Scarlet

[Morgan_Moore]

Or maybe  became lazier with RAW due to its get out of jail abilities.....

Too right - Im absolutely lazy

Too lazy to use my 10.8 plate camera, too lazy to use my horse and cart and keep my horses fed, I caved in and got a car, I cant even be bothered with my neg scanner any more - or even my hassy digiback mainly

Lazy = Progress/Cheaper rates, more connection with the talent,  smaller crew etc etc

S

[Hywel]

RAW : I think there is a lot of mythology amongst film makers about Raw workflow, as experienced still shooters the concept of Raw and how to deal is natural to us

Yeh, that's exactly it for me. I *KNOW* RAW shooting inside and out, front to back. I know its advantages, as you've listed them, and am very familiar with the tea-based workflow which is the main disadvantage. (I wonder if ALL pro photographers posting on forums are waiting for a whole stack of TIFFs to come out of their RAW processing software?)

Resolution is a help, but RAW workflow is where I live, and I want to be able to use all the techniques for getting stunning images that I know from stills work and apply them to motion.

Hence the temptation to get a Scarlet, once I've heard from early adopters how they handle and once I've hired one once or twice. Although I'm wondering about picking up a secondhand Red One instead having read Philip Bloom's reliability report on his Epic- I can't wait a couple of years for them to finish the firmware, I'll need it to work from the off!

  Cheers, Hywel

[pschefz]

just read the prolost post and could not agree more...
there is no perfect camera for everything....
as for raw workflow with motion....i am not so sure....with stills i would not even think about shooting jpeg...
same goes for 4k...just not sure....the discussion reminds me of the silly dslr vs dmfb threads....in the end it comes down to what and how it is seen...there is nothing worse then the "typical" still guy first motion project....you can go down the checklist: slider shot, check, attempt at steady cam, check...and you can almost see the guy sitting in front of his iPad showing off his master piece...:you should see the detail!"...who cares....i don't think i would enjoy Solaris watching it for the first time on my iPad....some things are just meant to be projected....
in other words: well shot, interesting 1080p is WAAAY better then all the 4k of snooze....
nobody will hire anyone for their 4k footage...a lot of commercial stuff is still shot on 7ds and 5dIIs....
raw is great, but like bloom said....you can buy the c300 for what the SSD storage for his short moebius would have cost....and laforet shot extra, with backups....and i am not even talking about the extra cost in post equipment....and the latitude of the c300 is something to see IMO.....and i am not sure what i would have done to the files that need so much tweaking that they would fall apart...but of course laforet could have shot the entire thing on his epic and the production would have been the same and probably the results as well....i can't tell what camera that was shot on.....some of it looks great, but i would not call any of it great cinema....the story, the acting makes great cinema....
i think the red is a great camera and the concept is great and most important, they really lit a fire under everyone's a.. i can see where the workflow could be amazing and efficient....
i think everybody has to find out what they need and plan accordingly....
but regardless, it is completely crazy to think that getting one camera over the other will make anyone a better motion shooter....shoot you dog or kids with the iPhone and you realize how hard certain things are and how much planning has to go into a shoot and that in the end the camera questions answers itself....and probably differently for everybody....

[bcooter]

snip........the story, the acting makes great cinema....snip

Paul your right, but any image, still or motion has to be able to get through the post production pipeline usable, pretty and in a reasonable time frame.

I still hold to the opinion, if the canon 300 was $7,000 people would be all over it, if RED dropped their prices on accessories, they'd probably sell more Scarlets, because I believe most photographers moving to motion, or adding motion, have honest concern about jumping in on the deep side of the pool.  I can't blame them as it's a hell of a jump and I am biased RED as it's been good for us.

Anyway, workflow is as important to me as the camera, especially when we're sitting on a huge volume of data.  So is camera form factor, so is the ability to pull stills, even small web based stills.

These two links are informing.  One is on sensor size the other on a hdslr workflow.  If your working multiple cameras or medium run projects this hdslr workflow I would consider mandatory.

hdslr workflow

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/125918

RED sensor sizes  (yes . . . we all know not all of these sensors are out yet)

http://www.4shared.com/photo/RVTmcpcU/Sensor_Sizes.html?cau2=403tNull

IMO

BC

[Morgan_Moore]

I think we are seeing a 'hole' and that 1080 or 2k raw in S35 chip (or larger )

Again us stills people are probably ahead of the video gang in being kind of done with resolution

whats 2k ? 6mp - a good 6mp frame looks pretty nice - I have files from my nikon D1 and D100 that look nicer than any motion frame I ahve ever seen that was not Red or Alexa 

S

[Morgan_Moore]

A side thought - but changing lenses (ND mate box follow focus) is such a pain shooting 1080/2k deliverable I can see the Scarlet has a great facility in just being able to crop - obviously the 'look' is lost to some extent, but a 17-50 is a bit useless wheas a 17-100 becomes very interesting even if kthat 100 has the 2/3 look

S

[Bern Caughey]

...a 17-50 is a bit...

A side note to your side thought.

I'm still considering a RED 17-50, but have heard a handful of mechanical complaints that are holding me back. For awhile I've wondered who made the glass, & it appears it's a rehoused Tamron 17-50/2.8. RED didn't even remove the plastic bayonet mount from the front element, & it's still treaded for 67mm filters.

www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550954-REG/Tamron_AF016NII_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.html

That said the Tamron does get decent reviews, & is supposedly parfocal.

-B

[bcooter]

A side note to your side thought.

I'm still considering a RED 17-50, but have heard a handful of mechanical complaints that are holding me back. For awhile I've wondered who made the glass, & it appears it's a rehoused Tamron 17-50/2.8. RED didn't even remove the plastic bayonet mount from the front element, & it's still treaded for 67mm filters.

www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550954-REG/Tamron_AF016NII_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.html

That said the Tamron does get decent reviews, & is supposedly parfocal.

-B

Bern,

I've heard the same thing about them being Tamrons, but the RED's by all accounts are sharp and the price is good.

Especially the primes.

They are heavy but fast so I guess you can't have both fast, less price and small.

Lately we've been renting an angeniux zoom that's lovely, though 20 something thousand.

Beautiful lens even though it's a 2.8.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/662246-REG/Angenieux_16_42_OPTIMO_ROUGE_Optimo_DP_Digital_Production_.html

all the best.

BC

[Bern Caughey]

Lately we've been renting an angeniux zoom that's lovely, though 20 something thousand.

I've been considering renting a pair of those lenses for a project, but it keeps getting pushed. By all accounts they are lovely, so thanks!

On another note, do you ever use PLs on your Sony? Solid camera has PL adapter/handle that looks great.

http://solidcamera.com/SCI/Sony-FS100-accessories-PL-mount.html

-B

[Morgan_Moore]

16_42_OPTIMO_ROUGE

THat the sort of lens that has not really intereted me 42 - you still are going to take it off all the time, so why have the convence of a zoom - to me the convenience of a zoom is to leave it on all day

with the crop still delivering 2k this becomes possible which I find really intereting and a good reason not to get the Canon - IMO

I dont think the 18-xx F3 sony zoom is going to really deliver either at 3.5-6.3

S

[jjj]

Too right - Im absolutely lazy

Too lazy to use my 10.8 plate camera, too lazy to use my horse and cart and keep my horses fed, I caved in and got a car, I cant even be bothered with my neg scanner any more - or even my hassy digiback mainly

Lazy = Progress/Cheaper rates, more connection with the talent,  smaller crew etc etc

S

I think you completely missed the point I was making. I'm all for RAW video shooting but Cinematographers, not being used to that workflow have had no option but to get it right in cameras as you don't have a generous RAW file to be able to drag data out of. Shooting RAW means you do not need to take the same care whilst shooting video [or JPEG] as you have such incredible latitude in post. I shot some bracketed shots recently as I thought I may have to do a HDR image, but there was no need due to a single RAW file contained enough info to get shot.
So if shooting RAW stills, you can be lazier as you can so easily sort it out in post far easier and not to mention much quicker than the tedious render times needed when correcting video files. Which has absolutely nothing to do with size of crew, being a luddite and shunning progress as you then made out.

[Morgan_Moore]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with size of crew, being a luddite and shunning progress as you then made out. ??

Im sure everyone here appreciates raw

Now, to get good colour on set - without raw - means careful metering - monitoring - you will have seen film crews lugging black tents around, full size 30inch screens in huge flight cases,  breeze blocks to stop the the tents blowing away, people to carry the breeze blocks, people to make lunch for the people who carry the breeze blocks

Its one aspect that makes making movies so horrible, and there is a set of luddites who want it to stay like that

So IMO it does affect crew size

I am shortly apprearing in a video on the FS100 - shot on the FS100, now my office has nice nat light and a few practicals around, the FS100 is web clean at 800ISO - there is loads of light to shoot with no lights - but no - the crew arrived and NDd my practicals, pulled out a bunch of  kino and dedo and carried on exactly like they were filming me with a 100 ISO film camera (while I, the subject, got nervous and ended up having little time to tell my story - most of the time had been spend 'lighting' my office) - to me missing they were missing the point of clean ISO, I see the same blinkers happening with raw...

Anyway the Scarlet has raw .. and I like it

 

SMM

[billy]

geeze now you guys got me leaning towards the Scarlet again ........ I guess I will wait and see just how much the C300 actually cost. If its 15 grand it will seem much more appealing.

fyi, I will be shooting for web, in store display, and tv, not cinema FYI.

[ChristopherBarrett]

Red Raw... good shit.  Like any tool it has it's issues, but I'm digging it.

Epic.


Epic pointed out the window while crew was packing up.


Red One.  Still Awesome.

[Morgan_Moore]

fyi, I will be shooting for web, in store display, and tv, not cinema FYI.

I dont think that is really a reason not to consider Scarlet - I guess 'ex photographers' are more likely to land clients like clothes prodcut makers than be DOPing features

And those clients that produce product are probably actually more demanding on colour than feature people who just want their feature to look 'cool'

With my current cameras I would not be scared if asked to Dop a feature, I would be scared to shoot a bunch of colour critical clips for a 'moving web shop'

And I certainly want to be able to shoot for 'moving web shops' as my current clientelle will surely be replacing thier stills based web shops soon with 'moving web shops'

not to mention the demands on resolution upright screens in stores/bus stops could present

Its clear to me, my next motion camera will be a Raw shooter

S

[bcooter]

snip..... but Cinematographers, not being used to that workflow have had no option but to get it right in cameras as you don't have a generous RAW file to be able to drag data out of. .......snip

Huh?

DP's have been shooting raw for 5 decades, it's called negative film, telecine and years ago analog grading, today electronic color grading.

There may have been a few guys walking around with color meters and crews blocking off practicals with dubos and cutters, to allow the set lights to control the look, but in the end, the negative, the telecine, the digitization and grading in post was the equivalent of todays raw file, except it had extra post production steps.

With RED raw digital we don't light any different than we do with any file, film or baked in digital, I just don't worry about things like matching multiple cameras exactly in color and tone, because we can do it in cine-x so easily.

But raw, naw . . . that's been around forever.

IMO

BC

[bcooter]

THat the sort of lens that has not really intereted me 42 - you still are going to take it off all the time, so why have the convence of a zoom - to me the convenience of a zoom is to leave it on all day

S

16 to 42 on a RED One is basically the full frame still equivalent to 24mm to 60 something mm, which covers a lot of territory in motion.

Now I'm not a fan of rubber lenses, because I think they can make you lazy and not position yourself properly for the shot as it's just too easy to zoom in or out, though this optimo is one hell of a nice lens.

What we rent it for is steady cam and jib work where the focus puller works off of a remote.  Shooting primes with a mobile remote and a camera on a vest or jib takes a lot of time to change lenses and focus gears, get set and then get back into position, so a zoom can save you hours on a day in that configuration.

But given my perfect world, I'll opt for primes.

IMO

BC

[Morgan_Moore]

16still equivalent to 24mm to 60 something mm, which covers a lot of territory in motion.

Im not sure I agree, I think with stills I could shoot most on a 24-70, my style tends to come in quite close (so avoiding a need for teles in the main)

With motion I tend to crave a longer lens - Im not sure why - its not about not being bothered to move

I think often in stills im shooting a half portrait upright with a 70 where-as in motion I would represent the person by standing at the same place and shooting either a pan up/down or two cuttable shots, hands/face

So.. representation of a person..

Still , stand at a 'comfortable distance', shoot an upright on a 70mm

Motion stand at that same 'comfortable distance'; shot 1, hands, shot2 face, lens needed 105 or 135 (FF), or pan up/down in one shot

this entry on my website we see the girl represented as an upright in the still (scroll down) and a series of close landscapes in the vid..
http://sammorganmoore.com/smmcom/scroll.asp?more=1&iid=53

IMO

S

 

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Motion stand at that same 'comfortable distance'; shot 1, hands, shot2 face, lens needed 105 or 135 (FF), or pan up/down in one shot

Kurosawa shot at 200mm+ - but not everyone has the space and light for that kind of luxury. In the 'client-on-your-back' world of video, I have found 24-135 to be the most used range. But occasionally we all need to go wider. Very rarely have I gone longer than 135mm (35mm equiv) - but never on people.

[Morgan_Moore]

To me it is 'luxurious' to bring my viewer close into a place, I would find a 200 more voureistic with all but the tightest crops

The distance thing becomes even more intersting in motion with the ability to 'cheat'

S