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 :)

C300 vs. Scarlet-X lowlight

Sure, but his isn't a test or comparison.

Just two images from two different cameras shot at more or less tthe same spot with different glass and ISO.

It's like:
See I have an iPhone

But Gee
I Have a Galaxy, too


OK

So wtf.... :)

LOL

Looking foreward to see real comparisons and analysis, though.
The C300 seems to please, and the Scarlet, too...
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Sure, but his isn't a test or comparison.

Just two images from two different cameras shot at more or less tthe same spot with different glass and ISO.

It's like:
See I have an iPhone

But Gee
I Have a Galaxy, too


OK

So wtf.... :)

LOL

Looking foreward to see real comparisons and analysis, though.
The C300 seems to please, and the Scarlet, too...
Click to expand...

For sure, a real comparison would be good. But so what anyways, one is shooting RAW at 12 and 16bit and the other at 8bit

The last test posted here shows scarlet to be superb in low light including your tests also Gunleik

http://vimeo.com/33894120
 
ok so this post hasn't been a real test with the lens, different lighting conditions but I still found it interesting to try and match the images and take a close look at how the noise behaves. Both aren't ideal conditions, but I think the canon noise at 20.000 iso looks a little strange and not something i'd want to use. The scarlet noise seems to be in a square pattern? Also not ideal. Here's a grade where I tried to get rid of the noise and even then I noticed in the Canon still, there's some strange things happening with fine details in the lights (some color aberrations) and more blown out high lights. I think another test would be to check the motion of the cameras where they are not on a tripod. In one of the canon test I find the video to look a bit overly videoish in terms of motion, and I don't just mean the shutter speed.my edits are in here

Canon c300
c300_edit.jpg


scarlet x
scarletx_edit.jpg
 
Last edited:
Roshdi Alkadri said:
For sure, a real comparison would be good. But so what anyways, one is shooting RAW at 12 and 16bit and the other at 8bit

The last test posted here shows scarlet to be superb in low light including your tests also Gunleik

http://vimeo.com/33894120
Click to expand...

LOL- I have just had some fun with the Epic...
Practical tests... For fun and production.

And it's not lowlight sensitivity that concerns me one bit for my use.
Not much really that concerns me. It's the camera I hoped it would be.

Doing comparative tests, or anything slightly "scientific" would call for repeatable actions, identical kit except for the camerahouse and good documentation...
Giving the reader a chance to arrest you on your mistakes, is a good place to start.

The vimeo link you posted f. ex. is excellent documentation as to why it is not smart to shoot the Epic/Scarlet below 320 ISO.... :)

I am a bit unsure why they left that in, as its only effect is to blow the top.

Anyhow.
Tests are good and I am all for them. But let them be tests and not just random shooting and postulations... :)
 
Stop the madness:ihih:...... I showed the images to my wife with no additional info given to her.

Me - "Honey, which picture looks better to you?
Wife - "The bottom one"

BAM! Case closed!

Thank You and have a MERRY CHRISTMAS:-)

The Cooks
 
Robert Cook said:
Stop the madness:ihih:...... I showed the images to my wife with no additional info given to her.

Me - "Honey, which picture looks better to you?
Wife - "The bottom one"

BAM! Case closed!

Thank You and have a MERRY CHRISTMAS:-)

The Cooks
Click to expand...

I did the same. She said the top image looks pixelated with all the Red Green and Blue dots.
 
My cat likes the top one - dog the bottom . . . so new test needed now
 
C300 image is way better. less noise. just check the details of the metal hangar ( round thing) . in the scarlet it,s so noisy. with color correction i,m sure they can look very close after but straight out of the camera. C300 win.
I think canon are the best for lowlight. yes Scarlet is the kind for resolution but for low light they can't match. maybe with the Dragon but we are not there yet.
 
Well the MX sensor that the Scarlet uses is more than 2 years old now... maybe we should wait for the DRAGON Monstro sensor and see how it's going to be like compared to the C300 in low light :)
 
My answer to all of this is, who cares?

The Scarlet is a tool, it will have it's limitations. There is always something better. There always will. I think one has to accept every tool for what it is, not what it isn't or what is better. Every chef has the knives and tools he uses, and that's what he cooks with.

There will always be a better, sharper lens. There will always be a better camera. I find it much more interesting what we will all be SHOOTING with the scarlet, not how much SHARPER or CLEARER a shot would have been with X gear.

The opening to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was shot with old lenses with their coatings scraped off - because it FELT BETTER.
The closeups on the BOURNE MOVIES are shot with old, old lenses that are softer because it FEELS BETTER.

These were choices driven by an emotional truth, not a technical one.

If you shoot a great commercial, short or movie, no one is going to chide you later because you didn't have Master Primes, or weren't shooting at 320 ISO. All they will remember is that if FELT GOOD, and was enjoyable.

Perfection is an elusive mistress that stops you from doing anything productive because you're always waiting until the condtions are just right...and they never are.

Just my 2 cents. From a man who has failed a lot, and learned to live it, and even enjoy it.

Merry Xmas boys.
 
nice. love that perspective :)

by the way, i always wanted to be an astronaut... cool stuff man!
 
Robert Cook said:
Stop the madness:ihih:...... I showed the images to my wife with no additional info given to her.

Me - "Honey, which picture looks better to you?
Wife - "The bottom one"

BAM! Case closed!

Thank You and have a MERRY CHRISTMAS:-)

The Cooks
Click to expand...



Smart man, don't disagree with the wife
 
You have a great point about movies and feel, I like the moodiness of The Social Network, and the vibrancy and saturation in Pirates of the Caribbean, as for the Canon stuff too bad there's no movies I've seen commercially or in theaters that have been shot by Canon cameras in its 74 years of operation. Oh wait there was the one independent short movie at Sundance last year, I didn't get to see it, but I saw a promotional print of it on some flyer that was circulating while I was there, I'll make a comparison once it hits netflix or something.
 
Malvin Ng said:
Well the MX sensor that the Scarlet uses is more than 2 years old now... maybe we should wait for the DRAGON Monstro sensor and see how it's going to be like compared to the C300 in low light :)
Click to expand...

Yeah but by the time the dragon sensor comes out Canon, sony, panasonic, or even nikon might have something new as well. Who knows.
 
Tim Nitsch said:
Yeah but by the time the dragon sensor comes out Canon, sony, panasonic, or even nikon might have something new as well. Who knows.
Click to expand...

Which will be a full cost camera, and might make all of your accessories useless as well. But I agree with you.
 
Well we're not buying the Scarlet for it's low light capabilities. We're buying it for it's color bit depth, is flexibility in grading, it's DR, it's RED mojo. If it was all about low-light, we would buy an FS100 and be done with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top