November 30th Announcement Feedback

[Todd M.]

It might outperform the 2/3" Scarlet in other ways, of course. With 3x the total sensor area it wouldn't be too surprising if it had better low light performance, for instance. Then again, the Scarlet's sensor is a generation or two newer. We'll have to wait and see.

I'm pretty certain there is a loss in light transmittance to each sensor due to the use of a prism.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Sure. But each of these chips is only recording red, green or blue. Each channel only has 1920x1080 pixels. There is no more pixel information per color than a single chip camera. The pixel count is not multiplied as you suggest.

I think that isn't correct. If I am not mistaken the bayer pattern has two pixels with green filters for each red and blue filtered pixel. So besides whatever loss there is in the debayering algorithm (which affects red blue and green), you automatically have half the red and blue color resolution.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

But does anybody else see a hole in the market right now for a sub $4k camera with a full frame or dx/aps-c sized sensor?

Nope, and its not the sensor size, its the crappy MPEG codec that makes that undesirable.

A sub (HVX-200) priced camera with SOPHISTICATED WAVELET COMPRESSION which CAPTURES RAW FILES WITH THE SAME QUALITY IN STILL OR MOTION is insane.

OH, and it comes with FREE SOFTWARE to process the RAW files and images

 

[Todd M.]

I think that isn't correct. If I am not mistaken the bayer pattern has two pixels with green filters for each red and blue filtered pixel. So besides whatever loss there is in the debayering algorithm (which affects red blue and green), you automatically have half the red and blue color resolution.

You are right, I got caught up in the math for the 3-chip camera and forgot that there is math for the single chip.:attention9ha:

 

[Joseph Ward]

Will the Redmote be able to view and listen to a live feed?

nope

Haha! I made it sound like, the Redmote has A.I.

I was really trying to say, Does the Redmote have Live Monitoring Capabilities?

Thanks Jarred for answering my question anyways.

 

[Chris Kenny]

I'm pretty certain there is a loss in light transmittance to each sensor due to the use of a prism.

No doubt, but I'd be surprised if it was more than a few percent with modern optics. Certainly not enough to result in the total light received by the sensors being less than the total amount received (after filtering) by the photosites on a 2/3" bayer sensor.

Mind you, the 2/3" Scarlet is shaping up to be a really nice little camera. But you might have to actually spring for the S35 Scarlet and pay a full $7,000 for a Red camera that really unambiguously beats Sony's $200,000 flagship camera on all (rather than just most) technical criteria. (I sometimes wonder how the Red staff avoids breaking into exuberant maniacal laughter when they think about that sort of thing. For all I know, they don't avoid it.)

 

[Charles Angus]

I've shot with the varicam and Red one. The red one affords a much more cinematic experience and a greater sexy factor partly (i would argue this is a big part) due to it's chip size. 2/3" is smaller than S16 and I find S16 somewhat limiting. Red one is an easy choice over any other digital cam. In my mind the F23 is a colossally expensive camera with an ENG aesthetic because of it's 2/3" chip.

It can be argued, however, that with lenses like the DigiPrimes that open up to 1.3 that there is an advantage with 2/3" - namely that you can shoot at 1.3, and still have a workable DOF for the focus puller. F1.3 on 2/3" looks like a 2.8-4 split on S35 (keeping FOV constant), which is about the stop I would bet the bulk of interior dramatic stuff is shot.

 

[Tom Lowe]

If price were no object, or someone would give me, for free, a complete package of any of the upcoming RED cameras, I would choose the 2/3" over any other.

It seems that so many people are obsessed with shallow depth of field these days... ah well, if 3D catches on big time, it will quickly put an end to that.

Of course, there are other advantages to larger sensors aside from DOF. First and foremost is superior image quality.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see why the equivalent depth of field of shooting 35mm at around an f/5.6 is an "ENG aesthetic". Who decreed that the only acceptable f-stops to shoot 35mm at were f/4.0 and wider?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If price were no object, or someone would give me, for free, a complete package of any of the upcoming RED cameras, I would choose the 2/3" over any other.

It seems that so many people are obsessed with shallow depth of field these days... ah well, if 3D catches on big time, it will quickly put an end to that.

You would pass up a camera which can shoot:

2/3", S35 or FF35 for a camera which can only shoot 2/3"?

Sensors are like haircuts. You can always trim but you can't add. Get the largest sensor you can afford/fit. It'll offer the most flexibility.

 

[Jimmy Odom]

You would pass up a camera which can shoot:

2/3", S35 or FF35 for a camera which can only shoot 2/3"?

Sensors are like haircuts. You can always trim but you can't add. Get the largest sensor you can afford/fit. It'll offer the most flexibility.

Very eloquently stated. :iagree:

 

[Justin O'Neill]

I don't see why the equivalent depth of field of shooting 35mm at around an f/5.6 is an "ENG aesthetic". Who decreed that the only acceptable f-stops to shoot 35mm at were f/4.0 and wider?

Exactly David. I think there were other problems with the images on 2/3" cameras in the past and the deeper depth of field got blamed. I have seen gorgeous images with shallow DoF on the RED at 2k with a nice Angenieux lens at t2.2. I think people are going to be pleasantly surprised with the 2/3" Scarlet.

 

[Ruby Quincunx]

I don't see why the equivalent depth of field of shooting 35mm at around an f/5.6 is an "ENG aesthetic". Who decreed that the only acceptable f-stops to shoot 35mm at were f/4.0 and wider?

Précisément! Or, just for instance, this search turns up plenty of gorgeous photos that could easily be stills from a film. (Assuming APS-C is roughly equivalent to 35mm motion picture film.)

 

[David Rasberry]

I think that isn't correct. If I am not mistaken the bayer pattern has two pixels with green filters for each red and blue filtered pixel. So besides whatever loss there is in the debayering algorithm (which affects red blue and green), you automatically have half the red and blue color resolution.

Which mimics the color resolution of the human eye very closely. Most 3 chip video cams also sub sample red and blue at half the green sample rate or less. You have to get to HDCAM SR 4:4:4 to get full color sampling.

 

[David Rasberry]

You would pass up a camera which can shoot:

2/3", S35 or FF35 for a camera which can only shoot 2/3"?

Sensors are like haircuts. You can always trim but you can't add. Get the largest sensor you can afford/fit. It'll offer the most flexibility.

I would rather have 3k resolution at 2/3" than 2k when most of the time I would be shooting 2/3"/16mm format with wide range compact zooms anyway. The extra DOF and compact optics of the smaller format are a plus for me. Not to say I wouldn't love to have an FF35 Epic with a full complement of RED electronic lenses though.:thumbup: However that is not in the budget.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Of course, there are other advantages to larger sensors aside from DOF. First and foremost is superior image quality.

Right. If DOF were the only concern, then an $80 Kelly wheel and the will to use it (or a $2 iPhone app) is a better solution than replacing your entire camera package. :devil:

 

[Michael Hastings]

Which mimics the color resolution of the human eye very closely. Most 3 chip video cams also sub sample red and blue at half the green sample rate or less. You have to get to HDCAM SR 4:4:4 to get full color sampling.

true but it isn't inherent in the design as with bayer

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think that isn't correct. If I am not mistaken the bayer pattern has two pixels with green filters for each red and blue filtered pixel. So besides whatever loss there is in the debayering algorithm (which affects red blue and green), you automatically have half the red and blue color resolution.

Well, a RAW Bayer image not exactly the same thing as recording a 4:2:2 signal due to the debayering algorithm, which can make intelligent guesses as to the color of nearby photosites and thus compensate to some extent for missing information.

Ultimately what matters anyway is how well a camera sensor or sensors can separate red, green, and blue information with a minimal amount of crosstalk which reduces saturation and color purity. The resolution of those separate channels after recording and post processing is sort of a separate issue.

 

[Gabriele Turchi]

does jim said anything about the RedOne sensor upgrade?

Will be before or after the scarlet/epic release?

Thanks

g

 

[Peter Moretti]

...

Ultimately what matters anyway is how well a camera sensor or sensors can separate red, green, and blue information with a minimal amount of crosstalk which reduces saturation and color purity. The resolution of those separate channels after recording and post processing is sort of a separate issue.

And FWIU, three chip designs do a much better job of separating colors than single sensor mask designs. It has to do with the type of material used for absorbtion for the filters vs beam splittig for the prisms.

But single sensor designs don't have the deep back focus requirement that three chip designs have, so cine and still lenses can be used.