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 vs. Epic Picture Quality?

J

Jeff Stevens

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi, anyone know the approximate difference in picture quality between the Scarlet & Epic? For example if the Epic is a 10/10 in picture quality - would the Scarlet be an 8/10? Also I'm guessing for internet video, Scarlet & Epic footage will be similar in quality, but would there be noticeable differences when they are projected on a movie screen?
 
Are you referring to the 3K 2/3" Scarlet or to the 5K S35 Scarlet?

The S35 Scarlet should have identical picture quality to the Epic*, except for the high framerates for slo-mo.
*Assumption based on currently published specs, of course.

The 2/3" Scarlet will likely not be as good. It should still produce a kick-ass image, though.
 
If your finishing resolution is 1080p... then probably....

Epic FF35 - 10/10
Epic X - 9/10
Scarlet 2/3" - 7/10

This assumes that DOF is not taken into account in "image quality." I have to reserve that final 1/10 for FF35 Monstro because I know for sure that there is a difference between still cameras based on sensor size, so it only makes sense that FF35 will be superior in image quality vs Epic X, even scaled all the way to 1080p.

If finishing resolution is 4K then...

Epic FF35 - 9/10
Epic X - 8/10
Scarlet 2/3" - 5/10
 
My opinion:
For the same scene lit to levels allowing shooting in the f2.8-f4 range at the optimum ISO speed of each camera, with all elements in the scene in sharp focus to eliminate differences in DOF characteristics.
For 1080pHD/2k digital cinema finish, little or no visible difference between 2/3" and S35. 2/3" Scarlet will capable of producing a 1080p image that is fully resolved beyond the Nyquist resolution limit of 1080p. The limiting factor for final optical resolution at 1080p will be the quality of the lens used, not the camera sensor.
Between S35 and FF35 scaled to 1080p, no visible difference. Both over sample beyond 4x the resolution of 1080p. With both lens performance will be the limiting factor but is much less critical than with 2/3".
At 4k finish:
Scarlet 2/3" 7/10
S35 9/10 (no difference between S35 Scarlet and Epic)
FF35 10/10 only if shot at 6k with lenses that are of the very highest quality and full coverage. Otherwise S35 at 5k with premium cine lenses may beat it.
If you crop the FF35 version to fit within the image circle of S35 cine lenses, S35 will beat it on resolution due to higher pixel density.
FF35 will fare best in very low light or extreme low or high contrast conditions due to 16 bit vs 12 bit encoding providing a more refined value scale and less noise.
 
Small point. By saying that FF35 is 10/10 at 4K finish, that leaves no room for improvement for Red 645, Red 617 or larger IMAX-style digital cameras that are in the works. IMO, there is always room for improvement by using larger sensors and more advanced cameras.

What if you are shooting in low light, for example? A much larger sensor will allow for massive downsampling to 4K, thus reducing noise, etc.
 
Tom Lowe said:
Small point. By saying that FF35 is 10/10 at 4K finish, that leaves no room for improvement for Red 645, Red 617 or larger IMAX-style digital cameras that are in the works. IMO, there is always room for improvement by using larger sensors and more advanced cameras.

What if you are shooting in low light, for example? A much larger sensor will allow for massive downsampling to 4K, thus reducing noise, etc.
Click to expand...

Once down sample reaches 4x finish res there is not likely to be any visual improvement. Plus as sensors get larger it is much more difficult to build lenses fast enough and sharp enough to take advantage of the size, so you will reach optical limits in S/N ratio and resolution by comparison to faster lenses on smaller sensors. Diffraction alone will limit practical resolution as you will have to shoot at smaller apertures to get any useful depth of field.
 
Tom Lowe said:
Small point. By saying that FF35 is 10/10 at 4K finish, that leaves no room for improvement for Red 645, Red 617 or larger IMAX-style digital cameras that are in the works. IMO, there is always room for improvement by using larger sensors and more advanced cameras.
Click to expand...

Tom u say theres no room for improvement for the Red 617 and LARGER IMAX CAMERAS!????

WTF is bigger than the 617???? i wana see really bad, u very much sparked my interest,
 
Tom Lowe said:
Small point. By saying that FF35 is 10/10 at 4K finish, that leaves no room for improvement for Red 645, Red 617 or larger IMAX-style digital cameras that are in the works. IMO, there is always room for improvement by using larger sensors and more advanced cameras.

What if you are shooting in low light, for example? A much larger sensor will allow for massive downsampling to 4K, thus reducing noise, etc.
Click to expand...

Sure, you'll be able to overcome more adversity with a larger sensor, but at the cost of the guy pulling focus becoming substance-dependent. ;-)

I imagine that (at least as long as 4K remains the high-end of projected finishing formats) the uber-Reds will primarily find their niche in capturing plates for VFX. A 645 or 617 plate will be a powerful tool for VFX people. It seems less likely to become a primary camera for principal cinematography for most DPs, although you never know. But even David Lean made do with 52.48mm x 23.01mm. Red 645 will be 56mm x 42mm. Red 617 will be 186mm X 56mm. That's a lot of real estate. I'd hate to chase Jason Bourne down a stairway with something like that. ;-)
 
I can see some interesting possibilities for the large format models in new styles of fine art photography. Cinema production is only one very small niche for the possibilities these cameras offer.
 
David Rasberry said:
I can see some interesting possibilities for the large format models in new styles of fine art photography. Cinema production is only one very small niche for the possibilities these cameras offer.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the new levels of complexity possible in "Where's Waldo" imagery. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top