Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 2K ??

George D.

George D.

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
N. California, USA
This is going to sound like a stupid question to some, but don't give me any flack, just answer it, please.

Is the Scarlet "locked" at 3K or is it capable of 2K too? If so, what will the resolution be at 2K?

Thanks.
 
George D. said:
This is going to sound like a stupid question to some, but don't give me any flak, just answer it, please.

Is the Scarlet "locked" at 3K or is it capable of 2K too? If so, what will the resolution be at 2K?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

There is no answer for a number of reasons. Scarlet is supposed to come in different flavors, with different size imagers (2/3", S35mm, Full Frame 35mm) which would all have different characteristics. Resolution is something that must be measured, which means the camera has to exist and be in production, which at the moment is not the case, and such a measurement also involves an optical path, which is dependent on the lens choice, the optical low pass filtration, and other things. And since the likely first Scarlet release version is likely to be the 2/3" chip, that is a new chip for Red that has never been manufactured or used in the existing Red One product, so that too is an unknown.

Having said that, I believe it's been mentioned in the proposed specs - which will, of course, change - count on it - that the release version will be capable of up to 120fps in 3K mode. Is there a particular application you're thinking of that requires either a higher overcrank, or that you specifically want a smaller frame for?
 
Scarlet will not resolve to exactly 3K. It will be more like 2.4K most likely (keeping in mind there is a serious amount of fairy dust being imported to Vegas right about now). The point is to get a beautifully clean 2K image (with a little room to breathe).

3K by itself is a pointless resolution. 2/3" is all about the 2K and 1080p, depending on your format or output.
 
Tim Hole said:
Scarlet will not resolve to exactly 3K. It will be more like 2.4K most likely (keeping in mind there is a serious amount of fairy dust being imported to Vegas right about now). The point is to get a beautifully clean 2K image (with a little room to breathe).

3K by itself is a pointless resolution. 2/3" is all about the 2K and 1080p, depending on your format or output.
Click to expand...

We're getting into the "what is resolution" question again, hence my answer. Resolution is measured in line pairs per square millimeter, not in pixels on a Bayer sensor. I never implied that Scarlet's "resolution" would be 3K, I simply said that it would operate in "3K mode," which on a Red forum means something fairly specific. If one wants to talk about "resolution," it needs to be measured through a complete optical system, because it's not simply a matter of how many horizontal pixels are on the sensor.
 
OK. I understand your point. I was refering to the original poster and answering his fairly simple question in a straightforward way as it is generally assumed the 2/3" camera will perform in general accepted standards.
 
Justin O'Neill said:
As far as resolution options you can select in the menu on the 2/3" Scarlet, RED has only announced two so far: 3k REDCODE RAW and scaled 1080 rgb.
Click to expand...

I believe the specs, as shown on the Scarlet section of the RED site, also say it will do scaled 720p.
 
Justin O'Neill said:
As far as resolution options you can select in the menu on the 2/3" Scarlet, RED has only announced two so far: 3k REDCODE RAW and scaled 1080 rgb.
Click to expand...

As mentioned above, those aren't really resolutions in the true sense of the term, they're formats. The actual resolution is something we don't know because the Scarlet is not in production yet.
 
This is an old question that have surfaced before. Search the forum and you will see it in living color somewhere out there.
 
Tim Hole said:
Scarlet will not resolve to exactly 3K. It will be more like 2.4K most likely (keeping in mind there is a serious amount of fairy dust being imported to Vegas right about now). The point is to get a beautifully clean 2K image (with a little room to breathe).
Click to expand...

I think we need better terminology to describe this. Saying that Scarlet doesn't produce 3K of resolution is confusing and misleading to people unfamiliar to the subject in my opinion, because it sounds like you don't get 3K worth of pixels out after a debayer, but you do. I think a better way to describe it is as having about 2.4K of measured detail.

Perhaps we could just say "3K pixel resolution (~2.4K measured detail)". That would be very useful for comparing to other cameras - because the F35 and 5D are both 1080p (1.88K) in their pixel resolution but the F35 probably pulls out something like 50% more measured detail, but both are less than 1080p.
 
Stephen Gentle said:
I think we need better terminology to describe this. Saying that Scarlet doesn't produce 3K of resolution is confusing and misleading to people unfamiliar to the subject in my opinion, because it sounds like you don't get 3K worth of pixels out after a debayer, but you do. I think a better way to describe it is as having about 2.4K of measured detail.

Perhaps we could just say "3K pixel resolution (~2.4K measured detail)". That would be very useful for comparing to other cameras - because the F35 and 5D are both 1080p (1.88K) in their pixel resolution but the F35 probably pulls out something like 50% more measured detail, but both are less than 1080p.
Click to expand...

Saying that it does produce 3K of resolution is even more confusing, misleading, and quite frankly, false. A better way would be to say it can create a 3K image. The term resolution has a specific meaning and should not be used either by itself or in combination with a modifier in a way that changes that meaning. There is no such thing as "pixel resolution," there is only pixel count. Resolution is measured in line pairs, not in pixels.
 
Maybe we should say 'frame size' or 'pixel dimensions' when talking about formats and resolution when talking about actual resolving power. A frame size of 3K has the potential for 3K resolution but, due to demosaicing and the optical path, the measured resolution (or 'detail' if you like, but that is also misleading) is always lower when using a physical Bayer pattern system.
 
In this context, perhaps we should look back at the OP's question and recognize that he seemed (my interpretation) to be simply asking if you got 3K out of the sensor only or if you could get some other pixel count as well.

Again, not to put words in his mouth but I think his question was a lot simpler than the answers he has been offered - despite the fact they are all quite inciteful and factual.

Maybe the answer to his question is that, yes, you do get a 3K pixel image, but you can also get a 1920x1080 or a 1280x720 image if you prefer? Did I misstate anything here? :001_huh:
 
Last edited:
M Most said:
Saying that it does produce 3K of resolution is even more confusing, misleading, and quite frankly, false. A better way would be to say it can create a 3K image. The term resolution has a specific meaning and should not be used either by itself or in combination with a modifier in a way that changes that meaning. There is no such thing as "pixel resolution," there is only pixel count. Resolution is measured in line pairs, not in pixels.
Click to expand...

Noted. How about "3K pixel raster (~2.4K measured resolution)" or something?
 
This thread should be posted as a sticky to help explain what a pixel counter is.:laugh:


Saying that its got me wondering about the likely quality of a scaled down 1080 rgb as for many it would save a lot of hassle in post and save the need to buy a super computer to work with the Scarlets. Does this mean the camera outputs a 1080 rgb file or is the scaling something that needs to be done in post. I would love some clarity on this point.

For many it could be great to edit this size file 'IF' the quality of the picture still has most of the RED's dynamic range and overal quality. Does anyone know if 1080 rgb will have a decent RED image. I am thinking as the new mx sensor is so clean a scaled down picture wouldnt suffer as I have heard a 1k RED ONE did.
 
M Most said:
There is no such thing as "pixel resolution," there is only pixel count. Resolution is measured in line pairs, not in pixels.
Click to expand...

I think it is more important to use words in the way people are most likely to understand them. Most dictionaries also define "resolution" as the number of pixels in an image and this is what the average person understands resolution to mean. Using this definition I don't see why a person can't say "i'm gonna shoot in 3k" in regards to the 2/3" Scarlet. While it doesn't satisfy the definition of resolution as you are defining it, it does satisfy one of the meanings.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolution #6.b

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolution #12
 
Scarlet is just a figment of your imagination. It won't come out forever and if it does, everyone will already have bought a Panavision or Sony VDSLR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top