65mm? The plot gets even THICKER?

[Christoffer Glans]

You're still missing the point Nick: of course we can make do, but I'm talking about standards in a very very demanding area of cinema and TV,
not the Bill and Nick show. Think about it, where do you see this going, cut and pasting shit together to make a larger than FF or 65mm format "work"????
Let's think outside our wants. It's a pretty big and demanding biz, and RED knows this and surely must be contemplating how lenses and sensors might harmonize
in a predictable and dependable way for what they see as moving from a rarified space to a ubiquitous "format".

You will probably be able to work with your Red Vista at 6K as you do now with your Dragon. It will probably be 7.5K in Vista format, then cropped down to 6K when using traditional 35mm glass.
The main thing here is options, you can work with your camera either in s35 mode or Vista mode and it will still produce super looking 4K masters. But being able to go FF Vista is a tremendous option for such a small camera.
Actually, who needs 65mm and all the problems it creates when Vista is more supported among most lenses? The resolution is still quite enough for IMAX releases. You might even get a great looking downscaled 6K image with that.

The reason filmmakers shot 65mm film was to get a sharper image with smaller grain. That's not the case in digital. 65mm digital is all about the field of view but I personally prefer Vista/FF as a mid-step between s35mm and 65mm.
The perfect middle ground. Just imagine a 25mm at 2.0 with Vista, magic!

 

[Bill Anderson]

The reason filmmakers shot 65mm film was to get a sharper image with smaller grain. That's not the case in digital. 65mm digital is all about the field of view...

You got the first part right, in a rudimentary sense, but filmmakers and stills guys gravitate to (digital) med format for many of the same - and equally important - reasons as film users once did. And many of us have come from extensive med and large format film backgrounds. "Field of view" is the least of it.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It's probably just an evolution of this concept lens:

 

[Bill Anderson]

May the evolution continue.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

The reason filmmakers shot 65mm film was to get a sharper image with smaller grain. That's not the case in digital. 65mm digital is all about the field of view...

You got the first part right, in a rudimentary sense, but filmmakers and stills guys gravitate to (digital) med format for many of the same - and equally important - reasons as film users once did. And many of us have come from extensive med and large format film backgrounds. "Field of view" is the least of it.

Field of view is the only thing that really makes a difference in digital. A 50mm lens on s35 will have tighter field of view than on a 65mm camera. This will also enable things like a very short DOF in wider images due to lenses having a much wider field of view at higher focal lengths. You might get some improvements on noise and sharpness, but you are already shooting 6K for 4K with the Dragon sensor right now so there won't be much improvements with sharpness.
So, field of view and all that it brings to the image is essentially the core of what 65mm digital is about.

 

[Bill Anderson]

That's a very big assumption as far as the potential specs/performance of a Red 65mm or larger sensor is concerned.

 

[Mark Andersen]

I could see (and would love to see0 one camera for all, super sized sensor and various mounts. Put a Hassy mount on and its a 65mm, put he standard PL mount on and window down the sensor and your back at S35, Canon mount and your somewhere in between, same wth CP2s etc. One big sensor, multiple formats and mounts. Am I crazy? Does someone smarter than me see an engineering problem with this?

 

[Mark Andersen]

I could see (and would love to see) one camera for all, super sized sensor and various mounts. Put a Hassy mount on and its a 65mm, put he standard PL mount on and window down the sensor and your back at S35, Canon mount and your somewhere in between, same wth CP2s etc. One big sensor, multiple formats and mounts. Am I crazy? Does someone smarter than me see an engineering problem with this?

 

[Bill Anderson]

PS: If red were to develop a 65mm sensor and - when compared to their current sensor - all that could be said of it was "it has a different field of view", then there would be something pretty f'd up.

 

[Nick Morrison]

PS: If red were to develop a 65mm sensor and - when compared to their current sensor - all that could be said of it was "it has a different field of view", then there would be something pretty f'd up.

Why would that be f*cked up? By that logic, is the Alexa 65 f*cked up? Its the same Alexa sensor...just three of them stacked vertically.

The result though...is a true IMAX sized sensor, with extra resolution....and yes a much wider field of view. The resulting "medium format" look is a unique way to see the world - a 50mm as a "wide angle"? An 80mm is a "normal lens", ala a 35mm in s35?

Theres a reason Christopher Nolan has been shooting more and more of his features on the Imax format - it clearly fits the "epic" scale of the stories he's trying to tell.

I don't see anything f*cked up about that at all. Choices are always good. It's up to every filmmaker to decide whether he/she chooses to use them.

Stories can't and should'nt always be told the same way.

A modern world deserves a diverse and varied way to portray it.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Who said choosing the Alexa is F'd up? Or even implied that? That is your logic, not mine. To think that there will be no significant image improvement in upcoming larger sensors
and that "field of view" will be the leading reason for there development is ABSURD. But that does not mean using a current/available sensor for these attributes is absurd!
Very different things. If I were to say that I'm looking forward to seeing X, that is not to imply that one would be a fool to use the current Y.

"A modern world deserves a diverse and varied way to portray it"
Agreed, and it should remain modern and continue to aspire to such things.

"Field of view is the only thing that makes the difference in digital" YIKES.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Let's back up: new and larger sensors are pending, it is more than likely they will provide superior/unique image quality - even though the current sensors kick ass and are more than
enough to fulfill most filmmakers' aspirations. But some filmmakers, like "Christopher Nolan", will not only be able to continue exploiting the "field of view" characteristics of larger sensors,
they will also have the option of leveraging the unique image qualities provided by such new and advanced technology.

Now, does that seem like an unreasonable proposal?

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

"Field of view is the only thing that makes the difference in digital" YIKES.

Indeed. There has to be more to it than that. Pixel count, for one.

Random thoughts: if the RED VV sensor is cheaper than the MF still cameras, we will have an interesting marketplace. Of course the Pentax 645Z is almost as cheap as a Nikon D4s, so if you want big and cheap, and you are doing photos only, go Pentax. In fact the Pentax sensor is more suited to IMAX than any 65mm sensor, due to its aspect ratio. So if RED wants to do an IMAX camera, it has to have a sensor with a more normal aspect - but maybe the VV Sensor will be enough.

 

[Dean Butler]

As far as I know filmmakers have struggled with 65mm film shooting dialogue scenes due to the noise (unless you adr) so yhey shoot 35mm. It'd be great if digital could help solve that in the form of a 65mm weapon, Alexa and whatever Panavision are building. I wonder how the match would be shooting digital for dialogue and film for epic scenes...

 

[Matt Hall]

As far as I know filmmakers have struggled with 65mm film shooting dialogue scenes due to the noise (unless you adr) so yhey shoot 35mm. It'd be great if digital could help solve that in the form of a 65mm weapon, Alexa and whatever Panavision are building. I wonder how the match would be shooting digital for dialogue and film for epic scenes...

Explain. Why would ADR be necessary? I don't get it.

 

[Björn Benckert]

PS: If red were to develop a 65mm sensor and - when compared to their current sensor - all that could be said of it was "it has a different field of view", then there would be something pretty f'd up.

Sensor size is relevant in relationship with the cortina (I think that is what it's called) in your own eyes. S35 is pretty equivalent to what you see, super8 is a lot smaller, and 65mm is, well much larger than life... I know which one I want

 

[Paris Remillard]

Explain. Why would ADR be necessary? I don't get it.

Because the cameras are loud. Most large format motion picture cameras weren't designed for sync sound, so the sound of the mechanics of the pull down and film transport are just much noisier than 35mm sync sound cameras.


And on the comments about field of view on medium format, I think some of you are a bit confused on that topic. All you get with a larger format is less depth of field. And in a lot of cases not even that. A 50mm on 645 or 6x7 is

indeed a wide angle lens. But a 50mm designed to cover 645 is usually at least f/2.8 and 6x7 is usually at least f/4. So say you have a 55mm f/2.8 lens on 645. The conversion factor to go from 645 to FF35 is about 1.6x (although

the aspect ratio is also different so it's not a perfect conversion). So that 55mm would have the equivalent FOV to about a 35mm on FF35/VV, where you can easily find 35mm f/1.4 lens. A quick comparison on a DOF calculator

shows that the 55mm at f/2.8 will have a DOF of 2.56 ft. The 35mm at f/1.4 will have a DOF of 2.11 ft. So the equivalent FOV on the smaller format actually has less DOF. And only requires 2 stops, or 4 times less light than the larger sensor to get there.


Spend some time comparing actual existing lenses designed for each format with their FOV equivalents in other formats at maximum aperture settings. You'll find a lot less difference in most cases than you would think. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

There are a few lenses on each camera system in larger formats that do in fact have larger actual apertures, and thus less DOF. But it's only one or two in each system. Like the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9, or the pentax 67 105 f/2.5, or

the Hasselblad 110 f/2. And in a lot of cases those formats get their reputations from those lenses.


And as far as FOV goes, there are much wider angle and much more telephoto lenses designed for the FF35mm/VV format than there are for any other format. So you aren't gaining any FOV advantages with 645 or above.

There are certainly differences in the look of different lenses designed for medium format. But there are distinct differences between the look of different lenses designed by different companies for FF35 or for S35 as well.

And there aren't big matched sets for any format that I know of other than s35 where you have Cookes and Arri/Zeiss that go from very wide to relatively tele with the same apertures (or close to it at the far ends) and look throughout the range


I used to think that the perspective of larger format lenses was different from smaller formats in that the magnification of the background elements was different in larger formats since you were using a longer lens for a wider FOV.

But that’s not true either. Here’s an old thread where a lot of this was discussed in length. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?24639-Myth-busted-larger-sensors-have-thinner-DOF


So, while we would get to use all of the nice larger format lenses that we like with a 65mm or 645 or IMAX sized sensor, the real benefit is resolution. Other than a handful of lenses that would give you crazy shallow DOF.

All this being said, I'd still want one : )

 

[Nick Morrison]

Explain. Why would ADR be necessary? I don't get it.

The 65mm Imax cameras are known to be super loud.

 

[Marc Wielage]

The 65mm Imax cameras are known to be super loud.

It didn't stop Chris Nolan from making Interstellar. There's ways around anything if you have enough time, money, and creativity to come up with solutions and workarounds. I don't see a lot of people jumping on the Alexa 65 bandwagon, simply because the massive workflow files are going to slow post-production down by an enormous amount.

 

[Scott Crawley]

It didn't stop Chris Nolan from making Interstellar. There's ways around anything if you have enough time, money, and creativity to come up with solutions and workarounds. I don't see a lot of people jumping on the Alexa 65 bandwagon, simply because the massive workflow files are going to slow post-production down by an enormous amount.

For a few years or so that shouldn't surprise anyone I guess. Arri's model is perhaps better equipped to produce a more niché product like 65 might be for the time being.

I suppose that also makes a case for Red to stick with 645 over 65, not that the difference in overhead is so terribly great.