SCARLET by Red Digital Cinema [Archive] - Page 3 - High Definition Digital Video Forum

Halsu

2008 November 15th, 10:56

From the dvinfo.net forum:

Originally Posted by Peter Weisberg
hey jim,
I was wondering around what time we can expect to have more information on the fixed lens scarlett. I'm really anxious to know if the fixed lens scarlett will be a basic recreation of the scarlett 1.0. Seeing as the fixed lens Scarlett doesn't really fall in place as much with the whole modular camera thing I was wondering if it was going to come ready to shoot out of the box. There isn't really too much information about it, and i was just wondering around what time you think more information will be disclosed. Also will it still be relatively close to the 3k price?

It should be close... under $4K for sure. We had to make a lot of changes to make sure it fit into the whole system.

More news in a few weeks.

Jim

So, fixed lens Scarlett will be under 4000 bucks, possibly closer to $3000.

Cool.

Ian-T

2008 November 15th, 11:10

From the dvinfo.net forum:

So, fixed lens Scarlett will be under 4000 bucks, possibly closer to $3000.

Cool.

Ok....with that kind of price and specs it's more like an EX-1 killer then. Wow...I'm liking Red a little bit more today....I'll wait on the actual specs....then I will make up my mind.

Duke

2008 November 15th, 11:13

Now the deciding factor for any reasonable person will be the actual footage. I wonder when we'll get any?

And, I agree that around the $3,500 price point the Scarlet is attractive. At $7,000 + it's not doable for many of us.

Zacatac

2008 November 15th, 11:35

Halsu

2008 November 15th, 11:49

Now the deciding factor for any reasonable person will be the actual footage. I wonder when we'll get any?

Just look for some RED ONE footage that doesn't have a very shallow DOF. Scarlett should be very, very similar, but have even better dynamic range.

This said, other than being clean and sharp (not sharpened, but truly sharp as in resolvable detail), RED footage doesn't really have a "look" - it's just like film in that regard. The default settings give rather "HV20 in cinemode" like low contrast neutral image, but you can color correct it to resemble pretty much any other camera, if you wish.

Ian-T

2008 November 15th, 12:23

booggerg

2008 November 15th, 12:25

Then one shouldn't shoot in those lighting conditions. I'm not arguing how good or bad the DSLR is in different lighting conditions...

But have you ever seen some of the Russian adapter footage? It's as nice and crisp as this video. http://35mmadapter.ru/eng/

Well then comparing a 5D2 footage shoot in problematic convention hall lighting to footage shot in good light out doors with an adapter is not a fair or accurate test.

It's like comparing the footage from a prosumer cam in low indoor light with grainy results to cheap handycam footage shot in day light and saying the cheap handycam is better than the prosumer cam

Halsu

2008 November 15th, 12:49

DO you think we will still be able to get a decent blurred background like we do with the HV20 zoomed in? All things being equal I'm assuming you can also get a wider field of view than the HV20 due to its bigger sensor size (zoomed in 8x of course).

Bigger sensor means you need to have more zoom to get the same framing (field of view). Fixed lens Scarled should be two f-stops "blurrier" than HV20 when zoomed in.

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/Scarlet_vs_HV20_dof_simulation.jpg

In the above image, HV20 portion is accurately the shallowest DOF possible at this framing. The left side is an estimation on HOW fixed lens Scarlet DOF would look, shot with my 35mm lens adapter. My calculations etc. may be inaccurate, but this should give you a ballpark.

Ian-T

2008 November 15th, 13:12

Thanks Halsu. I find that most of the footage I've seen from folks using adapters are way too shallow anyways. So from the looks of your hypothetical sample I don't think an adapter would be necessary (in most cases) with the Scarlet. Plus the "in-focus" image will be a lot sharper and more deteiled with Scarlet than adapter footage.

Halsu

2008 November 15th, 13:24

from the looks of your hypothetical sample I don't think an adapter would be necessary (in most cases) with the Scarlet.

Exactly. It's needed only if one desires the extreme shallow DOF look.

But for those cases, renting a S35 Scarlet brain might be a much wiser option - all the 2/3" Scarlet accessories will work with it, you don't need to rent the whole rig.

Here's some old but real examples with a 2/3" sensor camera - i shot these with a standard definition ENG camera, which had a fast zoom lens - the fixed lens Scarlet will have slightly deeper DOF, but not too much.

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/Quiz/images/FV01.jpg
http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/Quiz/images/FV08.jpg

Braceface

2008 November 15th, 14:44

Those are nice frame grabs Halsu! Good job.

Duke

2008 November 15th, 15:21

Thank yo for the simulations and grabs, but unless you know the distances it doesn't tell you too much.

I'll see if I can shoot some A1 and HV20 grabs at known distances. When someone has a Scarlet shot with known distances we can compare it.

I agree with Ian-T that in most test shots we see on the net the DOF is too narrow. I remember one clip where the nose was in focus and the face wasn't. But if you can get it that narrow you can usually get a little closer, zoom out to counter the distance and close the aperture a bit to widen the DOF a bit.

Halsu

2008 November 15th, 15:24

Those are nice frame grabs Halsu! Good job.

Thanks ;-)

Those were actually a part of a quiz "Film, Video, 3D - Guess which is which?"

We did that for a website of a company i worked for, i recall just 7-8 years ago. Maybe even less. Back then, de-interlacing 16:9 interlaced SD video was the hot news for "Film look on a budget".

You just needed a $100 000 standard definition camera and a $50 000 edit bay, and you could do pretty good film look for TV at 720*288 true resolution interpolated to 720*576 (you could preserve more of the resolution with motion-aware de-interlace software, but that was pretty high end). Anyway, the fact that televisions were 4:3 and the 16:9 footage needed to be letterboxed for broadcast helped hiding the low vertical resolution.

I recently found the quiz from an old backup hard drive. Wanna try?

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/Quiz/QuizNav01.html

Click the icon of the acquisition format you think the footage originates from - if you're right, you can move forward. Some shots have more than one answer, you need to get all correct to proceed.

...oh, the memories. Luckily times have changed ;-)

Halsu

2008 November 15th, 15:37

Thank yo for the simulations and grabs, but unless you know the distances it doesn't tell you too much.

Simulations: about a meter and a half to the doll, maybe 30 meters to the view from window. The leaves were maybe a meter away from camera at the closest. This should be pretty telling, as there's HV20 at full open aperture to compare to.

Grabs: In the upper one, camera was maybe a meter away - you can see that it was shot with a pretty wide lens.

In the lower one, the camera was on a track, this grab was probably taken something like 3 meters from subject, backround wall was maybe 10 meters away.

Duke

2008 November 15th, 17:51

Here are some actual test results for the HV20 and XH-A1 at maximum zoom and aperture controled as much as possible. This was low light so I tried to keep them at 6db of gain.

In all cases the camera is 10' to the vase, 15' to the wooden ice bucket, and 25' to the chair (which means 24' to the Peanut butter.) Sorry I didn't set up lights.

I also found the forum doesn't allow pictures that big so I had to reduce them in size from 1920 wide to 1200 wide.

So here is the HV20 focused on the vase 10' away with the bucket 5' behind the vase:
http://hv20.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2961&stc=1&d=1226789515

Here is the same shot with the XH-A1:
http://hv20.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2962&stc=1&d=1226789592

Duke

2008 November 15th, 17:58

Here's the same set up with the vase removed, focusing on the wooden ice bucket (though I didn't get good focus in the HV20.) The bucket is 15' from the camera and the peanut butter is 24.5' away from the camera.

HV20:
http://hv20.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2963&stc=1&d=1226789772

XH-A1:
http://hv20.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2964&stc=1&d=1226789868

Duke

2008 November 15th, 18:02

Finally, here I'm focused on the Peanut butter 24.5' away with the bucket 9.5' in front of it.

HV20:
http://hv20.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2965&stc=1&d=1226789998

XH-A1:
http://hv20.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2967&stc=1&d=1226805938

I think this serves as a good guide to A1 DOF control and low light abilities.

Gymnut808

2008 November 15th, 18:43

Thank you, Duke. Did you use any custom presets on the A1?

Duke

2008 November 15th, 19:03

Thank you, Duke. Did you use any custom presets on the A1?

Yes, I was using the Panalook preset. I didn't deliberately set it to that, but it's what I had last used. It does have a nice film look, don't you think.

Braceface

2008 November 15th, 19:09

Then one shouldn't shoot in those lighting conditions. I'm not arguing how good or bad the DSLR is in different lighting conditions...I'm talking about those two clips...they did not look that great to me. I've seen a ton of adapter footage that looks BETTER than what those clips shown me. If the user wanted to make a point about how good the picture is compared to an adapter...then he should have shot with better light. I've seen the Mark II shoot much better looking pictures than that....but as it stands...those clips are problematic.

Edit: An by the way...in what lighting condition are you talking about? That was a photography shoot....there is plenty of light there. Most cameras should perform well in those conditions. Especially when it panned to the guy commenting on the side...plenty of light in the background also. The footage looked more like D90 footage...but then again I viewed them both on Vimeo without downloading.

Edit#2: I just downloaded the footage. I can't believe how much Vimeo bastardizes the footage but it looks much better. Nice and clean. My initial response was based off what I was watching on Vimeo. But have you ever seen some of the Russian adapter footage? It's as nice and crisp as this video. http://35mmadapter.ru/eng/

In other words, adaptors limit you where the Mark II will not, but don't complain. Embrace not being able to shoot in low light and shut your mouths, or bring generators, and extention cords everywhere you want to shoot. Terrible logic. Adaptor footage from the HV20 doesn't even compare to the clarity, and crispness, of the Mark II from what I've seen. Don't get me wrong, I love the HV20, but come on dude, get real. You can't shoot good pictures before and after dark, or inside, unless you pump in a siht load of light, and I know because I CONSTANTLY use my HV20. Every day. I've put numerous clips up that I'm proud of using it, but it has MAJOR limitations compared to a pretty cheap DSLR alternative that rules in low light, has AWESOME DOF, (still lets you control exposure) and remains higher shutter speeds in lower light (unlike the blurriness you get with the HV20 because it HAS to either drop the shutter speed or be way underexposed) and lets you use amazing interchangeable lenses.
I'm not going to sell my HV20. I love it. But obviously I'm looking forward to getting a better camera for pretty cheap.
The Scarlet is not the right solution considering how much it will cost and not have the DOF, and possibly as great low-light ability as a cheaper cam.
I just don't know why you, Ian, of all people would dismiss low light capability and dynamic range, and even resolution. Sure you can get pretty pictures with any camera, and all cams have limits, but the Mark II is leaps and bounds beyond the HV20 for people who like DOF, and don't want to limit their shooting to studio sets, or between 8 A.M to 6: P.Pm at night, outside. The don't shoot without lighting it is pretty lame, when technology is making it easier to shoot with natural lighting now. The HV20 is great, but it's limitations are definitely a problem if you are interested in using natural light.

Ian-T

2008 November 15th, 19:34

Braceface

2008 November 15th, 20:18

Why do you keep posting saying the same things over and over again? I think we all get that you worship the Mark II demi-god. No one here is saying anything bad about that cam's low light capabilities. It's as if you are constantly trying to convince yourself and everyone here that you made the right decision and anyone who thinks otherwise are fools. We get it man....ease off. You keep talking about low light in camcorders and how they suck.... compared to the Mark II...yeah. But camorder+DOF adapters have been in use for years...and the Mark II is definitely not going to stop that. Sure DOF adapters creates more limitations in low light...but the Mark II is also riddled with limitations which YOU are obviously willing to overlook...but there are folks who can't adjust to that...so they don't necessarily look at it the way YOU do. ...Like I said before..."choose your poison." If it works for you...then more power to you. I'll wait till something more sensible comes along.

Try not to attack everyone that does not see things the way you do. Calm down.

I'm not attacking you. Where did I attack you? Don't say I attacked you when I didn't. I don't even know you, OR your ability to use a camera well. I just go by what you say on the forum. Look, the point is SCARLET, doesn't address what 4 days ago, everybody was hoping for. There is some backpedaling going on now, but 4 days ago everybody thought that the Scarlet was hopefully going to have a 35mm sensor and use interchangeable lenses , come in one unit, and UNDER 3 grand. FAIL.
With all of the hype generated about the " change " of the Scarlet that came about purely because of what in most people's minds were because Red was going to up the anty against Nikon and Canon due to the new liveview options, it is NATURAL that I would keep the Mark II in the context of this thread. After all RED didn't live up to the demand, or request, or hopes of delivering a comparable camera at THE comparable price of the NIKON, or CANON. Sure the red Scarlet can out gun a Mark II , but its not in the way people with a 3000 dollar budget were hoping for. End of story.
SO, I don't understand where you say I'm attacking anybody. I'm defending all of the people with the " pre release Scarlet " hopes of 4 days ago and pointing out that what I see is history trying to be erased. This Scarlet isn't what people wanted at the 3000 dollar end AT ALL. At least most of us. The speculations were more than casual. You had a wide feeling that Red would deliver a DSLR killer at an under 3000 dollar price. BS. Pure BS. With the Mark II being THE most talked about camera with how Scarlet was supposedly sweating enough to scrap the designs to compete, I stand by my assessment that RED mislead a lot of folk that aren't part of the " rich boy, Red fanboi " crowd.
So if you have 3 grand, and want a camera, AND 4 days ago you were expecting a Mark ii type upgrade to the Scarlet BUT it didn't happen, then where do you think those people will mostly stand now? Walking back to their HV20's with a Twoneil adaptor or gearing up for what SCARLET didn't give them but Canon's going to, at a cheaper price-tag. DONT FORGET that a week ago people were hoping red scarlet would be a lot like the Canon DSLR, but better, and at under 3000.
It's hard not to repeat myself when you don't comprehend how clear the situation is.

Braceface

2008 November 15th, 20:21

I'm acting like there are only 3 cameras in the world though, arent I!
:hv20-smilie15::hv20-smilie79::hv20-smilie122:

Ian-T

2008 November 15th, 20:46

...ok.

Duke

2008 November 15th, 22:16

What are your conclusions from above at:
http://hv20.com/showthread.php?p=151544#post151496

Seems to me the HV20 has noisy gain, and the A1 has nicely tweekable colors. The gamma is also tweaked here to produce a nice film look even in low light conditions.

Will the low end Scarlet do as well? Sort of. Of course you will have to tweak it in post, but isn't it nice with the A1 to set it up ahead of time and not have to tweak much if it at all? I'd also like to know if the HMC150 is as tweakable. (Is that a real word?)

I don't think you're going to do any 24 hour turn arounds on a Scarlet if you have to set every variable on the metadata.

Halsu

2008 November 16th, 03:35

35mm sensor and use interchangeable lenses , come in one unit, and UNDER 3 grand. FAIL.

I'm pretty sure that only a small minority of people thought like that (though it's a very passionate and vocal minority). Red never implied something like what you describe was in the owen at that price, so i personally never expected it to happen - and that probably applies to most people who work in professional video. We know that pro tools come with a hefty price tag, partly because they're manufactured in small series, partly because requirements are much more strict than with consumer gear.

The 2/3" interchangeable lens Scarlet isn't competing with HX-A1 or D5 MKII, it's competing with Sony F23, which costs over 100 000 dollars - and it looks like it's winning.
http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowProduct.action?product=F23&pageType=Overview&category=HDseries&site=biz_en_GB

I'm sure red could have released a camera like you describe, if the image quality and reliability (i.e. speed, skew and heat) weren't an issue. The MKII sensor is probably the best that currently can be done at that price point, when mass produced. Unfortunately, it's not enough for a professional video tool.

It's perfectly normal human behavior to always want more. But it also may make people loose the touch with reality ;-)

Halsu

2008 November 16th, 03:51

Will the low end Scarlet do as well? Sort of. Of course you will have to tweak it in post, but isn't it nice with the A1 to set it up ahead of time and not have to tweak much if it at all?

If Red One is an indication (and i'm pretty sure it is), you should have the best of both worlds.

You can tweak your settings in the camera, and they are saved in the metadata. The proxies are made using the settings you had while shooting. That's the quick workflow - it's more or less the same as working with regular video cameras.

You just have the bonus of being able to go back and tweak those settings afterwards if you wish.

Braceface

2008 November 16th, 07:31

By professional what do you mean? The camera is aiming specifically at the professional wedding market. Plus, in my opinion the PQ out of the camera rivals what I've seen with the Red, and thats just with people who don't even own it yet. And that is at 3000 dollars. Hmm.... I think also that its either disingenuous, or naive that you are claiming that the 'DSLR killer " isn't aiming at the Nikon or Canon,lol.

Duke

2008 November 16th, 07:59

You can tweak your settings in the camera, and they are saved in the metadata. The proxies are made using the settings you had while shooting. That's the quick workflow - it's more or less the same as working with regular video cameras.

You just have the bonus of being able to go back and tweak those settings afterwards if you wish.

I think we'll have to see what options actually end up on the camera. My understanding from reading on Scarletuser was that there were a lot less settings on the Scarlet to keep the costs down.

However, rumor runs rampant over there and who knows where that came from and how true it is. I can say the opposite too though, unless you are an insider, what do you know for sure about the Scarlet? Jim did say certain things were left off. Of course that was when it was the pocket camera.

I note your statement that sensors have been built. I should hope there are prototypes galore for testing puroses by now. So why haven't we seen test footage from the Scarlet?

Halsu

2008 November 16th, 09:26

By professional what do you mean? The camera is aiming specifically at the professional wedding market. Plus, in my opinion the PQ out of the camera rivals what I've seen with the Red

You're correct when you say that MKII image quality is pretty much equal to red one - but that's when it's shooting 12 megapixel raw stills, which it can do only 4 frames a second.

The MKII *video* quality is totally another issue. The only places it shines are low light and shallow dof. It probably skips pixels to be able to maintain 30 fps, which means the real original resolution is low, and it will probably have bad aliasing artifacts with small details, just like D90 does.

I'd rate the video quality (resolution, compression, sharpening artifacts etc.) below HV20, based on the footage i've seen. It would probably be a pretty good "video" camera for wedding photography though, unless it had the five minute record limit before it shuts down for cooling (and only in USA & Canada as it's 30p).

Halsu

2008 November 16th, 09:30

Jim did say certain things were left off. Of course that was when it was the pocket camera.

Those are mainly options like frame rates, anamorphic squeezing for mnonitors etc., and due to technical limitations. I've heard nothing about dumbing down the basic software features.

I note your statement that sensors have been built. I should hope there are prototypes galore for testing puroses by now. So why haven't we seen test footage from the Scarlet?

Wasn't me. But it seems they had a working proto going at the launch party. I've heard no more details than that, so could just as well be red one sensor bolted to scarlet electronics or something ;-)

I guess we just need a little patience.

Duke

2008 November 16th, 11:45

Wasn't me.

My mistake, it was the post above yours. Sorry.

I guess we just need a little patience.

Absolutely.

I think what braceface is getting at, is there is at least a year, if they go to Red users first maybe a bit more, before the Scarlets are available.

The hardware on the 5D is there. I know what you mean by selecting pixels, but the 5D doesn't have the jagged edges of the D90, so I would bet its run through an algorithm instead. It might be some thing as simple as the 5D picking a block of 9 pixels and averaging them because the D90 and 5D clips don't look the same at all.

If the 5D has a firmware change that gives 24p (which would allow a higher bit rate) and manual controls, both of which are possible with the hardware already there, it would be a heck of a camera at a good price point. But that's a big if. Canon might not do it, and hackers might not be able to though they've done so with other DSLRs.

Both cameras have interesting possibilities, and neither is quite there, but the 5D is usable now... even with it's limitations.

I am surprised I didn't get comments on the A1 DOF tests in posts 213-215 above. It's my camera and even I was surprised at how much DOF control I could get. (I'd done it outdoors when I had lots of room before, but this is the first time I tried it confined to the space indoors.) I think that's mostly attributable to the focal length/zoom of a 20x lens.

The fixed scarlet would have less than half at 8x, but a sensor that's twice the size. That's what makes me think the fixed lens Scarlet will have a little less DOF control than the A1, but nearly twice that of the HV20/30. (Yes, I did read what you posted above about it.) :)

Halsu

2008 November 16th, 15:17

I think what braceface is getting at, is there is at least a year, if they go to Red users first maybe a bit more, before the Scarlets are available.

So it seems, as far as the fixed lens one goes. The others should be available sooner.

The hardware on the 5D is there. I know what you mean by selecting pixels, but the 5D doesn't have the jagged edges of the D90, so I would bet its run through an algorithm instead. It might be some thing as simple as the 5D picking a block of 9 pixels and averaging them because the D90 and 5D clips don't look the same at all.

Based on the footage i've seen so far, it looks like they're simply skipping sensor elements, just like D90. Averaging (supersampling) looks different, much better. There's quite a lot of sharpening in all shots i've seen, which is another implication that there's not enough resolution to start with. I also recall seeing aliasing moiré in some shots.

To me it looks like D90 footage, if you don't take the D90's odd skipped pixel rows into account.

There's a fix for those, BTW:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=149663&page=5

Both cameras have interesting possibilities, and neither is quite there, but the 5D is usable now... even with it's limitations.

I thought it's not released yet?

Anyway, when it gets to the hands of regular end users, we will probably start to see some not-as-pretty videos from it... the ones online right now are mainly done by very good photographers (which is almost always much more important than what camera is used).

I am surprised I didn't get comments on the A1 DOF tests in posts 213-215 above. It's my camera and even I was surprised at how much DOF control I could get. (I'd done it outdoors when I had lots of room before, but this is the first time I tried it confined to the space indoors.) I think that's mostly attributable to the focal length/zoom of a 20x lens.

You should use the same framing with both cameras to really judge the difference in the DOF. Zooming more with one than the other makes the comparision a bit meaningless (though i do understand what you were after).

The fixed scarlet would have less than half at 8x, but a sensor that's twice the size. That's what makes me think the fixed lens Scarlet will have a little less DOF control than the A1, but nearly twice that of the HV20/30. (Yes, I did read what you posted above about it.) :)

It should have about the same amount of blur as your fully zoomed in A1 shots, at the same zoom level as the HV20. If you zoom out A1 to match the framing (or add a tele edapter lens to Scarlet), A1 it will have a bigger DOF than Scarlet (bigger DOF = sharper background).

Braceface

2008 November 16th, 15:55

We'll see better footage than we see now. Even the worst 5D footage looks better than the best HV20 footage so far.

Duke

2008 November 16th, 17:34

It should have about the same amount of blur as your fully zoomed in A1 shots, at the same zoom level as the HV20. If you zoom out A1 to match the framing (or add a tele edapter lens to Scarlet), A1 it will have a bigger DOF than Scarlet (bigger DOF = sharper background).

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. If the Scarlet did zoom to 10x it would be about the same DOF as the as the A1 but it's only 8x, and with a 2x adaptor it will beat the A1 at 16x with a 2/3" sensor, though you'd then loose some light and clarity.

And you are right I used the fully zoomed A1 to show the maximum it was capable of doing in a limited space. I'd have to back up even farther to have the same shot framing and retain the narrow DOF. All I showed is that I can do a close up of a person indoors without an adaptor and not have the background in focus with the A1. That's a useful thing all by itself.

If the A1 was half zoomed to 10x it would be nearly the same as the HV20, but what would be the point of that? (That's an approximation since the A1 goes to f1.6 at widest and the HV20 goes to f1.8 at widest. The A1 does change during zoom, but not as much as it is an "L" quality lens.) The test was to show maximum DOF control, not to match the HV20.

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 00:11

If the A1 was half zoomed to 10x it would be nearly the same as the HV20, but what would be the point of that?

That's the only comparison that really matters. What does the DOF look like at any given framing / FOV / zoom level?

Fixed lens Scarlet should have "twice the DOF effect" to A1 if all other things (camera placement, framing) are the same. More, if A1 goes below f1.6 when zooming.

I'd have to back up even farther to have the same shot framing and retain the narrow DOF.

That's the problem :-)

Duke

2008 November 17th, 00:36

That's the only comparison that really matters. What does the DOF look like at any given framing / FOV / zoom level?

We can agree to disagree on that one. I only care about the ultimate amount of DOF control I have. If I have to move 5' farther back to do it and have the same framing, it won't bother me a bit, which leaves the A1 with a (admittedly very slight) advantage on DOF control as 8x with a sensor twice as big is roughly equivilent to 16x on the A1, whereas the A1 goes to 20x.

Admittedly, you can throw a 2x teleconverter on the Scarlet, and theoretically that should beat the A1, but normal tele add-ons (even HD ones) aren't intended for 3k images. The A1's "L" quality lens is the highest quality Canon makes.

spideralex90

2008 November 17th, 00:40

Even the worst 5D footage looks better than the best HV20 footage so far.

Even a RED can look bad. It's not really the camera, it's whose behind the camera. And i would hope most everyone would join me in saying that sentence is nowhere near true. Have you seen White Red Panic?

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 01:56

Even a RED can look bad. It's not really the camera, it's whose behind the camera.

Exactemente.

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 02:01

We can agree to disagree on that one. I only care about the ultimate amount of DOF control I have. If I have to move 5' farther back to do it and have the same framing, it won't bother me a bit

Just moving the camera is not enough.

You would not only have to move twice as far from your subject and zoom in, but also move the background twice as far from the subject - only then you would get visually roughly the same "amount of DOF". Not so easy in small rooms ;-)

Also, having to always shoot with an extreme tele lens is far from an optimal way to shoot, IMO.

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 03:11

I took a still from red.com, and cropped it to 3K. This is more or less what we should expect the scarlet output to look like (this shot doesn't have a shallow DOF). My guess is, it will probably look even better, as this image is from an early preproduction version of RED ONE... and of course, these are jpg's..

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/RED/REDONE_3K_WEB.jpg

Full size:
http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/RED/REDONE_3K.jpg

The same image scaled to HD resolution:
http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/RED/REDONE_HD.jpg

The original is here:
http://www.red.com/shot_on_red/

Duke

2008 November 17th, 08:47

Quote by Braceface:

Even the worst 5D footage looks better than the best HV20 footage so far.

I wouldn't agree with that, except in very low light. The HV20 is capable of footage as good as any other in good light. (And I do think the 5Ds potential will be unlocked.)

Have you seen White Red Panic?

What is the White Red Panic?

Just moving the camera is not enough.

You would not only have to move twice as far from your subject and zoom in, but also move the background twice as far from the subject - only then you would get visually roughly the same "amount of DOF". Not so easy in small rooms ;-)

Also, having to always shoot with an extreme tele lens is far from an optimal way to shoot, IMO.

I'll half way agree with that. In those I got the DOF narrowed down to less than 2'. In the bottom one some DOF effect is shown in less than 1'.

a) Its not usually necessary to have the DOF that narrow.

b) Not all shots need or use a narrow DOF. IMHO a narrow DOF is to shift the focus of the audience or convey emotions more directly.

Let's say I'm shooting a romance with the couple sitting at a bistro table. I might have a wide angle establishing shot when they start talking with no DOF control necessary.

Then the couple starts talking about their love for one another and I go to close ups with a narrower DOF so the other patrons are out of focus and the audience pays attention to what the couple is saying.

Since the people are sideways to the camera if the DOF was 1' parts of the couple would be in focus and part out of focus. I'd probably want a 3' wide DOF so the talent, including their hands is in focus, but the people around them aren't.

In that instance maybe 16x zoom would do it. I could do that in a garage sized studio. The Scarlet should be able to do that too.

Duke

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 09:10

Even a RED can look bad. It's not really the camera, it's whose behind the camera. And i would hope most everyone would join me in saying that sentence is nowhere near true. Have you seen White Red Panic?

White/Red is a good little short, but it has a terrible picture. I've gotten much better pictures from an HV20 than that. The color grading is interesting, but look at how noisy the picture is. You wont get that with the 5D.
The 2 cams are apples and oranges (hv20 and 5d) The scarlet though is a mess of a system. But thats my opinion.

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 11:24

White/Red is a good little short, but it has a terrible picture. I've gotten much better pictures from an HV20 than that. The color grading is interesting, but look at how noisy the picture is. You wont get that with the 5D.

Have you seen color corrected D5 footage yet? ...i didn't think so ;-)

Anyway - i had a look at your highway film. Pretty nice work, some good images there. But the technical quality is less than what one should ecxpect from HV20...

I'm wondering, did you leave the camera to full auto? The exposure pumps a lot, and there's many places where the footage is badly overexposed. Also, it seems you're getting a lot of vignetting with the adapter and it's very blurry overall, as if nothing was in focus - was this intentional?

The 2 cams are apples and oranges (hv20 and 5d) The scarlet though is a mess of a system. But thats my opinion.

You have a right to your opinion, naturally, i tend to disagree ;-)

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 11:28

a) Its not usually necessary to have the DOF that narrow.

I agree totally - i was talking purely from technical standpoint. HV20 DOF is good enough for me in most situations... sometimes though i'd like just that little bit of extra ;-)

***********************

I guess i shouldn't do this, but here we go anyway... i uploaded some shots from paid jobs i've done with HV20. A "demoreel" of the HV20 stuff i happened to have on my machine right now, if you may.

There's some footage from low budget commercials, plus footage from a feature film's DVD extras. I don't really want this to be publicly available, so i will remove this link in a day or so. After that, if someone's interested, i can give the link privately (PM me).

http://eki.pp.fi/HV20_demo_v001.mpg
(720*408p mpeg1, 4 minutes, about 90 MB, no sound)

Most of the stuff is without adapter (sometimes using the variable ND trick from my sig.) There's one commercial i shot using my DIY 35mm adapter - extremely shallow DOF worked with that one...

Ian-T

2008 November 17th, 11:46

White/Red is a good little short, but it has a terrible picture. I've gotten much better pictures from an HV20 than that. The color grading is interesting, but look at how noisy the picture is. No..no..no...I think that short looked good for what it is. The picture was intentionally "dirtied" up. If you read what he was trying to accomplish with the picture you'd see where he said he was trying to dirty up the picture somewhat. My assumption on why he chose to do that is for a few reasons. ... The first...was...because he chose TV mode and on top of that he chose a 1/60 shutter instead of the conventional 1/48 shutter. Those two reasons alone brought it to look more like video...but whatever he did to muddy it up a little in post helped alot IMO. There were moments however that it looked like video to me...but overall...that short looked great.

You wont get that with the 5D. The 2 cams are apples and oranges (hv20 and 5d) The scarlet though is a mess of a system. But thats my opinion.

What makes you think that you won't? Like Halsu mentione...you have not seen any color grading with the MarkII as yet. I think I know why he stated that..and I believe it has to do with the compression used.

Actually, I have seen someone's attempt at color correcting...and it looked like crap. matter of fact I posted it in this forum some weeks back (can't remember where). There is no way that this cam could compare with the "Hypothetical" Scarlet...especially when Scarlet comes to fruition. Yes...it has a big sensor...but you are very very limited in how you can bring out its potential. Not with a Red cam however.

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 12:04

the movie had a few scenes where I used auto settings. Those were without the adaptor, in a couple of the roof-mounted boom scenes. I'm sure you can guess why I used automatic for those....
Other than those, there is no "pumping".
OFCOURSE, a siht load of the scenes had blown out back-grounds, and I HOPE you can guess why.....
I didn't put it in my rules of engagement plan to only shoot when the sun was "just right" for a road movie with no budget. It wouldn't be practical with my budget, and the audience never mentions that as a problem, only a few people from this forum.
Highway 27 was in a different difficulty level than White/Red, purely for the amount of time, and organizing it took to get it done, and it being (the majority of time) away from electricity for controling light. Oh, I could shoot it a lot better, with the dough.... but for what I had to work with NOBODY has really done it to that degree and posted it on this forum. It was very extreme. Perfect, hell no.

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 12:12

No..no..no...I think that short looked good for what it is. The picture was intentionally "dirtied" up. If you read what he was trying to accomplish with the picture you'd see where he said he was trying to dirty up the picture somewhat. My assumption on why he chose to do that is for a few reasons. ... The first...was...because he chose TV mode and on top of that he chose a 1/60 shutter instead of the conventional 1/48 shutter. Those two reasons alone brought it to look more like video...but whatever he did to muddy it up a little in post helped alot IMO. There were moments however that it looked like video to me...but overall...that short looked great.

What makes you think that you won't? Like Halsu mentione...you have not seen any color grading with the MarkII as yet. I think I know why he stated that..and I believe it has to do with the compression used.

Actually, I have seen someone's attempt at color correcting...and it looked like crap. matter of fact I posted it in this forum some weeks back (can't remember where). There is no way that this cam could compare with the "Hypothetical" Scarlet...especially when Scarlet comes to fruition. Yes...it has a big sensor...but you are very very limited in how you can bring out its potential. Not with a Red cam however.

....ok

booggerg

2008 November 17th, 12:27

Actually, I have seen someone's attempt at color correcting...and it looked like crap. matter of fact I posted it in this forum some weeks back (can't remember where). There is no way that this cam could compare with the "Hypothetical" Scarlet...especially when Scarlet comes to fruition. Yes...it has a big sensor...but you are very very limited in how you can bring out its potential. Not with a Red cam however.

Taking a page from my experience of working with RAW files from small P&S cameras. The quality of the sensor overwhelmingly determines the latitude of the resulting image. My Ricoh GRD has a RAW mode and the RAW images from it can not stand up to JPEGs from my Canon 5D when editing in photoshop. Not even close.

I suspect it to be the same case when it comes to Scarlet 2/3 vs 5D2..

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 12:37

Yeah, the 5D will be way easier to grade without noise, regardless of some dumb example on Vimeo. You can destroy anything if you grade it without skill, or taste.
I've seen REALLY bad HV20 grades, obviously too right here at our forum.
Anyhow, everybody should use the tools they want. The Scarlet has the 3K to 28K thing going for it obviously, and depending on what you pay, but that isn't the most important thing to me. A 2/3 sensor is not one of my interests, even with interchangeables. I'm looking for full frame 35, with 35 mm lenses. I like the 35mm look better than the 16mm look.....
For my needs, the 5D is PLENTY adequate for the next couple of years for me, and I'm not getting rid of the HV20, so if one does better for one thing over the other, I'll use the right one. In a couple of years I have a feeling that I'll be getting another camera besides the Mark II, since technology is exploding in digital imaging. But I'm not going to go the route of Scarlet/Epic. I have a gut feeling that I'd be stuck with something very tacky, and outdated, FOR THE PRICE. ( not the quality, which I'm not trying to degrade). I'd be interested in how many people are like me in that they just want to buy a really good friggen camera, in ONE piece, even if it isn't something upgradable to becoming a 30,000 dollar beast.

Ian-T

2008 November 17th, 12:47

Taking a page from my experience of working with RAW files from small P&S cameras. The quality of the sensor overwhelmingly determines the latitude of the resulting image. My Ricoh GRD has a RAW mode and the RAW images from it can not stand up to JPEGs from my Canon 5D when editing in photoshop. Not even close.

I suspect it to be the same case when it comes to Scarlet 2/3 vs 5D2..Well of course the sensor will determine the latitude. I'm sure it helps a great deal when shooting. That's one of the benefits. I mean, in the end. I think we all want a cam that can give us more detail in the dark and light areas. But, as with any camera, if you are careful with your shots for any given scene..then the benefits of latitude would be equal (IMO) during post production. What I mean is...if you are able to capture similar types of pictures with a higher and a lower sensor camera...then what matters most in post is the type of compression originally used to capture the picture. Because once you start tweaking...then compression ugliness starts to rear its ugly head. So in the case of a Scarlet vs th D5...guess which one will start to degrade quicker? This is just my opinion. I have no real world experience with either...they are both not out at the moment anyways.

Edit: Fact is..I just might eventually get a D5...who knows. But there are things that I still can't overlook.

booggerg

2008 November 17th, 12:57

What I mean is...if you are able to capture similar types of pictures with a higher and a lower sensor camera...then what matters most in post is the type of compression originally used to capture the picture. Because once you start tweaking...then compression ugliness starts to rear its ugly head. So in the case of a Scarlet vs th D5...guess which one will start to degrade quicker? This is just my opinion. I have no real world experience with either...they are both not out at the moment anyways.

A tiny 2/3 sensor will not be able to capture the same image data as 5D's FF sensor. That is the same reason why a FF Red cost $12000 whereas a 2/3 sensor model costs $2500. (Both uses the same codec btw)

Everyone is hyping up the RAW feature of the Scarlet. I just want to bring the rhetoric down to earth a bit because from my experience and I'm sure other experienced people will agree, the sensor itself is most important aspect. As long as the codec from a large sensor is not $hit, it will beat out RAW from a tiny sensor by an EPIC margin.

BTW, from all that we've seen from the RED ONE, with its S35 sensor that is not suited to shoot in high ISO, what gives you confidence that the scarlet 2/3 small sensor will be good in low light/high gain?

Ian-T

2008 November 17th, 13:18

BTW, from all that we've seen from the RED ONE, with its S35 sensor that is not suited to shoot in high ISO, what gives you confidence that the scarlet 2/3 small sensor will be good in low light/high gain?..um...where did you see me say that? You have been responding to me, responding to Braceface. I was not pointing my comments on any of the camera's hypothetical performances..I just gave possible scenarios of latitude and post work that could apply to any camera. Heck..I've been very neutral in my comments toward both cameras. I've even made it a point to state that one or both don't really exist at the moment. I'm enjoying reading other people's POV when it comes to this or that...but it's funny how some folks get so worked up about something they don't even own...especially when one of the products is more of a concept. I can't get into it like that... Sorry but my confidence lies elsewhere..

spideralex90

2008 November 17th, 13:25

BTW, from all that we've seen from the RED ONE, with its S35 sensor that is not suited to shoot in high ISO, what gives you confidence that the scarlet 2/3 small sensor will be good in low light/high gain?

Really now. Got any proof? If you were trying to say it won't be as good then yes i understand that, but saying it's not good in general is quite a large statement.

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 13:29

Well,
The Scarlet will probably be a pretty good camera. Even the Scarlet with the 2/3 sensor has nice specs. I don't see a point myself, at this time in mimicking 16mm film if you can mimic 35mm film, and use 35mm lenses. The Mark II is more valuable than the low end Scarlet for somebody who wants the film look. I wish people would stop comparing the low end Scarlet to the Red One. It AINT that.

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 13:31

Really now. Got any proof? If you were trying to say it won't be as good then yes i understand that, but saying it's not good in general is quite a large statement.

I agree with you about needing proof on that. I thought the Red One is supposed to handle low light " pretty good" at least. Not like the Mark II, but...

Ian-T

2008 November 17th, 13:31

A tiny 2/3 sensor will not be able to capture the same image data as 5D's FF sensor. That is the same reason why a FF Red cost $12000 whereas a 2/3 sensor model costs $2500. (Both uses the same codec btw)

Everyone is hyping up the RAW feature of the Scarlet. I just want to bring the rhetoric down to earth a bit because from my experience and I'm sure other experienced people will agree, the sensor itself is most important aspect. As long as the codec from a large sensor is not $hit, it will beat out RAW from a tiny sensor by an EPIC margin.

Ok. But in the end it's still only a 1920x1080 camera. Just like Mattais and Duke schooled me a couple of weeks ago about the D90 being only a 1k camera (despite it having a large sensor)...this cam is also limited...but to a 1920x1080 size. I think the difference between it and the hypothetical Scarlet is...that Scarlet will output a bigger picture. It supposedly will have software to work in it's larger size (I'm not sure). Am I wrong in thinking this way?

Ian-T

2008 November 17th, 13:33

I wish people would stop comparing the low end Scarlet to the Red One. It AINT that.Yeah I know...they speculate that it will make a nicer picture. What nice means...I don't know..

lordtangent

2008 November 17th, 13:40

Chuckle all you want. Then go read the reduser forum and cry. There is a backlash bigger than the Sarah Palin debacle. They just made a lot of enemies from friends based on a slogan that they launched their entire company based on. ( which was dumb in the first place).... Good luck with your Red products. I wont pay for a camera the price of a nice car if I know it will become obsolete, but hey, do what you have to man.

Any r1 owner who get's pissed about their r1 getting "obsoleted" is pretty clueless. Red is offering a FULL CREDIT towards the upgrade to an Epic. What camera company in history has ever done something like that? It's totally unprecedented.

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 13:40

I don't think you're wrong Ian, but on the cheaper Scarlet model, it isn't that attractive even with that unless you are somewhere very curious, like, needing to shoot for the big screen ALL of the time, and still not having a big enough budget for the Epic.
To me this is the big flaw. Any Scarlet below the 35mm version probably wont sell as good as people are thinking. When it's seriously time to put the money where the mouth is, 35mm sensors WILL be on people's minds more than 3K, in my estimation.
I don't even WANT that kind of power until it's cheaper, and more practical for me to edit. I have a hard enough time with 1080 TBQH.
The epic, however...... amazing camera. I still wouldn't buy it in this particular era of technologic breakthroughs happening so rapidly. Bad investment. (IMO)

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 13:41

Any r1 owner who get's pissed about their r1 getting "obsoleted" is pretty clueless. Red is offering a FULL CREDIT towards the upgrade to an Epic. What camera company in history has ever done something like that? It's totally unprecedented.

That's funny cause, in January ,Bush ,will also be unpresidented.

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 13:46

By the way, the Redforum posts have dropped off like a High-school prom dress.
We're talking more about the Scarlet here, than they are there at the moment.
Hmmm.......

Ian-T

2008 November 17th, 13:54

By the way, the Redforum posts have dropped off like a High-school prom dress.
We're talking more about the Scarlet here, than they are there at the moment.
Hmmm.......

LOL...but they still got your attention...

ok....I couldn't resit that one...:hv20-smilie79:

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 13:57

Haha,
I book-marked the sight for the release of the specs. Now I just monitor what I see as the slowly building backlash against the lower ending Scarlets, or even the existance of them. They might as well just build the damn Epics and call it a day. Terrible answer to the DSLR excitement out there, and only 16mm dof, to boot.

lordtangent

2008 November 17th, 13:59

That's funny cause, in January ,Bush ,will also be unpresidented.

???

Well, another thing to consider is the new cameras wont be shipping until next year also. R1 owners had plenty of time with their cameras before the new cams ship.

booggerg

2008 November 17th, 14:26

Ok. But in the end it's still only a 1920x1080 camera. Just like Mattais and Duke schooled me a couple of weeks ago about the D90 being only a 1k camera (despite it having a large sensor)...this cam is also limited...but to a 1920x1080 size. I think the difference between it and the hypothetical Scarlet is...that Scarlet will output a bigger picture. It supposedly will have software to work in it's larger size (I'm not sure). Am I wrong in thinking this way?

I can buy a cheap $200 P&S that will give me a 12MP picture. But my 4 years old Canon 1DMK2 is still producing much much better image at 8MP.. Heck i'll go back to an old Canon EOS D60 with 6MP sensor and it still produces better image than the modern P&S with 12MP... get my point?

Image resolution is not related to image quality. Pixel/Sensor size is related to image quality.

Ian-T

2008 November 17th, 14:51

I can buy a cheap $200 P&S that will give me a 12MP picture. But my 4 years old Canon 1DMK2 is still producing much much better image at 8MP.. Heck i'll go back to an old Canon EOS D60 with 6MP sensor and it still produces better image than the modern P&S with 12MP... get my point?
....ok. But i thought we were specifically talking about video?

booggerg

2008 November 17th, 15:34

...ok. But i thought we were specifically talking about video?

still, video.. sensor technology and performance trend is the same for both..

I'm only using the still digital camera analogy because they've been around for a while and we all know what to expect from them.

Once again: Image resolution is not related to image quality. Pixel/Sensor size is related to image quality.

To believe Scarlet has better IQ because of its 3K resolution is like believing that a 12MP P&S digicam produces better image than a 6MP DSLR..

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 15:37

I agree totally - i was talking purely from technical standpoint. HV20 DOF is good enough for me in most situations... sometimes though i'd like just that little bit of extra ;-)

***********************

I guess i shouldn't do this, but here we go anyway... i uploaded some shots from paid jobs i've done with HV20. A "demoreel" of the HV20 stuff i happened to have on my machine right now, if you may.

There's some footage from low budget commercials, plus footage from a feature film's DVD extras. I don't really want this to be publicly available, so i will remove this link in a day or so. After that, if someone's interested, i can give the link privately (PM me).

http://eki.pp.fi/HV20_demo_v001.mpg
(720*408p mpeg1, 4 minutes, about 90 MB, no sound)

Most of the stuff is without adapter (sometimes using the variable ND trick from my sig.) There's one commercial i shot using my DIY 35mm adapter - extremely shallow DOF worked with that one...

Hmmm. The footage is " alright ". The adaptor stuff indeed had a weird bokeh that I didn't find pleasing.
The other stuff was good, but I'd recommend making the war movie a lot brighter. It's too dark to see any detail.
I'm definitely more interested in a 35 mm. sensor.
Thanks for showing your work. "not bad"

Sem Skywalker

2008 November 17th, 15:40

If you do not see that Red Scarlet, no mather how it ends up, is FAR, FAR ahead of all these money-loving companies which only give u what they have to, and not what they CAN give you, you are lost in this.... Editing RAW instead of time-compressed MPEG2 og MPEG4 gives you almost the playgroud of real film. 30p is neither any consideration of people wanting to maybe ultimately show their finished films in a cinema some time in the future (digital projectors can show it, but it does not give the real feel of film, so it is no option for many).

The rolling shutter problem is far less on the Red's than on any consumer camcorder, and the dynamic range so much higher. Just continue playing around with these HDV- and AVCHD-compressing (or any other timebased compression with low dynamic range) toys. They are okay if you do not aim for something really great in the future.... The Sony HVR-ZI costs almost 10000 here, and it not good for color correction at all. I will buy no camera until the Scarlet arrives, fixed or not. DOF is not the main point of a movie. If people do not see what to focus on, you are lost anyways.... "Star Wars" had almost no DOF, people loved and understood it anyways.

Problem with compression is that many, like my self, are distracted by the image artifacts themselves, and do not get the experience they could. HV20 (and those after it from Canon) is great, but they do not give great indie filmmakers the possibilities they actually deserve. How much money you have, does not tell how good you are.

Quality matters, otherwise why don't you just throw away your HDTV and watch everything on YouTube and Vimeo and such? And talking of 3k being too big. Have anyone said there won't be 1080p/1080i/720p25/30/720p50/60 options? Everything is possible, that is what is so great with Red, they understand that! You do not need to standarize to do something.

Rendertime is no problem for people putting their soul in this, image quality can very much be.... You do not need to take every step, you CAN jump over 42 steps if you want, no one can order you not to, if you have that ability. They can try to drag you back "in line"/down, but you do not need to let them.... ;)

booggerg

2008 November 17th, 15:51

The rolling shutter problem is far less on the Red's than on any consumer camcorder, and the dynamic range so much higher. Just continue playing around with these HDV- and AVCHD-compressing (or any other timebased compression with low dynamic range) toys.

Rhetoric question: Have you seen footage from the 2/3 Scarlet?

Or are you talking about the Red One and future S35 or FF models? Well then you are definitely paying appropriately for them. At that price, you shouldn't compare it to HDV and AVCHD "toys"

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 15:57

Ian-T

2008 November 17th, 16:01

Once again: Image resolution is not related to image quality. Pixel/Sensor size is related to image quality.

..You said that twice. What do you mean by image quality? When you say IQ are you suggesting "better?" If had had the biggest sensor (and most pixels) in the room but outputted to 720x480...would that make my picture look "better" than an A1 outputting in its native 1440x1080? I'm only asking a question and not making any statements... I suppose latitude wise I'd be superior...but in the end...it would still just be a Standard Definition image....right?

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 16:02

the movie had a few scenes where I used auto settings. Those were without the adaptor, in a couple of the roof-mounted boom scenes. I'm sure you can guess why I used automatic for those....
Other than those, there is no "pumping".

Yes there is - i.e. in the scene that starts around 1'39'' when the white shirted girl walks first in the shadows and then comes to sunlight etc. It's both overblown and pumping... another pretty strong example is the bulrry wide angle shop interior at around 8'00''.

There's lots of other places, but these were the ones that catched my attention the most.

OFCOURSE, a siht load of the scenes had blown out back-grounds, and I HOPE you can guess why.....

You wouldn't like my guess ;-)

I didn't watch the whole film, but in the parts i watched there were many overblown scenes that shouldn't be a problem for HV20. It has a pretty damn good dynamic range actually.

I didn't put it in my rules of engagement plan to only shoot when the sun was "just right" for a road movie with no budget. It wouldn't be practical with my budget, and the audience never mentions that as a problem, only a few people from this forum.

Shooting in bright sunshine is not a problem at all with HV20, you don't need to overexpose to get details in the shadows, if you set up the camera properly.

I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't get any better results with D5 MKII, unless you modify the way you shoot.

but for what I had to work with NOBODY has really done it to that degree and posted it on this forum. It was very extreme. Perfect, hell no.

I'm sure it was a massive effort for you - but trust me, i know what it is to work with a small crew too.

*******

I guess you didn't have a look at the clips i posted in this message (don't wanna link to the video twice):
http://hv20.com/showthread.php?t=17729&page=10#243

...i assume no-one else watched it either, 'cause no-one commented.

One of the clips is parts of a DVD extra recreation of a scene that was left out from a WWII feature film, made for a mini documentary about one of the characters. There's some shots in there that were taken in direct sunlight - no blowouts. Also, the "Brothell" clips have examples of native HV20 DOF - to my eye, it's "cinematic enough", i wouldn't want more. The shots were also strongly color corrected to match the film's look - this scene takes place at dawn, we shot in daylight.

We shot that 10 minute partly dramatized documentary with HV20 in two days - one for exteriors, one for interiors, with a two man camera crew and just a few small lamps. There was an additional one hour shoot for an interview, but that was it.

Ian-T

2008 November 17th, 16:08

u guys crack me up....

Actually Halsu....I didn't even notice your link ealier. I think this thread is moviing so fast that folks might have just missed it. Will check it out though...

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 16:17

Image resolution is not related to image quality. Pixel/Sensor size is related to image quality.

Original image resolution IS related to image quality, in more ways than just image sharpness.

Starting with a big image and scaling it down (supersampling) is actually very similar to having larger pixels in the first place. I.e. in RED ONE 4K's case, each pixel of 1080p footage wil be averaged from roughly 4 pixels. This reduces the noise by 12 dB.

Supersampling is also necessary to reduce aliasing problems.

Rhetoric question: Have you seen footage from the 2/3 Scarlet?

Or are you talking about the Red One and future S35 or FF models? Well then you are definitely paying appropriately for them. At that price, you shouldn't compare it to HDV and AVCHD "toys"

RED's specs rate scarlet's dynamic range to be twice as good as RED ONE (each stop means twice the info from the sensor).

RED ONE's full screen rolling shutter is about 1/80 sec - better than other current CMOS cameras.

But 3/4" as Scarlet can shoot 120 fps with full sensor, the rolling shutter time simply *must* be less than 1/120. That's as good as 35mm film (yes, that's where the term originally comes from).

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 16:21

u guys crack me up....

Actually Halsu....I didn't even notice your link ealier. i thin this thread is moviing so fast that folks might have just missed it.

I know right!, Look, I don't want to do a back and forth with you, Halsu about what the HV20 can do and what it can't. You are just offended that I'm not a Scarlet fanboy. Fine. Go buy one. By the way, there wasn't any pumping in the clips you mentioned...... I had exposure locked in tv mode..... I know the one scene you are talking about, but that wasn't pumping, " although i honestly don't know what happened there. "
But a thinly vailed pointed attack about shooting in full auto just makes you look like a jerk, given that you should be able to determine the difference.
If not an attack than it could have just been ignorance, or the lack of pattern recognition that would lead you to determine that the film was NOT shot manual, and with an adaptor..... :hv20-smilie77:

DaFireMedic

2008 November 17th, 16:22

Problem with compression is that many, like my self, are distracted by the image artifacts themselves, and do not get the experience they could. HV20 (and those after it from Canon) is great, but they do not give great indie filmmakers the possibilities they actually deserve. How much money you have, does not tell how good you are.

Just continue playing around with these HDV- and AVCHD-compressing (or any other timebased compression with low dynamic range) toys. They are okay if you do not aim for something really great in the future.

Many seem to think that RAW footage is uncompressed, but is not. RED claims that it is a "cleaner" compression, and it looks to be so, but it is not uncompressed.

I disagree with telling someone that their camera is a "toy" just because it uses HDV or AVCHD, and that if they keep using it that somehow it means that they are not aiming for something great. Such "toys" were not available just a few years ago, and have enabled plain folk such as I to obtain a video quality that was simply not available to the consumer or prosumer just a few years ago. But the bottom line is that its the person behind the camcorder, not the camcorder itself that makes the project great or not. There are people on this forum that could make a far better video with the HV30 than I could with the top of the line RED product. I know teenagers that certainly aspire to make something great, and all they have is a consumer HDV camcorder. And I have no doubt that they'll probably achieve it if they concentrate on the creative qualities and don't get sidetracked by the notion that they must have the latest and greatest equipment.

The HV20 is a fantastic camera for the low budget indie filmmaker. No, it doesn't give them every possibility, but at this price range Canon gave us more than any other company did.

That being said, I have already set aside money for Scarlet, if it turns out as claimed.

Sem Skywalker

2008 November 17th, 16:24

Red is FAR above the others anyways. Only film is better, and will always be the best, though too expensive for real people these times.... Super-clean digital images have no soul in themselves, film has.

booggerg

2008 November 17th, 16:27

Original image resolution IS related to image quality, in more ways than just image sharpness.

Depends on the final output format. If all I want is to show the final video on 720P or 1080P displays, I don't need the 3K resolution from the scarlet. I would care more about the latitude, low noise that I get from a lower resolution FF sensor.

booggerg

2008 November 17th, 16:32

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 16:41

You are just offended that I'm not a Scarlet fanboy. Fine. Go buy one.

I'm not offended at all. Seriously. I'm just trying to tell how things are.

ut a thinly vailed pointed attack about shooting in full auto just makes you look like a jerk, given that you should be able to determine the difference.

I didn't mean to offend, by "auto" i just meant "not locking the exposure" - that's what it looked like.

Believe or not, i'm trying to help you.

If not an attack than it could have just been ignorance, or the lack of pattern recognition that would lead you to determine that the film was NOT shot manual, and with an adaptor..... :hv20-smilie77:

Some like that bright look. I wanted to know how you shot, and if it was deliberate or not - if it was not deliberate, there's some tips for shooting high contrast scenes i've learned while testing the camera. I know for a fact that HV20 can perform better, if it's set up properly:

First of all, the amount entering the camera can be controlled with ND filters - look for my signature for a link to thread about using two polarizing filters to make a variable ND filter. It will allow you to use any shutter / f-stop combination you want, even in direct sunlight.

In bright daylight, shoot in cine mode, possibly lower the custom contrast setting, exposing the scene so that the highlights do not overexpose (use 100% zebra for that).

If your shadows are still too dark, let them be underexposed and brighten the midtones in post.

Following the above simple steps will give you much, much better results.

PS. I recognized the adapter shots ;-)

fishops

2008 November 17th, 16:51

Quality is important. Thats why I don't want the Scarlet at 3000 dollars.
The basic Scarlet is a let-down without a 35mm sensor, interchangeable lenses, and a "complete" camera. It's a no brainer, err.... wait it's an only the brainer, lol. Just give me a whole camera... THEY are the ones that led people to believe that was in the works for under 3500 dollars.

Did you miss the fixed-lens version in the announcement? They haven't priced it, but the original fixed lens, complete camera Scarlet is right there in the announcement next to the 2/3" brain. I think it's a little odd they haven't put a price tag on it yet, but considering how long they've been harping on the "3K for under 3K" thing I would expect it to be... under 3K. I'll certainly be irked if it ends up more expensive than that, but let's not start claiming RED is going back on their promises. They haven't.

Ian-T

2008 November 17th, 16:53

Depends on the final output format. If all I want is to show the final video on 720P or 1080P displays, I don't need the 3K resolution from the scarlet. I would care more about the latitude, low noise that I get from a lower resolution FF sensor.I don't think that is what's being suggested. I think the idea of supersampling is what he was eluding to. I don't need to render anything beyong 1920x1080...but to manipulate a bigger image to begin with and downsampling to that size is what I want. No different from downsizing the HV20's 1440x1080 image to 720x480p and getting a much better image than the best Standard Definition cam out there. The image comes out more detailed this way. That's the kind of way I would use a Scarlet. You can't do that with any of these DSLRs...which is why I said they have limited potential...vs a Red.

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 16:57

Depends on the final output format. If all I want is to show the final video on 720P or 1080P displays, I don't need the 3K resolution from the scarlet. I would care more about the latitude, low noise that I get from a lower resolution FF sensor.

Yes you do - because of the oversampling advantages i mentioned. No camera produces perfect results at the sensor's nominal resolution.

Edit: Ian said it better ;-)

Ian-T

2008 November 17th, 17:01

Halsu....those images look great. I had to look twice cause I couldn't believe it was an HV20. I like the frist commercial and the War piece best. I definitley want one those chairs...

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 17:07

I'm not offended at all. Seriously. I'm just trying to tell how things are.

I didn't mean to offend, by "auto" i just meant "not locking the exposure" - that's what it looked like.

Believe or not, i'm trying to help you.

Some like that bright look. I wanted to know how you shot, and if it was deliberate or not - if it was not deliberate, there's some tips for shooting high contrast scenes i've learned while testing the camera. I know for a fact that HV20 can perform better, if it's set up properly:

First of all, the amount entering the camera can be controlled with ND filters - look for my signature for a link to thread about using two polarizing filters to make a variable ND filter. It will allow you to use any shutter / f-stop combination you want, even in direct sunlight.

In bright daylight, shoot in cine mode, possibly lower the custom contrast setting, exposing the scene so that the highlights do not overexpose (use 100% zebra for that).

If your shadows are still too dark, let them be underexposed and brighten the midtones in post.

Following the above simple steps will give you much, much better results.

PS. I recognized the adapter shots ;-)

ND filters don't change the ratio of light behind the subject, to , the subject.
They only change the " amount of light entering the camera " ND's are good for if you need to control dof, but in my case that wasn't a problem.
With more dough I could have done it a whole lot better. NDs wouldn't solve a thing in my situation. Other options, mainly time, or diffusion netting, could have helped. NDs don't control what is in front of them, only what is between it and the camera. Putting sunglasses on the camera darkens the image. Its a pretty amazingly simple concept.
In order to light for the characters, I had to blow the highlights all to hell in the back-ground. I actually did use NDs and Polarizers but not for trying to control the ration of light between 2 sources,( which NDs don't do ).
I made a budgetory decision when I wrote the movie. I knew I would be blowing highlights in a lot of those situations. It wasn't practical time wise to go tremendously through agonizing and tedious routs due how much money I had to shoot with. I decided that although I wouldn't get near perfection, that I could make a pretty damn good little movie. Time, and money was the biggest wall, but I knew it would be, and made the decision that it wouldn't lose enough quality to prevent me from giving it a go.
Obviously if you really do know about small crews, and low budgets, then you would see how well I pulled it off for how complex it was.
I think I made the right decision to go ahead and shoot it. It gave me practical experience and I like the results. Actually, like I've said before, I still haven't seen anything as complex as what I did with a short, taking that much organization, prep, and that big of a cast, on this forum yet , that many locations, (with an HV20). If there is, I'd be honored to know. Also for under 2000 dollars.

lordtangent

2008 November 17th, 17:07

Depends on the final output format. If all I want is to show the final video on 720P or 1080P displays, I don't need the 3K resolution from the scarlet. I would care more about the latitude, low noise that I get from a lower resolution FF sensor.

If you want the true MTF of "2k" from a one chip camera you need to over-sample with a "3k" sensor. 1080p is very close to 2k, so the same could be said for 1080p.

And as Halsu mentioned, by adveraging pixels you gain improved dynamic range as well. There is no reason to pass up on pixels if they are part of the deal. (Within reason, of course)

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 17:17

All of this is greek to me. I just want a nice camera that takes 35mm lenses, and has a great PQ. I'll leave the rest up to y'all to debate. I know though, what the Scarlet doesn't give for the price. What it does give, I don't really care....

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 17:23

Hmmm. The footage is " alright ". The adaptor stuff indeed had a weird bokeh that I didn't find pleasing.

It's basically the same as Twoneil adapter, with Canon EE-S matte glass. Not perfect, but works in some situations.

The other stuff was good, but I'd recommend making the war movie a lot brighter. It's too dark to see any detail.

It's supposed to be dawn on that scene, so it's darkish deliberately - the color correction was matched (roughly) to what they did in the actual film. It shouldn't be too dark to see though - it might be that the mpeg isn't playing with correct levels. This is quite common, i recall i.e. widows media player defaults to it (it expands studio RGB levels, clipping whites and crushing blacks).

Did it look darker than this??

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/Brotell_01.jpg

I'm definitely more interested in a 35 mm. sensor.
Thanks for showing your work. "not bad"

You're desire for shallow DOF is pretty well known by now ;-)

Fixed lens 2/3" Scarlet will have about two f-stops shallower DOF than HV20 has zoomed in. AFAIK this means there's "four times more blur". One can use faster lenses in the interchangeable lens Scarlet, so shooting with i.e. a fast f1.4 lens means there will be "eight times more blur".

This gives about the same DOF results as shooting with S35mm with f4 (which is what photographers generally aim for).

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 17:25

Hey, if its supposed to be dawn, then sorry about that. I should have figured that I would need the context before running my mouth.... Nice.

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 17:28

ND filters don't change the ratio of light behind the subject, to , the subject.
They only change the " amount of light entering the camera "

That's what i implied, when said you can use it to set HV20 to any f-stop / shutter speed combo you wish.

Did you read the rest of my post? The techniques i mentioned should really help with high contrast scenes.

Braceface

2008 November 17th, 17:34

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 17:37

Halsu....those images look great. I had to look twice cause I couldn't believe it was an HV20. I like the frist commercial and the War piece best. I definitley want one those chairs...

Thanks ;-)

You can buy the chairs from here, but they're not exactly cheap:
http://www.designeeroaarnio.com/epages/GPL.sf/en_GB/?ViewObjectID=44268

...i'd rather buy a Scarlet AND MKII with that kind of money ;-)

Halsu

2008 November 17th, 17:49

I'll definitely do some tests and try it out. Hopefully it works for me like it does for you.
I'm not a good color grader at all. Every time I add or subtract anything I have to be subtle or the image looks wrong to me, but then, I haven't tried your approach, yet.

Depending on your editing software, what you should look for is "gamma" setting. It leaves whites and blacks as they were and corrects the midtones. It's much better way to control image brightnes than adjusting "brightness" (as silly as it sounds).

When you're familiar with it, try "curves" adjustments - they basically do the same thing, but allow more control (but are also more difficult to adjust).

Duke

2008 November 17th, 18:25

Did you miss the fixed-lens version in the announcement? They haven't priced it, but the original fixed lens, complete camera Scarlet is right there in the announcement next to the 2/3" brain. I think it's a little odd they haven't put a price tag on it yet, but considering how long they've been harping on the "3K for under 3K" thing I would expect it to be... under 3K. I'll certainly be irked if it ends up more expensive than that, but let's not start claiming RED is going back on their promises. They haven't.

Jim has posted saying it's between $3k and $4k, so $3,500 is going to be close.

lordtangent

2008 November 17th, 19:00

Between $3k and $4k is still an excellent price as far as I'm concerned, especially if they can get it out around when they are claiming.

booggerg

2008 November 17th, 19:12

Between $3k and $4k is still an excellent price as far as I'm concerned, especially if they can get it out around when they are claiming.

Does it come with he side grip? top handle? flip out LCD?

lordtangent

2008 November 17th, 19:27

If it is a functional kit for something around $3k - $4k then I would be happy.

Though, I'm really tempted to go bigger and get the s35 version, just for the Canon mount (I have a lot of Canon lenses.)

It's all speculation until it ships though.

Ian-T

2008 November 17th, 19:29

I think I would be satisfied with the fixed lens version of this cam. Especially if it behaves in the way Halsu is suggesting. It seems like it would be better than most anything out there. Of course the removable lens system would be good but that's a serious investment to follow through with. I'm still waiting on the specs...but as long as it's "mostly" the same cam he announced months back...then I will be satisfied.

booggerg

2008 November 17th, 19:30

If it is a functional kit for something around $3k - $4k then I would be happy.

It's all speculation until it ships though.

Ok.. My HV30+Letus Mini was "functional" but it was hardly ideal without a top handle and any other good methods of handholding it.

The scarlet brain looks like a box with a lens attache to it. Will it get better ergonomically with rods and hand grips? Doubt it.. They need to produce some molded attachments to make it handhold usable.

fishops

2008 November 17th, 21:56

Ok.. My HV30+Letus Mini was "functional" but it was hardly ideal without a top handle and any other good methods of handholding it.

We'll see how the fixed lens version looks when it comes out. From the picture, the ergonomics certainly look pretty scary. Then again if it comes in around $3500 with a quality lens, viewfinder and decent I/O it'll be such a crazy bargain I won't mind dropping another $600 on rails, shoulder mount, mattebox and follow focus. I'd probably end up doing that with whatever camera I end up with eventually, and I'd still end up spending over 2 grand less than the price of an EX1 alone.

Will it get better ergonomically with rods and hand grips? Doubt it..

This doesn't make sense to me. How would it perform any better/worse on rails than any other camera?

booggerg

2008 November 17th, 22:10

We'll see how the fixed lens version looks when it comes out. From the picture, the ergonomics certainly look pretty scary. Then again if it comes in around $3500 with a quality lens, viewfinder and decent I/O it'll be such a crazy bargain I won't mind dropping another $600 on rails, shoulder mount, mattebox and follow focus. I'd probably end up doing that with whatever camera I end up with eventually, and I'd still end up spending over 2 grand less than the price of an EX1 alone.

This doesn't make sense to me. How would it perform any better/worse on rails than any other camera?

I mean to say that I hate rails. This Red design has rails at the top and bottom! I would love for the Scarlet 2/3 sensor to be installed into a DVX100 type body - the king of ergonomics.

Halsu

2008 November 18th, 03:29

Guess what i just noticed?

Looking at the renders of Scarlet and Epic "brains", it seems that the unit includes the "redmote" controller. At least every render of the "bare brains" seem to have it attached, includin the ones with pricing info.

See i.e. this:
http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/

So, my assumption is that it's included in the base price.

I also find the notion that the infrastructure permits "image storage to internal memory" quite interesting - maybe the brains come with some built in storage?

That would be übercool.

Halsu

2008 November 18th, 04:16

...of course, the above is just my speculation. And now for something completely different:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/thecuriouscaseofbenjaminbutton/

A pretty nice example of modern deep DOF cinematography.

lordtangent

2008 November 18th, 22:22

Shot on a Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera, BTW, which is a 3 chip 2/3" sensor camera.

I was doing some reading today and it turns out that a 2/3" cameras have only a 2 1/5 stop difference in DOF from 35mm. That means that if you got one of the super high speed (f1.0 or f1.4) lenses available for the C-mount version you could get DOF very comparable to 35mm. Not to mention crazy fast speed for shooting with less light!

Halsu

2008 November 19th, 02:02

I was doing some reading today and it turns out that a 2/3" cameras have only a 2 1/5 stop difference in DOF from 35mm. That means that if you got one of the super high speed (f1.0 or f1.4) lenses available for the C-mount version you could get DOF very comparable to 35mm. Not to mention crazy fast speed for shooting with less light!

That's what i've been trying to say ;-)

Even fixed lens Scarlet's T2.4 lens (when full open) should give DOF that's the same as 35mm between T5.6 and T8, which is very common range to work at.

Ian-T

2008 November 19th, 06:27

...oh really??

Halsu

2008 November 19th, 07:29

...oh really??

Yes, really.

Braceface

2008 November 19th, 07:55

Halsu

2008 November 19th, 09:24

I'm NOT selling the Letus at this point though. I have too many lenses for it! I'm going to also buy the Mark II, and keep the HV20.

Not a bad choice. Even if you find that MKII is not the video tool you wished it was, it's still one of the best digital still cameras out there - and you can use it in extreme low light situations, and use HV20 for the rest of the shots.

Jury is still out on MKII rolling shutter though.
http://vimeo.com/1815853?pg=embed&sec=1815853

booggerg

2008 November 19th, 09:36

Or you could shoot 35 mm.
BUT, of course, I'm not as concerned with 3 or 4k as I am 35mm. They have pros-and cons. 35 mm. without an adaptor, ( straight on the camera ), with no more skew or rolling shutter than the HV20, and 1080 30p is right up my alley. Goodbye to all of my current hassles that the Letus ( god love it though ) has. I'm NOT selling the Letus at this point though. I have too many lenses for it! I'm going to also buy the Mark II, and keep the HV20.

You sure? For the price that you can still hopefully get for it, you can pick up a nice EF prime... but you might already have your collection of lenses...

I sold my Letus the week D90 came out. No way was I gonna hang on to a $1K lens adapter when the D90 kit was only $1200

Ian-T

2008 November 19th, 09:37

@Halsu.
I don’t know…I still consider a “wobble” and a “Skew” to be two different things. The skew I see in all CMOS cameras…but that wobble..is sort of like the ripples you see in a pond when you throw a pebble in it. The only cam I’ve seen do that is the HV20…especially in driving footage or that dreaded helicopter footage. I think that’s a defect. Other CMOS cams like the HC3 don’t seem to have that wobble effect. I still refer back to Lucasberg’s dune buggy video from last year when he used both cams. Where the HV20 had a hard time…the HC3 did not.

Halsu

2008 November 19th, 10:05

Other CMOS cams like the HC3 don’t seem to have that wobble effect. I still refer back to Lucasberg’s dune buggy video from last year when he used both cams. Where the HV20 had a hard time…the HC3 did not.

I guess i'm a bit too technical as usual - HV20 wobble problems compared to other cameras are not caused by rolling shutter. Kind of.

HV20's problem is mechanical - either the image stabilizer reacts badly to fast vibrating motion, the body is so unrigid that the whole camera starts to vibrate, the tripod screw hole is loose or something similar. Maybe all of those...

My guess is that even if the sensor was a CCD without rolling shutter, the footage captured in that kind of situations would still be more or less unusable because of the shakiness. The CMOS's rolling shutter (which is in it self pretty similar to other CMOS cams) just makes those mechanical problems look wobbly instead of just shaky.

Ian-T

2008 November 19th, 10:14

That makes sense. I've seen someone else make that same claim about the tripod screw. I agree that it's mechanical. It has to be all of those issues that cause the weird wooble. As much as I like my HV20 I think it maybe gave CMOS a bad name (more than it deserves). Now folks are more critical of issues that were always there to begin with. Regardless....it's good to know what you cams limitations are....so you can plan to work around them.

IndyFX

2008 November 19th, 12:06

Not a bad choice. Even if you find that MKII is not the video tool you wished it was, it's still one of the best digital still cameras out there - and you can use it in extreme low light situations, and use HV20 for the rest of the shots.

Jury is still out on MKII rolling shutter though.
http://vimeo.com/1815853?pg=embed&sec=1815853

Mmmm... still out???
I think the jury would have to be blind not to see that!

Assuming that clip is not misrepresented (which I don't think it is), I think it shows that you will have to be careful (just like you do with the HV) not to get noticeable skew in your whip pans or HS dolly tracking shots.

However... (to inject a dose of reality) you can get that (rolling shutter effect) in 35mm film cameras as well (DP's are always mindful of verticals in the background when the camera FOV is rapidly moving horizontally) It is just one of those things you need to watch (same as a fast pan, people complain of the HV strobing fast pans (@24p) but a film camera will do the same thing)

Halsu

2008 November 19th, 14:01

However... (to inject a dose of reality) you can get that (rolling shutter effect) in 35mm film cameras as well

Yep.

I actually did some skew testing earlier, based on the footage that's available on the web. I posted the stuff in Finnish video forum, so linking isn't of much use... writing it up again in english would be way too much wok. Bleh.

Here's a quick roundup:

The testing method was to take two adjacent frames from a fast whip pan, crossfade them, and locate the same vertical feature from both frames. Skew amount can be calculated from the amount of skew (difference between top and bottom of the image in pixels) and position difference between frames (in pixels), as long as frame rate is known.

Here's some images, and my results. They're not accurate due to highly unscientific method i used, but they should give the ballpark.

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/RED/Red_vs_HV20_Skew.jpg

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/RED/Filmskew_crop.jpg

http://eki.pp.fi/digivideo/RED/HV20Skew_NEW.jpg

RED ONE:
33/108 = 0,305
0,04*0,305 = 0,0122
1/0,0122 = 81,9
Rolling shutter = 1/80 sec

HV20 25p:
33 / 78 = 0,432
0,04*0,423 = 0,0169
1/0,0169 = 58,8
Rolling shutter = 1/60 sec

HV20 50i (de-interpolated, single field):
127/434 = 0,2926
0,04*0,2926 = 0,011
1/0,011 = 90,9
Rolling shutter = 1/90 sec

35mm FILM
36/249 = 0,1446
0,04*0,1446 = 0,0058
1/0,0058 = 172,4
Rolling shutter = 1/170 sec

D90
62/81 = 0,7654
0,04*0,7654 = 0,0306
1/0,0306 = 32,7
Rolling shutter = 1/30 sec

These were calculated based on 25 fps, as that's what we use for TV in Finland - the difference to 24 fps is definitely smaller than margin of error... I'll explain the math if someone really wants to know (which i doubt ;-)

I haven't yet found good enough test material from MKII, but my educated guess is it's between HV20 and D90. 3/4" Scarlet can shoot 120 fps, in order to do that the rolling shutter must be fery fast, similar to film.

PS. I don't find rolling shutter *that* big a problem, and i've shot most of my stuff with CMOS cameras lately - my shooting style is so laid back that it's very, very rare to get rolling shutter artifacts anyway ;-)

Braceface

2008 November 19th, 14:05

doesn't it also depend on the speed that the camera is moving?

Halsu

2008 November 19th, 14:18

doesn't it also depend on the speed that the camera is moving?

Exactly, just like i said - i used amount of skew in relation to inter frame motion (= camera move speed) to arrive at my rolling shutter results.

lordtangent

2008 November 19th, 21:12

...oh really??

Yeah. You usually don't want to light for shooting "wide open" unless you are very confident you wont need more stops to get an exposure or you have no other choice. (You can of course always throw ND on if you want to open up more.) Plus, the DOF on "super speed" apertures like 1.2 etc. tends to be crazy shallow and hard pull focus on. So yeah, shooting in the f5.6 range is very common.

Braceface

2008 November 19th, 22:49

Yeah. You usually don't want to light for shooting "wide open" unless you are very confident you wont need more stops to get an exposure or you have no other choice. (You can of course always throw ND on if you want to open up more.) Plus, the DOF on "super speed" apertures like 1.2 etc. tends to be crazy shallow and hard pull focus on. So yeah, shooting in the f5.6 range is very common.

Hey Lord,
Thanks for that explanation. I know that is a popular range to shoot in. Is there any other reason that f5.6 is so popular other than to have lattitude for exposure? I usually here people ask " Are you shooting 5.6 or wide open " and I wonder why those 2 are always the numbers I hear. They seem to be specifically lit for. So what are any other reasons, technically, if there are?

dcloud

2008 November 20th, 06:08

easier to focus, less vignette, edge to edge sharper

Halsu

2008 November 20th, 10:46

So what are any other reasons, technically, if there are?

Lenses tend to be at their sharpest and cleanest at around f5.6.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/f-stops.htm

fantomaz

2008 November 20th, 11:21

as a rule of thumb you can say a lens is sharpest 2-3 full stops slower than wide open...

Braceface

2008 November 20th, 18:59

as a rule of thumb you can say a lens is sharpest 2-3 full stops slower than wide open...

Here is what I know about stops. At wide open I get great DOF, but it's hard to get infinity focus on some lenses. When I close down on the Aperture I get sharper images, but my Letus gives an uglier image....
Can somebody explain the stops from wide to close on a lens and help me understand a little better. I don't even know where 2-3 stops lower is... or what dictates a stop, or defines one, or how many a lens has......
I'm ignorant about it.

Lucasberg

2008 November 21st, 00:31

Fom wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
Modern lenses use a standard f-stop scale, which is an approximately geometric sequence of numbers that corresponds to the sequence of the powers of (1.414): f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32, f/45, f/64, f/90, f/128, etc. The values of the ratios are rounded off to these particular conventional numbers, to make them easy to remember and write down.

Lucasberg

2008 November 21st, 00:33

I know from my lenses that 1.8 to 2.8 is a pretty big difference in light for shutterspeed and DOF.

lordtangent

2008 November 21st, 02:57

Rather than explain to you something that you can find yourself I'm going to give you a pointer to a concept that is more advanced. Something for you to think about once you have grokked f-stops and how they play into exposure, and why smaller f-stops don't lead to a sharper image, even though they lead to deeper focus. I didn't even understand this stuff very well myself until after maybe 15 years as an avid amateur photographer: Diffraction. This website has a great article on it with graphics to help you understand why the effect happens.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

And when you are done with that you can see more about how the effects interacts with sensor photo-site size:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

fantomaz

2008 November 21st, 06:30

Here is what I know about stops. At wide open I get great DOF, but it's hard to get infinity focus on some lenses. When I close down on the Aperture I get sharper images, but my Letus gives an uglier image....
Can somebody explain the stops from wide to close on a lens and help me understand a little better. I don't even know where 2-3 stops lower is... or what dictates a stop, or defines one, or how many a lens has......
I'm ignorant about it.

yeah right wide open means shallow dof which gets bigger the more you stop down ya lens. however if you look only for sharpness every lens has its sharpest f-stop which is as a rule of thumb 2-3 f-stops smaller (the f-number gets bigger though) than wide open. so if you have f2.8 lens sweetspot should be between f5.6 or f8. thats a rule of thumb and of course it doesn't fit for all lenses but for many. btw its one of the first things a professional photographer is checking out (if he doesnt already know) with his new lens.... 'at which f-stop the lens is sharpest'. allthough there are many situations where you cant use that sharpest aperture (need more dof, bad light and moving objects,....) its very important to know because as soon as its possible they use the 'best' fstop of their lens.
sharpness is 'everything' in photography and they use tripod, remote-control, mirror lock up and try to use sharpest fstop of their lens..... btw than they call their photo TACK SHARP
regards

Braceface

2008 November 21st, 06:49

Wow, thanks fantomaz.

zephyrnoid

2008 December 7th, 22:16

Yes. Diffraction. Stupid physics conspiring to ruin our day. eventually, diffraction will be defeated as it's almost certainly the result of the aperture blade edges. I dream of an Liquid crystal variable aperture or something like that essentially and edge with no meaningful depth a nanodiaphragm if you will.

Two stops down- max ;)

Ian-T

2008 December 7th, 22:51

Um...I understand that it's probably been said before...but exactly where is the HV20's "sweet" spot for sharpness? I know f 1.8 is open wide...but has anyone tested where the sharpest f stop is for the HV20?

zephyrnoid

2008 December 8th, 23:36

The 'sweet spot' (optimal resolution at center of field) for any lens incorporating a VARIABLE iris is ALWAYS 2 stops down from full aperture. Theoretically, that would be 2.8 or thereabouts for the HV20's prime optic. The rule is true even of apochromatic lenses though these lenses are super corrected for chromatic aberrations throughout the aperture range, particularly at full aperture, where chromatic aberrations are most conspicuous in lenses.
What's interesting is that in some of the consumer cameras , their designers often use neutral density filters to 'fake' smaller apertures, this is double edged in that it allows for exposure reduction without the use of small ( high diffraction causing apertures) but the glass of the filter itself, may reduce resolution.
Repeat this mantra : TWO STOPS DOWN !
Now, resolution isn't everything- mood is more and full aperture is bound to deliver the shallowest DOF- a far more valuable feature in narrative film than absolute resolution. :hv20-smilie77:

Um...I understand that it's probably been said before...but exactly where is the HV20's "sweet" spot for sharpness? I know f 1.8 is open wide...but has anyone tested where the sharpest f stop is for the HV20?

lordtangent

2008 December 10th, 22:00

zephyrnoid,

Yes, that is a very good rule of thumb. But there one exception with digital cameras... that is the size of the photo sites vs. the size of the Airy Disk (the "blur radius" created by diffraction). On many digital cameras, it's the size of the photo sites, NOT the aperture that limits sharpness. The links I posed above explain it much better than I ever could.

Christo Aaron

2009 January 8th, 09:35

lordtangent, Erik, texasmfp, well said! Even if the Scarlet is not out yet, and it won't be for a while, the point is, the rest of the camera companies are just in the middle ages. The indie filmmaker community are longing for such a product for years now, and now it's here.

RED has delivered the Red One, and it will deliver the Scarlet. Even if it might be late, the others would still be playing catch up, so it's obvious that Red has the advantage here. The point is, not their 3k or their 5k of resolution, but the changes these cameras will bring to the industry. That's the big deal.

Hello Forum,
I'm not finding much chatter on any forums yet about the Stereoscopic line of Scarlet 3D cams projected to be released this year? I'm shooting 3D demos using twin HV-30 cams, and would really appreciate the following progressive improvements in workflow.
#1 LANC support for zoom
#2 LANC support for start/stop
#3 Cineform or Red equivalent native to Stream/Upload off Cam Unit
#4 MacBook Pro Quad Duo, to record simultanious 1080P Stereo Streams
#5 Remote wireless streaming storage online
#6 Stereo monitor on the fly to correct disparity and dramatic action.
I can't be the only Stereographer here? Who else is doing this? What are your workflow upgrade desires? Are you posting your demos?:hv20-smilie72:
Cheers,
Christo

tkmslee

2009 January 8th, 10:31

I think it's more about taking something out of your pocket, from their perspective.

Judging from that picture, that thing looks heavy. And thus very expensive. $3000 might buy the chassis, but I bet the lens hood will cost $300, the LCD about $500, etc. And plus you'll need a helluva computer to edit with. I bet when it's all said and done it'll be closer $10000 out of your pocket.

Yes remember the line in Jurassic Park (stupid movie) "Are those heavy?...then they're expensive!"

tkmslee

2009 January 8th, 10:40

Totally agree Mark; that's the way I see it also.

There's plenty affordable and good 'tools' out there now to make great movies.

My guess is 80% of what has been shot on RED ONE so far is shown on YouTube or SD broadcast; the next 15% maybe 720p or 1080p.
There's a couple of excellent film transfers.....oh but wait; there's plenty of film transfers that originated from SD cams also, and not many walked out of the cinema saying they didn't approve of the low pixel-count.
This notion that we "need" 3k, 4k or even 5k is ludicrous.

To me this is like buying a 50lbs turkey for Thanksgiving to feed a small family. Sure the thing looks impressive in the store; but once you bring it home, you soon realize you need a bigger oven (=computer); and it takes MUCH longer to cook (=long render times); and most of it gets thrown away anyway, as it was simply too big (=downconverted for final broadcast).

Excess (ek'ses):
Immoderation as a consequence of going beyond sufficient or permitted limits

:hv20-smilie81:

Totally agree Mal. If you know how to use a tool then you make make something great with it.

For example, Gum Spirits Productions. They made a film a while back called Sundowning that was shown at festivals on the big screen. They wont awards and people loved it. It was very film like and even had good shallow depth of field when called for. Ya know what they used? A single GL2. No kidding. No DOF adapter, just a GL2 and a AT shotgun mic. You can see for yourself here:

http://www.gumspirits.com/sundowningtrailer.html

Here is the thread where Jim Cole talks about the technical parts of it:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-gl2-gl1-son-watchdog/40437-wow-awsome-gl-2-trailer.html

jabloomf1230

2009 January 8th, 22:01

By the time the Scarlet ships, Red will have finally released a VFW Redcode codec and/or the Redcode SDK, so native support in Vegas might be less of a pipedream than it seems like today.

Does VFW have technical limitations that would make it impractical to produce a VFW Redcode codec? When I say "impractical", I mean that by the time that the VFW decoder has decoded the original video file in Vegas or VirtualDub (two VFW dinosaurs), some of the features of Redcode might be lost.

The rumor going around was that the Vegas 9 SDK would allow 3rd party developers to bypass the VFW interface, but who knows?

jabloomf1230

2009 January 12th, 14:36

@lordtangent,

Have you seen this RedCode Raw decoder plug-in for VirtualDub (http://arenafilm.hu/alsog/vdr3d/)?

Erik Bien

2009 January 12th, 15:00

Have you seen this RedCode Raw decoder plug-in for VirtualDub (http://arenafilm.hu/alsog/vdr3d/)?

It might be some use for making quick proxy files, but vDub isn't really a high quality solution (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=357675#post357675) for .R3Ds.

kaidomac

2009 January 12th, 16:45

booggerg

2009 January 12th, 17:29

This thread and others remind me of when the iPhone first came out. It was so far ahead of other phones in terms of battery life, usability, features, etc., and so close to "perfect" that people started complaining incessantly about what it didn't have, like MMS & copy-paste. Point being, the RED is so far ahead of any other digital camcorders and is so close to "perfect" that we're all nitpicking the details. Like texasmfp said, I don't see any other cameras with the ability to do 1-120 variable FPS, or shoot in 3K+, or X, Y, or Z. We're never going to get everything we want, but personally I think that RED stuff is awesome and would love to get my mitts on a Scarlet. But I'll settle for a Canon HF-S100. If my wife lets me ;)

LOL them fanboi words for ya..

usability? copy&paste is essential for a smart phone touted as something to handle your e-mail, presentation etc on.

It also requires interfacing with data to make it useful. But by putting the original phone on an "outdated" (yep I said outdated) 2G network doesn't put the iphone a head of it's time and certainly NOT ahead of its competitors..

nobbystylus

2009 January 12th, 17:43

I went for a RED demo the other day (for a feature i'm working on - as a post guy) and i have to say i was blown away.. it was Rezzed down to 2K for the projector but the beauty of real film lenses was immediately obvious plus the sensor size being that big the DOF control was fantatsic.. the raw image was a tad too clean, but nothing that a tad of grain couldn't sort out, and the low light performance was amazing.. all the stuff i saw was shot in natural light and the detail was astonishing...

also the post production workflow seemed really simple to me (who works in post), with a simple copy of the RAW images, and a quick drop down menu piece of Mac software to convert to an intermediate format (ProRes seemed the best).

Really impressed.

kaidomac

2009 January 12th, 18:15

LOL them fanboi words for ya..

usability? copy&paste is essential for a smart phone touted as something to handle your e-mail, presentation etc on.

It also requires interfacing with data to make it useful. But by putting the original phone on an "outdated" (yep I said outdated) 2G network doesn't put the iphone a head of it's time and certainly NOT ahead of its competitors..

The iPhone wasn't targeted as a smart phone, it was designed first and foremost as a consumer phone. I agree about the EDGE network, at least they've got 3G models now. But it was the first phone I could check my email on easily that had a battery that actually lasted all day. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it advanced the market significantly. This is my comparison to RED - yeah it doesn't have *every* feature we want it to have, but it's so great that, really, it's hard to complain :hv20-smilie84:

kaidomac

2009 January 12th, 18:17

the raw image was a tad too clean, but nothing that a tad of grain couldn't sort out, and the low light performance was amazing.. all the stuff i saw was shot in natural light and the detail was astonishing...

Hah, the future of digital filmmaking - post-production will mostly consist of adding softening and film-grain filters to make it look more like old-school film :hv20-smilie79:

2009 January 12th, 18:30

Duke

2009 January 13th, 07:46

Hah, the future of digital filmmaking - post-production will mostly consist of adding softening and film-grain filters to make it look more like old-school film :hv20-smilie79:

That would argue against needing the higher resolution of a Scarlet. Although a Scarlet doesn't appear to be in anyone's near future.

Do you remember the Red fanboys arguing that in April we were all going to blown away, don't buy anything else because all the other cameras were obsolete, etc?

There's a new post by Jim J:

"RED has decided to skip NAB 2009. We will hold our own RED DAY when we feel we are ready to present the new systems and when they are fully ready to showcase. Date and location will be announced in future.

A minor delay by a major part vendor will not mean much to the delivery schedules but would mean too many non-working prototypes at NAB... which we find unacceptable."

The really funny thing is that now people on Scarletuser are starting to say, buy another camera for now and upgrade later, which is what the reasonable people have been saying all along.

tkmslee

2009 January 13th, 10:46

Indeed, I'm already doing that to all my 5D Mark II footage! :hv20-smilie77:

That's interesting to know because I have been doing the same. I have been trying ways to make the footage look old, grainy, etc just to make it different and more artistic than simple "test footage" all over vimeo.

In fact, I was at a university recently pitching the RNG35 to the film department the instructor kept going on and on about adding film grain to the final product.

kaidomac

2009 January 13th, 11:36

That would argue against needing the higher resolution of a Scarlet. Although a Scarlet doesn't appear to be in anyone's near future.

Do you remember the Red fanboys arguing that in April we were all going to blown away, don't buy anything else because all the other cameras were obsolete, etc?

There's a new post by Jim J:

"RED has decided to skip NAB 2009. We will hold our own RED DAY when we feel we are ready to present the new systems and when they are fully ready to showcase. Date and location will be announced in future.

A minor delay by a major part vendor will not mean much to the delivery schedules but would mean too many non-working prototypes at NAB... which we find unacceptable."

The really funny thing is that now people on Scarletuser are starting to say, buy another camera for now and upgrade later, which is what the reasonable people have been saying all along.

Progress is a 2-edged sword. One one hand, I love what RED is doing - modular cameras, digital technology, etc. etc. Constant progress and updates, tweaking, and refinement. On the other hand, that is a terrible way for your average joe shooting video to deal with his or her equipment. It's fine if you want to keep running service packs, but it's difficult if you have work to do.

And what you said is basically what it boils down to - if you need a camera now, buy what's currently available. All of these RED products are first-gen stuff, so you're just going to have to deal with the bugs that come along with it if you buy it now. imo the best method would be to wait a few years until things have settled down - bugs have been worked out, a product line with lenses and other accessories has been estabilish, the supply meets the demand, etc.

Of course, all that doesn't make me want a Scarlet any less :hv20-smilie29:

jabloomf1230

2009 January 15th, 15:31

It might be some use for making quick proxy files, but vDub isn't really a high quality solution (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=357675#post357675) for .R3Ds.

Any NLE that uses VFW isn't a "high quality solution" for anything. That was the point of my first post to LT.

2009 January 15th, 15:45

RED has decided to skip NAB 2009.

Okay, now I am starting to feel sorry for these guys though... :hv20-smilie119:

As realistic as I am, and predicted all that, and such - I too was looking forward to this cam.

Just a shame that they're so....I don't know....unpredictable, and child-like when it comes to forming clear, distinctive plans with a few simple products and sticking to them. This whole roller coaster business with all these different cams, and whatnot, is cool to fill a forum full of fan posts, but does little to form and keep a solid customer base who have confidence in your company or product. :hv20-smilie64:

Halsu

2009 January 15th, 18:29

This whole roller coaster business with all these different cams, and whatnot, is cool to fill a forum full of fan posts, but does little to form and keep a solid customer base who have confidence in your company or product. :hv20-smilie64:

Luckily they also make damn fine cameras, ready for purchase today ;)

booggerg

2009 January 15th, 18:49

I agree about the EDGE network, at least they've got 3G models now. But it was the first phone I could check my email on easily that had a battery that actually lasted all day.

For you yes, but it doesn't mean it's the same case for everyone else.

booggerg

2009 January 15th, 18:51

Okay, now I am starting to feel sorry for these guys though... :hv20-smilie119:

As realistic as I am, and predicted all that, and such - I too was looking forward to this cam.

Just a shame that they're so....I don't know....unpredictable, and child-like when it comes to forming clear, distinctive plans with a few simple products and sticking to them. This whole roller coaster business with all these different cams, and whatnot, is cool to fill a forum full of fan posts, but does little to form and keep a solid customer base who have confidence in your company or product. :hv20-smilie64:

What a laugh.. You'd think with their huge unveiling of Scarlet and Scarlet 2.0, the momentum would be on their side. Nah.. I think they just spent to much time blastering Canon 5D2 and Nikon D90...

2009 January 15th, 19:20

Luckily they also make damn fine cameras, ready for purchase today ;)

Yeah, sort of.
My number two reason why I didn't buy the RED ONE #960 was because I didn't trust the cam nor the company.

-Rogue5-

2009 January 15th, 20:34

Yeah, sort of.
My number two reason why I didn't buy the RED ONE #960 was because I didn't trust the cam nor the company.

Really? If anything I think RED has been nothing but accommodating... They seem to bend over backwards to please their customers -- the trade up program is just one example of that, but they also allowed early adopters to send in cameras for major changes along the way... plus the firmware updates that add functionality for free... I mean, no other manufacturer does that.

I guess that wouldn't have been known at the time... Hindsight - 20/20 - yadda yadda.

-Rogue5-

2009 January 15th, 20:59

They seem to bend over backwards to please their customers.

Never said they didn't; and that is a GREAT part of the company for sure. :hv20-smilie77:

The fact is though, for me they had to bend over just a few too many times, and I would of preferred a more "stable" product that didn't necessitate any bending over in the first place.

-Rogue5-

2009 January 15th, 21:10

The fact is though, for me they had to bend over just a few too many times, and I would of preferred a more "stable" product that didn't necessitate any bending over in the first place.

True. I guess coming from a DOF adapter, I don't mind. Plus what you get for the price (both image quality-wise and technologically) is substantial enough for me to overlook the growing pains. Additionally the camera was completely functional at each iteration, so you could have a bought it and never sent it in and it still would have been amazing. I mean, it's the idea of upgrades being free that would allow me to (easily) forgive having to send it in.

-Rogue5-

Erik Bien

2009 January 15th, 21:13

Hmm, in my limited experience the RED One has been extremely trust-worthy, and the cam's current firmware includes not only features which weren't promised when they began taking reservations, but even a few which had previously been declared 'impossible' by the development team ... I know several RED owners at this point, none professing to regret their purchase decision, and those who have had problems all have high praise for the swiftness and tenacity of RED's customer support.

As fate would have it, I'm probably going to appear in (the curse of being the lone theatre major in a clique of film geeks: being the 'designated actor') a 72-hour 4K Challenge (http://www.4kchallenge.com/) film shot on RED: we get the particulars tomorrow morning, the finished films must be uploaded by Monday, and entries will be screened Monday night at the Downtown Independent (http://www.downtownindependent.com/) theatre in LA. Expect the usual shameless "Audience Choice" vote-grubbing post here once our entry goes on-line: might want to avoid the rush and get the Vuze client (http://www.vuze.com/app) installed now ... :hv20-smilie03:

I'm really not too surprised the various RED cameras have all suffered from "deadline creep": IMHO that's kind of to be expected when you let the engineers make scheduling estimates — they frequently fail to anticipate supply-chain problems, parts that arrive sub-spec from the approved prototypes, etc. But I can tell you from first hand experience, they make a hard-working, reliable production camera. With a bit of luck come Monday I hope to be posting a link to back up that assertion ... :hv20-smilie31:

2009 January 15th, 22:06

With a bit of luck come Monday...

Break a leg!

But I bet the cam will crap itself on shoot two of the day, and the project will be a dud!
(of course I don't really think that, but I was trying to act all in-character-like! :hv20-smilie81:)

Halsu

2009 January 16th, 00:51

Yeah, sort of.
My number two reason why I didn't buy the RED ONE #960 was because I didn't trust the cam nor the company.

You not trusting them doesn't automatically mean their product is bad, does it?

;-)

Red one is totally production worthy, as reliable as any other camera. They keep updating it, NOT because it's broken, but rather because they can still make improvements to it.

Their philosophy simply is totally different from all other manufacturers. They don't cripple their products, or stop developing their cameras after release like others.

If Canon was red, HV20 would have released as it was, but after that it's firmware would have been updated for free multiple times (based largely on user feedback), now offering full manual control over gain, exposure, shutter, gamma, noise reduction etc. Oh, and they'd offer a free replacement for a better quality audio board. And you'd get full refund for the money spent on HV20 if you upgrade to XH-A1 - or if you wish, you could send your HV20 in for a sensor replacement for $200 when Canon comes up with a better one.

I *like* that kind of bending over ;-)

2009 January 16th, 02:08

They keep updating it, NOT because it's broken, but rather because they can still make improvements to it.

Sure, yeah, ahu, aye, yep, right, nudge-nudge-wink-wink :hv20-smilie84:

kaidomac

2009 January 16th, 18:58

I wonder if the Scarlet will be on-par with the current HD dSLRs, or if they'll be more like the current crop of video cameras, if that makes sense. The D90 & Canon 5D MKII's videos are uber clear and sharp, with *fantastic* low-light performance - I'm hoping the Scarlet will offer us that, plus the film elements of smooth operation and no extra-blobby pans :D

2009 January 16th, 19:01

The Scarlet will be what we all want: a 'cinematic' video cam with 24p, with high fps if needed, and full manual control on a rather large sensor, with awesome file format.

About one year away, I guess.

2009 January 16th, 20:04

....the camera was completely functional at each iteration, so you could have a bought it and never sent it in....

Your information on this subject is different than mine. :hv20-smilie24:

Rumpelgeist

2009 January 16th, 20:36

"RED has decided to skip NAB 2009. We will hold our own RED DAY when we feel we are ready to present the new systems and when they are fully ready to showcase. Date and location will be announced in future.
May I suggest May 1st?

Duke

2009 January 18th, 22:52

Yeah, sort of.
My number two reason why I didn't buy the RED ONE #960 was because I didn't trust the cam nor the company.

Mal, you had a pre-1000 camera reservation. You should have let us know it was 'available'.

Erik Bien

2009 January 19th, 00:02

While we encountered some problems (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=361199#post361199), and a few were equipment-related, neither of the two REDs on the shoot had a single hiccup.

Maybe I've just been lucky, or perhaps it's because I've only worked with owner-operators who are very familiar with the camera but (touch wood) we haven't lost five minutes on set or a single frame of footage to a camera issue on any of the dozen or so all day and longer R1 shoots I've been on. :hv20-smilie29:

Zacatac

2009 January 19th, 15:33

I was just part of a 3 redone camera shoot for the 4k challenge, working with the red was everything ive heard, amazing to use, amazing quality, filmlike images IF YOU CAN LIGHT IT WELL

stevesherrick posted this from our short
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm179/smsjr/KandaceMakeup.jpg

everyone expects those images out of the camera, but in fact, that shot took about 45minutes to light... (this included a coffee break)

We had 3 amazing DoP's on it, that worked so well together.

through the almost 36 hours we were shooting, we only had one codec error on the camera... the bugs it had back in earlier builds are long gone...

and to the comment of people on scarletuser.com telling people to get another camera first, its been happening since the beginning since we've known its not going to come out till summer/fall

heck just recently alot have just spurted up asking... its not like we've been against it?

-Rogue5-

2009 January 19th, 17:14

I was just part of a 3 redone camera shoot for the 4k challenge, working with the red was everything ive heard, amazing to use, amazing quality, filmlike images IF YOU CAN LIGHT IT WELL.

I think this is going to be what will make or break the Scarlet; lighting... That along with workflow requirements (having to offload CF cards or whatever could prove to be too much for the indiefilm/videography community.) I mean DOFadapters are a prime example -- you essentially need to light the scene as if you were shooting on film because of how much light loss there is in the adapter. It's far less run&gun than people are willing to admit.

CONVERSELY, this is exactly why the 5D Mark II still piques my interest. The low-light quality is phenomenal even with its high-contrast image. Shots at night that are completely natural lighting, look as if they've been lit for film... that's insanity. Just wish it was 24fps and a less compressed codec/container.

So where does that leave Scarlet? My hope is that the 2/3" Mysterium-X with it's 11+ stops of dynamic range (more than RED1) and Redcode 42 (RED1 is 36) is enough to give it much better lowlight performance out of the box.

-Rogue5-

2009 January 19th, 21:06

...the bugs it had back in earlier builds are long gone...

GREAT to hear; and that frame looks AWESOME!! :hv20-smilie77::hv20-smilie77:

fishops

2009 January 19th, 21:32

I think this is going to be what will make or break the Scarlet; lighting... That along with workflow requirements (having to offload CF cards or whatever could prove to be too much for the indiefilm/videography community.) I mean DOFadapters are a prime example -- you essentially need to light the scene as if you were shooting on film because of how much light loss there is in the adapter. It's far less run&gun than people are willing to admit.

All that stuff is part of my workflow already for bigger projects. I just directed a music video shot on an EX3 with a Letus Ultimate and two HVXs for B and C cams. DOF adapters have come a LONG way. The Letus itself only eats about a half stop or so. Working with the Letus is something between video and film. You don't need to throw 2Ks and 4Ks on everything, but you also can't get away with a 650, a 300 and a hair light like you can with straight video. We had a 1K, a 650 and a 300 Arri plus a 4 by kino bank for fill and the DP was still shooting wide open on a 50mm f/1.8 prime. We had to put N/D on the HVXs and there still wasn't enough light for the letus.

As far as CF cards go, you need to have someone on set dedicated to capture. Basically, all the clapper / loader 2nd ACs who thought they were out of a job when digital showed up are back in business, as long as they can work a card reader.

CONVERSELY, this is exactly why the 5D Mark II still piques my interest. The low-light quality is phenomenal even with its high-contrast image. Shots at night that are completely natural lighting, look as if they've been lit for film... that's insanity. Just wish it was 24fps and a less compressed codec/container.

The problem with the 5D as I see it is the lack of dynamic range. They have a really beautiful, filmic, oversaturated, high-contrast look built into the camera, but that's the only look you're ever going to get with it. Plus the 30P thing is a bit of a bummer. Not a bad deal all things told but for $2700 plus lenses I'd rather get something more versatile.

So where does that leave Scarlet? My hope is that the 2/3" Mysterium-X with it's 11+ stops of dynamic range (more than RED1) and Redcode 42 (RED1 is 36) is enough to give it much better lowlight performance out of the box.

I just want to be able to light a scene on a 20 amp circuit without setting fire to the breaker box. If the Scarlet lets me do that I'm sold.

fishops

2009 January 19th, 21:36

-Rogue5-

2009 January 19th, 21:56

All that stuff is part of my workflow already for bigger projects....
[snip]
.....I just want to be able to light a scene on a 20 amp circuit without setting fire to the breaker box. If the Scarlet lets me do that I'm sold.

I completely agree, but I was talking in terms of the people that will use the Scarlet as a gateway into "real" movie production... that is to say, those that can't afford a RED1 or similar cameras (which is around $30k when you get the necessary accessories). The Scarlet fixed lens is almost 10x less expensive than the RED1 and will be compared to the point & shoot characteristics of, say, the XH-A1, which can, apparently, get away with quite a bit less light than RED or a DOFadapted camera.

I think you can get away with the 5D Mark II with natural light AND still have 35mm sensor-style DoF... that's a pretty special combo. Granted, you're stuck with the one "5DmII" look, but the fact that no other camera can really pull off that combination is considerably special for people who don't necessarily plan on having a bunch of lights, a crew, and people who know how to properly use such things.

Seriously, if the 5DmkII had 24frames per second (23.976) and, say, AVCHD codec instead of the compressed to hell qt container its got now, it'd be competing directly with the Scarlet fixed lens... Sure it wouldn't have 3k, 4k, or 5k resolution, but it'd have FF1080p on a 35mm sensor instead of a 2/3" one. Similarly, while Scarlet has a more versatile frame rate, the 5DmkII has interchangable lenses. In both cases, if it had the above mentioned fixes (24f and better codec) I think FF35 sensor and interchangable lenses of the 5D trumps the advantages of the fixed frame Scarlet.

ALAS, that's not the way it is, so unless the firmwares start flowing from Canon, the comparison is moot. I almost wouldn't be surprised if, a week prior to Scarlet's launch, Canon drops a 5D firmware with all the features we want... heh, I wish.

-Rogue5-

Ian-T

2009 January 19th, 22:07

stevesherrick posted this from our short
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm179/smsjr/KandaceMakeup.jpg

Wow...that's nice!!!!

Dr. Benway

2009 January 19th, 22:18

GREAT to hear; and that frame looks AWESOME!! :hv20-smilie77::hv20-smilie77:

Tis nice, she's spunky and with all the set work she should look great. And although its beyond most of the slobs here it's good to see what's possible.

Cheers.

kosulin

2009 January 20th, 10:53

The problem with the 5D as I see it is the lack of dynamic range. They have a really beautiful, filmic, oversaturated, high-contrast look built into the camera, but that's the only look you're ever going to get with it.
Not quite true. I can't comment on dynamic range because I never tried Red to compare. But 5D video mode allows control over sharpness, contrast, saturation and color tone. You can use (and adjust) either built-in Picture Styles. or create your own with Picture Style Editor. Some folks even played with picture styles to eliminate the 16-235 QT codec issue.

Halsu

2009 January 20th, 11:37

Not quite true. I can't comment on dynamic range because I never tried Red to compare.

If you have MKII, just shoot a raw still image, it should be pretty much compareable to Red.

Zacatac

2009 January 20th, 13:32

I need scarlet NOW

i have the lights to make it look good

and can edit 4k r3d's natively

booggerg

2009 January 20th, 20:27

stevesherrick posted this from our short
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm179/smsjr/KandaceMakeup.jpg

Why am I so underwhelmed with the lighting in that frame? Maybe because I've been so used to lighting from the photography perspective. I guess it is much much easier to achieve pleasant lighting in photography as opposed to continuous lighting. It goes right up there with the fact that it is much easier to achieve high-end look in a photograph than in video/film.

With regards to the lighting in the frame. With a high sensitivity camera like the 5D2, I would imagine one can achieve that look with a litepanel to the right as key.. the lights from the makeup mirror would still light up the other side of her face...

mrob7

2009 January 20th, 23:05

Wow! That frame is very promising!

Ian-T

2009 January 21st, 07:29

Why am I so underwhelmed with the lighting in that frame? Hmmm.....maybe it's because you have this thing againts anything Red...? Just guessing here.:hv20-smilie84:

Zacatac

2009 January 21st, 11:24

Why am I so underwhelmed with the lighting in that frame? Maybe because I've been so used to lighting from the photography perspective. I guess it is much much easier to achieve pleasant lighting in photography as opposed to continuous lighting. It goes right up there with the fact that it is much easier to achieve high-end look in a photograph than in video/film.

With regards to the lighting in the frame. With a high sensitivity camera like the 5D2, I would imagine one can achieve that look with a litepanel to the right as key.. the lights from the makeup mirror would still light up the other side of her face...

yes, but this was lit with at least 4 lights, to her lef was a litepanel, to her left there were two 350's lighting her face and hand, above her to the front was a hanging 150 to accent the hair

this was not easy to light, it may have looked it, but it wasn't

-Rogue5-

2009 January 21st, 15:08

yes, but this was lit with at least 4 lights, to her lef was a litepanel, to her left there were two 350's lighting her face and hand, above her to the front was a hanging 150 to accent the hair

this was not easy to light, it may have looked it, but it wasn't

Halsu has a clip of RED in his house of natural lighting and he was able to pull a ton of detail out of the blacks... That said, people like Zac (and Erik?) keep saying that they need to throw a ton of light at a scene for it to look good. So what's the deal? How could there be such contradicting claims about the camera?

Zac, did you take an underexposed footage and try to bring it up in post?

-Rogue5-

Dana Love

2009 January 21st, 15:32

yes, but this was lit with at least 4 lights, to her lef was a litepanel, to her left there were two 350's lighting her face and hand, above her to the front was a hanging 150 to accent the hair

this was not easy to light, it may have looked it, but it wasn't

Thanks for sharing that. Details about how you lit something are really helpful, and by both including size and brand you've helped me a lot to learn how you accomplished a particular look. That's cool.

Erik Bien

2009 January 21st, 15:39

There's a difference between "enough light for minimum exposure" and deliberate lighting to enhance the scene. For example, for the conversation in our film, while the daylight streaming in the windows and the overhead tungsten lighting at the pub was certainly enough light to shoot by, the results would have looked pretty awful (i.e., the girl seated in front of the windows would be a dark silhouette, and the other girl would have deep "raccoon eye" shadows from the steeply overhead lights). The addition of a few small lights (two LitePanels LED units and a fluorescent softbox) made the scene look better, without overtaxing the pub's house power.

A bunch more equipment (C-stands, silks, cutters, etc.) and especially time and manpower to get it placed and adjusted just right could've made it look better yet, but we were racing to beat the sunset and the evening rush (not to mention the contest deadline) so we were somewhat forced to settle for speed over perfection: I'd guess we were probably rolling on take one within half an hour of arriving at the location.

booggerg

2009 January 21st, 16:08

yes, but this was lit with at least 4 lights, to her lef was a litepanel, to her left there were two 350's lighting her face and hand, above her to the front was a hanging 150 to accent the hair

this was not easy to light, it may have looked it, but it wasn't

I don't doubt that it was a difficult scene for you guys to light. But I'm also coming from the perspective that having experienced cameras with high sensitive sensor, and the creative floodgate that opens, and the fact that now we can use those cameras for video recording - anything else to the contrary is simply a big step back.

When you're dealing with high sensitivity camera.. it doesn't take much to light a scene.. these shots from my 5D (not Mark 2) utilized only available light or in the case of the first 2 shots, just a little bit of off-camera flash bounced off of the wall was added. The last two shots used ONLY available lighting shot at ISO 3200 (try that with anything else other than 5D2 !!!!). I can only imagine how awesome the video would have looked if I had a 5D MK2 back then..

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3260/3189937642_2b0e09658f_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3514/3189095427_0ac3bb1639.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3487/3188408168_2353c2773c.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3188408114_7b083c8855.jpg

Given the flexibility I have in lighting due to high sensor sensitivity, I can employ the same strategy with continuous lights in the video domain. It's the same reason why Laforet was able to film Reverie with minimum lighting, try doing that with Red, or anything else other than the 5D2!

-Rogue5-

2009 January 21st, 16:14

I wonder what an incredibly sensitive camera could have pulled off without the additional lighting (read: I wonder what the 5DmkII or upcoming Mysterium-X-powered RED cameras could have pulled off with just the lights that were there.)

That said, I completely understand what you're saying (Erik), but that's precisely why I'd like to know what a pro-colourist could have pulled out of the blacks. For example, is the dynamic range of the RED1 enough to be able to get rid of the inevitable racoon-eyes if you just used the natural lighting?
now, given the competition you didn't have time to render or make massive colour corrections, but still, it's something I'd like to know...

Basically, I want to know the lowest common denominator -- the worst light that you can actually get an awesome looking shot out of the RED1 with.

-Rogue5-

EDIT: Booggerg; I just read the latest blogpost at prolost.com, and apparently the contrasty-ness of the 5DmkII's video is container/codec induced... he was able to pull out a whole slew of detail from the blacks, which was thought to be a limitation of the way the camera captures, but was actually a result of the how the software was reading it. The clipping of the 5DmkII is NOT done in camera, which is reeeaaalllyyy awesome as it means it can be recovered even in ultralowlight.

booggerg

2009 January 21st, 16:24

EDIT: Booggerg; I just read the latest blogpost at prolost.com, and apparently the contrasty-ness of the 5DmkII's video is container/codec induced... he was able to pull out a whole slew of detail from the blacks, which was thought to be a limitation of the way the camera captures, but was actually a result of the how the software was reading it. The clipping of the 5DmkII is NOT done in camera, which is reeeaaalllyyy awesome as it means it can be recovered even in ultralowlight.

Yes, several workarounds are available to resolve the crushed black/blown highlight issue of the 5D2.. I've tried it myself and indeed, I'm able to pull out much more latitude from my 5D2 video. The only problem right now is that there isn't a good editing workflow for PC.. :hv20-smilie119:

Erik Bien

2009 January 21st, 16:40

For example, is the dynamic range of the RED1 enough to be able to get rid of the inevitable racoon-eyes if you just used the natural lighting?

"Fixing it in post" is almost never a good idea, but when it comes to lighting it's especially ill advised.

-Rogue5-

2009 January 21st, 16:52

"Fixing it in post" is almost never a good idea, but when it comes to lighting it's especially ill advised.

Heh, I know... that's why I want to know the lowest denominator that still results in an awesome image with the RED. So it wouldn't be "fixing" in post, so much as "correcting". That will only come from experience with the camera, but a lot of people with RED1s don't bother doing that because they have the lights available.

But again, Halsu used an extreme example to on this forum where he was still able to pull almost full detail out of a shot that originally looked solid black (the shot was originally exposed for sunlight). That's a lot of latitude, so what I want to know is, if you expose for low-light, shouldn't be able to get an awesome usable image out of (what looks to be) dark images.

Alas, you'd know better than I would as you've actually used it quite a bit... and judging by your responses, it looks like I'm just hoping for something that isn't possible.

-Rogue5-

Erik Bien

2009 January 21st, 16:55

these shots from my 5D (not Mark 2) utilized only available light or in the case of the first 2 shots, just a little bit of off-camera flash bounced off of the wall was added. The last two shots used ONLY available lighting shot at ISO 3200 (try that with anything else other than 5D2 !!!!).

Considering I see PAR cans and other sources in those shots which were clearly placed by someone plus your flash, I'm not sure I'd describe these as "only available light." :hv20-smilie79:

Given the flexibility I have in lighting due to high sensor sensitivity, I can employ the same strategy with continuous lights in the video domain. It's the same reason why Laforet was able to film Reverie with minimum lighting, try doing that with Red, or anything else other than the 5D2!

Wrong: you're comparing 5D stills to RED motion capture! You can crank up RED's ISO in post and crush the blacks back down to surpress noise (losslessly, you'll recall, since it's only metadata) and get the "5DII look" only minus the blocky compression artifacts and moire aliasing of 5DII video.

booggerg

2009 January 21st, 17:29

Considering I see PAR cans and other sources in those shots which were clearly placed by someone plus your flash, I'm not sure I'd describe these as "only available light." :hv20-smilie79:

Well that is beauty of the 5D sensor. It's able to capture images beautifully in absolutely dark environments. Keep in mind that those were shot at ISO 3200 and F/1.2 or F/1.4... and shutter of 1/30 or 1/15.. That in fact - is VERY LOW light.. a non 5D2 video camera would not have been able to capture that scene with only available lighting. Yes you can see the PARs in the background, but you also see how blown out they are - which is indication of how much darker the rest of the scene was... NO flash was used in the last two shot..

Wrong: you're comparing 5D stills to RED motion capture! You can crank up RED's ISO in post and crush the blacks back down to surpress noise (losslessly, you'll recall, since it's only metadata) and get the "5DII look" only minus the blocky compression artifacts and moire aliasing of 5DII video.

Do my shots show low noise due to the "crush the black" trick? No, infact, it shows lots of details in the shadows.. (look at the guy's belt buckle, details in his black shirt... no crush at all) The fact that I was able to capture the last 2 shot without motion blur and without flash means I could have captured that in MOTION as well!

RAW or not, Garbage in = Garbage out. I can't stress that enough. My P&S camera shots in RAW mode. I would never consider the RAW image from the P&S to be more editable and having more latitude than JPEGs from my DSLR? Heck no.. As we've all seen from the Red 1 vs 5D2 test, when it comes to low light, the Red 1 is not able to capture much of anything. The 5D2 is magnitudes more light sensitive. Would you take a muddy, noisy RAW file or a clean and beautifuly rendered H.264 file? Simple question really..

-Rogue5-

2009 January 21st, 17:37

Would you take a muddy, noisy RAW file or a clean and beautifuly H.264 file? Simple question really..

See but that's the problem; it's never that clear cut. How many movies are shot entirely in that low of light? I mean, depending on the shot, it'd be far easier to pick which camera to use, but if you're shooting the rest of the movie to go with that shot, it wouldn't be nearly as simple as noisy raw vs. beautiful H.264 file... It's like asking if you want a video camera or a still camera? I want both so I can switch back and forth as the situation requires.

That's also why I'd like to know the lowest light the RED can capture beautifully in. And since I plan on having to colour correct my stuff, that's part of the "best lowlight for RED" equation.

Back to the topic at hand; seeing the 5DII's sensor perform so well in lowlight makes my hopeful that the Scarlet (Mysterium-X + RedCode 42 or higher, and 11+ stops dynamic range) will actually perform incredibly well in similar lowlight.

-Rogue5-

booggerg

2009 January 21st, 17:44

See but that's the problem; it's never that clear cut. How many movies are shot entirely in that low of light? I mean, depending on the shot, it'd be far easier to pick which camera to use, but if you're shooting the rest of the movie to go with that shot, it wouldn't be nearly as simple as noisy raw vs. beautiful H.264 file... It's like asking if you want a video camera or a still camera? I want both so I can switch back and forth as the situation requires.

That's also why I'd like to know the lowest light the RED can capture beautifully in. And since I plan on having to colour correct my stuff, that's part of the "best lowlight for RED" equation.

Back to the topic at hand; seeing the 5DII's sensor perform so well in lowlight makes my hopeful that the Scarlet (Mysterium-X + RedCode 42 or higher, and 11+ stops dynamic range) will actually perform incredibly well in similar lowlight.

-Rogue5-

If we're not bound by the forces of: money, man power, resources, gravity, etc.. we could use anything that we want. Can you achieve better image from Red One + hollywood quality grip crew + equipment than you can with a 5D2 under similar circumstances? Definitely

Can you achieve better image from Red One + hack-job grip crew and equipment than you can with a 5D2 under similar circumstances? Hell no.

I think most of us fall under the latter group. I'm trying to be practical here. Granted, if you have budget a Red One then you probably have enough budget for decent lighting and crew. However, too many here only looks at the camera and not all the efforts that goes into it.

There is a threshold - That is, given the same amount of effort + resource that are put into by either a Red One crew or a 5D2 crew, the 5D2 crew will get much better looking images than the Red One crew.

Given the choice between Panavision Millenium XL with no supporting resources or a 5D2 + a small light kit, which one would be better for you? Simple answer really...

Let's be practical okay?

fishops

2009 January 21st, 17:56

Can you achieve better image from Red One + hack-job grip crew and equipment than you can with a 5D2 under similar circumstances? Hell no.

I wish I could show you the footage from the upcoming Brainwaves concert DVD. Shot on 3 RED Ones, theater lighting only. It was so dark in there I couldn't see five feet in front of me, but the footage is just stunning. There was no support crew or special lighting at all, just 3 guys shooting doc-style handheld with minimally configured Reds. You have clearly never used the camera you're impugning, and you're basing your entire ranty opinion from screenshots and false data.

Yes, you can absolutely get fantastic low-light imagery from the Red One and it will be absolutely superior to the 5D2 in the same circumstance. Minimal compression, 4K resolution, excellent lenses, and support for any framerate you want up to 60fps progressive. Of course, that's to be expected, it costs 17 and a half thousand dollars. Comparing the 5D2 to the Red is like comparing an H16 Bolex to an Arri 435.

The 5D2 is a great camera, and an absolute revolution at its price point, but your comparison is ill-researched and flawed.

booggerg

2009 January 21st, 18:09

I wish I could show you the footage from the upcoming Brainwaves concert DVD. Shot on 3 RED Ones, theater lighting only. It was so dark in there I couldn't see five feet in front of me, but the footage is just stunning. There was no support crew or special lighting at all, just 3 guys shooting doc-style handheld with minimally configured Reds. You have clearly never used the camera you're impugning, and you're basing your entire ranty opinion from screenshots and false data.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7847

I get my take on Red One directly from the source... unless the vast majority of users are using it wrong and purposely showing all the wrong low light footage. Also I don't feel an underexposed final image is an acceptable mean of achieving low noise low light images.

So at this concert, what aperture/iso/shutter speed were you using to shoot in order to achieve a clean image? "couldn't see 5 feet in front of me" Isn't a very scientific way of quantifying the amount of light the camera had to work with.. The examples I've shown in my previous posts were shot at 3200iso, f/1.2,& 1.4 and 1/15-1/30.. <-- That is LOW light.

fishops

2009 January 21st, 18:22

What are you talking about. Seriously. I don't get you at all.

That link you provided had a whole bunch of links to perfectly well exposed, beautiful looking footage shot with practicals and natural light.

I wasn't shooting with the Red, I was shooting with my XH A1 to provide a live feed to the projection crew. I chatted with the red guys and asked them how they were shooting it, they all had the red 18-50mm zoom, at f/2 to f/4 with the camera at ASA 320.

Braceface

2009 January 21st, 18:24

I wish I could show you the footage from the upcoming Brainwaves concert DVD. Shot on 3 RED Ones, theater lighting only. It was so dark in there I couldn't see five feet in front of me, but the footage is just stunning. There was no support crew or special lighting at all, just 3 guys shooting doc-style handheld with minimally configured Reds. You have clearly never used the camera you're impugning, and you're basing your entire ranty opinion from screenshots and false data.

Yes, you can absolutely get fantastic low-light imagery from the Red One and it will be absolutely superior to the 5D2 in the same circumstance. Minimal compression, 4K resolution, excellent lenses, and support for any framerate you want up to 60fps progressive. Of course, that's to be expected, it costs 17 and a half thousand dollars. Comparing the 5D2 to the Red is like comparing an H16 Bolex to an Arri 435.

The 5D2 is a great camera, and an absolute revolution at its price point, but your comparison is ill-researched and flawed.
There wasn't any light on stage?

booggerg

2009 January 21st, 18:28

I wasn't shooting with the Red, I was shooting with my XH A1 to provide a live feed to the projection crew. I chatted with the red guys and asked them how they were shooting it, they all had the red 18-50mm zoom, at f/2 to f/4 with the camera at ASA 320.

Ah Okay.. So ASA320 with aperture of f/2 to f/4 is NOT a low light environment.. Perhaps we just have vastly different levels of expectation. Seriously.. when you said "could not see 5 feet in front of me" I was expecting some dungeon-like light levels.. ASA320 @ f/4 ?? LOL where are my sunglasses?

ISO 3200 @ f/1.2 is Low LOW light.

The Red was set to ASA320 which was why the image looked clean. Crank it up to the 3200 ballpark and you'll have a totally different opinion of the image. However at the concert, the Red guys obviously didn't need to go that high because there were ample lighting.

I can comfortably shoot videos with my 5D2 at iso 3200 and f/1.2. Under the same circumstances when Laforet shot the Reverie video, the Red One's footage would have been grainy and noisy and/or underexposed.

Another point: We all need to stop referring to terms like "low light" Everyone has subjective idea of what low-light means. fishop thought shooting at ASA320 and f/4 constitutes as a low light environment. Meanwhile I was talking about shooting @ iso 3200 and f/1.2.. We're comparing camera performances in vastly different environments.. which is really pointless. Let's compare in terms of image quality at the similar camera settings, which is what the Norwegian crew did in the Red One vs 5D2 test, which exposed the poor high ASA/ISO performance of Red One. http://www.freshdv.com/2009/01/canon-5dmk2-vs-red.html

2009 January 21st, 18:37

Err... THIS thread is supposed to be about SCARLET.

We have a RED ONE vs. 5D Mark II (http://hv20.com/showthread.php?t=20641)thread!

Ian-T

2009 January 21st, 18:41

Ah....a voice of reason...

2009 January 21st, 18:55

...a voice of reason...

Thanks, but it's not THAT reasonable unfortunately: this thread hasn't been about SCARLET for ages.
Inevitably discussions about the currently nonexistent SCARLET eventually lead to RED ONE.

I should really go through this thread and move all posts that are RED ONE vs. 5D Mark II to the other thread, but I am too lazy right now...:hv20-smilie126:

Halsu

2009 January 21st, 19:04

We have a RED ONE vs. 5D Mark II (http://hv20.com/showthread.php?t=20641)thread!

...where i wrote "The area where MKII shines is high ISO stuff, but RED can do pretty well around ISO 2000 too, when scaled down to HD resolution, especially if the playing field is leveled with noise reduction filtering (which Canon does in-camera)."

Whoops, sorry ;-)

Scarlet's low light ability is pure guesswork right now... we'll have to wait and see.

-Rogue5-

2009 January 21st, 20:03

I think most of us fall under the latter group. I'm trying to be practical here. Granted, if you have budget a Red One then you probably have enough budget for decent lighting and crew. However, too many here only looks at the camera and not all the efforts that goes into it.

That's EXACTLY what I'm getting at though; you're comparing the 5DmkII to the REDone, I'm trying to extrapolate the RED1's performance (specifically in harsh natural/lowlight) to what we can possibly expect from a Scarlet (which comes in configs in the exact same price range as the 5DmkII.) If the RED1 can do lowlight decently, the Scarlet will do EVEN BETTER since it has a much better sensor with higher dynamic range and redcode value than the current, more expensive, RED1.

Yes, you can absolutely get fantastic low-light imagery from the Red One and it will be absolutely superior to the 5D2 in the same circumstance. Minimal compression, 4K resolution, excellent lenses, and support for any framerate you want up to 60fps progressive. Of course, that's to be expected, it costs 17 and a half thousand dollars.

See, you and Halsu are telling me/us the RED1 has wicked -alright, maybe just acceptable- lowlight performance, but than Erik and Zac say that they needed to throw a ton of light to get decent images. If you're right, can't wait to see how well Scarlet handles natural/lowlight... if it's similar to the 5DmkII it'll be incredibly awesome, as it means you could actually run&gun, without requiring massive, professional lighting... that's the hot combo I'm looking for.

-Rogue5-

booggerg

2009 January 21st, 20:15

That's EXACTLY what I'm getting at though; you're comparing the 5DmkII to the REDone, I'm trying to extrapolate the RED1's performance (specifically in harsh natural/lowlight) to what we can possibly expect from a Scarlet (which comes in configs in the exact same price range as the 5DmkII.) If the RED1 can do lowlight decently, the Scarlet will do EVEN BETTER since it has a much better sensor with higher dynamic range and redcode value than the current, more expensive, RED1.

Does the 2/3 scarlet have larger pixels than the Red one? Or are you not referring to the 2/3 scarlet? I'm pretty sure the 2/3 scarelt will have worse low light performance than Red One.

-Rogue5-

2009 January 21st, 20:28

Does the 2/3 scarlet have larger pixels than the Red one? Or are you not referring to the 2/3 scarlet? I'm pretty sure the 2/3 scarelt will have worse low light performance than Red One.

From my understanding, the 3k - 2/3" Scarlet based off the Mysterium-X sensor will have much smaller pixels than the current RED1 sensor (which is, what, twice the size, but only offers 1k more resolution.) On top of that, the Msyterium-X has better dynamic range and encodes into REDcode at a value 33% better than the currently available RED1/Mysterium.

Honestly, I could be wrong though, and more honestly, this is a lot of conjecture until Scarlet is being mass produced.

-Rogue5-

booggerg

2009 January 21st, 20:30

Rogue: smaller pixels = worse light sensitivity...

-Rogue5-

2009 January 21st, 20:44

Rogue: smaller pixels = worse light sensitivity...

Touche, but it's supposed to have better specifications... Not only that (and I could be wrong), but wouldn't noise reduction work better with smaller pixels?

...Or are you saying that the light sensitivity will probably be the same because even though it has higer dynamic range and quality, the pixels being smaller will nullify those advantages?

-Rogue5-

p.s. Also, I think I'm getting size of pixels confused with resolution; correct me if I've wrong, but the 5DmkII's sensor has pixels far, FAR smaller than RED1s or Scarlets... It's 21mp, whereas RED1's is something like 13mp.

Braceface

2009 January 21st, 20:46

I just don't see the scarlet competing with the 5d in low light no matter what.
Not that they really need to.

booggerg

2009 January 21st, 20:47

-Rogue5-

2009 January 21st, 20:55

Rogue: although I can't predict the future, all the technological developments up to this point, and even with a strong lean towards Moore's Law, nothing suggests to me that Red will be able to the mitigate the rules of physics and come out with a 2/3 sensor for Scarlet that offers more dynamic range, and better light sensitivity than the sensor in the current Red One.

Oh, no, it is absolutely better than the RED1s... the only difference between the Scarlet and Epic lines are sensor size, and where sensor sizes are the same, the only difference is FrameRate and REDcode rate (Epics being much better in both cases.) So the 2/3" Mysterium-X sensor of the fixed lens Scarlet is exactly the same as the Mysterium-X full frame (36mmx24mm) sensor in the Epic, just cut down to 2/3".

The specifications (on paper at least) of the Mysterium-X sensor seem to be about 20% better than the original Mysterium sensor in the RED1.

-Rogue5-

booggerg

2009 January 21st, 20:57

Oh, no, it is absolutely is better... the only difference between the Scarlet and Epic lines are sensor size, and where sensor sizes are the same, the only difference is FrameRate and REDcode rate (Epics being much better in both cases.) So the 2/3" Mysterium-X sensor of the fixed lens Scarlet is exactly the same as the Mysterium-X full frame (36mmx24mm) sensor in the Epic, just cut down to 2/3".

The specifications (on paper at least) of the Mysterium-X sensor seem to be about 20% better than the original Mysterium sensor in the RED1.

-Rogue5-

huh? How does the spec give you low light performance and latitude? The same sensor cut down to smaller sizes does not equal the same performance of the same sensor technology in a larger area. I take you haven't had too much exposure with DSLR still cameras? There has been evolutionary changes in sensor technology, and the rate of evolution is slowly coming to a plateau.

Erik Bien

2009 January 21st, 21:35

See, you and Halsu are telling me/us the RED1 has wicked -alright, maybe just acceptable- lowlight performance, but than Erik and Zac say that they needed to throw a ton of light to get decent images.

*SIGH* :hv20-smilie122:

How can I make you understand that quality is at least as important as quantity when dealing with light?

Have a look at the 4K Challenge entry Tick Knock (http://www.vuze.com/details/VZXCEU7ADFHZGTR5SCPUT5UAI6VXSPVB.html), which appears to be lit mostly by flashlights. There's enough exposure to see what the director wants you to see, and the look is obviously appropriate for their story. I'd probably approach lighting it the same way, or at most add some weak overall fill (maybe a small china ball taped to the roof of the truck) if we needed more stop (for overcranking, deeper DoF, slower lenses, etc.).

By contrast, our film opens with a scene introducing our leading lady. Since the script says "she's hot," we wanted the lighting to help her look glamorous, and also cut her out of the dark background, while trying to seem natural, as if the windows were providing her key and one of the overhead fixtures was perhaps the source of that rimlight.

Whether you go out and find the perfect location and direction and wait for the perfect time of day to shoot, rearrange the light you have using reflectors and silks, or create every foot-candle from scratch with lights, bonfires or what-have-you, cinematography is really 'painting with light.'

Ian-T

2009 January 21st, 21:54

*SIGH* :hv20-smilie122:

How can I make you understand that quality is at least as important as quantity when dealing with light?
'This is what I don't get about some folks argument. Yes the 5D's lowlight capability is excellent. But...what does that mean? The DVX's lowlight is "better" than the HV20...but....so what??? Is life over as we know it??? It's kind of funny to see the arguments from both sides. But here's where one should shut up...and go film something worthwhile with their camera of choice whether it be a Red a Canon or whatever. Other than that.....it's all semantics.

It's nice to have a cam that shoots down deep in the darkness...now what??? What can YOU do with it? Stop talking and "Show Me" (I've adopted Duke's "Show Me" attitude).:hv20-smilie84:

That goes for the Red also. Show me what YOU can do with it.

Edit: Maybe this should go in the "other" thread.... I'm confused!!!

Braceface

2009 January 22nd, 00:07

Right, but the scarlet doesn't have all that great low light abilities. You need a lot more light to get it right.

fishops

2009 January 22nd, 00:23

Right, but the scarlet doesn't have all that great low light abilities. You need a lot more light to get it right.

Whoa! How did you get your hands on a working prototype?

Braceface

2009 January 22nd, 00:28

The same way you did to make your arguments, silly bird.

Halsu

2009 January 22nd, 00:55

p.s. Also, I think I'm getting size of pixels confused with resolution; correct me if I've wrong, but the 5DmkII's sensor has pixels far, FAR smaller than RED1s or Scarlets... It's 21mp, whereas RED1's is something like 13mp.

Higher resolution can compensate for smaller pixel (photosite) size. When a high resolution image is scaled down for delivery (i.e. 3K or 4K to HD), pixels will get averaged out, thus reducing noise. Simplified, it shouldn't matter much how many pixels you have for a given area, as long as the final image resolution is the same.

MKII is 21 MP and RED is 12 MP, but MKII also has twice as big sensor. My guesstimate is, their pixel size is roughly the same. Red output is like making a APS-C sized crop of the MKII sensor. Scarlet will have smaller photosites than either of these two.

Duke

2009 February 6th, 08:32

I thought this from Scarletuser was pretty interesting:

"The scarlet s35 and epic s35, will reproduce the same image characteristics. They both have the same sensor. The epic simply has better hardware to deal with a higher codec and higher framer rates etc.

Quite a price difference between the two as well, $21k"

Of course it's $7,000 for an S35 brain only. Then add in the other modules and lenses to actually use it.

thequads

2009 February 6th, 19:34

place a redone and a mark2 in front of me and tell me to pick one and I get it for free... um duh...

booggerg

2009 February 6th, 21:41

place a redone and a mark2 in front of me and tell me to pick one and I get it for free... um duh...

well yeah duh.. pick the most expensive one, pawn it and buy the less expensive one. duh..

Zacatac

2009 February 7th, 18:29

well yeah duh.. pick the most expensive one, pawn it and buy the less expensive one. duh..

take the redone, rent it for a week, buy a computer that can handle it

thequads

2009 February 10th, 18:58

point is, if cost wasn't a factor in the comparo.. and it was based purely on features, functionality, quality, form factor, design, expandabilty, etc... I would have a hard time, as many would, at even looking twice at the canon.
I mean frick, the canon can't even do a very basic 24 frames a sec.

I don't think I would even pick the MII over the hv20.. even if cost wasn't a factor.

booggerg

2009 February 10th, 19:20

I mean frick, the canon can't even do a very basic 24 frames a sec.

LOL! 24fps is the status quo? since when?

You ppl are hilarious!

thequads

2009 February 10th, 20:12

LOL! 24fps is the status quo? since when?

You ppl are hilarious!

status quo? It's a basic function, amongst others, that I think any camera should have that is targeted towards serious filmakers. Also one of the reasons the hv20 was such a break out camera. You don't have to use it if you don't want. But not quite as hilarious as thinking the mark2 is a better film cam than the Redone.

um3k

2009 February 10th, 20:12

Since 1927.

booggerg

2009 February 10th, 22:15

Since 1927.

Since 1927 for digital capture devices? LOL

um3k

2009 February 10th, 22:36

Since 1927 for filmmaking devices.

Erik Bien

2009 February 10th, 22:55

Whether destined for the large or the small screen, the overwhelming majority of narrative production (as opposed to news, sports, documentary) is, as ever, shot at 24p.

fishops

2009 February 11th, 00:11

I can't off the top of my head think of any popular TV shows or movies that have been shown in anything other than 24P for the last five years at least

Halsu

2009 February 11th, 02:14

I can't off the top of my head think of any popular TV shows or movies that have been shown in anything other than 24P for the last five years at least

In the USA. The rest of the world shoots 25p.

Erik Bien

2009 February 11th, 02:20

In the USA. The rest of the world shoots 25p.

Yeah, but you watch American movies and TV shows, while Americans don't watch yours. Ergo: yours don't count. :hv20-smilie55:

Seriously though, whether it's 24 or 25 frames per second, it doesn't take most people too long to figure out that's the right cadence if you don't want your dramatic film to end up looking like a telenovela.

Halsu

2009 February 11th, 02:37

Yeah, but you watch American movies and TV shows, while Americans don't watch yours. Ergo: yours don't count. :hv20-smilie55:

Sniff!

Seriously though, whether it's 24 or 25 frames per second, it doesn't take most people too long to figure out that's the right cadence if you don't want your dramatic film to end up looking like a telenovela.

It works both ways. British daytime drama show "Emmerdale" tried to change to progressive scan... after a few shows, they went back to interlaced because the audience complained that "it looks wrong".

booggerg

2009 February 11th, 08:43

soap operas are not 24p.. they kick ass too.

Ian-T

2009 February 11th, 09:21

soap operas are not 24p.. they kick ass too.Maybe for you. But 2 me it's more like watching a stage play on the tele.

booggerg

2009 February 11th, 09:45

Maybe for you. But 2 me it's more like watching a stage play on the tele.

it rocks my world.

Marshallator

2009 February 11th, 10:43

it rocks my world.

Ahh, this explains much.

-Rogue5-

2009 February 11th, 12:52

Quick question, do theatres in other regions (not North America) project at 25 frames? From a sheer numbers standpoint, it'd be more financially beneficial to make something that easily works into the workflow of the rest of the world, right?

Aside from that, I think with RealD coming sooner rather than later, and resolution maxing out (because you only notice the difference by sitting closer to the screen, as mentioned in the 2k/4k article), the next step will be to up the framerate to something which adds higher quality (they mention the 2000fps Phantom in the article too, saying that as frame rate goes up, the same quality can be achieved at much lower resolutions.) In either case, I think Scarlet will offer a pretty big range of potential uses/outputs/etc.

-Rogue5-

Marshallator

2009 February 11th, 13:51

Quick question, do theatres in other regions (not North America) project at 25 frames? From a sheer numbers standpoint, it'd be more financially beneficial to make something that easily works into the workflow of the rest of the world, right?

-Rogue5-

Here is a map that shows the different broadcasting standards in different countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PAL-NTSC-SECAM.svg

Halsu

2009 February 11th, 15:12

Quick question, do theatres in other regions (not North America) project at 25 frames?

Projectors being analogue devices, their margin of error in playback speed is probably bigger than 24-25 fps difference ;-)

But to answer your question, i'm not sure, but my guess is the projectors have a playback speed switch...

Halsu

2009 February 11th, 15:14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PAL-NTSC-SECAM.svg

SECAM is 25 fps too, and the content is produced with PAL equipment, BTW.

p.hoehsl

2009 February 12th, 01:55

Quick question, do theatres in other regions (not North America) project at 25 frames?

Well - yes and no. A lot of films that are shot in 25fps get released as 25fps and are labled as such. Sometimes the operators don't read the labels and show them at 24fps. You wouldn't know the difference though. Productions shot on film at 24fps are projected as such.

As mentioned earlier the margin of error is pretty high. Very often films run at 25fps even if projection is set to 24. Depends on the cinema and how their systems are setup and maintained. I suspect that with over length films they deliberately run them slightly faster to clear the theatre sooner for the next show.

Digital projection is a lot more precise in this regard.

A much bigger issue is their use of lamps and colour temperature thereof. Very often cinemas use too little light and movies appear too dark. Prints made for a premiere are often tailored to the characteristics of the cinema where the event is taking place.

Duke

2009 February 19th, 00:05

I'd like a Scarlet camera, but have always maintained that it will be a couple years out.

Many people have given me a hard time about saying how long it will actually take to get a Scarlet to market, and that what will matter is the state of other cameras at the time the Scarlet actually reaches consumer hands.

This is from today:
"The world is now officially in financial turmoil. Our accelerated schedule for Scarlet and EPIC deliveries seem to coincide with a dead market.

I see no reason to continue to pay for rapid development and pushed schedules when the world is not ready to buy our product in the quantities that justify our urgency. Sure... there are many that will pay now for Scarlet and EPIC on time deliveries. But the volumes we had counted on to support our massive overtime effort to get this done quickly... just aren't there. Retail camera sales are currently off 40-50%.

We are continuing to progress, but now at a normal rate. My decision. I expect this to impact delivery schedules somewhat.

This is real life. Things change. We have always said that because I have seen what can happen. I actually expected this downturn, just not to this degree.

We stay committed to keeping our customers posted. This is one of those times.

Put your helmets on. Expect difficult times for a couple of years. And please don't ask us to ignore the drama that has hit everyone worldwide. It just doesn't make good business sense.

Jim"

When prototyping is done, factories must be designed and set up, then actual production runs, then shipping. To date, we don't see any prototype footage.

booggerg

2009 February 19th, 00:27

This is from today:
"But the volumes we had counted on to support our massive overtime effort to get this done quickly... just aren't there. Retail camera sales are currently off 40-50%.
Jim"

What a crock of $hit.. what cameras that Red competes with are 40-50% off? Only at Circuit City liquidation sales where you'd find $hit like the d90 on sale for 40% off.

Red fanbois - A candle light vigil is scheduled for tonight. Bring your Scarlet spec sheets with the features from your wet dreams and we will collectively have a séance to bring the $hit to live.

Edit: just read this on the Red forum - "Rome wasn't built in one day" LOL Gotta hand it to 'em fanbois for being loyal..

2009 February 19th, 00:36

It does not surprise me; although I did find the reasoning somewhat odd; at least for the Scarlet.

Surely a cam CHEAPER than RED would be a good thing to bring to market, no?

Well, I'm not a financial whiz that JJ is, so what do I know.

Oh, although I did predict the financial turmoil to THIS extent and then some; so I guess I am more clever than JJ after all! :)

Luxaltor

2009 February 19th, 00:37

What a crock of $hit.. what cameras that Red competes with are 40-50% off? Only at Circuit City liquidation sales where you'd find $hit like the d90 on sale for 40% off.

Red fanbois - A candle light vigil is scheduled for tonight. Bring your Scarlet spec sheets with the features from your wet dreams and we will collectively have a séance to bring the $hit to live.

Edit: just read this on the Red forum - "Rome wasn't built in one day" LOL Gotta hand it to 'em fanbois for being loyal..

I don't know if you noticed, but the camera industry is doing poorly. For example: were you aware that Nikon laid off almost 3,000 employees? That is no small number. I don't know what world your living in, but the one I'm seeing does not have a lot of money at the moment.

And don't even start to call me a fanboy, err... excuse me... "fanboi". The only Scarlet I would want would be the full frame one, which is $7,000 and impossible to get with my budget so I'm not even planning on getting a Red.

booggerg

2009 February 19th, 00:44

I don't know if you noticed, but the camera industry is doing poorly. For example: were you aware that Nikon laid off almost 3,000 employees? That is no small number. I don't know what world your living in, but the one I'm seeing does not have a lot of money at the moment.

No doubt, but the announcement is trying to make parallels to a market where cameras are being discounted for 40-50%.. which one of Red's competitors are doing that? Is Nikon a Red Competitor? Nope. Sorry your response makes no sense.

I don't believe their statement for one second. I think they are actually hitting unforeseen hurdles in development. If Red got their $hit figured out, they would have came out with a real bullish annoucenement that goes something in line of "We know the economy is not doing well, however the enthusiasm for this new generation of motion camera is so overwhelming that we worked hard and produced the end product for you on (or ahead of) schedule." Then the fanbois would be going "Hell yeah Jim! YOu go boy!" These fanbois - they are very adaptable in their mentality, wherever their master goes, they'll follow.

http://www.tonychor.com/archive/lemmings.jpg