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 :)

Which Scarlet is the best to making independent movie (cinema like 35 mm)?

Thank you David. As long as I plan to bring a complete set with me at all times, I won't really need to think about it much beyond that. If I micromanage less, I'll create less stress for myself. :)

BTW, I'm becoming a bit of an admirer of yours. What do you know about the current distribution plans for Manure? I'd love to have an opportunity to see it.
 
money is the key question in getting the 'film look' picture. And it is ok if it is $10,000 + on equipment. But now Scarlet FF35 or S35 is about 35-40 000 USD. Of course if there is no any other way to get 'film look' pictire it would be necessary to take credit in the bank to get that we need but I just try to find more cheep way (without credit in bank) then 35-40 000 USD to get 'film look' pictire which for example I really need. And I think may be Scarlet 2/3 (Complete Kit) with some tricks (special Lenses or something else) can provide me the 'film look' pictire for my movies. I think we need need just wait for Scarlet 2/3 (Complete Kit) and then we will see if we can get 'film look' pictire for independent and lowbudget movies with Scarlet 2/3 (Complete Kit). If it is possible of course.:smiley:
Click to expand...

SURE it's possible! the thing is, and I know there are several on here that would agree, what makes a movie "filmic" isnt so much resolution or dynamic range. It's LIGHTING. It's SOUND. Its SHOT COMPOSITION. And its good DIRECTING.

I've seen several short films and features on a movie theater screen shot with HVX's, XH-A1's, heck even DVX's and XL's and several of them have looked GREAT! As far as DOF goes, you might actually be surprised with what you can do with the fixed lenses that those cameras come with. Once again, the "film look" is more a result of the director of photography and the director than it is the camera.

Bet you anything, give Michael Bay or Robert Rodriguez a Z1 or HVX or Canon 5D Mark II and they could churn out something really nice...that would make you believe it was shot on something far superior...(well...to a certain extent :P )
Click to expand...

agreed. Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasnt Once Upon a Time in Mexico shot on a 2/3" chip camera? And that movie looked great!
 
Last edited:
a film look is partially down to dept of field but also lens choices , lighting choices , movement , composition , controlling the colours in the frame, some of those need money, some just need good taste
 
youre not a filmmaker until youve spent $10,000+ on equipment.
Click to expand...

This meant as a joke right? You can spend $50,000 on equipment and still not be a pro filmmaker. It is not about the equipment, because you can easily rent it. It is about TALENT and KNOWLEDGE. Nowadays anybody picks up a DSLR and is a "pro photographer" the same way they pick up a camcorder and become a "pro filmmaker".
 
Yes, i was being sarcastic. lol.

I teach a "creative media" class at the high school i work at, I teach the kids about the basics of making a movie and what the pro's use etc. Early in the term I make them write a 5 page script and preproduce it.

Then i tell them the day before production that the only cameras they can use are handicams and camphones (that they already own), but i still want good shot composition and beleivable camera movements. Then, after having taught them the basics of Final Cut Express, i only let them edit on Movie Maker.

Now, whenever they make a movie and they get stressed out they only have to remind themselves that "hey, i made a movie with a phone and movie maker." They realize that talent and skill makes you a filmmaker, not equipment.

What makes a good movie is the group of people MAKING it. Not the eqipment.
 
Rick Presas said:
What makes a good movie is the group of people MAKING it. Not the eqipment.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with you more.

Has anyone watched 28 Days Later? Wasn't that shot on the XL-2 with a set of primes?

The reason I want to get a camera, is because I feel I will have a better opportunity to go out and use it and learn how to make better images first hand. I might not always be able to be around the DP on a set that I would really like to learn from. So this way when I'm away from set, I can still practice and learn. That said, being on set is probably the way most people learn how to do this, and if I have that opportunity I will take it for sure.

I know personally I like to test things out and make mistakes where the consequences will not be so drastic, its just the way I learn, by doing. That way when I show up to a shoot I will know what I am doing.

It is a tool, and it is only as good as its user.
 
Now, whenever they make a movie and they get stressed out they only have to remind themselves that "hey, i made a movie with a phone and movie maker." They realize that talent and skill makes you a filmmaker, not equipment.
Click to expand...

A movie made on a cell phone camera one first prize at Tropfest NY last year.
 
A movie made on a cell phone camera one first prize at Tropfest NY last year.
Click to expand...

that a fact? NICE. if you have any info on it let me know i'd love to show it to my students.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Here is the problem with calling the 30x15 Mysterium-X sensor "S35" -- it's not S35. It's slightly larger than that. But S35 fits into it.

S35 is 24mm-ish wide, not 30mm wide.

4-perf Super-35 is 24.89mm x 18.67mm and 3-perf Super-35 is 24.89mm x 13.87mm. The RED ONE Mysterium sensor is S35 is size.

FF35 is a still camera format, 8-perf 35mm running sideways, 36mm x 24mm. The equivalent in filmmaking is the VistaVision format. Most movies aren't shot in FF35, they are shot in S35.

The trouble is that people throw the term "35mm" around loosely without specifying whether they mean the 35mm cine format or the still format.

Now are for whether the 2/3" Scarlet image can "look like 35mm" that's mainly a depth of field issue. "Benjamin Button", most of "Slumdog Millionaire", "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith" and "Attack of the Clones", "Zodiac", "Collateral", "Miami Vice", "Spy Kids 2", "Sin City", "Speed Racer", etc. were all shot on 2/3" cameras.

Super-35 is 2.5X larger than 2/3" so the depth of field difference is basically 2.5-stops more or less. So if you shoot on a 2/3" camera at f/2.0, it looks like you are shooting in 35mm cine at f/4.0-5.6 split. So the question is... does 35mm cine, when shot at a f/4.0-5.6 split, no longer look like a 35mm movie??? Of course it still does.

But if you are only going to be happier with the shallower-focus look of Super-35 shot at f/2.8 or wider, I'd get the S35 Scarlet because there are limits in terms of how fast a lens you're going to find for the 2/3" Scarlet.

But I think if you shoot 2/3" at f/2.0, half the time you're actually going to be happier than if you were shooting S35 because you'll be able to shoot at low light levels and yet have enough depth of field to make focusing close-ups easier and to see background detail at night without it going completely soft back there. So I think the extra 2.5-stops of DOF is a blessing just as often as it is a curse. But if you really crave a super shallow-focus look, you're going to be better-off with the S35 or FF35 Scarlet.
Click to expand...

Hello all, this is my first post to the REDUSER forum. I hope to make some friends here in the near future. Anyways, I have a few questions relating to this sensor-size discussion:

1) I am interested in a sensor-size closest to Super 35mm size (24.89 x 14mm) so that I can utilize S35 cine lenses fully without any cropping. My question is, if I get a Scarlet S35 with the slightly larger sensor-size (30 x 15mm), will my picture still be subjected to cropping if using S35 cine lenses, or will this effect be very minimal?

2) The Scarlet FF35 has the full-frame 36 x 24mm sensor which allows shooting in 6K. If I use the FF35 camera in 4K (not 6K), does that mean only the "S35" portion of the full-frame sensor will be utilized (e.g. ~48% of the FF35 sensor is ignored)? Or is the 4K shoot still utilizing 100% of the FF35 sensor, and then down-rezzing the image from 6K to 4K? If the latter is true, that implies that even under 4K, cine lenses on the Scarlet FF35 will experience major cropping.

3) Ultimately I'm just interested in shooting in 4K. However, I want to have two possibilities with my final product: a) I want to take my 4K footage and deliver a film in 1080P for DVD viewing, and b) I want to keep the possibility of doing a film-out of the same film 4K. Is this possible under one work-flow (in FCS)?

4) Lastly, in terms of work-flow, if I want to keep the possibility of a 4K film-out in the future, but work with 2K now, does that mean I have to still invest in hardware/software that supports 4K *now*, or deal with that system upgrade when it's time to deliver a 4K version of the project?

Thanks in advance for all your help in this matter, and please excuse my ignorance on anything. I'm a self-taught film enthusiast without any formal film/photography training, so I appreciate your patience if I'm missing the boat on anything. :smile:

-Mindcraft
 
The RED cameras do not do in-camera RAW-to-RAW rescaling, so if you have a 6K FF35 sensor and shoot in 4K, yes, it would be a 4K area of the 6K sensor (i.e. 2/3's of the sensor would be used for 4K -- which would be 24mm wide out of 36mm wide, i.e. Super-35 out of FF35.)

Some Super-35 lenses, mostly wider-angle ones, won't cover the whole 30x15mm Mysterium-X sensor. You either would have to find the ones that did, or so some cropping in post to get rid of vignetting.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The RED cameras do not do in-camera RAW-to-RAW rescaling, so if you have a 6K FF35 sensor and shoot in 4K, yes, it would be a 4K area of the 6K sensor (i.e. 2/3's of the sensor would be used for 4K -- which would be 24mm wide out of 36mm wide, i.e. Super-35 out of FF35.)

Some Super-35 lenses, mostly wider-angle ones, won't cover the whole 30x15mm Mysterium-X sensor. You either would have to find the ones that did, or so some cropping in post to get rid of vignetting.
Click to expand...

Got it. So using the FF35 camera for 4K isn't such a bad idea since the technology of Scarlet FF35's Monstro sensor is newer than the Scarlet S35's Mysterium-X.

As for having the vignetting under the S35 format (e.g. 30 x 15mm), do you know if this will occur using the RED Pro Primes in 4K? I guess the way it works is if sensor-size does not cover the lens, the picture will be "zoomed;" if the lens does not cover the sensor, the picture will have vignetting. This is why the RED One paired with cine lenses is the most appealing option for me right now (versus Scarlet).

Any thoughts on questions #3 or #4?

P.S.
Just curious, people talk about films (28 Days Later, Slumdog ?) being shot with a 2/3" sensor camera... doesn't that mean by the time you blow it up for a film-out so that cinemas can play it, you are stretching the image and getting poor quality resolution? I just don't understand how footage from 2/3" camera can be used for film-outs without exhibiting really degraded quality.

-Mindcraft
 
by the time you blow it up for a film-out so that cinemas can play it, you are stretching the image and getting poor quality resolution? I just don't understand how footage from 2/3" camera can be used for film-outs without exhibiting really degraded quality.
Click to expand...

Once Upon a Time in Mexico, the Star Wars prequel Trilogy, Sin City and the Spy Kids Trilogy were all shot on 2/3" CCD cameras.

Just curious, people talk about films (28 Days Later, Slumdog ?) being shot with a 2/3" sensor camera...
Click to expand...

A lot of 28 Days was shot with the canon XL1, which is actually a 1/3" CCD camera.

it should also be noted that Crank 2: High Voltage was shot entirely with the Canon XH-A1...also a 1/3" 3CCD camera...with a fixed lens no less.


what it boils down to (to me anyway) is that the degree of picture degradation from said transfers is greatly exaggerated and/or just not that big a deal
 
Last edited:
"3) Ultimately I'm just interested in shooting in 4K."

I'm going to ignore why you have this position. There is more to the story about what constitutes "4K."

I'm probably not the best person to explain this, but here goes. The "4k" RAW captured in the Red One sensor data are "photo sites," and not "pixels." The actual measured resolution is about 78% of that, or 3195 horizontal.

If you, as you state, want "4K" then you need to shoot RAW at a higher resolution, so that the final resolved pixels come out to 4096. My calculator says that's 5251 horizontal, with the same 78% debayering algorithm.

But, I hinted that there was MORE to the story, and there is. The new MONSTRO sensor has a spec that is 2 stops higher with more dynamic range than the current sensors! This means that less brights will be lost and whited out. It also will have a 16bit processor (analog to digital) instead of 12 or 14.

What this means is that the FF35 series are going to outperform everything else by a wide margin. They shouldn't be discounted without seeing the results first, purely on the basis of lens preferences.

That's my position on this whole question of which camera I really want (vs. which I can afford in the real world).
 
When you debayer a 4k image you get a 4096 pixel wide final frame with each pixel having fully defined data for all 3 RGB channels. The pixel count is not reduced. The visual resolution as shown by a test chart will be lower. That is the result of the lens,OLPF,and processing combined. But all the pixels are still there.
 
Joe G. said:
"3) Ultimately I'm just interested in shooting in 4K."

I'm going to ignore why you have this position. There is more to the story about what constitutes "4K."

I'm probably not the best person to explain this, but here goes. The "4k" RAW captured in the Red One sensor data are "photo sites," and not "pixels." The actual measured resolution is about 78% of that, or 3195 horizontal.

If you, as you state, want "4K" then you need to shoot RAW at a higher resolution, so that the final resolved pixels come out to 4096. My calculator says that's 5251 horizontal, with the same 78% debayering algorithm.

But, I hinted that there was MORE to the story, and there is. The new MONSTRO sensor has a spec that is 2 stops higher with more dynamic range than the current sensors! This means that less brights will be lost and whited out. It also will have a 16bit processor (analog to digital) instead of 12 or 14.

What this means is that the FF35 series are going to outperform everything else by a wide margin. They shouldn't be discounted without seeing the results first, purely on the basis of lens preferences.

That's my position on this whole question of which camera I really want (vs. which I can afford in the real world).
Click to expand...

The way I understood it was that if you shoot in 4K with the FF35 camera, the large sensor is "masked" so that the active range of photosites is within 30x15mm (or is it 25x14mm)? The main reason I want to shoot in 4K is so that the range of *active* (or unmasked) photosites in my sensor is consistent with my super-35 cine lenses. So, my reason is not really *resolution* driven so much as it is *lens* driven.

However, I'm curious to understand how resolution plays a role in all of this. You said that to achieve 4K I need to shoot at a higher resolution-- I'm not sure what this means, or what implications it has on lens-compatibility.. would you mind elaborating?

Thanks!
 
mindcraft said:
As for having the vignetting under the S35 format (e.g. 30 x 15mm), do you know if this will occur using the RED Pro Primes in 4K? I guess the way it works is if sensor-size does not cover the lens, the picture will be "zoomed;" if the lens does not cover the sensor, the picture will have vignetting. This is why the RED One paired with cine lenses is the most appealing option for me right now (versus Scarlet).

Just curious, people talk about films (28 Days Later, Slumdog ?) being shot with a 2/3" sensor camera... doesn't that mean by the time you blow it up for a film-out so that cinemas can play it, you are stretching the image and getting poor quality resolution? I just don't understand how footage from 2/3" camera can be used for film-outs without exhibiting really degraded quality.

-Mindcraft
Click to expand...

You have to stop thinking of the process of transferring from digital to film as a blow-up or shrink-down. You could shot HDCAM-SR on either a 2/3" Sony F23 or on a 35mm Sony F35, and in both cases, it would be a 1080P (2K more or less) image being transferred to film. It's not like the difference between a 16mm and 35mm frame where the 35mm frame is nearly 4X larger in terms of negative area and thus has more detail and less grain.

With a 2/3" and a 35mm-sensor camera, it's possible for both to have similar resolution especially when the upper limit is determined by the recording format.

Now there are certain benefits to working around a larger sensor -- for example, the lens on a 2/3" camera actually has to have a higher MTF compared to one on a larger format. If you have more millimeters total, you can resolve fewer lines per millimeter and still end up with more detail overall. This is one reason why high-end B4 HD lenses are so expensive.

All the RED pro primes cover the Mysterium-X sensor area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top