I'm surprised that "Epic"...

[Ace]

I'm not sure I understand this. All things being equal, the sensor would be larger and the lens iris would be larger, so why less light?

Hmm.. Okay, if you shine a torch at a wall.. The further the torch is away from the wall (illuminating a larger area) the less dense the photons are concentrated in that area of the wall. The torch in this instance is your 'lens'.

When I used to shoot 4x5inch film, you would need a cloth over your head just to even see the faint projection of the image in the view finder. The exposure time would be minutes in some cases. 65mm is nowhere near the same of course, but the same rules apply. Longer exposure times, more light needed, less depth of field.

Also, medium format lenses dont even go down to f1.8 etc. The lens iris isnt larger just because the format is larger.. I believe its the same.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Hmm.. Okay, if you shine a torch at a wall.. The further the torch is away from the wall (illuminating a larger area) the less dense the photons are concentrated in that area of the wall. The torch in this instance is your 'lens'.

Are you saying that a 65mm lens is farther away from the sensor? Sorry, I'm far from an expert on these issues, and I have no experience shooting larger formats.

 

[Jonas Nyström]

Lot of people have loads of ideas for RED, how to make RED into something else; 65mm, optical EVF, spinning shutter, lens mount/Scarlet etc, etc. When does it end? And why? RED is not the only cam out there.

 

[Ace]

Are you saying that a 65mm lens is farther away from the sensor? Sorry, I'm far from an expert on these issues, and I have no experience shooting larger formats.

Yes, The larger the format, the greater the flange distance I believe , someone correct me if I am wrong. But it also depends on the focal length of the lens you're using. Also take into account the fact that to get the same depth of field as 35mm you have to stop down 2-3 stops.. And hence greater light loss to achieve the same depth of field.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Yes, The larger the format, the greater the flange distance I believe , someone correct me if I am wrong. But it also depends on the focal length of the lens you're using. Also take into account the fact that to get the same depth of field as 35mm you have to stop down 2-3 stops.. And hence greater light loss to achieve the same depth of field.

Yeah, you do have to figure that people are going to be stopping down to control DOF.

I guess the most extreme example of this would be IMAX. Are there light-sensitivity issues and DOF issues shooting IMAX?

In watching the old 65mm pictures and Vista Vision, I don't recall them being soft or showing any missed focus. But it may have been that the focus pullers back then were just super pimps.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

So aside from the extra K of resolution -- which is not worth the $22,000 difference, to me -- my main question is what does Epic have to offer?

Epic can offer: A package that weighs about 3 to 4 pounds less. Higher data rate (100MB/s), therefore less compression and artifacting. Full size ports right on the camera. WiFi control. I'm sure there will be more to offer that we are not being told at this time as the project continues to develop. The WiFi control ability will be available on Scarlet too and I will assume to be an available upgrade for RED One... Even if for the RED One it's a WiFi module that plugs into the USB port.

Time will reveal these answers. I'm thinking Epic is still at least a year away.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Epic can offer: A package that weighs about 3 to 4 pounds less. Higher data rate (100MB/s), therefore less compression and artifacting.

I wonder if this will allow for higher FPS "onboard" EPIC since the processor in theory will not be working as hard to compress the data?

 

[Matt Sconce]

Is this Dorkman from Ryan vs. Dorkman????? If it is I am definitely a fan!

 

[Paris Remillard]

Please stop clogging this forum with requests like these. If you really feel that this is what the industry needs then build it yourselves.
Just like the Anamorphic discussions. If you dont think these cameras will do the job for you, go waste youre energy elswere.

my 2 cents

Lot of people have loads of ideas for RED, how to make RED into something else; 65mm, optical EVF, spinning shutter, lens mount/Scarlet etc, etc. When does it end? And why? RED is not the only cam out there.

Because what has made Red different from other companies is that they've asked the community for their input on what products they want and what features they desire in their tools. I don't really understand why everyone has become so sensitive to this this week. People are just offering their opinions. Isn't that why this forum was created?

As for Epic, I'm also wondering what is going to set it apart from the Red One. Yes, I'm sure that we'll all find out over the next year, but the point of this thread is to speculate, so... The sensor is higher rez, but some people have mentioned that Red folks(Big Jon if I recall the quote, don't take this as fact) have said that the Red One sensor will be upgradable to the 5K Mysterium X. Okay, great. That's what most of us expected when we put down the cash on the Red One. Some have said that they heard that it would be the same rez as the current sensor, but the X upgrade. Still, as others have mentioned, only gives the Epic a .5K increase in resolution. That can't be what causes the price premium. Who knows. We'll find out.

Next is the data rate. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the CF module built on the eSATA interface? The Red One should be able to output 100MB/sec of data. The media is the limitation at this point, right? I mean, there was going to be an uncompressed RAW port based on the current mechanics/electronics of the camera. I don't see why a CF module upgrade,with multiple slots as is the spec on Epic, and Redcode update wouldn't allow the same 100MB/sec data rate as is proposed for Scarlet and Epic.

Then there's the weight, which will matter to some, but not others. The ports, which are easily adaptable. And the wi-fi, which we aren't even sure what it's purpose will be yet.

Anyway, this isn't a complaint or criticism, I'm just curious. It looks like a cool product. I'm just wondering what precipitated the creation of a totally new product and price point, as it doesn't look that much different (at first glance and based on the very limited amount of information that has been released, of course) from the current camera, and a lot of the features seem like they might be possible by upgrading the current camera. It does seem to me, with a name like Epic, that it would be as others have said, a 35mm Full Aperture sized sensor for use with standard 2:1 anamorphics, or a Full Still Frame or Vistavision sized sensor, or something to really distinguish it from the Red One. But, what the hell do I know? I'm just speculating and offering an opinion. They can't expect to announce new products with little information about them and not have us speculate on their functionality and pricing, can they?

 

[Garrett M. Smith]

Yes, The larger the format, the greater the flange distance I believe , someone correct me if I am wrong. But it also depends on the focal length of the lens you're using. Also take into account the fact that to get the same depth of field as 35mm you have to stop down 2-3 stops.. And hence greater light loss to achieve the same depth of field.

Well, I think you mean focal length, right? It's true that larger formats require longer focal length to cover the sensor area. (e.g. 150mm on 35mm still photo is pretty telephoto, but on 4x5 it is considered normal)

And as focal lengths get larger, the tougher it is to get smaller f-stops. f ratio (aka f-stop) = focal length / D (where D = diameter of entrance pupil)
Which basically means, the larger the focal length is the wider the glass needs to be. And naturally, there are practical limits in terms of weight, cost, design, etc. that will make a useable lens design have larger f-ratios than a smaller smaller focal length (in general).

For demonstration check specs of Canon's 400mm lenses - one at f5.6 and the other f2.8:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12129-USA/Canon_2526A004_400mm_f_5_6L_USM_Autofocus.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186152-USA/Canon_2533A002_Telephoto_EF_400mm_f_2_8L.html

On the other hand, making a sensor larger allows for the photosites to be larger - which increases DR, S/N ratios, and sensitivity. Which may offset the decreased light gathering power of the lenses.

Not in favor of a 65mm sensor for Epic. Just spouting some technical info. :nerd:

Garrett

 

[Simon Smith]

Epic will bring new features, sure. There wouldn't make sense to allow short ranges.

 

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Epic can offer: A package that weighs about 3 to 4 pounds less. Higher data rate (100MB/s), therefore less compression and artifacting. Full size ports right on the camera. WiFi control. I'm sure there will be more to offer that we are not being told at this time as the project continues to develop. The WiFi control ability will be available on Scarlet too and I will assume to be an available upgrade for RED One... Even if for the RED One it's a WiFi module that plugs into the USB port.

Time will reveal these answers. I'm thinking Epic is still at least a year away.

Like I said, the main question is going to be: what of that list will be available as upgrades for R1, and at what price point? I'm guessing I can live without WiFi, I can probably deal with the weight, and if the sensor upgrade for the R1 brings the higher potential bit rate/DR/frame rates, then the Epic is a smaller camera with higher resolution at a much higher price point, and is it worth that?

Everyone on the site is aware -- or ought to be -- that $40K is still chump change for a camera like Epic (there ARE no cameras like Epic, yet you get much less camera for much more money with the so-called "high end" systems), so my argument isn't that the price point or business model is in any way "unfair" on RED's part. Just that, as of now, I don't personally see what would be worth paying more than the cost of another R1 body to get Epic in one's hands. It all depends on the final specs, and how many of the will be available as upgrades for existing R1s.

As for the 65mm I mentioned, presumably people would buy fewer of them, and they would be intended more for specialized applications. Hence the higher price point, with otherwise potentially similar features, makes a lot of sense.

Is this Dorkman from Ryan vs. Dorkman????? If it is I am definitely a fan!

Yes, it is. Hi, and thanks. Just wait 'til you see what we do with our RED.

 

[Daniel Broadway]

Hey Dorkman.

 

[chuck colburn]

There are also the lenses for Super Panavision at Panavision.

 

[Peter Majtan]

Isn't it true that cramming more photosites onto a smaller sensor makes for worse light sensitivity? I think a lot of digital astronomy guys still shoot on the Rebel XT (8MP), rather than the XTi (10MP), for example, because it has less megapixels crammed onto the APS-C-sized sensor.
So wouldn't a 12MP 65mm sensor produce less noise than a 12MP 35mm sensor?

Given the fact that 5K EPIC has a "Full-frame S35" sensor, same size as 4K RED ONE, the EPIC sensor would get more noise (due to smaller pixels), unless some "noise-reduction magic" comes into play, which it most-likely will... But magic can go only so far...

Just ask Jim - he has EOS 1Ds (Mark II I think)...

You are right about the still photography. This is why 10.1MPx EOS-40D give's You much less noisier and deeper image then 12.2MPx EOS-450D and why it costs so much more then the 3-digit model and lot less then the full frame 35 mm 1-digit models (such as the 5D)...

 

[chuck colburn]

I believe VistaVision is the same size as still 35mm . Which is not 36x13mm.

 

[Dominic Jones]

You're dead right Chuck - VistaVision is identical in frame to 135 - i.e. 36x24mm, 1.5:1 aspect ratio.

Dalsa is a 2:1 chip, and is not in any way related to the VistaVision format, afaik. It's certainly not the same size.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Looks like what you kids want is the Phantom 65. 4096x2440, 51.2mmx30.5mm. Huge & lovely.

 

[Paris Remillard]

Looks like what you kids want is the Phantom 65. 4096x2440, 51.2mmx30.5mm. Huge & lovely.

Want, yes.... Afford.... Tell you what, Mitch, if you can give me a Phantom 65, with a cinemag of course, for the price of an Epic, we got us a deal : )

 

[Sverker Hahn]

First of all, do you know how much light loss one suffers when shooting 65mm?? When you spread light over a larger area, guess what happens...It gets dimmer. Hence your sensor would need to be rated at such a higher ISO level anyway.

Not true. The amount of light reaching the sensor depends on the iris - bigger iris-more light, smaller iris-less light.

A lens of 300 mm with f=5,6 gives the same amount of light to the sensor as a 30 mm lens with f=5,6.

But a lens for a 65 mm sensor is - maybe - more difficult to make. At least it takes a lot of glass to make a long lens as fast as a short one. E g lenses for the middle and large format still cameras rarely or never reach f=1.4 or 1.0 which lenses for 35 mm still cameras do.

Bigger sensor does not increase or decrease sensitivity.
Bigger pixels increase sensitivity.
Smaller pixels decrease sensitivity.