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 :)

Full Frame Scarlet

S

Steven Veldkamp

Banned
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My question is how much a Full Frame sensor would add to the cost of a cinema scarlet. To me, the greatest draw-back of the scarlet is the small sensor, Which will almost certainly affect it's low-light capabilities.
 
Steven, your question has already been answered, back in the days when there were 4 Scarlets, there was a FF35 brain that was priced around $10K. Though all this has changed with the upgrade of the S35 Scarlet to Epic-S.

Many here, myself included, do not see the 2/3 sensor of the cinema scarlet as a draw back. It all depends on your needs. The cinema will be great for VFX work, ENG, and DOCs. And with mini primes will also give you that shallow DOF that the DSLRs have spoiled us with.
 
I don't think a 2/3 chip size should be considered a limitation of the scarlet format at all - often people have said on these forums that maybe a better way of looking at it would be 16mm vs 35mm.

Think of it less as a technical limitation and more of an artistic consideration.
 
I actually don't want FF Scarlet, I love the fact that it's 2/3", I have enough of that shallow DOF obsession; 2/3" is shallow enough for me;
 
Yes, but to be fair the OP was concerned with low light performance not DOF.

To that I remember it being said that Scarlet’s low light performance would be very good, but I don’t think that’s been elaborated on too much, or at least I don’t remember it.

I believe the FF Scarlet was originally mentioned under the Monstro program, which of course no one is talking about right now, so anything and everything is speculation. The whole program has evolved so much since then I don’t think it’s fair to speculate too much on what the future holds based on that now very old information.

I will also add that if a larger sensor interests you for any number of reasons, RED has provided you with options (mentioned above).
 
FWIW, I don't think you will see a full frame camera from RED with the name Scarlet attached. I believe it was made clear when the S35 Scarlet was bumped to the Epic line that the FF would also not be called Scarlet. And, yes, the FF cameras were part of the Monstro program which seems to be, based on Jim's recent comments, moving along, however quietly
 
Terry VerHaar said:
FWIW, I don't think you will see a full frame camera from RED with the name Scarlet attached. I believe it was made clear when the S35 Scarlet was bumped to the Epic line that the FF would also not be called Scarlet. And, yes, the FF cameras were part of the Monstro program which seems to be, based on Jim's recent comments, moving along, however quietly
Click to expand...

This makes a lot of sense.

Product positioning has to be logical to match features/functions/price points.

If an S35 Scarlet is no longer a Scarlet because it is more appropriate to be part of the Epic line, what would justify a FF35 "Scarlet" branded camera?

Obviously, I don't know for sure, just conjecture based on general product planning practices. =)
 
My guess is - it will be branded EPIC-S FF35.

I would love to see a Scarlet S16 based on Monstro tech.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
FWIW, I don't think you will see a full frame camera from RED with the name Scarlet attached. I believe it was made clear when the S35 Scarlet was bumped to the Epic line that the FF would also not be called Scarlet. And, yes, the FF cameras were part of the Monstro program which seems to be, based on Jim's recent comments, moving along, however quietly
Click to expand...

I agree with this, however, part of me wonders if maybe the names will now correspond to sensor size ... with S16 being Scarlet ... S35 being Epic ... and then the FF, 645 and 617 each having different names.

Not sure whether it's wiser to maintain the Epic branding across all and build up the "Epic" branding -- or perhaps to come up with new names that could create a bigger sense of newness and impact (on a marketing level) in the industry.

I will curious to see what Red decides, whatever it is, I'm sure the branding will be way cool :coolgleamA:
 
AnthonyFlores said:
I agree with this, however, part of me wonders if maybe the names will now correspond to sensor size ... with S16 being Scarlet ... S35 being Epic ... and then the FF, 645 and 617 each having different names.

Not sure whether it's wiser to maintain the Epic branding across all and build up the "Epic" branding -- or perhaps to come up with new names that could create a bigger sense of newness and impact (on a marketing level) in the industry.

I will curious to see what Red decides, whatever it is, I'm sure the branding will be way cool :coolgleamA:
Click to expand...

As long as we are mulling over branding issues... :001_rolleyes:

I think the brand equity is pretty much all with the RED company name right now. I don't see the RED ONE having any particular lasting brand equity as it is all encompassed in the name RED. RED means high quality, leading edge "DSMC" camera equipment while One, Epic and Scarlet (which, IMO, aren't fabulously memorable names to begin with) will end up being model names which could quite easily be forgotten as newer RED models replace and upstage them. The RED name, and no other, also encompasses the accessory lines which also are likely to have a less transient existence than each camera model.

All that said, it is still quite possible that RED will choose to build greater brand equity around each model over time, effectively making Epic the Corvette of camera brands or some such. However, that does not appear to be what is happening. Of course, RED somehow forgot to invite me to the last Board meeting, so what do I know?? :huh:
 
Terry VerHaar said:
As long as we are mulling over branding issues... :001_rolleyes:

I think the brand equity is pretty much all with the RED company name right now. I don't see the RED ONE having any particular lasting brand equity as it is all encompassed in the name RED. RED means high quality, leading edge "DSMC" camera equipment while One, Epic and Scarlet (which, IMO, aren't fabulously memorable names to begin with) will end up being model names which could quite easily be forgotten as newer RED models replace and upstage them. The RED name, and no other, also encompasses the accessory lines which also are likely to have a less transient existence than each camera model.

All that said, it is still quite possible that RED will choose to build greater brand equity around each model over time, effectively making Epic the Corvette of camera brands or some such. However, that does not appear to be what is happening. Of course, RED somehow forgot to invite me to the last Board meeting, so what do I know?? :huh:
Click to expand...

I know what you mean and agree ... it's the Red part that's most important. But once the FF, 645 and 617 versions roll out -- again, I could see Red adding new features (always pushing the envelope) and coming up with new names. I think that new names would make for more powerful announcements, although companies like Apple have done quite well building big announcements out of product updates.

In terms of the board meeting thing ... I couldn't help but laugh. I recently had a dream that I somehow had $500 million in disposable cash and offered Jim $100 million to be a 10% owner of the company. Not that he'd say "yes" ... lol ... a) he probably doesn't really need it ... and b) Red could be worth more than a billion dollars by now -- or probably will be by the end of the year.

Either way, it was a fun dream -- the thought of being a part owner of Red and on the "inside" ... :)
 
AnthonyFlores said:
I know what you mean and agree ... it's the Red part that's most important. But once the FF, 645 and 617 versions roll out -- again, I could see Red adding new features (always pushing the envelope) and coming up with new names. I think that new names would make for more powerful announcements, although companies like Apple have done quite well building big announcements out of product updates.

In terms of the board meeting thing ... I couldn't help but laugh. I recently had a dream that I somehow had $500 million in disposable cash and offered Jim $100 million to be a 10% owner of the company. Not that he'd say "yes" ... lol ... a) he probably doesn't really need it ... and b) Red could be worth more than a billion dollars by now -- or probably will be by the end of the year.

Either way, it was a fun dream -- the thought of being a part owner of Red and on the "inside" ... :)
Click to expand...

Ha - my dreams are much more modest... I just want to be offered stock in the IPO. :drool:
 
Steven Veldkamp said:
My question is how much a Full Frame sensor would add to the cost of a cinema scarlet.
Click to expand...

Well, right now it would probably add less to the price of the camera than the post path would add to your overall budget. :smile5:

24mm x 36mm sensor at 6000 x 4000 pixels? Each RAW frame is 24 megapixels? I've got an older 1st generation Mac pro with two Xeon 5150 Woodcrest Dual-Core processors. When I open 24-megapixel RAW still frames in Photoshop the whole machine takes a deep breath while Mr. Adobe decides what to do with a file that big. I'm sure newer machines with faster bus speeds and more cores would do better, but we're probably still at a stage where editing a proxy is the only way that job gets done. And then a render farm can chug away into the night spitting out frames. Realtime 5k seems like a small miracle. Realtime 6K is probably a miracle for later on.

Low-light ability is cool. Nothing wrong with having a sensitive camera and shooting with less light. But focusing a camera with a big-ol' sensor while moving subjects dart around in front of it in light levels low enough that the Scarlet won't do the trick is probably beyond the scope of things you want to suffer through in your life. :thumbup1:
 
There's a time and a place for everything. Shallow DOF is included.

It's interesting how in the last year and a half, Shallow DOF is looking more and more to be a trait of some of the most low budget and poorly shot stuff.

If you can't shoot anything properly with deep DOF, I find it slightly humorous that the same people think they might get better results with a shallower DOF... :biggrinjester:
 
Joseph Hutson said:
If you can't shoot anything properly with deep DOF, I find it slightly humorous that the same people think they might get better results with a shallower DOF... :biggrinjester:
Click to expand...

There are gonna be shots where you want to isolate the actors occasionally. There's something of a shorthand anymore where male and female leads stand on a (wet) street with Christmas lights or Chinese lanterns off in the background somewhere WAY out of focus and twinkling madly while they exchange melodramatic dialogue about why they were destined to be star-crossed lovers.

But if you really have to do that shot you can do it with pretty much any format, 2/3" included. This is a frame from a cropped Standard 16mm telecine shot at 75mm T2.5 on Ektachrome 7240 (exposed at ISO 100, if I remember right). There's nothing "special" about the lens. It's the built-in zoom lens on a Canon Scoopic 16M. I'd guess that comparable shots can be done with the standard fixed-lens Scarlet. Getting the background to drop out in portrait framing with a telephoto lens isn't a big deal.

BTW, I tossed in the dust speck for free. :thumbup1:

Oh, lemme add something while I'm thinking of it. I had a motorcycle accident in 2000 and decided that while I was mending I'd go back and finish the degree I never completed in the 80's. To see if I could get my old brain working again I took some cinema classes at Santa Rosa Junior College. The guy who ran the program there was Walt McCallum and he'd shot a short that I believe was called "'Scapes" that made the festival rounds at one time. As it started you were presented with what looked like sand dunes or abstract art of some kind with very shallow DOF and then gradually it became apparent that the curves and shadows were a nude under changing lighting. I assumed he'd shot the whole thing on Super-16 with fast primes and it turned out he'd shot it all on Super-8 with a standard zoom. I said, "That's amazing" and he said, "It's way harder to keep things in-focus than it is to throw them out of focus." So true.

1719988435_a78c07cd13_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Steven Veldkamp said:
To me, the greatest draw-back of the scarlet is the small sensor, Which will almost certainly affect it's low-light capabilities.
Click to expand...

Flawed assumption.

Mysterium sensor in RED ONE: 8 - 10 stops.
Mysterium-X sensor in RED ONE: 13.5 stops.
Mysterium-X sensor in EPIC with HDR-X: up to 18 stops.

All those sensors are the exact same size. Semiconductor design counts far more than pixel density.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top