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

[oldphart]

...

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.

The Fujinon video lenses are obviously unsuitable. Not only are they low resolution, they are also designed for beamsplitter cameras. You can, however, get a set of Fujinon primes specified at 5 megapixels for about the price of a Scarlet 3/4 brain.

I am more in favour of using existing 16mm glass for those who do not want to buy the Red primes. The RED ONE "needs" 100 lp/mm to get everything out of the sensor after olp filtering and de-bayering, the Scarlet will "need" 150. Many people are satisfied with the results they get from a RED ONE with lenses resolving at the most 80 lp/mm, and I suspect that a 16mm lens resolving 120 lp/mm or less will be seen as perfectly good for the Scarlet. Not least because I expect people to finish in 2k.

 

[oldphart]

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.

No, a camera designed to the 4/3 specification will not generally work well with lenses made for other formats. 4/3 is a patented system wich uses a proprietary microlens / diffuser system to reduce vignetting. It will work with long focal length, small aperture lenses made for other systems.

 

[brainburst]

I agree that a lens with about 120 lp/mm will be OK, certainly nothing less that 95 for HD. But the point remains that a larger sensor would give you many more cost effective and optimum options, more than offsetting the cost of the larger sensor for the end user, plus giving you better S/N Dynamic range and DOF. Plus if you choose larger 35mm format lenses instead they'll work with the 4/3 as well with the other Red modules if you choose to upgrade. 2/3" format products won't.

 

[brainburst]

No, a camera designed to the 4/3 specification will not generally work well with lenses made for other formats. 4/3 is a patented system which uses a proprietary microlens / diffuser system to reduce vignetting. It will work with long focal length, small aperture lenses made for other systems.

This is patently false. The size of a sensor should not be confused with proprietary lens technology. The 4/3 lens would not work with larger format, but the sensor will certainly work with larger format lenses.
We are not saying build a 4/3rd compliant camera. we are saying a 4/3rd sized sensor. If it uses the same technology as all the other RED sensors it will function exactly like all the other RED sensors with equivalent lenses except with a cropping factor if you use larger format lenses. The cell size is the same remember?
The 4/3 standard doesn't dictate what type of sensor sits behind the lens!

 

[oldphart]

I agree that a lens with about 120 lp/mm will be OK, certainly nothing less that 95 for HD. But the point remains that a larger sensor would give you many more cost effective and optimum options, more than offsetting the cost of the larger sensor for the end user, plus giving you better S/N Dynamic range and DOF. Plus if you choose larger 35mm format lenses instead they'll work with the 4/3 as well with the other Red modules if you choose to upgrade. 2/3" format products won't.

If you want a larger sensor, the logical choice is the s35 Scarlet. It is just slightly larger than the format covered by a 4/3 lens if you want to use one. My experience with 18x24mm Olympus lenses is very good, so I expect that the 4/3 ones are nice as well. The branded "Leica" lenses used by Panasonic seem far from impressive, though. They have nothing in common with the Leitz lenses used by real Leicas.

I am, however, not convinced that 4/3 lenses will work all that well on sensors without the special microprism arrangement.

Pricewise, it is hard to se that a 4/3 format brain would be more than 10-20% cheaper than the s35 one.

 

[brainburst]

"It is just slightly larger than the format covered by a 4/3 lens"

Are you saying 30 x 15mm is only slightly larger than ~17 mm x ~9.2 mm? It's only almost 3x the area that's all!

If you want a larger sensor, the logical choice is the s35 Scarlet.

Yes we know that, and some of use will be forced to do that. The point is to see if a more cost effective option

is possible.
Pricewise, it is hard to se that a 4/3 format brain would be more than 10-20% cheaper than the s35 one.

That's pure conjecture, and it is a question for RED to answer. 20% off is nothing to sneeze at especially if you plan to purchase multiple units. I'm hoping for 35-40% less. At that price, the increased quality, plus cost savings of lenses and adapters, will make it worth it.

 

[combatentropy]

brainburst, it's not that your arguments for a 4/3 sensor are wrong. It's that your arguments against 2/3 and S35 are.

2/3 has lots of choices for lenses.
- all the 16mm & S16 mm lenses on eBay
- C-mount machine-vision lenses
- RED's proposed Minis
- many others

And this format is alive and well:
- Kodak's new KAI-02050 and KAI-02150 CCDs
- Ikonoskop A-cam DII
- Panasonic Varicam AJ-HDC27H, AJ-HPX2700, AJ-HPX3700
- Sony F900 and F23
- Thomson Grass Valley Viper (just shot David Fincher's new flick)
- Silicon Imaging SI-2K
- Arri 416
- Aaton A-minima
- Bolexes and other old 16mm cameras in film schools across the world
- others more

These products will nourish demand for alot of lenses.

And S35 is not some crazy-big format. It is almost exactly the same size as APS-C. So, singing about 4/3 while cursing S35 is out of proportion.

 

[Katty Galloo]

Hallo people,

Point1:

Image quality is determined not only by pixel count but also by sensor size. Given two cameras with the same number of pixels, the one with the larger CMOS sensor usually delivers finer gradation resulting from higher sensitivity, wider dynamic range, and better S/N ratio. It also has a wider depth of field allowing shallower settings for effective background blurs.
The relative manufacturing ease of making them larger is just one advantage of CMOS sensors,thus Bigger pixels offer higher sensitivity

Point2:
A larger CMOS sensor compared to the smaller: the large one gathers more light in a shorter time and therefore can respond more sensitively.

Point3:
Large-capacity pixels for wider dynamic range
In CMOS sensors, minimal light overflow and greater capacity mean a wider dynamic range for more subtle gradations, especially in highlight areas. A CMOS sensor with extensive overflow will produce blowout. Smaller pixels are therefore more prone to blowout than larger ones.

Point4:
Better S/N ratio from large-capacity pixels
Given two differently sized pixels handling the same amount of noise, there will be less noise impact on the resulting image of the larger pixel. Since larger-sized pixels catch more light, the signal carries more data than noise within the overall image information. This results in a better signal-to-noise ratio, which is particularly effective for fine gradation in low-light shots.

Note: S/N ratio is a measure indicating optical signal purity. The higher the S/N ratio, the smaller the amount of noise and, therefore, the signal may be described as one of high definition

Conclusion , the s35 MystriumX has 13,8 megapixels and a pixelsize of 5,4 micron witch means you can shoot with any desent DSLR lens you can find for verry affordable prices and having a stunning superfine image.

Thank God for RED
Euro girl :w00t:

 

[brainburst]

brainburst, it's not that your arguments for a 4/3 sensor are wrong. It's that your arguments against 2/3 and S35 are.

2/3 has lots of choices for lenses.
- all the 16mm & S16 mm lenses on eBay
- C-mount machine-vision lenses
- RED's proposed Minis
- many others

If you are willing to settle for significantly less than 2k resolution, some of those lenses will be fine. Only Red's vaporware lenses might be better. But then they won't be any good for the larger format cameras. As I stated before, at 2k resolution the 10.1 mm wide sensor area of the 2/3"will require a lens that delivers passes a minimum of 100 lp/mm. Most of the above named lenses DO NOT fall into that category. In fact I tried to find lenses on both the Edmund optics site and Navitar site that would suit the sensor. None could be found. The Edmunds site is particularly instructive. All of the lenses it finds for you start falling off significantly @50lp/mm
Remember Super 16 is 12.5 mm wide. To yield 2k res only requires a lens to pass 80 lp/mm
I'll say this again as well. the 2/3" scanning area is NOT equivalent to super 16. It is equivalent to letter boxed reg 16. Let me make this analogy more clear for you. Which would make a more successful blowup? A cropped 16 or full frame super 16? Isn't that why super 16 was invented? Would anyone choose to shoot with 16 over super 16?

And this format is alive and well:
- Kodak's new KAI-02050 and KAI-02150 CCDs
- Ikonoskop A-cam DII
- Panasonic Varicam AJ-HDC27H, AJ-HPX2700, AJ-HPX3700
- Sony F900 and F23
- Thomson Grass Valley Viper (just shot David Fincher's new flick)
- Silicon Imaging SI-2K
- Arri 416
- Aaton A-minima
- Bolexes and other old 16mm cameras in film schools across the world
- others more

These products will nourish demand for alot of lenses.

We've discussed this before, most of the cameras you list are 3CCD devices and the lenses they use fall into the EXPENSIVE category. And being designed for 3ccd cameras they are designed to compensate for the prism and divergent optical paths. The compensation will result in chromatic aberrations when used with a bayer sensor.
As for the Silicon Imaging camera. Well thanks for making my point for me!!! One of the reasons that camera became so expensive as fully configured is because of the expense of the lens. We had a demo at our school so I am thoroughly familiar with that camera. And its also only a 2k camera.
I can also tell you that the majority of glass that we have in our film production center ( one of the biggest in the world) would absolutely not be optimum for the 2/3 sensor. Either because optically it is not up to snuff, or because it is worse for the wear.
A newly produced camera should not be dependent upon the availability of used high quality glass or a single vendors glass. On the other hand with a larger sensor the list of potentially EXCELLENT lenses becomes almost infinite. With a larger format sensor, if one chooses to, they can get full format lenses which will work for the 4/3, cropped, but full optical quality, and use the same lenses when they upgrade the brain. You can't do that if you invest in 2/3" format glass.

And S35 is not some crazy-big format. It is almost exactly the same size as APS-C. So, singing about 4/3 while cursing S35 is out of proportion.

I never said that S35 was some big crazy format. It is however almost 3x the area of a 4/3 sensor. I only mentioned it to demonstrate that it might make economic sense for Red to develop a 4/3 sensor @ 3k lieu of the silly requests for a 3k sensor in a S35 form. I have nothing against S35. I do have a bit against 2/3 or hadn't you guessed? :biggrin:

 

[Paul Stec]

This is all and exactly what us pros need

This is all and exactly what us pros need

Just to get this thread back on track... Those of us that are asking for a 3k (even though we really only need 2k) S35 120 fps Scarlet as are simply asking for the bear min in a Digi image capture camera that would replace any need for shooting film and would be EVERYTHING a Producer or ad agency would need in a camera. I say producer or ad agency because if you are a working pro Cinematographer in the commercial, music video or feature world these are the people that make the decisions on what camera and format is ultimately going to be used. I’m speaking from 14 years of experience as a Cinematographer and now a producer… In terms of "cinematic" imaging making the things that matter to these decision makers are the things that make "cinematic" images cinematic. Inarguably, that is the following. A 1.85 aspect ratio, S35 DOF image, shot at 24 fps, with an 180º shutter. In addition the ability to do various shutter angles and up to 120 fps is what is necessary. These images must be at least 2K preferably no bigger and keyable in the exact same way images acquired on film would be keyed.

To make this clear for the newbie. If a Digi acquisition camera does exactly what an S35 camera does and can use the same lenses light meters DOF charts accessories etc then digital or not it will be what the people that are paying the bills need.

It’s also important to note that for the post side of things 35mm filmmaking lenses matched with an S35 image plane is essential if any "Maya" or compositing work is to be done due to the fact that the these apps aren’t set up to work with odd lens to film plane configs.

So the request for a 3K (again 2K is all that’s needed) S35 120 fps scarlet at even $5000-7000 would change things and truly make Red the only game in the world.

It’s a no brainier for anyone who knows how the real world works, and not producing this camera would be nothing short of an error.

 

[Katty Galloo]

Hey People,

Just a quick reply to how I see it,

I can understand the technical quote off lens glass, but that was not the point I wanted to make. The point is 'what you see is what you get' , so if you would have the multiple choice to shoot a crisp and fine 2,3,4 or 5k almost grainless HD image witch a standard DSLR lens from a Canon EOS 21 megapixel with allmost the same sensor size, placed in front of one big RED 35 scarlet mystriumX CMOS with all the advantages sayed in my formal relpy. 'better in Low light', ' no blow outs ' beter N/S etc.. Than what is there to think about?
You can have a fully professional body and lens for almost less then 9.000$
The only thing you would have to mis on the s35 is the 120fp with is a nice option. But of course you can't have it all witch we are nearly close to then.
Eventualy I see my investment in the future, and its only a matter of a few years before chip combinations will become only consumer versions and eventualy disapear. Personaly I think a lot of Professional cameras in the future will only work with one single CMOS chips and higher Micron per pixel. CMOS chips had a better research over the years according towards digital image and are far better then the CCD with is good for Digital Tv but less to Film theatre production.

There is also another point about sharp lensses. I heard allready directors complain that the Digital image somethimes is to sharp acording to film and they use offen softfilters to soften the image, so why keep trying to get the scharpest and the most expencive lens.

RED has understand verry well the cry out from the indie movie maker and the big filmindustry for more possibilities and the have reply to that with this wonderfull new series, therefor I understand verry wel that the EPIC series is only ment for the big hollywood industry, gues you would need 10 Mac's 8core renderfarm to render these Big boy shoots fro 9K and 28K, but no doub they will be used.


Just an opinion, no offense

Euro girl :innocent:

 

[brainburst]

"So the request for a 3K (again 2K is all that’s needed) S35 120 fps scarlet at even $5000-7000 would change things and truly make Red the only game in the world."

I don't understand why you people do not get this. I'll state it in caps again. IT WILL COST RED THE SAME AMOUNT OR MORE TO BUILD A 3K MODULE IN A S35 FORM FACTOR AS A 5K MODULE!!!!!!!

It’s also important to note that for the post side of things 35mm filmmaking lenses matched with an S35 image plane is essential if any "Maya" or compositing work is to be done due to the fact that the these apps aren’t set up to work with odd lens to film plane configs.

It's extensible software, any sensor mapping to any lens is possible.

If a Digi acquisition camera does exactly what an S35 camera does and can use the same lenses light meters DOF charts accessories etc then digital or not it will be what the people that are paying the bills need.

You can do all of this with a 4/3 sensor coupled with a s35lens, just with a cropping factor. The 4/3 size will give you the exactly same high quality image quality as a windowed 5k. A 4/3 sensor, would do 99.999% of everything you need, and could be a financially viable option for RED. The 3k IS NOT!

 

[brainburst]

There is also another point about sharp lensses. I heard allready directors complain that the Digital image somethimes is to sharp acording to film and they use offen softfilters to soften the image, so why keep trying to get the scharpest and the most expencive lens.

It is far better to have resolution that can be tossed away than sharpness that can't be achieved.

Honestly do some research please. A 4/3 sensor @ 3k would achieve 99%+ of what you, and most indies need. For more more critical work or higher frame rates you can occasionally rent.

 

[Johan Malmsten]

Well... I've read the whole thread and I've still voted in favor of a s35 3K sensor.

But I'm not dilluding myself. I may dream alot. But I think it's silly and unnecesarry to demand it at any price under the 5k scarlet.

Why have both 3k and 5k s35 scarlet in the same pricerange? well simply put. As people have already pointed out. 2K (by that I of course mean 3k pre-debayer) is by far the farthest that we need as photographers that does things destined for 1080p televisions and current blueray standards. If you can afford 4K distribution or film-out's you're already in the EPIC crowd. So all of those would certainly see the advantage of "sacrificing" resolution for light-sensitivity and sensor-size (bringing with it the added lens-options).

And even if you can underexpose and down-rez to get rid of some of the noise, I somehow have the feeling that the photosite size will yield better results if larger. (I base this conclusion on absolutely no research at all)

Most of the arguments that are being made here are sound and all. But I don't understand why the 3K s35 has to compete with the 2/3 in terms of price, as some assume. I could easily see the 3K s35 be an awesome supplement to the 5K s35. And therefore should be priced more along that cameras range.

Do I need 5K resolution on my shoot and not the added sensitivity and framerates? Then I use the 5K one.

Do I only need 3K but definately need added sensitivity and higher framerates? Then I use the 3K.

In both cases I still get s35 DOF. No windowing needed and no added crop-factor.

That said. The 2/3 fixed lens scarlet is surely the camera for me. And I'll be more than happy to get it at the originally proposed 3K dollar pricerange (ready to shoot out of box). The s35 3K brain is just something that has been lingering in my mind ever since the 13th announcement. No matter the costs and therefore price. It's place in the lineup feels like an obvious missing link. Even if it costs more than the 5K or the lowest range EPIC... Compared to the price of a Genesis that's... you know...

 

[diskojerk]

3K S35, the thread that keeps on giving.

 

[Alex Coelho]

I don't understand why you people do not get this. I'll state it in caps again. IT WILL COST RED THE SAME AMOUNT OR MORE TO BUILD A 3K MODULE IN A S35 FORM FACTOR AS A 5K MODULE!!!!!!!

Maybe you need to tone it down a little. No one knows other then Red what their cost will be on manufacturing such a camera so putting it in all caps doesnt' make it so. As far as 3k s35, Stu over at prolost weighed in on the 3k s35 and is a POV that many of us share.

http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/11/so-jim-called.html

 

[Katty Galloo]

Ok I see some of you don't get my point of view here.
Scarlet 3K is allready there and is perfect!
SO, I AM NOT ASKING A 3K on the S35!
becourse the Scarlet S35 shoots allready anything that is lower than 5K
and you can downscale it in whatever you like 3k,2k,1080,720 and lower.

I just said the S35 has more overal advantages in CMOS quality for a possible scan to 35mm film or direct digital projection in Theatre on hardisk. thats my point. So why not getting the best out of your cam if you can afford it and if of course you can use it! Why do you think they build such a big sensors. If small would be good enoug. :w00t:

Euro Girl

 

[brainburst]

=acoelho1;333128]Maybe you need to tone it down a little. No one knows other then Red what their cost will be on manufacturing such a camera so putting it in all caps doesnt' make it so.

Know one knows the exact dollar cost but the relative cost is logical deduction. Same materials cost, more design costs, more manufacturing costs. Having worked in a fabrication facility.years ago I recognize that there are ongoing costs in every design. It is not simply draw up and manufacture. The 3k sensor at s35 size would be an entirely different fabrication process, an entirely different design, an entirely separate qc etc etc. Not to mention that Jim has gone on record saying as much!
The 4/3 would give everyone here most of what they want in s35 and fit within existing production constraints.

As far as 3k s35, Stu over at prolost weighed in on the 3k s35 and is a POV that many of us share.

Well he is wrong. He compares the 2/3 sensor to super 16. The 10.1mm width of the actual scanning area is slightly smaller than the camera aperture of standard16. So it is really like letterboxed 16.
Super 16 is 12.5 mm wide.
Now here is the absolute killer from his log...

I dared to hope that RED could sell me a sensor half that size with 1/4 the pixels for maybe twice as much

Guess what. Four thirds is exactly what he is asking for!!!! Four thirds is almost exactly half the diagonal size. So if you share his POV then you want four thirds too! I bet he didn't even consider four Thirds. I bet if you asked he'd be on board with four thirds as well.

This is too Funny!!!

 

[Scott M]

Maybe you need to tone it down a little. No one knows other then Red what their cost will be on manufacturing such a camera so putting it in all caps doesnt' make it so.

http://scarletuser.com/showpost.php?p=38692&postcount=36

both the S35 and FF35 sensor alone costs more to fab than the price if the 2/3" camera. Just so you know.

Brainburst, I think you should start a specific 4/3 thread with the definitive argument for the case with specific sensor overlay diagram eye candy like Stu whipped up. You've refuted the same arguments across at least three threads multiple times in each, and people keep throwing them back out.

 

[Alex Coelho]

http://scarletuser.com/showpost.php?p=38692&postcount=36

I am not arguing for 3k s35 for the same price of the 2/3. Clearly, it will cost more to manufacture a s35...the question is how much more and is it doable.