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 :)

Epic is full-frame [16:9, not 4:3... same size as RED ONE]

Chris Kenny

Chris Kenny

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
blog.nicedissolve.com
There has been remarkably little discussion of the first two words in the "FULL FRAME S35MM NEW MYSTERIUM X SENSOR" bullet point on Epic's spec sheet. Full frame means you can use anamorphic lenses without wasting a major portion of your sensor. This is almost certainly the reason the camera is called "Epic". (Anamorphic having a long history as a format for "epic movies") and I think the fact that Red apparently considers this a defining characteristic of the camera helps explain where Red sees it fitting into the market.

If the major design goal for the Epic is to make people who want to use anamorphic lenses happy, then it's not a flat out replacement for the Red One even at the high-end of the market; most features aren't shot anamorphic. It's a more specialized camera for a certain segment of the high-end market. (Of course, I'm sure Epic will have windowed modes for shooting non-anamorphic, but at that point you'll be getting the same image as with an upgraded Red One, so you'd probably go with the cheaper camera.)

The one thing that does have me a little puzzled is that Epic is expected to be so much lighter than the Red One.

Update: OK, so it might not have a full-height sensor, in which case I'm considerably more confused about how its market positioning makes sense. See below.
 
wow, didnt even notice that! sweet :)
 
That's the reason I wanted to shoot 2540p with the RED ONE.
 
EPIC being shorter and lighter will help when it comes to using larger heavier lenses. like anamorphic lenses. I'm all for shaving the weight down. 6lbs is probably about right. specially for a loaded rig. there is a hell of a different between hand holding 15lbs for 20mins and 20lbs
 
Historically RED has stated the S35 frame is 24.4 × 13.7mm.
Full Anamorphic is 22.00 mm x 18.59 mm.

Unless they have started to change their language, I would think this means it's still a 16:9 sensor. The "Full rame" could be there to difference it when the specs are presented in a PDF next to scarlet. I'm not certain though. But full anamorphic height would be a HUGE feature
 
Well spotted Chris - but I think you're wrong.

If you read page 8 of their NAB pdf you see that EPIC 5K is in the same aspect ratio as RED ONE, SCARLET, etc...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
The sensor is 16:9. That is directly from the mouth of somebody trustworthy in the RED booth.

Furthermore, the "5K" diagram they have on the back of the brochure shows a 16:9 resolution.

It is still a three-perf sensor, NOT a four-perf one... unless both RED's literature and employee were mistaken.
 
OK, if it's still 16:9 I'm a little baffled. The "Epic" name seems like a fairly clear reference to anamorphics, the spec sheet does say "full frame", and the supposed $40K price point makes much more sense if the camera is really full frame than if it's not. I see now that the NAB PDF file also says the Red One is "full frame", which seems like evidence against the Epic actually having a full-height sensor, but on the other hand, the Red One's spec sheet on red.com doesn't say it's full frame and I don't recall Red describing the Red One like that much in the past, so it seems at least somewhat possible that this is just an error in the NAB PDF.

To expand about pricing... if the camera isn't full frame, I'm really confused on this issue. Slightly higher resolution (which will probably be available in an upgraded Red One), full-sized ports (but apparently fewer audio channels), somewhat higher frame rates, and a bit of weight reduction don't by themselves seem to justify paying more than twice as much. The only explanation for its significantly higher price, if it's not full frame, is that Red has essentially decided the price point for the Red One was a mistake. But Red intends to keep selling the Red One after the Epic's introduction, presumably at the current price, so the notion that Red considers it extremely underpriced doesn't make any sense.
 
Yeah, it def is 16:9 by the info we have thus far. But think how sweet it would be to start at 5k, THEN optically get anamorphic aspect...that would be probably 6k worth of data there..or close to it I think.
 
Craig, it may have the resolution to do anamorphic stuff well... but if it's a 2:1 anamorphic lens, you'll still only use the center bit of the sensor. That means that the FOV [and DOF as a result] will be much different than true 2:1 anamorphic on a four-perf sensor/negative.

The Arri D21 in RAW mode is the only four-perf digital sensor out there as of today [according to an Arri rep the other day].

1.33 anamorphic lenses would work perfectly with the 16:9 sensor... on the Epic or RED ONE.
 
Chris Kenny said:
Slightly higher resolution (which will probably be available in an upgraded Red One), full-sized ports (but apparently fewer audio channels), somewhat higher frame rates, and a bit of weight reduction don't by themselves seem to justify paying more than twice as much.
Click to expand...

Other specs different from RED:

UP TO 100 MB/SEC.
REDCODE RAW AND RGB RECORDING TO REDFLASH
FULL SIZE DUAL LINK HD-SDI
WI-FI CONTROL
 
Bruce Allen said:
Well spotted Chris - but I think you're wrong.

If you read page 8 of their NAB pdf you see that EPIC 5K is in the same aspect ratio as RED ONE, SCARLET, etc...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...



bruce will you be picking up some scarlets next year ? to replace your hv20
 
sander kamp said:
Other specs different from RED:

UP TO 100 MB/SEC.
REDCODE RAW AND RGB RECORDING TO REDFLASH
FULL SIZE DUAL LINK HD-SDI
WI-FI CONTROL
Click to expand...

None of those, as far as I can see, involves significant additional material costs for the camera body, though. Well, maybe RGB recording and 1080p and/or 2K live outputs require faster DSPs than the Red One has. If that's the case, it could explain some of the price difference. But 18 months on from the introduction of the Red One, I'd be surprised if the faster electronics needed to do this cost all that much more. And we don't even actually know that faster electronics are required for this; these were originally planned features for the Red One, so the notion that it could support them with sufficiently optimized code was, at least at one point, considered plausible by some very smart and knowledgeable people.

I don't know... this all has the feel of charging twice as much for a few key features that don't really cost that much more to provide. I guess it's fine if Red wants to try to get some more money out of customers with deep pockets, as long as they don't start deliberately leaving important features out of lower-end products to try to force serious users onto the higher end products. We're all used to seeing that sort of thing from the usual suspects (Sony, Panasonic), and I really hope Red doesn't go down that road. Fortunately, there doesn't seem to be much indication of that at the moment.
 
I don't really understand it either. From the looks of it it seems like an improved RED One but we have to wait until RED explains.
 
One other spec that's different: Full size XLR.

Again, not a "significant additional material cost", as Chris says. But one more spec.

And by the way, I don't see any sound inputs mentioned in the Scarlet info. I would *assume* that there's sound... but Red has taught me not to make assumptions.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film

Super 35 mm film

The concept behind Super 35 originated with the Tushinsky Brothers' SuperScope format, particularly the SuperScope 235 specification from 1956. In 1982, Joe Dunton revived the format for Dance Craze, and Technicolor soon marketed it under the name "Super Techniscope" before the industry settled on the name Super 35.[38] The central driving idea behind the process is to return to shooting in the original silent "Edison" 1.33:1 full 4-perf negative area (24.89 mm by 18.67 mm or 0.980 in by 0.735 in), and then crop the frame either from the bottom or the center (like 1.85:1) to create a 2.40:1 aspect ratio (matching that of anamorphic lenses) with an area of 24 mm by 10 mm (0.945 in by 0.394 in). Although this cropping may seem extreme, by expanding the negative area out perf-to-perf, Super 35 creates a 2.40:1 aspect ratio with an overall negative area of 240 square millimetres (0.372 sq in), only 9 mm² (0.014 sq in) less than the 1.85:1 crop of the Academy frame (248.81 mm² or 0.386 sq in).[39] The cropped frame is then converted at the intermediate stage to a 4-perf anamorphically squeezed print compatible with the anamorphic projection standard. This allows an "anamorphic" frame to be captured with non-anamorphic lenses, which are much more common, less expensive, faster, smaller, and optically superior to equivalent anamorphic lenses.[39] Up to 2000, once the film was photographed in Super 35, an optical printer was used to anamorphose (squeeze) the image. This optical step reduced the overall quality of the image and made Super 35 a controversial subject among cinematographers, many who preferred the higher image quality and frame negative area of anamorphic photography (especially with regard to granularity).[39] With the advent of Digital intermediates (DI) at the beginning of the 21st century, however, Super 35 photography has become even more popular, since the cropping and anamorphosing stages can be done digitally in-computer without creating an additional optical generation with increased grain. As DI becomes less expensive and more popular, it is likely to render Super 35 optical conversions completely obsolete in the near future.
 
Jim has said before that this is an evolving process, that they are constantly learning every day. Epic might be a culmination of what they have learned through the process of creating RED ONE.

We're at least 10 months away from seeing this camera surface. During those 10 months we'll have the opportunity to learn and master RED ONE. Then we can look at what Epic will offer and make a decision on whether to trade in the RED One for Epic. Honestly, that is a really cool move on Jim's part. Happy with RED ONE, stick with it. Need Epic's feature set, upgrade for $22K. RED ONE continues to be improved upon, additional features added, and it's not put out to pasture. The RED team was very clear about that today.
 
My concern is really based on when it will be when the red one is now.
Are they still have to build this from scratch and is this just some theoritical approach by now, or do they have all the research already been done, and will it happen a lot faster then the red one took.

If they use a complete new codec, is it based on the current one, how long will it take till this machine gets really reliable.

If i want to order , can I order an epic and if it's not ready yet receive a red one in the meantime while waiting, and this unit getting replaced when it's really available and capable of doing high end production without any unnecesary risks???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top