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 :)

Is 2/3" going to be enough?

The positive reaction to the "House" Canon 5D episode does indicate that many people cherish the shallow-focus look of larger sensors over a lot of other image quality parameters. I mean, if the argument for the 5D was that they needed a small camera for the set, then why not use the S.I. 2K Mini, as "Slumdog Millionaire" did? After all, that camera in some ways is better-designed for cinema shooting, and the image quality should be a bit higher. But it has a 2/3" sensor... for some, that's not as cool as a FF35 sensor.

On the other hand, 2/3" photography is well-established for docs, industrials, ENG/EFP, etc. Those programs don't have much of an issue with the depth of field characteristics of 2/3".

For me, 2/3" depth of field is fine for many narrative cinema productions -- not every movie has to have a shallow-focus look, even though it is pretty. Back in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, Hollywood cinematographers would have killed for a high resolution camera where getting deeper focus was easier, since many DP's were aiming for an f/5.6 or deeper look. You just have to shoot a 2/3" camera at f/2.0-2.8 split to get the look of f/5.6 in 35mm. And a lot of people shooting 3D find the extra depth of field in 2/3" photography to be a blessing.

But super-shallow focus has one advantage -- people don't expect video photography to have that look. I think we mentally associate that look with film, particularly larger-format film, ignoring all the other image characteristics.
 
As many others have said the predominant taste of people will not continually be less and less depth of field. It's "new" right now, because of the availability of the DSLR's but I think that will wane.
 
David Battistella said:
Why would I transcode h264 (which I would have to do anyway) if I could transcode right from the R3D?

Prores module or a direct to edit codec makes sense in your argument, sorry H.264 needs to be turned into something to edit with. (same as other systems that use that codec)

David
Click to expand...

Live mobile broadcast over a 4G iPad & Wifi. What is ENG about anyway if not mobile live news. SCARLET + Wifi H.264 module and next generation 4G iPad gives you a mobile news broadcast truck in a briefcase. Not to mention you'll be able to edit and probably even live-switch the footage on the iPad as it streams over 4G worldwide.

-michael zaletel
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The positive reaction to the "House" Canon 5D episode does indicate that many people cherish the shallow-focus look of larger sensors over a lot of other image quality parameters.
Click to expand...

Positive reaction? Really? House is perhaps my favorite show. Watch it every week on an HD Projector at about 14' diagonal. This last episode made me want to puke. No shadow detail, no texture... and I watched it with an open mind. Only reason it looked halfway decent is because of the indisputable talent behind and in front of the lens, the very expensive sets and the (as always) excellent story in spite of the 5D and it's crappy compression. Sorry, but go shoot something, anything, with a 5D and the RED at the same time with same lenses and same lights and then crop half of each picture side by side. It's literally like night and day. The 5D2 only looks good when there is no frame of reference to compare it to and the eye just assumes that's what stuff looked like. (And that's not a good thing)

-michael zaletel
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The positive reaction to the "House" Canon 5D episode does indicate that many people cherish the shallow-focus look of larger sensors over a lot of other image quality parameters. I mean, if the argument for the 5D was that they needed a small camera for the set, then why not use the S.I. 2K Mini, as "Slumdog Millionaire" did? After all, that camera in some ways is better-designed for cinema shooting, and the image quality should be a bit higher. But it has a 2/3" sensor... for some, that's not as cool as a FF35 sensor.

On the other hand, 2/3" photography is well-established for docs, industrials, ENG/EFP, etc. Those programs don't have much of an issue with the depth of field characteristics of 2/3".

For me, 2/3" depth of field is fine for many narrative cinema productions -- not every movie has to have a shallow-focus look, even though it is pretty. Back in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, Hollywood cinematographers would have killed for a high resolution camera where getting deeper focus was easier, since many DP's were aiming for an f/5.6 or deeper look. You just have to shoot a 2/3" camera at f/2.0-2.8 split to get the look of f/5.6 in 35mm. And a lot of people shooting 3D find the extra depth of field in 2/3" photography to be a blessing.

But super-shallow focus has one advantage -- people don't expect video photography to have that look. I think we mentally associate that look with film, particularly larger-format film, ignoring all the other image characteristics.
Click to expand...

Very valid points. From what I have heard, shooting at T1.3-1.5 on a 2/3" chip gives the same look in terms of shallow DOF as a s35 cam shooting at T4.0. Is this correct?

T4.0 on a s35 cam provides plenty of shallow DOF so a Scarlet interchangeable with a 2/3" sensor, using a fast cinema lens wide open and ND filters if needed, can provide that shallow DOF film look. It just takes a little extra work and no, you can not get it as shallow as a 5D but then again, I was never a fan of bokeh so shallow that you had no idea what was in the background. A background a little out of focus is more than enough to draw attention to your subject. I would one again like to highlight films that have either used 2/3" chips or 16 mm film (which is very similar in size).

Zodiac: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eLy1Lhym3Y

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6wP_LKA0DE

The Hurt Locker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GxSDZc8etg&feature=related

Youth Without Youth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn0XGlwTKCI&feature=related

Slumdog Millionaire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIzbwV7on6Q

Just to name a few. The last two best picture winners have used this format. I think that 2/3" is plenty.
 
David Battistella said:
...
And I want to be really clear. I am not "anti" anything. Just asking questions out loud here. The FF Scarlett has a place for sure. I am just not sure where the 2/3" fits, that's all.

David
Click to expand...

At ~$5K w/ lens, 2/3rd's fits very nicely into people's wallets.
 
Brigham Edgar said:
why the FF DSLR is making massive moves
Click to expand...

While true, what about if RED made a FF Scarlet sensor by keeping the same amount of pixels but the distance between the pixel rows were coarse as if dummy lines were added? I wonder whether anybody would buy such a camera with a "coarse sensor" although that's still what line skipping is basically about. :-)

... joking, of course. My point is just that it's difficult to compare apples to oranges.
 
Peter Moretti said:
At ~$5K w/ lens, 2/3rd's fits very nicely into people's wallets.
Click to expand...

OK. So this is all about money. I'm not sure that you'll be completely up and running (the way you might expect to be) without any accessories, etc, which will easily push this up to closer to 10K, which is still a third the price of EPIC, so maybe your point still makes sense.

David
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The positive reaction to the "House" Canon 5D episode does indicate that many people cherish the shallow-focus look of larger sensors over a lot of other image quality parameters.
Click to expand...

I've thought for quite a while that RED would have sold just as many cameras if the the R1 sensor was 1080P/2K S35 size with the higher frame rates.

Not that I don't appreciate 4k, but I think the critical sales factors were S35 sensor, onboard recording, and price.
 
I see scarlet (After the initial zerg of short films) settling into an EFP camera, and documentary camera. And a massive sports presence, 120fps is the most overlooked feature in Scarlet. Nothing does this in the same price range.
If you had the choice between an EX3 or a Scarlet (Which is the real comparison, those that buy HDSLRs won't want the 2/3rds I dont think their after an aesthetic not a technology) I know what I would choose.
 
The 2/3 sensor capability as far as image quality has proved it self for a very long time in more then one way, and with the new to come Scarlet 2/3, especially the interchangeable one, you will be looking at an more then ideal S3D camera system to go very nicely with many high end projects, I in fact believe that mainly to its physical form factor and the TINY lenses, this camera with a 3k image will make an incredible tool for S3D rigs, and provide with plenty image quality to please any larger Movie project as well.

But I believe that for Monoscopic Movie Making I would still much refer the S35, and or FF35, but I'm extremely curious to see what we can do with the Epic 645, which will be my ultimate Goal, for Photography, so will be nice to be able to use that for all my Film projects as well.


Bigger sensor, more shallow DOF you get, less fast lenses you need to get the effect, more wide you can get, and so on, some times Bigger it is Better.
 
Jay Gannon said:
I see scarlet (After the initial zerg of short films) settling into an EFP camera, and documentary camera. And a massive sports presence, 120fps is the most overlooked feature in Scarlet. Nothing does this in the same price range.
If you had the choice between an EX3 or a Scarlet (Which is the real comparison, those that buy HDSLRs won't want the 2/3rds I dont think their after an aesthetic not a technology) I know what I would choose.
Click to expand...

Jay, I think you nailed it as far as the main market. And even for indies most people that would do low budget indie movies - if they are making a living in motion pictures - need to do docs, corporate, etc. and 2/3 is as good or better than S35 for that.

And as David Mullen said the 2/3" will work fine for most narrative anyway, with greater sensitivity and faster lenses to get equivalent shallow dof (think mini-primes) - or just having a bit more dof.

Combining the scarlet with a Canon T2i for those things that really need shallow DOF only costs another $900 and as I said before you also get a nice 18MP stills camera for BTS, Continuity pics, superduper light meter/directors viewfinder, second/backup camera, etc.
 
Carl Weston said:
I agree that the R3D files are a problem. R3D files do not equal fast turnaround times..I hope we get some other compressed file format options like ProRes, H.264 ...I can wish can't I?
Click to expand...

I totally don't get why people would want to edit H.264... I'd take R3D any time over an interframe format.
 
David Battistella said:
I have said this in other threads but I do not see the need for 2/3" camera with specialty glass...

It feels like a collossal effort in a saturated market.

Of course, RED might know or understand something we all do not.

Personally, I would like to see RED striving for the higher end market, do that really well, and be the smart choice for digital cinema, which itself is becoming an increasingly competitive market.

I have never been a fan of lesser versions of the best product. In apple's case FCP vs. FCE, AVID released handcuffed versions of their software at one point.

The EPIC seems like a big improvement on RED ONE, but seriously I do not know why anyone would want a 2/3" inch camera when there are R1's R1-MX cameras hitting the market at a really decent prices after EPIC.

It will be interesting to watch.

David

David
Click to expand...

I am truly have a hard time wrapping my head around this idea. If it didn't come from someone whose posts I have enjoyed and learned so much from (thanks, David) I would have dismissed it out of hand!

There are so many advantages to Scarlet that I have a hard time believing anyone would question what I consider its EXTREME viability in the marketplace. Frankly, I think it would kick ass with a 1/3" sensor.

First, the big deal is Redcode RAW - which means better color space for chromakeying and overall post production grading flexibility. And it is visually lossless compression with manageable data rates and file sizes. It also looks like it will have great dynamic range and low light performance. Let's not forget 120 fps and 3K resolution. And with very fast read-reset times, it will get rid of (or vastly reduce) the whole rolling shutter problem of most other CMOS sensors. And features like touch screen focus and overall modularity don't hurt either. Finally, even if it comes in close to $10K for a full kit, it's a better camera than a EX1 (IMHO) for just a little more money.

Now - as for the 2/3" sensor - isn't it true that the F35, F900 are 2/3 inch? And, as several people have noted on this forum, big sensors often mean needing a focus puller or suffering some out of focus shots. With the silly obsession with shallow DOF aside, this is a very versatile, very capable sensor. If, like me, you are moving from a 1/3" sensor, it feels like a football field! We have all discussed the "issues" with the DSLRs ad nauseum (although it hasn't quelled the stampede) so I won't go there. But, I think we can all agree that those issues will be a thing of the past when you have a Scarlet in your hands.

For the record, I don't happen to think the Scarlet, in any current shape or form, is likely to be big in ENG but I don't think that really matters as it is the perfect indie film and doc camera and will probably be used a lot in TV and feature film as well. Just one guy's opinion.
 
Let's think of some major advantages over S35:

1) Maintaining deep focus. Especially at night and in low light conditions. Yes, the sensitivity will be a tad lower than M-X S35, but it should be close enough as long as you don't push the ISOs much.
2) Size, portability, flexibility. And price. This extends to not just the camera, but lens, rigs and pretty much all accessories.
3) Zoom range. If you are a fan of the incredible zooms on Barry Lyndon, a S16 20x zoom lens is manageable compared to the behemoth 10+x 35mm zoom lenses (and by extension, much much cheaper).
4) High frame rates.

1) and 2) make it easily the ideal choice for handheld or steadicam photography.

As for shallow depth of field, it really isn't a massive difference. You are just 2.5 stops or so (please correct me) away. A 2/3" wide open is enough for practical use of isolating your subject from the background. Now, of course, you won't get the extreme depth of field a f/1.2 lens on a FF35 DSLR will give you. However, for such a dreamy and expressionistic visual effect, there will no doubt be DOF adapters or Lensbaby-type optics available.

I don't expect Scarlets to eat up much into the DSLR market though. A $800 T2i is too good a deal - and for the thousands of students out there, it is the only option they can afford.

Versus a S35 Scarlet. Once you account for lenses and modules, the price difference will be substantial. And you lose the 4 advantages. The significant advantages for the S35 are the massive increase in resolution, and much lower (finer) noise at higher ISOs.

What I would like to see in the future are advanced sensors which introduce high resolutions, sensitivity and dynamic range at the 2/3" / S16 size. But then, I am the deep focus / long steadicam shots / extreme zoom person. (basically, Barry Lyndon/The Shining)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top