Scarlet is going to appeal to those of us for whom 35mm shallow DOF is not a major consideration. Some of us will prefer the major differences in DR, frame rates, and resolution for a variety of applications other than narrative film as well as for the availability of fast, compact, cinema grade lenses at reasonable cost. It will serve just fine for narrative too. Need I remind folks that the top Oscars for the last two years running have gone to films shot mostly or entirely on smaller than S35 formats: S16mm and 2/3" digital. Of this years nominees Black Swan is also shot on small format. If the goal is to match or exceed the quality of film, in this case 16mm film, as an acquisition medium in virtually every respect: sensitivity, resolution, dynamic range, and creative flexibility, there will only be one choice under $10k.
Resolution of Panasonic GH2 vs Red Scarlet Fixed for 1080p Bluray Delivery
- Thread starter J Bellari
- Start date
Blackout
Veteran
I compete directly against the RED market here in NYC city. In fact, I come in, with a big projector, and project canon footage (all the major cameras), red footage, and then project GH13 footage, and then I talk about budgets, and I get a LOT of clients this way. Not with me doing a lot of talking. The footage does the closing for me. Instantly, anyone who pitched to do the project on Canon cameras is eliminated, and the RED is highly questioned.
I'll tell you right off the bat that MOST clients CAN see the difference between the Canons & the GH13 immediately but they CANNOT see the difference between the GH13 and the RED, EVEN on a 14 foot screen!
I do one go around where everything is clearly labeled with a title, and then another go around with nothing labeled and just tell them to point out which one they like best. Many of them think the GH13 footage IS the RED footage.
What they definitely CAN see and appreciate immediately is the difference in price vs shooting on the RED, so the lower budget wins - especially in the short film and music video markets where flexibility, budget, and moving fast are as, if not MORE important than high high end resolution specs that most people can't see and don't care about anyway. I provide the clients with a master on hard disk and blu-ray data disc as well as an authored playable blu-ray disc that looks spectacular, and I do the vimeo and youtube encodes for them if they are going that route. I have one client that is going to actually film out some of my GH13 work, and I'll let you know more about how that comes out when I see it.
Now if I were shooting a full feature film to go to film out I would maybe consider something like the RED for color correction or FX work, but I think I would go more along the lines of an ARRI digital cinema camera. I'm not a big fan of RED and the whole RED elitist attitude that a lot of that camp has, and I know for sure a few RED DPs who would like to see me and my GH13s lined up against a wall and shot and killed. The RED was getting a pretty negative vibe at Sundance 11 - with the idea being that it almost costs as much to shoot with the red as it does to shoot real film, so why bother? This is what some DPs and directors who had done full projects on the RED were saying. I really don't have too much experience with the camera itself but I have not been to impressed with independent productions that have used it - but I have been very impressed when Hollywood has used it. It seems that all the money you save on film stock ends up going into paying the color corrector for post work anyway when you use the RED.
I'll tell you right off the bat that MOST clients CAN see the difference between the Canons & the GH13 immediately but they CANNOT see the difference between the GH13 and the RED, EVEN on a 14 foot screen!
I do one go around where everything is clearly labeled with a title, and then another go around with nothing labeled and just tell them to point out which one they like best. Many of them think the GH13 footage IS the RED footage.
What they definitely CAN see and appreciate immediately is the difference in price vs shooting on the RED, so the lower budget wins - especially in the short film and music video markets where flexibility, budget, and moving fast are as, if not MORE important than high high end resolution specs that most people can't see and don't care about anyway. I provide the clients with a master on hard disk and blu-ray data disc as well as an authored playable blu-ray disc that looks spectacular, and I do the vimeo and youtube encodes for them if they are going that route. I have one client that is going to actually film out some of my GH13 work, and I'll let you know more about how that comes out when I see it.
Now if I were shooting a full feature film to go to film out I would maybe consider something like the RED for color correction or FX work, but I think I would go more along the lines of an ARRI digital cinema camera. I'm not a big fan of RED and the whole RED elitist attitude that a lot of that camp has, and I know for sure a few RED DPs who would like to see me and my GH13s lined up against a wall and shot and killed. The RED was getting a pretty negative vibe at Sundance 11 - with the idea being that it almost costs as much to shoot with the red as it does to shoot real film, so why bother? This is what some DPs and directors who had done full projects on the RED were saying. I really don't have too much experience with the camera itself but I have not been to impressed with independent productions that have used it - but I have been very impressed when Hollywood has used it. It seems that all the money you save on film stock ends up going into paying the color corrector for post work anyway when you use the RED.
Last edited:
Thanks for the perspective Blackout. It sounds like you are doing very well for yourself. I am glad your work is paying off.
Have you ever heard of this film?
The Core
http://climbingnarc.com/2010/04/review-core-blu-ray/
http://vimeo.com/9803426
I believe it was shot on a Red One and it is the highest quality Blu-ray I have seen to date. However, I know my standards are not as high as yours. Just curious if you have ever seen or heard of this film?
http://www.bouldering.com/products/Core-Blu-Ray.html
Have you ever heard of this film?
The Core
http://climbingnarc.com/2010/04/review-core-blu-ray/
http://vimeo.com/9803426
I believe it was shot on a Red One and it is the highest quality Blu-ray I have seen to date. However, I know my standards are not as high as yours. Just curious if you have ever seen or heard of this film?
http://www.bouldering.com/products/Core-Blu-Ray.html
Blackout
Veteran
That was pretty impressive. I wish it was a better vimeo encode so I could really see it. Looks like a one pass 1280 x 720p and still looks pretty darn good. Might have to check that blu ray out as I am always looking for one blu-ray that is the show stopper to my home theater. To date, the best red work I have seen has GOT to be District 9. I have the blu-ray of that and am blown away. I think it was Barry who pointed out to me that it was shot on the RED.
Again though... MAJOR MAJOR budget. I don't know what the budget on this rock climbing thing was. He says something about the budget on this was #&^#&# beep but I don't know if that means their budget blew out of control or they had no budget... if they had no budget then I don't know how they did it on the RED unless they have super talented friends who own the RED and worked for free because it is not cheap to shoot on the RED and definitely not cheap to edit RED material RIGHT - meaning talented color timing in addition to a talented DP. I kind of hop skip past the whole color timing thing with the GH13 and just do a little bit of correction. That's just not possible with the RED.
The one thing I notice here and that I also noticed in District 9 is that while many of the shots are spectacular, many of them exhibit that sort of yucky too hot over clipped whites that I see a LOT on RED productions, especially lower budget ones with amateur producers & DPs who just go 'RED' gaga because someone told them it's the best. I don't know if this is done on purpose or not but it screams video to me over film and it's the only time I am drawn to the fact that this was done on a video camera and not a film camera. It only happens a little bit in District 9 but I saw quite a bit of it in this clip you posted above.
Still, excellent work and some phenomenal imagery on most of the shots. Thanks for posting it.
- Blackout
Again though... MAJOR MAJOR budget. I don't know what the budget on this rock climbing thing was. He says something about the budget on this was #&^#&# beep but I don't know if that means their budget blew out of control or they had no budget... if they had no budget then I don't know how they did it on the RED unless they have super talented friends who own the RED and worked for free because it is not cheap to shoot on the RED and definitely not cheap to edit RED material RIGHT - meaning talented color timing in addition to a talented DP. I kind of hop skip past the whole color timing thing with the GH13 and just do a little bit of correction. That's just not possible with the RED.
The one thing I notice here and that I also noticed in District 9 is that while many of the shots are spectacular, many of them exhibit that sort of yucky too hot over clipped whites that I see a LOT on RED productions, especially lower budget ones with amateur producers & DPs who just go 'RED' gaga because someone told them it's the best. I don't know if this is done on purpose or not but it screams video to me over film and it's the only time I am drawn to the fact that this was done on a video camera and not a film camera. It only happens a little bit in District 9 but I saw quite a bit of it in this clip you posted above.
Still, excellent work and some phenomenal imagery on most of the shots. Thanks for posting it.
- Blackout
Yea District 9 was an awesome Blu-ray. However, this Core flick has some of the most spectacular shots I have ever seen. Now I am not saying the whole movie is like that. There are a bunch of scenes that look like bad camcorder interlaced footage. Then all of a sudden it switches to a wide angle shot of a guy free soloing a 40+ foot boulder and it will blow you away. Then it goes right back to cr@p again.
I think they were on the tightest of budgets and they only shot certain scenes with the RED. Rock climbing does not pay well unless your last name is Sharma. And that isn’t even that great because he stays in an outhouse beside a cliff most of the time. I wouldn’t be surprised if these guys didn’t get paid a dime for making the movie and were hoping to make up their costs entirely on the DVD/Download/Blu-ray sales. The Blu-ray is $40! :0
Anyway, check it out if you get the chance. If climbing is at all appealing to you this is the movie to watch.
I think they were on the tightest of budgets and they only shot certain scenes with the RED. Rock climbing does not pay well unless your last name is Sharma. And that isn’t even that great because he stays in an outhouse beside a cliff most of the time. I wouldn’t be surprised if these guys didn’t get paid a dime for making the movie and were hoping to make up their costs entirely on the DVD/Download/Blu-ray sales. The Blu-ray is $40! :0
Anyway, check it out if you get the chance. If climbing is at all appealing to you this is the movie to watch.
Vincent Pereira
Member
The text accompanying the vimeo trailer says it was "Shot in 35mm Ultra High Definition", yet in the comments section they keep talking RED. Odd.
Vincent
Hideous 17mbps of the GH1 ? is the GH2s 17mbps hideous as well, the only hideous film i have seen from my pal GH2 is 24P, this is a 24P test not i
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJAeQfledmI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJAeQfledmI
Blackout
Veteran
Yeah.. it does say it was shot in 35mm Ultra High Def.. whatever the hell that is.... maybe they made up that fancy terminology for the RED. I went on IMDBPro to see if I could find more info on the cameras used and budgets, but it looks like they did not even register it as a real film as there was no info on it. Would be curious to find out more.
@Flinty... ketchup man.... yes, the 17mbps of the GH1 is hideous... things have loooooong since moved on since then.... GH13 - up to 75mbit... GH2 - a smarter 24mbit... af-100 uncompressed hd-sdi out.
Type "clearest encode" on google or youtube.. I think I have the number #1 spot for clearest encode, clearest youtube encode, and clearest encode ever on all search engines, and no I did not pay for those spots... THAT was 6 months ago and I have since far surpassed the quality of that shoot with a few more tweaks and some new lenses - also with vimeo which now appears to be a clearer 1080p than youtube:
youtube version (make sure to full screen and select 1080p)
vimeo version - noticeably sharper and less noise
Both of those are from a 15mbit master I now master to Canopus Ulta Fine HQ in Edius as a backup, and I render out to 25mbit master AVCHD using Sony Vegas 10. Footage is indistinguishable from original 52mbit footage.
@Flinty... ketchup man.... yes, the 17mbps of the GH1 is hideous... things have loooooong since moved on since then.... GH13 - up to 75mbit... GH2 - a smarter 24mbit... af-100 uncompressed hd-sdi out.
Type "clearest encode" on google or youtube.. I think I have the number #1 spot for clearest encode, clearest youtube encode, and clearest encode ever on all search engines, and no I did not pay for those spots... THAT was 6 months ago and I have since far surpassed the quality of that shoot with a few more tweaks and some new lenses - also with vimeo which now appears to be a clearer 1080p than youtube:
Both of those are from a 15mbit master I now master to Canopus Ulta Fine HQ in Edius as a backup, and I render out to 25mbit master AVCHD using Sony Vegas 10. Footage is indistinguishable from original 52mbit footage.
Sam Scoggins
Well-known member
50 years ago all the computers in the world were Mainframes costing millions $'s and Mini's costing 100,000's $'s. Then came Personal Computers ....... Within a very few years the low end ATE the high end. It didn't matter if you were a professional computer user or an amateur computer user, soon you were just a user like everyone else.
The same thing has happened over the last 5 years with digital still photography. Why drop $30K on a Hassy kit when you can get more resolution than you can reproduce from the Cannon's and Nikon's for 10% of the cost? DSLR's own that space. Doesn't matter if your a pro or a serious amateur.
The same thing WILL happen with digital cinematography. In the digital age: Moor's law + economics = the low end EATS the high end. Product lifecycle = 2 years. You need to buy a new camera every 2 years. Panasonic is doing the right thing with the GH2 and being clever using same chip in AG-AF100. The GH2 will look great on Blueray - use what you have now. In 2 years get what ever is best bang for buck at that time. Same thing 2 years later.
The same thing has happened over the last 5 years with digital still photography. Why drop $30K on a Hassy kit when you can get more resolution than you can reproduce from the Cannon's and Nikon's for 10% of the cost? DSLR's own that space. Doesn't matter if your a pro or a serious amateur.
The same thing WILL happen with digital cinematography. In the digital age: Moor's law + economics = the low end EATS the high end. Product lifecycle = 2 years. You need to buy a new camera every 2 years. Panasonic is doing the right thing with the GH2 and being clever using same chip in AG-AF100. The GH2 will look great on Blueray - use what you have now. In 2 years get what ever is best bang for buck at that time. Same thing 2 years later.
Vincent Pereira
Member
I wonder if they're parroting cinematographer Wally Pfister and writer/director Chris Nolan, who both are noted film purists and often talk of film in terms like this...
Not that they are wrong, since high-end digital video is always striving to equal (and eventually surpass) the capabilities of film.
Vincent
Not quite. Mainframes still exist.
In the film world, there are certain performance expectation of the equipment that have to be met to do your work. I'm not talking resolution or lenses. I'm talking things like genlock, I lens metadata, proper timecode, lockit boxes, the ability to have paintbox connectivity etc.... no low end camera will ever have all of those functions.
The computer analogy is good, but what's the two have in common is that in the begining noone wanted a computer. Then the pc changed that. Then everyone got a computer. The mainframes weren't replaced w/ pc's. The mainframes got more expensive and more capable. Just cause a lowend market grows, the highend market does not shrink. Infact it evolves completely independant from the lowend consumer market. If you think the GH1 or GH2 effect Arri or reds busines decisions, you are mistaken. The people who need a red, need a red. On occasion we need a gh13. When we do we will use it.
Sam Scoggins
Well-known member
Yes, but no individual ownes a Mainframe. If you need a Mainframe you rent time on one. If you need high end then a Genesis is $800 a week. If you need a red you rent a red. I know you've just bought an F3 and the gear head in me loves your posts on that - and I have to admit that I still have my Arri ST here that I've had for 30 years and I still love that. But you also know that the computer on your desk is more powerfull than the ones NASA used to put men on the moon. The mass market devices are more profitable and therefore grow more powerfull more rapidly than the specialist high end devices. Which is good for all of us because we all end up with more powerfull tools.
So are you saying the GH2s 720P is better than the GH1s,if not with no useable 24P ,hideous 720p and 50i meens i had just as well give it the boot,not that i think they are hideous.
so tell me whats the ----- wrong with it ,it does not have the jaggies of 50i but the same sharpness ,it does not have the moire ailising of 24P but its no good oh well sell the crap
Blackout
Veteran
I can't sell what I don't have. I don't have a GH2. I don't see the point when you have good working GH13s so I am skipping over it and my next purchase will be a AF-100 or 2. From what I have gathered through my limited time playing with a GH2 on set, the 720p mode does have more aliasing than the GH13s and so does the 1080p mode unless you dial the sharpness way down. A lot of people have also complained about the GH2 needing a higher bitrate for 720p mode or that mode not being very usable as it was with a hacked GH13 with proper settings. I wasn't happy with it and still think it needs more bandwidth. I agree with Barry that bitrate isn't everything but I also agree with my eyes that have proven to me I am getting a better image quality and detail on my GH13s without the weird shadow artifacts that pop up in a lot of GH2 footage. If YOU are happy with the camera that's all that matters! The footage I showed above was GH13 not GH2. The GH2 is a fine little camera.. just not for me.
Last edited:
Blackout
Veteran
Yes you are correct - the GH13 is a hacked GH1 with much more bandwidth which increased detail and resolution immensely as well as introduced a bunch of other features such as making the camera 24p native. There are many reasons technical, political & financial / market based why Panasonic is sticking to their guns with the 24mbit max bitrate on the GH2 and those are all covered in other thread discussions and I don't want to take over this thread with that talk. This thread is about the resolution of the cameras VS the RED and how many people would be able to tell on a final product and I gave my 7 cents on that in the above post and don't want to derail the thread.
I wouldn't exactly call the GH2 'inferior' to the GH13, as it does have many improvements that are useful and it depends what exactly you are doing with it. To me though, if we come right down to image quality, I personally prefer what I have with the GH13 with the settings I've achieved that I am very very happy with and clients are very very happy with. It would be rather pointless for me to get a GH2. Better to just use that grand towards the AF-100. That's what I'm saying. If you are so unhappy with your GH2 that you think it's inferior - sell it and get a GH13 or af-100. You'll have no problem selling it as there is a shortage of them now and everyone wants them. Really though... are you truly unhappy with it or are you just reading posts and deciding you are unhappy with it based on other people's opinions? It comes down to your eyes and what YOU think of the image and your skill in shooting with the tools you have and overcoming the limitations the tools have as creatively as you can.
if all an artist has is a stick or ragged old brush, he should still draw with that until he can get some finer brushes and paints.
No if you read i have been saying i think 720P is not bad quality and i cant make my mind up between it and 50i,i like the GH2 but what set me off is that the previous hacked model has better performance you say,i dont know its inferior only you say that and i take your word on that,it is a pitty 24P has its pal problems but i bought mine for nature filming mostly.Of note the AF 100 has inferior resolution to gh2 24P in some test but i care not about that,i will leave it at that good filming.
A last note i did not know gh13s could actualy be purchased.
A last note i did not know gh13s could actualy be purchased.