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 :)

Scarlet 2/3": Do you want a 4K Scarlet?

Scarlet 2/3": Do you want a 4K Scarlet?

  • Aye

    Votes: 71 39.0%

  • Nay

    Votes: 111 61.0%
  • Total voters
    182
Guys, I'm reading the first page. Just vote as a poll, it maybe too late for Red to change things much, but it recognizes what people here prefer. I think most would prefer it.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Guys, I'm reading the first page. Just vote as a poll, it maybe too late for Red to change things much, but it recognizes what people here prefer. I think most would prefer it.
Click to expand...

How do you get to that conclusion? The poll (such as it is) currently has 60% of the respondents saying "no."
 
Terry VerHaar said:
How do you get to that conclusion? The poll (such as it is) currently has 60% of the respondents saying "no."
Click to expand...

That's easy. Who would not want more picture resolution? But from what most of the may be feeling is they, including me self, simply want the camera to hit the market as is with the features that have been discussed. If there could be a firmware upgrade then great. But 3K is sufficient enough for me.

EDIT: BTW I love the dog avatar.
 
Cedric Akins said:
That's easy. Who would not want more picture resolution? But from what most of the may be feeling is they, including me self, simply want the camera to hit the market as is with the features that have been discussed. If there could be a firmware upgrade then great. But 3K is sufficient enough for me.

EDIT: BTW I love the dog avatar.
Click to expand...

That's the point - and the problem with yet another pseudo poll like this. There are implications for the proposed change, none of which are acknowledged in the "poll." Why not ask who wants a 12K Scarlet or a Scarlet that will do 500 fps? It's just so much peeing into the wind.

What I was asking, however, is how an individual could even draw the conclusion that the poll indicates that respondents want this when 60% of them specifically say they don't.

(The dog is one of my two brother and sister Beagles. They are cute.)
 
Terry VerHaar said:
That's the point - and the problem with yet another pseudo poll like this. There are implications for the proposed change, none of which are acknowledged in the "poll." Why not ask who wants a 12K Scarlet or a Scarlet that will do 500 fps? It's just so much peeing into the wind.

What I was asking, however, is how an individual could even draw the conclusion that the poll indicates that respondents want this when 60% of them specifically say they don't.

(The dog is one of my two brother and sister Beagles. They are cute.)
Click to expand...

Dog looks like he should be smoking a pipe. Nice shot.:001_tongue:
 
Terry VerHaar said:
That's the point - and the problem with yet another pseudo poll like this. There are implications for the proposed change, none of which are acknowledged in the "poll." Why not ask who wants a 12K Scarlet or a Scarlet that will do 500 fps? It's just so much peeing into the wind.

What I was asking, however, is how an individual could even draw the conclusion that the poll indicates that respondents want this when 60% of them specifically say they don't.

(The dog is one of my two brother and sister Beagles. They are cute.)
Click to expand...

Simple, I said I was reading the first page, obviously I had not voted yet. I recognized that it is undesirable to change the scarlet fixed at this stage (I written about that elsewhere too). I stated, rather than this string of negativity, just to vote if 4K (Obviously for future proof 4K production) was more preferable to 3K, as an honest opinion. However, discovering that people had voted that way, I left the post as is, because the results were obviously skewed due to all this opinion on how a late change would effect release etc causing worried people to vote no when they would have normally voted yes, because it was not going to affect the camera release at all as it was not going to really change anything at this late stage, just showing preference. Somebody, somewhere, this thread or another, was also worried that it would need costly internals of the red one to do 4K, when it relies on newer (presumably cheaper) internals and 4K compared to 3K was not such a overly great step in that respect (sensor design and geometry I would be more worried about) especially if it stuck to similar data rate the camera is capable of.

Thanks Terry, simple but maybe not obvious, motivations. What would be done with such honest opinion, I doubt we have even much chance of hurrying up a release of the replacement fixed scarlet in years to come at this late stage, it will probably be when it will be, and hopefully 4K :) .
 
Last edited:
I'd take 2k Scarlet with an S35 chip over a 100k Scarlet on a 2/3" chip. Not bumming. I guarantee a S35 Scarlet for under 10G would cannibalize my Epic/R1 market.
 
Tim Naylor said:
I'd take 2k Scarlet with an S35 chip over a 100k Scarlet on a 2/3" chip. Not bumming. I guarantee a S35 Scarlet for under 10G would cannibalize my Epic/R1 market.
Click to expand...

2k is simply not enough resolution from a Bayer sensor to produce a fully resolved 1080p HD image or 2k digital cinema image to film quality levels. If you are only interested in 2.2 megapixel images as the maximum output, there are already options in the market and more coming. These cameras are about producing film like resolutions and dynamic range, not just HD video. It is not all about sensor size. Major Oscars this year and last went to films shot on the smaller formats, S16mm film and 2/3" video. Scarlet is the S16mm film replacement option, and from all indications it will be an excellent one as is.
 
3K May be the Minimum and Maximum for 2/3"

3K May be the Minimum and Maximum for 2/3"

I mainly want dynamic range, cranking in multiples of 24fps (e.g. 72fps), and affordable flash media. If the Scarlet 2/3" fixed gives particularly good high ISO performance, as said in this video, I'll have no choice but to buy. My wife will be pissed.

I do not know about camcorders over $10K, but for me, low dynamic range defines the look of video vs. film -- it makes video look like video more than most video's lack of out of focus blur.

I tend to see more dynamic range with larger photosites, all else being equal, and I think the photosites are already small enough, squeezing 3K onto a 2/3" sensor.

It has been said here that "...The 2/3" Scarlet sensor has a recordable area of 9.260mm x 5.184mm, based on the 16:9 resolution of 3072x1728 and a photosite size of 3um (0.003mm)..."

Looks like 4K at 16x9 would be 4,000 x 2250, or about 9MP. 3072x1728 is about 5.3MP. So the photosites of a 4K Scarlet 2/3" at 16:9 might be 59% the size (in area) of a 3K version. I would not trade dynamic range for greater resolution.
 
Chris Davis said:
It has been said here that "...The 2/3" Scarlet sensor has a recordable area of 9.260mm x 5.184mm, based on the 16:9 resolution of 3072x1728 and a photosite size of 3um (0.003mm)..."

Looks like 4K at 16x9 would be 4,000 x 2250, or about 9MP. 3072x1728 is about 5.3MP. So the photosites of a 4K Scarlet 2/3" at 16:9 might be 59% the size (in area) of a 3K version. I would not trade dynamic range for greater resolution.
Click to expand...
Except that Scarlet's sensor is, according to Red's original specs, maximimally 3,072 x 1,620. That may have been increased to permit additional lookaround, but the image-area pixel count is still quoted as 3,072 x 1,620, with an aspect ratio of 1.89:1 (the digital-cinema aspect ratio). At 16:9, the spec is 2,880 x 1,620.
 
The last announced pixel size for Scarlet was 3.3um. 3072x1620 as the maximum recorded 1.89:1 digital cinema wide screen format has not changed as far as we know.
All of Red's sensors to date have been native 2k/4k wide cinema format, not HD format. HD format is cropped to 2880 x 1620, the same resolution as Alexa's sensor.
http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=555626&postcount=88
 
Probably not much of a difference on a 2/3 inch sensor so it might be better to keep it where it is with no further price hikes. And just wondering does the epic-s come with a full size sensor or is it still the same as when it was the s35 with a 2/3 inch sensor?
 
Paul Duvilla said:
Probably not much of a difference on a 2/3 inch sensor so it might be better to keep it where it is with no further price hikes. And just wondering does the epic-s come with a full size sensor or is it still the same as when it was the s35 with a 2/3 inch sensor?
Click to expand...

2/3" is not S35. S35 is approximately APS-C still camera size like the Canon 7D or T2i, and is equivalent to the current industry standard 3-perf Super 35mm motion picture film format.
2/3" Scarlet has always been 2/3"/ 16mm film sized format.
S-35 Scarlet was always 35mm motion picture sized format and morphed into the Epic-S. With the necessary upgrades for HDRx it would no longer fit within Scarlet's size and processing limitations.
So Scarlets are now exclusively 2/3"-16mm format and the Epics are S35mm format.
 
I'm certainly in the market for the fixed scarlet as I have other cameras to fit the ENG market and don't think It's necessary to continue down that road in HD. I love the fact that this camera is small ... will shot high resolution imagery at 120fps ... can be used in stills mode as well as cinema mode and has a 35mm to 200mm range on the X8 lens. For the price range ... I couldn't be happier and as for 2/3mm or S35mm ... I'll stick with the 2/3mm and not worry about s35mm at this point in time. If I can make money with the fixed lens Red ... that's mostly what I care about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top