Red Scarlet Footage looks so dark...

[Philipe Ratton]

I love Pazuzu!

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I use a macbook pro retina .... it should be good enough

Not for judging things critically. I would suggest never judging anything posted to youtube, vimeo, etc. too critically unless there is something extremely obvious. Same goes for movies you see in the theater. What the source footage looks like could be far different from what you see in the theater. The only way to truly judge a source file such as an R3D, or Alexa RAW or any other format for that matter is through a proper signal chain to a calibrated monitor or projector. Too many variables otherwise -gamma shift for example.

That's not to say there isn't bad examples of Scarlet or Epic footage. There is. I have some RED footage I could show you if you want bad examples. Those would of course be user error though.

 

[Ryan Emanuel]

No wonder you see everything as too dark, retina macbook pros crush blacks excessively, watch on calibrated monitor. Newer iMacs are much closer to rec709

 

[Peter Majtan]

There is a lot of (perhaps unintentional) misinformation in this thread - so let's get few things straight...:

A. Scarlet sensor is identical to Epic sensor - they are both Mysterium-X (2nd generation) sensors. I have shot 5K stills on both cameras in similar conditions and identical lenses and they produce the same imagery when all settings are identical... What is different is the ASIC - the processor that takes the data from the sensor and processes it - and the associated ECBs (electronic circuit boards). The key difference is the performance at which the data from the (identical) sensor can be read and processed. This limits Scarlet's frame rates and respective compression rates - nothing else. Epic can shoot the full 5K sensor at 96 FPS and the Scarlet can shoot the same full 5K sensor at 12 FPS...

B. Scarlet sensor is native ISO 800. The first generation sensor - Mysterium - was deployed in the RED ONE and was native ISO 320. The second generation - Mysterium-X - is native ISO 800. Now what does that mean? We are in the digital age now and certain terms are either not relevant or are implemented in a very different way. In the past with analogue film stock you had to choose the ISO according to the needs of your project and could not change it after the fact. In the case of the RED digital technology the ISO is just a META DATA and can flexibly by changed after you have captured your images. So the term "native ISO" of a digital sensor simply means the sweet spot of the best performance. Changing the ISO will not change what RAW data you are capturing. It will however change how this data is interpreted into the monitoring path - which in return may affect you in deciding to adjust the actual elements that do have a direct impact on the RAW data - and these are only two: The amount of light in your scene (which you can modify by adding or subtracting / blocking) and The amount of light that can pass through the optical path in front of the sensor - that means the speed (aperture) of your lens and any related optical filtration. Changing either WILL indeed change the RAW data you are capturing. Changing the ISO WILL NOT...

C. I have seen many post titled "The Scarlet image is too *******" (insert your favorite complaint)". This is all a huge BS - especially when compared with Epic. If You shoot both Epic and Scarlet at full frame 5K at 12 FPS with red-code lets say 7:1 and all other settings, optics and scenery is identical - the images these two cameras produce will be identical. Same goes for shooting both in 24P at 4K (or any other comparable Epic format that the Scarlet can keep up with). The image will not be darker or more horrible or what ever your favorite complaint was... THEY WILL BE IDENTICAL...

If You see imagery that is underexposed (or over-exposed), too noisy, or too "what ever" - blame the DP, not the camera. And it is rather clear why - when compared to Epic shots posted online - the Scarlet imagery looks inferior. The majority of DP's that shoot with the Epic are more experienced and are using more adequate equipment (proper cine lenses, lights, grip, etc...). Same DPs with the same equip will produce the same imagery from Scarlet (within the frame size and speed of the HW). There are some talented and experienced DPs who shoot with the Scarlet and get excellent results - you never hear from them any such a complains...

So the name of this thread is very misleading. It should have really been titled as "Why people shoot mostly dark-looking imagery on the Scarlet?" - and the answer to that is just above...

The best thing about the Scarlet is that it finally shows the difference between talented and experienced DP and the "My mom bought me RED so now I am a DP" type (don't take this personally - it is a little sarcasm on my part). It shows the difference between shooting with proper (and adequate) equipment, accessories and crew...

Similarly I have heard frequently that the footage from ARRI Alexa posted online looks much better then stuff shot on RED. This is because the cameras are few and far between and cost a rather large amount of money - and therefore is mostly used by professionals on proper jobs. If the Alexa was $10K - you will see the internet being flooded by all sorts of footage from it - crap including...

All You have to do is to look at ever-growing list of major feature films - many of which were shot on RED ONE Mysterium (not X) and they look just amazing... You can buy the same camera now for $4K and that includes the newer Mysterium-X...

Why there are far more accidents involving young people in Subaru Impreza WRX when compared to a Porsche or Aston Martin? The cars have a very similar specs after all...
Well how many young guys actually buy the Impreza when compared to the luxury cars?

Right there is your answer...

I have nothing else to add

Peter

 

[Uli Plank]

You nailed it, Peter. We have two Scarlets and one Epic and all you said is true!

 

[Philipe Ratton]

Peter for the win!

 

[Madjid El ayari]

I agree with Peter , i think the scarlet is a perfect tool !!! I don t have any problem with it , with low or high light ! I have no complain about the quality i can get out of it .

I don t see any difference with the Epic exept from the 120 fps etc frame rate , and for the 4k crop , but if you know how to deal with it , you ll not see any difference with the epic .

And the image out of the scarlet can be outstanding, if you know how to deal with the spec and need of the camera , and if you have enough culture and knowledge to built a beautiful image !

It takes a really long time, it s a lot of years education to be a good artist and DOP , because you have to study a lot and learn a lot from the other and from your mistake .....And the cinema camera are just tool, they ll never made of you a great dp or artist !!!

 

[Glen Powell]

I use a macbook pro retina .... it should be good enough

It **Should** be good enough if it is properly calibrated and you are sitting in a room with light levels to match your calibration -and- you are watching correctly exposed and post graded footage, with out a shit load of YouTube and vimeo compression piled on… So many variables from camera operator error to viewer error.

Some *problems* are in fact not problems at all, but artistic stylization's that don't agree with your aesthetic view.

You can't critically judge a piece of equipment based on web footage shot by unknown amateur camera people who may not know their ass from a hole in the ground, T stop / from an F stop, key light / from a fill light, subtle grading / from a complete hatchet job...

so back to your monitor - you've calibrated it right? even with a consumer grade spider?

 

[Michael Mayda]

Peter's ABC lesson should be a mandatory read for anyone using and/or perceiving poor results from Scarlet ( or Epic)...
Make it a sticky...