Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

#4K4ALL

Status
Not open for further replies.
For RED to keep the prices down, they have had to take a body they already developed, the Weapon, and put cheaper guts in there. That is to say that, by using the Weapon body dimensions, they are tied to the flange distance that was developed for the Epic way back when, as those bodies can all use the same lens mounts. A M4/3 mount needs a much shorter flange distance than what's offered on the RED bodies, so I believe it's safe to say, it's not going to happen.
That's not to say that a company couldn't come up with an optic adapter to EF with some lens elements that would allow a shorter flange distance mount. But that also carry its inherent disadvantages.

But Micro 4/3's on this camera will happen when pigs fly over a frozen hell...
 
Michael Hastings said:
The whole idea of FF35 as the reference is that their were hundreds of millions of cameras made that used FF35 as the frame size and 10s of millions of people that used FF35 cameras with interchangeable lenses where they had some idea of what focal lengths represented in terms of FOV.

But I agree that crop factor has become more confusing than useful - particularly since it has been almost fifteen years since digital SLRs have taken over and APS-C has actually been more common than Full Frame. Most newcomers don't have that FF35 reference any more.
Click to expand...

Daniel Stilling said:
It's true when it comes to still photography.
When it comes to motion pictures, Super 35 has been the standard for a really long time. And DP's (not still photographers) have the FOV of S35 lenses burned into their brains and retinas.
Yes, they have sold millions of cameras in FF35, but those are stills cameras. And later, with digital, those Stills cameras started to do video on the side. But they have never been the standard in motion picture.
Stills - FF35
Motion Picture (Cinema) - S35
Click to expand...


Have to fully wholeheartedly agree with Daniel - To me 'Full Frame' means Super35 motion, either 3perf or 4perf (but that's splitting hairs). This whole talk of crop factor, is meaningless to me and just muddies the water. Motion for the most part (yes there are exceptions) has been built on 35mm film that travels through the camera at right angles to what still 35mm film travels. The frame has always been smaller.

In my mind this conversation splits film makers into two groups: pre and post digital revolution.
 
Scott Crawley said:
If it is confusing for people now think of how much more difficult it would be if a second crop factor were also commonly used.
Click to expand...

That is why, when it comes to MOTION PICTURE CAMERAS, Super 35 should be used. Using FF35 is such a 5D generation thing...
 
Michael Jarvis said:
How much smaller is the Raven sensor compared to Scarlet MX? I know the Raven is in between M4/3 and S35...I can't recall how much bigger the Scarlet MX sensor size is.

Everything looks great with this cam....if it were S35 I would jump on it without question. A little concerned about the sensor size though.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Nice tool from Red in the middle of the page to check the size, crop factor etc.
http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/photographer-intro-video
 
Daniel Stilling said:
That is why, when it comes to MOTION PICTURE CAMERAS, Super 35 should be used. Using FF35 is such a 5D generation thing...
Click to expand...

Should all hybrid camera manufacturers then be using a different crop factor to describe each mode of shooting? It isn't just a DSLR thing. Motion picture cameras that shoot a variety of formats are the norm now. The writing seems to be on the wall with regard to larger formats; once they are economically viable everyone will be using them daily. What then would be the basis for choosing S35 as a standard crop factor?
 
Michael Jarvis said:
Not to confuse...but isn't Dragon at 4k 1.87 not 1.23
Click to expand...

Daniel thinks it would make more sense to compare to S35. But you're right. It's 1.87x from FF which is what should be said for the moment not to confuse people. But his way of thinking makes sense.
 
Ben Scott said:
People who are getting confused should learn what S35 is to be honest.
Click to expand...

That is true enough... And crop factors are so off-putting.

Know your formats... All of them! While you are at it, memorize the DOF tables for each.

If I had my druthers I would shoot 65mm exclusively and the entire subject would be moot.
 
Michael Jarvis said:
Not to confuse...but isn't Dragon at 4k 1.87 not 1.23
Click to expand...

What Daniel is saying is we shoot motion primarily, not stills. The reference should be the standard for the majority of motion pictures that have been shot, which is S35.

A 50mm Canon still lens on Raven is only a 1.23x crop compared to a 50mm Master Prime on an Arriflex 435 shooting 3-perf S35mm film.

No DP in the history of the world has chosen to shoot FF DSLR over S35 film because of film's crop factor compared to FF35 stills.
 
Last edited:
Brian Boyer said:
What Daniel is saying is we shoot motion primarily, not stills. The reference should be the standard for the majority of motion pictures that have been shot, which is S35.

A 50mm Canon still lens on Raven is only a 1.23x crop compared to a 50mm Master Prime on an Arriflex 435 shooting 3-perf S35mm film.

No DP in the history of the world has shot FF DSLR over S35 film because of film's crop factor compared to FF stills.
Click to expand...


Yea, I know what he was saying. I totally get it. I just did not read his previous threads referencing relating it to S35. Totally get it and understand. I support that.

My original question had nothing to do with that. I really was just asking how it compares to Scarlet MX. I now know....but it was fun to throw a little fuel on the fire :)

I support his perspective though. I agree, relating it to S35 is a good thing to do though there will be confusion for some.
 
"Crop factor" mainly exists because someone knows the field of view characteristics of certain focal lengths for a format they are familiar with, so need to convert that figure to find out what focal length to use on a format that are less familiar with.

But I'm surprised that SO many people shoot FF35 that they are so familiar with that format's field of view and need everything else converted to it. For moviemakers, Super-35 or standard 35mm cine has been the most common format, and for digital still shooters, many of them are using APS-C cameras, and video has traditionally used 2/3" or smaller sensors... so that sort of leaves older FF35 still film camera people and whoever owns FF35 digital still cameras. But I can't believe that's the majority of people taking pictures or shooting video today, so it is odd, this obsession over equating everything to FF35.

Personally, I have to do the reverse thing, I'm so used to what an 18mm or a 50mm gives me on a Super-35 camera that I have to figure out what to use in FF35.

But either way, using a crop factor to compare to Super-35 is non-standard so if you are going to do that, you just have to define your terms, you can't assume that everyone is going to know that "1.23X" refers to a Super-35 instead of FF35 crop factor.
 
Daniel Stilling said:
That is why, when it comes to MOTION PICTURE CAMERAS, Super 35 should be used. Using FF35 is such a 5D generation thing...
Click to expand...

Scott Crawley said:
Should all hybrid camera manufacturers then be using a different crop factor to describe each mode of shooting? It isn't just a DSLR thing. Motion picture cameras that shoot a variety of formats are the norm now. The writing seems to be on the wall with regard to larger formats; once they are economically viable everyone will be using them daily. What then would be the basis for choosing S35 as a standard crop factor?
Click to expand...

I don't see "one solution" to the format size confusion, equation, understanding, and naming convention. I'm just old enough to have worked with most major motion picture film formats. Super 35mm has been the dominant format for general production for a long time. Specifically 4-perf and eventually 3-perf. However, I've worked with VistaVision cameras and it is indeed another format I have a lot of love for. We used to just describe it as 35mm 8-perf. Similarly the various flavors of 65mm. 5-perf is/was most common and 15-perf for 70mm IMAX.

The term FF35 did indeed spawn from the tremendous popularity of the 5D Mark II used for motion work. That was an amazing time when Nikon dropped info that they were doing video in a DSLR and Canon responded by essentially slamming it into their new model, though extremely "gimped" from the get go. That format is actually 135 Film. It's been called that since the 1930s and essentially became the most popular still camera format. For me it's all VistaVision/8-Perf & FF35/135 Film at this point with the slight variations in negative size between them.

The actual term "full frame" as far as I can tell just meant to "full possible negative size" of the usable format. Appropriately used by RED by the way to describe the maximum format for each resolution (6K FF for instance). Glad RED still makes sense :)

Crop factor is the funny thing about all of this. While it's relevant it's also ONLY relevant to the format you are starting from. Meaning, if you are used to shooting S35 it means "one thing", if you are used to FF35 it means "another". Heck if you are used to S16 it's also another thing as well as shooting 65mm. I've included in my RED DSMC Field Ops Guide numbers to start your crop factor from both S35 and FF35 because of this if you're curious.

The best I could do visually clarify the format sizes is with "Phil's Sensor Chart", which has most major motion picture film formats as well as some of the popular digital formats:

phfx_SensorChart2014.jpg


Personal side note, that's always why Dragon's pixel pitch is so damn smart as it generally is resolving the same approximate resolution as modern film stocks per each format. Clever stuff.

I've worked with the different formats a lot over the years. Productions that shot on various formats and "needing to match" is basically one place where "Crop Factor" was born. Having the precise number is extremely useful for "true matching". In my life it was necessary for Visual Effects on feature films.

HOWEVER, much like the DPs I learned from throughout the early part of my career, I find it's easier to have a "general mindset" about format size using ONE THING.

What is my "normal lens"? Which means, which is the approximate focal length that equates to a similar FOV of the general human experience.

The way that works out for me is:

S16 - 25mm (3/4-perf)
S35 - 35mm (3/4-perf)
FF35 - 50mm (8-perf)
65mm - 80mm (5-perf)
70mm - 110mm (15-perf)

This is a practical "DP" way to look at these formats in my experience. Or at least it's what has worked for me without freaking out about the hard numbers.

There are different lenses designed for every format. Remember MFT is a "new" format created for digital. As others have mentioned, the flange depth is damn shallow. Same for E-Mount for that matter. So making a native mount would be very tricky and for essentially minimal gain. There are more FF35 lenses out there than anything and that's where the most options are for shooters today. Heck there's a lot of S35 glass too in reality as it's close to APS-C.

Anyways back to Raven :)

To get the most out of Raven I'd lean towards S35/APS-C glass if there's a 4K Dragon sensor in there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top