Scarlet S16, a request.

[Jesper Sichlau]

This is a great idea!

 

[AJ Aguirre]

Let me be very clear. 35mm is not a suitable replacement for 16mm due to the necessary size and weight of high performance lenses, especially long telephoto lenses or extended range fast zooms that are the workhorses of doc, sports, and nature production.

Compare the 24lb nearly 2 foot long behemoth Angenieux 12x 24-290 T2.8 S35 zoom with a Canon 10.6-180 T2.7 17x lens 9" long weighing less than 5lbs and you get the idea. Which would you rather back pack into rough wilderness for a nature shoot? The entire S16 camera package with lens, batteries, media, and tripod would weigh less than the big Angie lens alone and cover a broader FOV range.

Great point, I stand corrected!

 

[David Rasberry]

What people are missing is there is nothing to stop you shooting 2k or 3k with your Scarlet X, best of all worlds!

2k is "Not good enough"

 

[Stuart English]

What people are missing is there is nothing to stop you shooting 2k or 3k with your Scarlet X, best of all worlds!

Indeed. EPIC and Scarlet-X 2K mode is between Standard 16 and Ultra-16. At 2048 x 1080 pixels the frame size would be 11.06 mm x 5.83 mm.

On Scarlet-X you can shoot this format up to 60 fps. Of course EPIC supports a much higher maximum frame rate - somewhere in the region of 300 fps.

 

[Emanuel A.]

(we can offer a) melodramatic tone @ other side too just speaking the truth

(we can offer a) melodramatic tone @ other side too just speaking the truth

Indeed. EPIC and Scarlet-X 2K mode is between Standard 16 and Ultra-16. At 2048 x 1080 pixels the frame size would be 11.06 mm x 5.83 mm.

On Scarlet-X you can shoot this format up to 60 fps. Of course EPIC supports a much higher maximum frame rate - somewhere in the region of 300 fps.

Oh God, Stuart!

The people didn't realize yet now that the IQ between EPIC and Scarlet will practically be the same for different features for sure. Just price oblige, not the stupid sensor size factor

Yet, you can give a better chance towards the production increment. Figures (more sensor units) to come out from your manufacturing house, to overcome the obstacles of a more expensive EPIC. What means that we can even see in the future a price reduction for the EPIC (de)pending on the Scarlet orders. If this is not from a genius, what else? LOL

Best of the worlds for both sides here too.

One of the reasons why my respect for Jim has grown up announcement after announcement. Now I can figure out the meaning of his excitement when he had warned all of us that this would the most important of them in the history of RED.

Like I had the chance to personally express my feelings to Stephen recently on the phone. RED is a team. A team of the best people in this business. But we, the customers, should be the best to realize that too.

E

 

[David Rasberry]

Indeed. EPIC and Scarlet-X 2K mode is between Standard 16 and Ultra-16. At 2048 x 1080 pixels the frame size would be 11.06 mm x 5.83 mm.

On Scarlet-X you can shoot this format up to 60 fps. Of course EPIC supports a much higher maximum frame rate - somewhere in the region of 300 fps.

I'm definitely interested in Scarlet-X. Still debating whether to get the PL mount version and use my 16mm glass for now or get the Canon mount and buy a Canon lens or two.

 

[Robert Jackson]

I have to admit I have always been “allergic” to small pixel sizes and small sensors and lenses especially as we need to work with precision wide angle systems. Building a 21mm or 16mm or 12mm fast lens for such a notional “16mm” sensor to do it justice does not make sense (I think), and it would NOT be upgradeable ( I think). For longer focal lengths beyond 100 mm it’s not difficult to get a good “resolution”/resolvability across the whole field of view. It’s the shorter focal lengths that are a problem.

Yeah, the wide end is problematic with small sensors, but the tele end can get insane. You get these broadcast lenses with built-in switchable 2x teleconverters that have a long end of over 1000mm and then greater than a 5x "crop factor" from the sensor size and it lets ENG guys just keep zooming and zooming and zooming. I mean, you aren't going to shoot a movie with something like that, but my point is that in a package you can carry around on your shoulder you have more reach with most 2/3" cameras than you'd ever have with a larger sensor. Although even with stabilization there are obvious hand-held limits. It's had an effect on my eye over the years, though. When I carry my DSLR around I pretty much always have either a 150mm or a 300mm lens mounted. I like the look. The 50mm and 75mm Red Mini Primes were gonna SO rock. And when I wanted to pretend I was Ridley Scott I coulda done it without having to grab an 800mm lens the size of a Sidewinder missile.

 

[Vance Colvig]

I beleive Jim mentioned that the 2/3 sensor would not give the resolution required for 4k. 1080p is not going to be the standard very much longer. Red has spent a ton of money on a 2/3 project, and then decided to do one better with a S35 sensor. Red Digital Cinema is a business driven by a passion to build excellence into their cameras at an affordable price to the masses of professional and aspiring professional movimakers. They are manufacturing lens mounts for other brands of lenses that they don't even sell! They are trying to make cameras that will not go obsolete by the next NAB show unlike other manufacturers. It is so simple, I just can't figure how anyone can't get this. If anyone doesn't like a big sensor, go buy a 2/3 size from someone else.........or accomodate your possible future needs and use 2k on a Scarlet.

I personally will be glad when the ones who feel they have been betrayed by RED either see the light or move on so the noise level will go down. Only then will it be easier and more fun to navigate through Redusers.net.

O.K. Rant over. Better now. Cheers!

 

[Robert Jackson]

Indeed. EPIC and Scarlet-X 2K mode is between Standard 16 and Ultra-16. At 2048 x 1080 pixels the frame size would be 11.06 mm x 5.83 mm.

On Scarlet-X you can shoot this format up to 60 fps. Of course EPIC supports a much higher maximum frame rate - somewhere in the region of 300 fps.

So instead of Scarlet shooting at 3K and 120 fps the Scarlet-X user can shoot 2K at 60 fps. And that's progress? ;-)

 

[laurent delaroziere]

So instead of Scarlet shooting at 3K and 120 fps the Scarlet-X user can shoot 2K at 60 fps. And that's progress? ;-)

It's like having an improved ikonoskop and a S35 epic in one camera.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Indeed. EPIC and Scarlet-X 2K mode is between Standard 16 and Ultra-16. At 2048 x 1080 pixels the frame size would be 11.06 mm x 5.83 mm.

On Scarlet-X you can shoot this format up to 60 fps. Of course EPIC supports a much higher maximum frame rate - somewhere in the region of 300 fps.

When using RC-X what is the actual resolved resolution when debeyered. I think on MX is was some where in the order of 1820 horizontal lines when shot at 2K, using Rocket it was slightly improved, I assume as the algotrithm was different. Im interested to get true 1920 x 1080 out of the camera.

 

[Erich Ocean]

David,

In my previous life, besides 35mm for TVCs, I shot tons of S16mm stock on my SR2. Then Red came out and I got one. Because shallow DOF is not desired for most documentaries and lightweight zooms like my Canon 8-64 are very convenient and good glass I figured out how to shoot S16mm with Red:

1. Dial in 3K 2:1

2. Customise in the EFV the TV safe guides to a figure that the portholing/vignetting of the lens is outside of this area.

3. In RedCine crop the footage to approx. 2.5k 16:9 which will keep the picture clean of vignetting edges. 2.5k is enough flesh for a full resolving 1080p debayer. The pictures that you create with such an setup are much, much better than 2K and visibly better than anything a Sony F900R produces.

Please note that a 2/3" sensor is NOT S16mm sized. You will lose considerably FOV. Personally I find the above mentioned setup very workable and use it on a long term documentary now for 3 years with great success. When my EpicX Stage 3 will arrive finally I will be back in S16mm realms what weight and ergonomics concerns.

On a first glance a 2/3" Scarlet looks like a great S16mm successor, but it's not. S16mm creates less DOF at the same FOV than 2/3". IMHO this is a important fact and not that much subtle to be neglected.

Hans

Thanks for sharing this Hans! Makes me want to try it out on the Epic-X!

The crop is 2560x1350 (3K at 2:1 is 3072×1536), which debayers to a beautiful 2K DCI 2048x1080 @ 80% efficiency. (If you want 1080p, you'd crop from 2400x1350 instead.)

The physical image size at 2560x1350 is 13.8 mm by 7.3 mm. Super16 is normally 12.52 mm by 7.41 mm @ 1.67:1 aspect ratio, so that's basically an identical look-and-feel, optically for a 100% clean 2K image. Wow!

EDIT: The more I think about this, the more I realize...this is f*cking awesome!!! RED, please add direct support for this: pre-build frame guides, pre-build export options in RedCine X Pro, etc.

Geez, you can get a full set of ILLUMINA SUPER 16MM primes, new, for $12,500. The image diagonal is 15.63mm at DCI 2K, which will vignette slightly on the 8 (15.11mm), 9.5 (15.22mm) and 12 (15.34mm). The other three lenses fully cover it. At 1080p, there is no vignetting on any of the lenses.

 

[Paramon Ivanovich]

So instead of Scarlet shooting at 3K and 120 fps the Scarlet-X user can shoot 2K at 60 fps. And that's progress? ;-)

no, you got it wrong, it called "all grown up"

 

[Stephen Gentle]

So instead of Scarlet shooting at 3K and 120 fps the Scarlet-X user can shoot 2K at 60 fps. And that's progress? ;-)

It's compromise, like all engineering (and most things in life). I'd still love a camera that does 120fps 3K, but 4K on a s35 sensor at the price they're offering is kind of a big deal.

 

[George Butterfield]

I'd be interested in anything in the $6-7k price bracket that has
12+ DR,
an i-frame codec,
no moire
and shallow depth of field.

If it happens to be 2/3 with fast primes then that will do. HDRx and ultra high def resolution are nice bonuses bot not necessarily for me.
The web is where I'm at.

edit: before anyone starts pointing me at the AF100 and FS100 I'm very well aware of them and their specs

You gotta start watching the used/executed RED ONE market

 

[Todd Jones]

So instead of Scarlet shooting at 3K and 120 fps the Scarlet-X user can shoot 2K at 60 fps. And that's progress? ;-)

Basically the camera is future proof for a long time. It has a large sensor, but it can also mimic a 2/3 sensor basically. For everyone who so believes in 2/3 and super 16, well this camera gives you that option. You can mimic that at 2k for the most part. Then if you get a wild hair, you can check out this 4k stuff everyone is so hyped on.
I think people could debate forever over the difference between the original specs and this camera, however this camera is most certainly progress.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Basically the camera is future proof for a long time. It has a large sensor, but it can also mimic a 2/3 sensor basically. For everyone who so believes in 2/3 and super 16, well this camera gives you that option. You can mimic that at 2k for the most part.

Sure, except for one thing, a version with a smaller sensor could be in a physically smaller body... if all you are talking about is field of view, you can crop any 35mm sensor camera to a smaller area, plus use 16mm or 2/3" optics on it... but that doesn't turn it into a smaller camera. That's the main reason why many people would accept the limitations of the 2/3" sensor, that it allows it to go into a smaller body. Otherwise there isn't a lot of interest in mimicking the look of a 2/3" sensor, the interest is in smaller camera bodies. Not that the S35 Scarlet is a large body by any means.

 

[David Rasberry]

As I said in another thread, we 16mm format fans are on the wrong side of history for this. S16mm is roughly 40% larger area than 2/3" and can handle the increase in resolution up to 4k HD with reasonably good MTF, comparable to the best 16mm film stocks.
From all the cryptic comments prior to Scarlet-X I was expecting the move to a large sensor Scarlet, and what Red gave us is a brilliant compromise given the need to not delay Scarlet any longer and takes maximum advantage of their existing manufacturing capability.

But their is room in the market for a true S16mm format high resolution alternative that can cover 4kHD. Scarlet 2/3" samples indicated very good image quality and performance at that 3.3u pixel density. The same advantages of massive oversampling for 2k HD finish apply here as well.

 

[Gabriel Winebrenner]

It's like having an improved ikonoskop and a S35 epic in one camera.

The above sentence is only 13 words, but very OFFENSIVE!

No, it's like having an S35 Epic cropped to a 2/3 size frame.

The cameras images are completely different from one another and share no resemblance to each other at all, as the Ikonoskop has a kodak ccd, whereas the Red has it's flagship cmos tech.

If you want to make such a bold claim, at least compare it to another 2/3 camera such as the SI2k which has a CMOS in its design.

So this is the most ridiculous statement I've heard on here yet in comparison to the Scarlet X and the Ikonoskop.

You have a great S35 camera, but it can't outperform the Ikonoskop in the S16 arena if you really want an image that resembles the nuances of Super 16, not just in terms of the framing of the shot.

The Ikonoskop sure doesn't looked like a cropped frame from a high resolution rolling shutter cmos sensor camera, that is for sure.

Next time you want to say a camera is better than another, pick two that actually share a resemblance to one another as you have picked the two most different cams in contemporary times right now that exist on the planet...

 

[laurent delaroziere]

No, it's like having an S35 Epic cropped to a 2/3 size frame.

The cameras images are completely different from one another and share no resemblance to each other at all, as the Ikonoskop has a kodak ccd, whereas the Red has it's flagship cmos tech.

If you want to make such a bold claim, at least compare it to another 2/3 camera such as the SI2k which has a CMOS in its design.

So this is the most ridiculous statement I've heard on here yet in comparison to the Scarlet X and the Ikonoskop.

You have a great S35 camera, but it can't outperform the Ikonoskop in the S16 arena if you really want an image that resembles the nuances of Super 16, not just in terms of the framing of the shot.

The Ikonoskop sure doesn't looked like a cropped frame from a high resolution rolling shutter cmos sensor camera, that is for sure.

Next time you want to say a camera is better than another, pick two that actually share a resemblance to one another as you have picked the two most different cams in contemporary times right now that exist on the planet...

haha, you sound like your life is depending on that. take a breath