sLog, Cooke 18-100 T3 - Narrative film stills - WHY you need sLog.

Timur, so why buy a Scarlet? I keep reading people talk about how its a lot more trouble than it might be worth and a TON more money than it first appears. With Slog, it just seems like a waste to go much further and the Scarlet's 4K thing is a borderline gimmick IMO.
 
well he runs a business also so I'm guessing it would be better for his business overall to have that as a shooting option for clients.
 
The 4k is no gimmick. Its great for features and commercials. But so is the F3.

Its about options for the business. Way I see it, the scarlet is a great tool because its cost of entry is low, 20k, (ie 25 kit rentals.... and at this point the F3 is already paid for, so any F3 rentals go towards subsidizing the Scarlet) it never have so say "i would need to subrent a RED", and its great for 5K stills.
 
TimurCivan said:
The 4k is no gimmick. Its great for features and commercials. But so is the F3.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Have you truly looked at good 1080 footage in a theater? Lets use Captain America. Do you think anyone in here could tell the difference if it was shot on some 4K system compared to the 1080 it was done with? I will bet a big no on that one.

If it isnt a complete gimmick, it is very close to being one. I say this more about the scarlet because you can only do 24p in 4k, when its windowed it won't look so good for high end work needing higher fps. BTW, what feature or commercial is using this 4K? Seriously?

Bottom line, people LOVE numbers and are blinded by reality.
 
Ummmmm....

#1: Down converted 4k gives the sharpest 1080p, with the lowest aliasing. This is important for product work like fabrics, and textured surfaces. Just did a job for UL (Underwriters Laboratories). Shooting fabrics, and furniture with various products. My F3 exhibited aliasing on the fabric patterns. The RED would show no such aliasing. It's just the nature of downsampling from a much higher resolution source.

#2: When it comes to features.... When projected in 4k, 4k looks better. Period. This doesn't mean 1080 looks soft or bad... it doesn't, but 4k looks sharper when you compare. Watched a 4k Scan/projection of Bladerunner in the Zeigfeld theatre in NYC a few years ago. Knocked my socks off. 4k just looks richer. That said, the DR of sLog makes for more subtle tones than a RED can ever make. It really is dependent on the subject matter. if i were shooting a period piece, and couldn't shoot film, i'd shoot F3/Alexa in a heartbeat. If i were shooting a science fiction film, RED because it has a slicker look.

#3 The 4k From a scarlet looks just as good as the 4k from a R1 MX. How do i know? because the 4k from a scarlet with the MX chip IS the 4k From a R1mx.... Also, What feature or commerical will use "This 4k"? Any feature or commercial i use it on. The scarlet is the same image as R1MX.
 
Again, lets talk about Captain America. 4K would have done nothing for it at all and no one could have seen the difference. What about Drive as another example? Alexa was on that one. Good 1080 is good 1080. If it can do it right the first time, there is no need to downsample while making things overly complex and unreliable. I guess the best DP's that shot those movies, and so many others, are just hooked on other brands.... :shocked:

4K, the best selling point in camera history.
 
Cinesin said:
Again, lets talk about Captain America. 4K would have done nothing for it at all and no one could have seen the difference. What about Drive as another example? Alexa was on that one. Good 1080 is good 1080. If it can do it right the first time, there is no need to downsample while making things overly complex and unreliable. I guess the best DP's that shot those movies, and so many others, are just hooked on other brands.... :shocked:

4K, the best selling point in camera history.
Click to expand...


and if you read the post magazine article on Captain America, you'll see that the post production team had a incredibly difficult time accomplishing most of the effects they wanted to do. Heavy effects work with that kind of budget, resolution is one of your best friends. bigger plates, means more scaling you can do and shifting and augmenting the image. shooting 1080 was one of their biggest hurtles. not to say 4k is the end all be all, but there are merits to every shooting format. there is also the merit of future proofing your material, for re release. because 4k is here, and it's only gonna increase in usability. 4 years ago, 4k was pipe dream, right now 4k doesn't seem that far off now. the projectors are in your standard AMC's, the television panels are being prototyped, and exhibited. so if there is ever a 4k blu ray, a movie that was shot on film and already scanned at 4k and re release and make more money. just like how dvd's had re releases in blu ray in 1080, the studios are making a lot more money now. anything shot directly in standard def back years ago have no chance of a blu ray re release. same applies when 4k is everywhere.

it's not about, is 1080 good enough, it looks great, I saw drive, I saw captain america, they looked wonderful. but the industry has always been about matching and surpassing the gold standard when it comes to making a digital cinema camera. FILM. dynamic range, resolution, "feel" 4k is one piece of the puzzle because that's the inherent resolution of film. with other cameras we've matched the DR, and sensitivity has surpassed film years ago.

whether you agree with the business model or not is mute, that is the model. it's all still a business after all. and just a little more food for thought, even film when scanned at 2k vs scanned at 4k and downsampled to 2k, the 4k scan version always better with increased noticeable quality. digital cameras, internally start at high resolutions and downsample on the fly (super sampling) to achieve the good looking 1080 out of camera, but having the 4k master will always give you more room to work with in every aspect of post production over a 1080 master. it's like trying to say who needs to color correct when we can bake the colors in hard in camera, why bother with raw or log curves? the technology serves as tools of guying filmmakers and professionals options, unhindered with limitations.
 
Hi there. I notice you use a Cooke 18-100 F3. How do you find? I have seen a used one for a good price and am a little interested. I have a Carl Zeiss 50mm and 85mm. The Cooke could replace these for me, and give me more range around the focal lengths as well. I know it's a little slower but can't see this being an issue. Would you see it as a good investment? Appreciate your time and comment. Thanks, Sparky
 
The 18-100 is sharp, beautiful, and for a cine zoom from the 1980's relatively fast. However, It is big, and heavy, and it needs 19mm Rods to support it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top