Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

4:3 Epic

I think 1.34X anamorphics is an idea whose time has come. Vantage claims they can convert their Hawk V-series 2X anamorphics, but I have yet to hear of anyone taking them up on the offer, or any rental house buying a set that way. Joe Dunton was considering building a set, but then he was bought out by Panavision before that happened.

I say 1.34X because 1.7777777... (i.e. 16/9) x 1.34 = 2.3822221
 
agcohn said:
Film lenses are designed the way they are, because 4x3 is the standard for 35mm film, and has been for a century.
Click to expand...

To be accurate, 4-perf 35mm movie film has a 1.33 : 1 (4x3) shape... 8-perf 35mm still film is 1.5 : 1 (3x2). Spherical lenses can cover all sorts of aperture shapes, but the 2X anamorphics by Chretien back in the 1920's were originally designed with the 4x3 35mm 4-perf movie frame in mind.
 
What would be really epic:

An oversized 16:9 sensor that is at least 16mm tall (28.44mm wide).

Scope fans get a very similar experience

S35 shooting would still have a healthy 'look around'

Plate shooter can with MP and still lenses (and probably red lenses) shoot really oversized super highrez material.

2.35 non scope fans can have a wider rather than smaller option!

everyone wins!!

Michael Lindsay
 
Hi Michael,

I've been championing that for ages but no one seems to get it. I agree with you completely; that seems to be the best solution for everyone.
 
A bit OT, but I think as far as the term "Epic" is concerned, I think Christopher Nolan just raised the bar considerably with the IMAX sequences in The Dark Knight. As much as I love scope films, those 15 perf 70 sequences simply quenched a thirst I've had for a long time, and now I can't look back; theres a time and place for everything, and IMAX definitely should now be considered for at LEAST if not all the major action sequences for Hollywood blockbusters in the future...

Epic is obviously RED's attempt to maximize the capabilities of the super 35mm format in a digital format, which is more than admirable of course, but after that.. (and this is far off I know) I hope RED has something down the pipeline that is far beyond super 35mm and would rival IMAX.
 
You have to decide if you want to go beyond the coverage of Super-35 lenses and thus get into building new optics or adapting medium-format lenses.

Dalsa's sensor is 34mm wide instead of 24mm wide, so wider-angle PL-mount optics and zooms will vignette, hence they built some lenses in that range that will cover their sensor (longer focal lengths seem to cover the 34mm area fine.) I'm not sure if the 34mm wide sensor was deliberate or just a byproduct of adapting a sensor created for some other product like a scanner or telecine.

My feeling is either stick to the 24mm-wide Super-35 area that most cine lenses will cover... or make a serious jump to the medium-format sizes of VistaVision or 65mm cameras (as the Phantom 65 does, for example). But then be prepared to start building new lenses for the camera, or adapting older medium-format lenses.

And if your plan involves new optics anyway, then why not stick to 24mm wide and just make the sensor 4x3 (18mm tall) and use 2X anamorphics, or keep to the current 24mm x 14mm 16x9 size and build 1.34X anamorphic optics?

Or, I guess, you could make the sensor 18mm tall, to allow people to use 2X anamorphics, but make it 16x9 so that you'd crop the sides for anamorphic photography or 4x3 photography. So that would be a 32mm x 18mm sensor.

So 2X anamorphic shooters would get to use a 22mm x 18mm area of the sensor, more or less the same area they are using now in 4-perf 35mm for anamorphic. 16x9 shooters could use a larger area if they wanted to.

By my calculations, that would make the 32mm wide sensor roughly 6K across if it more or less is the 4.5K RED sensor (24mm wide) expanded to 32mm wide, or roughly a 20MP sensor if 16x9. Actually it would be similar to the Dalsa sensor in size (which is 34mm x 17mm) but be 6K instead of 4K, if you kept the same size and distance between photosites as on the current RED sensor.

But if EPIC is really aimed at normal production work, I'm not sure they should venture outside of Super-35 lens coverage. They should stick to a 24mm wide sensor (or slightly bigger actually so the actual recorded area is 24mm wide, not 22mm as with current 4K recording, but still have the lookaround area.) Maybe a 26mm x 15mm sensor...
 
David, I think the new Mysterium X is going to be more dense resulting in even higher "K" resolution for the 32x18 mm sensor. I base this on the fact that Scarlet is going to be 3K in a 2/3" sensor and EPIC is going to be at least 5K for the same size S35 sensor as Red One. This would make Your point even stronger - I am with You on that one. Personally, I would prefer 16:9 sensor with 1.33x anamorphic glass. This would satisfy majority of people...

Just my two pesos :)
 
David Mullen ASC said:
My feeling is either stick to the 24mm-wide Super-35 area that most cine lenses will cover... or make a serious jump to the medium-format sizes of VistaVision or 65mm cameras (as the Phantom 65 does, for example). But then be prepared to start building new lenses for the camera, or adapting older medium-format lenses.

And if your plan involves new optics anyway, then why not stick to 24mm wide and just make the sensor 4x3 (18mm tall) and use 2X anamorphics
Click to expand...

I think this is right on.

I'm telling you guys right now, the ability to shoot 4x3 is going to be very important. IMAX is about to really take off and fulfill the promise we all thought it had 20 years ago. No one who has seen the Dark Knight on IMAX is going to disagree. Not to mention anamorphics.

What is the downside to 4x3? If you want to shoot different aspect ratios, why not just have a windowed sensor? You're still getting the same resolution in terms of vertical lines - 5K or whatever.
 
Well, the only downside is extra cost and more data to process and manage with a taller sensor, which in turn affects choice of frame rates, etc.

I'd guess that even though the Arri-D20 has a 4x3 sensor, 99% of the users only used the 16x9 slice of it, partly because the RAW output only recently as been implemented. But even so, I suspect that the majority of users will still only use a 16x9 slice.

Besides, you could shoot for IMAX with a 16x9 image and let it be slightly letterboxed.

Anyway, I think a camera specifically designed to be a digital IMAX camera, while it should have a 4x3 sensor, it should also be at least 6K just to be radically better than a 4K digital camera.

But I'm all for a 4x3 sensor, or one that is 18mm tall, because I'm one of those people who like shooting with anamorphic lenses.

So let's dream and say that the EPIC will have a 4x3 sensor that is 26mm x 19mm (for look around capability) and has 5K's worth of pixels within the 24mm-wide (Super-35) picture area. And it will have an uncompressed output option.

Of course, that's a 19MP-to-20MP sensor, compared to RED's current 11MP-ish. Lot more data to deal with.

And that there will be an IMAX version that has a larger 4x3 sensor that is at least 6K across and uses medium format lenses. Now you're talking about at least 27MP...
 
David Mullen ASC said:
So let's dream and say that the EPIC will have a 4x3 sensor that is 26mm x 19mm (for look around capability) and has 5K's worth of pixels within the 24mm-wide (Super-35) picture area. And it will have an uncompressed output option.

Of course, that's a 19MP-to-20MP sensor, compared to RED's current 11MP-ish. Lot more data to deal with.

And that there will be an IMAX version that has a larger 4x3 sensor that is at least 6K across and uses medium format lenses. Now you're talking about at least 27MP...
Click to expand...

Hallelujah, Brother Mullen!
icon14.gif


Jannard! are you reading this?? :)
 
As far as IMAX goes, while it would be cool to consider Epic the IMAX capable camera, I still contend there should be an even larger beast that isn't limited by the 35mm format. New Lenses, new projector, new everything. No limitations. And while we're at it, just toss in an enormous IMAX sized 10k sensor FTW.

Also, has anyone heard any details about the new digital projection IMAX is planning to transition to?
 
Sure, we all want that. But let's face it - that 35mm 4K stuff from Dark Knight looked pretty good on an IMAX screen. Epic might look better, and its ratio - if it is 4:3 - is also much more suited to IMAX.

IMAX is already claiming they are going to run 4K projection. So, Epic would seem ideal for this. Even if you were just shooting lions in Africa for an IMAX movie or whatever.
 
Tom, where did you hear about them doing 4k? Thats pretty disappointing if they are going to replace all of their film projectors with digital 4k...*groan*. As much as I love 4k, it still stands no chance against IMAX.

I agree that the 35mm stuff did look incredible, but not in the same ballpark of the IMAX stuff. After a while I'll admit I didn't notice the transitions a few times, but when I did notice them, it was usually when I realized how sharp the IMAX stuff was, rather than the 35mm being softer, which is good.

Also good point about Epic; it would look pretty damn good in 5k glory on an IMAX screen. Just the pessimist in me hopes that they don't abandon the standard of 15 perf 70 behind and settle for lesser digital formats in the future.
 
It seems that the real argument is which side people choose.

16:9- windowed/crop anamorphic
4:3- windowed/crop 16:9

Whatever RED chooses, we all win, because they will have complete system(lens, end to end delivery from camera to screen,etc.), for Epic!

I think 4:3 is better by the way. :) lol
 
Craig, a lot of us agree with you. 4K is totally lame for IMAX digital. It needs to be 8K, IMO. To really mimic 15/65, maybe 10K.

Hopefully IMAX is not talking about "replacing" 15-perf 65mm, but rather, just saving money on the DMR from 35mm or CGI films. As David Mullen has pointed out, upressing a 4K movie to 15-perf IMAX is a total waste.

But hey, a 20MP 4:3 digital image, well exposed, might really play well on that screen, projected digitally. Who knows. I'd love to see a 4:3 4K image (captured at 5- or 6K) projected digitally on an IMAX screen. (They are talking about using two 2K projectors).

The only camera I can think of, right now, that can shoot those specs would be a hassy or a 1DsM3 doing timelapse downsampled to 4K. Dalsa is Bayer 4K, right?, so it's not a "true 4k" and it's certainly not 5K.

If anyone can arrange a screening, I can probably arrange some 4K 4:3 footage downsampled from 5- or 6K. :)
 
Just to recap, there's no word yet from the back room about the choice of 4x3 over 16:9 for Epic? As I first understood, Epic MysteriumX for Epic was 16:9. If that was their intention, then I guess, like me, the other contributors to this thread will hope J J changes his mind!
 
Great points Tom, I'm with you 100%.

I can see now why they are deciding to implement 4k for the 35mm DMR stuff...David Mullen makes a great point, as usual.

I for one would love to see some of you time lapse stuff projected like that. I guess we have to wait and see what Epic has to offer so we can see what live action 5k footage would look like in comparison to the 35mm DMR 4k.
 
You hit lens limitations very quickly at 70mm. The biggest advantage you get with 70mm is the grain size is much smaller relative the resolving power of the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top