Scarlet VS Ex3 w/HD-SDI out

[Daniel Cegla]

The Scarlet with it's 2/3rd CMOS vs 3x1/2 CMOS Sensors on the EX3. It almost seems like the image quality would be better - just by specs - on the EX3 since it has 3x sensors... and if you get rid of the compression scheme, doesn't that really level the playing field?

How will the Scarlet look in comparison to that EX3? I know the prices aren't congruent, but factoring that out, I am just wondering how they are expected to compare image wise. Does the Scarlet do some extra voodoo that I am missing?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Nope - the CMOS on the EX are slow read / reset, hence jello. Remember, it's not the pixels you have but what you do with them... When you put the top of the line Sony F35 image next to the RED's you just know that RED knows what to do with it's pixels

Graeme

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The three EX sensors are 1920 x 1080, the single Scarlet sensor is 3K (3072 x 1728???), so I don't think the EX would necessarily be better, resolution-wise, compared to 3K RAW converted to 1080P RGB. 3K RAW should still measure a bit over 2K once converted, and due to the OPLF, I doubt that the EX1 measures out to 1.9K anyway -- if it did, there'd be a ton of aliasing. (This is ignoring a host of other factors, like respective compression rates, lens optics, any affect the prism block has on the EX, etc.)

And given that almost no one is going to record either camera's sensor output uncompressed, plus if you did, you'd have to factor that data recorder into the costs, I think the real world result should be that the Scarlet will deliver a superior picture, but that's just a guess. But we are talking about sensor technology that is a couple of years advanced over what the EX is using.

 

[Daniel Cegla]

I figured - awesome!

BUT... hehe... I was kinda fishing for: What the heck IS IT that it does with the pixels that makes it look so much better? How did it get the sensor so much faster as to avoid the slow read/reset and minimize those rolling shutter effects?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

I wish I knew - I'm not a sensor designer. All I know is that it's not easy....

Graeme

 

[Michael McVicar]

I figured - awesome!

How did it get the sensor so much faster as to avoid the slow read/reset and minimize those rolling shutter effects?

I asked Jim something similar. What are the limits in read/reset times? Meaning what envelopes are being pushed. He said there are no limits. Well, I guess that's true. Good philosophy!

 

[toke lahti]

I think this is the real contestant for Scarlet2/3":
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/cameras/revfeat/sony_pmw-350_0308/
$19k with 16x lens!

 

[David Rasberry]

I think this is the real contestant for Scarlet2/3":
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/cameras/revfeat/sony_pmw-350_0308/
$19k with 16x lens!

Very cheap for an HD zoom lens, $1400.00. Might be a good inexpensive lens for Scarlet too.

 

[Aaron Newsome]

I think this is the real contestant for Scarlet2/3":
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/cameras/revfeat/sony_pmw-350_0308/
$19k with 16x lens!

$1,400 for that lens is insane! I wonder if there is any way to buy just that lens. I also wonder if the autofocus on the lens would work on any camera or just that sony camera. I'd be willing to throw $1,400 into it just to test it out.

If anyone comes across a link where just the lens can be purchased, please pass it along.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Like it has been said before, the Scarlet's sensor technology is far more advanced.

Similar to how Koenigsegg CCXR's 4.7L engine pushes out 1000 hp, while the Dodge Charger's 8.3L engine does only 500 hp. Probably a poor analogy, but interesting anyway.

So it isn't the size - but the efficiency.

Besides, the Scarlet 2/3" supports REDCODE 100, and according to the latest information about the latest Redcode being mathematically lossless at a 2.5:1 compression ratio, that puts the 3072x1620 image at 75 MB/s or so, well within the REDCODE 100 standard. So, technically, we are recording uncompressed images for the Scarlets anyway.

There are several things that add up. In the end, the Scarlet is likely to be in a completely different class, but then again, it is aging and Sony might have a new EX camera by 2011.

Also, that lens at $1400 is surprising!

 

[Sean Rawls]

Also need to think about form factor. Running around tethered to a deck or data recorder would be frustrating everywhere but in a studio setting.

I do think this is the correct approach however: get the most out of whatever tools you have. The Ex1 and Ex3 compression is horrible but it's a nice sensor for the price point (till Scarlet comes out :thumbup1 SO use you own AJA Ki Pro or whatever. Curious to hear of any lower cost solutions because for 4 grand for the AJA and 6 for the EX1, that's a shootable 2/3" scarlet with accessories.

Anyways, EX1/3 are good cameras for interviews and other stationary subjects. I'll always favor Panny for form factor, but Sony made a nice camera with the EX1/3 line.

 

[toke lahti]

Very cheap for an HD zoom lens, $1400.00. Might be a good inexpensive lens for Scarlet too.

I've been wondering in "No more FF35" thread if there would be Scarlet4/3" to use with S16 zooms and 4/3" lenses, but if this lens is available with this price, Scarlet 2/3" is no-brainer for me. Fixed is too restrictive and S35 too expensive and bulky with S35 zooms.

 

[toke lahti]

Like it has been said before, the Scarlet's sensor technology is far more advanced.

How do you know?
Do you have any experience with either of these cameras?
One thing is for sure, PMW-350's sensors have bigger and more pixels.
I would guess that its sensors are also latest tech, since they are new, never used in any other camera before and traditionally Sony has been in the top of sensor technology.

 

[David Rasberry]

How do you know?
Do you have any experience with either of these cameras?
One thing is for sure, PMW-350's sensors have bigger and more pixels.
I would guess that its sensors are also latest tech, since they are new, never used in any other camera before and traditionally Sony has been in the top of sensor technology.

Sony writes out a compressed TV encoded file format 1.9 megapixels RGB. Scarlet writes out a 4.9 megapixel RGB file after deBayer. The 3-chip also loses about a third of a stop sensitivity thru the optical relay and records only a portion of the light to each sensor after color filters. No real sensitivity advantage, in fact Bayer pattern point and shoot still cams have been more sensitive than typical 3-chip video cams with similar sensor sizes for several years.
I am sure the Sony produces superb image quality for a video camera.

 

[toke lahti]

Sony writes out a compressed TV encoded file format 1.9 megapixels RGB. Scarlet writes out a 4.9 megapixel RGB file after deBayer.

Yep, Scarlet has a little advantage in resolution, after deBayer the real resolution difference is very little at least if your master will be "just" fullHD.
Btw, 1920x1080=2073600, not 1.9M.

The 3-chip also loses about a third of a stop sensitivity thru the optical relay and records only a portion of the light to each sensor after color filters. No real sensitivity advantage, in fact Bayer pattern point and shoot still cams have been more sensitive than typical 3-chip video cams with similar sensor sizes for several years.

Bayer's color filters take about same amount of light than 3-chip's prism. So no advantage to either of them.
But the fact remains that sony has more pixels and they are larger.

 

[David Rasberry]

Yep, Scarlet has a little advantage in resolution, after deBayer the real resolution difference is very little at least if your master will be "just" fullHD.
Btw, 1920x1080=2073600, not 1.9M.


Bayer's color filters take about same amount of light than 3-chip's prism. So no advantage to either of them.
But the fact remains that sony has more pixels and they are larger.

Sony's current gen midrange cams like the FW800 are in the 800 ISO range. don't know if the PMW350 is that high or not, but probably pretty comparable. 3-chip cameras have the optical prism plus color filters and OLPF filters just like the Bayer chips do.

One can't really generalize about the relative sensitivity of these two cameras as it is the full design and implementation that makes the difference. We don't know where Scarlet falls, but from previous Red team comments, it will be very close to the MX S35 overall for sensitivity, noise, and DR. When asked, Jim said the MX S35 shooting 3k would have a slight advantage over Scarlet 3k and that the 2/3" chip performance is exceptional.
Even at 1080p Scarlet will have some resolution advantage over any native 1080p camera, and this will translate into finer detail with less noise and aliasing after the downscale. Scarlet can produce a fully resolved 1080p image, a 1080p chip camera can fully resolve about 800 lines vertical at best unless you want to see a lot of moire and aliasing. Cameras in the PMW350 class with the cheap kit lenses fall more in the 650-700 line range compared to say an FW800 with a $30k lens on it.

 

[Jeremy_Sawatzky]

u guys are forgetting something. THE SCARLET CAN RECORD 150 fps at 3K!!!! That is just retarded! I wana see sony pull that off for 5 grand- chickens are guna fly the same day sony releases something even remotly comparable for 5 grand

 

[Aaron Newsome]

u guys are forgetting something. THE SCARLET CAN RECORD 150 fps at 3K!!!! That is just retarded! I wana see sony pull that off for 5 grand- chickens are guna fly the same day sony releases something even remotly comparable for 5 grand

That's incorrect. The scarlet can't record anything until it starts shipping. And you are correct though, in that chickens would fly if any company ever released a cinema quality camera that can record 150fps at 3k for $5k.

I'm not convinced yet that any model of scarlet will do this for $5k. The only thing that will convince me is when I can buy one and see for myself.

 

[toke lahti]

Sony's current gen midrange cams like the FW800 are in the 800 ISO range. don't know if the PMW350 is that high or not, but probably pretty comparable. 3-chip cameras have the optical prism plus color filters and OLPF filters just like the Bayer chips do.

Sony rates PDW-F800 F12 @50i and PMW-350 F13. So the latter is more sensitive. Maybe something like 1000 ISO.
You probably know from optics that prism itself doesn't eat any light, that's why it's used instead of mirrors.

We don't know where Scarlet falls, but from previous Red team comments, it will be very close to the MX S35 overall for sensitivity, noise, and DR. When asked, Jim said the MX S35 shooting 3k would have a slight advantage over Scarlet 3k and that the 2/3" chip performance is exceptional.

"Exceptional" doesn't mean "as good as" or "nearly as good as".
Looks to me that people have over expectations about 2/3" which exceeds laws of physics.

If we assume that 2/3" and S35 chips are same generation, their sensivity is straightly proportional to pixel area.
S35's pixels are 3.5 times larger than 2/3", so it should be 3.5 stops faster.

It is also possible that 2/3" sensor is newer gen chip that is not still used for bigger sensor due low yield. Is this common prediction here? Any "official" info about this?
Anyway, it is pretty reasonable to expect that 2/3" is at least 2 stops slower than S35.
So Scarlet 2/3" can have sensivity around 400 - 1600 ISO. Sony's might be 1000 ISO. This will be interesting.

Cameras in the PMW350 class with the cheap kit lenses fall more in the 650-700 line range compared to say an FW800 with a $30k lens on it.

And Scarlet2/3" will have exactly same resolution when I attach the same kit lens to it. The lens could have 800 lines, we shall see...

 

[toke lahti]

Little more about sensivity speculation:
It might be useful to measure sensivity by pixel area.
Red One has ISO 320 and pixel area of 29 µm^2.
So it gives 11 ISO/µm^2.
M-X S35 is about ISO 800 with same pixel area, which brings it to 27.43 ISO/µm^2.
(2.5 f-stops advancement!)
If 2/3" sensor has same ISO/µm^2, it will have 10.24x27.43= 280 ISO.