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 Recording Resolutions

B

Brook Willard

REDuser Sponsor
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Burbank, CA
Website
www.brookwillard.com
Epic S35
30mm x 15mm sensor
5,120 x 2,700

Epic FF35
36mm x 24mm
6,000 x 4,000

4-perforation Super 35mm
24.89mm x 18.67mm

3-perforation Super 35mm
24.89mm x 13.89mm

RED ONE 4K
22.11mm x 12.44mm
4,096 x 2,304


I'll start with the Epic S35.

To start with, the resolution confuses me. The sensor's dimension is 2:1 but the pixel dimension is 1.896:1. Since some of the sensor is probably blocked off for black calibration, I will assume that the 30mm x 15mm sensor area refers to the 2:1 pixel resolution of 5,120 x 2,560.

If we shoot the standard 24.89mm x 13.89mm 3-perforation Super 35mm size on the Epic S35 sensor, I come up with a recorded pixel area of 4,248 x 2,371.

Moving onto the Epic FF35. By the same math, I come up with a 3-perf resolution of 4,148 x 2,315 and a 4-perf resolution of 4,148 x 3,112.

Conversely, if we decided to shoot the RED ONE's 4K sensor size, the S35 would capture 3,774 x 2,123 and the FF35 would capture 3,685 x 2,074. Not that this is a desirable sensor size... but it's valid for comparison.

This doesn't bother me personally - I'm more excited about the dynamic range, frame rates and body design. Just wanted to let people know what they'll be getting by the current math.

So, to sum it up:

Epic S35 3-perforation recording resolution
4,248 x 2,371

Epic FF35 3-perforation recording resolution
4,148 x 2,315

Epic FF35 4-perforation recording resolution
4,148 x 3,112
 
Are we sure that the sensor size listed isn't for a lookaround area that isn't recorded versus the recorded max of 5120?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #4
They haven't given any of those details yet. That said, if it was actually a ~6.5K or 7K in the camera for look-around's sake... I feel like that would've been in the marketing materials.
 
Brook Willard said:
They haven't given any of those details yet. That said, if it was actually a ~6.5K or 7K in the camera for look-around's sake... I feel like that would've been in the marketing materials.
Click to expand...

Numbers are being pushed around this way and that for marketing purposes.
The S35 is only a 5k camera if:
a) there is no lookaround
b) you're finishing in 2.40:1
It's basically a 2:1 sensor
Shooting 16:9 requires the sides to be cropped.
When it's described as a S35 chip, it's S35 in the theatrical cinemascope release sense of the term. (2-perf).
So yeah, maybe it's a 5k camera, but certainly not for the vast majority of shoots that will be done on it.
I've being raising this for a few days in other threads - no responses.
 
Brook, you might want to round your numbers to the nearest multiple of 4.

EDIT: ...and has anyone figured out the discrepancies in pixel count?

BTW, have you noticed 1620 = 1080 x 1.5
...and 2700 = 1080 * 2.5

I think 16:9 rec modes may have no vertical lookaround.

Doing my best guess table now for you man...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Brook Willard said:
Eh, these numbers are by the math, rounded up to the nearest pixel.
Click to expand...

It's a programming thing. Compression algorithms generally work best on resolutions that are multiples of 4.

My table attempt so far (pure guess):

FILM REFERENCES
16mm film: 9.6 x 7
super16 film: 11.75 x 7
super35 3-perf film: 24.9 x 13.9
anamorphic 4-perf film: 24.9 x 18.6

SCARLET 2/3
Listed sensor size: 10.1 x 5.35 (3072x1620)
Rec area 16:9 mode: 9.5 x 5.35 (2880x1620 - 1.5x HD)
NOTE: Normal 16mm lenses should work?
NOTE: No lookaround?

RED ONE
Listed sensor size: 24.4 x 13.7 (4900x2580)
Rec area 16:9 mode: 22.11 x 12.44 (4096x2304)
Rec area anamorphic mode: 14.62 x 12.44 (2707x2304??)

EPIC & SCARLET S35
UPDATE: FOR EPIC THIS ONLY HINTS AT THE AWESOMENESS, SEE JIM'S POST BELOW
Listed sensor size: 30 x 15 (5120x2700 - doesn't match)
Likely active sensor: 28.4 x 15 (5120x2700 - that's better)
Rec area 16:9 mode: 24.9 x 15 (4800x2700 - 2.5x HD)
Rec area 1.85 spherical crop: 24.9 x 13.46 (4480x2420 or so)
Rec area 2.35 spherical crop: 24.9 x 10.6 (4480x1908 or so)
Rec area anamorphic lens crop: 17.6 x 15 (3172x2700)

EPIC & SCARLET FF35
UPDATE: FOR EPIC THIS ONLY HINTS AT THE AWESOMENESS, SEE JIM'S POST BELOW
Listed sensor size: 36 x 24 (6000x4000 - DOES match)
Rec area PL spherical 16:9: 24.9 x 15 (4150x2330 or so)
Rec area PL anamorphic: 24.9 x 18.6 (4150x3112??)
Rec area FF lens 16:9 crop: 36 x 20.25 (6000x3376)
Rec area FF lens 1.85 crop: 36 x 19.46 (6000x3244)
Rec area FF lens 2.35 crop: 36 x 15.32 (6000x2556)
Rec area hypothetical FF anamorphic lens 2.35: 28.2 x 24 (4700 x 4000)
NOTE: a very nice lookaround with PL mount lenses (as the movie industry expects?)
NOTE: no lookaround with larger still lenses (as the still industry expects?)
NOTE: that hypothetical FF anamorphic lens would give 18.8 megapixels and 676 sq.mm surface area - vs Red One's 6.2 megapixels and 262 sq.mm surface area! Someone build it!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #9
Bruce Allen said:
It's a programming thing. Compression algorithms generally work best on resolutions that are multiples of 4.

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

Of course. I assume that's RED's job to round the numbers off... :) :wink:

I also expect the sensor size or pixel dimension [or at least the recording area] to change by the time the camera ships.
 
I assumed another reason Red choose 6K for the FF35 was to get 4K of pixel chrominance (when down rezzed)without interpolation (4K bayer = 2.7K)
D
 
In answer to Bruce Allen. Good work with that breakdown of sizes. Here's a thought. An anamorphic lens for the FF35 that gives a modest squeeze (haven't done the math) to use the full height - which is close to 5 perf 70mm and the full width to bring the unsqueezed width to the 70mm width of 52mm (varies). Actually I think there used to be anamorphic for Vistavision that did just that.
 
Peter McCully said:
In answer to Bruce Allen. Good work with that breakdown of sizes. Here's a thought. An anamorphic lens for the FF35 that gives a modest squeeze (haven't done the math) to use the full height - which is close to 5 perf 70mm and the full width to bring the unsqueezed width to the 70mm width of 52mm (varies). Actually I think there used to be anamorphic for Vistavision that did just that.
Click to expand...

Technirama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technirama
 
With the new EIPC S35 size sensor, you have many options inside the full sensor. Using the full sensor is not a necessity, just like with the RED ONE. Having a 15mm tall sensor allows greater options for anamorphic. Some PL mount lenses have a greater than 28mm image circle. It also allows some creative formats with larger format lenses.

Open your mind. This is an enabling sensor... :-)

Sweet spot- think 4K (just like the RED ONE) at 125fps...

Jim
 
I have asked and i will ask again. Is the 4.5 feature from RED still happen ? Brook RED one calculation doesnt take full R1 potential into the math.
 
Rivai said:
I have asked and i will ask again. Is the 4.5 feature from RED still happen ? Brook RED one calculation doesnt take full R1 potential into the math.
Click to expand...

Yes it will...

Jim
 
Jannard said:
With the new EPIC S35 size sensor, you have many options inside the full sensor. Using the full sensor is not a necessity, just like with the RED ONE. Having a 15mm tall sensor allows greater options for anamorphic. Some PL mount lenses have a greater than 28mm image circle. It also allows some creative formats with larger format lenses.

Open your mind. This is an enabling sensor... :-)

Sweet spot- think 4K (just like the RED ONE) at 125fps...

Jim
Click to expand...

Which is one of the things that I've been really excited about on EPIC bodies: the one aspect ratio designation that says: CUSTOM.

It is going to be fantastic to play around with different lenses and mounts on the EPIC sensors, and furthermore have the potential to shoot at custom aspect ratios. Even better, it will give people huge amount of leeway to experiment in various unique ways of shooting without burning through thousands of feet of film. Between several lens mount types and custom sensor cropping? That's a potent combo for seeing some genuinely new things in motion pictures.

Good times.


Joseph Ward said:
Technirama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technirama
Click to expand...

Also, are there any Technirama lenses still around? I mean that aren't in a museum? Guess now would be the time to break 'em out. That would be pretty sweet.
 
Bruce Allen said:

EPIC & SCARLET FF35
Listed sensor size: 36 x 24 (6000x4000 - DOES match)
Rec area PL spherical 16:9: 24.9 x 15 (4150x2330 or so)
Rec area FF lens 16:9 crop: 36 x 20.25 (6000x3376)
Rec area FF lens 1.85 crop: 36 x 19.46 (6000x3244)
Rec area FF lens 2.35 crop: 36 x 15.32 (6000x2556)
Click to expand...

Very interesting. So, if this is correct, then in order to achieve "True 4K" (20- to 30% downsampling), you might have to go with FF35 with larger-than-PL lenses?

What would "greater than 28mm image circle" PL mount lenses get you in terms of resolution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top