SCARLET by Red Digital Cinema

[Halsu]

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]

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]

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]

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.

They have test sensors already built....

[Halsu]

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]

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).

[booggerg]

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]

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.



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]

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]

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.

[Braceface]

Those are nice frame grabs Halsu! Good job.

[Duke]

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]

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]

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]

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:


Here is the same shot with the XH-A1:

[Duke]

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:


XH-A1:

[Duke]

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

HV20:


XH-A1:


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

[Gymnut808]

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

[Duke]

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]

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]

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.

[Braceface]

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]

I'm acting like there are only 3 cameras in the world though, arent I!

[Ian-T]

...ok.

[Duke]

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.