Is the future FF35?

[Daniel Browning]

Secondly, why FF35 rather than 645? All of the advantages that are being pointed out for FF35 are even more so for 645...

The current cost and lens availability. After 645 sensors are down to the same price as today's FF35 sensors, and 645 lens variety and price/quality ratio catches up to FF35, then I will love to switch to 645. After that, you can't go much bigger before it starts getting very bulky.

 

[Tom Lowe]

J.F.K.,

The problem w/ 4K digital project is that the projectors are very expensive and have nowhere near the expected life that film projectors have. Couple that with a dirth of 4K digital releases, like you pointed out, and that's why there are very few around.

But keep in mind that AMC and Cinemark have ordered thousands and thousands of 4K projectors and will be installing them on thousands of screens in the coming years. 4K is coming soon, make no mistake.

I pray that the FF35 Epic will come out not too long after Epic X. The FF35 Epic Monstro could actually be used for IMAX films, IMO. The 3:2 is fairly close, as well.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

I'd imagine the Epic 645 being the preferable tool for IMAX Red originated projects. Much closer in regards to image area and resolution.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Sure, of course. You could post at 8K.

But I'm just saying, it's possible to shoot an IMAX picture on FF35 6K RAW, IMHO. Post at 4K. Assuming they are projecting with nice lenses, it should look marvelous on an IMAX screen. If we assume that 5.6K RAW Canon timelapse can be mixed in with 15-perf IMAX, then why not Red Monstro FF35 6K REDRAW?

 

[Jonathon Laing]

RPPs may have been on the drawing boards before the shift to FF35 and DSMC. I'm not saying S35 is dead. I'm saying the future will trend toward FF35. There will still be plenty of times when S35 will be used. The right tool for the right job, yada yada.

Believe me, FF35 Monstro will be the flagship camera.

The future always trends to better quality/ higher tech. So I agree with Tom. Maybe S35 is a better option now. But as the years roll on more and more people will shoot better quality. It's how everything works with technology. Soon everyone will be done with DVD's and Blue Ray will be the standard. Not right now but eventualy.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Yes, but not really.



Yes, because it will have it available at all big shows' sets eventually, but no, because it will only be everywhere due to the fact that you will not give up access to S35. Red's idea of allowing you to select the recorded area is what's really revolutionary, not FF35, not even the affordable acquisition of it. The myriad of options are what's revolutionary. 645, FF35, S35, S16, all available to manifest your vision, and you only need one camera.

 

[M Hsu]

Coming from the full frame stills world, I will go FF35 just because I love the way my lenses look at full frame. As for control, when it works, which in my experience is only on the 501.2 and the 85 1.2 the birger/impero wireless focus combo is eminently useable.

 

[Michael Dalton]

The future always trends to better quality/ higher tech. So I agree with Tom. Maybe S35 is a better option now. But as the years roll on more and more people will shoot better quality. It's how everything works with technology. Soon everyone will be done with DVD's and Blue Ray will be the standard. Not right now but eventualy.

I would agree here. I think film and technology took a huge step backwards when it shifted to a digital world because of technical/cost limitations. For a while people became complacent what was there until red came a long. I believe it was the industries reliance and acceptance on 2k images that pushed Jim in the first place.

Large format see far off to all of us, but we can see technology growing by leaps and bounds now just within RED. Few companies have even caught up to 4k, and red is on to 5k,6k all the way up to 9k. TV may lag for a while, but at least film will push forward.

Having said that, to get a s35 body now (providing you can use FF lenses) means only a small 10k upgrade in the future.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Coming from the full frame stills world, I will go FF35 just because I love the way my lenses look at full frame.

You see that's the point: What do I want to accomplish, what is the task?

If I were to shoot stills I would choose FF35. I I were to shoot motion picture I would choose S35 or even 2/3.

Nailing the focus with a S35mm sensor sized camera at T2.8 and 50mm in a close-up distance is nothing special for the still shooter but a challenge for the filmmaker. For docs a S16 sized sensor is much more forgiving in this regard and often a reasonable choice. A FF35 sensor size would be probably a show stopper. Bigger is not always better. We know that from many products and their development - think about cars - and only because FF35 will be possible in the motion picture world does not mean it's going to be meaningful.

We all know that stock and camera rental are peanuts in a big feature. Why are only a very few shot on 65mm?

FF35 is a new option. But nothing more, IMHO.

Hans

 

[Tom Lowe]

Why are only a very few shot on 65mm?

If you asked every ASC member (or even stock footage shooters) a simple question: "Would you like to shoot your next serious picture on 65mm?"... what do you think the answer would be? My guess is that most of them would not only say Yes, but HELL YES.

But film is totally different than digital. For starters, if you shoot a 65mm film today, where on earth are you going to screen it?? There are very few 70mm theaters left in the world. There are not a lot of good lenses, the Todd AO cameras, for example, are very large and unwieldy. Plus, who's going to post-produce 65mm? Not to mention the costs of the film.

Large-format digital cameras like the forthcoming Epic FF35 "Vista Vision" camera suffer from none of these issues. It can be posted at 4K and screened on 2K or 4K projectors in regular theaters, DMR'd for IMAX, or simply printed to 35mm for celluloid release. The 6K > 4K downsample is ideal for digital 4K display.

 

[david farland]

I'd expect Scarlet FF35 to be a huge seller too.

As for the whole s35/FF35 thing, if all things are equal and you can get.....

1. camera to monitor/adjust focus 6K easily
2. software which renders 6K down to normal resolutions (4K/HD)
3. couple of wide cine lens which cover the FF35 sensor

...then you got a whole new world...

Actually 6K will probably be advantageous when it comes to lens kits sometimes as you can crop from 6K to 4K and get an instant 1.5x lens multiplier (depending on light).

This means with only 3 lenses....say 25mm, 50mm, 135mm,
I now have a full kit......18mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm & 135mm by changing the sensor size. What's not to love....!!
Dave

 

[Tom Lowe]

Yeah, but of course you don't want to crop a Bayer-pattern CMOS camera to 1:1.

You really do need that 6K>4K downsample for a clean 4K. Maybe if you have a perfectly exposed 5K shot, in good light, it will hold up pixel-for-pixel after the downsample to 4K, but never pixel-for-pixel with no downsample.

 

[Daniel Browning]

Nailing the focus with a S35mm sensor sized camera at T2.8 and 50mm in a close-up distance is nothing special for the still shooter but a challenge for the filmmaker.

You are mistaken. You can get the exact same depth of field with the larger sensor by stopping down.

What about exposure, you ask? Yes, it will result in a darker exposure. You can compensate for that by increasing ISO (brightness in post).

What about noise, you ask? The surprising truth is that noise will be the *same*.

How about diffraction? Same, too.

Furthermore, if you happen to be in ample light (e.g. outdoors), then you can get the same DOF without changing ISO.

For docs a S16 sized sensor is much more forgiving in this regard and often a reasonable choice.

A common misconception. The larger sensor is capable of the exact same DOF and noise as the smaller sensor, but has other advantages besides.

Try shooting the RED ONE at 2K, 24p, 1/48, 50mm T/2.8, ISO 160. Then compare it to RED ONE at 4K, 24p, 1/48, 100mm T/5.6, ISO 640. After you view them both at 2K you'll see that the DOF, noise, etc. is the same, despite the two-stop difference in T-stop.

 

[david farland]

Appreciate that Tom, but it's what is happeing now with people going goo goo about the image quality. How will a distant 6K shot cut with a 1.5x closer/down rez'd one...then all down rez'd again to say HD....we just gotta wait and see. But more important are the guys fixated on s35 will only be shooting/post at 4K anyway before outputting to HD.

Daniel, you probably mean 85mm/4K.

Dave

 

[Daniel Browning]

Daniel, you probably mean 85mm/4K.

No, I'm pretty sure the crop factor between RED ONE 4K and RED ONE 2K is 2.0X. Am I mistaken?

 

[david farland]

CoC is radial. 2K(16x9) has a 13mm diagonal and 4K is 22.7mm....crop factor 1.75.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

And diffraction will not be the same. Diffraction is always an issue with light, of course, but it is only visually apparent at apertures below, say, f/11. Simple geometry tells us that the larger the sensor (and, hence, the further the light has to travel to reach the extreme edges of the sensor), the worse that the diffraction will be for any given aperture setting.

I'm not at all happy to see FF35 come into vogue. I would much prefer S35 just for the focus issues alone. It's hard enough to focus with RED's academy 35 size and a moving target. Sure, we can stop down for more depth of field, but then we have to play with a whole different sort of lighting kit.

And, for what it's worth, anyone who thinks that technology keeps heading for higher and higher levels of quality has never seen YouTube.

Stephen

 

[Daniel Browning]

2K(16x9) has a 13mm diagonal and 4K is 22.7mm....crop factor 1.75.

Your 4K diagonal is off. It's actually 25.4mm, and 2K is 12.7mm, giving a crop factor of 2.0X.

r1_pixel = 5.4
aspect_ratio = 16/9

r1_2k_width = 2048 * r1_pixel / 1000
r1_2k_height = 2048/aspect_ratio * r1_pixel / 1000
r1_2k_diagonal = sqrt(r1_2k_width^2 + r1_2k_height^2)

r1_4k_width = 4096 * r1_pixel / 1000
r1_4k_height = 4096/aspect_ratio * r1_pixel / 1000
r1_4k_diagonal = sqrt(r1_4k_width^2 + r1_4k_height^2)

crop_factor= r1_4k_diagonal/r1_2k_diagonal
crop_factor = 2

 

[Tom Lowe]

I'm not at all happy to see FF35 come into vogue. I would much prefer S35 just for the focus issues alone. It's hard enough to focus with RED's academy 35 size and a moving target.

Maybe the added ASA ratings and lack of noise once downsampled will allow you to stop down on the lens a bit, which also has the added benefit of a sharper image on FF35 lenses.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Can we all please remember that EpicX is not s35.

Red One at 24mm is s35.
FF35 is 36mm wide.
EpicX is half way between them at 30mm wide. EpicX is a full 25% wider than s35 and half way to FF.