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 :)

Aww... the $4750 was pushing it already...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Jackson said:
Ah, so you have a history of bypassing quality capture and heading right for the worst options available to you. This is all starting to make more sense. :eek:
Click to expand...

It's called I don't have an endless supply of money to purchase the best available equipment. I've got to work within my means as I move up the technology chain, maybe you can afford more so you don't *get* it for people that can't be elitist like you in their equipment/requirements.

I mean, really, why are you even looking at the Scarlet, when the Epic will be even better and capture even higher quality? Why limit yourself? Better yet, why even get that? When you know the road map for RED, the camera that comes out after the Epic and Scarlet is SURELY to be even higher quality, maybe you should wait for that. Then you can be SURE to get the most quality capture.
 
Rick Burnett said:
It's called I don't have an endless supply of money to purchase the best available equipment. I've got to work within my means as I move up the technology chain, maybe you can afford more so you don't *get* it for people that can't be elitist like you in their equipment/requirements.
Click to expand...

Almost anything is better than a DSLR or this DSLR-in-an-oversized-case that you're looking at. Any of the 1/3" or 1/2" 3-chip cameras that use decent codecs will do a better job. You don't have to spend a fortune to avoid horrible image quality.

But there's this, "If'n it ain't got a big sensor it ain't a real camera!" sensibility that defies all logic and it's seeping through the brainpan of even the lowliest mammals who endeavor the craft. Despite that fact that ultra-shallow DOF shots are a dimestore novelty that has very little place in narrative fiction. Where a large sensor is nice is the "sweeping vista" shot where you're capturing a lot of detail and trying to use the width of the lens as effectively and efficiently as possible, but in the case of these DSLR-based products the line-skipping and poor codec makes them completely unsuitable for that. So you're left with the nothing-much-is-in-focus novelty shot as the one trick these ponies can accomplish.
 
Robert Jackson said:
Ah, so you have a history of bypassing quality capture and heading right for the worst options available to you. This is all starting to make more sense. :eek:
Click to expand...

Can you explain the best option for someone with sub $5k and wants a large sensor camera with HD EVF, HD LCD, XLRs, HD-SDI and 10.5 stops DR then?

Of course, you can spread FUD about it being a DSLR in a camcorder case.... but anyone with a clue knows this is BS.
You haven't seen the IQ, yet are an expert already.

You just sound like the typical techno geek who is so busy looking at spec sheets that he doesn't actually have the creativity to get the best out of any camera put in front of him. :eek: (does adding the smiley make me sound less condesending? I sure hope so)
 
Jim Retar said:
Can you explain the best option for someone with sub $5k and wants a large sensor camera with HD EVF, HD LCD, XLRs, HD-SDI and 10.5 stops DR then?

I'd love to hear about this mysterious camera you seem to know about.

You just sound like the typical techno geek who is so busy looking at spec sheets that he doesn't actually have the creativity to get the best out of any camera put in front of him. :eek: (does adding the smiley make me sound less condesending? I sure hope so)
Click to expand...

No, I'm someone who worked with 2/3" cameras for most of my career (with a fair amount of 16mm tossed in) and has a lot of experience with the dreaded small "sensor" sizes that newcomers have been conditioned to believe won't work for them. Despite everyone from Scorsese to Coppola to Fincher and so on being able to get lovely results from the format.

A small sensor isn't going to have as much impact on your output as a really bad line-skipping sensor capturing to a bad codec. If you dwell on that one aspect of the work and tune out all the shortcomings that are packaged along with it you're kind of missing the point, IMO.
 
Robert Jackson said:
Almost anything is better than a DSLR or this DSLR-in-an-oversized-case that you're looking at. Any of the 1/3" or 1/2" 3-chip cameras that use decent codecs will do a better job. You don't have to spend a fortune to avoid horrible image quality.

But there's this, "If'n it ain't got a big sensor it ain't a real camera!" sensibility that defies all logic and it's seeping through the brainpan of even the lowliest mammals who endeavor the craft. Despite that fact that ultra-shallow DOF shots are a dimestore novelty that has very little place in narrative fiction. Where a large sensor is nice is the "sweeping vista" shot where you're capturing a lot of detail and trying to use the width of the lens as effectively and efficiently as possible, but in the case of these DSLR-based products the line-skipping and poor codec makes them completely unsuitable for that. So you're left with the nothing-much-is-in-focus novelty shot as the one trick these ponies can accomplish.
Click to expand...

Did I ever say that if it doesn't have a big sensor it's not a real camera? I am well aware of films shot in say 2/3 like the Star Wars prequels that from an image standpoint, look great. If that is what you like to shoot on, that's great, keep shooting on it. I never once knocked you for wanting a smaller sensor with a higher image quality, that's important to you.

I also understand that for low light deep focus shots, a smaller sensor is also more desirable, again, it's not like I don't know the strengths and weaknesses of sensor size. I get that as well.

I personally really enjoy the relationships between FoV and DoF related to focal length on S35 sized sensors. Sure, I hear people say all the time "why don't people realize you can get shallow DoF on a smaller sensor", yet, it fails to recognize that there are certain restrictions that limit what capability you have, and physical restrictions that dictate what you can and cannot do. Many of the locations I shoot in, I've got to work within the structure of where I am. I cannot remove a wall or float in the air because I cannot get to the proper position to get the shot I want. It's not ALWAYS about just the DoF. It's also about the shorting or expansion of the image in terms of focal length. This is also a consideration.

Working with smaller sensor cameras and even larger sensor cameras, I find the S35 to be perfect for me, and the lens I like to use. I've used a 5D, so I am familar with FF35. I don't like it for shooting video, at all. That's a personal opinion and don't pass judgment on those that like to shoot in that format, just as those who like 16mm or 35mm film.

I *personally* think the artistic freedom I gain from an S35 sized sensor so far has been worth more than a more robust codec with a smaller sensor. Even if the Scarlet FF35 was the same price as the S35, I wouldn't get it. It's not what I want.
 
Rick Burnett said:
Did I ever say that if it doesn't have a big sensor it's not a real camera?
Click to expand...

No, you just wrote several paragraphs after this sentence explaining why it was the only format you have any interest in shooting. Which is fine. You don't care about image quality as long as you can have unusably shallow DOF. Which is what I was saying all along.
 
Robert Jackson said:
No, you just wrote several paragraphs after this sentence explaining why it was the only format you have any interest in shooting. Which is fine. You don't care about image quality as long as you can have unusably shallow DOF. Which is what I was saying all along.
Click to expand...

Unusably shallow DoF? I guess that's what Scorcese wanted on Shutter Island since he shot in all 35 and 65mm. Or what Fincher wanted when he shot The Social Network since he used the Red One at 35mm. I guess you should go ahead and let them know that their unusably shallow DoF is unnecessary.

No, what you are saying is that you are a bitter person who has used 2/3 and 16mm all their career and are upset by the fact that people discount the image size that you have so many years of experience with because it is smaller than what people *think* they need for shooting motion picture. Do me a favor, stop redirecting your displaced aggression on me. It's not my fault people aren't interested in the format you seem to like so much.
 
That's funny...

You can shoot with deep focus on a wide sensor.
ACtually it is done quite a lot.

DOF use is ablout controll. Getting what you want. Shallow or deep.
With a larger sensor more options are more easily attaiable.

Large sensor is not equal to shooting at t1.3 on masters at all times...
 
Rick Burnett said:
Unusably shallow DoF? I guess that's what Scorcese wanted on Shutter Island since he shot in all 35 and 65mm. Or what Fincher wanted when he shot The Social Network since he used the Red One at 35mm. I guess you should go ahead and let them know that their unusably shallow DoF is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and if you watch Shutter Island the only times you're going to see those lenses opened all the way up to yield "large sensor effects" is when there's some note about the altered state of consciousness that they're trying to hit. The 65mm stuff is used for precisely the "sweeping vista" stuff that you aren't ever going to ever be able to achieve with a resolution-hobbled line-skipping sensor.

Rick Burnett said:
No, what you are saying is that you are a bitter person who has used 2/3 and 16mm all their career and are upset by the fact that people discount the image size that you have so many years of experience with because it is smaller than what people *think* they need for shooting motion picture.
Click to expand...

Hey Paco, I own 35mm motion picture cameras, as well. And I've used them for things where I felt like they were needed. In doc work I typcally use a hand-cranked 35mm camera for establishing shots in large part because of the added resolution.

I don't have anything against large sensors. I have something against line-skipping and 8-bit h.264 consumer codecs. Given the choice between really horrid image quality and a smaller sensor I'll take the smaller sensor. Because at the end of the day it's about capturing the best images you can capture while telling the story. At least to me. YMMV. And apparently does.

FWIW, I'm much more interested in higher frame rates than a larger sensor. I'd gladly trade the sensor size of the S35 Scarlet for the 120-150 fps of the 2/3" Scarlet, but again that's just me. I feel like time compression and expansion is a more useful storytelling tool than thin DOF.
 
And like I said, the solution is simple, don't buy the AF100. I've never said I thought your decision to not want the camera wasn't valid. I just said that spouting off about the functionality and performance of the camera, in ways that have certainly been contradictory to actual use of the camera so far, when you have ZERO actual use of the camera itself, are pretty baseless. Again, like I said, we'll have to wait and see.

And if you want the high frame rates of the 2/3 sensor, I agree, then that is what you should get. While I like high frame rates, 60fps is fast enough for me to bring down to 24fps. Neither desire is right or wrong. Of course, you *could* just get the EPIC and get both. :)

For some people, the AF100 is going to be a step-up from their DSLR, who desire to get the S35 and want something at least better than what they are using now. For someone wanting the 2/3 size, I am just not sure what to recommend. Again, recommending a $9k camera when someone said $4750 was already pushing it, doesn't seem like a solution.

I guess that begs the question, if you want a good 2/3 camera around $5k, what options are there? And let's not even discuss changable lenses because I don't think there is anything remotely close to even $5k.
 
Rick Burnett said:
I just said that spouting off about the functionality and performance of the camera, in ways that have certainly been contradictory to actual use of the camera so far, when you have ZERO actual use of the camera itself, are pretty baseless.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how knowing how something works can tell you in advance how it's going to perform. It's how using that thinky-thinky part of your mammal brain differs from using the reacty-reacty part of your primitive reptile brain. I can tell you without ever touching a line-skipping camera that uses AVCHD that it's not worth owning for a professional. Other than in that Fisher-Price Pixelvision way, but it's not likely to yield an image that's distinctive enough in its flaws to merit that kind of treatment.

That's the evil of these kinds of products. Under certain non-critical conditions they can yield images that almost don't suck. And that's all it takes to convince people with an untrained eye that they're just as good as a real solution. Which would be great if I was one of those snarky guys who likes to see people fail, but I'm not wired like that.

Rick Burnett said:
I guess that begs the question, if you want a good 2/3 camera around $5k, what options are there? And let's not even discuss changable lenses because I don't think there is anything remotely close to even $5k.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if I was doing small production stuff like you're doing I'd be looking at Panasonic's 1/3" AVC-Intra offerings and for the two or three specials on the schedule where you needed gawdawful thin DOF I'd use a Letus. But as you've already said, you don't care much about the quality of the footage you shoot. You just want to say you have a big sensor. You know what they say about guys who need to be able to brag about the size of their sensor, right? :ihih:
 
And you know what they say about guys who try and say a small sensor is superior :) Which is probably why you like to shoot on a camera the size of a hum v, compensation much? :)
 
Samual Murman said:
Guys, can we give the hyperbole a little rest?
Click to expand...

You mean the stuff where we're equating this coming Panasonic with actual production equipment? Yeah, you're absolutely correct!

"Look! I can mount a $20,000 cinema lens on it! Take a good look because you'll never see a Master Prime mounted on it in the real world, but it sure makes us seem like we're building something for pros!!!"

The hyperbole is the message...with apologies to Marshall McLuhan. :tongue_smilie:
 
Rick Burnett said:
And you know what they say about guys who try and say a small sensor is superior :) Which is probably why you like to shoot on a camera the size of a hum v, compensation much? :)
Click to expand...

I actually ruptured a disc in my back once using a very heavy 35mm rig for hand-held work. And of course back in the day my U-Matic "field rig" was massive. The deck alone must have weighed 30 pounds with batteries.

No, I don't treasure large cameras, but like all camera operators who do it for a living I learned to compensate.

You're experience shooting the camera isn't as important as the quality of the footage you've shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top