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 :)

First night shoot with my scarlet.

Adam Michael Carr said:
This deserves my first post on this forum. Great words my friend. Drawing with light = control over light. I have always felt that a good DP is like a super hero and his super power is light manipulation. Cant wait for my Scarlet!
Click to expand...
And with that approach with your Scarlet, you will get Cinematic images.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
I think much is in the term photography:

Photo = Light
Graphy = drawing

Drawing with lights.

If you want controll, you need to controll light, not the other way around.

The benefits of an Epic/Scarlet is not that it can see in the dark, but how they handle and represent light.

Couldn't possibly have been happier...
Click to expand...

Gunleik, if there is a Book of Proverbs for photographers, this should be in it.
 
FS100 is such an inferior, nu-upgradable, cheaply built comparison to the scarlet in so many other aspects than low light capabilities, that it should be alarming for who ever even compares them... maybe not enough understanding of digital image making and processing. definitely not enough post experience with proper, good footage.

i have shot and tested the FS100 in several occasions, its an ok camera... with a terrible internal compression, and limited video out signal (HDMI, only 8 bit).
low light capabilities is the new BS in selling cameras that otherwise are just not good enough and will probably be outdated very fast.

low light tests are confusing. you never go on a real shoot like you do on a test
and anyway, most stuff that's shot is NOT outdoor night scenes.
and when you do need these shots, then there are fast lenses, intelligent story-boarding, B camera for night shots, lights, and of course.... day4night, which if you plan correctly will look near perfect.

hector berrebi
workflow consultant
www.prepostconsulting.com

Scarlet X ????
 
You know there's this thing called the inverse square law. Basically if you shoot any amount of light from far enough away, it'll look shite. So a city (LA?) at night from the hills is hardly proving a point.

BTW once ACES comes to RCX or your try Da Vinci Resolve using it, you'll see what's possible. 16bit colour correction is the way forward.
 
Will Wernick said:
You would seriously call this "really Disappointing"

Maybe some others can chime in, but after processing I think these images hold incredibly well.
Click to expand...

yep, disappointing.

Thats what happens if you use a 3.5 year old sensor , then try and compare it to the low light abilities of more sensitive sensors .. roll on monstro frankly

Im more interested in documentary, so Im biased. The mx is good in low light, not brilliant. It wants light really
 
Bring in the T1.3 lenses and we'll see how "noisy" this scene is...
 
JustinC said:
You know there's this thing called the inverse square law. Basically if you shoot any amount of light from far enough away, it'll look shite. So a city (LA?) at night from the hills is hardly proving a point.

BTW once ACES comes to RCX or your try Da Vinci Resolve using it, you'll see what's possible. 16bit colour correction is the way forward.
Click to expand...

bingo.
 
I also think its very disappointing. It doesn't matter if these shots are difficult to take at all, inverse square law, whatever. This shot simply doesn't look good at all as is. If someone had said "this was shot on my new 5dMKII!" people would be crapping all over it - not saying "wow".
 
Chris Gavrilovic said:
I also think its very disappointing. It doesn't matter if these shots are difficult to take at all, inverse square law, whatever. This shot simply doesn't look good at all as is. If someone had said "this was shot on my new 5dMKII!" people would be crapping all over it - not saying "wow".
Click to expand...

+1, this wan't be a bad Red pubblicity, we are all over 18 years old not children, I'm 50, Ehehehehhe.
I not needed school of light or know how RAW is better than AVCHD.
Like I wrote in another thread, need to know wich camera I must buy to shoot my next work, the title say you all " when the light goes off ", street scenarios, people and locals in real light, for MTV tv, end out 1080p.
The best way is have the ScarletX to test or receive correct impression and materials from user have one in hand, nothing more or less.
In this forum are many professional guys so pls give us objective answer.
thank you again.
 
low light tests are confusing. you never go on a real shoot like you do on a test
and anyway, most stuff that's shot is NOT outdoor night scenes.
and when you do need these shots, then there are fast lenses, intelligent story-boarding, B camera for night shots, lights, and of course.... day4night, which if you plan correctly will look near perfect.[FONT=Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif] [/FONT]
Click to expand...

Hector, i'm disappointed, why i must buy for Scarlet T1.3 lens and invest more money when i maybe can optain the same result with FS100 and 2.8 cheaper lens or better result with T1.3?
 
Chris Gavrilovic said:
I also think its very disappointing. It doesn't matter if these shots are difficult to take at all, inverse square law, whatever. This shot simply doesn't look good at all as is. If someone had said "this was shot on my new 5dMKII!" people would be crapping all over it - not saying "wow".
Click to expand...

Okay, so aside from the physics of it. What do you think this shot is demonstrating? Most of the sky is black or very low light level. Most of the city streets are dimly lit, especially from this distance, and the skyscrapers have incredibly bright lights. So you have a choice of either over exposing the bright ares or under exposing the dim ones. The normal practise is to pick an exposure based on what matters in a scene and then adjust the highs and lows to suit, obviously in this scene you can't do that (unless this is Batman). So you either shoot two exposures and do some nice VFX work to get both ends of the range or shoot for the either highs or lows and use colour correction and noise reduction to adjust levels later.

I don't believe there is a camera in any market that would shoot such a contrast ration without using, either in camera or in post, something other than it's innate dynamic range properties to resolve an image that people think looks good. Even on film you get browns for blacks when you don't expose properly.
 
Francesco Cammarata said:
Hector, i'm disappointed, why i must buy for Scarlet T1.3 lens and invest more money when i maybe can optain the same result with FS100 and 2.8 cheaper lens or better result with T1.3?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure RED isn't forcing any of us to buy a camera. So it's not that you 'must' do a thing. To get 4k at this price point buy a Scarlet. If you don't want 4k, obviously don't buy the one camera that can shoot it. It's much cheaper to shoot low light images at 2k as it's cheaper to achieve at this point in time with the available technology.
 
Francesco Cammarata said:
Hector, i'm disappointed, why i must buy for Scarlet T1.3 lens and invest more money when i maybe can optain the same result with FS100 and 2.8 cheaper lens or better result with T1.3?
Click to expand...

that's exactly why i wrote it among other solution to the 25% or so (probably less) of shots that are night exterior and not as the only solution (there was even a B camera option).
and Francesco, if you really think you'll see a similar (or even comparable) result from FS100+2.8 and Scarlet +1.3 (before you ever shot on it... remember, this is just one frame from one test on some nikon lens) than i believe i have nothing else to add to this specific discussion. we obviously do not share the same criteria for image quality and acquisition.

*oh... and you can always just rent the fast lenses when you need them, buy a 2.8 Tokina zoom for the rest :)

Hector Berrebi
workflow consultant
www.prepostconsulting.com
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread. One guy posts one frame grab and its being dissected as if its proof or disproof of the ability of the camera.
 
Is anyone really buying this camera for its low light abilities? Like another under developed feature overcranking (so what?) you may be disappointed if you are.

Gunleik said it "drawing with light" ( man what a quote) that's what this camera is meant for.

The FS100 is designed for an all together different market , the I'm recording available light because I have no budget or time market. Their is nothing wrong with being in this market, some of the worlds highest grossing doco's come from this segment. I also believe a far more accurate comparison for low light sensitivity is between the new Canon C300 against the FS100. Both offer limited codecs with exceptional low light tolerances.

So yes their are other cameras with better light sensitivity than Scarlet/Epic so what, argument over. But how much low light work will you be doing 10% 20% 50% 80% ? Your answer to this question should determine which system you buy into & which system you rent. For myself soon to be Scarlet owner, I look forward to exercising & improving my drawing skills.
 
Last edited:
Francesco Cammarata said:
Hector, i'm disappointed, why i must buy for Scarlet T1.3 lens and invest more money when i maybe can optain the same result with FS100 and 2.8 cheaper lens or better result with T1.3?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why the Scarlet is routinely compared to the FS100.

The Scarlet is HOLLYWOOD grade camera. The FS100 a prosumer version of the F3. Yes, the FS100 is great at lowlight, but it has terrible dynamic range (10 stops!) and can only record 8bit. See this article from Abel Cine:

http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/05/27/sony-fs100-ratings-and-dynamic-range/

I'm not bashing the FS100, I think it's a great camera. For the web, or simple TV delivery. But it can't compare to shooting in RAW 4K.

Look at this (now famous) lowlight test on the RED (by no less than David Fincher), and try and tell me with a straight face that the FS100 can achieve this:


It can't. Because what makes this stand out is the DYNAMIC RANGE of the MX sensor (13.5 stops), it's ability to pull details from the high's and lows. And the fact that EVERY FRAME is a 12bit RAW FILE, giving the colorist HUGE latitude in post to grade this shot to perfection.

8 bit has 256 shades of color per pixel
10 bit has 1024
12bit has 4096! (RED aficionados correct me if I'm wrong on this)

Yes, the FS100 can shoot at 6400 ISO with little noise. But even that SINGULAR advantage is only temporary. Clearly, the new DRAGON sensor is being designed around low light performance. In a year (for hopefully) little more than the price of an FS100, you will in effect get a WHOLE NEW CAMERA when you opt for the upgrade.

Lowlight performance is the ONLY area that RED's (new) rivals can even attempt to claim some element of superiority. But there's a good reason for that. The MX sensor is 3 years old. The Sony sensor has been out for less than a year (in the F3, FS100, and I'm assuming part of its DNA lives in the F65).

Expecting the Scarlet to be PERFECT is a fool's journey. Accept it for what it is. It does a lot of things AMAZINGLY well. It will get even BETTER when you upgrade. Let's top nitpicking at these temporary imperfections, and just go out and shoot something cool with this camera. That's why RED put it out at this price in the first place.

Life isn't perfect. Nothing is. Accept life's limitations and do something cool with what ya got.

- NICK
 
Nick Morrison said:
Life isn't perfect. Nothing is. Accept life's limitations and do something cool with what ya got.
- NICK
Click to expand...

Well said Nick. Our time on earth is way too short to wait for the perfect camera. Mainly as the perfect camera will always be the one in development or the one in our imaginations.

What's truly important is to shoot something with a camera that resonates with a beauty, or a truth, that it stays in the hearts and minds of an audience today and in the years ahead when we are gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top