Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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 :)

New Scarlet footage

Yes you can tell those kinds of things if you are the one who shot the picture, and know where the focus was and the other settings and conditions. Condemning a lens because of one soft picture, let alone the third picture ever released from it doesn't seem like a sound idea to me.

Why not just enjoy the short clip we got, and try not to rip it apart (or previous ones*not saying we are just close to*) otherwise we might not get many more like this. Remember these are not image quality tests of the scarlet, but rather a way to show us a new feature that (I believe) both scarlet and epic share. We are still a little way off from scarlet so lets wait until the real scarlet tests are up before we make any assumptions or conclusions about it (or be careful with our hopes and expectations until then because everything is subject to... mah).

Thanks for this I'm really liking the possibilities

Have a good one!
 
The model is a bit stiff. And she looks kind of plastic. But her rates are probably cheap.

Oh, and yeah the footage looks great, touch screen feature looks very promising.
 
Haha, I checked into it, she is SAG. :P

Not too hard to get into SAG these days. :-)

Jarred, on a serious note, can you explain the zones a little bit more? Is there a threshold setting of some sort for identifying a point of focus? For example let's say there is an object in extreme foreground that overlaps with something in mid-foreground.
 
If it's soft in a one second clip, it will be soft in a 30min video too.
Either if it shows the best or the worst performance of a lens, it is still a right thing to know it.

For example, can you tell if a lens is sharp enough using only one single picture?

I can make a the sharpest lenses look soft with a tiny turn of the focus ring... Perhaps they slightly missed the focus but posted the clip because they liked what was the lion was doing in the shot?

There could be other causes too - maybe they used autofocus and it was an early version of the algorithm. Perhaps the lens motors were a little off... Or the glass could be soft. But I'm reserving my judgement until I see more - because the more examples you see, the less likley that they all missed focus.
 
I can make a the sharpest lenses look soft with a tiny turn of the focus ring... Perhaps they slightly missed the focus but posted the clip because they liked what was the lion was doing in the shot?

There could be other causes too - maybe they used autofocus and it was an early version of the algorithm. Perhaps the lens motors were a little off... Or the glass could be soft. But I'm reserving my judgement until I see more - because the more examples you see, the less likley that they all missed focus.

OK, let's say I found the last clip sharper than the Felix clip. That's all I wanted to say...
I know, here on the forum everyone wants to protect RED, but I think RED doesn't need a single word of protection, because of all the things they _already_ put on the table.
 
Yea, maybe. You're probably right. But don't think that RED doesn't appreciate the passionate followers of their company ;) http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?59299-Appreciation...

Yep, I know, but passionate doesn't equal blind. They are passionate, because everyone clearly see what RED cameras can do (great things), and how much do they cost (cheaper than the competition.actually no competition in the price range...)
So I think it is a good thing to be a bit more realistic, and hey... what I said is actually a good thing:)
 
Yeah, it's been posted and discussed at length... Anything that comes out of RED gets posted to these forums first and makes it to Vimeo sometime later.
 
Back
Top