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 :)

Red Shark Article on Helium 8K S35

Great read Nick.

One random thought timing-of-anouncement wise might (I pondered) be related to RED being on their third extension of the Heium trademark.

Perhaps there is a limit on the number of extensions before a real product has to materialize?

AJ
 
Last edited:
Nice read, Nick. Thanks...


David Battistella said:
Just getting the sensor names straight.

RED ONE M
RED ONE MX
EPIC MX
EPIC DRAGON
WEAPON DRAGON
WEAPON HELIUM
Click to expand...


Que ?


Sensors ?

Mysterium
Mysterium X
Dragon
Helium

?
 
David Battistella said:
Just getting the sensor names straight.

RED ONE M
RED ONE MX
EPIC MX
EPIC DRAGON
WEAPON DRAGON
WEAPON HELIUM

Yes?

BODY STYLES

RED ONE (M and MX)
EPIC (MX and DRAGON)
SCARLET (MX and DRAGON)
WEAPON (DRAGON and HELIUM)
RAVEN (DRAGON and helium ??????)
EPIC W - (HELIUM ONLY)


I think this is right. Just trying to keep track. Things were so simple with the RED ONE. :)


David





David
Click to expand...

Yes David,

But you missed the "WEAPON DRAGON VV"... :)
 
Kemalettin Sert said:
why making S35 camera? Just make 4:3 or 6:5 sensor and people would use both ana and s35 lenses on it.I just dont understand the logic behind this.sorry
Click to expand...

There are a lot of reasons. Mainly is that spherical shooters outnumber anamorphic shooters in the realm of 100 to 1. Perhaps more even. Further still a good chunk of people who do explore anamorphic also shoot spherical "most of the time". That's not to say there aren't people who just shoot anamorphic. There are. They just aren't even close to the many.

I'm on the side that 1.9:1 is actually the best way to go from a modern workflow perspective.

Most things these day are shot for 16x9 release, 1.85:1 for those that still do that, and 2.40:1. All of which work well in 1.9:1. Not to mention the maximum DCI spec is 1.9:1 as well.

The "best of both worlds" for me comes in the form of a larger format sensor like the 8K VV for example. Within the 40.96x21.60 you have several common formats useful for spherical and anamorphic shooting. Plus you have access to the potential of larger format imaging.

Helium 8K S35 will be able to shoot anamorphic with it's 1.9:1 sensor just like Dragon 6K cameras can today.

But who knows. RED did indeed release a small batch of 8K VV ANA sensors that "work" the way you'd like.
 
Zeb B said:
Well written Nick. Don't want to be Debbie Downer here but . . . what existing S35 lens can resolve 8K resolution?
Click to expand...

8k resolution on that small area is alowing for far less olpf. So picture is sharper than normal 6k same size without more to start with. then some sense for sure at times have that resolution. But I think thats not really what so much sought after as much as the higher downsample. Simply normally you do not really see so much noise in your well lit sharp areas of the frame. Noise is more visible in the low detailed out of focus areas, the higher number of pixels simply makes the noise structure cleaner looking. So if the pixels are only as good as dragon pixels then the noise pattern will look far better than normal dragon 6k. And normally you fight noise long before resolution a closed down UP or leica sumicron C resolve quite high resolution.
 
Phil Holland said:
There are a lot of reasons. Mainly is that spherical shooters outnumber anamorphic shooters in the realm of 100 to 1. Perhaps more even. Further still a good chunk of people who do explore anamorphic also shoot spherical "most of the time". That's not to say there aren't people who just shoot anamorphic. There are. They just aren't even close to the many.

I'm on the side that 1.9:1 is actually the best way to go from a modern workflow perspective.

Most things these day are shot for 16x9 release, 1.85:1 for those that still do that, and 2.40:1. All of which work well in 1.9:1. Not to mention the maximum DCI spec is 1.9:1 as well.

The "best of both worlds" for me comes in the form of a larger format sensor like the 8K VV for example. Within the 40.96x21.60 you have several common formats useful for spherical and anamorphic shooting. Plus you have access to the potential of larger format imaging.

Helium 8K S35 will be able to shoot anamorphic with it's 1.9:1 sensor just like Dragon 6K cameras can today.

But who knows. RED did indeed release a small batch of 8K VV ANA sensors that "work" the way you'd like.
Click to expand...
Usual people yes because they are poor cant afford ana glass, hollywood movies big is a no no.Can you say anamorphic movies is 100 to 1 in hollywood? Please just look at Arri and tell me why they are shipping Alexa Mini with 4:3 sensor instead of making 2 different line like 16:9 and 4:3 ?
 
Kemalettin Sert said:
Usual people yes because they are poor cant afford ana glass, hollywood movies big is a no no.Can you say anamorphic movies is 100 to 1 in hollywood? Please just look at Arri and tell me why they are shipping Alexa Mini with 4:3 sensor instead of making 2 different line like 16:9 and 4:3 ?
Click to expand...

While your views on wealth and how it ties to anamorphic production doesn't actually "mean" anything, the simple answer is there are much, much more spherical productions than anamorphic. Yes, even here in Hollywood.

The question in the perspective here is would you like a sensor that produces more advantages for spherical shoots or is weighted for anamorphic shoots. And in this case 2X optimized.

RED literally has solutions for all of that and it's on display rather clearly with PV's intentions and method with the DXL as well as some of the other folks who are going Dragon 8K VV.

And just to throw a bigger stick into the fire. Yes, a 1.9:1 or even 1.78:1 sensor is more ideal for 2X, 1.3X, and 1.25X as well as spherical.

Again, I'll leave it on the stipulation of "who knows, maybe RED will make a taller Helium" (you know like they did with Dragon).
 
Kemalettin Sert said:
Usual people yes because they are poor cant afford ana glass, hollywood movies big is a no no.Can you say anamorphic movies is 100 to 1 in hollywood? Please just look at Arri and tell me why they are shipping Alexa Mini with 4:3 sensor instead of making 2 different line like 16:9 and 4:3 ?
Click to expand...


+1 RED is talking about format choice but doensn't listen to people wanting to have the flexibility to shoot x2 ana. Pana DXL is not an option for 99.9% of the shooter out there that will use a RED camera. Give us a 8k 18.6x24.89mm (wich is the playground for all 35mm motion picture formats) Helium sensor and there is no need to go with Arri for what ever production.

Pat

PS: Nice post Nick, thanks a lot.
 
Great article Nick, probably my first compulsive RedShark click without the email even fully loading ;)
ahh love that opening image caption, a complex world requires complex imaging .... so true, I think I'll adopt that as my go-to saying when questioned on quoting to shoot on Weapon
 
Phil Holland said:
While your views on wealth and how it ties to anamorphic production doesn't actually "mean" anything, the simple answer is there are much, much more spherical productions than anamorphic. Yes, even here in Hollywood.

The question in the perspective here is would you like a sensor that produces more advantages for spherical shoots or is weighted for anamorphic shoots. And in this case 2X optimized.

RED literally has solutions for all of that and it's on display rather clearly with PV's intentions and method with the DXL as well as some of the other folks who are going Dragon 8K VV.

And just to throw a bigger stick into the fire. Yes, a 1.9:1 or even 1.78:1 sensor is more ideal for 2X, 1.3X, and 1.25X as well as spherical.

Again, I'll leave it on the stipulation of "who knows, maybe RED will make a taller Helium" (you know like they did with Dragon).
Click to expand...

To me even if shooting for 1:2.41 I think if the camera could do 1:1 or such would be optimal even for spherical lenses. I mean better to crop in post than be sorry it was cropped in camera. I see a not so distant future where we make sure to record everything that goes trough the lens and possibly a little bit more. It simply does not make sense to trust the camera operator to make the perfect framing if it´s possible to shoot and have a complete capture of what the lens used actually sees and then let the framing be metadata. And as it seams that the hurdle of making good sensors that are bigger than S35 is already something of the past I think such tactics is not too far away. A round sensor would make most sense, as there is not too many square lenses... :)
 
Björn Benckert said:
To me even if shooting for 1:2.41 I think if the camera could do 1:1 or such would be optimal even for spherical lenses. I mean better to crop in post than be sorry it was cropped in camera. I see a not so distant future where we make sure to record everything that goes trough the lens and possibly a little bit more. It simply does not make sense to trust the camera operator to make the perfect framing if it´s possible to shoot and have a complete capture of what the lens used actually sees and then let the framing be metadata. And as it seams that the hurdle of making good sensors that are bigger than S35 is already something of the past I think such tactics is not too far away. A round sensor would make most sense, as there is not too many square lenses... :)
Click to expand...

Or as sensors are becoming amenable to specialization, how about an anamorphic sensor for use with a spherical lens? '-)

Otherwise, a multi-lens camera may be the answer to recording everything in a scene. With one like that you could almost do away with the camera operator.
 
Kemalettin Sert said:
Usual people yes because they are poor cant afford ana glass, hollywood movies big is a no no.Can you say anamorphic movies is 100 to 1 in hollywood? Please just look at Arri and tell me why they are shipping Alexa Mini with 4:3 sensor instead of making 2 different line like 16:9 and 4:3 ?
Click to expand...
I don't think this is accurate at all. Budget doesn't always dictate this decision. Just worked on a Tier 1 feature that shot anamorphic. Any of us can make deals and get anamorphic glass. Depends on relationships and if it's appropriate for the production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top