will Scarlet do as well in low light as Red One???

[Nicholas Natteau]

I saw some amazing footage a while back shot with Red One, a guy lighting his pipe in the darkness. I was floored by how clean the picture looked: no graininess or noise.

So I was wondering whether Scarlet's smaller size and its 2/3 inch sensor might put the "pocket size" camera at a disadvantage compared to Red One in terms of shooting in low light or available light.

Is Red One's beautiful imagery even in low light due to possibly to the size of its sensors? If so, would a smaller sensor mean a noisier picture?

Just trying to find out as much as possible about Scarlet. I am just thrilled by the specs I've already read about this camera.

My only concern is whether Scarlet would perform as well as Red One under difficult lighting conditions: low light, available light, etc.

 

[John Caballero]

Someday in the not so distant future, we hope, we shall know every detail. Meanwhile we can just wonder at what might be.

 

[Steve White]

The expectation is that Scarlet's sensor will comparable in resolution and noise to that of the Red One.

The real problem is getting the light to the sensor. Probably the biggest factor in light sensitivity will be the light-gathering ability of the lens.

 

[number6]

My understanding is that it is going to be a somehow "changed" Mysterium (X) sensor, so I would guess that even current RED One performance will change when equipped with it. Thus, anything for now would be speculation.

But as I understand it, your question was more like "does sensor size translate into low-light capabilities?"

I don't know.

 

[Peter Majtan]

My understanding is that it is going to be a somehow "changed" Mysterium (X) sensor, so I would guess that even current RED One performance will change when equipped with it. Thus, anything for now would be speculation.

But as I understand it, your question was more like "does sensor size translate into low-light capabilities?"

I don't know.

In everything else is identical - the smaller sensor will have more noise and less DR (Dynamic Range)...

 

[Noah Kadner]

As it's set to be a 2/3" chip I'd expect less low light sensitivity. That said, RED One can see pretty deep into the dark at high ASA, though of course as with any camera the issue of gain noise might come up.

Noah

 

[mdf]

But as I understand it, your question was more like "does sensor size translate into low-light capabilities?"

Only indirectly. The physical dimension of the sensor isn't important: the size of the pixel is. Itty, bitty, teeny, tiny pixels make noisy images in low light.

Roger Clark has laid out some side-by-sides:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter2/

For video, I've always been perplexed by this business. You would think that everyone would be making sensors with very large pixels for the common low-light situation. Instead even supposedly good cameras like the XH A1 have smallish pixels, ~4 micrometer or so (lower end cameras are even worse; Clark's S70 example is typical for a consumer video sensor). If someone made a 35mm full-frame sensor that measured 1920x1280, you'd have a massive 19 micrometer pixel that might be able to see reasonably in what would otherwise be complete darkness to a human eye (well, ok, B&W sensor, no IR filter).

I don't know the RED ONE's pixel size exactly, but some division suggests it is XH A1 size or so, ~4 micrometers. But you can at least bin 2x2 squares of pixels from a 4k image to a 2k image, and (theoretically) get performance similar to the 1D2.

I won't be complain' if the Scarlet can pull the same trick.

 

[Steve White]

You would think that everyone would be making sensors with very large pixels for the common low-light situation.

Well, for really low light solutions you can either go for photomultipliers, in which case your resolution goes waaaaaaaay down, or telescopes, in which case, your lens gets a little bulky. :innocent:

 

[Christoffer Glans]

So what could be the improvements of the "Mysterium X"?
Epic will be equiped with it and Red one will probably be changed into it, so what could the mysterium X do that the first mysterium couldn't?

Speculate dammit!!

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I hope it'll be able to make coffee...

Those 16-hour shooting days are a challenge!

 

[Peter Majtan]

Well - we know from the Samurai themselves (without speculation) is that it is going to be 40% "faster" thereby reducing the rolling-shutter associated issues by the same amount and equally rising the FPS by same amount (directly related to bandwidth - i.e. with smaller res You get more fps, with same You get 40% improvement, etc...). There were also strong hints that it is going to have greater DR latitude then the current Mysterium...

 

[Johan Malmsten]

Well - we know from the Samurai themselves[...]

hmmm... "samurai"... the word brings to mind a conservative way of doing buissness... Red wouldn't be that way methinks... And they aren't exactly unemployed... so that would leave out "Ronin"... So that would leave only... dum dum dummm...

Or are we talking about the Samurai as the Sony and Canon-clans?

 

[Peter Majtan]

For me (having practiced ZEN and IAIDO for couple of decades) Samurai is synonym to being honest, focused, direct (without beating around the bushes), highly efficient, perfect in every "move" but above all simple while harvesting endless wisdom...

Does it sound like Sony or Canon? No way... In Japan SONY is actually referred to as the "ninjas" of the industry with all their sneaky and shady moves, but they are good at what they do (just like ninjas...)

Does it sound like Jim and his team-mates? I believe so, even thou I haven't had the pleasure to meet them face to face. But that's what happens with real Samurai - their reputation walks miles ahead of them...

 

[Johan Malmsten]

For me (having practiced ZEN and IAIDO for couple of decades) Samurai is synonym to being honest, focused, direct (without beating around the bushes), highly efficient, perfect in every "move" but above all simple while harvesting endless wisdom...

Does it sound like Sony or Canon? No way... In Japan SONY is actually referred to as the "ninjas" of the industry with all their sneaky and shady moves, but they are good at what they do (just like ninjas...)

Does it sound like Jim and his team-mates? I believe so, even thou I haven't had the pleasure to meet them face to face. But that's what happens with real Samurai - their reputation walks miles ahead of them...

Sorry... spoke without thinking about it enough... back to meditation for me... should come out of within in roughly a year...

 

[Max Link]

Really sorry to interrupt you ninja debate everyone... I just felt like following the invitation to speculate =)

So I was wondering whether Scarlet's smaller size and its 2/3 inch sensor might put the "pocket size" camera at a disadvantage compared to Red One in terms of shooting in low light or available light.

I've done some rough calculations based on RED ones sensor specs and what the dimensions of Scarlet's Mysteium X, which I epect to be 16:9 aspect, should theoretically be.

RED One has 4520 pixels on 24,4mm of horizontal sensor width, so that's ~185pixels/mm. Scarlets Mysterium X should, if I guessed the aspect correctly, be about 14,8mm across, and at 3k resolution, that would give you 208 pixels/mm --> higher density, smaller pixels, lower light sensitivity, more grain.

However, I don't know whether or not I've calculated the 2/3" sensor dimensions correctly, and anyway, according to my numbers, the pixels on Scarlet's Mysterium X would still have 90% of the width, that is, ~81% of the size of the One's. So my guess is that sensitivity loss will be there in comparison, but not enough to seriously limit your options in working wit Scarlet.

EDIT: Didn't even notice... This was my first post, so Hi everyone!

 

[Peter Majtan]

Sorry... spoke without thinking about it enough... back to meditation for me... should come out of within in roughly a year...

Oooooooooooooohhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... :calm:

 

[Barry Green]

higher density, smaller pixels, lower light sensitivity, more grain.

Yes, that's all correct assuming all other things are equal. But are they?

Look at the HVX200A: 2 years of development have now produced a unit with the same size chips that's a half-stop faster and dramatically lower noise than its predecessor. Scarlet's coming to market about 3 years after the first Mysterium was being tested on a circuit board. So it's possible that Scarlet could match Red One's performance in noise/sensitivity even though it's got smaller pixels and a denser count. (Of course, if Red One gets a sensor update with comparable technological advancement, then the "new" Red One would be more sensitive and less noisy because, at that point, all other things would once again be equal).

But if Red's been able to advance the state of the art in their sensors in these intervening years, then it's entirely possible that the Scarlet could match today's Red One's performance as far as sensitivity and noise. No guarantees, of course, and we won't truly know for another year.

 

[Petr Dvorak]

Ok, so what is the problem that nobody makes chips in full cinema size for massproduction of pro/consumer camcordes with big pixels to get rid of lens and lowlight problems? Same story SLR.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Kinda wondering,
Because pixels per mm are tighter on a 3K 2/3 sensor then a 3K full 35mm sized sensor, wouldn't it be more complex and expensive to do a 2/3 sensor?

Why is it more expensive to create a full 35mm sized sensor?

 

[oldphart]

Kinda wondering,
Because pixels per mm are tighter on a 3K 2/3 sensor then a 3K full 35mm sized sensor, wouldn't it be more complex and expensive to do a 2/3 sensor?

Why is it more expensive to create a full 35mm sized sensor?

Because you get lower yield with a bigger chip, and fewer chips per wafer.
With a given process, there is on average a certain number of flaws per wafer. The wafers are round, so you will get less than half the number of chips per wafer when you double chip size. But you get the same number of defective chips. The end result is that you will get much less than half as many good chips for the same cost when you double the chip size.