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 :)

RPPs... 4K vs. 5K

I disagree that a new term should be created to refer to lens/sensor coverage in this way.

Every aspect ratio at every resolution on every sensor will have a diagonal image circle measurement associated with it. Why not use these numbers?

For example: (estimated numbers, incomplete list)


  • Mysterium-X 2/3 DSMC
  • ...
  • Mysterium RED One 2:1 -- 27.28mm image circle
  • Mysterium RED One 16:9 -- 27.98mm image circle
  • Mysterium-X S35 DSMC 16:9 -- 29.33mm image circle
  • Mysterium-X S35 DSMC 2.40:1 -- 30.03mm image circle
  • Mysterium-X S35 DSMC 2:1 -- 31.36mm image circle
  • ...
  • Mysterium Monstro FF35 DSMC
  • Mysterium Monstro 645 DSMC
  • ...

When the exact measurements are known for all options (including windowed modes), and arranged in ascending order as above, it's then easy to see which modes are 'compatible' with any given lens simply by looking at its usable image circle before falloff.

Using the number '35' in any new term, purely by convention and not due to its significance in relation to the sensor's dimensions, can surely only lead to more confusion.
 
GLEN TRACY said:
I like "super-duper 35", which is of course better than just plain "super 35".
Click to expand...
Hehe.... OT but when I was a pilot in Papua New Guinea, I used to fly a Beech 1900D which was a very similar aircraft to the Beech 350 King Air (same heritage):

Beech1900D_Airlines_PNG.jpg


Of course, being in a slightly backward country as far as the penetration of 20th century technology went, the Air Traffic Controllers often used to refer to us as the "Super-Duper King Air" as the 350 model was more popular locally and thus better known by its nickname.

"Follow the Super-Duper King Air on final approach" was a common and much laughed at call heard back in the day! :rofl:

Thanks for the trip down memory lane!

Dont_Cut_Your_Arm_Off.jpg


Now, back on topic! +1 for X35 :thumbsup:

Paul
 
IMHO, The names should cover both the size and resolution. That way if the density gets improved down the road the naming convention will not have to be revisited... Something like 5KFF35, 4KCine35, etc

Bob
 
Does the Epic-X have a larger S35 sensor than the Epic S35 and Scarlet S35? I was under the impression that the only difference was the Epic-X sensors were the best of the best. Perhaps I missed the clarification of what "Mysterium-X Select" meant?
 
Doubt!!

Doubt!!

X35 is enough to me.

The wider lens effect on a 5k sensor with the same fotosensors size is logic. In 5k we see the window of the light from a 35mm PL lens. 4k Windowed mode in red language. I´m wrong?

We going to upgrade our units for sure, but only looking for more DR, RC250 and more Fps.

The 50mm as 40mm is superb for me (wider mmmmhh!), but non convenient (customers thinking), when a Director/DOP ask for a 18 they want to say: 18 not 12.

For me to understand:

- 50mm in a mysteriumX 5K is a 50mm
- 50mm in a mysteriumX 4K is a 40mm

right? or

- 50mm in a mysteriumX 5K is a 40mm

????
 
Will we actually be able to shoot anamorph with the hawks (x1.3) on the Scarlet S35 (because it's not mentioned on the dec 3rd anouncement).

Or could we have similar effect using the Redprimes and crop to 2.35??

I get somewhat confused...
 
okay, I have a question...

On the s35 scarlet...

I shoot with a 50mm RPP at 2K it acts like a... what?

And also what would it act like when shooting FF1080P?
 
Steven and Max have got the right idea, image size and resolution.


I like the way zoom lenses are labelled as zoom ratio x widest focal length ie 6x5, 22x7.5 or 86x9.7

how about simply combining the size of the image circle with resolution in a similar fashion, for example

32/6k
28/4k
20/2k

The Image circle number tells us what lenses will fit and what their field of view will be. Im not certain but there probably is a simple formula to deduce scope, 16:9 and academy resolutions from these numbers?

The Pixel count tells us resolution and (all things being equal) comparative sensitivity. ie a 32/2k is bound to be more sensitive than a 32/6k.


There is still plenty of room for manufacturer's branding and fashionable non descriptive product names (that will not stand the test of time) in addition to a sensible tech specification.


Mike Brennan
 
Well, the Epic really doesn't have anything to do with 35mm film anymore . . . Scope, Academy, Techniscope, full frame (not full still image frame), 1.85, 1.66, 2 perf, 3 perf, super 35, Vistavision, these are all the most common terms related to actually running film through a 35mm movie camera.

So X35 makes the most sense to me, given that X is enigmatic and not tied to anything that has existed before, and 35 does ground it in our consciousness as being something like a 35mm format.

Max35 is like calling one set of lenses ultra and another master. Like, what to do when the frame gets larger? UltraMax35? MaxiMax35?

And it's about time that Jim and RED invent a new format and give it a name. Mostly people say "We're shooting RED" for this show and that's not enough, I think.

Also X35 sounds fun, like a planet in a sci fi serial from the 50's . . .
 
Yeah, this was being discussed yesterday in another thread... Don't recall which at the moment.

I'll put in my vote for X35 to represent the dimensions of this new format. One thing that people should consider is that this format isn't necessarily tied to the Mysterium-X. That's the sensor that is bringing it about, along with the RPP's and other optics that can cover the new sensor. But it won't always be that way. This "X35" mode would equate to about 4.7K on a Monstro sensor it seems. And future sensors that provide enough area for the X35 format could very well have much higher pixel counts than 5K at the same dimensions.

I like X35 - I look forward to using it. :)
 
vico said:
For me to understand:

- 50mm in a mysteriumX 5K is a 50mm
- 50mm in a mysteriumX 4K is a 40mm

right? or

- 50mm in a mysteriumX 5K is a 40mm

????
Click to expand...

Lets try to use the phrase "acts like" instead of "is". A 50mm is always a 50mm, no matter what the sensor size. A 50mm can "act like" a 40mm on an X35 size sensor.

Jim
 
Douglas Underdahl said:
Well, the Epic really doesn't have anything to do with 35mm film anymore . . .

. . .And it's about time that Jim and RED invent a new format and give it a name. Mostly people say "We're shooting RED" for this show and that's not enough, I think. . .
Click to expand...

I second this notion. The new sensor size in Epic 5K camera, 30mm X 15mm, has NOTHING to do with "35" anymore (still or movie), why do we want to cling to the old adage?
 
Download iSee4K for Iphone....no doubt 5k will be added soon
 
I vote for a brilliantly ridiculous Red-created nickname in the vein of "Mysterium" or my personal favourite "Unobtanium", kind of like all those funny names from the 50's like Cinemascope, Cinerema & VistaVision, not to mention even crazier names like Astrovision, Thrillarama & Magirama...come on Red, come with something utterly crazy!! We'll love you for it!! :thumbup1:
 
How about an FOV Simulator?

How about an FOV Simulator?

Hi All,

I'm no expert, but it seems in trying to understand "X35", the actual FOV using a baseline lens is a goal to consider and a simulator would be very helpful.

Since we're talking about how lenses behave, and if FOV is important, the terms "X35" and "Max35" etc., are meaningless because they don't provide any indication as to how a particular lens "acts" on a given sensor. FOV requires a translation using a variable--the sensor's resolution. So, visualizing the FOV is ultimately the goal of the translation.

In essence, there is no baseline meaning of "1" when a 50mm lens "acts like" a 40mm lens. A baseline of "50mm acts like a 50mm" is missing in the proposed naming conventions. If for no other reason than to avoid confusion of what X35 means a way to visualize lens/sensor combos would go along way to understanding "X35".

So, how about a simulator? Pick the sensor (or the resolution) and your lens then see a frame with an image of the actual FOV and a comparison to a baseline lens FOV (where a 50mm acts like 50mm in 4k or whatever). This could be a web based app, an iPhone app or for that matter, I suppose the programmers at Red could build this into an on-screen menu and display the simulation on the viewfinder and though an external monitor. Who knows, this could save time and money in the field.

Like I said, I'm no expert, but "50mm" and "5k" are much more meaningful than X35, if X35 means "50mm acts like a 40mm". A simulator would allow everyone to see what X35 means.


Marc
 
Clearly, saying a lens will or will not cover "5K" means next to nothing as Jim has pointed out it's a moving target that is not consistent. However, I feel something like "x35" is just as vague. Ultimately, you still have to do calculations to figure out exactly what that means.

I think we were on the right track before by using lens coverage circles and format area diagonals. It is so much easier and makes way more sense (to me) to simply say "this lens covers a 32mm image circle." Bam, that's set in stone and never changes. Now all that RED has to do is make a simple list of the common formats and what their max size is so it can easily be compared to the lens in question and see if full coverage is available or not. Example:

Maximum Lens Coverage Chart:
25mm RPP: 33mm
50mm RPP: 34mm

Format Area Chart:
Scarlet s35 - 5K: 32mm
Epic FF35 - 4K: 31mm
Epic FF35 - 6K: 34mm

With such a chart, we can easily see for example that in this list the 50mm RPP would be enough to cover us in 6K, while the 25mm would not. We'd need to drop down to 4K to get full coverage from that lens. (Just so there is no confusion, those numbers are completely fabricated and just there to be used as an example.)

If we had one clean master list of formats and lens coverage circles, it would be much easier to reference specific lens values quickly and accurately and determine whether or not a certain lens is going to cut it for a job. With so many new cameras coming out and with new non-standard recording formats being made available that don't always conform to the standards we're used to, I think having such a list is vital. Additionally, as RED (or other qualified individuals) do more testing, the list can easily be updated with other lenses (RED brand or not), so it's easy to compare glass and make sure the right lens is used for a given scenario. The best part is that no matter what happens or how many "K" worth of pixels we cram onto a sensor in the future, the physical size of the lens coverage area doesn't change - so this list is good forever.

As cool or fun as it is to start making up terms like "x35," I really employ RED to use an approach like this that is much more functional and straightforward. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top