Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

SCARLET 2/3 + 35mm Adapter (Letus etc...)

Bastien Tribalat

Bastien Tribalat

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
824
Reaction score
2
Points
18
Location
Cannes area, France
Website
linktr.ee
Hi there,
I know it sounds stupid but until today I didn't think of that combination.
Would it be possible to use that kind of 35mm adapters with SCARLET 2/3 (either fixed or not) ?
 
Well, I see no reason why you couldn't use a 35mm DoF adapter on the 2/3" Scarlet. The question is whether you should use it.

The S35 Scarlet brain is $7000. The 2/3" fixed Scarlet is $4750. Add to that a 35mm DoF adapter for another $1500 or so, and you're almost at the price of the S35 brain. The S35 should produce dramatically better results than the 2/3" + 35mm adapter.
 
I can see a lot of people who already have 35mm adapters doing this, just to be able to shoot RED. I would rather just save up for the S35 brain.
 
That being said, unfortunately we have ABSOLUTELY no knowledg on the S35's eventual release. I mean we've received tentative dates for release on the Epic, and 2/3rds format Scarlets but NO word one on the S35. Which kinda concerns me, as to its position in release.

So if it came down to someone NEEDING to shoot a project, absolutely the Fixed with a 35mm adapter would be a most likely choice over saving for a yet, still unreleased S35.
 
Jaime Vallés said:
The S35 Scarlet brain is $7000. The 2/3" fixed Scarlet is $4750. Add to that a 35mm DoF adapter for another $1500 or so, and you're almost at the price of the S35 brain. The S35 should produce dramatically better results than the 2/3" + 35mm adapter.
Click to expand...

Not quite an accurate comparison since the $4750 price is for brain, CF module, LCD, battery, and Redmote, whereas the $7000 price is just a brain. Factor in all those required accessories and the S35 Scarlet is still much more.

That said I'm not a fan of the adapter idea either, too big and awkward, plus the more glass your image goes through the lower your quality (same reason I don't like 3CCD with a prism splitter)
 
Thanks for the quick answers.

Why I'd rather go with a 2/3 would be for the higher frame rates (because I believe that the S35 cannot go up to 120 fps, am I correct ?).

Anyway that was just a technical question. I have no plan to do so. I'm for the moment dreaming of buying my SCARLET. Every "upgrade" may come later.
 
Exploring the full range of 2/3" DOF capabilities might be more productive. If Slumdog can win the cinematography Oscar with 2/3" format, I don't think the camera is that much of a limitation unless you are fixated on ultra shallow DOF styles of shooting. There are even post solutions for that these days.
 
We are looking at $4750 + $1500 for a good DOF adapter.

Now, a S35 brain would cost $7000. It would be nearing 15k by the time we account for the basic accessories, plus the more expensive S35 lenses. Not to mention, the S35 Scarlet comes in later.

The 2/3" Fixed Scarlet is a great option for anyone on a budget. Let's not forget, 2/3" is a sizeable sensor, and will get you decent depth of field. (Check out the likes of Slumdog Millionaire or Benjamin Button - you will get similar DOF. Personally, anything shallower wouldn't be suited to most cinematic ambiences. Also, you get better quality at higher resolutions from the Scarlet than those films.) If you really want a very shallow DOF, the adapter is a decent option and shouldn't be too expensive.
 
Lee Saxon said:
Not quite an accurate comparison since the $4750 price is for brain, CF module, LCD, battery, and Redmote, whereas the $7000 price is just a brain. Factor in all those required accessories and the S35 Scarlet is still much more.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Putting together an S35 Scarlet package comparable to the 2/3" fixed Scarlet package would look like this:

S35 Scarlet brain - $7000
CF module - $500
2.8" LCD - $900
Side handle w/battery - $950
TOTAL - $9350

VS

2/3" Fixed Scarlet package - $4750
35mm DoF adapter - $1500 more or less
TOTAL - Around $6250

So, for around $3000 you get a massive jump in image quality going for the S35 versus the 2/3" w/35mm adapter. I'd rather save up the extra $3K and go for the S35, but for others that might be cost prohibitive.
 
Jaime Vallés said:
Indeed. Putting together an S35 Scarlet package comparable to the 2/3" fixed Scarlet package would look like this:

S35 Scarlet brain - $7000
CF module - $500
2.8" LCD - $900
Side handle w/battery - $950
TOTAL - $9350

VS

2/3" Fixed Scarlet package - $4750
35mm DoF adapter - $1500 more or less
TOTAL - Around $6250

So, for around $3000 you get a massive jump in image quality going for the S35 versus the 2/3" w/35mm adapter. I'd rather save up the extra $3K and go for the S35, but for others that might be cost prohibitive.
Click to expand...


You forgot the high cost of a good lens...
 
To me, it seems counter-intuitive to use any sort of adapter on Scarlet simply because 2/3 in. chips are very proficient at providing a shallow depth of field. Go look at that thread where David Mullen posted screens of a film he shot on the Sony F900 (which is a 2/3 in. chip cam) and they look great. You can get shallow depth of field on a 2/3 in chip camera, and Scarlet won't be any exception. I honestly think that if anyone who has shot on a 2/3 in. camera knows that the depth of field is shallow enough for MOST practical usage. Getting that extra little bit of depth of field by using an adapter is absolutely not worth the 1-1.5 stops of light you lose, in my opinion.
 
Sean Finnegan said:
To me, it seems counter-intuitive to use any sort of adapter on Scarlet simply because 2/3 in. chips are very proficient at providing a shallow depth of field. Go look at that thread where David Mullen posted screens of a film he shot on the Sony F900 (which is a 2/3 in. chip cam) and they look great. You can get shallow depth of field on a 2/3 in chip camera, and Scarlet won't be any exception. I honestly think that if anyone who has shot on a 2/3 in. camera knows that the depth of field is shallow enough for MOST practical usage. Getting that extra little bit of depth of field by using an adapter is absolutely not worth the 1-1.5 stops of light you lose, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is a very flexible and capable format on its own. Very nice range of DOF control.
 
DOF Adapter is not answer, but Interchangeable lens mount is.

I know you all have been thinking about price, but in the End I think it would add up to be about the same price.

So just do it right and spend a little more at once to have it all, instead of a little here and a little there to build FrankinStein.

Scarlet Brain + Lens Mount "like Canon" will do it "DOF" just fine for low budgets people.

Michael T.
 
Go look at that thread where David Mullen posted screens of a film he shot on the Sony F900 (which is a 2/3 in. chip cam) and they look great.


Which Thread are you talking about, I cant seem to find it.


I agree completely. That would be a waste to put a 35mm adapter on the 2/3rd. Get a 2/3rd interchangeable so you can use fast primes and get that extra stop.
 
I don't remember which thread it was, one about 2/3" depth of field obviously... but here's a frame from the DVD of "The Quiet", a very low-budget feature I did on the F900. This was shot on the 8-72mm Panavision Digital Primo zoom at T/2.8, not sure the focal length but at the long end:

quiet3.jpg
 
There you have it. More screens were given in the thread, when I find it I'll link it so you can check them out. But even just judging by that the DOF is shallow enough for practical usage, by most people's standards. I think that too much emphasis nowadays is put on shallow depth of field with the proliferation of digital mediums because people think it looks "cinematic". And in the right circumstances, it absolutely is. But what people have to realize is that depth of field is simply a tool to direct the viewer's eye, nothing more. Razor thin depth of field looks...forced, in most cases. It's uncharacteristic of film as a medium and only really justifiable through an aesthetic choice, for instance, if razor thin depth of field were needed to reflect the story.
 
I agree Sean. Only in certain situations or shots is it need. Really it depends on the shot. For instance a rack focus from one character to another in the background can help tell a story and show something in a certain way. It helps direct the viewers eye to something you want them to see. Hope you find the link, I am so not having luck.
 
Currently I think most of the DOF adapters are made to focus down to a 1/3rd inch sensor. I would be interested to see if someone makes a quality DOF adapter
specifically for the 2/3 sensors and at the correct flange distance for the 2/3 interchangeable brain.

If it were done correctly it would open a whole new world of options for intechangeable 2/3 users and still 35mm lenses. Especially for FD and AIS (F mount).

I welcome a move in this direction from either RED or 3rd party. It may be unnecessary for some but its a great idea for expanding options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top