Could anyone tell me if red is working on a 65mm camera (and while we're at it what I would want in it)?

[Edith Blazek]

For me, I yearn for a 65mm camera with a 52-54mm wide and 28-30mm tall sensor in the body form factor of the smaller raptor because i want it to be the professionally acceptable version of the alpa platon where it's truly handholdable with that large a sensor. Would love if they could do 16k dci with a frame rate of at least 33.333 frames per second in hq compression and 90 frames in lq compression and i say these selectively as i know these would work with newer pcie 4.0 based cfexpress type b cards as while id love to be higher, that'd far exceed the abilities of these newer cards if calculations from @Phil Holland frames to data rate tool were to be correct, but id take 14k dci or 12k dci with these framerates for what its worth. What do you think? Are my desires ridiculous? Do they fall in line with what you would want to see if red were to do a 65mn camera? What would you add or want in it?

 

[M Harvey]

I have no idea if Red is considering this and would never call such a desire ridiculous. But what would you want a hand-holdable 65mm camera for?

 

[Edith Blazek]

I have no idea if Red is considering this and would never call such a desire ridiculous. But what would you want a hand-holdable 65mm camera for?

I want it to be small as I'm in complete agreement with Henry Braham that a smaller camera just allows you to be more flexible and free in terms of operating and I want the 65mm sensor for the lenses part of it.

 

[Zack Birlew]

See how the URSA Cine 17K is and if that might work for you, it's supposed to be coming out in the coming months. There's no doubt that RED should be working on the Medium Format field and there is most likely a camera coming to suit this new level of camera but there's been no word yet on when or in what form it will take. The way to do things now is to use a Kipon Medium Format speedbooster and there are models directly compatible with RED cameras and more universal options for RF and PL as well.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I want it to be small as I'm in complete agreement with Henry Braham that a smaller camera just allows you to be more flexible and free in terms of operating and I want the 65mm sensor for the lenses part of it.

This makes perfect sense. But the V-Raptor is pretty darned good - in fact it's more camera than most people would ever need!

I imagine that a 65mm sensor from Red would have to be at least 12K. Or, 8K with amazingly high sensitivity or DR. Otherwise, it's just bigger for the sake of being bigger.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I’ve wanted a 65mm/ 70mm RED for the longest time. And when RED teased those various sizes of EPIC and Monstro cameras way back when, it just made it worse. I still have that booklet from NAB back in like 2009 or whenever it was. If they came out with one, I would probably still have to buy one even though i have absolutely no reason to own one at this time, other to scratch that itch. It would be an expensive beast to support, mostly due to lens options, but some of us do have medium format Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc.. lenses we could adapt for many uses.

Since the Nikon acquisition, I have to wonder just what the future holds for RED and how various technologies and design elements might be shared between the two companies.

 

[Brian Timmons]

I still have that booklet from NAB back in like 2009 or whenever it was.

Yeah I remember that brochure.

Since the Nikon acquisition, I have to wonder just what the future holds for RED and how various technologies and design elements might be shared between the two companies.

Yes, it would be nice to see that type of camera released by RED but I’m glad they went the route they did by settling on 6K/8K and pushing the sensors color, frame rates, global shutter, etc while getting the body size and weight down.

While I think they originally sincerely had the larger MF sensors on the roadmap I wouldn’t be surprised if they slowed development on them due to lack of demand or saw what they might cost in R&D and manufacturing.

Of course that was 10-15 years ago and many things have changed in terms of tech.

Have no idea what Nikon may or may not do.
Will see.
Honestly I’m satisfied with what a Komodo X can do and that’s not even close to the current top of the line RED.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[Les Hillis]

If you base whatever larger sensor sizes RED might come up with on the 5 micron pixel pitch they've used in their Dragon, Monstro and V-Raptor VV cameras, you only need to go up to between 10-12K to get a sensor size that could fit the sensor dimensions outlined in the original post.

If you also maintain the RED FF 1.90:1/17:9 maximum Aspect Ratio, here's the list of dimensions for the sensor size range mentioned by the OP (52-54mm wide and 28-30mm high) -

52mm wide x 27.30mm high (1.90:1/17:9)
53mm wide x 27.80mm high (1.90:1/17:9)
54mm wide x 28.30mm high (1.90:1/17:9)

28mm high x 53.2mm wide (1.90:1/17:9)
29mm high x 55.1mm wide (1.90:1/17:9)
30mm high x 57mm wide (1.90:1/17:9)

If you take the largest of those combinations (30mm high x 57mm wide) and calculate the resolution using the 5 micron pixel pitch, you get -

RED V-Raptor 11.4K - 17:9 (11400x6000)
Format Size = 57x30mm (64.41mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 11400x6000 (68.4 megapixels)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.90:1

Doesn't seem unreasonable.


If you want to make the sensor an actual 65mm wide, you only need to go up to 13K.

A theoretical RED V-Raptor VV 65mm sensor -

RED V-Raptor 65 - 13K 17:9 (13000x6840)
Format Size = 65x34.20mm (73.45mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 13000x6840 (88.92 megapixels)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.90:1


These calculations are all based on the current RED V-Raptor VV sensor specs -

RED V-Raptor 8K VV - 8K 17:9 (8192x4320)
Format Size = 40.96x21.60mm (46.31mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 8192x4320 (35.4 megapixels)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.90:1


Just to add, it's been mentioned before that at a certain point, it's more of an ecomonic barrier than a technical one that's prevented RED from making larger sensor cameras already. There has to be enough of a market there for it to make sense from a business perspective. That means a high enough amount of buyers, or a more limited amount of buyers prepared to pay more, which could even include another business or venture paying for the initial development of a product that RED can then turn around and sell to others.

So far, it just hasn't happened and RED, perhaps for additional reasons, haven't just gone ahead and taken a build-it-and-they'll-come approach.

The weird thing is, with Nikon on board, there's the opportunity for something developed for the limited cinema camera market to also upend other camera markets as well...

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I agree that RED made the best choice with their sensor development. That said, to expand their current sensor tech to a 645 sized medium format would be very interesting. The MF crowd would flock to it if it could deliver the sensor size they promised in that brochure and/or provided real video abilities. Current digital medium format is pretty sized-down compared to shooting on film. For example, Hasselblad’s current offerings are 44x33mm and honestly don’t offer much for visual characteristics over FF35 frames from Canon, Nikon or Sony. Their 100MP sensor has some impressive characteristics, but they come with some compromises and a huge price tag. We can already get 60+ MP in a 35mm sensor with the A7r6 looking to be 100MP….

Then there’s that EPIC 617 that RED proposed. Interesting application study there…. It was intended as a variable format solution and was more a thought experiment than anything. At least that’s what I gathered when I briefly got to talk to Jim at that NAB. It would be a camera set up where you could optically de-squeeze an anamorphic lens or use hypothetical anamorphic lenses built to cover the elongated sensor. Or mount two lenses to shoot 3D.

 

[Edith Blazek]

See how the URSA Cine 17K is and if that might work for you, it's supposed to be coming out in the coming months. There's no doubt that RED should be working on the Medium Format field and there is most likely a camera coming to suit this new level of camera but there's been no word yet on when or in what form it will take. The way to do things now is to use a Kipon Medium Format speedbooster and there are models directly compatible with RED cameras and more universal options for RF and PL as well.

I wanted to love the Ursa 17k but I wish it was just 600 pixels taller on the sensor side and that it was the form factor of the Ursa mini cameras and not whatever sexual fetish blackmagic is bringing back for themselves from the Ursa camera a decade ago. Speaking of kipon medium format speed boosters, there was supposed to be a pl lens to canon rf camera speed booster that would work on full frame cameras like the red but that got killed off awhile ago. I was talking to them as they were developing it.

 

[Edith Blazek]

If you base whatever larger sensor sizes RED might come up with on the 5 micron pixel pitch they've used in their Dragon, Monstro and V-Raptor VV cameras, you only need to go up to between 10-12K to get a sensor size that could fit the sensor dimensions outlined in the original post.

If you also maintain the RED FF 1.90:1/17:9 maximum Aspect Ratio, here's the list of dimensions for the sensor size range mentioned by the OP (52-54mm wide and 28-30mm high) -

52mm wide x 27.30mm high (1.90:1/17:9)
53mm wide x 27.80mm high (1.90:1/17:9)
54mm wide x 28.30mm high (1.90:1/17:9)

28mm high x 53.2mm wide (1.90:1/17:9)
29mm high x 55.1mm wide (1.90:1/17:9)
30mm high x 57mm wide (1.90:1/17:9)

If you take the largest of those combinations (30mm high x 57mm wide) and calculate the resolution using the 5 micron pixel pitch, you get -

RED V-Raptor 11.4K - 17:9 (11400x6000)
Format Size = 57x30mm (64.41mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 11400x6000 (68.4 megapixels)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.90:1

Doesn't seem unreasonable.


If you want to make the sensor an actual 65mm wide, you only need to go up to 13K.

A theoretical RED V-Raptor VV 65mm sensor -

RED V-Raptor 65 - 13K 17:9 (13000x6840)
Format Size = 65x34.20mm (73.45mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 13000x6840 (88.92 megapixels)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.90:1


These calculations are all based on the current RED V-Raptor VV sensor specs -

RED V-Raptor 8K VV - 8K 17:9 (8192x4320)
Format Size = 40.96x21.60mm (46.31mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 8192x4320 (35.4 megapixels)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.90:1


Just to add, it's been mentioned before that at a certain point, it's more of an ecomonic barrier than a technical one that's prevented RED from making larger sensor cameras already. There has to be enough of a market there for it to make sense from a business perspective. That means a high enough amount of buyers, or a more limited amount of buyers prepared to pay more, which could even include another business or venture paying for the initial development of a product that RED can then turn around and sell to others.

So far, it just hasn't happened and RED, perhaps for additional reasons, haven't just gone ahead and taken a build-it-and-they'll-come approach.

The weird thing is, with Nikon on board, there's the opportunity for something developed for the limited cinema camera market to also upend other camera markets as well...

Sounds nice but personally, I had more the komodo-x 4.4 micron or vraptor 8k s35 3.2 micron sensors as bases as they 4 of those in a quadrant configuration would 1, satisfy dci requirements for 12k and 16k which is the entire reason i want red to tackle this kind of camera as i know they were for the longest time matching exactly dci standards or being taller than, and 2, being within reasonable sensor dimensions WITH the usable resolutions as if they were to use the vv as a base, the 11.4k just comes close but not really, which is my problem with the blackmagic ursa cine 17k, that camera is just shy of dci standards in height by 600 pixels while exceeding in width by a fair bit, puzzling me. The desired sensor size figures I put are already pushing alot of 65mm lenses, for them to go by doing the 13k with your calculations would basically make a lot of lenses in this space that aren't rehoused stills lenses unusable, so I think for the sake of bettering the chances of adoption in the industry where it's already an uphill battle, i think a smaller but proven to work pixel pitch would be better for usability. The figures I put were roughly based on the previously released alpa platon and phantom 65 cameras which fit into this category, thats why the width and height those specifically.

 

[Les Hillis]

Here's an interesting proposition -

RED V-Raptor 645 - 13K 4:3
Format Size = 65.00x49mm (81.40mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 13000x9800 (127.4 megapixels)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.33:1

You could have your 65mm wide variants by cropping top and bottom in post, while having a little room to spare on the sides if capturing the 6x4.5 frame.

If the +259.9% increase in megapixels of the full 8K VV sensor is translated over to the up to 800 MB/s data rate of the V-Raptor 8K VV, it comes out to 2880 MB/s, which does seem within the capability of current NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD's.

Not sure you could power that and keep it cool in the smaller V-Raptor from-factor, but I imagine something could be worked out.

 

[Edith Blazek]

I agree that RED made the best choice with their sensor development. That said, to expand their current sensor tech to a 645 sized medium format would be very interesting. The MF crowd would flock to it if it could deliver the sensor size they promised in that brochure and/or provided real video abilities. Current digital medium format is pretty sized-down compared to shooting on film. For example, Hasselblad’s current offerings are 44x33mm and honestly don’t offer much for visual characteristics over FF35 frames from Canon, Nikon or Sony. Their 100MP sensor has some impressive characteristics, but they come with some compromises and a huge price tag. We can already get 60+ MP in a 35mm sensor with the A7r6 looking to be 100MP….

Then there’s that EPIC 617 that RED proposed. Interesting application study there…. It was intended as a variable format solution and was more a thought experiment than anything. At least that’s what I gathered when I briefly got to talk to Jim at that NAB. It would be a camera set up where you could optically de-squeeze an anamorphic lens or use hypothetical anamorphic lenses built to cover the elongated sensor. Or mount two lenses to shoot 3D.

While true from an all things equal perspective (when 35mm equivalents are in place), I actually disagree that there's not much in visual difference with 44x33 at least with mirrorless lens mounts as they can be adapted work with alot of existing 35mm lenses and create unique aesthetics from those you objectively can't get with ff35 though you have to do alot of trial and error

 

[Edith Blazek]

Here's an interesting proposition -

RED V-Raptor 645 - 13K 4:3
Format Size = 65.00x49mm (81.40mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 13000x9800 (127.4 megapixels)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.33:1

You could have your 65mm wide variants by cropping top and bottom in post, while having a little room to spare on the sides if capturing the 6x4.5 frame.

If the +259.9% increase in megapixels of the full 8K VV sensor is translated over to the up to 800 MB/s data rate of the V-Raptor 8K VV, it comes out to 2880 MB/s, which does seem within the capability of current NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD's.

Not sure you could power that and keep it cool in the smaller V-Raptor from-factor, but I imagine something could be worked out.

If in the 645 format, I'd say they should look into alpa lens modules as they have pl mounts also though I am fond of taller aspect ratios, i am more thinking in the lines of standard dci aspect ratios as for what its worth there are ultra high resolutions in dci aspect ratios that at least have some grounding in technical standards for the industry.

 

[Les Hillis]

Sounds nice but personally, I had more the komodo-x 4.4 micron or vraptor 8k s35 3.2 micron sensors as bases as they 4 of those in a quadrant configuration would 1, satisfy dci requirements for 12k and 16k which is the entire reason i want red to tackle this kind of camera as i know they were for the longest time matching exactly dci standards or being taller than, and 2, being within reasonable sensor dimensions WITH the usable resolutions as if they were to use the vv as a base, the 11.4k just comes close but not really, which is my problem with the blackmagic ursa cine 17k, that camera is just shy of dci standards in height by 600 pixels while exceeding in width by a fair bit, puzzling me. The desired sensor size figures I put are already pushing alot of 65mm lenses, for them to go by doing the 13k with your calculations would basically make a lot of lenses in this space that aren't rehoused stills lenses unusable, so I think for the sake of bettering the chances of adoption in the industry where it's already an uphill battle, i think a smaller but proven to work pixel pitch would be better for usability. The figures I put were roughly based on the previously released alpa platon and phantom 65 cameras which fit into this category, thats why the width and height those specifically.

I hear what you're saying.

Just doing the previous calculations and trying to reconcile the pixel-pitch, resolutions and DCI standards, it gets weird and is hard to find an ideal solution.

I have also been thinking of the lens situation as being dependent on rehoused stills and newly designed lenses for the newer larger sensors, so I wasn't even factoring in those limits.

I've got no problem myself with the idea of using different pixel pitches to make things fit DCI standards, but people to this day are still complaining about how the smaller-pixeled 8K S35 Helium sensors turned out, so if RED were to go there they'd have to have a flawless solution. And even then, that 5 micron pixel pitch still has an appeal that some people just don't find with the smaller ones in the Komodo for example, along the lines of the larger pixels being more organic and film-like and less digital and plastic-looking. Each to their own, but it is a thing, which only adds to the complexity of coming up with something people would actually want to buy or use.

Still, thanks for sharing your perspective on it, as it seems to be more than just wishful thinking or theorizing on what could be and a more grounded attempt at finding out how to get to that camera you really want but that no-one's made yet.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

While true from an all things equal perspective (when 35mm equivalents are in place), I actually disagree that there's not much in visual difference with 44x33 at least with mirrorless lens mounts as they can be adapted work with alot of existing 35mm lenses and create unique aesthetics from those you objectively can't get with ff35 though you have to do alot of trial and error

Interesting point. Some 35mm lenses work fairly well, and all you need is some vignetting correction and a minor crop.

 

[Phil Holland]

I have lots of thoughts, theories, and more. But I'll keep it semi-vague for the purpose of discussion as I've shared my wants and desires a lot to RED.

What RED and Nikon should do if creating a higher resolution and/or larger format size is still adhere to the DCI 1.9:1/17:9 aspect ratio as it will provide the most flexibility for modern delivery standards, particularly at larger format sizes. Ideally also adhering to the landmark resolutions that we know exist or are coming/becoming slightly more common. i.e. 2K, 4K, 6K, 8K, 10K, 12K, 14K, 16K.

There is a great deal of lens consideration here when looking at larger format sizes. Size, Speed, and Availability are naming the main points as of now. Also related to this is the physical camera size if there is a larger sensor inside the camera. Which is a pretty big deal when it comes to the market at the end of the day.

Media is a question mark for the time being as CFexpress Type-C has been delayed a bit due to the pandemic, supply, and market itself (prototypes were out before 2020 btw). Confined to the now of REDCODE RAW in HQ, 12K at 24fps is what is attainable with select modern CFexpress Type-B cards. There are some faster cards out there that might get you higher data rates 12K 60fps in MQ. 12K 120fps is very much the edge and likely not doable currently with CFx B. CFx C however will be about 4X the data rates we have today.

There is a bigger question about workflow and the general market. Most aren't ready for higher than 8K timelines just yet, but that's not saying there are plenty of "us" who have been at that for a long while who desire more.

RED has a few pixel designs and sizes I like and produce very good results that lead to decent larger formats. And advancement in the tech further than the now is even better towards the future. It will be interesting to see if all sensors from here on out will be Global Shutter or perhaps Global Shutter with a Rolling Shutter mode. But maybe more Rolling Shutter/fast readout is part of the future. Hard to tell there.

There are some obvious directions for larger format sizes. But I'll say this. The balancing act between keeping the camera size manageable and useable on the widest range of production applications/rigs is going to be important. We likely don't "need" a full blown digital IMAX sized sensor with an 88-90mm image circle. But smaller than that leads to interesting and useful things. Just how big beyond VV and under that size is a question mark. Then it's the pixel design and format size that come into play. I have a couple of very specific ideas there, but that's what I'll be leaving out for now on a public forum.

Power and thermal management are also topics worth chatting about, but with new boards, new sensor tech, and who knows about media; those hurdles will need to be tackled.

And just to say something. The original roadmap was pretty interesting, but what we ended up with thus far was/is better. i.e. RED's VV format for instance. I could see potential of a taller or wider format itself than say keeping with 17:9, but that 17:9 really is the best way when it comes down to it.

 

[Edith Blazek]

I hear what you're saying.

Just doing the previous calculations and trying to reconcile the pixel-pitch, resolutions and DCI standards, it gets weird and is hard to find an ideal solution.

I have also been thinking of the lens situation as being dependent on rehoused stills and newly designed lenses for the newer larger sensors, so I wasn't even factoring in those limits.

I've got no problem myself with the idea of using different pixel pitches to make things fit DCI standards, but people to this day are still complaining about how the smaller-pixeled 8K S35 Helium sensors turned out, so if RED were to go there they'd have to have a flawless solution. And even then, that 5 micron pixel pitch still has an appeal that some people just don't find with the smaller ones in the Komodo for example, along the lines of the larger pixels being more organic and film-like and less digital and plastic-looking. Each to their own, but it is a thing, which only adds to the complexity of coming up with something people would actually want to buy or use.

Still, thanks for sharing your perspective on it, as it seems to be more than just wishful thinking or theorizing on what could be and a more grounded attempt at finding out how to get to that camera you really want but that no-one's made yet.

I mean, the raptor s35 and komodo-x sensors are still damn good on their own even compared to the raptor vv as Phil's and even cined's tests show, so i think they could have this not to usurp but rather complement the vv, maybe if they were to use the komodo-x as a base, maybe it could be framed as komodo 65 rather than a raptor 65

 

[Edith Blazek]

I have lots of thoughts, theories, and more. But I'll keep it semi-vague for the purpose of discussion as I've shared my wants and desires a lot to RED.

What RED and Nikon should do if creating a higher resolution and/or larger format size is still adhere to the DCI 1.9:1/17:9 aspect ratio as it will provide the most flexibility for modern delivery standards, particularly at larger format sizes. Ideally also adhering to the landmark resolutions that we know exist or are coming/becoming slightly more common. i.e. 2K, 4K, 6K, 8K, 10K, 12K, 14K, 16K.

There is a great deal of lens consideration here when looking at larger format sizes. Size, Speed, and Availability are naming the main points as of now. Also related to this is the physical camera size if there is a larger sensor inside the camera. Which is a pretty big deal when it comes to the market at the end of the day.

Media is a question mark for the time being as CFexpress Type-C has been delayed a bit due to the pandemic, supply, and market itself (prototypes were out before 2020 btw). Confined to the now of REDCODE RAW in HQ, 12K at 24fps is what is attainable with select modern CFexpress Type-B cards. There are some faster cards out there that might get you higher data rates 12K 60fps in MQ. 12K 120fps is very much the edge and likely not doable currently with CFx B. CFx C however will be about 4X the data rates we have today.

There is a bigger question about workflow and the general market. Most aren't ready for higher than 8K timelines just yet, but that's not saying there are plenty of "us" who have been at that for a long while who desire more.

RED has a few pixel designs and sizes I like and produce very good results that lead to decent larger formats. And advancement in the tech further than the now is even better towards the future. It will be interesting to see if all sensors from here on out will be Global Shutter or perhaps Global Shutter with a Rolling Shutter mode. But maybe more Rolling Shutter/fast readout is part of the future. Hard to tell there.

There are some obvious directions for larger format sizes. But I'll say this. The balancing act between keeping the camera size manageable and useable on the widest range of production applications/rigs is going to be important. We likely don't "need" a full blown digital IMAX sized sensor with an 88-90mm image circle. But smaller than that leads to interesting and useful things. Just how big beyond VV and under that size is a question mark. Then it's the pixel design and format size that come into play. I have a couple of very specific ideas there, but that's what I'll be leaving out for now on a public forum.

Power and thermal management are also topics worth chatting about, but with new boards, new sensor tech, and who knows about media; those hurdles will need to be tackled.

And just to say something. The original roadmap was pretty interesting, but what we ended up with thus far was/is better. i.e. RED's VV format for instance. I could see potential of a taller or wider format itself than say keeping with 17:9, but that 17:9 really is the best way when it comes down to it.

I think for modern purposes, the minimum framerates should be 33.333 in hq for various workflows, do you think that would be attainable in your estimation? Also, wouldn't existing pixel designs like that from the komodo-x be suitable for this purpose? While I wish for it to be within striking distance of something like the base raptor body, I would be okay if they were to by default put it into an ecosystem of the vraptor xl as given the lenses they wouldn't be able to with mirrorless mounts like on the rf mount cameras, though I would hope for LPL as an included base then compatibility with something like alpa lens modules for more options that would clear as I'm not sure the interchangeable lens mounts for the xl would work for clearing the larger system.

 

[Les Hillis]

Sticking to the DCI 1.9:1/17:9 aspect ratio as Phil suggested makes it easier to see what might be possible with the current sensors.

4096x2160 - 1.9:1/17:9 (4K DCI)
6144x3240 - 1.9:1/17:9 (6K DCI)
8192x4320 - 1.9:1/17:9 (8K DCI)
10240×5400 - 1.9:1/17:9 (10K DCI)
12288x6480 - 1.9:1/17:9 (12K DCI)
14336x7560 - 1.9:1/17:9 (14K DCI)
16384x8640 - 1.9:1/17:9 (16K DCI)

So, using the given pixel sizes per camera -

V-Raptor 8K VV - 5 micron (0.005mm)
Komodo-X - 4.4 micron (0.0044mm)
V-Raptor 8K S35 - 3.2 micron (0.0032mm)

Here's a list of expanded sensor sizes and image circles for the Raptor VV & S35 and Komodo-X -

RED V-Raptor 'VV' - 10K 17:9
Format Size = 51.20 x 27.00mm (57.88mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 10240 × 5400 (55.3 megapixels) (+56.3%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 1250 MB/s (+56.3%)

RED V-Raptor 'VV' - 12K 17:9
Format Size = 61.44 x 32.40mm (69.46mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 12288 x 6480 (79.6 megapixels) (+44%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 1800 MB/s (+44%)

RED V-Raptor 'VV' - 14K 17:9
Format Size = 71.68 x 37.80mm (81.04mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 14336 x 7560 (108.4 megapixels) (+36.2%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 2452 MB/s (+36.2%)

RED V-Raptor 'VV' - 16K 17:9
Format Size = 81.92 x 43.20mm (92.61mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 16384 x 8640 (141.6 megapixels) (+30.6%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 3202 MB/s (+30.6%)

-----------------------------

RED V-Raptor 'S35' - 10K 17:9
Format Size = 32.77mm x 17.28mm (37.05mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 10240 × 5400 (55.3 megapixels) (+56.3%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 1250 MB/s (+56.3%)

RED V-Raptor 'S35' - 12K 17:9
Format Size = 39.32mm x 20.74mm (44.45mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 12288 x 6480 (79.6 megapixels) (+44%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 1800 MB/s (+44%)

RED V-Raptor 'S35' - 14K 17:9
Format Size = 45.88mm x 24.19mm (51.87mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 14336 x 7560 (108.4 megapixels) (+36.2%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 2452 MB/s (+36.2%)

RED V-Raptor 'S35' - 16K 17:9
Format Size = 52.43mm x 27.65mm (59.27mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 16384 x 8640 (141.6 megapixels) (+30.6%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 3202 MB/s (+30.6%)

------------------------------

RED Komodo-X - 8K 17:9
Format Size = 36.05mm x 19.01mm (40.76mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 8192 x 4320 (35.4 megapixels) (+78%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 997 MB/s (+78%)

RED Komodo-X - 10K 17:9
Format Size = 45.06mm x 23.76mm (50.94mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 10240 × 5400 (55.3 megapixels) (+56.3%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 1558 MB/s (+56.3%)

RED Komodo-X - 12K 17:9
Format Size = 54.07mm x 28.51mm (61.13mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 12288 x 6480 (79.6 megapixels) (+44%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 2244 MB/s (+44%)

RED Komodo-X - 14K 17:9
Format Size = 63.08mm x 33.26mm (71.31mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 14336 x 7560 (108.4 megapixels) (+36.2%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 3056 MB/s (+36.2%)

RED Komodo-X - 16K 17:9
Format Size = 72.09mm x 38.02mm (81.50mm image circle/diagonal)
Format Resolution = 16384 x 8640 (141.6 megapixels) (+30.6%)
Format Aspect Ratio = 1.896:1
Up to 3991 MB/s (+30.6%)

The data rates are just extrapolated from the percentage increases in megapixels, I don't know if that's an accurate way of estimating them.

There could be some other mistakes with the numbers or more fundamental problems with the working out, but I just wanted to try and see how the sensor sizes and resolutions relate to each other.

It's all theoretical for me personally, but I wouldn't want to see dynamic range reduced or refresh rates increased to achieve higher resolutions or larger formats, while limiting frame-rates and compression ratio's would be less of an issue. I also think there's more of a limit nowadays to how big a popular camera can be, but that seems to fit with RED's own aims anyway, though I imagine some of those sensor sizes and the amount of internal processing and cooling required would necessitate a definite variation on the current DSCMC3 body design. I also wouldn't have a problem if the data rates needed a proprietary media solution, but I get the impression no-one, including RED, would want to go back to that, so that alone could limit potential advances.

Anyway...