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 :)

addressing a non-issue: major features shot with 2/3 sensor

Tom said:


Trying to say say cinema people "don't need" interchangeable lenses is like saying that professional still photographers should just shoot on point-and-click digi cameras. No one in their right mind would argue that.[/QUOTE]


Agreed, but....

....this post is about the DOF with a 2/3 sensor, not about lenses.

(However, Terry Richardson is a world famous fashion photographer who has shot parts of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, and he uses a point-and-click camera for most of his stuff. The behind-the-scenes of that SI shoot is kind of funny; everyone else shooting medium format and he's standing in a fountain with Josie Maran, taking her photo with an $80 snapshot camera.)

You're right about their (Lucas, Fincher, etc...) expensive equipment; I'm just saying that they weren't hindered by the lack of 35mm DOF.

If you have that kind of cash, you're shooting with a RED ONE or EPIC anyway, and Scarlet really isn't in the running.

On ZODIAC, they found where the field of [B]what was in focus started and stopped[/B], and put their main subject right on the end of that. So, for example, there is a lot of nothing "in focus" in front of Mark Ruffalo, and right on the edge, right on the verge of going out of focus, is where he would stand. So immediately, everything [U]behind him[/U] would be out of focus.

There are tricks. Personally, I have more time and creativity than cash, and I'll make Scarlet work.
Click to expand...
 
Bruce Allen said:
Haha, cute thread.

Only problem is that some of the films you list DEFINITELY contained some shots at shallower depth of field than f2.8. Digiprimes are f1.5 / T1.6 for example.

I think though that if you made a list of:

- all 35mm films shot at f8-f5.6 split
- all 16mm films shot at f4-f2.8 split
- all 2/3" HD films shot at f2.8
- pretty much anything shot on a smaller camcorder

...you'd still have a darn impressive list?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

Well, if Scarlet lenses go down one stop (T2.0) things would be better right?
I think that's the right feature to cry for.

Interchangeable lenses, S35 sensor... Now that's just "overwishful" thinking.
 
For a guy who almost tried to finance a Varicam setup, this thread is finally making sense...
Yup. I'd like a faster lens...

BUT, guys. This is insane. And 3k$

really!
 
Tom said:
Trying to say say cinema people "don't need" interchangeable lenses is like saying that professional still photographers should just shoot on point-and-click digi cameras. No one in their right mind would argue that.
Click to expand...

I would. What does professional mean anyway? Sure you're not going to shoot a wedding or a magazine cover with a point and shoot but what about, for example, people who do candid snapshot type work at parties or on the streets? What about photographers who only ever use one lens, even if it's technically interchangable. What about someone like Weegee? Or Warhol?

The art of cinema has just as much room for diversity and experimentation. It's not all focused on Hollywood blockbusters with DPs, focus pullers and $200 million budgets. We need a new Bolex for the artists who want to work outside of that system.
 
kmikami said:
The art of cinema has just as much room for diversity and experimentation. It's not all focused on Hollywood blockbusters with DPs, focus pullers and $200 million budgets. We need a new Bolex for the artists who want to work outside of that system.
Click to expand...

YES!!!!

Whomever said we could potentially see a new New Wave here with this kind of technology is dead on the money. Destroying the barriers to entry is the true revolution, in my mind, and this kind of technology at a price point that so many can afford is a blessing. Madness, yes, but a blessing nonetheless.
 
RED is going to sell a LOT of these!
Everyone is going to buy one.

Sure some if not many may wish for certain capabilities, but with this price point, we're all sold.
 
Help me understand what we may expect for DOF using the scarlet.

Scarlet, with its 2/3" sensor shooting 3K images at f2.8 with a given field of view, how would the DOF compare to RED ONE at the same field of view, shooting 3K at f2.8?

Since the RED ONE crops for 3K, would this not offer very close to the same DOF, or is the RED ONE sensor dues to it's physical size difference not one for one under these same conditions?
 
There are soooo many applications for a camera like Scarlet that I can think of where you need a really small camera. It will be perfect for all kinds of POV shots, odd places where today we use miniature DV cameras. Small UW housings, tops of sailing masts, handlebars.. etc.

Great work RED team!
 
Hey come on guys, what about max aparture and zooming in? The best thing would be to get a 35mm lens adapter, a top of the line one. The only BIG let down on Scarlet is the slowish lens (T1.4 would be a dream)
 
well it is a zoom lens and f2.8 is not bad considering. I think a lot of people are thinking about lenses on other cameras. I don't think the lens on scarlet will be crippled. in fact I think it'll be much much higher quality than you'll see even on a 2/3 ENG CAMS

I'd be surprised if RED ROCK didnt come out with a RED35 adaptor. I think RED will end up selling crap loads of these cameras to broadcasters , eng news gatherers , wedding video guys and just about every one not wanting 35mm DOF. even if its a year away I don't see sony or panny or jvc and canon being able to answer this. their cheapest 2/3 sensor size cams start around 35k. with the recession and budgets being what they are I think RED will probably easily sell 100,000 of these things
 
even on the 35k cameras you don't get 120fps , you certainly don't get RAW. you end up with long gop compressed images and all the associated artifacts and you're lucky if you get 4:2:0

just image how much you'll be able to push and pull the images in grading. the sensor is new , it'll be a smaller version of the sensor in epic. so same characteristics pretty much. probably pretty great DR , minimal skew and rolling shutter issues. the camera will also let you use pretty much the same support systems RED ONE can and will fit in spaces red one can't
 
Tom said:
Sony_CineAlta_Lucas.jpg


Let's keep in mind that Lucas shot on $100,000 lenses with a multi-million-dollar 4:4:4 data workflow.

Trying to say say cinema people "don't need" interchangeable lenses is like saying that professional still photographers should just shoot on point-and-click digi cameras. No one in their right mind would argue that.

With its fixed lens, scarlet might be many things, but its not really ideal for cinema shooting. Maybe sports, landscapes, nature shooting, ENG, etc, but not cinema, per se. Yes, if you absolutely had to, you could work with a fixed, slow lens and smaller chip, but its far from ideal.
Click to expand...

Once again Tom nails it in the g spot! And that is one bad ass rig Lucas has. Thanks for the pic Tom. See, we're not saying we're going to buy a 100,000 lens like Lucas to use on the Scarlet, but to be able to put a quality 5k cine-lens on her, why not? If only other users on this forum who insist on being "fixed," knew the true power of the dark side. Only by studying and using such interchangeable lenses can you obtain the power to save your films.
 
supergrafx said:
but to be able to put a quality 5k cine-lens on her, why not?
Click to expand...

:wacko: because I don't have another $5000, on top of the $3000 for the Scarlet body. And neither do most of the rest of Scarlet's target audience, IMHO.

If you do, congrats!:)

(But you can probably afford a RED ONE.)
 
supergrafx said:
Once again Tom nails it in the g spot! And that is one bad ass rig Lucas has. Thanks for the pic Tom. See, we're not saying we're going to buy a 100,000 lens like Lucas to use on the Scarlet, but to be able to put a quality 5k cine-lens on her, why not? If only other users on this forum who insist on being "fixed," knew the true power of the dark side. Only by studying and using such interchangeable lenses can you obtain the power to save your films.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, but maybe Scarlet was never meant to be this type of camera.

I paraphrase Chris Kenny, I think he nailed the exact function of Scarlet:

Chris Kenny said:
Every film student in the country who can scrape together 3K is going to buy one. (And incidentally, become familiar with Red workflow.... In other words, Scarlet is a sort of "gateway drug" for higher-end Red products. This is absolutely brilliant.)
Click to expand...

If a film student can buy a camera that produces an acceptable DOF, images without compression artifacts, and he starts to learn with RED, odds are he'll work with the ONE or the EPIC in his first big work.

PS: Anyone has images of 2/3" cameras at 2.8? I'm curious...
 
Hey, RED costs the price of a car. Meaning a regular human being can afford one. Scarlet costs the price of a high end personal computer. Meaning a student can afford it.

You can't afford a car, you get yourself a computer, get a job, do some work, then you get your car. We all start out flat and using public transport.

Red can't guarantee you a full, successful happy life. But they can give you products you might or not want. They are smart people.
 
bhtdmc said:
:wacko: because I don't have another $5000, on top of the $3000 for the Scarlet body. And neither do most of the rest of Scarlet's target audience, IMHO.

If you do, congrats!:)

(But you can probably afford a RED ONE.)
Click to expand...

Good Lavs and a mixer, add 4 to 5 thousand. Don't forget the lights and........... = $3,000 for the Scarlet, even with a fixed lens, is just the beginning. You can get a much cheaper lens than 5 G's that i specified, that's just how much I'd spend on a lens for myself. Either way, you'll get a camera that may last you a good 5-8 years till you make it huge and will not limit you in the way that previous prosumers have in the past. You don't have to have the best, but you do need to have options. If RED decides to keep the body at 3 grand for the body only, with options for you to go any route you like, consider many aspiring film-makers not having to go to film school at all since they can work with REAL EQUIPMENT and not some HVX clone. The specs are great, but do not be mistaken, Panasonic and Sony will up there specs in a year to close, if not the same ratios, due to the trouble that RED is now brewing up. Only with options, is RED truly going to revolutionize and give you really what you need.
 
how would the DOF compare to RED ONE
Click to expand...

It's about 3 F-stops down. So 2/3" at F2.8 would be like Super 35 at F8.

Since the RED ONE crops for 3K, would this not offer very close to the same DOF, or is the RED ONE sensor dues to it's physical size difference
Click to expand...

Physical size alone. Resolution does not really affect depth of field. Neither does sensor size, directly. Sensor size indirectly affects depth of field, because a larger sensor forces you to use a longer lens, or a shorter camera-to-subject distance (pick one) for the same angle of view. Both focal length and focal distance directly affect depth of field.

More about a 2/3" sensor here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11788
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top