2/3 scarlet or full frame

[Michael Cory]

I want to know if I shoot a film, would I be able to film with the 2/3 and the full frame and once finalized on film, would it be noticable that there is a difference. Oh im talking about the s35 scarlet.

 

[Joseph Ward]

You can use Scarlet 2/3 and transfer to 16mm or S16 film.
You can use Scarlet S35 and transfer to S35 film.

 

[killfilm]

You can use Scarlet 2/3 and transfer to 16mm or S16 film.
You can use Scarlet S35 and transfer to S35 film.

You can also use Scarlet 2/3 to also transfer to 35mm, im sure if DV/HD features are being transferred to 35 then i think 2k scarlet will do just fine

 

[Joseph Ward]

Correct. I think the other transfers match more with shooting with film and digital, then to finish on film.

 

[killfilm]

exactly. Few feature films are finished at 4k but may originate on that medium.
Scarlet being 2.4k (approx) will provide beautifully for 2k film outs which most theatres project at. We'll benefit from those extra pixels for sure.

I also mentioned DV/HD being transferred as content is always king, and if that content is shot at 2k then it beats shooting at at other lower resolutions.
And if the content sucks, then 8k wont help

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Normally I'd say that it's always better to strive for consistency and avoid the potential mismatching in resolution and depth of field by mixing the two formats... on the other hand, "Slumdog Millionaire" mixed Super-35 and SI-2K Mini footage, and "Dark Knight" mixed IMAX and 35mm anamorphic footage, so as long as you know what you are doing, it certainly is possible to mix formats.

However, for a typical dialogue scene, I don't really recommend a mix and match approach with some shots on one type of camera and others on another type, if you were thinking of just running the two types of cameras as A and B cameras. You'd generally get away with it better in a movie if at least it was consistent within a scene.

 

[Jason Murphy]

I want to know if I shoot a film, would I be able to film with the 2/3 and the full frame and once finalized on film, would it be noticable that there is a difference. Oh im talking about the s35 scarlet.

Really, it depends on how you shoot. If you really want to match DOF characteristics, then stop down on the S35 chip, and shoot wide open on the 2/3" (or something along those lines). Since they're both Mysterium-X, the look of the sensor should be the same (in terms of response to light), but you'll get more resolution out of the S35, obviously. If you're finishing at 2K, though, very few people will notice that difference, in all likelyhood. The S35 stuff will look sharper, of course, but probably only subtly so.

If having the footage match is a real concern, try to minimize cutting between the two types of footage within a scene, just for consistency's sake. Doing a filmout will likely cover over a multitude of problems as well.

EDIT: Looks like David Mullen beat me to the punch while I was posting. Final thought, though: shoot tests (once you can get your hands on the cameras, of course). It's pretty much the most effective way to figure this stuff out as it pertains to your project. You'll quickly get a sense of what you can get away with, and how much footage inconsistency you can live with.

 

[killfilm]

Normally I'd say that it's always better to strive for consistency and avoid the potential mismatching in resolution and depth of field by mixing the two formats... on the other hand, "Slumdog Millionaire" mixed Super-35 and SI-2K Mini footage, and "Dark Knight" mixed IMAX and 35mm anamorphic footage, so as long as you know what you are doing, it certainly is possible to mix formats.

However, for a typical dialogue scene, I don't really recommend a mix and match approach with some shots on one type of camera and others on another type, if you were thinking of just running the two types of cameras as A and B cameras. You'd generally get away with it better in a movie if at least it was consistent within a scene.

nice explanation David, i guess the real test would be to shoot on the Scarlet and project on 35 to see how good it looks like. Im sure it will do beautifully since i seen HVX footage up there it looked pretty damn filmy to me. I couldnt tell between the HVX and F35 footage.

I have no doubt that Scarlet 2k footage will smoke the Varicam/Sony F35 footage out of the water based on the specs only. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Ricardo Mehedff]

nice explanation David, i guess the real test would be to shoot on the Scarlet and project on 35 to see how good it looks like. Im sure it will do beautifully since i seen HVX footage up there it looked pretty damn filmy to me. I couldnt tell between the HVX and F35 footage.

I have no doubt that Scarlet 2k footage will smoke the Varicam/Sony F35 footage out of the water based on the specs only. We'll have to wait and see.

I'm sorry, but to say you can't tell the difference between HVX and F35 is just not true. I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself. :sarcasm:

 

[Stephen Williams]

I'm sorry, but to say you can't tell the difference between HVX and F35 is just not true. I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself. :sarcasm:

The HVX being a rather average camera and the F35 the best money can buy.

 

[Antoine Baumann]

I know I must also make some "funny" comments myself and some people must LOL to it, but I can see I am not alone...

ciaow,
antoine.

 

[Eki Halkka]

The HVX being a rather average camera and the F35 the best money can buy.

Depending on the content, i wouldn't be too surprised if the difference was hard to spot.

Filmout works as an "equalizer"... the print softens everything, as well as hides camera noise in grain.

 

[killfilm]

I'm sorry, but to say you can't tell the difference between HVX and F35 is just not true. I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself. :sarcasm:

you misunderstand me, i didnt say a side by side comparison. what i meant is that if you watched films such as cloverfield on the big screen in the cinema, you cant tell when they used the F35 or the HVX, i guess like Eki mentioned, the film out softens things and dont forget that Color Correction plays a huge role in the DI also.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

what i meant is that if you watched films such as cloverfield on the big screen in the cinema, you cant tell when they used the F35 or the HVX

Seemed very obvious to me... (also, it was the F23, not the F35, which didn't exist at that time.)

 

[killfilm]

Seemed very obvious to me... (also, it was the F23, not the F35, which didn't exist at that time.)

my bad Mullen, seems like a new model everyday. The F23. From a professional Cinematographer like you its too obvious, for the average moviegoer they probably didnt know better unless it was the blair witch project but that was Hi-8 and 16mm.

 

[brainburst]

Seemed very obvious to me... (also, it was the F23, not the F35, which didn't exist at that time.)

I think there is a semantic issue here. I think the difference in quality is somewhat obvious. The difference between something being originated on film, or not, or some higher resolution digital cinema camera is not so obvious to the untrained eye once everything is transferred to film. People assume a look is the desired outcome, not a limitation of the acquisition device.

 

[killfilm]

Story is king like you all know, people tend to forgive picture elements than audio. If the style fits then it works, say POV shots like in cloverfield, although a lot of people got motion sickness which had to do with overdoing the handheld style.

If a 2/3 inch camera like the Sony F23 etc. is used in motion picture production, then i dont see why not the Scarlet seeing that it exceeds the F23 in resolution and dynamic range (according to what was announced)

 

[Joseph Ward]

Story is king like you all know, people tend to forgive picture elements than audio. If the style fits then it works, say POV shots like in cloverfield, although a lot of people got motion sickness which had to do with overdoing the handheld style.

If a 2/3 inch camera like the Sony F23 etc. is used in motion picture production, then i dont see why not the Scarlet seeing that it exceeds the F23 in resolution and dynamic range (according to what was announced)

I would imagine Storytelling would be more important, now and in the future, when tech becomes even more better and relative?

 

[killfilm]

its just tools, but some are better than others. They can all accomplish the same thing-tell a story

and we always have the option to choose which tools to use.

 

[Jerrod Cordell]

Normally I'd say that it's always better to strive for consistency and avoid the potential mismatching in resolution and depth of field by mixing the two formats... on the other hand, "Slumdog Millionaire" mixed Super-35 and SI-2K Mini footage, and "Dark Knight" mixed IMAX and 35mm anamorphic footage, so as long as you know what you are doing, it certainly is possible to mix formats.

However, for a typical dialogue scene, I don't really recommend a mix and match approach with some shots on one type of camera and others on another type, if you were thinking of just running the two types of cameras as A and B cameras. You'd generally get away with it better in a movie if at least it was consistent within a scene.

It also depends on what you're projecting on. When I saw "The Dark Knight" in regular theaters, I couldn't tell the difference at all between the 35mm footage and the IMAX footage, but when I watched it at the IMAX theater, the difference was as clear as day. And it wasn't just the aspect ratio either. The 35mm footage was blurry, and noticeably stretched, whereas the IMAX footage was insanely crisp. Because of this I personally liked watching it at the regular movie theaters than at the IMAX theater.

So if you plan on a 2K delivery, you can easily mix the 2/3" footage with the S35 footage, as long as you're using the 2/3" Scarlet for wide shots and areas where DOF isn't as important. If you plan on a 4K delivery though, then I wouldn't advise it.