Full Frame Scarlet

[Paul Duvilla]

I don't understand this argument. If you want deeper DoF on a larger-sensor camera, you can just use a smaller aperture. If you want shallower DoF on a smaller-sensor camera, you're out of luck.

I agree which is why unless Red make a huge change and makes scarlet full frame sensor i feel like i will have to move up to epic s to be safe along with a few other reasons.

 

[David Rasberry]

I think the reason this issue is so confounding for me is just "culture shock."

I'm a still photographer, I'm used to shooting portraits at 200 f/2.8 while wishing I could afford a 200 f/2

I only just decided to get into filmmaking and build my first motion rig, so it's a big adjustment...

When nothing is moving and you have time to compose and focus for that one frame ultra-shallow DOF is a nice aesthetic tool.
Especially with modern cinematography styles though everything is in constant motion in 3 dimensions at the same time. Extreme shallow DOF is rarely used except for static portrait like closeups. Even then you typically want enough depth to accommodate an actor's instinctive head movements without constantly micro-adjusting focus.
Stopping down is not really desirable either, every stop doubles your lighting requirements making setups more difficult, expensive, and time consuming to achieve a naturalistic look. The optimum range for best quality with most lenses is between f2.8 and f5.6. So stopping down for depth of field is not a realistic option in many situations.
It is also one thing to be on a set where every movement is precisely controlled, actors and cameras hit their marks, and you have a camera crew with a skilled AC pulling focus as much by distance marks as by eye.
For a solo shooter focusing by eye in the field following action that is not planned, large formats are just not very practical. Auto focus systems don't work very well yet for fast constantly changing movement or under marginal lighting conditions.
There is also the matter of style and choice. Thanks to the proliferation of 35mm DSLR's with video capability, as well as more affordable 35mm format video cameras, the shallow dof look is a bit of a fad right now. But it is just one aesthetic tool among many, and the 16mm/2/3" size format is capable of a reasonable range of DOF control.
Here is a sample shot from my 1/3" Canon DV camera. One where I was deliberately pushing the envelope to see how shallow I could get. Shot at around 60mm at f2 from about 8 feet away. The vase is about the size of a human head. Only the middle two or three inches of the vase are really in sharp focus.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I agree which is why unless Red make a huge change and makes scarlet full frame sensor i feel like i will have to move up to epic s to be safe along with a few other reasons.

Well, then there's that. You can always opt up to a larger sensor. Red will be offering something for everyone. Just remember, as Mr. Raspberry so succinctly points out, it's not the same as pulling focus for still photography. You're going to be constantly working to keep the plane of focus on your subjects and it probably isn't as easy as you imagine with a large sensor.

 

[Lee Saxon]

David that's a perfect example of the real problem with smaller sensors. Yes, as you say, only the middle of the vase is really in focus, but the hammock is way TOO in focus. The perspective/background separation that you would have gotten framing this same shot with a much longer focal length on a 'FF35' camera is what I'd miss shooting 1/3", 2/3" or even 4/3" (tested a GH2 this weekend) camera.

I do agree that the whole "one eye in focus one eye not just because I have a 5D II and I can" thing is overdone, annoying, and impractical, but with a larger sensor even at a relatively moderate aperture you could have had that entire vase in razor sharp focus and not even been able to tell that the wash of random color / bokeh behind it was a hammock.

 

[Kian Marandi]

Stopping down is not really desirable either, every stop doubles your lighting requirements making setups more difficult, expensive, and time consuming to achieve a naturalistic look.

This statement I think is incredibly important to remember, especially for those of us considering to have just one of either Scarlet or Epic-S as our camera.

For those where its a second camera in the bag next to an Epic system, finances are clearly not as restricted.

But for those just starting a professional career, or working with limited budgets, lighting can add quite a lot of cost for that desired DOF flexibility.

And if you're a 1-person (or small #) operation, more lights means more gear means more weight means more to transport means more... you get the idea! =)

 

[David Rasberry]

David that's a perfect example of the real problem with smaller sensors. Yes, as you say, only the middle of the vase is really in focus, but the hammock is way TOO in focus. The perspective/background separation that you would have gotten framing this same shot with a much longer focal length on a 'FF35' camera is what I'd miss shooting 1/3", 2/3" or even 4/3" (tested a GH2 this weekend) camera.

I do agree that the whole "one eye in focus one eye not just because I have a 5D II and I can" thing is overdone, annoying, and impractical, but with a larger sensor even at a relatively moderate aperture you could have had that entire vase in razor sharp focus and not even been able to tell that the wash of random color / bokeh behind it was a hammock.

This goes to creative style and personal preference, as well as practical considerations. There are certainly limits with smaller formats. I could not for instance get a decent two shot of a couple at the table with the 1/3" format and still have shallow DOF at all. I could get a 2 shot with similar DOF with a 2/3" Scarlet however.
Of course the opposite is true of an FF35 format. If you wanted just this degree of DOF fall off in the background on this shot under the same conditions, bright overcast outdoor daylight, you would be shooting with 3 stops of ND filter at around F8-F11with a 400mm lens. You might suffer from inadequate exposure as a result.

 

[Steve Harryman]

Lee,
The argument is easy. I am a stills wildlife photographer. If you've ever shot a super-telephoto, going to f/16 or even f/22 won't give you to infinity like a wide-angle. I've been shooting with a 500mm f/4, and have added a 1.4x at times, and even a 2.0x teleconverter. The longer, the shallow dof. and that DOF is razor thin when tracking for example an animal running/flying towards you. These large-sensors are great for still subjects, but moving requires a smaller sensor hands down for achieving these difficult shots requiring a deeper DOF. And with a 2/3" sensor on a telephoto, shallow DOF is no problem at all.

I don't understand this argument. If you want deeper DoF on a larger-sensor camera, you can just use a smaller aperture. If you want shallower DoF on a smaller-sensor camera, you're out of luck.

At 1/48th ISO100 no ND filters you have to shoot at f/22 on even moderately sunny days in New Orleans. Scarlet's already got limited DoF options and just from sensor size and then they tell me base / "sweet spot" ISO is 800 and i'm gonna have to stack like 6" of ND filters just to shoot at f/8? I don't even understand.

 

[Robert Jackson]

Lee,
The argument is easy. I am a stills wildlife photographer. If you've ever shot a super-telephoto, going to f/16 or even f/22 won't give you to infinity like a wide-angle.

I don't have a lot of experience with super-telephotos, but a couple of days ago I put a 2x on my old Soligor 500mm cat and took some photos of the shuttle launch. Even with a 1000mm of reach my D700 wasn't exactly Johnny-on-the-spot and of course my effective aperture was probably something like f/22. It was fun, but the additional reach of a smaller sensor would have been nice.

 

[Steve Harryman]

Beautiful shot Robert. What I mean is with a subject that requires closer focusing. The DOF isn't as deep with a telephoto as a wide-angle in that case. Smaller sensor gives a bit more depth, which sometimes makes the difference. Again, that's a cool shot.

 

[Robert Jackson]

Beautiful shot Robert. What I mean is with a subject that requires closer focusing. The DOF isn't as deep with a telephoto as a wide-angle in that case. Smaller sensor gives a bit more depth, which sometimes makes the difference. Again, that's a cool shot.

I understand completely. I was using an old Vivitar 2x macro focusing teleconverter and focusing with it (because the focus seemed finer). That's the first one of the series where the shuttle is (sort-of) in-focus. Until the fire lit everything up the contrast was so weak and the viewfinder was so dark that it was very hard to tell if it was in focus.

Thanks for the compliment, but it was what I could get, really. Mirror lenses have notoriously poor contrast and resolution and I made that worse with the teleconverter, but an image like this is more like game hunting or something than photography. I at least bagged something and brought it home. It may be a little stringy and gamey, but I got it. Shot at ISO 3200, BTW. :001_smile:

BTW, I took a friend with me. He's got a little D40X and I brought my old Sigma 300mm f/4 APO Macro for him with a 1.4x teleconverter. So he was shooting through a 420mm f/5.6 lens, but with the 1.5x crop factor he was getting a field of view like I'd have been getting with a 630mm lens and it was so much sharper that a crop from his shots was probably clearer than the shots I got. Of course I have no idea, really, because his middle name is 'Procrastination' so I'll probably see his shots sometime after we put men on Mars.

But yeah, the additional reach is handy and the extra DOF is handy. Both things work together to make the smaller formats ideal for ENG stuff.

 

[Lee Saxon]

If you wanted just this degree of DOF fall off in the background on this shot under the same conditions, bright overcast outdoor daylight, you would be shooting with 3 stops of ND filter at around F8-F11with a 400mm lens.

You're definitely right, I never thought about that since the "whole vase in focus with the hammock a random wash of color" look I mentioned is what I want (or at least what I'm used to). Proving you right again on...

This goes to creative style and personal preference...

So thanks for the insights.

 

[Derek S.]

I love how Scarlet with its 2/3 sensor and form factor is good enough for pro photography work, but DSLR's aren't even close to be good enough for pro video work.

In reality, Scarlet can be used for BTS stills and similar, but not for serious still work. Remember, you have to buy RED's viewfinder and even with that you don't get the same solid shooting position you get with still cameras that have the viewfinder just in the right place.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Also 3.2 megapixels ain't gettin it done.

You definitely need an Epic-S (or whatever Red announced to fill the 2/3" to Epic-S price gap) if you want something that will double as a stills camera.

I'm thinking more and more that I have no interest in Scarlet and I just need to save up for Epic-S.

 

[G Lap]

Actually approximately 5 megapixels Lee (with 3.3 micron pixel size). I wouldn't disagree with Epic S being required for pro level stills though.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If all you need is a better camera for stills, carry around a Canon to go with the 2/3" Scarlet. Probably a cheaper combination than getting an S35 Scarlet if all you want is a better still camera. This argument that the 2/3" Scarlet isn't "good enough" because it doesn't take good enough stills is sort of lame since there is such an easy solution, i.e. just take your still camera along with you.

 

[G Lap]

I agree David, that's more or less what I've always intended (though it's Nikon or Leica for me). Horses for courses etc. Although I'm intrigued by the DSMC concept, I'm of the view that it's the motion capability of Epic/Scarlet that fully justifies their use.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I agree David, that's more or less what I've always intended (though it's Nikon or Leica for me). Horses for courses etc. Although I'm intrigued by the DSMC concept, I'm of the view that it's the motion capability of Epic/Scarlet that fully justifies their use.

Epic seems like it would make a pretty decent stills camera. Close to 14-megapixels and with very decent latitude, from all accounts, even without the HDR modes. I mean, it probably isn't going to replace your D3s if you do a lot of low-light PJ stuff, but it should suffice for most still photography uses.

And obviously the 24mm x 36mm Red cameras will complicate things even more. Epic FF35 at 24 megapixels per frame will probably be a real Swiss Army Knife. Of course it will repeatedly attempt to murder your computers with RAW files as dense as year-old fruitcake, but maybe computers will be a lot more powerful by then. :w00t:

 

[Lee Saxon]

This argument that the 2/3" Scarlet isn't "good enough" because it doesn't take good enough stills is sort of lame

I'm not saying it's not good enough in general, just that it's probably not the right one for me.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Flawed assumption.

Mysterium sensor in RED ONE: 8 - 10 stops.
Mysterium-X sensor in RED ONE: 13.5 stops.
Mysterium-X sensor in EPIC with HDR-X: up to 18 stops.

All those sensors are the exact same size. Semiconductor design counts far more than pixel density.

EDIT: David Rasberry has pointed out that pretty much everything I wrote in the post is wrong.

HDRx™ does not exist yet. And while the MX and Epic use the same sensor, the Red One MX fiilms a cropped portion of the MX sensor.

That's why Epic is 5K and the Red One MX is still 4K (or 4.5K if you want to record into the safe area). I think the extra DR that Epic will have is appreciably from the Epic effectively using a larger sensor than the Red One MX uses.

 

[Peter Moretti]

I think for a lot of uses 2/3rd's should be fine or even preferred. But I'm not entirely comfortable w/ the shoot wide open response for getting shallow DoF.

Part of the reason why you buy a Red is b/c you feel that resolution matters. You believe that the 2/3rd's Scarlet will give you an appreciably sharper image than than its larger sensor competitors.

But if you shoot wide open you loose appreciable sharpness b/c lenses are not at their sharpest wide open. So now you're making the whole image softer (even what's in focus) in an effort to get shallow DoF. Well that seems counter to the whole POV of resolution matters.

You still have RAW, which is big advantage, that you can't get w/ any non-Red cams below $70K.