Scarlet wide...

[Häakon]

You don't need adapters, 2/3 is enough DOF.

Many would disagree with you; that's why you see Pro35s used on even the highest end of 2/3" cameras like the F950.

No any LENS adapter for SCARLET, please!!!.

I think people need to be realistic about what Scarlet is. There is no question that people will use the camera to make narrative films. That being said, I do think that there are some who are wishing it to be more than what it is. It's a 2/3", 3K camera that will sell for under $3,000. That in itself is a bargain. If 35mm DOF is important to you, you're going to have to use an adapter or suck it up and invest in a camera that does what you want it to natively. The RED ONE is also an insane bargain at $17,500. The list of feature requests for Scarlet I have been seeing lately - even now that we know what RED is planning - have been a little absurd. This is a camera that is going to compete in the HVX class of equipment, and it should be respected as such. At half the price of some of those cameras - with a larger sensor and much greater resolution to boot - you'd think people would be singing praises! Just accept what the specs are (a fixed zoom lens) and decide if they are what your particular project calls for. You have other options (from RED themselves or other manufacturers) if you require something other than what Scarlet can give you.

Jannard I'm getting a bit confused by all the difference references on here.

I'm not sure what the difference is between 35mm equivalent and S35mm equivalent.

The 35mm frame Jim referenced was a still camera 35mm full frame; that is, the width of the film negative is 35mm as seen here:

Note that the film is run through the camera horizontally with the perforations on the top and the bottom of the active frame. This makes each individual still frame 24mm x 36mm.

Motion picture film, on the other hand, is run through the camera vertically (in most cases), causing the perforations to lie on the sides of the active frame rather than the top and bottom. The dimensions of the physical film negative are the same (35mm from edge to edge), but the individual still frame is much smaller because the active area has been reduced to the width between the perforations (roughly 15mm x 23mm).

2/3" sensors (like the ones used in Scarlet, Panasonic's Varicam, or Sony's F950) have an even smaller active image area than that, while 1/3" sensors (like those found in Panasonic's AG-HVX200 or Sony's HVR-Z1U) are simply tiny by comparison.

Because the coverage area of the different sensor sizes is different, the focal lengths of the lenses must be "converted" in order to cover the same viewing area. This conversion is often referred to as a sensor's "crop factor." Wikipedia has a good article about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

The crop factor for RED ONE's sensor is about 1.6x, meaning that a 50mm lens on the RED ONE will provide roughly the same field of view as an 80mm lens would on a 35mm full-frame still camera. (50 x 1.6 = 80). If David Mullen's understanding of Jim's post is correct, that would give Scarlet a crop factor of about 3.9x - meaning that in order to get that same 80mm full-frame FOV on Scarlet, you'd need a 20mm lens (80 / 3.9 = 20).

Since Jim has announced that the Scarlet zoom will begin at 28mm (full frame equivalent), we can deduce (by using the 3.9x crop factor) that the Scarlet lens will start at about 7.2mm (28 / 3.9 = 7.2) and go to roughly 57.6mm on the telephoto end (since we know it's an 8x zoom, and 7.2 x 8 = 57.6). Because most people do not think of lenses in terms of their 2/3" FOV equivalents, however, (a 7.2mm lens probably sounds really, really wide!), you can use the crop factor to find out what the focal length equivalent would be on cameras with a larger sensor. In other words, 7.2mm on the Scarlet will give you about the same FOV as an 18mm lens on the RED ONE or a 28mm lens on a full-frame camera. This way, if you are used to associating a certain focal length with a certain frame size, you can quickly do the math and determine the proper range that this lens will give you. Jim already "ran the equation" for those used to shooting full-frame 35mm stills in his first post, stating that the wide end will give you roughly the same FOV as a 28mm lens on a full-frame camera.

Hope that helps... I know it's a little wordy, but the Wikipedia articles should help or someone else can help restate things if they aren't clear.

 

[Alsone]

I think that makes sense thanks.

So what we are saying then is that the Scarlett will have a 28-224mm lens as standard (35mm equivalent) and therefore 48-448mm with 2x conversion.

..and also that the aperture will be 2.8.

An additional question on the aperture will it be constant across the focal length or vary with the zoom as on a lot of stills lenses?

One last question, assuming it to be constant, will autofocus still work with the f5.6 aperture that results from 2x conversion and the same question again with 3x conversion?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Won't the wide adapter cut the amount of light even more? If you're starting with T2.8, it seems like that might hurt?

I'm still hoping Jim will offer a Scarlet with an "optional" interchangeable lens system, even if it costs a few grand more. Hell, even if the body was 7 or 8 grand, it would still be hella cheaper than a 1080p Varicam or F900R, etc. And cheaper than the EX3, I believe.

 

[Häakon]

I think that makes sense thanks.

So what we are saying then is that the Scarlett will have a 28-224mm lens as standard (35mm equivalent) and therefore 48-448mm with 2x conversion.

It should be roughly 28-224mm (full frame equivalent), but I don't think there is a 2x telephoto conversion being discussed. Jim mentioned a "double asphere add-on," but that it would take things wider, not longer. I'm not sure if that means you'll be able to get to a 14mm (full frame equivalent) FOV with the adapter or not, or what exactly is being "doubled."

Please keep in mind that the RED ONE is not full-frame, either. So for those who own a RED and are also interested in purchasing a Scarlet, your effective FOV on Scarlet will be about 18-144mm on the RED ONE. Certainly not bad - in fact, it's near identical to the range covered by the 18-50mm and 50-150mm zoom lenses that RED offers. Coincidence? I think not.

Now also consider this: just the RED ONE body alone, plus both of the zoom lenses mentioned (no batteries or accessories of any kind) will set you back $32,500. Scarlet will get you that same FOV with its fixed lens for less than a tenth of the price! Now you start to see how much of an impact the larger formats make on price. If you want 35mm DOF, you have to be prepared to pay for it.

..and also that the aperture will be 2.8.

An additional question on the aperture will it be constant across the focal length or vary with the zoom as on a lot of stills lenses?

It should remain consistent throughout the zoom range, as it has been listed as a 2.8 lens. I can't guarantee you this will be the case, but that is my understanding from the material that RED has presented.

Won't the wide adapter cut the amount of light even more? If you're starting with T2.8, it seems like that might hurt?

Most adapters do cut light, yes - that's one of the tradeoffs of using an adapter. That is also the strength of having an interchangeable lens system - but of course the faster the lens, the more expensive it is. By making the lens fixed, they are saving the customer from the high price of individual lenses (many which cost more than the entire Scarlet system itself). If you need more flexibility, the RED ONE caters to this need.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Most adapters do cut light, yes - that's one of the tradeoffs of using an adapter. That is also the strength of having an interchangeable lens system - but of course the faster the lens, the more expensive it is. By making the lens fixed, they are saving the customer from the high price of individual lenses (many which cost more than the entire Scarlet system itself). If you need more flexibility, the RED ONE caters to this need.

Of course. But it seems like a Scarlet with an interchangeable option could fill a gap. Take for example nature shooters who are trying to capture lion kills in Africa for the Discovery Channel. It seems like a Scarlet body for 7 or 8 grand could slaughter the high-priced Varicam, F900, etc, and might even offer more FPS, for example, which is very important to that type of shooting. Not to mention the portability and RAW.

Or, cinema shooting. Being able to strap a $20K lens on Scarlet might seem like overkill, but hey, it would make Scarlet competitive with $60K 2/3" cameras.

 

[Mike McEntire]

Well knowing that just about every action sports film/video maker in the world will buy Scarlet it only makes sense to give them what they will all ask for.
1) An extreme fisheye adaptor
2) A zoom through wide angle adaptor
3) A zoom through 2x tele adaptor.

I can't even imagine how many cameras and said lenses are going to sell to all the skate, surf, snow, dirt bike etc crews worldwide. All I have heard since NAB is Scarlet.

 

[Garth Philpot]

Wide and tele adaptors are a definite from Jim's reviews , not sure about fish eye but you could always grab one from century optics or the like , sure the camera will have a bayonet mount ...

 

[Alsone]

Haakon sorry for being the video newb here but my experience is very much consumer based.

You say the Scarlett isn't going to give a 35mm FOV. Does this mean that the zoom effect will be the same as 35mm but the frame itself might not be quite as wide, or does this mean that the zoom effect will be different because of the FOV.

To make it clear what I'm getting at, irrespective of the size of the frame, if I zoom to say 200mm will my subject in the centre of the frame look just as large on the Scarlett as on a 35mm camera?

Is it just that the overall amount of border material may be more or less depending on how its cut off by the sensor.

59xFish I have to agree with what you've said so my next question which went unanswered earlier, do the mods / Red Team know if there's any chance that a teleconvertor may be built into the Scarlett lens as standard? I note that many professional cameras rather than going for a filter mounted teleconverter actually have one built in behind the lens as standard that moves into play when requested.

I'm presuming the reason for this is that the lens is better quality glass than the converter so if you mount it on the filter mount, you multiply the errors in the converter by 8x whereas if you mount it behind the lens, you multiply the lens errors by 2x, a much lesser amount with the lens having less errors to start with.

As the lens is fixed its not going to be possible to mount a teleconvertor behind the lens unless its factory standard. Also, the cost to red in doing this would presumably be quite low because already having a contract with the lens manufacturer and being able to purchase in bulk, Red can keep costs low whereas for an after market purchase, the cost would be quite high for quality glass or fluorite.

 

[Buck Forester]

The standard Scarlet zoom will begin at 28mm (still full frame 35mm reference). We do plan on having a double asphere add-on to the front of the built in lens to take that much wider. There are many ways to do an add-on lens... cheap or good. We'll do the "good" kind.

Right pickin' ON! I'm completely stoked about this camera! I'd order two of them today, right this sec, if they were ready.

 

[Joseph Hutson]

I'm still hoping Jim will offer a Scarlet with an "optional" interchangeable lens system, even if it costs a few grand more. even if the body was 7 or 8 grand, it would still be hella cheaper than a 1080p Varicam or F900R, etc. And cheaper than the EX3, I believe.

Come on! We know what you are still hoping for, and it is NOT the Scarlet. Maybe a Crimson, Ruby, Maroon, Rose, or whatever it might be in the future.

Scarlet is what it is, and Jim has already spoken. You can keep on saying you want something with interchangeable lenses for $10, but it will be a different line of product if and when it is announced.

To Jim Jannard : Thanks for choosing a camera at the $3000 price point! Even if it doesn't have the "interchangeable lenses" that Tom is begging for.

To Tom: I hope you get what you want, but it won't be the Scarlet.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I'm just hoping that the wide and teleadapters are developed at the same time as the camera so I can order the camera together with it.
I like what I get when photographing at 18mm with my 17 - 40mm Canon lens on my 20D, so I'm happy with getting 28mm as it's widest option...
Still I would like to get a bit wider and my only hope is that the wide adapter doesn't distort the image because I don't like bent lines.
But as I understand it, it's not a fisheye adapter, it's a true wide adapter...

At least that what I believe Jim means when talking about the adapter...?

 

[Häakon]

Haakon sorry for being the video newb here but my experience is very much consumer based.

You say the Scarlett isn't going to give a 35mm FOV. Does this mean that the zoom effect will be the same as 35mm but the frame itself might not be quite as wide, or does this mean that the zoom effect will be different because of the FOV.

To make it clear what I'm getting at, irrespective of the size of the frame, if I zoom to say 200mm will my subject in the centre of the frame look just as large on the Scarlett as on a 35mm camera?

Is it just that the overall amount of border material may be more or less depending on how its cut off by the sensor.

There are no stupid questions! Just stupid... answers? I forget how that goes. Haha, anyway...

You can absolutely "match" the FOV with Scarlet that you can shoot on a 35mm still frame camera. The only thing that changes is the focal length of the lens to get you there. In other words, say a closeup of your subject is framed exactly how you want it with an 80mm lens on your 35mm full-frame still camera. To get that same field of view with a RED ONE, you'd use a 50mm lens. To get it with Scarlet, you'd use a 20mm lens. 20mm probably sounds awfully wide for a "close up" lens if you're used to shooting 35mm full-frame stills, but because there is such a large crop factor (roughly 3.9x) with a 2/3" sensor in relation to a 35mm full-frame area, that 20mm lens will cover the area you're looking for perfectly with the smaller chip. The only real side effect is that with a 20mm lens you have much greater DOF than an 80mm lens, and that's why cameras with smaller-sized sensors tend to exhibit much deeper DOF. The glass behaves the same way on every camera, but with a small sensor, you're only seeing a small, centered crop of the lens. To get the field of view you really want, then, you have to use a much wider lens so that the center crop you're seeing matches the frame of the non-cropped full-frame sensor, and when you use a wider lens, you gain DOF. Does that make sense? All you really need to know is that Scarlet will have a wonderfully useful zoom range, but the focal lengths may not correspond to numbers you are used to if you are not regularly using cameras with a 2/3" chip.

I implore you to read this article... it explains a lot (and probably much better than I am doing right now!)

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

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Now, I think Häakon explained the cropfactor and calculations and everything so all that is covered. We also know that it's a fixed lens at 28 - 225mm (S35 equivalent) at T2.8 through the entire range (if it's pro image quality I'm freakin impressed actually). The sensor is 2/3 and the DOF is based on that.

Don't request anything more about the lens because it's covered and if you don't think you get enough for the money you have no knowledge about lenses, are we clear?

Now, the only question that we don't have an answer to is how close to the subject we can get with our camera... so that's coming up.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Ok, but when you guys say T2.8 are you strictly referring to the T-stop or does it men the F-stop is going to be F2.8 as well?

Please enlight me.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Well, T2.8 should mean T-stops, right?

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Well, T2.8 should mean T-stops, right?

Thx, I just didn't know if there was any relation between t-stop and f-stop, or if t-stop could limit f-stop...

Anyway, my doubt is what will be Scarlet's lens lowest f number...
I guess no one knows it yet.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I believe that it's a bit greater then F-stops due to it being calculated by the actual amount of light coming through... F-stops doesn't really count in that the glasses reduce a certain amount of light even if they were able to be 0 in aparture.

 

[Häakon]

I believe that it's a bit greater then F-stops due to it being calculated by the actual amount of light coming through... F-stops doesn't really count in that the glasses reduce a certain amount of light even if they were able to be 0 in aparture.

You're right. The "T" stands for transmission - it's the amount of light that actually hits the film plane/sensor. Although the F-stop represents the mathematical relationship between the focal length of the lens and the diameter of the iris, the T-stop is generally more helpful as a filmmaking reference because it's the amount of light you actually get to use!

 

[millrick]

missing the point (according to Jim

missing the point (according to Jim

Being able to strap a $20K lens on Scarlet might seem like overkill, but hey, it would make Scarlet competitive with $60K 2/3" cameras.

respectfully, isn't that the job of Red One?
it's the giant killer, not Scarlet.
Scarlet's going to obsolesce all the cameras with 1/3 inch sensors, not the big boys.

Sorry to (everyone who missed the point). Just buy a RED ONE and you have every option you are all asking for.

Here is the missing point... for us to sell this package at this price, we have to sell A LOT of them. That means it has to be able to be used by many. Like it or not, that means a version that is fully auto. Interchangeable lenses means a different product that will sell in limited quantities... which means a higher price. Much higher.

This is a camera that can be sold in large quantities and deliver Pro performance at the same time.

Jim

Scarlet is not intended to be a RED ONE replacement (said that before). If you want ONLY a manual everything, professional grade camera... buy a RED ONE. Scarlet is targeted to wreak havoc to the pro-sumer camcorders that do offer auto-manual everything... but Scarlet will ALSO generate professional images.

The fact that you CAN shoot Scarlet like a pro camera (full auto with wireless control) places this camera in a very new category.

You may not agree with the decision, but at least now you know the thinking behind it.

Jim

:umm:

 

[Wiyum]

Although the F-stop represents the mathematical relationship between the focal length of the lens and the diameter of the iris, the T-stop is generally more helpful as a filmmaking reference because it's the amount of light you actually get to use!

Well, they're really both important. Think of it this way: use T-stops when talking to your gaffer; use F-stops when talking to your first AC. While T-stops take into account light loss due to the lens elements etc, the actual optics dictate focus, so you need to use F-stops when determining depth of field and other focus concerns.

From a practical perspective though, I've yet to see a lens where the two differed by enough that it should have made much of a difference. The couple tenths of a stop less in exposure won't kill you if you're using F-stops for exposure, and if depth of field is so narrow that the difference creates problems because you calculated depth of field using T-stops, then you probably shouldn't be shooting as wide open/telephoto/close to the subject as you are.