Please convince me otherwise

[Jerrod Cordell]

In my opinion, I think the T2i is a great transition camera between a prosumer camera and Scarlet. I got my T2i last year and I love it. It has actually helped me with a few different gigs and has given me that cinematic look that I never got from my Canon XH-A1.

Granted there are a lot of workarounds and things you need to look out for while shooting, but I know this camera isn't better than Scarlet. Even with its 2/3" sensor, you can definitely get some good shallow DOF out of it. Especially if you get the Scarlet Cinema with the mini-Primes. I don't remember the math, but I think if you shoot wide open on the mini-Primes it'd be equivalent to shooting a 2.8 on a 35mm, which is wide open on my T2i. (if someone knows the exact math please post it. I don't remember it and I'm too lazy to look it up.)

But honestly I'd say get the T2i and start building a rig. Once Scarlet is released all you have to do is sell your T2i and replace it with Scarlet and now you already have a rig for your Scarlet.

 

[Graham Foulkes]

If you want shallow dof get a sony nex fs100 u , however you would have to get an external recorder to get a decent codec also a variable nd for each lens (or matte box and filters. ) however you would be wise to wait for scarlet for raw files and built in nd in my opinion this is what i am doing.

 

[Stephen Williams]

How often does a DSLR overheat? I've overheated my 7d 3 times. Once on a soundstage under 20,000 watts after a 10 hour day. Twice outdoors in 100+ heat after a few hours of shooting.

There was a firmware issue, I was shooting with 2 cameras, 1 showed the overheating icon most of the time. A firmware upgrade fixed the issue. The shoot was in August 2010.

 

[David Rasberry]

8x fixed lens will be way too limiting for most ENG work.

I just wish that red would have released MFT scarlet last year and would have taken the market over.
Sony's F3 and FS100 are now far more attractive for overall work than 2/3"fixed scarlet.
You loose raw & hdr, but 5d2 have teached that you can live with lesser technical quality, if you just know how to protect it as much as possible.
I'm just waiting for a bit cheaper b4-to-e-mount adapter than abel's current options...

If you use a B4 lens and adapter on M4/3 or S35 sized sensor you lose two stops of speed, so essentially you get no advantage in DOF over the same lens on a 2/3" camera. B4 lenses are easily available, but not really the best solution for these cameras.

 

[Graham Foulkes]

And lets not forget 120 fps

 

[Dan Hudgins]

HDSLR lenses on Scarlet?

HDSLR lenses on Scarlet?

Buy a T2i (How hard is that at $800?!) and a kit of lenses. Those same lenses will fit on the Scarlet when it ships. Then you'll have both and you can actually compare.

I would not compare Scarlet to anything using HDSLR lenses.

The Scarlet sensor is smaller in height than normal 16mm film, after crop to 2880x1620 for 16:9 its close to Super8 diagonal in height, lenses made for a frame that is several times taller that just look usable for HD on HDSLR would not have enough lp/mm for use on a format less than half as tall, the images would just be soft even if you over compensate for the OLPF blur.

Even the best 16mm lenses made in C mount were never meant to shoot 3K within the 16mm frame area at high MTF, more like 512x384. HDSLR lenses for the most part are designed for even lower standards, as the image quality is in ratio to the image height when you scale lens designs, if you increase the image area you decrease the resolution per lp/mm. Best results are from using high quality lenses designed to just barely cover the image diagonal of the format used. It would even be best to have two sets of lenses for Scarlet, one for 2880x1620 and another for full 3K diagonal to get the highest resolution in the end results.

We still need to see a side-by-side with fixed Scarlet, mini-prime on Scarlet, various C mount on Scarlet, and I guess HDSLR lenses adapted to C mount on Scarlet, all at maximum opening all processed with the same sharpen at minimum value to be able to tell much in how they relate, and more to the point, do any of those lenses get close to 30% MTF at 2.8K?

HDSLR do have the advantage that older SLR lenses can be used on the larger format HDSLR and they do have enough resolution for the most part to get above 1280x720 on the HDSLR size sensor and are low cost, some good SLR lenses are less than $40. The tolerances in making SLR lenses are much lower than for 2880x1620 cropped Scarlet size sensor, so making high quality 20MP C mount lenses costs in the $1000's, so there is savings in the camera but savings in good lenses is a more complex issue, as you are trying to go from HD to 3K while making the image area much smaller both at the same time so the factors multiply the issue.

 

[David Rasberry]

I think you underestimate the quality of premium 16mm film camera lenses. Many far exceed the resolutions of the film stocks they were covering. MTF won't be as good as the newest lens designs, but they will still produce very high quality images with Scarlet. The Cooke 9-50mm T2.5 zoom is used by some to shoot 2k video on the Red 1 with excellent results for instance. It will produce even better results on a Scarlet.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Premium

Premium

I think you underestimate the quality of premium 16mm film camera lenses.

That was my point, on the smaller format sensor the demands on the lens are higher and so there is a cost or "premium" for lenses that give the same high MTF results, adjusted for the image height, with the smaller image height.

With the larger sensor good older used SLR lenses can match the lines per image height at a much lower cost.

Also on smaller sensors you are restricted as to how small the f/ stop you can use, like f/8 on so called 2/3" vs. f/11 on A35 and f/12.5 on S35 perhaps. That impacts the image more because having less DOF at f/8 makes parts of the image out of focus so although you get better resolution in the plane of focus, you get less resolution in the background and foreground. If you stop down the background and foreground get a little better depending on how far they are from the plane of focus, but the plane of focus goes soft.

The bigger issue is are you better using:

1) S35 Scarlet with low cost good older SLR lenses and cheep Schneider ARRI standard lenses, Mitchell NC lenses, Eyemo Lenses etc..

2) 2/3" Scarlet with high cost premium lenses.

The system cost may end up being the same, or very close.

 

[Christian Jadot]

I have to point this out.

That's non-sense.

You might be able to rent the camera out, and it will earn some of its cost back. Unless you are a rental house though you can forget getting all your costs though.

YOU won't get any extra work because you have a Red - or any other camera.


-DSLR's have a very long way to go. I.e. Rolling shutter, moire, aliasing.
So what? Do you know how many "films" were shot on MiniDV and Betacam?

I can say with 100% confidence that no one would trade today's DSLR for 1989's Betacam. The DSLR makes better pictures by far.

Go make a movie and stop worrying about top technical quality.

Aren't these lines some what contradictory?

First off, you at least NEED some sort of camera to get work if shooting is your profession. Next you say no one would trade a BetaCam for a DSLR. Do you think you would be able to get as much work with a BetaCam as you would with a DSLR?

I agree with your main point though, that the camera is just a tool, and it takes skill and talent.

______

Now for the main topic of the thread.

Here is why I am choosing to purchase the scarlet over the DSLR.

I am not at home, and I don't get back until late summer. (So in theory, the wait will be only a few months.)
Framerate- 120 fps
The Codec- RED RAW
Colorstops- HDRx
Resolution- It does matter. First off, if all you need is 1080p it gives you the flexibility of cropping (I come from a photography background.) If it does not matter do size it to 720p for near 4:4:4 color!
Made (mostly) in the USA- It matters to me.

The only advatage the DSLR will have is sensor size and cost. Which cost is a very important factor.
Most importantly though the DSLR's are here now.

I am not a DSLR video believer though. If the Scarlet is not avaliable when I need to shoot, I will look into the new sony FS 100. (I went straight from DSLR stills to professional ENG cameras, and I see them as 2 seprate tools.)

 

[David Mullen ASC]

First off, you at least NEED some sort of camera to get work if shooting is your profession.

I better get a camera someday then...

 

[Tom Gough]

I better get a camera someday then...

:lol: - very funny stuff David :thumbsup:

All the best,

 

[Christian Jadot]

I better get a camera someday then...

I never said own. So are you going to animate something? Then I stand corrected.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I have to point this out.

Aren't these lines some what contradictory?

I don't think so.

They speak to different topics.

I don't think an owner operator can really expect to pay for their gear with jobs, or that an owner operator can expect more work because they have gear. So I caution against expecting to pay for your Epic with rentals, unless rental is your primary business!

Second ... I address the technical quality of DSLR's. I agree they have a bunch of problems - but it doesn't matter. Its better to shoot on them and be shooting, than to sit around waiting for Scarlet or whatever your "dream camera" is.

First off, you at least NEED some sort of camera to get work if shooting is your profession.

No you don't!! Most of the work I have done professionally has been on someone else's camera, usually rented.

I have earned with my XL-1 camera, but that was mostly on low end jobs I did because I was bored. ($100-200 here and there for school plays and other little jobs.) Not the kind of work you should invest in a camera to get. I've used it exactly 0 times for reasonable rate professional work.

I have however shot a 48 hour film project and a number of other little projects like that with the XL-1.

The first camera I've owned that I've been hired to work with on a "serious" production is my Canon 7D. I offer it for free with my day rate ... and someone took me up on that. Mostly however its also been used on personal projects.

Next you say no one would trade a BetaCam for a DSLR. Do you think you would be able to get as much work with a BetaCam as you would with a DSLR?

You have it backwards ... I wrote, "that no one would trade today's DSLR for 1989's Betacam."

Read it again carefully. I'm saying that a current DSLR is a much better camera for video work than a Betacam.

As to which one will get me more work? Neither. I'm much more likely to get a call asking me to shoot F900 or HPX3700 than either camera.

I agree with your main point though, that the camera is just a tool, and it takes skill and talent.

Well ... at least that much got through. Do I really suck this badly at writing?

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I never said own.

Then what does this mean?

First off, you at least NEED some sort of camera to get work if shooting is your profession.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Yeah. What Sam said. Why the argument in the first place? Buy a T2i (How hard is that at $800?!) and a kit of lenses. Those same lenses will fit on the Scarlet when it ships. Then you'll have both and you can actually compare.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of Epic-S? Canon mount lenses clearly won't fit on the fixed Scarlet. W/ Cinema Scarlet, I would think mini-primes or 16mm glass would work better, no?

 

[David Rasberry]

That was my point, on the smaller format sensor the demands on the lens are higher and so there is a cost or "premium" for lenses that give the same high MTF results, adjusted for the image height, with the smaller image height.

With the larger sensor good older used SLR lenses can match the lines per image height at a much lower cost.

Also on smaller sensors you are restricted as to how small the f/ stop you can use, like f/8 on so called 2/3" vs. f/11 on A35 and f/12.5 on S35 perhaps. That impacts the image more because having less DOF at f/8 makes parts of the image out of focus so although you get better resolution in the plane of focus, you get less resolution in the background and foreground. If you stop down the background and foreground get a little better depending on how far they are from the plane of focus, but the plane of focus goes soft.

The bigger issue is are you better using:

1) S35 Scarlet with low cost good older SLR lenses and cheep Schneider ARRI standard lenses, Mitchell NC lenses, Eyemo Lenses etc..

2) 2/3" Scarlet with high cost premium lenses.

The system cost may end up being the same, or very close.

Epic-S body only will be about 3 times the price of Scarlet Cinema. I have acquired a range of high quality used 16mm film lenses that cover from 3.5mm to 240mm focal lengths for less than $3k, with maintenance and mount conversions that will become about $6k and I won't keep all of the lenses I have bought. So I expect to be able to outfit a fairly decent basic Scarlet package for about the price of an Epic-S body.

 

[David Rasberry]

I better get a camera someday then...

Renting is fine if you are in a major city with access to rental houses and you work at the level you do David. I am more than 150 miles from the nearest decent rental houses. It makes renting non-competitive in my market for the kind of modest industrial work or small ads that I typically do for paid work.
But Scarlet for me is more of a serious hobby camera and it is price competitive with most of the mid-range and up prosumer HD production cameras I would consider in its place.

 

[George Butterfield]

-If I were to purchase the camera, it would basically pay for itself after the multitude of projects I would line up due to my ownership of a RED product.

No, the old spot news reporters key to success still applies ... "f8 and be there". Ninety percent of success is showing up. If you are reliable and show up early and leave late, you can make money with any equipment. If you don't you can't, with any equipment.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

What you have, What you need, What you end up with...

What you have, What you need, What you end up with...

Epic-S body only will be about 3 times the price of Scarlet Cinema. I have acquired a range of high quality used 16mm film lenses that cover from 3.5mm to 240mm focal lengths for less than $3k, with maintenance and mount conversions that will become about $6k and I won't keep all of the lenses I have bought. So I expect to be able to outfit a fairly decent basic Scarlet package for about the price of an Epic-S body.

Well if you have better than HD Glass in the right format you may be able to be ahead of people that don't because they need to start from scratch, which is what the original poster seemed to be asking about.

But there are some things to keep in mind:

1) The active area on the so called 2/3" sensor for 2880x1620 mode is much smaller than the full camera Super16 frame, and in so the image will be softer by the ratio of the crop. You can take a Super16 scan you have made with your current lenses and crop it to the active 2880x1620 Scarlet area then enlarge that crop back up to 1920x1080 and see what it looks like. Its possible to sharpen and de-noise images from small sensors quite a bit with un-compressed recording, but when you do that with compressed source images you have another factor that makes issues in the image when you sharpen.

2) Will a 2/3" Scarlet image with a very high cost lens look as good as a Epic-S image with some good but cheep older 35mm movie camera lens?

3) By the time you get to a 35mm filmout can anyone tell which camera was used?

4) Will the price of used RED ONE fall, making it closer in cost to 2/3" Scarlet?

5) Will there be other options in the next year or two beside HDSLR for better than HD cameras at 24fps?

Getting 3K from a so called 2/3" sensor will not be easy, lenses made for 16mm and Super16mm use were not intended to get 30% MTF wide open at 3K on the smaller Scarlet sensor area. In fact, by ratio of the image height, even common 35mm lenses were not designed to get even close to that level of correction as 35mm projection was closer to 1280x720.

Yes you will get an image of some sort, and you may say that the image has a nice soft "film like" look to it. But the original question 2/3" Scarlet or HDSLR, and so one needs to look at those side by side and ask which is meeting the needed results.

It would be possible for someone with older Super16 lenses and gear to sell them and use that money toward Epic-S perhaps, just holding onto what you have and adding a lesser camera may not work out as well as going for something that can deliver "future proof" results.

Since there are so many RED ONE sold, RED will face part of the problem Mitchell faced, their sales dropped off because there were so many used cameras around that they no longer needed to make new ones.

Also with the price increase for Epic-S, how will it sell over RED ONE used, and what will the quality difference be.

 

[David Rasberry]

At the 2880x1620 16:9 crop mode, Scarlet's sensor falls dead on the 11mm image circle specified for the 2/3" HD format. At 3K 2:1 digital cinema ratio it matches the width of the standard 16mm camera aperture. Lens resolution needs to fall around 150lp/mm to fully resolve 3k, but this does not factor in the OLPF loss. The classic Angenieux 12-120 in its final version with HEC coatings measured as high as 200lp/mm on a lens projector for a pristine example and this is considered to be a "soft" 16mm lens. Examples of stills taken with 16mm lenses on m4/3 cameras like the Lumix GH1/GH2 in the 2x digital crop mode very closely match the pixel density of Scarlet. The better lenses show excellent contrast and color, very minimal CA, and the image degrades into pixel aliasing before any significant softening due to lens resolution becomes an issue.
I expect decent 16mm lenses on Scarlet to provide very high quality high resolution finish up to the Nyquist limits of 1080p/2k HD, which will be the highest finish level I will need for some time to come.
No questions for stills especially that an Epic-S with decent lenses will produce superior results, but a full up package for that camera is still going to fall in about the same price range as the original Red 1, or about twice the price of a Scarlet.

I am expecting Scarlet to handily outperform the other available options in the under $10k range for general motion work, mostly doc style ENG/EFP single camera production. Being able to shoot Redcode raw vs any of the encoded video formats available in this price range is a big factor in my choice. I've played with Red work flow enough to know that I don't want to shoot low end video codecs for acquisition any more, period.