Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Let's talk sensor...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brook,

You should know that I respect your feelings and ever growing Red/Filmmaking knowledge. Also, I think these are two wonderful threads. Seriously, thanks man. You raise many great points (lower center of gravity, 90 degree evf to name only two) and I am all aboard in a big way except for this last point. I agree that it cannot be everything for everyone. But wouldn't the ability to do great, lightweight, well balanced, handheld from the ground level to high over your head by one's self while having the ability to get nat sound for indie and docco be a wonderful thing for the upper the echelon were you guys work as well? Build up big and strip for success when needed.

I could very well be missing a point. Am I off the mark Brook?

Thanks Dude... your latest sky diving footage was sick. The inset of the hdv(?) into the Red 4K really told the story.

PS- To me part of the problem I have with my Red cam is not that it is all things to all people but the fact it is built like a pot bellied stove kicked over it's side and then we get to affix parts to it that allow us to interface with it and hoist it upon whatever we need to do the job. My Dad said it not me... He is 77 and a former Mechanical/Electrical Engineer. He said it more to get my goat when I unpacked it for the first time.** Big Note People-- do not rip my head off for this comparison, my Pops was pulling my leg. I mean no disrespect. I come in peace.:)

PS-- I should have posted this in the more appropriate thread. I did not mean to high jack the discussion.
 
No worries about the hijack - this discussion has gone so awry from my original intent that the thread is now just another Epic stream of consciousness. People spent so long defining "full frame" that it killed the intent and detail of the original post.

Thanks for the kind words - you're actually pretty spot on. Let me redeem myself by clarifying with a point I mentioned in my ergonomics thread.

If the camera is well designed, it will be a lot of things to a lot of people. My goal is to make sure that features that the cinema market needs to not get reduced or removed to make it easier on those who are not in the cinema market. That's all fine with the RED ONE [as it's a camera with many markets], but - in my opinion - not with the Epic.

An example: the adjustable lens mount. The lens mount on the RED is great for a lot of people. You get to collimate the camera without needing a collimator, rental house, camera technician or experience. It's very logical.

Unfortunately, the decision to use an adjustable mount made of aluminum resulted in many issues. The mount is not thermally stable and will shift collimation depending on how warm/cold the camera is. The mount is adjustable and therefore never locks down as solidly as it would if a shimmed mount was used. Since the mount's adjustment is based on a moderately low-resolution helicoid, it will often be just out of square to the sensor [resulting in backfocus issues on different areas of the sensor]. The sensor itself is not actually centered in the lens mount, resulting in a center point shift during a zoom. The adjustable collimation system made the lens mount throat necessary, resulting in a throng of ergonomic issues that I detailed in the other thread.

That's what I mean. A true cinema camera should have a shimmed mount that is flush to the body made of stainless steel, invar and standard shims... and it shouldn't be collimated with a 65mm S4. That will prevent all of these issues on the Epic.

A properly shimmed mount will hold collimation to very tight tolerances over a long period of time. The issues that the original RED ONE PL mount had was not a general PL-mount issue... it was a specific RED issue. If the mount is designed properly this time around, shims are definitely the way to go... even if it makes it more difficult for somebody to set their collimation when they live 1,000 miles from a proper camera house.

And at the end of the day... a proper mount with shims may seem frightening to those who don't have a collimator handy. Does that mean that nobody outside of the cinema community can use the Epic? No! A proper mount will actually hold collimation, so the entire issue goes away. Now everybody - even the documentary crowd - gets to benefit from what the cinema crowd requires.

So ultimately, if professional cinema is placed at the forefront of the design mindset with no concessions made for other types of production... everybody will win in the end.

The amount of black & white drama that I introduced in my prior posts is just to emphasize how important I think this stuff is.
 
Brook,

Your thorough explanation brings the overall discussions tightly into focus for me as to the real issue in your observations and now in your words," A true cinema camera should have a shimmed mount that is flush to the body made of stainless steel, invar and standard shims..." I agree 100% with you. This improvement upon the Epic along with it's other features should truly place this camera in a different league. Stability with the mount and it's sensor being completely flat to the lens is key, like you have stated... especially on big, big productions were it is a must and a ever so slight miss focus throughout the shoot cannot be explained away as art.

But it also helps further delineate the camera line leaving the sensor upgradeable Red One alone in it's ability to use various mounts/mount systems such as the P+S Technik IMS system. This is just another great tool that cannot be shrugged off for some genres and styles. The lens flexibility of the Red one w/Mysterium X would be unreal ( it would be now... just waiting for the IMS deal to be legal to with Red).

Scarlet is a whole 'nother deal but a very valid tool for acquisition that deserves a laundry list of atta boys but not in this discussion.

Thanks for the clear path to the heart of your discussion. I hope we see your thoughts become real. We all need it.

Cheers Brooks and thanks for your patience.

Andrew
 
No worries, thanks for understanding it Andrew.

Obviously the lens mount point is one of many... it's just one that's easy to use to illustrate the broader concept I was describing.
 
What would be the practical benefits of a "real 4:3 four-perforation sensor"

What would be the practical benefits of a "real 4:3 four-perforation sensor"

Not being snippy at all- I just think organizing a list of benefits could be useful...

1.
2.
3.

Maybe if we present it this way than RED can give us a clear rebuttal.

I wonder if there would be an issue with the rolling shutter having a farther distance to roll in the same amount of time... Data rates, etc...


you sure know how to rouse 'em brook...

maybe with 4:3 RED can develop some way to split up the frame/pixels to please those 3d/DNR crazies! :gun: :tongue: (peace-only kidding)
 
Brook I just re-read this post and want to clarify that it was was not specifically directed to you- Your post was awesome, and your positions well stated- I kinda just want to hear what others think about it- Though you are welcome to bust out a list too...
 
No worries, I didn't take offense to it in any way.

Here are a few benefits:

1: FOV of the Epic will match FOV of a normal film camera without the need for conversion factors.
2: Epic will be able to shoot 4:3 for TV without the need for conversion factors.
3: Epic will be able to properly utilize 2:1 anamorphic lenses.
4: The look-around area will be outside of what should be the recorded area.

Etc. :)
 
Stupid question. Why doesnt Red make RedOne upgrade Mysterium X sensor real 4perf S35mm and Epic something else(VistaVision). What Im really trying to understand as what was the logic of saying RedOne is S35mm but on Brooks charts its not?:help:
 
I'd wager to guess that non anamorphic formats not being shot four perf anymore. The 4:3 format is all but dead except for shooting anamorphic and the market there is severely limited by the scarce number of 2:1 lenses.

The sensor i believe is super35 sized and the recording formats fall into it. I don't quite understand the drama over trying to match a 'normal' film field of view. FOV is all over the place depending on which format you're shooting and especially if you're paying attention vertical FOV too. If there was a standard framing then we wouldn't have tons of different ground glass formats.

People often think of focal length as their definition for FOV when it should be a separate but related variable. That's especially true when you start talking about anamorphics.
 
So what's the problem trimming 16:9 to 4:3? If you ask for 4:3 then you'll be trimming everytime you do 16:9 or 2:40. It's vicious cycle. Since almost every tv being sold these days is now 16:9 it stands to reason that that will be the most common format in the coming years. It makes sense to design the camera around the most common denominator.
 
As I described in the first post, cropping 16:9 to 4:3 results in a sensor area that is 44.43% the size of a normal 4:3 four-perforation movement. Accordingly, you must use significantly wider lenses.

To get the equivalent FOV of an 18mm on a normal four-perforation movement, you'd need an 8mm lens on the RED using a 4:3 extraction from the already undersized 16:9 area.

That's the issue.
 
It's the same issue that's been around for years posting/shooting 16:9 with both 16:9 and 4:3 deliverable. My point is still the same, with 16:9 being dominant format for the next 10-20 years, that should be the camera's main format. To make the main format 4:3 is ass backwards.
 
Not if you make 4:3 by having the sensor made large enough that the 16:9 is hitting 24.89mm x 14.0mm of the sensor, of coarse the down side to that is that the 4:3 will be, for lack of a better phrase over sampling.
I'm rubbish at maths so I can't work out what the 4:3 sensor size would be from that, I'm sure its an easy formula sitting in this thread somewhere.

I would rather be putting on bigger lenses than smaller ones to match back to 35mm.

Plus your ultra wide anamorphic stuff would get a bit Imax-y. I see no harm.

or am I completely off the mark here?
 
The problem with 4:3 on a RED is that the significantly smaller image area means that the relative depth of field created is significantly greater than that of 35mm film's 4:3. It is also magnifying the optics more which means that any lens issues are magnified. And lastly it means that RED's much-touted 4K resolution is not used, thereby diminishing the advantages of shooting on RED in the first place. I'm not saying it still can't be a good tool for the job; just listing some of the issues involved.
 
So, in connection with the highest requirements:

The future RED Epic camera will be the professional cinema camera [no compromises].

RED One is a good professional cinema camera. [some compromises]

And the RED Scarlet will be an OK professional cinema camera. [some (more) compromises] :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top