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

[Wayne Morellini]

Correct, Red 1 S35 is about APS-C size, Epics are about APS-H size.

Yes, as David points out they are a lot smaller than full frame 35mm, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg

No mention of 2/3rds, or 16mm, I guess they did not think naming those systems important, as happens with scarlet forums that are dominated by cinema enthusiasts that don't think other formats are important enough.

I would prefer to see 2/3rds used for consumer video cameras.

I would have preferred to have real full frame 32mp scarlet, then people can add 16mm, 2/3rd, 4/3rd, what ever smaller aps format lens they like to it through an adapter. Most of these formats would be much better than full HD, the smaller you go the faster the frame rate in proportion (with a target of at least 25fps 16:9 SHD). Maybe next scarlet series.

 

[David Rasberry]

I'd love to see a true super 16mm sized QHD sensor on the same 3.3u sensor design as 2/3" Scarlet. But it doesn't scale as neatly for cinema wide screen formats.

What is truly practical for general motion production is different from what is ideal for stills use. Even with film and the options of formats up to 70mm 16mm to S35mm has been the generally preferred range for the overwhelming majority of productions. The 2/3" -16mm sized format is still the predominant choice in terms of sheer quantity of video programs produced across all markets and genres.
2/3" format is larger than any of the smallest three formats on the Wikipedia page. That chart just showed common still camera sensor formats and none of the common digital motion formats.

I'd love to have an Epic class FF35 or even 645 medium format motion camera too. But it would be used for things other than general motion production, more like what Tom Lowe and other photographic artists are doing: experimental fine art or specialty format work for large scale digital signage or event display purposes.
If one is predominantly a stills shooter the requirements are obviously different.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I'd love to have an Epic class FF35 or even 645 medium format motion camera too. But it would be used for things other than general motion production, more like what Tom Lowe and other photographic artists are doing: experimental fine art or specialty format work for large scale digital signage or event display purposes.
If one is predominantly a stills shooter the requirements are obviously different.

Yeah, the larger formats are probably immediately going to become a smash hit with VFX guys shooting plates.

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Yeah, the larger formats are probably immediately going to become a smash hit with VFX guys shooting plates.

Maybe, but using larger formats for VFX was necessitated by the build-up of grain (and the resulting loss in image quality) when going through multiple generations of film. Many FX houses used 65 mm, whereas ILM used VistaVision (I believe that two reasons were the availability of high-quality Nikkor lenses and the ability to mount a 100-ft. film back on a full-frame still camera). With CGI and digital post, that need has effectively disappeared. If anything, digital VFX (especially CGI) need to have grain added to match film-originated footage.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Maybe, but using larger formats for VFX was necessitated by the build-up of grain (and the resulting loss in image quality) when going through multiple generations of film.

That was the main reason, but the other reason was to avoid anamorphic lenses for productions where the main unit photography was 2.40 anamorphic. It's easier to shoot miniatures on spherical lenses, easier to add the 2X squeeze after compositing elements, etc.

Also, VistaVision Full Aperture is 1.50 : 1, so it gives you some repositioning ability (especially if the final frame is 2.40), another reason why VistaVision is still sometimes preferred for efx plates today, again, particularly for 2.40 anamorphic 35mm productions. A larger spherical image is easier to manipulate in post. But obviously it's in decline, most efx people work with the normal live-action photography these days, saving VistaVision for wide shots when the extra resolution is valuable.

Another advantage of VistaVision over 65mm for efx was that any 35mm lab could develop VistaVision, plus there are more specialty stocks made in 35mm.

The ability to use a FF35 still camera for efx plates happened later on "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" when the stop motion mine car chase had to use small still cameras in order to fit through the miniature tunnels & tracks.

 

[Robert Jackson]

The ability to use a FF35 still camera for efx plates happened later on "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" when the stop motion mine car chase had to use small still cameras in order to fit through the miniature tunnels & tracks.

I was watching a making-of featurette about the animated sequences in The Grateful Dead Movie a while back that had an interesting little aside about how they used an F2 with a motor drive to capture short sequences of someone dancing in a skeleton outfit that they later rotoscoped to do the dancing skeletons.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

What is truly practical for general motion production is different from what is ideal for stills use.

Which is my point, the noise from Cinema enthusiast here, drowns out most everything else, and all other sense of use for the cameras (meaning most of the money and market).


2/3rds/16mm, is popular because it is a cheap compromise compared to s35, the real range has been determined by the industry, 4/3rds was chosen because it offered less difficulties and offered advantages (including DOF) over 2/3rds (which was rejected for it). People think that 0.95 aperture lens is going to be good on the scarlets, that would be interesting if the lens is designed sufficiently, traditionally large apertures like that interfere with the micro lens arrays on digital sensors. And who said that a 4/3rd lens system has to be too big for a small camera, my own pancake cinema lens design is not.

I come from around the start of the 35mm adapter projects, and some of the images from those 35mm full frame slr lens were more evocative than any Red image I have ever seen. And Guess what I plan on putting in front of a scarlet (though image processing software could also achieve a similar result). I find it much better compared to 2/3rds. The size of a slr 35mm lens justs gives a less warped flatter image, and real medium format more so again, for the simple fact, our brains understand the world through an approximately 65mm+ wide lens gathering surface (distance between our eye centers). It is not a matter of looking for it, it is about being stimulated by it. A good movie might be otherwise stimulating enough so that you don't notice it.

All these debates about how cheap the Scarlet (including the now Epic one) compared to Cinema industry standards just does not cut it for me, and of other well to do video professionals. I want to do a large part documentary work, and some fictional. In this country there is not much money for documentary maker's personal equipment. I'll give you an example, years ago, I was looking around for a cheap place to rent. I went to this old low slung two flat house standing in the middle of a yard, near Coorparoo Brisbane, and the realestate agent informed me that the older guy in the other flat was the top documentary film maker in the State or country, I forget which. The flat was $45 a week, the cheapest I ever came across, when single bedroom flats normally were around $100 a week. I have always regretted not moving there, or at least meet the guy, that is how you learn things (also regretted missing the post Oscar party for Master and Commander, at Palm Cove Cairns). I would not mind finding the place again, but I will not have my car next trip. Anyway, there is a culture of applying for government grants just to afford to make documentaries here.

 

[Robert Jackson]

2/3rds/16mm, is popular because it is a cheap compromise compared to s35.

Actually, 2/3" is the broadcast industry standard and it's been the broadcast industry standard since the 1950's. As I understand it the reasoning behind the actual size of the imager wasn't as much a function of optical design as it was a function of heat dissipation and power consumption. Although news prior to video was a 16mm field and I'm sure the idea of being able to re-use exiting optics probably occurred to someone along the line. A pretty concise history and some nice photos here:

http://www.crtsite.com/page4.html

Some camera tubes here to give you an idea what things looked like behind the lens:

16mm as a format really took off because of portability more than anything. Hold a 1000' can of 35mm stock in one hand and a 400' can of 16mm stock in the other hand and you'll quickly develop a preference for which one you want to carry five magazines of all day while you chase a reporter around.

And finally, the "sensor" in our eyes is WAY smaller than 24mm x 36mm. So it stands to reason that 135 format isn't the only (or even desirable) format if you're looking to approximate the way the human eye sees.

But it makes a good sales pitch. :thumbup1:

 

[David Rasberry]

When most live sports events are shot with $50k + camera bodies sporting shot box zooms costing as much as $80k, I don't think "cheap" enters the equation as far as 2/3" is concerned. Compact fast practical zoom lenses are as much a factor as anything. Enough depth of field to make it easy for a solo operator to follow action and focus accurately by eye is also a major factor. It remains the predominant broadcast format for very practical reasons of overall system size, weight, and ease of operation.

Now if you are predominantly a stills shooter,stills style motion shooter, meaning a much more static camera approach to composition and movement, then perhaps a larger format or something like an optical adaptor that simulates a larger format, is a better choice. But this is neither inherently good or bad, it is just a different aesthetic choice.
I shot both motion and stills professionally for most of the 70's and 80's, everything from 16mm film to 4-1/4 x 3-1/4 medium format, so I do know the differences in aesthetic qualities across this range of image sizes.
The problem for me personally has been that truly high quality digital motion cameras even in 2/3" HD format have been far from affordable for a personal camera. Scarlet is about to change that. But the considerations for such a camera choice go far beyond DOF aesthetics, that is a very minor part of the equation. I am buying it as a primary motion camera that has to meet a very broad spectrum of general production requirements and practical functionality. For the kinds of shooting I will typically do, 35mm anything is not the best choice for the "A" camera. So far the only other choices under $10k regardless of format shoot very inferior quality HD codecs compared to Redcode.

 

[Robert Jackson]

When most live sports events are shot with $50k + camera bodies sporting shot box zooms costing as much as $80k, I don't think "cheap" enters the equation as far as 2/3" is concerned.

Yeah, I remember shooting a PGA tournament as one of my first "serious" assignments back around the dawn of time. No wireless rigs back in those days, so you got there before sunup and started burying cables. Less than an hour into the day's shooting I tracked a ball up into the sun and burnt the rising sun into the tube of my camera. That day was the first time I'd become aware of how much a broadcast camera cost. :sad:

BTW, aside from the dollar value of the damages I'd caused, what I heard a lot was, "When the owner shows up Monday morning he's gonna get briefed on this, so please don't sit near us at the production meeting." Which left me shaking all weekend. I remember rigging an array of studio lights and blasting a white wall with as much light as I could. I pointed the camera at it and left it on for hours hoping to "bleach" the image out of the tube, but it didn't help at all.

Monday morning during the production meeting the owner said, "So, I understand we're running a camera short this week. Can we try not to kill any more cameras until it's back up and running?" And that was it. I think in my mind I was expecting a horse-whippin' or something. But letting people down like that is worse than spending a weekend in a stockade.

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

I am so psyched for this camera!

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Actually, 2/3" is the broadcast industry standard and it's been the broadcast industry standard since the 1950's. As I understand it the reasoning behind the actual size of the imager wasn't as much a function of optical design as it was a function of heat dissipation and power consumption. Although news prior to video was a 16mm field and I'm sure the idea of being able to re-use exiting optics probably occurred to someone along the line.

Then why didn't they use s35 then, or full or medium format. Just a compromise nearer 16mm. 4/3rds is just a better industry compromise (as a generic term not just broadcast).

16mm as a format really took off because of portability more than anything. Hold a 1000' can of 35mm stock in one hand and a 400' can of 16mm stock in the other hand and you'll quickly develop a preference for which one you want to carry five magazines of all day while you chase a reporter around.

That is what I was talking about, compromises, in this case portability.

And finally, the "sensor" in our eyes is WAY smaller than 24mm x 36mm..

But our brains un-warp the image and integrates the vision of both eyes, which is similar in perception to a much bigger lens.

Anyway, thanks Robert.

 

[Robert Jackson]

Then why didn't they use s35 then, or full or medium format. Just a compromise nearer 16mm.

Again, heat and power issues were apparently at the top of the list, but weight plays into it, too. And not just the weight of the film, but optics start to get very large and very heavy as the format gets larger. Until at some point you've got David Lean with a refrigerator-sized rig sportin' lenses like fire hydrants waiting for the Sahara to reshape itself into something he wants to see.

All things in photography/cinematography are a compromise, though. It's one of the reasons why we consider it an "art." If it was as simple as finding the "ultimate" rig that would be perfect for every conceivable situation then every DP would be using the same thing for every job. But the demands of shooting Woodstock were different than the demands of shooting 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Which actually brings up another thing. From the time of Drew's Primary and Crisis 16mm and the (dreaded...heh...) "verite" movement really took off. From the early 60's until the late 70's there were a ton of really interesting-looking "small" films and concert films done on 16mm and then video started to take over all that stuff. And a lot like television production, the move to video looked horrible and has been on a gradual path back from the Abyss ever since. But even HD has had such poor latitude that people have grown accustomed to blown-out highlights and poor shadow detail being a constant presence on television and in docs and indie films.

With the Scarlet being so small, portable, inexpensive and potentially decent in quality maybe we're about to start seeing a shift in this.

BTW, the way the brain interprets data from the eyes doesn't exactly romanticize the out-of-focus like larger film formats. Our brains don't really like things that aren't in-focus. Hold one hand up a few inches from your face in front of one eye right now and look at the screen with the other. You can see both things, but my noggin isn't rendering the hand as an ethereal bokeh display delineating the near field in my kino-eye composition. It's saying, "THERE'S SOMETHING OBSTRUCTING OUR VISION!!!" Because normally our brains work to make the data coming in from our eyes seem like everything is in focus all the time. So really our brains see the world more like tiny, tiny sensors than like large sensors. But that's not necessarily the way to make art. :coolgleamA:

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Again, heat and power issues were apparently at the top of the list, but weight plays into it, too. And not just the weight of the film, but optics start to get very large and very heavy as the format gets larger. Until at some point you've got David Lean with a refrigerator-sized rig sportin' lenses like fire hydrants waiting for the Sahara to reshape itself into something he wants to see.

Assume that I know all that. I was just sticking to the obvious compromise being discussed for simplicity. 4/3rds is just a new compromise below s35.

All things in photography/cinematography are a compromise, though. It's one of the reasons why we consider it an "art." If it was as simple as finding the "ultimate" rig that would be perfect for every conceivable situation then every DP would be using the same thing for every job...

Which actually brings up another thing. From the time of Drew's Primary and Crisis 16mm and the (dreaded...heh...) "verite" movement really took off. From the early 60's until the late 70's there were a ton of really interesting-looking "small" films and concert films done on 16mm and then video started to take over all that stuff. And a lot like television production, the move to video looked horrible and has been on a gradual path back from the Abyss ever since.

I remember some really interesting looking clean early monochrome footage from those days, forget the systems, but you would know more than me. I think I have some workout footage of Bruce Lee here shot with the system. Something like that is enough to turn people's heads (until they push the limits or try to go higher resolution and color).

But even HD has had such poor latitude that people have grown accustomed to blown-out highlights and poor shadow detail being a constant presence on television and in docs and indie films.

Yes, but a good camera still looks far ahead of cheap consumer camera doco film.

With the Scarlet being so small, portable, inexpensive and potentially decent in quality maybe we're about to start seeing a shift in this.

That was my hope when I started with DIY Digital cinema cameras in 2004.

BTW, the way the brain interprets data from the eyes doesn't exactly romanticize the out-of-focus like larger film formats. Our brains don't really like things that aren't in-focus. Hold one hand up a few inches from your face in front of one eye right now and look at the screen with the other. You can see both things, but my noggin isn't rendering the hand as an ethereal bokeh display delineating the near field in my kino-eye composition. It's saying, "THERE'S SOMETHING OBSTRUCTING OUR VISION!!!" Because normally our brains work to make the data coming in from our eyes seem like everything is in focus all the time. So really our brains see the world more like tiny, tiny sensors than like large sensors. But that's not necessarily the way to make art. :coolgleamA:

Focus DOF is as you say for art, and to draw the eye to what to look at. I see things that I am not focusing on out of focus all the time. But I was merely saying that our eyes warp images, and nearby objects, but our brain straightens it out more like a big sensor.

People think that the perfect camera is not possible, and until we get complex space warping technology or something, maybe so. But I have come up with a lens and sensor design direction that is suitable for a 6cm+ lens in a camera package less than 1cm thick, that is suitable for optimal quality in many occasions. But the sensor is a theoretical new design and I am unsure if it can get that level of performance. But the good news is that I should be able to use a existing sensor with the lens. I appreciate Red's efforts, but nothing they do surprises me, they are not the only bright people around. They will be lucky to surprise me even with redray, even if they could match the level of performance I was looking into years ago, since 1997 I was contemplating newer techniques for far far higher compression ratios. I have a range of techniques and quality even at Redray ratios is merely playing in sand.