bit of trouble with the Nano once I set it up for time code trigger and mounted it on a wing. It became a part of the camera. Power consumption was negligible and disk space usage was very reasonable.

Unfortunately we hear little 'gotchas' with the latest 10 bit recorders because they are still relatively new and it will take a few firmware updates before they are everything you'd want them to be. Useable, but something to keep checking while your shooting. Fortunately the 8bit internal recordings can be substituted in most cases. Thank god for dual recording as a back up.
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
I see too much aliasing in F3 footage, for what it costs. Way too much.
Click to expand...

You lost me on this one Kholi. Have you looked at much F3 footage? There is a small amount of moire at the very highest repetitive frequencies, so high up that it almost never shows up in real life shooting. But aliasing? Its easy to see in the DSLRs, but in the F3 I just haven't seen it.

I remember when too many people on Reduser tried to judge the F3 by the Schumacher video on Vimeo. It was low rez video with each camera shot under different conditions. They couldn't post the high rez video and of course low rez shows aliasing. The herd was quick to jump on the F3. Look at the SCCE tests instead for some more objective testing.
 
Scarlet? hmm , Little late! , ok glad it is finally released for the people with the long beard, witch is a nice thing, am sure the scarlet will be a game player, but it should be as it was announced for 3 years ago at a price range of 3000 bucks with turned out a 20.000 buck package?
Sowith all respect for a good camera but to me RED have missed the ball here, there are to many competitors on the field wright now , and within the new coming years all the huge file hype disappear, I see every video camera brand making the full frame sensor
in the future and delivering SDI 4.4.4 output and raw, mark my words. What els is there to offer in the future? to keep us happy?
 
LeavingTheCandy said:
Give my an F3 shooting 4K and I'm good for next 3 years!
Click to expand...

I'm good with the F3 as it is for the next 3 years. Half the households in the US don't even have HD TV and a majority of the digital projectors are still 2K. There will be a time for 5k finishing at 4k but for the average indie the support systems (file storage, editing, CC, etc) are a lot of hassle when most things are going to 2k anyway.

I still think the most important factor is that resolution doesn't tell a story. Movies like Avatar, Benjamin Button, Star Wars and Slum Dog Millionaire won many awards and were shot at 1080p. Che', despite a lot of hype and attention because a Red was used, was disappointing no matter how sharp the images were.

The fact is, you can cut together F3 footage and Red footage quite well. The audience doesn't notice.
 
I'm with Timur on this one, I love the F3, after seeing the vegas video they shot, I was sold. Just blown away at the s-log footage. Not to mention the dp's that shot it were also bad ass as well. I love that vid.

I also like the new Canon footage, it's cool their making their own sensors, I was under the impression that they bought them from sony in the past, which now it makes sense to build your own and have a different look and palette
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top