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 :)

I'm surprised that "Epic"...

M

Michael "Dorkman" Scott

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
321
Reaction score
0
Points
0
...isn't a 65mm-format camera. That's what I think when I think "Epic".

Like 3D, the 65mm format seems to be gaining some ground again, with directors like Christopher Nolan shooting features like The Dark Knight (only certain sequences, I know, but still) on the close-enough-to-refer-to-it-interchangeably IMAX format.

There's so much confusion as to what makes Epic worth so much more than RED ONE, being that so many of the specs are similar, and may become even moreso with the Mysterium X sensor upgrade for R1.

Having a digital 65mm camera with the same quality and workflow as the R1, with the option of high frame rates, would create a truly separate market tier for people who would want to purchase them, and give people who already have a solid RED workflow good cause to upgrade or rent them. As it is, 5K for the sake of 5K doesn't make too much sense to me personally, when 4K is the current top-off point for all but the most expensive 35mm work.

But 5K with the look of 65mm is obviously different, and worth that extra resolution and, IMO, extra cost. Suddenly you're getting the same savings in film stock that everyone likes to tout about digital in the first place, but with 65mm, which as I understand it is substantially more expensive and therefore substantially better savings.

I'm well aware of Jim's latest "mind your business" post, and I don't presume to tell RED their business, or that they "should" do this. It's just what struck me when I first found out about the Epic on Monday morning.
 
yeah but look at how many Feature Films were actually shot in 70mm, not a lot. Also the lenses for 65mm area are usually converted medium format lenses, like hasselblad and mamiya lenses for example. not a huge amount of options like in the pl mount or 35mm still realm.

I'd like to see a RED vistavision size sensor one day, this would accomplish exactly what you are talking about. And you could rehouse or use off the shelf nikons or canon style lenses.

a Vistavision sensor would be approximately the same size as 35mm still film.
8 perf vs Reds current 3 perf sensor size
 
gunleik said:
how much 65mm glass is out there?
Click to expand...

not a lot. I know zeiss has a full set for 65mm origination in the maxi Pl mount.

Thats why i recommend the Vistavision size sensor, so much glass out there and you could use anamorphic lenses properly.

This would be a cool specialty type camera to be announced at NAB next year.
 
I wish epic was 3D(two 4k x sensors) out of the box.

That is the next revolutionary step....and yes I know that I could buy two red ones and put them together like others are doing but surely these rigs can get smaller and cheaper. This is more important to me than 5k. The RED at 4k on a 50ft screen (in daylight) looks more like 65mm to me anyways.
 
Yes, 65mm at 6K resolution. The larger sensor with larger photo sites should help with low light and a reduction in noise, right?

You also go straight to IMAX screens with that. The DMR of Batman Begins was 6K, I think, but Red 65 would be a hell of a lot cleaner and better than those 35mm scans.
 
The question you have to ask though is *why* people are wanting to shoot 65mm... to a large extent I believe it's to get better resolution and less grain (as opposed to losing focal depth).

These are things which a higher resolution, lower noise RED camera can deliver. These are things for that matter which REDOne can deliver. Take a look at Epic's spec sheets:

More resolution and New Sensor (and presumably less noise).
 
im.thatoneguy said:
The question you have to ask though is *why* people are wanting to shoot 65mm... to a large extent I believe it's to get better resolution and less grain (as opposed to losing focal depth).

These are things which a higher resolution, lower noise RED camera can deliver. These are things for that matter which REDOne can deliver. Take a look at Epic's spec sheets:

More resolution and New Sensor (and presumably less noise).
Click to expand...
What confuses me is the fact that RedOne will be getting a new sensor when Epic hits. Presumably any increases in dynamic range, noise, bitrates, etc. will carry over. So aside from the extra K of resolution -- which is not worth the $22,000 difference, to me -- my main question is what does Epic have to offer?

I'm crazy, and I love RED. So all I need is a reason and I'll be a believer. I just don't get Epic yet.
 
65mm is all we need. Sure it would be "sweet", but the majority of RED users I see on here, are early fan boy adopters. They have no comprehension of optics or depth of field. People don't understand how difficult it is to pull focus on any 35mm lens and keep the image sharp. The tools on the red camera only help so much. 65mm is going to give you tons of out of focus footage, much like the RED is all ready doing.
 
Maby Red should have something like the si2k removable sensor.
If they could get enough processing power into the epic and get an input for the second sensor and a seperate transcoding system built in and then feed the second stream to a seperate recording device, we could have a nice system for all future 3d work without having to carry 2 complete bodies?? But instead of the si have the recording system with us instead of carrying 2 seperate laptops or recorders.
 
First of all, do you know how much light loss one suffers when shooting 65mm?? When you spread light over a larger area, guess what happens...It gets dimmer. Hence your sensor would need to be rated at such a higher ISO level anyway. Unlike fashion or still photography, one doesnt have the benefit of using the flash.

Secondly, have you tried to pull focus on 65mm? For manual focus (which it would have to be for motion picture) The only thing you'd be able to shoot successfully are landscapes.. And for what purpose? Resolution is the same.

Third of all, if you are asking for a 65mm sensor, why are you asking for 5k? Why would one subject oneself to A.lightloss, B.motherbitch-focuspulling C.limited choice of lenses, for resolution thats available in s35mm? If I was you id be asking for a 65mm 21k sensor with technology to support it. Its not impossible, not in the next 2-3 years, and not for RED.
 
I don't think a 65mm sensor is important for right now. what really matters is getting the DR of the mysterium x to equal or beat the DR of film. RED ONE images are already really sharp and pretty noiseless for the most part. the workflow is great as long as you get what RAW is.

I think thats really the mission for the next few years. get the sensor to best the latitude of film. allow highspeed cinematography. if they can get 100fps off the full 5k sensor maybe we'll get 200fps off of 3kish. having the option to go higher and higher will never be a bad thing. although the data rates maybe insane but the option will be there.

I think the wifi control opens a whole lot of possibilities for remote slating with something like the iphone. I'd like to be able to include many different types of meta data that I can use in post to keep a handle on everything
 
Please stop clogging this forum with requests like these. If you really feel that this is what the industry needs then build it yourselves.
Just like the Anamorphic discussions. If you dont think these cameras will do the job for you, go waste youre energy elswere.

my 2 cents
 
acehole said:
First of all, do you know how much light loss one suffers when shooting 65mm?? When you spread light over a larger area, guess what happens...It gets dimmer. Hence your sensor would need to be rated at such a higher ISO level anyway. Unlike fashion or still photography, one doesnt have the benefit of using the flash.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand this. All things being equal, the sensor would be larger and the lens iris would be larger, so why less light?

Isn't it true that cramming more photosites onto a smaller sensor makes for worse light sensitivity? I think a lot of digital astronomy guys still shoot on the Rebel XT (8MP), rather than the XTi (10MP), for example, because it has less megapixels crammed onto the APS-C-sized sensor.

Reading something from DPreview here:

The other advantage of 35mm sensors is that you get less image noise. 35mm sensors are so much larger than APS sensors that you can have bigger pixels on that larger sensor. And since bigger pixels are able to capture more light, they are able to produce images with less image noise. Smaller sensors generally have smaller pixels, which capture less light, which require more signal amplification at each pixel site, which results in more noise. So a 12mp 35mm sensor will produce less noise than a 12mp APS sensor.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=26542160
Click to expand...

So wouldn't a 12MP 65mm sensor produce less noise than a 12MP 35mm sensor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top