3K chickenfeed & mini Primes

[kevin N]

There is a point of diminishing returns where more resolution does not yield sgnificant visual improvement in the delivered product in proportion to the costs of dealing with the increased acquisition, storage, processing and workflow requirements. One does not need more than 3k acquisition to produce pristine fully resolved 2k or HD deliverables, much less web video, HD or not. In any situation where viewing distance is 2 x screen height or more, the difference in 2k and 4k presentation compared to the limits of human visual acuity is pretty insignificant.

great point david. video has made huge gains in the past four decades but it has reached a point where it is close to being on par with film. ie, most people can't tell the difference, only the geeks can. (hummm did i just say that???) most older lenses can't resolve 4k images anyways. if red produces mini zooms they could make huge inroads in the tv series/doc world where they simply don't need or want huge cannons like the optimo 24-290.

 

[David Rasberry]

Good point on the optics. Even if they cram 4k on a 2/3" chip, there aren't any lenses that can resolve it.

 

[J Davis]

I'm hoping on the mini primes having an image circle that covers and resolves 4K on a sensor that's larger than 2/3.
How much larger and at what pitch can only be guessed but it would make good business sense – 6 lenses remember

 

[David Rasberry]

I'm hoping on the mini primes having an image circle that covers and resolves 4K on a sensor that's larger than 2/3.
How much larger and at what pitch can only be guessed but it would make good business sense – 6 lenses remember

4/3rds anyone?:sifone:

 

[kevin N]

it's amzing how quickly video is replacing film. the sag strike has even pushed it quicker as all the new tv pilots etc had to be shot on video, ie red, d21, f900, genesis.... this is where the 2/3 scarlet will excel.

 

[J Davis]

.
.
.
********** I'm resurrecting this thread in light of Jims recent recon Why 4k? **********

We encourage you to consider the future possibilities of what your footage can be used for when making a camera selection. Why would you shoot SD now?
If 4K delivery is the future, why would you shoot 1080P and limit future options?

Jim

... and my original post that started this thread many moons ago was ...

I'm looking ahead in the not to distant future and 3K raw acquisition is chickenfeed. Its the baseline. Just like right now ppl don't want to shoot 720p ... as a minimum they want to shoot 1080p and scale to 720 if thats the deliverable.
Hell .. even youtube is 720p now.

But ... modularity is great, hey I can replace my brain and we are good to go, good to move ahead, keeping up with the K.
But where does that leave a shooter if they are deep in Red mini prime glass?

Now here's the kicker that has my mind ticking over.

It seems to me that RED is investing a lot of time and energy in mini Primes.
6.5mm, 8mm, 16mm, 25mm, 50mm, 75mm now thats 6 lenses announced.
Thats quite a bit of effort for just one brain don't you think?

It just makes me wonder what the image circle on a mini prime will be and whether it will be a little larger than we are expecting. After all, brains are meant to be replaced quicker than lenses, and whats going to replace a 3K brain further down the track?

Feel free to shoot me out the water as I'm just speculating ...

Hit me up with your opinions please ...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

This leads me to speculate that a smart business plan would be to have the mini primes work with a future brain that provides for more than 3K raw ... hence I wonder about the size of their image circle.

Red makes lenses already for a larger image circle than 2/3", the RPP's. I still don't understand your posts -- Red is making Scarlet cameras with more-than-3K and larger-than-2/3", plus lenses to go with that: the S35 Scarlet and the RPP's. So if you don't think believe in the future of the 3K 2/3" Scarlet & Mini-Red Primes, then get the 5K S35 Scarlet and the RPP's.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

It's conceivable that the mini-primes can resolve beyond the 3K resolution of the upcoming 2/3" sensors. Ultimately they will have a limit, but we can only speculate as to what it is. On the other hand, many commonly used 35mm lenses are incapable of resolving the 4K of the RED One. And yet people love the look this glass produces. Current 2/3" glass in the form of B4 mount "HD" lenses are tuned to work with a prism system and 3 CCD imagers not exceeding 1920x1080p. Some will resolve beyond that, some won't. Many older 2/3" lenses can't even resolve properly on HD cameras, let alone one these upcoming 3K sensors.

I'm sure with the investment in producing mini primes and their 2/3" interchangeable concept, RED will continue to evolve that product line as well. The upcoming 2/3" models should have sensor photosites that are 3um (0.003mm) in size. If this were shrunk down to 2.25um, that would give us 4K in the same recordable size. I suppose that is a future possibility of technology improves. And perhaps the mini primes will still have high enough MTF or resolving ability to mach such a sensor. We know for sure they should be at least good enough for the upcoming 3K and it's photosite resolution.

 

[J Davis]

@David.
I'm sorry if I phrase thing obliquely. For anyone on a budget ($10 grand or less) there are only two options, 2/3 fixed and 2/3 interchangeable. Taking Jims Why 4k post into account and the fact that web delivery is all high def then it is obvious that 2/3 and 1080p/2k delivery is for the short term only. Lets say the next 2-3 years. This leads me back to the point of my post. Why buy mini primes? And more importantly, why are red building mini primes. Unless of course they have larger than expected image circles. I would love to get an s35 but financially its not an option, and its not about whether i believe in the future of 2/3 and 1080p/2k delivery, Jim already said it himself.

@Jeff
Yes this is what I've been thinking. If the pitch of the photosites used on the 2/3 sensor were used to create a 4k (or 4.5k) sensor, would it end up being a size that would be covered by mini prime image circles? IMO this would seem the logical business model for an upcoming line of mini primes that, as Jim said in his own words, 'will limit future options' (last four words of his post).

 

[David Rasberry]

The optical resolution for a 2/3" sensor will be aperture/diffraction limited even at 3k with a perfect ideal lens. At f4 diffraction will limit the smallest focus circle of confusion to about the diameter of 4 of Scarlet's pixels. Need more res you need a larger sensor.
In the TV/consumer market, the move to 1080i/p at this point has less than 25% market penetration. I don't see this format changing significantly for at least 10 years.

 

[J Davis]

@D.Rasberry
Even if you disagree with Jim saying 1080p/2k has a limited future, surely you can see that the point of my post is not whether it is true or not.

The point of my post is about the incongruity of Jim stating what he did, and at the same time planning on making 2/3 cameras and mini primes.

The logic that makes this plausible is the unknown upgrade path that I was guessing at.

 

[Michael Grugal]

Wow this thread is very frustrating.

1080p or 1080i for that matter won't be phased out for a long time! 70% of what you see today is Standard Def 4:3 or stretched 16:9.

HD still dosnt have that market penetration people might think.

I think the 2/3" 3k Scarlet Is the perfect idea for us broadcasters. So let's just see how they implement it.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

2K/1080p delivery is not going away anytime soon. Same for 2/3" imaging formats. Larger sensors are not always the answer or the only way to achieve additional resolution. What David Rasberry says about diffraction in regards to pixel or photosite size is a concern as the technology moves forward, but there are some ways to deal with this as well, although there comes a point where we just can't squeeze any more usable resolution out of a given sensor size.

I think people read Jim's post about shooting 4K a little too literal. He was not saying that 4K is the only real option moving forward. He was not saying we should all just shoot 4K and let all lower formats be damned. Obviously that's not the point, RED is making cameras that will acquire less than 4K resolution. He was saying that when shooting with the RED One or upcoming EPIC/Scarlet S35 and larger formats, why would you choose not to shoot 4K or better? Why would you choose to not post in 4K if it's available? There is still a lot of misinformation out there that says the RED One is really only good as a 2K camera because of the Bayer sensor and therefore no reason to post any higher than a 2K DI. But in reality, the RED One still captures 4K (or more with it's 4480x1920 mode). At 4K, it measures a nominal 3.7K or so, which is similar to that of a 4K film scan of 35mm. The RED One is most certainly capable of 4K and we should be acquiring and posting in 4K...

2K DI and delivery still have a healthy road ahead. It's going to be some time before all those 2K digital projectors are upgraded with 4K or better. It's going to be a long time before broadcasters pay off all the 1080i hardware they have acquired over the past few years and before they start considering upgraded formats. Web delivery is making huge leaps over to HD resolution. But YouTube can't even begin to handle the loads on their servers. And the level of HD quality being served up by most web sources is truly dismal, to say the least.

 

[David Rasberry]

@D.Rasberry
Even if you disagree with Jim saying 1080p/2k has a limited future, surely you can see that the point of my post is not whether it is true or not.

The point of my post is about the incongruity of Jim stating what he did, and at the same time planning on making 2/3 cameras and mini primes.

The logic that makes this plausible is the unknown upgrade path that I was guessing at.

If you are talking about theatrical or other large screen venues I would agree. 4k delivery will be a major player within 10 years. I don't see them changing broadcast standards or consumer displays beyond 1080p except for a few very high end enthusiast home theaters. I also think that 3k originals for 2k delivery is close to the practical upper limit for the 2/3" format.

 

[Jon Carr]

The way I see the marketing of the 3k 2/3 RED's and the major reason why RED is making it. Is that it's the starter RED to help get film students and other low budget filmmakers or TV more in depth into the workflow of a RAW video format. Cause that is the future of filmmaking as I see it but I'm just a recent film graduate, and you can always switch out the brain and lenses and turn your base package 2/3 Scarlet into a Epic S35, or vic versa given what the project calls for. That's why everything is compatible with everything, so you can also upgrade a piece of your camera package and not have to upgrade the package. Personally I don't really care about the 2,3,4,5k's cause its not the resolution that's gonna tell the story.

 

[J Davis]

Jeff, thanks for making a point that may quell any alarmist tone to this thread. Truly it was not my intention although it seems to be going that way.

My main address was regarding image circles and slightly larger that s16 uses for miniprimes (based on what we know of red's history of careful planning),

because as we all know, brains will come and go but glass is forever.

I think people read Jim's post about shooting 4K a little too literal. He was not saying that 4K is the only real option moving forward. He was not saying we should all just shoot 4K and let all lower formats be damned. Obviously that's not the point, RED is making cameras that will acquire less than 4K resolution. He was saying that when shooting with the RED One or upcoming EPIC/Scarlet S35 and larger formats, why would you choose not to shoot 4K or better? Why would you choose to not post in 4K if it's available? There is still a lot of misinformation out there that says the RED One is really only good as a 2K camera ...

 

[J Davis]

The optical resolution for a 2/3" sensor will be aperture/diffraction limited even at 3k with a perfect ideal lens. At f4 diffraction will limit the smallest focus circle of confusion to about the diameter of 4 of Scarlet's pixels. Need more res you need a larger sensor.

What about a larger sensor then ... using the same pitch that the 3K's use. What dimensions would it be at that pixel size to get 4K?

(edit: I did a quick search, I think they are at 3.2 microns, so corner to corner across a 4k sensor at that pitch would only be I think about 15mm)

 

[Jim Retar]

If you are so worried about 3K, then don't get the 2/3" Scarlet and don't get the Mini Reds, get the larger versions.

That's easy enough to say.... but as it stands there is absolutely no info on the Scarlet s35 and FF.... so those of us that can't afford a full Epic system are stuck in a limbo..... 2/3" or wait for an unseen amount of time.

I was quite taken with the idea of 2/3" brain and the mini primes until a read the 4k thread and I realised that 4k acquisition is what I should aim at (I work in stock, so future proofing is essential)

I will probably get the fixed and wait patiently for the s35.... but I don't see it hitting the streets untill 2011 at best. It is not as simple as "get the larger versions".

 

[Graeme Hay]

For me when I hear Mini-primes I start to think DX from the Nikon world. Excellent lenses but wrong stick of the evolutionary system. Even red is going S35 eventually with the scarlet, so I guess - be forewarned.

 

[Peter_N]

My main address was regarding image circles and slightly larger that s16 uses for miniprimes (based on what we know of red's history of careful planning), because as we all know, brains will come and go but glass is forever.

It's possible that the longer focal lengths, at least 8mm and up, would cover a slightly larger image circle. Maybe Red will eventually upgrade to a super 16 sized sensor at 3.5K. Then the 8mm would be similar to about a 24mm equivalent in 35mm terms.