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...

Sean Finnegan said:
While it isn't the end all be all of image quality, sensor size does seem to carry quite a bit of weight in this discussion for a lot of people. The HDSLR revolution may have contributed to that. Personally, Scarlet is an attractive option for me because of the features and price point, but I'd be lying if I said that the fact that its a 2/3" chip doesn't bug me. Not that I doubt the image quality of the chip, just the idea that I have to build a different set of glass bugs me.
Click to expand...

2/3" might not be my first choice for most narrative projects, but S35 is definitely not my first choice for verite shooting...

Sensor size definitely has something to do with ergonomics for different applications.

I see a future with 2/3", S35, and FF as the three size choices. I'll be glad to say goodbye to 1/3" and 1/2", and say hello to FF (for some projects).
 
I'm one of the people complaining about the 2/3" sensor, and I'm looking forward to see the Epic-S.
That said, I have to say that for price reason I might take a Scarlet and think I will be HAPPY as hell with the image quality. Come on, 2/3" is more or less 16mm, and with the sensor resolution HDRx™ and RAW and Cinema capabilities, it would be a stunning camera.
(I saw what the swedish at Ikonoskop have made, and the 16mm chip make a nice texture on the image. So, on a Red camera, I have no doubt at all that it will kick some ass !)

PS : remember that Star Wars Episode 2 and 3 were shot on 2/3 sensors. Public Enemies, wether you like it or not, has also a pretty good image. Grench TV series Kaamelott, for those outside France who know of it, is also shot on 2/3" sensor. The last season has just a gorgeous picture quality.:lurk5:
 
Jarred Land said:
Scarlet will still have side CF module as standard. Only on EPIC is SSD now standard ( with CF ability through CF to SSD adapter )
Click to expand...

Will it be possible to order the Fixed Scarlet with SSD mounted instead of cf for a higher price?
 
Sean Finnegan said:
While it isn't the end all be all of image quality, sensor size does seem to carry quite a bit of weight in this discussion for a lot of people.
Click to expand...

But that's a flawed perspective in that sensor size does not make a camera less professional. An S35mm sensor is not the right tool for every job. Do we also accept the same logic works in the opposite direction and assume that an FF35 EPIC is more "professional" than an EPIC-X? What is the EPIC-645, "uber-professional"? If that's really the case, then I'm going to just wait and buy the EPIC-617 "Professionalist Maximus" edition and laugh at everyone else with their tiny toy sensors.

The Scarlet 2/3" will be every bit as "professional" as the EPIC line. It is a smaller sensor, yes. It also has a higher-density sensor, high frame rates, the same tank-like build quality, etc.. Most 2/3" cameras on the market are professional tools and industry-standard workhorses. -- cameras like the F900, Varicam, Viper, F23, etc.. S16mm film cameras from ARRI, AATON and Panavision. Are they all less professional because of the smaller imager size?

If a 2/3" sensor "bugs you", then you're probably not in the market for one. I plan to buy a few 2/3" Scarlet cameras. For all the applications and genres where an S35 sensor is not ideal. Just as I intend to own an EPIC-645 and possibly a 617 as well -- for all the times the larger sensor is desirable.

...Building a different set of glass is a way of life when owning multiple camera systems. You have to build a new set of glass if you go with a larger format as well. Often having to build different sets just within the 35mm realm. It either makes sense for you to do so, or it doesn't. That's a business decision. Or a personal / hobby decision, depending on your shooting needs and aspirations.

I pose the question again, what about the 2/3" makes it less professional? Sensor size is not a valid answer. Don't mean to pick on you specifically, I just see the same comments over and over again. Maybe people would take the 2/3" Scarlet more seriously if RED put a more serious price tag on it? The camera is going to trounce the F23 and will do it for less than 1/10th the price in a tiny, self-contained package.

Anyway, /rant off...
 
Hope 2/3 isn't to far from the low light capabilitys in Epic. When RED starts showing Scarlet fixed footage I hope they include a some nightshots with just street lights.
 
In theory the pure sensor-size is'nt a big factor for lowlight-performance. Its more about pixel-size (and lenses, of course).

If i remember correctly, with red's mysterium-x the pixel-size is the same for it's 2/3 and s35-variants. This basically translates into the same amount of light per pixel on epic and scarlet (if you put equal lenses on them).

It's comparable to cropping...
 
Kyle Wright said:
If people want a "professional" camera, why are they looking at the Scarlet? Shouldn't they be shopping for the Epic or Epic light? As for CF cards, I was reading the American Cinematographer from a couple months back and it seems The Social Network was shot almost entirely with CF cards, so I would certainly consider them to be professional media and think that the lower-price Scarlet would be more than fine if it didn't natively include the SSD module. I'm also okay with Scarlet price increases, but I certainly don't expect it to be quite as "professional" as the higher priced and spec'ed Epic/Epic Light. For the slightly less-professional and advanced beginner/starter crowd, that's what the Scarlet is for. It's a step up from the 5D/7D/prosumer cameras but not quite up to the levels of the professional Epic line.
Click to expand...

I think professional first comes from the use of the camera, and the users capabilities, then the camera. To say a 2/3 scarlet is not pro is a bit crazy. I think it has specific uses for pros that epic may not fit, certainly red one does not fit. Simply, portability, weight and even a lesser codec. Try shooting with a high redcode in the middle of nowhere with a crew of one or two. I just got back from a 2 week trip to the Danakil Depression in Ethiopia where I had no power, and lugged all my own gear around. To shoot 150gb a day is not possible just for the mere fact of offloading times. As much as I like the idea of Epic and shooting 5k, my needs are different. Does this mean I'm not pro? My stuff airs reputable factual channels, so it may not be theatrical, but it should qualify as pro. I currently shoot on a 7d, and love it for portability, codec and audio need an improvement though. Will get a couple of scarlets to replace them.

I'm a bit sad about Scarlet s35 being bumped up, because I'm sure it will get a significant price bump. Keeping it cheaper and more scarlet like would suited me better. I think it would also have help epic sales ans some people care too much OR have a need about personal image more then the camera image; to go so low as to shoot a pro project on a little old scarlet will make them or their project smaller. In the bush, tribes people car little about the camera, and are sympathetic to those lugging a lot of gear, scarlet works just fine.

In terms of name for it, I don't care about if it is Epic or Scarlet, the price change matters. Please don't call it light though, because I'm sure it will still be heavy on a 20k hike up a mountain. Epic S35 would do just fine. Or just plain Epic as it's the base model.
 
Maik Müller Menendez said:
...

If i remember correctly, with red's mysterium-x the pixel-size is the same for it's 2/3 and s35-variants. This basically translates into the same amount of light per pixel on epic and scarlet (if you put equal lenses on them).

...
Click to expand...

I believe that is not correct. From what I remember, pixel size on the larger sensors (s35) is 5.4 microns while the 2/3" sensor has pixels of 3.3 microns.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
I believe that is not correct. From what I remember, pixel size on the larger sensors (s35) is 5.4 microns while the 2/3" sensor has pixels of 3.3 microns.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected... Thanks for clarifying this.
 
Additionally, pixel size is only one of the factors for low light performance. Pixel design is a big factor. For example, the original M sensor and the new M-X sensor both have 5.4micron pixels... but the M-X vastly outperforms the M. Lots of other factors as well... like A/D design.

Jim
 
I don't think he's back quite yet. He is just so addicted he cant stay away even during a vacation. Tsk tsk... and what does the significant other have to say about this? ;)
 
Jannard said:
Additionally, pixel size is only one of the factors for low light performance. Pixel design is a big factor. For example, the original M sensor and the new M-X sensor both have 5.4micron pixels... but the M-X vastly outperforms the M. Lots of other factors as well... like A/D design
Click to expand...

I follow you if you're saying "light sensitivity of the 9 MP/cm2 sensor is very good, you won't be disappointed" but since presumably all those other factors are pretty equal (2/3" sensor isn't a more advanced design, is it?) wouldn't the 3 MP/cm2 sensor be even better?
 
Paul J. Helin said:
I don't think he's back quite yet. He is just so addicted he cant stay away even during a vacation. Tsk tsk... and what does the significant other have to say about this? ;)
Click to expand...

Heh... we're heading to St. Thomas for ten days and if the wife catches me on RedUser I will so get my ass kicked.:angry:
 
Saw this posted somewhere and thought everyone might enjoy. It's a picture of a wireless follow focus unit attatched to the Scarlet with mini primes assumably on a 3d rig:

http://yfrog.com/gyo8doj
 
Jarred Land said:
Scarlet will still have side CF module as standard. Only on EPIC is SSD now standard ( with CF ability through CF to SSD adapter )
Click to expand...
The more i think about this the more i think it's a wrong idea.
Red decided to drop developping bigger CF cards and switched to SSD, and this was definitely the way to go. Sure, it's still a bit more expensive right now but this is a choice for a future proof media (or a least a few years). CF is the past.

Because most Red one owner will switch to SSD, because most Epic owner with stay with the standard SSD solution, Scalet should be right behind. This sound more logical in every way : a more coherent set for people who will work with both epics and scarlets, a way-longer recording time timit, etc..

And if we think about it, except current owners of CF cards (most of whom willing to switch to SSD sooner or later), the price is not that higher if we consider SSD solution. I didn't check the price recently but are 4x 16gb cards + reader any cheaper than a 64gb ssd + its reader ?

Yannick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top