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 :)

Can anybody comment on the Fixed Scarlet v HVX200 image

tillHavis said:
Just wondering if the fixed lens Scarlet image and DR will be much better than
the HVX200 in theory it should.
3K v 1080

I would love to see a side by side; if anybody could do this I think it would be a valuable comparison to have ?

Although the Scarlet has a 8x lens and the HVX a 13x the Scarlet fixed lens is supposed to look and resolve a great image.
I was just wondering if anybody knows what the difference in sensor size and DR are ?

Also I hope to get a S35 and fixed Scarlet and use the fixed as a b camera and for jib and car shots and was wondering how the
fixed would intercut with the S35 using Red Lenses ?
Click to expand...

:attention9ha:

Have you noticed that there is, uh... no footage whatsoever from a Scarlet, of any type, anywhere?
 
the scarlet doesn't really exist yet like Terry said, but yes. Most any camera made this year that costs more than about 3 grand will look better than the HVX. The scarlet at say 1080p shouldn't even be close.
 
tillHavis said:
3K v 1080
Click to expand...

Actually, HVX200 isn't a 1080 camera, even though it saves in that format. It has 960*540 sensors with pixel shifting, so it's just barely above SD resolution in fact. And it's noisy too... so yep, Scarlet should be quite a lot better, i think ;-)
 
Well,
As Terry said, there isn't really any footage available from a Scarlet yet. As an early adopter of the HVX200, and a current Red One owner, I can confidently state that the Scarlet image will be a substantial quality bump over the HVX. I think that you will see a minimum of 3 stops of DR gain, with a much lower noise floor. The fixed lens Scarlet is a 2/3 inch CMOS, where the HVX is 3 1/3 inch CCDs that are pixel shifted to provide a HD image. I use the HVX weekly for web work, and am very much looking forward to using a Scarlet for this, when it's available. (It'll also make a great B-Cam to my stage 2 Epic-X) I really feel that the HVX is NOT a proper 1080 camera. The 720 footage is nice enough, but the artifacts seem to more than double when shooting in 1080. I think it's pretty safe to assume that the fixed should intercut pretty nicely with the s35 for quick shots, since they are both from the same sensor family.

Really, there will be no comparison between the two cameras. Think of the fixed Scarlet as something that will be more comparable to an f900 or f23 rather than a HVX, EX1 or similar camera.

Plenty of info around here to sift through, dig into the search feature and your afternoon will be gone before you know it!
 
tillHavis said:
Hi Terry ! yea I know its not in the wild yet but maybe Red may be able to do it, just for comparison, actually a side by side with some other cameras in the same price range would be great.

Like I said its just to see how it compares, this does not need to be a shoot out set up.
Then again I can see how some people may start to read all kinds of things into the image. Personally I'm just curious, and not interested in making it into a competition.



Thanks Jason

Regards
Click to expand...

What Jason said! :emote_popcorn:

And my real point was this: there is already a huge amount of information available about the upcoming Scarlets, of which Jason and others have scratched the surface for you. If you would spend some time researching here on the forums, I am sure you would get a real and deep sense of the potential many of us see for the Scarlet line. You would also know that we are all on the edge of our seats waiting for any footage from the Scarlets but so far, nothing has appeared. Jarred had hoped to post something this weekend and has implied that he will do so just as soon as he is able. That said, I seriously doubt he is going to take the time to shoot an HVX at the same time. I am sure in his mind, it would simply be a waste of time as the likely quality of the Scarlet will be so far ahead of the HVX that it will be, well - as I said, a waste of time and effort to compare them.

Bottom line, of all the arguments and fussing that might happen comparing the Scarlet to other cameras (and I am sure there will be some), I doubt that there will be very many people holding up the HVX200 as a viable alternative to any Scarlet.
 
Eki Halkka said:
Actually, HVX200 isn't a 1080 camera, even though it saves in that format. It has 960*540 sensors with pixel shifting, so it's just barely above SD resolution in fact. And it's noisy too... so yep, Scarlet should be quite a lot better, i think ;-)
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no, you're conclusion is a little, well actually very, off. The HVX has pixel shifting which is why the images it captures have a much HIGHER resolution than it's pixel count, and obviously than SD.

Now, of course, it is an old camera, old technology, and there are a great of other great options out there, but please, let's not forget pixel count is only one of the many factors which makes up the quality of an image. Panasonic have a great master, in my humble opinion, of gamma and color, which makes their images (once again, in my humble opinion, but I have found that quite a few people share that poiint of view), very nice, especially compared to some of their competition. Some companies, still make cameras that don't offer real progressive. Also, DVCproHD, remains a very reliable codec with the advantage that you can shoot with it, edit it, and deliver in that same format. Who else offers that ?

Cheers,
Damien

PS I don't doubt the fixed Scarlet will kick the HVX-200's arse.
 
HVX and Red One comparison

HVX and Red One comparison

Don't know if this will help - but these two frames were posted on Reduser from a shoot two or more years ago, where Red and HVX footage was shot under very similar conditions. No need to designate which is the Red, and this is the old sensor of course. As others have said - no comparison. Even the fixed, 2/3 inch Scarlet is likely to be a world away from the HVX.
 

Attachments

  • HVX vs. Red still frames.jpg
    HVX vs. Red still frames.jpg
    67.7 KB · Views: 0
Matthias Martin said:
Um, not really. There is one still shot of a doggie with its bone before a RED logo. Can't find it now.
And then there was Izzy:
http://redgrabs.com/izzy/
Click to expand...

Technically, you are correct. What was the date on that? I am only guessing but I might wonder if that is even the same sensor that is in the Scarlet now.

EDIT: I see that the Izzy footage was posted a lifetime ago in RED terms; early March, 2009. It was on a 2/3" MX sensor. Since that time, I believe Jim noted that the ASIC had changed and several layers had been added. So, I am guessing/hoping/assuming that today's footage will be all that much better.
 
Last edited:
Damien Molineaux said:
Sorry, but no, you're conclusion is a little, well actually very, off. The HVX has pixel shifting which is why the images it captures have a much HIGHER resolution than it's pixel count, and obviously than SD.

Cheers,
Damien

PS I don't doubt the fixed Scarlet will kick the HVX-200's arse.
Click to expand...

Actually he is correct, the chips were the same pixel resolution as most 16:9 broadcast SD cameras such as my Ikegami dns-201 and virtually all of those had horizontal pixel shift as well with actual resolution substantially higher than NTSC or PAL bandwidth. Panny added vertical pixel shift to get about 30-40 percent better vertical resolution but in reality the major difference was simply it was a beyond-NTSC sd signal just slightly sharper than the good sd cameras - recorded to an HD format, but didn't even push the limits of 720p.
 
Apples and oranges can't compare the 2 as in terms of technology development they are so far apart. In short Scarlet will look better and lend itself to more delivery formats than the HVX.

BUT!

Whiles much has been said about ye old HVX on this post already nothing was mentioned about it being the first widely available camera to give us:

1) VFR.
2) Affordable QUALITY HD capture.
3) Native recording.
4) SOLID STATE RECORDING MEDIA.

It practically changed our perception of HD capture what the HDV format cameras back in the day couldn't do.

As for the pixel shift the number of pixels on the capture sensor is not in direct relation to the number of pixels in the delivery format. To that matter pixels on a sensor are not the same thing as pixels on a monitor or projector they just share the same name.

Pixel shifting the green chip is but one way to sample the singles to achieve a higher pixel count in the recorded format. That doesn’t mean it isn't a "true" HD camera. The CCD part of the camera is analogue and creates a charge that is analogues to the light. When the signal is sampled is when it becomes digital and there the pixel shift occurs to create the extra bit of information needed for the higher resolution.

Just as with digital sound recording, a microphone is an analogue device connected to a digital recorder the sound is analogue until the signal is sampled. The question is never about the number of frequencies the microphone can or cannot pickup but the bit-rates and frequency of the samples of the signal from the microphone that matters.
 
Nir Shelter said:
Apples and oranges can't compare the 2 as in terms of technology development they are so far apart. In short Scarlet will look better and lend itself to more delivery formats than the HVX.

BUT!

Whiles much has been said about ye old HVX on this post already nothing was mentioned about it being the first widely available camera to give us:

1) VFR.
2) Affordable QUALITY HD capture.
3) Native recording.
4) SOLID STATE RECORDING MEDIA.

It practically changed our perception of HD capture what the HDV format cameras back in the day couldn't do.

As for the pixel shift the number of pixels on the capture sensor is not in direct relation to the number of pixels in the delivery format. To that matter pixels on a sensor are not the same thing as pixels on a monitor or projector they just share the same name.

Pixel shifting the green chip is but one way to sample the singles to achieve a higher pixel count in the recorded format. That doesn’t mean it isn't a "true" HD camera. The CCD part of the camera is analogue and creates a charge that is analogues to the light. When the signal is sampled is when it becomes digital and there the pixel shift occurs to create the extra bit of information needed for the higher resolution.

Just as with digital sound recording, a microphone is an analogue device connected to a digital recorder the sound is analogue until the signal is sampled. The question is never about the number of frequencies the microphone can or cannot pickup but the bit-rates and frequency of the samples of the signal from the microphone that matters.
Click to expand...

very helpful, as I am still an HVX owner, who's awaiting the Scarlet. thanks!
 
Rob Culpepper said:
Don't know if this will help - but these two frames were posted on Reduser from a shoot two or more years ago, where Red and HVX footage was shot under very similar conditions. No need to designate which is the Red, and this is the old sensor of course. As others have said - no comparison. Even the fixed, 2/3 inch Scarlet is likely to be a world away from the HVX.
Click to expand...

You know what's funny, those shots also do a good job showing "HVX Mojo." The Red image is way sharper, but for all it's old age and warts, the HVX image has very nice color rendition. I know the Red footage can should be graded, but the HVX always looks nicer than it should, IMHO.
 
greenish?

greenish?

I've been wondering for some time why people grade so much footage with that icky greenish tint?

Its NOT my monitor, I can use a probe on the files to measure the balance, you can do that to with IRFANVIEW, you press the mouse button and it tells you the RGB values for any pixel.

What is so hard about shooting a gray card, and using a probe, even if you have a monochrome monitor you can do CC that way...

On the track of 3 chip vs. Bayer, it should be possable to make a 3 chip camera out of three RED ONE and some optics, if someone wants to try that they can contact me for more details.

Unless there is some serious issue with REDCODE it should work. It would work better in a true RAW camera maybe, but even with REDCODE you should be able to shoot through wratten 98, 99, and 70 filters.

You get HDR also, because the filters on the sensor then act as ND filters to expand the tonal range. If RED had DNG Bayer output, then such processing would be easer.

But I still have no idea why people post icky greenish images?
 
Dan, it is a recent trend in Hollywood. Most Hollywood colorists grade to a teal (or some similar shade of green) look. It just seems to appeal to a lot of people. I don't know where it originated from, but almost everyone seems to be doing it these days, right from the blockbusters to student filmmakers. It also has a scientific reason - teal is a complementary color to flesh tones. It makes sense that movies that have a lot of men and women in it should be complemented with a teal background. So, the flesh tone / orange / teal / blue combination seems to be rather popular and also pleasing to people. It is obviously not a Bayer pattern issue as movies shot on film are graded to a similar look.

As for the topic, there's no doubt Scarlet would compete in a different level from a HVX200, even if it were a major disaster. It is several generations ahead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top