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 :)

How well does Scarlet compete?

Christoffer Glans

Christoffer Glans

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
4,993
Reaction score
36
Points
48
Age
42
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
I was watching Zodiac again and I'm stunned by how good it looks.
Though of course I believe that Fincher is a visual master.

What I started to think about was how good Scarlet is compared to the Thomson VIPER. Also how well it stands against other 2/3 cameras currently being used to make big feature films.

How good might Scarlet actually become? Based on what we know about Mysterium, Mysterium X and the specs presented about the camera.

And last, if Fincher had made Zodiac with a Scarlet instead (leaving out the use of Zeiss lenses though), what would be the cons/pros if we imagin comparing shots?
 
I think if you shot a film, any film, on scarlet with no lights, no crew and no talent, it would look (and resonate with the audience) 27%-29% better than Zodiac, or anything by Kubrick or Tarkovsky possibly. Its all about the camera.

If Fincher had made Zodiac on Scarlet it would have been up to 33% better. I'm sure he knows this and how much not shooting on a pocket camera has damaged his career.
 
Glazarus said:
I was watching Zodiac again and I'm stunned by how good it looks.
Though of course I believe that Fincher is a visual master.

What I started to think about was how good Scarlet is compared to the Thomson VIPER. Also how well it stands against other 2/3 cameras currently being used to make big feature films.

How good might Scarlet actually become? Based on what we know about Mysterium, Mysterium X and the specs presented about the camera.

And last, if Fincher had made Zodiac with a Scarlet instead (leaving out the use of Zeiss lenses though), what would be the cons/pros if we imagin comparing shots?
Click to expand...

Obviously, Fincher is an immensely talented filmmaker, working with an immensely talented DP (Harris Savides) using a RAW workflow that he has perfected over a number of years of shooting commercials. There was also extensive post work done on Zodiac to achieve a consistent low level of noise throughout the film.

So, used to the best of its potential, the Viper's a great camera, though it's getting a bit long in the tooth. And Scarlet might be a great camera, too. Certainly if it offers what it promises, it will be an extremely potent tool in the hands of filmmakers everywhere. But really, nobody's going to be able to tell how the cameras stack up head-to-head until Scarlet's actually released and a battery of tests are done.
 
Obviously you are unable to process sarcasm
Click to expand...

Why the need for sarcasm? Don't you think I know that it's the filmmakers skills that makes a movie good looking?

But really, nobody's going to be able to tell how the cameras stack up head-to-head until Scarlet's actually released and a battery of tests are done.
Click to expand...

Yeah, of course but the rules of this thread is obviously about dreaming :)
But we know about how the Mysterium handles images so if you think of Mysterium X and how it could be compared to other 2/3 sensors we might dream up some interesting dreams
 
Many in here truly believe that Scarlet holds all the secrets to filmmaking. If you are not a good craftsman you won’t even achieve much with a $100,000.00 camera. There are so many parts and people involved to create a good piece of film. The camera is not the only factor in it.
There are so many bad scripts and technical ignorance in people’s heads that Scarlet and its wonderful potential won’t even begin to help solve.
 
Many in here truly believe that Scarlet holds all the secrets to filmmaking.
Click to expand...

No, as stated...

I'm talking about how much you can push a tool like this, because let's face it; even if you are the most brilliant visually skilled Rembranth copy of cinematography, you still need a camera that can do the things you want for achieving the images you want.
Now, I'm wondering as stated, how Scarlet (with the knowledge we have to date about everything from 3k to mysterium X) may be compared to the technology of the 2/3 VIPER that was used on Zodiac.
Because if Scarlet, in it's technology is better then VIPER it's telling something of what we can achieve with the skills we have.

And I made movies, I'm no rookie that believes a camera is going to get me into the big legue. But I'm through with trying to deliver my visuals with a DVX100 and mini35 adapter...
 
As soon as the first Scarlets come out of the oven we will see for sure about the possibilities and comparisons, maybe in a year or less. In the meantime all we can do is dream about it.
 
In the meantime all we can do is dream about it.
Click to expand...

Already said this thread is a dream thread so... :tongue:

We can speculate (that's all we can do really so it's not a suprise) and discuss based on what we know.

Scarlet will have a mysterium X sensor, it will be 2/3, shooting redcode raw at 100mb/s in 3K up to 120fps (180fps burst).

What is the sensor and inner workings of the VIPER? How does these specs compete (based mainly on how the Red One Mysterium sensor performs) with that camera?

Speculate, there's no one bashing you for being wrong when the camera is out :tongue:
 
Glazarus said:
And I made movies, I'm no rookie that believes a camera is going to get me into the big legue.
Click to expand...


I think that with RED in the game, the concept of "big league" will more or less disappear.

"Big league" may still apply to budget in the future, but not to camera technology. :)

...

1001 posts... Oh, yeah!.. Headng straight to 2k... RAW :)

And posted in 4:44 PM ! Hadn't noticed that! 444 is my lucky number.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top