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 :)

Scarlet 3k 2/3" DOF

A

Aeron

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hey guys, I am really interested in the scarlet 3k with the min-red mount.

Could someone in the know enlighten as to whether the use of fixed lenses will give a nice dof effect with nice bokeh or is this purely the realm of the S35 and higher models?


Cheers
 
A 2/3" sensor has the depth of field equivalent of stopping down by 2.5 stops in 35mm cine, so an f/2.0 on a 2/3" camera has the look, depth of field-wise, of an f/4-5.6 split in 35mm cine. Whether that's a good or bad thing, or just neutral, really depends on the dramatic needs of the shot. Sometimes super shallow focus isn't always desirable dramatically even though visually attractive.

On the other hand, I tend to prefer the depth of field characteristics of 35mm over 2/3" in most situations. I'm on a TV show right now that opted for a 35mm sensor digital HD camera over a 2/3" HD camera and I'm glad we did because we shoot mostly medium shots, not close-ups, and it's nice at f/2.8 to have some fall-off in focus, particular on our sets with fake daytime outside the windows...

However, one advantage of the smaller sensor is that you can shoot wide-open in low light on fast lenses and still get a workable and practical depth of field, particularly if you are shooting run & gun style, or a documentary.
 
Since I've been looking at the 2/3" Scarlet, I started looking around at C mount lenses, and there are a lot of those that have max apertures below f/2.0. Shooting something at f/1.4 will definitely give a shallower dof.
 
Thanks alot that's answered my question, so really dof is going to be possible on close ups to a degree but it's not the camera to get if dof is an important factor, that sexy factor.

Is it an unreasonable request that they cap a scarlet at 1080 with a 35mm sensor to give us that 5d dof with the amazing grading and creative possibilities of redcode! And at the same time a decent stills resolution @ the 5d price point essentially giving a cinematic video camera minus the amazing resolution and low light stills ability of the 5d. The ace in the hole for red is then the raw ability and choice of 24fps. I am still praying for a firmware patch for the 5d. Red have proved and prided themselves in giving the consumer what they want and avoiding the corporate model to give less and charge more.

So basically a 2k s35 @ 5d price would seal the deal for me.

There's an old saying that to enter a market you need to be 10 times better than the competition or alot cheaper. Are the new dsmc going to surpass the highend canon/nikon offerings I think that'll be very hard indeed. Are they revolutionary in the video world most certainly.
 
Personally I would like to see a s35 scarlet with resolution around 3k to bring the price down to similar to the 2/3" model. I can't see many still photographers going for something that they can't put their existing glass on without a significant change in the optic result. I can see still guys that want to go into video paying twice the money as their DSLR to get into video but only if they can practically use their existing glass. With the bigger sensor it seems that it would be a bit cheaper with the lower resolution.

In short what I would like to see.
S35 @ 3k for $2,500
Similar specs as the 2/3" model with similar price just larger sensor at the same resolution (lower pixel density=cheaper to manufacture - right?) for the same price.

Could someone please summarize the advantages and disadvantages of shooting with 2/3" vs s35? Also are there going to be mini RED zooms?

Zach



Zach
 
Great thread; really informs those worried about a "Lack" of DOF for the 2/3" Scarlet vs the s35 version. Those who have invested in Nikon and Canon glass could also use those on the 2/3" Scarlet, but when they need to go wide, put on the red mount. Might be a good idea for those who would be digging deep for the s35mm model but already have the glass for it.
 
Zach Swena said:
Personally I would like to see a s35 scarlet with resolution around 3k to bring the price down to similar to the 2/3" model. I can't see many still photographers going for something that they can't put their existing glass on without a significant change in the optic result. I can see still guys that want to go into video paying twice the money as their DSLR to get into video but only if they can practically use their existing glass. With the bigger sensor it seems that it would be a bit cheaper with the lower resolution.

In short what I would like to see.
S35 @ 3k for $2,500
Similar specs as the 2/3" model with similar price just larger sensor at the same resolution (lower pixel density=cheaper to manufacture - right?) for the same price.

Could someone please summarize the advantages and disadvantages of shooting with 2/3" vs s35? Also are there going to be mini RED zooms?

Zach



Zach
Click to expand...


It's more than numbers, as Jim and the RED teams has mentioned; there's all kinds of things that you have to take into account, and whole lot more R&D and magic (Redcode) which is why they are the ones making the cameras, and not us :). Sure, I'd like an IMAX sensor camera for $1000. Unfortunately, physics, and money tend to ruin our brilliant ideas.

No seriously, I think what stills shooters that want to transition into video need to realize is its a different game; its a bit more expensive to get into, and rightly so; there's more going on...so a 2000$ DSLR becomes a 7000$ motion camera. You aren't paying for the s35mm size really...you're paying for the FPS without the drastic compromises made elsewhere. Point is, there's a lot that we don't know about when it comes to this stuff, so it's unfair for us to make speculations/assumptions about it all, especially when what we're already getting is unheard of and unbelievable.

/end rant.
 
Rumour has it the 5d mk II is getting a firmware update to remedy the fps issue, reported in dvuser magazine. This is really leaning my decision towards the 5d.

I'm not worried about having to go with the look from camera it just means i'll have to work harder whilst shooting practically to be more creative rather than in post with raw.
 
Not asking for much!

Not asking for much!

"And i'd like to have a Ferrari that costs the same as a Nissan"
"Sure, I'd like an IMAX sensor camera for $1000. Unfortunately, physics, and money tend to ruin our brilliant ideas."

These comments are not helpful and they are just ill informed. A 3k sensor in a 35mm form factor is technologically EASIER to achieve than trying to increase pixel density. Furthermore since the cell size would be larger it would also yield a much better s/n ratio and better dynamic range.
 
if the 5d mkII is what you're comparing to ANY version of the scarlet, you're forgetting one very important thing: REDCODE RAW. i'd rather have more resolution and color depth thank you very much!
 
I do hope Fixed lens Scarlet will have a shallow DOF good enough for feature/indie movies. Please dont ruin my dreams.. I cant afford s35 yet...
 
2/3" sensor isn't

2/3" sensor isn't

A 2/3" sensor won't cut it unless it's pretty wide open. You can maybe fake this with filters and a long focal length lens from a distance. But a larger sensor would be so much better.

I just don't get this choice at all. On all fronts it's more cost effective to have a larger sensor with the same pixel density. Better s/n dynamic range, nicer depth of field, more forgiving of glass. I'm sure everyone here knows that there isn't a lot of glass around that will resolve 3k on a 2/3 sensor! There's plenty of glass that will do the job on a 35mm sized sensor.
 
so the 2/3 sensor with a nikon mount .will just crop the center of the lens. losing 1/3 around the edges? no with that nikon 35mm 1.4 must get the 1.4 dof that lens provides? not as much as full sensor. tecnically the cone of confusion is the same through the lens . wouldn,t that give the same dof but cropped? not unlike the 35mm adapters work but cropped? help .
 
2/3" Scarlet

2/3" Scarlet

Its very simple. 2/3" is a low cost "Digital S16" and the same image size as a Sony F900 and F23.

So what's not to like or lacking that prevents you shooting documentaries, news inserts, sports, regional commercials and yes of course independent films?
 
Stuart English said:
Its very simple. 2/3" is a low cost "Digital S16" and the same image size as a Sony F900 and F23.

So what's not to like or lacking that prevents you shooting documentaries, news inserts, sports, regional commercials and yes of course independent films?
Click to expand...

S16 is not bad.. good enough for indies..
 
sounds like the 2/3 sensor would be great to get my surf footage (range wise) the 2/3 with a nikon mounted 85mm 1.4 would give me some reach in 3k res? as point of refrence ,lets say a hpx170 12x zoom with 2x century lens? or would it be more like 135mm?
 
What's not to like?

What's not to like?

"So what's not to like or lacking that prevents you shooting documentaries, news inserts, sports, regional commercials and yes of course independent films?"

"S16 is not bad.. good enough for indies."

Did you even read what I wrote?

Higher pixel density on a smaller sensor means:
  • Greater noise.
  • Less dynamic range (It doesn't matter what processing happens after the fact. A sensor is an analog device with analog limitations.)
  • Need for better, more expensive glass. Name one low cost piece of glass that will resolve 3k on a 2/3" sensor. Standard 16mm glass will not cut it. Low cost Video HD glass will not cut it.
  • Video type depth of field. Expensive adapters required for 35mm DOF

A larger sensor means:
  • Better S/N
  • Better Dynamic range
  • Ability to use any decent 35mm glass including SLRs
  • 35mm DOF without expensive adapters.

Good enough for the past is not good enough for the future!
The Scarlet needs to be unequivocally better than super 16!
 
brainburst said:
Higher pixel density on a smaller sensor means:
  • Greater noise.
  • Less dynamic range (It doesn't matter what processing happens after the fact. A sensor is an analog device with analog limitations.)
  • Need for better, more expensive glass. Name one low cost piece of glass that will resolve 3k on a 2/3" sensor. Standard 16mm glass will not cut it. Low cost Video HD glass will not cut it.
  • Video type depth of field. Expensive adapters required for 35mm DOF

A larger sensor means:
  • Better S/N
  • Better Dynamic range
  • Ability to use any decent 35mm glass including SLRs
  • 35mm DOF without expensive adapters.

Good enough for the past is not good enough for the future!
The Scarlet needs to be unequivocally better than super 16!
Click to expand...

Does anyone at RED have a answer for this?

2/3" may be less expensive on the sensor side but the glass should more than make up for it in price.

2/3" is good if you want a small camera/lens combo and have the money. It seems that 35mm will be not much more expensive to manufacture and will allow the user to get away with using cheaper glass and better upgrade path.
 
2/3" has its place

2/3" has its place

But there should be a 3k option in a larger sensor size!
Not to mention it could be cheaper for Red.
Maybe they could even use the same silicon 6 µm pixel pitch wafers instead of the 3.2µm sensors. In fact, they could use defective 6k sensors that have defective pixels outside the 3k area and mask them. (Almost all CMOS sensors have this capability.)
The 3k sensor doesn't have to be full 35mm size but it needs to have the larger cell size. You'll still need good glass for this, but it won't need to be as good as for the 2/3" sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top