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

[Michael Hastings]

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

Kudos Eddie, I didn't notice that, but you were thinking four thirds back when (or even before) I was discussing the idea of 4/3 lenses with Erik. And you are not alone in wanting to "avoid all those damn wires dangling all over." I can remember back in 06 and 07 asking for some buildups or threaded studs at the back of the REDONE so we could bolt on a battery plate rather than be stuck with the whole rod thing - asked about a half dozen times until I quit figuring it was better not to annoy everyone at RED. There's nothing wrong with modularity if you can keep it TIGHT. I talk to a lot of REDONE owners and probably the biggest reason it doesn't get used more is it just isn't a "get up and go" camera like a Varicam or F900. Most of those cameras sit in a portabrace softcase ready to shoot within seconds.

 

[Michael Hastings]

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.

Jeez, how many times do we have to correct this ignorance. AS STATED BEFORE the use of telecentric lenses is best for ALL digital sensors, it isn't a REQUIREMENT for four/thirds it is just that four/thirds was developed after film was essentially dead so from the beginning it was a digital sensor only system and therefore since telecentric design is the best way to put light on a digital sensor they have all taken that into account. You can still use other lenses and if RED were to make a four/thirds sensor camera we would immediately clamor for RED or Birger or whomever to make a mount that would allow us to use 35mm lenses so we could get supersupertelephoto from Canon or Nikon or Contax Yashica or other SLR and cine lenses. Again not that hard to do because when you have a short flange focal distance (here about 38mm) then you can make adapters for anything longer so you can do Canon FD (42mm), Canon EF (44mm), Nikon (46mm), Contax Yashica Zeiss (46.5), Leica, etc. etc. etc. and yes you could still get some pretty awesome performance with the non-telecentric designs just as we do today with the REDONE or current Digital SLRs. THE POINT IS THAT WHEN CONSIDERING SMALLER THAN S35 SENSORS, FOUR/THIRDS HAS BEEN DESIGNED WITH DIGITAL IN MIND, IS SUPPORTED BY SOME SERIOUS COMPANIES AND THEREFORE HAS KICKASS TOTALLY MODERN LENSES AVAILABLE. The lenses make it a sweet spot, and yes we may end up using four/thirds lenses on an S35 or FF35 scarlet too if it makes more sense for 3D work or whatever.

Are Canon, Nikon, Zeiss and others working to update their lenses for digital? - absolutely and for example when you see a Canon 14mm II or 16-35mm II the II means it has been upgraded and the upgrade is in part to make it more telecentric now that virtually all of their new SLR sales are digital also.

BTW The video world went through something similar when they transitioned to CCD. With tubes you could actually adjust for lens distortions or vignetting by adjusting the tube electronically in the camera. With CCDs the lens had to be made to tighter specs you couldn't adjust the CCD.

 

[Eddie]

Kudos Eddie, I didn't notice that, but you were thinking four thirds back when (or even before) I was discussing the idea of 4/3 lenses with Erik. And you are not alone in wanting to "avoid all those damn wires dangling all over." I can remember back in 06 and 07 asking for some buildups or threaded studs at the back of the REDONE so we could bolt on a battery plate rather than be stuck with the whole rod thing - asked about a half dozen times until I quit figuring it was better not to annoy everyone at RED. There's nothing wrong with modularity if you can keep it TIGHT. I talk to a lot of REDONE owners and probably the biggest reason it doesn't get used more is it just isn't a "get up and go" camera like a Varicam or F900. Most of those cameras sit in a portabrace softcase ready to shoot within seconds.

Thanks for the kudos aqua, but it seems like people don´t really get what they are missing out on. Below is a set of zoom lenses capable of competing in ANY league, which any DOP simply has to drewl over, and down right trashes ANY 2/3s option outthere.

olympus/zuiko 14-35 f/2, 35-100 f/2, these two lenses goes for around 2.5k each and if you are greedy you can get the


90-250mm f/2.8 which is around 9k but allows you to shoot the ff35 equivalent of 500mm at f/2.8!!!

When you consider these options, simply stopping DOWN your zoom to get at 2.8.
At the same time the 4/3s system is predestined for an all electronic mount. these lenses where designed for electronic control, its NOT a workaround! and add to this the fact that primes are much needed in the 4/3s system, which means that if red is going to make "mini-primes" anyway, why not deside that the "red mount" should be 4/3s. I am sure they could design the most marvelous lenses and hit in on the much bigger dslr market. and I m confident that lots of glass hungry 4/3s owners would love some red primes toggling between AF and silkysmooth manual feel.

In my book its time to make a poll: Should the red-mount and low-end scarlet be 4/3s?

 

[Cedric Akins]

Jeez, how many times do we have to correct this ignorance. AS STATED BEFORE the use of telecentric lenses is best for ALL digital sensors, it isn't a REQUIREMENT for four/thirds it is just that four/thirds was developed after film was essentially dead so from the beginning it was a digital sensor only system and therefore since telecentric design is the best way to put light on a digital sensor they have all taken that into account.

Show me the difference in image quality under the same lighting situation. Words without examples does not work for this crowd. It is not ignorance, it is lack of examples that show the difference. I don't make sensors. I don't know any of the members that do, Red Team forum members excluded. We all understand a larger sensor would mean better image quality. So how do you know that the 2/3" sensor will not have a good image? Theory is one thing proof is something completely different.

Plus Jim has stated that the 2/3" sensors have already been finished. So this is honestly just a discussion as of now.

 

[Eddie]

first image shows the noise characteristics of the brand new lx3 at iso 1600 (roughly) 2/3s
the second shows noise characteristics of the older dmcl10 at iso 1600 4/3s sensor

 

[Paul Stec]

I keep saying this but no one listens. A 4/3's sensor is what we should want. It should cost ~$4-4.5k instead of $2.5k. Worth every bit for the amount you'll save in glass and not needing to use stupid adapters to achieve shallower DOF!

• Plenty of very decent lenses available.
  http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html
• Better depth of field. Not only that but you can get shallower DOF by opening up the Iris in conjunction with ND filters. Something that won't be a real option with the smaller 2/3" sensor because of the tiny 3.2 micron cell size.
• Better S/N

For non cinema pros and ameture cinematographers a 4/3 is fine even in the same way shooting on a SD 29.97 interlaced would be fine but if you are serious about truly Cinematic Cinematography as a career the only format worth spending time and money on would be at least 2K S35 120 fps. So what "WE" Pro D.P.s want is not 4/3 Pro D.P.s "WE" NEED a Scarlet min. 2K S35 120 fps.

 

[Gualbert]

first image shows the noise characteristics of the brand new lx3 at iso 1600 (roughly) 2/3s
the second shows noise characteristics of the older dmcl10 at iso 1600 4/3s sensor

Aren't these simulated images? I guess the previous guy was asking for actual sample images...

 

[Albert Leidinger]

How about everybody else???? :help:

First: RED and the DSMC-Systems really rock. I'm overwhelmed. Congrats to all you crazy RED guys! Congrats to you Jim! I love what you're doing and how you do it - no matter all those critics.

But I'm afraid, I'm feeling similar as Michael. :wacko:

I loved the original Scarlet. And I really love the new DSMC concept too. But to be honest - I'm not sure I will buy a Scarlet. I'm really a bit sorry because I know how it feels to do better but other guys taking the victory. Buts its not over, is it ...

As of now I can personally think of these possible scenarios to decide what to buy:

1.) dont change my initial decision. Buy a Scarlet with fixed lens. And keep my Nikon glass stuck to my D300. 3K is really enough for me and I wait until Nikon comes up with a FF using 20+MP. Not the D3x/D4 that is talked about these days very much, but a D700 followup I guess. So I havent loosed anything with the last RED announcement and I just get what I really need and want.

2.) I got the taste for more. Why not using one and the same cam for Stills and Motion? A DSMC

Im afraid the RED offering doesnt seem to be mine. The S35 with $7000 is more than a D3 + Scarlet (€ 4000 + $ 3000) but with no accessory and only with the resolution of my D300. The FF35 would be my dream but of course unreachable ...

On the other hand: Nikons D700 follow-up might get the motion feature. Im nearly sure it will, as it is the direct competitor of the Canon 5D. And it might be better than the 5D and D90 (without this wobbling effect - )

3.) RED Scarlet with Nikon mount, FF35, 3K 30fps, 24 MP with at least 5fps for $6000 including accessories
I think I would invest it over a D700 follow-up for lets say € 2.000
for the benefit of 3K and RAW.
But then I need to have AF in still mode and compatibiliy with Nikon flash lites. Or an equal flash is included in the $6000 complete package.
I can imagine that not having a mirror and no optical viewfinder can be acceptable - lets keep open-minded

Way too many thoughts.
So I will stop thinking it over and over again and wait what the next days, weeks and months will bring.

Albert

 

[Petr Dvorak]

first image shows the noise characteristics of the brand new lx3 at iso 1600 (roughly) 2/3s
the second shows noise characteristics of the older dmcl10 at iso 1600 4/3s sensor

Ok and does these two has same Pixel Size as Reds? Because if not it's useless

 

[oldphart]

Jeez, how many times do we have to correct this ignorance. AS STATED BEFORE the use of telecentric lenses is best for ALL digital sensors, it isn't a REQUIREMENT for four/thirds it is just that four/thirds was developed after film was essentially dead so from the beginning it was a digital sensor only system and therefore since telecentric design is the best way to put light on a digital sensor they have all taken that into account. ...

It is not a law of nature that photoelectric detectors must have incident lightrays nearer to axially parallel than photocemical detectors in order to work well. It is just a sad fact that many solid-state detectors have rather poor performance with oblique rays, especially when used with beam splitter prism systems.

Before you start pontification about your pet format, it might be a good idea to check the facts of what it actually is. U.S. Patent 6,910,814 comes to mind, it is the main patent of the 4/3 system. It specifies in detail how a conforming camera must be made, including mechanical and optical characteristics of lenses and photodetectors.

The specifications include theta angle and the details of how the optical low-pass filter shall be made and attached. I believe the Mysterium is a much better and more modern design, and much less sensitive to the type of lens design used.

Since I do not know the detals of how the Mysterium is made, I could of course be wrong, but the results I have seen indicate that they come from a superiour system.

 

[Joe Carney]

It is not a law of nature that photoelectric detectors must have incident lightrays nearer to axially parallel than photocemical detectors in order to work well. It is just a sad fact that many solid-state detectors have rather poor performance with oblique rays, especially when used with beam splitter prism systems.

Before you start pontification about your pet format, it might be a good idea to check the facts of what it actually is. U.S. Patent 6,910,814 comes to mind, it is the main patent of the 4/3 system. It specifies in detail how a conforming camera must be made, including mechanical and optical characteristics of lenses and photodetectors.

The specifications include theta angle and the details of how the optical low-pass filter shall be made and attached. I believe the Mysterium is a much better and more modern design, and much less sensitive to the type of lens design used.

Since I do not know the detals of how the Mysterium is made, I could of course be wrong, but the results I have seen indicate that they come from a superiour system.

Great point. But the patent is a detailed description, not a requirement. One can make a 4/3 size sensor with other design features. Nothing to stop the Mysterium or Monstro from being the best 4/3 sensor in the world. To me the most important thing is going with Micro 4/3 mount instead of full, but that's just me. (Based on design docs I've seen).

At the same time, I still think the 2/3" chip is very viable and desirable for many. One thing that doesn't seem to exist for 4/3 mounts are matched primes. They do exist for s16mm cameras. (Optar comes to mind). so they may be expensive, but matched primes usually are. Just something to think about in all this.

 

[brainburst]

For non cinema pros and ameture cinematographers a 4/3 is fine even in the same way shooting on a SD 29.97 interlaced would be fine but if you are serious about truly Cinematic Cinematography as a career the only format worth spending time and money on would be at least 2K S35 120 fps. So what "WE" Pro D.P.s want is not 4/3 Pro D.P.s "WE" NEED a Scarlet min. 2K S35 120 fps.

This is an absolutely ludicrous remark. So you are saying then that Pro DPs refuse to shoot super16right? Or HD? Digital Cinema using either the Viper, or Sony's Cinealta gear? Right? "Rank amateurs all!" (The people who shoot with that gear!) Yet the a 3k 4/3s sensor could be superior to super 16 and at least the equal of the others in most respects.

What an elitist!

 

[Ben DiAnna]

Does anyone else think its strange that Jim or Jarred haven't recently spoken up at all about these 4/3 discussions? Or are they just exhausted from explaining limitations?
They're either listening or have completely put it out of the question.

-Ben

 

[diskojerk]

Does anyone else think its strange that Jim or Jarred haven't recently spoken up at all about these 4/3 discussions? Or are they just exhausted from explaining limitations?
They're either listening or have completely put it out of the question.

-Ben

I think they're on to bigger and better things.

 

[brainburst]

I think because when all is said and done, that 4/3rd may simply be too much of a sweetspot for endusers Though most can't seem to recognize it, if they could see it in action I'm sure they'd get it! It really would be a nice compromise.
I think some people fixate on S35 like a hottie that is out of reach. But if they take the time to get to know someone less glamorous....

From Red's business perspective it might be too good a compromise; There wouldn't enough of an incentive to upgrade. So Red does what most companies do: sell a lower end product to whet the appetite to buy a product that is more than people really need. (Like my first Fender a musicmaster....)
I can see this. But if they don't fill this niche, someone else will. Better to cannibalize your own sales than have someone else do it.
I think the 2/3" will be a nice camera. But I think it will be less a Red camera than my Musicmaster was a Strat. I wanted a fixed bridge Telecaster. I think they gave us a mitey mite mini strat.