Scarlet 3k 2/3" DOF

[Gary Stone]

if the 5d mkII is what you're comparing to ANY version of the scarlet, you're forgetting one very important thing: REDCODE RAW. i'd rather have more resolution and color depth thank you very much!

[gskowal]

I do hope Fixed lens Scarlet will have a shallow DOF good enough for feature/indie movies. Please dont ruin my dreams.. I cant afford s35 yet...

[brainburst]

A 2/3" sensor won't cut it unless it's pretty wide open. You can maybe fake this with filters and a long focal length lens from a distance. But a larger sensor would be so much better.

I just don't get this choice at all. On all fronts it's more cost effective to have a larger sensor with the same pixel density. Better s/n dynamic range, nicer depth of field, more forgiving of glass. I'm sure everyone here knows that there isn't a lot of glass around that will resolve 3k on a 2/3 sensor! There's plenty of glass that will do the job on a 35mm sized sensor.

[jetaddiction]

so the 2/3 sensor with a nikon mount .will just crop the center of the lens. losing 1/3 around the edges? no with that nikon 35mm 1.4 must get the 1.4 dof that lens provides? not as much as full sensor. tecnically the cone of confusion is the same through the lens . wouldn,t that give the same dof but cropped? not unlike the 35mm adapters work but cropped? help .

[Stuart English]

Its very simple. 2/3" is a low cost "Digital S16" and the same image size as a Sony F900 and F23.

So what's not to like or lacking that prevents you shooting documentaries, news inserts, sports, regional commercials and yes of course independent films?

[gskowal]

Its very simple. 2/3" is a low cost "Digital S16" and the same image size as a Sony F900 and F23.

So what's not to like or lacking that prevents you shooting documentaries, news inserts, sports, regional commercials and yes of course independent films?

S16 is not bad.. good enough for indies..

[jetaddiction]

sounds like the 2/3 sensor would be great to get my surf footage (range wise) the 2/3 with a nikon mounted 85mm 1.4 would give me some reach in 3k res? as point of refrence ,lets say a hpx170 12x zoom with 2x century lens? or would it be more like 135mm?

[brainburst]

"So what's not to like or lacking that prevents you shooting documentaries, news inserts, sports, regional commercials and yes of course independent films?"

"S16 is not bad.. good enough for indies."

Did you even read what I wrote?

Higher pixel density on a smaller sensor means:

• Greater noise.
• Less dynamic range (It doesn't matter what processing happens after the fact. A sensor is an analog device with analog limitations.)
• Need for better, more expensive glass. Name one low cost piece of glass that will resolve 3k on a 2/3" sensor. Standard 16mm glass will not cut it. Low cost Video HD glass will not cut it.
• Video type depth of field. Expensive adapters required for 35mm DOF

A larger sensor means:

• Better S/N
• Better Dynamic range
• Ability to use any decent 35mm glass including SLRs
• 35mm DOF without expensive adapters.

Good enough for the past is not good enough for the future!
The Scarlet needs to be unequivocally better than super 16!

[Zach Swena]

Higher pixel density on a smaller sensor means:

• Greater noise.
• Less dynamic range (It doesn't matter what processing happens after the fact. A sensor is an analog device with analog limitations.)
• Need for better, more expensive glass. Name one low cost piece of glass that will resolve 3k on a 2/3" sensor. Standard 16mm glass will not cut it. Low cost Video HD glass will not cut it.
• Video type depth of field. Expensive adapters required for 35mm DOF

A larger sensor means:

• Better S/N
• Better Dynamic range
• Ability to use any decent 35mm glass including SLRs
• 35mm DOF without expensive adapters.

Good enough for the past is not good enough for the future!
The Scarlet needs to be unequivocally better than super 16!

Does anyone at RED have a answer for this?

2/3" may be less expensive on the sensor side but the glass should more than make up for it in price.

2/3" is good if you want a small camera/lens combo and have the money. It seems that 35mm will be not much more expensive to manufacture and will allow the user to get away with using cheaper glass and better upgrade path.

[brainburst]

But there should be a 3k option in a larger sensor size!
Not to mention it could be cheaper for Red.
Maybe they could even use the same silicon 6 µm pixel pitch wafers instead of the 3.2µm sensors. In fact, they could use defective 6k sensors that have defective pixels outside the 3k area and mask them. (Almost all CMOS sensors have this capability.)
The 3k sensor doesn't have to be full 35mm size but it needs to have the larger cell size. You'll still need good glass for this, but it won't need to be as good as for the 2/3" sensor.