Scarlet 2/3" vs. Sony EX1/EX3 low light

[Andrew Rieger]

Andrew's passion for this nonexistent camera really proves that RED have done a great job with building demand for this camera system. Andrew has flatly proclaimed the Scarlet 2/3" inch (which doesn't exist), to be better than the EX1 (which does exist).

I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one.

I won't get into the RAW discussion though. Graham has convinced me that no permanent settings are baked into the files as they're recorded. Even though they're compressed files, they're raw enough.

What's with the attack man? That is not good forum etiquette. I am pretty sure that the stated specs of the Scarlet have the "POTENTIAL" to be superior. I never said that it was. This thread was originally intended to gauge the potential of the Scarlet's low light abilities but comparing it to another currently available camera. I work with EX1's at my college tv station and I have a great deal of respect for them. People on these forum's can be so illogical at times. Read my original post before you comment.

Additionally, I am hardly a blind follower of RED. My brother actually convinced me that RED was the future. I always believed that film was superior but after researching, examining workflow and witnessing the passion that Jim and his team has for cinema equipment, I was convinced the RED was going to be the next Arri, Aaton or Panavision. I have been critical of RED on numerous occasions so crazed fanboy I am not. Anyone who blindly believes in a product is not logical but RED has proven that they are capable of pushing digital cinema to the next level, which is why I trust them. I find it funny that after all these years, we still find people online that are convinced that RED is vaporware. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one. :lol:

 

[J. Eric Camp]

Red RAW is not truly uncompressed. It does use a wavelet compression that in the end is about a 10:1 compression rate based off of the uncompressed format.

No one is arguing with you that Redcode is a compressed format. However, which frame-rate, resolution and compression combination did you use to get 10:1? It is a VBR codec so it FLUTters ( <---i didn't do that, the site did. Kinda funny) in a range. Past that, as the esteemed Mr. Mullen stated, compression and RAW file format designation are not mutually exclusive.

REDCODE ≠ uncompressed, therefor REDCODE ≠ RAW

is like

Apple ≠ Orange, therefor Apple ≠ Fruit

 

[Aaron Newsome]

Not an attack Andrew. Sorry if it came off that way. I was referring to your earlier post comparing EX1 and Scarlet. I think you said "Scarlet wins". That's all I meant by it.

I'm probably just as much of a "fanboy" of the scarlet as anyone else. I'm just a little less optimistic about a lot of the details that will finally shake lose. Price being one of those. I'm still hoping to see a full shooting rig from RED for under $10k though.

I agree that all the test shots look good. Very good. Surrealistically good. The R1 shots did too but it's really hard to judge what a camera system can really do unless you can get your hands on it and put it through its paces. When that's possible, it'll then seem more real.

 

[rafael de]

The point I was making, from earlier in the stream, was that RED had done a great job marketing the codec as RAW when it really wasn't. There are buzz words in the industry outside of the knowledge of this forum, being the first company to release a camera capable of delivering RAW at this price point is a big deal, RED realises this so will push this as hard as possible despite being technically incorrect.

 

[rafael de]

Well the test bed shots from the 2/3" sensor posted a year ago before the new color science software beat anything I have seen from an under 10k video camera. The final product certainly won't be any worse than that.

Are you refering to the lizard shot? Are you saying you are willing to invest at least 10k on a static shot that lasts a few seconds that wasn't acquired by a third party? I'd be nervous if I was your client.

 

[J. Eric Camp]

The point I was making, from earlier in the stream, was that RED had done a great job marketing the codec as RAW when it really wasn't. There are buzz words in the industry outside of the knowledge of this forum, being the first company to release a camera capable of delivering RAW at this price point is a big deal, RED realises this so will push this as hard as possible despite being technically incorrect.

And my point is, that the criteria that you have stated as disqualifying REDCODE from RAW is incorrect.

RAW = minimally processed data from the image sensor.

Non destructive color matrix / gamma curves saved next to RAW data from the sensor , which is a digital negative and must be processed in order to be displayed.

Never, anywhere in any standardization paper, or product documentation have I read that RAW means uncompressed.

 

[David Rasberry]

Are you refering to the lizard shot? Are you saying you are willing to invest at least 10k on a static shot that lasts a few seconds that wasn't acquired by a third party? I'd be nervous if I was your client.

I am willing to wait and see rather than buy something else in the meantime. For me it is a personal toy.
Frankly I think it will be the first under 10k motion camera that can equal or surpass 16mm/S16mm film.

 

[David Rasberry]

The point I was making, from earlier in the stream, was that RED had done a great job marketing the codec as RAW when it really wasn't. There are buzz words in the industry outside of the knowledge of this forum, being the first company to release a camera capable of delivering RAW at this price point is a big deal, RED realises this so will push this as hard as possible despite being technically incorrect.

Raw refers to the format the data is stored as, compressed or not. Video cameras output encoded image formats, not sensor data. HDcam SR 4:2:2 is not the same image format as 4:4:4 and does not contain the same color data for example.
Redcode is compressed raw Bayer sensor data, not encoded. A Bayer raw image file can't be displayed without first going through the deBayer process to convert it to some standard image format and color space like TIFF or JPEG or HDSDI or MPEG-X. If Redcode is not raw, then the raw formats of Canon, Nikon, ET AL are not raw either since they are all compressed to one degree or another for more efficient recording and storage.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

RAW doest not = Uncompressed. compression is not included in the definition.

Amount of (or lack of) compression also does not necessarily indicate final picture quality or robustness of image. 4k at 10mbps on the big screen is a perfect example of this.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Wow, this thread is really gone off topic. There was never any discussion of Raw recording earlier. Rafael, I very clearly described to you earlier how the One was a Raw camera and others have backed it up as well. THE PRESENCE OF SLIGHT COMPRESSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RAW ASPECT OF THIS CAMERA. THE FOOTAGE DOES NOT NEED TO BE FULLY UNCOMPRESSED TO BE RAW. Nothing misleading about Red's advertising. This is final. If you have more complaints about Red's Raw branding, than start your own thread but don't jack other people's threads. This thread was about low light capabilities which is very clearly stated in the title.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Aaron, sorry for the aggressive response. No offense taken.

I think we are all confident that Red will deliver a wonderful product. No fanboyism, just faith in Jim's company and the dedication of the team he has assembled. I believe that the One is proof that this company can deliver the goods. Sure, there have been some bumps in the road but have you ever seen a company that gauges the opinions and input of the customers as much as Red does? Red customers are loyal because we have a product that we can believe in.

 

[Aaron Newsome]

Hey Andrew, I see you're also in Orange County. We should have a beer sometime.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Hey Andrew, I see you're also in Orange County. We should have a beer sometime.

I would love to man but I am in San Antonio currently for college and still a year away from drinking age Not that that ever stopped anyone in college

I am from OC originally and actually live about 5 min away from Red HQ so that is pretty cool.

 

[Aaron Newsome]

Well look me up when you're in OC. I work in Foothill Ranch very close to where the magic happens. Oakley is actually a customer of mine in my day job. Now we're officially off topic again.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

That is pretty cool (your work with Oakley). It is pretty exciting being near the shop where they are revolutionizing filmmaking as we speak.

 

[rafael de]

Equipment will never revolutionize filmmaking, people will, people who have taken the time to learn their craft.

All these people just 'waiting' for that camera to make their masterpiece.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Yes, equipment can revolutionize filmmaking, equipment invented by people. There are plenty of inventions that have changed the way we do things in this field. No one believes that the Red will suddenly make you a better filmmaker. It is just a tool that we use to innovate ourselves. The funny thing is, you still need a camera, that is where Red comes in. I hardly doubt that people on this forum are passive. I imagine they will do great things with their gear when they get it. Also Red is not the only thing people shoot on. I know guys who shoot on everything so Red is just a next step, not the beginning.

 

[David Rasberry]

Many of us own cameras to shoot with currently or rent what we don't own when the budget justifies it. I mostly do video/audio engineering these days and shoot occasional industrials or local ads with 1/3" camera that paid for itself on its first job. The rest of the time I shoot for fun. Not looking to make masterpieces and don't have anything to prove to anybody.
Scarlet 2/3" is a quantum leap in quality and features for an under $10k camera system. Well worth waiting for IMHO. Scarlet S35 will similarly be the only large sensor motion camera system under $20k with anywhere near its image quality and capabilities.
Nothing else I can afford to own as a personal camera, either available now or likely to be released in the near future is remotely as interesting as what Red is doing.

 

[Tim Hole]

No one believes that the Red will suddenly make you a better filmmaker. It is just a tool that we use to innovate ourselves.

Its true that owning a camera will not instantly make you a better filmmaker, however I don't think it is as black and white as that. Although the camera can be seen as little more than a tool, it is the quality of the tool that frees the artist. When I started making films I had no choice but to shoot video. The most popular films that were made on video were mockumentary or Cinema Verite style because the medium lent itself to that. you felt restricted in what you could do so in a fashion it forced you to be more creative in other aspects. But it was still restricting and frustrating. The Scarlet is the first camera an Indie can truly produce something that, to an audience is more akin to what they are used to seeing at a professional level. A better dynamic range to work with and the power of raw at our finger tips.

What makes a better filmmaker is, perfecting your craft. Perfecting your craft on a camera that allows you the room to experiment. A camera that you can own, not just play with the night before a shoot because you couldn't afford to rent it for longer.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Its true that owning a camera will not instantly make you a better filmmaker, however I don't think it is as black and white as that. Although the camera can be seen as little more than a tool, it is the quality of the tool that frees the artist. When I started making films I had no choice but to shoot video. The most popular films that were made on video were mockumentary or Cinema Verite style because the medium lent itself to that. you felt restricted in what you could do so in a fashion it forced you to be more creative in other aspects. But it was still restricting and frustrating. The Scarlet is the first camera an Indie can truly produce something that, to an audience is more akin to what they are used to seeing at a professional level. A better dynamic range to work with and the power of raw at our finger tips.

What makes a better filmmaker is, perfecting your craft. Perfecting your craft on a camera that allows you the room to experiment. A camera that you can own, not just play with the night before a shoot because you couldn't afford to rent it for longer.

Absolutely. A better camera offers an artist a much greater creative freedom. Like someone around here once said, Stanley Kubrick could film a better movie on a camcorder than Michael Bay would on IMAX. However, there is no doubt Stanley Kubrick himself could greatly enhance the same film had he got an option of a RED Epic instead of a camcorder. You couldn't imagine Barry Lyndon without those exquisite candlelit scenes. In that particular case, the tool would be the incredible f/0.7 lenses. The Lord of the Rings, Avatar, those had to wait those many decades waiting for technology to catch up with the filmmaker's vision. And so on...

Yes, filmmakers are always looking for tools to expand their creativity. Since we have mentioned Kubrick here - it reflects 2001. We must be careful though - and not let the tools control our creativity. We have seen that happen often these days, poor films driven solely by technology, CGI/3D, etc.