Scarlett what? Scarlett who?

[Barry_Green]

I don't know Barry. I think there are going to be a lot of people that would take a $5,000 professional RAW 2/3" camera over a cheaper but S35 sized sensor camera with many limitations.

We'll see. I think the AF100 will hit about the same time as the 2/3" Scarlet, and we'll have a direct comparison: much larger sensor, vs. Raw recorder. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

As soon as they are available to buy I'm throwing the 7D out the window for video work and going 2/3' Scarlet. A trade in DoF I will gladly make for the video performance/price.

I already got rid of my 7D, but I don't know if I'd go for a 2/3" Scarlet. I guess it really depends... if they said "under no circumstances will we produce a Scarlet any bigger than 2/3" then I could give up on the dream of the S35 Scarlet and instead evaluate the 2/3" model more seriously. But if the choice is small-chip with proprietary lenses that cost $1,000 apiece, or large-chip with every SLR lens mount available and $60 lenses coming out of your ears, at about the same price, I think the AF100 wins that one easily.

 

[Barry_Green]

All these sub 5 thousand dollar cameras, AF100, DSLRS, whatever, don't even come close. And why 4k and beyond you ask?

Eh, we'll see. I just don't see the clamoring for 4K raw. That's Red's major selling point, of course, and for hollywood films it does have its advantages, but ... let's be real, people are using the most ridiculously compromised imaging systems out there -- the DSLR has aliasing, moire, an 8-bit long-GoP codec that's worse than HDV, 4:2:0 color sampling, and compromised resolution that barely ekes out 720p worth of res in its "1080p" mode.

And, to read the forums, they're deliriously happy with it.

Remember when Red was originally going to offer a true raw output, instead of Redcode Raw (well, in *addition* to Redcode Raw)? A fiber-optic output module? I think it cost something like $6500, and required an array of hard disks to record it, and people said "meh, forget it, we'll just use redcode raw instead".

If Canon offered a raw recorder add-on to the 7D, and it cost $6500, would you buy it? As much as people may complain, I think when that much rubber hits the road, they'll say "naw, I'll stick with what I've got."

Is 4K/raw really that much of a selling point, to the mass consumer?

I guess we'll see, when the AF100 and Scarlet 2/3" face off. We'll have the choice of large sensor and AVCCAM recording, vs. 3K redraw with a much smaller sensor.

I think the markets have spoken pretty loudly though. I mean, I've been one saying "as soon as a decent video camera alternative appears, people will ditch these DSLRs like hot potatoes" and now folks are saying "no we won't, we LIKE the DSLR."

I am an advocate for quality over compromise. I'd rather have an S35 Scarlet than any of the DSLRs, by a million times. I hate compromising on quality (hence why I gave up on the 7D). But... I'm not talking here about what I'D buy, I'm trying to see where the overall market is going to go. And given the adoption of the DSLRs, it really seems to me that large sensor trumps all other concerns, so why introduce a new (comparatively) small-sensor cam?

 

[xmephestox]

I don't know. I still think unless you need the very high resolution for comp or sfx work, the allure of extra high resolution becomes really, just that - allure. Like it's a selling point for people who don't understand that they'll either end up throwing away most of those pixels or for people who think their low budget film will somehow become more desirable to an audience at 4K.

I've seen DV features projected, HD features projected as SD, film features projected as SD, and Varicam features projected on film. And as of yet, I've not heard any reviewers or audience members comment on the resolution.

Will 4K films look amazing projected in full resolution? I guess so - IF they look amazing to begin with.

.

And yet people still strive for the best image they can, cause it's our own personal perfectionism that pushes us to make better material. Image quality included. People still appreciate a good looking picture, even if they don't know what they are looking at. It's still a combination of personal talent/skill and equipment doing what you want it to do. I think it's human nature to always want better, and as much as we wish our material is shown in its best state possible, sometimes it's not the case, but with 4k projection we may have a chance at getting now.

@ erik

i rephrase. cheapest DIGITAL cinema class camera.

 

[Chris Santucci]

I think it's human nature to always want better, and as much as we wish our material is shown in its best state possible, sometimes it's not the case, but with 4k projection we may have a chance at getting now.

Uh huh. And when low budget filmmakers start seeing every glorious fabric wrinkle. Every zit. Every facial crease and blemish. Every piece of showcard and gaff tape covering something in the background. And every spec of dust, lint, dandruff, and dander in glorious 4K resolution on the big screen - then what?

Will the hightened resolution force filmmakers to be more disciplined? I don't think that's even the issue because then you're talking about the TIME (which IS money) it takes to ensure that ALL that 4K resolution isn't going to showoff your low budget better. At low budget ranges, I'd say 4K or even 2K becomes something else entirely.

At what point is high res too high? How about 6K, or 10K resolution? Is it better because there's more of it? I don't think so.

.

 

[Huy Vu]

It's hilarious that there's a ton of response on a thread original started by a troll who was banned. Mbala is none other than jacotte.

 

[Bobonli]

It's hilarious that there's a ton of response on a thread original started by a troll who was banned. Mbala is none other than jacotte.

Formerly jujufactory. What was his name before that?

This sure looks like the nail in the coffin.......

 

[Jason Ramsey]

Does anyone actively WANT a 2/3" sensor anymore?

I do... well, it's not so much that I *want* a 2/3" sensor as it is that the size of the sensor is further down my list... if it were a 1/3" sensor? sure.. I wouldn't be interested... but, 2/3" is a very practical format to me, and, like I said, sensor size is further down my list of priorities...

 

[Barry_Green]

I do... well, it's not so much that I *want* a 2/3" sensor as it is that the size of the sensor is further down my list... if it were a 1/3" sensor? sure.. I wouldn't be interested... but, 2/3" is a very practical format to me, and, like I said, sensor size is further down my list of priorities...

See, but that's interesting to me. Everyone seems to be mesmerized by sensor size. MESMERIZED. People were advocating using the 5D over the 7D, even when the 5D was 30.000p-only, and the only advantage the 5D has was the bigger sensor. They'd put up with post-synthesizing 24p out of 30p (a process which is not all that functional) just so they could get the bigger sensor.

I love studying markets and seeing what people adopt. I just can't see how the film community will go down in sensor size, under the old phrase "you can't keep 'em on the farm once they've seen paris". people seem to be willing to sacrifice pretty much everything in order to get that sensor size.

Earlier I said something that doesn't quite work -- I said that the Scarlet would be to the Epic, like 16mm was to 35mm. But the thing is -- nobody uses 16mm as a b-cam to 35mm. If you want a b-cam to a 35mm camera, you use a 35mm camera. If you need a crash-cam for a 35mm camera, you don't use 16mm, you use an Eyemo (an old WWII 35mm wind-up camera). "Godzilla" used something like two dozen Eyemos for explosion coverage and crash-cam usage...

Anyway, it'll be fascinating to see how this all turns out.

 

[Erik Olson]

I love Paris in the springtime. I don't think the large-sensor-lovers are going to be eager to go back into the smaller sensor bottle. If RED really does deliver a full specification 2/3" ~3k lump for less than $6k with everything but blank media cards, Panasonic is going to have their work cut out for them.

I want AVC-Intra50/100 and P2 built into the AF100. Those two options would make it a slam-dunk decision for me and the type of work I do day in and day out and would give me just enough camera to easily dabble in commercial, music video and narrative work on the side - without feeling like I'd compromised.

DSLRs, in their current state, feel like a big compromise to me. The codecs are a joke and that is my central complaint. Most other issues seem to be resolving themselves through firmware or next-generation updates.

Scarlet is going to be stiff competition because the codec is going to be fantastic. RED seems hellbent on giving lots of choices and codec isn't the one area you should skimp on. Got that Panasonic?

 

[Carlos Corral]

See, but that's interesting to me. Everyone seems to be mesmerized by sensor size. MESMERIZED. People were advocating using the 5D over the 7D, even when the 5D was 30.000p-only, and the only advantage the 5D has was the bigger sensor. They'd put up with post-synthesizing 24p out of 30p (a process which is not all that functional) just so they could get the bigger sensor.

This happen to me a while back when the DP for a music video opted for the 5D with 30p instead of using an HPX170 Redrock system simply because he wanted the sensor size and DOF and less grain in his shots. Of course, he left the editor (myself) to conform everything to 24p, of which I didn't like how it came out. Converting everything to ProRes isn't the answer either.

But once again, its these so called "DPs" who make the camera market move. They don't care about color space, ease of use, codec, editing process, etc. They just want that Sensor Size & DOF and leave it up to us post peeps to make it look worth a damn.

Sorry just had to vent that out.

 

[djbobbyrhodes]

Framing and croping 4k and 5k footage can be a huge help to the VFX gurus out there. Think about the possibilities!

Get your locked down footage and add in your camera movements in post. A shot that would take forever to track or rotoscope due to camera movement can all be done from a locked down shot. This has my gears a turnin'.

 

[TheMusician]

I agree with Barry that one of the most interesting differences between the Scarlet 2/3 camera and the AF100 is sensor size. People really want that shallow DOF, want to use still lenses, want interchangeable lenses, and so the size of the sensor here is key. If this is what really interests you, the AF100 will be the camera for you.

On the other hand, a lot of famous movies have been shot on 2/3" cameras, so it may be a little harder to get what you want from the format but it is doable. But despite it's smaller sensor, I think that there are a couple of other factors that the Scarlet 2/3 offers that keep this from being all about sensor size.

- Higher resolution which allows for re-framing or noise reduction by scaling
- 120 frames per second for true hi-res slow motion
- ramping frame rates, a pro feature not offered on any camera in this bracket
- small enough form factor with wi-fi remotes and high enough resolutions to make a fantastic 3D B-camera, which is the rave right now.
- RAW which, let's be fair, offers a lot more color manipulation than standard AVC
- arguably better green screen results for 1080 due to higher color channel resolution once it is scaled down from 3k to 1080
- likely to have better skew performance with CMOS as RED has been working very hard on sensor technology and the early Panasonics were poor in this area
relatively

If it is was only about sensor size, then there is no doubt that the Panasonic would win. But I have to make the arguement that there are so many other pro features that the Scarlet offers to make the arguement that it will be about more than sensor size in this case.

So most importantly, we will have to see how well Panasonic listens to the suggestions being made in the AF100 thread to see if they offer any of these features that will ship standard with Scarlet to the AF100. Then the competition will heat up.

 

[ROne]

I don't know. I still think unless you need the very high resolution for comp or sfx work, the allure of extra high resolution becomes really, just that - allure. Like it's a selling point for people who don't understand that they'll either end up throwing away most of those pixels or for people who think their low budget film will somehow become more desirable to an audience at 4K.

I've seen DV features projected, HD features projected as SD, film features projected as SD, and Varicam features projected on film. And as of yet, I've not heard any reviewers or audience members comment on the resolution.

Will 4K films look amazing projected in full resolution? I guess so - IF they look amazing to begin with.

.

We just bought our first RedOne; we've happily worked and still work with a 301, 171 and 200. P2 is still king for workflow and the majority of our clients.

However with Red and 4K once you own the kit and have the workflow and storage sorted, there are very few downsides if your priority is picture quality.

We followed the path of BETACAM-DVX-HVX-HPX+LETUS , and I felt the adapter was awkward, limiting and 'playing at it'. In other words get a R1 if you want to do this 'look' properly.

The very fact that you can see the difference between 4K and 2K on the timeline tells you all you need to know. You have the quality if you need it. RED is more than resolution and when you see it - you get it. Whether it's the tool for you is a completely different question.

I also bought a GH1 for holidays and whilst great for the money I think these cameras are a little bogus, they don't make half the quality that has been alluded to . And have lost interest in the vDSLR concept. But for the money ...

So for us, it's R1 for big projects and creative stuff and the HPX301,171 for corporate stuff where we need to work quickly and reliably. So we own two types of kit.

I guess the Scarlet is supposed to bridge this gap. That's why it's relevant.

 

[Postmaster]

A lot of folks are obsessed with resolution sensor size and DOF.

So how much resolution do we need?
It depends of a combination of screen size, distance to screen and the human eye.
You can research the numbers and make an calculator for that. No Voodoo.
There is one sweet spot where more resolution is just a waste of resources.
And yes, there are some situations where you want more resolution to do things in post, but if you plan your shooting well this will be seldom.

Sensor size.
Bigger sensors with less photo-sites need less light and make less noise. period.
You are able to step down to f8, still get nice DOF without noise - so getting the most out of your glass instead of shooting wide open all the time as with a smaller sensor. That´s why I want an FF.

The Scarlet FF promises all that, a great latitude and a friendly RAW codec.
If it is not coming out, you still have the DRAMA that Otis is developing.
2/3 but uncompressed (even better than RAW) and cheap sharp glass plus cheap huge media of the shelf.

That`s why I`d buy a Drama over a 2/3 Scarlet any day.

my ct2

Frank

 

[Carlos Corral]

A lot of folks are obsessed with resolution sensor size and DOF.

Na, just DPs. Editors only care about the ease of use of the codec. DVCPROHD, AVC-INTRA are the standard for us. RED's workflow is more intensive but worth it.