Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?

[Jon Fairhurst]

Great summaries above about the pros and cons of the two cameras.

Under/over crank is an advantage for Scarlet. You can undercrank for action/fight scenes. For slow motion, rent an EPIC head and add it to your Scarlet setup and Scarlet workflow. The C300 supports 1080 @ 24/25/30 (I believe), but you can't dial it down to 18/20/22.

[Ken Diewert]

Brian I realize its a cine lens but i dont think that the future is in this style of glass. The director of the film I'm working on was really cursing the fact that the canon mount hadnt been delivered yet. We were trying to shoot some scenes handheld, and were crippled by the weight of this lens. Red has had an overwhelming response to their announcement of the canon mount.

[Henry Coll]

On the other hand, the question is more F3 vs C300. My personal take is to go with Sony all the way for the following reasons (all of which the C300 lack):

-60p @ 1080p
-3D link
-4:4:4 uncompressed 10 bit output
-LUTs
-Simultaneous SDIs with both LOG and LUTs
-AF/Zoom control for run and gun/ENG setups with the proper lenses
-Decades of Sony experience with Cinealta digital film cameras
-Firmware after fimrware, the camera gets solid newer features
-Mounts pretty much all lenses with the SAME camera
-Tried and tested, available now, cheaper, better balanced, better ergonomics

[Barry Goyette]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

The C300 supports 1080 @ 24/25/30 (I believe), but you can't dial it down to 18/20/22.

Actually you can undercrank it. 1-30 frames in 1080 and 1-60 frames in 720P.

Barry

[Jon Fairhurst]

I hadn't seen that (or had missed it) in the write ups that I had read.

Nice feature, Canon! I hope to see that on the next gen DSLRs as well!

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Ken Diewert

Brian I realize its a cine lens but i dont think that the future is in this style of glass. The director of the film I'm working on was really cursing the fact that the canon mount hadnt been delivered yet. We were trying to shoot some scenes handheld, and were crippled by the weight of this lens. Red has had an overwhelming response to their announcement of the canon mount.

You don't usually shoot hand held with this lens, although it has been done in the past with similar lenses on 35mm film cameras because they needed to zoom in the shot. In the cases I've heard of they've put on 1000ft magazine for balance. For hand held 35mm work prime lens are the norm. The RED zoom is a workhorse for use on the tripod head.

The problem is that stills glass has a lot of disadvantages for shooting films. The issue is that is most commonly raised one is that of breathing (the slight zooming effect whilst focusing), but also many stills zooms don't hold their focus when they're being zoomed. That's not an issue when shooting stills, but limits the lens for motion picture work, because you have to eye focus and redo all the focus marks every time you change the focal length.

The other problem is that the focus scale on the still glass is compact compared to much more expanded cine scale. Some old cine lenses did have a more compact scale, but the expanded focus scale has replaced them.

The reason why many people are wanting the Canon mount is the lower cost of the mass produced still lenses. Although, some cine primes allow you to change their PL mounts to still, as do the new Canon cine zooms. However, the latter are a pretty similar size and weight to the RED zoom. Size will always enter the equation when you want a Super 35mm zoom lens that has more than a 3 to 1 zoom range with a f 2.8 max aperture. The compact large zoom range, low cost zooms now being brought out have very large aperture ramping (and not that fast), which is useful for certain applications, but they are a compromise,

The still lenses do allow the option for automatic focus, but how well this will work in practise on more complex scenes with the focus being precisely pulled with full emotional effect remains to be seen.

[Don Miller]

I'm sure the Red support for significant feature films is very good. And that they make a real effort for everyone else.
But the unique environment Red has created, especially in their forum, has minimized the reporting of these problems. It's a shame that Chris seems to give Red special treatment. They're big boys now and should face the same critical analysis as the other brands.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Ken Diewert

Brian I realize its a cine lens but i dont think that the future is in this style of glass. The director of the film I'm working on was really cursing the fact that the canon mount hadnt been delivered yet. We were trying to shoot some scenes handheld, and were crippled by the weight of this lens. Red has had an overwhelming response to their announcement of the canon mount.

I think you're wrong, amigo. DSLR shooters are pushing more into the cine lens world, prices on used cine lenses are climbing fast. No, you wouldn't want to shoot a cine zoom handheld, unless you had a) the appropriate shoulder rig, fine tuned, or b) a large gorilla as a cam op.

Brian covered a couple of the reasons, but also:
* edge to edge sharpness. Most still lenses fail here.
* bokeh, still lens 6 blade iris = yuck
* real focus ring (focus puller suicide rates are skyrocketing!)
* sharper at full open, many still lenses are soft until you stop them down (granted, this is more a case by case than a rule)


btw, awesome t-shirt.

[Charles Papert]

The discussion about wishing for cine lenses to be lighter is slightly off topic but a good one.

For folks coming from the DSLR world, cine zooms are going to be a shocker in every way--cost, weight and size. And they aren't getting much smaller any time soon. The new Canon zooms are around 10 and 13 lbs, and the Arri Aluras introduced this year are roughly the same (the longer one at 16 lbs). For about half the zoom range, the Angeneiux Optimos are definitely better suited for handheld, at around 4 lbs.

For the past few months we had my Alura 18-80 on the F3 with a good amount of accessories onboard in a handheld configuration and my operator was fine with it, but we are used to 30 lb+ cameras.

Balancing heavy lenses these days is a lot easier than it was in the film days, where you were locked to the position fore-aft of the optical viewfinder. Now you can set the viewfinder anywhere along the body you want, so just move it forward as far as possible and use a shoulder pad that can move anywhere along the baseplate ( or on the operator's shoulder). No need to add counterweight unless it has utility. I generally avoid the aftermarket shoulder rigs that include a cutout for the shoulder because it is rarely at the center of gravity of the system and thus useless to me. If one is pulling one's own focus then you need to be able to access the lens, which may crimp the ability to push the weight of the system backwards and still get your hand on the lens or a follow focus.

I'm sure we will soon start seeing cine-style conversions of still zooms to answer the need for inexpensive, lightweight PL mount lenses that will satisfy the needs of the DSLR migrators. However I don't expect these to truly compete with the "proper" zooms in critical ways. Unlike cameras, lenses are subject to the rather rigid laws of physics so it may be a while until we see radical changes in this arena. I do feel that the future does hold the possibility of real-time correction in the camera for optical issues (something like what still cameras currently do in terms of fixing chromatic aberration and distortion) which will pave the way for lighter, cheaper lenses to become viable.

[Brian Drysdale]

With an electronic V/F, there's probably no reason with a large zoom and a small camera, that you couldn't have a rig where the combo sits on your shoulder. this being designed so as to allow it to rest at the CG around the back half of the lens. This would involve mounting the V/F on the matte box area and with the camera module at the back of your head, where the battery has been traditionally located.

However, the down side to this arrangement is reaching the aperture ring for in shot adjustment.

There are some modified stills non varifocal zooms for cine work being made, but they are not DSLR lens cheap and I suspect they may never will be.

[Alister Chapman]

I think we will see some big changes in lenses, thanks to advanced electronics. While lenses are constrained by the laws of physics, there are many things that electronics can do to simplify lens design making lenses lighter, simpler and more compact and with fewer elements. Fewer elements normally equates to better IQ as less glass means less flare and fewer aberrations (assuming a good design). Cameras like the EX1 and XF305 already make use of electronics to greatly simplify their lenses. In effect they have varifocal zoom lenses (like a DSLR zoom that does not track focus). An electronic look up table is used to apply an offset to the focus throughout the zoom range so that the lens holds focus as you zoom. In addition all the focussing is done with the rear elements, this eliminates breathing. Compare the size and weight of the 14x zoom on an EX3 to a typical 14x broadcast lens. The new Sony 14x18 zoom for the F3 has a similar zoom range to the Angenieux Optimo 18-252 lens yet is a fraction of the size and weight. Admittedly the Sony lens is no where near as fast, but it is also fraction of the price and incorporates image stabilisation, auto iris and auto focus. So I think we will start to see more and more electronically assisted lenses, possibly based on DSLR designs, that will track focus, won't breathe and offer good image quality at reasonable prices.

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

The new Sony 14x18 zoom for the F3 has a similar zoom range to the Angenieux Optimo 18-252 lens yet is a fraction of the size and weight. .

The Angenieux what now?? You mean the 24-290?

The announced Sony lens is impressive in scale, but as you noted it's not fast, and the lack of consistent iris throughout the range makes it (for me) not a production lens, more suitable for a doc/news etc. It's cool that the new Canon long zoom has the extended range out to 300mm, but also at an exposure hit (past 240mm. It's a bit dangerous because there is always the possibility of nudging the focal length out past the point where the exposure will drop (if you have lit the set to less than the maximum aperture) and if you are moving fast you might not notice that you've lost stop.

[Alister Chapman]

Yes I meant the 24-290.

Not saying the Sony lens is perfect, but it is an example of the way lens technology is developing and bringing much smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses that can still produce high IQ.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

Cameras like the EX1 and XF305 already make use of electronics to greatly simplify their lenses. In effect they have varifocal zoom lenses (like a DSLR zoom that does not track focus). An electronic look up table is used to apply an offset to the focus throughout the zoom range so that the lens holds focus as you zoom..

If RED have been having problems with the Scarlet fixed holding focus while zooming, it may be not so easy to track the elements for use with the larger sensors. Although, I'm sure that in the end this is just a development hic up.

The interesting thing would be doing this with an interchangeable lens, rather than a built in zoom.

[Simon Wood]

I read that the 1st Scarlet has been delivered, and is being used on an Epic shoot to do pick-up shots.

However, the user noted that a fully charged Red-Volt battery gave him 36 minutes of standby time! Going to need a lot of batteries for that puppy.