Does Scarlet has 3 2/3" sensors? Or only one?

[thiagoscp]

How many sensors does Scarlet 2/3 cinema has?

We see that, frequently, HD cameras have 3 2/3", or 3 1/2", or even 3 1/3" sensors (CCDs or CMOS). If Scarlet has only one 2/3" sensor, what makes it better than a HD camera (1920x1080 max res) with 3 2/3" sensors?

Thank you,
Thiago

 

[Justin O'Neill]

The 2/3" Scarlet has one 3k CMOS sensor.

Graem will have to give you a detailed description of why a 3k CMOS is better than 3 2/3" CCD chips. From what I remember, combining the image from 3 chips gives nasty artifacts.

 

[Chris S]

all the 3 CCD camera's i've used do not give nasty artifacts. to be honest, the only difference i have seen between CCD and CMOS is that CMOS has nasty rolling shutter defects and CCD does not because of its global shutter

 

[David J. Shuman]

CMOS Sensors

CMOS Sensors

Hello, The RED cameras use ONE CMOS sensor. Each sensor is based on the Bayer Pattern. Software de-mosaics the pattern into a full colour usable raw image. So there is some loss of resolution, 3K may end up as 2.6K on the Scarlet 2/3" for example. This is still amazing for me as 2.6K can easily be printed out to 35mm etc. with quality results. The reason for the Bayer pattern (usually 2 green pixels for every one red and blue) is a significant increase in f-stop (sensitivity) or ASA value of the sensor. This makes for a powerfull camera. Some of the high-end cameras asuch as the ARRIFLEX D-21 use a single CMOS chip as well. The recent Slumdog Millionaire was filmed with a single 2K Bayer-pattern camera. Gorgeous film.... CMOS chips run MUCH cooler that the equivalent 3-CCD configuration, and so can be made without crazy cooling systems, and that is why the Scarlet in particular can be so small for what it does. I believe history is in the making! with RED.

 

[Kenneth Elkington]

all the 3 CCD camera's i've used do not give nasty artifacts. to be honest, the only difference i have seen between CCD and CMOS is that CMOS has nasty rolling shutter defects and CCD does not because of its global shutter

Rolling shutter is not much of an issue on the RED. I can't speak for the Scarlet, but severe rolling shutter artifacts right now are few and far between. CCD cameras can also suffer from smearing artifacts.

 

[Daniel Browning]

If Scarlet has only one 2/3" sensor, what makes it better than a HD camera (1920x1080 max res) with 3 2/3" sensors?

Here are a few of the reasons:

• REDCODE
• Resolution
• High frame rates
• Price
• Color accuracy
• OLPF
• Free firmware updates
• Recording media
• Customer service

REDCODE is the biggest difference IMHO. It's a a codec that is many, many times better quality than the 3-chippers. REDCODE not only has a very high bitrate, but it is visually lossless raw which yeilds tremendous flexibility and image quality in post.

Resolution, frame rates, and price are pretty obvious.

The color accuracy advantage comes from the CFA. 3-chip systems use a prism to split light. Prisms do not split light in a way that matches the human eye, and there is no way to modify them to get closer. The result is generally close enough for non-color-critical work. A color filter, on the other hand, can be tuned to match the human visual system much better. If a certain color is percieved by humans a very precise mix of sensitivities over a certain range of the visual spectrum so that red and green end up with certain values, then the CFA can be tuned to match. Prisms, on the other hand, split color a certain way over the spectrum and there is no way to tune them to adjust the "levels" for certain frequencies and mixing between color channels.

The OLPF is an expensive (in low quantities) filter to prevent aliasing artifacts. Many cameras don't bother to avoid aliasing.

RED has shown how much extra functionality they can add with free firmware updates, so I hope that it continues with Scarlet.

Compact flash is a good and inexpensive recording media, plus there are other options.

The customer service provided by RED is top notch.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

First thing is that very few affordable video cameras have 2/3" chips. To get a 2/3" chip in an aggressively priced camera is something special.

Next we get into CMOS v CCD. Rolling shutters are an implementation thing, not a CCD/CMOS thing. Both can have global or rolling shutters. RED opts for CMOS as that is where we have the expertise and gurus, and for price / performance / heat / size issues. We opt for rolling shutter, but a very fast one. Scarlet and future cameras have a rolling shutter much faster than RED One. I doubt it would be an issue for anyone. Remember, film has a "rolling shutter".

Because of the CMOS, we can offer much faster fps.

We use a Bayer Pattern as it is still the best pattern for a colour filter array that offers the best perceptually relevant resolution to the viewer, in the most photosite efficient manner. There are two greens to ensure you get a good resolution output, not to increase sensitivity BTW.

The negatives with CCD can be blooming and streaking. You don't get the streaking on a strong light source with the CMOS.

The negatives with 3 chip approaches are the prism that is used and the artifacts it produces.

As DB points out, we use an OLPF to ensure negligible aliasing. Aliasing can be a real problem when not addressed, or if bad in-camera downsampling is used.

Graeme

 

[Birns and Sawyer]

Also, if I remember correctly, to use film lenses, you need a single sensor as those lenses are not designed to be used with a prism and 3 separate sensors.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

That is correct - you need the single sensor / no prism approach for film lenses, but that doesn't really apply to the fixed lens 2/3" Scarlet.

Graeme

 

[Chris S]

severe rolling shutter artifacts right now are few and far between.

no, they are very prevalent. the HV20/HV30, vixia and mark5 all have bad rolling shutter. i'm pretty sure all the current CMOS cameras have it as well. RED is pretty good at eliminating it. they say they will try to eliminate it completely with the scarlet and that remains to be seen

 

[Kenneth Elkington]

no, they are very prevalent. the HV20/HV30, vixia and mark5 all have bad rolling shutter. i'm pretty sure all the current CMOS cameras have it as well. RED is pretty good at eliminating it. they say they will try to eliminate it completely with the scarlet and that remains to be seen

I meant as far as the RED goes, not other cameras.

 

[killfilm]

First thing is that very few affordable video cameras have 2/3" chips. To get a 2/3" chip in an aggressively priced camera is something special.

Next we get into CMOS v CCD. Rolling shutters are an implementation thing, not a CCD/CMOS thing. Both can have global or rolling shutters. RED opts for CMOS as that is where we have the expertise and gurus, and for price / performance / heat / size issues. We opt for rolling shutter, but a very fast one. Scarlet and future cameras have a rolling shutter much faster than RED One. I doubt it would be an issue for anyone. Remember, film has a "rolling shutter".

Because of the CMOS, we can offer much faster fps.

We use a Bayer Pattern as it is still the best pattern for a colour filter array that offers the best perceptually relevant resolution to the viewer, in the most photosite efficient manner. There are two greens to ensure you get a good resolution output, not to increase sensitivity BTW.

The negatives with CCD can be blooming and streaking. You don't get the streaking on a strong light source with the CMOS.

The negatives with 3 chip approaches are the prism that is used and the artifacts it produces.

As DB points out, we use an OLPF to ensure negligible aliasing. Aliasing can be a real problem when not addressed, or if bad in-camera downsampling is used.

Graeme

But you'd figure that three 1080P 2/3" sensors to get 1080P might be better than a single 2/3" sensor even if it is 3K RAW - even if the final resolution once converted from RAW is about the same, you're cramming a lot more pixels onto the same sized area compared to three separate sensors, plus each sensor only has one color channel to deal with. I would tend to believe that the F23 will still be more sensitive and have less noise, but since the 2/3" Scarlet doesn't exist yet, I can't know that for sure.

this was Mr. Mullen's quote from the thread Scarlet VS F23, can you please explain further why we shouldnt be concerned about a single 2/3

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Isn't it a bit more than five million sensors technically?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

this was Mr. Mullen's quote from the thread Scarlet VS F23, can you please explain further why we shouldnt be concerned about a single 2/3

Concerned is the wrong word -- obviously the people who made "Slumdog Millionaire" were OK with the picture quality from a single 2/3" 2K sensor... but I find it hard to believe that a single 2/3" sensor in a $3000 camera would outperform a 3-CCD 2/3" camera that costs $150,000. But until the camera is released and tested, we can't know for sure. I could be wrong.

But for now, let's say be hopeful that since that single Scarlet sensor is 3K, it should be able to generate a decent 1080P image, comparable to a 1.9K 3-sensor camera, at least in terms of resolution. But in terms of noise and sensitivity, the F23 is around 500 ASA and very low-noise even in 3200K balance -- if the Scarlet performs equally well at 500 ASA in 3200K, noise-wise, that would be a great achievement. We'll see.

 

[Eki Halkka]

if the Scarlet performs equally well at 500 ASA in 3200K, noise-wise, that would be a great achievement. We'll see.

It's been said by RED that the new sensors should have about one stop better signal to noise ratio than Red One, so Scarlet might do pretty well at ISO 500 / 3200K. Future will tell...

 

[Katty Galloo]

I do believe in the RED scarlet and that he will outperform as good as 3-CCD 2/3" camera that costs $150,000. The expensief cameras had only to do with the monopoly created by the camera kartel Sony etc.. . Who has taking years advantage of the consumer his wallet. Finely there will come an end to that rip-off.

Katty Galloo

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't agree with you. Yes, there are certain aspects where the higher cost is due to mark-ups and the camera's position in a line of other cameras, and to pay for its R&D, but there are other aspects which actually make these high-end cameras more expensive to build, and some of those aspects allow greater image control over the signal (RED saves those for post) which add to the cost. The Sony cameras are designed, if you need it, to deliver a broadcast-ready HD tape recording right out of the camera. Or to deliver an image for digital cinema applications later. All those features cost money. HDCAM-SR recording costs money.

Even Jim Jannard has conceded that the F23 has greater dynamic range than the RED ONE for example. Yes, he promises that the Mysterium-X sensor will help close the gap; we'll have to wait and see.

The RED ONE has a 12-bit A/D processor; the F23 has a 14-bit A/D processor.

RED has certainly narrowed a gap in the quality to cost ratio, but they haven't eliminated it -- their more expensive EPIC line suggests that you still have to pay more for more quality & features.

So I can't be glib and suggest that it should be easy to beat the quality of a $150,000 camera with a $3000 camera just because the extra costs have nothing to do with extra quality and/or features.

 

[ericyoung]

...We opt for rolling shutter, but a very fast one. Scarlet and future cameras have a rolling shutter much faster than RED One. I doubt it would be an issue for anyone. Remember, film has a "rolling shutter".

Because of the CMOS, we can offer much faster fps.

...Graeme

The most negative aspect of the electronic rolling shutter of RED's CMOS choice IMHO is not the jello effect which RED seems to control very well, but the issue with strobe and short duration lighting. How will Scarlet and other RED cameras deal with that?

This is not a rag on RED's choices - the pros outweigh the cons - but it is one of the cons which stand out.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

some of those aspects allow greater image control over the signal (RED saves those for post) which add to the cost.

I never thought of this. I guess cause I am a post kind of guy and don't work with short schedules. I wonder if there will be a module coming out doing just this. A "grading and conversion" module. Something that can take the full image, manipulate it color wise, then downconvert it to 1080/720/480 in different flavors or a few popular ones like AVC Intra 100. This would help them take a stab at the ENG, and other markets that need mobility + ready to show footage. I bet this has been prototyped a few times and they are waiting for the right time to R&D it and put it out there for DSMC.

 

[Katty Galloo]

Ok at a sertain point there are more advanced choises in a 150.000 dollar cam, it better be fore that price, and yes for broadcast you can need those choice of settings. But if you if you see the price of the scarlet and according to his possibilities for digital cinema.
It is a hell of a kickass camera for 3000 dollar. And am pretty sure you will be able to shoot a verry nice picture that can be projected at a 2K digital cinema projector.
Epecialy with the S35 for only 7000 dollar. Major step forwards in the Indie productions and low budget movie I think. I shoot on a Hvx200 now and before on Sony and what enoyes me the most with 3 CCD is that it suffers white light blow outs and far from cinema look. There fore looks image shot on CMOS a whole lot better.

Katty Galloo