Cards on table: Pros/Cons of Scarlet

[Subhadip Sen]

Ikonoskop makes Scarlet look timely and on schedule. It was "ready and taking preorders" in 2008. It could end up being an interesting product, and the portability is amazing. But it is more of competition for the Scarlet S35, really. It's just under $10k for the body.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

Am I missing something? DOF is simply physics. No camera of a given sensor size is capable of changing DOF tables. The AF100 is very, very close to the Red One at 16x9HD and both have profoundly less depth of field of any 2/3" camera.

I've shot a ton of 2/3" going all the way back to the HL79; I think I know every trick in the book to achieve foreground isolation, and believe me, you can't match the look of a 35MM film sized sensor. That doesn't mean you can't make pretty pictures with 2/3", it's just more difficult and sometimes, often in fact, you can't duplicate the look of a much more shallow DOF.

I might add that there are jobs when the smaller sensor is a plus, they're just not the jobs I'm often called upon to shoot.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Ikonoskop makes Scarlet look timely and on schedule. It was "ready and taking preorders" in 2008. It could end up being an interesting product, and the portability is amazing. But it is more of competition for the Scarlet S35, really. It's just under $10k for the body.

Ikonoskop A-cam dII Sensor CCD: 10,6 mm x 6 mm (16 mm size).

LINK>>>

 

[Michael Olsen]

I suppose it depends upon what is meant by shallow DOF. The following is done just using a few calculators online, so I may be wrong about this.

The following is for a ~37 degree FOV with the subject 7 feet from the camera and an aperture f/1.0.

m4/3 - 0.56ft
2/3 - 3.35ft

To me, this basically means that if one wants to match m4/3 on the 2/3 sensor, there is some tweaking to be had - the two are not really that close in terms of DOF when other things are taken out of the equation.

Shooting with the 2/3 at 3 feet instead of 7 yields 0.58ft of DOF - a close match to the m4/3.

Similarly, shooting with the 2/3 at 7 feet, but with a 50mm instead of a 14 yields 0.5 feet of DOF - a close match.

So, what this means to me: The 2/3 sensor is not incapable of producing shallow depth of field. It does, however, require different methods of achieving composition.

Realistically, if I need to shoot something moving around with less than 6 inches of depth of field, I'd need to use something with a larger sensor. Otherwise, I think I'll be fine making some adjustments.


EDIT: And lest we forget IZZY: http://redgrabs.com/izzy/ - shot on 2/3" with a 100mm RPP

 

[Michael Olsen]

Here's what the basic pros and cons come down to for me, and the reason I am still on the fence about the AF-100.*

The RED cameras exist to create truly excellent images in terms of resolution, dynamic range, and "feel". From what I have seen, they are well on the way to achieving that goal, even at the less expensive end of the spectrum.

These will be be relatively more expensive cameras, but offer myriad of unique features - HDRx™, 3K or 5K capture, high frame rates, and extremely flexible codecs in terms of both bitrate and in terms of post potential.

--

The AF-100 camera, at least in my opinion, exists to offer a relatively inexpensive camera to 1) DSLR users who need more image fidelity and usability and 2) HVX and HMC users who want to try a larger sensor. From what I have seen so far it's image quality is not, in my opinion, excellent. The videos posted from the prototype (recorder to an external 4:2:2 recorder, som using Zeiss UPs) appear equitable to what is being produced by a variety of other cameras on the market in terms of resolution, dynamic range, and "feel".

This will be a relatively expensive camera. Compared to what currently exists, it will offer a larger sensor, interchangeable lenses, and finer WB adjustment.


*This is not suggesting that people should "hold out" for anything. If the camera you have now isn't cutting it and you need a camera, then the AF-100 may make a great deal of sense. Of course, it isn't out "now" either, so...

 

[Tim Hole]

Am I missing something? DOF is simply physics. No camera of a given sensor size is capable of changing DOF tables. The AF100 is very, very close to the Red One at 16x9HD and both have profoundly less depth of field of any 2/3" camera.

I've shot a ton of 2/3" going all the way back to the HL79; I think I know every trick in the book to achieve foreground isolation, and believe me, you can't match the look of a 35MM film sized sensor. That doesn't mean you can't make pretty pictures with 2/3", it's just more difficult and sometimes, often in fact, you can't duplicate the look of a much more shallow DOF.

I might add that there are jobs when the smaller sensor is a plus, they're just not the jobs I'm often called upon to shoot.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Indeed. 35mm DOF characteristics can be very different depending on how you are shooting. But it is ridiculous to dismiss anything below 4/3. 90% of all shots in 90% of films are not shot with extreme DOF. The difference is that 35mm on a medium lens creates a nice fall off very easily. But there is a world of difference between 1/3" DOF and 2/3". I have more of a preference towards deep focus photography and playing more with light and action on the planes. But I do like some close up shots with a sharp DOF fall off. To me 2/3" is a happy medium and I like the flexibility of it over large sensors. But if you are bound by the jobs that you get then...well hey at this price buy both

Happy shooting.

 

[David Rasberry]

6"dof or so is not very useful IMO. Very rarely would you want anything that shallow. 2 to 3 feet is pretty useful for tight interior two shots and closeups. You couldn't keep a head in focus at 6" dof.

 

[Michael Olsen]

6"dof or so is not very useful IMO. Very rarely would you want anything that shallow. 2 to 3 feet is pretty useful for tight interior two shots and closeups. You couldn't keep a head in focus at 6" dof.

Totally agree, David. In terms of practical use for a majority of purposes, 2/3" is a perfectly sufficient format when used creatively. I used it above as an example of "extremely shallow" DOF, which is attainable on either format.

 

[Tim Hole]

Is the AF100 basically a stills sensor in a traditional video form-factor with better sound? Or is there more to it. It seems to me all the specs I have seen of it, are basically the same as HDSLR's.

As usual David I wholeheartedly agree...and to you as well Michael.

 

[Stuart English]

2/3" Optics

2/3" Optics

100% of the Sony F900 and F23 CineAlta cameras use 2/3" optics

100% of the Panasonic Varicam Electronic Cinema cameras use 2/3" optics

100% of Thomson Viper Filmstream cameras use 2/3" optics

So it is a very well entrenched optical format, and consumers are very used to seeing its characteristics.

 

[Michael Olsen]

100% of the Sony F900 and F23 CineAlta cameras use 2/3" optics

100% of the Panasonic Varicam Electronic Cinema cameras use 2/3" optics

100% of Thomson Viper Filmstream cameras use 2/3" optics

So it is a very well entrenched optical format, and consumers are very used to seeing its characteristics.

And unless I'm mistaken, 2 of the 5 nominees for the Academy Award for Best Cinematography were shot on 2/3" or 16mm (close to 2/3") - Hurt Locker and Avatar. I certainly think it can stand on its own as a viable creative medium.

 

[Petr Dvorak]

...Graeme and I shot some tests for DOF and were able to get some awesome bokeh.

What?! Show us!!! :drool5::drool5:

 

[AnthonyFlores]

I think the fixed Scarlet is going to be the ultimate camera for steadicam
work.

With its light weight, you could also purchase a steadicam pilot, strap it on
and would give you the most awesome moving footage for just under
$10,000. :emote_happyhappy:

 

[Robert Jackson]

Don't forget Swedish Ikonoskop A-Cam DII

Now see that's a very attractive camera. The only gripe I really have about it (and this is relatively minor) is that the camera only records uncompressed RAW which chews through storage really fast.

RED's range of data compression options is a huge deal, IMO.

Other than that the digital A-Cam seems like a dream rig. And I was really surprised when they announced it. I'd always thought of them as a tiny crash-cam company that didn't even do optical viewfinders. It came as a real surprise that they mounted such a sophisticated effort for their first digital offering. If the Scarlet wasn't around the corner it would be a real consideration.

 

[Art Chong]

.....
---------------------------------------------------
5D mkII
PROs
- cheap
- bigger sensor
- swallow DOF
- already available
- can be used as usual cam if constraints are being noted

....
Tom

All this DOF discussion aside, this is actually the only camera available for PURCHASE right now. Kind of a deal maker if you have to shoot next week... or next month.... or this year, though technicaly since AF-100 is shipping on 12/27, you could probably shoot a project during the last 4 days of the year if you get it shipped next day air.

 

[Kalani Prince]

I think the fixed Scarlet is going to be the ultimate camera for steadicam
work.

With its light weight, you could also purchase a steadicam pilot, strap it on
and would give you the most awesome moving footage for just under
$10,000. :emote_happyhappy:

Completely agree, especially if the Redmote acts as a wireless FF, wow!

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

I think we still will have to watch out for moire in some situation right?

 

[Sam Eilertsen]

Personally I am starting to get sick as hell of shallow DOF. Lately I feel like everyone from amateurs with 5D's to professionals with RED or film are using absurdly shallow DOF in every shot, to the point where it seems like they're doing it just to be able to say "Look! My sensor is HUGE!". Used well, bokeh is awesome. Used just because you can, its downright lazy. I watch those DSLR videos with like 1" of DOF and it makes me never want to watch anything but Citizen Kane, ever again.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Personally I am starting to get sick as hell of shallow DOF. Lately I feel like everyone from amateurs with 5D's to professionals with RED or film are using absurdly shallow DOF in every shot, to the point where it seems like they're doing it just to be able to say "Look! My sensor is HUGE!". Used well, bokeh is awesome. Used just because you can, its downright lazy. I watch those DSLR videos with like 1" of DOF and it makes me never want to watch anything but Citizen Kane, ever again.

Sam, I am totally with you on that. Every fad runs its course and, hopefully, shallow DOF will eventually drift back to its rightful status as just another expressive tool rather than, as you put it, a declaration of sensor "grandiosity." :smiley:

 

[Noah Kadner]

Sam, I am totally with you on that. Every fad runs its course and, hopefully, shallow DOF will eventually drift back to its rightful status as just another expressive tool rather than, as you put it, a declaration of sensor "grandiosity." :smiley:

It's hardly a fad though. Going back through decades of 35mm photography you'll see many examples of deep vs. shallow depth of field cinematography. It might be more noticeable now that it's such an easy and available option to so many more filmmakers these days. But calling it shallow DOF a fad would be ignoring the work of thousands of cinematographers throughout the life of cinema itself.

Noah