S35 Scarlet/3K/with lens for $3000 - Why?

[brainburst]

i am reserving all judgement until i've seen some mysterium-x footage. depth of field is but one part of the equation. i'd like to see the dynamic range of mysterium-x in action.

The laws of physics have not changed. Photons are photons electrons are electrons. Two sensors with equivalent technology CAN'T have the same S/N dynamic range characteristics if one has cells that are 40% smaller than the other.

 

[Mani Ghasemlou]

well, the laws of physics are irrelevant to your argument unless you've seen what a mysterium-X sensor can do. you're comparing two sensors with equivalent technology that none of us knows anything about.

still reserving judgment, and excited about seeing some scarlet 2/3" footage.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

The 2/3" Scarlet with the interchangeable lenses is great for all things broadcast, docs, reality, you name it. The price is reasonable too. The challenge is in finding a decent HD motorized (B4 broadcast type) zoom lens that won't cost the $15-30k + It doesn't seem that Red is going to be making any 2/3" zoom lenses, which leaves us with Fuji, Canon and Angenieux, bringing the overall price of the kit easily to the $20-40k range. Any suggestions anyone?

I picked up an used Angenieux wide angle HD 10x5.3 lens on ebay for $8500.00.

They exist. Shop around.

 

[brainburst]

laws of physics are irrelevant to your argument unless you've seen what a mysterium-X sensor can do

That is simply an illogical statement on the face of it.

Let's suppose RED can defy the laws of physics and their 2/3" sensor is great. Well then wouldn't the same technology applied to a larger sensor yield even better benefits? Of course it would! Larger sensors with the same technology will always and forever look better than smaller sensors with the same technology unless they purposely cripple the larger sensors.

And this still doesn't address DOF issues or the fact that you simply can't get any affordable decent 2/3" glass.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I picked up an used Angenieux wide angle HD 10x5.3 lens on ebay for $8500.00.

They exist. Shop around.

Hi,

Is that a video lens where the R G & B focus on a different plane? If so it is far from ideal on a Scarlet.

Stephen

 

[Michael Hastings]

the lowest end Scarlet has a fixed lens, so that doesn't compare to the MKII. You have to go up to the $7,000 brain before you can use your canon or nikon lenses, and compare image quality with the MKII.

That isn't true, the $2500 as listed has a mini RED mount or c mount or B4 mount. There are dumb adapters from c to nikon or other still lenses already made. And I believe Birger already has a smart c-mount solution in their industrial line that allows you to just mount the canon to the c mount.

Plus it looks as if RED is making the modular cameras so you remove the front plate of the camera to go to one of the alternate mounts. This would make it very easy to make ANY kind of alternative mount. The problem again is you wouldn't have wide angle if it is 2/3". All of this would be about the same for four thirds except you would have wide angle and telephoto and zoom in the standard four thirds mount, and then you could use any of the still lenses for larger formats for telephoto work on an adapter. But since the pixel size/spacing would be about the same as the others the sensor wouldn't outresolve the lenses. Again, there are a bunch of good reasons NOT to use 2/3" and really no good reasons for using it.

As far as the removable front - one of the things we are excited about is actually mounting the Full frame version camera with out a mount on it to the front plate of an underwater housing that would have a Nikonos mount machined into it allowing us to use Nikonos lenses.

well, the laws of physics are irrelevant to your argument unless you've seen what a mysterium-X sensor can do. you're comparing two sensors with equivalent technology that none of us knows anything about.

It isn't irrelevant, the key is equivalent technology. It is the same as if you have two cars with the same power, aerodynamics, etc. but add 500 pounds to one - it just simply will use more gas. can you make a car with a more efficient engine, better aerodynamics or whatever that would get the same mileage - yes but that wouldn't be equivalent technology. It is reasonable to assume that mysterium x technology is based on same combination of techniques that would be available to both sizes so if you shrink the pixel size you will inherently degrade the performance in one of the directions, noise, sensitivy, DR or whatever.

I picked up an used Angenieux wide angle HD 10x5.3 lens on ebay for $8500.00. They exist. Shop around.

Hi, Is that a video lens where the R G & B focus on a different plane? If so it is far from ideal on a Scarlet. Stephen

As steven says it wouldn't be ideal, not to mention the fact that it was designed for at most a 1920 pixel horizontal array while the 3K scarlet is 3720 almost twice the resolution, not to mention that the pixels are probably smaller and tighter spaced meaning it will not resolve as well for that reason too. It's the same reason using a a high quality large format Hasselblad lens on a 35mm camera doesn't give you the same performance as it does on the larger format.

Not to mention you are paying two to times more for an inferior USED HD lens than you would for the three superior brand new zuiko zooms that cover the range from 7 - 150 mm (and of course you can buy a cheaper full range zoom for about $980 that still probably is at least as good as the B4 lens.

 

[brainburst]

Angenieux wide angle HD 10x5.3 lens on ebay for $8500.00

A product should not be dependent upon the availability of used commodities, which are a hit or miss proposition.

Is that the Angenieux 10x 5.3 AIF. HD ESM lens? Well that is a broadcast lens meant for 3ccd HD cameras with a 2/3 sensor @ 1920 x 1080
Well the cell size on a typical 2/3 sensor is closer to 4 microns, not 3.2 like on Red's proposed 2/3" sensor. So it won't be quite as sharp will it?
Since it is meant for 3CCD cameras the lens is built to compensate for chromatic aberration introduced by the divergent light paths introduced by the prism. That's not so good for a Bayer sensor is it? Certainly not optimum, wouldn't you agree?

So according to you one is better off spending $8500 on used glass that is less than optimum for a 2/3" sensor which still doesn't have great DOF and won't have as good Dynamic range Instead of spending much less for optimum glass for a better 4/3 sensor.
HMMM...

 

[Cedric Akins]

I originally opted not to participate in this thread because it is, IMHO, silly that people aren't satisfied with the the cameras that were revealed on the 13th. This is still a business and at the end of the day the Red Digital Cinema company still wants to show a profit. It is great that they are willing to sit at thier computers and discuss the cameras progress, but they don't have to listen to demands. This thread has been discussed to death on Scarletuser and here at Reduser there are at least two threads on this same subject. Please close this thread and kill this particular discussion. If Jim and the Red Crew decide to make that S35 3K camera then you are more than welcomed to buy it.

 

[brainburst]

I originally opted not to participate in this thread because it is, IMHO, silly that people aren't satisfied with the the cameras that were revealed on the 13th.

This thread if you've read through it isn't just about a S35 sized 3k sensor. ( I am against that request.) If you've read through it you'd see that serious concerns were raised about the 2/3" sensor. If you've read through it you'd also see that none of the concerns were adequately addressed. The "I'm sure the 2/3" camera will be great!" response is not adequate.
Some of us have offered what we feel is a viable alternative 4/3s . As consumers we do have the last word on what we want in a product and we are correct in laying out our "demands" so long as they are not excessive.
Red can respond by not responding or whatever. To dismiss the very existence of discourse because you don't like it is narrow minded. A thread should be closed when the issue being discussed is a closed issue or the information is no longer currrent or relevant.
I will be all for the closing of this thread or similar threads when someone can adequately explain to me:
Why not a 4/3s option

 

[Cedric Akins]

Whatever.

 

[Jason Horncastle]

Why not a 4/3s option

First, I will say I'm very pleased indeed with Red's present offerings. I can see a great deal of use both for the 5K S35 and the 3K 2/3 cameras.

Brainburst, your 3K 4/3 size sensor idea makes a LOT of sense, although I feel that it's something for the future (maybe in the second round of Scarlets?). I think its the perfect midway format between the two already proposed. Many of the reasons you have already outlined:
1. Sensor size of approx. 18 x 12mm (1/4 the FF35 area and, at 3K, half the resolution).
2. The micro 4/3 format has been specifically invented with the convergence between still and motion in mind. It should be possible to make high quality lenses that are smaller and, in theory, therefore cheaper. The extra two contacts (11 instead of 4/3's 9 contacts) should provide faster autofocus as far as I'm aware.
3. The Micro 4/3 format is compatible with existing 4/3 lenses via a simple adapter which shifts the lense forward to compensate for the extra flange to sensor distance. They won't benefit from the extra two contacts but otherwise should work as normal.
4. Shallower DOF attainable, but still easier to focus than the s35 size.
5. In theory at least, better dynamic range.

BUT:
1. Red needs to be producing the designs they have already put out. As Jim has said elsewhere, Red can't exist as a company that just produces designs, they need product as well.
2. The micro 4/3 format is very new. (The catalog/ web page you pointed people to is for 4/3 lenses not the micro ones). As far as I'm aware only two micro 4/3 lenses are on the market as yet.
3. I imagine Red would want to look at the legal situation before committing to that format. In theory it's an "open" standard, but it has been put forward by Panasonic and Olympus. On the web site they invite other manufacturers to "adhere" to the standard. What exactly that means I have no idea!!

In conclusion, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Red are looking at micro 4/3 as a possible format, but I think if they are it will be for the future. This won't be their last phase of development after all - we have to leave them some area to develop into.

 

[Michael Hastings]

It doesn't seem that you have read through most of my and brainbursts posts.

In essence we are suggesting (sorry if I offend anyone) that the choice of 2/3" was not well thought out, it probably just came because it is a familiar size we have used on the plethora of broadcast 2/3 cameras. However, since they are designed for 1.8K and less there are NO really good lenses available and even the Highend 2/3 HD lenses in the $15K - $30K - although great on 1080P - would be mediocre on 3K. (Not to mention they were designed for a prism optical system.) So there is no good reason to backtrack to that old format just because it is familiar - and it is not like RED has a 2/3" fab plant like sony does.

Further, we are saying that since it could use the same pixel size as the S35 size it shouldn't really cost much more (if at all) and would give better inherent image performance. I also don't believe it would create any significant design issues to what they already have. The processing load is essentially based on the pixel count so no change there and the "brain" body itself is designed to accommodate even FF chips so no big deal there. The mount is an open standard already made by numerous companies so pretty easy there. So really it is just a matter of a smaller chip with essentially the same micron size and electronic layout as the current chips. The smaller size of the chip is how you get down to 3K - rather than drastically reducing both the pixel size and the chip size by going to 2/3".

Obviously, when only a month or so ago they were able to totally scrap all their previous designs and come up with the DSMC concept, it wouldn't take long to shift to a slightly different but simpler chip design that really doesn't affect the rest of the package.

Further, users could be confident that they would have extremely high quality lenses available from the day they receive it. 3K capable lenses simply don't exist right now in c-mount or 2/3" B4 and aren't likely ever to exist unless RED makes them and that could be a year or two in coming because there is no point for anyone else to do - it is unlikely that Sony, Panasonic, et al will come up with higher res cameras without going to a larger sensor size. Not to mention that the price points are excellent on the current high quality Four/Thirds lenses which are designed to cover at least 12 megapixels.

A couple other points, First as I mentioned in earlier threads. We are not talking about micro four thirds - it has no real benefit for RED DSMC's because there is no problem using the regular four thirds mount.

Second: The four/thirds system has been around at least 6 or 7 years with shipping camera products for 5 years. But in reality we don't care about the cameras, we just want the existing (good enough in themselves) and future lenses either from Leica, Olympus, Sigma, et al or RED.

Third: the big point as brainburst has stated over and over is that a 3K (less pixels on same chip size) S35 doesn't make sense and that a smaller size does make sense - just not 2/3". The sweet spot is somewhere around the 4/3 size so the fact there is already a standard and lenses it is REALLY the sweet spot. (And just to be clear I'm talking a 16:9 sensor in the 4/3 coverage circle.) Also, RED doesn't really have to do much with the other 4/3s people it is just that we would immediately have lenses and RED can roll out their own versions on their own natural schedule rather than trying to rush them.

Finally maybe this thread should be closed - but only to start another thread titled "Jim, WHY 2/3" and WHY NOT 4/3 for 3k scarlet." If anyone wants to copy the relevant posts to a new thread feel free, otherwise if I can get some extra time I will do it."

brainburst would it be okay for me to copy your posts to a new thread?

 

[brainburst]

Copy away...
I am just amazed at the negativity of some people. What are they afraid of? Did they run out and buy b4 mount lenses in anticipation of an as yet vaporware product?

 

[Jiri Bakala]

I hear you, but here's the thing: No such affordable lens exists for the 2/3" version of the camera right? So it's not as if there's a reasonable alternative. No such affordable decent lenses exists at all for the 2/3" camera which is why RED will offer mini primes. If instead they went with a 4/3 sensor they could scrap the silly idea of all the mini primes since there are plenty of options already for the 4/3 with optical stabilizers to boot, and just make 1 zoom lens like the one you want which would be more cost effective since the glass wouldn't have to be THAT good.

OK, that makes a lot of sense! If Red (or Fuji/Canon) or anyone else made a truly affordable 4/3 zoom lens with all the needed controls and communications with the 'brain', then it would be an absolute winner. That way it would work very well as a run-and-a-gun, as well as, a film-style camera with primes and all the accompanying bells and whistles.

 

[Jason Horncastle]

It doesn't seem that you have read through most of my and brainbursts posts.

If this was referring to my post above, actually I have read them, and if you read mine you will see that I agree with much of what you both say with reference to the 4/3 format. I differ with you over two main points:

1. I want to see the 2/3 cameras made and trust that the Red lenses, dynamic range and S/N ratio will be up to the job. I think the 4/3 format could be viable for Red on the next round of Scarlet design, not now.

2. I think the Micro 4/3 format probably would offer advantages over the regular 4/3 format. This is not because I believe the Red DSCMs would have a problem with the regular 4/3 mount, but because the micro ones can be made smaller, therefore giving higher quality at a lower price, and with faster connectivity. From the 4/3 site: "... In addition, the lens mount of the Micro Four Thirds System is equipped with two additional signal contacts for smoother Live View shooting with shorter time lags, faster higher communication speeds between the lens and body, and, of course, reduced lens and camera size. These two contacts will also be used in high-speed data processing required for the movie handling capability expected in the future." Please note also that all the existing 4/3 lenses can be used with the micro 4/3 format and that the sensor size is exactly the same.

Finally, referring to your third point, nowhere did I suggest a 3K S35 size sensor was a good idea. I agree that the 4/3 size would be a sweet spot and wanted to give you both a bit of support on that, but I don't want to argue the details.

 

[Michael Hastings]

It was a generic reference to several posts, not specifically yours that seem to minimize the fact that A) there are NO suitable C or 2/3 B4 lenses and there is no other market for RED-type 2/3" lenses and even if RED were to sell 10000 2/3" scarlets it would be a small percentage of the market

B) RED hasn't shown the ability to get lenses made quickly - even the PL lenses where RED in a single year has possibly doubled the number of PL mount cameras produced in the previous 10 years and the market is hungry for PL lenses.

C) it makes just as much sense (or more but that is just my opinion) for red to make four thirds lenses as it does c mount or B4 or proprietary red mount 2/3" and shouldn't take them any longer.

D) if they use four/thirds mount we aren't depending for delivery of lenses on RED - if they get them done in time great. If not we have options. I think many people might be surprised at how many people have NOT taken delivery based on lens or lens mount unavailability, be it RED Nikon which came out in April and probably caused a rush on deliveries or Birger or RED Primes or Optar Illumina.

My interest (and many others I have talked to) is in a 3K camera with very high quality lenses (preferably at reasonable prices) NOT a 3K camera with marginal lenses AND would really like to avoid the long delays waiting for lenses that we have with REDONE. I'm not criticizing RED for the long delays on lenses for the REDONE - it was probably unavoidable given the difficulty of ramping up PL lens manufacturing and the delays for Birger, etc. The point is this is easily avoided by using 4/3s which is probably better all around and probably NOT more difficult or expensive.

A more interesting poll would be how long people waited after their number was called to take delivery; how many have canceled; and how many took delivery but then had to use it as a bookend on their shelf for X months. (I didn't say doorstop Jarred! LOL :biggrin - I think using it as a doorstop was disrepectful as well)

 

[Michael Hastings]

OK, that makes a lot of sense! If Red (or Fuji/Canon) or anyone else made a truly affordable 4/3 zoom lens with all the needed controls and communications with the 'brain', then it would be an absolute winner. That way it would work very well as a run-and-a-gun, as well as, a film-style camera with primes and all the accompanying bells and whistles.

I know what you want bakalaj - a B4 style lens that has a zoom servo solid enough that you can put the camera on your shoulder, hold the camera by the lens with your right hand and focus with the left - because I want it too, and I would have liked for RED to make one for the REDONE but they were more focused on cinestyle.

Unfortunately I doubt if Canon, or Fujinon will ever do it - there just isn't and probably never will be (i.e. next 10 years) a market for those lenses for resolutions higher than 1080P. Nikon got into the video lens market back in the 90s and then abandoned it because there wasn't enough to go around, and that was in the heyday of big BETACAM, SVHS, 8mm camcorders - now the market keeps declining so all they will do is tweak the current design. Again this is why brainburst and I keep saying to give up on 2/3" - there's no point.

Copy away...
I am just amazed at the negativity of some people. What are they afraid of? Did they run out and buy b4 mount lenses in anticipation of an as yet vaporware product?

Well, I have about a dozen good b4 lenses I would sell cheap.:biggrin:
And BTW it is a vaporware (not a scam, just not a real product) right now - no insult to RED - it just is, and that's why there is time to change to a better format.

 

[Cedric Akins]

This thread if you've read through it isn't just about a S35 sized 3k sensor. ( I am against that request.) If you've read through it you'd see that serious concerns were raised about the 2/3" sensor. If you've read through it you'd also see that none of the concerns were adequately addressed. The "I'm sure the 2/3" camera will be great!" response is not adequate.
Some of us have offered what we feel is a viable alternative 4/3s . As consumers we do have the last word on what we want in a product and we are correct in laying out our "demands" so long as they are not excessive.
Red can respond by not responding or whatever. To dismiss the very existence of discourse because you don't like it is narrow minded. A thread should be closed when the issue being discussed is a closed issue or the information is no longer currrent or relevant.
I will be all for the closing of this thread or similar threads when someone can adequately explain to me:
Why not a 4/3s option

You may want to look at the title again brainburst. Clearly says S35 Scarlet/3K/with lens for $3000 - Why?

But anyway this is not about someone being negative. I personally like the choices that Red has offered.

 

[Michael Hastings]

You may want to look at the title again brainburst. Clearly says S35 Scarlet/3K/with lens for $3000 - Why?

But anyway this is not about someone being negative. I personally like the choices that Red has offered.

We talked about that 5 or 6 posts back.

Finally maybe this thread should be closed - but only to start another thread titled "Jim, WHY 2/3" and WHY NOT 4/3 for 3k scarlet." If anyone wants to copy the relevant posts to a new thread feel free, otherwise if I can get some extra time I will do it."

brainburst would it be okay for me to copy your posts to a new thread?

 

[Cedric Akins]

We talked about that 5 or 6 posts back.

And, so what