Comments on: Scarlet vs. HVX200

By: Indie4K » Blog Archive » A look back at useful posts

Indie4K » Blog Archive » A look back at useful posts — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:15:30 +0000

[...] Scarlet vs. HVX200 [...]

By: batman

batman — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:48:52 +0000

Nate,

if you think red is better then film you need to think again. red is only a tool not a replacement for 35mm. If you want to shoot with a cmos wanna be film camera over the real thing your wasting your money at school. drop out, get a scarlet and become a big Hollywood director. because im sure there isn't going to be 3billion kids just like you with the same camera putting out the same nonsense because you don't know the basic's of film making...high 5 to fashion bro...

By: Nate Hudson

Nate Hudson — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:31:09 +0000

Ummm…been looking around finding details about the scarlet…I’m super excited about it. I think I will probably be getting the entry level kit with the 8x fixed lens. $3750 is awesome considering what you get. Depending on when I get this, I may have it in time to try and convince Full Sail to allow me to use it for my Final Project. It’s doubtful though as they really want us to know learn and master 35mm. It’s just a shame that they haven’t hopped on the RED bandwagon and at least purchased a few RED ONE’s to teach a class on.

By: Chris Kenny

Chris Kenny — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:49:17 +0000

Cell size can't be taken independently of sensor resolution, because downscaling also eliminates noise.

As for how the 2/3" Scarlet will stack up against the EX1 generally, well, the EX1 is a much more credible threat in terms of sensor specs than the HVX200, but where it falls apart, I think, is with the recording format.... 35 megabit long-GOP MPEG2 vs. 366 megabit (42 MB) Redcode. Over ten times the data rate and a more modern codec. And raw sensor data rather than a processed video image.

By: Ldtowers

Ldtowers — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:07:47 +0000

I'm not that impressed. The pixel density on a single bayer sensor means that the individual cell size will be smaller than the HVX which translates into noisier. (The cells are only 3.2 microns) It also translates into needing much better glass to realize that better resolution. You'll have to spend a few grand to get that resolution, you can't slap on any old lens on the 2/3" scarlet. Couple the scarlet with middling glass and you'll not get any better images off it than an EX1, maybe worse.

They should have used the same cell structure as all of their other cameras, 5.4 microns, This would yield a larger sensor for even better shallower DOF, better S/N, and more forgiving of glass.

By: Joakim Ziegler

Joakim Ziegler — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:22:07 +0000

Actually, the price of CF cards isn't that different from the P2 prices. The new 16GB cards from Red are 550 dollars, 16GB P2 cards are 850 dollars. The new 32GB P2 cards from Panasonic are 1550 dollars, which isn't that far from the Red price. Of course, you get much more video duration on a P2 card than on a Red card, given the difference in compression rate.

As for availability, well, you pretty much need to buy cards from Red, they're the only ones guaranteed to be fast enough.

By: Francisco Craesmeyer

Francisco Craesmeyer — Sun, 18 May 2008 02:59:12 +0000

You forgot that Scarlet will work with CF cards, much cheaper and much more available than P2 Cards.