Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Scarlet  (Read 47316 times)
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« on: November 07, 2011, 04:28:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Scarlet looks to be a bit of a temptress for a stills guy looking to shoot some video. But what are red code raw files what can you do with them and what do you need to do it. Heaven knows what kind of space and spec HD's you need to cope with 5k raw.It sounds fantastic on paper but I fear will prove impractical for the stills shooter looking to add video. This is more a video with a stills facility tacked on, I can't see it being a one size fits all. No doubt a fantastic machine for the dedicated film maker at a decent price. I don't see it stealing clients from the 5D type user, despite what Red say it will do. Never miss a shot shooting stills with video, nice idea in theory, I can see the camera is capable but the application of stills and video is completely different in my mind.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2011, 05:15:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Kevin,

I'm not sure that the point is never miss a shot because we extract stills from video and therefore we can choose among an incredible number of frames and never fail. In practise, not all motion frames are still exploitable.

I think that the main points are basically those:

When on set one camera shoots motion and another stills of the same scenery, we never have exactly the same look and never the same frame because the video operator(s) needs space around, and even with both cameras monted on the same tripod  with magic arms and the still operating with a remote control, 2 screens are necessary, it's a mess very little practical.

So my first point is that if a video camera is capable of commercialy exploitable stills,  consistency in the look is assured. And this is a huge time saver. No need to say also that to acheive the same goal, stills+motion, only one camera is needed...
Then, if you grade in RCX, you'll extract a still graded. You won't have to do it twice in different softwares with very little chance to match exactly the same render. Then you do not need 2 files, have to look into different folders etc...


And of course the choice of frames is wider, although again just some % of the motion frames will be exploitable for still imagery.


And the other point is that you can play creatively with still sequences extract from video.  Those are also exploitable by different applications for interactivity content etc...

« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 05:39:36 AM by fredjeang » Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2011, 06:53:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Kevin,

I'm not sure that the point is never miss a shot because we extract stills from video and therefore we can choose among an incredible number of frames and never fail. In practise, not all motion frames are still exploitable.

I think that the main points are basically those:

When on set one camera shoots motion and another stills of the same scenery, we never have exactly the same look and never the same frame because the video operator(s) needs space around, and even with both cameras monted on the same tripod  with magic arms and the still operating with a remote control, 2 screens are necessary, it's a mess very little practical.

So my first point is that if a video camera is capable of commercialy exploitable stills,  consistency in the look is assured. And this is a huge time saver. No need to say also that to acheive the same goal, stills+motion, only one camera is needed...
Then, if you grade in RCX, you'll extract a still graded. You won't have to do it twice in different softwares with very little chance to match exactly the same render. Then you do not need 2 files, have to look into different folders etc...


And of course the choice of frames is wider, although again just some % of the motion frames will be exploitable for still imagery.


And the other point is that you can play creatively with still sequences extract from video.  Those are also exploitable by different applications for interactivity content etc...


Thanks Fred,
Always ready with an answer you should get paid for this!
Ok that makes a lot of sense, I can see that being a huge advantage. Coming from a stills background I was thinking on a different track and applying it to what I do. I bet others think that way too, maybe if you are doing big budget weddings it would be something to look at, someone somewhere will see a great opportunity and new horizons and make a packet. As I'm shooting from aircraft mainly stills, combining the video and stills is not easy. Getting quality and smooth in video is very difficult when shooting, you can use gyro's which over complicate and limit the stills side, even then I still need a lot of post smoothing to get it presentable. I've been experimenting with various configurations of gyro trying to get a compromise between adaptability, usability and quality.I think the cmos wobble is a big hinderance when shooting buildings from a moving platform with cameras like a 5D, I don't have room for both stills and video at the same time, so you can see why the Scarlet caught my eye to begin with. The concept sounds fantastic at first, but when I started to think of the practical side it looked a million miles away.
I'm searching for the killer combination of stills and video from aircraft at the moment, not Cineflex quality or cost, but professional enough I can charge for it, as yet I don't have it.
Regards,

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2011, 09:19:08 AM »
ReplyReply

yes I agree with you and your anxieties regarding editing/ storage space. I can afford to buy a scarlet but I cant afford to spend endless hours editing huge raw files. I am wondering how much easier the canon c300 will be to handle in post. by all accounts it seems like it will use way less storage size for files and be quiker to edit......... but all of that is mute if it blows highlights or crushes blackes and then your back to wishing you bought the scarlet for the raw file.

there is something appealing about the ease of use with the canon but I know the scarlet will produce a better file, just not sure if  can a handle the pain that I am assuming that will come with it.
Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2011, 09:34:54 AM »
ReplyReply

yes I agree with you and your anxieties regarding editing/ storage space. I can afford to buy a scarlet but I cant afford to spend endless hours editing huge raw files. I am wondering how much easier the canon c300 will be to handle in post. by all accounts it seems like it will use way less storage size for files and be quiker to edit......... but all of that is mute if it blows highlights or crushes blackes and then your back to wishing you bought the scarlet for the raw file.

there is something appealing about the ease of use with the canon but I know the scarlet will produce a better file, just not sure if  can a handle the pain that I am assuming that will come with it.
It looks a steal at the price to get shooting, I doubt that will be half of it in the end. Video is a time eater in any form, 5K would put it beyond all but the dedicated. Having said that I could not go the Canon route knowing this was on offer. From the little I know the Scarlet looks to make the Canon a bit pointless if video is your game. If I was Canon I would of gone from great excitement on the C300 launch to Oh $hit in the space of a couple of hours.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2011, 09:43:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Red post production is really good.

Don't let you fool by the file size and the raw factor.

Storage is cheaper nowdays.

You can set-up a very simple workflow with R3D material.

In fact it is IMO more simple than editing AVCHD material that I have with the GH2. And with no significant slow-down in the process.


The fact that you have raw to work with is in the end a time saver and the guarantee of what Raw is allowing you.
In Avid, it's even possible to color correct directly using Raw datas within the timeline. You see the footage of course in 1080P, but you color correct using a raw windows and sliders. And this, without opening RCX...

Avid works way better with Red files than with AVCHD (in wich it simply doesn't work).

Not only that. R3D is R3D. Like PSD, Like Tiff, like DNG. It is a stable format.


In the editor, you can work with proxies in a laptop and re-link to the Raws in Da-Vinci to color correct.

The Red workflow is far from being hostile.



I'm not far from thinking that if RedCineX had advanced editing capabilities, it will be the end of the NLEs or suites with the Red material. Just RCX from A to Z.


« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 09:47:24 AM by fredjeang » Logged
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2011, 12:27:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Red post production is really good.

Don't let you fool by the file size and the raw factor.

Storage is cheaper nowdays.

You can set-up a very simple workflow with R3D material.

In fact it is IMO more simple than editing AVCHD material that I have with the GH2. And with no significant slow-down in the process.


The fact that you have raw to work with is in the end a time saver and the guarantee of what Raw is allowing you.
In Avid, it's even possible to color correct directly using Raw datas within the timeline. You see the footage of course in 1080P, but you color correct using a raw windows and sliders. And this, without opening RCX...

Avid works way better with Red files than with AVCHD (in wich it simply doesn't work).

Not only that. R3D is R3D. Like PSD, Like Tiff, like DNG. It is a stable format.


In the editor, you can work with proxies in a laptop and re-link to the Raws in Da-Vinci to color correct.

The Red workflow is far from being hostile.



I'm not far from thinking that if RedCineX had advanced editing capabilities, it will be the end of the NLEs or suites with the Red material. Just RCX from A to Z.





Hey thats great to hear that editing Red is easier than I imagined.

My mac pro is a brand new 12 core with 10 gb ram, I would think I would be fine with this.

My workflow is simple as I only produce short 5 second clips, not movies or finished commercials. Based on what you are saying about RedCineX I could probably just use one software and not export into FCP.

I guess Red Rocket would help speed things up but the $5 grand pricetag would hurt.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2011, 01:57:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Billy,

Don't misunderstand me. My last sentence has an "if".

RedcineX doesn't (unfortunatly) replace yet a NLE. It features a timeline but it is primitive.

Maybe in a future , I hope so.

So no fireworks, no champagne for the moment.
Logged
Robert Moore
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2011, 04:19:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred and all...

I love RCX Pro...but need it to do one thing. Accurate color and RAW decoding. From there it is
nice to choose your NLE.

Personally I like Cineform/Adobe PP CS 5.5 ... others AVID or FCP.

I think that the resources of RED and Graham are best used for the RAW decode and giving
us dead-on accurate color/skin tones.

It is a wonderful environment, at a great cost.

Best part is it is lean and RED mean...no bloat so it stays fast and on point. I cannot
wait to get some free time to work with Alchemy....

Just my opinion...and I do not have to crank out files for anyone else....

Bob
Logged
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2011, 05:30:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Billy,

Don't misunderstand me. My last sentence has an "if".

RedcineX doesn't (unfortunatly) replace yet a NLE. It features a timeline but it is primitive.

Maybe in a future , I hope so.

So no fireworks, no champagne for the moment.


Ok thanks, but all I need to do with my footage is trim the good parts into single short 5 second clips, color correct, exposure adjust, crop and export. Its kinda like processing stills. No putting together a storyline or even connecting 2 clips, just creating moving pictures at this point. I dont mind doing the bulk of the work in RedCineX and then exporting into some other app if need be.

Logged
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2011, 06:49:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a question for Grahme or anyone else knowledgeable;

-if I want to take stills thru a viewfinder do I need to buy a viewfinder for this? is the bomb evf the only one available?
-if taking stills at full resolution what is the crop factor of a lens ( canon mount ).
- I also plan on trying to extract stills from motion footage. I see that BC shoots his red one at 1/100th shutter speed and 30 p with no weird problems, will this be doable with the scarlet x? if so my crop factor gets more severe than when I am shooting 24p, correct?
Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2011, 10:57:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ok thanks, but all I need to do with my footage is trim the good parts into single short 5 second clips, color correct, exposure adjust, crop and export. Its kinda like processing stills. No putting together a storyline or even connecting 2 clips, just creating moving pictures at this point. I dont mind doing the bulk of the work in RedCineX and then exporting into some other app if need be.

Billy, for your work Red is overkill. For stills it's just an APS-C sensor.

Wouldn't a 5D Mark II, 7D or a 1DX be better?
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2011, 11:09:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Billy, for your work Red is overkill. For stills it's just an APS-C sensor.

Wouldn't a 5D Mark II, 7D or a 1DX be better?


yeah I think your right. my dilemna is that I want to upgrade from my canon 5d 2 ( for video ) but I feel like the scarlet x and the c300 are my 2 options right now. I kinda forgot about the 1DX, that may be the solution, although I hate the idea of turning those dslrs into robocams with all the addons, but in reality the scarlet and c300 need alot of those add ons as well. How much is the 1 DX advertised to be better than the 5D 2 though in the video component of it?

I was hoping for the AF100 or Sony FS100 but the blown highlights problem turned me off.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2011, 08:55:13 AM by billy » Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2011, 11:54:02 AM »
ReplyReply

first: scarlet and c300 will be about the same price to you, the scarlet will probably end up costing more because of ssdcards and computer add ons....

the c300 will not give you still frames, the scarlet will...shoot the scarlet at 4k and you will have very odd shaped 8mpix files for stills....these files compare to any lower range dslr although DR is better....high iso definitely is not...

the 1dx will shoot iframes (?)..not raw frames but something like an actual frame for every frame...i believe the gh2 does this now...we will see how it will work....the announced c-dslr body might be the better choice....i would not be surprised if the 1dx video is a little neutered by canon to make sure there is no "confusion" between still and motion lines...

there are other options out...gh2 seems to be a great camera...sony a77 does 1080 60p (with AF)....

i personally placed an order for the scarlet and ended up canceling....i am waiting for the final (street) price of the c300...the workflow, footage, size, everything seems to be right....if it did 60 fps i would have placed my order for that already....

if you are looking for 5 sec clips the 5d is probably still the best solution for you for now....i think we will see quite bit of new stuff in the next 6 months...
just my opinion...
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2011, 12:46:55 PM »
ReplyReply

....i would not be surprised if the 1dx video is a little neutered by canon to make sure there is no "confusion" between still and motion lines...

Yep.

That's weired.

I have the feeling that Canon wasn't really aware of the bomb they launched with the 5D2, and then, if they follow this line deeper it could easily put the mess in their very defined products.
But the monster has been released and people are now asking for more...very embarrassing for Canon but I think it's too late.

There is a market that is not really covered wich is the convergence. And that's also the case for softwares. We are still in the old where the new (requierements) is knocking on the door.
And it's gona break it even if they have locked the door.



Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2011, 09:26:14 PM »
ReplyReply

How much is the 1 DX advertised to be better than the 5D 2 though in the video component of it?


It's got a better codec and bit rate, at least on paper. Also, it's a new sensor (and better, if Canon are to be believed).

It can also shoot 12fps RAW. If most of your work is 'steady' without moving objects, you could even use re-timing to 'fill' in the rest.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2011, 09:28:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know much about the mechanics of running data off a sensor, but if a sensor is capable of 12fps at 18MP RAW, shouldn't it be able to deliver 24fps at 2MP (2K) RAW?
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #17 on: November 15, 2011, 11:21:06 PM »
ReplyReply

It's got a better codec and bit rate, at least on paper. Also, it's a new sensor (and better, if Canon are to be believed).

It can also shoot 12fps RAW. If most of your work is 'steady' without moving objects, you could even use re-timing to 'fill' in the rest.


We're talking about two cameras that nobody that is unsponsored haven't been used in paying production yet, so what the final look is anybody's guess.

In regards to the 1dx, Canon says it samples off the complete sensor (no line skipping like the 5d2) and greatly improves moire, which is a real issue with the 5d2.

The 1dx also is a much larger sensor than the 300 which can change plans when it comes to lenses, especially if you want to use PL mount lenses because you'd have to remove the mirror and most PL's wont' cover 24x36 (though some will).

Probably the right move for a 1dx that you wanted to use mostly for video would be to use manual focus Zeiss lenses that cover the full frame and that we using a follow focus system or a focus puller, you don't have to worry about the canon still servo lenses that reset every time you rotate past the end point.

The 1dx also doesn't allow for any audio sampling through headphones, without running a cable out to a box.

So in reality the 1dx isn't really a dedicated video camera, but probably would be close if not equal to the 300 because I believe they have the same sample rates.

It's a lot cheaper at 7 grand vs. 20.

In regards to shooting a sustained 12fps and putting them in a NLE or either a sequence composite like cs5 extended and letting the software pull it to 24p, you can do that and depending on how you shoot, what you shoot, the steadiness you shoot to, it can look good or it can look choppy.

I've done a lot of fast 10 fps still to video projects

http://www.russellrutherford.com/magic/

and the once kicker is the image will flicker, partly due to a slower frame rate of 12fps and partly due to the different synchronization of the light source vs. the frame rate, especially using practical lights like street lamps, etc.

If you have a still camera that will shoot 10fps to 12 fps jpegs, go shoot a series, drop them in fcp at .5 a second still import and then process out the clip.   You'll see the exposure go in an out quite dramatically.

I've done it for the look and for a few projects it works well, but 12 fps stills will probably never make smooth video or film looks.

As far as the 300, until I see it used, or until I see it really worked in post processing at this stage I don't understand it.  For 20k you can buy an original RED One, which is a much more tested and viable cinema camera that shoots a real 4k file, 4 audio channels, tons of lenses, mounts and accessories and has a fast and reliable grading suite to pump out dailies to final files in almost any resolution.  Also the RED One doesn't change frame size as shoot 4k.

Or if you don't want to spend 20 large then there are prosumer video cameras almost as capable and a whole lot cheaper that do close to the same thing. 

It all depends on what you shoot and what your future plans are.

P.S.   Now we probably will buy the 1dx because it will work in parallel with our RED's as a high iso still camera that tethers.  To me that is it's worth that and the fact we can use it as a small crash cam or car mount cam when we need to.

IMO

BC


Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2011, 11:33:01 PM »
ReplyReply



As far as the 300, until I see it used, or until I see it really worked in post processing at this stage I don't understand it.  For 20k you can buy an original RED One, which is a much more tested and viable cinema camera that shoots a real 4k file, 4 audio channels, tons of lenses, mounts and accessories and has a fast and reliable grading suite to pump out dailies to final files in almost any resolution.  Also the RED One doesn't change frame size as shoot 4k.




you are so right....for whatever reason you can pick up a complete used red one kit (with most of the stuff you need to start shooting) for almost less then a scarlet kit will cost (realistically)....

the 1dx seems strange to me...i am sure the video will look great (at least better then 5d) and i am sure low noise/high iso and the full frame sensor will make some fun stuff possible but it seems a little pricey and i just don't see it making either still shooters or video guys really happy....the reason the 5d was such a success was that it was the first and it was affordable....

i guess vincent laforet is trying to get his c300 short on iTunes....then we can get a better idea of what the camera can do...
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2011, 03:25:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry if I introduce a little cynical topic but all that strangely reminds me to some extend of the Gursky thread.

I can't help it.

When I read that the 5D2 output is "so so", I'm asking in wich context?

Do we realise that we are debating on high-end cameras, kind of hollywood equipment and we are for the most part of us just entered motion a few months ago and are shooting indy stuff or little unrisky campaigns?

And we talk about those as if we where talking about our morning coffee brand. I do not own the Skywalker ranch ! Not yet!

Because yeah, there are better options but at wich level and requierements this increment in quality is necessary? And until wich the 5D2 would block somebody to do a good campaign or movie ?

Or are we going to have another generation of Red shooters doing brickwalls and cheap models in malls? like it happened quite often with MF? I mean, people just looking for the highest possible IQ for the highest possible IQ. I have a strange feeling that motion will not be different...it really bloody smells MF forum more and more.

From wich level a 5D2 stops to be usable? I'd like to know that because IMO the 5D2, GH2 etc...are more than good enough for 90% of the requierements most of us (not all but most) are really needing at the moment. And the time we grow, if we really grow, then no problem to get whatever we really need.

« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 05:07:26 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad