Effective output resolution for RED Scarlet 3K Fixed

[Stephen Matthews]

don't know if this helps.

http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o397/jackcabbage/RedResolutionChart.png

I think these are more up to your personal preference of what is soft and how much you can blow up (or should you) a shot. Plus will be much easier to see and understand once the camera is actually available and shooting images.

But there should be plenty of room to re frame and stabilize a shot or many other things. Compared to what you were working with before to make SD material you should have just as much or more when working with 3k to 720p (though I'm sure someone will come along and state the proper math on that which I am in no state to think of right now.)

have a good one

 

[Eki Halkka]

And given that some resolution is lost in HDV due to encoding/compressing, and of course the FX1-1 lens won't match the fixed scarlet's-I'm pretty sure-...

So factoring this stuff in, any guesses as to how much I'l be able to 'blow-up the frame?

FX1 is a pretty soft camera. Here's a comparison of HVR-Z1 (pro version of FX1) and HV20:

http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/HV20_vs_HVRZ1/Z1A.jpg
http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Eki/HV20/HV20_vs_HVRZ1/HV20A.jpg

As you can see, even though both are HDV, HV20 is much sharper (despite being much cheaper at the same time).

I't pretty safe to assume that Scarlet will perform at least as well as the cheap HV20 pixel-per-pixel, as far as sharpness is concerned.

So, if you're happy with FX1 at 80% size, you'll probably be happy with Scarlet at 90%, or even at full 100%.

This means you can zoom in much more than with FX1 - you have more, and better pixels.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I think we are heavily underestimating the Scarlet 3K. It's likely to resolve to about 2.4K, which is about 50% more resolution than perfect 1080p, of which there is none. Well, maybe the Alexa. The likes of Z1 or HVX-200 barely make it to 1K resolved. We are talking about AT LEAST 3-4 times the resolution.

 

[Eric Lagerlof]

And I need to correct my numbers, I offered 1440/3000 as an example of 720p when it would be 1280/3000, or again effectively 1280/2500. Eki, interesting comparison, though it would be nice to see a true side by side with settings listed etc. before I drew too many conclusions. And it is true that the FX-1 & Z-1 were the first hi-def below $10,000 out there-minus a JVC model that didn't sell well- and technology does march forward.
Subhadip, I sure hope you're right. That would make me very happy.

 

[conrad gaunt]

I found this on dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/page2.asp) for the Canon 10D

Sensor
• 22.7 x 15.1 mm CMOS sensor
• 6.5 million total pixels (3152 x 2068)
• 6.3 million effective pixels (3072 x 2048)

File sizes
• 3072 x 2048 JPEG

Perhaps I see this the wrong way...

It just means the camera is only using 3072 of the pixels from a slightly larger sensor. Every camera Red have made so far (er, well just one) has a look around, so its a safe bet that Scarlet will have a slightly 3k+ resolution.

Finding glass to resolve 3k won't be too hard. My Zeiss Zfs easily resolve the Red Ones 4.5k resolution, and they're Full Frame lenses (the sensor performs roughly a 1.6x crop), so only the middle of each lense is over the sensor. New lenses of nearly any type are generally pretty good with resolution, not that resolution is everything.