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 :)

EPIC vs SCARLET

Rick Darge said:
To me, as it should, the Epic has a definite EDGE over the Scarlet in terms of the 'thickness' and 'range' off the image. Do other people feel the same? I feel like the Red One MX still looks better than the Scarlet as well... People that are buying the Scarlet keep telling me that it's just like an Epic but without the high frame rates and the 5k but I think there's something more going on than just that. I love my Epic. It's the best camera I've ever used and the only camera where I feel like there is ZERO compromising.
Click to expand...

from your positive comments can we assume the black shading nightmares are over?
 
Although the official word says otherwise, if the Epic did end up having a slight edge over the Scarlet that wouldn't bother me too much. After all, Epic owners did pay a significant amount more. I'd love to see some controlled side-by-side tests (maybe we should get together and do that, Rick). I'd be curious too.

I've already heard about some anti-Scarlet bias around town, anecdotally. I've heard about companies that do a lot of work with Epics, but refuse to even touch a Scarlet, for one reason or another. Pride clouds logic?
 
If the Scarlet image is the same as the Epic image at the same settings, I'd take a Scarlet over a R1 MX any day.

Epic is cool, though... :)
 
Christian Pfeil said:
hi.
what means comparable images, is there any difference between both, shooting the exact same settings, lenses, action etc. pp...?
Click to expand...

I mean they intercut with no problems. What I haven't done is shoot the same set-up at the same time to really do an A/B comparison.
 
There's just a soul to epic footage and an organic quality which adds richness and body that the scarlet won't ever be able to replicate. An Epic image is alive and full of life and a scarlet is digital and sterile. /s

;)
 
plus one for a Epic and Scarlet comparison.

That's something I really would love to see: Same settings, same lenses, same post workflow (without noise reduction, please)
And please faces! I don't need charts or christmas trees.
It's the colour rendering of a face and the dynamic range (which Greame sated to be exactly the same) I'm very interested in.
 
Kim Frank said:
plus one for a Epic and Scarlet comparison.

That's something I really would love to see: Same settings, same lenses, same post workflow (without noise reduction, please)
And please faces! I don't need charts or christmas trees.
It's the colour rendering of a face and the dynamic range (which Greame sated to be exactly the same) I'm very interested in.
Click to expand...

+1...
 
Keep in mind that no sensor is exactly the same. Although the differences may be extremely minute between sensor A and sensor B, there is a difference nonetheless. Almost all of my time has been spent on R1 and Epic, but did shoot a small test film with Scarlet. I am still evaluating the Scarlet footage but my initial thoughts are the imager is great as expected but there may have been some lens issues(Canon still glass). I need more time on Scarlet to come to more conclusive analysis.
 
If I could afford the Epic, I would be getting it. Not only is 5k substantially more resolution than 4k from a pixel count perspective, but the bigger-than-35mm sensor size of 5k, to me, has a huge aesthetic advantage over 4k (shallower DOP and wider fov when needed). And, yeah, 120fps ain't bad either.

On Scarlet, 5k 6-12fps is just a tease, letting you know exactly what you're missing and just serving as point of frustration for motion.

Speaking of which, does 4.5k on the R1mx have the same dop characteristics as 5k on epic (it uses the same sensor width, right)?
 
Last edited:
Mike P. said:
If I could afford the Epic, I would be getting it. Not only is 5k substantially more resolution than 4k from a pixel count perspective, but the bigger-than-35mm sensor size of 5k, to me, has a huge aesthetic advantage over 4k (shallower DOP and wider fov when needed). And, yeah, 120fps ain't bad either.

On Scarlet, 5k 6-12fps is just a tease, letting you know exactly what you're missing and just serving as point of frustration for motion.

Speaking of which, does 4.5k on the R1mx have the same dop characteristics as 5k on epic (it uses the same sensor width, right)?
Click to expand...

Agreed...the most frustrating thing with Scarlet is not getting the FOV that the 5k read of the sensor gives you!!! My favorite lens (19mm Leica) just aint as great at the 4K FOV :(

But other than that..no complaints!
 
I have to laugh

I have to laugh

It is called technology.

The camera you buy today, is superseded tomorrow.

Whether it is a Nikon, a Canon, a SONY, Arri or a RED. Or a Black Magic.

I'm stunned we think these camera companies owe us a living; or owe us an edge.

Business is hard fought; hard won.

Get out there and shoot some shit dudes.

The EPIC is awesome. The Scarlet is awesome.

As an EPIC owner, I'm thankful these guys are looking at updating our sensor with a DRAGON.

Having owned a dozen SONY cameras and many more CANON rigs, I'm RED through and through.
 
Great cinematography is great cinematography regardless of what you shoot it on. Its all about having the right tools / Camera for the job at hand. I agree with Brett .. "Get out there and shoot some shit dudes"
 
Exactly the same for supported frame rates.

The second you start using subjective wording like "thick" or "rich", you know that you're standing on the edge...
 
"Lenses": The budget strapped always have the old Nikon AIs at their disposal.

I have tested these old manual focus Nikons on the D800 full frame 36MP sensor and they are excellent - from edge to edge. I recently purchased eight lenses, all Nikon except for the Rokinon 35mm, and just broke the $2K mark. The 85 F1.4 is a work of art (a mint condition one cost me $500) A well used but perfectly functioning 135mm cost me $40. Tack sharp and wonderful character. Now, the 85 f1.4 is softer wide open, but a couple of stops in, it is a thing of beauty. And wide open is a fabulous performance option for portraits: modulation with the edge taken off. Apart from the usual considerations with still lenses for cinema: these lenses are all cinema grade optics.

Ranging from f1.4 to 2.8, I picked up: 24mm. 28mm. 35mm. 50mm (x2). 85mm. 105mm. 135mm. Oh, the 135 is f3.5
 
to me the greater differences is the fact that scarlet can only record 6:1 @ 4K , and on wide shots rich of details , 3:1 versus 6:1 does make a tons of difference ..

ps: anyone ever shot the comparison test between scarlet and epic ( same resolution , lens ,shutter and compression )?

thanks

g
 
Gabriele Turchi said:
to me the greater differences is the fact that scarlet can only record 6:1 @ 4K , and on wide shots rich of details , 3:1 versus 6:1 does make a tons of difference ..

ps: anyone ever shot the comparison test between scarlet and epic ( same resolution , lens ,shutter and compression )?

thanks

g
Click to expand...

People use epic and scarlet together on 3D rigs... then if one was thicker, richer or what ever then the other, or had any differenences then that would end up as a pretty ling thread on this forum. So without testing myself I think it's sound to say that the both deliver the exact same picture at a capture setting that is possible to run on both cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top