F 2.4...???

[Aria Khosravi]

[edit] Can't believe how ignorant I was when I made this thread. Carry on...

 

[Lee Saxon]

ridiculous quality electronic zoom lens

Believe it when I see it

 

[Gabe Conroy]

Isn't it T2.4, not F2.4? So I think its iris should be a bit more open than F2.4 since the T-stop factors in light loss from the glass and such.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Isn't it T2.4, not F2.4? So I think its iris should be a bit more open than F2.4 since the T-stop factors in light loss from the glass and such.

I believe it is F/2.4 and T/2.6.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Based on what you are saying:

Go Epic S with Canon Mount.
Use your canon lenses.
Charge these artists more money for music videos.

Once you make more money buy all the other accessories.

If you have even a shred of doubt in your mind, then trust your gut instinct.

 

[Peter Mosiman]

I believe it is F/2.4 and T/2.6.

Correct.

Aria, watch The Black Swan. There are plenty of examples of fairly deep DOF and the whole thing was shot on S16. Your composition/production design needs to be way better if you want deeper DOF. It's my preferred style of shooting, but having shallow DOF is okay with the likes of the 7D is a really good option.

 

[Brian Merlen]

If you already have glass then I would go with a cine scarlet or some form of epic. Persoanlly I want a fixed scarlet just so I can avoid heavily investing in glass. I feel like whats the point of dropping all this cash on glass, I'll wait for monstro and still shoot raw for pennies on the dollar in the mean time and love every minute of it.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Being a one man team, you'd probably be better off with the depth of field of a 2/3" camera.

Look, it's a bit non-sensical to think that a difference of 2.5-stops in effective depth of field is the difference between needing good production design and not. That extra depth of field is only going to be a factor in wide-angle medium shots -- in close-ups, the background is going to go soft anyway, and in wide shots, it's going to be deep anyway, so that leaves just medium shots made with wide-angle lenses where you are going to have to factor in the increased depth of field.

I can't believe how many years of posts, how many hundreds of posts, have been made by people worrying about having an effective 2.5-stops more depth of field, as if shooting a 35mm movie in the f/4 to f/5.6 range was the end of the world. The majority of exterior scenes in 35mm movies are shot in those ranges, is the depth of field distracting? Is there a problem with their production value? Does it stop looking like 35mm photography the moment you go beyond f/2.8?

Some of you guys have a very limited notion of the possibilities of cinema if you think it has to take place at f/2.8 and below.

Look, it's really a matter of degree, not a fundamental difference, there is a bit more depth of field with a 2/3" camera. That's it! Don't make it out to be more than that. If anyone has a problem with a fixed f/2.6 zoom, it should be if the focal length range was limiting for them or if they planned on doing low-light f/1.4 photography, etc. There's no perfect zoom lens nor one way of doing things. You gain in some areas (cost, size, simplicity allowing faster work) and lose somewhere else (flexibility in choosing specialty lenses, working in super low-light, etc.) The extra bit of depth of field is a much smaller area of concern.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Being a one man team, you'd probably be better off with the depth of field of a 2/3" camera.

Look, it's a bit non-sensical to think that a difference of 2.5-stops in effective depth of field is the difference between needing good production design and not. That extra depth of field is only going to be a factor in wide-angle medium shots -- in close-ups, the background is going to go soft anyway, and in wide shots, it's going to be deep anyway, so that leaves just medium shots made with wide-angle lenses where you are going to have to factor in the increased depth of field.

I can't believe how many years of posts, how many hundreds of posts, have been made by people worrying about having an effective 2.5-stops more depth of field, as if shooting a 35mm movie in the f/4 to f/5.6 range was the end of the world. The majority of exterior scenes in 35mm movies are shot in those ranges, is the depth of field distracting? Is there a problem with their production value? Does it stop looking like 35mm photography the moment you go beyond f/2.8?

Some of you guys have a very limited notion of the possibilities of cinema if you think it has to take place at f/2.8 and below.

Look, it's really a matter of degree, not a fundamental difference, there is a bit more depth of field with a 2/3" camera. That's it! Don't make it out to be more than that. If anyone has a problem with a fixed f/2.6 zoom, it should be if the focal length range was limiting for them or if they planned on doing low-light f/1.4 photography, etc. There's no perfect zoom lens nor one way of doing things. You gain in some areas (cost, size, simplicity allowing faster work) and lose somewhere else (flexibility in choosing specialty lenses, working in super low-light, etc.) The extra bit of depth of field is a much smaller area of concern.

David - Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for saying this. Not too many people have the gravity and respect of this forum to make these statements with authority; certainly not me. But, it has been my own opinion that people have gone a little nuts with this DOF idea, to the point of being absurd. It is great to hear you confirm what I think are the obvious benefits of the Scarlet Fixed. I have been lusting after this camera since I learned about it a couple years ago and, since I am moving from a pro-level but "tiny" 1/3" sensor, I can't wait to achieve that "massively" shallow DOF of that "huge" 2/3" sensor. :laugh:

 

[Paul Nordin]

I can't believe how many years of posts, how many hundreds of posts, have been made by people worrying about having an effective 2.5-stops more depth of field, as if shooting a 35mm movie in the f/4 to f/5.6 range was the end of the world. The majority of exterior scenes in 35mm movies are shot in those ranges, is the depth of field distracting? Is there a problem with their production value? Does it stop looking like 35mm photography the moment you go beyond f/2.8?

Bravo, well said indeed! Now if only I could force some agency-types to read this and think about it when they "request" a spot be shot on a 5D.

(Also, sending you a PM about Big Sur)

 

[Dan Kanes]

My post wasn't just about depth of field. I pretty much agree with mr. Mullen about depth of field.

I actually want a scarlet fixed and an epic S.

The more tools the better.

However - let's not forget that these are also DSMC cameras... As such you may find yourself wanting to shoot in existing light (very common on micro-budget and low budget jobs).

Think about your personal maximum acceptable iso.

Go into a tunnel lot by fluorescents at night with your 7D. Bring a 50mm 1.4 or something similar if you have one.

Set your iso to 800 and take a still at 1/50th of a second . (raw still) at a 2.5 aperture.
Take the same frame at 1/50, 800 iso, at a 1.4.

Take your raw stills into adobe light room (free trials from adobe)

Try grading them.

What do you prefer stylistically? Which one is more flexible? Chances are they are fairly similar.

Now imagine that you are pretty much stuck at that 2.5...

Does it prevent you from getting certain shots without adding lights?

Now try the same experiment with the kind of lighting setups you use for your music videos.

If you find yourself able to get a keylight at a 2.8 easily on "all" of your projects and shooting styles then you will have no trouble using a fixed lens scarlet.

The other reason I encourage you to get the epic is that you can sell your 7D and spend the money on red accessories because my belief is that the epic S will blow the doors off the 7D at stills.

 

[Tim Hole]

People will get bored of it soon. Its only because Indie's never really had it before until the adapters and now DSLR's. We'll hopefully go back to cinematography being used to tell a story or impress a mood in a year or so.

To the OP, in my opinion buy a fixed and a cinema and get some really fast primes for it. Because the camera is modular in 8-12 months buy an epic brain when you have made back some money from your investment. Use the extra money that you saved by buying the scarlet and nail your work with the thousand other aspects to making a good quality production like lighting, sound gear, grip etc...

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I don't think anyone is arguing against the potential strengths of a larger sensor. But, the argument seems to get framed by some as if a smaller sensor has weaknesses that must and can be overcome. I think the real point is that, for a large number of shooting scenarios, the 2/3" sensor offers some tremendous advantages over a larger one. And, IMO and based on the experience I have had shooting RED ONE, those advantages will be welcomed. No one camera or lens is right for every situation, every cinematographer or every project. I happen to think that the smaller sensor of the Scarlet will bring tremendous flexibility and versatility to the table. I can live without those extra 2.5 stops of DOF (Actually, I am quite happy about that). :cheers2:

 

[David J. Shuman]

Remember a few yers ago when Major Smmer Features were shot on 2/3...

Remember a few yers ago when Major Smmer Features were shot on 2/3...

Just a few years ago George Lucas and James Cameron only had a 2/3 option for digital (F900) etc. Those films grossed billions, Avatar 3D notably. These were huge productions, 2/3 didn't seem to be an issue for them. Scarlet's specs blow these older systems away, and is affordable for us indies...

 

[Tim Hole]

I don't think anyone is arguing against the potential strengths of a larger sensor. But, the argument seems to get framed by some as if a smaller sensor has weaknesses that must and can be overcome. I think the real point is that, for a large number of shooting scenarios, the 2/3" sensor offers some tremendous advantages over a larger one. And, IMO and based on the experience I have had shooting RED ONE, those advantages will be welcomed. No one camera or lens is right for every situation, every cinematographer or every project. I happen to think that the smaller sensor of the Scarlet will bring tremendous flexibility and versatility to the table. I can live without those extra 2.5 stops of DOF (Actually, I am quite happy about that). :cheers2:

Agreed, although I think it is a misconception for people to consider 2/3" a small sensor (this is in no reference to any specific previous posts). I see 2/3" as the point of entry for larger sensors due to the light sensitivity and other characteristics to which we are aware. Its a far cry from 1/3" or even a 1/2" like an EX1.

But hey sensors aren't everything...but RED makes sure its puts pretty much everything else in that small package anyway

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

There's a great thread with shallow DOF examples: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?37849-DOF-amp-beauty

 

[Ash Worth]

Correct.

Aria, watch The Black Swan. There are plenty of examples of fairly deep DOF and the whole thing was shot on S16. Your composition/production design needs to be way better if you want deeper DOF. It's my preferred style of shooting, but having shallow DOF is okay with the likes of the 7D is a really good option.

Black Swan was shot on Super 16mm, ARRI, Canon 7D & Canon 1D mark IV.
http://www.alexandrosmaragos.com/2010/12/black-swan-canon-7d.html

 

[Lee Saxon]

Being a one man team, you'd probably be better off with the depth of field of a 2/3" camera.

I think you've got that backwards.

There was one thread where you were making the point about shallow depth of field being possible with a 2/3" camera and showed a frame grab from something you'd shot where the background was like 30 feet away from the focus plane of what, since it was a single, I'm guessing was a fairly long lens.

If you've got the budget for sets that size you're fine with 2/3", sure, but if you have zero money the larger sensors allow you to "make abstract art in a McDonalds" as Stu Maschwitz puts it (that's hyperbole, I'm not a supporter of "only one eye in focus" cinematography).

Look, it's a bit non-sensical to think that a difference of 2.5-stops in effective depth of field is the difference between needing good production design and not.

Yeah, the issue of HOW MUCH less you need to spend on production design is being exaggerated, but I think less is still less.

 

[Tim Hole]

I think you've got that backwards.

There was one thread where you were making the point about shallow depth of field being possible with a 2/3" camera and showed a frame grab from something you'd shot where the background was like 30 feet away from the focus plane of what, since it was a single, I'm guessing was a fairly long lens.

If you've got the budget for sets that size you're fine with 2/3", sure, but if you have zero money the larger sensors allow you to "make abstract art in a McDonalds" as Stu Maschwitz puts it (that's hyperbole, I'm not a supporter of "only one eye in focus" cinematography).

I think you misconstrued what David was saying. The OP illustrates that he is for the most part one man team except for maybe Indie features where a film crew would be working, therefore focus is obviously a lot easier to manage on 2/3" than S35/FF. - Especially when you are talking something as high resolution as RED where you really want it dead-on as its not as forgiveable as film. Who has the money for sets anymore? If there were sets involved there would be a crew which makes it a moot point as funding would be in place. Most people shoot on low budget with a dressed location (at least they do in the UK). Or am I missing your point entirely?

 

[Peter Moretti]

... therefore focus is obviously a lot easier to manage on 2/3" than S35/FF. - Especially when you are talking something as high resolution as RED where you really want it dead-on as its not as forgiveable as film. ...

Tim,

It should work both ways. If 2/3rd's can approximate S35 DoF, then it stands to reason that S35 can approximate 2/3rd's DoF.