Is 2/3" going to be enough?

[Stuart English]

2/3"

2/3"

That F800 clip looked like around 4-6 stops. It was flat as hell.

This clip is better for sure. http://vimeo.com/5619859

A pretty good example of the flexibility of 2/3" can do; but on a $45K camera in this case..

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

on a $45K camera in this case..

...which records 50Mb/s MPEG-2 CBR on optical disc.

 

[Robert Jackson]

-I've never been a fan of fixed lens cameras, they are always a compromise, not wide enough not tight enough.

-4K is becoming a standard, why dumb it down?

-Depth of field

All those "other" camera's also have a bunch of companies making lens adaptors and the like to give them the flexibility of interchangable lenses. The whole reason RED was created was to get away from this kind of disadvantage.

-on the non fixed lens end of things: you have to invest in a glass system that you can not use anywhere else. You might get to change lenses, but the lenses only cover one format with a new mount system.

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

2/3" is pretty similar to shooting 16mm. Anyone who's ever become really fond of their Bolex understands that a turret loaded with three primes can cover a lot more ground than guys with zooms sometimes like to think. ;-)

Shallow DOF is not really a problem (IMO), especially with the Red Mini Primes being as fast as they are. And in fact, for run-and-gun shooting it's really amazingly hard to pull focus for yourself ENG-style with a 35mm cinema camera. With a "VistaVision" Red FF it's likely to be a real ordeal. I don't even want to think about the larger sensor sizes that have been announced. They'll make the David Leans of the future really happy, but the Tobe Hoopers of the future aren't likely to be chasing bleeding blondes around in the woods with a Red 645. ;-)

As far as investing in glass, the pricing for the RMPs looks like it's going to be really reasonable. If three or four of those little lenses sets you back about what one larger format prime would cost I can't imagine being too upset that you can only use them with the camera they were designed to mount. And of course there's the 8x fixed for people who really love zooms.

I shot this with a 16mm camera (my old Canon Scoopic 16M) and dropping out background detail wasn't so hard. If I recall correctly this was at f/4 and somewhere close to 75mm. That's a 1080p frame grab from the telecine:

 

[David Rasberry]

For its price, you can consider the 8x fixed brain as a really good inexpensive robotic zoom lens with a free camera attached. I eventually would like to have one of each, a cinema and a fixed.
A 16mm replacement is exactly what I am looking for.

 

[Steve_Cox]

Okay, I'm convinced. So... WHEN?!

 

[Robert Jackson]

For its price, you can consider the 8x fixed brain as a really good inexpensive robotic zoom lens with a free camera attached. I eventually would like to have one of each, a cinema and a fixed.
A 16mm replacement is exactly what I am looking for.

Yeah, imagine how different all those 60's and 70's concert films woulda been if the camera operators hadn't been limited to ISO 200 and hadn't had to change magazines every 11 minutes. :biggrin:

If the 2/3" Scarlet performs as well as expected it's going to be a real Swiss Army Knife.

I'd like to see at least one (relatively small) extreme telephoto lens for it, though. Something like a 200mm f/2.8 would be great. You know, a Sam Peckinpah/Ridley Scott compression machine, but since the focal length doesn't have to be as extreme to get there the lens could be 5" long and around a pound or so instead of 30" long and in need of really serious support.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Not swiss... But still RED.

RED Army Knife.

:biggrin5:

 

[Oliver Moereels]

It is a very hard thing to understand quite how a market works when $800 cameras look so much "better" or at least more movie like and "expensive" than a 10K ENG camera. Most converts to Scarlet will be amateur filmmakers - Not ENG people making there living shooting for broadcast. So yeah, who is the scarlet appealing to now?

If you know how to properly operate that 10k ENG camera, the footage is way better than anything that comes out of a photocamera with some toylike video codec added on. The only thing you get from a video dslr is shallow dof. If you do stills it's nice that you can shoot some video without switching cameras. But anyone who does video and choses a dslr as their main camera doesn't know his job. The lenses breathe more than a fat guy in a marathon, the datarate of the codec is miserable at best, and all that extra resolution of your sensor is thrown away because of that heavy compression and a 1080 videosize.

The scarlet footage i've seen so far looks much more 'expensive' than dslr footage. Clean blacks, great textures and the level and quality of the details in the image boggle the mind. The 2/3 sensor will let you do some great shallow dof if you want, but if you get images like those, you would be nuts to blur 90% of what you are filming. Shallow dof is good for covering up backgrounds and equipment shortcomings in details and compression. And for close-ups. People use it to much nowadays.
Besides if that entire extreme shallow dof craze passes in a few years time, scarlet will still be a great camera. A dslr on the other hand is going to be worthless as a video camera.

 

[Oliver Moereels]

As the tidal wave of 5D fever keeps on spreading and a host of productions from low budget to high end seem to be surrendering to this 'craze', is the imminent release of the Scarlet in this price bracket going to be enough with only a 2/3" sensor?
Leaving the argument to the obviousness of potentially FAR superior image quality and functionality behind, as Scarlet is still just a spec sheet and could be for a long period yet while the 5D is here, the obvious reason why the FF DSLR is making massive moves is because of the price-point and primarily offering a FF sensor. So if the Scarlet is going to price around this market and directly compete, will the biggest factor for why this DSLR is so popular be the MAJOR downside to Scarlet and people will still opt for a FF sensor?
Has the bubble now popped and this is a feature that low-end cameras and customers are going to demand in this price-point and if it doesn't it moves down the list of the 'number one' camera of choice with limited finances.

You can't leave the arguments of image quality and functionality behind in a discussion like this. If you choose a videocamera those two items are pretty important. But I'll leave them be for now.
Having a FF-sensor and then compressing your images so that you lose any extra resolution and gain a lot of artifacts is a bit of a waste. I'd rather scale back in post with full control over codec and datarates. That way, I chose how much quality I throw away.
And there is the question of sensor speed. All these sensors are MOS. Unlike CCDs they are prone to skew and wobble when you shoot handheld and/or fastpaced action. Since scarlet can shoot at 120 fps, I'm betting you would have to swing the camera around like mad spastic monkey before your image goes all slanted or jello on you.
It won't be any good at ENG because of the RAW post workflow. But unless you are a blogger a dslr isn't going to cut it as an ENG camera either.
But most of all it's the versatility. Need to shoot for big screen projection or future proof your footage: shoot 3k. Just need HD: shoot 1080. Need super slowmo: shoot 120 fps. Need a crane shot: get a small crane and remote operate your camera.
Scarlet will do all that and more. With a picture quality and pro quality features that you don't get from a video dslr. Or any other camera remotely in this pricerange. In fact, if you need a new camera when scarlet hits the market, don't do a lot of ENG, but don't buy it, you're a tool. There is no choice. It's in a clompletely different league than anything out there.

Granted, you get more shallow dof out of a FF camera. But you can get beatifull shallow dof out of a 2/3 camera as well. If you take the time to really get to know your gear you will enjoy using scarlet endlessly more than any video dslr or ff camera near scarlet's price. Trust me...

 

[Oliver Moereels]

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

Maybe you're looking from the wrong perspective. It's not a dumned down red. It's a beefed up handycam. And if you really need the extra dof then epic is your ticket. But if you don't, these features and a 2/3 sensor at this price are a hell of an option. Many people are freelancing for corporate, commercial and broadcast work with panny HVXes and HPXes, and Sony EXes and Zs. This camera fits their bill just right. Same pricepoint(ish), bigger sensor and features we never dreamed about in this pricerange. Most of these cams have fixed lenses to and if you get to know these cams you can get really nice footage out of them.
And as for the interchangeable scarlet, there is a lot of good glass for 2/3 sensors out there allready. Including primes. You would need an adapter of some sort I guess, but you don't have to invest in camera-specific glass if you don't want to.

 

[David Rasberry]

Maybe you're looking from the wrong perspective. It's not a dumned down red. It's a beefed up handycam. And if you really need the extra dof then epic is your ticket. But if you don't, these features and a 2/3 sensor at this price are a hell of an option. Many people are freelancing for corporate, commercial and broadcast work with panny HVXes and HPXes, and Sony EXes and Zs. This camera fits their bill just right. Same pricepoint(ish), bigger sensor and features we never dreamed about in this pricerange. Most of these cams have fixed lenses to and if you get to know these cams you can get really nice footage out of them.
And as for the interchangeable scarlet, there is a lot of good glass for 2/3 sensors out there allready. Including primes. You would need an adapter of some sort I guess, but you don't have to invest in camera-specific glass if you don't want to.

Remember the cinema version has the same interchangeable lens mount system that Epic has. Announced mount options include c-mount, B4 mount, PL mount among others. Most 16mm/2/3" glass should adapt easily.
Red hasn't said yet, but if they were smart with their mini-PL design, a simple screw on flange adapter would convert c-mount lenses to mini-Red mount to match their primes. I have c-mount and Arri mount to PL adapters for my 16mm lenses, so probably will standardize on PL mount.

 

[Roei Zilber]

the 16mm 1080 grab is beautiful, Robert Jackson.
don't need more than that.

 

[David Rasberry]

the 16mm 1080 grab is beautiful, Robert Jackson.
don't need more than that.

I expect we will see much higher resolution and much less grain/noise out of Scarlet than that 16mm frame shows.

 

[Eki Halkka]

Here's a few old 2/3" shots of mine (when i say old, i mean ten years or so), shot with DVCPro 50 standard def camera. You can see the DOF characteristics pretty well:

 

[Bryce O]

If you know how to properly operate that 10k ENG camera, the footage is way better than anything that comes out of a photocamera with some toylike video codec added on. The only thing you get from a video dslr is shallow dof.

Actually, the DR is actually quite good on DSLRs. The 5D/7D are around 10-12 stops. You're kidding yourself when you argue otherwise. People forget that these sensors are designed to mimic the IQ of film when shooting stills... and they are very close. The codec doesn't matter for DR... a sensor that "sees" 12 stops, see's 12 stops regardless of what mode it is. The RAW in still mode gives you more latitude in post obviously, but the recording format does not change what the sensor is capable of seeing. Compression may throw away resolution, color, and latitude, but it CANNOT throw away DR.

 

[David Rasberry]

Yeah, imagine how different all those 60's and 70's concert films woulda been if the camera operators hadn't been limited to ISO 200 and hadn't had to change magazines every 11 minutes. :biggrin:

If the 2/3" Scarlet performs as well as expected it's going to be a real Swiss Army Knife.

I'd like to see at least one (relatively small) extreme telephoto lens for it, though. Something like a 200mm f/2.8 would be great. You know, a Sam Peckinpah/Ridley Scott compression machine, but since the focal length doesn't have to be as extreme to get there the lens could be 5" long and around a pound or so instead of 30" long and in need of really serious support.

Not f2.8, but the old Angenieux 12-240 f3.2-4.8 should serve nicely for that purpose. It will need support, but it is only around 4lbs or so. I'm looking forward to doing some birding with one of these.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I expect we will see much higher resolution and much less grain/noise out of Scarlet than that 16mm frame shows.

Oh sure. Of course, that's Kodak Ektachrome 7240. I shot that concert with it for the look more than the "fidelity." And of course that's a 16:9 telecine from a regular 16mm frame. I wasn't shooting Super-16, so that's a center section of the frame.

But it does kind of illuminate how too much DOF needn't be a worry with a sensor that size. My old Scoopic has a 12.5 to 75mm f/1.8 lens. When you get out towards 75mm, though...well, the DOF gets really thin. Even at f/4 that shot probably had less than 2" of DOF to play with. Here's another grab from the same day:

 

[Robert Jackson]

Here's a few old 2/3" shots of mine (when i say old, i mean ten years or so), shot with DVCPro 50 standard def camera. You can see the DOF characteristics pretty well

Great examples! Yeah, 2/3" is a good place to be. I worked with 2/3" tube cameras in ENG work for years and eventually picked up a fair amount of experience shooting 16mm, which is really similar to use in practice (without the instant feedback, of course).

I own 35mm gear, but it's not the kind of stuff you can run around and shoot spontaneously, IMO. I can shoot solo from sticks, but unless I've got a really wide lens mounted the idea of running around pulling focus myself kinda seems impractical.

2/3" is a sweet spot. And with the range of run speeds possible with the Scarlet the whole vocabulary of time compression and expansion is on the table, as well. I mean, nothing against the S35 or FF35 sensors. If you're shooting features and have a big crew that's used to working with larger film gauges those cameras are going to be solid gold. But for indie stuff, docs, music videos...well, IMO the 2/3" stuff is really where it's at. I hope we start seeing working prototypes and much more footage and info soon.

 

[Robert Jackson]

the 16mm 1080 grab is beautiful, Robert Jackson.
don't need more than that.

Thanks! I love 16mm. I've got several 16mm cameras. I've always liked that Scoopic because it's so small and comfortable to carry and still manages to have a very decent lens with a nice macro function. You can walk into places where larger cameras would be stopped.

BTW, I've also got the Double-8mm version of that Canon, which makes just about the perfect Oliver Stone "home movie" cam. It's got the funkiness of the small gauge, but it has registration precision that I could never get from Super-8.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

Actually, the DR is actually quite good on DSLRs. The 5D/7D are around 10-12 stops. You're kidding yourself when you argue otherwise. People forget that these sensors are designed to mimic the IQ of film when shooting stills... and they are very close. The codec doesn't matter for DR... a sensor that "sees" 12 stops, see's 12 stops regardless of what mode it is. The RAW in still mode gives you more latitude in post obviously, but the recording format does not change what the sensor is capable of seeing. Compression may throw away resolution, color, and latitude, but it CANNOT throw away DR.

If a camera is line skipping then you're throwing away a lot of data that would improve dynamic range...noise is a bigger issue than in stills mode since you're not benefiting from oversampling. Also the codec tends to throw data away in shadows which makes it hard to underexpose to preserve a nice roll off on highlights. (And it confuses me how you could lose latitude but not dynamic range...?)

In any case, I actually did a shoot last week with an HPX370 and a 5d, and we ended up only using the 5d for a single shot (for the DOF) because the dynamic range was so much worse than the HPX370.