Some Facts About 2/3"

[combatentropy]

Dimensions
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/2100_1208236433.png
Super 16: 12.5 x 7.4 mm
16mm: 10.26 by 7.49 mm
2/3": 9.6 x 5.4 mm

Like 16mm
So, the depth of field of a 2/3" sensor is like 16mm, a respectable format. I recently watched Duane Hopwood (http://imdb.com/title/tt0398982/) (Super 16), and I thought that many of its shots were beautiful.

Approximating 35mm
According to this depth of field calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html), 16mm has the same depth of field as 35mm when you open 2 1/2 f-stops. So I guess that 2/3" at 2.8 will yield a respectable depth of field.

More flexible
Don't get me wrong. I love the depth of field of 35mm. But I think I would croak in a run-and-gun shoot. In between your independent films, you might want to shoot a sports event, documentary, etc. The deeper focus of 2/3" would relieve you -- even though focusing with 2/3" can still be difficult.

Lighter lens
At the same quality, a lens for 2/3" will be far lighter and smaller than 35mm. Yes, still lenses are fairly light, but, again, they won't suit run and gun. First, they do not keep focus when you zoom. The lightest 35mm "cine" zoom that I've seen is a 3x at 5 lb. Another (5x) weighed 10.

Here is a shot I took 10 years ago with an even smaller sensor, 1/2":

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/2100_1208236505.png

[toke lahti]

Actually DoF will be between S16 and 35mm, because CoC will be smaller than with S16. At least if lens has enough resolving power.
Resolving power and sensivity will be the questions with this camera.
Pixel size is will be amazingly small: 3.2 µm per dimension!

[Joshua Provost]

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=158808&postcount=18

This post seems to indicate that 2/3" is even closer to Super16 than you say. I wonder which is accurate? Maybe I'm confused.

[Yannick Hagman]

I defenitly want more DoF!

[el_stupido]

combatentropy thanks for this post! I was wondering if this was the case... Hopefully there will be enough shouting and hollering that they'll listen... they tend to... and then we can slap 16mm lenses on scarlett.

Now I am excited.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Just stick with the 2/3" I'm sure the images will be amazing.

[Fix]

F23 from sony use 2/3" and has been used in many movies...

F900 also use 2/3" and is a very good shoulder cam for doc work and sports though its huge and not flexible. Scarlet is. I suspect you can mount it to a helmet recording Red RAW 3K. Big helmet and a strong neck :)

[Jeremy Hughes]

And if you do want 35mm, get a RED ONE.