Red's new Mysterium-X sensor at ISO 2000

Ian-T said:
I gotcha.

I hate to admit it but I feel like the way these guys are pressing hard for Canon to up their game.. once Scarlet debuts… these DSLRs will suddenly be a “Fad” of the past.

(that's of course if Canon doesn't respond in a positive direction).
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't care about Scarlet anymore. If Red wants to change the game how about releasing the s35 version for $5k with 120fps and at least 500fps crop mode. I don't give a crap about the "but... you can still make a great film with 2/3 inch sensor" argument. For my projects and, more importantly, my OWN personal enjoyment, I want to look at s35 or bigger. Even s35 is starting to look less visual interesting when compared to full-frame. 2/3 RAW just doesn't sound to amazing... Might as well just get a HVX or EX-1 something with 4:2:2. And come on, the 2.6 fixed lens version, 2.6?! Even the XH-A1 is fixed at 1.6. I don't give a crap about image fidelity when the image is going to flat as a camcorder. And the mini-primes...? A grand each! What the hell else are you going to use them for when you upgrade to scarlet s35 down the road?! You can be there's going to be absolutely no resale value on them, that's for damn sure. If money was no object, I would still take a 5D with Ziess compact primes and day. 2/3 is just stupid now when you can shoot a multi-cam s35 setup for under $2k. Don't get me wrong, I would love a Scarlet for composting and slow-motion, but I could just rent it. Owning a scarlet is going be be a one way money pit, oh yea, unless you don't mind the slow/flat 2.6 fixed verison. I guess I'm just too spoiled with larger format imagery now, even with a weak codec, I'll still take mediocre 35mm over high quality 2/3".
 
Last edited:
Ryan Paige said:
I'm going to go ahead and put you in the "Not Buying a Scarlet" column if that's cool with you.
Click to expand...

Yea oh well, it saddens me most of all. I really wanted to get a Scarlet... but I just can't justify that $5k and up for such a small image (aesthetically/visually small). 2/3" is dead... unless you're in ENG or broadcast, but the workflow for Scarlet just doesn't lend itself for that type of work. I bet a Scarlet 2/3" 3D rig would kick ass though. High frame rates at 3k with deep DOF will be awesome for stereoscopic imaging.
 
Kind of like how Super 16 is de-- oh, no, wait... Super16 is still used on major motion pictures as primary stock, still used to acquire images for broadcast...

Now that I think about it... I guess 2/3" is de-- Oh... no... wait again, Anthony Dod Mantle just urinated on the planet with Slumdog Millionaire...

Why must people declare something dead just because it doesn't fit their needs or budget??? Reminds me of when I was a youngling and I thought TV shows were taken off of the air just because I didn't watch them anymore.

P.S. That was just last week I thought that. It's tough being seventeen...
 
bwhitz said:
Honestly, I don't care about Scarlet anymore. If Red wants to change the game how about releasing the s35 version for $5k with 120fps and at least 500fps crop mode.
Click to expand...

Clearly, you've realized a hole in the market. There is definitely a large number of low- and no-budget shooters who would love to get such a camera for such a price. I'd imagine there are a number of large budget shooters who would, too, for that matter.

But, do take a look at what other cameras are selling for.
- VariCam will run you between $50,000 and $60,000 dollars. But that's 2/3".
- Dalsa Origin rented for $3000 a day, but they aren't around anymore...
- Panavision Genesis can't be bought, and rents for about $4000 a day...
- F900 and F23 are...2/3"...
- Sony CineAlta F35 price isn't officially listed by Sony. It's little brethren run up to $90,000. It also rents for around $3,000 a day.
- Arri D21 doesn't seem to be for sale either, but will rent for about $3,000.

So RED is selling an s35 camera for, lets say, $15K pretty well equipped. That is somewhere between 5 and 10 times less expensive than their competitors.


bwhitz said:
I don't give a crap about the "but... you can still make a great film with 2/3 inch sensor" argument. For my projects and, more importantly, my OWN personal enjoyment, I want to look at s35 or bigger. Even s35 is starting to look less visual interesting when compared to full-frame.
Click to expand...

That's certainly your prerogative - some people may very well wish to always keep the depth of field less than an inch or two and shoot wider than 18mm Full Frame FOV. I don't know how attractive that would actually look on screen though, and can only imagine the nightmare that pulling focus would become. For shooting anything with more than a couple inches of DOF or narrower than 18mm, though, Full Frame begins to blend in with S35. But again, that's part of the beauty. If FF is really what you need, you can get it.

After all you just can't get stuff like this on a 2/3" chip:
baharsnow.jpg


bwhitz said:
2/3 RAW just doesn't sound to amazing... Might as well just get a HVX or EX-1 something with 4:2:2. And come on, the 2.6 fixed lens version, 2.6?! Even the XH-A1 is fixed at 1.6.
Click to expand...

For everything there is a season, a time for every activity under heaven.

2/3" has its place, as does S35. And high quality 2/3" has its place as does lower quality 2/3". There is a reason that big budget productions don't always just opt for the cheapest option. Sometimes they need to get the better performing option. This is why you see movies shot on the F900, the F23, the Viper, etc rather than EX-1 or HVX. They are better cameras for that job.

And I bet that XH-A1 lens doesn't resolve a 3K image with superb falloff, color rendition, mechanics, and distortion (as other RED lenses do). In fact, it only resolves a 1080i image. So, I'd wager that (along with price) explains why the lens doesn't handle T2.6 (which is really probably what most would label an f/2.2-2.4).

As a corollary, should a beginning filmmaker starve themselves, sell their car and mortgage their house to afford a camera setup so that they can begin making films? I'd say no, absolutely not.

Should a somewhat experienced filmmaker who has steady business and has some bank for new equipment step up to new technology which provides much better quality? I'd say so - if they need to.

bwhitz said:
I don't give a crap about image fidelity when the image is going to flat as a camcorder.
Click to expand...

I couldn't really understand that sentence. But as someone who is trying to grow my skills in cinematography, I think image fidelity is probably one thing that is always important.

bwhitz said:
And the mini-primes...? A grand each! What the hell else are you going to use them for when you upgrade to scarlet s35 down the road?! You can be there's going to be absolutely no resale value on them, that's for damn sure. If money was no object, I would still take a 5D with Ziess compact primes and day.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the world of cinema lenses. While a canon 50mm 1.2L might look expensive at $1,500, consider that 50mm PL mount lenses start at around $5,000. And there is definitely a difference in quality. You may not be able to tell it on a 5D or a 7D, but it definitely shows on an S35 sensor resolving 3K or 4K.

Will there be a market for them? Hard to tell...they aren't even available for original sale, yet. 16mm lenses seem to have held on alright, though.

If money was no option, I doubt many people would choose the same set up, but again, if that works best for you, then great! With $2,500 in camera and $27,405 in lenses, you'd be set.
 
ATL Media Group said:
True it's really good, but the match did look kinda "big" to me. Heck one pic actually looked like he lit the entire matchbook.
Click to expand...

Have you ever used a digital camera before?

Even if it was a brightly lit room, having that little noise at ISO2000 would be incredible.

To not have any noise in shadows as deep as that is mind-blowing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top