ryan knight

Hey guys, I'm about to embark on my first Scarlet adventure, on a doc project in Florida. A few quick p's and q's if you will... I've shot with the One and MX considerably, and have used the Epic on two separate outings (both drama - one studio and one location). So i'm looking forward to my first foray with the Scarlet. We will be using Canon glass (10-22, 17-55, 35, 50, 135), because myself and the director own some lenses. Does anyone have any Scarlet rig or config suggestions, monitor recommendations (a monitor that I can "trust"/get a ball-park with, in conjunction with false color and zebras), perhaps a compression that is a nice balance of quality or rec. time (we are being outfitted with 4x 64GB modules) that is conducive to shooting documentary? One last question... anyone have any Scarlet + gyro tips, or gyro tips in general. Thanks everyone. Happy Hump Day.

Can anyone recommend a screw-on Circular Polarizer for the EOS series cameras, specifically a 60D? I'm looking to buy a 77mm filter and was wondering which Pola may be best, for trapping lighting and retaining sky/cloud detail and chroma and also limiting reflection with these sensors. I used a B+W filter on a GH2 and quite liked it. On the RED, I tend to go for the Schneider Circular Tru Pola over the TIffen. Thanks!

Is this download still available?

I have a lens question about this film, I think. SPOLIERS BELOW... Don't read my spoiler with your peripheral vision... fight the temptation. At the end of the film when Shia and Rosie are kissing, Bay cuts to a two shot of them which is slight OTS Shia and slightly profile to both. This shot has a very close-focus feel to it, almost like macro close, but the image also has a "flat" feel, as if the focus plane it deeper and with less fall-off than a macro shot. There is a similar feeling seen in some of the super-close slow-mo shots of Russell Crowe firing an arrow in the Robin Hood trailer. Does anyone know how this effect is rendered? Thanks, RK.

I doubt it'd be a popular combo. That digi glass is so expensive! Probably pretty sharp though.

I'm not worried about that actually. I more interested in how they might perform; if they'll be as sharp or sharper then the 80's 16mm Zeiss lenses I'd likely be able to afford.

Anybody shot with that combo? I have access to a RED with all PL and Arri accessories, with the RED Pro Primes, and I may be setting up a 16mm body with them. Anybody done something similar?

Ha! I wish. But I don't have access to the MX. So shooting with just the one camera wouldn't be of much help. Ideally, I'd be testing it in the environment I'll be shooting in. I find each RED can be temperamental from body to body, CMOS to CMOS. I was prepping a two-camera show a few weeks ago, and in the bay and under the same light, I determined one body was rated at 250 ASA and the other was at 400 ASA, both being MXs and getting a 44% IRE reading off the same gray card at the same time.

David is definitely right, and as are you. The 5D will likely be reserved for 'impossible' shots, however still at wide open (I won't have any other choice :( ).

As well, do you have any recollection of what the IRE level on the black areas of that chart was?

The screen grab, once opened in another tab is labelled as 3200 ASA, but in this forum you referred to it as 1600. Which one is it?

Oi. I'm going to have to fight for a few 1.3s. Thanks for the screen grab! I've shot four features with the RED, two M and two MX. I didn't change the ISO for a single shot on any of them - kept it at native 320 or 800. So this makes me nervous. During the EXT. FOREST - NIGHT scene I previously shot with a 5D at 6400 ISO, I used the characters' flash lights to flare the lens, frequently and intensely. Apart from looking like no other moment in that film, the flares also helped 'hide and conceal' the abyss of darkness all around them. I made need to do that again.

Apart from chroma, gamma and contrast, the next greatest difference then would be the focus fall-off and depth of field. So now, if we move on to low-light performance at high ISOs, compounded with the fact that the EF lenses would be faster than my RED Primes, which camera will perform better, "see more", etc, above 2000 ISO? I shot a scene in a forest at night with a 5D at 6400 ISO with a Minolta 50mm/1.4, lit be flash lights as practicals, with bounce, because the director deemed a generator would "ruin" the scene. As scared and reserved as I was to this concept, I was also excited to try it, simply because technology had made it possible. However, I am yet to see the images on an external monitor.

I have considered this, even if only for the improved monitoring and focus pulling capabilities. A 50mm EF lens on a 5D is roughly equal to a 31mm on the RED. If I were to use that 50mm for an actor's close-up with the 5D, I wonder if the field-of-view AND the appearance (too close distortion)/presence and proximity of the actor to the audience and the actor in the environment would feel similar enough as the same composition and action on a 35mm focal length on the MX... (my lenses are 18, 25, 35, 50, 85, 100) Another factor, budget forces me to shoot with RED Pro Primes/1.8 on the MX (no money for 1.3s and unfortunately no money to light our way up to a 2.8). If I go 5D for the EXT., I'd be using the Canon EF 50mm/1.2 and 35mm/1.4. Which ever class or camera, I'll be at wide open. Thanks for your continued suggestions, David.

You are completely right, David. However, we as artists know that what is right isn't always what we're after. I will be finishing in 2K or HD so the resolution change isn't a big concern aesthetically, as the feeling of the the acts with the MX vs the acts with 5D do signify a massive shift in the tone of the piece. I have thought about using wider lenses for the EXT. FOREST - NIGHT on the MX. However, I will be using wider lenses for INT. (MX), the 35mm, and occasionally the 50mm, as my close-up/coverage lenses, as apposed to the flattening 85mm and 100mm. So the shift I am after may not be so apparent if I use the 35mm and 25mm on the MX for the EXT. I suppose I am 'imitating' Nolan and Pfister's use of 35mm and 65mm or IMAX on Inception and The Dark Knight for the "big" scenes, obviously without the higher resolution of the larger format medium and without the glory of an IMAX projector (and so therefore I know what I am doing is more or less nonsense :D ). However, I do feel the wider field-of-view will help personify the Forest as character through use of imagery.