Thread: Scarlet vs GH1

Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 129
  1. #91  
    cross-examiner Emanuel A.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,262
    Quote Originally Posted by John Caballero View Post
    Not a lot of people are going to be able to afford the Scarlet FF35 and all the extras to run it. Many will have to go for the 2/3 which is even smaller than 4/3. Thats reality.
    John,

    I agree with you too. That's why a think that 5D Mark II is a no-brainer.

    Tom,

    By the way, I've shot some stuff with 'her' and I've found 'her' too much sexy. I love 'her' as motion picture camera anyway.

    E. :-)
    RED ONE @home
    Donald Duck #111
    Emanuel & Co's RED ONE
    Scrooge McDuck
    #647

    RED ZOOM LENSES
    #156
    #157

    RED 300mm LENS
    #82
    Who am I?
    LINK
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #92  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,581
    Quote Originally Posted by GPSchnyder View Post
    Because not everbody wants that filmlike DOF everybody seems to want. And I think the 4/3 looks superior to ff35. But that's just me.
    What I think would be quite interesting would be for Leica or someone else to build an anamorphic lens for 4/3. That would make it a very interesting choice, particularly if recording options other than AVCHD were eventually included. There is currently nothing anywhere near that price range that easily allows a true anamorphic format (in part because aside from the Arri D21, there is nothing else - including Scarlet - that uses a 1.33:1 aspect ratio for its sensor).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #93  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,508
    There are valid reasons for choosing a smaller format for many types of production. The shallow DOF of FF35 can be as much of a problem as a creative tool, especially in low light situations.
    It is interesting that an emerging trend in still photography is deep DOF achieved by compositing multiple stills taken at different focus points from close up to infinity so that everything is in focus.
    From shooting theatrical productions for documentation I can tell you that getting a 40 foot deep set in focus from front to back under stage lighting conditions can be a real challenge with 35mm still cameras for instance. Shooting 2/3" video, appropriate depth of focus was much easier to achieve.
    Larger formats also require larger, heavier, more expensive optics for equal performance. The 4/3rds Leica Summilux mentioned above is 1/2 the size and weight of its M mount 35mm counterpart and 1/3rd the price.
    In the film world, size, weight, and aesthetics can drive the choice of super 16mm over 35mm for many types of production even when cost is not so much of an issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by Impagliazzo View Post
    And checking the Panasonic website I could see that most of the 4/3" lenses have a maximum aperture of F4.
    Here are some GH1 posts (for AVCHD) with faster Nikon/ Canon lenses.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnck4Elm1hM (iso1600)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UVPxaO6A (Nikon Setup f2.8)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFIFhnVou48 (Canon f1.8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom View Post
    No offense to 4/3 proponents, but why would someone choose that format over FF35? I think we are moving in the direction of FF35 -- or at a minimum S35/APS-C -- for cinema acquisition for nearly all cameras. 4/3 already has to compete with APS-C/S35. And FF35 is the real film killer.
    Ditto.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #96  
    A lurker but I can't bite my tongue anymore as i knew I shouldn't click on the link to this discussion ;) I thought you guys would be comparing apples to apples (GH1 vs scarlet 2/3, and still the Scarlet is twice as much) but instead you are talking GH1 vs Scarlet FF...why stop there? Why not compare GH1 vs Epic Pro? I mean you are talking $1500 vs 10K without the lens here! Can you be serious?

    I will crawl back to my lurker status now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Peterson View Post
    I will crawl back to my lurker status now.
    Don't have to, because you're right. I think the Output of the GH1 and the Scarlet 2/3" Fixed will be equal. DOF wise at least. Of cause the Scarlet is raw and super smooth, but comparable. The FF35 is a whole other thing.
    But some people here are just against everything not RED.

    I've ordered the GH1 (a RED One ;-) ) but that doesn't mean that I think the Scarlet will be far superior. But I can do stuff now with the GH1, get used to the DOF which will be near to the fixed imho (4/3" F4 max against 2/3" f2.4) Don't know, but I think so. This means after going to Scarlet my Look will not change that much, just be smoother and sharper hopefully :-)

    And the GH1 can be used for behind the Scenes, Interviews and Stuff afterwards. With it's face detection it should be great for stuff like that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #98  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,508
    GH1 and 5Dii are both quite good cameras for what they are. If I had to pick one for video production use it would probably be the GH1. 5D is just too inflexible and a PITA to shoot video with other than as a casual camera or for short web clips. Great still camera though. No question it has great sensitivity and latitude.
    I don't need another still cam, and I'm not willing to compromise function and appropriate ergonomics for general film/video production to the extent these hybrids require. For efficient day in day out video production I would still take a 1/3" HDV cam over either of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #99  
    Senior Member Zack Birlew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California and Las Vegas
    Posts
    598
    Yeah, it's hard to compare at the moment. Micro 4/3" format gives you some more of the shallow DOF look but the 2/3" Scarlet will kill in terms of resolution alone. For a moment, I too thought that RED should consider a 4/3" camera but then quickly disgarded that idea because, like many of you have said, the S35 frame size is the next logical step fromn 2/3", not the inbetweenie Micro 4/3" format. The GH1, as I see it now, has the unique position of being adaptable to many different uses for a very small fee. The only problem is that the AVCHD format is pretty limited, more so than even HDV was! So, for all of the fancy color correction and effects work filmmakers do these days, it's not a very viable solution, even though it is technically a useful one that has been geared towards that purpose. Scarlet, however, is the complete opposite. It is a fully functional cinema camera designed for complete flexibility and control in post as well as during production. In that sense, the Scarlet has already won.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #100  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    442
    The only little problem that truly gets in the way at this point in time is that Scarlet doesn't even exist! I know is a minor point considering all that wonderful resolution the Scarlet provides the filmmaker. It is a true little wonder isn't it? So much joy at this moment in time. Coming back to reality the fact is that I am getting a GH1 NEXT month and in the ones that follow I'll make the money I invested back and I will still have time to wait for Scarlet who knows how much longer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts