Scarlet sharpness workflow question

[Matt Ryan]

Agree. Although cheap, that lens is supposed to be sharp in the center at f/2.8, see:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/15...review?start=1

But I guess quality control of those lenses is not what it should be so you could have gotten a lemon. I'm curious to see what you find if you shoot some stills in RAW to compare with.

Keep in mind this test was also done on an 8MP Eos 350D which has a sensor size of 22.2mm x 14.8mm vs. the Scarlet's 14MP 27.7mm x 14.6mm. The Scarlet will show more lens flaws than what the test found. The review gave the lens a 2 star out of 5 rating overall.

But your right that QC most likely plays a huge role.

[Les Dittert]

Matt,
Yes, you have to consider the sensor size, to insure you are comparing things 'apples to apples'.
A reality check is when you open both images in an editor and set the zoom to 100% ( 1 to 1 , or actual size in Photoshop ) , the objects will appear to be the same size on screen.
My old Canon XTi is a 10 MP camera, and it is almost the same pixel pitch as the Scarlet so it makes a good test bed for reality checking things.

[Miles Heckendorn]

Okay, here comes the "Les lens Test"

http://www.filemail.com/dl.aspx?id=AIKLATCWFBSCLOO

password: scarlet

Just a few notes....

I was out of the office, so again I had to pull my poor daughter into this. And of course I forgot to grab any kind of light. So we ended up with a mix of the exterior daylight and incandescent practicals.

The DSLR was a 7D. I looked to see if I had anything smaller in MP but no luck. I uploaded two raw files, one with the same settings as the Scarlet (iso800 f8 shutter 50) and another with a higher shutter (80) to compensate for the exposure differences.

If these shots don't work I can try to stop by the office later and try something new. Just let me know.

Again, thanks for the help.

[Matt Ryan]

Okay, here comes the "Les lens Test"

http://www.filemail.com/dl.aspx?id=AIKLATCWFBSCLOO

password: scarlet

Just a few notes....

I was out of the office, so again I had to pull my poor daughter into this. And of course I forgot to grab any kind of light. So we ended up with a mix of the exterior daylight and incandescent practicals.

The DSLR was a 7D. I looked to see if I had anything smaller in MP but no luck. I uploaded two raw files, one with the same settings as the Scarlet (iso800 f8 shutter 50) and another with a higher shutter (80) to compensate for the exposure differences.

If these shots don't work I can try to stop by the office later and try something new. Just let me know.

Again, thanks for the help.

No sharpness was added, just took similar sections from the 3 shots. Nothing scientific but the Scarlet is definitely soft. Scarlet has much better resolution and dynamic range but to me this doesn't look like the typical RED shot. Even though I don't use sharpening on my footage it is still much sharper than this. You might want to have it checked out.



This is assuming your focus was set to your daughters face and not the paper or charts.

Also, I did add sharpness is RCX Pro just to see and I also used the clarity slider and the eyes were still soft...(the grab above has no sharpness or clarity added)

[Miles Heckendorn]

No sharpness was added, just took similar sections from the 3 shots. Nothing scientific but the Scarlet is definitely soft. Scarlet has much better resolution and dynamic range but to me this doesn't look like the typical RED shot. Even though I don't use sharpening on my footage it is still much sharper than this. You might want to have it checked out.

Thanks for taking a look and posting the results. You're right the focus was set to her eyes.

Damn......

So I guess contact with a Red rep is my next move?

[Les C.]

Isn't this a problem with debayering in RCX? (software only) I've read that many a time now. If it were red rocket debayered it would be sharper?

I've listened to a number of fxGuide RC (Red Center) podcasts http://www.fxguide.com/podcasts/ that stated that software debayering, while slower, is slightly higher quality than with the Rocket.

[Matt Ryan]

Thanks for taking a look and posting the results. You're right the focus was set to her eyes.

Damn......

So I guess contact with a Red rep is my next move?

I would say put in a support ticket and have RED see if theres an issue with the camera. From other Scarlet R3D posts on Reduser I havent seen any as soft as your examples.

[Miles Heckendorn]

I would say put in a support ticket and have RED see if theres an issue with the camera. From other Scarlet R3D posts on Reduser I havent seen any as soft as your examples.

Thanks for the advice. I'll do that.

Of course I'll keep the thread updated with the results.

[Phil Holland]

I've been following this thread from my dirigible fortress in the sky.

Not having been there, inspecting the lens, or shooting these tests I personally have no real idea what's going on. However, I thought I'd show a 100% crop from a 4k motion frame for some comparison. This is a processed image.




I can get sharper results shooting subjects that don't move (like cactus, trees, etc.), but this is a good target to shoot for in my opinion.

[Matt Ryan]

I've been following this thread from my dirigible fortress in the sky.

Not having been there, inspecting the lens, or shooting these tests I personally have no real idea what's going on. However, I thought I'd show a 100% crop from a 4k motion frame for some comparison. This is a processed image.



I can get sharper results shooting subjects that don't move (like cactus, trees, etc.), but this is a good target to shoot for in my opinion.

Thanks Phil! This is exactly how it should look sharpness (detail) wise. I think something may be up with his Scarlet cause he said hes had the same results with several lenses.