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 :)

Good enough...

Status
Not open for further replies.
David Mullen ASC said:
I don't have a problem with a 2/3" 3K Scarlet, it will make an excellent 1080P camera and surpass the image quality of current HD DSLR's, it's just that it doesn't fit into this "The Future is 4K" argument that Red is making.
Click to expand...

Maybe mid May update will bring along 4/3" sensor Scarlet :iagree: Ah, daydreams...
 
David Mullen ASC said:
..... The real question is whether one can make a 4K sensor that is only 2/3" in size, or whether there are too many trade-offs in noise and sensitivity by doing that.

I don't have a problem with a 2/3" 3K Scarlet, it will make an excellent 1080P camera and surpass the image quality of current HD DSLR's, it's just that it doesn't fit into this "The Future is 4K" argument that Red is making.
Click to expand...


Terry VerHaar said:
I stated this somewhat off-hand yesterday and no one commented on it at all, which surprised me. Does anyone think that maybe Jim's somewhat cryptic and perseverant comments about 4K have a hint of something new in them? .... So, would it not be possible to slightly enlarge the chip, at the same pixel size, and squeeze 4K out of it. The only specific argument against this right now is the mini-primes. If that design is completely finalized and they are all but in production, I guess they'd become useless if the "smaller" Scarlet chip jumped to 13 x 6.5 mm or some such? Can't help but wonder...
Click to expand...

Given Jim's 4K and mantra-like "1080P is tomorrow's VHS" pronouncements I wouldn't be surprised at all. I don't think they need to increase the size - just reduce pixel pitch and live with a little less than a stop of lost sensitivity (assuming that it is roughly proportional). Mysterium-X technology might be far enough along where it is still very workable - as we are seeing with high-ISO MX Redones. Seems like sensitivity would still be competitive with current 1/3 and 1/2 prosumer camcorders - but 4K redcode raw as opposed to 1080P 35mbps XDCAM or AVCHD. Pretty damn powerful! Slap a prores module on there for rapid 1080P turnaround.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
I stated this somewhat off-hand yesterday and no one commented on it at all, which surprised me. Does anyone think that maybe Jim's somewhat cryptic and perseverant comments about 4K have a hint of something new in them? I am not trying to stir anything up here, as I plan to buy a Scarlet 2/3" even at 3K. But I can't help wondering... I don't imagine the 2/3" chip is very far along in it's final design yet - as it seems much is dependent upon getting Epic "de-bugged." So, would it not be possible to slightly enlarge the chip, at the same pixel size, and squeeze 4K out of it. The only specific argument against this right now is the mini-primes. If that design is completely finalized and they are all but in production, I guess they'd become useless if the "smaller" Scarlet chip jumped to 13 x 6.5 mm or some such? Can't help but wonder...
Click to expand...
Well, considering Red released stills (or was it video?) from the 2/3-inch chip, I think 2/3-inch Scarlet must be pretty far along, especially if Red intends on releasing it this year. But you may be onto something. The 2/3's spec sheet doesn't say anything about 3K except for item No. 8: "3K REDCODE RAW recording at 120fps (150fps burst mode)." Notice it didn't say, "3K REDCODE RAW recording at up to 120fps." So maybe it does lower frame rates -- say, under 60 fps -- at the new maximum resolution and higher rates at a lower resolution (3K), pretty much like every other Scarlet and Epic camera. And your idea of a slightly larger sensor would mean a slightly larger lens, which might explain the fixed's slightly higher minimum aperture announced in November (T2.6 vs. the T2.4 Jon Sagud had mentioned a year and a half ago) and the silence concerning the focal-length endpoints of its zoom range, which previously had been estimated to be about 7.2-57.6 mm (or thereabouts), given Jim's comment that wide end was equivalent to 28 mm on full-frame 35 mm.
 
Agree

Agree

Terry VerHaar said:
I stated this somewhat off-hand yesterday and no one commented on it at all, which surprised me. Does anyone think that maybe Jim's somewhat cryptic and perseverant comments about 4K have a hint of something new in them? I am not trying to stir anything up here, as I plan to buy a Scarlet 2/3" even at 3K. But I can't help wondering... I don't imagine the 2/3" chip is very far along in it's final design yet - as it seems much is dependent upon getting Epic "de-bugged." So, would it not be possible to slightly enlarge the chip, at the same pixel size, and squeeze 4K out of it. The only specific argument against this right now is the mini-primes. If that design is completely finalized and they are all but in production, I guess they'd become useless if the "smaller" Scarlet chip jumped to 13 x 6.5 mm or some such? Can't help but wonder...
Click to expand...

I agree. I've never fully understood why Red would want to fab out a completely separate sensor to make an entry level brain. We know the Red team is superhuman in the number and quality of development projects going on in parallel, but one less sensor package to support is also a lot more resources dedicated to moving everything else forward.

The Scarlett 2/3 supports Nikon and Canon mounts, so presumably a larger 4K sensor would fit just fine physically and optically. Since Red makes standard PL mount lenses, they could just dump the mini-primes. I think the big question in this scenario is whether the 2/3 fixed zoom can support a larger sensor without a major redesign?

My money is on, as you said, same 2/3 size except with a 4K bayer pattern. This keeps the nice svelte form factor and use of the mini-primes and fixed zoom. However, adding that many more photo receptors to a 2/3 sensor in a way that keeps quality and DRange is a big challenge. Solving that challenge would certainly show the world that 4K acquisition is not just for "major motion pictures" as was mentioned earlier, it's for everyone.

Of course, the other possibility is that Jim just wanted to see a lot of people argue about resolution this morning. :smile:
 
Grant_Wood said:
Of course, the other possibility is that Jim just wanted to see a lot of people argue about resolution this morning. :smile:
Click to expand...
Hmm, if Jim is killing the Epic and high-end Scarlet models, he will need something to occupy his time -- first starting arguments here, then later, barroom brawls.
 
At this point I see no reason to hope for any more than what has been promised. Further, I don't see a problem with both ideas existing together in harmony; Home Theatre will distribute in 4k, and your entry level 2/3 Scarlet will give you extraordinary 1080 for your small projects and home movies. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
 
Personally, I'd rather have a 4/3 3K Scarlet than a 2/3 4K one.

Pretty much a Scarlet to directly compete with Panasonic's future AG-AF100 and other (rumored) camcorders from Sony and Canon.

1080p will be the VHS of the future, indeed, but it should take 10 to 20 years for that to happen.

I don't have the figures, but worldwide I'd say more than 80% of all media is watched in SD. Even people who own HDTVs still watch DVDs and SD television.

5K, 4K is great for narrative, cinema work.

For anything else, I'd say 3K acquisition and 1080p delivery will be more than enough for at least a decade.

But of course, I might be wrong.
 
Scott Crawley said:
At this point I see no reason to hope for any more than what has been promised. Further, I don't see a problem with both ideas existing together in harmony; Home Theatre will distribute in 4k, and your entry level 2/3 Scarlet will give you extraordinary 1080 for your small projects and home movies. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Really? If home theater is 4K, wouldn't 2K/1080p -- no matter how extraordinary -- look like SD does now on a 50-inch plasma? I don't think Red intends 2/3-inch Scarlet to be relegated to "small projects" or, worse yet, home movies. It's supposed to be a professional camera.
 
Daniel Valle said:
Personally, I'd rather have a 4/3 3K Scarlet than a 2/3 4K one.

Pretty much a Scarlet to directly compete with Panasonic's future AG-AF100 and other (rumored) camcorders from Sony and Canon.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, the AF100 has only the 4/3 format going for it, at least vs. the HMC150. I think the format is too close in size to s35 to be worthwhile for Red to pursue.
 
Companies make smaller sensors for one main reason, they are cheaper to manufacturer. The larger an analog design, the more you deal with process variation across the whole sensor. This means that not every sensor that comes out of fabrication is usable. This is how it's been with CMOS technology for a long time.

Given they've developed a pretty amazing pixel design from what I have seen posted online, it makes sense to me for them to tap another market and get people like me who cannot afford an Epic into the mix. When I can afford it, and having had the benefit of higher resolution frames, why would I pick anything else?

From my perspective, RED is helping to take the 'access to technology' out of the equation for the lower budget filmmaker. I have no doubt 4K is coming, as television manufacturers are always going to be looking for something new to entice new sales and to bring people to "their" product. It only makes sense. Eventually, unless building codes change, we are going to reach the theoretical limit on how large a screen is going to be in a house on average :) I'm lucky, my house was built in 1834 so it has 10 foot ceilings!

Let's face one simple point, if 1080p was enough for ANY of you, would you be here on REDUser?
 
Daniel Valle said:
Personally, I'd rather have a 4/3 3K Scarlet than a 2/3 4K one.

Pretty much a Scarlet to directly compete with Panasonic's future AG-AF100 and other (rumored) camcorders from Sony and Canon.
Click to expand...

Scarlet S35 competes with and outdoes those cameras.

And there is a lot of room for a good 2/3" camera. Shallow depth of field isn't desirable for a lot of things - in fact more depth of field really helps in many of the segments that sell the most cameras. News, corporate, home, and even on the high end - for example nature photography - a 2/3" chip will be very advantageous for shooting subjects at hundreds of yards away as is commonly done with long telephoto lenses on current 2/3" cameras. A little extra depth of field there is very helpful. (background separation with a 200mm lens will be very easy even at the f2.8 of a canon 70-200) Not to mention that those long zoom lenses are a lot lighter and faster for a smaller sensor.

Our industry has been making very high quality 2K 2/3" sensors for over 10 years - so equivalent or better in a 4K chip (2x or 4x depending on how you look at it) after 5 or 6 moore's law cycles should certainly be feasible.
 
Lawrence Bansbach said:
Really? If home theater is 4K, wouldn't 2K/1080p -- no matter how extraordinary -- look like SD does now on a 50-inch plasma? I don't think Red intends 2/3-inch Scarlet to be relegated to "small projects" or, worse yet, home movies. It's supposed to be a professional camera.
Click to expand...

Well, when faced with the apparent truths you consider the two and decide which is most likely. A. There is some future Graeme magic that will squeeze 4k out of the 2/3, or B. The entry level camera isn't going to give the same picture quality as the flagship product with a full 35mm sensor. The second option just seems like a safer bet. Would the Graeme magic suprise me? Certainly not.
 
Scott Crawley said:
Well, when faced with the apparent truths you consider the two and decide which is most likely. A. There is some future Graeme magic that will squeeze 4k out of the 2/3, or B. The entry level camera isn't going to give the same picture quality as the flagship product with a full 35mm sensor. The second option just seems like a safer bet. Would the Graeme magic suprise me? Certainly not.
Click to expand...
I agree, those seem to be the two main possibilities. But it seems a little strange that Jim has repeatedly said, "The future is 4K," when the 2/3 Scarlet isn't 4K and its output likely won't scale up to 4K very well. That's essentially like saying 2/3 Scarlet is obsolescent before it's even released. That would be, to say the least, an oddly interesting way to advertise it -- "Rendering obsolescence kind of certain."
 
#21

#21

Well Jim, is it time to tell us what "21. Something very interesting goes here..." means?

Does it involve a "4" and a "K"?

Will there be tattoo'd versions of the Scarlett platform?
 
Measured resolution of Scarlet 3K (3072) will be about 2.5K, which is just a tad short of high speed film from a 4K scan. It is in an odd place. We feel that it may marginally make a 4K output (about as well as a 5D makes a 1080P output). It is NOT what we consider a 35mm film alternative camera. It is an under $5K alternative to an F23 or 950. There is a reason for such a price difference between a 2/3" camera, along with its less expensive lens options, and an S35 camera. S16mm film is not S35mm film. 2/3" is not S35 digital.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
Measured resolution of Scarlet 3K (3072) will be about 2.5K, which is just a tad short of high speed film from a 4K scan. It is in an odd place. We feel that it may marginally make a 4K output (about as well as a 5D makes a 1080P output). It is NOT what we consider a 35mm film alternative camera. It is an under $5K alternative to an F23 or 950. There is a reason for such a price difference between a 2/3" camera, along with its less expensive lens options, and an S35 camera. S16mm film is not S35mm film. 2/3" is not S35 digital.

Jim
Click to expand...
Thank you for clearing that up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top