Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Input on which scarlet to get?

L

Lars Wikstrom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
128
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I have the HVX-200 now. I shot a lot with the Red Rock Micro which is a pain to get on and off the camera. I shoot mostly for local broadcast but would like to do some short films for film festivals. I like the DoF of the Red Rock and the Nikon lenses I have.

For me I see no real reason to go over 2K. Star Wars was shot in HD at under 2K. Are there any real reason for a person like me to get the larger sensor versions of the cameras? Are larger sensors going to get me a better for DoF and other things I might now of?

Thanks!

-Lars
 
yes. the larger sensors will get you shallow DOF. plus you won't be shooting a piece of ground glass at 3K (or higher) resolution :)
 
I see. So it would be better to have the larger sensor like the next step up like the S35. Am I right in thinking there is not much difference from the S35 to the FF35? But there is a big difference from 2/3 to the S25 for DoF.

I hate all the light loss with the Red Rock Micro and the HVX-200. Will I get much better results with lighting with the Red camera? With the Red Rock I did an interview with a 500 watt lowel light bounced with an unbrella about 4 feet away from the subject. I had to open the camera all the way up and 55mm 1.4f lens was set to 1.4 to get enough light to make it look right. But the trade of was a very shallow DoF like 4 inches or so. I was hoping for a couple feet.

-Lars
 
think of 2/3" as how 16mm looks as far as DOF (but you're shooting at 3K), and S35 as 35mm DOF. S35 has a crop factor of 1.5 but doesn't change the DOF characteristics. FF35 is "Full Frame 35mm" which means it is exactly the same as 35mm. the sensor is 35X24mm, the exact size of a frame of film.

yes star wars episode II and III were shot on 2/3". so was zodiac, benjamin button, ect. the problem with 2/3" is lens choices. most people buying the S35 scarlet will start off with SLR glass and the crop factor with these lenses on a 2/3" sensor would be huge.

no offense guys: SEARCH!!!!!!!
 
Lars Wikstrom said:
Am I right in thinking there is not much difference from the S35 to the FF35? But there is a big difference from 2/3 to the S25 for DoF.
Click to expand...

You should also consider what aspect ratio you are going to be shooting. If you are shooting for TV in 16:9 or 14:9 (or god forbid 4:3) then you will be cropping in from the sides on S35. Aaand that will mean you will need to use a wider lens for a "normal" angle.
 
ahhh, so shooting 16:9 the ff35 would be a better selection of cameras then. I hope when Red releases these cameras they will have some place you can go to test the different cameras with identical lenses. Most of this is confusing to me.

So, if I get the FF35 when it comes out and can shoot 6K which I will never use that resolution. Will it always record at 6K and give me a proxy image at 2K or will I be able to set it at 2K to record 2K?

-Lars
 
Gary Stone said:
no offense guys: SEARCH!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Before you go all caps you should get your facts straight.:smilewinkgrin: So, the S35 and FF35 has the same DOF characteristics...? Hm, yeah. That's fair. But then you say that 2/3" has a whole different dof? How is it you're going to have it?

The sensor size have nothing to do with dof. It's the aparture and focal length. If you got a 50mm lens in front of any sized sensor the dof will be equally deep, the image will be cropped on the smaller sizes though.

So if you have want to cover the same area with a S35 sized sensor as with the FF35 sized sensor you'll need a wider lens, which will give you deeper depth of field(if you're using the same aparture). And if you want the same area covered with a 2/3" sized(or smaller) sensor you'll need a even wider lens.

The depth of field doesn't change because you crop an image does it?

The S35 has the same size of S35 movie film(as used by most movies) and FF35 has the same size as small format still photo film(as used by the average Joe taking still photos pre digital age).
 
Stefan Christou said:
You should also consider what aspect ratio you are going to be shooting. If you are shooting for TV in 16:9 or 14:9 (or god forbid 4:3) then you will be cropping in from the sides on S35. Aaand that will mean you will need to use a wider lens for a "normal" angle.
Click to expand...

This is not true. The Mysterium-X S35 sensor is 30mm x 15mm, which is 2:1, but it's also larger than actual S35 format. If you crop to the sides so you have a 16:9 aspect area to work with, that gives you 26.67mm x 15mm. That is still larger than S35 film. There is going to be some form of cropping on nearly every Scarlet or Epic sensor, depending on standard aspect ratio or format is chosen. I think the only two exceptions to this rule are 16:9 on the 2/3" chip and FF35 full on the FF35 models. The latter of which is not a standard video or motion picture format anyway -- well, it's similar to VistaVision 35, but that's essentially a failed format from long ago.

There's some other screwed up info in this thread. Also, the continuous reference to crop factors here and elsewhere on the forums isn't that meaningful to the cinema and video crowd. 35mm crop factors are terminology carried over from the DSLR world -- typically a way to reference how newer (smaller) camera sensors would work with full-frame lenses compared to a full-frame film camera; as well as how newer glass designed for these smaller sensors woudl behave on a full-frame camera.

For those already thinking in 35mm Academy or S35mm cinema terms, this is irrelevant. They already know what focal lengths produce what angles of view on their format. A 100mm lens produces about a 16-degree AOV when on S35, regardless of what coverage it has -- doesn't matter if it's a FF35 Nikkor still prime or a Cooke S4, the AOV / FOV for either would be the same on S35. On FF35, still the same AOV, but the Cooke would vignette since it's not designed to cover full-frame.
 
The sensor size have nothing to do with dof.
Click to expand...

Not true. Do some research and you'll understand this fact better. In video cameras is the number one factor on DOF. This has been discussed many, many, many times here.
 
John Caballero said:
Not true. Do some research and you'll understand this fact better. In video cameras is the number one factor on DOF. This has been discussed many, many, many times here.
Click to expand...

Well, re-read these many, many, many posts then. :) The smaller sensor will give you deeper depth of field only because you'll need wider lenses to get the same image as on a camera with a larger sensor.

If you hold a paper behind one of your lenses you'll se a projected image there, right? If you physically cut out a super8 sized piece from that paper the depth of field will not miraculously get any deeper than if you cut out a FF35 sized piece. What ever type of sensor you have there the characteristics of that projected image will not change.


EDIT: That's why a 50mm lens is a tele on a 16mm negative, normal on a 35mm sized negative and a wide on a medium format negative. The depth of field will be the same though.
 
Dof

Dof

A thing to consider is the quality of the lens.
One of the problem with the smaller cameras 1/4,1/3 and 1/2 is the quality of the glass that is on the camera. 2/3 usually has a high quality and faster glass on them and that will give you more control of your image that would be the same with a 35 mm sensor.
Unless you use a lens that is designed for stills.
Cannon, Nikon etc.. are faster than the glass on the smaller cameras but if you are use to lenses that are on broadcast cameras and Cinama cameras they are at least 1.8

What I am trying to get across is you have to take in consideration when you are taking about image control is the lens size, speed and over all quality.
 
I'm getting the fixed Scarlet. It turns out it suits my needs perfectly. 35mm shallow DOF is not what I'm seeking, when I come to think of it, it will only cause my one-man-band problems. Plus, that kind of DOF it's still cheatable if needed. Other reasons to get the fixed one is Top notch lens quality, that I probably wouldn't be able to afford otherwise. Fly-by-wire, whatever that turns out to be sounds cool. And of course the 120 fps mode is also one of the reasons for making my decision crystal clear. And finnally the overall price for the fixed is so good, it could have been a special price for me, hehe but it ain't :) Hope the pricelevel for the accessories will follow, cause that will make me a happy bunny! :)
 
Which camera you get should really just be determined by your needs. Personally I'll be getting the FF35 simply for the added dynamic range it offers, I'm happy to sacrifice some resolution in a S35 crop if it gives me greater dynamic range.

But again, that's just me - your mileage will vary.
 
Based on your needs and budget.

The cheapest 35mm Scarlet is $4500 more expensive than the Interchangeable 2/3"

Perhaps with that price (even less) you can get the 2/3" Brain + A Mini-Prime set.

So you get shallow focus, high quality primes and all that without the need to handle 6K worth of resolution and data, but half of that.

Smart choice if you're a small guy :).
 
I think i'm going to have to get the interchangeable 2/3. I want the 35 but idk i think the 2/3 is better for a beginner like my self.

Are they going to sell the same lens that comes on the Fixed 2/3 scarlet as a external detachable lens?
 
Michael Vera said:
I think i'm going to have to get the interchangeable 2/3. I want the 35 but idk i think the 2/3 is better for a beginner like my self.

Are they going to sell the same lens that comes on the Fixed 2/3 scarlet as a external detachable lens?
Click to expand...

I'm going to get the fixed 2/3" myself (because the lens apparently is so good, but isn't going to be available for the interchangeable), and then probably later upgrade to the s35mm version in a few years - that way, I won't have bought any lenses that I won't be able to use on the new camera, but all my accessories should still work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top