should the red-mount, mini-primes and low-end scarlet be four-thirds?

[Eddie]

Because quite a few people would much rather use four-thirds lenses than broadcast lenses I thought a poll might give some indication of where the redusers stand on this topic. At the same time I would like to make red aware of the option to construct mini-primes for the four-third system, which atleast at the momment is lacking. Giving them opportunity to find a niche in the dslr-field for their lense endeavour. Adding manual or semi-manual primes to the four-thirds market, would surely be more lukrative than lenses for a proprietary scarlet mini-mount.

all the best eddie

 

[Steve Ellington]

I think that 4/3rds is not a format for the future. 2/3rds really isn't either, but at least it is supported and transitional. There is plenty of good cinema glass for 2/3rds and there have been plenty of great films shot on the format. The same definitely cannot be said for 4/3rds. What lenses can you choose from? Olympus and Panasonic?

 

[Kyle Presley]

No, because I'm tired of waiting!!! lol.

 

[Thomas Koch]

How about No, I'll rent Digi-primes, or buy the Red Lenses, or some C-mount lenses if I want.

 

[diskojerk]

I think you're just flogging a dead horse with this subject (in terms of getting it into the current line up). It has already been stated that the 2/3 and S35 chips have finished production. Red isn't going to take all those 2/3 chips, throw them in the trash and say "Boy what idiots we are. Hey guys, get cracking on those 4/3 system chips, chop chop!" (or maybe they will, you never know with this company). And while the case for the 4/3 system has been passionately, thoroughly and logically explained by several seemingly knowledgeable advocates, it looks as though it's not in the cards this time around. Don't get me wrong, I'm not discouraging anyone from furthering the discussion, or from expressing their views on the matter.

 

[brainburst]

I think that 4/3rds is not a format for the future. 2/3rds really isn't either, but at least it is supported and transitional.

The beauty of the 4/3rd sized sensor is that It is supported by any full format glass with simple 2:1 cropping. You don't have to buy 4/3s glass if you don't want to, just put on a different mount and use full format glass. The 2/3s on the other hand needs better glass and more importantly none of that 2/3 glass will do you any good if and when you decide to upgrade sensors. (so much for modularity)
The 2/3" standard is only really supported for 3ccd cameras, lenses for which are not optimum for a bayer sensor. 16mm primes will be ok but not optimum to realize 2k on these 10mm wide sensors. They will require lenses that can pass min 100lp/mm. Remember, the 2/3" sensor is not equivalent to super 16 it is equivalent to letterboxed 16. Only the best glass will realize this sensors full potential. One of the reasons Super 16 was invented was to get better effective resolution. If Red wanted to produce a super 16 equivalent they should have produced 1 inch sensors. The scanning area then would be closer to super 16 and thus the glass more compatible.

Boy what idiots we are. Hey guys, get cracking on those 4/3 system chips, chop chop!" (or maybe they will, you never know with this company)

The other advantage of the 4/3 proposal is that it uses the same format as their other sensors so it won't require a total reworking of the fab process.

 

[diskojerk]

The other advantage of the 4/3 proposal is that it uses the same format as their other sensors so it won't require a total reworking of the fab process.

Well, on paper, that may be so. I don't think anyone knows with absolute certainty just what would be involved with switching over to 4/3 until it's actually been done. I think it would be great if it would be just a simple matter of a couple tweaks here and there to implement a 4/3 system... and maybe it is. But maybe it isn't. It's very easy to sit down and say "All you would have to do is this that and this and bam, there you have it". But actually doing the job hands on and producing the product is entirely different. RED does seem to have a very streamlined R&D and prototyping process, so it could be a fast process either way. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.