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.
Peter Majtan said:
The question Jim is who do You mean by "You"... :)
Click to expand...

Everyone who has guessed at the size specs. There has never been a posted pixel spec given for Epic.

Jim
 
Peter Majtan said:
Well You did announce it as "5K EPIC"...

There is only so many possible pixel specs to fit in a "5K" description, mostly differing on the format ratio... Unless of course the "5K" is the red herring...
Click to expand...

It is a 5K sensor... but your assumptions are wrong. I'm not going to help you out here though. Complete specs will be given before the cameras are available.

Jim
 
At the best You could have meant 5K as 5.5K (as with Red One) and it could have been related to resolved resolution. So it is safe to assume that EPIC will have horizontally somewhere between 5120 ~ 7052 pixels. Vertically I dare to assume You will follow the 16:9 ratio which should put the total resolution somewhere between:

5120 x 2880 pixels

and

7052 x 3996 pixels

Right? :)
 
Peter Majtan said:
At the best You could have meant 5K as 5.5K (as with Red One) and it could have been related to resolved resolution. So it is safe to assume that EPIC will have horizontally somewhere between 5120 ~ 7052 pixels. Vertically I dare to assume You will follow the 16:9 ratio which should put the total resolution somewhere between:

5120 x 2880 pixels

and

7052 x 3996 pixels

Right? :)
Click to expand...

You are assuming just about everything wrong and I'm not prepared to help you get this right. My best solution (and I do like you) is to drop the conjecture until we post the specs.

Jim
 
I fully respect your decision to stay mum on the word until you're well and ready, Jim. I have a feeling we're still a ways off anyway. I wasn't really "guessing" at specs myself, just offering my opinion on what the DC camera of the future "should" offer, as well as putting in my two cents on the 4:3 issue - which was essentially Brook's input in the original post. As far as Epic is concerned, I am still pretty optimistic... you haven't been in the business of letting people down so far. :)
 
I can't imagine anyone being disappointed in Epic... unless they expect a 7K sensor. Remember, we have an image circle to deal with.

Jim
 
ibloom said:
Likewise depth of field is an issue on larger formats that make them undesirable for practical cinematography?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure a full frame 35mm SLR lens has the same DOF as a PL Mount 35mm lens. 35 is the 35, right? You'd just get a wider field of view.

I don't think it would be suicide for RED at all because you still could put a PL mount on the camera and have it be a center cut of the sensor the same way a 16mm lens works on a RED right now. BUT RED could introduce full frame lenses that are wider and have more total pixels.

Now that might not be feasible now or for EPIC, but it's a pretty smart target to try to hit someday.
 
I personally think that if you're gonna go larger than Super35, you may as well go for something really big... if you need bigger, you can afford the extra cost... I'm talking 65mm or bigger. That way you get another well-established cinematographic format, plus super35 and vistavision at the same time. Just put on an interchangeable lens mount system that can offer PL mount, PV mount (or whatever variant Panavision uses for their system 65 lenses), Arri Maxi PL, maybe a Hasselblad or other MF stills mount, and smart Nikon and Canon mounts.


Which brings me to what you're saying about Depth of Field joelnet. You are correct that the same lens will have identical DOF whether mounted on a 35mm SLR or a Super35 camera. Indeed, if the image circle is large enough, the same lens will offer the same DOF on even a 65mm camera, or a 16mm camera.
However, it is our perception of DOF that changes, since we don't shoot the same lens for the same shot on different formats. Each format means a different field of view. So your telephoto on 16mm becomes your normal on super35 becomes your moderate wide on VistaVision becomes your ultrawide on 65mm.

So to get identical fields of view, the larger your format, the longer your focal length must be, and consequentially the shallower your depth of field at a given f/stop and focus distance. That's why it's much easier to get shallow DOF on a super35 camera versus say 16mm, and why, if you see say a 65mm or IMAX picture, depth of field on a moderately wide shot will be noticeably shallower than if you shot the same scene with the same framing and the same aperture on super35.
 
Silentwave,
I definitely agree with what you are saying about the extra large sensor and interchangeable mounts. It hadn't really crossed my mind that if the sensor was say Vistavision, then I could shout s35 most of the time and then throw on some slr glass when shooting effects plates or whatever.
Down the line something like this with a 65mm sensor makes sense when the technology is cheaper, even if you are only shooting 65 a small percentage of the time and you can still keep the camera body small.
Hell, I wouldn't mind being able to shoot some moving images on a 4x5 sized sensor. I'm sure in the future we'll be able to upgrade our brains with focus pulling chips. :spidy:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top