Going WIDE?

[Chris Newman]

Wasn't Jim saying in the other thread that the lens is equivalent of 18 - 144mm on S35? So if I use a 17 - 40mm Canon 4.0L lens with my mini35 adapter, then Scarlets lens is starting 1mm above that wide end?

I think Mini35 has an image size close to S35 (not full-frame 35mm still), so what you said should be true. (And if they happen to make it T2.0, the depth of field should be the same too.)

 

[number6]

The HV20 zoom starts at 6.1mm, which is like a zoom that starts at 12mm for a 2/3" camera, or 30mm for a 35mm cine camera -- so I can see why you'd be frustrated. It should probably have started at 3 or 4mm.

As for the Scarlet being good for landscape and wildlife, well those two genres are sort of opposites (often landscapes are shot wide-angle and wildlife captured with extreme telephoto) so I'm not sure how one fixed zoom lens is going to satisfy people used to pulling out a 600mm lens to shoot some faraway zebra or a giant sunball setting, but a super wide-angle to capture some mountainscape or fish-eye shot of clouds rolling by. The Scarlet would need a 3mm to 300mm zoom range, which is a 100x range. Most zooms are pushing it to give you a 15x to 20x range without distortion and size problems.

I can see Scarlet more as a B-camera in those situations, something in your bag you can grab quickly when you see something in nature to shoot and don't have time to set-up the RED ONE.

David, any experience in shooting 3-D?

Just was wondering if two synced cameras are that dependent on lens choice? I suppose there would be some advantage but just wondering, wouldn't two identical factory certified fixed lenses be more ideal?

 

[Clint Johnson]

Clint when you say this you voice the set based indie film makers opinion. I'm sure that for 90% of Indies who shoot purely on set a 140mm would be suitable.

However, given there is a potentially much wider audience for the Scarlett than just set based Indies. it isn't true to say that it would be adequate for 90% of users because most general users, amateurs, high end consumers and semi pros need many more times 140mm on a regular basis.

Shooting films on a set gives you a high level of environmental control but away from a film production, that same level of control simply doesn't exist when shooting in the real world. In the real world, most things happen at distance and thats where a long zoom becomes essential. A good example on the truly professional level is news camera crews.

As I see it, the ideal solution would be a lens which is wide enough at the wide end to satisfy the set based film makers but long enough at the long end to satisfy the other categories of potential users.

Looking for such a lens doesn't go against the voice of reason. Many of the professional cameras I've mentioned previously have excellent quality optics but wide zoom ranges. The very reason companies such as Canon, Sony, Panasonic sell cameras with these lenses on is because they know that much of even the professional market requires a longer zoom range and when you also have aspirations to sell to high end amateurs, prosumers, semi pros etc, then that category grows further. I doubt very much that companies such as Sony, Panasonic, Canon etc spend millions on market research only to put unnecessarily expensive lens on their cameras through putting lenses on with focal lengths that their professional markets simply don't need.

Yes, there is a bit of a "mines longer than yours" mentality in the camcorder arena with people bragging up there 20:1 zooms and the addition of a digital zoom so that you have the look of a 700mm lens... and everything past the first 8:1 is full on shaky-cam even with image stabilization and nasty pixelization is added when they climb into the digital zoom.

Of course it can go up on a tripod and be locked down- or the image can be stabilized in post... but how many people are going to do that? I would rather have a fantastic T2 7-56mm IS lens than an okay f2.8-3.5 7-140mm IS that will almost certainly produce ugly telephoto images for the most part.

And that Fijicon 21X lens you showed as an example is probably bigger than the entire Scarlet body so that is a non-starter.

No camera can be all thing to all people but size and dollar constraints considered, this looks to be the best possible compromise with everything weighted toward producing the finest images possible, with next years technology, in a (coat)pocket camera.

I think that if you NEED to go to a long telephoto then you want to look at a used Red One with a Birger mount in the 2009 time frame... it isn't gonna fit in any pocket or be $3,000 but would be more appropriate for the output desired. Even handheld, mass adds stability.

 

[Chris Newman]

Well said, Clint.

 

[Jeremy Newmark]

The Sony DVW-970P has a 2/3" sensor and a Fujicon 21x zoom lens. The camera is big but the lens itself excluding mounting tube looks a very reasonable size.

I've added the red lines to separate the lens from the mount for viewing:



Admittedly the 970 is a very expensive camera, but that doesn't mean the cost is all in the lens. Nor does it mean that Red couldn't find or commission a reasonably priced solution. Interesting to note on the marketing front though that again we have a broadcast camera with a 21 x zoom from a company that presumably spends tens of millions on market research.

Alsone,

Just to clarify a few things here. The camera pictured here does not include a lens at it's price point. The lens in this picture looks to me like it's a canon lens and the "tube" you see there is part of it. It's where the built in extender is housed. The mount of the camera is behind that, almost flush with the camera body. It may look like a reasonable size, but a 21x canon 2/3" lens is over 10" long and weighs almost 6 pounds and that's without the clip on lens shade that is pictured.

http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/p_efp_HJ21ex75B_spec.shtml

These lenses retail for over $30k and can be purchased new for around $28k new. Keep in mind that this is on the lower end of the price point for a very long 2/3" zoom. The optics for a 2/3" sensor need to be much more precise then for a S35mm sensor in order to keep the MTF at a reasonable percentage. Which is why these lenses are so expensive. I'm sure Red will do a wonderful job with Scarlet, but keep in mind that we are talking about a camera and lens system for under $3k. So don't expect a 21x zoom to be attached to this camera. I believe they have said it will be an 8x zoom, which is already a lot to meet the quality that they are shootinig for at this price point. Hope this helps.

 

[Alsone]

Alsone,

IMHO, the achilles heel of small camcorders is the wide end, and not just for "indie filmmakers" Yup.

If I want to fill the frame with a desert moonrise, I'll need a decent tripod and some sandbags for a start, so at that point a screw-on tele-extender hardly adds to the hassle.

Erik I don't disgree about the short end.

However, in talking about weddings and shooting in small rooms you're only talking about a small percentile of uses. Go to a grand prix or an air show, or a sporting event and then try to get close up. It simply can't happen, often for Health and Safety reasons if you have a press pass, and you're totally stuffed if you don't! Shoot a news event and again you can't always get in close, interview aside eg at burning buildings, natural disasters, hostage situations etc there's often a police cordon. Imagine the news pics of the twin towers with a 140mm telephoto! Shoot a wildlife documentary and the same.

There are also problems at the long end with teleconversion just as there are at the wide angle with wide angle conversion- namely autofocus problems and the doubling of the f stop (halving of the available light) which is important when shutter speed is critical.

What I'd like to see is a mid road solution that satisfies most people on here - Indies, amateurs, prosumers, semi-pros alike and I think that Red could probably achieve this. I'm not against any particular group. I think Scarlett has a wide appeal.

Jnewn, according to the site I visited that's the standard supplied lens a Fujicon, although it is interchangeable, and lens and camera are expensive but considering its also a 2/3" cam and these are currently v. expensive its hard to say how much of the cost is lens or how much is camera.

Maybe if price really is a problem on this size sensor, Red could build a lens with a built in a 2x extender. Not ideal but might solve the problem for all as 16x wouldn't be 1/2 bad.

 

[Bing Bailey]

its so funny. people have shot some very nice material on varicam which has a 2/3 sensor , most people would have sold their grandmothers to have access to that or an f900 and suddenly when thats going to be possible and in 3k not 720p for a lot of people that's suddenly not good enough. it boggles the mind. I'm getting the RED ONE but I'm also going to pickup two scarlets as b cams because I'm pretty sure they are going to make striking images even with a fixed lens , its a brand new sensor, better dynamic range than RED ONE, up to 100MB data rate. under crank and over crank and it shoots to CF CARDS in the same raw format. its like XMAS and we just got a varicam on steroids.

 

[Greg Syverson]

I use to shoot with big telephotos. They are helpful. Wide and up close is great. So much detail and it gives you the impression of being right there.

come home to Daddy Scarlet

 

[Clint Johnson]

May I suggest a second Scarlet model that is fitted with a fixed tele-zoom?

Scarlet is going to be far less expensive than the bare lens that Alsone is looking for and while I am ecstatic over the 7-57mm (ish) lens that is being talked about... I would look at a Scarlet Tele-Zoom as a third (and fourth for b-camera 3D?) Scarlet if it had something like a 57-160mm zoom.

Both a Scarlet and a Scarlet Tele-Zoom would be smaller, lighter and far less expensive than the zoom lens pictured above (Fujicon or Canon?).

 

[Christoffer Glans]

However, in talking about weddings and shooting in small rooms you're only talking about a small percentile of uses.

This camera is not just for weddings. Small rooms and the ability to go wide is something that the filmmaking part of users want alot.
I believe that the largest part of the users buying Scarlet will be independent filmmakers and not "event" photographers.

3K isn't something most photographers need when it comes to capturing events and weddings. The consumer part isn't really into 1080p on a wide scale and 1080p is what most clients want, because most of the time they don't even need more then SD resolution on a DVD; the market isn't ready for that resolution.

So, who will use this camera for the most part? Well, independent filmmakers may intend to screen their movies in theatres with 2K resolution. This camera will have a much bigger user group among those users.

Some documentary filmmakers might have the need for it as well, but I've seen too few that really uses a strong visual style with the need for what the camera delivers.

What I'm aiming at is that even if this is a camera that can be used by soccer moms, it's for the most part a digital cinema camera and it speaks for itself.

When speaking 3K you shoot in another way then with SD resolution. You don't need to get those really close images because the detail is all there. (I'm talking tele here, not macro).
The wide part of a lens in terms of filmmaking is what separate many of the consumer/prosumer cameras from the visual possibilities that bigger and more expensive cameras deliver.

So, for Scarlet, it's in my opinion much more important with a good wide. It's also the range that has most distortion and therefore I think it's better with a lens specific for the camera that utilize the wide end more then tele.
If you want more tele, there are adapters which Jim spoke about. But to get a quality wide angle, it's better to have the cameras lens made for that.

The Scarlet has a lens that is 18 - 144mm (calculated after S35) and I think that is close to the best range to include most users.
Want more tele, just buy the adapter... want more wide, buy the adapter... simple as that.
Want total freedom... buy Red one

 

[Jeremy Newmark]

Jnewn, according to the site I visited that's the standard supplied lens a Fujicon, although it is interchangeable, and lens and camera are expensive but considering its also a 2/3" cam and these are currently v. expensive its hard to say how much of the cost is lens or how much is camera.

I appologize, I was not as clear as I could have been in my last post. The camera you have spoken about, a Sony DVW-970P is a Digital Betacam 2/3" sensor camera. This is a high-end professional broadcast SD camera. The U.S. retail price for this camera new is $49,700.00. Now this is the list price which means if you buy it from an authorized sony dealer, you should never pay that much, but you will be paying over $40k for it. This is without a lens. The canon lens I mentioned is an HD lens, so it is true that you can get an SD lens for much cheaper that will work with this camera, but it's still going to cost you 2-3 times the cost of a Scarlet. Now the Scarlet is a whole other ball game, because even though it is a 2/3" sensor like this DigiBeta camera or an F900, the difference is that it is a 3k sensor, which means that it is much harder to achieve a decent level of MTF, compared to a 2/3" SD sensor (DVW-970p) or a 2/3" HD sensor (F900). My point being that Red is trying to once again pull off something that is very hard for a price point under 3k. I'm sure they will do it, but we can't ask for much more then they are offering. We have to keep a little perspective as to what they are doing compared to what has been done up until now.

Maybe if price really is a problem on this size sensor, Red could build a lens with a built in a 2x extender. Not ideal but might solve the problem for all as 16x wouldn't be 1/2 bad.

Jim has said they will be offering optical adapters for both wider and longer focal ranges. So that may already help you quite a bit!

 

[millrick]

cinematic beauty

cinematic beauty

Some documentary filmmakers might have the need for it as well, but I've seen too few that really uses a strong visual style with the need for what the camera delivers.

You're quite right, most documentaries don't achieve cinematic beauty, but Scarlet could be the tool that will inspire documentary makers to create more compelling images.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

You're quite right, most documentaries don't achieve cinematic beauty, but Scarlet could be the tool that will inspire documentary makers to create more compelling images.

I know it's controversial to say that "it's not for them", but most documentary filmmakers shoot alot and have this massive amound of footage that they then dig through in post. With the amount of data and diskspace that's so much larger when talking scarlet it's not practical for many documentary filmmakers.
I really love the visually compelling documentaries where the filmmaker/makers planned and shot with a visual guideline in their head as you do when making a feature/shortfilm. Some even make storyboards.
It's not very common though and that is what I mean...

I also said in another thread that I think Scarlet is a perfect documentary camera, but I only mean it for those who know what to shoot from the beginning. But all in all, it's made for creating good images that you can't achieve with other cameras in this pricerange.
It's a RAW, professional tool for high resolution filming. It's more aimed for the independent filmmaking users then event users. That's why I think wide is important...

 

[jpp]

I'm sure I am going to get flamed for saying this, but to me, Scarlet will be most useful as a portable outdoor nature/landscape and maybe sports HD camera. I just don't see this as being ideal for cinema photography for features and shorts, etc, because of the DOF.

"Ideal"? Since when is anything "ideal" in low budget production? With the substandard performances and the unconvincing locations, and less than wonderful lighting and production design, flat-footed writing and wince-inducing talk, and maybe even some defects in the direction, why worry about non-35mm DOF, of all things?

Or if you've got great performances, wonderful locations, terrific lighting and production design, fantastic writing and faultless direction, why would you expect, after spending all that money and time, and bringing in such great talent and crew, that buying a $3000 camera would be your absolute best choice?

To be blunt, this Scarlet DOF grief doesn't appear to reflect an actual production dilemma anyone would ever have the leisure for in the real world. Sounds more like the camera's specs are just interfering a little with the dream of a low budget production model which in fact will never exist - this perfect production shot on Scarlet and marred only by excess DOF, thanks to Jim Jannard's perverse decision. But of course a perfect production would never be shot with a $3K camera, or if it was shot with a $3K camera, DOF would either be used to good effect, or would be of zero consequence.

And how many of the people here protesting 2/3" DOF have actually made dramatic films? There's nothing like a failed production or two to reorder your priorities.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Sounds more like the camera's specs are just interfering a little with the dream of a low budget production model which in fact will never exist

First of, Zodiac was shot on a VIPER that through what I've read might be beaten by Scarlets quality. That production was a big budget feature.
You are getting lost in it's price, you are talking about the price as the one thing that makes it unsuitable for productions.

Second, there are alot of feature films that need a camera that is flexible, even more flexible then a Red One. It enables them to get close to that kind of quality but with the ability to be shot in real world locations without hours of rigging.

Third, what country do you work in? There are some countries with other forms of money for a production and if you have the ability to buy three cameras you could do visuals that you might not be able to do otherwise.
In Sweden, some of our feature films has a budget of the marketing money for a Hollywood production.
Isn't it good to have this kind of a camera in our filmindustry?


2/3 at 2.8 has a DOF of what 35mm movies use most of the time. So, the DOF is quite "regular" in cinematography terms.

Sometimes you don't have a budget to choose a better camera, even on a real filmset. That is the real world.

 

[jpp]

First of, Zodiac was shot on a VIPER that through what I've read might be beaten by Scarlets quality. That production was a big budget feature.
You are getting lost in it's price, you are talking about the price as the one thing that makes it unsuitable for productions.

It's impossible to know at this moment what Scarlet is suited for, or the quality it will deliver. And that wasn't my point, in any case. I'm referring here specifically to low-budget and probably self-financed production in the U.S., and a consumer fantasy which is common to Americans, that if ONLY they had the perfect camera, they could make the perfect movie.

Second, there are alot of feature films that need a camera that is flexible, even more flexible then a Red One. It enables them to get close to that kind of quality but with the ability to be shot in real world locations without hours of rigging.

No argument here. But that still doesn't argue for making an expensive movie with a $3K camera, if there are choices which offer more control. There's a reason Red is selling Red One's, and expects to sell Epics.

Third, what country do you work in? There are some countries with other forms of money for a production and if you have the ability to buy three cameras you could do visuals that you might not be able to do otherwise.
In Sweden, some of our feature films has a budget of the marketing money for a Hollywood production.
Isn't it good to have this kind of a camera in our filmindustry?

The U.S., as noted above. Don't know what the situation is in post-Bergman Sweden, but there are really no "other" forms of production money here, at least none that can be relied upon. And certainly none to sustain high quality art house cinema, despite large number of feature films which get financed outside the Hollywood system.

2/3 at 2.8 has a DOF of what 35mm movies use most of the time. So, the DOF is quite "regular" in cinematography terms.

Again, no argument from me here. I'm perfectly content with 2/3" DOF. Besides, it's likely to save a lot of grief when the focus puller doesn't show up for two days in a row, or the actor can't for the life of him hit his marks.

Sometimes you don't have a budget to choose a better camera, even on a real filmset. That is the real world.

Again, no argument. My point was, on such a production there will be far more pressing worries than DOF.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

But that still doesn't argue for making an expensive movie with a $3K camera, if there are choices which offer more control

Cloverfield :tongue:

No, seriously, if you are able to use a better camera and it's within budget then of course it's stupid to use Scarlet. But for independent filmmakers that burn all the money on props, costumes, sets, actors and team I believe it's a good choice. Red One is cheap, but because you have to have lenses and so on it get's really expensive in the end anyway.
It's also easier to get a cheaper steadycam, cranes and carmounts with a small camera like Scarlet.

In Sweden there isn't alot of money for a production. A regular feature film here costs about 6 million dollars and that is a 35mm production with a big crew and ensamble.

I am convinced that with a camera like Scarlet, we will see much more visually driven stories in Sweden then we do right now. It's because the time to to each setup is alot less and you don't have to hire everything, you can own it yourself. For a filmindustry like the one we have I believe Scarlet could shake things up even on a big scale. In Hollywood I don't see how that would be the case... it's not that kind of film climate.

 

[Joseph Hutson]

I'm sure I am going to get flamed for saying this, but...

Haven't you gotten flamed for pretty much everything you say about the scarlet?