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 :)

2.5K S35 Please

2.5K S35 Please

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 27.9%

  • No

    Votes: 44 72.1%
  • Total voters
    61
C

combatentropy

Banned
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.combatentropy.com
1. Many, many users clamor for 2K, and no more. They would sooner take more latitude and low-light-ness.

2. Bayer sensors resolve less than their pixel count.
RED Problem Solver Graeme Nattress,
cinematographer Guy-Louis Mier, and
video reviewer Adam Wilt
peg RED's keep at 78%.

1920 / 0.78 = 2461​

So, why 3K?
Give me 2.5 :love:
 
This type of suggestion has popped up a lot. There are two facts that many people are not aware of:

1. If technology (noise, QE, FWC) scale with the size of the pixel, then you can resample the smaller pixels to get the same latitude and low light performance as the larger pixels.

2. Technology *does* tend to scale with the pixel size, or, more often, get better per area with smaller pixels.

I've made recent posts about this:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=334601#post334601
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=333352#post333352
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=333124#post333124
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=332726#post332726
 
2k does not look good at all, 3k looks great.
 
I doubt that you could even see the difference in latitude from a 2K sensor to a 3K one for one thing, so it's better to have more resolution (and you'll get even better perceived low-light performance, as you wouldn't see so much noise after downscaling, as Daniel said).

And as for s35, although it would be nice, it would probably make everything a lot more expensive - not just in manufacturing costs, but because what you're proposing would mean a lot more R&D for the RED team as well.

So I think it's generally a bad idea.
 
The main cost is physical chip size, not the resolution. For the same price, I will take more resolution any time for the reasons that Daniel so eloquently explained.
 
Daniel Browning said:
This type of suggestion has popped up a lot. There are two facts that many people are not aware of:

1. If technology (noise, QE, FWC) scale with the size of the pixel, then you can resample the smaller pixels to get the same latitude and low light performance as the larger pixels.
Click to expand...

Only at a loss of resolution i.e. resample 5k to 2.5k

2. Technology *does* tend to scale with the pixel size, or, more often, get better per area with smaller pixels.
Click to expand...

Only because it has to, for performance equivalent to larger pixels. At some point you rapidly enter realm of diminishing returns. Photons are photons, electrons are electrons, there is no free lunch. Same technology in larger pixel size = better performance.
Sweet spot is 3k @ 4/3s
 
brainburst said:
Only at a loss of resolution i.e. resample 5k to 2.5k
Click to expand...

You're right, but I think that fact is obvious enough that it doesn't need mentioning.

brainburst said:
At some point you rapidly enter realm of diminishing returns
Click to expand...

Agranov's paper I linked above shows that 1.7 micron pixels are not in that realm. I suggest reading the links in my post if you haven't already.

brainburst said:
Same technology in larger pixel size = better performance.
Click to expand...

If same technology is defined as having the same QE/area, FWC/area, and read noise per area, then smaller pixels would yield the same same performance after resampling. The very highest performance pixels (per area) on the market now is in the very smallest pixels in digicams and mobile phones, with one exception: high iso read noise is slightly lower in the largest pixels, perhaps due to the space used for noise reduction transistors.
 
I think I'm going to make threads called "2k S35mm", "2.1k S35mm", "2.2k S35mm" "2.3k S35mm" "2.4k S35mm" "2.6k S35mm" "2.7k S35mm" "2.8k S35mm" "2.9k S35mm".

Jim already said that only the 5k S35mm sensor costs as much as a whole Scarlet 2/3".
We won't get a 2.5k sensor. They increase the power of the camera, not decrease it.
Red has to think economically guys. Building a 2.5k S35 sensor would cost a lot that would probably not be regained through the sales.
 
This is why the majority (99%) of us on the boards should refrain from being armchair camera builders. There's always a "catch" that might not be immediately obvious to us. Let them build the cameras.

This is not to ignore the obviously more experienced individuals on this board who have made some very logical and convincing arguments though.
 
brainburst said:
Only at a loss of resolution i.e. resample 5k to 2.5k
Click to expand...

Seriously, why is everyone so obsessed with these random resolutions? Why would anyone ever want to rescale to 2.5k? Standard cinema resolutions are 4K and 2K, but even then, I doubt that any more than a small minority of Scarlet users will distribute their content in anything bigger than 1080p for the near future...
 
No ..
 
Tom said:
2.5K makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I don't see why it makes no sense. To me it makes as much sense as 3k - you get reduced resolution but also reduced storage and/or compression, plus bigger sensor sites. Whether it fits at all with Red's plans is doubtful but if I was building my dream camera it may well be a s35 2.5k handycam. I really don't need more resolution in the finished product than good 1080p.
 
stumann said:
I don't see why it makes no sense. To me it makes as much sense as 3k - you get reduced resolution but also reduced storage and/or compression, plus bigger sensor sites. Whether it fits at all with Red's plans is doubtful but if I was building my dream camera it may well be a s35 2.5k handycam. I really don't need more resolution in the finished product than good 1080p.
Click to expand...

So why you dont buy SI-2k or some 1080p one like A-cam, Otis Drama etc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top