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 vs F23

Renting for one or two days is fine. But if you count the rental money over a two week period, thats enough to buy your own cam. Scarlet might be a different story too with its rendering obsolense obsolete slogan.

Anytime i wanna shoot/test something, i just charge the battery and go. No renting, no waiting, no phoning. More freedom for me. But if it was a $150,000 camera, then it would be different.
 
IMHO, comparing a Scarlett to a F23 is just like putting side-by-side a Toyota Tercel and Porsche 911, let's talk on Epic here, then we'd be looking at two same class cameras...

In modern technology you always get what you're paying for, a $5,000 camera just can't be as good as a $150,000 one. We have a HDW-F900R in house, a $90K investment, just can't be smoked by a fixed lens handycam, I'm sorry...

M.O.
 
Mark Olsen said:
IMHO, comparing a Scarlett to a F23 is just like putting side-by-side a Toyota Tercel and Porsche 911, let's talk on Epic here, then we'd be looking at two same class cameras...

In modern technology you always get what you're paying for, a $5,000 camera just can't be as good as a $150,000 one. We have a HDW-F900R in house, a $90K investment, just can't be smoked by a fixed lens handycam, I'm sorry...

M.O.
Click to expand...
Maybe not by a fixed one...

But look at the RedOne footage and the pricetag. If I get a Scarlet fixed for every more expensive Cam thats footage looks not so good I would have a lot of scarlets imho...
 
If you need sustained 60fps. It doesn't matter if it costs 1/100th the price. It wouldn't be able to deliver.

Tool for the task and all that. "Camera A works and costs $150k. Camera B doesn't work and costs $5k." :D
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
If you need sustained 60fps. It doesn't matter if it costs 1/100th the price. It wouldn't be able to deliver.

Tool for the task and all that. "Camera A works and costs $150k. Camera B doesn't work and costs $5k." :D
Click to expand...
If you absolutely need offspeed shooting, you can purchase an Epic for $28K and get up to 100fps at 5K. Sorry, but the "tool for the task" approach doesn't really help out Sony in this case. The fact of the matter is the F23 is still 6x the cost, half the resolution, and half the framerates. But good try. :-)
 
Häakon said:
If you absolutely need offspeed shooting, you can purchase an Epic for $28K and get up to 100fps at 5K. Sorry, but the "tool for the task" approach doesn't really help out Sony in this case. The fact of the matter is the F23 is still 6x the cost, half the resolution, and half the framerates. But good try. :-)
Click to expand...

The question though wasn't "RED or F23" it was Scarlet or F23. The Epic vs F23 battle obviously removes that contention point.

;)
 
I hate to say this but after i remembered what Jim mentioned when the Sony was mentioned, i have no doubt that Scarlet will be comparable to the F23.
I think a 3k res camera, 13-14stops of dynamic range and RAW recording does have a big chance, just wait and see.

Scarlet..........a handycam eh? Jim, i dont know how you can take that.
 
If 2/3" Scarlet can produce images comparable to what is coming out of the current build RED 1, it will be a superb camera. Whether it actually beats an F23 is moot as far as I am concerned given the price difference. I can afford to own a Scarlet as a toy.
 
CraigWB said:
Borrowing is fine, but it comes with a catch 22 as the expression goes.
- You actually need to know someone who owns the camera who will actually let you use it.
Click to expand...

Rental houses?
 
CraigWB said:
Think you could go into more detail? I can only assume that your good friends with some guys at the rental house and they are more than happy to let you use a camera for tests when they are not being rented out.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I find that loyalty to rental co's pays off, when they know you will go to them with paying jobs, they are more than happy to assist me when I ask favours.

Stephen
 
Maybe Mr. Mullen can chime in here. I know the F23 is considered high end and Scarlet, well, we dont know yet. But based on the 13 stops hinted, 2.4k res,14bit processing and RAW recording. What really makes the F23 so much better, is it the name or just the interchangable lenses?
 
I can't accurately comment until the camera actually exists.

But you'd figure that three 1080P 2/3" sensors to get 1080P might be better than a single 2/3" sensor even if it is 3K RAW - even if the final resolution once converted from RAW is about the same, you're cramming a lot more pixels onto the same sized area compared to three separate sensors, plus each sensor only has one color channel to deal with. I would tend to believe that the F23 will still be more sensitive and have less noise, but since the 2/3" Scarlet doesn't exist yet, I can't know that for sure.

Now if you're talking about the S35 Scarlet, then there may be some advantages to having a larger surface area to spread the photosites across. But you were asking about the fixed-zoom 2/3" Scarlet.

We're talking about, what? A $3000 camera versus a $150,000 camera? Does it really make any sense to compare them??? Especially since you'll probably be putting a $25,000 HD zoom lens on the F23? How can the fixed zoom on the $3000 camera be of the same quality?
 
Maybe it's just me, but if the technology exists, why don't Sony and Panasonic and everyone else make their own Reds and Scarlets for the same price point? Is it a patent issue? I mean, the people at Sony should be able to crack open a Red camera and reproduce the thing, with some minor alterations to ensure not getting sued.

I just don't get why no one is competing with Red (and, more importantly, the Scarlet) right now. I mean, Sony drops the EX3 while Red is manufacturing the Scarlet? WTF?

Just doesn't make any sense. The people over at Red couldn't possibly be THAT much smarter than the people at every other single camera company in the world; so much so that Red can make a camera at a 5K price point that's even in the same ballpark as another company's 150K camera. Or, hell, even the current Red at 60K against that 150K camera is STILL half the price!!

Can anyone explain the massive margins here???
 
Chamber005 said:
Maybe it's just me, but if the technology exists, why don't Sony and Panasonic and everyone else make their own Reds and Scarlets for the same price point? Is it a patent issue? I mean, the people at Sony should be able to crack open a Red camera and reproduce the thing, with some minor alterations to ensure not getting sued.

I just don't get why no one is competing with Red (and, more importantly, the Scarlet) right now. I mean, Sony drops the EX3 while Red is manufacturing the Scarlet? WTF?

Just doesn't make any sense. The people over at Red couldn't possibly be THAT much smarter than the people at every other single camera company in the world; so much so that Red can make a camera at a 5K price point that's even in the same ballpark as another company's 150K camera. Or, hell, even the current Red at 60K against that 150K camera is STILL half the price!!

Can anyone explain the massive margins here???
Click to expand...

sony is doing pretty well here in germany.
fast affordable workflows is the main reason.
its working for daily work.

features are made on 35mm, but red projects are coming more and more
 
Chamber005 said:
Maybe it's just me, but if the technology exists, why don't Sony and Panasonic and everyone else make their own Reds and Scarlets for the same price point?
Click to expand...

Then they would undercut their own products and nobody would buy the more expensive EX3 and the HVX200 for eg...
 
Chamber005 said:
Can anyone explain the massive margins here???
Click to expand...

There are enough people that
a) think it's Sony, so it has to be good. They have a name
b) don't know the RedOne or the Scarlet
and c) think that it can not work, because it's to cheap related to Sony etc.

George
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I can't accurately comment until the camera actually exists.

But you'd figure that three 1080P 2/3" sensors to get 1080P might be better than a single 2/3" sensor even if it is 3K RAW - even if the final resolution once converted from RAW is about the same, you're cramming a lot more pixels onto the same sized area compared to three separate sensors, plus each sensor only has one color channel to deal with. I would tend to believe that the F23 will still be more sensitive and have less noise, but since the 2/3" Scarlet doesn't exist yet, I can't know that for sure.

Now if you're talking about the S35 Scarlet, then there may be some advantages to having a larger surface area to spread the photosites across. But you were asking about the fixed-zoom 2/3" Scarlet.

We're talking about, what? A $3000 camera versus a $150,000 camera? Does it really make any sense to compare them??? Especially since you'll probably be putting a $25,000 HD zoom lens on the F23? How can the fixed zoom on the $3000 camera be of the same quality?
Click to expand...

i should have specified the S35 or FF35 scarlet. Maybe they might have a chance, i dont know.
 
I still think it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. There is a fundamentally different design approach here -- the Sony F23 is a broadcast video camera, it's designed to deliver on location or stage the best HDCAM-SR recording you can get, it's endlessly adjustable for an engineer, and has a ton of options. Once you're done shooting, if you used certain parameters, you could hand the tape off to a broadcaster and they could air it. That ability is partly what you're paying for, plus the whole HDCAM-SR deck, which in itself accounts for almost half or a third of the camera's costs.

A RAW camera is much simpler in some ways, the basic idea is to get the data into the post world and then decide what you want to deliver from that data. In theory, that sounds like a great idea, but in practice, we still have a post world that revolves around HD videotape and HD codecs.

Beyond that, there are other differences in manufacturing specs, materials used, etc. Plus RED's manufacturing practices are still a mystery but clearly they've found ways to spend less on certain aspects than Sony.

I got an email from a DP who asked me how to get rid of the noisy blacks in the RED. I suggested that he take the footage over the PlasterCity to see if the problem was in the original R3D files or not, at which point he admitted that he actually used PlasterCity the first time and that earlier footage came out fine, but now the producer insisted on processing RED footage himself and now the footage was coming back with noise problems. So clearly there is a weak link here, there are too many ways to process the R3D footage and not enough people with experience doing it.

Personally, I think that maybe RED needs to publish a white paper on current RAW processing practices in the industry and who is doing it right and how it can be done wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top