November 30th Announcement Feedback

[Todd M.]

It might outperform the 2/3" Scarlet in other ways, of course. With 3x the total sensor area it wouldn't be too surprising if it had better low light performance, for instance. Then again, the Scarlet's sensor is a generation or two newer. We'll have to wait and see.

I'm pretty certain there is a loss in light transmittance to each sensor due to the use of a prism.

[Michael Hastings]

Sure. But each of these chips is only recording red, green or blue. Each channel only has 1920x1080 pixels. There is no more pixel information per color than a single chip camera. The pixel count is not multiplied as you suggest.

I think that isn't correct. If I am not mistaken the bayer pattern has two pixels with green filters for each red and blue filtered pixel. So besides whatever loss there is in the debayering algorithm (which affects red blue and green), you automatically have half the red and blue color resolution.

[Tim Whitcomb]

But does anybody else see a hole in the market right now for a sub $4k camera with a full frame or dx/aps-c sized sensor?

Nope, and its not the sensor size, its the crappy MPEG codec that makes that undesirable.

A sub (HVX-200) priced camera with SOPHISTICATED WAVELET COMPRESSION which CAPTURES RAW FILES WITH THE SAME QUALITY IN STILL OR MOTION is insane.

OH, and it comes with FREE SOFTWARE to process the RAW files and images

[Todd M.]

I think that isn't correct. If I am not mistaken the bayer pattern has two pixels with green filters for each red and blue filtered pixel. So besides whatever loss there is in the debayering algorithm (which affects red blue and green), you automatically have half the red and blue color resolution.

You are right, I got caught up in the math for the 3-chip camera and forgot that there is math for the single chip.

[Joseph Ward]

Will the Redmote be able to view and listen to a live feed?

nope :)

Haha! I made it sound like, the Redmote has A.I.

I was really trying to say, Does the Redmote have Live Monitoring Capabilities?

Thanks Jarred for answering my question anyways.

[Chris Kenny]

I'm pretty certain there is a loss in light transmittance to each sensor due to the use of a prism.

No doubt, but I'd be surprised if it was more than a few percent with modern optics. Certainly not enough to result in the total light received by the sensors being less than the total amount received (after filtering) by the photosites on a 2/3" bayer sensor.

Mind you, the 2/3" Scarlet is shaping up to be a really nice little camera. But you might have to actually spring for the S35 Scarlet and pay a full $7,000 for a Red camera that really unambiguously beats Sony's $200,000 flagship camera on all (rather than just most) technical criteria. (I sometimes wonder how the Red staff avoids breaking into exuberant maniacal laughter when they think about that sort of thing. For all I know, they don't avoid it.)

[Charles Angus]

I've shot with the varicam and Red one. The red one affords a much more cinematic experience and a greater sexy factor partly (i would argue this is a big part) due to it's chip size. 2/3" is smaller than S16 and I find S16 somewhat limiting. Red one is an easy choice over any other digital cam. In my mind the F23 is a colossally expensive camera with an ENG aesthetic because of it's 2/3" chip.

It can be argued, however, that with lenses like the DigiPrimes that open up to 1.3 that there is an advantage with 2/3" - namely that you can shoot at 1.3, and still have a workable DOF for the focus puller. F1.3 on 2/3" looks like a 2.8-4 split on S35 (keeping FOV constant), which is about the stop I would bet the bulk of interior dramatic stuff is shot.

[Tom Lowe]

If price were no object, or someone would give me, for free, a complete package of any of the upcoming RED cameras, I would choose the 2/3" over any other.

It seems that so many people are obsessed with shallow depth of field these days... ah well, if 3D catches on big time, it will quickly put an end to that.

Of course, there are other advantages to larger sensors aside from DOF. First and foremost is superior image quality.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see why the equivalent depth of field of shooting 35mm at around an f/5.6 is an "ENG aesthetic". Who decreed that the only acceptable f-stops to shoot 35mm at were f/4.0 and wider?

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If price were no object, or someone would give me, for free, a complete package of any of the upcoming RED cameras, I would choose the 2/3" over any other.

It seems that so many people are obsessed with shallow depth of field these days... ah well, if 3D catches on big time, it will quickly put an end to that.

You would pass up a camera which can shoot:

2/3", S35 or FF35 for a camera which can only shoot 2/3"?

Sensors are like haircuts. You can always trim but you can't add. Get the largest sensor you can afford/fit. It'll offer the most flexibility.