Scarlet vs Sony NEX-FS100 vs Canon HDSLRs

[ryanpostas]

This is what you'll use your 5D for once you've gotten your hands on the Scarlet

 

[Bryce O]

This is what you'll use your 5D for once you've gotten your hands on the Scarlet

Hahaha... I still wouldn't do this to a 5D though... I'll save it for the Nikons. :biggrin:

 

[TomDannenberg]

This is what you'll use your 5D for once you've gotten your hands on the Scarlet

This is dumb.
Taking still pics with a Scarlet (or any other RED available) will never be as hi-res as a 5D.

The boss of Canon may say on NAB2012: "....yeah you are taking pics with a low-res camera, while the 5D is intended for high-end stills with no crop factor and full frame sensor...."

 

[Benoît-Joan Clariana-Roig]

This is dumb.
Taking still pics with a Scarlet (or any other RED available) will never be as hi-res as a 5D.

And you're taking videos with a 5D that will never be as hi-res as a Scarlet.

5D = pics
Scarlet = videos

 

[Steven Hammer]

The idea that Scarlet won't have sufficiently shallow DOF except for the most extreme circumstances has been shot down so many times in this forum, it's amazing the concern is still coming up. David Mullen has spoken up on the subject many times.

 

[Bryce O]

The idea that Scarlet won't have sufficiently shallow DOF except for the most extreme circumstances has been shot down so many times in this forum, it's amazing the concern is still coming up. David Mullen has spoken up on the subject many times.

It'll have "sufficient" shallow DOF for sure, but "creative/flexible" DOF is another story. FF sensors allow you to get really wide (without distortion) AND shallow, which creates an almost surreal effect and extreme isolation. This is REALLY useful in the majority of narrative film-making. Hence the 5D's popularity and why it won't just "die off" as soon as a higher quality camera comes to take it's place. There are already many cameras that have much better video "quality" than the 5D that people don't care for because of the boring and unappealing aesthetic of the smaller-sensored format. Nothing will really take the 5D's place until it's both higher-quality and FF or larger. 2/3" is great too, but it IS less flexible in the end... You can't really argue with that.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I'm rockin an AF-100 till the Epic-S ships. It's not ideal, but the best thing at the time I got it, and better than a DSLR. It's already more than paid for itself. But yeah, I always saw it as a placeholder till I get my hands on a RED.

 

[Erik Franzén]

It'll have "sufficient" shallow DOF for sure, but "creative/flexible" DOF is another story. FF sensors allow you to get really wide (without distortion) AND shallow, which creates an almost surreal effect and extreme isolation. This is REALLY useful in the majority of narrative film-making. Hence the 5D's popularity and why it won't just "die off" as soon as a higher quality camera comes to take it's place. There are already many cameras that have much better video "quality" than the 5D that people don't care for because of the boring and unappealing aesthetic of the smaller-sensored format. Nothing will really take the 5D's place until it's both higher-quality and FF or larger. 2/3" is great too, but it IS less flexible in the end... You can't really argue with that.

FF isn't a movie format, period. 5D is abnormal in that way. Now, if you want to argue the same thing but with S35 vs. 2/3" then fine...

P.S. ...and yes, I know about the upcoming Monstro family, but that is ways off still.

 

[TomDannenberg]

And you're taking videos with a 5D...

Where is this informatiion from?

In general we use 35mm or 16mm film, no digital crap.

 

[David Rasberry]

It'll have "sufficient" shallow DOF for sure, but "creative/flexible" DOF is another story. FF sensors allow you to get really wide (without distortion) AND shallow, which creates an almost surreal effect and extreme isolation. This is REALLY useful in the majority of narrative film-making. Hence the 5D's popularity and why it won't just "die off" as soon as a higher quality camera comes to take it's place. There are already many cameras that have much better video "quality" than the 5D that people don't care for because of the boring and unappealing aesthetic of the smaller-sensored format. Nothing will really take the 5D's place until it's both higher-quality and FF or larger. 2/3" is great too, but it IS less flexible in the end... You can't really argue with that.

This current obsession with uber shallow DOF is a fad. It is a technique more useful for still photography than for motion. It is not all that common in film, certainly not to the extent that you can't keep an actor's face in focus with small movements.
2/3" offers a broad and useful range of creative DOF control and in many situations where you want and need decent depth of focus, following action in low light scenes for instance, it is a superior choice.
Even with large format 70mm films, shallow DOF was not that common. Jacques Tati's "Playtime" is a perfect example of high art cinematography in 70mm where you will not find even one scene that is not sharp and deep focus.
The idea that if it is not shallow DOF it is not "cinematic" is just wrong. It is so overused by the 5D crowd that it has become boring and the mark of a lazy DP. Of course you really have little creative choice with a 5d in this matter since the video is riddled with annoying artifacts if it is in sharp focus on wide shots. The 5D is essentially a one trick pony for video. Shallow DOF is the only thing it can do well.

 

[Steve Das]

FF isn't a movie format, period. 5D is abnormal in that way...

Huh..???...ever heard of VistaVision. It's 8 perfs horizontal through the camera..not 4 perfs vertically.
Granted not used as much...but you really should see some of the obscure films that use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaVision

Vertigo tech specs: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052357/technical
The Searchers tech specs: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049730/technical
Inception tech specs: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/technical

List of VistaVision films http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VistaVision_films

 

[Erik Franzén]

Huh..???...ever heard of VistaVision. It's 8 perfs horizontal through the camera..not 4 perfs vertically.
Granted not used as much...but you really should see some of the obscure films that use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaVision

Vertigo tech specs: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052357/technical
The Searchers tech specs: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049730/technical
Inception tech specs: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/technical

List of VistaVision films http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VistaVision_films

Yes. And VistaVision is hardly what I'd call a common movie format...

 

[Steve Das]

FF isn't a movie format, period...

Yes. And VistaVision is hardly what I'd call a common movie format...

Without a doubt..but that is also a cost issue. You use twice as much film you double your film stock budget.
But you started out by saying it "wasn't a movie format period". Which is not true.

 

[Erik Franzén]

Without a doubt..but that is also a cost issue. You use twice as much film you double your film stock budget.
But you started out by saying it "wasn't a movie format period". Which is not true.

I apologize if it sounded like that was disregarding it altogether, but my point was to be taken as that it's unimportant in the context of general motion pictures - it's prohibitively expensive to shoot VistaVision and, as of current, to my knowledge the only alternative is a still camera, like the 5D. Meaning FF is not exactly the standard, which was what I was trying to point out - S35 is the standard.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Steve,

It's really quite simple around here. If Red makes or is soon to release a camera with said format, then it is a professional movie format, otherwise it is not. Period.

See if Scarlet were lets say 4/3rd's, then 2/3rd's would be a videography format. And if the FF Epic were a few months away, everyone one would be jonesing for the creative choices that a beautiful Vista Vision sized sensor offers.

 

[Bryce O]

FF isn't a movie format, period. 5D is abnormal in that way. Now, if you want to argue the same thing but with S35 vs. 2/3" then fine...

P.S. ...and yes, I know about the upcoming Monstro family, but that is ways off still.

So what? Be more forward thinking. Create something new. Just because something isn't traditionally the norm doesn't mean that it doesn't have it's place. This mentality really has no place in film-making... How can you call you yourself a visionary or artist if you're not constantly trying new options and questioning tradition? The 5D and FF motion photography are far from the norm... but that's a weapon, not a drawback.

That being said, the up coming Scarlet will also allow you to step outside the norm and achieve deep DOF in low-light situations... without noise or grain. and THIS is rare or impossible with film. People can either use this as an advantage to create something new and interesting or... use the same logic you have about FF motion-photography and say something like "Deep DOF at night is not how the movie format looks. It is abnormal."

I apologize if it sounded like that was disregarding it altogether, but my point was to be taken as that it's unimportant in the context of general motion pictures - it's prohibitively expensive to shoot VistaVision and, as of current, to my knowledge the only alternative is a still camera, like the 5D. Meaning FF is not exactly the standard, which was what I was trying to point out - S35 is the standard.

If you're a slave to standards all your products will be... standard. This is how everyone in LA talks... "well that just how it's done" or "that's how it's always been". After one week in LA it became obvious why Hollywood is struggling to create more original products.

Here is a great lecture that R Rodriguez gave about how long it takes to question standards and traditions. It's worth a watch... or 5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqrp_qd8eME&NR=1

This current obsession with uber shallow DOF is a fad. It is a technique more useful for still photography than for motion. It is not all that common in film, certainly not to the extent that you can't keep an actor's face in focus with small movements.

Umm, ok. Have you heard of something called aperture? ut:

 

[Philipe Ratton]

Something new with a shallow depth of field ?
Thats kind hard nowadays, you have to look first at youtube to make sure you are doing something new cause everything now has a shallow depth of field. Focus ? Not so much. A blurry background ? YES !
For me the dslrs (not bad tools at all, just too much compromise) are not in the same league of af100 or nex fs100 and these are definetly not Scarlets.
I take raw and resolution over shallow DOF anyday.
It doesnt matter anyway, I'm getting an Epic S.
And for me, the biggest standards broken in movies were broken by script and directing. 3D for example doesnt compare to what Tarantino did with reservoir dogs and pulp fiction, to name someone recent and some guys before him, like Coppola, Scorsese, Altman, Bogdanovich, Malick, Friedkin, The nouvelle vague and much more.
just my 0,02

 

[Bryce O]

Something new with a shallow depth of field ?
Thats kind hard nowadays, you have to look first at youtube to make sure you are doing something new cause everything now has a shallow depth of field. Focus ? Not so much. A blurry background ? YES !
For me the dslrs (not bad tools at all, just too much compromise) are not in the same league of af100 or nex fs100 and these are definetly not Scarlets.
I take raw and resolution over shallow DOF anyday.

Well, if you have a 5D, you can shoot with the 24mm L-series lens at 1.4... which will give you a look that is not achievable on anything else. But the point is... It's about flexibility, there is no reason to chose a tool that has less options if all things are equal. People are arguing (as usual) about two completely different things.

But as far as the AF-100 and FS100 go... They are still not comparable. The DSLRs still have much better highlight rendition/roll-off (don't go yellow and clip) and the AF-100 just straight-up doesn't look like film. It looks like a HVX200 with shallow DOF. So yea, like everyone has been saying, DOF is not all that makes something look cinematic. Point and case... the AF-100. The Canons have problems and are "relatively" low-resolution compared to other cinema cameras. But they do have that "x-factor" cinema look. Even when stopped down with deep focus.

 

[David Rasberry]

Well, if you have a 5D, you can shoot with the 24mm L-series lens at 1.4... which will give you a look that is not achievable on anything else. But the point is... It's about flexibility, there is no reason to chose a tool that has less options if all things are equal. People are arguing (as usual) about two completely different things.

But a 5D isn't very flexible as a motion picture camera. It has very severe constraints you have to shoot within to get decent footage. F1.4 on a full frame sensor has limited practical application. The reason that S35 and 16mm/2/3" have remained the formats of choice for TV and motion pictures has more to do with being truly practical and flexible in demanding shooting conditions that one confronts in film making. Aronofsky didn't choose to shoot 16mm film for Black Swan because of cost savings. James Cameron didn't shoot his live action motion capture for Avatar with 2/3" HD cameras because he had no other choices. The technical and aesthetic demands of these films made the smaller formats the best choice.

 

[Bryce O]

But a 5D isn't very flexible as a motion picture camera. It has very severe constraints you have to shoot within to get decent footage. F1.4 on a full frame sensor has limited practical application. The reason that S35 and 16mm/2/3" have remained the formats of choice for TV and motion pictures has more to do with being truly practical and flexible in demanding shooting conditions that one confronts in film making. Aronofsky didn't choose to shoot 16mm film for Black Swan because of cost savings. James Cameron didn't shoot his live action motion capture for Avatar with 2/3" HD cameras because he had no other choices. The technical and aesthetic demands of these films made the smaller formats the best choice.

Well to be fair and completely objective... at the time, their were no real capable FF options for either of them. There has never has been really been a FF35 solution equivalent to the cost of s35 or 16mm. When and if Red ever releases a FF camera or if Canon produces the Mark III with the rumored 50mb/s 4:2:2 codec and/or uncompressed out-put then we'll see...

But yea, as far as 3D is concerned, digital high-res 2/3" is probably the best format. I don't see how a FF35 focusing plane would help here. But in the 2D media... FF35 stuff just seems to have more "pop" to in than anything else. To hell with practicality... film-making itself isn't very practical in the first place. :smile5: