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 :)

F 2.4...???

Peter Moretti said:
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.
Click to expand...

But in low-light situations you use small f-numbers on the 2/3", and still have managable focus-control, unlike a S35/FF.
 
True. However the most recent crop of S35 cameras have high ISO's, low noise and the ability to add a heck of a lot in-camera gain or lift in post w/o significantly hurting the image. For example, an SI-2K has an ISO of 200 while a Sony F3 has an ISO of maybe greater than 800.

I'm going to guess that the Scarlet 2/3rd has an ISO of 400. So S35 has at least a stop advantage in terms of ISO, add to that the cleanness of the image, and you can boost a lot in camera and/or lift quite a bit in post. So shooting at a high stop # may not be so bad. Also, may be a time when it's so dark that you'll want the extra light the S35 captures.

I do realize that 2/3rd's has its advantages. But I feel that while it's possible to get a 2/3rd's camera to emulate a S35's strong suits, the same can also be said about S35's ability to emulate 2/3rd's. So while they don't overlap completely, they do by a reasonably fair amount.

So it comes down to how you shoot. If, FWER, you want super-shallow DoF, off the charts lowlight performance and super-wide lenses, then S35 is the right choice. If you don't care much about these extremes, then either format should be fine. If you want extreme zoom ranges and more manageable one man focus, then 2/3rd's would be the better choice.

It really comes down to knowing what you want. Once you know that, the choice should be pretty straight forward. JMHO.
 
One thing that I've come to realize more and more, is that when in a theater I don't want super shallow dof. I want to be able to explore the picture, npt be forced to look at half a eye of some actor. On a computer however, the pictures is framed and I look at it as a whole. Therefore I can accept a much more shallow dof in the picture.
 
That's a great point and one I've never heard mentioned before.
 
Jesper Sichlau said:
But in low-light situations you use small f-numbers on the 2/3", and still have managable focus-control, unlike a S35/FF.
Click to expand...

No, in low light situations on S35/FF you crank up the ISO because this is 2011 not 2005 (despite what Panasonic seems to thing. Another 1/3" 1080p30 camera at high 4 figures? Really?). Have you seen how clean the F3 is at max gain (which is ISO6400 I believe)? You can shoot in the dark at f/8 with that thing, man. Epic's not quite as good (far smaller pixels) but it's damn good.
 
Based on the samples I have seen so far, F3 has no edge in effective sensitivity on Epic and is 1-1/2 stops behind it in DR not including HDRx. Maybe a stop or so better than Red1 MX, but not Epic.
Pixel size is just one small part of the total signal chain.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bravo sir, bravo...
 
The Epic MX chip is about APS-H size. Significantly bigger than APS-C.
 
This arguement is ridiculous. The f/2.4 lens will be an icredible storytelling tool, just like all the new features on the Scarlet. I am moving from a Canon 7D with primes to the Scarlet because I fell it has more refined and professional tools to let me show my stories cinematically. If you are worried about low-light or shallow depth of field....dont. The Scarlet will impress you, and it is a compromise....but everything is, remember that.

always good to read your posts David Mullen :)
 
David Mullen ASC said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think people were spoiled when cheap consumer cameras came out with F1.2. But the same argument can be made against all frame rates greater than 24 or 48 fps. It is not something you will use all the time (though I definitely want low light ability often enough) usually, but something for effect to be used (hopefully tastefully) on occasion as you would with the higher frame rates, so it is a bit of a limitation of the model.

David J. Shuman said:
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...
Click to expand...

Going back to SW, I could see issues even on DVD. As for the other, I remember something up, I would have to go back to see if it was related to lens format (obviously x years of sensor improvement means a lot less issues on that end).


You can get great shallow DOF out of less than F1 16mm lens etc, but people often don't mention how much you have to pay to get a 16mm lens that fast, or how few secondhand ones are around. You also get the problem that at F1.6-f1.3 the image could start getting sensor related aberration problems (anybody with a new epic should be able to verify if this is the case). Much easier and cheaper to make the fixed lens a little faster, or for red to produce a cheap fast 16mm external lens for non fixed model, or alternatively just go for new low end epic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top