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 F23

K

killfilm

Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
311
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Im one to say that i'd like to see Scarlet smoke some ass. I read this article

http://news.http://www.teenink.com/Past/2002/January/CollegeEssays/IHateCows.html.net/story/861234

“The F23 has excellent dynamic range, handling highlights beautifully with a film-like quality,” said Glen MacPherson, director of photography (DP) for “Final Destination 4,” the first digital 3D action movie to be shot on location instead of primarily behind a blue or green screen. “It’s also virtually noiseless in the shadows, and the 2/3-inch image sensor is ideal for shooting 3D. The F23 is my camera of choice for all those reasons.”

The camera delivers 12.5 stops of latitude – more than any other 2/3-inch chip digital cinema camera

Can Scarlet (with what we know) come close to this?
 
I don't see what difference it makes. It's going to capture outstanding images, comparing tech specs to me just seems pointless. I'm sure if you stuck the images produced from either camera side by side, most people could not tell the difference (and those that would claim they can are just full of it).
 
F23 can not produce "12.5 stops of latitude" its only 1080P 4:4:4 10-bit...with focus on the 10bit.

Oh and FD4 is not the first....My Bloody Valentine 3D is the first.

That being said when did FD become an action movie? :tongue:


I should note, I REALLY enjoyed the first 2 the third felt like a ride, but I still like the concept a lot. Good movies over all!
 
the cameras rec 709 mode covers 7 stops the hyper gamma modes can go up to 9-10 and the s-log can cover 10-12 depending on the lighting conditions. 10 in Tungsten 12 ish in 5600. It all depends. It's the same story with Red.
 
Speaking of the F23 (and my apologies, I certainly don't want this to turn into a forum for the F23--just thought it interesting), I understand they used it for "Cloverfield." Which had me wondering, considering the photography for the film is handheld simulated, so it's not supposed to look pretty: Why would they choose to use such a high-end camera for an end product that's not even going to display its capabilities? After watching the film, the F23 footage was certainly not distinguishable from the rest of the stuff (which I believe was done with an HVX200 and another consumer palmcorder), I'd imagine they certainly would not intend it to be, considering what they were going for. To top it off, the rig is certainly large and heavy, making matters a bit more difficult. I suppose they needed uncompressed footage for the sake of effects compositing in post.

Anyways, I digress. Thanks, guys. Hope everyone's been saving their pennies....:bye2:
 
Edward Mendoza said:
I suppose they needed uncompressed footage for the sake of effects compositing in post.

Anyways, I digress. Thanks, guys. Hope everyone's been saving their pennies....:bye2:
Click to expand...

You answered your own question, thats exactly why they used the 23, They obviously matched it with the rest of the footage but the rest of the footage didn't look half bad either.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
I cant seem to find it in the Scarlet brochure now since its changed, but wasnt like 13 or 14 stops of latitude
 
The F23 has a couple of things going for it:

It has a lot of dynamic range.
It has good ramping capabilities.
It shoots at 1080 60p.
and
It has a global shutter since it's a CCD.

The scarlet might match it for Dynamic Range. Especially the ?larger pixel pitch FF35 monstro Scarle?.
No ramping in Scarlet.
30p for Scarlet.
Fast Reset CMOS (rolling shutter).

When you're doing a lot of handheld monster footage with camera matching you want a global shutter if at all possible. Mysterium is fast and I'm sure it'll get faster but with flashy blinky blury shaky cams you might as well go with a global shutter camera.

In the case of Cloverfield they shot lots of footage on location. One of the largest problems they encountered was that the streetlights frequency was such that on film every frame was a double image since streetlights are really just highspeed strobes. That meant everything had to be rotoscoped twice per frame. *ick*. It also could have created big problems with a rolling shutter.

10 bit doesn't mean you can only have 10 stops. It means you can only have 10 linear stops RAW. I can take a 16 bit rendering with 16 stops of dynamic range and compress it down to 8 bit. You'll get banding if you attempt to manipulate the image and then display on on a lower bitrate display but it can be done. Also with log, 10 bits can contain 13+ stops easily. I don't know how it breaks down currently but 10bit log used to be the norm for scanning film which has more dynamic range than Mysterium or the F23.
 
So... were talking about comparing an available and working 2/3" 3 CCD camera system with measurable and repeatable results ( hardly worth arguing about) with a spec sheet on the internet.

Is it just me?
 
Darren Orange said:
Please correct me if i'm wrong but I think it is about 150K for the camera body by itself.
Click to expand...

Wow :blink: Okay, now what are we comparing here? :glare:

I mean, lets face facts. (Well, not really, as it's not possible). We are comparing a 2,500$ (2/3" Body)Cam with a 150k$ Cam. It may be that the Scarlet will not be all that good, ... or better. But would you care? It's 60 Times the Price. You could get 30 Cams, full equipped and match the Pricepoint of the f23's Body. And you'd have 3K images that you can frame to 1080. You can just put cams anywhere and one of them will capture the Picture you want ;-)
 
Not all filmmakers own a camera. Infact only a very few. This is the reason why rental houses exist. The cost of the camera is very often the least cost point in a filmproduction.

A price tag of 250,000 USD for a camerapackage is not uncommon. An Arri LT package is equally expensive.


Hans
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
A price tag of 250,000 USD for a camerapackage is not uncommon. An Arri LT package is equally expensive.
Click to expand...
But more and more Filmmakers learn that they are way more spontaneous with their own package. At least the Low-Budget ones. I pay one time for a Scarlet 3D Package (fixed) and have every time I want to use it.

It's the Same with Computers and the Cut. As there is no Timelime I have to stick to I can take the Time I have to make my crappy poor HC-1 Footage look better in Post. I'm done when I'm done. And that's when I think the Flick looks the way I want. If I need to reshoot something or want to add something I just call the Actors needed and ask them if they have a Day spare time to work on the Flick.

Of Cause it makes more sense to film as much as possilble in a short perod of time, but I don't have to go to the Rental house and fire out money If I have a Idea that I want to incorporate in the Cut. I just call the Guys and use my stuff.

But that may be only my view, as I do Cam, Directing and the Cut all alone... (pure choise from my site, I would have had the Guys to do the Work)
 
CraigWB said:
To me, owning a camera is less about the professional work and all about experimenting and practice, you can't practice with a rental camera.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Never had a problem borrowing equipment for tests.

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top