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)?

4K as measured on a chart would require a single Bayer-filtered sensor of more than 4K, since you generally can only achieve approx. 75% of the pixel resolution of the Bayer sensor in terms of how much resolution can be measured. In terms of file size, you can convert 4K RAW to 4K RGB so the red, green, and blue channels are each 4K in size.

So you'd want a 5K (or 5.5K-ish) sensor if you wanted to get a debayered RGB image that measured out at 4K.

But honestly, 4K is not some magic number, it's just an arbitrary mark, just a goalpost. There isn't really an exactly "true" 4K RGB camera out there to compare with.

However, I'm all for improving the resolution of these digital cameras. More resolution, though it involves processing more data, gives you more detail to work with in post.
 
mmost said:
Since nobody else has said it yet, I'm going to:

The only way to get images like "real movies" is to understand how to light properly or to hire someone who does. The camera is far less relevant than the lighting, composition, camera movement, and all the other basics. Without those things, all you have is a physically larger image that still looks like it was shot by an amateur. If people would stop thinking that buying a camera will suddenly turn them into Vittorio Storaro, we'd probably have many more meaningful discussions here.
Click to expand...

mmost I have to disagree. The reason why professional shoot with film and expensive video cameras is because they are so forgiving. With the cheaper cameras you have to have more talent at lighting and have to be more technical to nail your focus,framing,lighting, etc.

With film if I shoot it to dark or to light it isn't a huge deal we still have some information we can recover. Not so with these cheaper cameras.
So to the folks trying to make professional movies that look a lot like film yes you should be concerned with the camera and the codec.

That is one of RED's biggest selling points it's raw. You can get that info.
 
Nik Manning said:
mmost I have to disagree. The reason why professional shoot with film and expensive video cameras is because they are so forgiving. With the cheaper cameras you have to have more talent at lighting and have to be more technical to nail your focus,framing,lighting, etc.
Click to expand...

That's got to be one of the strangest things I've read in a long time. It's akin to saying that the reason professional musicians use better crafted instruments is because they're easier to play. And while there may be a very tiny modicum of truth to that, the fact is that the reason better instruments in the music world - as well as better cameras, lenses, and accessories in the imaging world - are used is because in general, given the same amount of human talent and expertise, the results are better. Better crafted instruments sound better, and better quality imaging tools look better. It has nothing to do with being "forgiving," and I would respond that nailing things like focus and framing on a professional format requires a hell of a lot of talent and experience.

With film if I shoot it to dark or to light it isn't a huge deal we still have some information we can recover. Not so with these cheaper cameras.
Click to expand...

When shooting film, you don't see the results until the film is processed and either printed or transferred. With a video camera, the results are there in front of you, so why would you intentionally shoot it too light or too dark?

So to the folks trying to make professional movies that look a lot like film yes you should be concerned with the camera and the codec.
That is one of RED's biggest selling points it's raw. You can get that info.
Click to expand...

Once again, I would argue that the value of recording raw is the ability to alter the image for creative purposes in post production, not to make up for improper exposure. If you want good results, you must light and expose properly. That's true regardless of whether the recording medium is film, HD video, or RAW files. And that is something that those who have experience and talent do better than those who think that the camera itself will make up for their own shortcomings.
 
I know that I'm a piss poor carpenter, and if I try to cut a right angle mitre with a hand saw and a wooden mitre box, my angle is going to be WAAY out of whack and there are likely to be gaps in the joint. So I choose to use a powered mitre box. If I could, I'd buy one with a laser sight. Norm Abrams can cut precision angles regardless of whether he is using a $1500 mitre saw, or a hand saw and a clamp. He's a master craftsman.

I can apply the same logic when rationalizing my desire for a Red. Shooting in RAW is more forgiving, and the worse I muck up a shot, the better my chances are of correcting it. Of course my ego won't allow that anymore, so now I say that the aditional bits give me more freedom to grade and manipulate the image to the betterment of the story. :thumbup1:

Sure lots of folks buy into the hype that the new-fangled whizz bang camera will make a photographer out of them, but there are also folks who see more powerful tools for what they are; an opportunity for them to realize greater results with the skills that they currently have. It can encourage us to acquire additional experience and build upon that through study. In that way there is potentially, real value in it.
 
"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."

My opinion is that this is deceptive.

You can make a "final frame" with a pixel count of 8,000,000 x 4,000,000. Seems like a game. I'm interested in what the measurable results are.

I was quite astounded when I saw the sharpness tests of the Sony HD cam vs. Red One, and the Sony was comparable although it's supposed to have 1/4 of the "pixels" and "resolution." Not so. Not all is as it seems on the surface.
 
Joe, you've got to give up on this notion that onscreen measurable resolution equals or should equal the size of the digital files.

I can scan a 35mm frame at 2K or 12K and the files would be of whatever size I scanned them at, but the image itself would be whatever resolution it is. If I used an older lens and a diffusion filter, it would measure lower than if I used a sharp lens with no filter. Does that mean that every shot's file size should match the amount of resolution visible on screen? If I do a 2K or 4K D.I., that doesn't mean every shot has 2K or 4K resolution in it.

You keep thinking that if a shot measures out as 3K, it must somehow have existed at some point in its life as a 3000 pixel-wide image and that any other file size involved some sort of trick or resizing. The amount of resolution that can be measured in the image is a completely separate thing from the size of the files holding that image. The main thing is that ideally your file size wouldn't be a limiting factor, i.e. the camera was capable of creating more resolution than can be recorded. But that doesn't mean on the other hand that the file size has to be exactly the same as the measurable resolution either.
 
Joe G. said:
"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."

My opinion is that this is deceptive.

You can make a "final frame" with a pixel count of 8,000,000 x 4,000,000. Seems like a game. I'm interested in what the measurable results are.

I was quite astounded when I saw the sharpness tests of the Sony HD cam vs. Red One, and the Sony was comparable although it's supposed to have 1/4 of the "pixels" and "resolution." Not so. Not all is as it seems on the surface.
Click to expand...

That's completely different, and very misleading. You make it sound like Red are short-changing people by upscaling or something, which is absolute rubbish. Every pixel in a 4K resolution image coming from a bayer patterned Mysterium sensor comes from light hitting an individual photosite - the only thing is that you lose a little bit of measured detail due to having an OLPF and from the colour filtering.
 
I wiil ask frankly. How do you think it would be possible to get with Scarlet Complete Kit such "film like" video as in this footage of Panasonic HPX500:
http://www.vimeo.com/4439506
http://www.vimeo.com/4580980
Or is it impossiple to hope to get such good "film like" video for the price up to 10 000 USD (I mean Complete Kit about 4000 and additionally accessories, lenses)?
Because Panasonic HPX500 is 14000 USD and any Scarlet (except Complete Kit) will be cost from about 30 000 USD. So it will be the cool "film like" video with Scarlet S35 or FF35 but I have not about 30 000 USD and banks are not going to give me credit because of world financial crisis. So may be it would be reasonable to buy HPX500 to get such "film like" video? What do you think?
 
Alexey said:
I wiil ask frankly. How do you think it would be possible to get with Scarlet Complete Kit such "film like" video as in this footage of Panasonic HPX500:
http://www.vimeo.com/4439506
http://www.vimeo.com/4580980
Or is it impossiple to hope to get such good "film like" video for the price up to 10 000 USD (I mean Complete Kit about 4000 and additionally accessories, lenses)?
Because Panasonic HPX500 is 14000 USD and any Scarlet (except Complete Kit) will be cost from about 30 000 USD. So it will be the cool "film like" video with Scarlet S35 or FF35 but I have not about 30 000 USD and banks are not going to give me credit because of world financial crisis. So may be it would be reasonable to buy HPX500 to get such "film like" video? What do you think?
Click to expand...

The HPX500 has exactly one advantage to the the scarlet. It's available now. That's it. Read the scarlet FAQ and do a little research here and you'll probably come to the same conclusion.

Of course my statement is all guesswork based on what's been announced. Really, the only way to tell how the Scarlet stacks up in reality, is to wait for it to come out.
 
Also, keep in mind that the HPX, fully configured to shoot anything will cost considerablany more than that. Remember, at that price the HPX doesn't come with a lens or anything to record to. I don't think you can get an HD 2/3 lens for lens than a few thousand right?
 
I was quite astounded when I saw the sharpness tests of the Sony HD cam vs. Red One, and the Sony was comparable although it's supposed to have 1/4 of the "pixels" and "resolution." Not so. Not all is as it seems on the surface.
Click to expand...

I don't know which test you saw, but one of them was very deceptive. They were comparing the video output of the HD camera with the video monitor output image of the RED, not with a full post processed R3D image. World of difference there.
I suspect under most circumstances the optics: the lens and the OLPF are going to be the limiting factor on practical resolution, not the sensor.

Interesting article on matching lenses and sensors. What it demonstrates is that for an ideal lens with no other optical issues, iris diffraction based on f# limits practical resolution much more than most of us realize.

http://www.vision-systems.com/display_article/356315/19/none/none/Feat/Matching-Lenses-and-Sensors
 
Let me lay down my perspective here.

First, this constant search for selective focus is getting out of control. I think it comes from shooters who could only afford 1/3" chip cameras wanting to be able to have some ability to employ selective focus, so the DOF adaptors came into play. Once they became easily available and affordable suddenly everyone decided that selective focus was the be all and end all of cinematic moviemaking.

That said, 2/3" is basically 16mm. Plenty of films were shot on 16 throughout the years. Good films, good looking films. A scarlet 2/3" is going to be a lot higher res then a fast 16mm stock from the 70's.

So. to reiterate, buy what you can afford when you need it. Make sure you can make it make enough money to pay itself off. Other then that, stop worrying. You can make a good film with whatever you have at hand. Pro gear is pro gear because it's optimized for pro uses.

One more thing to think about, in your shooting budget do you have hundreds of dollars a day for a truly great 1st AC? If you don't, then the deeper your depth of field the better off you're going to be. It's hard enough to pull on a 2/3" chip wide open, much less FF35 wide open. I cry a little when I think about the ACs who are going to be hired for no money by indie producers with brand new FF35 scarlets with nikon lenses and who have barely enough light to get to F2 and whose schedules are so tight that rehearsals are filmed and blocking changes with each take.

I think there are going to be a lot of stress crazed ACs and angry producer/directors when the footage is finally displayed on a real monitor (in post long after shooting has wrapped) and every single closeup is out of focus and focus goes in and out every time actors move.

Just sayin'

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