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

[Alexey Datsenko]

Could you tell me please who knows in what specification of Scarlet can I get pictire like in real movie? I mean like 35 mm or very close to 35 mm or like in Red One now? I am going to make independent and lowbudget movies but I can't choose specification of Scarlet according to this my aim. I understand thera are a few specifications can be use for this my aim so I ask a few question:

1. What is the best specification for getting picture like in real movie like 35 mm to make independent and lowbudget movies? Is this FF35? Because the price of this specification with Lenses and accessories is about 35 -40 000 USD. Is there any other more cheep way to get this like movie picture? Or it would be better spend this big money but get exectly what I want without risk?

2. What is the difference in picture according to my this aim would be between FF35 and 2/3 8X fixed zoom (Complete Kit) and 2/3 Cinema? Is it possible to get picture like in real movie like 35 mm on Complete Kit? And what is loss would be in this case in compare with buying of FF35?

Thank you

 

[Stephen Gentle]

The Scarlet s35 has the same sized sensor as 35mm film, so obviously that would give you the image closest to a film in terms of depth of field and so on, but the 'film look' is not just about depth of field - they use extremely high quality lenses that cost thousands of dollars for a single prime, the scenes are lit and framed by experienced directors of photography, and then are edited and graded by professionals.

But remember that some massive films like the newer 3 Star Wars movies, Slumdog Millionare, Benjamin Button and so on were shot in HD or 2K on a 2/3" sensors... Which just goes to show that it's more about what you do with the camera than the camera itself.

So the 2/3" should be able to produce extremely filmic results if you use it properly, but if you have plenty of lenses (or plenty of money), the s35 would be good too. I'm just going with the 2/3" for now - it's all I need.

 

[Scott C.]

The Scarlet s35 has the same sized sensor as 35mm film, so obviously that would give you the image closest to a film in terms of depth of field and so on...

I believe that you are mistaken. A 35mm frame is 24mm x 36mm , while the s35 is to be 15mm x 30mm. The FF35 is so named because it has a full frame 24 x 36 sized sensor.

The greatest difference between the s35 and FF35 Scarlets will be the field of view. A 35mm lens on a sensor that is smaller than 24 x 36 will yield an image that is cropped. The good news here is that the Scarlet sensor is wider than early-gen DSLR sensors like the 20D (15mm x 22.5mm), so a wide angle will not be as narrow on a Scarlet as it was on those early DSLRs.

If you are considering the fixed lens system, then this isn't really a consideration.

resources:
http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/
http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?filmformats.html~mainFrame

 

[Jay Voutour]

I believe that you are mistaken. A 35mm frame is 24mm x 36mm , while the s35 is to be 15mm x 30mm...

I believe that size is a still photography standard. 3-perf academy 35/s35, and 4-perf academy 35/s35, are considerably smaller.

Take a look at this: (I didn't make this, but I forget who did...sorry!)

________
MARIA OZAWA DEEPTHROAT

 

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

 

[M Most]

Could you tell me please who knows in what specification of Scarlet can I get pictire like in real movie? I mean like 35 mm or very close to 35 mm or like in Red One now? I am going to make independent and lowbudget movies but I can't choose specification of Scarlet according to this my aim.

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.

 

[Jonathan Stevenson]

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.

Wait wait wait wait... you're telling me that 5K doesn't squeeze talent into your veins through some type of osmosis?

 

[Rick Presas]

youre not a filmmaker until youve spent $10,000+ on equipment.

 

[rod bradley]

Hey nmost -- I've seen some of your posts -- you make way too much common sense--Jonathan's skepticism is well placed -- here in America we know it's all osmosis -- - the more you spend and the bigger your technology the more talented and important you are... I thought this was well-established fact!

 

[Rick Presas]

 

[Scott C.]

Jay & David,

Thank you very much for all of that info. I am a still photographer who has been shooting video for the last ten years and this is just the stuff that was eluding me while consideing a dual platform machine like Scarlet. As more and more folks like myself gain access to cine grade or cine-like gear I think that this confusion is bound to proliferate. Thanks again.

Two other questions:

How do you describe the difference in field of view when using 35mm still lenses on an s35? Is there a number like the 1.6 crop of the small sensor DSLR?

Does that crop factor increase as you decrease resolution? For example; folks describe shooting the R1 at 2k as "cropping the sensor". Is that a literal description, or am I misinterpreting/failing to understand?

 

[H. Farberg]

Two other questions:

How do you describe the difference in field of view when using 35mm still lenses on an s35? Is there a number like the 1.6 crop of the small sensor DSLR?

Yes, the difference (crop factor) between FF35 and S35 is about 1.6, I think.

Does that crop factor increase as you decrease resolution? For example; folks describe shooting the R1 at 2k as "cropping the sensor". Is that a literal description, or am I misinterpreting/failing to understand?

It is a literal description. When shooting 2k on the RED One you're only using the center portion of the sensor, an area of about the same size as s16mm film.

 

[Imran Farouk]

I'm down with the crowd that says any of them can be good for an independent film..especially the cheaper one...given I'm eyeing that S35. The fact being though that unless you have all elements, like most have said, in the same ball park, your going to end up with a very large image that looks amateurish.

Sound, can tell the difference between indie and not, Lighting also and Camera direction + acting direction. Figure out what you want to spend then ask yourself which Scarlet can you buy and can you make it work for you?

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 )

 

[Scott C.]

It is a literal description. When shooting 2k on the RED One you're only using the center portion of the sensor, an area of about the same size as s16mm film.

So the crop factor increases as resolution decreases? Man, that complicates things.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Why does that complicate things? Crop factor and resolution are not tied together, except in the case of the RED ONE where lower resolution files are created by cropping the sensor. But that's pretty simple to understand as well. It's a 4K RAW camera -- all smaller formats are created by cropping the image, the only difference is whether you do it in camera or in post. Of course, in post, once you convert it from RAW to color, you would normally downsample to 2K rather than crop.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what's so complicated. "Crop factor" is just used by people to understand why a certain focal length has a narrower view on smaller sensor area, that's all. So what's so complicated?

 

[Noel Evans]

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

So my question then would be, what is the ISO of the S35 compared to the 2/3"?

If the ISO of the S35, is for arguments sake 200 and the 2/3" 500, (sorry if these numbers are already published - havent seen them), then the amount of light required for the 2/3" is going to fall more in the independent budget. SO if that were true and in addition to: If you stick to perceptually S35 AOV, and use your aperture as David suggests, then the 2/3" would be IMO a solid cheaper option.

 

[Scott C.]

No it isn't difficult to understand, and I guess it doesn't really complicate things. I just worry that it will take me longer to get acclimated and become more confident when planning shots and choosing lenses. I remember feeling boxed in a lot when I got my first 1.6 crop DSLR. It was more annoying than anything else. I'll certainly live with it.

 

[Noel Evans]

Scarlet 3K 2/3" Body Only - 2/3" Mysterium-X sensor, 120 fps (150 fps burst)

And with the ability to shoot at 120FPS, well what else has that for 2.5K? WOW

 

[David Mullen ASC]

No it isn't difficult to understand, and I guess it doesn't really complicate things. I just worry that it will take me longer to get acclimated and become more confident when planning shots and choosing lenses. I remember feeling boxed in a lot when I got my first 1.6 crop DSLR. It was more annoying than anything else. I'll certainly live with it.

The trick is to stop trying to convert these focal lengths in your head. You get a set of lenses with a wide to telephoto view for the format you are shooting, and you chose between them when setting up a shot. It's unnecessary at that point to be thinking what their view would be on a format you aren't even shooting!

I've shot eight features on 2/3" HD cameras, and I just got used to the wide-angles starting in the 5mm to 8mm range. I'd look at the 5mm and say "that's too wide, give me the 8mm" and then the 8mm looked right. Within a few hours or by the end of the first shooting day, I knew what the different focal lengths gave me and could make a good guess. Of course, when I had a zoom lens on, I could just zoom around.

I did a lot of 2/3" features on the 8-72mm Panavision Digital Primo, which is like a 20-to-180mm in Super-35 terms, which covers you 99% of the time.

 

[Alexey Datsenko]

youre not a filmmaker until youve spent $10,000+ on equipment.

Of course, 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: