Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: EPIC News...

Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 182
  1. #171  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Jannard View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #172  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    891
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #173  
    Senior Member Stephen Gentle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    1,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Saxon View Post
    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)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #174  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Gentle View Post
    ???

    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #175  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Plata, Argentina
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Saxon View Post
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by Guillermo Freige View Post
    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.
    Rick Burnett
    ASYLUM STUDIO PRODUCTIONS
    Future SCARLET S35 #_______
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #177  
    Moderator Häakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Caesare View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #178  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Aliso Viejo, CA
    Posts
    270
    nice, thanks for the visual.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #179  
    Senior Member Roberto Lequeux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,349
    Yes, thanks Häakon!
    Writer - Director
    Crowing Lakes.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #180  
    Senior Member Dennis Guskov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Saxon View Post
    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!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts