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 :)

10 Scarlet Questions with Joseph Hutson... Take 2.

David Rasberry said:
For much of Scarlet's extended development cycle people were asking for lower resolution , i.e 2k, and cheaper cost. A camera that equals the resolution of an ARRI Alexa for less than $10k is pretty amazing IMO. All of the most recent samples from working production prototypes that have been shown have been 3k. I doubt they will go back to the drawing board at this point for the first Scarlets. Who knows what may be coming for future generations though?
I've said it before. I'd love to see an 8MP QHD 3840x2160 true super 16mm sized sensor in a Scarlet interchangeable. This could be done on the same 3.3u sensor fab as the 2/3" version. That would make a lot of sense as the next Scarlet upgrade model, but the price would likely be close to an Epic-S so it might not make as much market sense other than to have a high resolution S16mm film replacement that could use the same lenses. High quality compact optics for light weight mobility and extremely efficient field production would be the advantage. The series Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman was shot on S16mm film with one camera and a single zoom lens.
Click to expand...

As always your argument for a S16 format is good but given Jim's 1080<good enough position, I doubt we will see less than 3k going forward. Jim doesn't have a reverse gear. ;-)
 
But David was suggesting a 3840 x 2160 resolution. Where's the conflict with 1080p isn't good enough?
 
Terry VerHaar said:
But David was suggesting a 3840 x 2160 resolution. Where's the conflict with 1080p isn't good enough?
Click to expand...

Where is the conflict within his proposal? There is none. I was speaking to this part in particular RE a future 2k possibility:
David Rasberry said:
people were asking for lower resolution , i.e 2k, and cheaper cost... Who knows what may be coming for future generations though?
Click to expand...

My intent wasn't to disagree. If i understand his previous posts on the subject, i think that he and I would be in agreement on this point. My take was that he was being kind when he said it. Sorry for the mix up.
 
Last edited:
Ohh, conspiracy The Firechiefs reply post and my reply to that has dissapeared. ;) . Jarred did indicate, what is presumed the model in question is 3K. So that's it. The other notions about 2k being so advanced around here is sadly mistaken, it is based on what canbe done in a price bracket, not what is done. 2k was doable 2004 for under $5k, I was there, the fact nobody bothered to do it is irrelevant. 6mp was done a few years latter, and in camera a few years after for less than $1k (in one second bursts without hacking). $200 cameras have 8mp capability internally now, and more to come. We are looking at delayed post fhd models shortly. However, enjoy it, for me it is about using it in ten years time, and 4k is what I want to be using. I will have to make a choice decision when it comes out, as the s35 is over the top for me. You will get your monies worth, and quality.

David Rasberry said:
All of the most recent samples from working production prototypes that have been shown have been 3k. I doubt they will go back to the drawing board at this point for the first Scarlets...The series Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman was shot on S16mm film with one camera and a single zoom lens.
Click to expand...

I hate that show, was it being shot on s16 instead of s35 to blame ;) .


Not asking them to go back, any improvement 6 months out better be minor, sensors upgrades can take a year. I merely asked if they took the years of extra unexpected development delay to improve sensor resolution as a surprise. You could easily do this and leave modes above 3K out of the demo cameras before launch. But I am taking Jarred's word for it, all jokes beside.


Thanks


Wayne.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Ohh, conspiracy The Firechiefs reply post and my reply to that has dissapeared. ;) . Jarred did indicate, what is presumed the model in question is 3K. So that's it. The other notions about 2k being so advanced around here is sadly mistaken, it is based on what canbe done in a price bracket, not what is done. 2k was doable 2004 for under $5k, I was there, the fact nobody bothered to do it is irrelevant. 6mp was done a few years latter, and in camera a few years after for less than $1k (in one second bursts without hacking).
Click to expand...
And 3K was possible for less than $3K in 2008. Sadly, that ship has sailed. I agree, the breakthroughs in sensor deign and manufacturing during the interim could have enabled higher resolutions with simultaneously increased sensitivities and dynamic ranges, and probably even global shutters. Again, if one wants those, one will have to wait till some other company does them. And bring something to read, because one will probably have a long wait.
 
I don't see those as issues though it may not be a perfect replacement for 16mm it's close and 16mm seems to have done fine for quite some time now and I presume will continue to for a long time.

As others said you want more go to the epic line it's there in fact it's here now, affordable 4k or 5k will come eventually it's just not here yet (yes in stills but that is not the same thing by a long shot). in reference to 4k is the future I believe that is based on them attempting to create a digital alternative to 35mm film, so by that right the scarlet makes perfect sense as a replacement for 16mm as well.

Once again to each their own red will make what they feel is right, and you will buy what you like, I don't see any issues there. the past may be fun to reflect on but it's not a good place to dwell, 3k for 3k might as well be put up there with popular mechanics hopes of homes on the moon by the 90's (well that might be a bit of hyperbole but....)

now would a 4k or true s16mm scarlet be nice, yes, would I buy one, yes, would I want it to throw scarlet back on the drawing board, no, I can wait for Maroon/Falu Red/Carnelian/Venetian Red/Sangria/Carmine/Vermillion/Burgundy/Persimmon/Magenta/scarlet2/O'hara or whatever.


Keep creating!
 
I'll be getting one regardless if 4K is the future, and 3K will be the past. I've shot 16mm a bit and it can only get up to 2K if I remember correctly through the Spirit 2K scanning process.

So essentially Scarlet is even a step above that? Correct me if i'm wrong.
 
Scarlet's actual resolution measures less than 3k. With a targeted finish of 2k there's a little room for re-framing and all of the other benefits of oversampling, so yes in a way it is a step above. That is the theory, as I understand it. I have not doubt it will more than hold up under scrutiny when we all get to try it.

Having stated that, I presume your question relates more to the film scanning process? I have read here and elsewhere that a 2k film scan yields a result of less than 2k, so I presume that you are correct. To get similar results from a 16mm film scan to the current Scarlet prototype, I believe you would have to do a 4k scan... Speaking in terms of resolution only.

Jeffrey Loewe said:
I'll be getting one regardless if 4K is the future, and 3K will be the past. I've shot 16mm a bit and it can only get up to 2K if I remember correctly through the Spirit 2K scanning process.

So essentially Scarlet is even a step above that? Correct me if i'm wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Crawley said:
Scarlet's actual resolution measures less than 3k. With a targeted finish of 2k there's a little room for re-framing and all of the other benefits of oversampling, so yes in a way it is a step above. That is the theory, as I understand it. I have not doubt it will more than hold up under scrutiny when we all get to try it.

Having stated that, I presume your question relates more to the film scanning process? I have read here and elsewhere that a 2k film scan yields a result of less than 2k, so I presume that you are correct. To get similar results from a 16mm film scan to the current Scarlet prototype, I believe you would have to do a 4k scan... Speaking in terms of resolution only.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, thanks for clarifying that!
 
Just to clarify Scarlets measured resolution(on a chart) will be less than 3k, but the container it will be in will be a 3k file. Just as a DSLR does not resolve a full 1080 yet it will deliver a file of that size.

I know people know this just want to clarify, and feel free to correct me as well as I could be wrong.
 
Stephen Matthews said:
Just to clarify Scarlets measured resolution(on a chart) will be less than 3k, but the container it will be in will be a 3k file.
Click to expand...



Well, here's a corollary.

One of the files from EPIC-X I have is 5120x2560 - the native 2:1 resolution of the Epic-M/X. Because of the bayer, that resolves out about 85% or so based on the last graph Jim posted, meaning something about 4.2K.

So a Scarlet file would be 3072 × 1536 - the native 2:1 resolution of the Scarlet. Because of the bayer and assuming its less than 85% wonderful, it'll resolve out about 2.5K.

Now, that is aside from what you might actually produce taking into consideration lensing, etc. that may further lower resolved detail.
 
Michael Olsen said:
Well, here's a corollary.

One of the files from EPIC-X I have is 5120x2560 - the native 2:1 resolution of the Epic-M/X. Because of the bayer, that resolves out about 85% or so based on the last graph Jim posted, meaning something about 4.2K.

So a Scarlet file would be 3072 × 1536 - the native 2:1 resolution of the Scarlet. Because of the bayer and assuming its less than 85% wonderful, it'll resolve out about 2.5K.

Now, that is aside from what you might actually produce taking into consideration lensing, etc. that may further lower resolved detail.
Click to expand...

Awesome! Thanks for sharing that info as well. Do you think you could PM me a link explaining the "Bayer", compression's and sizing better? I'm trying to pick up and learn all of this, it's coming slowly but I'd really like to dive in.
 
For those who are wondering where I'm pulling those 85% and 80% numbers, look here.

Regarding bayer...I don't have the time right now, but you might not do too badly just searching around these forums. There are some incredibly smart people who know far more than me who can do a lot to explain things. Who knows...we may even be able to summon Graeme here for a short explanation or his own preferred link discussing bayer. :beer:
 
Jarred,

Some time ago, there was a render on the RED website of two cameras (whether two Epics or two Scarlets, I don't know) side-by-side forming a stereoscopic rig. In that spirit:
1) Is there plans to give Epic and Scarlet 3D capability without the use of 3rd-party accessories?
2) Would one REDmote or REDmote Pro then be able to control both cameras to maintain sync?
3) Would the data be written to one piece of media. Like in HDRx, could a hypothetical stereoscopic rig write 2 tracks to one SSD drive - one for the left and one for the right?
 
Nathaniel Haban said:
Jarred,

Some time ago, there was a render on the RED website of two cameras (whether two Epics or two Scarlets, I don't know) side-by-side forming a stereoscopic rig. In that spirit:
1) Is there plans to give Epic and Scarlet 3D capability without the use of 3rd-party accessories?
2) Would one REDmote or REDmote Pro then be able to control both cameras to maintain sync?
3) Would the data be written to one piece of media. Like in HDRx, could a hypothetical stereoscopic rig write 2 tracks to one SSD drive - one for the left and one for the right?
Click to expand...

I'm no Jarred and he would know better, but I know in a CES video I was watching on Endanget Ted S. was showing off the inputs/outputs on the lower/back part of the camera and he said there was a input that allowed you to link Scarlets for 3D. There is also a picture floating around that I think Joseph Hutson took of two Interchangeable's on a rig for 3D.

Not sure if your a member over at ScarletUser.com but I think the picture is in this thread. http://scarletuser.com/showthread.php?t=5546
 

Attachments

  • red 3d.jpg
    red 3d.jpg
    47.7 KB · Views: 0
Nathaniel Haban said:
Did a quick search and found the pic I was referring to.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen that one. I'm not to up on my 3D whats the difference in the different rigs? Meaning whats different between the cameras being right next to eachother, then the setup where there are one on top of the rig and the other in a normal position?
 
Two cameras being next to each other is stereoscopic. The Element Technica rig is a beam splitter. It works off of a one-way mirror. The camera in the normal position shoots through the backside of the mirror. The camera on top shoots the reflected image off of the mirror. I haven't used the Element Technica rig, so anyone who has feel free to correct me.
 
Nathaniel Haban said:
Two cameras being next to each other is stereoscopic. The Element Technica rig is a beam splitter. It works off of a one-way mirror. The camera in the normal position shoots through the backside of the mirror. The camera on top shoots the reflected image off of the mirror. I haven't used the Element Technica rig, so anyone who has feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...

"Stereoscopy (also called stereoscopic or 3-D imaging) refers to a technique for creating or enhancing the illusion of depth in an image by presenting two offset images separately to the left and right eye of the viewer." ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy

The two types of rigs are beam splitter and parallel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top