Scarlet X VS C100 with atmos?

[Kyle Moe]

I'm thinking about buying my first scarlet, maybe used, maybe new with leasing, not quite sure yet. Very preliminary. Has anyone done any tests against the c100 recording to an atmos recorder? I can only find out of the box footage against the scarlet.

Thanks guys!

 

[Matt W.]

You won't notice that big a difference with the external recorder vs AVCHD until you zoom in or start pushing the footage hard. I do think the recorder is worth it, but for footage compressed for the web the difference is negligible. The AVCHD is REALLY good until you push it hard.

This choice is matter of ideology lol. Both cameras can deliver amazing footage.

 

[Matthew Scott]

Short version, Scarlet-X is a (way) better camera for an artist who wants the most from an image. c1/3/500 is better for doco's, is a complete camera in one kit and has better battery life (battery system). Although, I think cinematographer Shane Hurlbut A.S.C. might disagree. Best way is to test them both for yourself

 

[Matt W.]

Short version, Scarlet-X is a (way) better camera for an artist who wants the most from an image. c1/3/500 is better for doco's, is a complete camera in one kit and has better battery life (battery system). Although, I think cinematographer Shane Hurlbut A.S.C. might disagree. Best way is to test them both for yourself

I'm curious, what "more" does it offer from an image other than resolution? The skew, dynamic range, sharpness at 1080p, etc. are measured as the same from both cameras by most independent tests... and the Canon has better default colors, much better under tungsten light, much better low light, etc.

I have used each for different projects and both have strengths and weaknesses, but for 1080p footage I'd say the image is pretty comparable technically with the Canon having a much nicer default look and the Red having more flexibility in post.

 

[Matthew Scott]

I'm curious, what "more" does it offer from an image other than resolution? The skew, dynamic range, sharpness at 1080p, etc. are measured as the same from both cameras by most independent tests... and the Canon has better default colors, much better under tungsten light, much better low light, etc.

I have used each for different projects and both have strengths and weaknesses, but for 1080p footage I'd say the image is pretty comparable technically with the Canon having a much nicer default look and the Red having more flexibility in post.

Hey Matt, W. From my independent tests (which are the only things I'll use as force behind my opinions), not having RAW, and not having 16-bit means a LOT. Charts and graphs only prove so much. More flexibility in post is what I mean by "more", and I'm good in post! So the Scarlet-X is a (WAY) better option for me. I see the strengths and weakness you mentioned too, for sure. I'm curious if you disagree with my advice?

 

[Nick Morrison]

I'm curious, what "more" does it offer from an image other than resolution?

I think Matt's referring to flexibility in post, yes. I've overseen numerous grades for my clients and can confirm that Scarlet MX material is a very easy to grade. Has a very robust "negative". I've also see quite a bit of canon "C" footage (I work in broadcast), and it doesn't seem to have same flexibility in post. But agree it does have a nice look. All depends on your needs!

 

[Matt W.]

I think Matt's referring to flexibility in post, yes. I've overseen numerous grades for my clients and can confirm that Scarlet MX material is a very easy to grade. Has a very robust "negative". I've also see quite a bit of canon "C" footage (I work in broadcast), and it doesn't seem to have same flexibility in post. But agree it does have a nice look. All depends on your needs!

I absolutely agree there. 16 bit 4k raw vs 8 bit linear isn't much of a contest. If I had the crew (on set and in post) and gear (on set and in post) to support the workflow, I could certainly see the advantage of the Scarlet, but I feel like most people entering into production with only 10k to spend on a camera body don't have those things! And don't have the time (as a small business) to do everything themselves. So it's a decision based on priority and access to resources and, ultimately, on financial considerations. Do your clients want 4k? Does your post house love or hate 4k? These are not similar cameras, both are powerful, but it's a choice between two very different products serving very different markets.

The footage only tells half the story, but both have produced good images.

 

[Matthew Scott]

I absolutely agree there. 16 bit 4k raw vs 8 bit linear isn't much of a contest. If I had the crew (on set and in post) and gear (on set and in post) to support the workflow, I could certainly see the advantage of the Scarlet, but I feel like most people entering into production with only 10k to spend on a camera body don't have those things! So it's a big decision based on priority and access to resources. These are not similar cameras, both are powerful.

Exactly! Glad we agree, cos that's the slightly expanded version of my short version Wait, you are the same guy who wrote this a few minutes ago? >

"I'm curious, what "more" does it offer from an image other than resolution? The skew, dynamic range, sharpness at 1080p, etc. are measured as the same from both cameras by most independent tests... and the Canon has better default colors, much better under tungsten light, much better low light, etc."

I'm confused....

 

[Matt W.]

The red has more resolution and more flexibility in post, gobs more. But the baked in Canon look is appropriate for a lot of tv.

Same dynamic range, amount of skew, similar sharpness at 1080p.

But the Red is much worse in low light (the Canon is even much better than the Alexa here; it is a beast), worse performance under tungsten (because it starves the sensor of blue light), but...

If you have the light to feed it that's irrelevant.

All I'm saying is there is a lot to the decision beyond sample footage, because both can produce awesome and terrible footage depending on the operator. I own a Canon and will rent/borrow a Red/Epic for the right project, but usually my shooting ratios are too ludicrously sloppy.

 

[Matthew Scott]

Okay sure, I read you loud and clear. The OP was considering buying a Scarlet and asked about the image compared to that of a c100 (10-bit 4:2:2 Prores). I just answered that in a short version, (image wise Scarlet is better, hardware inclusion/complete kit, Canon is better, plus Hollywood features are being shot with the canon, by top DoP's (F&F) so they are still obviously excellent image wise too) and you've expanded on that, so I think we're on the same page.

 

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

Can I just add that even though the Canon will record 10 bit to the Atamos, you will still only have 8 bit colour information in there. It is like pouring the same amount of liquid into a different container. I've got both, and in my humble opinion, I'm not a fan of Canon's reddish and cold look. However the C100's ergonomics are far superior to the Red's. if you are going to be running and gunning, the Red will very quickly strain your hands as well. there is also a significant price difference between both. Finally, Lets not forget the Scarlet uses propriety Red mags while the Canon's use cheaper SD cards

 

[PJ Porter]

I would take time think of the Pros and cons of both the Scarlet and rent the C100. Don't forget Scarlet shoots RAW and you can upgrade to Epic or Dragon later on and it can shoot in 3K/4K/5K, and if you love slo-mo it can shoot in 60fps at 2K and HD unlike the C100. The bit rate comparison doesn't really matter when it comes to atomos because, although RED has the C100 beat (16-bit > 10-bit) both will most likely end out at 10-bit at the end of post production . The advantage of the C100 over the Scarlet is the Light Sensitivity, other than that, Scarlet seems to be the best option IMO.

 

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

Hi Porter

I have both the C100 and the Scarlet. And in my humble opinion, there isn't that much between them with regards to light sensitivity, although I have not done a straight shootout. The noise pattern from the C100 is definitely nicer to my eyes. have you done a compare? what do you think? I'm interested in someone else's opinion.

 

[Matt W.]

Hi Porter

I have both the C100 and the Scarlet. And in my humble opinion, there isn't that much between them with regards to light sensitivity, although I have not done a straight shootout. The noise pattern from the C100 is definitely nicer to my eyes. have you done a compare? what do you think? I'm interested in someone else's opinion.

At 800 ISO 5600K the Scarlet is cleaner.

At 20,000 ISO 3200K.... it's another story.

 

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

....... interesting - I' going to have a look at this on monday.

 

[Ryan Emanuel]

The dynamic range is not really the same, they map stops differently, the scarlet has more stops in the low end and the canon is more even distribution top and bottom. So the scarlet has creamier roll of into the darks with more low end detail. How important that is is really dependent on personal preference, for me its big. The canon has around 0.5-1 extra stops in the highlights but has a nasty yellow cast in burnt highlights that has to be desaturated in post.

 

[Matt W.]

The dynamic range is not really the same, they map stops differently, the scarlet has more stops in the low end and the canon is more even distribution top and bottom. So the scarlet has creamier roll of into the darks with more low end detail. How important that is is really dependent on personal preference, for me its big. The canon has around 0.5-1 extra stops in the highlights but has a nasty yellow cast in burnt highlights that has to be desaturated in post.

I have found the shadow detail to be the same with both cameras and the clip point to be about the same, too. If you're finding an extra stop in the highlights and one less stop in the shadows... it's just a matter of how you're rating the camera. How are you metering?

 

[Ryan Emanuel]

I'm already rating up. When I was filming on c100 I put middle grey around 40% IRE, the darks turn to crap at the white papers recommended 32%. I just have to disagree that the shadow detail is the same. The roll of into the darks is abrupt on Canon, the camera is pretty weak in underexposure. Sensitivity is another matter.

 

[Mike Garrick]

Doesn't the C300 hence the C100 have a known issue with highlight aliasing/fringing ?

If this is the case it should be deal breaker.

 

[Jeffery Anderson]

I think there are a million reason why this is one of the strangest questions of all time on RedUser...