Low light abilities of Scarlet 2/3"

[Andrew Rieger]

I have been convinced that the 2/3" sensor is more than enough for cinematic DOF but I have become a little concerned about the low light abilities of the Scarlet. While the Canon 5D and 7D lose to the Scarlet in resolution, frame rate and codec, they do have amazing low light capabilities. Any idea how the Scarlet 2/3" will stack up?

 

[Stephen Gentle]

I have been convinced that the 2/3" sensor is more than enough for cinematic DOF but I have become a little concerned about the low light abilities of the Scarlet. While the Canon 5D and 7D lose to the Scarlet in resolution, frame rate and codec, they do have amazing low light capabilities. Any idea how the Scarlet 2/3" will stack up?

Well, the only official word I beleive is that the Mysterium-X sensor should perform as well at ISO 800 as the RED ONE does at ISO 320. I think that's mainly in terms of noise, which is a very good thing. I'm not sure how it compares to a 5D or 7D, but the RED ONE is somewhat manageable in available light as it is, so the higher sensitivity of the new sensor should be great.

 

[jimhare]

It won't do as well, no question about that.

But the vast advantages of shooting in RAW, and the additional resolution should more than make up for it.

If you need a shot in the dark, just borrow a Canon for the night. Shoot the rest with Scarlet!

 

[Ralph B.]

It won't do as well, no question about that.

But the vast advantages of shooting in RAW, and the additional resolution should more than make up for it.

If you need a shot in the dark, just borrow a Canon for the night. Shoot the rest with Scarlet!

I wouldn't bet on the "it won't do as well" statement.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34771

This link is a discussion regarding the 7D and the current RED1. There are stills and footage in the links throughout the discussion. True the 7D isn't quite the 5D but its really really close. And I think we all can agree they are at least in the same sensor generation. The Mysterium X of the Epic and Scarlet will be markedly better than the current Mysterium of the RED1.

I would urge all to take a look at how the current RED sensor stacks up in low light situations and I think all will feel reassured. Mysterium X is a thoroughly modern sensor! I don't know about your taste but I doubt anyone will be reaching for a 5D strictly on the basis of low light sensitivity in my estimation the current RED1 creates a far more useable image than the 7D under these conditions. In addition with the flexibility RAW gives you I don't know if there would be any advantage you would gain from moving away from RED to any of the motion capable DSLR's. I think the new ARRI digital cameras will be comparable but they will cost 3-30X the price of a RED.

 

[Robert Jackson]

Well, the only official word I beleive is that the Mysterium-X sensor should perform as well at ISO 800 as the RED ONE does at ISO 320.

Yeah, but they've been mainly referring to the S35 sensor. The 2/3" sensor is much smaller. I wouldn't expect it to perform as well. I mean, it may be great. We don't know. But sensor size is the single most important factor in overall image quality.

That said, the 2/3" sensor is probably fine in relatively low light. Modern sensors are miraculous. And of course you're probably not going to be shooting at shutter speeds faster than 1/48th or 1/60th with a cinema camera, which isn't the case with stills. With stills you're usually pushing the shutter speed to avoid motion blur. Not normally the case with cinema.

My personal take on it is that the 2/3" will be a huge deal for doc guys who do a lot of run-and-gun stuff because it will be WAY easier to pull focus. The interchangeable lens version with the 6mm prime will probably start being the standard-issue crash-cam, too. The fixed model seems to have a kind of bulky and fiddly lens/focus motor/sensor relationship that would probably suffer a lot at in high-G environments so it kinda seems like an unlikely crash-cam despite the nice price, but only time will tell.

Jannard's 2:1 S35 format is all manner of killer for people doing indie cinema. Its effective 1.2x horizontal crop factor and 1.6x vertical crop factor (relative to 135 film) is way cool. If your glass will cover it you've got quite a large sensor there. Crop it to faux-Scope (Digital Techniscope?), crop it to S35 or use it native. Seems like an optimal narrative fiction format to me.

And then the 24mm x 36mm sensor is for people who just don't think it's hard enough to pull focus on S35. This and the larger sensors are things I can imagine people using the way Nolan and Pfister used IMAX for Dark Knight. For the big panoramic shots with incredible detail you whip out the Punisher (because of its effect on those who pull focus for a living). It's always there grabbing the master shot when you blow up a car or have stunt people falling off bridges. Not so much when you're chasing the protagonist down a hallway in a dead run, though. :biggrinjester:

 

[Chris Kennedy]

I'm sure it will be at least more low light than the Red currently is at least. I recently shot with the new Sony F800, which sony boasts that it's iso is 1600. I didn't check the ISO myself (will if there's a next time) but i'd say it's ISO is at least 800.

And that's a 2/3" camera too.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I'm sure it will be at least more low light than the Red currently is at least. I recently shot with the new Sony F800, which sony boasts that it's iso is 1600. I didn't check the ISO myself (will if there's a next time) but i'd say it's ISO is at least 800.

And that's a 2/3" camera too.

Yeah, but the F800 has three 2/3" sensors. That's three times the surface area of the Red.

 

[Erik Bien]

Anyone else find it telling that the built-in ND filtering is none, 0.9 (three stops) and 1.8 (six stops)? :devil:

 

[David Rasberry]

Yeah, but the F800 has three 2/3" sensors. That's three times the surface area of the Red.

I really don't think this is much of a factor. Its not 3 times the luminance surface area and you lose light through the prism too. Most of the increase in current gen ISO is from lower noise electronics, not inherent sensor sensitivity.
The F800 from one mag review is rated at 800. The PDW-700 ENG version is rated at 1600, but with less dynamic range.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I really don't think this is much of a factor. Its not 3 times the luminance surface area and you lose light through the prism too. Most of the increase in current gen ISO is from lower noise electronics, not inherent sensor sensitivity.

You lose light through a Bayer filter, too. AFAIK the light loss between the two is roughly comparable. Of course splitting the light into bands brings other problems into play. Lens designs have to be significantly different and the gain in detail seems to come at the cost of color linearity, but there are far more technical types around here who could more effectively illuminate this subject. :biggrin5:

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Ya I always wondered about the low light differences between the 2/3" 3CCD cams and the 2/3" CMOS cams. Are they more sensitive? Any idea how the Scarlet 2/3" will compare to the RED One?

 

[Robert Jackson]

Ya I always wondered about the low light differences between the 2/3" 3CCD cams and the 2/3" CMOS cams. Are they more sensitive? Any idea how the Scarlet 2/3" will compare to the RED One?

Most still cameras show a pattern of modern CMOS chips being more sensitive than CCDs. It's all kinda speculative right this minute, though.

 

[Cedric Akins]

Anyone else find it telling that the built-in ND filtering is none, 0.9 (three stops) and 1.8 (six stops)? :devil:

Hey Erik that is a very good point. The simple fact that are only 3 nd positions, an nd 0, .9, and 1.3. This lets you know that the sensor is very sensitive to light.:coolgleamA:

 

[Joe G.]

Here's a math question for the techno people:

Compare the total photosite area of the 3 chip (RGB) Sony / Genesis cams to the photosite size of the 2/3" Scarlet. When the total area for each pixel is taken into account (could be tricky calculation, dependent on resolution / downscaling) then how do they compare?

 

[JohnF]

It's not just about chip/pixel size.

Remember Scarlet, unlike the 5D&7D, does not record in H264. A codec that does its best to ruin footage (it's a delivery format not an acquisition format). The RAW format that is used by Scarlet will allow one to pull decent looking details out from the shadows rather than revealing blocks and mosquito netting.

What is more Scarlet should not have the thermal noise issues that the DSLRs have.

JohnF