Please convince me otherwise

[Hunter Peterson]

Hey guys.

So after having a heated discussion with a filmmaking friend of mine who is an avid DSLR supporter, I think he might be chipping away at my Pro-Scarlet agenda (I believe in scarlet.)

His position:
-2/3rds sensor is too small and DOF is essentially lost as compared to a T2i
-Way too expensive
-Resolution means nothing.
-No computers can handle it
-I'll be waiting for years until I can feasibly get my hands on one.

My position:
-You can't compare a DSLR--a still camera with the bonus of HD video--to a DSMC--a full fledged motion stills camera.
-If I were to purchase the camera, it would basically pay for itself after the multitude of projects I would line up due to my ownership of a RED product.
-DSLR's have a very long way to go. I.e. Rolling shutter, moire, aliasing.
-I'd rather upgrade from a prosumer camcorder to a professional cinema grade camera rather than downgrade to a still camera.
-Ted was saying in a video that he loads in Epic .R3D's onto his macbook air. I have a 27" iMac with a massive HD. I think i'm ok.

I think its the wait that's killing me really. DSLR's are there and present and are tempting me (akin to the apple in the garden of eden.) I have faith in Scarlet, but I have to know--I'm correct in my position. Right?

Thanks guys.

 

[Graeme Hay]

Every day we wait for a Scarlet the balance tips more and more towards DSLR & MFT cameras. They are getting better and better each year while scarlet is a jump in technology 2 years ago, it may be only a step next year.

The computer comment is clearly wrong but obviously you will need a good one (that 27" iMac is looking pretty spiffy) to work close to or at real time.
Your comments about getting gigs based on having a RED, isn't how things work, or I would of purchased a RED ONE (or even an Epic) on that thinking.

 

[Hunter Peterson]

Your comments about getting gigs based on having a RED, isn't how things work, or I would of purchased a RED ONE (or even an Epic) on that thinking.

Yeah that's where I was a bit shaky in my argument. Although RED is highly desirable for many productions, the cost might outweigh the benefits.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

Tell your friend to come back when he can show you how to get RAW video files out of a DSLR.

RED has many strengths but that's the clincher.

Mike

 

[Sam Eilertsen]

First of all, are these cameras mutually exclusive? You can get a decent DSLR kit for $2-3K. If you have jobs that are bringing in money you can buy a DSLR today and it will probably have paid for itself before your Scarlet has shipped, and then you'll have both a professional cinema camera and a professional stills camera that you can also use for video if you need super shallow DoF.

"Resolution means nothing" is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. If your distribution is YouTube and you care nothing about future-proofing a DSLR may be fine, but even if your primary distribution format is HD shooting 3K and downscaling will look much better than a DSLR, which only resolves about 1.2K. Also there's RAW recording, which I think is much more significant than resolution (I recently had to do some greenscreen work with the T2i -- not fun). "Way too expensive" is just plain crazy: in terms of resolution, frame rate, recording format, and sensitivity the Scarlet not only beats everything in its price range, but most cameras in much higher price ranges. The DoF argument has been had a gazillion times over on this forum but, as David Mullen and many other professionals have said, it is perfectly possible to get the shallow-focus look on a 2/3" camera. You can't get AS shallow as an S35 camera, but do you really need to?

I can't say too much about the computer stuff (there's a whole thread about that somewhere), but I think with a 27" iMac you will be fine, and if you can't play it back in real-time there are well-established proxy workflows.

 

[Shane Betts]

Yeah. What Sam said. Why the argument in the first place? Buy a T2i (How hard is that at $800?!) and a kit of lenses. Those same lenses will fit on the Scarlet when it ships. Then you'll have both and you can actually compare.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

-2/3rds sensor is too small and DOF is essentially lost as compared to a T2i

I recall David Mullen posting that the DOF difference is 2.5 stops. So if Scarlet's at f2.4 (the fixed lens at its widest) it'll have the same DOF as a T2i with its lens at f5. Now on the wide end, the T2i's lens can generally have a lower f-stop, but most canon zoom lenses have to close up to over f5 at longer focal lengths, so the scarlet fixed would actually have shallower DOF.

Now as far as primes, obviously if you get a super fast prime for the T2i, you won't be able to match that on the Scarlet interchangeable. The Red mini primes can still give decent shallow DOF...they're T1.5, which I presume means their F-stop is slightly lower. So about F4 on a T2i.

-Way too expensive

Depends...what kind of glass are you putting on that T2i? The Scarlet fixed lens is an absolute steal at its price...constant aperture fly-by-wire zoom lens. Things like touch screen focusing could be essential to a low budget filmmaker without a big rig and a focus puller. You'd have to spend a lot of money to match that on the T2i (and you'd probably need a focus puller).

-Resolution means nothing.

There are a lot of arguments for why resolution matters...in the case of Scarlet, you can get a perfect 2k/1080p through downscaling, whereas the Canons come out to about 720p with flaws (aliasing/moire). If you look at that lion footage taken with the Scarlet you can see the difference...it has beautiful soft gradients while being sharp without nasty edge enhancement. DSLR footage looks muddy by comparison.

Also lets not forget that you can do it up to 120fps at full res. Also bit depth is extremely important for grading, and Scarlet's dynamic range will be greater than any DSLR as well.

-No computers can handle it

Premiere CS5, just sayin'.

-I'll be waiting for years until I can feasibly get my hands on one.

Sadly this is the hang up for everyone. However, it won't be years...they've had working cameras for months now. If they get their production issues sorted out, we'll see Scarlets pretty quickly.

 

[Tim Nitsch]

Sadly this is the hang up for everyone. However, it won't be years...they've had working cameras for months now. If they get their production issues sorted out, we'll see Scarlets pretty quickly.

And also won't the Scarlet be more mass produced compared to the Epic X's or M's I can't remember, being more hand built? So I agree with you, once the Scarlet is released they should come out in large quantities.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Unfortunately, this is one argument that has been done to death, and then some. I'm not sure why I'm going to respond, but here goes...

His position:
-2/3rds sensor is too small and DOF is essentially lost as compared to a T2i
-Way too expensive
-Resolution means nothing.
-No computers can handle it
-I'll be waiting for years until I can feasibly get my hands on one.

Technically, DOF has nothing to do with sensor size -- it's a matter of focal length and aperture, at least those are the two dominant factors. Where sensor size comes into play is that on smaller sensors, you use shorter focal lengths to achieve the same relative framing. Shorter focal lengths have deeper DOF, therefore smaller sensors act as if they have deeper DOF. Funny he says DOF is lost.. Hehe, it's the other way around. It's gained. The field of acceptable focus is much deeper. When compensating focal length on a smaller sensor to approximate the same FOV as you would get at the same subject distance with a S35 or APS-C camera, the difference lies somewhere between 2 and 2.5 stops of exposure (or relational aperture diameter). But shallow DOF isn't everything, in fact it's an often over-used tool for most noob filmmakers. Nothing says "I'm a film-student wanna-be!" more than shooting constant shallow DOF via a 35mm adapter or DSLR setup. 2/3" or 16mm / S16 imager sizes are still used heavily, even for major studio productions. The Wrestler, Black Swan, Benjamin Button, Star Wars I thru 3, Apocalypto, The Hurt Locker, Jackass, The Last King of Scotland, Leaving Las Vegas, Saw, The Constant Gardener, This is Spinal Tap, and many, many more... were all shot on 2/3" or S16 or some combination of that size imager.

Scarlet, especially the fixed version with complete fly by wire control, has so many uses beyond just cinema style shooting. It's going to be the ultimate ENG / EFP camera. Just wait and see...

Price is subjective and relational to the job at hand. The Scarlet-Cinema (2/3" interchangeable) will sell for roughly $3K for the body alone. Compare that to high-end DSLRs and it doesn't seem so bad. Compared to a T2i, GH2, etc.. yes, it is more expensive, but not exactly something that would break the bank for any professional shooter needing the proper tool for a certain job. Scarlet-Fixed with the 8X zoom should be just under $6K for a ready to shoot package -- as that is what Ted and some of the other RED guys were saying at NAB when showing it. They were showing the fixed-lens body with side handle, outrigger handle, 5" LCD and side SSD module, saying that config was about $6K. How is that "way too expensive"??? I paid around $6K each for my HVX200's back in 2005~2006. Price-wise, Scarlet-Fixed falls right into the realm of those low-end HD camcorders that the indie market gobbles up. Lately, the DSLRs have really cut into that market, but the entry-level prosumer HD camcorders are still a strong market.

Resolution... To say it means nothing is a statement of ignorance. If it really meant nothing, we would all be happily watching SD 480p and going along happily about it. 3K, 4K, etc.. are just stepping stones. Even the upcoming ultra-HD 8K proposed future broadcast standard is a progressive step along the road to ???. DSLRs are mostly lacking in the resolution department because of their trade-offs of pixel binning and line skipping, which cause resolution artifacts like moire, aliasing, etc.. These are only temporary trade-offs that will soon be solved when their upcoming sensors can run at 24~30fps or more without these tricks. They also suffer from over-processing the images internally and over-compressing in lossy codecs. The latter over-processing and over-compressing will be what separates the DSLR crowd from RED for some time to come, while the resolution gap is closing. The majority of people want the internal processing because most people don't understand post-processing, RAW, etc.. Just look at the number of semi-professional and even professional photographers out there who spend big money on high-end DSLR systems and yet they still shoot JPEG stills. The HD video world is full of people who just want to dial in a pre-set look on the camera, or some subset of that, and shoot away. Better compression algorithms, like wavelet codecs, require a lot of serious CPU horsepower onboard. And even with advanced compression like wavelets and relatively small file sizes, the data rates are still huge for 3K images and larger. The RED One requires media that can sustain 50MB/s or more in order to record 4K 16:9 with audio at REDCODE 36 (9:1). Sony just released new MemoryStick media that claims to do up to 50MB/s and they act like it's the ultimate achievement.

No computer can handle it? The dude is way off base with that one. Most any current $1500 notebook PC will tear through 3K R3Ds with ease. Believe it or not, AVC / H264 / X264 take a lot more computing horsepower on a per-pixel basis than R3D wavelet does. Working with 3K R3Ds is a different story compared to working with 4K. 4K has more than 2X as many pixels to start with. But even that said, Adobe CS5.x will edit multiple streams of 4K R3D on a Macbook Pro or decent Windows notebook. And can really plow through it on a high-end workstation. Sony Vegas does quite well too.

Be waiting for years... Well, who knows. I guess whenever Scarlet shows up everyone can decide if it's worth buying or not. As of right now, this is all academic because we can't buy one. Every day that Scarlet is delayed, the DSLR cameras get one step closer. Once again, we shall see what happens when Scarlet is finally released.

My position:
-You can't compare a DSLR--a still camera with the bonus of HD video--to a DSMC--a full fledged motion stills camera.
-If I were to purchase the camera, it would basically pay for itself after the multitude of projects I would line up due to my ownership of a RED product.
-DSLR's have a very long way to go. I.e. Rolling shutter, moire, aliasing.
-I'd rather upgrade from a prosumer camcorder to a professional cinema grade camera rather than downgrade to a still camera.
-Ted was saying in a video that he loads in Epic .R3D's onto his macbook air. I have a 27" iMac with a massive HD. I think i'm ok.

Comparing DSLR with bonus HD ability to a full-fledged motion camera is pretty silly in some ways. But the DSLRs do offer a lot of abilities that you just can't get otherwise without spending a lot more money. If you want APS-C/S35 sized imager and the look that comes with it, a DSLR is the only way to do this without spending $10K or more.

Owning a RED camera isn't going to get you work. Face it, everyone owns a RED camera these days, they're dirt-cheap to rent. If you don't already have contacts and work lining up, you're not going to get more work just by owning the camera. Especially a Scarlet, which is cheap enough to almost be disposable in contrast to the rest of the pro camera market. And when it comes to jobs that are now best served by entry-level prosumer HD camcorders and DSLRs, no one is going to care if you can shoot 3K RAW. They just want their web video delivered on-time and looking 'good enough' for the web presentation or tradeshow DVD loop.

Most people spreading FUD about computers not handling R3Ds are doing just that, spreading FUD. They either have some grudge against RED, or have no personal experience and are trying to pretend they know what they're talking about. Of course, there are some who just don't know what the F they are doing and struggle with R3D workflow even on a top-end workstation, but by and large, the people with problems usually have other deeper-rooted issues. Your iMac will work OK, but ironically, the iMac is one of the worst systems out there for R3D (and H264 1080p+) workflows. Unless you have the latest model with ThunderBolt, you have the Achilles Heel of not being able to attach fast external storage. Or at least not without a hack of some sort - usually taking a secondary internal SATA port and piping it out somewhere to at least attach an eSATA unit of some sort. But even with that, you're looking at a max of 260MB/s or so. A single eSATA port can go a long way toward helping out.

I think its the wait that's killing me really. DSLR's are there and present and are tempting me (akin to the apple in the garden of eden.) I have faith in Scarlet, but I have to know--I'm correct in my position. Right?

Use what's available now and the tools that are appropriate to the job at hand. Scarlet will get here as soon as RED can make it happen. Trying to argue the merits of a future product against currently available tools doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As amazing as it may be, I can't choose it for any job I have in the immediate future. DSLR's have their place and as much as I love RED, I own two Panasonic GH2's and a Nikon D7000 that I use for video more than stills. For stills ant timelapse, I predominantly use a D3. RED One for most everything else, still have a occasional use for EX1 and similar. And I have an EPIC-M ordered and paid for that has been "shipping in the next few days" for the past 3+ weeks. :/

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I think if you don't know why you'd want to want a Scarlet instead of a DSLR, you haven't done enough research on your own. No one's situation is exactly like yours and these two camera "genres" both have characteristics that are unique to them and each could be considered an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on the project and the circumstance. You can't let anyone else do your thinking for you. Cost is always an issue but almost never the only issue. Do your homework. Keep researching until you absolutely know the answer. If you do, you'll not only make the right purchase decision but you'll not suffer even the least bit of buyer's remorse afterword. :coolgleamA:

 

[jimhare]

-I'd rather upgrade from a prosumer camcorder to a professional cinema grade camera rather than downgrade to a still camera.

To me, this is the best reason here. At some point you need to decide who you are and be that person.

Everyone is right when they say that "if you build it they will come" will not get you clients in and off itself, and that is true.

But if you are a pro, you need pro gear. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to walk the walk.

While Scarlet isn't going to get you there on its own, it's a great start and gets you into "the RAW club."

Add to that the great pleasure it will bring you in not having to deal with assinine issues that slow you down day after day, and you will make up the cost in not having to pay for high blood pressure medicine.

I made the switch 3 years ago and my opportunites have skyrocketed.

 

[Kalani Prince]

If DSLR's are the apples, is Scarlet the jesus? Oh boy, she may never come with this logic.

 

[paulherrin]

if you got it to spare, throw down $600 bucks (and $25 for a sweet holga lens), and you can shoot some pretty schoolin stuff. then grab a scarlet when they're available. at the end of it, you'll have a really decent still camera (though cheaply made) that can shoot some video stuff, and you'll have a professional level machine.

and that's the real decision if you're trying to decide one or the other... do you want consumer equipment/quality or professional equipment/quality? the great "prosumer myth" is that you can somehow get professional quality out of consumer grade equipment...

i'm not saying you can't shoot with dslr's and prosumer video devices, because i have... but don't kid yourself into believing they're really professional pieces of equipment. completely different beasts.

if you're not into stills, and especially if you don't have any lenses already, you might want to just keep holding on... nearly dere.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Buy a t2i. It takes great video, it's a kick ass still camera, and it costs $800 bucks. I have one with a pl mount and it's great fun. It takes very nice video, 60fps slow mo in 720, hell it's better than my varicam was in many respects. I own two reds. I wouldn't drag one of those out to shoot the kids futzing around, but the t2i sure. Plus it's great for the stuff you wouldn't do on a Red. R. Helicopters for exzmple. You'd have to be mentally challenged to hang an epic off of an RC aerial platform, but the t2i is perfect. They are two great tastes that go great together.

 

[Kalani Prince]

or get a Panasonic GH1 for like $400 bucks (I believe they are ALL hackable now) and be making images that are about as good as it gets in DSLRland.. Scarlet will surely be hungry when she wakes from hibernation.. Feed her the Panny. Done.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

2/3" or 16mm / S16 imager sizes are still used heavily, even for major studio productions. The Wrestler, Black Swan, Benjamin Button, Star Wars I thru 3, Apocalypto, The Hurt Locker, Jackass, The Last King of Scotland, Leaving Las Vegas, Saw, The Constant Gardener, This is Spinal Tap, and many, many more... were all shot on 2/3" or S16 or some combination of that size imager.

To be accurate, "Star Wars: The Phantom Menance" was mostly shot on 35mm anamorphic with one scene shot on an interlaced-scan 2/3" HD camera. And "Apocalypto" was shot on the Genesis mostly, which has a 35mm sensor.

But you are correct that people are making the DOF of 2/3" out to be more of an issue than it really is.

The basic answer to the original post is PICTURE QUALITY -- if you are satisfied with the quality of DSLR video -- highly compressed 8-bit 4:2:0 video that falls into aliasing above 750 lines, with a limited dynamic range -- then why should you spend the money on a more expensive camera? But if you want to shoot something that will allow you to create a superior 1080P 4:4:4 Log master with minimal compression that will probably meet the most stringent demands of broadcasters, plus allow a superior digital cinema image, a better blu-ray master, all those things, then you should be looking at the Scarlet. For all of that extra quality, you can work around the Super-16 level of depth of field.

As for needing a better, faster computer to work with the Scarlet footage, well, what else do you expect for dealing with more data and higher quality? The ease of dumping that h.264 video from a DSLR onto your computer is also the reason why the picture quality is compromised and limited! If a DSLR started offering full-sensor RAW recording with minimal compression, does anyone think that data is going to be anywhere near as low as current h.264 recordings, and just as fast to work with in post?

 

[Hunter Peterson]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Its really given me a lot to think about. I suppose I'm just a little antsy to go full digital. Currently, I'm still working with my non-flipped XH-A1/ Brevis rig. (Which is a pain to use).

I'm probably going to spring for a GH1, hack it, build my collection of glass, and purchase my little scarlet when the time is right.

 

[Fabricio Morato]

Hi,
I guess it really depends on what kind of work are you aiming for and your style as a director/DP. If you can live with all the flaws that DSLR have, and make grate pictures with it, and you clients or yourself is satisfied with the overall quality, then go ahead and buy one. DOF is a artistic choice, so if you always want your pictures to look like it was shot on a f1.2 on APS-C/H sensor, then it will be hard for you too get this result with the Scarlet.
I own a 7D, and a use it alot for stills and for a few projects (documentaries mostly). For a narrative films, I find the limitations of the camera (RS mostly) too bad to get a decent quality (with my style of shooting). And I find that the Scarlet will be a great camera for me (if the specs/quality holds up with what was already announced).

The answer is within you you just have to know what you want/your style/your needs.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Honestly, all due respect to DSLRs, and being a happy owner of a 7D, there is no argument here. More DoF and all kinds of really horrible limitations and problems vs. less DoF and all kinds of awesomeness? If you haven't been able to make up your mind, don't. Wait till they are out and check them out first hand. 0.02 To me it is a slam dunk for Red. The question is which one you can afford, but any of them will leave you stoked.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

mosquito noise

mosquito noise

I was thinking about the HDSLR aliasing issue and wondered if it would be possible to put a second OLPF filter in front of the shutter inside after you take the mirror out to reduce the aliasing.

But there is a very BIG problem with using ANY extra anti-aliasing on a HDSLR, you cannot sharpen the RGB (TIF or DPX) frames you extract from the H.264 recording because of the "mosquito noise"!

Any even slight sharpen of the frames extracted from H.264 will amplify the sharp edges of the "mosquito noise" blocks that flicker at the edge of perception.

Any increase in contrast also makes the "mosquito noise" come above the edge of perception.

If you use a good OLPF inside the H.264 camera to optimize the aliasing, then try to compensate the sharpness loss on the recorded images that are compressed, you end up with too much "mosquito noise", so it is not going to work.

You can use temporal noise reduction to reduce the "mosquito noise" on the static parts of the image then sharpen after that, but anything moving will show the compression artifacts more than in the original camera because you are trying to compensate for the OLPF losses with very messed up data.

The HDSLR camera makers are using a codec that was meant for finished images as a "digital negative" format , and it does not give you the range needed.

The wavelet compressing used in REDCODE does not have as many problems as H.264, and Scarlet would have its OLPF filter and " so called de-Bayer" optimized hopefully so that extra sharpening would not be needed.

Another point to Scarlet, is that 35mm lenses are large and heavy, there are many times you want a lighter weight camera when you need to pack it around. By the time you get through attaching things to the HDSLR its no longer a compact solution, and the optical finder needs to be removed for PL optics so the quality of the viewfinder needs to be thought about since you need a good viewfinder to get good results since getting the focus right is the #1 issue with shooting HD, its not HD if its out of focus, is it...