addressing a non-issue: major features shot with 2/3 sensor

[proaudio4]

It's about 3 F-stops down. So 2/3" at F2.8 would be like Super 35 at F8.



Physical size alone. Resolution does not really affect depth of field. Neither does sensor size, directly. Sensor size indirectly affects depth of field, because a larger sensor forces you to use a longer lens, or a shorter camera-to-subject distance (pick one) for the same angle of view. Both focal length and focal distance directly affect depth of field.

More about a 2/3" sensor here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11788

Thanks for the response.
I see you cropped my original question which was "Scarlet, with its 2/3" sensor shooting 3K images at f2.8 with a given field of view, how would the DOF compare to RED ONE at the same field of view, shooting 3K at f2.8?"

My question was not on overall DOF, it's obvious the RED ONE would offer tighter DOF.

Using 3K with the RED ONE at f2.8, since the RED ONE crops the 3K image from its sensor, i'm wondering how close Scarlet would be at the SAME field of view at f2.8?

 

[combatentropy]

you cropped my original question

I just can't help it

how would the DOF compare to RED ONE at the same field of view, shooting 3K at f2.8

Well, you seem smart, I bet you could have done the math. But here we go:

Red at 4.5K (not a possible shooting mode yet) is Super 35, 24.4 x 13.7mm.
3K = 3/4.5K = 67% of the full chip.

67% of 24.4 mm = 16.27 mm
67% of 13.7 mm = 9.18 mm

That's still bigger even than Super 16 (12.5 x 7.4 mm), which in turn is bigger than 2/3", which is 9.6 x 5.4 mm.

So since I was estimating 2/3" + 3 F-stops = Super 35, and I know that Super 16 + 2.5 F-stops = Super 35, I'm going to guess Red with its funky size when shooting 3K + just 1.5 or 2 F-stops = super 35. So 2/3" + 1 or 1.5 F-stops should equal Red at 3K.

Or, at the same F-stop, it's going to be about twice as much depth of field.

 

[Buck Forester]

Trying to say say cinema people "don't need" interchangeable lenses is like saying that professional still photographers should just shoot on point-and-click digi cameras. No one in their right mind would argue that.

Hi Tom! I think the point is this... speaking of digital point-n-shoot still photography... if Canon came out with a 21 MP camera that shot RAW format with a fixed quality lens (say 10X or something) for only $400, it would be fantastic for even pro photographers. I would say over 90% of my images are shot with a Canon 17-40mm lens. If that lens was welded onto a Canon 1DS Mark III and sold for $1000, don't you think pros would jump all over it? At least landscape photographers would for sure. I certainly would. One could make a very good living shooting that way. That's the way I look at the Scarlet. Amazing resolution, RAW capabilities, ridiculously low priced. If I also shot wildlife or sports and needed tele lenses, I'd have to either bring another camera or simply buy the high-priced interchangeable lens camera and lug around extra lenses in my pack. It wouldn't seem necessary to make a small camera ("pocket") if one were to defeat the purpose of the size and have to carry around multiple lenses anyway. I wonder why Scarlet is receiving all the flak for a fixed lens when the Canons, Pannys, JVCs, Sonys, etc., all have fixed lenses on cameras over twice this price point with less resolution and no RAW and people simply slap 35mm adaptors on them without complaint? I'm relatively new to all this and I've been gobbling up as much as I can the last few months on various dv forums and I've never seen anything like I've seen the last couple of days regarding Scarlet, when it's actually an amazing gadget with no peer. Well, I guess it's just an "announced" product with no peer, ha! But still.

 

[QManning]

It's all about the glass, man. Why can't some of you get that through your head? It's not about the amazing chip or the resolution, it's about the glass. Footage shot on an HVX with it's standard lens looks FAR INFERIOR to the same camera outfitted with a RedRock or Brevis and a solid 35mm lens.

I don't know why you guys have such a hard time understanding this.

 

[Buck Forester]

It's all about the glass, man. Why can't some of you get that through your head?

So you're telling me you wouldn't enjoy a good beer from a plastic cup?

 

[kmikami]

It's all about the glass, man. Why can't some of you get that through your head? It's not about the amazing chip or the resolution, it's about the glass. Footage shot on an HVX with it's standard lens looks FAR INFERIOR to the same camera outfitted with a RedRock or Brevis and a solid 35mm lens.

Lol! Wha? If it's all about the glass then how does adding extra glass on top of the HVX's built-in lens improve the image? And wouldn't Scarlet's image be similarly "improved" by adding the same adapter and 35mm lens?