S35 Scarlet/3K/with lens for $3000 - Why?

[Michael Hastings]

And, so what

Time to give up... enjoy your 3K (about 1.5k actual with best $15-$25K available lenses) 2/3" scarlet ... sometime ...

 

[Gualbert]

Geez! Depleted calcium and high blood pressure over a topic that could very much wait until the actual cameras are released to then give an educated opinion...

I wonder if the advocates of the idea of 4/3" have emailed RED already about it... sounds like an interesting and good idea, but nothing in this forum will bring it to reality, all you will get is counter-arguments since everybody have an opinion... some will agree some will not...

Cheers!

Gualbert

 

[Michael Hastings]

Geez! Depleted calcium and high blood pressure over a topic that could very much wait until the actual cameras are released to then give an educated opinion...

I wonder if the advocates of the idea of 4/3" have emailed RED already about it... sounds like an interesting and good idea, but nothing in this forum will bring it to reality,

Gualbert

Well, first we are trying to get them to switch to four/thirds while there is still time, as to your other point - I thought maybe someone at RED might read this stuff, but you are right probably something to consolidate and email to Jim.

 

[oldphart]

Well, first we are trying to get them to switch to four/thirds while there is still time, as to your other point - I thought maybe someone at RED might read this stuff, but you are right probably something to consolidate and email to Jim.

I really hope you will fail. I will buy the announced s-16 equivalent Scarlet. There is no way I would consider a new format which is only made to enable cheap and lightweight consumer still cameras.

You need to realize that the real-world situation is exactly the opposite of what you have been claming - there is an abundance of high-quality lenses for 16mm and s-16, both in C-mount and PL-mount. Thousands of 16mm users already have sets of nice lenses. Many of those lenses are significantly better than their 35mm brethren, since it easier to make perfect optical glass in smaller slabs and you can grind and polish a smaller lens to better presision with less use of resources.

The alternative would be a new format specified for mass-market needs and used by a few makers of mass-market still cameras. For this format, you can get some "good enough" lenses with lots of consumer-oriented automatic gimmickry.

Serious still photographers will go for 24x36mm, the budding cinematographers will choose the s-35 and the serious amateurs or low-budget filmmakers will want the s-16. Soccer-moms and many ordinary amateurs will choose the fixed-lens Scarlet if the price is right.

This does not leave much room for an extra $6k model (the 4/3 sensor is close to s-35 in size, so price would not be much different) that hardly anybody has lenses for. The standard is patented, so Red would have to pay royalties to Kodak and Olympus, and it requires a proprietary lens design. The telecentric design also means that you will not get good wide-aperture lenses, and wide-angle lenses have a size or quality handicap.

 

[brainburst]

I really hope you will fail. I will buy the announced s-16 equivalent Scarlet. There is no way I would consider a new format which is only made to enable cheap and lightweight consumer still cameras.

This is simply not true. The cameras targeted are NOT cheap pint and shoot. Did you even bother to look at the lenses? You can actually go to a local shop and check them out. Unlike the proposed red miniprimes.

You need to realize that the real-world situation is exactly the opposite of what you have been claming - there is an abundance of high-quality lenses for 16mm and s-16, both in C-mount and PL-mount. Thousands of 16mm users already have sets of nice lenses.

Again untrue in the affordable category. Also no camera should be introduced into the market if it depends on the availability of secondhand glass. Also the sensor is 2/3 but the scanning area is more like 1/2" it has higher resolution requirements than super16. The lenses which you disparage are purpose built for sensors of this resolution

The 4/3 sensor is close to s-35 in size, so price would not be much different)

The 4/3 is not at all close to s-35 17 x 13mm for the 4:3ish size translating to 17 x 9.5 for 16 x 9
vs 30mm x 15mm for the s-35. in terms of chip area that's more than 2X for the s35

The standard is patented.

All lens mount systems are patented.

Red would have to pay royalties to Kodak and Olympus, and it requires a proprietary lens design.

The point is not for Red to design lenses, for which they might have to pay royalties, but to offer a mount for such lenses. Even if there were patent issues then that is not a problem! The larger sensor means that whatever glass worked for the Red one will work for the 4/3 sensor. The cell size is proposed to be the same!!!! The proposal is for a 4/3 sized sensor. That is the important part, not the lens mounting system. No one is married to the 4/3 lens system. It 's just a significant added benefit.

The telecentric design also means that you will not get good wide-aperture lenses, and wide-angle lenses have a size or quality handicap.

The size of the 2/3" sensor means that all but the most expensive glass will leave you with a handicap. And this still does not address SN and DOF issues.
And of course once again I'll say you are speculating about the supposed inferiority of the 4/3 glass when you could just go to your local shop and check them out!

 

[Michael Hastings]

The standard is patented, so Red would have to pay royalties to Kodak and Olympus, and it requires a proprietary lens design. The telecentric design also means that you will not get good wide-aperture lenses, and wide-angle lenses have a size or quality handicap.

It would be nice if you guys educated yourself a little bit before posting your supposed negatives which are actually positives. Telecentric design is necessary to get optimum for ALL digital sensor cameras and is the reason Canon and Nikon have been redesigning all of their high end lenses. If you are unaware, the reason is that ALL digital sensors basically don't use off axis light rays very well as opposed to a film layer which doesn't care much, so telecentric designs perform better. You can certainly use any older lens with the digital sensors - but its performance is degraded relative to what it would be on film - and is true for virtually all but the most recent designs of S16, S35 and 35mm FF slr, etc. When you read the statement about four/thirds using telecentric designs it is completely a positive because it means that FROM DAY ONE they were designing the lenses with a digital sensor in mind (to hammer home a point - A DIGITAL SENSOR - not a four/thirds sensor, the size doesn't matter TELECENTRIC IS BETTER FOR ALL DIGITAL SENSORS). As a curious aside, once digital sensors are predominant, truly honest Tstops will have to be measured in terms of how they actually deliver light to the sensor - not just through the lens and its coatings. With modern lens design software utilizing aspheric lenses and the variety of specialized glass types available it is not that hard or particularly expensive to make high performance telecentric designs. As far as wide angles yes you might pay a slight size penalty - maybe adding half an inch to an already small lens.

Remember, four thirds would allow full coverage with ANY of the lenses that have been used on the RED one, and you would get cropped coverage of enough of the sensor with B4 lenses to get resolution at the max level they can produce. MAYBE some S16 lenses would actually outresolve the cropped sensor but I doubt if the older, readily available fairly inexpensive lenses would. Could you estimate how many shooters with high level S16 lenses there are that would buy a 2/3" Scarlet but wouldn't buy a four/thirds scarlet and $5K or so for a set of BRAND NEW F2 Zooms covering Superwide to supertelephoto, DIGITALLY OPTIMIZED LENSES that are clearly superior to their S16s when used on a digital sensor?

Further, suppose S16 lenses are fine - how many are there used and how many new sets can Zeiss, Cooke, Angenieux, and RED make quickly since it is expected that Scarlet will sell ten thousand units or more in the first year? We have seen how ridiculous the used market got for PL S35 lenses when only a few hundred people were looking, imagine what it will be like when thousands find out that they have no lens options that give full resolution - (i.e after they try B4 and C-mount lenses.)

You say thousands of 16mm shooters have their own lenses - I doubt if an old bolex, K3, Beaulieu, gun camera, etc. lens is really going to cut it. So How many Arri SRs did Arri sell? as I would guess those users would have the better glass that might cut it - although again NOT digitally optimized. (If I'm not mistaken I think the Master Primes are the only lenses which even considered digital when they were being designed and even there I'm not sure it was a priority.)

Further, we stated in earlier posts that we aren't asking RED to use the actual FourThirds mount if it is problematic or if they would prefer there own proprietary mount - we are just asking for the sensor size. We'll have third party four/thirds mounts probably before the camera is even available - but will be happy to buy whatever RED comes up with as well.

 

[Michael Hastings]

The 4/3 is not at all close to s-35 17 x 13mm for the 4:3ish size translating to 17 x 9.5 for 16 x 9
vs 30mm x 15mm for the s-35. in terms of chip area that's more than 2X for the s35

If anyone is wondering I actually calculated 18.8mm x 10.6mm as the maximum 16:9 size that would fit into the circle that covers four thirds. But your basic analysis of about 2X is correct. Of course you could go smaller but then you would lose wide angle WITH THE EXISTING LENSES, not that someone, including RED, wouldn't make one wider sometime soon. As an underwater guy I always push for wider.

Another thing I forgot to mention in my previous post: remember scarlet is now supposed to be a still camera as well. While we would be able to use the lenses immediately by manually controlling iris and focus with a smart mount, these lenses are actually autofocus lenses as well so, when RED gets autofocus working on the camera side, the lenses we would own are already there. No 16mm or B4 lenses - OLD OR NEW - have that capability.

To illustrate how little sense 2/3" makes for a DSMC, imagine trying to convince a Canon 5D MarkII (the camera that instigated this whole DSMC direction) or other highend DSLR shooter that (s)he should buy a Scarlet DSMC and search out a super 16 lens to shoot with - it's laughable.

Isn't the whole point of this DSMC thing to tap into the millions of DSLR shooters that regularly upgrade rather than go back and gather in a few hundred Arri SR shooters that somehow wouldn't just upgrade to an S35 Scarlet or Epic and just accept that it means leaving behind their beloved 16mm lenses?

 

[Morpheus]

Please, BRAINBURST , could you explain the difference between 4/3 and FF35?
It's 34mm vs 36 mmm, almost indentical.
Besides that, RED has already a 30 mm (S35) sensor and a FF35 (36 mm), which are the standard for Movie and Still cameras, wuth penty of lenses. Which is the need for a third intermediate sensor (4/3 or 34mm)?
Thank you if you can contribute to clear my ideas

 

[Michael Hastings]

Please, BRAINBURST , could you explain the difference between 4/3 and FF35?
It's 34mm vs 36 mmm, almost indentical.
Besides that, RED has already a 30 mm (S35) sensor and a FF35 (36 mm), which are the standard for Movie and Still cameras, wuth penty of lenses. Which is the need for a third intermediate sensor (4/3 or 34mm)?
Thank you if you can contribute to clear my ideas

Morpheus: Read it again. Full frame is 36x24 and REDONE is 24.4mm x 13.7mm (Super35mm). Four thirds standard is 17.3 x 13mm and we are talking a 16:9 sensor to fit in that circle, so 18.8mm x 10.6mm is the maximum 16:9 size that would fit into the circle that covers four thirds. A little wider and a little shorter than the true four/thirds standard since we figure nobody really wants to go back to 4:3 aspect ratio. So our four thirds lens compatible optimal sensor would be about 60% of the size of REDONE S35 and about 23% of full frame. By contrast the proposed 2/3 Scarlet is about 6.5% of full frame.

I've posted the wikipedia picture of sensor sizes, I believe that is allowed as it is public domain.

 

[Eddie]

not having a 4/3s option in their line up was a big mistake!
And it is NOT a new idea, it has been requestet over and over again, also by myself back in the dys of scarlet suggestions: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=200536#post200536

As always I have to agree with aquavideo, red really blew it on this one. Red is starting to get all to focussed around a quite "obsolete" idea of "proffesional accessories", which both make their system jump in price and make their system look like something of a scam, atleast from the outside... ooops, what did he say? let me explain: the camera (now called a "brain") costs the same as a two baterypacks and a cheeseplate, whats up with that? and if you want to see what your camera is actually recording get the EVF its only 3000$ a bit more expensive than the camera, but hey, its "modular".
This is not good for RED in the long run. Red has to meet the challenge of a low-end indie cam which in sheer quality of the footage blows everyone else out of the water on price/performance. And as suggeested by myself and others this can be done quite easy using the best tricks in the bag... meaning 4/3s fully capable electronic mount, maybe even with some nice focus knob and other bells and whistles. this combined with redcode raw, and the possibilty of say 60fps in 2/3 would make just about everybody happy with their footage for a long time to come. (and allow the red1 owner to pride themselves of their sensor size, keeping everyone happy). In my book this camera should not be modular, but compact with an lcd and battery, avoiding all those damn wires dangling all over. but I guess I am alone on that one
:waaa:

and if you complain about "negativity"... remember dissatisfaction is the basis of innovation

 

[Gualbert]

but I guess I am alone on that one
:waaa:

Guess you are...

 

[Eki Halkka]

not having a 4/3 option in their line up was a big mistake!

No.

4/3 might be a nice additional middle ground option in the future, but right now i'm very happy that RED has the 2/3" cameras in the pipeline, at a very affordable price. I would NOT want those to be replaced with 4/3 as it would come with a rise in brain price and lens sizes (which are thus also bound to be more expensive all other things being equal).

If someone really wants to use 4/3 lenses, nothing stops them from buying S35 scarlet and shooting with those using a cropped sensor. If 4/3 crop is not available in camera, it can be done in post. Another option is to use 2/3" camera with 4/3 lenses. Yes, there's a crop factor, but such is life. You get what you pay for.

The above is only true assuming the market is big enough for someone to come up with a 4/3 mount or adapter which i doubt.

RED has specced 2/3" scarlet as having one full stop better dynamic range than RED ONE. If that's not enough, it's time to buy an Epic i guess.

As far as DOF goes, 4/3 cameras would have roughly one stop shallower DOF than 2/3". So, shooting 2/3" at f2.8 is the same as shooting 4/3 at f4. Not *that* big a deal really - and for the people who are obsessed with shallow DOF, there's other options already.

 

[brainburst]

No.
I would NOT want those to be replaced with 4/3 as it would come with a rise in brain price and lens sizes (which are thus also bound to be more expensive all other things being equal).

4/3 lenses are much lower in cost for the equivalent quality in a 2/3 lenses. It's not that they are better lenses. They don't have to be because of the larger sensor size.

Another option is to use 2/3" camera with 4/3 lenses. Yes, there's a crop factor, but such is life. You get what you pay for.

You aren't understanding the problem with the 2/3". It requires better glass. we aren't in love with the 4/3 lens systems, we want the 4/3 sensor size because it is more forgiving of glass. The 4/3 lenses won't necessarily work well with the 2/3 sensor.

The above is only true assuming the market is big enough for someone to come up with a 4/3 mount or adapter which i doubt.

This isn't necessary. The thing we like about a 4/3 sized sensor is that it's image sensors cells are the same size as the RED one and many of their other upcoming sensors. Which means any lens that would work for them, including 35mm still camera lenses, would work for the 4/3 sensor with cropping, but no loss in image quality. You won't be able to use lenses for the 2/3" sensor on any of the other red cameras unless you want serious vignetting.

RED has specced 2/3" scarlet as having one full stop better dynamic range than RED ONE. If that's not enough, it's time to buy an Epic i guess.

The BRAIN is spec'd for that. That just means a extra bit in the AD conversion not that the raw sensor can actually deliver usable information. This is common sense. Can two sensors with the same technology deliver the same S/N / dynamic range if one has photo cells that are 40% smaller than the other? Photons are photons electrons are electrons.

As far as DOF goes, 4/3 cameras would have roughly one stop shallower DOF than 2/3". So, shooting 2/3" at f2.8 is the same as shooting 4/3 at f4. Not *that* big a deal really - and for the people who are obsessed with shallow DOF, there's other options already.

"The other options already" is another expense we'd like to avoid! Furthermore, one of the ways to get shallower DOF, opening the iris in conjunction with ND filters, becomes an realistic option with a sensor with decent light gathering capability. This option will not work as well with the smaller sensor size under less than optimum lighting conditions.

 

[Eki Halkka]

4/3 lenses are much lower in cost for the equivalent quality in a 2/3 lenses. It's not that they are better lenses. They don't have to be because of the larger sensor size.

All 4/3 lenses are still camera stuff, right? My guess is, they're made to perform with resolutions in the ballpark of 10 megapixels and up at 4/3 size. 3K at 2/3" shouldn't be a problem.

There's no sense in making price comparisons to cine/video lenses - they're expensive regardless of sensor/film size, and the more expensive the bigger the sensor/film, all other things being equal. And there's simply no cine lenses for 4/3 standard at all.

Can two sensors with the same technology deliver the same S/N / dynamic range if one has photo cells that are 40% smaller than the other? Photons are photons electrons are electrons.

It might very well be, that the cell size isn't the limiting factor / bottle neck, something else is. I tend to trust the manufacturer's specs until proven otherwise.

Furthermore, one of the ways to get shallower DOF, opening the iris in conjunction with ND filters, becomes an realistic option with a sensor with decent light gathering capability. This option will not work as well with the smaller sensor size under less than optimum lighting conditions.

It works well with smaller sensor cameras - i've used the method succesfully with 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" cameras. I haven't noticed any difficulties using the technique with any of these, regardless of sensor size - it works equally well with all.

 

[oldphart]

This is simply not true. The cameras targeted are NOT cheap pint and shoot. Did you even bother to look at the lenses? You can actually go to a local shop and check them out. Unlike the proposed red miniprimes.
...

The point is not for Red to design lenses, for which they might have to pay royalties, but to offer a mount for such lenses. Even if there were patent issues then that is not a problem! The larger sensor means that whatever glass worked for the Red one will work for the 4/3 sensor. The cell size is proposed to be the same!!!! The proposal is for a 4/3 sized sensor. That is the important part, not the lens mounting system. No one is married to the 4/3 lens system. It 's just a significant added benefit.
...

All 4/3 cameras I have seen are targeted to those who want a small, inexpensive camera which looks like an SLR. There is even a shrunk "Leica"-labelled vanity camera among them. No Leitz lenses, of course.

The issues I have with the 4/3 system is that they have done exactly the opposite of Red. Red designed sensors which work well with lenses made for film. There are still some optimizations possible, but they have made the closest thing to an electronic film replacement this far.

The 4/3 group went to the opposite extreme. They designed a sensor that requires specially designed lenses to work optimally with it. You cannot make just any 4/3 size sensor and expect it to work properly with a 4/3 system lens. Therefore, camera makers have to license the system and abide by the system rules.

Conversely, you cannot expect an ordinary lens to work well with a 4/3 camera. Some do, especially those of long focal length or small aperture which were designed for detectors with similiar characteristics to the 4/3 standard.

At least this is what I get out of their patents, and I would expect that to match the real world fairly well.

 

[brainburst]

It might very well be, that the cell size isn't the limiting factor / bottle neck, something else is

You should do some research. It isn't the only factor, but it's the hugest.

It works well with smaller sensor cameras - i've used the method succesfully with 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" cameras. I haven't noticed any difficulties using the technique with any of these, regardless of sensor size - it works equally well with all.

It's not the size of the sensor, its the size and type of photocell that determine the light gathering capability S./N and thus the capability to use ND filters to lessen DOF. The HVX200 for example has a 48 micron CCD cells. CCDs tend to be less noisy than cmos.

 

[brainburst]

They designed a sensor that requires specially designed lenses to work optimally with it. You cannot make just any 4/3 size sensor and expect it to work properly with a 4/3 system lens.

Where did you get this information? I think you are looking @ micro four thirds not standard four thirds...　

 

[Eki Halkka]

You should do some research. It isn't the only factor, but it's the hugest.

Again, i'll rather trust the manufacturer than you on this. All things being equal, larger photosites generally mean better SNR. But who says all things are equal in this case?

It's not the size of the sensor, its the size and type of photocell that determine the light gathering capability S./N and thus the capability to use ND filters to lessen DOF.

That's total gibberish to me really.

While important otherwise, sensitivity and/or S/N ratio don't really affect this issue. If a sensor gathers less light, you simply need to use less ND to get the same aperture. It does NOT mean you can't shoot with open f-stop.

The HVX200 for example has a 48 micron CCD cells. CCDs tend to be less noisy than cmos.

And still 3 CCD HVX200 is noisier than i.e. cheapo HV20 which has a much denser single CMOS ;-)

 

[Gualbert]

Here we go again! The 4/3 man!

 

[Michael Schmitt]

Well for me, I am excited about the s35 Scarlet, but if I can't swing the price for accessories, I'll look seriously at the 3/4 and be happy with it.

There is already almost too many options.

(hey look! It's my first post. I've been lurking here since April of '07 and finally have two cents to pitch in)