Resolution of Panasonic GH2 vs Red Scarlet Fixed for 1080p Bluray Delivery

4/3 cams are stuck using 35mm glass at an absurd 2x crop which kills DoF control.
Click to expand...

I'm going to keep posting this until folks realize that when they talk about "DOF like the 5D, blah blah" that they are comparing DOF and lens crop to 35mm STILL frame, not 35mm FILM frames.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...actor-35mm-Motion-Picture-film-and-Micro-4-3s

35mm FILM frame and M4/3 sensors are very close in size and produce very similar framing with very similar lens lengths.
 
Lee Saxon said:
Anyway, way off thread topic, sorry. On topic, I have doubts about the resolution of the VDSLRs (even the GH2 though it's at the head of the pack) and can't wait to see Red's 3K (or 5K if I can find the money for an Epic-S) downscaled to 1080p.
Click to expand...

you can download scarlet recent footage and downscale it yourself..
 
Lee Saxon said:
I didn't realize that about the 2/3" sensor, you've just convinced me I'm not buying a Scarlet.

Watching Bloom's cooking short with his mom, shot on the 25mm f/0.95 @ f/2 or faster, which looks like it was shot at f/5.6 (except the macro shots, which don't count)...but the GH2 footage is so much better in every other way I feel like I'd be crazy to buy a 5D just so I can get the DoF control I'm accustomed to as a still photographer.

Anyway, way off thread topic, sorry. On topic, I have doubts about the resolution of the VDSLRs (even the GH2 though it's at the head of the pack) and can't wait to see Red's 3K (or 5K if I can find the money for an Epic-S) downscaled to 1080p.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh, youre coming from a still background. Well yea, its hard to get used to the image charachteristics of s35. its a different way of thinking....
 
roei z said:
you can download scarlet recent footage and downscale it yourself..
Click to expand...

RedCine won't run on my crappy old computer, but I already have it downloaded and as soon as I finish building my new computer this week you better believe that is the first thing I am doing lol
 
roei z said:
you can download scarlet recent footage and downscale it yourself..
Click to expand...

I'd defiantly recommend it. Especially to see how your system handles the footage.

Anyways, it may be only 2/3" sensor, but it looks very film-like. It has a great organic texture to it. IMO, the AF-100, while having greater DOF control, still has something video-y about it. Even the GH2 looks more film-like. It strikes me as odd... but so be it.
 
Lee Saxon said:
Barry, I disagree. I think people flocked to the larger sensor 5D specifically for DoF control.
Click to expand...
We're not disagreeing, we're totally agreeing. I'm saying people valued sensor size over pretty much everything else; the large sensor gave them a shallow-DOF look they couldn't get from conventional video cameras.

Scarlet 2/3" certainly won't have DoF control like a 5D, but it can use 16mm glass (things like 3.5mm f/1.8s and 5.7mm f/2s) and Red is making its own 2/3" format miniprimes for it.
Click to expand...
It won't have DOF anwhere near anything like approaching a 5D at all. It will have 2/3" video DOF. Compared to what people have been using, the Scarlet sensor is 1/4 the size of an AF100, 1/5 the size of a 7D, and about 1/8 the size of the 5D.

My question is -- will people really want to take that step backwards?

4/3 cams are stuck using 35mm glass at an absurd 2x crop which kills DoF control.
Click to expand...
That's one way to interpret it. The other way to look at it is that 4/3 cams give you almost the exact same DOF as the movies do. Do you think movie cameras "kill DoF control"?

As it is, I think Scarlet 2/3" might actually have MORE DoF control than the AF100.
Click to expand...
Not possible. The AF100 will always have much shallower DOF than the Scarlet ever could. The AF100's sensor is four times larger. The difference in DOF is going to be huge. Put a Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 on the AF100, and there is nothing the Scarlet could ever do to match it.

The difference between the Scarlet and the AF100, in terms of DoF, is two full f-stops. For a Scarlet to match the DoF of an AF100 at f/2.8, the Scarlet would have to be at f/1.4. When the AF100 is at f/1.4... the Scarlet can't match that. When the AF100 goes to f/0.95, the Scarlet will be lost.

It's just simple physics.

Furthermore -- the fixed-lens Scarlet will never be able to approach what the AF100 can do, DoF-wise. The Scarlet's lens only opens up to f/2.5 at the most. That's like f/5 on the AF100. People complain about DoF on the 14-140? That's as good as the fixed-lens Scarlet will ever be able to deliver.

For the interchangeable-lens model... are you really going to want to be shooting at hyper-wide f/1.3? Most lenses benefit greatly by stopping down a stop or two from wide open. I've got a set of Cinema Products f/1.1 16mm lenses, but they certainly benefit quite a bit by stopping down to f/2! And again, shooting on a Scarlet at f/2, is about equivalent to shooting at f/4 on the AF100. Using lenses wide-open is usually not the best idea; they frequently get quite soft, with really soft corners, and flatter contrast; even my set of Compact Primes get soft with flatter contrast and increased chromatic aberration when used fully wide open. Some lenses can pull it off (like the Voigtlander) but a lot of lenses can't, and I doubt there's many (if any) vintage 16mm lenses that are going to look good at the wide-open apertures you'd have to employ to get a 2/3" camera in the same ballpark as a 4/3 camera.

Panasonic needs to make some fast glass
Click to expand...
There's lots and lots of fast glass out there. You can use any fast glass from any manufacturer. The 25mm f/0.95 Voigtlander is about the fastest lens on the market right now.

In the meantime I'm drooling over the idea of using some ultrafast 16mm glass on a GH2 in 1:1 mode...
Click to expand...
It is quite tasty, but it'll also give you a good idea of the DOF difference between a Scarlet and an AF100, right there... :thumbsup: (actually not quite, because the crop mode is still a lot bigger sensor size than the Scarlet).

And 16mm glass doesn't cover the GH2's ETC mode in all cases. You really need S16 glass to cover the full image circle. The sensor in the GH2 isn't quite S16 sized, but it's quite a bit bigger than regular16 or 2/3. Longer lenses will cover though.
 
Last edited:
Whoa i was off...

I thought i read in American Cinematographer that the Digiprimes wide open look like 35mm lenses stopped to a 5.6. Itwas an article about the new starwars films on F900.
 
I think I can answer this thread with an absolute and unstoppable YES.

I shoot professional music videos and indie films for festivals and for film out from hacked GH13 and I can tell you that I directly compete against the RED with no problem whatsoever and that to the layman client, I am far more attractive than shooting with the red because #1 - even though what Barry is Saying is (technically) correct - the red should in theory have better resolution detail and therefor look better on a 1080p blu-ray. In the real world, it doesn't and it is pretty much unnoticeable by anyone but the best trained experts.

More than that, the GH13 hacked properly or the GH2 or AF-100 can look STUNNING right off the raw footage where as the red image is ugly... it's ugly on set and ugly to the video village (monitors) so a client is more likely to choose your GH13 just by 'eyeballing' off the bat and to get them to go for the RED they will need to be explained in DETAIL just what they are getting themselves into with color correction and what it COSTS and will need to be proven that the insane prices to shoot on the RED are worth it. I don't think they are. I would rather put my production money elsewhere than waste it on the RED.

Most clients are interested in their story and their look and their sound, not that they have 4K and if they are not already high up in the film or corporate ladder, they won't even know what 4K IS nor will they understand or care. They WILL understand RED = thousnads and thousands of dollars more $$$ and GH-whatever AF-100 = a lot cheaper and still fantastic looking.

They will see a FANTASTIC image on the GH!3 or GH2 or AF-100 and they will say .. f%#! the RED I can do it for half or 1/3 of the cost and it looks almost as good if not BETTER? And you will get their business. I am doing this every day.

I shoot with the gh13 hacked and out to projected 14foot all the way to 40 foot screen and the image is absoluetely stunning and the clients were all happy and the festivals were happy and broadcast stations were happy and God was happy. I have inter cut with the red and no one knew what was what and when they did name the shots they thought were the RED (meaning what they thought looked like a better shot) they were wrong! It was my best gh13 A cam footage that has the cleanest sensor of my three hacked GH13s.

I'll tell you who wasn't happy.... people who invested a lot of money in the RED. While they need their massive big crews to move that monster around for setups and they have to charge huge day rates to recoup their investment - I am flexible and I have 3 cameras rolling and quick light steadicams and a whole bag of tricks in my hat for shots the red can only dream of doing cause it's so bulky. I have popped around at light speed and gotten half of my shot list done while they are onto shot #2 and taking a coffee break.

With a fast gaffer and a fast GH13 DP - miracles can be done that can't be done with the red, and the red needs an expensive color correction person and support which blows your budget into the stratosphere.

I directly compete against the red market, and I am winning client share every day. DEATH TO THE RED! DEAAATH!

- Darth Blackout -
 
Last edited:
Blackout said:
I think I can answer this thread with an absolute and unstoppable YES.

f%#! the RED I can do it for half or 1/3 of the cost and it looks almost as good if not BETTER?

- Darth Blackout -
Click to expand...

So you like working just as hard for 2/3 less money?

This mentality shouldnt be a point of pride. You are talented. you COULD BE MAKING more money by using proper gear and charging for it!
 
TimurCivan said:
So you like working just as hard for 2/3 less money?

This mentality shouldnt be a point of pride. You are talented. you COULD BE MAKING more money by using proper gear and charging for it!
Click to expand...

You are not understanding me. I make a HELL of a lot more money than my friend who owns a red camera. I just did two music video shoots for 6K and 10k.
After paying talent and my crew, lets just say I rocked the boat and made a lot more money than if I had gone with RED and all the hassles and expense that comes along with it. I would have had to charge double or triple to make the same profit, and I am getting more clients because I achieve the look they want at half to 1/3 or the quotes they are getting from RED ONE crews. So if I am doing better than people with the red? Why would I mess that up? Because you don't think the GH13 or af-100 is 'proper' Clients wouldn't even know what you are talking about. Only snooty DPs who blew money on the RED would.

Well I will 'properly' keep pocketing my profit margin to buy more cameras and get more lenses and get more business and take over Sundance, while you guys talk about proper 4k that your clients don't understand.
Now... if someone throws me a couple million for one of my spec scripts.. yeah.. maybe then I'll consider RED. But right now it;s a dinosaur to me.. and an expensive dinosaur at that.
 
it´s a donkey eat donkey world and if the gh´s work in a commercial enviroment , that´s the whole point . But the question wasn´t about the gh vs. the red one , it was compared to the mythical beast scarlet. And if my memory serves me correctly , scarlet will hopefully also do 1080. Truly, if pany would only give us 720/120p on the af200 , I think they would sew up the pants !
 
Having shot with a hdslr and camera assisted on the Red, my sentiments are similar to Blackout's.

The Red is a pain to use because of it's size and weight.

An example from last week's shoot: The cameraman tried to climb a ladder with a shoulder mounted Red the other day for a high angle establishing shot. Even with two crew members helping he couldn't get the camera to point downwards the way the director wanted . I figured we lost at least 15 - 20 minutes on that aborted shot.

I remember the director saying he wished he had used the Canon 5D 2 from the start. To have pulled off the shot with the Red we'd have to rent a crane, and our budget wouldn't allow for that.

Result: we crossed the shot off the storyboard.

With an HDSLR we could have got the shot in 3 minutes and moved on.

I was in love with the Red until I had to use it.
 
Blackout said:
You are not understanding me. I make a HELL of a lot more money than my friend who owns a red camera. I just did two music video shoots for 6K and 10k.
After paying talent and my crew, lets just say I rocked the boat and made a lot more money than if I had gone with RED and all the hassles and expense that comes along with it. I would have had to charge double or triple to make the same profit, and I am getting more clients because I achieve the look they want at half to 1/3 or the quotes they are getting from RED ONE crews. So if I am doing better than people with the red? Why would I mess that up? Because you don't think the GH13 or af-100 is 'proper' Clients wouldn't even know what you are talking about. Only snooty DPs who blew money on the RED would.

Well I will 'properly' keep pocketing my profit margin to buy more cameras and get more lenses and get more business and take over Sundance, while you guys talk about proper 4k that your clients don't understand.
Now... if someone throws me a couple million for one of my spec scripts.. yeah.. maybe then I'll consider RED. But right now it;s a dinosaur to me.. and an expensive dinosaur at that.
Click to expand...

OK. So lets say you want to take a step up in your work. Why would a client want to give you a bigger budget to do anything if you have delivered $20,000 worth of work, for $6,000. Also, what kind of pay scale are you offering your employees? How hard are you asking them to work for their pay on a $6,000 budget. No one gets jobs done at these budgets without pulling favors, or asking someone to work for way more than wht is expected of them. 1 man departments etc... Big Budgets aren't about "greedy producers making money". Its about paying your crew a living wage, and enabling them to make a living. Working 10 hour days, with reasonable safety, the neccesary support crew ie. assistants.

You are locking yourself into a certain place in the industry. However, know that as DSLR's proliferate, get cheaper and offer "Better Quality", YOUR competition for the 6,000$ job will increase... and worse, some one will under cut you, charging $4k,
citing the same attitude: "Why spend money on a sound guy; i have Zoom h4", "who cares about Raw? clipped highlights look edgy...", I dont care if the camera doesnt out put SDI, who needs those stupid SDI monitors anyway..."

Im not saying that you said this, but the sentiment is what im referrring to. IF you have a good thing going, God bless.

But know that undercutting only hurts you eventually. you will be known as the guy thats cheap, and you will receive the "cheap" projects.
 
TimurCivan said:
OK...

But know that undercutting only hurts you eventually. you will be known as the guy thats cheap, and you will receive the "cheap" projects.
Click to expand...

1. New markets do not require the full cinema treatment that used to be the only alternative.

2. New technology creates new markets. The new markets will not necessarily canabalize the high end product.

3. There will always be demand for the best. Those technologies are slow to change, and can support expensive equipment with long amortization periods.

4. There will always be demand for trendy 90% solutions that deliver superficially sufficient results that do not have all of the intangible impact of 100% but cost a lot less.

5. Making cheap equipment look good, even &90%, can demand more talent than working with a team of pros, but will be possible only in a much fewer scenerios than could be easily handled with top level equipment and pros that can implement a wider range of creative visions.
 
You charged 6K for a videoclip. Wow, Blackout, that's HUGE.

And meanwhile all these big flicks are getting shot with Red MX's and EPICS. I wonder how much are they charging for them.

Good luck taking over Sundance with your spec scripts. :happy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top