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 Change Poll

Scarlet Change Poll

  • S35 Sensor

    Votes: 36 20.7%

  • Same as it has been just at a really good price

    Votes: 21 12.1%

  • Package deal that is wayy affordible

    Votes: 27 15.5%

  • Interchangeable with a kit lens

    Votes: 17 9.8%

  • Who cares I want one!!!

    Votes: 30 17.2%

  • 4k

    Votes: 16 9.2%

  • 4k with S35

    Votes: 27 15.5%
  • Total voters
    174
RAW price (get the joke?)
7.5k or under and that should be great but if the specs were the same for under the quoted ~6k then that would be even better
basically like a mini epic (even if its fixed zoom) with RAW and id be floored
 
Note Suwanchote said:
RAW price (get the joke?)
7.5k or under and that should be great but if the specs were the same for under the quoted ~6k then that would be even better
basically like a mini epic (even if its fixed zoom) with RAW and id be floored
Click to expand...

i guess it will be the mini epic...
good for you guys buying an epic s (former scarlet)!
 
Stephen Matthews said:
I'm tired of pointing out the benefits of 2/3" to people who don't want to take the time to understand.

for indi low budget crowd 2/3" is a much better format, you want s35, either you have to be playing in the big leagues and lighting and cost wont matter, otherwise by some large sensor camera with a bad codec and considerable compromises compared to a true motion picture camera(or use your current DSLR for the few shots you need shallow depth of field and the scarlet for everything else).

no offense but to each their own, and to me this camera has been and hopefully always will be aimed at a section of the market I'm happy for them to fill, I would hope it isn't changed just to meet the current trend of what is cool from people who are still learning what they need and how to use it. (hey I'm there to but options is nice and 16mm has been around a while so I can't understand why people don't want this option, seems they just want a cheap epic...)

sorry if I went overboard I'm just pissed with all this there is a place for 2/3" and 35, stop trying to get red to make a DSLR replacement under 10k, it might happen I just hope not at the sacrifice of a 2/3" model as well as it will be very useful in my opinion to the very people complaining about it they just don't realize it yet. Red may not make it, it could be s16mm sized I'd love that, thing is there will still be a need for it in this market and I would be greatly upset (though I'll still buy what they offer I'll still need a smaller sensor for my run and gun and nature work).

P.S. cost is a factor, storage, lenses, mounts(2k each) lighting(if you want things in focus...), and general ease of use in a small production or one man crew, got bigger jobs to shoot rent or buy and epic! prices will come down eventually but considering what red is offering compared to it's competitors they are doing very well.

have a good one!..... and sorry most of this is from built up frustration from reading posts on DVXUSER and cinema5D not really people here.

p.s. I don't know what I'm doing yet either so bare with me I mean no offense
Click to expand...

You can get some depth of field even with a small chip camera.

Zoom all the way in, and go with as low light as you can and still live with the ISO, noise, etc. Use an ND filter on a matte box to go for a fast f stop. Or hell, go with a fader ND screwed on to the lens if you have to.

http://www.film-and-video.com/dofmyth.htm

It's not going to be as easy, or as much as a big chip camera, but you can do it.

I want resolution, and I'll take that over DoF. I can live without the DoF. Kind of cool, don't really need it. I want to shoot stuff that potentially look pretty on a big screen.
 
Eric Rodemann said:
You can get some depth of field even with a small chip camera.

Zoom all the way in, and go with as low light as you can and still live with the ISO, noise, etc. Use an ND filter on a matte box to go for a fast f stop. Or hell, go with a fader ND screwed on to the lens if you have to.

http://www.film-and-video.com/dofmyth.htm

It's not going to be as easy, or as much as a big chip camera, but you can do it.

I want resolution, and I'll take that over DoF. I can live without the DoF. Kind of cool, don't really need it. I want to shoot stuff that potentially look pretty on a big screen.
Click to expand...

Here is a shallow DOF example shot with my 1/3" Canon GL2. This was shot at f2, approximately 50mm focal length with the camera about 8 feet from the bowl which is about the size of a human head. Only the middle 3" or so of the bowl is in sharp focus. The closest end of hammock is about 4' back, the porch railing about 8' back, the wall of the house next door about 30' back. Shot at 100 iso normal exposure on a light overcast day at the beach with 3 stop internal ND filter.

5450392846_073253d217_b.jpg
 
That's not shallow depth of field. It just appears to be shallow depth. The depth of field is the same, you're just compressing the background and foreground. Yes you get bokeh, but it's not shallow. There's a difference. Notice the foreground has no bokeh. If it were shallow, the backround and foreground would surround the object in bokeh.
 
Last edited:
Carey Lee Coffey said:
That's not shallow depth of field. It just appears to be shallow depth. The depth of field is the same, you're just compressing the background and foreground. Yes you get bokeh, but it's not shallow. There's a difference. Notice the foreground has no bokeh. If it were shallow, the backround and foreground would surround the object in bokeh.
Click to expand...

dont think there is enough foreground in this shot to determine the bokeh, 50mm isnt that much didstance for the amount of depth in this shot. Though I agree with you, not DOF... how you been man? long time no see
 
After consulting various pyschics, witch doctors and horoscopes... I have worked out what the Scarlet will be:

Interchangeable mount
S35 - 5k - 1-30fps, no HDRx
S16 (windowed) - 3k - 120fps - HDRx

How perfect would that be! (* note, the pyschics were no good at maths, so no idea if windowed s16 would equal 3k)
 
Last edited:
Someone fooled me today and showed me some footage that they said it was the first new footage from Scarlet and turned out to be Sony Fs100 =( What a messed up joke =( I am sad now, but props to sony FS100 looks like it produces nice quality
 
Jay Birch said:
After consulting various pyschics, witch doctors and horoscopes... I have worked out what the Scarlet will be:

Interchangeable mount
S35 - 5k - 1-30fps, no HDRx
S16 (windowed) - 3k - 120fps - HDRx

How perfect would that be! (* note, the pyschics were no good at maths, so no idea if windowed s16 would equal 3k)
Click to expand...
Absolutely perfect, that's how!
 
Carey Lee Coffey said:
That's not shallow depth of field. It just appears to be shallow depth. The depth of field is the same, you're just compressing the background and foreground. Yes you get bokeh, but it's not shallow. There's a difference. Notice the foreground has no bokeh. If it were shallow, the backround and foreground would surround the object in bokeh.
Click to expand...

That film isn't REALLY 3-D, it just LOOKS 3-D! ;-)
 
Okay, so much speculation shows just how much we all love RED and what they produce for we filmmakers to use. It just keeps getting better and better. I am hoping that Scarlet is within my reach as EPIC is so not at this point. I will be happy just to own a RED camera. Whatever Jim and the gang has come up with they have outdone everyone to be sure. They know what they are doing.

It all comes down to it's a RED and it just doesn't get any better. So, put it out and we'll buy it, if we can. I'll be watching with credit card in hand. Long live RED.
 
The point is: shallow depth looks better on a 2/3" sensor than on a 1/3", better on a S35 than on a 2/3", better on a FF35 than on a S35 and so on... BUT... shallow depth isn't everything!!!! For my kind of films, I prefer the 16mm aesthetic with mostly deep focus. I like the gritty, indie feel for my gritty, indie films. Not trying to emulate super slick Hollywood.
 
Carey Lee Coffey said:
That's not shallow depth of field. It just appears to be shallow depth. The depth of field is the same, you're just compressing the background and foreground. Yes you get bokeh, but it's not shallow. There's a difference. Notice the foreground has no bokeh. If it were shallow, the backround and foreground would surround the object in bokeh.
Click to expand...

Of course it is shallow depth of field. Run that setup through a DOF calculator and you will get a DOF of 6" to 1' depending on COC. I used .016 for COC which is about normal for NTSC cameras and it worked out to about 8", which is what I am seeing in the shot. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens regardless of format.
With my camera you get a tight closeup. With Scarlet that would show the whole width of the table and you could get a tight two shot. With S35 you would get a medium two shot. Same DOF in all of them.
 
What I meant was, you have use tricks to achieve a "shallow" look - lengthen the lens, be far from background etc. on a 2/3" sensor... and you still don't get the same shallowness that you would get on a large sensor. There's nothing you can do to make it look exactly the same. They are two different animals. Having said that, most people would not notice the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top