5k Scarlet and Epic are 1.2 Crop Cameras

[Justin O'Neill]

It just occurred to me while discussing still camera formats with a friend that the 5k Scarlet and Epic are half way between the 5D Mark II then then 7D when it comes to sensor size.

In fact, from a 35m stills perspective they are 1.3 crop cameras.

For reference, the 7D is a 1.6 crop camera, the 1D Mark IV is a 1.3 crop camera and the 5D Mark II effectively a 1.0 (0 crop) camera. The Epic and Scarlet have a larger sensor then the 7d and sbout the same as the 1D mkIV.

If anyone wants to do the calculations FF35 is 36mm x 24mm and the 5k Epic and Scarlet are 30mm x 15mm.

I know in actual practice the entire sensor isn't used and this calculation doesn't account for vertical pixels but for some reason it had never occurred to me to think of RED's 5k in this way.

 

[Andrew Walker]

Shawn and I were just discussing this today and even if the crop on still lenses comes out to be 1.3x, the same as the 1Dmk4 then I would be very happy. I'm looking forward to popping my 24mm f1.4 mk2 Canon lens on my Epic. Not to mention all my Zeiss ZF lenses I have.

 

[Justin O'Neill]

Yeah after a little more research it looks like crop factor usually refers to the diagonal which would make Epic and Scarlet 1.3 crop cameras.

I guess you could say they are 1.2 horizontal crop cameras.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Yes it will be quite similar to the 1D4.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Crop factors should always be figured horizontally, as that is the dominant or primary dimension for most imaging formats. Diagonal crop factors or comparisons can only be made if the two formats being compared have the same aspect ratio. If the aspect ratios differ, a diagonal comparison is meaningless. Crop factors in still photography are often figured diagonally because the format sizes being compared often do share the same aspect.

That said, Canon APS-H on the 1D4 is 27.9mm wide and 5K on Mysterium-X at 5120 pixels is 27.65mm wide.

 

[Justin O'Neill]

That said, Canon APS-H on the 1D4 is 27.9mm wide and 5K on Mysterium-X at 5120 pixels is 27.65mm wide.

Interesting. How did you calculate 27.65mm? I haven't seen RED say how many millimeters 5120 pixels would be. That leaves quite a bit of look around...I wonder if there will ever be 5.5k. :thumbsup:

 

[Dan Hudgins]

micron

micron

You can figure the sensor area from the pixel micro pitch like this

for 2.2 micron and 2592 pixels wide you get,

0.0022 * 2592 = 5.7024mm

That's if the pixel size rating is the pixel pitch, if there is any "dead space" then you need to increase the pixel dimension to include that and get the pixel pitch distance...

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Interesting. How did you calculate 27.65mm? I haven't seen RED say how many millimeters 5120 pixels would be. That leaves quite a bit of look around...I wonder if there will ever be 5.5k. :thumbsup:

the photosites/pixels on the sensor are 5.4 microns square, including pitch. The exact same size as on the original Mysterium chip. Given that, we know that 5120 x 0.0054mm = 27.648mm.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

More correctly the MX sensor has a crop of 1.25x, offering .05 less cropping then the 1D bodies series of Canon Cameras, but do to the 2:1 format of the sensor this is not really true to the entire range of the sensor, so leaves the MX sensor with a unique crop of the image circle, personally I love it!

Even so I truly look forward in getting the Epic 645..

 

[James Brundige]

So how does this impact DX (aps-c) lensing, like the sweet Tokina 11-16?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

So how does this impact DX (aps-c) lensing, like the sweet Tokina 11-16?

I'm thinking most lenses will be OK, we may see some vignetting on wide focal lengths, especially on lenses like the 11-16 Tokina. The 5120 pixels wide is still a 1.89:1 aspect if recording the full 2700 pixel hight. That gives us a 31.26mm image circle.

Nikon DX is slightly larger than Canon APS-C, but both fit within a 24x16mm area with a bit of room to spare. 24x16mm requires an image circle of 28.84mm. I think most, if not all, Nikon DX lenses are made to provide a 30mm circle of coverage or better. If I had to predict, I would think the Tokina 11-16 will show noticeable fall-off, possibly even vignetting at 11mm, but will be fine at 13mm and up. ...That is just a guess, but it will be interesting to see. The 11-16 is one of my favorite lenses, so I'm hoping for the best. It looks beautiful at 11mm with no signs of falloff on the RED One at 4.5K and that's nearly a 27mm image circle for that mode.

 

[Tom Lowe]

As far as I know EF-S lenses (APS-C) will not even fit on EF-mount cameras. However, EF lenses will fit on EF-S.

So hopefully Red will make a Canon mount that will accommodate both EF-S and EF. As for whether EF-S lenses would cover Red Epic X, it might come down to individual lenses. Longer lenses tend to be covered, while shorter-focal-length lenses might not.

 

[K. cromwell]

It just occurred to me while discussing still camera formats with a friend that the 5k Scarlet and Epic are half way between the 5D Mark II then then 7D when it comes to sensor size.

In fact, from a 35m stills perspective they are 1.3 crop cameras.

For reference, the 7D is a 1.6 crop camera, the 1D Mark IV is a 1.3 crop camera and the 5D Mark II effectively a 1.0 (0 crop) camera. The Epic and Scarlet have a larger sensor then the 7d and sbout the same as the 1D mkIV.

If anyone wants to do the calculations FF35 is 36mm x 24mm and the 5k Epic and Scarlet are 30mm x 15mm.

I know in actual practice the entire sensor isn't used and this calculation doesn't account for vertical pixels but for some reason it had never occurred to me to think of RED's 5k in this way.

I am constantly confusing the scarlet types, which scarlet is 5k the S35 one?

 

[Michael Hastings]

Why are we even talking about crop factors any more? Crop factors made sense when 98% of photographers owned and used 35mm film cameras with 36x24mm format size and understood how wide or narrow a particular focal length was - and even family snapshots were done on simpler fixed lens 35mm cameras.

We are 10-15 years and dozens of format sizes away from that situation so isn't it just time to talk angle of view and forget "crop factors" since now it causes more confusion than understanding?

 

[K. cromwell]

Why are we even talking about crop factors any more? Crop factors made sense when 98% of photographers owned and used 35mm film cameras with 36x24mm format size and understood how wide or narrow a particular focal length was - and even family snapshots were done on simpler fixed lens 35mm cameras.

We are 10-15 years and dozens of format sizes away from that situation so isn't it just time to talk angle of view and forget "crop factors" since now it causes more confusion than understanding?

So Hastings as far as your concerned we are in a digital world huh analog is sooo far gone?

Also when you refer to angle of view what are you talking about?

 

[Luis Melgar]

As Jeff said, diagonal sensor size is an standard for 1.5:1 ratio pictures... But I believe, in video, it will depend on wich format are you going to frame your proyect...

I'm not sure, but IMHO, If you shoot on FF35mm, and then, you framed it into a 2.4:1 ratio, you use all the horizontal 36mm area, but not the all 24mm vertical (only in scope). You will have the same "0 crop" using a "2.4:1 framed" FF 36x24mm Sensor than using a 36x15mm (2.4:1) Sensor. 35mm Full Frame is a 1.5:1 sensor, Epic is a 2:1 (supposed 30x15mm) ones. So:

· If you are going to framed it to a 2:1 video... You'll have a 1.2 crop factor of a FF 2:1 FRAMED video. (30mm x 15mm VS 36mm x 18mm -Area used framed-)
· If you do it in 2.4:1.. You'll have a 1.2 crop factor too (30mm x 12,5mm VS 36mm x 15mm)
· If you do it in 16:9 video... You'll have a 1.35 crop factor (26,66mm x 15mm VS 36mm x 20,25mm)
· Or if you do it in 4:3 video... You'll have an amazing 1.6 crop factor (20mm x 15mm VS 32mm x 24mm)

If you "framed" you footage, it's like use a different sensor size, so a different crop factor...

I'm a director, and I'm not sure about it, so fell free to say if there's something wrong... Of course something more than my english

 

[Andrew Walker]

Why are we even talking about crop factors any more? Crop factors made sense when 98% of photographers owned and used 35mm film cameras with 36x24mm format size and understood how wide or narrow a particular focal length was - and even family snapshots were done on simpler fixed lens 35mm cameras.

We are 10-15 years and dozens of format sizes away from that situation so isn't it just time to talk angle of view and forget "crop factors" since now it causes more confusion than understanding?

Well the angle of view is directly related to the crop factor on a lens. Or maybe I'm thinking about field of view. Either way I would like to know how much of the Canon 24mm f1.4 II lens I'm going to be looking out of on Epic. From the design of the sensor it looks like the widest field of view might be 2:1. So I think all this talk about crop factors is very relevant to those that need a wide field of view for certain shots using FF35 glass.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Why are we even talking about crop factors any more? Crop factors made sense when 98% of photographers owned and used 35mm film cameras with 36x24mm format size and understood how wide or narrow a particular focal length was - and even family snapshots were done on simpler fixed lens 35mm cameras.

We are 10-15 years and dozens of format sizes away from that situation so isn't it just time to talk angle of view and forget "crop factors" since now it causes more confusion than understanding?

Couldn't agree more.

"Crop Factor" is a notion that ends up confounding people. You are better off first understanding aspect ratio, sensor size and lens size to field of view relationships with your eye then trying to apply this crop factor notion. If you don't get it, take some time with your Red, look at the different aspect ratios available, and go through the range of a zoom, or a range of primes and start to understand what it is you will be able to see behind the lens. It shouldn't take long to realize that the larger the sensor/aspect/project size you are working with the wider the field of view you have.

Kill Crop factor now, and have a better understanding of your lenses and your camera.

 

[Justin O'Neill]

Why are we even talking about crop factors any more? Crop factors made sense when 98% of photographers owned and used 35mm film cameras with 36x24mm format size and understood how wide or narrow a particular focal length was - and even family snapshots were done on simpler fixed lens 35mm cameras.

Hi Michael, I talk to a lot of stills shooters who are looking at getting a RED DSMC camera and the fact is "crop factor" is what they understand right off the bat. If i tell them the S35 Scarlet will be similar to a 1.3 crop camera like their 1D mkIV they know instantly what lenses they can use and what they will look like. I they are up for it we go into a more detailed discussion of field of view, focal lengths and sensor formats but it is definitely helpful to start out with terms they understand.

 

[Jason Ing]

So what is the pros/cons of a full frame vs a "crop"? The angle of view changes and...?

And if I have a 24, 50, and 85mm, what do they become with a 1.3 crop?