RED S35 or Panasonic AF100

[Leo Sardello]

Sorry. I was just going off the fact that the industry as a whole makes a distinction between the two formats, hence Sony’s use of the term Full HD as opposed to 2k (unlike say the SI-2k). It also makes a distinction between 1080i and 1080p. The Sony specs I found used the i and not the p so that’s what I used.

Although I suppose in explaining all that it makes my use of Super 35mm a little hypocritical. :blush:

I am totally going to refer to my TV as a 1.9k plasma from now on though. :cornut:

Cool announcement from Sony (Canon, the ball’s in your court now), but personally I’ll take a 2/3 Scarlet Cinema over either the AF100 or NEX-VG10 (and yeah, I’m willing to wait).

 

[Erich Ocean]

Cool announcement from Sony (Canon, the ball’s in your court now)

This is going to be a battle between Sony and Panasonic, and to a much lesser extent, Red. Sony is releasing six new Super35mm cameras with interchangeable lenses and HD video in the space of a year (with two generations of Super35mm sensors). Everyone knows that it would take a miracle for Red to have that kind of product development and release schedule.

I want to use the Red DMSC system as bad as anyone else, and the price is right, but Red is seriously hamstrung by being a fabless semi-conductor company. It puts them at the mercy of other companies to actually make their products, something neither Sony nor Panasonic has to deal with.

It's actually worse: the Red One available for sale today came out in 2007, with a 2007 sensor. That's an eternity in sensor design. And they're having trouble (again) getting Red One MX upgrades done due to third-party manufacturers. The whole Red manufacturing situation sucks. The latest info from Jim is that there is NO manufacturer for Scarlet. Given Red's difficulties and hugely delayed schedule, that's TERRIBLE news.

Red is a company that designs great products and seems to care deeply about it's customers, but can't get those products manufactured and shipped reliably. Apple also designs great products and cares about their users, but unlike Red, they also execute like clockwork when it comes to manufacturing and shipping product.

I really hope Red can fix this and carve out a profitable niche for themselves. I doubt Jim's business plan was to take on both Sony and Panasonic's consumer and professional divisions simultaneously in a head on manufacturing battle with their premium, high margin products. I don't think any one man can bankroll what amounts to a land war in Asia, not even Jim. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Thomas Church]

The problem is... Scarlet 2/3 was intended to beat the cameras of two years ago...

HVX, EX3, HPX500, etc.

Now we're already entering into affordable S35 realm. If Sony makes a pro version of this camera, even at 3K, it's gonna steal a lot of customers from SLRs and Scarlet.

It isn't that Scarlet 2/3 that's late to the party... Scarlet S35 is starting to miss the boat as well if it doesn't come out in a year.

What I think will happen is this: RED will continue to do great in the high-end market, EPIC will have a lot of penetration in big productions and will become a totally common camera in that field.

But I don't see RED taking much of the "small production company/prosumer/small indies" market anymore.

That market's gonna be divided between Sony's offerings, Panasonic's AF-100 and DSLRs.

Scarlet 2/3 would've been a huge hit six months ago... now everyday that passes I see RED selling less and less of them.

I'm still on the RED boat though, even if I wished I could skip Scarlet 2/3 and pick a S35 already.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I don't see this being a full 1080p resolved camera. Much like the Canons, it is could be a 1200x700 camera. It can do 7 frames per second burst, similar to the 7D. Let's face it, it is not powerful enough to do video without some tricks. Like line-skipping. They could tweak it for video, particularly the OLPF, but it is clear there will be loads of compromises here.

Perhaps it is just DOF as to why large sensor/line skipping cameras are preferred to small sensor/full frame cameras.

 

[Leo Sardello]

2/3 may be out of style these days, but it is a very functional sensor size that works well in a broad range of shooting situations. It’s very diverse which I find appealing.

Moreover, for me the system is more important than any single component. And RED looks to be developing one hell of a system. The modular concept has the upmost appeal to me, because again, it creates a vast array of options for a diverse set of situations.

And I’m not seeing many of the very cool announced features being matched by the other companies… yet. “Touch to Focus Tracking”, FLUT, GPS, 120fps @ 3k, 802.11 ect. ect. ect. I mean if they’ve taken back any of these features feel free to correct me, but this is exciting stuff that other manufactures will end up playing catch up on.

So, I look at the systems and think the other guys have announced improved versions of the same thing, and RED has announced a new thing.

Frankly I wouldn’t sell my HVX for either an AF100 or NEX-VG10 much less purchase them over a Scarlet.

But that’s just me. We all have different needs and will do different things.

 

[Erich Ocean]

2/3 may be out of style these days

Not at all. 2/3" will continue to be the go-to format for ENG/EFP work. The image is beautiful, it'll work very nicely with 3D due to the deeper focus, there are tons of broadcast 2/3" lenses, you don't need a focus puller, etc.

Super35mm and 2/3" are not natural competitors; the on set production aspects are totally different. I think Sony and Panasonic have figured this out (especially Sony) and we'll see a parallel roadmap to the 2/3" world, where 2/3" isn't necessarily cheaper than Super35mm at the "equivalent" quality level, because when the production calls for 2/3", providing Super35mm is a bug, not a feature.

In a nutshell: the professional world will continue to standardize on 2/3" for ENG/EFP/documentary/reality TV work, and Super35mm for scripted television, music video and cinema (possibly with FF or larger for specific shots or scenes in those productions - think Dark Knight).

That's what's so great about Red's "brain" idea; you can easily get your Epic configured for ENG/EFP work simply by swapping in the 2/3" brain and an ENG/EFP module for TC and genlock (and possibly something like ProRes).

I don't think the 2/3" Scarlet will be successful for scripted television, music video or cinema production at this point, but that doesn't mean it won't be successful, so long as it's aimed at ENG/EFP work. It could do *really* well in that market.

 

[David Rasberry]

don't think the 2/3" Scarlet will be successful for scripted television, music video or cinema production at this point, but that doesn't mean it won't be successful, so long as it's aimed at ENG/EFP work. It could do *really* well in that market.

I disagree. There is a lot of episodic TV being shot now on 2/3" format as well as an ever increasing number of feature films. And these are being shot on $70k+ cameras, so budget is not an issue.
It is a creative format choice based on the desired look and other practical production considerations.

Scarlet will still be the only camera with the creative flexibility and power of higher than HD raw acquisition in a compact practical field camera.

In the under $10k camera market, Scarlet 2/3" will be the only camera system that can produce a highly detailed fully resolved native 1.89:1 2k digital cinema wide screen image without cropping and up scaling. No 1080p HD camera at any price can do that. For anyone seriously interested in producing a feature for 2k theatrical release, Scarlet 2/3" and Scarlet S35 will be the THE go to low budget cameras.

 

[Jim Retar]

I don't really know why ENG work gets mentioned.... 3k/raw is a huge pain in the ass for such fast turnaround work. If the proposed h264 (or better still pro res) module comes out... then yes, talk about ENG.

 

[David Rasberry]

Other than for freelance stringers that shoot occasional news stories as part of their general production business, I don't see Scarlet being a practical ENG camera.

 

[Michael Olsen]

I don't really know why ENG work gets mentioned.... 3k/raw is a huge pain in the ass for such fast turnaround work. If the proposed h264 (or better still pro res) module comes out... then yes, talk about ENG.

Did we ever get word about what the 1080p RGB out of the camera will be encoded in?

 

[Aaron Newsome]

In the under $10k camera market, Scarlet 2/3" will be the only camera system that can produce a highly detailed fully resolved native 1.89:1 2k digital cinema wide screen image without cropping and up scaling. No 1080p HD camera at any price can do that.

No 1080p HD camera at any price can do that? I'm looking forward to running some tests of the Scarlet against my Viper. I like tests. Even better, let's go 2:35:1, which the Viper does natively without anamorphic lenses and maintaining the full 1920x1080 resolution.

I was talking to a DP who shot with the Viper on a feature that was filmed out for IMAX and he remarked about how the guys in post were saying the images were "too sharp" compared to the film scans.

The questions about whether or not 2/3 is enough are a little soon. I think 2/3 will be here for quite a while. Even with the current mind numbing shallow DOF craze, professionals who know how to apply to right tool for the right job, will continue to use 2/3 format where it fits.

 

[David Rasberry]

No 1080p HD camera at any price can do that? I'm looking forward to running some tests of the Scarlet against my Viper. I like tests. Even better, let's go 2:35:1, which the Viper does natively without anamorphic lenses and maintaining the full 1920x1080 resolution.

I was talking to a DP who shot with the Viper on a feature that was filmed out for IMAX and he remarked about how the guys in post were saying the images were "too sharp" compared to the film scans.

The questions about whether or not 2/3 is enough are a little soon. I think 2/3 will be here for quite a while. Even with the current mind numbing shallow DOF craze, professionals who know how to apply to right tool for the right job, will continue to use 2/3 format where it fits.

Anamorphic might be an exception, but the resolution still has to be scaled up from 1920 to 2048 for 2k DCI vs scaling DOWN from 3072 for Scarlet. Apparent sharpness in HD video has more to do with edge enhancement than true resolution though. Film gives smooth clean edges without aliasing or that hard video appearance precisely because it does have significantly higher resolution.
Viper is a superb HD camera though. Just not affordable for me as a personal camera. :smiley:

I fully agree with you on the viability of the 2/3" format. It needs no justification vis a vis anything 35mm for its existence for feature work or anything else. It is a practical creative format choice just as 16mm film has been for nearly 100 years.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Personally, I want less Moire, less Aliasing and Less Rolling shutter problems. The only camera specs that seem to address this to the level of my liking so far are the 2/3 and the S35. Both the Sony and Panasonic are based on the same technology as the still cameras that use the same sensors. Those still cameras, suffer horribly from these.

I could even live with the rolling shutter, but I am SO TIRED of dealing with aliasing and Moire. I look forward to getting larger video streams and downsampling to my 1080p target. Scarlet can NOT get here soon enough.

Granted, the Panasonic or Sony could improve on their sensors, but a stronger OLPF doesn't seem likely on the Sony given it can still shoot images with the full sensor at 7fps. This means the OLPF would have to be tuned for the entire sensor.

I'm also not convinced using a stronger OLPF on these sensors is going to help more than they are going to hurt. The biggest problem is the math relating the pixel size to the ignored area of the sensor. To use a strong enough OLPF to push the spacial content to active pixels is so far, the image is going to look horrible and super soft.

 

[Aaron Newsome]

Anamorphic might be an exception, but the resolution still has to be scaled up from 1920 to 2048 for 2k DCI vs scaling DOWN from 3072 for Scarlet. Apparent sharpness in HD video has more to do with edge enhancement than true resolution though. Film gives smooth clean edges without aliasing or that hard video appearance precisely because it does have significantly higher resolution.
Viper is a superb HD camera though. Just not affordable for me as a personal camera. :smiley:

I fully agree with you on the viability of the 2/3" format. It needs no justification vis a vis anything 35mm for its existence for feature work or anything else. It is a practical creative format choice just as 16mm film has been for nearly 100 years.

As far as I know when using the Viper, there is no way to add "sharpness" to the picture like a regular video camera. I know what "sharpness" or "detail" is, and I just don't think that type of processing exists on Viper.

The standard mode for Viper is zero processing in camera. Raw, uncompressed dual link 4:4:4 output at the SDI outputs.

Also, the vertical smear is non-existent, because the camera has a physical shutter just like a film camera. Aliasing and moire, also not existent since the HD output is oversampled 4x (that is, THREE 4320x1920 CCD sensors). There is no bayer battern over the sensor. Each photosite gets it's own slice of light so there's no guessing how much red or blue light would fall on a green photosite.

It's pretty neat.

 

[Rick Burnett]

As far as I know when using the Viper, there is no way to add "sharpness" to the picture like a regular video camera. I know what "sharpness" or "detail" is, and I just don't think that type of processing exists on Viper.

The standard mode for Viper is zero processing in camera. Raw, uncompressed dual link 4:4:4 output at the SDI outputs.

Also, the vertical smear is non-existent, because the camera has a physical shutter just like a film camera. Aliasing and moire, also not existent since the HD output is oversampled 4x (that is, THREE 4320x1920 CCD sensors). There is no bayer battern over the sensor. Each photosite gets it's own slice of light so there's no guessing how much red or blue light would fall on a green photosite.

It's pretty neat.

I'm confused, what do you mean by vertical smear? Do you mean skewing? (Like what is caused by rolling shutter). Most CCD outputs I have seen have a problem when you overexpose, it causes a vertical line of light which is due to how the sensor shifts out the data.

 

[David Rasberry]

As far as I know when using the Viper, there is no way to add "sharpness" to the picture like a regular video camera. I know what "sharpness" or "detail" is, and I just don't think that type of processing exists on Viper.

The standard mode for Viper is zero processing in camera. Raw, uncompressed dual link 4:4:4 output at the SDI outputs.

Also, the vertical smear is non-existent, because the camera has a physical shutter just like a film camera. Aliasing and moire, also not existent since the HD output is oversampled 4x (that is, THREE 4320x1920 CCD sensors). There is no bayer battern over the sensor. Each photosite gets it's own slice of light so there's no guessing how much red or blue light would fall on a green photosite.

It's pretty neat.

I knew the Viper was a top line camera, but didn't know the full specs. Very impressive. How much?

 

[David Rasberry]

I'm confused, what do you mean by vertical smear? Do you mean skewing? (Like what is caused by rolling shutter). Most CCD outputs I have seen have a problem when you overexpose, it causes a vertical line of light which is due to how the sensor shifts out the data.

Its the vertical line in the image on overexposed specular highlights at clip point. Mostly this is well suppressed or controlled with knee compression these days.

 

[Aaron Newsome]

I'm confused, what do you mean by vertical smear? Do you mean skewing? (Like what is caused by rolling shutter). Most CCD outputs I have seen have a problem when you overexpose, it causes a vertical line of light which is due to how the sensor shifts out the data.

Skewing is a different type of artifact. You'll see this mostly on CMOS cameras, depending on the read/reset/shutter strategy. RED cameras have pretty much eliminated this, while still using a CMOS (from what I hear). This was never really an issue on the Viper though, since the data is not read from the sensor until it is covered by the physical shutter and the sensor is also reset *while* the sensor is still covered by the physical shutter.

Smear is different though. I suppose it can manifest in a few different ways but you can usually see it bad on CCD cameras in a dark scene when the camera is pointed at a bright light source and the light from the source blooms up and down the frame. This looks horrible in cameras with the worst designs.

 

[Aaron Newsome]

I knew the Viper was a top line camera, but didn't know the full specs. Very impressive. How much?

David, I paid $15k for the body used. Again, I bought it as a hold over til the scarlet gets here but I've already shot a *bunch* of stuff with it. Everyone is generally very impressed with the results. Me too.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Skewing is a different type of artifact. You'll see this mostly on CMOS cameras, depending on the read/reset/shutter strategy. RED cameras have pretty much eliminated this, while still using a CMOS (from what I hear). This was never really an issue on the Viper though, since the data is not read from the sensor until it is covered by the physical shutter and the sensor is also reset *while* the sensor is still covered by the physical shutter.

Smear is different though. I suppose it can manifest in a few different ways but you can usually see it bad on CCD cameras in a dark scene when the camera is pointed at a bright light source and the light from the source blooms up and down the frame. This looks horrible in cameras with the worst designs.

Why I am confused is you say that the smearing is eliminated by use of a physical shutter above, but smearing is not caused by a rolling shutter as most CCDs I have seen have a global shutter, even if just electronic. That's why I thought you might be talking about something else that is being eliminated with the physical shutter, like skew or jello, which this eliminates mostly.

Red has not eliminated skew, they've just reduced it to be closer to what a film camera would produce, per Jim's words. As a point of reference, the Red One has an 8ms read/reset cycle. You can certainly make it skew. The Epic was last rated at 5ms and film is said to be rated at 4ms for the equivalent of a spinning mirror shutter to wipe across the film face.