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

[Wayne Morellini]

The high Dynamic Range function saves it from the 3.3um pixel pads. I have Old $100 cameras here that use it with similar or smaller pixels sizes (and I think the Sanyo that has smaller ones) with very good results. Though, unless you have a good system the results can let you down. I am more worried about noise floor with the smaller pixels. I know of cutting edge sensor technology that can give an extremely good S/N ratio, but have not heard of Red using it, I cannot point to a sensor technology as good on a sensor.

 

[G Lap]

Slightly off topic, apologies, but in terms of sensor size S35 equates to APS-H (Canon 1D III/IV) from the stills world.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Slightly off topic, apologies, but in terms of sensor size S35 equates to APS-H (Canon 1D III/IV) from the stills world.

I don't believe that is accurate. Here are the measurements I have found:

S35 Film - 24.9 x 14 (EDIT: Corrected)
APS-C - 22.3 x 14.9
APS-H - 29.2 x 20.2

S35 seems closer to to APS-C although neither is exact.

 

[G Lap]

I don't believe that is accurate. Here are the measurements I have found:

S35 Film - 22.9 x 14
APS-C - 22.3 x 14.9
APS-H - 29.2 x 20.2

S35 seems closer to to APS-C although neither is exact.

Well RED seem to think it is

http://www.red.com/products/epic (see tech specs)

RED Epic sensor 27.7 x 14.6 (S35)
Canon 1DMkIV sensor 27.9 x 18.6 (APS-H)
Canon 7D sensor 22.3 x 14.6 (APS-C)

As you say, not exact, which is why I said 'equates to' (and Epic's sensor can be windowed to different recordable areas of course). But in terms of a stills world FF35 comparison, Epic is closest to APS-H.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Unless I'm mistaken, 4 perf S35 is 24.89 mm × 18.66 mm.

Epics sensor approximates S35.

The width of Epics sensor is indeed closer to Canon's APS-H than it is to Canon's APS-C. But the height is closer to APS-C, accounting for a cinematic rather than photographic aspect ratio.

But really, I think it's better to just let movie film be movie film, DSLR sensors be DSLR sensors, and Epic be Epic. They are all different in different ways and each has its own terminology to define dimensions.

 

[G Lap]

As you say Michael, different aspect ratios come into play too.

................But really, I think it's better to just let movie film be movie film, DSLR sensors be DSLR sensors, and Epic be Epic. They are all different in different ways and each has its own terminology to define dimensions.

I wouldn't disagree with this . However when stills only people first come here (drawn by the DSMC concept, as I was) this sensor comparison issue is often one of the first questions asked, by way of seeking a frame (excuse the pun) of reference from which to start off in the motion world.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Well RED seem to think so

http://www.red.com/products/epic (see tech specs)

RED Epic sensor 27.7 x 14.6 (S35)
Canon 1DMkIV sensor 27.9 x 18.6 (APS-H)
Canon 7D sensor 22.3 x 14.6 (APS-C)

As you say, not exact, which is why I said 'equates to' (and Epic's sensor can be windowed to different recordable areas of course). But in terms of a stills world FF35 comparison, Epic is closest to APS-H.

I was geting my info from this chart and took the wrong figure (which I have corrected, sorry). And I listed 3-perf rather than 4-perf - again, my oversight.

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23192&page=8

And I hadn't checked the actual sensor size for Epic, since that wasn't referenced in your post - just "S35." Interestingly, the chart lists the MX sensor as 30 x 15. Of course, this is old information and has obviously changed - although the RED site says "coverage" and not actual sensor size, for what that's worth.

I stand corrected on the dimensions. It does seem like Epic sensor is more like APS-H, at least in the horizontal dimension, which, for motion work, is probably more relevant. And RED does, indeed, say the coverage is equivalent to APS-H for stills. :smile:

 

[Robert Jackson]

4K is not true 4K, because the sensor is based on a Bayer pattern.

Yeah, but a monochrome 2/3" 3K Scarlet would be pretty nice in terms of resolution and sensitivity.

2/3" tube cameras were what I got all my early experience using. I'm very comfortable with the way 2/3" cameras handle. The fact that the Scarlet won't have a 40-pound U-Matic deck tethered to it and hanging from my right shoulder makes it even a nicer option. ;-)

So here's some comparisons that make sense to me (YMMV). I shot a ton of 8mm film as a kid. Less so with Super-8, but I shot quite a bit of that, including several student film projects. It's a nice format, but it's very hard to critically focus mainly because the (optical) viewfinder image is so small. So those are here:

8mm film: 7.9mm x 4.5mm
Super-8mm film: 7.9mm x 5.79mm

Then 2/3" video, which is where most of my experience is:

2/3" video: 8.8mm x 6.6mm

Then there's 2/3" Scarlet, which is a little wider and not as tall, but in the same ballpark.

2/3" Scarlet: 9.260mm x 5.184mm

Then 16mm and Super-16mm film, which are the film formats I'm most familiar with shooting professionally. This is the point where I can be in love with film. It's inexpensive(ish), the quality is very, very good with modern stocks, it's easy to focus (like 2/3" video) and the cameras are (mostly) light and compact.

16mm: 10.26mm x 7.49mm
Super-16mm: 12.52mm x 7.41mm

These are a little bit bigger than Scarlet 2/3", but again very comparable. Particularly in the case of standard 16mm, which I've frequently cropped to 16:9 in telecine.

You know, I kinda wonder if releasing Scarlet with a Super-16mm-sized sensor might have been a more compelling option from a marketing standpoint. RED (for better or worse) has kind of gained a reputation as a "Film Killer" and marketing a "replacement" for Super-16mm seems like a thing that would take root in the minds of aspiring filmmakers. In any case, the 2/3" Scarlet is in the same zip code as 2/3" video and 16mm film, IMO.

And then from there up it's the land of stuff that's very demanding to shoot and should probably only be done with a very experienced professional crew. Not so much for indie filmmakers and doc guys, IMO. I mean, YMMV, but pulling focus for Super-35 is the kind of stuff that leads to sleepless nights waiting to have your soul crushed by the workprint. Less so with the instant feedback of digital, but even then it's very hard to tell what you're getting until you see it on a big screen. Missed marks that don't jump out at you on a 24" or 30" monitor on the day-of suddenly look horrible on a big screen. Same with camera movements. I mean, it's all still there to mess up with smaller sensor sizes, too, but it's not quite as easy to screw the pooch.

 

[G Lap]

No worries Terry and as discussed the comparisons aren't exact, given the differing aspect ratios (it's almost a pity that stills cameras gained motion capability and motion went digital........:smile5

 

[David Rasberry]

Then 2/3" video, which is where most of my experience is:

2/3" video: 8.8mm x 6.6mm

Then there's 2/3" Scarlet, which is a little wider and not as tall, but in the same ballpark.

2/3" Scarlet: 9.260mm x 5.184mm

The 8.8 x 6.6 mm 2/3" reference is for SD NTSC.

HD 2/3" is 9.6 x 5.4 mm for the same 11mm image circle.

Scarlet at 3k is 10.1mm x 5.35 mm, slightly larger than the standard HD 2/3" frame.

 

[Robert Jackson]

The 8.8 x 6.6 mm 2/3" reference is for SD NTSC.

Sorry. I should have been more clear about that. SD NTSC 2/3" video is what I was talking about. When I was shooting 2/3" video it was SD tube cameras.

 

[Christian Jadot]

Yes I would like a 4K Scarlet, but not at the price of any further delays or a raised price.

Now maybe a future product would be a 4K 16mm sensor camera. The Scarlet 16 or whatever would be great in the line up of the next generation. But lets get this Scarlet out the door first.

 

[David Rasberry]

The 8.8 x 6.6 mm 2/3" reference is for SD NTSC.

Sorry. I should have been more clear about that. SD NTSC 2/3" video is what I was talking about. When I was shooting 2/3" video it was SD tube cameras.

Right there with you man.:thumbsup:

With Scarlet I will have managed to skip over the whole HD video transition of the last 10 years in favor of something better. It has been a long wait. Here's to us old farts.:beer:

 

[Solomon Nero]

What I would want more then 4k Scarlet, is a full 13 and a half stops if the scarlet cant do that(not really sure, actual specs are not yet posted to my knowledge). Stops all the way!!!

 

[Robert Jackson]

Right there with you man.:thumbsup:

With Scarlet I will have managed to skip over the whole HD video transition of the last 10 years in favor of something better. It has been a long wait. Here's to us old farts.:beer:

I'm tellin' ya...shooting discrete frames with no interlacing and no big U-Matic deck hanging off my shoulder sounds pretty sweet. Only 3K? Geez, I'm gettin' all weepy. Is it better than 280 x 486? Can I record more than 20 minutes without changing out the media? I'm in! :rolleyes5:

Film is great. I migrated to 16mm for local ad work about the time U-Matic was going away and I've done a bit of stuff with HD, but it's always such a pain to figure out what each new HD camera system is going to spit out. "Oh, is that 1080x1440 at 24p, but recorded over 60i? So...uh...remind me again how to get that into a 1080p24 file...I've misplaced the football and the launch codes were in there..." The way Red Alert! allows you to spit out the de-Bayer'd file in whatever form you need it is (all by itself) a reason to buy into the system, IMO.

 

[David Rasberry]

I'm tellin' ya...shooting discrete frames with no interlacing and no big U-Matic deck hanging off my shoulder sounds pretty sweet. Only 3K? Geez, I'm gettin' all weepy. Is it better than 280 x 486? Can I record more than 20 minutes without changing out the media? I'm in! :rolleyes5:

Film is great. I migrated to 16mm for local ad work about the time U-Matic was going away and I've done a bit of stuff with HD, but it's always such a pain to figure out what each new HD camera system is going to spit out. "Oh, is that 1080x1440 at 24p, but recorded over 60i? So...uh...remind me again how to get that into a 1080p24 file...I've misplaced the football and the launch codes were in there..." The way Red Alert! allows you to spit out the de-Bayer'd file in whatever form you need it is (all by itself) a reason to buy into the system, IMO.

I shot 16mm for video, mostly industrials, in the 70's and 80's. Good bit of U-matic work too, but absolutely loathed that format. I switched to AV systems engineering when Betacam pretty much killed the local 16mm market. Never could quite swing the cost of a Betacam in a small market and rental wasn't practical.
Very much looking forward to my "digital Bolex". I was totally hooked on Red after a single afternoon hands on demo with a Red One and some pleasant hours here and there grading raw clips in Redcine. Not going back to any form of encoded video camera. Scarlet will be pretty much a hobby camera, but I'm sure I will scrounge up a few paying gigs to help cover the cost.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I shot 16mm for video, mostly industrials, in the 70's and 80's. Good bit of U-matic work too, but absolutely loathed that format. I switched to AV systems engineering when Betacam pretty much killed the local 16mm market. Never could quite swing the cost of a Betacam in a small market and rental wasn't practical.
Very much looking forward to my "digital Bolex". I was totally hooked on Red after a single afternoon hands on demo with a Red One and some pleasant hours here and there grading raw clips in Redcine. Not going back to any form of encoded video camera. Scarlet will be pretty much a hobby camera, but I'm sure I will scrounge up a few paying gigs to help cover the cost.

I actually did the industrials thing with Betacam gear, but it wasn't my rig. I worked for a small local production company for a while during that period. Hard to get enthusiastic about shooting footage detailing the proper handling of amortization documentation (my first industrial), but it paid the rent. There were a few local clients I worked for that always demanded film and it was what drove me to 16mm, which I initially found irritating and gradually really warmed to.

Scarlet will largely be a hobby rig for me, too. There are a couple of doc projects I've been planning to work on that I have filing cabinets full of research I've been waiting to work through, so there's that. And I worked for years at a local music video station and still occasionally help local bands work on promo clips, even though these days the clips are usually for a reel to help them get bookings as opposed to being used for entertainment purposes. Actually, I kinda feel like I'm exactly the market for Scarlet. When I read the specs initially I kept thinking it was like someone had read my mind. 2/3" format with "oversampling" for 1080p delivery and a whole variety of over and under-cranking options? Perfect.

I've always had options with film that would get me up to 64 fps (and later 75 fps) and that was usually about enough, but I always kinda wanted to be able to go a little faster on occasion. I don't know how many times I looked at a 16SRII HS and considered spending more than I felt comfortable spending to get there. Being able to shoot at 120 fps is perfect, IMO.

And early Super-16mm rigs had all kinds of problems with jamming. After using some rental gear that was prone to repeated failure I pretty much decided to stick with regular 16mm, even after the problems with Super-16 seemed to pretty much go away. I still use cropped regular 16mm when I shoot 16mm (even though my argument about losing the second row of sprocket holes vanished with the death of dual-perf 16mm film). So a sensor that's native at wider than 1.33 is also pretty sweet (although I understand it's expected these days, but still). And of course the touch-to-focus AF seems like it might be a life-saver.

Yeah, bring on the Scarlet. When I see people arguing about how, "Oh, the sensor is just so small...I really want a full-frame sensor!" Er...I find it irritating. I mean, I have owned (and still own) 35mm cameras, but man are they a challenge to shoot properly. Much more demanding in terms of pulling focus. And HD is worse than 16mm. Stuff that was essentially impossible to see on 16mm is right up in your face with 2/3" HD. So you know S35 or 24x36 sensors are going to be completely nightmarish. Even worse than shooting 35mm, as tough as that is.

Nah, I have a feeling that Scarlet fixed (with a sensor that will never see dust) will be a life-saver for me.

 

[David Rasberry]

Yeah, bring on the Scarlet. When I see people arguing about how, "Oh, the sensor is just so small...I really want a full-frame sensor!" Er...I find it irritating. I mean, I have owned (and still own) 35mm cameras, but man are they a challenge to shoot properly. Much more demanding in terms of pulling focus. And HD is worse than 16mm. Stuff that was essentially impossible to see on 16mm is right up in your face with 2/3" HD. So you know S35 or 24x36 sensors are going to be completely nightmarish. Even worse than shooting 35mm, as tough as that is.

Nah, I have a feeling that Scarlet fixed (with a sensor that will never see dust) will be a life-saver for me.

Yeah, I used to document stage productions on 35mm slides and getting enough depth of field under stage lighting conditions was more of a problem than getting shallow focus. The 2/3"/ 16mm sized format is my preference for general purpose motion work too.

I'm planning on a Scarlet Cinema using some of my old 16mm lenses as well as a few more I've collected over the last two years of waiting. Love to have both a Cinema and a fixed at some point. Got coverage from a Century 3.5mm fish-eye all the way to the long end of an Angie 12-240. More zooms than primes. I like buttoning up a rig with the appropriate zoom for the day to minimize the chance for dust intrusion too. It is going to be interesting to see how these old lenses perform on a Scarlet. From the example shots of C-mount 16mm lenses on Lumix M4/3 cameras, some of them should perform quite well, though I don't expect them to match the quality of the lens on the fixed.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I'm planning on a Scarlet Cinema using some of my old 16mm lenses as well as a few more I've collected over the last two years of waiting. Love to have both a Cinema and a fixed at some point. Got coverage from a Century 3.5mm fish-eye all the way to the long end of an Angie 12-240. More zooms than primes. I like buttoning up a rig with the appropriate zoom for the day to minimize the chance for dust intrusion too. It is going to be interesting to see how these old lenses perform on a Scarlet. From the example shots of C-mount 16mm lenses on Lumix M4/3 cameras, some of them should perform quite well, though I don't expect them to match the quality of the lens on the fixed.

Honestly, I feel like lenses are pretty much lenses at some point. Like, I have an old Soligor C/D 135mm f/2 AI in Nikon mount. Testing on my D700 shows that wide open it's not as sharp as (for example) my Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro, but since I don't use it for macro shooting it usually seems more than sharp enough. You can find a way to make almost any lens show its weaknesses, but if you play to their strengths most lenses do the job for you.

I'll bet even the soft edges of your fisheye will look fine in real-world shooting. I've used a really cheap fisheye (not nearly as nice as the Century) to simulate the view through a peep-hole and the edges of the circle were a smeared, aberrated (can that be a word?) mess, but it's the view through a peep-hole. Nobody ever seemed to notice the flaws or if they did it probably seemed apropos to the optics of a peephole.

Some lenses I actually use specifically for their poor optical performance. Like, I have an old Kinor 28-85mm f/3.5 zoom in Olympus mount that vignettes terribly at the wide end. I love it. The thing cost me something like $15 and I grab it specifically for stuff like this:

Yeah, I'd like to eventually own a fixed and a Cinema at some point. The pricing and selection of mini-primes is very attractive to me and so is the ability to telephoto-up with an interchangeable lens camera. Also, since I spent as much time doing TV as I did I've got a weakness for using multiple cameras that film guys tend to scoff at. When I'm shooting an interview or dialogue scene with two or three people it seems natural to me to have more than one camera rolling. With the Scarlets costing as little as they do shooting coverage doesn't have to be a break-the-bank thing.

Sorry. I get gabby. :001_unsure:

 

[David Rasberry]

As long as they are in decent shape, most of the lenses I have should perform pretty well. Here is a sample from a rare 8-24mm f1.6 Taylor
Hobson zoom. It was shot by the guy I bought it from on a Lumix G1.
2:1 crop, so very close to Scarlet's HD width and resolution.

This lens needs some mechanical work, but the glass is pristine.