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 :)

3K or not 3K that is the question.

J

james Mallon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have been looking at some footage in Vimeo and as many say 2K shot red footage is significantly lower in Quality and more narrow FOV. I was wondering if 3K has some of these flaws. So the question is will there be a significant jump in quality and FOV from the fixed 3K footage to the 4k+ shooting footage based on what people already know about 3K and 4K footage.

In the end I will judge it by the early footage released but It would help to inform whether to wait for the Fixed or not bother.
 
Field of view depends both on the size of the sensor and the focal length of the lens, not the resolution. The reason that 2K on the RED ONE has a narrower FOV is because it's cropping down the sensor to 1/4 the size of the regular 4K area, so lenses intended for 35mm look far more telephoto. This will not be a problem on the fixed Scarlet since 3K will use the full 2/3" sensor, and the lens starts at something like 6mm to 8mm, which should have a wide enough field of view at that end (somewhere between 18 to 30mm if I remember correctly).

As for quality - there shouldn't be a difference either, and you're going to be cropping to 1080p or 2K anyway so it shouldn't be a problem.
 
Thanks, if your information is correct that pretty much answers my question. Its not really related but as you mentioned the very wide FOV to produce a basic Wide from the sensor, I was wondering if we should expect barrel distortion or other problems at the widest point of the fixed and all the 2/3 wides for that matter?
 
That will depend on the lens used... Right?

We have no info about the 2/3" fixed lens and can only say a word about it when RED releases some frame grabs or when it's released.
 
The question was generic related to the very wide lenses like the 6.5mm and the likely similar for a fixed lens on the 2/3 sensor.

Oh and thanks for telling me we don't don't know about the fixed specs yet, VERY helpful.
 
This question has come up before (recently) and can be answered by using the search bar.

But the bottom line is, anything we tell you will honestly just be speculation. Nobody has used these cameras. Nobody (outside of RED designers and emploees) truthfully knows anything about them for sure.
 
If we don't know anything at all why are you even looking at this forum? man why can't people have a discussion with someone feeling like they have to cut it down and say we don't know anything, its annoying because it dosen't allow free discussion and thoughts and we AREADY KNOW THE CAMERAS ARE NOT OUT YET STOP TELLING PEOPLE IT, IF SOMEONE LOGGED ON AND POSTED I AM SURE THEY DON"T NEED THAT KIND OF DEEP INSIGHT!!!!:emote_whack:

Like I said the question is general in the sense I was interested if we should expect some barrel distortion on a lens as wide as 6.5mm on these (2/3) size sensors. And the search function would be great if you could just search barrel distortion and the posts related come up but they don't often as the title of the first post is vague and life is too short to manually search through tons of threads. So if you do know the answer just say it or link the thread.
 
Depending on the quality of your glass and how they wind up making the sensor, you may expect to find some chromatic aberration around the edges with wider fovs and a full frame chip.
 
james Mallon said:
If we don't know anything at all why are you even looking at this forum? man why can't people have a discussion with someone feeling like they have to cut it down and say we don't know anything, its annoying because it dosen't allow free discussion and thoughts and we AREADY KNOW THE CAMERAS ARE NOT OUT YET STOP TELLING PEOPLE IT, IF SOMEONE LOGGED ON AND POSTED I AM SURE THEY DON"T NEED THAT KIND OF DEEP INSIGHT!!!!:emote_whack:
Click to expand...

People repeat it because it bears repeating -- there are limits to the degree to which these questions can be answered because the cameras aren't out yet. Yet people keep asking questions that can only be answered when the camera comes out! ("How good is the wide-angle end of the zoom lens?" "How good is the 1080P video I can create from it?" "How heavy is the camera?" etc.)

So clearly a lot of people aren't listening, which is why other people are repeating themselves.

My question is if everyone hear knows this... then why do they persist in asking unanswerable questions? Does this mean they don't know this, or that they are in denial in some weird way?

And the reason we are reading these posts is that they come up in the New Posts list, not because we are going to the Scarlet forum.
 
james Mallon said:
If we don't know anything at all why are you even looking at this forum? man why can't people have a discussion with someone feeling like they have to cut it down and say we don't know anything, its annoying because it dosen't allow free discussion and thoughts and we AREADY KNOW THE CAMERAS ARE NOT OUT YET STOP TELLING PEOPLE IT, IF SOMEONE LOGGED ON AND POSTED I AM SURE THEY DON"T NEED THAT KIND OF DEEP INSIGHT!!!!:emote_whack:

Like I said the question is general in the sense I was interested if we should expect some barrel distortion on a lens as wide as 6.5mm on these (2/3) size sensors. And the search function would be great if you could just search barrel distortion and the posts related come up but they don't often as the title of the first post is vague and life is too short to manually search through tons of threads. So if you do know the answer just say it or link the thread.
Click to expand...
Yikes dude...
 
If one is finishing in 2k or 1080p formats, you would expect to see significant difference between 2k and 4k original as scaling down from higher resolution images will produce a better end result. That said, once the resolution of the original is more than twice the resolution of the output format, the differences for higher res sources is much less apparent. 3k or 4k finished at 2k or 1080p should be nearly indistinguishable as both exceed the nyquist resolution limit of the lesser formats.
 
There will be some trade off in resolution when down rezzing, but the 1080p of a scarlet would (likely) still look a right sight better than from say an HVX simply because even when you down rezz, you still dont have to yield the better depth of field etc.
 
Jonathan Stevenson said:
Yikes dude...
Click to expand...


Yeah it was a little bit heavy, I'm not really angry just a little annoyed I can't feel free to ask questions without people jumping in with 'we don't know anything' mantra and it isn't the first it's happened when I post. Anyway like I said the question was generic and I couldn't find the answer after about 5-10 minutes using the search function. And we do have specs anyway for the sensor size and at least the mini primes so i say lets discuss its a forum after all. Maybe people differ on what the purpose of a forum is. Sure its a place to find facts but if they are important facts then they should be on stickys. The rest of the time hey its a discussion, sharing ideas, thoughts, and yes Speculation. Personally I have had two questions partially answered by this thread so thats Good Right?

What can I say I'm a verbal processor.
 
3K vs. 1920x1080

3K vs. 1920x1080

A color camera with a 3K sensor should look better than one with a 1920x1080 sensor if they both use a Bayer filter and OLPF since the OLPF on the smaller sensor needs a larger radius of blur relative to the frame height.

Even with the REDCODE compression, the chroma artifacts should be less with over 1K more pixels.

As to the lenses, will the zoom be better than a good fixed lens, well the best fixed lenses cost between $300 and $2000 and some "super" lenses maybe more, although I don't know if you could see it stopped down to f/4.5 or so. So a set of good lenses purchased new could cost $10000 where as the built in Zoom would be less and you would not get dust on the sensor when changing the lenses, so it is not an easy pick, you have to go with the look you want and ease of use. With fixed you can get lenses up to f/0.7 if you want to, and as long as maybe 2000mm and wider than 2mm, so who needs the far out lenses for their work?
 
Rick Presas said:
There will be some trade off in resolution when down rezzing, but the 1080p of a scarlet would (likely) still look a right sight better than from say an HVX simply because even when you down rezz, you still dont have to yield the better depth of field etc.
Click to expand...

An HVX? Seriously? The HVX would struggle to capture 720p worth of measured resolution... I'd say that at 1080p, the Scarlet would rival the F900... Jim even said that comparisons would be made to the F23!
 
james Mallon said:
I was wondering if we should expect barrel distortion or other problems at the widest point of the fixed and all the 2/3 wides for that matter?
Click to expand...

A well-designed wide angle lens for a 2/3" camera will be no worse for barrel distortion than a well-designed wide angle lens on a FF35 or S35 camera.

The Olympus E-20 was a still camera with a 2/3" sensor, and 9-36mm f/2-2.4 lens, equivalent to 35-140mm on FF35. Wide angle barrel distortion was 1.2%

P2070656-001.jpg
 
You said that it would 'likley' be 'slightly better than an HVX' at 1080p... I can guarantee that Scarlet is going to be far, far better.
Click to expand...

ah well yeah lol duly noted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top