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 :)

Cards on table: Pros/Cons of Scarlet

The "shallow depth of field is a fad" song is a straw-man argument. No one is suggesting that all shots should have shallow DOF and it's a very weak argument to say that 2/3" is better for general photography because it inherently has deeper DOF.

This does not mean there are not films & commercials that are just plain awful for any number of reasons, inappropriate DOF being just one of them. I haven't noticed them myself; perhaps those bothered by it are watching a lot of bad stuff.

A much better choice for general cinematography is a 35MM film sized sensor which can more easily deliver a suitable DOF, either deep or shallow. That's one of the reasons almost every motion picture is filmed with 35MM, and increasingly with our Red cameras. Of course there are other advantages to the larger sensor as well, but the DOF characteristics that story tellers love are clear.

As I've agreed, 2/3" has important advantages for certain kinds of shooting. I had one of the very first VariCams and I've enjoyed it, but I assure you I'd have been a lot happier if it had been released with larger chips.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Noah Kadner said:
It's hardly a fad though. Going back through decades of 35mm photography you'll see many examples of deep vs. shallow depth of field cinematography. It might be more noticeable now that it's such an easy and available option to so many more filmmakers these days. But calling it shallow DOF a fad would be ignoring the work of thousands of cinematographers throughout the life of cinema itself.

Noah
Click to expand...

No - while I think it has always been a legitimate creative tool, the current "overuse" (IMO) constitutes a fad. And I have seen it used very badly and inappropriately just because... well, just because you can. I am not saying it hasn't been used widely in the past, and often used well. I am just saying there are many who have lost site of the fact that it is one option of many for creative expression. Clearly, just my opinion.
 
Do you include RED in creating this "fad" though?

R1 certainly helped bring it into lower budget music videos.

Personally, I don't see it as anyone's problem other than the people who are paying to have these videos made. You don't have to sit watching vimeo, or zero budget film festivals, or MTV.. or where ever else you are seeing this "fad".

It hasn't changed film making as a whole and probably never will... good directors/DOPs know what to do and when.
 
Fad?

Fad?

Jim Retar said:
Do you include RED in creating this "fad" though?
Click to expand...
Not in creating, but perhaps enabling, yes. Not RED's fault, just a factor, sure.

R1 certainly helped bring it into lower budget music videos.
Click to expand...

Yes, and just like the "ransom note" marketing brochures were an unpleasant side effect of the desktop publishing revolution in the 80's, the poor use of shallow DOF will work itself out, too. :undecided:

Personally, I don't see it as anyone's problem other than the people who are paying to have these videos made. You don't have to sit watching vimeo, or zero budget film festivals, or MTV.. or where ever else you are seeing this "fad".
Click to expand...

On the first point, I agree. It's "their" problem. But as for watching it and having it be distracting, I have yet to see a warning at the beginning of the film that says "WARNING: Shallow DOF effect is rampant in this film. Not suitable for discerning film buffs or aspiring filmmakers hoping to learn something!"

It hasn't changed film making as a whole and probably never will... good directors/DOPs know what to do and when.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with this. It has temporarily (we hope) become the "effect du jour" and a bit tiresome. It has also brought some out-of-focus shots along with it as beginner DPs struggle with a 3" plane plane of focus. I do think it will run it's course, though.

I belong to a film co-op in San Francisco so I get to interact with dozens of filmmakers, some new, some seasoned, on a regular basis. I can tell you that there is an obsession with this as a major component of the "real film look" when some of these folks gather to shoot, review each others films, or just shoot the breeze. I do think it is a "fad" and I do think "This, too, shall pass.":001_cool:
 
...just like the "ransom note" marketing brochures were an unpleasant side effect of the desktop publishing revolution...
Click to expand...

To warp your analogy even further, I think it's more like kerning. Even when you've resisted the tempation to use too many fonts, and found the display font that gives the look you want, if you don't understand kerning, it will never look quite right, and offend those who know why it's wrong.

Fad it is. Shallow DOF, desaturation, hyper-saturation, bleach-bypass, tracking fonts (and still with bad kerning); fad, fad, fad, fad, fad.

Back to the original subject. Why is the 5d mkII still even on the list anymore?
If you didn't cross it off as an option six months ago you're just not keeping up with the changes in the industry, and must consider yourself a conformist in spite of reality.
 
Videoish or not,... I'm encouraged and thankful to see some footage from the AF100. I wish the RED guys would let a little leak out for us to see.
 
The worst part for me is the continuous use of not only shallow DOF but the constant manual focus hunting for stylistic effect. I like the effect, just as I like shallow DOF, but I see it everywhere and its just so damn annoying. Its the photographic equivalent of female vocalist imitating Whitney Houston or Mariah Carey and never actually staying on a note for more than a fraction of a second. I know its been around for a long time but it seems to me its just people can't FF properly are using it as an excuse.
 
Speaking of shallow DOF being a fad; the other day, I posted a piece shot on the 7D that had intentionally deep DOF for various reasons, and one of the responses to the post was "What's the point of of using a DSLR if you're not going to use shallow DOF?" Really? I mean, really? There's a ton of reasons why you wouldn't want shallow DOF at a particular point in time.

Though understandable why it's a fad right now, it's still pretty annoying...

By the way, there's plenty of application for a 2/3" camcorder or even a 2/3" filmmaker's camera. 2/3" is about the same as 16mm film the way I understand it.
 
Leo Ticheli said:
A much better choice for general cinematography is a 35MM film sized sensor which can more easily deliver a suitable DOF, either deep or shallow. That's one of the reasons almost every motion picture is filmed with 35MM, and increasingly with our Red cameras. Of course there are other advantages to the larger sensor as well, but the DOF characteristics that story tellers love are clear.

As I've agreed, 2/3" has important advantages for certain kinds of shooting. I had one of the very first VariCams and I've enjoyed it, but I assure you I'd have been a lot happier if it had been released with larger chips.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this. I very much like the m4/3 format too. Fills a nice spot between 2/3" and S35.
Red should make a "4K/3" model.
 
David Rasberry said:
I don't disagree with any of this. I very much like the m4/3 format too. Fills a nice spot between 2/3" and S35.
Red should make a "4K/3" model.
Click to expand...

I think we're pretty much on the same page, but I don't regard the 4/3 as between 2/3" and S35; it's actually so very close to S35 in the Red One at 16x9HD that it's pretty much in the same category. A lens factor of 1.09 is not a significant difference. I don't think I could spot the difference in DOF unless two identical shots were side by side.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Leo Ticheli said:
I think we're pretty much on the same page, but I don't regard the 4/3 as between 2/3" and S35; it's actually so very close to S35 in the Red One at 16x9HD that it's pretty much in the same category. A lens factor of 1.09 is not a significant difference. I don't think I could spot the difference in DOF unless two identical shots were side by side.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

RED ONE M sensor = 24.4 x 13.7 mm
S35 (Epic /RED ONE X / Scarlet S35) = 30 x 15 mm
Scarlet 2/3" = 10.1 x 5.35 mm
4/3 = 18 x 13.5 (17.3 x 13 actual imaging area)


I guess 4/3 and s35 are close in terms of height, but...

EDIT: Ah, I see you qualified this by limiting it to 16x9.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Hmmm...

RED ONE M sensor = 24.4 x 13.7 mm
S35 (Epic /RED ONE X / Scarlet S35) = 30 x 15 mm
Scarlet 2/3" = 10.1 x 5.35 mm
4/3 = 18 x 13.5 (17.3 x 13 actual imaging area)


I guess 4/3 and s35 are close in terms of height, but...

EDIT: Ah, I see you qualified this by limiting it to 16x9.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more of how Red might implement this format with its native 2:1 format sensors. 4/3 is defined by a 22mm image circle, so wide format sensors can go a bit wider. Panasonic is taking advantage of this too. The HD format is wider than 17.3. About 18.5mm x 10.4mm. A Red native 2x1 format would be about 19mm wide active area. So 30mm wide 5k, 19mm wide 4k, 10.1mm wide 3k for native 2:1. Nice eh?
The main issue with 4/3 at present is its lack of format specific lenses, especially zooms. There would be significant size and weight savings possible over S35 for M4/3 zooms. Sure you can use 35mm lenses, but you really don't take full advantage of the format with this compromise.
 
As far as i know, the difference between S35 and 2/3" is rather close to 2,5 stops, for similar looking image DOF wise at any given FOV.

In other words, fixed 2/3" Scarlet's T2.4 lens should give roughly similar results when full open as one gets with S35 at f5.6.

That's not a bad place to be at all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top