Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Can I use my Zeiss Standards 2.1 with the EPIC?

Being an early RED One owner, I have a chance to get in early on the Epic,
but I am concerned that my inventory of lenses will not fully accommodate
the Epic sensor when shooting in the 5K mode. My Standard Speed Zeiss and
Angenieux zooms cover S35 with no problem, but I believe the image area for
the Epic can be just slightly larger. Would this cause some sort of
vignetting, or could I window down to my available coverage area? If so, how much
sensor real estate would I be wasting?
I've been getting some conflicting answers; so I thought I would put
it out on CML and REDuser to see if anyone has a verifiable answer. Please don't
respond unless you are sure, since it will only serve to further confuse the
matter.

With Sincere Thanks,
James Mathers
Cinematographer
Studio City, CA
 
Of course no one can say for sure till we get our hands on an actual epic but this chart made by Steven Hilder is most likely accurate.
mysteriumx.png


If we correlate this with the three widest Zeiss standard T2.1s that Matt Duclos has tested which all cover 30+mm then I'd say it's a good bet that Standards will cover. Just bear in mind we're pushing farther out to the corners so although they should cover you will still see a little port-holing on the wides.
This never actually bothered me as I think it gives the frame shape and helps guide the viewers eye in. Also stopping down a little seems to fix it easily.
 
Tom Lowe said:
Why is 5K 16:9 only 4.8K?
Click to expand...

According to the chart, the active pixel area on the vertical is only 2700. So, the widest you can get on the sensor at 16:9 is 4800 pixels. It's a math thing. Any more and it wouldn't be 16:9.
 
Hmm... 4.8K is really pushing it for a 4K finish.
 
James Mathers said:
Being an early RED One owner, I have a chance to get in early on the Epic,
but I am concerned that my inventory of lenses will not fully accommodate
the Epic sensor when shooting in the 5K mode. My Standard Speed Zeiss and
Angenieux zooms cover S35 with no problem, but I believe the image area for
the Epic can be just slightly larger. Would this cause some sort of
vignetting, or could I window down to my available coverage area? If so, how much
sensor real estate would I be wasting?
I've been getting some conflicting answers; so I thought I would put
it out on CML and REDuser to see if anyone has a verifiable answer. Please don't
respond unless you are sure, since it will only serve to further confuse the
matter.

With Sincere Thanks,
James Mathers
Cinematographer
Studio City, CA
Click to expand...

You can always window down to the resolutions that the RED One currently supports (4.5K, 4K, etc.) to get the exact same coverage you get now.

What you have to watch out for, in primes for example, is that even though the lenses might cover - the falloff will start more toward the center of the frame - so some lenses could look "more soft".

The other thing to consider - is that the FOV will be wider when in 5K. So ... some lenses will NOT cover 5K on the wide end (24-290, 17-80) - however - you are getting a wider FOV.

I'm looking very forward to throwing every lens I can get my hands on onto an Epic.
 
Does this mean that since most of the Red Primes have a 32mm diagonal that they should cover 5K 16:9?
 
George A. said:
Anyone has those numbers for the future Monstro 6K?
Click to expand...

We can only speculate at this point as Monstro doesn't exist yet. But the original announced specs give the Monstro sensor a lower pixel density, meaning less resolution at the same sensor size than what we have with Mystrerium and M-X. The smallest announced Monstro sensor was also 35mm full frame.

Specs were 6um photosite size (M/M-X S35/5K is 5.4um, M-X 2/3" is 3.3um).

So the 6000 pixels wide comes from photosites that are 0.006mm and the FF35 sensor area that is 36mm wide.

So for comparison, a 4K 16:9 mode based on the hypothetical Monstro specs would have a sensor area of 24.576x13.824mm.
 
Evin Grant said:
Of course no one can say for sure till we get our hands on an actual epic but this chart made by Steven Hilder is most likely accurate.

If we correlate this with the three widest Zeiss standard T2.1s that Matt Duclos has tested which all cover 30+mm then I'd say it's a good bet that Standards will cover. Just bear in mind we're pushing farther out to the corners so although they should cover you will still see a little port-holing on the wides.
This never actually bothered me as I think it gives the frame shape and helps guide the viewers eye in. Also stopping down a little seems to fix it easily.
Click to expand...

Almost.. I dont know if you noticed, 4.5k should be 4480x1920, not 4880. It has quite a few less pixels than 16:9, so mega pixel count should also technically be wrong. Case 31415926535897932384626433832795, solved! :cheers2: .. I need a real life..
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
So for comparison, a 4K 16:9 mode based on the hypothetical Monstro specs would have a sensor area of 24.576x13.824mm.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jeff!

How about a 6K 1.85 mode? (or 6K 16:9 mode)? Do you have the approximate numbers in mm?

All the best.
 
Tom Lowe said:
Hmm... 4.8K is really pushing it for a 4K finish.
Click to expand...

More incentive to shoot 2:1 or 2.35 : 1... Actually it sort of makes some sense for theatrical if the 2.35 format has a bit more resolution since it tends to be projected on a wider, not shorter, screen than 1.85. But we are also talking about a minor improvement from 4.8K to 5.1K; there won't be film grains to tell you the degree of enlargement. And any 4K projector is probably going to make 4.8K versus 5.1K origination a bit less obvious due to scaling. And obviously anything else (film projection, 2K projection, HDTV, etc.) is going to totally make that difference insignificant. Also, shot sharpness is only partially related to resolution -- the contrast difference between two lenses could mask or mute such differences and a minor misfocusing or too much image motion, etc. will totally reduce visible resolution.
 
George A. said:
Thanks Jeff!

How about a 6K 1.85 mode? (or 6K 16:9 mode)? Do you have the approximate numbers in mm?
Click to expand...

You don't own a calculator? :laugh:

6um per pixel (square pixels), so 0.006mm x 0.006mm

FF sensor is 36mm x 24mm

36mm / 0.006mm = 6000 pixels across

6000 / 1.85 = 3243.24

36mm / 1.85 = 19.46mm

So I would expect 6K 1.85:1 to be 6000x3244 pixels and 36mm x 19.46mm. That is a diagonal of 40.92mm. Better plan on a 41mm image circle for full coverage of a 6K 1.85:1 format. The diagonal, for 6K 16:9 would be 41.3mm. So it really looks like if you want to shoot with the hypothetical Monstro 6K FF35 sensor, you will want glass designed to cover full frame if you want to shoot the full sensor width. Even shooting 6K 2.35:1 would need an image coverage circle of 39.13mm.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
You don't own a calculator? :laugh:

6um per pixel (square pixels), so 0.006mm x 0.006mm

FF sensor is 36mm x 24mm

36mm / 0.006mm = 6000 pixels across

6000 / 1.85 = 3243.24

36mm / 1.85 = 19.46mm

So I would expect 6K 1.85:1 to be 6000x3244 pixels and 36mm x 19.46mm. That is a diagonal of 40.92mm. Better plan on a 41mm image circle for full coverage of a 6K 1.85:1 format. The diagonal, for 6K 16:9 would be 41.3mm. So it really looks like if you want to shoot with the hypothetical Monstro 6K FF35 sensor, you will want glass designed to cover full frame if you want to shoot the full sensor width. Even shooting 6K 2.35:1 would need an image coverage circle of 39.13mm.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you are assuming every pixel is active and there is no lookaround area planned.

Makes me wonder if there will be a "6K HD" mode that is 3x 1920 x 1080, i.e. 5760 x 3240.
 
Tom Lowe said:
Hmm... 4.8K is really pushing it for a 4K finish.
Click to expand...

Should be just fine. I'm getting pretty damn good 4K out of shooting 4.5K on the R1. I would say that 4.5K is resolving right at 4K or pretty close. 4.8K should definitely do it. You're only losing about 280 horizontal pixels off of 5K.

The reason the M-X sensor is cropped when shooting 16:9 is because the sensor is a 2:1 aspect ratio sensor . If you record the full active 2700 lines of vertical resolution you get 4800 pixels, if you crop to 16:9. There is a full sensor mode. At first, the guys at RED called it 5K FF, but quickly stopped because people instantly started to assume the sensor was actually 35mm full frame size. So that terminology lasted about a day. But full sensor 5K is 5120x2700 and has an aspect ratio of 1.89:1. This is the maximum recordable sensor area and it is 27.65mm x 14.58mm with a diagonal of 31.26mm.

FWIW, full aperture S35 has a 30.98mm diagonal and people look for a 31mm image circle to cover it. Epic M-X 5K that everyone is so worried about covering only needs an image circle that is about 0.3mm larger. With only a few exceptions, just about any lens that covers full aperture S35 will cover 5K. It's not as big of a deal as it's often made out to be. Do be careful though, not all S35 glass will cover the full aperture 31mm image circle size -- especially on the wider end of some zooms.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Yes, but you are assuming every pixel is active and there is no lookaround area planned.

Makes me wonder if there will be a "6K HD" mode that is 3x 1920 x 1080, i.e. 5760 x 3240.
Click to expand...

Quite true. I'm hoping there is a look around in addition to a 36x24 active area. And to be called a "full frame" camera, it will really need the full 36x24 active area in they eyes and minds of pro stills photographers... Just sayin' I also feel that way about the 645 model. Originally announced, it had a sensor that was a bit smaller than typical 6x4.5 film aperture and I really hope that if / when this camera arrives, it will be larger and give me the same image area that I get now with film. Small sensors in relation to film is of the biggest reasons I have yet to buy a digital back for my Mamiya 645 kit. Up until the past 2 or 3 years, most medium format digital backs were not much larger than 35mm full frame. ...That and they are mostly worthless outside of a studio setting.

6K HD makes perfect sense. It would also make for very sharp oversampled quad-HD. Which is where consumer HD display technology is headed as soon as everyone is done being sidetracked by 3D.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
*snip

Makes me wonder if there will be a "6K HD" mode that is 3x 1920 x 1080, i.e. 5760 x 3240.
Click to expand...

you mean 3^2 or 9 ya?

Bring on the 18+ Mp images!

if they used the 4G iphone display 326 ppi as a basis for a monitor, a 6K monitor would be around 20.5 inches...
and pretty much look like a window....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top