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 will be a winner!!!!!!!! Kubrick shot little to no DOF

R

Ruben and Sheri O.

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
290
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.facebook.com
It's how ur talents are not DOF , Kubrick saw to that by having deep focus on alot of his films. Scarlet will be a winner in my opinion, and if u want DOF buy an EPIC.
 
scarlet has always highly been anticipated, but +1 on shallow dof as not the only thing that makes your movie a movie. Orsen Wells shot Citizen Kane mostly at a T11 indoors melting his actors with light. Imagine what he could have done with the tools we have today.


He'd probably shoot at a t22 -_-
 
Except "2001" was shot on 65mm film with...........yes, you guessed it, plenty of depth of field.

Kubrick is the best!
 
In my mind the depth of field 'obsession' has only really been a big deal since the advent of digital video and 1/3" or less cameras. For the better part of a century technicians have done their best to get natural depth in their shots. It is a tool like any other but it has been bastardised by the DOF adaptor and DSLR crowd.

Further to the point you don't need to buy an EPIC to get shallow depth. Scarlet will satisfy the majority of the time (there is a big difference between 1/3" and 2/3") but for those times when you do have a shot that requires extremely shallow DOF then have a DSLR handy.

Personally I like depth, however whats more important to me is a good strong low compression codec, high bit depth, REAL resolution and the ability to shoot raw.

But we have had this conversation so many times..........................................................
 
So say we all!



....Which also has some nice cinematic images from a 2/3" camera...
 
The Coen brother films are mostly deep focus, locked off as well.

The scarlet most certainly wont suite my style of shooting, I only shot 16mm twice in 15 years.. hated it, only because of the soft grain and I also had to shoot long lenses to get a some form of shallow depth of field. I always will be a Full frame (gate) sensor man.

but hey!... The scarlet FIXED lens option will be cheap and will shot 3kRAW and will have a 120fps burst function.. maybe more.
It's nothing to be sneezed at, I personally think this entry level RED camera will sell like hot cakes to people working to a budget.

The image numbers will still rival the 90K ARRI Alexa camera, if not more....
 
I think there is some confusion about what a deep depth of field means because Kubrick's color films did not generally have a lot of depth of field except outdoors maybe when he could stop down a bit. He often shot near wide-open to maximize use of available light. "2001" in particular has some very shallow focus shots due to the 65mm format and the fast lenses he was using. Look at David Bowman's close-ups inside the pod for example. What Kubrick had was a lot of wide-angle shots and he played a lot of scenes in wide to medium size, so the shallow focus from using lenses at wide apertures was not very apparent except in close-ups. True "deep focus" generally means holding sharp focus from very near to very far in the same shot. Kubrick did not light sets to deep f-stops in order to get deep focus, he often was shooting at f/2.8 or wider. Most of that Kubrickian look (and Coen Brothers look) is due to the use of wide-angle lenses, some extreme, not due to working with the lens stopped down.
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree with Mark about shooting styles and the work I like to do.

That said ... I am seriously considering a Scarlet fixed.

I get way too many calls for jobs covering plays and such. Usually for people I don't want to say no to, but I also don't want to take an Epic out there, and a 7D is useless, but this Scarlet thing may just be the ticket.

Its cheap enough so I can set one on unattended record to capture a whole stage and then get all my coverage with the other camera I am using ... even if that is a 7D. 2 fixed and a Scarlet Cinema with a nice ENG zoom may be a good package for covering events as well.
 
Scarlet will be perfect for most television work. It will also appeal to wedding videography and other such segments. However those who anticipate a theaterical release of their work will have to move to Epic, because everyone else is moving into the 4K bandwagon (finally). Sure, you can shoot a once-in-a-decade superhit movie with Scarlet, but if you have the resources there's no need to shoot with Scarlet when you can rent/buy an Epic.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I think there is some confusion about what a deep depth of field means because Kubrick's color films did not generally have a lot of depth of field except outdoors maybe when he could stop down a bit. He often shot near wide-open to maximize use of available light. "2001" in particular has some very shallow focus shots due to the 65mm format and the fast lenses he was using. Look at David Bowman's close-ups inside the pod for example. What Kubrick had was a lot of wide-angle shots and he played a lot of scenes in wide to medium size, so the shallow focus from using lenses at wide apertures was not very apparent except in close-ups. True "deep focus" generally means holding sharp focus from very near to very far in the same shot. Kubrick did not light sets to deep f-stops in order to get deep focus, he often was shooting at f/2.8 or wider. Most of that Kubrickian look (and Coen Brothers look) is due to the use of wide-angle lenses, some extreme, not due to working with the lens stopped down.
Click to expand...


This site has some good illustrations of what you are talking about, or at least some similar concepts. DoF can be the same, but look very different depending on the focal length, or whether it's a wide or tight shot.


In fact, when the display size is small enough (or the F-number large enough), there is a point where the 28-mm photograph will appear completely in focus with infinite DOF whereas the 100-mm image would still exhibit a noticeably unsharp background. Fig. 5 illustrates just this. Two Gromit photographs are shown again, this time taken at f/22 and displayed at a smaller size. The backgrounds are markedly less blurred than in Fig. 3, but the 100-mm image still has a background that is not really sharp. On the other hand, in the wideangle picture the background does look sharp (if we are not too critical) and the DOF is now obviously larger at 28 mm than at 100 mm because it includes the cars in the background. We could blow up the red car again, to discover that the relative blur is still identical (and the license plate still undecipherable), but for the DOF all that matters is that the car is sufficiently small in the 28-mm photograph that it is not noticeably unsharp. In other words, it is acceptably sharp and thus, by definition, part of the depth of field.


http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html
 
Kubrick used the tools, lest we forget the f/0.7 lens used in the candlelit scenes from Barry Lyndon.

I wouldn't mind going to Mysterium-monstro FF with Epic... assuming that's a possibility :0
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
Its cheap enough so I can set one on unattended record to capture a whole stage and then get all my coverage with the other camera I am using ... even if that is a 7D. 2 fixed and a Scarlet Cinema with a nice ENG zoom may be a good package for covering events as well.
Click to expand...

Just curious, does anyone know what the continuous record time spec'd for Scarlet is? I had issues with other small HD cameras' fat32 4gb file size limitation . For continuous unattended recording, this may be important. I would also kindly advise against leaving highly anticipated yet to be released camera unattended ;)
 
Michael Ou said:
Just curious, does anyone know what the continuous record time spec'd for Scarlet is? I had issues with other small HD cameras' fat32 4gb file size limitation . For continuous unattended recording, this may be important. I would also kindly advise against leaving highly anticipated yet to be released camera unattended ;)
Click to expand...

That's all going to depend on SSD card size and what REDcode you record in. Here's a link:

http://www.ryanewalters.com/downloads/RedMagRecordTimes.pdf

It'll show the record times for each of the 3 SSD sizes, and what the record time is when shooting 3K. (on a 256GB SSD, at say, 7:1, you'll get 192 mins of record time) Plus, you can get an idea of how the record time changes in relation to REDcode. Hope this helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top