Sony EX3 or Scarlet

[asauermilch]

Hi everyone! This is my first post as part of DVXuser.com

I am having a hard time deciding whether or not I should buy the Sony EX3 w/ a Red Rock Micro Encore 35mm adapter or wait for Reds Scarlet to be released, hopefully Aug. or Sept.

Is the Sony EX3 a dead end product once the Scarlet surfaces? If I do purchase the Sony and the Scarlet comes out with I even be able to sell it? Should I buy a used Panasonic HVX while I wait, even though P2 cards are more expensive then Sony's tape-less media?

I would very much appreciate it if you guys can give me some advice.

Thanks!
Adam

 

[dadoboy]

If you need to shoot something now, then buy the Sony EX3.
If your project is sometime in the fall or later, just wait and if the Scarlet is released, buy it then. I would think that the first batch of Scarlets will be pretty buggy, so again time is on your side if you can wait.

 

[Max Smith]

This is a question I ask myself continually as well. And ultimately I agree with dadoboy, if you need to shoot soon, might want to get the EX3.

I also agree with the potential buggyness.

Don't get me wrong, I've used the Red before and I love it, I really think it has revolutionized film making not only for what it can do by itself, but because having the Red out there has helped push boundries that led to EX3s, HPX300s and a whole slew of prosumer cameras, but (there's always a but isn't there) the first batch of Reds was a little buggy and lacked a bit of functionality.

Maybe this will also be true of the Scarlett, maybe not.

It's also true that continual delays made the Red start seemed like vaporware there for awhile. Obviously it wasn't and almost as obviously the Scarlett won't be either, but I wouldn't assume a release date even if the company itself has one.

I'm also hoping that when it's released everyone else will step up their game. It will be great if the EX line gets a true 4:2:2 color space, and is able to capture up to 60p (or more while I'm daydreaming) instead of just 60i.

 

[astigmatic]

there wil still be a market for the ex3. I don't think the scarlet will fit the needs of most wedding videographers(and there are a lot of them). Raw and large files, and pulling focus during a bar is just not what many of the want or need.

 

[Vidster]

If you heart is set on the scarlet then wait it out, but do not be disappointed if the camera hits the street months if not years later than you had hoped, Remember the Red one was delayed, delayed again and even if you had an order in the wait was tiring. The comment on the Red site says it all for me do not expect it soon and you wont be disappointed.
Why not hire the Sony ex3 as seen here there it is relatively cost effective and means you can continue to shoot on a good camera untill the Scarlet is readily available at £85 a day you cant go wrong and your not going to loose any money on an EX3 should you buy one.

 

[GuyB]

Unless things change a lot, I don't see the point to Scarlet, its all just hype. The only thing of value it has is its codec and over cranked frame rates.

1: Single 2/3" sensor vs 3x 1/2", I'd rather 3x 1/2" thanks
2: Fixed wide low zoom vs option of fixed or changable wide decent zoom lens
3: Impossible to record for extended continuous recordings vs easy & now cheap
4: Next to no difference between 1080p & 2K
5: Large sensor variant (eg Super 35) are still smaller than the sensor on the 5DMKII yet Scarlet with this sensor iwill be significantly more expensive.

Remind me why I would want to shoot with Scarlet over an EX1 or EX3?

 

[Barry_Green]

Because a fixed-lens scarlet is 1/3 the price. Or, for the same price, you can get an interchangeable-lens one, with a Super35 frame size, S35 depth of field, 5K resolution, 72fps slow-mo, etc. IF the Scarlet comes out and if it does all that it says it will as the description stands today*, I can certainly see it having a place in the market as an alternative to an EX3.

Frankly I think the competition for the Scarlet is the GH1. For that same sensor size and interchangeable lens capability, you're getting a unit at 1/5 the price of the Scarlet. No it doesn't do all the same things, but ... at 1/5 the price, I think many indie buyers will be plenty satisfied with what it does.


*with the understanding that every specification is subject to change, so the page on red.com I'm taking this info from may or may not have any bearing on the final product

 

[Nanometers]

I viewed a controlled A/B between the EX1 and The RED at 2k by a third party rental house shortly after the EX1 came out. The EX1 looked drastically sharper than the RED. The RED had better color reproduction but that I think can be dialed in with the EX1/3's controls.

 

[Barry_Green]

Any camera can be mishandled. A Red produces 3.2k worth of detail, as verified in independent tests. When properly handled it will produce a sharper picture than any HD camera.

 

[Buck Forester]

RAW files are not sharp out of the camera, they need to be tweaked to desire, which is why I'm guessing the EX1 looked so much sharper.

I agree with the others... if you *need* a camera now I'd get the EX3, if not you might as well see what the Scarlet may have to offer, as well as other offerings that will be available. That said, it'd be tough be beat the EX3 for what it is in this price range.

 

[Nanometers]

Any camera can be mishandled.

Possible, not likely. The test was done by a group of feature film veterans, we also looked at 16mm, 35mm, F23 and F900 all under the same conditions.

As mentioned we were looking at 2k RED footage. Are you saying it produces 3.2k in 2k mode?

RAW files are not sharp out of the camera, they need to be tweaked to desire, which is why I'm guessing the EX1 looked so much sharper.

That sounds like the reason but is the EX1 not close to 2k at 1920? The RED 4k footage was better to my eye than 35mm. So based on the non-sharpened RAW footage idea would it be accurate to say that 4k, although not sharpened, looked sharper than EX1 by virtue of so much more raw data rather than by being in an unprocessed state.

 

[GuyB]

Because a fixed-lens scarlet is 1/3 the price.

But for 1/3" the price of that again I can get a HDV handy cam. Price is only one aspect and if your comparing fixed lens you have to compare to the EX1, not the EX3 which makes it 1/2. The question is what you gain vs what you loose for that price difference.

Or, for the same price, you can get an interchangeable-lens one, with a Super35 frame size, S35 depth of field, 5K resolution, 72fps slow-mo, etc. IF the Scarlet comes out and if it does all that it says it will as the description stands today*, I can certainly see it having a place in the market as an alternative to an EX3.

How do I delivery 5K (or even 4K or 2K)? I appreciate the slow-mo advantage (really like the 120fps of the base model), but don't see the point in more than 1080p unless your going out to film, which I and most never will in the life of something like scarlet. I'd much rather a S35/FF35 1080p with great sensitivity & everything else that comes with those large pixels ;-)

Maybe things have changed, but the last time I saw the prices for the S35, the body price alone was more than the EX3, forget the lens etc. Hence why the future of large single sensor cameras seems more likely to come from the DSLR domain where the prices are much lower and sensors even bigger.

I just checked, US$7K for the 'brains only'. What else is needed and how much will it cost? In the old market $7K is very cheap, but in the new market with the 5D etc comming along seems expensive for just a APS-C sized sensor. Its a real dilema.

Frankly I think the competition for the Scarlet is the GH1. For that same sensor size and interchangeable lens capability, you're getting a unit at 1/5 the price of the Scarlet. No it doesn't do all the same things, but ... at 1/5 the price, I think many indie buyers will be plenty satisfied with what it does.

I agree. Scarlet looked great when it was origonally pitched as a single S35 sensor for under $3k with lens etc but that never happend. It needs to if Canon/Nikon etc take their video features more seriously in their future DSLRs. If Nikon attack the 5D in a model soon with some decent video features & HDMI out then Scarlet will suffer big time, if they don't then Scarlet might have more than just a neiche market.

Still, I don't see the decision being one of Scarlet vs EX. I see Scarlet more in a complementary role to a camera like an EX. If all you owned was a Scarlet then your production abilities would be more limited.

 

[Barry_Green]

Possible, not likely. The test was done by a group of feature film veterans, we also looked at 16mm, 35mm, F23 and F900 all under the same conditions.

Several people conducted tests where they were looking at the monitor output. That's totally the wrong way to evaluate a Red. If that's what they were doing, they didn't see it right at all.

As mentioned we were looking at 2k RED footage. Are you saying it produces 3.2k in 2k mode?

No, in "2K" mode it delivers a little more than 720p resolution. Which, again, would go to show an EX1 being far sharper. In 4K mode it makes 3.2k worth of res, and the downconverted 2K from that should be noticeably cleaner and sharper than any HD camera short of something like an HPX3000.

 

[Barry_Green]

If all you owned was a Scarlet then your production abilities would be more limited.

I tried saying that when the Red One was introduced, and it was not a popular stance to take. A correct one, but not popular.

Well, to be fair, we don't know your statement to be true with the Scarlet, because we don't know anything about it yet. Since those brochures were published, we've been told that everything changed again. It may be a cinema-only product, or it may very well end up doing everything an EX3 can do, and more -- we don't know. We don't know when it'll come out, or what it'll actually cost, or how available it will be, or what it will do.

All we know is that all prices and specifications are subject to change, and apparently have changed substantially.

 

[Max Smith]

I tried saying that when the Red One was introduced, and it was not a popular stance to take. A correct one, but not popular.

Well, to be fair, we don't know your statement to be true with the Scarlet, because we don't know anything about it yet. Since those brochures were published, we've been told that everything changed again. It may be a cinema-only product, or it may very well end up doing everything an EX3 can do, and more -- we don't know. We don't know when it'll come out, or what it'll actually cost, or how available it will be, or what it will do.

All we know is that all prices and specifications are subject to change, and apparently have changed substantially.

This is pretty much my stance as well. The Red One is a great camera, really, but it is a feature film camera and it needs the same kind of support (in terms of camera department and post facilities) that a film camera does. Outisde of switching out the loader for a DIT, and dealing with RAW workflow over having to telecine, everything else is roughly equal. But it was pretty much meant to be a cost effective feature camera, so no harm no foul... it just wasn't the second coming everyone made it out to be.

My gut tells me Scarlett is going to be an awesome camera, but like Barry said, too many unknowns at this point to sit around holding my breath for one.

 

[cheezweezl]

ex vs. scarlet?

my answer, both.

when it comes down to it, the ex or any "video" cam will be better for some applications than the scarlet. of course, nobody really knows what scarlet will be exactly. but based on red one, the scarlet will most likely not be a cam you can pull out of your bag, turn it on and be recording in a few seconds. no good for weddings or any eng type shoot. will kick the ex's butt at controlled cinema style shooting if the post is handled correctly. it's true, red raw looks somewhat soft even looking at it at 100% on a computer screen. it has to be processed to get the sharpness out of it. some people won't have the capacity, time, or patience to deal with 4k or 5k raw in post. it's a pain compared to any video format.

now that i have my ex1/m2e rig dialed, i am getting very red-like footage. and since most of what i do is for SDTV and web only, 1080p is more than enough rez. i have strayed away from red on some projects just because it's really overkill. my rig is so much easier to handle on set and in post. so if the job can be done just as well with my rig i will skip renting red.

of course i will buy a s35 scarlet first chance i get but will always keep a video cam as well. i think most shooters who mix cinema style gigs with corporate gigs as i do will feel the same and hang on to their video cams.

 

[astigmatic]

now that i have my ex1/m2e rig dialed, i am getting very red-like footage. and since most of what i do is for SDTV and web only, 1080p is more than enough rez

And it's enough for theatres as well. The xh-a1 and tiny canon HF consumer cam proved that with Crank 2.

 

[Huy Vu]

I don't think Scarlet vs. EX3 is a valid question, simply because the EX3 is here now and the Scarlet is not. I've said it before and I'll say it again: even if Scarlet is released on time (which I doubt), you're not going to be able to get your hand on one for at least six months to a year after that. The waiting list will be a mile long and RED simply doesn't have the kind of distribution arms that Canon/Sony/Panasonic has. By then there might well be other cameras on the market that complicates the equation, or more likely the price of an EX3 would have fallen to the point where it becomes a much more attractive option.

 

[Nanometers]

Well, to be fair, we don't know your statement to be true with the Scarlet, because we don't know anything about it yet.

This is why I'd go with the EX3 as well (personally, I would go with EX1) because you know what you're dealing with. With the Scarlett it's a roll of the dice right now as far capabilities and limitations.

Several people conducted tests where they were looking at the monitor output. That's totally the wrong way to evaluate a Red. If that's what they were doing, they didn't see it right at all.

Maybe they were hopped up on RED fever. Clearly that's no way to test any camera unless your final output extends no further than the live output of the camera. When the words "film", "A/B" and "controlled" are used in testing I should hope a monitor output is not a part of the final image evaluation. All footage went through as equalized a chain as possible and projected on, if I recall, a 15' or 20' screen... it was a while ago.

 

[GuyB]

I tried saying that when the Red One was introduced, and it was not a popular stance to take. A correct one, but not popular.

Well, to be fair, we don't know your statement to be true with the Scarlet, because we don't know anything about it yet. Since those brochures were published, we've been told that everything changed again. It may be a cinema-only product, or it may very well end up doing everything an EX3 can do, and more -- we don't know. We don't know when it'll come out, or what it'll actually cost, or how available it will be, or what it will do.

All we know is that all prices and specifications are subject to change, and apparently have changed substantially.

Yep, its vapourware until you can actually buy it, which is part of the reason I lost interest. All this hype about literally nothing. I'll take a whole lot of interest when I see it in stock at B&H.

To me the major limitation of the design was a lack of a long form codec and the limited zoom of the fixed lens. If that is addressed then the versatility of the camera could increase 10 fold. The codec is an easy one, simply put match XDCAM EX format. MPG2 is an open standard so they could implement a full raster MPG2 35Mbps codec without licencing SxS. I hope they avoid AVCHD though, too difficult to edit without transcoding. If you want 'quality' over 'quantity' then you use their RED RAW of course. At least you get to decide.

The lens is more challenging but I often find the EX lens far from long enough so for much of what I do I can't see a Scarlet fixed lens unit being an option. Perhaps if they could achieve a native crop digital zoom on a high res sensor so quality was maintained but more zoom achieved at say 1080p then it 'might' help. All depends on how much...