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 :)

Scarlet Resolutions

J

jamesbridges

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
274
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Anyone know what the Scarlet 8x fixed, S35, Full Frame 35 will be?
3K, 4K, 5K?
I believe I read the fixed was 3K.

Also, in still mode any formula on relution, 5,6,7,8,etc. megapixels
Thanks for any info.
 
Mohammed El Sharqawy said:
I also believe that the 2/3" 3K sensor is from MX family..
Click to expand...

I would take that with a grain of salt, after all, the size of the photosites aren't even the same in the 2/3" 3K sensor and the MX sensor -- if they were, the MX sensor would be something like 9.5K.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I would take that with a grain of salt, after all, the size of the photosites aren't even the same in the 2/3" 3K sensor and the MX sensor -- if they were, the MX sensor would be something like 9.5K.
Click to expand...

Help me understand what you are trying to say, please. All along:
"Mysterium" was first generation sensor for the RED One
"Mysterium-X" is 2nd Generation sensor for the first or second wave of DSMC's
and "Monstro" is referred to the 3rd generation sensor development for the sensor size of FF35 and beyond.

Am I wrong?
 
I'm just saying that the 2/3" sensor is not the same MX sensor for the EPIC cut into a smaller size, it's a different sensor with different sized photosites, which would have an affect on image characteristics. Labeling it as "Mysterium-X" as well is fine, but it's just a label, I wouldn't take it too seriously and instead look at the performance of the actual 2/3" sensor when it arrives. What you are describing is a labeling approach, but the question is how meaningful that label is. I would spend less time worrying about marketing labels and spend more time worrying about individual sensor performance.

I'm not sure why I even have to tell anyone this -- it's common sense, you don't take branding too seriously. Since the 2/3" sensor and the S35 MX sensor are two different sensors, I don't see the point in labeling them both a Mysterium-X sensor, it just makes the term more generalized, less specific, and thus less meaningful. But ultimately I don't care one way or the other how Red wants to label things, I just care about how well they work and I'm not going to know that until I see actual results, shot by me and by others.

Anything before that is just speculation. I'm just saying don't take labels too seriously, that's all.
 
Last edited:
David Mullen ASC said:
The 2/3" sensor is 3K, the MX sensor is 5K, and the Monstro sensor is 6K (I believe).
Click to expand...

Maybe better said is that the 2/3" sensor is 3K RAW (3072 horizontal pixels), the M-X sensor is 5K RAW (5120 horizontal pixels) and the Monstro sensor is 6K RAW (6144 horizontal pixels). Actual measured resolution on a zone plate is 80% of RAW.

Jim
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Since the 2/3" sensor and the S35 MX sensor are two different sensors, I don't see the point in labeling them both a Mysterium-X sensor, it just makes the term more generalized, less specific, and thus less meaningful.
Click to expand...

Mysterium-X refers to the pixel design/technology that leads to dramatically reduced noise levels. This pixel design/technology is used in both the 2/3" 3K RAW Mysterium-X sensor as well as the Mysterium-X S35 5K RAW sensor... even though the pixels are a different size.

Jim
 
Whew!
For a moment there I thought us 2/3 users would not be seeing the 13+ stops of dynamic range and awesome ISO's of the mx technology.
 
But surely the low light capability of the 2/3" Mysterium-X isn't going to be as good as the s35 Mysterium-X sensor, is it?

The reason I say this is because it has a sizable difference in surface area. If I am mistaken, please let me know, for it would be GREAT news to know if shooting with natural light is a feasible....
 
Joseph Campanella said:
But surely the low light capability of the 2/3" Mysterium-X isn't going to be as good as the s35 Mysterium-X sensor, is it?

The reason I say this is because it has a sizable difference in surface area. If I am mistaken, please let me know, for it would be GREAT news to know if shooting with natural light is a feasible....
Click to expand...

There's too many variables and angles to give a straight answer.

For example, you can argue that a 2/3 sensor has better low light advantages because you can shoot with apertures wide open without actors drifting out of focus. Larger sensors you need to stay stopped down because dof gets too shallow.
 
Joseph Campanella said:
But surely the low light capability of the 2/3" Mysterium-X isn't going to be as good as the s35 Mysterium-X sensor, is it?

The reason I say this is because it has a sizable difference in surface area. If I am mistaken, please let me know, for it would be GREAT news to know if shooting with natural light is a feasible....
Click to expand...
exactly what i've been wondering, that and where the stills and sample clips from the 2/3" have been. I'd love to see the 2/3" with some mini primes sample work . . .
 
brian hanson said:
I'd love to see the 2/3" with some mini primes sample work . . .
Click to expand...

Me too - and maybe some samples with a Nikon/Canon prime as well with similar specs so we can see a comparison. Hopefully RED will post such samples before the cameras are released.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top