Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Scarlet 2/3": Do you want a 4K Scarlet?

Scarlet 2/3": Do you want a 4K Scarlet?

  • Aye

    Votes: 71 39.0%

  • Nay

    Votes: 111 61.0%
  • Total voters
    182
For me the Scarlet 2/3" fixed is a replacement for Sony and Panasonic broadcast cameras. I don't need 4K for that. I need a paintbox/CCU for the HDSDI output. But I can buy 10 Scarlets for the cost of a single Sony or Panasonic.
 
No, I don't want 4K. B/c I want the camera to cease being some lure that's trawled five months ahead of me as new features are being added. Just lock it down and release the freaking thing.
 
well, but that's typically some kind of compressed 720 uprezzing... clean RAW footage is a little different (lots better)

to get an idea, downsize a dslr still (or timelapse) from a RAW file to 3k, then back up to 4k... that will give you somewhat an idea for now...
 
This has probably been said already (I didn't read the whole thread), but, in my opinion if RED are going to go through all that development, they may as well make it a 4K S16mm (or slightly larger) sized sensor. I'm not a sensor design expert, but I would expect that keeping the pixel density the same and increasing the area (and thus the resolution) of the sensor would require far less work than increasing the resolution and keeping the size constant.

But then again, if you're going to aim for 4K, you may as well oversample to get as highly detailed 4K output as you can, so you may as well just go up to the EPIC-S.

So all in all I think that a 4K 2/3" Scarlet is a bad idea but something closer to a S16mm sensor could be a good addition to the lineup.
 
we may very well see another scarlet in years to come with a s16 sensor, i don't think it would be a bad idea... but you're still going to want something like 4.5k - 5k... the 2/3 scarlets are really aimed towards 2k deliveries... which will still be a viable option for indies,tv,web,etc. for the next few years.
 
Will (Scarlet) 3K downrezzed to 2K, upscaled to 4K look better then 2K (from any other camera) upscaled to 4K?
 
yes... but i wouldn't do it.

for big projects, i'll work with everything at the original 3k. at the very end you can do your scaling (up or down).
 
I honestly would rather have a 3K Scarlet S35 camera.

After all these years of waiting I'm terrified of how much Epic-S will end up costing.
 
Jesper Sichlau said:
Will (Scarlet) 3K downrezzed to 2K, upscaled to 4K look better then 2K (from any other camera) upscaled to 4K?
Click to expand...



Define "Look Better"...

If memory serves me right (which it may not) it has the same pixelcount as the RAW Alexa signal. Does that make it look like an Alexa?

Nope

it will look like a Scarlet 2/3"

But resolution-wise they should be comparable.

Transformers is shot on Alexa.
Will you be able to shoot transformers with Scarlet?

Sure.
If you have the budget and talent... -:)

G
(Who is no huge fan of transformers anyway after the 2nd...)
 
that's true, i think the alexa is essentially doing that already (downrezzing to 2k), which makes it look better in terms of resolution than it would otherwise.

difference is, scarlet will look good at 3k
 
Gunleik Groven said:
(Who is no huge fan of transformers anyway after the 2nd...)
Click to expand...

This is soooo off topic but I agree ! Transformers 1 was quite good to watch, the second wasn't !

That being said, if the Scarlet (and/or Epic) was already out, I think it would be used a lot by mister Bay because he kinda seems to like to shoot handeld himself with very small camera (which look like the A-Minima in 35mm film, according to some making-of footage on Transformers 2).
 
Jim said 3k was as close to 4k as you can get for half of $10k. If they did make a 4k 2/3" Scarlet the price would be much closer to the S35 version because it would require the same processing power to maintain the performance specs.
Personally I don't think it would be justified for a small sensor. Red is very thorough with their engineering and 3k is probably the sweet spot for best overall performance from a 2/3" Bayer sensor. If it is good enough for an Arri Alexa, it should be good enough for us at 1/10th the price.
 
Jesper Sichlau said:
Sharper.
Click to expand...

Not neccesarily...
I'd rather doubt it.

3k should give you an excellent 1080.
But there are other cameras than REDs that oversample.
Then it's the question of the glass.
the 2/3" fixed costs significantly less then the sharpest glass which is often used.

Not saying anything bad about it, just that it will need testing and comparing to answer.

But for upscaling, the "sharpest" image isn't allways the best.
Enough pixels or smoothness (ore both, like with the R1/Epic) are quite good startingpoints, though.

Hopefully, due to Graeme's involvement in this, we will se nice and stretchable images due to little moire and aliasing.

That doesn't neccesrily mean "sharpest possible"

But noone really knows the answer for that yet. Not even RED, as the cam isn't done yet...
 
If Epic-S is going to be between 12-16 thousand (seems to be what people have been tossing around) it would make perfect sense to have a 3K Scarlet S35 at 7 or 8 K.
 
Thomas Church said:
If Epic-S is going to be between 12-16 thousand (seems to be what people have been tossing around) it would make perfect sense to have a 3K Scarlet S35 at 7 or 8 K.
Click to expand...

i'm gonna take a guess and say that is about what a scarlet fixed is gonna cost sans SSD. Red is making tools for professionals rather than aiming at pricepoints.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top