Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

RED Scarlet VS RED MX

P

Pascal Payant

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2011
Messages
219
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Montreal,Canada
Do you think that the MX will still beat the Scarlet. I know it,s better resolution wise but what about the rest? what about the grain, HDR, frame rate. I know we will know everything the third but i'm just asking up in the air. what is your thought about the difference. Thanks
 
so I guess the MX will still beat the scarlet for real film capibilities. real depth of field. I wonder if there's a way to have the HDR on a MX
 
There may be a few areas that Scarlet bests a Red One, but if you take price out of the equation I think most would prefer the Red One. Perhaps if weight and size are important it could be better. But once you add price into the mix I think the answer would be much more difficult, provided it is <$10k.
 
Pascal Payant said:
so I guess the MX will still beat the scarlet for real film capibilities. real depth of field. I wonder if there's a way to have the HDR on a MX
Click to expand...

What does "real film capabilities" mean? Are cameras with 2/3" or 16mm sized sensors incapable of making real films? Leaving Las Vegas, Zodiac, Black Swan, The Wrestler, The Rum Diary etc. etc... are these not "real" films with "real depth of field"? If anything, I would argue that the Scarlet (2/3") will make your film look more "real" than if it were shot on S35.
 
That's what I can't wait to see . the look , the result of the depth of field of the Scarlet. I love the full frame sensor Depth of field look. other than that it's botherline too video like. that's why thoses mark 2 are so popular.

I hope they will post some screen grab of what the depth of field looks. I'm sure it will be great.
 
Carey Lee Coffey said:
What does "real film capabilities" mean? Are cameras with 2/3" or 16mm sized sensors incapable of making real films? Leaving Las Vegas, Zodiac, Black Swan, The Wrestler, The Rum Diary etc. etc... are these not "real" films with "real depth of field"? If anything, I would argue that the Scarlet (2/3") will make your film look more "real" than if it were shot on S35.
Click to expand...

Correction: Black Swan was shot on a super 16mm camera, which sensor is bigger than 2/3. This list of movies that were shot on small sensors are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason the vast majority of films are shot on s35mm, including most indie films. Lucky us, it looks like the Scarlet's sensor can be upgraded.
 
I hope it will be a full frame sensor at 3k. non fixed. that is the dream for all indie feature film directors
 
Pascal Payant said:
I hope it will be a full frame sensor at 3k. non fixed. that is the dream for all indie feature film directors
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble but Scarlet will not be FF 3K. No matter what RED have up their sleeves, I don't think they will release a camera that has more coverage than an EPIC. The only real positive to having FF is prospectively better lowlight and compatibility with lenses for stills, but counterproductive for all those that want to use Cine Glass. For motion FF is IMO just a bad idea, and it just makes focus wrangling harder. We already have vimeo and Youtube full of videos that are only in focus for 5% of their runtime. Hehe!! In the previous line up the EPIC FF was Monstro sensor at 6K, if I remember correctly.
 
Lee Brandt said:
Correction: Black Swan was shot on a super 16mm camera, which sensor is bigger than 2/3. This list of movies that were shot on small sensors are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason the vast majority of films are shot on s35mm, including most indie films. Lucky us, it looks like the Scarlet's sensor can be upgraded.
Click to expand...

No correction necessary, you read my post incorrectly. I included 16mm. 2/3", although slightly smaller, creates aesthetically similar images to S16.
 
Pascal Payant said:
That's what I can't wait to see . the look , the result of the depth of field of the Scarlet. I love the full frame sensor Depth of field look. other than that it's botherline too video like. that's why thoses mark 2 are so popular.

I hope they will post some screen grab of what the depth of field looks. I'm sure it will be great.
Click to expand...

I think you got that wrong. (or i do, also possible)
Always understood the RED One's sensor is more like APS-C (Canon 550D, 7D), not 5D (which is a lot bigger). I personally never found any big difference between 5D and 7D, though 5D even has it's own specific non-film-like 'look' i think, and i prefer the APS-C's.

Still quite a bit bigger than Scarlet's 2/3" of course, but if Scarlet can do awesome high-detail deep DoF scéne's (which it can, awfully bad on the DSLR's), i don't even think such crazy DoF is even necessary to look filmic.
 
Lee Brandt said:
Correction: Black Swan was shot on a super 16mm camera, which sensor is bigger than 2/3. This list of movies that were shot on small sensors are the exception, not the rule. There is a reason the vast majority of films are shot on s35mm, including most indie films. Lucky us, it looks like the Scarlet's sensor can be upgraded.
Click to expand...

What do you mean Scarlet's sensor can be upgraded? Because if you think that the Scarlet that is most likely going to come out on the 3rd (the Fixed, the one with its image on the RED website as "coming soon") is going to be able to have a sensor that can be upgraded to s35, then I suspect you'll be disappointed. No way that the fixed lens will cover a S35 sensor (it would have to be enormous). In fact, even if it's interchangeable, I can't imagine that they'll offer sensor upgrades that consist of the new sensor being any size other than the exact same size as the old sensor.

Honestly, I am a cinema novice, so maybe I'm wrong, but I've adsorbed a lot of technical knowledge browsing Reduser for 2 or 3 years, and I just don't see how that'd be possible. The mount would have to change, probably the insides, just about everything.

I really think a lot of people are going to be disappointed on Nov 3 unless they get their expectations under control. That, or I'm going to be really disappointed if it's a s35 camera that is over $10,000 brain only because then I'm priced out of the system.
 
Carey Lee Coffey said:
What does "real film capabilities" mean? Are cameras with 2/3" or 16mm sized sensors incapable of making real films? Leaving Las Vegas, Zodiac, Black Swan, The Wrestler, The Rum Diary etc. etc... are these not "real" films with "real depth of field"? If anything, I would argue that the Scarlet (2/3") will make your film look more "real" than if it were shot on S35.
Click to expand...

Wow cool. I didn't know (read: notice) it was 16mm. And yet again it proves sensor size at this size is just as good as 35mm. It's what you do with it that counts.

And to add a few more 'films' shot on 16mm sensor size add Avatar, Benjamin Button, The Hurt Locker, Collateral and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top