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

Jiri Vrozina

Jiri Vrozina

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi,
is there any difference in images between 2 when just shooting 24/25/30 FPS ??
 
Yes and no, all things beeing equal though - shooting 4k @24/25/30fps at the same compression, it should be identical.

However keep in mind that the Epic can sustain higher datarates, and therefor handle a lower compression, and thus technically a higher quality image.- (if you require that), also keep in mind that the Scarlet can not shoot 5K (at least not @24/25/30fps) and the Epic can do that.
 
I own both and Eirik hit the nail on the head, at 4k, at the same compression, they are likely equal. However 5k is a huge leap in quality and compression makes a big difference. High frame rates, hdrx and much faster rolling shutter read-reset speeds also must be taken into account. However if you have the cash, go Epic, you will never look back.
 
I'm I the only one around here who would love to actually see with R3Ds the differences (if any) between epic and scarlet at 4k 24p 6:1?
 
Andrew Allsbury said:
and much faster rolling shutter read-reset speeds
Click to expand...

Michael Lindsay said:
You sure?

Thanks

Michael L
Click to expand...

Team RED continually say that there is no difference between the two cameras with regards to rolling shutter - yet the rumour / myth persists. I've read a few threads here where people have done half assed 'tests' and wonky math to prove that Epic is better in this regard - but in real world shooting I don't see a difference and I would tend to believe the engineers at RED.
 
Glen Powell said:
Team RED continually say that there is no difference between the two cameras with regards to rolling shutter - yet the rumour / myth persists. I've read a few threads here where people have done half assed 'tests' and wonky math to prove that Epic is better in this regard - but in real world shooting I don't see a difference and I would tend to believe the engineers at RED.
Click to expand...

I don't see any meaningful difference at all when used like for like. That said I often shoot 5k HD or 5k 2:1 and, if I have scenes that need it, with low compression ratios. Then I am not in a like for like situation and the Epic material looks better/different.

The way i see it:
No 2 cameras are 100% identical
QC 'may' be a little bit lighter with Scarlet (but I have no proof)
but
Many Scarlets users need/want a reason to explain their less than stellar footage
Many Epic owners need/want to enlarge the differences for financial reasons.
Also many people who have tested them properly against each other don't have the time to prepare or share the results..

I questioned the read reset claim 1) becuase you need to nip unsubstantiated claims fast 2) It may have been true as my more rigorous tests where on static scenes.
 
I am aware of red's comments as well as the home brew tests. Recently we shot test footage from the back of a truck with our epic and scarlet at 3k 60fps, 5k 60fps and many other formats. The difference in jello at all focal lengths was staggering.
 
Andrew Allsbury said:
I am aware of red's comments as well as the home brew tests. Recently we shot test footage from the back of a truck with our epic and scarlet at 3k 60fps, 5k 60fps and many other formats. The difference in jello at all focal lengths was staggering.
Click to expand...

Can you show us???
 
I'm sure we deleted the r3ds, but when i get back in the office I will se if we have the final stabilized exports.
 
Sensor readout is definitely the Scarlet's dark little secret, especially with the oft-quoted statements from RED that there isn't a difference in rolling shutter between the two... No 'scientific tests' yet (whatever that would consist of), but what I've seen and heard seems pretty conclusive. I know that my fast-pan shots look like they came off a DSLR... no better than R1, that's for sure. Anyone tested to see if there's any improvement in v4? I've been trying real hard not to get my hopes up.
 
This may be home-brew in some people's eyes, but I published stills here at reduser from both shooting an electric fan (with electronically controlled speed) under identical conditions. No, I didn't keep the motion footage, since choosing the same position of the blades and looking at the deformation was obvious enough.

The Scarlet has more RS, definitely – for me, not to get bashed. My tests are consistent with the same procedure applied to cameras like 5D Mk II (worse), Canon C300 and quite a few others. If you want my judgement for the Canon C300, I have to double-check that one. But from the back of my mind they were quite close.
 
DL Fitch said:
Sensor readout is definitely the Scarlet's dark little secret, especially with the oft-quoted statements from RED that there isn't a difference in rolling shutter between the two... No 'scientific tests' yet (whatever that would consist of), but what I've seen and heard seems pretty conclusive. I know that my fast-pan shots look like they came off a DSLR... no better than R1, that's for sure. Anyone tested to see if there's any improvement in v4? I've been trying real hard not to get my hopes up.
Click to expand...

I think epic looks just the same if you do fast pans. Vibration in tilt is the worst one though. I think the reason behind the fact that people think the cameras behaves different in this regards is that there are more people running around with rather light setups, small lenses etc on the scarlets and since the lighter camera you have the bigger chance that you end up with rolling shutter issues. So even if it's a bit counter productive a heavy and large camera will all ways behave better than a small and light camera. As if if gets really small it will not look like a SLR more like a cellphone...

We bought a gyro stabilizer a while back and having it on the camera made it really stable but pans and tilts where almost not possible, then having the heavy stabilizer on the camera but turned off gave very pleasing results... It's strange how that works. So if you are to compare it with the R1 you need to put them on the same tripod. IF you just do pans from the shoulder scarlet with it's lower weight will always look like an SLR. Even a film camera with spinning mirror would get artifacts if it was as light as the scarlet and used in the same way, now film cameras are + 15kg so they do not suffer as much.
 
Uli, I know some people have mocked your fan test on this forum, but I thought it was very persuasive - there's simply no way the blades in the Scarlet image would have been so distorted if readout was the same speed as Epic's. I think it's something that's worth more experimentation (wish I had an Epic...). My theory is this: RED may have crippled the capabilities of Scarlet in firmware, but there's no way they would deliberately introduce more rolling shutter - so this would be the most likely area of the camera to be 'maxed out', thus giving us an idea of it's true theoretical performance.
 
DL Fitch said:
Uli, I know some people have mocked your fan test on this forum, but I thought it was very persuasive - there's simply no way the blades in the Scarlet image would have been so distorted if readout was the same speed as Epic's. I think it's something that's worth more experimentation (wish I had an Epic...). My theory is this: RED may have crippled the capabilities of Scarlet in firmware, but there's no way they would deliberately introduce more rolling shutter - so this would be the most likely area of the camera to be 'maxed out', thus giving us an idea of it's true theoretical performance.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense though...it would be like saying a monitor's refresh rate is lower because the computer's cpu is clocked slower. It doesn't make any sense.
 
DL Fitch said:
Uli, I know some people have mocked your fan test on this forum, but I thought it was very persuasive - there's simply no way the blades in the Scarlet image would have been so distorted if readout was the same speed as Epic's. I think it's something that's worth more experimentation (wish I had an Epic...). My theory is this: RED may have crippled the capabilities of Scarlet in firmware, but there's no way they would deliberately introduce more rolling shutter - so this would be the most likely area of the camera to be 'maxed out', thus giving us an idea of it's true theoretical performance.
Click to expand...

Or instead of RED intentionally "crippling" Scarlet (sounds so Sony), maybe the Epic just has bigger, better boards. You know, like when you get a Golf vs a Golf GTI. The GTI gets a bigger, better engine. The Golf 2.0 isn't a "crippled" GTI...just has different guts inside that ain't so "Turbo".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top