Is 2/3" going to be enough?

[Steve_Cox]

If Scarlet was priced at $2000 they would be at the same market.

And yes, it would eat into Scarlet market because Scarlet is not here yet.

I think the feature-set alone sets these two cameras far apart.

For what I need in a camera, which I detailed earlier, both would do the job, with the only real bummer being the loss of the slow-motion (120-150 fps).

I still would prefer the Scarlet, and my budget is more or less whatever I need it to be, within reason, but this Sony actually has a street date and does everything I would personally need it to do, except for the slow-motion (and even that, I can use JES Deinterlacer to turn 60i into 60P, then slow it down, so it's not the end of the world).

And I'm betting there will be many more cameras in this line of Sony's coming out within a relatively short period of time with things like slow-motion and the like.

Like I said, I want to go with the Red, but depending on the release dates, what I can't afford is to wait through this off-season (from approximately Sept through Dec) and still not have the camera for what I need. The Sony comes out in September, but if before then, for example, Red tells us they're releasing the Scarlet in October or even November, I may wait. But if there is no announcement before that, I may be forced to buy the Sony.

And regarding the budget markets, I think there are a lot of people out there who simply want a value, so the actual dollar amount isn't that big of a deal. I can't afford to spend $15-20k on this, but I can afford quite a bit if I see the value in it.

Comparing the two, though, for my use, the only thing I really lose is the slow-motion, so the extra 3k for the Scarlet, that makes it easier to see the value in going with the 2k cam. Even then, as I said, I don't want to. I want the Scarlet. But the best camera is the one you can use, right?

 

[Stuart English]

Sony?

Sony?

Steve the bottom line is if Scarlet's features are not what you NEED, you probably should buy a less expensive Sony / Panasonic camera.

But as you hinted, the business model for those cameras assumes you will be back to buy their next slightly upgraded model, etc etc.


We are not serving that market. Scarlet is a camera for customers who desire a high performance investment that works for them over the long haul. If you can wait for us, we would sincerely appreciate your business. I know that you will not be disappointed in any aspect of our quality.

 

[H. Farberg]

The features Scarlet brings that I need, and therefore I will wait for them to arrive is in no particular order: HD+ resolution, minimal skew, high bitrate and high (100+) framerate.

Currently there is no camera offering these things in the Scarlet price range. (~$5K). This is why Scarlet Fixed is for me. Sensor size is way lower on the priority-list.

 

[JohnF]

I think we're understating the usefulness of being able to shoot from wide to very tight whilst carrying just a single lens. Perfect for fast paced shooting, logistically easy, great for EFP/ENG and not forgetting being much cheaper! All of which is perfect for a film-maker on a tight budget.

Furthermore, as some seem to forget, one can achieve shallow depth of field with 2/3rd" cameras by just opening up the iris, moving the camera further away from the subject and zooming in (you'll probably need ND's to hand). There are limits to this technique but it is useful that this can be done whilst only working with one lens.

Meanwhile RED's modular design ethos of EPIC and SCARLET means that if one really needs 35mm DOF just rent a brain with the appropriate imager and it will work with the majority of one's kit.

That said some shots require deep DOF: for instance landscapes, or a rapidly changing dynamic (focus wise) situation or a scene in low light. A smaller imager enables one to shoot these scenes relatively easily as a single shooter/small crew.

So 2/3rd" imaging chips are fine. I foresee a great deal of material being shot on these cameras.

JohnF

 

[David Mullen ASC]

My guess is because digital typically captures more information in the shadows. Film is far superior when it comes to highlights (at least at the time), but digital is the choice for low-light photography. It allowed the likes of Fincher and Mann to film cities at night without additional lighting. Compared to film-shot nightscapes, this allowed for a distinctive, lively image. The 2/3" sensor also allowed for (relatively) deep focus at night. This was essential to the success of Zodiac and Collateral, which had night photography like no one had ever seen before.

Well, just to play devil's advocate, a lot of night scenes in "Zodiac" were lit, in the style of how most Fincher movies are lit, even the ones on film... it's just that the light level used was a bit lower and the focus was a bit deeper. But they could have achieved a similar look on film just as Fincher did on his film-shot "Seven" and "Fight Club" and "Panic Room", etc.

I think the ability to shoot longer takes and even delete ones he didn't like was as much a factor in Fincher shooting digital as the light level issue. Truth is that he always ends up underexposing a lot of his shots anyway, whether shooting film or digital, and both "Panic Room" (film) and "Zodiac" (digital) required de-graining and de-noising processing in post. I think he just has an aversion to high light levels, the lower the better. He must be loving the new M-X sensor!

One could argue that Michael Mann's digital movies show a more fundamental stylistic shift caused by uniquely digital tools, an embrace of electronic images, warts and all, whereas Fincher's digital movies look like his film movies, digital just allowing him to streamline a personal style he already started on film.

(On the other hand, I was watching Mann's "Thief" the other day and he was pushing for available light night photography even back then... so this has been a long-term obsession with him as well. It's just that he seems fine with Rec709 color space and gamma, gain, clipping, shutterless photography, and any number of other uniquely video effects.)

 

[M Most]

I think the ability to shoot longer takes and even delete ones he didn't like was as much a factor in Fincher shooting digital as the light level issue. Truth is that he always ends up underexposing a lot of his shots anyway, whether shooting film or digital, and both "Panic Room" (film) and "Zodiac" (digital) required de-graining and de-noising processing in post. I think he just has an aversion to high light levels, the lower the better.

Absolutely true. From what I've been told by some people involved, Fincher's embracing of digital had much more to do with work flow issues than any image considerations. Deleting takes was one thing he liked, having access to everything in post without having to order "B" negative was another, and electronic assembly was a third.

 

[Steve_Cox]

Steve the bottom line is if Scarlet's features are not what you NEED, you probably should buy a less expensive Sony / Panasonic camera.

But as you hinted, the business model for those cameras assumes you will be back to buy their next slightly upgraded model, etc etc.


We are not serving that market. Scarlet is a camera for customers who desire a high performance investment that works for them over the long haul. If you can wait for us, we would sincerely appreciate your business. I know that you will not be disappointed in any aspect of our quality.

I'm willing to wait, but not forever.

Get on it!

 

[Joshua Brown]

For me, the fixed scarlet is the perfect investment point. 5-7k for a very minimal kit and I have access to basically everything I need to get started. Wide to tight focal lengths, acceptable apertures, over cranking, and beautiful color science/DR.

Regarding this hotly debated DOF topic (and Ill thank David Mullen for his expert opinions). I am traveling india right now. I have a Nikon D40 with me. It has a sensor size (I believe) similar to that of the proposed 2/3" scarlet. I have the kit lense (f5.6) and an old f1.8 50mm with me. Just yesterday I was wishing I had my 50mm on to capture a certain image, but all I had was my kit lens at the moment. I was happily suprised as my sbject were the perfect size around and distance apart (6" / 3" respectively) to be perfectly silouetted by the DOF. The first coconut was in full focus and the second coconut behind it was in a very soft focus. Perfectly acceptable DOF with a 55mm lense at f5.6 and a sensor size comparable to that of the proposed scarlet. Now barring any weird f stop and fov conversions by Nikon, I can easily see the 2.6(?) f stop on the fixed scarlet being a glorious thing. Sure you won't get Just the iris of your protagonist in focus, but you can get his nose to his ear, more than adequate for a tight budget budding filmmaker.

That said it is a broad and general accusation on my part (and forgive me if this does not apply to you) that those complaining about the lack of DOF firstly have their priorities severely skewed, no realistic grasp or experience of the business end of filmmaking, and have probably never been on a for profit shoot. The obsession with DOF has to do mainly with pipe dream "what if's". I know I have been quite guilty of these in the past. With a dose of realism I see now the fixed scarlet is a more than adequate investment for me... You might be different.

-JABrown

 

[G Lap]

".....I have a Nikon D40 with me. It has a sensor size (I believe) similar to that of the proposed 2/3" scarlet....."

Your Nikon D40 doesn't have a sensor sized similarly to 2/3rds I'm afraid. It has a much larger APS-C (1.5x crop factor) sensor which is closer in size (a little smaller) to the Scarlet's S35 sensor (the S35 roughly equates to the 1.3x crop factor APS-H, as used on the Canon 1D Mk IV).


2/3" - 3072 x 1620 - 3K
10.1x 5.35mm MX
native 16:9 aspect ratio, approx 11.5mm diagonal,
3.3 micron pixels, approx: 5 mpx, 3.75 FOV crop factor.

S35 - 5120 x 2700 - 5K
30x15mm MX
native 16:9 aspect ratio, approx 33.5mm diagonal,
5.4 micron pixels, approx: 14mpx, 1.25 FOV crop factor (APS-H).

 

[Joshua Brown]

Your Nikon D40 doesn't have a sensor sized similarly to 2/3rds I'm afraid

Ah yes, you're right, momentary lapse in memory. My judgement however was based mainly off the idea that WFO on the fixed was basically the equivalent of WFO on my D40 with its kit lens. Obviously not a completely qualitative statement, but visually presumed to be quite similar.

-JABrown

 

[James Miller]

2/3

2/3

Once the punters are sitting in the theatre/loungeroom, none of this stuff matters at all. Is the story compelling? Do the images tell the story? I've done a number of edits recently shot on both 5Ds and RED Ones, and whilst they all "looked cool", none of them really did a very good job of conveying the narrative, because the DP had pretty much made himself a kick ass showreel instead of empowering the director to tell the story. If it suited the story, you could use a VHS-C camera. Not sure how many stops they have..........

This is becoming just like the AVID v FCP arguments, when people are watching the stuff we all make, they just don't care, what they care about is the story, the photography is there to serve the story, it isn't the story in and of itself.
I am hating dealing with 5D footage though. H264 is a great delivery format, not so much on the production side.

To me, the 2/3 Scarlett is kinda like a digital 16mm cam, not suited for everything, but very versatile, smaller than a 35 and produces images that can tell a story in an aesthetically pleasing way. Different to 35, or full frame, but does that make it worse? I think that would be an opinion surely.
I love the shallow DOF look, but I have to say (as have a few clients) I'm getting over it at the moment, especially the 5D stuff, that seems it's only trick.

 

[Jay Gannon]

Another massive market for Scarlet is the Sports and in particular the skating market, these kids have been spending thousands on tricked out FX-1's HVX-200's etc etc which have no over-crank and low quality... 120fps @ 3k is exactly what they want.

And the professional sports market is massive, I know I'll be making some climbing documentaries with mine, lightweight, over-crank, nice fixed lens (I aint changing lenses on a wall unless I really have to) perfect for that market. Small enough that underwater/splash housings wont cost the earth. Light enough that it can be put on a suction cup system on a kayak. Lots of very very large plus points for the sports documentary shooters. And 2/3'd is a plus as you want deep focus when shooting this type of thing for the scenery and context and because its too fast moving to try and mess around with shallow DOF.

 

[David Rasberry]

Another massive market for Scarlet is the Sports and in particular the skating market, these kids have been spending thousands on tricked out FX-1's HVX-200's etc etc which have no over-crank and low quality... 120fps @ 3k is exactly what they want.

And the professional sports market is massive, I know I'll be making some climbing documentaries with mine, lightweight, over-crank, nice fixed lens (I aint changing lenses on a wall unless I really have to) perfect for that market. Small enough that underwater/splash housings wont cost the earth. Light enough that it can be put on a suction cup system on a kayak. Lots of very very large plus points for the sports documentary shooters. And 2/3'd is a plus as you want deep focus when shooting this type of thing for the scenery and context and because its too fast moving to try and mess around with shallow DOF.

Nature docs are well suited for 2/3" too. The cinema version will support very long telephoto lenses and zooms that are much smaller,lighter, and faster than anything available for 35mm. There are many genres and shooting styles other than narrative fiction that a digital 16mm equivalent is much better suited for than 35mm.

 

[Stuart English]

Scarlet 2/3"

Scarlet 2/3"

Agree 100%. Scarlet 2/3" is going to have a very busy future ahead of it both within, and outside of, cinematic style storytelling.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

It will be great.

 

[Stefan Christou]

"Is 2/3" going to be enough?"

Whatever

</flame>

 

[Stuart English]

Scarlet 2/3"

Scarlet 2/3"

To me, the 2/3 Scarlett is kinda like a digital 16mm cam, not suited for everything, but very versatile, smaller than a 35 and produces images that can tell a story in an aesthetically pleasing way. Different to 35, or full frame, but does that make it worse? I think that would be an opinion surely.

I love the shallow DOF look, but I have to say (as have a few clients) I'm getting over it at the moment, especially the 5D stuff, that seems it's only trick.

I agree, shallow DOF has its place, but like previous visual trends - page turns for example - it'll be used everywhere then become boring.

Picture quality though - resolution, dynamic range, color fidelity - is a constant need.

 

[David Rasberry]

Picture quality though - resolution, dynamic range, color fidelity - is a constant need.

Hopefully this is where the little Scarlet will truly shine.

 

[Marcos Luger]

Why when comparing 2/3 vs some other format always comes down to DOF ?

So I have one question:

If a take a shot with a 2/3 and a S35 Scarlet, exactly the same framing, exactly the same DOF, both with the right exposure, both downconverted to 1080, will the 2/3 image look less "cinematic" ?

 

[Brigham Edgar]

Q: Why has the DSLR craze been so popular and hugely successful?

A: Price and DOF!

I for one use 2/3" for the majority of my work and of course there will be a big market for Scarlet 2/3" outside of cinema and as well in, there is no denying or debating this especially if there is a B4 mount for HD television lenses. But for feature film etc I can't help thinking that if it is low budget and also new film makers that will be the primary sales base that the above two reasons will keep a huge amount of people going down the DSLR route. Getting the shallow DOF is just too huge of a deal for a lot of people and there is no denying it. Why else would they be so popular and get people shying away from established 2/3" cameras...price and most importantly DOF. 2/3" is certainly viable and will have a position in the market but i am willing to bet 100% right now that whatever happens, we will see s35 and ff35 size sensors to be where it is at for this market...period. The proof is already here. If RED were to release a ff35 Scarlet at the same time i would bet by money on the ff absolutely overwhelmingly being more in demand. What's more i cannot see many people trading in a 7D or 5D for a 2"3 sensored camera. But i can see them waiting for a s35 or ff brain to be released then getting on the DSMC wagon with their already well worked stills lenses to bolt on to them...but 2/3"...forget it...they will wait and who can blame them as i would do the same.
The lower end (budget wise) mass market has spoken well and truly.