Good enough...

[Grant_Wood]

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

Thanks for the clarification.

The price gap between Scarlet models is one thing, but the price difference between the 2/3 and say a Lumix GH1 + Hot Rod PL adapter or other DSLR rigs is what will really open people's eyes. This camera is going to make a lot of people very happy. :smile:

 

[Sami S]

Theres a market for people using videocameras for home movies, theres a market for aspiring filmmakers like myself who do ads and music videos. Then theres the professionals who do big screen stuff, big budget ads etc.

People making home movies or shooting their own festivities care for ease of use and price. They dont want a shallow depth of field sensor that is hard to focus and needs a workflow harder than connecting the camera to the tv. I believe most aspiring filmmakers who shoot short form would prefer larger sensors then 2/3" size, my favourite is actually 4/3". Look at the huge boom of the DSLR's which is a proof of this in my opinion. Professionals choose their weapons and will always find use for any of these tools. But I believe majority would go with larger sensors.

Looking at the Scarlet 2/3" with the known specs at this time I don't really see it hitting the nerve of any of these three masses out there. A year ago it would have. Maybe not anymore, what do you think? Am I totally wrong?

I'm definately considering bying a Scarlet, I want to be a part of this as it's way too exciting of a company and business model not to. But to me it's an everyday back and forth between the S35 Scarlet and the 2/3".

Sami

 

[NEIL ANDREW BATES]

Speaking of Scarlet's, is it too early for either of the big J's to reveal the date of the mid may announcement? Or have I just mentioned the elephant in the room (need a blushing hand over mouth smiley here)

 

[chrislancaster]

Theres a market for people using videocameras for home movies, theres a market for aspiring filmmakers like myself who do ads and music videos. Then theres the professionals who do big screen stuff, big budget ads etc.

People making home movies or shooting their own festivities care for ease of use and price. They dont want a shallow depth of field sensor that is hard to focus and needs a workflow harder than connecting the camera to the tv. I believe most aspiring filmmakers who shoot short form would prefer larger sensors then 2/3" size, my favourite is actually 4/3". Look at the huge boom of the DSLR's which is a proof of this in my opinion. Professionals choose their weapons and will always find use for any of these tools. But I believe majority would go with larger sensors.

Looking at the Scarlet 2/3" with the known specs at this time I don't really see it hitting the nerve of any of these three masses out there. A year ago it would have. Maybe not anymore, what do you think? Am I totally wrong?

I'm definately considering bying a Scarlet, I want to be a part of this as it's way too exciting of a company and business model not to. But to me it's an everyday back and forth between the S35 Scarlet and the 2/3".

Sami

i thought the same but .. this camera is a major step up ..

everything from REDcode RAW vs h264 - i think this is the most important

look at your jpeg vs raw off a dslr its night and day

24 or 60 fps vs 24 - 120 fps with burst to 150
etc..

i just hope i can hand hold the scarlet and not see the massive jello like a dslr with a prime

 

[Sami S]

Speaking of Scarlet's, is it too early for either of the big J's to reveal the date of the mid may announcement? Or have I just mentioned the elephant in the room (need a blushing hand over mouth smiley here)

I'd put my money on Sunday 16th (17th might be the official date for the update but everyone will stay up late on 16th )

 

[Rick Burnett]

I hope people realize the significance of this!

I don't think a lot of people do. There are A LOT of people out there that mistakingly think that anything close to the specs of the Scarlet is ANYWHERE near the cost. It amazes me still. I have to educate people about this on a regular basis.

It actually makes me laugh to think that my two highest resolution displays, two Apple 30 inch, are still lower resolution than what the Scarlet will shoot.

Jim, can you guys start making LCD panels? I am REALLY tired of waiting for high density displays at a reasonable price.

 

[Sami S]

i thought the same but .. this camera is a major step up ..

everything from REDcode RAW vs h264 - i think this is the most important

look at your jpeg vs raw off a dslr its night and day

24 or 60 fps vs 24 - 120 fps with burst to 150
etc..

i just hope i can hand hold the scarlet and not see the massive jello like a dslr with a prime

This is so true, well, Im getting one anyways, just for the 150fps...

 

[Rick Burnett]

I'm definately considering bying a Scarlet, I want to be a part of this as it's way too exciting of a company and business model not to. But to me it's an everyday back and forth between the S35 Scarlet and the 2/3".

Sami

I can at least share my perspective as we seem to be in the same ballpark. For me it was this simple.

For the 2/3 I want the deep focus advantage for fight scenes and action for some of the projects I am involved with. I also want the 120fps for slow motion work.

For the S35 I want a sensor similar to APS-C (although closer to APS-H) because this is my FAVORITE sensor size that I work with often. This will allow me to shoot Shallow DoF easily in the confines sometimes I work in AND will almost be a 1:1 for the collection of Canon lenses I have.

So instead of either/or, It's both for me. They each bring something to the table that I want. The great part, I only need to add the brain/mount. (although I will probably add the side CF depending on how easy that stuff is to swap).

I don't really see any other path from any other provider that can offer this flexibility at this price point.

 

[Sami S]

So instead of either/or, It's both for me. They each bring something to the table that I want. The great part, I only need to add the brain/mount. (although I will probably add the side CF depending on how easy that stuff is to swap).

I don't really see any other path from any other provider that can offer this flexibility at this price point.

That would indeed be the optimal solution. For me it's a simple issue of money. I don't make my income with videos yet. My max spending for a cam would go around 5000 euros. But my plan is that I will buy the fixed or interchangable and rent it, try to make money off it and maybe sometime later I can afford the S35 brain.

sami

 

[conrad gaunt]

I don't really see any other path from any other provider that can offer this flexibility at this price point.

I agree. If I could afford a scarlet and the Epic-x stage3, I'd have both. I'm actually thinking scarlet fixed lens right now.. I like shooting with equipment limitations , keeps you focused on whats important, and with the higher ISO ratings of the sensors, the fixed lens should be fun to play with..

 

[Erik Franzén]

Wander my friends...and find out for yourself what is good enough. =)

 

[Tim Bird]

... when I tried selling this film to a major Japanese broadcaster I received the greatest shock of my like, I was categorically told that the film was great but they did not buy anything that was not shot in HD.

Yusuf Thakur
VFX, DUBAI

Yusuf,

Everyone has their agenda. In the early 90s, I was the advanced TV technology evangelist for a major Japanese electronics company. I provided HD gear and sat on discussion panels at the Jackson Hole IWFF you mentioned. At that time, there was not yet a broadcast standard for HD in the US. But in the interest of creating a world-wide standard from NHK's "Hi-Vision", Japan was just a little myopic.

NHK's mandate that all programming be HD originated was a way to force Japanese consumers to buy new TV sets. So, your program being denied has almost nothing to do with quality programming and more to do with Japan's heavy-handed approach toward forced adoption of new technology.

The company I worked for had investments with one of the big-dog studios in Hollywood. To make the most of that relationship, my company forced a number of meetings to see how we could integrate our gear into their production workflow. It didn't work. In late '92, I wrote a memo to our Japanese engineers explaining why they got so much resistance from the Hollywood guys. The problems, in a nutshell...

* Strike 1 - The Japanese HD system was 15:9 (later 16:9 after the US settled on that spec.) No major film since the early 50s (or thereabout) has been shot more narrow than 1.85:1, or 17:9.

* Strike 2 - The Japanese system was 1125 lines rather than a more friendly 1050 (2 times 525 lines of NTSC.) More importantly, Hollywood prefers NO fixed scan structure to better facilitate world-wide distribution.

* Strike 3 - The Japanese system was interlaced rather than progressive (nuf' said there.)

* Strike 4 - As practical props and on-set video playback, our consumer TV sets could not be re-timed to operate at 24fps so they were of no use.

The Japanese were baffled that their system, with more lines and a higher frame rate, was not acceptable to Hollywood. They decided that Hollywood lacked vision.

In that same memo, I outlined specs for an HD acquisition system Hollywood might embrace. It called for reducing the frame rate from 30fps interlaced to 24fps progressive. At any given line structure, this would produce a savings of 25-30% in bandwidth. With the excess data available they could expand to aspect ratio to 1.85 and apply a lower rate of color sub-sampling (compression) thus, improving picture quality.

My memo was discarded by the Japanese office.

Two years later, having left that company, I read a white paper by Larry Thorpe (former HD guru with Sony and almost single handedly responsible for their stake in the US HD market.) In his paper he described a system for acquiring HD at 24fps. Although he made no reference to expansion of the aspect ratio to something sensible, his paper became the foundation for 24P as a viable production platform.

Larry Thorpe has since left Sony to become Canon's broadcast lens guru.

At NAB, Sony showed a camera under glass that looked like nothing more than an FX-1 on a rod support system with a matte box. This charade was intended to "demonstrate" they also have a large format camera that accepts interchangeable lenses under development. Problem is, it was just a few years after the RED One, nearly two years after the Canon 5D and concurrently with ARRI and Aaton.

With both ARRI and Aaton going digital (new areas for them) it basically reduces their value in the market to that of a company that makes reputable lens mounts... everything past the lens is a new game for them. In Aaton's case, they have simply partnered with Dalsa.

The only companies not starting from scratch are the lens manufacturers (I always did think Larry Thorpe was a terrific card player.) So in my mind it's a new game. The only thing RED may lack is the manufacturing experience. In all other areas they are not only an innovator, but the absolute driver in this industry. I'd like to see Thorpe (with all the luck of the Irish) and Jim Jannard play cards!

Tim Bird
Blast Editorial Services
Dallas, TX

 

[Robert Kurhajetz]

1080P is the VHS of the future... mark my words.

Jim

just wondering...are the t-shirt and bumper stick rights already snapped up for this ?

 

[Tim Bird]

Titanic shot on 35mm, released in 1997, Original Star wars 35mm 20 years before that. So rather little in the last 10 years....

Avatar would then 'prove' 1080p is good enough.

Stephen

Story... Star Wars (with all due respect) was weak, but I was 10 when I saw it so I didn't care... I was at the movies. Avatar was very weak. I liked what I saw, but I wouldn't mind having 3 hours and $20 back. Titanic was okay. Awesome effects but cheesy dialogue and Leo's acting. What all three had going for them was spectacle, the likes of which had never been seen before. THAT's what sold those movies. Problem is, they are isolated examples of success despite their shortcomings (multi-million dollar promotional campaigns didn't hurt either.) I cannot think of many other smash films with such weak story lines.

Consider: Ron Howard's Far and Away was shot in 65mm, had few visual FX (sky replacement) and flopped. His Apollo 13 was shot on 35mm, was filled with effects and was a smashing success. It seems format played a lesser role in their relative success than effects and story.

The best Star Wars movie of all was Empire Strikes Back... written (in part) by Lawrence Kasdan and Directed by Irvin Kirshner. If Lucas had passed the reigns of the pre-quels to such experts I might have a different favorite. (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI&feature=related)

A VP of Technology at a major studio once told me, "He'd put movies on toilet paper if he could... all the rest is the ego and irresponsibility of the Director."

The point being:

1) story is critical.
2) saving money on production increases the likelihood of profit.
3) as long as you can discern what's happening on screen, you're ok.

Minimize your variables and shoot on the best format you can afford. If that's not good enough, then scrape up more money. Meanwhile, tell a good story.

"Good enough" resolution depends on how "good enough" the story is.

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

just wondering...are the t-shirt and bumper stick rights already snapped up for this ?

Yes of course..
This guys took the job and they making very nice t-shirts
http://www.cafepress.com/momboughtmeared

 

[Jay Patton]

It seems like, if Arri could have made Alexa a 4k camera, they would have done it. They just don't know how. So, they try to convince people that 1920 is good enough. They are just trying to sell their camera. They have years of filmmakers telling them they are the best, so for them to see RED blowing up what they see as THEIR scene, then they are just getting a few jabs in as they retire to the follow focus business. Even they know that that claim is full of crap.

There is a reason that out of the 5 million pairs of sunglasses with the Oakley "O" on them sold every year, 1 million of those pairs are knock-offs.

If Arri could do 4k, there is no question that they would do that shit. And, when they finally do get their 4k or 5k working, will they still be talking out of the same side of their mouths about 2k being good enough? Hell no, they will be rolling in the silky smooth featherbed known as Super-HD, meanwhile RED will be doing things only wizards with long ass beards know how to do.

 

[Rick Burnett]

The point being:

1) story is critical.
2) saving money on production increases the likelihood of profit.
3) as long as you can discern what's happening on screen, you're ok.

Minimize your variables and shoot on the best format you can afford. If that's not good enough, then scrape up more money. Meanwhile, tell a good story.

"Good enough" resolution depends on how "good enough" the story is.

I see this come about, and agree that story is critical, but this is not a creative writing user group. The RED camera is not designed to make your dialog better, your actors more talented, nor your story more interesting.

It will help make it prettier.

But this sort of argument has no relevance to the technical merits of what many people are here for. They are filming for a customer. When I am filming for someone else, I don't have control of the story, control of who they cast. What I do control is the image. So naturally, given my focus on the project, I'd want to do the best I possibility could with the best equipment available. People probably originally made shadow puppets in front of their new found fire in the beginning to tell stories. I'm sure one of the cavemen asked "Is fire enough?"

The point being, this is about VISUAL acceptance of a film replacement. When looking in that context, I think most here agree, 1080p does not equal a replacement for film, period.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It seems like, if Arri could have made Alexa a 4k camera, they would have done it. They just don't know how. So, they try to convince people that 1920 is good enough.

Their camera is 3.5K RAW -- you're telling me that they can make a 3.5K RAW camera but don't know how to make a 4K RAW camera???

They made a CHOICE based on a wide array of engineering and manufacturing factors, but don't suggest that a lack of skill or knowledge was the basic problem.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

3072 x 1728 according to their specs for RAW recording, which is 5308416 pixels recorded. The 3.5k refers to the "look around" area, not the recorded area. RED 4k recorded is 9437184, or 1.77 times as many pixels. Epic 5k is 2.6 times as many pixels recorded.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Whoa cowpokes. Starting with 3.5K worth of bayer pattern data to create a 1080 by 1920 (roughly 2K) image sounds like a smart choice for the engineering target they apparently had in mind. Moreover, I agree with David that using the specs of the Alexa to infer what Arri can and cannot do is preposterous.

Cheers - #19