S35 Sensor (Epic X) and Nikon DX lenses crop

[James Brundige]

How about SS35?

Jim

What happened to X35? As David points out, the S35 standard we know is quite close to the Red 1. It really is confusing to have another so-called S35 format that needs very different lens coverage.

How about ALBBTS35 - a little bit bigger than Super 35

or SD35, which is of course Super Duper 35?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You could come up with anything. S35/XL, for example. XS35. X35. (X for Extra, XL for Extra Large, etc.)

How about R/S35 or S35/R (Super-35 RED) or S35/MX (Super-35 Mysterium-X) or 35MX?

After Super Panavision came Ultra Panavision, so you could try Ultra-35 (U35).

 

[Roberto B]

gang's vote goes to X35
U35 smells too much to panavision :hand:

 

[jaadgy akanni]

You could come up with anything. S35/XL, for example. XS35. X35. (X for Extra, XL for Extra Large, etc.)

How about R/S35 or S35/R (Super-35 RED) or S35/MX (Super-35 Mysterium-X) or 35MX?

After Super Panavision came Ultra Panavision, so you could try Ultra-35 (U35).

I vote for XS35 ;Great suggestion, David; sounds great.

 

[Roberto B]

or so.. seems long and more complicated than X35 though.. once it's not an elitist industry's standard ehehehehehe it should be fine :beer:

 

[Lee Saxon]

While it is true that our (about) 30x15mm sensor is super-sized S35, please note that industry standard S35 is inside the sensor and you have access to it at all times. You also have access to standard (motion) 35mm, S16, Micro four-thirds, 16mm, 2/3" and Super 8.

I just noticed that the list included micro four-thirds!!

Jeez is there any lens you won't be able to use on this thing?!

 

[Michael Hastings]

How about SS35?

Jim

I like SD35 for "SuperDuper" but then someone would confuse it with Standard Definition.:biggrin: So I guess my vote is for XS35 - combines mysterium x and S35 and of course you can pronounce "excess35"

I just noticed that the list included micro four-thirds!!

Jeez is there any lens you won't be able to use on this thing?!

Well I think that is because anything smaller can be cropped out. You could do 2/3" video, 16mm, S16, four-thirds which is the same size as micro four-thirds, APS-c out of the current mysterium size.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I like SD35 for "SuperDuper" but then someone would confuse it with Standard Definition.:biggrin: So I guess my vote is for XS35 - combines mysterium x and S35 and of course you can pronounce "excess35"

Yes, that thought occurred to me today too, that "XS35" was a good choice because those reasons -- it sounds like "excess 35" (which it is), and it has "S35" in the name, and it refers to the Mysterium-X sensor. The only similar choice would be something like MX35 / Max-35.

 

[Iannis Holwech]

I like XS35, except that it's a global abriviation for Extra Small and could couse confusion for people not familiar with RED.

My suggestion will be XL-s35 or xls35, which globaly is understood as Extra Large.

Or maybe XR-s35, xrs35; (Mysterium-X - Xtra size RED - super 35).

:undecided: undecided: ​

 

[Michael Dalton]

We don't let things that we said, printed, or posted in the past dictate or restrict new ideas. I know it's hard for some to come along for the ride. It frustrates people that demand normalcy.

I do sincerely apologize for that frustration, but I do not apologize for the way we execute our evolution.

I think we can forgive you. The same, I apologize for all of us who at times get a little impatient. We are grateful to be part of the process, and more so that we know if we buy a camera that 5 years from now it will be likely still in use.

MD

 

[Patrick Scheller]

Yes, that thought occurred to me today too, that "XS35" was a good choice because those reasons -- it sounds like "excess 35" (which it is), and it has "S35" in the name, and it refers to the Mysterium-X sensor. The only similar choice would be something like MX35 / Max-35.

I also find XS35 most fitting, even though it kinda confuses when one thinks about cloths sizes.... but u can't please everyone :sifone:

 

[Douglas Underdahl]

Well, let's see, what do we do now? People say what are you shooting, and I say RED 4k or RED 4kHD or RED 2k so I can do really slow mo.

I like X35 but I never used Super 35 to describe what I was doing with the RED because I needed to be more specific than that, which meant including aspect ratio and number of K's.

So if people ask me about this new format, I'm likely to say RED Epic 5k 16:9 or 4.5k 2:1 or 5kHD. Halfway through this response, I'm sure that a lot of director's and producer's eyes will glaze over, and then I'll have to say that I'm shooting pretty much the same image area as Arri or Panavision 35mm, but a bit larger. That will make them feel better. I'm going to have to include RED because a lot of folks won't know what Epic is, at least at the start.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, but pixel resolution and aspect ratio -- like "5K 16:9" -- has nothing to do with sensor size. You could, in theory, make a 2/3" sensor or a FF35 sensor that does 5K 16:9.

"S35" is a sensor size that doesn't tell you anything about pixel dimensions or (sometimes) aspect ratio.

APS-C is a sensor size. 4/3 is a sensor size. FF35 is a sensor size.

5K, 2K, etc. are not sensor sizes, they indicate the horizontal pixel resolution.

16:9, 4:3, 2:1 are not sensor sizes, they are aspect ratios.

There has to be a method for labeling a sensor size that is independent of its pixel dimensions, and allows some variation on sensor height / aspect ratio.

Calling a new sensor size "5K" is totally unacceptable to me and will just lead to a world of confusion should other 5K cameras appear with different sensor dimensions, or even if RED comes up with other 5K cameras that use different sensor areas to achieve 5K.

Yes, in terms of talking to a producer, they will be more interested in pixel resolution and less so, aspect ratio -- sensor size will be less relevant to them. But that doesn't mean we should call a 30 x 15mm sensor the "5K size".

Being "more specific than S35" to me means being more precise about the physical dimensions being used, not about saying 2K or 4K or 16:9, or whatever. But as a starting point, we all talk about the RED ONE as being a 35mm or Super-35 sensor camera, which is one of its selling points over a 2/3" camera -- particularly when the point we are trying to make is about matching 35mm DOF, not about resolution. If we are trying to sell an EPIC on a producer, then we are likely to talk about 5K or 6K as a selling point and the fact that the sensor is oversized is less of an issue.

 

[Emanuel A.]

(...)

Yes, in terms of talking to a producer, they will be more interested in pixel resolution and less so, aspect ratio -- sensor size will be less relevant to them. But that doesn't mean we should call a 30 x 15mm sensor the "5K size".

Being "more specific than S35" to me means being more precise about the physical dimensions being used, not about saying 2K or 4K or 16:9, or whatever. But as a starting point, we all talk about the RED ONE as being a 35mm or Super-35 sensor camera, which is one of its selling points over a 2/3" camera -- particularly when the point we are trying to make is about matching 35mm DOF, not about resolution.

(...)

As usual, your point is fairly accurate. I posted a few minutes ago using the sensor size info, so I should be fine Even if the producers or others are used to underestimate its relevance, unfortunately. It was an old fight @ filmschool. No idea why so ignorance or negligence about something so much important for the storytelling.

 

[david farland]

I guess it's important to define a shooting format...but what do you define?

Soon we'll be shooting on lenses which don't cover our sensor, so project settings/frame guides will be more important for crew/director.
The post house will be receiving black or vignette edged frames to crop if the project setting don't reflect the lenses used.

To date we're just overlaying old film & lens aperatures on different sensor technologies. I suspect they'll go as the whole system become digital.

If I were to creating 'new' standards it would only reflect the setting Red have used in their project/configure menus.
Such as....
4K 2:1
6K 16:9

Doesn't matter what camera or sensor size you use, project settings are the only way you'll be able to monitor oversized sensors with undersize lenses.

Meaning, if you use 4K or S35 lenses with a 28.5mm optical circle on a 5K Epic (33.5mm) sensor your project setting should show 4K, as total sensor data is no longer relevent.
It'll be like we're shooting s35 frames with s16 lenses or 65mm film using s35mm lenses...whatever those numbers actually mean!
I'm sure Red have thought of this but it'll mean we'll need more project and 'scaled' video out settings.

But to answer Alexander’s original quandary……

DOP: we’re shooting on a Red Epic 6K camera.
Producer: great, how’s post handling that.
DOP:...we’re only giving them 4K files
Producer: so you’re scaling down?
DOP: um, ah…we’re cropping.
Producer: why’s that?
DOP: our lenses only go to 4K
Producer: can’t we get 6K lenses?
DOP: there aren’t any.
Producer: why make a 6K camera when you can’t shoot 6K.
DOP: dunno....
Fade out

So with that folks we seque into the biggest business opportunity for new lenses since Galileo’s wife said, “You show me your moon and I’ll show you mine”.
And with lenses lasting over 15 years, I would assume certain FF35 lens companies would pay Jim to make a FF35 cine camera so they could produce another line of lens.
The Zeiss compact primes are a start but I’m hoping Red will do better/cheaper FF35.

Dave,