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 :)

Dragon Lens Coverage Information

Yep and I think the Cookes will do just fine at 6K for the most part. They are on my list the next time I have a Dragon in my hands. Don't know when that's gonna be and hopefully some footage will come out of the next bit of testing with the fire breather. Kinda want to show off the DR and resolution from both a REDCODE RAW and graded/delivery perspective. We'll see. I'll ping Jarred.
 
Well just know you have a set from me next time you do a test.

Also, this should be a sticky in the 'lenses' section as well. It's too informative and well done to not be.
 
Hey Phil,
So my BIG question is gonna be if you guys have tested DRAGON with the 'RED PRO ZOOM 18-85' ???

Seeing as it's the only lens I own, I'm dying to know how it and the dragon will play together:grouphug:
 
Mike Nagel said:
Phil,

what frame size did you use for the S35 crop factor calculation ? 24.89mm x 18.66mm ?

- M
Click to expand...

I think I'm going to update my crop factor stuff a bit to reflect what's going on within a 3-perf Super 35mm frame. I feel mostly because we don't necessary work in a 4:3 world any more that there's no real benefit to using that extra height when dealing with common motion picture aspect ratios.

It holds a bit of relevance in anamorphic of course, but the new height of Dragon nearly gets there, so again, not a huge deal.
 
Also, a relevant graphic I made some time ago showing S35 3-perf size relative to Dragon:

phfx_redDragon_DragonAndFilmFormats.png
 
Phil Holland said:
I think I'm going to update my crop factor stuff a bit to reflect what's going on within a 3-perf Super 35mm frame. I feel mostly because we don't necessary work in a 4:3 world any more that there's no real benefit to using that extra height when dealing with common motion picture aspect ratios.

It holds a bit of relevance in anamorphic of course, but the new height of Dragon nearly gets there, so again, not a huge deal.
Click to expand...

Phil,

thanks.

Reason I asked was b/c I got slightly different numbers with the S35 frame - the 35 FF numbers matched...

crop @ 6K (6144 h w/ 5 micron pixel pitch) vs. S35 4-perf (24.89mm x 18.66mm): 0.81 (rounded to 2 dec)
crop @ 6K (6144 h w/ 5 micron pixel pitch) vs. S35 3-perf (21.95mm x 13.9mm): 0.71 (rounded to 2 dec)

wasn't sure whether some of my data was off (S35 image area etc)...

Thanks for all of the graphics ! Really helpful !

- M
 
Mike Nagel said:
Phil,

thanks.

Reason I asked was b/c I got slightly different numbers with the S35 frame - the 35 FF numbers matched...

crop @ 6K (6144 h w/ 5 micron pixel pitch) vs. S35 4-perf (24.89mm x 18.66mm): 0.81 (rounded to 2 dec)
crop @ 6K (6144 h w/ 5 micron pixel pitch) vs. S35 3-perf (21.95mm x 13.9mm): 0.71 (rounded to 2 dec)

wasn't sure whether some of my data was off (S35 image area etc)...

Thanks for all of the graphics ! Really helpful !

- M
Click to expand...

Interesting. It's not exactly 5 microns from my numbers, but based on the physical sensor size used I calculate 3-perf landing at .75 with a diagonal of 26mm.

Dragon's sensor is: 30.7x15.8mm.

Either way we're alarmingly close depending on how you dice it. I'll add the .75 number up for the time being on 3-perf.
 
Phil Holland said:
Dragon's sensor is: 30.7x15.8mm.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that it was a dead even 5 micron pitch, but that could be incorrect. 6144 * 0.005 = 30.72mm so I wasn't sure if they rounded the press release numbers (30.7x15.8) to just one dec...

30.7 / 6144 = 0.0049
15.8 / 3160 = 0.0050

in any case, when you end up with a .75 crop factor of Dragon's active image area with a width of 30.7mm, then the width of the active image area of the S35 3-perf you used is 23.025mm... (?)

unless Dragon's maximum pixel array of 6144 x 3160 is not being used over the entire physical sensor area of 30.7x15.8mm ? Do we know Dragon's maximum active image area ?
 
I'm going off numbers I've been told.

I'd have to see your algorithm, but it sounds like we have a variance between our two methods perhaps? Sounds like you may be calculating the diagonal differently.

It's also an interesting discussion because the world I come from we use the whole negative to capture, which potentially could be a width of 24.9mm versus what standard 3-perf is, but in this case I used 21.95x13.9mm.
 
yeah, I think we use different methods.

I simply compare the width of the active image area. I assume you compare the diagonals of the active image area ?

That concept to me only makes sense if the aspect ratios match (of the image areas to be compared). I might be misunderstanding the general concept here ;-)

Naturally, the active image area of a digital sensor depends on the resolution preset you are using, but there is none that matches the aspect ratio of 35 FF (AR: 1.5), S35 3-perf (AR: 1.58) or S35 4-perf (AR: 1.33). Not sure if comparing diagonals makes sense in order to calculate the crop factor when the aspect ratios differ (?)

In your calculations on page 1 for CF @ 6K compared to 35 FF, you ended up with a CF of 1.17, which matches my approach of simply comparing the widths:

36mm (width of 35 FF) / 30.7mm (width of Dragon @ 6K) = 1.17

When applying the same concept to the S35 frames (3-perf | 4-perf) I came up with the numbers I posted above (0.71 | 0.81)...

Btw, not that it means anything, but on red.com it appears they are using the same approach: http://www.red.com/tools/crop-factor
 
Yep. That's the rub. Traditionally it's calculated diagonally more to keep the diagonal in mind, however, I do agree that the width is "all that really matters". I could just change the logic across the board to reflect that.
 
John Marchant, who has one of the first Dragon cameras out in the wild, has just shared his notes on Cooke Mini S4i coverage.

Added notes to the first post.

Thanks John!
 
Phil Holland said:
John Marchant, who has one of the first Dragon cameras out in the wild, has just shared his notes on Cooke Mini S4i coverage.

Thanks John!
Click to expand...

Phil,

where did John shared his notes on Mini S4i ?

Thanks

Antoine
 
...and John said that the little Cooke's were OK with 6k?

If so, it is fantastic!

Thanks

Antoine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top