Scarlet Announcement

dcloud said:
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.
Click to expand...

How many times most of us had the frustration of taking a frame grab from a HD camera and realizing how crappy it really is?

I think that's not the right way to look at it.

The right way would be: RED video capabilities are so good that you can just use a frame as a still photo, specially on the S35 versions.

2/3" Scarlet would do for ok photos.
 
killacam said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the "Sexiest Woman" Kate Beckinsale? I think that is definitely a case of "Content" over technique! :2vrolijk_08:
 
Jason Ramsey said:
I (personally) am more concerned with how clean the image is across its range vs. "how low can it go".
Click to expand...

I just came back from an Indie film festival and the difference between the DSLR flims and the Red films was not subtle. Let's ignore moire, Jason put his finger on the thing that was most obvious. The DSLR films suffered whenever the lighting was less than optimal, shadow etc., but with the Red films there was much less color breakup and much cleaner images throughout the range. I found myself wondering if a clean image was really much more important than shallow DOF. To my eye the answer is yes. I think that the eye is drawn naturally to distortion so get rid of that before you can optimize the image.

After viewing both DSLR and Red films in the same night, I now wonder if those of us on the lower end of the DSLR bandwagon might end up changing ships to favor clean images over shallow DOF. With our budget, and today's technology, we can have one or the other, but not both.
 
Last edited:
yeah, I just checked it out now- sweet video (and I'm not exactly talking about the camera). I got distracted somehow from pixel peeping. cool that it's maybe the first major video shot with the mysterium x though. and lucky guy dvxuser.com founder jarred land is- he got to be ASSistant cameraman
 
chrislancaster said:
I cant confirm but over on scarlet user they are saying it has the tripod mounts on the bottom


the fixed scarlet is smaller than a canon hfs10 ? or similiar size if so no thanks .. i like the idea of having the red one size just cheaper

The idea of a "glove" or another organic way of controlling the cam is crazy and I love it would be awesome to see the director ..

standing there waving his arms like a conductor of a symphony because in many ways he is ..
:grin::grin:
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you'd want to have a camera the size of the REDONE. its frickin massive and heavy (especially after a long day of HH). :kali::shocked:

Then again, the weight does help with the steadyness of the shots.

__
Peter Mosiman
pmosiman@bluelightproject.com
 
Red4Breakfast said:
I don't understand why you'd want to have a camera the size of the REDONE. its frickin massive and heavy (especially after a long day of HH). :kali::shocked:

Then again, the weight does help with the steadyness of the shots.

__
Peter Mosiman
pmosiman@bluelightproject.com
Click to expand...

I was talking to a DP who owns a RedOne. He showed me great, wonderful, shots that he took in the desert. I asked how he got his rig there. He told me that his backback with camera and accessories was about 65 lbs (30Kg). Not sure if that included water and cooling packs.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Help me if I'm wrong guys....this is my understanding of low light and it's indirect realtionship to aperature. (Also....I agree with Jason that "dynamic range" is actually a more accurate description of what we're ALL looking for. Low light is only a component of that) OK....low light capability is made up of several factors:
1. Sensor/technology/sensitivity - some chips/technology are better at it...what can you say?

2. Sensor SIZE - This is a little tricky, because size ALONE doesn't equal light sensitivity, BUT, the SAME sensor technology on two cameras (all else being equal), one smaller, one larger, the larger chip/camera SHOULD have greater light sensitivity.

3. Lens/aperature - OK...if we take the same camera model, even the same lens....on two different cameras. Open one camera (lens) up to 1.5 the other camera (lens) up to 3.5...less light makes it through the lens....(the windows to our house have shutters, we have them closed by 50% more....less light makes it in to our living room)

4. ISO - to continue from the example in number 3....you COULD make the 3.5 camera (lens) appear to capture as much light by raising the ISO. The risk, is that the image will now have more "grain"....and other artifacts. The new Canon 1d Mark iv, is exceptional in this area. That is to say that it's ISO can be set INSANELY HIGH...and still capture an image. In addition to this, it's acceptable range is MUCH HIGHER. So....if the Scarlet (fixed) has a chip that allows INSANELY high ISO without the NOISE....great! It will still be less capable in low light than the other Scarlet with a more wide open Aperture. But...the lower F-stops means that ....all things being equal, switching lenses on the OTHER Scarlet (interchangeable lenses), with faster lenses (wider open aperture)....it WILL have a LOW LIGHT advantage.

Hey DVXUsers....please correct me where/if I'm wrong. That's my understanding....I could be wrong.

Also....quick question....with the D90, I can't change the shutter speed (in video mode)....how does this impact the image? (I know how frame rate impacts the image, ...no low light implications, just slow mo....) I'm not sure about shutter speed, (as far as video....I know the impact in photography)...

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.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the Kate Beckinsdale video.

I saw another posting here where someone saw a film festival or something and said that the difference was NOT subtle. I'm sure that, (to simplify), the LARGER THE SCREEN....the MORE OBVIOUS the difference. I agree. However....I haven't "arrived" at the stage of my career that this is even an option....online has been my primary deploy/dist. So...has ANYONE seen ANYTHING ---ONLINE---- that the Red Camera(s) look 50% better than a DSLR?

I'm NOT saying it's NOT possible....I'm just saying that I haven't seen it. I can see 15% or 10%....I just haven't seen anything ----ONLINE----- that blows me away...(comparatively). Again...I'm NOT saying it isn't out there....I'm actually asking to SEE IT. Again....I WANT to be tempted. I WANT to be digging out my check book this time next year....so I appreciate anyone's help on this.

ps...you guys rock!
 
chrislancaster said:
I cant confirm but over on scarlet user they are saying it has the tripod mounts on the bottom


the fixed scarlet is smaller than a canon hfs10 ? or similiar size if so no thanks .. i like the idea of having the red one size just cheaper

The idea of a "glove" or another organic way of controlling the cam is crazy and I love it would be awesome to see the director ..

standing there waving his arms like a conductor of a symphony because in many ways he is ..
:grin::grin:
Click to expand...

hey christian, this has been an idea i've been toying with for a while now, and that's gesturally controlling a capture device. Wearing it is quite far fetched, but control i think is really possible. text me if you wanna read some notes.

You would like the RED one's size? I think its biggest plus is its small size. I like small, its good for beirut.

Cheers

T
 
HHL said:
Help me if I'm wrong guys....this is my understanding of low light and it's indirect realtionship to aperature. (Also....I agree with Jason that "dynamic range" is actually a more accurate description of what we're ALL looking for. Low light is only a component of that) OK....low light capability is made up of several factors:
1. Sensor/technology/sensitivity - some chips/technology are better at it...what can you say?

2. Sensor SIZE - This is a little tricky, because size ALONE doesn't equal light sensitivity, BUT, the SAME sensor technology on two cameras (all else being equal), one smaller, one larger, the larger chip/camera SHOULD have greater light sensitivity.

3. Lens/aperature - OK...if we take the same camera model, even the same lens....on two different cameras. Open one camera (lens) up to 1.5 the other camera (lens) up to 3.5...less light makes it through the lens....(the windows to our house have shutters, we have them closed by 50% more....less light makes it in to our living room)

4. ISO - to continue from the example in number 3....you COULD make the 3.5 camera (lens) appear to capture as much light by raising the ISO. The risk, is that the image will now have more "grain"....and other artifacts. The new Canon 1d Mark iv, is exceptional in this area. That is to say that it's ISO can be set INSANELY HIGH...and still capture an image. In addition to this, it's acceptable range is MUCH HIGHER. So....if the Scarlet (fixed) has a chip that allows INSANELY high ISO without the NOISE....great! It will still be less capable in low light than the other Scarlet with a more wide open Aperture. But...the lower F-stops means that ....all things being equal, switching lenses on the OTHER Scarlet (interchangeable lenses), with faster lenses (wider open aperture)....it WILL have a LOW LIGHT advantage.

Hey DVXUsers....please correct me where/if I'm wrong. That's my understanding....I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not any kind of expert, but from what I understand sensor size helps low light sensitivity mainly because it allows for the photosites (or pixels) to be bigger. However if you cram more pixels onto a sensor you have to make them smaller and sacrifice low light for resolution. The Scarlet has 4.9 megapixels on its 2/3" sensor while most of the DSLRs have around 20 (most of which don't get used for video). Now the DSLRs will likely still have better low light sensitivity but I'm pretty sure the 2.5 stops reference is only an estimate for what the aperture setting would have to be on both cameras to achieve similar DOF. It does not actually mean there is a 2.5 stop difference in terms of sensitivity.

As far as ISO, Red's Jim Jannard said that 800 is the new ISO 320, which means that he believes there is now the same amount of noise at 800 on the new sensor as there was at 320 on the Red One. This might be referring to the sensor on the S35 and above though I don't know.

And if dynamic range is what we're all looking for, unfortunately traditional cameras still have most of the DSLRs beat.
 
haha working with camera prototypes does seem a little dry compared to filming celebrities running around in their underwear.
 
I have to say, I'm still very interested in the 2/3 Scarlet, even after all this delay.

I expected it to be bigger, but I like the size. I'm often a one-man band type of shooter, or if I have a crew, I don't have a big one. I want a good camera that is not a pain in the arse to transport and setup, especially if I'm by myself. Still surprised to see it sitting next to that Nikon D3.

My biggest concern is low light and DOF on the 2/3 fixed lens version, but overall it looks and sounds (spec-wise) very good.

I think my original plan still stands. First get one of the two versions of the 2/3 Scarlets, then use it for a year or two and upgrade to the S35 or better Scarlet brain plus accessories. Of course, its still a while before anybody gets their hands on any of the Scarlets or Epics, so I guess I'll just have to be patient.

philiplipetz said:
I just came back from an Indie film festival and the difference between the DSLR flims and the Red films was not subtle. Let's ignore moire, Jason put his finger on the thing that was most obvious. The DSLR films suffered whenever the lighting was less than optimal, shadow etc., but with the Red films there was much less color breakup and much cleaner images throughout the range. I found myself wondering if a clean image was really much more important than shallow DOF. To my eye the answer is yes. I think that the eye is drawn naturally to distortion so get rid of that before you can optimize the image.

After viewing both DSLR and Red films in the same night, I now wonder if those of us on the lower end of the DSLR bandwagon might end up changing ships to favor clean images over shallow DOF. With our budget, and today's technology, we can have one or the other, but not both.
Click to expand...

This is definitely something I've been thinking about. Granted, I still think the DSLR's (Canon's and Panasonic's in particular) offer great results for what they are, basically photo cameras with a generous HD video mode thrown in.

But at the same time, when if comes down to it, I think many might want to deal with 2/3 + exceptional image quality/120 fps over 35mm DOF. And like I mentioned above, for those that can't jump on an S35 Scarlet right away, they can always opt for the 2/3 one and then upgrade a year or two later to one of the higher end models. I look at as, we've waited for 35mm DOF for so long, another year isn't going to kill most of us... save for those doing a feature film, then I could see wanting to stretch the funds to get an S35 Scarlet.
 
Last edited:
Nektonic said:
I think my original plan still stands. First get one of the two versions of the 2/3 Scarlets, then use it for a year or two and upgrade to the S35 or better Scarlet brain plus accessories.
Click to expand...

A lot of people are pointing out that the fixed Red Scarlet package has approx. $3K in required accessories that can be taken off the fixed Scarlet and transfered to higher level cams. So that is becoming an upgrade path.

Of course, the accessories are all the basic version of tools that can be purchased in more complex versions. Still, it is an interesting idea, so that you only lose a small amount on an upgrade, and can eventually have a module for a b-cam when you upgrade further and have extra accessories.
 
philiplipetz said:
A lot of people are pointing out that the fixed Red Scarlet package has approx. $3K in required accessories that can be taken off the fixed Scarlet and transfered to higher level cams. So that is becoming an upgrade path.
Click to expand...

Not bad. I didn't think of that aspect.

And you're right, some of the included gear with the 2/3 fixed are the more basic ones, but as long as it does what I need, I'm satisfied.

I do have to add one caveat... the rumored Canon EOS mount APS-C video camera that is supposed to be announced next year. It was rumored that it will be priced at around $7,000. The recent price increase on the Scarlet 2/3 fixed has brought it a bit close to the possible Canon competitor. I would assume that Canon would have to iron out some of the issues with the video modes on their DSLR's with a dedicated video camera. Of course, it is still gonna be limited to 1080p and with a lesser quality codec, even if it is a much better one than the current crop of DSLR's use. And then probably no 120 fps modes, so the Scarlet should still stand out pretty well if Canon does release something to compete with it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top