Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Four Thirds Scarlet?

Jim Retar said:
I've not heard of any 4/3 lens that would better a top notch DSLR lens.
Click to expand...

The high-end 4/3 glass is pretty amazing. The only way 4/3 was useful was if you had the really fast glass. Their really fast glass is almost all optimized to be used wide open, though. I owned the 150mm f/2 and it was one of the best lenses I've ever used. You rehouse that lens for a 4/3 cinema camera and I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

The 11-22mm was extremely useful, too. And the 35-100mm f/2.
 
Robert Jackson said:
The high-end 4/3 glass is pretty amazing. The only way 4/3 was useful was if you had the really fast glass. Their really fast glass is almost all optimized to be used wide open, though. I owned the 150mm f/2 and it was one of the best lenses I've ever used. You rehouse that lens for a 4/3 cinema camera and I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

The 11-22mm was extremely useful, too. And the 35-100mm f/2.
Click to expand...

The smaller the format, the more critical the lens quality is. One reason why good 16mm and 2/3" glass is relatively expensive.
 
Sorry, it appears people were missing what I was saying. From a marketing/business point of view, dropping the 2/3rd, s35, and f35 for a fixed and detachable 4/3rds scarlets (even just a detachable) and letting people buy Epic s35 and f35 instead makes more sense (for this climate). Consider the very limited market for cinema video compared to stills. Consider the costs of hunting down quality 2/3rds fullHD or 3K lens. Consider that you can mount of 2/3rd lens onto a 4/3rds sensor and still get a FULLHD/2K image circle. Consider that red can produce a 4/3rds lens system cheaper then you can buy competing 2/3rds lens. Consider, then you could have 2/3rds cinema lens, 4/3rds still, or just the Red 4/3rds. Consider how small micro 4/3rds is already. But I think a few people realize these things already. However, it is too late for 4/3rds on scarlet 1, lets try for scarlet 2, or for a base model fixed lens s35 ;) .

The Panasonic GH2 is what the GH1 should have been, what the people excited about GH1.3 around here should be excited about is the GH2 potential. If the $600 GH1 camera were capable of FULLHDp50 I would be looking at it tomorrow. For 90% of the real work out there, GH1.3 is probably good enough (except for the lack of FULLHDp50). Most of it is not high end cinema.

Inter codecs are not bad, just the ways they are implemented to get maximum compression ratios. I imagine that on a noisy sensor that inter might give little benefit in bit rate over intra for very high quality low compression, but I wonder how it stacks up on a better sensor?
 
David Rasberry said:
The smaller the format, the more critical the lens quality is. One reason why good 16mm and 2/3" glass is relatively expensive.
Click to expand...
Somebody posted a super fast 4/3rd prime around here too (but I have to agree that an issue with present lens is that they are stills, needing a rig for better cinema control). I wonder if Eng market will ever move to 4/3rds?
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Somebody posted a super fast 4/3rd prime around here too (but I have to agree that an issue with present lens is that they are stills, needing a rig for better cinema control). I wonder if Eng market will ever move to 4/3rds?
Click to expand...

Not likely. The size and weight of a fast broad range, typically 15 or 20 to 1, high quality zoom lens suitable for the purpose would make it impractical. Us run and gun type shooters don't want to change lenses for most situations, and we don't need to deal with a zoom lens that would weigh more than an entire 2/3" rig by itself.
The format makes more sense for more deliberative creative styles of shooting where one would normally use primes.
The 16mm/2/3" sized format has existed alongside the various 35mm formats for a hundred years now, and has been the preferred format in both film and video for general broadcast production for 50 years. Those currently obsessed with large sensor DOF dismiss it too casually. As numerous feature films have shown, it is capable of a very useful and broad range of creative possibilities.
 
Jim Retar said:
If RED were even to do a 4/3... I would image that they would add a really nice 2/3" crop mode. Best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

They could also add a 4/3 mount option to the S35. 4/3 lenses would be more compact than 35mm lenses and will comfortably cover 3k on the S35.
I'm not sure there would be enough cost savings over the S35 version to justify a dedicated 4/3 version at this point.
 
The biggest problem for RED IMHO is that their competitors used to be just Sony/Panavision and ARRI for the large sensor interchangeble mount (PL Mount) cine cameras. They beat ARRI/Sony on the first round on better prices, innovation and being quicker to market.

However they're now being attacked on two fronts. Low end and high end. Camera makers on both fronts are making small DOF (larger sensor cameras).

From the high-end, ARRI and Sony are continuing to make high-end cine cameras using global shutters and the ALEXA's price/performance is close enough to RED's prices. The second question is do filmmakers really need or want something larger than S35 with all the lenses available for S35. So is FF35 really needed for digital cinema?

We also have Canon muscling in on the market with the 7D which is S35 in size. Hence the excitement over Canon. The issues with line-skipping, poor image quality and high compression will be solved in time perhaps with future 1D-series models. The biggest problem for Canon is that their mount will not take the PL mount cinelenses that filmmakers use. This is changing too. Zeiss is one of the companies making cine style lenses for the EOS mount.

On the low-end. The market for ENG, compressed video formats and indie filmmakers. RED is being challenged by Sony with their E-mount and Panasonic with their micro4/3's mount camera. The benefit of the micro 4/3s mount is that it'll take PL-mount lenses with an adapter. They're also larger sensor cameras larger than the 2/3" sensor (note:some PPL really do prefer 2/3" cameras but can't you crop a 2/3" image from a 4/3" sensor?). Panasonic will make cameras like the GH-2 to compete with fixed Scarlet and the AG-AF100 to compete with S35 Scarlet.

So there it is. RED made a large sensor "cine" camera (RED ONE) that didn't require adapters to modify cine lenses onto 2/3" or smaller prosumer cameras. They pioneered this digital cinema market. Now the other makers are moving in. Their last bastion appears to be high-data rate RAW video. The other markers are not really that interested in this because for the low-end (mass market)compressed codecs make more sense. Too much compute power and storage is required for uncompressed raw which is more suited for cine work.

Please note I'm an armchair commentator and just want to share some ideas which I'm sure have alot of holes in them :). I know RED want to make the best cameras they can make to suit every person's requirements.

I'd propose that RED put 2/3" fixed Scarlet on the back burner and abandon 2/3" interchangeble. They should also find some way to deliver fixed scarlet for 3K. There are already alot of good ENG cameras available and most "film-makers" want interchangeble lenses and bigger sensor cameras (the main reason for RED ONE's popularity).

They should focus all efforts on the S35 format which will be the mass market format. The FF35 might be a more niche sensor size. From the marketing viewpoint. I think they should not make a Scarlet S35 and EPIC S35. Just name them EPIC S35 and EPIC S35Cine for the higher data rate version.
 
Why would Red not want to participate in the 2/3"/16mm format market? Yes you can crop the S35 down to 2k for this, but the dedicated 2/3" will be superior at 3k and offer Epic frame rates for half the price of a Scarlet S35. Every other 2/3" format camera on the market is an interchangeable lens camera, as is every S16mm film camera. This format stands on its own.
More programs are produced for broadcast on 2/3" than all other formats combined. It is a huge market and one that will not be significantly displaced by larger formats for many practical reasons. Bringing entry level costs below $10k for a truly high performance 2/3" camera will be a real coup.

By your reasoning Sony, Panasonic, JVC, and Canon should discontinue all of their small sensor prosumer video cameras immediately, not to mention their bread and butter 2/3" broadcast lines. But oddly enough they see significant markets for these still. 35mm sized sensors are not the answer for everything.
 
That silly Jim Jannard. What's he thinking? The guy got lucky once and just happened to make a few billion. Now he actually thinks he knows something about markets and business. What an ego. Why doesn't he just listen to those of us who know better? After all, we spend minutes a day, sometimes hours a week, analyzing the market and have a crystal clear vision of how he should allocate his resources to take over the camera world. I just can't understand him sometimes. Pursuing all the wrong markets with all the wrong cameras and features. If he would only listen to those of us who are older and... er, well, smarter, he'd be rich! :crying: :sarcasm:
 
David Rasberry said:
Not likely. The size and weight of a fast broad range, typically 15 or 20 to 1, high quality zoom lens suitable for the purpose would make it impractical. Us run and gun type shooters don't want to change lenses for most situations, and we don't need to deal with a zoom lens that would weigh more than an entire 2/3" rig by itself.
The format makes more sense for more deliberative creative styles of shooting where one would normally use primes.
The 16mm/2/3" sized format has existed alongside the various 35mm formats for a hundred years now, and has been the preferred format in both film and video for general broadcast production for 50 years. Those currently obsessed with large sensor DOF dismiss it too casually. As numerous feature films have shown, it is capable of a very useful and broad range of creative possibilities.
Click to expand...

Good point, those fast 2/3rd zoom lens get big already. I wonder, would a lens design that is slower when zoomed out be any smaller? That would not worry me, as long as it is within a range that the camera could track the zoom and electronically compensate for steady exposure during the day (where I assume zoom is more important to us). Though I think those that are obsessed with DOF are aiming for S35 or F35, not 4/3rds, which is a compromise. I am not obsessed with fast large 2/3rds zoom lens either something more compact, like Red fixed is doing, would do, which is probably why I think that 4/3rds is such a great idea :) . I have been contemplating a new design for a flat lens system where these issues no longer matter, even at 200cm (see old posts over at dvinfo for an previous design). When you reinvent the wheel the design detail of previous wheels tends to get forgotten.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
That silly Jim Jannard. What's he thinking? The guy got lucky once and just happened to make a few billion. Now he actually thinks he knows something about markets and business. What an ego. Why doesn't he just listen to those of us who know better? After all, we spend minutes a day, sometimes hours a week, analyzing the market and have a crystal clear vision of how he should allocate his resources to take over the camera world. I just can't understand him sometimes. Pursuing all the wrong markets with all the wrong cameras and features. If he would only listen to those of us who are older and... er, well, smarter, he'd be rich! :crying: :sarcasm:
Click to expand...

Interesting wisdom, I wonder if I should keep track of your posts so I can also follow you around admiring it? Your insight into the intelligence, talent, ability, and proven history for getting it right, of people, is also interesting. Even to those who originally suggested the dual Scarlet/Red marketing idea before Red existed, for the 2006-2008 time frame. Oh, I see, sarcasm, you have so got me again ;) .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top