Scarlet Announcement

[VGurcu]

Until we know more, I would say that no event videographer should even be thinking that a Scarlet would be appropriate for them.

Well not that I don't know that, I guess mine was wishful(and theoretical) thinking... ( Thanks for answering my other questions btw regarding Sony.) This leaves us (for the pro videographer(events, ENG, corp) who wants an affordable bigger sensor camcorder) with pure Canon speculation, check this one out:
http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2009/12/02/are-canon-working-on-a-dslr-based-video-camera/

But don't short change it and undersell its huge advantages in some attempt to prove your point.

For a filmmaker Scarlet offers great value, no doubt. My post was subjective depending on 'my' needs... I have a right to undersell it to myself

So, how much is that lens that comes with the 350? according to the price differences in the two models offered it's around 1500... At any rate, you've got up to 12 grand you can use towards glass before you get to the price point of the 350.

Jason, you did go the extra mile to put 2 very different packages together.
Mine would be a bit different but you got it pretty close (for one EVF is indispensable for me, and the Bomb EVF is around 3K itself)
Anyway I just want to point out that the value of Fuji lens is not $1500, as you already know; you cant find that model to purchase it separete to start with. I never understood the idea behind selling "body-only" option almost same as with the lens option. Cheapest HD glass similar to one that comes with Sony 350 is a $10K Canon, next I could find a $12K Fujinon...

And, when you do get two systems that are pretty comparable, they are still very, very different systems that can't be directly compared very easily. All the way down to the way the image is handled off the sensor block. One way isn't necessarily inherently better than the other. And, it's not going to be as simple as you suggest as Sony just taking away 2 of the cmos chips from that set up. Very, very different.

I did compare the 2 not to find the 'better one' nor the 'exact cheaper one', but to point out that it is not that cheap after all specifically if you wanted to set up a Scarlet system for ENG, ,events & other videography jobs.
As Barry pointed out already Scarlet is not primarily for such purposes, hence my argument is irrelevant. But then, perhaps when one claims that "Scarlet is dirt cheap" they should state that for 'cinematographic* purposes'...
*for lack of a better word

 

[dcloud]

Well, if the Red was using a 3mp sensor, I'd agree. But even the 2/3" sensor is 6 megapixel, and the FF version (which is what I would assume a true "hybrid" shooter would want, right?) should have 6K mode, IIRC... which would mean somewhere around 21+ megapixels, so it shouldn't be too bad at all when it comes to stills performance. The 1D Mark IV is about 18 megapixels, isn't it? Not saying the Red will equal it, but saying that at least the raw resolution should be comparable with a decent stills camera.

why the hell would i use the red for stills? im not paying 7k+ just to use it for stills. id get a real still cam with features that are useful

same reason i wouldnt get a 5d mkII for cinema purposes.

 

[yoclay]

why the hell would i use the red for stills? im not paying 7k+ just to use it for stills. id get a real still cam with features that are useful

same reason i wouldnt get a 5d mkII for cinema purposes.

As I tried to say before, I honestly think the form factor of a hybrid RED video camera lends itself more towards medium format captors. The increased Megapixels would be more interesting from a stills point of view. That's a hybrid that would make sense. I don't think RED could compete with the 35mm DSLR's and would be better suited to go down this road with the option of a crop for 35 Pl lenses as well as the 645 lenses they say they will produce.

Just saw this today at Cinema5D news:

possible 35 x 35 sensor 30Mp Canon 1Ds around the corner

It probably won't be long before people are trying to shoot films with their Hasselblad lenses too...

 

[ethan cooper]

Is this correct? What you posted sure looks about the size of an hvx200 lcd which is 3.5 inches not 2.5 inches.

I didn't size to diagonal, so no, it wasn't quite right.

Oh and lets pray to god it's better than the HVX lcd. Good camera, terrible screen.

 

[Barry_Green]

why the hell would i use the red for stills?

I have no idea. But Red believes that it would be appropriate for stills, hence the whole DSMC marketing.

I don't get the whole "convergence" thing, I'd much rather have a dedicated purpose product. In my lobbying to Panasonic and Canon for large-sensor dedicated video cameras, I've flat-out told 'em I don't care whatsoever, nor do I know anyone who cares whatsoever, if it shoots stills or not. If it's a bonus that doesn't hurt anything, okay, throw it in, but if it compromises the video functionality in any way whatsoever, I don't want it, and I wouldn't pay $5 more for it.

Convergence is great on my cell phone, I love that I've got a flashlight, web browser, still camera, video camera, e-mail tool, GPS turn-by-turn navigation system, voice recorder, note-taker, calendar, and everything else all-in-one, with me at all times. But would I actually want to use it for those purposes, instead of a dedicated tool? Of course not! You know, it really is like the Swiss Army Knife -- who among us, when needing to tighten down a screw, would prefer a Swiss Army Knife over an actual screwdriver? Who among us, when needing to saw a board, would prefer to use the Swiss Army Knife saw instead of a real hand saw?

Could you build a house, using only a Swiss Army Knife instead of regular tools? You know, I bet someone actually could. Should they? Or, maybe the better question -- would they want to do it twice?!?

id get a real still cam with features that are useful

Agreed 1,000%

same reason i wouldnt get a 5d mkII for cinema purposes.

Agreed 100%.

However, with the 7D, I think that the price tag is so low that it does warrant consideration as a digi-cine rig for the lowest-budget folks. Price tag is a huge component in the SLR's appeal.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

I did compare the 2 not to find the 'better one' nor the 'exact cheaper one', but to point out that it is not that cheap after all specifically if you wanted to set up a Scarlet system for ENG, ,events & other videography jobs.
As Barry pointed out already Scarlet is not primarily for such purposes, hence my argument is irrelevant. But then, perhaps when one claims that "Scarlet is dirt cheap" they should state that for 'cinematographic* purposes'...
*for lack of a better word

To contrast that potentially 20,000 dollar rig, you can indeed get a fully functional with most everything you need Scarlet for 4-5k as well... Again, this is not for everyone, but that's kinda the beauty of the system (for me). For someone looking for the absolute best, (closest thing to) no-compromise, image quality they can get for the money, to be able to spend 5 grand, pick up a fixed scarlet and have a dslr handheld style (at the very least) setup, complete with viewing, side handle, redmote, batteries, charger, etc. I just don't see anything (right now) really touching the likely (yes, yes, I know.. it's not out yet, etc... But, I know enough to be pretty dang certain...) quality and robustness of motion images that will be coming off of it anywhere in the neighborhood of that price point. Beyond that, add only what you need for your set up... For a cinema setup... beyond perhaps a more stable hand held setup, you don't really *need* to add anything beyond that. You've got the mic inputs on the brain, and a relatively inexpensive adapter will allow you to use xlr if you need that.

Point being.... If overall image quality and robustness for your money is of a primary concern (as is one of the primary ones for me), your 4,000 dollar scarlet is going to give you the exact same image quality as your 20+k Scarlet. You also have the potential luxury of building an even more robust system over time by adding additional modules, etc. vs. dropping 10k or 20k all at once. Not everyone grooves with that type of option. It's a nice selling point for me though. Particularly being able to carry those on with me to another future brain as a possible option as well.

Now, while Scarlet might not be geared towards eng use, I can think of a couple of industry professionals who do a lot of eng work (with RED One even) who are planning on the fixed scarlet and/or the interchangeable model, for exactly those kinds of uses. Not that it is ideally suited for that purpose, but certainly doesn't mean that it can't/won't be used effectively for that. Same goes for that Sony cam as I'm sure it will also be used on film projects as well, even though that may not be it's primary focus, and it will likely be used effectively in that manner as well. But, these are things that I personally like. I would (hopefully) have a very robust, fantastic image, and be able to build multiple different setups and configurations to suit it better for different types of uses when needed or desired.

 

[dadoboy]

The fact that the 2/3" "cinema" Scarlet offers geared prime lenses at the outset makes it markedly different from anything out there. It's such an unusual package at an unusual price point.

My one concern with the 2/3" is that even experienced directors/producers are stuck on the idea that 35mm sensors/DOF properties are always going to be better. It will be a harder sell talking tech with them - try and explain that at T1.4 the DOF will be the same as... their eyes will glaze over. So they'll be looking for gear like the s35 and EPIC and even the HDSLRs over the 2/3" if they don't know any better.

 

[Barry_Green]

1.5 on the Scarlet will be about the same as F/4 on a 35mm sensor. The fixed Scarlet's 2.8 is about the same as 8.0 on the 7D. So it's not going to be easy to match what a 35mm sized frame can do.

 

[HHL]

1.5 on the Scarlet will be about the same as F/4 on a 35mm sensor. The fixed Scarlet's 2.8 is about the same as 8.0 on the 7D. So it's not going to be easy to match what a 35mm sized frame can do.

Thanks for those calculations Barry. Just real quick: This means that....1. The depth of field will be "longer"....and 2. It's low light abilities will be less capable. ...or am I jumping to conclusions?

 

[Jason Ramsey]

1.5 on the Scarlet will be about the same as F/4 on a 35mm sensor. The fixed Scarlet's 2.8 is about the same as 8.0 on the 7D. So it's not going to be easy to match what a 35mm sized frame can do.

fixed is t2.6. f2.4 according to Jarred.

Later,
jason

 

[Jason Ramsey]

Thanks for those calculations Barry. Just real quick: This means that....1. The depth of field will be "longer"....and 2. It's low light abilities will be less capable. ...or am I jumping to conclusions?

it means, that at the same relative field of view it would have the same DoF as a 35mm at around f4.

David Mullen says 2.5 stops a lot when referring to the difference of 2/3" compared to 35 sensor size. Barry states 2.75 in a recent article of his.

So, anyways around there. Between 2.5 and 2.75 stops difference.

David also stated here:

So if the zoom on the fixed-lens Scarlet is set to roughly f/2.8, then that would be like shooting S35 at an f/5.8-8.0 split.

Since Jarred says the Scarlet Fixed lens is F2.4, it shouldn't be quite as much. Maybe a straight up f5.8

T1.5 (mini primes)... Wonder what that would be rated in terms of F stop... maybe 1.2-1.4. So perhaps equivalent to between 2.8 - 4.0 depending on whether you go 2.5 or 2.75 for your calculation at the same field of view on S35..

 

[HHL]

I only ask....or mention, because, I was completely blown away by the EOS-1D Mark IV video, "Nocturne"....specifically because of it's low light abilities. It was ALL incidental light, except for the "balloon/girl" shot, (he used a reflector)....

I'm CERTAINLY NOT "anti-Scarlet"....I hope to buy one in the next 2 years? But, low light shooting capacity figures into the equation IMHO more and more....I'm just saying....

 

[David G. Smith]

I only ask....or mention, because, I was completely blown away by the EOS-1D Mark IV video, "Nocturne"....specifically because of it's low light abilities. It was ALL incidental light, except for the "balloon/girl" shot, (he used a reflector)....

I'm CERTAINLY NOT "anti-Scarlet"....I hope to buy one in the next 2 years? But, low light shooting capacity figures into the equation IMHO more and more....I'm just saying....

I was wondering when the question of the low light capability would come up. I saw the render of the Scarlet LCD screen, and correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't it say, "500 ISO"? So what is the story on the 2/3" Scarlet sensor sensitivity? Are those specs available at this time? Is that "500 ISO" a "Render issue"?

 

[Jason Ramsey]

we don't have those specs yet for the Scarlet 2/3" sensor.

We know that EPIC will have an ISO Range of 200 - 8000. and, we know that Jim said "800 is the new 320". Meaning, he believed the 5k Mysterium X sensor at ISO 800 to have equivalent performance to the RED One Mysterium sensor at ISO 320. And, that that is the same sensor that will be going in the S35 Scarlet, so it would likely be the same as the Epic S35 and Epic X in that regard.

Now, Scarlet 2/3" is also the 2nd generation MysteriumX sensor, but it is not the same sensor as the one that the above information/specs were provide for

Scarlet being a 2/3" 3k Mysterium X sensor. We don't have any information on its performance yet, though.

 

[HHL]

Between 2.5 and 2.75 stops difference.

Thanks Jason. Much appreciated.

OUCH!!! 2.75 stops hurts.....I'm aware that with the "Redcode" codec/RAW....some of this MAY be remedied in post, but....2.75....OUCH!!! (That hurts)

From what I've seen so far from Red Camera Company, this product will be break-through....I'll be surprised if it isn't.

Deploy time is obviously their "Achilles Heel"....I don't think it's unjustified, ...just annoying to everyone. But....no doubt, I'll be looking forward to the Barry Green tests on the upcoming Red Camera(s). I'm also looking forward to the footy from other DVXUsers. I try to help out the community when I can, but sometimes it's nice to wait and see what DVXUsers experience with a new product.

Low light shooting ability, (or lack thereof)
Redcode Color-correction, (exactly how sick it gets)
Shot flexibility with the fixed lens Scarlet, (it doesn't have to shoot "shallow"....but we'll see how pleasing the images are)

....we already know the price category it will fall into has necessitated a recalibration of strategy for micro-budget shooters. (Is it really worth 3 7d bodies?) Exactly HOW SICK WILL THE FOOTY LOOK? I know it depends on who is "weilding" it, but...again....we'll see if the final image and cost MATCH the necessary sacrifice to obtain one.

As a final thought....I saw an online video that was posted for "the Sexiest Woman Alive" from "Esquire Magazine." The RedUsers were spouting off about this video....(not the girl...the footage). To be honest I was VERY UNIMPRESSED. I am FULLY AWARE that if we shot this some video on a 7d and projected it up on a theater screen....we would INDEED SEE the "power" of Red.....but....online.....I couldn't tell ANY DIFFERENCE WHAT-SO-EVER. Please don't try to explain "why" that is....I KNOW "why"....but does "why" matter? Most of us are posting vids online, so....we'll have to see if it is actually worth it to spend 3x the cost to gain 5% improvement (if at all) WHEN POSTING VIDS ONLINE.

I would love NOTHING MORE than having to shell out 20K for 2 Scarlets because the footy is so INSANELY beautiful that I lose my mind and MUST BUY...not ONE BUT TWO!

I'm actually expecting that it will have weaknesses like every other camera....but, we'll see.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

OUCH!!! 2.75 stops hurts.....I'm aware that with the "Redcode" codec/RAW....some of this MAY be remedied in post, but....2.75....OUCH!!! (That hurts)

It can be, depending on what you are doing. If you are wanting 35mm dof, then you are probably shooting a movie. There is a wide range of shots in movies, and they aren't mostly running around with their lens wide open in all those shots. A good many of the shots are likely to be at f4 or f5.6 anyways. With a fixed scarlet, the difference would be filming with your lens wide open to get that same look (adjusting your lighting, iso, etc for proper exposure of course). On a Cinema Scarlet, you would be a stop closed from open or so.

The crop factor difference between 2/3" and S35 is 2.5x. So, 30mm on Scarlet will give you the same FOV as 75mm on S35. To get the same Depth of Field at that FoV, if the 35 camera is at 5.8, then you are at f2.4.

at 30mm on a Scarlet, if you were 10 feet away from the subject, your Depth of Field would be roughly 3.45 fee. The amount of area that is in focus..Distance from the lens (if you are going for 10 feet) that your subject would be in what would be considered "acceptable focus" would be 8.5 - 12 feet from the focal plane..

At 50mm it's like 1 foot.

At 6mm on the 2/3" Scarlet, your DoF is infinite. If you take the equivalent FoV for S35, that would be 15mm. From f3.2 and slower on the 15mm lens. is infinite as well. At f2.8 (on the S35 15mm) it's 208ft.

Or, so says the calculator

Ltaer,
Jaosn

 

[HHL]

Thanks again Jason. Much appreciated. I'm NOT addicted to shallow DOF. It has its place, but it is over used more and more. So, I'm not worried about that (DOF) as much as I am its low light abilities. (Thanks for the perspective on that as well....we'll have to see what this new chip can do...) IMHO lighting is where the REAL difference is, as far as cinematography goes....(story telling is the REAL difference as far as movie making goes).

So....the light capabilities of a camera is where MAJOR ground can be gained by an indie film maker (IMHO).

Someone on Reduser had a great approach/idea as far as cost/investment in Scarlet....they said they'd buy one fixed lens, and one scarlet body (interchangeable lens version) This way, they'd get the "discount" from the accessories that some WITH the fixed lens....and have the flexibility of the interchangeable Scarlet. I need to crunch some numbers, but I think they're right. I'm also certain that, (with the interchangable scarlet), and a fast mini-prime, I'll have a shallow enough DOF if I need it. That being said....

Low-light capability remains to be seen.

Am I the only one who doens't worry so much about NOT being able to get a usable shot because of lack of light anymore? I don't know if I can go back to worrying about that so much. I actually bought an LED light to help my lighting in certain situations....DANG! That thing is awesome! ....once again.....I'm not sure if I can go back to worrying about lighting up an ENTIRE FREAKING CITY BLOCK to do an interview? (ok....I'm exaggerating, but you know what I mean)

Thanks again Jason!

 

[Jason Ramsey]

So....the light capabilities of a camera is where MAJOR ground can be gained by an indie film maker (IMHO).

I (personally) am more concerned with how clean the image is across its range vs. "how low can it go". Though, I know low light is going to be a very important factor for some folks. It'll be interesting to see how well the 2/3" Scarlet's perform in that situation.

.they said they'd buy one fixed lens, and one scarlet body (interchangeable lens version) This way, they'd get the "discount" from the accessories that some WITH the fixed lens....and have the flexibility of the interchangeable Scarlet

I think if you want a zoom lens and primes, that's definitely probably the most affordable way to go and get quality glass (of course, we don't know exactly what the quality will be yet) for your money. No point in spending 10 grand on a zoom lens for the interchangeable Scarlet (and possibly a different lens mount) when you can just buy the fixed Scarlet instead (of a 10 grand zoom lens) for 4750 and (like you said) have the basic modules to go with it.

EDIT: Or pick up the fixed Scarlet first. Then, down the line as you want to start building a set of prime glass, pick up the interchangeable brain for 2750 and start getting some primes.

 

[HHL]

EDIT: Or pick up the fixed Scarlet first. Then, down the line as you want to start building a set of prime glass, pick up the interchangeable brain for 2750 and start getting some primes.

MY PLAN EXACTLY!

To be honest, we are some seriously SPOILED BUGGARS. I cannot BELIEVE the pricepoint and quality that we hold in our hands TODAY. I'm sure you are as excited as I am with the new dimension that Red has brought to this ALREADY AMAZING FREAKING PARTY....I know it hasn't come out yet, ....but I also know THAT IT WILL. And I honestly don't even care what happens....because Nikon (lazy punks), Canon (Belle of the party), and Panasonic (fix that codec please!), Sony (HELLO?)....MUST give due diligence to the happenings at Red. I think (IMHO) that they have, albeit cautiously, given more attention to the "cinematic" imaging products, than just PURE VIDEO, ....than we could have hoped for. To be honest, I could handle NO IMPROVEMENTS for the next 2 years and be just fine, (I'm the bottle-neck, my lack of expertise and experience, is the problem...NOT MY CAMERA)....

...HOW COOL IS IT THAT the next 2 years is looking like a foot-race between the Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, and Red! Wooohoooooo!!!! We are spoiled BUGGARS!

 

[killacam]

Thanks Jason. Much appreciated.

OUCH!!! 2.75 stops hurts.....I'm aware that with the "Redcode" codec/RAW....some of this MAY be remedied in post, but....2.75....OUCH!!! (That hurts)

From what I've seen so far from Red Camera Company, this product will be break-through....I'll be surprised if it isn't.

Deploy time is obviously their "Achilles Heel"....I don't think it's unjustified, ...just annoying to everyone. But....no doubt, I'll be looking forward to the Barry Green tests on the upcoming Red Camera(s). I'm also looking forward to the footy from other DVXUsers. I try to help out the community when I can, but sometimes it's nice to wait and see what DVXUsers experience with a new product.

Low light shooting ability, (or lack thereof)
Redcode Color-correction, (exactly how sick it gets)
Shot flexibility with the fixed lens Scarlet, (it doesn't have to shoot "shallow"....but we'll see how pleasing the images are)

....we already know the price category it will fall into has necessitated a recalibration of strategy for micro-budget shooters. (Is it really worth 3 7d bodies?) Exactly HOW SICK WILL THE FOOTY LOOK? I know it depends on who is "weilding" it, but...again....we'll see if the final image and cost MATCH the necessary sacrifice to obtain one.

As a final thought....I saw an online video that was posted for "the Sexiest Woman Alive" from "Esquire Magazine." The RedUsers were spouting off about this video....(not the girl...the footage). To be honest I was VERY UNIMPRESSED. I am FULLY AWARE that if we shot this some video on a 7d and projected it up on a theater screen....we would INDEED SEE the "power" of Red.....but....online.....I couldn't tell ANY DIFFERENCE WHAT-SO-EVER. Please don't try to explain "why" that is....I KNOW "why"....but does "why" matter? Most of us are posting vids online, so....we'll have to see if it is actually worth it to spend 3x the cost to gain 5% improvement (if at all) WHEN POSTING VIDS ONLINE.

I would love NOTHING MORE than having to shell out 20K for 2 Scarlets because the footy is so INSANELY beautiful that I lose my mind and MUST BUY...not ONE BUT TWO!

I'm actually expecting that it will have weaknesses like every other camera....but, we'll see.

wait, I'm pretty sure the 2.5 stops only refers to the DOF difference and not the low light sensitivity. There's not always an exact relationship between the two. The 1DmarkIV is supposed to have much better light sensitivity than the 5D and yet it has a slightly more cropped sensor (1.2x or whatever it is). The Scarlet might have one thing going for it in that is has to deal with less pixels than a DSLR, making the photosites larger but who knows what the actual result will be.

As far as that "Sexiest Woman" video, was that the Megan Fox one? I don't think a lot of people were impressed. At least I wasn't. I wasn't too impressed with Camille's 5D Ralph Lauren videos either though. Someone made a comment that I thought was funny that they thought those two videos seemed like someone posting their "Hey, check out my new 35mm adapter!" videos.