3k S35 Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[brainburst]

The 2 x crop is not that bad. Plus there are a lot of APS-C lenses out there that would work fine with it with even less of a crop factor.

We aren't asking for that much really.

 

[Clayton Talmon]

A set up like that would be ideal for us as well. S35 - 3K 120FPS

As for now we just don't need the K as much as we need the speed and the 35mm frame and the ability to use our own Nikon glass.

 

[diskojerk]

Do you see how those statements are a little illogical? The product hasn't come out yet and you still say it is great. What we are "knocking on" is based upon known issues that will never change unless the laws of physics change.

DOF for a 2/3 sensor ain't changing
Requirement for better glass because of stated cell size ain't changing.
Noise Dynamic range might surprise us, but that would require radical change in sensor technology which no one at Red has suggested. They only mention "improvement". Is it 40-50% better? it will have to be just to look as good.

On the other hand you have a picture and 3K spec. But you know it's a great product before it has come out.

I'm basing my opinion on how great the new product will be by what I have seen with the RED ONE. There is nothing illogical about it. I just think that people should wait for the product to come out before asking for even more endless options. I just think people are basing their requests on what they want with little or no regard as to whether or not what they want is even feasible. Maybe instead of asking for something, ask or research to see if the specs you're requesting are even possible at the price range you're requesting. The 2/3 camera with no lens is $2500 and you think that for $1000 more you should be able to get an s35 sensor with 120 fps? I think that's wonderful! Really! I'd love to see something like that!! But very unlikely. Hence the sarcasm.

 

[brainburst]

I'm basing my opinion on how great the new product will be by what I have seen with the RED ONE.

And that's why you would be wrong. One of the main reasons the RED one is great because of the sensor size.

I just think that people should wait for the product to come out before asking for even more endless options. I just think people are basing their requests on what they want with little or no regard as to whether or not what they want is even feasible.

It's not an endless option. In fact it is far more feasible than a completely different sensor structure. I am simply talking about a larger sensor, not s35mm sensor size, based upon existing technology using either 5.4 or 6 micron cell sizes.

I am not the original poster. Nor am I expecting it to be under 3.5k.I'd expect to pay 4k for something like a 1.2" sensor. Not a standard form factor but fully and completely usable with lots of 35mm and DSLR lenses

 

[diskojerk]

You're 100% right. Sorry for being such a fool.

 

[brainburst]

To make a full 35mm sensor @ 3k would be asking too much. I really think that simply using existing fabs and technology to make a smaller 3k sensor is a great and reasonable tradeoff. Not quite 35 but better than super 16. Perfect for indies.

 

[Tom Lowe]

A set up like that would be ideal for us as well. S35 - 3K 120FPS

As for now we just don't need the K as much as we need the speed and the 35mm frame and the ability to use our own Nikon glass.

Those specs are good, but again, they would have to make an entirely new type of chip with larger photosites.

 

[Tico Llaurador]

Or do like Fujifilm does with their expanded DR chips.

 

[brainburst]

It's not rocket science. The crop factor would be very close to 2. Almost anyone can do that in their head.

It wouldn't be far from the Micro Four Thirds system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds

or the sensors used in the Foveon Sigma

This can work very well. A 2/3" senor with Reds current tech would be very nice. Arguably as good as s16. But that's it. A ~1.2 inch sensor with Red's current tech would be ground breaking, Better than super 16. Isn't that want indies REALLY want?

 

[Zach Swena]

A full 35mm sensor is the best but we will have to let Jim tell us if that is too much to ask.

I think there would be plenty of a market for a cam with slightly less than a S35 sensor though. When we have hashed this out for a while and we should make a poll to see if this is an issue.

Can we try to outline what the advantages and disadvantages of each option is?

Personally I think 75 votes in the first 24hr on the whole concept of a cam at this res is quite amazing. The percentages tell a interesting story. 80% positive and 10% neutral 10% negetive.
A whole 58% of which are saying that they would buy one in a heart beat and that number is climbing.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Four Thirds size sensor in 16:9

Four Thirds size sensor in 16:9

Just noticed brainburst posted about four thirds as I was writing this - so we are on the same wavelength.

An 18.6mm x 10.6mm 16:9 sensor would fit into the Four Thirds sensor size and would be about half of the size (57%) of the S35 REDONE sensor and would provide about 6 Megapixels if using the same 5.5 micron size as the REDONE. This might be ideal as there are excellent relatively low cost lenses available.

If you are unfamiliar with Four Thirds:

From Wikipedia "The Four Thirds System is a standard created by Olympus and Kodak (Fuji, Leica, Olympus, Panasonic, Sanyo and Sigma are now part of the 4/3 consortium) for digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR) design and development.

The system provides a standard that... allows for the interchange of lenses and bodies from different manufacturers. ...Unlike older SLR systems, Four Thirds has been designed from the ground up to be entirely digital. Lens design has been tailored to the requirements of digital sensors, most notably through telecentric designs. The size of the sensor is slightly smaller than for most DSLRs (see drawing below) and this implies that lenses, especially telephoto lenses, can be smaller. .... the Four Thirds System is said to have a crop factor (focal length multiplier) of about 2."

Consider this:

The four-thirds lenses are excellent and they include serious entries from Leica, Sigma, Olympus AND the smaller size allows F2 zooms - a stop faster than the typical f2.8 for the high end APS-C and FF DSLR lens. Olympus has three very high quality F2 lenses of thoroughly modern design with extensive use of modern glass types and aspherical elements - an F2 14-35mm zoom and an F2 35-100mm zoom as well as an F2 150mm prime (100mm on 2/3" scarlet would be equivalent to a 360mm on a REDONE and 150 is equivalent to 480mm) and there is an F2.8 70-200 - equivalent to 640mm on a REDONE. Imagine the possibilities not only for 3D but for nature photography. Of course since the flange focal length is about 38mm almost any other lens series would work with simple adapters - Canon FD, Canon EF, Nikon, Leica, Contax/Yashica zeiss, etc. etc. so large aperture super zooms are available as well. This would also give a nice in between step for DOF between 2/3" and S35.

I've not quite understood the idea of using a 2/3" sensor size - it seems like you are trying to fit the sensor size to an old technology that isn't that great anyway. The RED spec calls for a C mount and B4 mount and, yes, there are lenses available but the lens choices aren't that great - good B4 lenses are extremely expensive (partially because they are intended for 3 chip/prism optical systems) and c-mounts aren't very good - mostly cctv lenses or old technology 16mm. So maybe the 16:9 four Thirds is the ultimate compromise solution - half the sensor size so cost and size reductions all around.

 

[Zach Swena]

thanks brainburst for that post. It seems that people always post while I am writing a post

I think we need to take a bit of time to process all the info presented so far. Any new info about this is good also.

:construction:

 

[Zach Swena]

grr another post while I was posting hmy:

Nice info. Takes a while to digest though.

 

[Thomas Koch]

Of course I would buy one. I would also like to buy a Porsche for $10,000.
I'm in for a 5K Scarlet s35 and a 2/3" scarlet for high speed shots.

 

[brainburst]

good B4 lenses are extremely expensive (partially because they are intended for 3 chip/prism optical systems)

Yet another reason the 2/3" is not such a good idea. Those b4 lenses meant for 3ccd cameras are corrected to compensate for the divergent 3 channel optical path. That is BAD for a bayer sensor! I defy anyone to find a decent B4 mount lens that's not meant for a 3CCD camera!

and c-mounts aren't very good - mostly cctv lenses or old technology 16mm.

You can get good c-mount lenses but they too are expensive. Old 16mm lenses just wouldn't cut it for the cell size on the 2/3" sensor.

 

[brainburst]

Of course I would buy one. I would also like to buy a Porsche for $10,000.
I'm in for a 5K Scarlet s35 and a 2/3" scarlet for high speed shots.

That is a disingenuous remark. We are not asking for anything that extravagant. We are making a common sense request based upon existing technology and expect that there will be a premium to pay! We have even demonstrated the viability of such an option both from an economic and practical perspective.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Thomas,

I have to agree with brainburst - we are talking about an in between size. Both 2/3" and four/thirds are already in production so no major changes and increasing a little beyond 2/3" should also make some things a little easier in chip manufacturing - so the slight reduced yield from a given die size might be offset completely by simpler manufacturing techniques with larger pixels.

What we are really pushing is a better choice of the existing smaller sizes based on the much, much better lenses available.

For instance you will be very, very hard pressed to get a really good superwide lens for 2/3" capable of fully resolving even 2k for less than $25,000 and none of those were designed to resolve 3K. Yet the Olympus and other four/thirds lenses were designed for even higher resolutions.

And if it is seriously supposed to compete in the DSLR market it would be much easier to get a still photographer interested since most serious ones are at least familiar with the Olympus system and know that it is very good. To a still photographer 2/3" is heavily associated with (relatively) low res video equipment - or pocket digital still technology.

 

[brainburst]

If anyone else needs more convincing:

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/lense.html

Please open your minds! That is just a smattering of what is available. Download the PDF to really understand the possibilities.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

80+ % in favor.

Pretty unanimous so far.

 

[brainburst]

Look this is very simple. All of the existing sensors use either a 5.4 or 6 micron cell form factor which is fine. We don't need a bigger cell form factor. No one is complaining about it on any of the other sensors. So there is no compelling reason to create a larger cell structure to stretch a 3k sensor over a S35 frame. In fact the single largest factor in the expense of a sensor is the silicon wafer. So Red would have the same materials cost as a 5k sensor plus the added expense of another design. That is simply not practical or profitable. Red is a company that deserves to be profitable. People demanding a full S35 sized sensor are not being reasonable PERIOD. It doesn't matter how popular a concept is if it can't be profitable for the producer.
The existing cell size is fine for 3K.The same cell size for a 3k sensor means a smaller sensor. The immediate benefit is that they could use existing technology. There is no redesigning cost for the basic sensor. Since this is a smaller sensor, it means they can get greater yields from the existing technology. It becomes a profitable option.
2/3" sucks because it can't be as good as their other sensors. Even if the technology has improved it only helps; The physical constraints of the sensor start it off with a handicap. The same level of improvement on a non-physically constrained device yields much greater rewards. On a physically constrained device it just means barely keeping up.

There simply aren't a lot of affordable lenses with a B4 mount that are meant for a bayer sensor. ( Maybe none in fact, I couldn't find any) They are, by and large, meant for 3CCD cameras. Which means their designs compensate for the divergent optical paths introduced by the prisms. That compensation is BAD News for a Bayer sensor. Here's a challenge for you. See if you can find a good B4 mount lens for the proposed 2/3" camera. On the other hand I found a few dozen very nice ones for the proposed "Four Thirds" sized sensor.

Now even if you find a lens for this 2/3" sensor what about DOF? Well it means for a more shallow DOF it's back to workarounds and adapters. Or you can opt for the proposed 3k sensor and get a shallower depth of field that would be better than S16 but more forgiving than 35. The best of both worlds.

Maybe too good? Is that the problem? Well Red is not the only company in the world. The first company to deliver something in this niche will reap great rewards. It will make the success of the RED1 pale in comparison.