When will we get a new Scarlet?

[Wayne Morellini]

Wayne, I remember you from the old DIY cinema camera threads, but how can you say we are not there now? Could you be more clear about your criteria? What are you looking for in a camera? It's just about glass? I'm sure you realize lenses do not benefit from Moore's law like digital imagers. If you're waiting for new lenses that are unlike anything already out there, you may be waiting for a long time.

Why JVC? Are you talking about their 1/2" 4k camera? I would wait to see the image quality before giving them any awards based on pixel count...

Noah, longtime, you caught me whike I was writing a followup reply. I remember on the elphel thread, where you in the original threads as well?

The criteria, well I'm wondering what you mean. I check in with Apertus every now and then to find out if the software is completed (seamless, not test systems), if the system is completed etc, and allways no (and not much activity for a while) the same with sumix project, though I have not checked in as recently. I suppose I may have been referring to a complete package that users just out together and use (or buy complete). So please forgive me if I am now wrong and you have completed.

Lens, he, he, I have designs here. I am just referring to the possible size advantage to this lens technology, which is being handmade by a master lens designer (in the links). The reference to Moore's law is uncalled for, there are major clunks of advances to be made, but not like silicon (well, I'm neglecting Meta material technology here, but even that is not the same and sizes will pass usefulness in our visible spectrum probably. The fixed scarlet was about size and usefulness, and this is about gaining back ground on that. These lens, new/or old, have a valid compact technique of design and much smaller than the competition, so I will give up the fantasy for the reality most days (even if the fantasy is that there is no more than what is standard).

Jvc, yes, a jibe out of bewilderment that Si and Red have stayed upmarket, and nothing else finalized. Still, we must admit the JVC is a package, sensor technology has advanced immensly make even 16mp performance light years ahead of old 3mp microns ee used to use. They know how to make a package, appropriate glass, and 144mb/s h264 inter (unless it is really intra, then it needs to be double). Remember near the beginning I summarized something like 50mb/s mpeg2 for 720p for sufficient professional quality for cinena usefulness (8bit area). Roughly, *8 for shd. Using the standard 2-3 ratio between mpeg2 and h264, it should hit the zone, particularly with further advances in h264 compression technology in recent years (for others hear who will be concerned I am saying this is good quality, I am saying it is minimal descent quality for cunema, good for profession video, and half that of very good cinema, double the data rate for wavelet intra over h264 inter, as a rough fugure). I am unsure if I am out by a factor of two. But at 60p 4k it should be rather minimal quality for our purpose (but progressive at increased resolution shoukd help with perceived compression quality.

I do not take 2k, 2.5k too seriously now, 4k is progressively more of the future.

I should ask how Apertus, and sumix projects are going these days?

Noah, it has been a remarkable fortune to find you here, thanks for coming.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

wow, you make it sound like a bad thing. The fact that Scarlet is so close to epic can only be herald as Epic!!!... well epic light. But still epic in nature. The mere fact you want at 2/3 sensor means that you would compromise on the scarlet, so why not compromise and get a different camera. Red does not want to make fix lens or 2/3 anymore.




Wayne, I'm not sure what your getting on about. The scarlet is not bad to lug around, at 5 pounds for a body for a cinema camera, that is bloody amazing. I think the fault lies in you not wanting to compromise on how you shoot. I too would love to use Pl and Cine glass, but it too much to lug up a mountain. So I use Canon glass, and zooms no less. I get great results. Is it perfect down to a single percent? no, but that is the compromise I make on the stories I want to tell. If the scarlet does not work, then get something else. You can't ask red to build you a camera for a small market.

You say that the cine people here don't understand the real world? There are many of us here that shoot is some of the most technically and logistically difficult places in the world. This is where our professionalism comes into place, we pick the lens and equipment right for that location. If we don't want to compromise and say shoot with a Mark II or now a III, we budget more time and add porters. I've filmed in the rainforest of Gabon, Congo where we are 4 full days walk from power and pissing rain every day. I also shot on all the highest mountain in Africa, and in swamps where we carried our gear over our heads for days. You plan for it. Lately I have been shooting volcanos with a lot of climbing involved and no porters. I just take specific lens and be more selective on how much I shoot. Adapt. Better power management would be appreciated though Red!!! You may not get absolutely technically perfect images, but you can get 90-95% there with canon zooms or others. Just get a good pack to keep it safe and dry. Fstopgear I love you. I have a good friend named Alan Root who was they wildlife filmmaker in the 70's to 90's. To hear his stories of his team carrying 16 massive packs into the congo for weeks, and personally carrying 80 pounds makes me sound like a pussy cat.

This image was shot on a canon 24-70mm Canon zoom. I don't think it's compromising at all. some can say it's too noisy, soft or this or that. But to me it is sharp, it's rich and beyond anything I thought I'd be able to shoot. I bet it would even hold up in a cinema.

compare that to a still pulled from a frame of a Canon 5D mark II. The mark II is tragic!! (and what does it weigh?)

I am sure if you think about it you will get it, I have explained it enough. The only small matprket is the cine market. We are talking about reality. Only so many people are going to buy then sakes/are going to drop off unless there is a reason to buy, and markets at least ten times bigger than cine are where it is. I went to a closing down sale today, of one of the most progressive retail chairs in the country. The retail sector demanded more government stimulus to get more people in store to buy imported goods, Chinese TV's for instance, instead of spending money on greatly degraded infrastructure and social housing (we had a 100,000+ dwelling shortage with people on the street and working people not be able to afford to live, a reversal of the aus dream of twenty years ago, houses many times as exrnsive as in the US) then the money can fliw through the community and eventually out on foreign goods. Guess what, heaps of TV's were sold, now who wants to buy one, because the market is too saturated, so until they are old, or something much better comes along. All the eggs in one cinema basket.

You comments in the first paragraph point out compromise.

I should be more explicit, we are talking about movie, cinema, shooting in particular. I do not regard documentary for TV as cinema, nor should people. The real world is a lot larger, tight and demanding contract work, network and industrial, as well as documentary, as you may know (we are picking on cinema film people here ). You have adopted canon glass, I was one of the ones pushing for this, and the unrealism of 2/3rds 3k (I kept a low profile because I did not want to talk it down, as something affordable was better than nothing for everybody).

Maybe you have confused my questioning the use of old low res lens (or smaller format lens with lower Res cropping or darkening around the frame as a bad compromise compared to a full frame short lens, if it can be made to work properly). I hardly regard the canon glass as low res, but regard cine lens etc getting too big with quality and speed. So what I was actually talking about, is this lens design helpful in making the x package smaller instead of a fix without too much compromise, or making smaller fixed version, period.

Somebody does not understand and says this, somebody else reads it and doesn't understand and says that etc. Really, a lot of this argument in about things I am not actually getting at, or I should say, others are getting at. Hardly anybody has said anything valid against what I was actually saying, biased maybe, but not thought through. There is also a lot of fallacies about why 2/3rds (the greatest thing since s35 according to the fan base in that phase of their opinion) and fixed got canned, and the valudity of the possibility that eventually something will return. Canon's decisions support a lot of my old reasoning (4/3rds fixed lens, and now s35 fixed kens cinema). Yes, I'm not trying to say it too much, because many people will jump rather than think first, is fixed s35 viable with short lens technology. The other thing everybody is avoiding, is a compact easy maintenance sub $5k fixed package, compared to a x with a lens set and the bits and pieces that were included with the fix package.

I do not wish to offend, but I do not wish to explain the same things over and over, otherwise people will get confused about what they think is happening rather then reading what was actually being said.

Great African comments though Michael, but if you read what I said, you would realise why it is irrelevant. I have deleted comments about my health. Also, please realise, that the level of business, marketing and design is far above this, it is about how to make better cameras that don't compromise you as much, otherwise you are allways going to be carrying around and compromising as much with no incentive to upgrade until it breaks, at very expensive prices to stop the company going broke etc etc. It is about sense, not the fan sense that is happening around Red, that says now 2/3rds 3k is "good", now "s35" is "fantastic" and "btw 2/3rds is terrible all of a sudden", 18mm is great, red clucking chickens are fantastic for dinner, and what ever Red says. I should say, finding reasons for it to be true, rather examining if it is true in itself, as people seem to be misunderstanding things. People are merely stating why it must be true, not why it is. Anyway, probably been there and done that myself, but old now.

Have fun Michael, I don't wish to be in your place, but great work.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Just examining your pictures Michael, and it is amazing. At a small size yours looks soft and mooted, the M2 sharp well saturated, but looking in close up yours is detailed and the m2 lacks detail. Of course, I know it is because the m2 went for contrast instead of detail. Still, maybe a touch more satuation and contrast would suit yours over the m2's.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I know what it is now, I was reluctant to suggest more satuation, though it might work, it is because her face is so white, which might be just natural.