Scarlet - Uprez, Downrez, we all rez for high rez.

[Kalani Prince]

I'm guessing Scarlet fixed and 2/3rds will shine best when downrezzing to 1080p for blu-ray etc..

Thoughts on uprezzing ?

In still photoland I have successfully uprezzed with some pretty impressive results.. I'm just not sure if moving images will behave the same..

any input is greatly appreciated : )

 

[Steve Das]

Thoughts on uprezzing ?

Not a good idea. Always want to be oversampling and down-rezzing.
Scarlet will be great for music video and commercials....or B-cam on a big show.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Scarlet 2/3" will be just great. :bath:

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

The Scarlet 2/3" cameras will not really be suited for 4K delivery- or even 3K.

They will be absolutely superb as 2K cameras.

If you really need 4K then look at the Scarlet S35 units.

For my part, a lot of my work is delivered at 2K. In fact, I don't think any of my work has reached the viewer at higher than 2K, and most of it has been delivered at 1080p or lower.

In fact DVD and Web is still a huge part of my business. I hope to see BluRay grow, and Web delivery to climb to 1080p.

The point being that unless your business demands higher than 3K camera resolution, these cameras will be fantastic.

 

[Stephen Matthews]

Jim's view:

"Measured resolution of Scarlet 3K (3072) will be about 2.5K, which is just a tad short of high speed film from a 4K scan. It is in an odd place. We feel that it may marginally make a 4K output (about as well as a 5D makes a 1080P output). It is NOT what we consider a 35mm film alternative camera. It is an under $5K alternative to an F23 or 950. There is a reason for such a price difference between a 2/3" camera, along with its less expensive lens options, and an S35 camera. S16mm film is not S35mm film. 2/3" is not S35 digital.

Jim"


http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=595325#post595325

 

[Kalani Prince]

great. thanks for all the feedback.. I'm guessing this will be the perfect short version of your feature/teaser/fund-seeking capture tool.. Although, I do think in the right hands, it will be capable of shooting a gritty Y'tu mama tambien-esque film.. I also think It would easily pull of a Swingers 2 or stylized black and white piece..

Thanks for all your input : )

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

I think it'll be able to do WAY more than that.

Speed Racer and Benjamin Button were both shot on equivalent camera systems, the idea that 2/3" is only capable of a certain type of imagery is a folly. I don't see any reason why you won't be able to shoot slick, elegant PROFESSIONAL looking images with the 2/3".

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I think it'll be able to do WAY more than that.

Speed Racer and Benjamin Button were both shot on equivalent camera systems, the idea that 2/3" is only capable of a certain type of imagery is a folly. I don't see any reason why you won't be able to shoot slick, elegant PROFESSIONAL looking images with the 2/3".

I agree with Wesley.

I'd like to add another notable movie shot on 2/3" cameras at 2K:
Avatar

Just because its 2/3" doesn't means its somehow bad. Same thing for 3K. 3K acquisition, with a 2.5k real resolution is a great system.

I imagine you'll be able to use a 2/3" Scarlet to shoot anything you can imagine, once you understand the tool.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Not to mention that they were shooting for 1080P acquisition on most of those systems, and it still looked fantastic on screen, even without the increased dynamic range and RAW capture that Red will offer.

If a 100+ Million dollar film was good enough to shoot on a 2/3" camera, and people not only couldn't tell the difference from film, but it won accolades for it's cinematography, and that's WITHOUT the flexibility of RAW and 2.5K instead of 1080P then...

The idea that 2/3" will only be good for crashcams or shooting "gritty" looking stuff is just unfounded. 2/3" is more than good enough to shoot high-end professional productions on.

 

[David Rasberry]

Scarlet 2/3" may not be 4k, but it should kick the pants off of just about any 2k /1080p native camera for resolution and image quality. It will be the only 2/3" camera that can shoot native digital cinema 1:89 ratio without cropping. It should also outperform S16mm film for both resolution and grain/noise.

It will certainly scale for 4k delivery better than any 2k camera, but that is not likely to be much of an issue for a few years anyway. 4k projectors will be showing mostly 2k movies for a while yet, and 2k will be the predominant digital theater installation model for the next 5-7 years until 4k projectors come down in price and the first gen 2k projectors have gone through their life cycles.

 

[Gary Paul Walker]

Id also suggest that if you're on a job that requires a 4k delivery, you'll probably have a budget behind you that would allow you to rent something a bit more suited.. maybe the Scarlet S35, or perhaps even going up to Epic.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Id also suggest that if you're on a job that requires a 4k delivery, you'll probably have a budget behind you that would allow you to rent something a bit more suited.. maybe the Scarlet S35, or perhaps even going up to Epic.

I want to second Gary above, and also agree that 2K is plenty for delivery for the foreseeable future.

Unless you have a budget behind you, I wouldn't worry too much about 4K distribution until you start seeing 4K in peoples houses.

Of course even then, you may find that the real 2.5k resolution of the Scarlet 2/3" cameras will upscale to look absolutely fine on home theater sized 4K displays. (50-70") You couldn't deliver theatrical 4K, but you can almost certainly deliver something very acceptable to the home playback format of that day- whatever it turns out to be.

Just look at all the upscaled MiniDV movies we saw in theaters, like 28 days and such. Also look at 720p on your 1080p TV. Its reasonable, and a lot of people can't see the difference between the two.

So, relax. The reason to buy S35 systems isn't the ability to deliver in the near term. Its the ability to use S35 glass and the relevant depth of field.

A lot of people are asking me to shoot for the f4-5.6 range though, they want shallow DoF but not too shallow.

You can readily achieve that with 2/3" sensors at f2.

So sometimes it isn't even a matter of what tools you use, but rather knowing how to use them.

 

[Kalani Prince]

Just look at all the upscaled MiniDV movies we saw in theaters, like 28 days and such. Also look at 720p on your 1080p TV. Its reasonable, and a lot of people can't see the difference between the two.

hence my question about uprez.. I think it should be more than doable..

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

hence my question about uprez.. I think it should be more than doable..

Well, yeah its doable, and a good portion of your audience will never know.

If you really are worried about 4K delivery though- either because you have to deliver 4K now, or because you think your show will have a long shelf life and need to be redelivered for 4K then don't half step.

Get a Scarlet S35 for future-proofing your own work.

Specify EPIC for current 4K deliverables

Why? Well go look at 28 days again now on your HDTV and compare it to anything on broadcast HD- even really low budget stuff like Discovery and HGTV.

The other argument I make is Star Trek: The Original Series. A TV show made 45 years ago for SD TV's averaging 13" screens.

Because they shot 35mm the show still looks great today on BluRay and even projected to 50+ foot screens.

Put that up against 28 Days shot just a few years ago and its shocking.

So, my advice is that you think about what you work is, and how it will be seen. 2K delivery can look very good on large screens- so is that good enough for you?

Do you see this thing being released for 4K projection or IMAX?

Figure that out, and you may realize that $10,000 saved today is really a false economy- or it may be a real savings.

Your call.

 

[Kalani Prince]

Well, yeah its doable, and a good portion of your audience will never know.

If you really are worried about 4K delivery though- either because you have to deliver 4K now, or because you think your show will have a long shelf life and need to be redelivered for 4K then don't half step.

Get a Scarlet S35 for future-proofing your own work.

Specify EPIC for current 4K deliverables

Why? Well go look at 28 days again now on your HDTV and compare it to anything on broadcast HD- even really low budget stuff like Discovery and HGTV.

The other argument I make is Star Trek: The Original Series. A TV show made 45 years ago for SD TV's averaging 13" screens.

Because they shot 35mm the show still looks great today on BluRay and even projected to 50+ foot screens.

Put that up against 28 Days shot just a few years ago and its shocking.

So, my advice is that you think about what you work is, and how it will be seen. 2K delivery can look very good on large screens- so is that good enough for you?

Do you see this thing being released for 4K projection or IMAX?

Figure that out, and you may realize that $10,000 saved today is really a false economy- or it may be a real savings.

Your call.

Thanks Alexander : )

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

One thing I do not understand is if I take a 3072x1620 picture and scale it up to 4K in Photoshop vs. a 'real' 4K picture you nearly can't see the difference. What makes this different just because you've got 172,800 of them?

 

[Subhadip Sen]

One thing I do not understand is if I take a 3072x1620 picture and scale it up to 4K in Photoshop vs. a 'real' 4K picture you nearly can't see the difference. What makes this different just because you've got 172,800 of them?

Personally, I can see a difference between a 3K and a 4.5K viewed at 4K (cropped 1:1). However, displaying them both at 1080p, they are indistinguishable to me.

The issue becomes more severe if you blow them both up to 8K. The 4.5K is clearly more detailed than 3K or 2K versions of the same. In fact, the difference between 3K and 2K is pretty severe as well.

Yes, I know 8K is irrelevant today, but it is a future home video and projection format.

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

Personally, I can see a difference between a 3K and a 4.5K viewed at 4K (cropped 1:1). However, displaying them both at 1080p, they are indistinguishable to me.

I think you're missing my point. I just tried it out again using two different pictures with 4K size one of them from a 35mm filmprint. I made a copy scaled it down from 4096 to 3072 and then back to 4096. IT IS nearly impossible to see any difference with my two examples. Of course it differs. Why is their such a big difference when it comes to moving pictures?

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I think you're missing my point. I just tried it out again using two different pictures with 4K size one of them from a 35mm filmprint. I made a copy scaled it down from 4096 to 3072 and then back to 4096. IT IS nearly impossible to see any difference with my two examples. Of course it differs. Why is their such a big difference when it comes to moving pictures?

I did the same - from a 4.5K R1 MX clip. 4480 to 3072, then back up to 4096. Of course there's no difference until you crop them and view them 1:1. In that case, I can see a difference, but it's not much, I agree. Something worth noting is that a supersampled 4K>3K image is unlikely to be exactly as good as a native 3K image.

In motion, I don't really know, I suppose it's just a case of these small differences adding up? I have noticed this is especially true for compressed video. There are a lot of things about motion and how we perceive it that are difficult to explain (motion blur, for one).