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 Sony NEX-FS100 vs Canon HDSLRs

You miss the point. If Aronofsky had the choice of an ff35 Red or a Scarlet for Black Swan he would have shot with Scarlet to get the aesthetic qualities he wanted in the dance scenes. FF35 would not have worked at all.
 
Bryce O said:
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:
Click to expand...


Look ... if you don't think Black Swan coiuld have been shot in IMAX if they wanted, you're missing the point.

Libatique and Aronofsky chose 16mm as their primary format.

I bet they could have gotten an Epic prototype if they wanted.

Moving on ... The 5DMK3.

Getting a better codec won't really make it meaningfully better.

An uncompressed output won't make it better either.

Those just lead you to better recordings of compromised images.

If the camera can take the full sensor image, crop it and scale it - as opposed to pixel skipping - that would be a huge improvement. I agree these DSLR cameras actually make great quality images ... but moire and other issues really limit what they can do.

Also, if the thing could record lossless compressed - or uncompressed audio at 48KHz that would be a step.

Then ... how about a real HDMI port instead of a miniHDMI port.

Then a better codec and uncompressed video output will improve the camera.

Don't get oversold on these cameras. I like them, but be wise to their pitfalls and limitations.
 
I went to a breakfast at the ASC Clubhouse in Hollywood that was hosted for Matthew Libatique. He spoke at length about "Black Swan." IIRC, S16 was chosen b/c they wanted a small, mobile camera and they wanted to shoot film.

FWICT, it had nothing to do with depth of field.

To be honest, I find many of the posts in this thread pretentious and overbearing. Who's to say what's a fad and what isn't?

I would never tell someone that they don't need such and such feature. Who am I to do that? If someone likes very shallow DoF, then the appeal of S35 and FF is obvious.

Liking very shallow DoF is a matter of personal taste. Feeling compelled to tell people who like shallow DoF that they shouldn't is a matter of hubris.


P.S. I want qualify my last sentence a little. Explaining why a current trend in filmmaking may be a fad and it's detriments both on an artistic and technical level, as David Mullen has done exceptionally well, is a very good thing. (He really is the living patron saint of filmmaking.)

But people also need the room to grow, breath and experiment. If someone likes very shallow DoF, then they should feel free to express that w/o being subjected to the Red brigade, LOL. Esp. since it really seems that the defense of 2/3rd's is at least partly a defense of all things Red. When the FF Epic comes out, what was deemed a lazy, gimick format will become brilliant and uber-cinematic, almost dreamlike... a new asthetic in filmmaking. I can hardly wait.
 
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.[/QUOTE]

Other cinema cameras ? A 5D isn't a cinema camera. Not a film one not a digital one. Its a still camera that shoots motion. And a damn good one.
 
Bryce O said:
It's about flexibility, there is no reason to chose a tool that has less options if all things are equal.
Click to expand...

But not all things are equal. Scarlet shoots in RAW at 3K, at up to 120 fps. The ONLY "benefit" the 5D has over Scarlet is to be able to shoot at ridiculously and almost unusably shallow DOF. (Scarlet will be able to shoot shallow DOF, but not ultrashallow, and yes, I know those are subjective terms.) And, it's my personal opinion that this ultrashallow DOF - while interesting as a special effect - is probably 1% as useful as being able to shoot in RAW.
 
Peter Moretti said:
I

But people also need the room to grow, breath and experiment. If someone likes very shallow DoF, then they should feel free to express that w/o being subjected to the Red brigade, LOL. Esp. since it really seems that the defense of 2/3rd's is at least partly a defense of all things Red. When the FF Epic comes out, what was deemed a lazy, gimick format will become brilliant and uber-cinematic, almost dreamlike... a new asthetic in filmmaking. I can hardly wait.
Click to expand...

I'm all for room to grow and experiment. But the original question asked for opinions on the 5d vs FS100 vs Scarlet. Of those three, the 5D is the least flexible and most restrictive as a video camera aside from any considerations of format. If one needs a general purpose production camera to meet a lot of different functional and aesthetic shooting requirements, or to meet more stringent requirements for HD video quality, it is a poor choice. Either the FS100 or Scarlet would be a far superior choice for efficient high quality general video production. If all you are interested in is a bottom dollar low end HD camera to experiment with shallow DOF and FF35mm aesthetics then the 5d is a reasonable choice.

Personally I find a whole lot more room to grow and experiment with a camera like Scarlet and for me shallow DOF is a very minor consideration.
 
David Rasberry said:
I'm all for room to grow and experiment. But the original question asked for opinions on the 5d vs FS100 vs Scarlet. Of those three, the 5D is the least flexible and most restrictive as a video camera aside from any considerations of format. If one needs a general purpose production camera to meet a lot of different functional and aesthetic shooting requirements, or to meet more stringent requirements for HD video quality, it is a poor choice. Either the FS100 or Scarlet would be a far superior choice for efficient high quality general video production. If all you are interested in is a bottom dollar low end HD camera to experiment with shallow DOF and FF35mm aesthetics then the 5d is a reasonable choice.

Personally I find a whole lot more room to grow and experiment with a camera like Scarlet and for me shallow DOF is a very minor consideration.
Click to expand...

This.
 
David Rasberry said:
I'm all for room to grow and experiment. But the original question asked for opinions on the 5d vs FS100 vs Scarlet.
Click to expand...

Actually it also included the 7D.

I think the 7D is a more flexible camera than the 5D.

Personally I find a whole lot more room to grow and experiment with a camera like Scarlet and for me shallow DOF is a very minor consideration.
Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)

Actually I disagree. I suppose that's why you said "personally."

I know that shallow DoF has been over used of late ... but the ability to control DoF is an important tool.

I want an S35 sensor, and fast lenses that I can open to t/1.4, but I usually shoot 2.8-4 indoors and 4-5.6 outdoors.

Then, if I have to do that outdoor shot at night, I can open up.

With the 2/3" You have a much narrower range of available DoF. I can create the look of S35 t/2.8 with 2/3" t/1.4. I can't create the look of S35 t/1.4 with 2/3" t/1.4.

Just because some knuckleheads have over used something doesn't make it a bad thing.

I'll take the flexibility, and the responsibility for using, and not using, it
 
I find far more use for a deep depth of field, in the rare situations I will need a shallow depth of field it is easily enough to achieve. It all depends on what you shoot and how you shoot, and as with everything else your budget.

Honestly I can understand standing by your camera but the reality is very few movies are shot entirely with a shallow depth of field where most have a deeper depth of field than your average indi shorts these days. I feel that despite the genera you shoot the scarlet will be an extremely versatile camera for the low budget market, where other camera's my be better for one specific shot or scene.

though it depends on your needs so to label one camera the best just doesn't fit, it's what is best for you and that depends on many factors, price, format, availability, learning curve and many others.

have a good one and play nice!
 
David Rasberry said:
If all you are interested in is a bottom dollar low end HD camera to experiment with shallow DOF and FF35mm aesthetics then the 5d is a reasonable choice.
Click to expand...

For an aspiring young filmmaker a Panasonic GH2 would be a far better choice. Much cheaper, less aliasing, better monitoring, reasonably shallow DOF and a huge range of lenses to choose from (including many heritage lenses). Admitted, not up to the Canon in low-light.

Apart from that, I see the whole trend of abuse of shallow DOF as a kind of historical overreaction. Remember: for decades indie filmmakers didn't have access to cameras with shallow DOF. They'll get back to normal eventually.

And not all of them fall into this trap. A very talented ex-student of mine made a feature length film with a DV camcorder (the Panasonic DVX-100) and it even found it's way into art cinemas here in Germany. After that, she asked my advice about finally buying a HD camera. We went through all the advantages and disadvantages of the AF100 and the EX-1 (the FS100 wasn't here yet) and she decided to get the EX-1. Recently she called me and told me how happy she is with her new baby. It just fits her style (of course a 2/3 Scarlet would have been great for her). I'm sure she'll make another good movie without too much shallow DOF…
 
Ive just got a FS100 put old nikon manual lenses on it, shallow or deep depth of field no problem, producing great pictures, virtually noiseless at plus 18 DB getting shots l could not get before.

FS100 v Scarlet a stupid question as l can't buy a scarlet and the FS100 is in my hands the first week it was released and is being used in productions, some how l don't think l would get a scarlet on the first week of its release !!!.

Specs are one thing, cameras on sale and readily available and with a two year guarantee ! is another.

Yes l will get a scarlet as and when it eventually becomes available to the market in large enough quantities is another question.

People knock Sony but they developed and brought this camera to market with 14 months !
 
FS100 is a pretty neat camera. Low light sensitivity is amazing. Shot with a lot of Sony's over the years, mostly analog Betacams. They make great products.
 
Jonathan Stevenson said:
Welcome to technology! If you need a camera NOW, go buy one. FS100's and 5Ds will hold their value. You can always sell it and get a Scarlet once they come out. But Pascal is right, those other cameras don't hold a candle to what Scarlets will do. If you can hold out another 6 months, I'd wait. (6 months is my guess on readily available Scarlets).
Click to expand...

6 months ...
 
Well.... I got laughed at when I said that Scarlet will never be released.

Seeing it economically, it makes no sense to push that cam anymore.
Sony, Canon, Pananasonic and a lot of other competitors are grabbing the market
in high-speed. And they are loaded.

Pity! I have seen a great chance for RED with this CA$H-Generator.

RED couldnt even handle all orders, if they would release right now.
If I need another cam for my business, then within 3 days.

I have no time to order a Scarlet and pay some 10% deposit in order
to wait another 3 months for my delivery.
 
I see no other camera available or announced under $10k that I would buy instead of waiting for Scarlet at this point. Been saying the same thing for 3 years. But I do have the luxury of being able to wait for an affordable solution from RED. Some people need their cameras now for projects or businesses.
Scarlet will still be very competitive in this market segment where the only choices are 1/3" or 1/4" prosumer video cameras or large sensor cameras with compromised codecs and multiple issues for people who don't work with crews and need a good general purpose solo operator camera system. There is still no 2/3" camera selling for much less than $20k. So Scarlet will fill a big hole.

If you were shooting on film it would be like having to choose between 35mm and super8. There is a broad middle ground where S16mm really is the ideal solution.
 
I have the Sony FS100 and I'm consistently impressed by it. Really amazing little camera for the money.. You won't be disappointed.. It's no RAW camera but if you can work within the box then you'll be making some really nice imagery.. Much better than a dSLR...
 
David Rasberry said:
There is still no 2/3" camera selling for much less than $20k. So Scarlet will fill a big hole.
Click to expand...
to make a hole a bit bigger I would add 3K resolution, 120fps and R3D output file format, which is practically raw, and that will set Scarlet apart from anything on the market,
well, except for R1 and Epic :)
so Ted is right saying that cameras 10X price point of Scarlet are not even close to the features set that scarlet will have;
when it's released :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top