PDA

View Full Version : The Whole Fixed Lens Ordeal (Who Cares?)



Zac C
04-14-2008, 06:07 PM
We all want to attach our Nikon lens... because we're so used to getting the 35mm feel from the 35m adapters we love. But this is different...

WE all assume, with 35mm still lens the DOF given is the way to make our films "Films-like" I was under this spell for years, and 'm only 17. But ive just realized, this camera is shooting better than film, a better image than film, so why do we need to be all artistic and make it more than it needs to be. Making Movies with Deep DOF has been done, Seven Samurai, the director used more lights outside, to keep everything in focus... WE all assume, the money shots are the shallow DOF ones.

But no, not anymore, even with the Scarlet, we can get DOF, just not as verbose as RED ONE or Film, but hey, better than the HVX or HV20 (Bad Comparison), it will look as though we used an adapter.... No one outside of the 35mm realm will spot the mistake of not having the DOF of a feature, stories preveal, thats it, final. If the shot calls for it, give it some DOF

At First, i was pissed beyond belief, Red pu a fixed lens on Scarlet, now i'm glad, i don't feel like spending as a** load of money on lenses... instead of spending money on equipment, ill spend money the story...



Z

I probably forgot stuff... no im not angry, just stating some facts to maybe make some other understand the thinking

antiquaeuropa
04-14-2008, 06:12 PM
Keep telling yourself that you aren't so concerned about DOF! You may even believe it for a while, but there will be a part of you that won't give up on it. Remember that shallow depth of field is an important part of focusing the viewers attention on what is important in your work.

Joshua Murray
04-14-2008, 06:19 PM
the looks of films have changed dramaticly over the years. from the aspect ratio to color and sound. it's time for it to change again i belive. Name one film that could not have been made whithout DOF. i cant think of any... sure to some it might look apealing, but it is by no means necessary... there are other, more origonal ways to focus a viewers attention.

Tom Lowe
04-14-2008, 06:30 PM
It's not just a matter of DOF, although that is important. There a million reasons to want to have interchangeable lenses. The speed of the lens, for example. Or perhaps you want to go extremely wide. Do you think any serious DLSR still photographer would shoot with a point and click camera with a fixed lens?? Why do you think video is ok to have a fixed lens? Is the photography with moving images so different from stills?

Joshua Murray
04-14-2008, 06:36 PM
i'd rather have scarlet be cheap than pay thousands more for lenses... at that point, i might as well buy a red, which i can't afford.

Zac C
04-14-2008, 06:37 PM
I did state, well i am now, I love my Focus, i love having the critical point of focusing, i do have REdrock

this lens, probably goes from 9mm to 72mm... thats 18mm-144mm in 35mm terms?

plenty good enough to go wide and then to telephoto... its a fixed lens, not a prime, but a zoom, and a RED Zoom at that

and i am concerned about Dof, i love it! remember, but this can give it to you... just not in the way everyone begs for, but better than any other

Fredrik Callinggard
04-14-2008, 06:47 PM
This is like when I was shooting S16mm and hadn't had the chance to shoot 35mm. I would be having long discussions on why i should shoot 35mm? 16 was as good as 35mm if not better because.....
...and It's the same as HD shooters claiming that HD is as good as film.

It's not until you try it you understand :innocent:


Fredrik

killfilm
04-14-2008, 06:50 PM
who cares about the fixed lens, but give us a better one than specified, but also make us forget 35mm adapters.

Jason Ramsey
04-14-2008, 06:58 PM
They are targeting a rather huge market with Scarlet. And, a large chunk of that market uses 35mm adapters (in the micro budget indy world). 3k for 3k (plus required accessories) and a 35 adapter setup is gonna run you like the same as an HVX or EX1 package with cards (and no adapter). And, you get cheaper recording media with the Scarlet. Costs are kept down with a fixed lens, and when you are talking about 3k with a 35 adapter setup and 2/3" chips at probably roughly an equivalent cost to 1/3 and 1/2" current options without adapters and less rez... I think they nailed it with this. Those'll be some pretty images coming out of that price range. Doing the same thing with the prosumer market that they are doing now the the RED market, and even tapping a bit into the higher end consumer market.

Hopefully the scarlet lens is adapter friendly and has close macro focusing ability.

3-5k for folks who just want the camera. And, 5-10k for the HVX, EX1, etc. Indy crowd... Huge, huge markets. User can pick the extra expenses and put them where they are important to them.

Later,
Jason

John Caballero
04-14-2008, 07:10 PM
A long year of DOF, fixed lens, blah, blah, blah debates on poor little Scarlet begins April 14, 2008. People, save your energy and use what you have now and do not worry until a year from now for what you will or won't be able to do with Scarlet. Use the time to find out if you really are a good filmaker with what you have in your two little hands right now and if you are not, start baking cakes for sale and see if you can become a good baker.

Tom Lowe
04-14-2008, 07:15 PM
They are targeting a rather huge market with Scarlet. And, a large chunk of that market uses 35mm adapters (in the micro budget indy world). 3k for 3k (plus required accessories) and a 35 adapter setup is gonna run you like the same as an HVX or EX1 package with cards (and no adapter). And, you get cheaper recording media with the Scarlet. Costs are kept down with a fixed lens, and when you are talking about 3k with a 35 adapter setup and 2/3" chips at probably roughly an equivalent cost to 1/3 and 1/2" current options without adapters and less rez... I think they nailed it with this. Those'll be some pretty images coming out of that price range. Doing the same thing with the prosumer market that they are doing now the the RED market, and even tapping a bit into the higher end consumer market.

Hopefully the scarlet lens is adapter friendly and has close macro focusing ability.

If you know a very large percentage of your customers are going to be strapping adapters to this thing, why not offer them what they want from the start? Even if it cost another $1k or $2K as an option, offer the camera ready to go for cine glass, and you will have a real "game changer" on your hands.

killfilm
04-14-2008, 07:53 PM
If you know a very large percentage of your customers are going to be strapping adapters to this thing, why not offer them what they want from the start? Even if it cost another $1k or $2K as an option, offer the camera ready to go for cine glass, and you will have a real "game changer" on your hands.

exactly, with all that competition out there, saving on features isnt exactly the right move these days. Give your market that extra, but of course charge a little more.

P Andersson
04-14-2008, 07:56 PM
A long year of DOF, fixed lens, blah, blah, blah debates on poor little Scarlet begins April 14, 2008. People, save your energy and use what you have now and do not worry until a year from now for what you will or won't be able to do with Scarlet. Use the time to find out if you really are a good filmaker with what you have in your two little hands right now and if you are not, start baking cakes for sale and see if you can become a good baker.

cinnamon roll sound

cinnamon sound rolling

gaoptimize
04-14-2008, 08:34 PM
The fixed zoom is perfect for me. I think some people with existing 35mm lenses are forgetting the magnification factor of the 2/3rd inch sensor chip. I don't want to be worried about a perfect focus all the time, and low light performance
(S/N and color) will be far more important. Only time will tell about these things. I am fairly representative of the pro-sumer market. I've got a story I need to shoot with many sequels: A beautiful Nordic wife and the awesome daughter she gave me. I don't have a crew or a bunch of time for cleaning it up in post. I think the Scarlet will fit my purposes perfectly.

-Tom

paulgandersman
04-14-2008, 09:48 PM
We all want to attach our Nikon lens... because we're so used to getting the 35mm feel from the 35m adapters we love. But this is different...

WE all assume, with 35mm still lens the DOF given is the way to make our films "Films-like" I was under this spell for years, and 'm only 17. But ive just realized, this camera is shooting better than film, a better image than film, so why do we need to be all artistic and make it more than it needs to be. Making Movies with Deep DOF has been done, Seven Samurai, the director used more lights outside, to keep everything in focus... WE all assume, the money shots are the shallow DOF ones.

But no, not anymore, even with the Scarlet, we can get DOF, just not as verbose as RED ONE or Film, but hey, better than the HVX or HV20 (Bad Comparison), it will look as though we used an adapter.... No one outside of the 35mm realm will spot the mistake of not having the DOF of a feature, stories preveal, thats it, final. If the shot calls for it, give it some DOF

At First, i was pissed beyond belief, Red pu a fixed lens on Scarlet, now i'm glad, i don't feel like spending as a** load of money on lenses... instead of spending money on equipment, ill spend money the story...



Z

I probably forgot stuff... no im not angry, just stating some facts to maybe make some other understand the thinking

WOAH. this camera DOES NOT shoot better than film. it does not provide a better image than film. what are you even talking about? have you ever even shot on a 35mm camera? The moviecam? Arri? how bout the panavision? nope? I didn't think so. Film is physical, literal, you can touch film, you can blow it up bigger than you could imagine. It's real. Digital is great. Digital is what we can afford and I love it for that. But this camera nor ANY red or any cam for that matter provides a better image than film. End of story. Go to film school. You need it.

Garrett M. Smith
04-14-2008, 10:00 PM
I don't think it would make much sense to make a "pocket" 2/3" camera with interchangeable lenses. It wouldn't be a pocket cam - it'd look like the XLH1 more than likely. Besides, the lens will be specifically tuned to the chip like other cameras of this type - so it'll probably kick some serious ass in quality.

Jaime Vallés
04-14-2008, 10:12 PM
I don't think it would make much sense to make a "pocket" 2/3" camera with interchangeable lenses. It wouldn't be a pocket cam - it'd look like the XLH1 more than likely. Besides, the lens will be specifically tuned to the chip like other cameras of this type - so it'll probably kick some serious ass in quality.
Exactly. Not only that, but how many XLH1 owners ever remove the stock lens? I've never seen one. If you want to use Zeiss or Cooke lenses, get a RED ONE. Scarlet 3K 2/3" fixed zoom lens is perfect for the price.

Júlio Taubkin
04-14-2008, 10:15 PM
When we want to use larger frames, like s35mm sensors, and 6x6 120 still film, it's not only the DOF that is the reason. It's the dynamic. You'll never get a shot with a 18mm in 35mm exactly the same with a 4.5mm in 1/3'. You'll get an 'equivalent' shot. Everything else in terms of lens distortion, background and foreground relation, is different. It's not only DOF that makes us change formats, actually DOF is more of a hassle than an advantage, sometimes.

BUT this is great. 2/3' is absolutely awesome. It has enough cool (almost like super 16) lens dynamics and DOF, but still is easier to keep focus, so you can shoot doc work with it and be safe poiting and shooting. Fixed lens, in this aspect is also great! keeps the size down and the controls automatic.

The scarlet is incredibly well designed, an extremely intelligent product, at a miraculous price point and I'll be insane if I don't buy one.

I'm still amazed.

Isaac Brody
04-14-2008, 10:25 PM
Seriously, what they're offering is ridiculous. 2/3 chip and 3k resolution for 3k. If you're whining right now just rewind three years ago before Red landed. If it delivers what they promise I'll buy it and shoot a feature on it, and strap on a 35 adaptor if I need too.

There is no reason to make this camera interchangeable because it would compete with Redone. I am pumped about this and can't wait to shoot with one.

Zac C
04-15-2008, 04:20 AM
WOAH. this camera DOES NOT shoot better than film. it does not provide a better image than film. what are you even talking about? have you ever even shot on a 35mm camera? The moviecam? Arri? how bout the panavision? nope? I didn't think so. Film is physical, literal, you can touch film, you can blow it up bigger than you could imagine. It's real. Digital is great. Digital is what we can afford and I love it for that. But this camera nor ANY red or any cam for that matter provides a better image than film. End of story. Go to film school. You need it.

not better than film, but close, but better than any other res out there for under 10k?

hehe sorry dude, if i twisted a nerve

Joshua Murray
04-15-2008, 04:45 AM
WOAH. this camera DOES NOT shoot better than film. it does not provide a better image than film. what are you even talking about? have you ever even shot on a 35mm camera? The moviecam? Arri? how bout the panavision? nope? I didn't think so. Film is physical, literal, you can touch film, you can blow it up bigger than you could imagine. It's real. Digital is great. Digital is what we can afford and I love it for that. But this camera nor ANY red or any cam for that matter provides a better image than film. End of story. Go to film school. You need it.

fuck film i say. anyone who would want to shoot with it is the one who needs some schooling. you obviously have never shot red.

WesVasher
04-15-2008, 05:00 AM
I sure don't care. Give me a fixed lens Scalet under 3,000 please Jim.

Radoslav Karapetkov
04-15-2008, 05:26 AM
If you know a very large percentage of your customers are going to be strapping adapters to this thing, why not offer them what they want from the start? Even if it cost another $1k or $2K as an option, offer the camera ready to go for cine glass, and you will have a real "game changer" on your hands.

Exactly.

Steve G
04-15-2008, 05:29 AM
fuck film i say. anyone who would want to shoot with it is the one who needs some schooling. you obviously have never shot red.

Hey buddy, time to grow up.

Gabriel Winebrenner
04-15-2008, 05:59 AM
fuck film i say. anyone who would want to shoot with it is the one who needs some schooling. you obviously have never shot red.


OMFG, did you say "fuck film?" This is JUST WRONG. Please apologize and pick up a book and read or something. This comment makes me think you haven't used a Red One yourself to make allegations like this. It is because of the love for film, that at least I, need a Red to compensate for what i can't afford in a proper film done with actual FILM.

Joshua Murray
04-15-2008, 06:11 AM
OMFG, did you say "fuck film?" This is JUST WRONG. Please apologize and pick up a book and read or something. This comment makes me think you haven't used a Red One yourself to make allegations like this. It is because of the love for film, that at least I, need a Red to compensate for what i can't afford in a proper film done with actual FILM.

heh heh, opened up a can of worms here I guess... didn't mean to upset you film lovers. IMHO, red footage looks much more pleasing than film. I have done side by side comparisons of the two. I guess it is just a matter of personal taste, I just happen to like super sharp detail and no grain, which I feel film cannot give me. I will never shoot a movie using film. I would turn down the chance if offered it.

And if you like and shoot film, why are you on this forum? No hard feelings I hope. :biggrin:

Tom Lowe
04-15-2008, 06:22 AM
heh heh, opened up a can of worms here I guess... didn't mean to upset you film lovers. IMHO, red footage looks much more pleasing than film. I have done side by side comparisons of the two. I guess it is just a matter of personal taste, I just happen to like super sharp detail and no grain, which I feel film cannot give me. I will never shoot a movie using film. I would turn down the chance if offered it.

And if you like and shoot film, why are you on this forum? No hard feelings I hope. :biggrin:

Film is still superior in some ways, for the time being (dynamic range, for example). Would you seriously look at a film like The Thin Red Line or Pan's Labyrinth or Legends of Fall and say it's not pleasing to the eye? Eventually digital will overtake film, but right now, either choice is good. Like you, many of us only know digital, so the whole chemical film process seems archaic. But I bet you would not turn down a chance to shoot on IMAX... and that's chemical film. :)

Joshua Murray
04-15-2008, 06:26 AM
Film is still superior in some ways, for the time being (dynamic range, for example). Would you seriously look at a film like The Thin Red Line or Pan's Labyrinth or Legends of Fall and say it's not pleasing to the eye? Eventually digital will overtake film, but right now, either choice is good. Like you, many of us only know digital, so the whole chemical film process seems archaic. But I bet you would not turn down a chance to shoot on IMAX... and that's chemical film. :)

I admit IMAX has some appeal. lol. but its not just about look, it is also about control. I feel i have complete controll over a digital image, whereas with film you can never be 100% sure of what you are getting. As far as the looks of those films (i loved Pan's Labyrinth!) I am still bugged by the "film look"

Tom Lowe
04-15-2008, 06:36 AM
I admit IMAX has some appeal. lol. but its not just about look, it is also about control. I feel i have complete controll over a digital image, whereas with film you can never be 100% sure of what you are getting. As far as the looks of those films (i loved Pan's Labyrinth!) I am still bugged by the "film look"

most of us agree with you in terms of workflow and control of the image. that's why we're here. that is really what killed off chemical still cameras. but dissing film as not looking good doesn't make a lot of sense to me. to each his own. it's a matter of personal taste.

QManning
04-15-2008, 06:36 AM
fuck film i say. anyone who would want to shoot with it is the one who needs some schooling. you obviously have never shot red.

Yes. Ridley Scott need some schooling. And Steven Spielberg. And Scorsese. Oh, and Malick.

Feel silly yet?

Latent image. Go look it up.


I admit IMAX has some appeal. lol. but its not just about look, it is also about control. I feel i have complete controll over a digital image, whereas with film you can never be 100% sure of what you are getting. As far as the looks of those films (i loved Pan's Labyrinth!) I am still bugged by the "film look"

What are you even talking about? Do you even know? You're bugged by the "film look?"

So you're shooting everything at 29.97fps and 480i? I didn't think so.

Look, here's the truth: a 3k image that looks like crap is just a big picture of crap. *EVERYTHING* great about the way a film looks is dependent on two things: The Lens and the Lighting. If you have a crap lens, the lighting can only go so far.

Good lenses have a way of reading light, of reading detail, of doing things to highlights, of doing things to blacks.

Getting Shallow Depth of Field (and please, people, realize that "Depth of Field" is the opposite of what you want; Depth of Field is the short-hand for Deep Depth of Field. Shallow Depth of Field is that film look so many talk about) is a TOOL, not a gimmick. SDOF is very much a necessity to help the director and cinematographer dictate what SHOULD and SHOULDN'T be paid attention to on the screen. On FOCUSING our eyes literally on what matters and what doesn't.

That American Flag behind the lead actor's head as he's breaking down about his father dying during the Iraq war? Yeah, that's important on a subconscious level, but it's the character's performance that is tantamount. With a typical mediocre zoom lens, you'll need to seriously play with blocking, ND filtering, and lighting to get the exact same SDOF you'd have with a good prime lens. So your eyes go to his eyes, not the number of threads in the star behind him.

Making films is about much more than 'oh, let's shoot this, it'll be cool' or having Final Cut Pro.

Using the right lens at the right time is as important as anything else to the storytelling.

Zac C
04-15-2008, 06:42 AM
fuck film i say. anyone who would want to shoot with it is the one who needs some schooling. you obviously have never shot red.

i don't know about im still a sucker for film... you're taking it to a whole new level... i was saying gettting the best look out of the people who are shooting video trying to emulate film.... we can create good DOf just not as good as film... in the end, films win's.... but in our realm of video.... scarlet dof is the best

Joshua Murray
04-15-2008, 06:43 AM
Yes. Ridley Scott need some schooling. And Steven Spielberg. And Scorsese. Oh, and Malick.

Feel silly yet?

Latent image. Go look it up.

They used what they had at the time... now that digital cinema has come of age, why NOT use it? If you know what you are doing, you can get it to look exactly like film.

Latent Image= lack of control. ;)

Akcelik
04-15-2008, 07:55 AM
People should be encouraged in moulding shape to this camera, thats what RED is all about!
So lets stop nesting on the current specs.

If you can change one thing on this camera, what would it be???

Make it interchangeable and include the zoom in the package.
Give us a stack of fast primes for extra accessories.