Love to see Sacarlet v Epic, side-by-side

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

Guys, I'm trying to be objective. I'm on the wait list. This is a very good camera. I want to know, objectively, what it can do. I'm not reading anything into anything. I would love to know, in a comparative and carefully controlled way, how the Epic/Scarlet compares to competitors, specifically in latitude. And I want to see for my own eyes, and not by faith, that there weren't certain places of cost reduction in Scarlet that could translate to image, other than what we know about process speed. This is a complicated piece of equipment. Asking questions doesn't mean criticism. It's healthy skepticism. Show me, don't tell me.

I totally understand, but sometimes these things are difficult to convey properly and that is why people always say test test test for yourself which I'm sure isnt that helpful if you don't have the camera in front of you. That said, if you are interested in using your Scarlet for digital cinema acquisition applications, I imagine you will be quite pleased with the camera since even if it comes in slightly under your expectations its still in a class of its own in the price range. I wouldn't expect it to do wonders in low light like an FS100 or C300, but I would expect its sensitivity and latitude to work well enough up to around ISO1250, and further with the right curves applied. If you've used a R1-MX you should have a pretty good idea of what you'll be getting out of a Scarlet, only with an improved form factor and improved price.

Last but not least, if you ordered before 2012, and you get the camera and find you have some real significant problem with it and it really doesnt fit your needs or expectations, you may even be able to sell it at profit given the price increases and low-availability and high demand.

Also, these tests might help give you a better idea as well:
http://www.cinematography.net/epic-alexa-f3.htm

 

[Uli Plank]

I've tested the Epic two months ago against the F3 and the Alexa very carefully (published in Digital Production, Munich). Our Epic is not here yet, but our first Scarlet, and I can only say it looks the same.

 

[Brant Hadfield]

Thanks for posting that test link Noah! Very interesting!

 

[Niko Pueringer]

The Scarlet and Epic are mechanically the same. It's just the data rates that are different. There is no testing needed. The image is the same.

 

[Jack Shanahan]

The Scarlet and Epic are mechanically the same. It's just the data rates that are different. There is no testing needed. The image is the same.

Data rate effects image quality no? i.e. the Epic has RC 3:1 and the Scarlet only goes to 6:1....

 

[jimhare]

Wow, seriously? Nah. Really? Lol. Let's just say, I'm new, and my trust level is, "ramping up".

It's literally the same chip, it's just that it didn't qualify to be a full Epic but happily handles the reduced limits of the Scarlet. You are more likely to see differences in lenses (Canon vs PL etc) than anything the body is doing.

I have both Epic and Scarlet and at the same settings, they look identical.

 

[jimhare]

Data rate effects image quality no? i.e. the Epic has RC 3:1 and the Scarlet only goes to 6:1....

At the same Data/Resolution/Frame Rate they will look identical. Go beyond the capability of a Scarlet and you get better results. That's why the Epic costs more.