Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • 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 :)

Scarlet 3k 2/3" DOF

brainburst said:
Everyone here thinks that the 2/3 sensor is going to be like a baby Red1. It can't be. It will be noisier. It will have worse low light performance. It will require better glass. The photosites are 40% smaller. Unless they've developed a totally different kind of sensor (They haven't said this) it will be a totally different and inferior camera.
Click to expand...

The 2/3 sensor is a next generation Mysterium X sensor. Higher dynamic range and low light capability than the original Mysterium sensor. Whether or not the smaller sensor size will cripple these improvements, well.. we will have to wait for some test footage to know for sure.
 
The 2/3 sensor is a next generation Mysterium X sensor. Higher dynamic range and low light capability than the original Mysterium sensor.
Click to expand...

If it was a radical improvement in technology don't you think they would have mentioned it? A modest improvement will not be enough to overcome the sensor size.

And still no one has addressed the fact that you will have to use better glass to realize full resolution benefits.

As to DOF comparisons to S35, remember the 2/3" sensor doesn't actually have a 2/3" active scanning area, it's just about .5" (~11.5mm).
 
Eki Halkka said:
They have - it will have a full stop better dynamic range than old Mysterium.
Click to expand...
One stop better is not a radical improvement. And they don't tell you how much of that is due to sensor design, or improved A to D design, or simply greater bit depth. I'm willing to bet that the improvements will not scale to the smaller size sensor and even then it might not be enough.
 
100%? Huh?

100%? Huh?

Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

100% improvement sounds good to me.

Stephen
Click to expand...

You are clearly not understanding. Where is the improvement occurring? You could change the sampling or encoding structure and make it 20 bits and claim x stops better. It doesn't mean the raw sensor itself will provide usable information beyond spurious noise. Red has mentioned nothing about ground breaking technology that improves the S/N at the cell level. Do you honestly believe that a a sensor with 5.4 microns will have the same latitude as a sensor with 3.2 microns? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE yet they are spec'd the same. There is healthy fudging on the 2/3" numbers.

And it still doesn't address the fact that you will need expensive glass to go with the lower cost sensor because of the smaller pixel size.
 
brainburst said:
You are clearly not understanding. Where is the improvement occurring? You could change the sampling or encoding structure and make it 20 bits and claim x stops better. It doesn't mean the raw sensor itself will provide usable information beyond spurious noise. Red has mentioned nothing about ground breaking technology that improves the S/N at the cell level. Do you honestly believe that a a sensor with 5.4 microns will have the same latitude as a sensor with 3.2 microns? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE yet they are spec'd the same. There is healthy fudging on the 2/3" numbers.

And it still doesn't address the fact that you will need expensive glass to go with the lower cost sensor because of the smaller pixel size.
Click to expand...

it sounds like you're very upset.... in many of your posts... :ohmy:
 
brainburst said:
And it still doesn't address the fact that you will need expensive glass to go with the lower cost sensor because of the smaller pixel size.
Click to expand...

We need to wait and see what the RED mini primes will be like before making assumptions like this.
 
brainburst said:
And it still doesn't address the fact that you will need expensive glass to go with the lower cost sensor because of the smaller pixel size.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Which is the reason I have never bought any S16mm cameras, just 35mm.

Stephen
 
We need to wait and see what the RED mini primes will be like before making assumptions like this.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if Red mini primes are great and they actually design a set just for the 2/3" camera. (The mini primes meant for their other cameras will not be good enough for the 2/3" sensor)
That just means that there would only be a single source for adequate lenses. Does any professional want to be limited to a single option? And it still doesn't address the DOF issue.
The Four Thirds sensor size would give us dozens of options and a better DOF.
 
brainburst said:
You could change the sampling or encoding structure and make it 20 bits and claim x stops better.
Click to expand...

Then you'd be lying. Increasing the encoding in terms of bits increases the precision of storage, not the range of light that is captured.

RED has indicated that the SENSOR CAPTURES AN EXTRA STOP OF LIGHT -- That's DOUBLE the amount of light (each stop is a doubling of the light; this is an exponential scale).

They also estimate an additional TWO STOPS MORE THAN THAT for "monstro" -- that's four times as much light as the X...
 
brainburst said:
It doesn't matter if Red mini primes are great and they actually design a set just for the 2/3" camera. (The mini primes meant for their other cameras will not be good enough for the 2/3" sensor)
That just means that there would only be a single source for adequate lenses. Does any professional want to be limited to a single option? And it still doesn't address the DOF issue.
The Four Thirds sensor size would give us dozens of options and a better DOF.
Click to expand...

Then create a four-thirds mount, stick it on a S35 brain, and crop the results...

Or, stick it on a 2/3" brain, and deal with a crop of the capabilities of the lens.

You could add a request for a 4/3" brain in "round 2", which I'm sure will come a few months/years down the road...

The 2/3" interchangeable supports additional mounts, so you could likely find a way to make a 4/3" mount...
 
RED has indicated that the SENSOR CAPTURES AN EXTRA STOP OF LIGHT -- That's DOUBLE the amount of light (each stop is a doubling of the light; this is an exponential scale).They also estimate an additional TWO STOPS MORE THAN THAT for "monstro" -- that's four times as much light as the X..
Click to expand...

No they claim the BRAIN has an extra stop. The brain contains the sensor and the peripheral electronics. This is not rocket science. If two sensors have the same technology how is it possible for the one with a 3.2 micron cell to spec out the same as one with a 5.4 micron cell? Furthermore, if breakthrough technology existed to increase the dynamic range of a sensor with smaller cell structure, couldn't the same technology be applied to the larger celled sensor for still better dynamic range? Did you notice that the Monstro sensors have a larger cell size? It is not a coincidence.
Photons are photons, electrons are electrons. The laws of physics have not been changed.

Then create a four-thirds mount, stick it on a S35 brain, and crop the results...
Click to expand...

The point is not to have to pay $7000 when we don't need that much resolution.

Or, stick it on a 2/3" brain, and deal with a crop of the capabilities of the lens.
Click to expand...

The 4/3 lenses would work better with a larger sensor. Then you have to figure out what kind of strange crop factor that would be, which ironically was brought up as an objection to my proposal originally even though for my proposal is a pretty straight forward 2:1

I don't understand. What in principal is wrong with a larger "4/3" sized 3k sensor? What are you frightened of? Isn't this the best compromise between a full S35 frame size and 2/3" sensor? Aren't the benefits of a larger sensor obvious?
 
I would love to buy the camera you guys are talking about and would buy it in a heart beat. But RED is a business and it wouldnt make sense to sell that camera because it would hurt the sales of all the other cameras they are making. I would bet that they would sell 90% s35 scarlet 3k for 3k and only 10% of the rest of their other cameras. That would mean alot less money for the company.

I will stick with the 2/3 scarlet for now but my vote is definately for the camera your proposing.

Jim you guys have done a great job but when will you release the price for the fixed lense scarlet?
 
Runstrong1980 said:
I would bet that they would sell 90% s35 scarlet 3k for 3k and only 10% of the rest of their other cameras. That would mean alot less money for the company.
?
Click to expand...

Hi,

Red may well make just as much profit on the Scarlet range, the $17500 rebate on a Red One is some big hit om the bottom line.

Stephen
 
Runstrong1980 said:
I would love to buy the camera you guys are talking about and would buy it in a heart beat. But RED is a business and it wouldnt make sense to sell that camera because it would hurt the sales of all the other cameras they are making. I would bet that they would sell 90% s35 scarlet 3k for 3k and only 10% of the rest of their other cameras. That would mean alot less money for the company.

I will stick with the 2/3 scarlet for now but my vote is definately for the camera your proposing.

Jim you guys have done a great job but when will you release the price for the fixed lense scarlet?
Click to expand...

I am not advocating a s35 3k camera. If you've read all of my posts I am against it. I just want a 4/3 3k. A good compromise....
 
I like the 4/3 option too, but it is the new kid on the block as formats go. What RED has done so far more than addresses the major professional market formats. But 4/3 would fill a major gap in sensor sizes between 2/3" and s35. I'd like to see 4k resolution in a 4/3format as the gap filler. Great potential there for compact camera/lens packages that would work especially well for nature and doc shooters where weight and bulk of the lenses make 35mm less than ideal.
 
I'd like to see 4k resolution in a 4/3format as the gap filler
Click to expand...
I was suggesting the Four Thirds format @ 3k because it would have the same cell structure size as all of the other models announced (5.4 or 6 microns). So it would be fairly easy to adapt using the same Fabs.
The 4k at that size would be inferior for a number of reasons:
  • Yet another smaller cell structure size = higher manufacturing and design cost.
  • Lower S/N (not nearly as bad as 2/3" but not as good as 3k
  • Competes too closely with the 5k
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top