Scarletuser.com

[Joseph Hutson]

I'm ready to pay 8k!!!!:biggrin:

Pat

Still not happenin'

It's gonna be 2K

 

[Mike S. M.]

Agreed, it is something of a mystery... so, the competitors would be:

HV20 - $650. One 1.9K sensor. 1/2.7 in size, active area ???. HDV. Good enough to print to film for if you're VERY careful (we used it for the Leatherheads theatrical trailer).

How very careful or what specifically are we talking about here?

 

[Bruce Allen]

How very careful or what specifically are we talking about here?

Lighting. Specifically, you need to use a lot of light to avoid noise. Furthermore, you want to avoid nasty highlights so that means diffusion - and that of course increases your need for lumens even more.

For example, for Leatherheads, Jake brought his sweet Mole Richardson tungsten lighting kit and I brought my battered Arri 1.2K HMI which I had bought for around $1500 (the ballast looks like a prop from the original Star Wars . If you bought everything new you'd probably have the irony of using $8000+ worth of lights and a $650 camera.

Personally I enjoy doing things this way - figuring out how to light things properly is always more fun when you're not using an expensive camera and hence have less time pressure.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[chuckt]

Lighting. Specifically, you need to use a lot of light to avoid noise. Furthermore, you want to avoid nasty highlights so that means diffusion - and that of course increases your need for lumens even more.

For example, for Leatherheads, Jake brought his sweet Mole Richardson tungsten lighting kit and I brought my battered Arri 1.2K HMI which I had bought for around $1500 (the ballast looks like a prop from the original Star Wars . If you bought everything new you'd probably have the irony of using $8000+ worth of lights and a $650 camera.

Personally I enjoy doing things this way - figuring out how to light things properly is always more fun when you're not using an expensive camera and hence have less time pressure.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Try Fluorescent Kits from Pacific coast lighting . For $1100, you can get 5 piece set. That is all you need.

 

[Ravell]

For example, for Leatherheads, Jake brought his sweet Mole Richardson tungsten lighting kit and I brought my battered Arri 1.2K HMI which I had bought for around $1500 (the ballast looks like a prop from the original Star Wars . If you bought everything new you'd probably have the irony of using $8000+ worth of lights and a $650 camera.

Personally I enjoy doing things this way - figuring out how to light things properly is always more fun when you're not using an expensive camera and hence have less time pressure.

Bruce, that's awesome! Which shots in the trailer are from the HV20 and why was that the camera of choice?

 

[Bruce Allen]

Bruce, that's awesome! Which shots in the trailer are from the HV20 and why was that the camera of choice?

Every time you see a name ("GEORGE CLOONEY", "LEATHERHEADS", etc), there is a close-up of a football rotating in the background. We shot that on my HV20.

Why? Well, I had been playing with my HV20 recently and was impressed by how sharp it was. Also, we thought that for that particular project it'd be smart to save money on the shoot and spend more time on the post. Finally, the workflow (with much-maligned-around-here-"not good enough for broadcast"-HDV) was super simple. We had an HVX200 as backup but didn't really see the need (also under bright light it is not much higher res than the HV20, I think?).

EDIT: now with all of that said, it's kinda weird seeing all of those "wish list" posts for Scarlet, where they list what's basically somewhere around an EX1, yet price it over the EX1?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[I Bloom]

Domain name registrations are cheap. Scarlet2k.com could be a ruse, a diversion, a Red Herring.

God help you dude.:wacko:

Kind of like when the manual came out with the 3K option in Build 14 a couple weeks early. It was clearly a typo at the time....

It's a 2K camera!!! Shout it from the hills!:devil: Do you need to see it in skywriting?

IBloom

 

[Mike S. M.]

Lighting. Specifically, you need to use a lot of light to avoid noise. Furthermore, you want to avoid nasty highlights so that means diffusion - and that of course increases your need for lumens even more.

I see. So as long as you throw enough light at it and maybe under expose a 1/2 stop to protect for high lights you should be fine(?).
But how about all the consumer functions and controls? How much of a hassle is to work around that? Could you see yourself for example shooting a whole movie with it?

For example, for Leatherheads, Jake brought his sweet Mole Richardson tungsten lighting kit and I brought my battered Arri 1.2K HMI which I had bought for around $1500 (the ballast looks like a prop from the original Star Wars . If you bought everything new you'd probably have the irony of using $8000+ worth of lights and a $650 camera.

Well since those lights will last you forever and will never really be obsolete and the HV20 will be yesterday news in a couple of years, investing more on lighting always made more sense to me.

Every time you see a name ("GEORGE CLOONEY", "LEATHERHEADS", etc), there is a close-up of a football rotating in the background. We shot that on my HV20.

Why? Well, I had been playing with my HV20 recently and was impressed by how sharp it was. Also, we thought that for that particular project it'd be smart to save money on the shoot and spend more time on the post.

Great job! It looks extremely sharp. But it's an extreme close up too. Most cameras would look sharp. But it looks great nonetheless. I'm thinking it was shot straight without a 35mm adapter? If the HV20 is as light hungry as you say I imagine a 35mm adapter would make it nearly impossible to shoot indoors or at night. Also the great sharpness you got would be substantially reduced by the ground glass.
By the way, what format was the film shot with?

Finally, the workflow (with much-maligned-around-here-"not good enough for broadcast"-HDV) was super simple. We had an HVX200 as backup but didn't really see the need (also under bright light it is not much higher res than the HV20, I think?).

Oh the HV20 is definitely sharper than the HVX200. Actually I think pretty much all 1/3" HD/HDV cameras are sharper than the HVX200. The HVX is really soft. Too soft for my tastes actually. The HV20 seems to be sharper than most of the 1/3" cameras too.

EDIT: now with all of that said, it's kinda weird seeing all of those "wish list" posts for Scarlet, where they list what's basically somewhere around an EX1, yet price it over the EX1?

Yes. The EX1 is an impressive camera. It's the closest to F900 quality we ever been in the sub 10K category. I actually think it would be hard to tell them apart on the big screen if shot properly. But I heard about some lens problems and other quirks that are turning people off.

 

[Paul Hazlett]

EDIT: now with all of that said, it's kinda weird seeing all of those "wish list" posts for Scarlet, where they list what's basically somewhere around an EX1, yet price it over the EX1?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

This gets back to chip size. the EX1 is 1/2" chips, 3 cmos chips. I think scarlets chip, single cmos, will be larger, to get all the benefits a larger chip
enjoys, plus removable lenses and not just and ons like brevis.

I also think Scarlet will be sub 5K in price.

 

[Joe Carney]

Has anyone noticed at red.com that scarlet is now called a digital cinema camera, not a motion capture camera as in the past?
bodes well.

 

[Aiden Cornwell]

Has anyone noticed at red.com that scarlet is now called a digital cinema camera, not a motion capture camera as in the past?
bodes well.

It was always called a pocket professional digital cinema camera on the main web page.

However I see the fact that the EX-1 comes in at around 7k that Scarlet will hopefully come in sub 4k as I see Scarlet blowing the EX-1 out of the water for digital cinema work.

 

[Bruce Allen]

This gets back to chip size. the EX1 is 1/2" chips, 3 cmos chips. I think scarlets chip, single cmos, will be larger, to get all the benefits a larger chip
enjoys, plus removable lenses and not just and ons like brevis.

I also think Scarlet will be sub 5K in price.

Agreed - personally I'd love PL or Nikon or C-mount lenses, but everyone gets upset when we say that - they don't see how that fits with the whole "pocket" thing. Agreed, even a small Aaton isn't exactly pocketable.

However I see the fact that the EX-1 comes in at around 7k that Scarlet will hopefully come in sub 4k as I see Scarlet blowing the EX-1 out of the water for digital cinema work.

Just playing devil's advocate here... anyone want to point me to photographic evidence that Red in 2k windowed mode blows the EX1 away? The EX1's latitude and resolution is pretty impressive. The total surface area of 3 1/2" CCDs is pretty decent. Also, the on-board lens is decent and mechanical, so you can pull focus with it. The EX1 also has real audio pots and a nice Avid workflow.

The EX1 was announced at the 2007 NAB. So, I'm hoping that either Red will surprise us and have Scarlet ready for shipping, or that their 2008 NAB announcement be specced so it will truly seem like it's a year ahead of the EX1. Or, it will go for a different market than the EX1.

Let's see, the EX1 is currently selling for $6.5K, including viewfinder, a small LCD, XLR audio inputs, a battery and TWO 8gb storage cards. If Scarlet a sub $4-5k EX1-killer that'd be great. But Red is a small company - they are hard-working geniuses but there are only so many of them. Unless they hire a small army of people for sales and support, I don't see them going into the very-high-volume market right now?

But hey, if anyone would know how to do it, it'd be Jim and co, right?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Domain name registrations are cheap. Scarlet2k.com could be a ruse, a diversion, a Red Herring.

God help you dude. . . .

It's a 2K camera!!! Shout it from the hills! Do you need to see it in skywriting?

IBloom

Maybe it is a 2K camera. But there has been no official word yet. On another forum, someone (here) tried to submit the "Scarlet 2K" trademark application as proof of Scarlet's resolution. Jim Jannard responded, "Good find... but remember, things 'can change at any time'. And often do." My point? Don't assume anything.

 

[Joseph Hutson]

Jim Jannard responded, "Good find... but remember, things 'can change at any time'. And often do." My point? Don't assume anything.

Do you EVER think thigs can change for the BETTER?!?

 

[Bruce Allen]

Sorry, Orbitluster, missed your post.

Sorry if this response is OT everyone - but in the absence of more cool Scarlet news this is what we're reduced to

I see. So as long as you throw enough light at it and maybe under expose a 1/2 stop to protect for high lights you should be fine(?).

Yes. For this one I actually didn't use my light meter. We just connected the HV20 up to my monitor and kept an eye out for noise on one end and highlight clipping on the other while tweaking the lighting.

Actually the most challenging part of the shoot was getting the footballs to turn evenly on the modified chicken rotisserie setup that Jake York invented. They were slippery and we weren't allowed to use glue

But how about all the consumer functions and controls? How much of a hassle is to work around that?

They ARE a pain and drive most people nuts. I you are a patient type you'll be fine though, I think. My philosophy is to keep things simple:

1. if you want creative control over aperture and focus, use a 35mm adapter. Treat the HV20's controls as simply "choosing your film stock".
2. if you just to capture crisp, deep focus stuff, take the adapter off, set the exposure right and go...

Could you see yourself for example shooting a whole movie with it?

Probably not, unless it was a street theatre / dogme / documentary thing... or very experimental.

For the amount of work that goes into shooting a feature, you might as well use a better camera. I think you could definitely use the HV20 to shoot the pitch for your feature though... or the short film or crazy creative music video that gets you closer to discovering / proving you have an artistic voice and which leads up to a feature (with a lot of luck ...

It is wonderfully mobile though - even with 35mm adapter it feels like a little film camera. Definitely more mobile than that old 16mm Arri I'm holding in my avatar photo (especially when you consider the leaden battery belt!

Well since those lights will last you forever and will never really be obsolete and the HV20 will be yesterday news in a couple of years, investing more on lighting always made more sense to me.

Me too... keeping an eye on LED though.

Great job! It looks extremely sharp. But it's an extreme close up too. Most cameras would look sharp. But it looks great nonetheless.

Thanks!

I'm thinking it was shot straight without a 35mm adapter?

Yes. I brought an adapter but decided not to use it.

If the HV20 is as light hungry as you say I imagine a 35mm adapter would make it nearly impossible to shoot indoors or at night. Also the great sharpness you got would be substantially reduced by the ground glass.

Yes, it's difficult and yes, you take a hit in sharpness. Indoors is not totally impossible though. Here's a test my friend Matt and I did:
http://www.boacinema.com/projects/camera_tests/hv20/hv20_17_35_28_rack_test_cc_h264.mov
Key is just a 400w Kino Diva-lite on the left. There's fill coming in from a window behind us.

By the way, what format was the film shot with?

35mm spherical. Sanjin posted that it was a Panavision Millenium camera with Primo L lenses.

Yes. The EX1 is an impressive camera. It's the closest to F900 quality we ever been in the sub 10K category. I actually think it would be hard to tell them apart on the big screen if shot properly. But I heard about some lens problems and other quirks that are turning people off.

Yes, have heard similar rumors, also RE vignetting etc. Some rumors say they were only with the inital run? My friend just shot a music vid and noticed some vignetting too. Ah well, haven't had the time to play yet...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Do you EVER think thigs can change for the BETTER?!?

With Red, as with most digital technology, things have generally changed for the better. But I didn't state categorically that Scarlet, based on Jannard's reply, would have a resolution greater than 2K. It could be 1080p. However, he's a smart guy and must know that because his reply has the tone of a verbal wink, if the Scarlet's top resolution changes to less than 2K, he'll disappoint a lot of people. What the Red team have achieved with the Red One is remarkable. I doubt that they want to underwhelm potential customers. Therefore, within a set of already stated parameters -- Scarlet will be smaller than One, it won't compete with One (will have somewhat lower specifications than One's), yet it will be professional (i.e., will have durable construction and features that professionals expect) -- Scarlet is, I'm sure, intended to knock your socks off. So I think it safe to say that Jim Jannard meant that Scarlet might be 2K or it might be greater than 2K.

 

[Ameer Azari]

Yay 2k!!

 

[Joseph Hutson]

-- Scarlet is, I'm sure, intended to knock your socks off. So I think it safe to say that Jim Jannard meant that Scarlet might be 2K or it might be greater than 2K.

3K? I know, we would probably be asking a LITTLE too much for that.

 

[killfilm]

With Red, as with most digital technology, things have generally changed for the better. But I didn't state categorically that Scarlet, based on Jannard's reply, would have a resolution greater than 2K. It could be 1080p. However, he's a smart guy and must know that because his reply has the tone of a verbal wink, if the Scarlet's top resolution changes to less than 2K, he'll disappoint a lot of people. What the Red team have achieved with the Red One is remarkable. I doubt that they want to underwhelm potential customers. Therefore, within a set of already stated parameters -- Scarlet will be smaller than One, it won't compete with One (will have somewhat lower specifications than One's), yet it will be professional (i.e., will have durable construction and features that professionals expect) -- Scarlet is, I'm sure, intended to knock your socks off. So I think it safe to say that Jim Jannard meant that Scarlet might be 2K or it might be greater than 2K.

Its stated clearly that the scarlet will NOT compete with Red, so i think 4k would be a stretch, but Jim can surprise us again, 4k minus interchangable lenses wouldnt compete with the red.

P.S. Please Jim, make the scarlet upgradable like the Red one. Then users can pay down the line to upgrade to options like 4k.

 

[Joseph Hutson]

P.S. Please Jim, make the scarlet upgradable like the Red one. Then users can pay down the line to upgrade to options like 4k.

I second that for hundreds of others.