Check out these important Specs, considering getting the Scarlet but then I have the 5D.....

Canon 5D 38ish Mps Bit Rate
Canon 7D 47ish Mps Bit Rate (and 30 and 24 fps, not sure at 60fps??)
Red Scarlet 50 Mps (60fps at 2k, 120fps at 1k)

Canon 5D 5,616 × 3,744 pixels Sensor, at 36 x 24mm
Scarlet 5120 x 2700 pixels, 27mm x 14mm

Red Epic uses same sensor as Scarlet but has a higher Mps (believe its at 250) and more frames per seconds options.

I was originally thinking of getting the Scarlet to replace my 5D, but now I am considering if a 7D would be a nice addition (slow motion and high bit rate) since the compression is nearly the same. I had hoped for a less compressed image from Scarlet for grading, but not sure if the $14,000 is worth it, plus $2000 for upgrading software to run Red. (I have cs3 right now).

Thoughts?

Of course, the Red Scarlet is a real video camera, has less rolling shutter, probably a better image, and I hear it has a auto focus all though I ve never seen a good auto focus from a cmos sensor. I am sure there are other great benefits to using Scarlet but I would like to know what you all think and if its work the $$$$$

EDIT:

Red Scarlet: REDCODE RAW at 50MB/sec (440 megabits/sec)
RED Scarlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canon 5D: 38 Megabits per second
Canon EOS 5D Mark II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey Silas,

I've been working with an Epic for the last few weeks and have been considering a scarlet. You should be aware of a few things. First, you will need way more than the $14,000 starter kit to actually get started. The 'kit' comes with 1- 64gb SSD card. This is like shooting the 5d2 with a single 4gb CF card. Extra 64gb SSD are $950 each. We're using 4- 128gb SSD. They are $1800.00 each. The 128gb SSD hold about 30 mins of footage at our current compression rate. Also the 2- Red Volt batteries in the 'kit' last about 30 minutes each (in standby mode). And though the kit ships with AC, this only works when you have power available.

You should expect to add at least 5,000 to the starter kit, just for basic use.

You really need to assess what you'll be using the camera for. Personally, i'm looking to see how the C300 shakes down. 1080p, a full frame sensor, EF compatibility, 50mbps to the XF codec would suit 90% of the work that I do.

I have the 7d, have had a RED one and have ordered a Scarlet.
The 7d shoots great looking video. But, it overheats and can't shoot for long periods of time.
No autofocus either.
One thing to remember is Canon skips lines to get video, so you're not using the whole sensor in video acquisition. But, you can get 7 of the 7ds for the price of a Scarlet.

Very different cameras. But I'm thinking of keeping the 7D on set for a second cam... at least for BTS footage.

Interesting....

For me, I want to make films for DVD and Blu Ray.

So would it make sense to get the Scarlet if I have the 5D already?

It sounds like its going to cost me about $20,000 to be able to use scarlet in fast paced filming situations.
And what would I have as an advantage over the 5D if I get it?

5D Advantages:
Cheap
More shallow DOF with full sensor
Could be more sensitive than a Scarlet

Scarlet advantages
Moire not a problem
Resolution hugely better
Better dynamic range
Less compression
RAW allows more grading in post
Much lower levels of skew
No 12 min clip limit

Scarlet disadvantage compared to 5D
More expensive
Needs more power
Heavier
Uses RAW, which may be an issue with fast turnaround material. Either that or you need to buy an external recorder.

Thanks for the comments, guys!

Couple more things I ve been thinking about:

I heard that the Scarlet has the same sensor as Epic, so the Depth of field should be pretty good even if its less then the Canon 5D, right? (I would be using fast canon lenses (f1.4 - 2.8) on the Scarlet if I get it).

Also, I heard that the scarlet does not use the full pixels unless your using the full 5k output, so for 2k which I would mainly use probably, it would only use a portion of the sensor (cropped sensor). I forgot where I heard this (Philip Bloom or Film Riot or someone) but it sounded like it would be annoying to be only using a cropped sensor. How difficult would it be to just shoot everything at 5k and then downsize it all to 2k?

One more thing: Compression..
Do you guys think that 50mps compression vs the 5D 38mps or 7d 47mps is much different? Is there an uncompressed or Raw output that could be used for grading or do you only get 50mps out from Scarlet?

Thanks in advance! I am looking to make films with Scarlet, but most filming stuff I do has time constraints so I am really trying to see if its worth the money or not to do this. I would also be doing TV commercials with it as well and music videos.

Don't confuse bytes with bits, RED quote in bytes. 42MB/s on a RED equals 336 Mbit/s, so the DSLRs are way back in the distance in that regard. The Scarlet has compression choices of 18:1 to 3:1

For full resolution you'd downsample in post to 2K or HD, but you record at 4k for that. The windowed 2k in camera is something you'd use if wanting higher frame rates or to use 16mm lenses on the camera.

The DOF will be slightly deeper on the Epic, but in story telling terms the difference is pretty meaningless.

Oh, so the Scarlet is much less compressed then I thought??!! So for grading and editing the footage there would be much less noise and artifacts and such with the Scarlet then? This is good news indeed!

Red Scarlet: REDCODE RAW at 50MB/sec (440 megabits/sec)
RED Scarlet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RED_Scarlet)

Canon 5D: 38 Megabits per second
Canon EOS 5D Mark II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II)


So probably shoot in 4k most of the time then I imagine to be using most of the sensor? (for Blu Ray delivery)

One more thing:

There is no instant review of footage on the scarlet?

Are there any work arounds this to be able to do that on the shoot?

So probably shoot in 4k most of the time then I imagine to be using most of the sensor? (for Blu Ray delivery)

Yes! Use the resolution!


One more thing:

There is no instant review of footage on the scarlet?

Playback is enabled in all shipping Scarlets. ;)

WOW! Instant playback? I thought I had read that it did not have that. Interesting.

So really, if you have extra batteries and latest software to read Red Raw there are really no advantages to using the Canon 5D then sounds like....I think I might get it!

Any other helpful information anyone has about it would be appreciated!

Hey Silas,

You should read Phil Blooms blog post. He is a veteran DSLR shooter who has owned a Epic for 5 months. To buy a Scarlet or not to buy, that is the question… | Philip Bloom (http://philipbloom.net/2011/11/20/scarlet/)

Im a big fan of Red, and may end up with a Scarlet. But just go into it with your eyes open.

Thanks for the link Ken, I read that post from Bloom before, but Its nice to go over it again....so in a fast paced film making shoot, looks like I would probably need 12 batteries and 4 128 gig cards, that's a lot of $$$. That's unfortunate. One thing that worries me a little is how Bloom mentioned that the Epic was not that reliable. That's crazy for the money.


So if I get the Canon Mount Scarlet Package for $14,015 what else would I need?
(I already have Canon Lenses and I would get Adobe CS6 when it comes out too, native RED support)


Extra Batteries ($195 each, probably 10 extra)
Red Mag Memory 128 GIG ($1800 each, probably at least a few of these?)
Anything Else? Do I need Red Rocket or anything for post besides Adobe CS6 when it comes out?

You just need a tripod, and lights, and audio gear (no built in mic)... don't forget craft services too...
Oh, and you don't 'need' a red rocket card, but transcoding is waaaaaaaaaay faster with one.

Got the Lights and Audio....UH I guess add on $5000 for the Red Rocket ): ?

Silas,

I've been shooting a low budget feature with a friends epic over the last few weeks. These are somewhat 'buggy'. I mentioned it somewhere and was told that the epic X are sold with the full knowledge of the buyer that these are in beta build. They do release firmware upgrades pretty frequently.

You will want the Canon mount as there are definitely advantages to using Canon glass, especially if you have lots.

Like I said, it's just good to have your eyes open. We don't have a Rocket, and it is sloooow... and we have had a raid drive crash.... yikes!

I would think that there will be lots for rent in your area as soon as they hit the market. So you can dip your toes in the water. Also something to be aware of is the lack of XLR inputs on the Epic, which will presumably be the case with the Scarlet. Not a big deal, but something to be aware of.

Canon will be announcing the price for the C300 in January. It's expected to be considerably less than the 20k that was rumored. These cams are ready to shoot out of the box (just add a lens). It's 1080p, large sensor, long battery life, dual CF cards, the XF codec....

Yeah I might need to wait to we hear more about the Scarlet, after all it just came out. I definitely don't want some buggy camera lol

My recommendation for you, Silas, is that you should push your 5D until you outgrow it. Save your money until the current technology is mature, or even until something else comes up on the horizon--or better yet, put the money up on screen. For the price of a fully equipped Scarlet, you can buy a lot of other support or lighting gear that may improve your films much more than the difference between cameras. Rent a Scarlet for one of your shoots and feel out whether it is worth it to you. Don't get hung up on the numbers.

Excellent advice, thanks guys!

I am going to wait a few months and see what Scarlet Users say as footage and information comes out now that its about to ship. In 6 or more months I may be working on a new short film and at that point might consider getting it. One of the reasons I wanted to get Scarlet was because on the last film, we got permits and insurance to shoot on city locations, and also had aerial shots in our film (a lot of my own money went into it). Mostly done with the Canon 5D and Sony Ex1r. I thought it would be nice to swap the Canon out for the Scarlet and be able to do more grading in post. You can check out the trailer to my last film here: (Just selected at the 2012 Trail Dance Film Festival!)

PERSPECTIVE short film by Silas Barker (http://www.silasbarker.com/perspective.html)

5D Advantages:
Cheap
More shallow DOF with full sensor
Could be more sensitive than a Scarlet


I'd like to suggest that shallow DOF is actually a DISADVANTAGE to the 5D2.

First, to be technically correct for the new filmmakers in the crowd (not directed to you Brian), the 5D2 doesn't have more shallow DOF as the DOF will be the same on either camera at the same focal length. What is has is shallower DOF given the same field of view, where you'll need to use a wider lens (shorter focal length) on the S35 sensor camera to achieve the same FOV as the 5D2.

Anyway...
Why it is a disadvantage...
It's too shallow DOF for the skills of most filmmakers. I see a LOT of DSLR footage, and its shocking how little is in focus. 85mm f1.4 on a tight shot and your actor blinks? Out of focus.

Super35 has been the go to for filmmaking for a million trillion years, shallower DOF doesn't add anything to the toolbox.
That's my mini-rant. I'm getting tired of seeing out of focus indie films.

Silas,
Do what Charles says, learn to shoot the hell out of your 5D2 and put your money on screen. No one cares what you shoot on. Rent a Scarlet for the shoots someone else is paying for.

Oh I agree the 5D can give a too shallow DOF and some people do get obsessed by the art of out of focus blobs behind the characters.

For telling a story the DOF on a Super 35 camera does the job and a f1.4 lens on that format will give a skilled 1st AC a hard enough time, never mind doing it on full frame 35.

Much of the time you don't need a very shallow DOF to direct the audiences eye, it'll naturally go to who's talking or where there's movement. Perhaps it works best when a character feels emotionally isolated, rather than directing the audiences attention.

You don't need to spend money on buying a camera unless you feel you're at the stage when you can make full effective use of it. Get the lights etc in place and then worry about buying higher end camera, or just rent it for your film. There are also cameras that cost less and will do a more effective job than the 5D as a video camera, there are a number of options around.

Upon reflection... Silas, you should buy a Super16 camera and shoot real film.

Listen, if you can monetize the Scarlet (I see you shoot local spots, weddings, etc), then certainly go for it. Making short films is not a moneymaker in and of itself as we all know. Most people who make features out of pocket end up with nothing to show for it but a stack of DVD's and credit card debt (yes, some get distribution, but only a few even recoup their production costs).

I think you have a good eye and obviously you are developing solid CGI skills. My honest assessment of the trailer is that the visuals are competent but cookie-cutter--they look like what everyone else is doing. Actually they are decent enough that they could make a lot of people think you are shooting higher-budget projects, except for one thing; the acting is clearly not at that level. So my best advice would be to invest into a more skilled level of actor. That may not be as tangible or sexy as a piece of compositing software or a higher bit-rate codec, but it's far--FAR--more important to the success of a film. Sacramento is a short plane ride from LA--there's thousands of good actors down here who are willing to work on the cheap!

Yes, it's amazing how good the simplest camera work and lighting looks when you've skilled, well cast actors in front of the camera.

I think you have a good eye and obviously you are developing solid CGI skills. My honest assessment of the trailer is that the visuals are competent but cookie-cutter--they look like what everyone else is doing. Actually they are decent enough that they could make a lot of people think you are shooting higher-budget projects, except for one thing; the acting is clearly not at that level. So my best advice would be to invest into a more skilled level of actor. That may not be as tangible or sexy as a piece of compositing software or a higher bit-rate codec, but it's far--FAR--more important to the success of a film. Sacramento is a short plane ride from LA--there's thousands of good actors down here who are willing to work on the cheap!

I was going to say the same thing (as well as buying a monitor to tell when you're not in focus), but...

SILAS, LISTEN TO CHARLES. No matter what you do, your efforts will always be brought down to the level of your actors. One great actor is worth all the shallow DOF and visFX in the world.

Most people who make features out of pocket end up with nothing to show for it but a stack of DVD's and credit card debt (yes, some get distribution, but only a few even recoup their production costs).


Silas... yes... listen to Charles,

The writer/director of the low budget feature that i'm working on went all-in. Like everything he has is on the table. We'll see how it works out. He's a friend, so myself and a veteran DP, are working for free essentially (well, deferred payment). Another friend has an Epic that we're shooting on,essentially for free.

He did fly one actor in from LA, and several others have good experience. I can tell because they're the ones who I can count on to consistently hit their marks. We also have some less experienced actors in prominent roles, and the director is having to spend lots of time (and takes) trying to coax the perfromances out of them.

Whoever might want to buy this film will look at the acting waaayy before they care what camera it was shot on. If the acting isn't there, resolution, fx and grading can't fix that. And I would agree that in your short, the acting is pulling it down.

To date two of the features I shot were released theatrically. In both instances the cinematography received glowing reviews from sources such as the New York Times, Variety, Ebert etc. although the overall reviews were variable to weak. Despite DVD release, neither have made their money back.

I'm proud of my contributions and I learned a lot. The most important lesson I learned was: unless I'm being paid my rate, I'm never again going to shoot a film that doesn't start with a strong script and continue through strong casting. It's also part of the reason that I haven't directed a feature yet--haven't found the right script to make it worth it.

Once interested in the story pitch, who's attached is the first thing potential production funders always ask.

You can spend as much, if not more, time casting your film as shooting it.

Great advice guys, thank you!

Yes I want to do less events and more commercials, but I'll have to get that working better with the 5D before I get Scarlet I think. I do commercials and infomercials and love that, but I have to supplement that with events to make a living currently.

And thanks for the advice about the actors, one of the problems was that I was directing and shooting the same film, but honestly I am more of a cinematographer then a director or writer, and in wearing all the hats, I was not able to deliver a top directing job, so that's party my fault that the acting is not quite as good as it could have been.

Honestly in the future I would rather just work with a director and focus only on cinematography but I will probably direct at least a few more films till I have more experience working in various environments with different lighting set ups. I know what you mean about the shots - some of it could have been more original or creative! We had a limited time in every scene and really ran out of time every day we filmed. (With permits and insurance we had limited time do get things done!)

And I hear you on the being paid your rate deal - that short film was my own invention and therefore the story, writing, and acting and directing were a little compromised. But still, its not bad at all for a 40+ volunteers giving me their time for free for several days!

Again, one of the main reasons for wanting the Scarlet for short films is because after I put $10,000 - $12,000 of my own money into a project, its just nice to be able to grade it and make it better in post, although of course good actors and directors in the beginning would help maybe more then that in the future!

One of biggest things to making my next film will be making sure I take ALOT of time to direct the actors to do exactly what I want, on the last one I know there were a few points were we ran out of time and I simply said "Action!" Either that or get someone to direct the film for me while I have all the fun lighting and shooting it!

Good to hear your response, Silas, you sound like you have the right attitude and approach to your work and future.

"We had a limited time in every scene and really ran out of time every day we filmed. (With permits and insurance we had limited time do get things done!)"

Sadly--this is almost everything these days! I wish I could tell that it all gets easier in the legit industry but it doesn't, and it's worse than ever. On my recent series we were working under such oppressive time constraints that it was almost comical sometimes (grim smiles, not real ones!). Ultimately, it all comes down to good planning, smart scheduling, the ability to think quickly when things don't go according to plan, and intelligent time management. And being able to kill your "babies" without remorse. When it's the choice between that crane shot you dreamed of and three other pieces of non-exciting but critical coverage, it can be so painful to let go of the crane shot but you gotta, you gotta...

I forgot to mention: that shot of the dumpster and alley with the hot sky was quite lovely.

Thanks Charles!

Yes, I think time was the biggest thing for us. But also, it could have been better planned out. For the next one, I am thinking of having it story boarded out rather then a shot list. Like you said, its all about good planning! Glad you like the alley shot, too, we had 30 minutes to get that because of the way the sun was behind a building. I came out to the spot a few days before the shoot to see exactly what time we would start and when to end. Its one of my favorite shots in the film! Any other advice or tips you have regarding cinematography specifically would be greatly appreciated as well!

We had to shoot in the rain a few times and that screwed up using the Sun as a backlight a few times. Plan for everything I guess haha.

One of biggest things to making my next film will be making sure I take ALOT of time to direct the actors to do exactly what I want, on the last one I know there were a few points were we ran out of time and I simply said "Action!"!

It's often less of getting the actors to less of doing exactly what you want, but of doing the best casting for a role and then guiding the actors. The best casting isn't always the best actor you got in the your auditions, but it could be the one you feel is bringing that something to a particular part. The actor you select in the end may have a limited acting range compared to others, but they shine in the role you've cast them in.

Picking the right time of day for exteriors is definitely something that planning ahead can make or break a shot. Having a reliable sun position tool (various apps now available much cheaper than our previous methods, with dedicated software, printout and inclinometer/compass) is critical. Never be "surprised" by the sun--it is one of the few things we can rely on in this business! I was amazed when I worked with Roger Deakins that he used no lighting or grip gear on the various exteriors; he did have a specific time of day scheduled for each shot that delivered the ideal light. Very few of us have that luxury, but if you can do it, it's a great way to go.

Bryan's point on directing is well-taken. So much depends on what the actor brinsg to the table. A great one will generally need less direction than a weak one. Just remember not to do line readings unless the actor asks for it (usually they hate that!)

Yeah I think Roger Deakins has the right idea, shooting at the right time of day makes a huge difference especially for wide shots, the close ups are a little easier to light.

Yeah... Roger Deakins is not a bad guy to emulate... Any more anecdotes from one of my favorite DP's Charles?

I bought a book 20 years ago called 'Masters of Light'. Interviews with 15 top cinematogaphers. I still have it. Great book, great insight.

My favorite Roger story came on the first day I worked for him, doing Steadicam. It should be said that Roger is not particularly a fan of that piece of gear but when a director requests it and it's the right tool, he'll use it. It was a walk-and-talk in downtown LA (standing in for NYC) with Dennis Quaid and Greg Kinnear. We rehearsed it, and the sun was screaming down the avenue from behind me, so there was camera shadow all over the actors. I waited for a bit, knowing it was obvious that there was an issue, and eventually asked Roger "so, what is the plan? Will you be flying a diffusion frame behind me, or....?" He said, "no, we wait until the sun goes behind the buildings and shoot it in the shade". "Ah" I said. "Will we be shooting something else in the meantime?". He smiled wryly, shook his head and said "we wait".

About 15 minutes later the first AD came over and said "Roger, what time can we shoot?" Roger pointed down at the sidewalk. "Do you see the sun line? When it gets to that crack in the pavement, bring in second team. When it's on that crack, first team". Then he winked at me.

Sure enough, we did exactly that. And the light was perfect.

(p.s. for those unfamiliar with the terms first and second team, that refers to the actors and their stand-ins respectively).

My dormant Steadicam reel is still up on the web, although you have to be a bit of a sleuth to find it...shhhhh, here it is: SteadicamReel (http://www.charlespapert.com/DP/SteadicamReel.html)
A piece of the shot described above appears about halfway through. Prior to that are two others from Roger shows: the shot with Charlize Theron and the subsequent one with George Clooney.

Thanks Charles... great story. And the shot is beautifully lit. I love how he used the cracks as his clock and lightmeter. Like a Sundial.

Also a great reel. I did watch it a couple of years ago, so it was good to see it again, and it got me thinking about one of my favorite steadicam shots - the foot chase from Point Break. So I watched it again. But its funny, I hadnt seen it for years and it's no where near as impactful now. At the time I thought it was an absolutely incredible shot. I'm not sure why, but now I look at it and because of all the cuts, it doesn't seem nearly as impressive as i once thought.

Thanks for the Deakins story.

For my money the great Steadicam shot in Point Break is at the beginning, when John C McGinley takes through the office. So many whip pans, flawlessly executed. Jimmy Muro was the Steadicam operator, who now shoots Southland.

Steadishots.org : Steadicam Shot by James Muro from Point Break (http://www.steadishots.org/shots_detail.cfm?shotID=188)

Agreed... looking at the two scenes now, the opener is the definitive steadicam shot in the movie.

Nice reel Charles!
Just curious too, do you always have a focus puller, or do you sometimes have your aperture smaller to keep everything in focus and keep the camera at a constant distance from the talent?

Just to clarify, I have retired from Steadicam--now I'm telling my guys to "strap it on"!

The short answer is yes, always a focus puller. Nearly every shot on that reel is 35mm originated (very few were in HD, but that's because of the age of most of that material--1996 to 2007). Film or HD, I always have focus pullers. The compromise in having to "work the hyperfocal" is not an option for me. Too creatively restricting. I've owned wireless lens controllers since around 1991.

I would consider Panasonic GH2, which can be used at GOP1 176 mbs, excellent quality, much better in my experience than any Canon DSLR. Lately tested Nikon 5100 another inexpensive DSLR, in direct compare it's better than Canon 5dmk2 in DD, noise.. all IMO.
Another thing Nikon optics more film like, sharper, have more contrast..

Cheeers!

Have to disagree.
* 4/3 is doomed for video
* No one else shoots video on Nikon
* Nikon lenses mount on Canon

Makes Canon still a win.

@Charles, I figured you used a focus puller, but wondered if you ever worked "solo." Whenever I use a steadycam I usually use a small arpature keep a fixed distance from the talent. Of course, a focus puller would be better though!


@Oleg, I believe the GH2 has a much less bitrate (24mbs unless hacked) for video compared to the Canon 5D (38 Mbps)
Panasonic Lumix GH2 (http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_2007_01/section_gear_cameras_2010/20101218_Panasonic_GH2/index.html)

Silas, I can barely recall not having an AC on a given shoot--maybe 2/3" SD video jobs back in the day. Again, once you have a remote focus system, it seems silly not to use it. The live TV guys tend to pull their own focus, but I didn't do many of those kind of jobs.

I've certainly been aware that many peeps have adopted the super wide angle/deep aperture combo for shooting Steadicam with large format cameras (DSLR etc) and kept their distance. A couple of years ago I was prescribing that people become familiar with depth of field tables so that they can be a little more flexible with their options for this kind of shooting.