waiting for scarlet

[Brigham Edgar]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118016409.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&ref=vertfilm

A new generation of movie consumers -- reared on the Internet, iPods, iPhones and PlayStations -- is far less interested in building physical libraries of movies than digital ones they can access anywhere, anytime. And as traditional disc sales continue to decline, the major studios are working overtime to turn that shift in buying behavior into a lucrative new revenue stream.
As a result, Hollywood is brokering as many deals as possible with companies that can digitally sell or rent its releases, and in the last month alone they've been winding down ugly distribution disputes with services like Netflix, a shift that will result in more movies being streamed online nearly a month after they bow on DVD and Blu-ray.




makes my case a bit

Until i can stream/download from the net (within reason i mean) something that looks AS good as 1080p on my 46" LED and as simple to play, i will be driving the 4 minutes to my local shop and buying and renting bluray

 

[Brigham Edgar]

I think the old saying "you pay for what you get" still rings true with the Canons and of course anything in life. Obviously there are few exceptions as RED have shown and also with Canon and the video DSLR (i don't call them HD because we all know they do not resolve it). But what can one expect from these little cameras, i think too much. They shoot great imagery for WHAT THEY ARE using some beautiful glass. They do however have serious drawbacks and major quality issues and like any camera system should be considered and used were appropriate. A professional will always use the best tool available for a particular shot and not be compromised by 'fanboyism'. Judging the pro's and con's of each system is part in part of being a professional and wanting the best for your production. RED was hyped like this at the beginning and so it is now with Canon. I personally get annoyed with hype and statements claiming that something is 'king of the world'! I had an upstart claim to me that the 5Dmk2 was the best 1080p camera on the market, i was gobsmacked...
Don't get me wrong, i love Canon for what they are doing but more so what i hope they will do when they actually get serious with all of this. RED have started something great which is what Jim wanted all along, to get these companies actually thinking. ARRI are on the wagon with the Alexa and hopefully Canon will jump on and get serious...exciting times!

Just as an extra note as with what David is doing, i too have directly compared 5Dmk2 footage with my EX3 and my M-sensor RED and the results were as i expected. It wasn't a proper test but a straight to media player onto my 46inch 1080p LED and the end was without a doubt quite obvious. It's a great compact specialty camera though!

But back to topic, i again strongly believe when Canon get serious and give us a proper full frame hybrid stills and motion camera that Scarlet at 2/3inch is going to sit second in a buyers market. Canon know they were caught out with the popularity of a video function on their cameras and you can bet that their boffins are sitting, working hard on a mk3 or whatever it will be called that will be a lot of what the mk2 is not. I am pretty sure i will be buying a Canon full frame next generation, Canon RAW hopefully, over a Scarlet 2/3inch when Canon launch a new model fixing a lot of these major issues. If it was a two-horse full frame race right now that is different as everything about Scarlet over a current Canon is superior in many ways, but considering how much ahead Canon are (in regards to having a number of sensors and full frame already) they will be well ahead of RED in release dates.
But in saying all of this, if you need something now, buy for what you need TODAY as technology always changes and improves. The magic of the system RED is building in upgradability is key to securing long term customers and their mindset about being 'obsolete' is something great in itself. Swapping out brains for different sensors is great...but the hard facts are that the Scarlet system is not here yet and in all reality may be many many months away and quite possibly even years end if we are lucky and Canon are on the shelves now and possibly with even more models between now and then. If you want and need something now and have a very limited budget there are not too many choices (maybe a second hand Z1 and by constantly waiting for new models...well you will be doing that all your life!

 

[Jimmy Odom]

If it was a two-horse full frame race right now that is different as everything about Scarlet over a current Canon is superior in many ways

To be honest, it's extremely difficult to take anything you previously said seriously after haveing read this staement.

So what your saying is a camera/cameras that currently exist in the real world, and not just on paper; can somehow be rated or perceived of lesser value.

How is that even make sense. To use your own analogy, if this were a two-horse it clearly isn't a race at all, because one horse has already begun his striding, while the other hasn't been born yet. So how could Scarlet be farther superior than any current Canon camera?

Thats equivalent to you saying that your unborn child is better at arethmatic, than my son who has been studying the subject for almost 2 years. It makes NO SENSE :blink:

Now don't get me wrong, I believe what RED "WILL DO", (meaning hasn't been accomplished, but will be reached) is going to be groundbreaking. But it kinda makes my skin crawl when I read these types of statements continuously. It's almost a disconnect from reality, that I feel almost behooved to make an attempt at yanking the stater of said disconnected comment back into the REAL WORLD.

Now if you meant in the terms of having the two-horse race be between both non existent cameras, i.e.: Canons presumably under development DSLR hybrid (RAW) camera, and RED's Scarlet; then and only then does it seem to be a somewhat comparable. Because neither of the companies have cameras in existence; which immediately levels the perceived running field.

Now if this is what you mean with your post, PLEASE :emote_hippie: ignore my ramblings, as they were completely of base. but if not, I would like to hear you go further into details regarding your P.O.V..

 

[Aaron Newsome]

To make the argument fair, we should be comparing Canon's non-existent cameras to RED's non-existent cameras. That way it's 100% speculation, but comparing cameras that exist to ones that don't just seems like something really silly to do.

 

[chrislancaster]

this thread wasnt created for comparisons

 

[Milan Spasic]

this thread wasnt created for comparisons

What was this thread created for?

 

[Jimmy Odom]

What was this thread created for?

:yesnod:

 

[chrislancaster]

how many vs threads are there?

too many and really who cares ? its only a matter of time until we find out

but that discussion is really getting no one anywhere

the purpose i was hoping for was to be able to exchange ideas on how the cheaper smaller cameras are going to change the industry or indie filmmakers ability to create on the level of the big names

what do you do from here?

really who cares about pixel peeping ..where do you guys think being able to get on an almost even level with hollywood will put cinema


i mean with a 7d or 5d and a scarlet you could possibly shoot a pilot for 20 k or less and put out a very high quality product


where will this take us .. i think web. and not only web but all film and cinema streaming on the web



anyone else ??

 

[Brigham Edgar]

To be honest, it's extremely difficult to take anything you previously said seriously after haveing read this staement.

So what your saying is a camera/cameras that currently exist in the real world, and not just on paper; can somehow be rated or perceived of lesser value.

How is that even make sense. To use your own analogy, if this were a two-horse it clearly isn't a race at all, because one horse has already begun his striding, while the other hasn't been born yet. So how could Scarlet be farther superior than any current Canon camera?

Thats equivalent to you saying that your unborn child is better at arethmatic, than my son who has been studying the subject for almost 2 years. It makes NO SENSE :blink:

Now don't get me wrong, I believe what RED "WILL DO", (meaning hasn't been accomplished, but will be reached) is going to be groundbreaking. But it kinda makes my skin crawl when I read these types of statements continuously. It's almost a disconnect from reality, that I feel almost behooved to make an attempt at yanking the stater of said disconnected comment back into the REAL WORLD.

Now if you meant in the terms of having the two-horse race be between both non existent cameras, i.e.: Canons presumably under development DSLR hybrid (RAW) camera, and RED's Scarlet; then and only then does it seem to be a somewhat comparable. Because neither of the companies have cameras in existence; which immediately levels the perceived running field.

Now if this is what you mean with your post, PLEASE :emote_hippie: ignore my ramblings, as they were completely of base. but if not, I would like to hear you go further into details regarding your P.O.V..

Right, to clarify what i meant as you are correct and that was exactly my point.

What i mean is that if the Scarlet was 'on the shelf' with it's slated features etc, lining that up with any Canon DSLR it would be an easy decision between the two as the Scarlet (from it's features and technical ability stated by RED) would be far superior. But it is NOT here and so is just a 'well if it was here' argument. It's pretty clear what i meant when you read on and i wrote about a potentially long wait to even see a working production Scarlet 2/3 inch let alone a FF Scarlet. I wrote about what is available now and that is the Canon's and if you need something now in this pricepoint and are content with the downfalls there are not many options and that one should not wait for the 'next model' or for future improvements as it is a constantly changing world and you would never end up owning anything. What i wrote was directly aiming at that at this particular moment and this particular budget there is no Scarlet but there is Canon (or a second hand Z1) and if you need something today and can't wait for newer/improved models or different systems, if choosing between the two...there is only one because there IS ONLY ONE TO CHOOSE FROM. But if there was WHICH THERE ISN'T YET, it would be a different story. I didn't mean it as a Canon bash either, but i can see how this may have been interpreted, my fault if it was a little heavy on that side of things. I love Canon and have three of them and five lenses. I just don't rate their current video option as fantastic and not in a professional environment, except for certain circumstances where they work great!

I hope that explains what i wrote before a little clearer as yes it was what you are saying 'that it doesn't make sense' because that is what i was saying as well. It may have been the way i phrased it but i thought it was clear.

Anyway...it all went away from my main point being that i don't think a 2/3inch Scarlet will be enough for people to choose it over a full frame offering from Canon or whomever, especially if they launch a new model with a lot of issue fixes. It will be for some but i don't think it will 'clean up'. Again...ALL HYPOTHETICAL AS NEITHER EXIST...except for technical releases with RED and a wish-list for Canon to pull their finger out and get serious. Full frame is important to a lot of people and that has been the real selling point with Canon, that and most of all price. So when the Scarlet does make it out (again to clarify that it is based on specs stated by RED only and it does not exist yet) even though all the specs far outweigh what we currently have available NOW in this particular market let alone in 6 or 12 months time the 2/3inch will be it's downside. Yes you can still get the DOF with the full frame lenses but with such a FOV crop it will lose some of it's 'shine'.

Personally, i want a small FF camera next to live alongside my RED and EX3 as i will have some good use for it. But as i don't want the faults of the current DSLR's and i can wait for major improvements or wait for a FF Scarlet...whoever gets it together first and if at the same time whoever is better will get my $ for their camera.

 

[Brigham Edgar]

how many vs threads are there?

too many and really who cares ? its only a matter of time until we find out

but that discussion is really getting no one anywhere

the purpose i was hoping for was to be able to exchange ideas on how the cheaper smaller cameras are going to change the industry or indie filmmakers ability to create on the level of the big names

what do you do from here?

really who cares about pixel peeping ..where do you guys think being able to get on an almost even level with hollywood will put cinema


i mean with a 7d or 5d and a scarlet you could possibly shoot a pilot for 20 k or less and put out a very high quality product


where will this take us .. i think web. and not only web but all film and cinema streaming on the web



anyone else ??

I think history has shown it does not necessarily take a top level camera system and technical greatness to make good films, get a huge following and admiration, win awards and make money.
I believe it gives more people the chance to start into the industry, make films and be able to push harder with what they can do and the tools available to them to help them do this. Newer technology and better technology makes this possible, exactly as RED did in their price bracket and was one of Jim's biggest driving ambitions in starting RDC in getting great cameras into the hands of many and push the market leaders to do more.

But as a point, do remember as the low-end of technical advances increases so does the top-end. What is looked at as 'hollywood level' (in your words) years ago may be being encroahed upon now, technology pushes up the high-end standard as well. This is a mantra of RED and pushing a full 4K resolving EPIC for the future standard. As digital cinema in 4K rolls out, the bar has been significantly raised. Web is very different as is a DVD finish to this and as the quality on the web is getting better due to bandwidth and speeds it is still low. Personally watching DVD's now is a far secondary choice if it is not available on bluray, and VHS to DVD before that. As the quality gets better so do my standards, plain and simple. So to sum up my opinion, i think technology jumps as we have seen over the years are great as it benefits everyone from the starting film maker to the professional. Things only get better (usually and we all have to remember that we are our own standard bearers.

 

[David Rasberry]

Anyway...it all went away from my main point being that i don't think a 2/3inch Scarlet will be enough for people to choose it over a full frame offering from Canon or whomever, especially if they launch a new model with a lot of issue fixes.

2/3"/16mm is a robust and capable format on its own. There are many types and styles of shooting where it would be the preferred choice over 35mm, certainly over a 35mm DSLR. Flexibility in solo run and gun doc shooting is a good example. The availability of fast wide range zooms so lens changes are not necessary in the field and the deeper DOF that is more useful when focusing by eye and following fast action. Scarlet 2/3" will have better resolution than any native 1080p output camera. Since it is native 2k cinema format without cropping, that advantage will be even greater for low budget films going to the big screen.
s16mm-2/3" shot features have topped the Oscars for two years running, including cinematography last year. It is not an inferior format choice, and the difference in DOF is for many of us a very minor consideration. Certainly in the case of FF35, too shallow DOF can be more of a problem for motion shooting than a boon, especially in low light conditions.
Whether one chooses a 35mm format or not, dedicated digital motion cameras have significant ergonomic and operational efficiencies over a VDSLR, in the field and in post, when shooting on tight schedules for fast turnarounds.
The VDSLR's have created a significant low end niche market, but they have a long way to go for 1080p output, to match the image quality of even the least expensive 2/3" EFP cameras. Their main appeal is price, and at the moment novelty. I don't see any indication of Canon moving out of its low to midrange consumer market, or beyond 1080p video. As they have always done in the past, Canon will do the least they can get away with to remain competitive in their core markets.

 

[Jim Retar]

Their main appeal is price, and at the moment novelty.

Their stills mode is pretty good too :tongue_smilie:

 

[David Rasberry]

Their stills mode is pretty good too :tongue_smilie:

They are very good still cameras. :biggrinjester:

 

[Brigham Edgar]

2/3"/16mm is a robust and capable format on its own. There are many types and styles of shooting where it would be the preferred choice over 35mm, certainly over a 35mm DSLR. Flexibility in solo run and gun doc shooting is a good example. The availability of fast wide range zooms so lens changes are not necessary in the field and the deeper DOF that is more useful when focusing by eye and following fast action. Scarlet 2/3" will have better resolution than any native 1080p output camera. Since it is native 2k cinema format without cropping, that advantage will be even greater for low budget films going to the big screen.
s16mm-2/3" shot features have topped the Oscars for two years running, including cinematography last year. It is not an inferior format choice, and the difference in DOF is for many of us a very minor consideration. Certainly in the case of FF35, too shallow DOF can be more of a problem for motion shooting than a boon, especially in low light conditions.
Whether one chooses a 35mm format or not, dedicated digital motion cameras have significant ergonomic and operational efficiencies over a VDSLR, in the field and in post, when shooting on tight schedules for fast turnarounds.
The VDSLR's have created a significant low end niche market, but they have a long way to go for 1080p output, to match the image quality of even the least expensive 2/3" EFP cameras. Their main appeal is price, and at the moment novelty. I don't see any indication of Canon moving out of its low to midrange consumer market, or beyond 1080p video. As they have always done in the past, Canon will do the least they can get away with to remain competitive in their core markets.

I very much agree David on what you wrote, completely. Especially with DOF and pulling focus when running 1.4 Give me the names of AC's that can do this easily on moving targets on a long lens please? People then dial back to run at about T4 which then is taking away from going a FF to start with. Or they only have lenses which are 3.5 at best, and then soft. It's all a bit of worry. Remembering that these cameras are hugely popular with people starting etc so the lessons are learnt (no disrespect intended) and to professionals looking at using them for unique camera plots. I have done this twice for difficult camera plots where they were the best thing for a specialty rig in this case.

I have great respect for their stills capability but not with their video, currently. But the two big selling points to this market is the DOF and price. Scarlet will into this price bracket so is an obvious competitor to them and i still believe the 2/3inch sensor will be the one drawback unfortunately. Going back to previous posts i wrote about the tvc market where i cam losing ground to the likes of the Canons because of these two factors with respected middle market tvc production companies blinded by it and not caring about the large quality setback. Some people don't have the skillset to see these problems and are ignorant to the pitfalls. Unfortunately this is the way it is. It's like any new technology, it gets hyped to the point of being absurd and then settles when the market wakes up.

 

[k.wasley]

I very much agree David on what you wrote, completely. Especially with DOF and pulling focus when running 1.4 Give me the names of AC's that can do this easily on moving targets on a long lens please? People then dial back to run at about T4 which then is taking away from going a FF to start with. Or they only have lenses which are 3.5 at best, and then soft. It's all a bit of worry. Remembering that these cameras are hugely popular with people starting etc so the lessons are learnt (no disrespect intended) and to professionals looking at using them for unique camera plots. I have done this twice for difficult camera plots where they were the best thing for a specialty rig in this case.

I have great respect for their stills capability but not with their video, currently. But the two big selling points to this market is the DOF and price. Scarlet will into this price bracket so is an obvious competitor to them and i still believe the 2/3inch sensor will be the one drawback unfortunately. Going back to previous posts i wrote about the tvc market where i cam losing ground to the likes of the Canons because of these two factors with respected middle market tvc production companies blinded by it and not caring about the large quality setback. Some people don't have the skillset to see these problems and are ignorant to the pitfalls. Unfortunately this is the way it is. It's like any new technology, it gets hyped to the point of being absurd and then settles when the market wakes up.

Worth remembering however that Shane Hurlbut (DoP of Terminator Salvation) has just finished shooting an entire navy seals action feature film on the 5d/1d which will be printed to 35mm for general release. He has found using the DSLR's liberating and hugely inspiring, and has run tests of them intercut with 35mm that he describes as 'intercutting beautifully'. I think what is possible with these cameras is absolutely incredible for the price. There are problems of course, but not enough to hold them back from being an acquisition format good enough for a 40 foot screen in the right hands. I believe that in the context of price these cameras are beyond the hype. It's just a question of relearning and opening the mind to a new rulebook, should you want to or be in a position where it fits. Many regular cinema-goers simply won't notice many of the problems that the more educated DoP will, unless of course they are particularly bad, but again in the right hands many of the problems can be reduced to the point of being mostly unnoticed, especially if the quality of the visual storytelling and filmmaking is high.

Just some thoughts

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, I just don't get it -- I'm looking at stills pulled from Canon HD video and they look pretty mediocre, like consumer HDV but with 35mm Depth of Field. I honestly wish I knew what Shane was doing that was getting so much quality out of these cameras -- what I see in my tests are a bunch of h.264 compression artifacts, aliasing, and overall softness.

Have been watching "Southland" on HD and feel fairly confident that I can spot the Canon 7D shots in there as well.

Maybe the 5D creates a superior 1080P picture than the 7D, I don't know.

I've always been someone willing to try new digital cameras and look at the pros and cons without devolving into pointless nitpicking, but I just can't see why people think that this Canon HD video stuff is at the same quality level as a pro HD camera, 35mm, or Red footage. The faults seem pretty obvious to my eyes without looking too hard for them. So where is the disconnect happening?

 

[k.wasley]

Well, I just don't get it -- I'm looking at stills pulled from Canon HD video and they look pretty mediocre, like consumer HDV but with 35mm Depth of Field. I honestly wish I knew what Shane was doing that was getting so much quality out of these cameras -- what I see in my tests are a bunch of h.264 compression artifacts, aliasing, and overall softness.

Have been watching "Southland" on HD and feel fairly confident that I can spot the Canon 7D shots in there as well.

Maybe the 5D creates a superior 1080P picture than the 7D, I don't know.

I've always been someone willing to try new digital cameras and look at the pros and cons without devolving into pointless nitpicking, but I just can't see why people think that this Canon HD video stuff is at the same quality level as a pro HD camera, 35mm, or Red footage. The faults seem pretty obvious to my eyes without looking too hard for them. So where is the disconnect happening?

If i may be so bold as to suggest a few basic things that Shane has spoken about...

Neutral picture style with contrast and sharpening at minimum, saturation down 2 or 3 notches depending on lenses. (he has also developed a custom picture style that insures highest dynamic range). Sharpen after in post if needed.

lighting optimizer, peripheral illumination, noise reduction off.

Convert all footage to cineform using neoscene, this aparrently unlocks extra detail in blacks. (i use prores since i don't own neoscene). Grade after this.

Good lenses. He was using panavision primos (which apparently gave the camera an extra 1.5 stops at both ends of the scale) until the lawsuit put a stop to it. He then switched to zeiss ZE's. Using these lenses meant sharper images that resolved well on the big screen, making the compressed 8bit colour space more workable. They also lent a better dynamic range.

Expose the camera like reversal film stock. Get the look in camera, use white balance and lighting to help achieve the desired colour, not grading.

Use Fast CF cards of at least 45mbit a sec with UDMA. This lessens compression artifacts and reduces rolling shutter issues.

The 5d creates a slightly superior image to the 7d.


I think it would also be important to say that i don't think many visually/technically educated people would say HDSLR video is at the same quality level as 35mm/red etc. But in the right hands, and when projected on a 40 foot screen is it good enough? For some who have dived into DSLR's, Shane Hurlbut being one, the answer is a resounding and liberating yes, in the context of the project he was working on. Shane has done direct comparisons (there is some footage on the way from a large test of DSLR vs 35mm and HD cameras). I think also that for the project he worked on DSLR's were liberating due to their size and maneuverability factor etc. Camera movements that would be impossible or hugely more expensive/time consuming with 35mm et al were unlocked with DSLR's. This meant a new world of visual possibilities and even a new visual language itself opened up that was exciting. The low light capability was also a big part. There was a sequence inside a nuclear submarine where large amounts of lighting/grip gear etc simply wasn't practical.

And a final thought. You, as an eminent and extremely experienced Cinematographer, can spot the 7d in Southland, but can the average audience member?

 

[Brigham Edgar]

I too have listened to Shane's opinion and experience with the 5D as you obviously have. He's a very talented and experienced DOP obviously but that does not necessarily mean his word is gospel and the way it is. And in all reality i am sure you could find a thousand DOP's to one of the same view of the quality of the 5D's image. He recently spoke on the Red Centre podcast and he mostly spoke about the excitement and possibilities of the size and ease of use of the system and this is where he seemed to be basing his opinion from with the potential of something of this size to filmaking, the lenses it can take and the possibilities it gives the film maker...not much at all about the quality of the video image at all. It was an extensive interview and enjoyable to listen to. It's exciting times with the size and potential of small ultra compact cameras and it's giving filmakers of all budgets get opportunities to get images they could not have before.

A lot of those factors that were listed to improve the quality of the image just will not change quality of the image. There is no escaping the way the image is created from a consumer grade H264 compressed, line skipped, artefacting image with a slow reset time. It's plain fact and unfortunately some just don't want to believe it or admit it. It's a great camera for what it is but that's were it lies. No amount of hype and misinformation can get around this. Also remember that tests of all digital HD cameras were done not all that long ago by the BBC and with the white paper released the 5D did not even make the first hurdle and was 'let go' for the remainder of testing as it could not qualify and deliver as a HD camera. You pay for what you get, and the Canons do punch above their weight but are still down there.

Standards are kept and upheld within the industry and ultimately it's judged correctly where it matters. The public do not hold the standards about the quality of an image, professionals do. And that goes for a lot in the world and not just with cameras. My wife doesn't care if she watches crappy internet video on our television or DVDs or even Bluray to a point, she doesn't care...so does that mean we all should just not bother caring and say 'aahhhh that's good enough, buggar it, it'll do'. I mean really...my little Panasonic waterproof, shockproof point and shoot stills camera shoots 720p video with AVCHD lite codec...i too could make films with that and call it HD video.

I think this thread is going towards....:jacked:

 

[David Rasberry]

Still waiting for Scarlet...:drool5:

 

[Steve Das]

...He recently spoke on the Red Centre podcast and he mostly spoke about the excitement and possibilities of the size and ease of use of the system and this is where he seemed to be basing his opinion from with the potential of something of this size to filmaking, the lenses it can take and the possibilities it gives the film maker...not much at all about the quality of the video image at all.

Yes..noticed exactly the same thing on Shane's presentation at the
Collision Conference..he just does not talk at all about the image
quality of these HDSLR cameras. Either he A.) believes a "good enough"
sitaution where the small camera footprint justifies use of less resolution
and doesn't want to say so outright or B.) he really believes
these cameras give film quality images. Indeed when someone in the audience
points out a shot which stuck out in a sequence...he pauses and then
says I wish that one had been shot with the Primo..cause if it was you
would not be able to tell the difference(between Canon and Film shots).
It's very odd that such a great DP is not talking specifically about the
picture quality of the images these cameras produce. All he mentions
is opening up of the shadows/blacks.

But everything he says about the benefits of the small form factor will
apply to Epic/Scarlet just with alot more resolution.
But I don't think small cameras are going to change film
anymore than use of big cameras did. Great films are made
with one primary camera carefully framed and lit. And in
previous years some of those cameras had ergonomics of a tank
and size of a small car. How is throwing Canons into all
sorts of small spaces and angles going to give us better films ?