The Case for Micro Four Thirds on Scarlet (and perhaps Epic!)

[George Petersen]

Hi All;

I've been lurking around watching Red's progress and have been getting very excited about the Scarlet as well as the Epic. I must say, that I think that all creative roads should lead to Red. For that reason, I think that as the highest common denominator, the micro four-thirds mount belongs on Scarlet! The reasons are many:

1. Those up and coming cinematographers cutting their teeth on Panasonic GH2s and AG AF101s, etc. should have an easy migration path that brings their glass with them to Red.

2. The micro four thirds lens mount has the shortest flange to sensor distance and as such has room for an adapter for every major mount, which are all available: Canon FD and EF, Nikon incl. F, Leica M and R, PL, Sony/Minolta, Pentax, and more...

3. The micro four thirds design philosopy is entirely in synch with Red's. It's designed as a digitial only format with the sensor and lenses designed to produce the most even resolution across the frame by allowing the lenses to project more directly onto the sensor. Looking at the resolution tests on numerous sites bears this out. It also allows them to build smaller equivalent lenses and most importantly to me, faster within the scope of what is reasonable to lug around.

4. Most of the newest, sharpest (especially wide open) and fastest lenses on the market today are made for the four thirds and micro four thirds mounts. Olympus's Super High Grade lenses make Canon and Nikon's best glass look like "also rans". The Panasonic/Leica Summilux 25 f/1.4 (50mm full frame equivalent) is sharper wide open than Canon's 50 f/1.2 stopped down to 5.6 and just gets better as you stop it down to 4 - 5.6. It makes Canon & Nikon's "nifty 50's" look pretty shifty. Have a look at the MFT50 charts on lenstip.com and you'll see what I mean. Compare the Olympus 150 f/2.0 to the discontinued Nikon 300 mm f/2.0 a full frame camera or to the Canon 200 f:/2.0 for APS-C sized sensors - no contest on price, performance or weight! Far less money and much sharper wide open and across the frame. It has no equal! Check out the Olympus 35 - 100 f/2.0 (70-100mm Full frame equivalent). About the same size as a Canon or Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, but a full stop faster...and again, much sharper and more even across the frame. The Zuiko 14 - 35mm F/2.0 is likewise crazy sharp across the frame wide open and is the fastest standard zoom on any system. The 7 - 14mm F/4.0 (equiv. to 14mm - 29 mm on full frame) is a rectilinear design; when the camera is level, straight lines stay perfectly straight! The results are stunning. And on the really long end, the Olympus 90 - 250 (180 - 500mm full frame equiv. or 360 - 1000mm equivalent on the 2/3" sensor) at f/2.8 is absolutely amazing for a zoom.

5. Olympus bodies allow you to switch between clockwise or anti-clockwise operation of the focusing ring, which could be implemented on Red when using Olympus glass - Whooo hooo!

6. No need to change to a four thirds sensor (although that would be a good thing, its not required). The 10.1 x 5.35 mm 2/3" sensor produces a little better than a 4 x crop factor (think the equivalent of say a 600mm f/2.0 with the Olympus 150 f/2, but with the increased DOF of the 150!). With the S35 sensor the four thirds glass covers at least 3198 x 2404.

I could go on and on and on.....

The best glass belongs on the best cameras; a micro four thirds mount on Red would allow the best glass regardless of maker to fit on Red.

I can't wait to hear your announcement on Nov. 3rd Jim; if it includes a four thirds mount as an option, I'm a buyer. If not, I'll be thinking about the Panasonic AF101 and GH2.

 

[John Bellari]

I would love to be able to use all the new micro four-thirds glass on the Red Scarlet,
but that depends greatly on whether Scarlet is 2/3" or S35 size sensor...

I assume some brave souls will attempt to create a mechanical adapter either way...

 

[Paul Watt]

yeah, really don't think that's gonna happen. the flange focal distance is really short on m4/3. The mount would have to be inside the camera body. And it would lose all advantages on a 2/3 sensor, and not cover a super 35 sensor. How many of those zooms are parfocal? And if any of them are, do any of those ones have a constant aperature?

 

[Phil Holland]

I'll jump in with an opinion and I don't disagree with where you are going with this.

But, I'll point out the Canon and Nikon 1.6x and 1.5x DSLRS have sold more bodies than the GH2 and AF101 by a whole lot and is a more popular format.

I agree with you on the quality of the glass that is coming through for the 4/3rds system. However, there is a larger variety of lenses for larger sensor cameras. Also, you can't really compare MTF charts for lenses across different sensor sizes even when trying to match the crop factor. Optically speaking that doesn't make too much sense.

The sticky bit for me is that format. It is indeed one of the newest sensor formats on the market. Personally I prefer a larger sensor. That's my opinion and everybody has their own preferences when it comes to sensor size/format. This will always be a contested issue as it's really more about personal taste. And I'll never be the one to tell anybody what flavor ice cream they should eat.

The big plus about 4/3rds though is you can keep the size of your kit way down. In general though still lenses are still much smaller than cinema grade/style glass anyways.

If the Scarlet is indeed smaller than S35 it would be nice to have the optional mount, but I'm hoping for S35 or the not very likely FF35. There is certainly a market for smaller sensor cameras, but most people intending on cinema use do prefer S35.

 

[Zeb B]

The upcoming GH3 with a Voigtlander / Leica kit will be tough to beat at the low end. I have a couple GH2's and an AF100 now and will say M43 is great at what it does. Scarlet is what it is at this point. Having been in manufacturing in a previous life - product design lock out happened a year ago. Jim is no fool - he will come strong with this product technically. Only question will be price/value.

 

[Paramon Ivanovich]

Jim is no fool - he will come strong with this product technically. Only question will be price/value.

what?

 

[Graeme Hay]

Im currently shooting with a GH2 and I agree that the M4/3rds format is great and I'm secretly hoping for a 4/3rd sensor in Scarlet (the crop factor of a 2/3rd lens makes most glass too long) and a mounting solution would be nice for the scarlet; but it may not be technically feasible, and surely the epic or larger sensor camera it's a no-go.

As for Josh's comment on price/value, I agree that the Panny options are super affordable for what they give you and I think that is something RED needs to consider when pricing the scarlet. I was recently talking with another producer and we are at odds what the basic kit price will be (his estimate is twice mine- and would put scarlet well out of my budget and I thnki most people here who are looking to buy their first RED).

That said I also think some o dyne sepeculation going around on REDuser about the scarlet is a bit insane, especially given the price point people want for the scarlet and the spec guesses often being very close to the Epic.

 

[JD Holloway]

Good first post!

While your lens MTF comparisons between different sensor sizes are "off base" IMHO, I think you are definitely on to something.
I always thought that the Scarlett system should always be about s35 4k sensors (even if higher compression/frame rates/HDRx etc).
Otherwise, why the RED 4K mantra? I think 4/3 would be a nice middle ground. Lots of 4/3 imager vendors right? Keeps the price down.
Likely to have better low light performance than 2/3" sensors.

Lots of lens options. Crop your s35 or FF 35mm. Or buy dedicated 4/3 glass.

 

[Zeb B]

Always helpful:
http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

RED seems to have shifted gears in terms of naming association with product. Having moved the Scarlet-S35 over to the EPIC line, I think they're going for S35=EPIC and 2/3"=SCARLET. Ultimately this will avoid a LOT of confusion. Of course, I could be wrong come November 3, but I'm going to assume for now that there won't be a SCARLET with a S35-sized sensor.

As for the 4K mantra, it's all fine and great until we get down to 2/3" sensor sizes. In order to pack 3K into the 2/3" size, the pixel density has increased by 1.636X when compared to the full size M/ MX sensors. 2/3" sensor has photosites that are 3.3um (0.0033mm) in size. If they were to jam another 1024 pixels of horizontal resolution in there, that is effectively another 33% increase or a density increase of 2.18X over the full-size Mysterium; the photosites at 4K on that 2/3" chip would be 0.002475mm.

I see a lot of comments in these Scarlet threads where people are hoping for an S35 sized 5K sensor that windows down to 2/3" at 3K or 4K.... WTF? No, can't happen unless the sensor uses non-square pixels and photosites increase in density as we approach the center of the sensor. To put the density into perspective another way, if RED gave us a sensor with the same active-area of the full-size MX sensor, but the density of their 2/3" sensor, it would not be 5K. It would be over 8K ~ 8376 pixels wide.

IMO, 4/3rds makes little sense as a format to adopt. It's semi-proprietary and obscure. Currently the only companies making 4/3rds cameras are Panasonic and Olympus. I have to disagree with the OP's assessment of micro-43 glass. I've found the vast majority of lens offerings to be pure shit. Yes, there are a couple nice ones, but lens selection is rather dismal to say the least. Paul Watt is correct in his post above, you're not going to find a parfocal or retro-focal lens design in micro-4/3 format due to the extremely short FFD. And you'll be hard-pressed to find zooms with a constant aperture, unless it's designed extra large from the start and then crippled on the wide end to match the long end.

That said, I do like the micro-43 format somewhat. I admit I was not a fan until recently.. The format itself wasn't the problem, it was the products that used it. My first couple forays into the micro-43 world were met with dismal performing cameras (and the micro-43 world still suffers from this somewhat), plastic lens mounts -- yes, plastic. Fuck you very much, Panasonic. Things like that, so it left a bad taste in my mouth. Currently I own a GH2 and I'm rather pleased with it. It takes great-looking 24p video as long as the motion doesn't get out of hand -- the rolling shutter skew is unbearable at times, like most DSLR video. 4/3rds is a nice size. It's much more manageable at times in terms of focus than S35/ APS-C and larger. Which brings me to my next thought...

I'm hoping that the Scarlet sensor has grown. Yes, this is speculation on my part, and we'll find out in a few weeks. Once again, I'm probably wrong, but I'm hoping that RED gives us a 4K sensor in Scarlet at the same 3.3um pixel size of the 2/3" 3K Scarlet. By doing this, they could keep their same 1.89:1 wide aspect ratio as on EPIC and prior Scarlet prototypes. It would make the sensor 13.516mm wide at 4K, many longer S16 sized lenses would still cover -- similar to how many S35 / APS-C lenses will cover 5K on the MX sensor. But cropping or windowing down would give us 3794 pixels wide at S16, and we would still have the 3K at the 2/3" | standard-16mm sensor width.

If they did the above, shooting at 4K would also be a good fit for many 4/3rds lenses. However, micro-43 is probably out once again, due to FFD and the challenges of mounting that close to the camera body. I think the only way to realistically offer a micro-43 mount Scarlet would be to have one with a dedicated (non-interchangeable) micro-43 lens mount. And I really doubt there's enough market demand to justify that....

Anyway, those are my thoughts...

 

[Eric Rodemann]

Not a fan of 4/3. 2/3 or s35 please.

 

[Zeb B]

I have to disagree with the OP's assessment of micro-43 glass. I've found the vast majority of lens offerings to be pure shit. Yes, there are a couple nice ones, but lens selection is rather dismal to say the least. Paul Watt is correct in his post above, you're not going to find a parfocal or retro-focal lens design in micro-4/3 format due to the extremely short FFD. And you'll be hard-pressed to find zooms with a constant aperture, unless it's designed extra large from the start and then crippled on the wide end to match the long end.

'cept that Zeiss now makes both their CP.2 range and LWZ.2 with interchangeable mounts including MTF:
http://www.zeiss.com/cine

 

[Steven Hammer]

I love the idea of being able to use my Olympus 4/3 12-60 and 50-200 lenses on a Scarlet. But... The autofocus on them is all based on phase detection focus, and if Olympus can't get it to work on their m4/3 cameras, I wonder if RED would bother. Still, good lenses at manual focus, though.

A lot of panasonic's m4/3 lenses use in-camera digital processing that I'm sure RED wouldn't want to mess with.

But, there are others coming out with nice lenses.

 

[Richard_JP]

Really? Change the Scarlet this late in the game?

Please don't, 2/3" sounds just perfect. If you want 4/3" you can get a GH2!!

 

[George Petersen]

....But, I'll point out the Canon and Nikon 1.6x and 1.5x DSLRS have sold more bodies than the GH2 and AF101 by a whole lot and is a more popular format....

I focused on the Olympus and other four thirds/MFT glass because they are soooo sweet and nobody else has comparable glass for speed and even resolution across the field. As I pointed out, the Micro Four Thirds mount has adapters for all of them. Whatever your favorite flavor of lens happens to be is adapatable. The Canon and Nikon glass, etc. will cover the S35 sensor, but the 4/3 and micro four thirds lenses would have to be cropped.

 

[George Petersen]

Good first post!

While your lens MTF comparisons between different sensor sizes are "off base" IMHO, I think you are definitely on to something.
I always thought that the Scarlett system should always be about s35 4k sensors (even if higher compression/frame rates/HDRx etc).
Otherwise, why the RED 4K mantra? I think 4/3 would be a nice middle ground. Lots of 4/3 imager vendors right? Keeps the price down.
Likely to have better low light performance than 2/3" sensors.

Lots of lens options. Crop your s35 or FF 35mm. Or buy dedicated 4/3 glass.

I know it's a slippery slope and is an apples to oranges comparison - sensor density matters when testing lenses, so the results for one sensor don't translate exactly to another. I'm told the difference between a full frame Canon sensor and a micro four thirds on the test is 20%. Even with that in mind, the Panasonic/Leica 50 f/1.4 produces a result that is 50% sharper than the best Canon and Nikon have to offer. Voitlander's 25 f/095 is even sharper stopped down to f/4 or 5.6, but not as good wide open.

The thing is that the sensor technology keep improving, the glass, not so much when it comes to Canon and Nikon. The best glass in the "cross over" realm of DSLR lenses is definitely being built for the 4/3 format. The glass I'm most interested in is the Olympus' Super High grade which is regular 4/3. It, like the Canon, Nikon and Leica and other glass would need an adapter.

As the sensors continue to improve, these lenses will bring out the best in them. A camera is only as good as the glass you can put on it.

 

[George Petersen]

Not a fan of 4/3. 2/3 or s35 please.

Not everybody makes movies. Some shoot for television, some just for fun. Scarlet and these formats are all about that end of the market. The crop factor on these make them very attractive for shooting wildlife footage for TV. Such amazing reach from relatively modest glass. Every tool has his application.

 

[George Petersen]

yeah, really don't think that's gonna happen. the flange focal distance is really short on m4/3. The mount would have to be inside the camera body. And it would lose all advantages on a 2/3 sensor, and not cover a super 35 sensor. How many of those zooms are parfocal? And if any of them are, do any of those ones have a constant aperature?

All of the Olympus Super High Grade lenses are constant aperture. Parfocality? Well, few 35mm camera lenses are. Just think of them as "variable primes". The Scarlet II MTF body would have to be designed for the lens to focal plane requirements of MFT - then any lens built by anyone would be adaptable.

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

I'm hoping that the Scarlet sensor has grown. Yes, this is speculation on my part, and we'll find out in a few weeks. Once again, I'm probably wrong, but I'm hoping that RED gives us a 4K sensor in Scarlet at the same 3.3um pixel size of the 2/3" 3K Scarlet. By doing this, they could keep their same 1.89:1 wide aspect ratio as on EPIC and prior Scarlet prototypes. It would make the sensor 13.516mm wide at 4K, many longer S16 sized lenses would still cover -- similar to how many S35 / APS-C lenses will cover 5K on the MX sensor. But cropping or windowing down would give us 3794 pixels wide at S16, and we would still have the 3K at the 2/3" | standard-16mm sensor width.

I have to disagree with this suggestion, as a 13.5-mm sensor would be even more obscure. S16 glass is extremely expensive as it is, but at least all of it fits the S16 format. I'd rather have slightly smaller pixels to enable a full 4K at S16. Since the original M-X was developed, sensor technology has probably improved enough to offset thi slight reduction in photsite size. If not, I'd rather go with Quad HD.

 

[George Petersen]

Currently the only companies making 4/3rds cameras are Panasonic and Olympus. I have to disagree with the OP's assessment of micro-43 glass. I've found the vast majority of lens offerings to be pure shit. Yes, there are a couple nice ones, but lens selection is rather dismal to say the least....

Just for the record, Leica also makes 4/3 cameras. As for the ascertion that most of their lens offerings are pure shit, the vast majority of all 35mm lenses fit that description. Look at the tests of any Canon or Nikon APS-C lenses! I'm talking only about the super high grade and a few of their high grade offerings, which are absolutely superb. They cover the range you need to cover. It bears repeating that the thing that makes these lenses soooo sweet is their sharpness wide open, their speed and eveness across the frame.