Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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 :)

True Crop Factor when shooting lower than 4k

I have a feeling that many of us will be using EF lenses and probably wishing to shoot below 4k a fair amount of the time so as to take advantage of HDRx (at 24fps because, as I understand it, you cannot use HDRx at above 12fps in 4k or 15fps in 4k QHD) and/or faster frame rates.

guys, HDRx is awesome. but you're not going to need to use it very much, i'm serious. the native range of the sensor is really good, and there are some pretty rare shots that call for HDRx, as far as lighting is concerned. it's really more generally useful for those shooting stills+motion or for visual effects purposes.
 
not sure how sony's 720p @ 60 is going to beat out scarlet 3k @ 60... i've heard the sony is a nice little camera, if that's your budget i'd check it out. but you can't beat the resolution and fidelity of red raw files.

Scarlet is 2k @ 60. A lot less difference, but your argument still stands.
 
And the sony fs100 is 1080 at 60, so essentially the same as scarlet at 2k60. Plenty of posts on dvxuser claiming the increase noise due to using only half the sensor...either way what to do when I have a shot that I want a 24mm FOV for 60p...on the Sony it's fairly straight forward, almost WYSIWYG, but what lens would I need on the scarlet with such a crop for the same FOV?
 
You don't get more noise by shooting less sensor. You may loose some benefit from not downsampling to the output rez (if you go down to 2k, say) but it neither changes DOF (perceived DOF is altered, especially if you change the lens to get equivalent FOV) nor noise. You're literally getting the same image as if you'd recorded the full image and cropped in post (although for high fps you may need more compression which does alter that comparison a bit).

As always, test and test again yourself.

Graeme
 
Thanks Graeme, that actually does make sense. Nothing spreads faster than false assumptions.
 
And the sony fs100 is 1080 at 60, so essentially the same as scarlet at 2k60. Plenty of posts on dvxuser claiming the increase noise due to using only half the sensor...either way what to do when I have a shot that I want a 24mm FOV for 60p...on the Sony it's fairly straight forward, almost WYSIWYG, but what lens would I need on the scarlet with such a crop for the same FOV?

oops, had infactual facts in my brain. meant to check those before i posted, i'll fix the post. thanks for keeping me in line, guys.

is this the sony that's supposed to have increased noise? not sure you can easily get 24, unless you use a lens meant for 1/3", 2/3", micro4/3's etc. you would probably want to use something in the 11-16 range (like the tokina zoom or canon 10-20), or a prime in that range or lower. that's about as close as you'll get.

now, i won't tell you not to test it out for yourself. for 60p recording, the sony might be a better option since you don't have to worry so much about optics and crop factor. i'm sure you can even cut it in with your red footage. but i guarantee the measured resolution of red at 1080 beats the sony, and i really like red raw files. i've heard good things about that cam, but i've never shot with it, so i can't say any more.

graeme, can you comment at all about future possibilities of pixel binning or other methods to achieve lower resolutions without windowing the sensor? is that still on the table or just not gonna work?
 
What I read from Graham is that you essentially blowing up your image when windowing down to get the 60FPS. I thought I saw 4x crop factors on a chart for 2K, or 3.8 or 9. Heck, you could always use a 5N and your image would be far-better, or is the Red Codec so good it offsets that?
 
Yes pixel binning would be potentially ideal, I mean look how usable the 5dmkii is with all the drawbacks. I'd bet using a similar method on the scarlet would yield amazing results and make so many happy. What also might make many pal users happy is bumping up a few frames in 3k so we get 25 / 50p - that would be freaking awesome!

John how do you get 'blows up' from a cropping action? No one ever said anything about blowing up the image. Cropping and blowing up or scaling up an image are two completely separate things.
 
Last edited:
Paul, this is me being an old fart. If you only use 25% of the sensor to accomplish 100% of your shot, you are filling your screen with the 1/4th of the sensor. If you use 100% of the sensor to fill your screen vs. 25%, you are using all of your sensor to fill your screen, not 25%. So, in my mind (perhaps wrongly), I'm only getting 25% of my 'film's' potential. Of course, having shot real film (and large format at that), I know all about cropping and scanning and that I am starting with the exact same amount of information on the film, but not really. The benefit of choosing what I crop, and how much of it, is that I can select how much or little I want to take from my original capture. If I have a crop factor resulting from a window in a Scarlet sensor, the image circle is predefined and only using a small percentage of my glass, and perhaps the part that is least sharp at certain apertures. If you take 25% of a sensor, or a sheet of film, and fill a screen with it, it will not be as sharp as using the entire sheet of film or the entire sensor (I may be wrong about the sensor, but that's my view of it having used scanners, copiers, digital cameras, etc. since they were invented). Back in the days when we had to 'blow up' an image either using an enlarger or a scanner or what have you, we saw a loss of quality similar to interpolation, but not quite the same. I am not a scientist, nor do I know sensor tech like you, but I suspect that if I am only using 25% of a sensor's pixels, there's going to be a loss of quality or resolution, e.g., 2K vs 4K. Then the lens quality and crop factor is another matter. Why is large format glass so much heavier and more expensive. Is it to resolve to its medium? Isn't this the case with non-cropping cameras? I know 'reach' is the benefit to the APS-C/DX/S35/M43 user, and I enjoy that same reach on my Nikon D2X. But, is there a loss of quality in the 'magnification' resulting from the crop factor? I'm prone to believe there is, but I'm not an expert, just a shooter like anyone else here, and probably less schooled than most. But when you combine the crop factor with the windowing of the sensor, I probably wrongly describe the perceived quality loss as a blowing up of an image. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Pixel binning would allow us to use the whole sensor, and that, to me, would avoid the camera needing to magnify (by crop factor or any other means or definition) my image. When you take a 72DPI image that fills your screen and resample it to 300DPI, then crop it to fill your screen, do you lose quality? I do.
 
What about the Sony NEX-5N? Does that shoot 1080p60 at its chip's full size APS-C 1.6 crop? I think so. But, the S35 Scarlet is larger (and better), with a FF crop of what, 1.3? So, is the codec so much better and the compression ratio so good it offsets all of this? I suppose the pixel peepers can tell us :-)
 
I am primarily concerned with maximum image quality and greatest FOV with standard 35mm lenses. So, I may just be thinking wrongly for what most are wanting here. I like a super sharp image. I may not be able to catch one every time, but I try :-)
 
[...] So, in my mind (perhaps wrongly), I'm only getting 25% of my 'film's' potential. [...] If I have a crop factor resulting from a window in a Scarlet sensor, the image circle is predefined and only using a small percentage of my glass, and perhaps the part that is least sharp at certain apertures. If you take 25% of a sensor, or a sheet of film, and fill a screen with it, it will not be as sharp as using the entire sheet of film or the entire sensor (I may be wrong about the sensor, but that's my view of it having used scanners, copiers, digital cameras, etc. since they were invented). [...]
I also dislike the idea of using only a portion of the sensor and lens. That's why I believe the Scarlet is primarily intended as a B-cam for Epic shooters, to shoot 24 fps at 4k only. They can use the same glass, and only have a small crop factor. But I am certainly the one with the least experience and knowledge here, so take everything I say in this context with a rain of salt.
 
I'm sure the big brains will all chime in soon enough, Philipp. Then we can both learn a thing or two about the camera, which (in relative terms) amounts to about 1/15th of the totality of what goes into a good movie ;-)
 
John, you ask a really interesting bunch of questions around what is a much-discussed topic on this forum. Some Google searches will uncover a lot of threads that discuss these things, but I'll take a crack at some if them.
Paul, this is me being an old fart. If you only use 25% of the sensor to accomplish 100% of your shot, you are filling your screen with the 1/4th of the sensor. If you use 100% of the sensor to fill your screen vs. 25%, you are using all of your sensor to fill your screen, not 25%. So, in my mind (perhaps wrongly), I'm only getting 25% of my 'film's' potential.
This is correct, of course, on a frame-by frame basis, but there are trade-offs in motion that can make it worth making the trade. Reading a smaller portion of the sensor can be done faster, so frame rates can go up. When frame rates go up, the image steps into an "unreal" place where resolution at the frame level makes a little less difference because the effect of slow motion takes such a big role in the image. Shooting 96 fps in 5K is stunning, but shooting 96fps at 2K is not a bad-looking image, and because it is not "real" time, it cuts together with 4K or 5K better than you'd imagine.

Of course, having shot real film (and large format at that), I know all about cropping and scanning and that I am starting with the exact same amount of information on the film, but not really. The benefit of choosing what I crop, and how much of it, is that I can select how much or little I want to take from my original capture. If I have a crop factor resulting from a window in a Scarlet sensor, the image circle is predefined and only using a small percentage of my glass, and perhaps the part that is least sharp at certain apertures. If you take 25% of a sensor, or a sheet of film, and fill a screen with it, it will not be as sharp as using the entire sheet of film or the entire sensor (I may be wrong about the sensor, but that's my view of it having used scanners, copiers, digital cameras, etc. since they were invented). Back in the days when we had to 'blow up' an image either using an enlarger or a scanner or what have you, we saw a loss of quality similar to interpolation, but not quite the same. I am not a scientist, nor do I know sensor tech like you, but I suspect that if I am only using 25% of a sensor's pixels, there's going to be a loss of quality or resolution, e.g., 2K vs 4K.
Yes, there is a loss of resolution, but how much it matters depends on what your deliverable is. It actually may matter very little, because the actual trade-off may not be less resolution, but less super-sampling. If you are delivering for a 4K projector, shooting in 2K is a huge loss in resolution and a significant compromise. But if you are delivering for TV, there is less compromise. To be sure, there are benefits to be gained from shooting 5K or 4K or 3K, but they are not primarily in resolution—even 2K provides nearly as much resolution as most any 1080p camera. The benefits to shooting in higher resolutions are the noise reduction and apparent sharpness that comes from super-sampling (when the scaling is done by a good-quality scaler). The higher the original frame resolution, the more of those benefits you will see. But if you give the 2K image plenty of light, so that it has little noise to begin with, it will stand up very well to the un-cropped frames.

Then the lens quality and crop factor is another matter. Why is large format glass so much heavier and more expensive. Is it to resolve to its medium? Isn't this the case with non-cropping cameras? I know 'reach' is the benefit to the APS-C/DX/S35/M43 user, and I enjoy that same reach on my Nikon D2X. But, is there a loss of quality in the 'magnification' resulting from the crop factor? I'm prone to believe there is, but I'm not an expert, just a shooter like anyone else here, and probably less schooled than most.
There are two reasons why large-format glass is so much heavier and more expensive. Think about it. Going from 2K (S16) size to 4K (S35) size, you have to deliver light to an area that is 4 times larger. So the elements have to be 4 times as big, and just as optically perfect over that entire area. The second reason is the angle-of-view change. a 50mm lens at 2K will give a similar angle of view as a 100mm lens at 4K. A longer lens is generally bigger, heavier, and more expensive.

At the short end of the spectrum, where wide angles become retro-focus designs, it is purely the size of the area that needs to be covered with light that drives up the cost. It's harder to make a wide lens that is geometrically correct for a larger image circle. For wider lenses, the degree of difficulty is increased by digital sensors over film, because the light has to come at right angles to the sensor, or you'll get port-holing. Film could see light coming to the silver molecule at 45 degrees as well as if it came at 90 degrees. Digital sensors can't. As a result, wide lenses get bigger. And more expensive.

Loss of optical quality is not an issue from cropping the sensor, though. Generally, the center part of the lens is the best-corrected for all kinds of things, and if you crop the sensor, you use less of the edges and rely more on the center of the lens. It usually gets sharper and better corrected. My Nikkor 70-200VR lens (the first IS version, not the second) is notoriously soft in the corners on full-frame cameras. And indeed, I see that on my D3. But that same lens looks fantastic on my D300 and my Epic--right out to the corners.

But when you combine the crop factor with the windowing of the sensor, I probably wrongly describe the perceived quality loss as a blowing up of an image. Sorry.
So to summarize: If you are, in fact, blowing up the image, you'll see a quality loss. But if your deliverable requires less resolution than any of the crops, there is much less of a problem, and in practice, the reasons you use the cropped sensor mask many of those issues. Cropping the sensor does, however, put a premium on good exposure, because you don't have super-sampling helping you out with noise reduction.

I once did an effect shot for a for standard def TV spot where we started a shot cropped to a glass on a table and "zoomed" out to the full frame, a head-to-waist shot. Everything was sharp. It required very careful focus and exposure, but it worked beautifully, because even cropped, the image had more resolution than the SD frame required.
 
I think a lot of us were hoping for pixel binning that allowed for use of the whole sensor instead of cropping, albeit with limited frame rates for higher resolution.

Think about that for a moment... if RED were to go that route they would be giving you a 7D. Line skipping and pixel binning, really?? How could you expect any quality? REDCode compression and RAW would be a joke. I guess you should just hope Canon revs up the 7D to shoot 60fps at 1080P and you'll have what you need. Although I'll admit to being confused by your reference to "limited frame rates for higher resolution> - isn't that what Scarlet currently delivers at 4K?
 
Think about that for a moment... if RED were to go that route they would be giving you a 7D. Line skipping and pixel binning, really?? How could you expect any quality? REDCode compression and RAW would be a joke. I guess you should just hope Canon revs up the 7D to shoot 60fps at 1080P and you'll have what you need. Although I'll admit to being confused by your reference to "limited frame rates for higher resolution> - isn't that what Scarlet currently delivers at 4K?

I have to disagree, a 5k area line skipped down to a 2.5k image would be a great option to have. The canon 7D has a 5k sensor that line skips at 3:1 down to a 1.7k image and it has a stronger olpf. RED could also allow row skipping without column skipping which could give us 5k 24fps capability, only line skipping in one dimension. I've heard of people transcoding their 5k R3Ds in 1/2 res and being quite happy with that, line skipping could essentially give the same result but occur in camera and allow use of the full aperture and higher framerates. The Canon 7D is less than 1080p acquisition, highly compressed, has limited gamma curves and latitude and far from RAW. Line skipped RED footage would be an order of magnitude more useful than 7D footage. It would be nice to have the option of using uncropped imaging area for less resolution sensitive content such as web or 720p delivery content etc, even really 1080p TV delivery from 2.5k line skipped or just row skipped footage would probably be quite useable.

Personally I think just adding a line skipped 5k area 2.5k RAW output mode that could maybe support up to 48fps or a column skipped 2.5k x 2.7k allowing 24fps would add a ton of value to scarlet.
 
Jim has previously stated that the Epic WILL have a 1080p full frame mode.

It's just a case of how long until they deliver the firmware for it...

Yep, the EPIC actually has the horsepower to do proper (high quality) scaling. Which is why it will probably only go up to something like 30fps.
 
Back
Top