Scarlett 2/3" - Action Sports? Some questions...

[Brant Williams]

I am a hobbyist who likes to do things right. My area of interest is in action sports...mostly water sports. Surfing, kiteboarding, windsurfing, wakeboarding with some skiing and motorsports thrown in. My experience is all still photography. I have held off getting into motion (film or video) simply because the cost of the equipment to produce the level of quality that would satisfy me personally could not be justified unless I did this for a living.

Luckily, technology, and companies like RED are changing things for the better. It seems to me that the Scarlet 2/3", with its 120 fps (150 burst)capability at 3K with modern digital editing workflow is a likely successor to the traditional action water sports film platforms such as the Millikan and Photosonics Super16 Cameras that can shoot up to 200 fps. Scarlet is of course just a bunch of blueprints at this point...but still, it all looks VERY exciting.

With the small 2/3" sensor, 16/S16 lenses will be required to properly match the sensor size. Since the sensor is small, it has been stated here that top Cinema spec S16 lenses will be a must to allow the sensor to live up to its potential. The small sensor will be much less forgiving of lower quality glass.

But does this really matter if getting 100% out of the Scarlett does not matter for my applications? I have no delusions. Nothing I ever do with a Scarlet will up in film on a large screen. HDV TV, DVD, Blue Ray and the Web (all 1K max) are my targets. In addition, with action sports, we usually lean towards deeper DOF, faster shutter speeds. Tricky focus pulls during a shot are not common. Will anyone really be able to see the difference between premium Cinema quality glass and still glass or lower quality cinema glass for these sorts of (1K platform) applications?

Let me know your thoughts.

 

[Brant Williams]

PS...don't say wait for the miniRed Primes.... They probably won't be around till 2010+....

 

[kevinfluet]

PS...don't say wait for the miniRed Primes.... They probably won't be around till 2010+....

Really? Where did you hear that? I find it hard to believe that RED would release the 2/3" Cinema Scarlet as early as Summer 2009 and leave their customers without lenses for it.

 

[Brant Williams]

Perhaps a poor assumption on my part.....but I think that getting a (new) lens line out will actually be more challenging than getting the camera body/brain out.

 

[kevinfluet]

I am a hobbyist who likes to do things right. My area of interest is in action sports...mostly water sports. Surfing, kiteboarding, windsurfing, wakeboarding with some skiing and motorsports thrown in. My experience is all still photography. I have held off getting into motion (film or video) simply because the cost of the equipment to produce the level of quality that would satisfy me personally could not be justified unless I did this for a living.

Luckily, technology, and companies like RED are changing things for the better. It seems to me that the Scarlet 2/3", with its 120 fps (150 burst)capability at 3K with modern digital editing workflow is a likely successor to the traditional action water sports film platforms such as the Millikan and Photosonics Super16 Cameras that can shoot up to 200 fps. Scarlet is of course just a bunch of blueprints at this point...but still, it all looks VERY exciting.

With the small 2/3" sensor, 16/S16 lenses will be required to properly match the sensor size. Since the sensor is small, it has been stated here that top Cinema spec S16 lenses will be a must to allow the sensor to live up to its potential. The small sensor will be much less forgiving of lower quality glass.

But does this really matter if getting 100% out of the Scarlett does not matter for my applications? I have no delusions. Nothing I ever do with a Scarlet will up in film on a large screen. HDV TV, DVD, Blue Ray and the Web (all 1K max) are my targets. In addition, with action sports, we usually lean towards deeper DOF, faster shutter speeds. Tricky focus pulls during a shot are not common. Will anyone really be able to see the difference between premium Cinema quality glass and still glass or lower quality cinema glass for these sorts of (1K platform) applications?

Let me know your thoughts.

I think you have misunderstood what "K" means. It is the horizontal resolution, not the vertical resolution like you get when people talk about HD.

720p is 1280x720, or 1.28K and 1080p is 1920x1080 or 1.92K

So, your target is basically 2K, and that is also the target of the 3K 2/3" Scarlets. You will shoot in 3K, but your actual resolving power (the ability to resolve distinct elements in the image) is something like 2.5K when you consider other limitations in the lens, sensor, etc. The idea is that shooting at 3K will give you enough to get a really crystal clear 2K image.

Many of us are wondering the same thing you ask: How good a lens do we need for 2/3 Cinema Scarlet? Can we use the coated, 16mm, cinema zooms from the 80's, or are we going to have to shell out $8000 for a new 16mm Angenieux Optimo Rouge (which I just made up and may never exist).

People have shot 2K on the RED ONE with old S16 lenses and the footage doesn't look too bad. But, the 2/3 sensor is more dense and smaller than the S16 windowed RED ONE sensor, so the Scarlet actually needs much better glass.

So, we'll have to wait and see. The math may work out in a way that only the fixed-zoom model and the S35 Scarlet with SLR glass will make sense for those of us who need a zoom capable RED for under $10K.

 

[Brant Williams]

Doh...vertical/horizontal brainfart....not sure what tangent I went off on there...of course 2K approx= 1080 ! Still....the question is the valid, and I guess none of us will know how senstive the 2/3" will be to lens quality until it ships and we have some real world feedback. I guess I can dream that the miniReds will be out sooner than I think they will...and they will only cost $2K each. Yeah right....

 

[kevinfluet]

Doh...vertical/horizontal brainfart....not sure what tangent I went off on there...of course 2K approx= 1080 ! Still....the question is the valid, and I guess none of us will know how senstive the 2/3" will be to lens quality until it ships and we have some real world feedback. I guess I can dream that the miniReds will be out sooner than I think they will...and they will only cost $2K each. Yeah right....

$2K? Yikes. I expect them to be a LOT less than $2K. RED is selling the 2/3 camera with a fixed zoom for only $1000 more than the Cinema body, and a prime lens has a much simpler design than a zoom. Maybe I'm crazy but I will be surprised if the RED primes are more than $300 each.

Yep, we'll have to wait and see. Fortunately I have a bunch of old 16mm lenses available to me if they do end up working well. I suspect that it will turn out that a lot of them will be "okay," but disappointing overall and I'll want expensive new glass to get the most out of 3K.

 

[Brant Williams]

Compare cinema quality 35mm primes to cinema quality S16 primes.....

Now look at the cost of the existing RED lenses. There is no reason to expect that miniRED primes will be 'cheap'. You get what you pay for.

 

[Ian Slessor]

There is no reason to expect that miniRED primes will be 'cheap'.

Still, one can dream.

ian

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Are the modules of the new design able to be kept separate with a cable / umbilical? I can see some value in being able to mount just the "brain" and lens in difficult places for action scenes, with a cable leading to the other modules.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

f/stop for outdoors

f/stop for outdoors

If you are going to shoot outdoors you would not want to stop the lens down more than f/8 to get full 3K resolution.

If you look at the numbers the frame for the 2/3" sensor is not Super16 size it is a little under camera for normal 16mm frame size, you can see my other posts about this and using "C mount" film and machine vision lenses.

To get full resolution out of Scarlet the lenses should be better than 120lp/mm and few are, plus they need to compensate for the thickness of the OLPF.

 

[Brant Williams]

Dan,

So the question is not whether we can use the Scarlet 2/3" to its full potential. You have already noted that to do so would require something like a set of premium cinema primes (cooke / zeiss). The real question is, with good, but not great lenses, what will the scarlet 2/3" do compared to the alternatives (ie prosumer camers like the HPX170)?

If it will not outperform the alternative, then the smart thing is to go to the S35, and deal with the 72 FPS, I guess....

 

[Antoine Baumann]

Brant, there is a whole lot of 2/3 lens for broadcast cameras that will physically suit the scarlet 2/3, the ultimate quality IMO beeing the digi primes from zeiss, but they are all designed for 2/3 sensor with 1920x1080 resolution, hence a 100lp/mm, and as Dan wrote, for scarlet it should be better.
But what if you only want a 2K finish maximum, or 1920x1080, would it be then as good as i can get with a "100lp/mm" lens?

For Cinema primes it is an other story because the film plane is not the same size as 2/3, and there is no notion of pixel resolution if you don't do a DI. But for a 4K DI or digitaly shot @ 4K resolution with an approximately S35 sensor or film plane you get between 80-90lp/mm.

With "good lens" will it outperform HPX170? I think so, but you'll have to test and see. But if the point is to outperform such cameras, I would go for the fixed lens, I am quite sure the lens will make quality image and live with the limitations (which can lead to creative solutions ;-).

ciaow,
antoine.

 

[Miklos Konczol]

Anybody could tell me how many line/mm have Nikon zoom lenses? (I am interested in 17-55 DX 2.8 and 80-400 4.5-5.6) Is there any link to got to know that? THX

EDIT: Any DSLR lens data would be nice (canon, nikon, zoom, prime, wide , tele...etc...)

 

[John Godden]

Anybody could tell me how many line/mm have Nikon zoom lenses? (I am interested in 17-55 DX 2.8 and 80-400 4.5-5.6) Is there any link to got to know that? THX

EDIT: Any DSLR lens data would be nice (canon, nikon, zoom, prime, wide , tele...etc...)

Check out the lens reviews on this site: http://www.photodo.com/

 

[Moir]

Isn't the obvious answer for many shooters the fixed zoom lens Scarlet? Let's assume the lens will be at least decent, it avoids the whole business of looking at HD / s16mm lenses costing 5 or 10x the camera body, or SLR lenses not designed for motion picture use.

I think there is a little sniffyiness from some quarters towards fixed lens cameras because they traditionally = consumer / prosumer, but there comes a point where it is simply the most logical choice for certain applications.

Of course there will be some applications where the max / min focal lengths aren't usable - and sports may well be one - but for budget-conscious owners looking at a 2/3 sensor camera this is surely the first port of call.

 

[David Rasberry]

Most 35mm still lenses fall in the 35-50 lpmm range. Lens tests at DPreview.com spec chart resolution at full image height. Divide by vertical sensor size of the test camera in mm to lpmm.

To match the resolution of a fully resolved debayered image from 2/3" Scarlet will require lenses in the 120 lpmm and up range.

No doubt the best cost vs quality compromise will be the fixed lens version.

 

[Miklos Konczol]

Most 35mm still lenses fall in the 35-50 lpmm range. Lens tests at DPreview.com spec chart resolution at full image height. Divide by vertical sensor size of the test camera in mm to lpmm.

To match the resolution of a fully resolved debayered image from 2/3" Scarlet will require lenses in the 120 lpmm and up range.

No doubt the best cost vs quality compromise will be the fixed lens version.

THX a lot. ,,so my nikon lenses not the best solution for super tele.....
waiting for RED-Mini primes data

 

[David Rasberry]

Brant, there is a whole lot of 2/3 lens for broadcast cameras that will physically suit the scarlet 2/3, the ultimate quality IMO beeing the digi primes from zeiss, but they are all designed for 2/3 sensor with 1920x1080 resolution, hence a 100lp/mm, and as Dan wrote, for scarlet it should be better.
But what if you only want a 2K finish maximum, or 1920x1080, would it be then as good as i can get with a "100lp/mm" lens?

For Cinema primes it is an other story because the film plane is not the same size as 2/3, and there is no notion of pixel resolution if you don't do a DI. But for a 4K DI or digitaly shot @ 4K resolution with an approximately S35 sensor or film plane you get between 80-90lp/mm.

With "good lens" will it outperform HPX170? I think so, but you'll have to test and see. But if the point is to outperform such cameras, I would go for the fixed lens, I am quite sure the lens will make quality image and live with the limitations (which can lead to creative solutions ;-).

ciaow,
antoine.

Canon and Fuji both make premium quality cine style lenses for 2/3" B4 mount. Very expensive though.

I have some decent 16mm glass, and recently picked up a Schneider c-mount 16-90 f2/T2.4 zoom from a 16mm filmmaker who shoots weddings on 16mm for DVD finish.

Good 16mm glass should perform quite well, even if it doesn't match the super sharp quality of current gen premium lenses. It can be an economical alternative for low budget indies and film students who can't abide the thought of using a fixed lens camera. Standard 16mm glass will cover the 2/3" format just fine.

I plan to shoot resolution and image quality tests with as many different 16mm lenses as I can get hold of. This will be done with HD resolution charts that top out at 97 lpmm. I hope to make this an online reference for 2/3" Scarlet users. It is easier to make rational choices if one can see the end result.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Crispness vs. Resolution, 2/3" vs. VistaVision sensor

Crispness vs. Resolution, 2/3" vs. VistaVision sensor

I have made several posts about using Machine Vision C mount lenses on Scarlet because after you go to the filmout the 3K resolution is less important than the Crispness of the image, i.e. lack of halo, flare, and good contrast.

I have some lenses I have been looking at the results of and the Fujinon machine vision lenses have much more "snap" than some of the other lenses, although a Tamron lens looks good as well, and so do the Schneider lenses. I hope to post some sample scans next year.

Kowa has a 5mm for 2/3" that claims 120lp/mm, it seems under $500.

If you are going to try to keep your Scarlet Kit under $10000 then the price of your lens set is an issue.

Will the Scarlet with its built in lens be as good as shooting with prime lenses, well tests will have to be done and results posted. If people on REDUSER work together we can figure out what the best values are in lenses and what they look like.

The problem I have noted with the zooms I have is that the focus tracking by zoom is very poor at anything close to 3K, if the Scarlet with the built in zoom has autofocus that works, or electro-compensated focus tracking then it might out-perform zooms that are attached by mount.

For those who do not know, true Zoom lenses come in two types, optical compensation and mechanical compensation. Optical compensation lenses vary in their focus as you zoom within a tolerance, that can quite large for a 16mm zoom since the resolution limit might be larger 30lp/mm wide open. Mechanical compensated zoom lenses use cams cut with a curve on them to slide the elements around as you zoom, and those cams wear down makeing the elements a little out of place as you zoom, so the focus may be one way zooming in and another way zoomiing out.

The focus problems with zoom lenses can be reduced by stopping down to f/4 or f/5.6 maybe, but then you just have one or two stops to shoot with, and cannot get snappy images with shallow DOF.

If you shoot with primes, how many do you need? 5mm, 8mm, 12mm, 25mm, 50mm, 75mm maybe so 6x $400 = $2400 maybe for a lens set of 5 Megapixel lenses...

When you get to the filmout or down size to HD, the contrast and crispness of the images will show more than the fine resolution since that gets lost. Shooting 3K Bayer gives you more lens choices than using a 3-chip camera at HD, and it is lower cost.

Looking at the results of the REDONE one can estimate what a 3K image might look like given the OLPF losses and the REDCODE losses. If I read the numbers right the 3K Scarlet will have fewer pixels than the REDONE but more bandwidth for the REDCODE? If so then the REDCODE artifacts should be less, and that would help get a good 2K RGB 16bit 48bpp TIF image.

I am sure that even cine lenses that only resolve 80lp/mm could give nice results on Scarlet by the time you filmout since an over sharp result does not look like 35mm film anyway, and if Scarlet gives RGB results better than 1280x720 then you have all you need since 35mm film projected out of focus ends up about there.

What makes Scarlet different from low end HD is that the RAW sensor data, even though compressed, gives a more filmlike results when processed with care. The very heavy over sharpening and signal processing to de-noise the limited HD sensors gives the images their video look. Film had no signal processing and got softer and contraster with each printing generation.

A RAW camera with 3K pixels lets you do less sharpening than a 1920x1080 camera, and with more pixels the losses of the OLPF become less noticable when you do the filmout.

When you sit in the last row of the theatre you will probably notice the "snap" from good pirme lenses images over the resolution of high range zoom lenses with more halo, flare and contrast loss, not that some high priced zoom lenses exist just that you would probably go to Scarlet 35FF rather than put the money into trying put a lens on the camera that costs more than the camera, since in ratio to the image width, low cost SLR and DSLR lenses have higher resolutions, that is 50lp/mm on 35FF is higher than 120lp/mm on 2/3" sensor in ratio.

The total system price for the Scarlet C mount 2/3" vs. the Scarlet 35FF is something that would need to be worked out since good enough SLR and DSLR lenses are not that much used.