How can a 2/3 lens cover 3K?

[Dawson]

I thought the max coverage area a 2/3 inch lens could cover was 2K?

 

[Mark Pugh]

I thought the max coverage area a 2/3 inch lens could cover was 2K?

Edited due to stupidity

 

[Mark Pugh]

Pixel size is just 3.2 microns

 

[Mark Pugh]

Gotta say, though:
Total pixels is just 3072 for the 3k sensor
5120 for the 5k S35 sensor, on Epic and Scarlet, which allows for no look-around area at all.
If there is a look-around area - I imagine there will be on the S35 Epic, it won't be shooting 5k.

 

[combatentropy]

I thought the max coverage area a 2/3 inch lens could cover was 2K?

2K = pixel count of sensor
2/3" = size of sensor

A 2/3" sensor is about 10mm wide. You can make a 2K sensor, and each pixel would be about one 5,000th of a millimeter wide. You can make a 3K sensor, and each pixel would be about one 3,000th of a millimeter wide.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

How can a 2/3 lens cover 3K?

If it does, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
I don't know how it does, if it's the case. But is it important?
I guess you really only want to know if it works. Difficult question is yours.
Well, we only know different lenses cover areas of different sizes, a little larger than the ones they are designed for. Check yours, how it behaves.

 

[Steve Gal]

If it does, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
I don't know how it does, if it's the case. But is it important?
I guess you really only want to know if it works. Difficult question is yours.
Well, we only know different lenses cover areas of different sizes, a little larger than the ones they are designed for. Check yours, how it behaves.

? what?

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Gotta say, though:
Total pixels is just 3072 for the 3k sensor
5120 for the 5k S35 sensor,

how/where did you get those numbers?

 

[Jannard]

I thought the max coverage area a 2/3 inch lens could cover was 2K?

Magic...

Jim

 

[Petr Dvorak]

abrakadabra ... :sorcerer:

 

[Haider]

Hi Jim,
Will any of the mini-red prime lens have macro capability?

 

[Jannard]

Hi Jim,
Will any of the mini-red prime lens have macro capability?

yes...

Jim

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

? what?[/QUO

If you mean why 3K instead of 2k, more pixels packed together always sounds good.

 

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

If it does, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

officially the most unhelpful thing said on this or any other forum!!

seriously tho, this is like some sort of buddhist philosophical mantra.

 

[Dalibor Fencl]

? what?[/QUO

If you mean why 3K instead of 2k, more pixels packed together always sounds good.

Not always, smaller pixel = less amount of incident light -> less sensitivity.

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

Not always, smaller pixel = less amount of incident light -> less sensitivity.

No, not it is not always better, of course.
There is a favourite compromise for every one. I am fond of big number and a decent sensitivity. I prefer it over a decent pixel number (=?) and big sensitivity, because, you perceive it easily when an image is soft, and you cannot do much for low pixel count; On the opposite, lights are often controllable. When they are not, I try to be there before sunset. It's just my way.

 

[temsi]

2K = pixel count of sensor
2/3" = size of sensor

A 2/3" sensor is about 10mm wide. You can make a 2K sensor, and each pixel would be about one 5,000th of a millimeter wide. You can make a 3K sensor, and each pixel would be about one 3,000th of a millimeter wide.

Your math is a little off.

If it's 10mm wide, then a 2K sensor pixel would be approximately 1/200th of a millimeter, while a 3K sensor pixel would be 1/300th of a millimeter.

Not sure where the 1/5000th value came from, as that would indicate a 50k 2/3" sensor... :wink:

 

[Michael Cory]

Jim,

will there be any zoom lenses for the 2/3 scarlet and can you do wide angle shots with the 2/3? I am not that educated in filming yet so please forgive my question if it sounds dumb.