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 :)

Camera Comparison

C

Cedric Akins

Banned
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hey I was looking around at a few other sites and found this link. I know Scarlet is a completely different camera than the Phantom 65, but the Scarlet is still ic lose running to this extremely expensive piece.

Thanks Red Team. :) :usd: :)
 
Phantom 65 is present, Scarlet is not...
Do we have to compare really?

That's technology and that's why doesn't make sence to get attached to it much
 
the most interesting part is the fact that it's an ISO 600......
 
Hey I was looking around at a few other sites and found this link. I know Scarlet is a completely different camera than the Phantom 65, but the Scarlet is still ic lose running to this extremely expensive piece.
Click to expand...

It's not close at all. That camera has a large medium format sensor. It will look a lot better than the 2/3" scarlet. Also remember, as frame rates go up, exposure time is short. A short exposure time for a sensor that will already be handicapped by its tiny cell size means very noisy (or underexposed take your pick) images at higher frame rates.
 
The Phantom 65 was a functioning prototype in the Vision Research booth at NAB '06 when RED was still a "concept camera" showing aluminum mockups in glass cabinets. And the specs have actually grown considerably since that webpage was written. We've eeked out 145fps at the full resolution of 4096x2440. That and the Phantom records uncompressed RAW, 14-bit, make it a camera truly like no other.
 
The Phantom's stated active sensor size is 25.6mm x 13.85mm - not that much bigger than Red One's. In what way is this similar to 65mm which is closer to 49 x 24mm? in it's frame dimensions?
I really like the phantom, I'm thinking that once I have recieved my Epic upgrade I could get one as a 'B' camera!

 
Peter McCully said:
The Phantom's stated active sensor size is 25.6mm x 13.85mm - not that much bigger than Red One's. In what way is this similar to 65mm which is closer to 49 x 24mm? in it's frame dimensions?
I really like the phantom, I'm thinking that once I have recieved my Epic upgrade I could get one as a 'B' camera!
Click to expand...

You misread the info: 35mm mopic at 1.85:1 using an active pixel area of 25.6mm x 13.85mm (2048x1108 pixels)
This means in its 35mm window it uses an active pixel area of 25.6mm x 13mm. The entire sensor is actually twice as wide @4096.
This means a nice fat10+ micron cell size (depending on fill density, it could be higher). Very important in a high speed camera with a short exposure time to gather as much light as possible.
 
brainburst said:
You misread the info: 35mm mopic at 1.85:1 using an active pixel area of 25.6mm x 13.85mm (2048x1108 pixels)
This means in its 35mm window it uses an active pixel area of 25.6mm x 13mm. The entire sensor is actually twice as wide @4096.
This means a nice fat10+ micron cell size (depending on fill density, it could be higher). Very important in a high speed camera with a short exposure time to gather as much light as possible.
Click to expand...

Ok. Thanks for putting me straight. Do you know what the total useable sensor size is in mm?
 
Let me guess, about 50mm obviously.
I hope that there are plans for the Epic 645 to be able to use the full width of the sensor windowed to 2.35:1 which would be the equivalent of 65mm negative.
 
really? the redone, do you think the red is better for what you get for 20gs vs ???,000 you can get how many reds for that much and yea at the end of the day numbers do count.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top