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 :)

Is 2/3" going to be enough?

Zaphod said:
Personally I think the 2/3" Scarlet would have been extremely popular a couple of years ago, but now it will struggle.

The current fashion is for large sensor cameras, whether you like it or not.
Even in the DSLR video world, the 5D for video is more popular than the 1D or 7D due to the sensor size.

Cameras like the Sony NEX-VG10 are interesting.
Click to expand...

Yet, ENG and EFP is still very much dominated by 2/3" cameras... There's just so much more to video/film production than the size of the sensor (unless perhaps if you're one of those "it's not teh film look unless you have extreme shallow depth of field" kind of people)...
 
I totally agree with Stephen and not just because we share a name :-) The more I watch the more I realize that content and quality is what matters. A bad movie is still going to be bad if it's shot on a DSLR, Panavision, RED or anything else for that matter. If the 5D or the 7D have the look you need then use them. For me personally, I'm shooting a lot of sports and action and the higher frame rates offered by the 2/3" Scarlet are infinitely more valuable to me than shallow DOF. And the less intensive focus pulling on the 2/3" chip sounds really appealing as well not to mention the touch screen focus that will be available.
 
Most people who doubt about 2\3 have probably never used such format and have only seen ENG footage where run-and-gun dynamics generally (but not always) prevent the operator to get more "cinematic" shots (if by "cinematic" you merely mean shallow DOF).

But, as many may know, 2\3 is very close to 16mm in optical terms: hence most of the "cool" shots you may have seen on the latter (from music videos to features) can be obtained on the earlier, given the right lens. Several Canon Broadcast zooms are very fast (i.e. they can reach their maximum length with a fully or almost fully open iris): you'd be amazed what even an old veteran of the ENG wars like the Sony D50 head can do if properly used.

A 2\3 camera that records RAW (possibly with interchangeable lenses) sounds pretty good to me - even though I am more and more moving towards a full-frame mindset and EPIC is seriously intriguing me.
 
Subhadip Sen said:
Three chip cameras like the EX1/3 or the HPX-370 do output 1000+ lines 1080p images. Even the $900 Panasonic TM700 is close to 1000. I have to say, 1100 lines is perhaps a bit pessimistic. That is less than 70% whereas Graeme has suggested it is more like 80%.
Click to expand...

The 3 chip cameras may resolve better than a 1000+ horizontal but not vertical, certainly not any I have seen. At least not without significant aliasing and moire issues.
 
Emiliano Ranzani said:
Most people who doubt about 2\3 have probably never used such format and have only seen ENG footage where run-and-gun dynamics generally (but not always) prevent the operator to get more "cinematic" shots (if by "cinematic" you merely mean shallow DOF).

But, as many may know, 2\3 is very close to 16mm in optical terms: hence most of the "cool" shots you may have seen on the latter (from music videos to features) can be obtained on the earlier, given the right lens. Several Canon Broadcast zooms are very fast (i.e. they can reach their maximum length with a fully or almost fully open iris): you'd be amazed what even an old veteran of the ENG wars like the Sony D50 head can do if properly used.

A 2\3 camera that records RAW (possibly with interchangeable lenses) sounds pretty good to me - even though I am more and more moving towards a full-frame mindset and EPIC is seriously intriguing me.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that F2.4 at 2/3" would equate DOF characteristics of S35 at around F4.8, which is a great thing, still pretty shallow but with a natural fall-off, not that huge ugly blur that starts to kick in right after the actor's eye.

On my first short with the 7D I couldn't leave F4 because of how natural and pleasing the DOF felt.
 
Zaphod said:
Personally I think the 2/3" Scarlet would have been extremely popular a couple of years ago, but now it will struggle.

The current fashion is for large sensor cameras, whether you like it or not.
Even in the DSLR video world, the 5D for video is more popular than the 1D or 7D due to the sensor size.

Cameras like the Sony NEX-VG10 are interesting.
Click to expand...

The amount of broadcast production work of all kinds done on 2/3" format cameras is way beyond all 35mm formats and media, film or digital, combined.
2/3" format stands on its own, and is incredibly popular for a lot of very good reasons.

For the under $10k crowd, the choice will come down to large sensor still cameras with mediocre video quality that require a lot of work arounds and kluges to be useful as video cameras, or a handful of smaller sensor but very high image quality uncompromised video and digital cinema cameras.

I will take an uncompromised 2/3" true digital cinema camera with all of the features and functionality that motion shooting demands over a severely compromised large sensor still/video hybrid any day. 35mm shallow DOF, especially FF35 DOF, is not worth the tradeoffs to me.
 
Yeah, the footage is prores. So if you're using Linux, which doesn't have the codec, you're boned.
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Not to mention that F2.4 at 2/3" would equate DOF characteristics of S35 at around F4.8
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Sure, you need to rely on ND filters and you can't change ISOs at will on regular video-cameras, making most 2\3'' equipment a lil' out of range for the majority of the people who use DSLRs for fast and uber-cheap production, but since the DSMC system does incorporate the virtues of DSLRs, I think the smaller incarnations of the Scarlet will offer more than enough for most users.
 
Emiliano Ranzani said:
Yeah, that's pretty much it. Sure, you need to rely on ND filters and you can't change ISOs at will on regular video-cameras, making most 2\3'' equipment a lil' out of range for the majority of the people who use DSLRs for fast and uber-cheap production, but since the DSMC system does incorporate the virtues of DSLRs, I think the smaller incarnations of the Scarlet will offer more than enough for most users.
Click to expand...

I agree. I work with a lot of sony 2/3" cameras and for most things I get more than enough DOF out of it. But it all depends what your shooting and how your shooting it. Every camera has it's place. The quality of a shot doesn't have much to do at all with how much DOF you can get out of the camera but how well the shot is set up and carried out(apologies for being a broken record). Sometimes you do need it.. and when that happens I use a 7D or 5D until there's a better option out there.
 
I believe that Scarlet will change lots of peoples ideas about what a camera can and cannot do. I cannot wait to get one (or two). While everyone wants that picture quality content is still king people will watch You Tube for hours and be entertained but let them go to a theater to see fantasticly shot movie will perfect picture and they will say "that sucked" if the story is bad
Mike
 
Talking about 2\3'' cameras, here's some test footage shot with the new Sony F800 XDCAM 422, an improvement on the already impressive F700:

http://vimeo.com/5614917

I think it looks pretty good, don't you?
 
Emiliano Ranzani said:
Talking about 2\3'' cameras, here's some test footage shot with the new Sony F800 XDCAM 422, an improvement on the already impressive F700:

http://vimeo.com/5614917

I think it looks pretty good, don't you?
Click to expand...

Very good looking camera. From tests it has around 13 stops DR. If Scarlet can do as well for 1/4th the price I will be a very happy camper.
 
Looks good indeed and as usual my main gripe with Sony cameras is the tremendous amount of digital sharpening that is applied by default.

It tends to look much better when you tone it down, shadow to midtone transitions look better and even highlight rolloff, it was like this on me old FX7, it was like this on the EX1 and it also looks like this on this F800.

Canon seems to give preference for a more smooth image quality.

I'm not sure about Panasonic but I'm going to start figuring out as soon as my GH1 gets here.
 
David Rasberry said:
Very good looking camera. From tests it has around 13 stops DR. If Scarlet can do as well for 1/4th the price I will be a very happy camper.
Click to expand...

Seriously? That is not what 13 stops look like. The MX'd Red One has 13 stops and it defiantly shows... That F800 clip looked like around 4-6 stops. It was flat as hell. The $800 t2i looked better than that clip... No joking here. Sure the XDCAM has much higher QUALITY but the "look" of it falls short.
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
I'm not sure about [the digital sharpening that is applied on the] Panasonic but I'm going to start figuring out as soon as my GH1 gets here.
Click to expand...

The GH1 is *way* over-sharpened. You need to crank it all the way down. And don't forget to hack it, that makes a huge difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top