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 :)

November 30th Announcement Feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I recall correctly, someone asked about the side handle and the response was they were still working out this particular detail for the fixed. It came about when someone asked about the battery because the side handle was to have the battery in it and now we aren't certain where the battery plays into things.
 
Using this way-handy form (http://www.panavision.co.nz/Main/kbase.asp?cat=13), I was able to find out the FF35 (what I'm accustomed to in the photo world) equivalents of the 2/3" Red mini-primes:

6mm = 20mm
8mm = 26.7mm
16mm = 53.3mm
25mm = 83mm
50mm = 167mm

But I had some trouble finding out at what focal length a 2/3" lens has no perspective distortion (like, for instance, how in FF35, it's 50mm). Anyone know? Is it around 16mm?
 
Last edited:
joshua csehak said:
But I had some trouble finding out at what focal length a 2/3" lens has no perspective distortion (like, for instance, how in FF35, it's 50mm). Anyone know? Is it around 16mm?
Click to expand...

Well, if you go by the old rule of the length of the diagonal, then for FF35 (36x24) then it's around 43mm, for the full RED sensor (24.4x13.7), it's around a 28mm, and for a 2/3" sensor (9.58x5.39) it's around 11mm.

If you go by the conversion factors for horizontal view, a 50mm in FF35 is a 34mm for S35 and a 13mm for 2/3", more or less.
 
joshua csehak said:
But I had some trouble finding out at what focal length a 2/3" lens has no perspective distortion (like, for instance, how in FF35, it's 50mm).
Click to expand...

This is one portion of the so-called "50mm myth". There's nothing magic about 50mm, and "perspective distortion" is a misnomer. Focal length doesn't change perspective (only position does, though sometimes you change focal length because you change position, but it's the position change that changes perspective, not the change of focal length).
 
It's just a common expression, a "lack of perspective distortion" that a 50mm lens gives you in FF35. We all know what he's talking about, however you want to call it -- a "normal" lens, whatever (though I'm not too fond of that term either.) You could describe it as the focal length that gives you no image magnification or reduction when you look at the subject with your own eyes and then with through the lens. And I wouldn't call that "matching human vision or perspective" either since that ignores peripheral vision.
 
Yeah, I wasn't quite sure how to put it, but thanks very much for the info. It sounds like the 16 is the "normal" one, the 25 is good for portraits, the 8, for wide-angles, and the 6 and 50 for when you want really wide or telephoto shots. Which makes sense.

I wonder what the best 2/3" zoom options there are out there for the people who go for the interchangeable flavor, since, IIRC, Jarred said Red isn't going to rehouse their fixed zoom for use with the interchangeable Scarlet.

Of course, maybe the best route is to get both, the fixed for ENG stuff (or zoomy shots) and the interchangeable for when you need those extra 2 stops of light, and then you have a backup camera, which is always a good thing.

Or course again, it's not like I don't have at least 5 months to decide...
 
Tom L said:
Of course, there are other advantages to larger sensors aside from DOF. First and foremost is superior image quality.
Click to expand...

The larger sensors will have higher resolution, but aside from that, I would be interested to run some tests on finished products to see if a larger sensor actually equals noticeable superior image quality on finished output at, say, 1920x1080.
 
Stephen Strangways said:
The larger sensors will have higher resolution, but aside from that, I would be interested to run some tests on finished products to see if a larger sensor actually equals noticeable superior image quality on finished output at, say, 1920x1080.
Click to expand...

In my experience with the Red One, scaling from 4k down to 1920 definitely gives you a better looking image than if you were to just crop out the center 1920x1080 of the same shot, but framed twice as wide (or use windowed mode). Sometimes you get a little haloing and other artifacts, especially with lesser-quality lenses, and the scaling makes all that disappear. Anyone else?

What i'm really curious about is how the 3k Scarlet will look scaled down to 1920. I think it'll be just right.
 
3K to 1080P is not really "oversampling" because it's 3K RAW and it has to generate 1.9K RGB from that, so it's about the right resolution to create 1080P, but it's not an excess of resolution.

Remember that a 3-CCD 1080P camera has about 2.2MP per color, or 6.6MP total. A 3K RAW sensor, if 3072 x 1726, is about 5.3MP total from which it has to generate RGB.
 
Measured resolution on luma should be around 2.5k in 3k mode, so when reducing that to 2k there's a 125% oversampling factor. Chroma is a touch under-sampled, but I reckon that you'd be hard-pressed ever to see that, and that overall, you'd get a very fine image.

Graeme
 
That also begs the question i.e. in FCP

That also begs the question i.e. in FCP

If the log and xfer part of FCP will being in 3k at say 1.5 how will that effect all of this? The scaling will be a bit odd won't it? Then trying to scale that into HD res. Hmm I wouldn't think that would be great for image quality. I have yet to see anyone really talk about the 4k to 2k but 3k to 1.5 of scarlet.
CJ Adams


Graeme Nattress said:
Measured resolution on luma should be around 2.5k in 3k mode, so when reducing that to 2k there's a 125% oversampling factor. Chroma is a touch under-sampled, but I reckon that you'd be hard-pressed ever to see that, and that overall, you'd get a very fine image.

Graeme
Click to expand...
 
Will Nikon electronic mount support nikon lenses that don't have internal focus motors? Or is it only going to focus the af-s lenses?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
3K to 1080P is not really "oversampling" because it's 3K RAW and it has to generate 1.9K RGB from that, so it's about the right resolution to create 1080P, but it's not an excess of resolution.

Remember that a 3-CCD 1080P camera has about 2.2MP per color, or 6.6MP total. A 3K RAW sensor, if 3072 x 1726, is about 5.3MP total from which it has to generate RGB.
Click to expand...
Graeme Nattress said:
Measured resolution on luma should be around 2.5k in 3k mode, so when reducing that to 2k there's a 125% oversampling factor. Chroma is a touch under-sampled, but I reckon that you'd be hard-pressed ever to see that, and that overall, you'd get a very fine image.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I get so damn confused when this kind of stuff comes up on this forum; I think you guys say "resolution [of the image]" (which as a still photographer I've always used to mean the actual literal pixel dimensions of the image) to mean what I'm used to seeing referred to as "resolving power [of the lens or sensor]."

The final RGB image isn't actually interpolated down to 2.5K, is it? What are the actual pixel dimensions of the final image?
 
Actual pixels is 3k across. But when you measure the 3k image, you'll only be able to discern detail up to around 2.5k.

Graeme
 
physical resolution ( pixel count X pixel width and height ) [ density ]

and measured resolution ( which will also be affected by whet ever you put in front of the sensor... i.e. optics and atmosphere. )

To me.... the most important aspects of a camera are:

• pixel density
• sensor size
• sensitivity
• dynamic range
• color depth

the rest is just form factor and workflow.

Red Rocks!
 
Lee Saxon said:
I get so damn confused when this kind of stuff comes up on this forum; I think you guys say "resolution [of the image]" (which as a still photographer I've always used to mean the actual literal pixel dimensions of the image) in reference to what every still photography resource I've ever studied refers to as "resolving power [of the lens or sensor]."

The final RGB image isn't actually interpolated down to 2.5K, is it? What are the actual pixel dimensions of the final image?
Click to expand...

The pixel resolution doesn't change unless the image is scaled. The optical resolution as seen on a test chart will always be somewhat less than the pixel resolution. Final optical resolution is a product of many factors, including the debayer process, OLPF, and lens MTF.
This is just as true of 3-chip video cameras too. 1080p vertical resolution typically falls around 750 to 800 TV lines at best. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The closer to display of full pixel resolution you get, the more likely you are to get undesirable artifacts like moire, aliasing, and loss of color purity.
A Bayer pattern sensor with the same luminance resolution should provide a final processed image similar to a 3-chip video camera with 4:2:2 color sampling. That is color is sampled and processed at 50% of luminance resolution. The reason this works pretty well visually is that red/blue color resolution of the human eye is similarly less than luminance resolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top