4:3 Epic

[Pawel Achtel]

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.

You also gain from the fact that the larger negative image is being enlarged less compared to a smaller format.

This is nonsense. I totally disagree with you guys :bleh:

1. There are no 70mm lenses that are widely available or affordable or in half decent selection or in any mass market quantities. I will stay with Master Primes over any medium format lens, thank you.

2. Large format makes it a nightmare for DOF. It is too shallow for most subjects.

3. The size of the body would mean the camera would be bulky and heavy - not always good to get a good shot.

4. 4k is more than enough for IMAX. 4k is a data bandwidth nightmare anyway. You would gain more noticeable quality by extending the dynamic range or refresh rate. 60Hz would be a good start. 8k? 10k? I don't think you comprehend the problems this would create. 4k is not suffering from being soft, for god's sake, I don't know what it is that you are trying to achieve. It is like having audio sampled at 1MHz - it would be (much) higher quality and who cares!

5. Most of your 35mm gear would be obsolete. Is this really what you want?

6. If you can't afford decent S35mm glass, do you really need a camera that requires medium format lenses that no one can produce with desired quality and quantity? I propose that a decent PL lens, like a MP has higher MTF than any IMAX lens out there.

IMAX sized sensor sounds like complete and utter waste of money for no good reason whatsoever.

OK, time to hide before fertilizer hits the ventilator :innocent:

 

[Joseph Ward]

I understand people who invested in S35 PL lenses want Epic to be compatible. It just seems to me that Epic should be a whole new camera with new products(lenses). RED is making Scarlet to be 2/3 chip and wont have interchangeable lens or upgradeable, so why Epic should be practically the same as Red One. Red One will always have sensor upgrades anyway. I never read from RED that Epic will be 16:9 or 4:3(only FULL FRAME S35MM NEW MYSTERIUM X SENSOR) and even if they did(16:9 or 4:3), RED still decides what can be changed. If people who wanted anamorphic for RedOne still can use the camera for it why not Epic be the same but in reverse? All who want 16:9 can use Epic even if it is 4:3. That way you can still use your old lenses.:w00t:



It is great that we can argue these things now. Remeber Film verses Digital? Now its Digital verses Digital. Thanks to RED!

 

[Tom Lowe]

4k is more than enough for IMAX. 4k is a data bandwidth nightmare anyway. You would gain more noticeable quality by extending the dynamic range or refresh rate. 60Hz would be a good start. 8k? 10k? I don't think you comprehend the problems this would create. 4k is not suffering from being soft, for god's sake, I don't know what it is that you are trying to achieve. It is like having audio sampled at 1MHz - it would be (much) higher quality and who cares!

Pawel, my good friend, I can't agree with you on this.

I think most of us agree that 4K is a good resolution at which to scan 35mm cine film. If that is the case, then a 15-perf IMAX neg holds more like 20K, or higher! The AC article about Dark Knight mentioned a number of 18K for 15-perf IMAX, but it was unclear exactly what they were talking about.

In any case, 8- or 10K seems much more appropriate for "Digital IMAX" IMO.

That is not to say that 4K cannot hold up on an IMAX screen - because in fact, that is what many of us are hoping for with a 4:3 Epic sensor.

 

[Joseph Ward]

Tom, Epic would be the Ultimate if it was 70mm equivalent! The camera would be one Huge MoFo though.lol:gun:

 

[Tom Lowe]

I understand people who invested in S35 PL lenses want Epic to be compatible.

Is there a reason why a S35 PL mount could not be made to work with Epic if it was 4:3, or are you talking about a larger sensor (which seems less likely at this point)?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If we all start shooting regular movies on 4K Bayer cameras, then how is IMAX going to be radically better looking in comparison if we also shoot IMAX movies on these same 4K Bayer cameras? People need something they can't get normally.

And larger sensor areas do compensate for lower MTF characteristics of medium format optics. Just look at some 65mm footage shot on some 30 year old lenses compared to 35mm footage shot on modern Master Primes. It's not just an issue of getting less grain. If you have double the amount of information being recorded, the lens could be half as sharp and you'll end up with the same level of detail, so even if the lens is 75% as sharp as the Master Primes, you end up with more fine detail recorded on the larger negative. Plus that larger image is enlarged less to fill the same size screen. You can't match that level of resolution just by using a sharper lens on a 35mm camera.

 

[Joseph Ward]

Is there a reason why a S35 PL mount could not be made to work with Epic if it was 4:3, or are you talking about a larger sensor (which seems less likely at this point)?

I meant 4:3 S35 since it would benefit all, but I wouldnt mind if it were 70mm equivalent! :biggrin:

 

[Peter Majtan]

I have said this before - the giant movie screens on steroids don't mean much to me and I don't count them as IMAX. I can just sit in any of the 5 front rows in a 4K digital theatre and get the same experience...

Fo me IMAX is the "original" Dome-Imax. A completely different experience from "normal" cinema. It is not about the resolution - it is about Your entire field of vision being covered by image. I still remember the first time I saw Everest in the Dome-IMAX in Paris, back in 1997. That was awesome...

IMAX is not about the resolution, it is about the different experience...

Just my two pesos...

EDIT: With the planar screens Your brain gets the reference You are watching a movie. In the dome that complete lack of any surface/edge reference due to the dome curvature of the screen gives You a complete immersion into the movie. In that particular movie (Everest) I saw people around me (including me!) grabbing onto the seat handles feeling we are going to fall over in some shots...

 

[Paris Remillard]

I'm glad that this is being discussed, because when I suggested the idea of different formats when people were still cranky after NAB, I got torn a new a-hole for it. But Vistavision makes the most sense in terms of flexibility to me.
If the sensor were Vistavision sized, you wouldn't have to go to medium format lenses. There is a huge amount of fantastic stills 35mm lenses that, because of economies of scale, could be easily and cheaply adapted to cine use. Or be used with something like the Birger solution(if it ever ships and works), with no adaptation to the lens needed.

It may even be cheaper to make the sensor because it is a standard still camera format.

To quote part of what I posted before:

"I'd honestly like a camera(EPIC or not) with a vistavision/full frame stills (36x24mm) sized sensor. a Vistavision sensor size would still be less physical area horizontally (36(ish)mm) than the relative width of cinemascope after unsqueeze (43(ish)mm). So the desire isn't any more outlandish than the desire for anamorphic, in terms of format size. The larger sensor size would just allow close to the same horizontal FOV and DOF of 'scope, with spherical lenses. Use stills 35mm lenses (or make the Red lenses with a larger image circle) for full coverage, or cine 35mm spherical or 2:1 anamorphics on cropped areas. If it's a 5K sensor, the cine 35mm crops would be 3.33K. If it were a 6K sensor, you'd still get full aperture cine 35mm 4K on the CROP. Lots of options. Or, imagine having an anamorphized(is that even a word) lens on a 36x24mm frame. Now you're into 65mm territory. It would be like having a 65mm, vistavision, full aperture 35mm, super35 , and high-end still camera all in one 6 pound camera. Take full advantage of the flexibility of digital."

 

[Tom Lowe]

Good post, parisrem.

 

[Joseph Ward]

Wow I didn't realize Vistavision!

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel, my good friend, I can't agree with you on this.
I think most of us agree that 4K is a good resolution at which to scan 35mm cine film. If that is the case, then a 15-perf IMAX neg holds more like 20K, or higher! The AC article about Dark Knight mentioned a number of 18K for 15-perf IMAX, but it was unclear exactly what they were talking about.

In any case, 8- or 10K seems much more appropriate for "Digital IMAX" IMO.

That is not to say that 4K cannot hold up on an IMAX screen - because in fact, that is what many of us are hoping for with a 4:3 Epic sensor.

And, Tom, what is the MTF of the ENTIRE IMAX path: filters, lens, negative, post, DI, print, projector, screen? I'd be surprised if it can produce 3k.

You can't see 8k or 10k or 20k. You can see 24fps very easily. It flickers!:w00t: Why not fix that?

 

[Joseph Ward]

Can someone post camparison picture of VistaVision and 4:3 image? Thanx:nerd:

 

[Pawel Achtel]

... If you have double the amount of information being recorded, the lens could be half as sharp and you'll end up with the same level of detail, so even if the lens is 75% as sharp as the Master Primes...

This is not true, David. The MTF of the combined path is bound to the lowest common denominator, not the highest in the path.

Plus that larger image is enlarged less to fill the same size screen.

This is also not true. The physical size of the sensor has nothing to do with the sharpness displayed on the screen. The resolution of the sensor has more to do with this. But higher resolution of the sensor is not going to give you visible difference if all other elements: lens, DI, print, negative, projector and screen do not have sufficient MTF to carry it through. My point is that they don't.

Being an engineer and not beancounter (or pixel counter) I try to improve things where the improvement makes sense. Making 8k or 10k sensor does not make sense because it would not improve the final image quality. It would only be a technical nightmare to implement, store, process and distribute.

Making sensor 70mm would make it expensive and not justified.

Making 70mm sensor and retaining pixel count would make the camera, say ASA 2000 and would require ND 4.0 to shoot during day time. The camera is already very sensitive as it is. This would pose a challenge to linear ND filters and known IR contamination issues.

If I were to improve Red One, I'd use maximum 5k sensor (but preferably 4k), and focused R&D on DR and improving frame rates.

Get rid of that stupid flicker (a.k.a. 24fps) :devil:

OK guys, fire at will

 

[Joseph Ward]

24fps sucks with stereo 3d.:angry2:

 

[Paris Remillard]

Can someone post camparison picture of VistaVision and 4:3 image? Thanx:nerd:

Vistavision is the same size as stills full-frame, 8-perf 35mm. Look at the format comparison chart at the bottom of the second page of Brook's Red One FAQ:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1487&page=2

Vistavision would be the same as the green stills full frame, the first image.
Full aperture 4:3 cine 35mm would be half of that, 18x24(ish)mm, 4-perf. Since 35mm film moves through a standard motion picture camera vertically, the image can only be as wide as the Vistavision frame is tall. Vistavision has horizontal pull-down, as do 35mm still cameras, so the image is the same size on both.

I guess that there's not a 4:3 cine format listed in that chart, but it would be about the same width as the Mysterium or crop dSLRs, but slightly taller.

Just take the first image, cut it in half and lay that over the original. It's half of the physical area.

There's also a good chart here: http://www.photozone.de/sensor-dimensions
Also doesn't have cine 4:3, but APS is very close. Just add 2mm to the vertical.

 

[Robert Sanders]

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

Agreed. As long as the sensor has the proper height for the anamorphic lenses to focus on I'd be thrilled. If the sensor is wider then it makes all the 16x9/1.85 folks happy too.

 

[Paris Remillard]

Is my math right in thinking that if the Epic/Mysterium X sensor was cut from the same wafer used to make the 3K 2/3" Scarlet sensor, it would be around 8K horizontally assuming the same 24.4mm width of the current Mysterium (or 12K if we're playing with the idea of Vistavision)? I don't know how the hell you'd move all of that data, but...
That does allow for nearly 2x larger photosites at 5-6K for less noise, greater sensitivity, etc... And since Jim said that Scarlett will have greater DR than Red One, that's not a bad direction to be heading.

 

[Joseph Ward]

Thanks Parisrem. Since RED stated that Epic is going to be S35mm full frame I guess VistaVision(still full frame) seems out of the question:waaa:

Ohh is it just me but does VistaVision look like 65/70mm?:detective2:

 

[Tom Lowe]

And, Tom, what is the MTF of the ENTIRE IMAX path: filters, lens, negative, post, DI, print, projector, screen? I'd be surprised if it can produce 3k.

You can't see 8k or 10k or 20k. You can see 24fps very easily. It flickers!:w00t: Why not fix that?

LOL...Dude, what are you talking about! That IMAX neg is almost the size of a freekin business card. What are you saying, that they are using the bottoms of coke bottles as lenses? Because unless they are, I don't see how they would be losing anywhere near that kind of resolution. I don't even think they do DIs on 15-perf IMAX pictures.