Full Frame Scarlet

[David Rasberry]

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.

Wrong about HDRx™™™. It is enabled in the shipping Epic-M's.

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=728999&postcount=1

The difference in DR between Red One MX and Epic is the difference in signal to noise ratio of the associated electronics, not the difference in sensor area. If you shoot Epic and R1-MX cropped to the same area the difference will still be there, though it is not huge in either case
Indeed this is where the major improvements in DR for all digital cameras are coming from, better electronics than previous generations. Sensor size is only one factor, pixel size is only one factor, it is the impact of overall system design that makes the difference. There are 2/3" broadcast cameras out there from Sony that also have around 13 stops DR, so sensor size is not the predominate issue for DR. In the last 5 years, S/N ratio on top line broadcast cameras has improved by nearly 10dB, about a stop and a half. It is interesting that current gen mid range to top line quality cameras from the major manufacturers are all boasting 60dB + S/N, 12-13 stops DR and native sensitivity around 800 ISO: Alexa, Red 1-MX/Epic, Sony's 2/3" broadcast cameras and new F3.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Thanks for pointing that out, I was confusing w/ EasyHDR. Thanks for the other info. as well.

 

[Robert Jackson]

But if you shoot wide open you loose appreciable sharpness b/c lenses are not at their sharpest wide open.

Depends on the lens. Some lenses are optimized for shooting wide open or close to wide open. I've owned several lenses that improved an almost imperceptible amount as you closed them down one stop, but from there on out there was very little change in image sharpness until you hit diffraction. I used to shoot a lot with the Olympus 150mm f/2, which is a classic example of that. Check out the lens test here:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/39/cat/14

Not saying that the mini-primes will work that way, but it's not out of the question. Of course that assumes that all you care about is shallow DOF and in that case resolution isn't all that important, anyway, since the majority of your image is going to be out of focus. The parts that are in-focus are going to appear sharper than they are by contrast.

Here's a better idea, IMO...if you do end up with the 2/3" Scarlet (which seems like a bad idea for you since you'll be front-loaded to feel like you're having to live with an inferior camera) just go ahead and grab the telephoto primes. Long focal lengths make shallow DOF much easier to obtain and have a very appealing look. They're also more likely to be sharper across the frame wide open than wider lenses.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Hey Robert,

I have to say that's the first lens I've heard of doing that. Perhaps the smaller image circle lenses are easier to make sharp wide open.

BTW, I don't think the Scarlet is an inferior camera. I think for some uses there are probably better choices. Real comparisons will happen when it comes out.

As for using telephoto lenses to control DoF, I think it's a little bit like the tail wagging the dog. You can wind-up w/ some odd compositions just to get shallow.

Common wisdom would say that if someone wants to worship at the altars of shallow DoF and wide FoV, 2/3rd's is not an ideal choice. Maybe Red will prove common wisdom false, they've done it before. But in this case, it's literally more a matter of geometry. It's more likely, IMHO, that the Scarlet will offer other benefits that could convince even the most DSLR drunk user to sober up.

 

[Robert Jackson]

As for using telephoto lenses to control DoF, I think it's a little bit like the tail wagging the dog. You can wind-up w/ some odd compositions just to get shallow.

I dunno...Ridley and Tony Scott do it all the time and nobody seems to be too critical of their choices. And of course Sam Peckinpah used 800mm and 1000mm lenses and ended up being copied by quite a few DPs. I remember when The Right Stuff came out I saw that walking shot (that's even been copied in animated features) and immediately thought of the walking shot from the finale of The Wild Bunch.

BTW, quite a few telephoto lenses perform at pretty close to optimal levels wide open. The 150/2 is just an extremely good example of that. Usually telephoto lenses aren't terribly fast in the first place and designers know the stills user is going to be dealing with high shutter speeds to overcome the magnification of the motion, so it seems like the assumption is that you're going to be shooting wide open as often as possible. And of course the image circle is usually bigger, so vignetting usually isn't an issue. The telephoto lens is your friend. It's the wide-angle lens that wants to make you insane. Always eye Mr. Widey suspiciously. He'll jack up your sound scheme at every opportunity. Heh...

 

[Peter Moretti]

And during the filming of The Killing, Stanley Kubrick looked up at Lucien Ballard and said, "Lucien, either you move that camera and put it where it has to be to use a 25mm or get off this set and never come back."

 

[David Rasberry]

Hey Robert,

I have to say that's the first lens I've heard of doing that. Perhaps the smaller image circle lenses are easier to make sharp wide open.


Common wisdom would say that if someone wants to worship at the alters of shallow DoF and wide FoV, 2/3rd's is not an ideal choice.

The new Cooke Panchros maintain sharpness wide open. I think it was mentioned that the Optimo Rouge zooms do also. Modern coatings and computer aided optical designs have minimized the changes compared to older glass at least for the top of the line stuff.

No question if very shallow DOF at moderately wide angles is of major importance to you, 2/3" is not the optimum choice.

 

[Robert Jackson]

And during the filming of The Killing, Stanley Kubrick looked up at Lucien Ballard and said, "Lucien, either you move that camera and put it where it has to be to use a 25mm or get off this set and never come back."

IMO, Kubrick liked wide-angle lenses because he liked to shoot on location and didn't want to knock out a wall to position his camera. But even Kubrick didn't go all that wide, really. He commonly used an 18mm or a 24mm for his wide shots. So that's basically the 6mm and 8mm Mini Primes if you're looking to do a Kubrick homage.

Although...and here's something that doesn't get covered much, we know he used that Fairchild-Curtis Cinerama lens for HAL's POV in 2001, but there was another extremely wide non-fisheye lens used in 2001, as well. It's used several times aboard Discovery. Quickly scanning through the copy on my hard drive I found an example at 1:12:18 where Dave is entering the pod bay to head out and repair/replace the AE35 unit. We follow him through the door from the long, white corridor that leads to the pod bay and as we enter the door there's very obvious distortion on both sides of the frame. There are several shots like that in the movie where space was obviously tight and Kubrick decided to live with the visible distortion to get the shot, but it wasn't that common for him.

Getting an AOV that wide on 2/3" isn't going to be easy, if that's the kind of stuff you're into. I mean, DigiPrimes (which are B4 mount and not ideal for this use) go out to 3.9mm, but a 3.9mm DigiPrime is $35,000. If extreme wide angle is what you're looking to use then it would be cheaper and more practical to just buy a camera with a much larger sensor. For me, though, the 6mm and 8mm Mini-Primes sound ideal. And even then neither of them will be on the camera as much as the 25mm T1.8.