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

[combatentropy]

. . . 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.

When someone talks about the cost of a silicon wafer they're talking about the entire process costs of preparing a wafer . . .
The price for a 3k wafer at the same size as a 5k wafer is the same, plus you have added redesign costs.

You're not making any sense. Forget the cost of redesign for second. Imagine a new camera company called MAUVE, which has not designed anything. Say they begin by designing an S35-sized sensor with 2.5K pixels. How much would it cost, and why? Then they design a 2/3" sensor with 2.5K pixels. How much would that cost, and why?

 

[brainburst]

You're not making any sense. Forget the cost of redesign for second. Imagine a new camera company called MAUVE, which has not designed anything. Say they begin by designing an S35-sized sensor with 2.5K pixels. How much would it cost, and why? Then they design a 2/3" sensor with 2.5K pixels. How much would that cost, and why

I'm sorry I thought explained this thoroughly already. The point you are not getting is that if you have two sensors and they share the same cell structure it is easier for a company to produce. They can, to some degree, use the same silicon and slice it smaller to make the lower res device. They can use the same processes the same workflow. Don't you see how this works? This is the same way LCD panels are produced. That's why you always see the same pixel dimesions and why different sized panels are almost always an even multiple of smaller panels.
To make a crude analogy, when you edit, is it better if all the footage has the same res and compatible frame rate? Now magnify that issue a hundred times then you have an inkling of what it costs to come out with a completely different form factor for a sensor.
With your scenario they need to have a completely separate fabrication process for each sensor type from top to bottom. And the 2/3" size sensor would be inferior to boot.
And no, do not forget the cost of redesign. It is huge. It's not a one off thing. You don't just use your cad software and ship it off! It is an iterative process both in reworking the device being produced as well as the method of production! There is no sensor fairy that lets you just make sensors of any size you want without incurring costs. You only do this if the profit potential warrants it.

 

[Alex Coelho]

I originally opted not to participate in this thread because it is, IMHO, silly that people aren't satisfied with the the cameras that were revealed on the 13th. This is still a business and at the end of the day the Red Digital Cinema company still wants to show a profit. It is great that they are willing to sit at thier computers and discuss the cameras progress, but they don't have to listen to demands. This thread has been discussed to death on Scarletuser and here at Reduser there are at least two threads on this same subject. Please close this thread and kill this particular discussion. If Jim and the Red Crew decide to make that S35 3K camera then you are more than welcomed to buy it.

There was a time when interchangable lenses was off the table as well. People talk to death about it and guess what, Red changed course and now they will make an affordable interchangable lens camera. Red does listen so I say let the discussion continue.

 

[Cedric Akins]

There was a time when interchangable lenses was off the table as well. People talk to death about it and guess what, Red changed course and now they will make an affordable interchangable lens camera. Red does listen so I say let the discussion continue.

Yeah I kind of remember those discussions, But now that we are at the threshold of manufacturing it only makes sense to understand that the cameras have already decided on. Many of the newer modifications were discussed on Scarletuser back in May '08. I am only saying this because I am afraid that these new suggestions will mean more delays. I really was hoping for Early '09 but now it may be mid to late '09.

 

[brainburst]

I am afraid that these new suggestions will mean more delays.

If the discussions lead to delays then that just means that something even better is coming.

More importantly, if you look at the delivery schedule for the 2/3" brains they are both LATER than the 5k

This is to be expected. Why? Because the 2/3" option is a completely new design, new form factor, new process--- the works. And it is the design most likely to have unanticipated delays because the smaller you go the tighter the tolerances. While the solution we are suggesting, which could literally be a chip off the 5k, might actually be deliverable sooner! Makes you think huh?

 

[Scott M]

Brainburst & AquaVideoRed206,

Just want you to know that there are people reading this that get what you're saying in regards to 4/3 vs. 2/3. I think the problem is that you're inside a "pie-in-the-sky" thread as you put it.

Now to be honest before reading your posts, I'd never heard of 4/3 chips/lenses, nor am I in any position to comment on the financial feasibility as you have of simply using less of a larger chip's already available material down to 4/3, but basing a decision on the information you've provided (mainly the issue of 2/3" B4 lenses not working effectively with--as far as we know--the planned sensor and their mostly cost prohibitive nature period), the 4/3 idea makes sense to me.

Unless--again only speculation on my part--when downsampled into HD, footage shot on a 2/3" B4 mount lens on the Scarlet at 3K meets at least a majority of expectations, at which point the size and frame rate options would make it a great tool to throw into a studio that is already built around the 2/3" lineup and for that low price, you could pull out a Scarlet as needed for an effect or POV etc, if the quality was not at least up to par with the alternatives (I have not seen an example of how bad the CA would be). Whether or not RED ever considered 4/3", they did put enough thought into it--so far--to produce their own mini-RED lens lineup for 2/3".

Anyway, don't have much to contribute, just wanted you to know you are making sense within the parameters you're providing. It's a shame there are so many goofy threads as now even properly motivated feedback has got to be annoying the hell out of RED when people are shouting for more period, vs. suggesting more efficiency.

P.S.
Bear in mind, I'm not bashing "pie-in-the-sky", the only reason I got to shoot on a RED ONE was because my buddy competed in an early REDUSER "pie-in-the-sky" feature contest. But there's a time and place for everything, and throwing all these polls together to try and convince RED, not to realistically innovate, but to merely bend over backwards for the user who doesn't properly understand the specifics, is poor form.

 

[Katty Galloo]

Hey people,

I Understand it more clear now, I might sound annoying here to you, but I have looked up to the specifications of Epic35 and Scarlet s35 and see that the biggest diference is the datarate of Epic REDCODE 225 for higher proffesional purpose with I understand and the 100fp.

I dont know how this technicaly works but would it be possible they can change the framerate to 100fp on the s35 and leave the REDCODE42?
That was the suggestion I was talking about, the fp is the only thing that still gives me doub to choose between Scarlet 2/3 and the s35. I realy want to shoot slow mo for drama you see.

Greeths,
Katty

 

[Alsone]

If such a camera would be made it would offer great advantages certainly.

2/3 glass is expensive and whilst its Ok for professional film makers to cry get your wallet out, for many private buyers / hobbyists, charging it against the company for tax purposes and off setting it against profits simply isn't an option.

To this end, the opportunity to use 35mm still lenses on a cheap Scarlett would be a definite avantage and would even give cash strapped owners the opportunity to upgrade slowly. eg. there would be nothing to stop you starting out with consumer grade 35mm lenses and then upgrading to professional grade lenses when savings allow. Also 35mm zooms give the opportunity to fit much longer lenses for much lower cost.

Yes purists may point out that maybe ultimate image quality will suffer, but in the world of the hobbyist a very good image they can afford is much better than a perfect image they can't.

 

[oldphart]

If such a camera would be made it would offer great advantages certainly.

2/3 glass is expensive and whilst its Ok for professional film makers to cry get your wallet out, for many private buyers / hobbyists, charging it against the company for tax purposes and off setting it against profits simply isn't an option.
...

What do you mean "2/3 glass is expensive"?
Anybody who has been into 16mm and s16 cameras will tell you that optics for that format is not only significantly less bulky than 35mm lenses, it is also MUCH less expensive.

For amateur use, you can pick up quite good Kern C-mount lenses which used to be the mainstay of the Bolex crowd. Or you can get excellent Fujinon lenses if you cannot afford Cooke or Zeiss.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Brainburst & AquaVideoRed206,

Just want you to know that there are people reading this that get what you're saying in regards to 4/3 vs. 2/3. I think the problem is that you're inside a "pie-in-the-sky" thread as you put it.

Now to be honest before reading your posts, I'd never heard of 4/3 chips/lenses, nor am I in any position to comment on the financial feasibility as you have of simply using less of a larger chip's already available material down to 4/3, but basing a decision on the information you've provided (mainly the issue of 2/3" B4 lenses not working effectively with--as far as we know--the planned sensor and their mostly cost prohibitive nature period), the 4/3 idea makes sense to me.

Unless--again only speculation on my part--when downsampled into HD, footage shot on a 2/3" B4 mount lens on the Scarlet at 3K meets at least a majority of expectations, at which point the size and frame rate options would make it a great tool to throw into a studio that is already built around the 2/3" lineup and for that low price, you could pull out a Scarlet as needed for an effect or POV etc, if the quality was not at least up to par with the alternatives (I have not seen an example of how bad the CA would be). Whether or not RED ever considered 4/3", they did put enough thought into it--so far--to produce their own mini-RED lens lineup for 2/3".

Anyway, don't have much to contribute, just wanted you to know you are making sense within the parameters you're providing. It's a shame there are so many goofy threads as now even properly motivated feedback has got to be annoying the hell out of RED when people are shouting for more period, vs. suggesting more efficiency.

P.S.
Bear in mind, I'm not bashing "pie-in-the-sky", the only reason I got to shoot on a RED ONE was because my buddy competed in an early REDUSER "pie-in-the-sky" feature contest. But there's a time and place for everything, and throwing all these polls together to try and convince RED, not to realistically innovate, but to merely bend over backwards for the user who doesn't properly understand the specifics, is poor form.

Thanks MrGlory it's nice to know someone is getting it. Like you, most people have never heard of four/thirds - I only know about it because Erik at Birger brought it up in a discussion about six months ago. His big selling point at the time was the availability of f2 zooms rather than the f2.8 from Canon and Nikon that are about the best you can do for full frame size SLRs - and a stop faster is a big deal. Even at that time the idea was you would shoot 3K on the REDONE. Erik said he was working on a Four/thirds mount for his industrial customers and if you know how his mounts work, once he has that it is adaptable to his R1 or other products. And really it isn't that hard to do for others as well (ie. like Andy's EOS mount) so I am sure that you will eventually see four/thirds mounts on RED cameras, but if it is for a 2/3 sensor it won't cover a whole range because the super wides become wide/normal lenses just like full frame 35 lenses do on S35 and aps-c sensors. So we don't even care if RED puts a proprietary mount on it, we are just saying the 4/3 sensor size opens up much better possibilities and there is still nothing to stop you from using B4 or C mount lenses to get a cropped 1.8K or so - which is about the best those lenses would give you anyway and you would presumably have capability for even higher frame rates.

The only thing I would amplify on what you said which is an important point is when you say:

"at which point the size and frame rate options would make it a great tool to throw into a studio that is already built around the 2/3" lineup"

Remember, as far as frame rate options, that is really just dictated by the number of pixels processed (3K) not the size of the chip - so we are really talking about the same frame rate capabilities on a 3K four/thirds chip as a 3K 2/3" chip. Which leads to the other important point you bring up and is a key to our suggestion: most of these people/polls are just asking for more period which is unrealistic. We are really just suggesting the same level of technology and expense (or less if you consider not needing to create chips with a new micron size and tighter tolerances) - just in a slightly different form factor that matches better with available and future high resolution lenses and maybe a better compromise in terms of creative DOF.

Or you can get excellent Fujinon lenses if you cannot afford Cooke or Zeiss.

None of the fujinon video lenses were designed for anything more than 1080p and most HD lenses are upgraded SD designs. As far as the C mount Fujinon, AFAIK they are CCTV level. Even the so-called high res C mounts I have seen from other companies only spec out for 1.5 MP.

 

[brainburst]

Here's the thing that people miss when they say an old 16mm lens would be fine for the 2/3. The horizontal width of the scan area of the 2/3" sensor is just 10.1 mm! The sensor is not really comparable to super 16, but rather a letter boxed 16. At 3k a lens has to deliver 150lp mm. If you assume as others have suggested, that the realistic resolution of the sensor is more like 2-2.2k that's still over 100lp mm. At standard HD that's 96 lpmm. You need great glass to deliver that. And that's why it's so expensive.

Super 16 on the other hand is 12.5 m wide If you could achieve 3k with super 16 the lens would need to deliver~120lpmm. @2k that works out to ~80lpmm.

So expensive glass that's perfectly good for super 16 isn't really perfect for a 2/3 sensor. Imagine how suitable the less expensive glass is.
If Red expected people to use Glass for a super 16, they should have made it a 1 inch sensor with slightly larger cells then the scanning area would have been comparable.

Compare that to the the 5k sensor and it's 30 mm width. That works out to 83.lp mm Assuming "5k" resolution. At a more realistic expectation of realizing 3.7k of the sensor the lens needs to deliver about 60lp mm. That's the beauty of a larger sensor you don't need great (expensive) glass.

 

[IBEJohnson]

Brainburst & AquaVideoRed206,

Just want you to know that there are people reading this that get what you're saying in regards to 4/3 vs. 2/3. I think the problem is that you're inside a "pie-in-the-sky" thread as you put it.

Ditto!

Like MrGlory, I haven't the experience to comment on the cost implications of producing a 4/3 sensor, but Brainburst's arguments sound quite logical to me.

Let me just make this objective observation though (of this and another thread on this site that dances around the same topic): My first impression of Brainburst was that his ideas were a bit negative, maybe even disruptive - Sorry - But as I read on, I realized that he was just being forthright in his opinion - and there is nothing wrong with that, as opinions are what these threads serve to present. I shutter to think that anyone would discourage another from expressing their ideas, only to suggest that he/she ought to be grateful for what they're being offered. That's just simply not how consumerism works.

What really sold me on the idea of the 4/3 sensor is not the "give me more" accusation that has been thrown around, but how well thought-out Brainburst & AquaVideoRed206 have presented it. Moreover, from my viewpoint there has yet to be one detractor who has shown any greater knowledge on the topic to disprove the idea. Admittedly, I am certainly in no position to verify any of these claims, but I've not seen anyone do the opposite either.

Does the 4/3 movement have it's own thread yet? It deserves it. Might be taken more seriously.

Eric

 

[diskojerk]

i don't think the discussion about 4/3 sensors is the problem, i think the problem with the 4/3 discussion is that it is in a thread titled "3k S35 Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".

Maybe start a new thread.

 

[Katty Galloo]

lensses?

lensses?

Hey People,

I don't really get it about the lensses this time.

' someone in this topic before said here '
None of the fujinon video lenses were designed for anything more
than 1080p and most HD lenses are upgraded SD designs'

So If I understand well Digital 35mm photographic camera lensses
can not shoot 3,4,5 K in a dessent way?? I don't get it?
than why are still photographers shoot with it on even higher rez
postershoots with a Canon 21 megapixel CMOS and affordable EOS lens? If 35mm lensses are used for this. then why would the image be less shot with the red Can someone clear that for me please.
I have read an article on hdforindies.com of test shooting with the RED cam and a simple Canon EOS lens saying that the image was something like never seen before.
Grainfree, crisp and clean image. So I agree that the lens is always importend but also relevant in the total pakkage.

Euro girl

 

[Jaime Fernández Miranda]

everything will depend about canon/nikon movements.
If these companies push, then Red company will push too.
Red owners will understand that epic and Scarlet MUST be competitive.
Then Jim will make a cheaper and totally killer camera.
If Canon/nikon does not move, then scarlet and epic will be like now.
Jim is not a donkey. He has some good secrets to be revealed if is necessary.
But he must be carefull with red owners.
Don`t worry. He knows what we want. He is a camera user.
RED company will offer what they need to sell any numbers of cameras they will want.
Only adapting the prices and specs to the market in the releasing date.
Thanks to RED.
Imagine a video world only with those big boys. 9000 $ for NOTHING new.

 

[Charles Angus]

That's a joke, right? There's no way that lens resolves 8mp.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Lenses are optimized for a particular frame size and the lens package i.e. the number of elements, size, position, zoom range etc. and there all sorts of tradeoffs that allow you to get high resolution from inexpensive or small lenses or whatever.

An 8mp $299 still camera gets it capability by using very small elements (allowed by a tiny sensor), limited zoom 3:1, 6:1, etc. limited angle of view - i.e. moderate wide to moderate tele, etc. and very high volume.

A midrange lens like a 50mm on fullframe can be produced very high quality for a couple hundred dollars while an extreme wide angle 14mm with similar quality sells for a couple thousand dollars even for relatively high volume cameras like canon or nikon SLRs. Further, most still camera systems, particularly on the high end don't really attempt to have big zoom factors like the video lens. The standard pro set of zooms for Canon Professionals are the 16-35 F2.8L $1300 (a 2.2x zoom), 24-70mm F2.8L $1100 (a 2.9x zoom), 70-200 F2.8L $1550 (a 2.8x zoom).

In the video world 17x is common and prices are in the $15000 - $25000 range. To achieve these kind of zoom magnifications, in the low volume pro video world they have to design it precisely to the resolution level they need (and in reality most of them are upgraded standard def lenses) so it is unlikely they have any extra resolution available to get up to the 3k level.

TANSTAAFL There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. All brainburst and I are saying is that given the engineering parameters and the market parameters, with the existence of high level, high volume still lenses, the sweet spots are FourThirds, S35 (and S35 partially because it is the same as APS-C so we have good wide lenses in the still world like the 11-16 tokina and 10-22 canon EF-S) and Full Frame 35 - NOT 2/3.

 

[brainburst]

The lenses for those cameras represent new technology purpose built for generally larger sensors. And yes there certainly IS a diminishing return with megapixel cameras when they simply increase pixel density without increasing sensor size.
The truth is those megapixel tiny sensors are noisy and the glass they are coupled with is poor.
No one is saying that available older technilogy lenses won't work at all with the Scarlet 2/3"; It will make nice if not tack-sharp images under optimum conditions. We're just saying that a 4/3s system would be much better and offer greater options, plus have the added benefit of a shallower DOF and lower noise.

 

[Bryan Arnold]

It makes sense what the two of you are saying, but do you think that the 2/3" RED lenses are going to set us back $15-25K if they are able to resolve 3K res? What about the lens on the Scarlet FL? (BTW FL stands for...fixed lens :shifty: ) Do guys think that will not resolve 3K? I honestly know nothing about lenses so don't take it as criticism.

 

[brainburst]

No one is saying that Red can't or won't come up with great lenses for the 2/3" Scarlet. Or that they won't be cost effective. But, as an end user, do you want to depend upon a single source for good lenses when a larger sensor opens up literally infinite excellent possibilities? The larger sensor will work not just with 4/3 lenses, but any decent larger format lenses (with cropping but no loss in quality) because a larger sensor is simply more forgiving.
And those 2/3" lenses won't be useful on any of their larger format cameras (so much for modularity) if they are sized/optimized for the 2/3" sensor.