How about 3k?

[Mark Pugh]

Reviving a thread from a while ago that I can't remember being resolved, I'd like to ask Graeme about the policy and possibility of a 3k(ish) format that gives a compomise between frames per second and resolution/field of view.

Why couldn't it be done? Why wouldn't it be done? There are more than a few S16 lenses that would cover that area.

 

[Brent J. Craig]

Interesting thought! There would be many advantages to this - more time per 'mag', easier focus but not as flat as super 16, quicker rendering, higher framerates.

I think Red needs to open-source their firmware development and let the community build what it needs!

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

I don't... At least not yet.

I think we should let the guys at RED finish the camera they envisioned before we all jump into the pile
Jay

 

[Rocco Schult]

definitely not yet.
There seems to be so much life in the builds currently, bugs still being fixed.
If you see an SDK or even open source (what I don't think would make sense though) as a point when the inital software/firmware is stable, we should be a little patient. The firmware seems to have come a far way in the last weeks and its getting better release to release.

 

[Mark Pugh]

ok - forget the open source issue -
why not allow people to shoot 3k at 50 or 60ish frames per second. (That's with the curreent build). You're overcranking without the large loss in resolution, and possibly do not need to put on a super16 wide angle lens - an 18mm lens would have have a field of view of a 25(ish) instead of a 35. If you've got a 14mm lens in the kit you're in pretty good shape.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[PaulClements]

I'm guessing it's a bit more difficult than just telling the camera that we only want to use pixel X to pixel Y, otherwise there would already be a 1080p windowed option to accompany the B4 mount.

Paul