RED-One 2K vs. Scarlet 3K ??

[George D.]

If all things are the same, would the images resulting from a RED-One shooting in 2K be as good or better than those from a Scarlet in 3K?

In other words, if you use the same lens, same adjusted framing, same exposure, same frame rate, and all else is the same, will the quality from shooting the subject with a RED-One in 2K be as good or better than from a Scarlet in 3K ??

What about 3K Red-One vs. 3K Scarlet ?

I cannot find the answer to this on the forum, so I'm asking.

Thanks.

 

[Tom Mitchell]

The short answer would be that the scarlet would be better.
The Red one has a MYSTERIUM sensor as the scarlet would be sporting a sensor with similar latitude to the new MYSTERIUM-X chip. allowing for much better noise reduction allowing you to rate to mid tones at better ISO say batween 800-2000 ISO (You can of course upgrade the red to the new MX chip for a added cost)

The 3K Bayer patten would give a good 2K projected image because of it's equivalent resolution giving greater image detail and sharpness. as a 2K bayer patten image would come to something like 1.7K and the OLPF is best suited for the 4K image as at 2K adds just a bit too much softness.

The 2K on the red give the DOF of a 16mm camera as 3K scarlet will give the DOF of a 2/3 inch camera which is bigger than 2K but smaller than 4K.


It's a bit of a no brainier question, is 3K better than 2K......YES. is the new generation camera better than the last generation camera yes.

 

[Kenneth Elkington]

The 2K on the red give the DOF of a 16mm camera as 3K scarlet will give the DOF of a 2/3 inch camera which is bigger than 2K but smaller than 4K.

Actually this is not the case. R1 2K is Super 16 sized, which is larger than 2/3" so the R1 would give a slightly tighter DOF, albeit fairly minute. Otherwise, everything you said is correct and the image quality from scarlet would be better.

 

[Noah Kadner]

But why would you shoot 2K when you could shoot 4K? Or was that a rhetorical question?

Noah

 

[Subhadip Sen]

A better question would be, Red One 3K vs. Scarlet 3K.

 

[Kenneth Elkington]

But why would you shoot 2K when you could shoot 4K? Or was that a rhetorical question?

Noah

Presumably if you're somehow restricted to S16 or B4 lenses, or something like that.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

But why would you shoot 2K when you could shoot 4K? Or was that a rhetorical question?

Noah

I think frame rates are an important part of the backstory behind this question.

Unfortunately I can't decide if the OP means a Scarlet S35 running at 3K or a Scarlet 2/3"- because they are comparing to a RED One, which is a much fairer comparison with Scarlet S35.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Assuming the Mysterium-X sensor is in the Red One, I would take a guess and say that the 3K Scarlet image might be better than the 2K Red One image.

Depth of field will be similar, I wouldn't worry about the difference between using 11mm horizontally on the Red One sensor versus 10mm or whatever will be the width of the 2/3" Scarlet recording area.

But 3K is more resolution than 2K, so you will have more information to work with from the 3K Scarlet recording. Now whether noise/sensitivity will be the same, it's hard to tell, in theory the 2K Red image is using slightly larger photosites so may exhibit a bit less noise, but I kinda doubt that. Besides, with a 3K image instead of a 2K image, you have more flexibility in adding noise reduction in post while retaining sharpness.

 

[Tom Mitchell]

Actually this is not the case. R1 2K is Super 16 sized, which is larger than 2/3" so the R1 would give a slightly tighter DOF, albeit fairly minute. Otherwise, everything you said is correct and the image quality from scarlet would be better.

Ah ok apologies I was looking at this diagram on wiki, which shows the 3K scarlet as being right bang in the middle of 2K and 4K. a Wiki fail?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/28k_RED_CAMERA.png

 

[Justin K Phillips]

Tom, that image is comparing pixel dimensions, not physical sensor size.