EPIC News...

[Lee Saxon]

5K 16:9 is 96 fps.

5K 2:1 is 100 fps.

Jim

16:9 is a tad fewer pixels than 2:1 (12.96m vs 13.1m), I wonder why it's a tad slower instead of a tad faster.

Not a complaint, I'm getting a Scarlet anyway, just curious.

[Steven Caesare]

I assumed that both formats were using the same width, but that 2:1 was using slightly less sensor real-estate vertically.

16:9 > 16:8

-sc

[Stephen Gentle]

16:9 is a tad fewer pixels than 2:1 (12.96m vs 13.1m), I wonder why it's a tad slower instead of a tad faster.

Not a complaint, I'm getting a Scarlet anyway, just curious.

???

5120 * (9 / 16) = 2880
5120 * (1 / 2) = 2560

2:1 is smaller by 1.6 million pixels (14.745 MP at 16:9 vs. 13.107MP at 2:1)

[Lee Saxon]

???

5120 * (9 / 16) = 2880
5120 * (1 / 2) = 2560

2:1 is smaller by 1.6 million pixels (14.745 MP at 16:9 vs. 13.107MP at 2:1)

2:1 is 5120x2560
16:9 is 4800x2700 (the sensor is only 2700 pixels tall so no 5120x2880)

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.ph...5&postcount=27

[Guillermo Freige]

2:1 is 5120x2560
16:9 is 4800x2700 (the sensor is only 2700 pixels tall so no 5120x2880)

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.ph...5&postcount=27

The max fps is limited by the number of lines in the vertical axis, so 2700 is still greater than 2560, so a slower max. fps is possible,

Guillermo

[Rick Burnett]

The max fps is limited by the number of lines in the vertical axis, so 2700 is still greater than 2560, so a slower max. fps is possible,

Guillermo

Exactly, the speed is limited by how many rows you are reading for a given aquisition.

[Häakon]

I assumed that both formats were using the same width, but that 2:1 was using slightly less sensor real-estate vertically.

16:9 > 16:8

-sc

You know what happens when you assume... ;-)

Here's a quick and dirty overlay of the major Epic formats:



It's to scale. The Red portion is the entire frame of the sensor. Blue is 16:9, green is 2:1, and orange is 2.37:1. Note that 16:9 does not have the same width as the other three.

[brian hanson]

nice, thanks for the visual.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Yes, thanks Häakon!

[Dennis Guskov]

16:9 is a tad fewer pixels than 2:1 (12.96m vs 13.1m), I wonder why it's a tad slower instead of a tad faster.

Not a complaint, I'm getting a Scarlet anyway, just curious.

That's what I've been asking on page 10 of this thread!