RPPs... 4K vs. 5K

[James Brundige]

That made me laugh, historically people realised you used different focal length lenses on different formats. If by historically you mean the last 5 -10 years you might have a point.

The history I am referring to is more like the last 50 or 60 years, since 35 mm still film has been the de facto standard, and 50 mm lenses were considered "normal" for that format. I shot many super 16 shows during that time, which of course had a different lens language.
Evin has a good explanation here:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2732

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Eeeew. I don't like the idea of diagonals.

Because then I need to know aspect ratio of the sensor as well.

I can assume your sensor is 1+:1 if it's a diagonal I have to break out trig to figure out the real FOV which I tend to think of in horizontal dimensions.


"32(mm)|1.77|5k"

Width | Aspect |Resolution

That makes the most sense to me. In plain english "5k 32mm sensor"

Personally I'm already annoyed with "s35, ff35 etc.." it's inconsistent between sensors and tells me very little in the name itself.

 

[Valeriu Campan]

All '35xxxx' format names refer to the width of the celluloid outside the sprockets.

The new formats coming out with the use of current and future RED sensors have different image circles and that can be quite confusing.

I think we should all forget the 35mm nomenclature, as Vistavision that still uses 35mm film stock, is not named as 'Maxi35' or anything near it.

I'd be more inclined to something like:
- REDVISION 4k or 5K
- or REDVISION 24, REDVISION 29, where the number represents the diameter of the image circle and gives a better indication of the physical size of the frame. If in the future the photosites will get smaller for a better sensitvity and dynamic range (wishful thinking), the 'K" nomenclature could change and have no relevance to the optical part of the equation.

To Red's credit, they introduced a TOTALLY new format that has a different look, and already people say, 'It has that Red look'.

When people ask me about the last film I shot, was it 35? I cannot say yes. I say: It's RED 4K!

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

How about 32x5k

If it's a 2:1 sensor but you're shooting 16:9
then you just say:

23x4.5k

Then you just tack on the aspect as desired. 23x4.5k @ 16:9

it tells you everything you need to know but uses no 'special' characters. such as \ | or :.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Originally Super-35, when it was resurrected by John Alcott to shoot "Greystoke" (he didn't realize it was briefly used in the late 1950's as a format called "SuperScope 235"), was called "Super Techniscope" because Alcott thought of it as a bigger version of 2-perf 35mm Techniscope.

But the name was changed within two features ("Top Gun" and "Silverado" were made under the Super Techniscope moniker) to the more generic "Super-35" (which honestly is just Full Aperture photography) because: (1) it could be used to shoot more than movies intended for scope release; and (2) The "Techni-" prefix came from Technicolor Italia, which developed the format in 1960.

So while RED could rename all the formats, and create new ones, with the prefix "RED" in the name, that's fine, but they would be unique to RED, no other manufacturer would use them.

I've already mentioned the problem with putting descriptive numbers in a label, it's too specific, you need a label to cover a mild range or else you end up with too many new labels for similar formats just because they differ by 1mm or something. But since I generally have to take the time to calculate diagonals based on aspect ratio, I prefer thinking of formats by their horizontal dimensions, which allows some flexibility as people crop them vertically. But again, if you're talking about a label for a format, it's better to be less specific, not more -- look at the specs for APS-C, there are some mild sensor size variations between Nikon and Canon there.

Yes, ideally you'd start from scratch with all the size categories, but I don't see that happening, so we're back to describing a size between Super-35 and Full-Frame 35mm that hopefully does not use pixel dimensions as a naming device for physical size. But I suspect as we argue, it's just going to default to "5K".

I guess it's only when manufacturers talk together that they can agree on some naming structure for a new product that is used by more than one manufacturer. You'd think the sensor makers out there would start wanting to come up with a naming structure, whether it's something boring like "APS- (insert letter of alphabet)" or something catchier.

 

[James Brundige]

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

Sounds like "X35" it will be. From the vote that counts.

What do we call Red One footage - Super 35 Red or 4K Digital ??? I like David's "Redorama" for 2.4:1

 

[david farland]

Film is a 35mm film strip exposed portrait or lanscape between the perforations.
Still film is 35mm width and cine is 24mm width. Each have a range of heights and variances on their width.

In the cine world as soon as you say 35mm film (Super, Academy, Anamorphic), I think sitting in a cinema watching a 35mm film that sometimes may be wide screen and has film 'resolution'.
If you then tell me it's a digital 'film' I still go 35mm and have certain expectations on the quality.
If you say 2k, 4K, 5k or 6K, you're now asking me to define the resolution instead of the format, and with immense pressure on my lizard stem, I think I'll see a cleaner picture if it's 6K instead of 2K, because there's more pixels.

Even if you tell me FF35, all I think is you're using a larger camera aperature (like 65mm). I'll go...wow....Still 35mm frames (35mm x 24mm) in the cine world.

As much as the film world has journeyed on different formats and got cleaner over the years, all people have thought is....'oh, it was wider or cleaner' or is in your face like imax or 3D....that's all.
Out there, there is only SD/HD TV or older film/newer film, or digital cinema which should approximate existing cinema formats.

To state the obvious, there are acquistion formats/resolutions and there are delivery format/resolutions.

2K, 4K, 5K and 6K are digital resolutions of a 35mm frame, they will never be formats. (DCI or not). They are simply acquisition resolutions and we shoot/edit in certain formats.

Super, Academy, Anamorphic are cine 35mm formats. Full frame, APS etc are still 35mm format.

Don't confuse formats with resolutions...that's the public's job!

D

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I think all of this is going to be out the window in 5 years. If you shoot every other scene in a different format just as we use different lenses, shutter angles and apertures to their best effect. I doubt we'll be asking "what format" you shot in. "Which shot?" would be the only response of any consequence.

"The first scene was about S35 but then cropped down to probably around 35mm. The second scene used a mix of FF35 and S16. The third scene was somewhere between S16 and S35."

Once resolution hits a certain point the audience won't notice the resolution hit and you'll just be using a crop like a longer lens.

Asking what format you shot your film on would be as silly as asking which lens you used.

 

[Jannard]

My bet is that when someone here asks... the answer is likely to be something like this:

Shot 5K on an EPIC-X with a 35mm RPP. The 2:1 (or whatever) will be obvious. As long as the model designation tells you which camera it is, you can figure it all out.

It is not unlike now... "shot it 4K on a RED ONE with a 50mm S4". "Shot it RED ONE 3K, 50fps with a 100mm f2.8 Nikkor".

Those who care (all 27 of us) will know exactly what it all means.

Jim

 

[Häakon]

2K, 4K, 5K and 6K are digital resolutions of a 35mm frame.

They can be, but many times they won't be. All "4K" does is tell you a number of pixels being used across a frame. It could be a 16mm frame, a 35mm frame, a 65mm frame, whatever. It's just like saying "I have a 12MP still camera." Great... that tells me nothing about the actual size of the sensor or what lenses I can put on it.

Calling formats a cute name made sense during a time where there was a physical film size that rarely changed. That era is over. "X35" will be relevant to one particular aspect ratio shot by one particular chip size in one particular generation of cameras. I honestly don't see how there's of any benefit to starting such a format when RED's own line of other cameras will be shooting something completely different...

Once resolution hits a certain point the audience won't notice the resolution hit and you'll just be using a crop like a longer lens.

Except that using a wide-angle lens, then cropped, has a completely different image characteristic than shooting on a long lens. Besides field of view, they don't look similar at all...

Asking what format you shot your film on would be as silly as asking which lens you used.

Why is it silly to ask which lens someone used to shoot something?

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

I agree that using everything isn't that hard, unless I am missing something here. I hope to shoot Mostro 5.5k 2:1 for 2.4:1. It seems easy enough, even if I don't grasp the experience of shooting said flavor like a DP could.

I like the idea of starting a new term, if it takes hold it would be quite the definitive statement for Red Cinema. However it doesn't seem so important to me. Now if you guys start calling one of these modes X35, or whatever it is you pick, I'll gladly follow your lead. I just hope the die hard film DPs over at the other forums won't get all pissy about it when they feel the rug being pulled out from under their feet.

 

[Jimmy Gitonga]

In the Land Of Imaging...

In the Land Of Imaging...

Long ago in the land of Imaging, there a was Film. Film was made of Silver salts that had physical grain size. Depending on the salt, and how it reacted to physical light, shooters could decide on what how much light to allow (Shutter angle/speed) and salt sensitivity (ASA/ISO) they used. And with this came Motion Pictures that were shown on Film in a place called Cinema for the people in the Land of Imaging to relive their lives and tell stories. And everything was good and the Golden Age came to the Cinema's Silver Screen. In those days the Film lovers rejoiced and lived in peace.

Then, from the land of Electricity, there was born Analogue to the family of Signals. Analogue Signals grew and brought other motion pictures to the Land of Imaging. At the beginning, these images were not like Film for they were not physical. Analogue used electrical boxes to put together these images and called them - Video.

There was horror and terrifying news that Film would leave the Land of Imaging. But Analogue could only produce images only so fast and at a lower resolution. To show rapid motion, Video displayed fields that were interlaced to create frames. The color of the images were not like Film. Video found a place called Television to live in, in the Land of Imaging.

Then one day, the people in the Land decided to put their Film motion pictures inside Video for even more people in the place called Television in the Land of Imaging to see. The question of whether Video would show Film in all its DOF, Color, Resolution and Sensitivity glory arose. Some said, "Never! Film is Film and Video is Video.". A TeleCine Box was brought to move motion pictures from Film to Video. Suddenly the "workflow" of Video motion pictures took a very shot time to create and show. For motion pictures "shot" on Video, there was no lab process, no cutters, no finger prints on the motion pictures. The people in Television rejoiced and said, "We have the best of both worlds." In Film, this was the price to pay for superior images.

From the Land Of Electricity, Signals grew and had Digital. And Digital followed Analogue into the Land of Imaging. Digital's Electrical boxes were faster and drew images progressively not like Analogue's Video. But no name was found for those images yet since their physical size did not equal Film.

Digital Signals brought even faster boxes and there was a war between Analogue and Digital in the Land of Imaging. People in Television began asking better images, as they looked longingly at Cinema and the quality of their images. Digital boxes had improved a lot over time. Analogue slowly lost out and a new standard of was pronounced at Television in the Land of Imaging. It is called High Definition (HD). And the boxes that show these images, High Definition TeleVision(HDTV). However, in honor of Video, HDTV motion pictures remained Interlaced.

Before long, three things happened, HD, because it was digital, was used to shoot motion pictures "progressively" for Cinema. And Digital motion pictures could be "shot" onto the film medium for showing as Film motion pictures at Cinema in the Land of Imaging. And then there was the Internet, that used Progressive Digital Images.

And the borders between Cinema and Television began to disappear. People built houses across the borders and soon, places called Digital Intermediate appeared. But certain enclaves in Cinema and Television did their best to remain pure. And this purity was only found in Outputs.

Digital, with progressive images, began knocking at Film door. And the terror of the demise of Film began again. Film straightened and opened the door. In Digital's hand was - The RED.

"What would we call the new images? Is it by "frame" size?" asked the people of Film. The people of Television, oblivious of the art of film, with the DOF, Color, Resolution and Sensitivity glory, said, "It is just like Video, but higher resolution". It does not matter whether its 1/6 or 1/3 inch or 2/3inch, what resolution is it?

RED jumped onto the ground, ran off, raising dust, past the crowds of cinematographers and videographers into the land of Imaging, running into the future of motion picture at full speed. :seeya:

And the voices of confusion began to rise. :confused5:

Moral: "When the Leading Car wakes the dust, prepare to choke" - Safari Proverb

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Except that using a wide-angle lens, then cropped, has a completely different image characteristic than shooting on a long lens. Besides field of view, they don't look similar at all...

Which is why you would do it. That was precisely my point. You'll be using crops like telephoto lenses for specific effects. You'll be using the sensor as another tool in your toolbox to create the specific image and effect you desire. You might have used an 18mm RPP but then you might also have to add the caveat that you cropped 2.19:1 from a FF35 Scarlet.

You might shoot your whole film s35 but then shoot some shots FF35 to get a wider angle that has a similar DOF to a longer shot.

Why is it silly to ask which lens someone used to shoot something?

I meant "What lens did you shoot your movie with?" It would be a question with at least a half dozen answers.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

More Thoughts

More Thoughts

The Most important thing that we must remember is that 35mm film release is the first thing to consider. Then within the 35mm film release you must chose your aspect ratio, let’s say you chose 1:85 like I would because by just by adding the possibility of 16:9 I also have; for now the wide screen television mode of today and for the force-able future. In the future it might change to 1:85 and I’ll be ready. Of course you can chose whatever you want, for whatever your reasons.

Now let’s see what happens to film, in the Andes they projecting a 35mm “Hollywood” film in a theater that has wooden benches and everybody understands the content of the ‘Picture’. When I was in Vietnam, eons ago, we found ourselves in a South Vietnamese Camp one night, just two Americans with about 800 Vietnamese, that night they were screening “North by Northwest”, there was no-translation and no-subtitles; but everyone in the place understood the 16mm print made out of a 35mm film negative. Now that’s the power of a “state-on –mind” called “Hollywood” you don’t have to go there to make a film, you just have to make it in its ‘style-off’. That’s what all films aspire to do, to make a “Hollywood” film, weather you are there or not.

Now to the present, how many time have I heard; “film is dead”, that implies that in the HD film world we are striving for two things; First to make electronic images look like film; Second to make that “Hollywood” film with those electronic images, so we must get an “inter-negative” on 35mm film that closely approaches the 35mm release print in the film that “Hollywood” would make.

Why? Because if the business that the film must first make at it’s; “Theatrical Opening” that will determine it fate forever. Think about it; “Theatrical Opening” lots of money in all subsequent business, and ancillary products of the “Picture”, it has at least a 10 year live if it’s just make a mediocre film, and much longer if it’s really a well made “Picture”, think of; “Lawrence of Arabia” “Singing in the Rain” and many more of the “Classics”.

Now back to the 30mm X 15mm sensor, thank “God” for Jim, he has bucked the trend at every turn, you really don’t care what it was shot in, just how it looked in the “Theatrical Opening” that determines how long it’s going run, and will it live forever? For the near future there is a merger of 30mm X 15mm sensor that combines all the criteria’s into one hell of a camera. I chose the 16:9 frames with a 1:85 with a slight shrinkage, always looking for that optimum quality; it was established way back then in the 30s on the “Three Striped Technicolor” film. That continues to be the “Gold Standard”. We’re heading in that direction, and we can say what we please about it, as a matter of fact it’s welcomed.

So what the the 16:9 Red Camera offer, the merging of two technologies, Film and Electronics’! We have fairly popular “Theatrical Opening” in the 1:85 (in my case, but it could be 3D, or whatever you want) and for now a wide screen DVD release in 16:9. You have additional options with in the 30mm X 15mm aspect ratio, but those are the ones that I would choose.

I suppose I can go on, and on, about all sort of things, but for now, thank “God” for Jim, keep up the good work!

Humberto Rivera

 

[david farland]

They can be, but many times they won't be. All "4K" does is tell you a number of pixels being used across a frame. It could be a 16mm frame, a 35mm frame, a 65mm frame, whatever. It's just like saying "I have a 12MP still camera." Great... that tells me nothing about the actual size of the sensor or what lenses I can put on it.
....

Read my post....it's about 35mm!! I really don't care about others unless someones tells me they want a B4 adapter for my camera or a Scarlet 2/3", then it's obvious. If I have other brand cameras, I'll learn their terminology. As I said there's acquisitions formats/rez and their delivery formats/rez. To judge quality you'll know what it's shot on and how it's to be displayed. Simple.

D

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Now back to the 30mm X 15mm sensor, thank “God” for Jim, he has bucked the trend at every turn, you really don’t care what it was shot in, just how it looked in the “Theatrical Opening” that determines how long it’s going run, and will it live forever? For the near future there is a merger of 30mm X 15mm sensor that combines all the criteria’s into one hell of a camera. I chose the 16:9 frames with a 1:85 with a slight shrinkage, always looking for that optimum quality; it was established way back then in the 30s on the “Three Striped Technicolor” film. That continues to be the “Gold Standard”. We’re heading in that direction, and we can say what we please about it, as a matter of fact it’s welcomed.

So what the the 16:9 Red Camera offer, the merging of two technologies, Film and Electronics’! We have fairly popular “Theatrical Opening” in the 1:85 (in my case, but it could be 3D, or whatever you want) and for now a wide screen DVD release in 16:9. You have additional options with in the 30mm X 15mm aspect ratio, but those are the ones that I would choose.

What further "options" is a 30 x 15mm sensor giving you over a 24 x 13mm sensor? All I see is that it is giving you more resolution, at the expense of limiting what cine lenses you can use on the camera.

Creating new non-standard sensor sizes may or may not be a good thing, but such a decision should not be taken lightly (and I'm not saying that RED has, I'm saying that some of you aren't taking it seriously). There are as many cons as there are pros to such a decision.

I didn't see such effusiveness expressed when Dalsa decided make a 34 x 17mm sensor, but now that RED is doing something similar, it's a brilliant idea? Hmmm... OK. It's genius -- half the users here spent the past two years scrambling to buy old Zeiss Super-Speeds and whatnot, and now RED creates a new larger sensor that forces them to buy new RED lenses to cover that area. I guess that is brilliant on RED's part.

And you can shoot 16x9 for a 1.85 release on any HD camera -- there's nothing unique about that aspect of the RED.

 

[Jannard]

What further "options" is a 30 x 15mm sensor giving you over a 24 x 13mm sensor? All I see is that it is giving you more resolution, at the expense of limiting what cine lenses you can use on the camera.

Creating new non-standard sensor sizes may or may not be a good thing, but such a decision should not be taken lightly (and I'm not saying that RED has, I'm saying that some of you aren't taking it seriously). There are as many cons as there are pros to such a decision.

I didn't see such effusiveness expressed when Dalsa decided make a 34 x 17mm sensor, but now that RED is doing something similar, it's a brilliant idea? Hmmm... OK. It's genius -- half the users here spent the past two years scrambling to buy old Zeiss Super-Speeds and whatnot, and now RED creates a new larger sensor that forces them to buy new RED lenses to cover that area. I guess that is brilliant on RED's part.

David... we have, in effect, developed a new sensor size. But NOT at the expense of any old standard. We give options that other companies don't (typically). You can shoot EPIC-X just like a RED ONE. Use old glass if you want. It is all about options.

As we move forward with sensor progress, our goal is a cleaner image each time. More DR. More resolution options. If there is a good reason why we are making a mistake with this concept, we'll change course.

Additionally... the RED ONE does not use ALL of the capability of old glass in many cases. Most older glass will cover 4.5K at 5.4u. That will be a nice option for EPIC-X users.

Jim

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I can see why moving to a 30 x 15mm sensor would give you more resolution over the 24 x 13mm sensor, but I don't see why that would be a requirement to get more DR if the photosite size and spacing remains the same. I thought the improvements in DR with the Mysterium-X sensor were not due to expanding the size from 24mm to 30mm -- that was only necessary to get 5K instead of 4.5K.

Now with the 36 x 24mm Monstro sensor and its larger photosites, I can understand why that would help with both resolution and noise, etc.

As I said, the only real extra option I see by expanding the same sensor out to 30mm from 24mm is that extra resolution, which is obviously nothing to sneeze at. But it's an option that creates other limitations and issues to deal with.

 

[Jannard]

I can see why moving to a 30 x 15mm sensor would give you more resolution over the 24 x 13mm sensor, but I don't see why that would be a requirement to get more DR if the photosite size and spacing remains the same. I thought the improvements in DR with the Mysterium-X sensor were not due to expanding the size from 24mm to 30mm -- that was only necessary to get 5K instead of 4.5K.

Now with the 36 x 24mm Monstro sensor and its larger photosites, I can understand why that would help with both resolution and noise, etc.

As I said, the only real extra option I see by expanding the same sensor out to 30mm from 24mm is that extra resolution, which is obviously nothing to sneeze at. But it's an option that creates other limitations and issues to deal with.

The extra DR is not linked to sensor size (in this case). These goals are independent of each other. Sensor advancement comes in many ways.

We could have made the new sensor with more DR in the same size package as a RED ONE. We just chose to open up more options.

Jim

 

[Chris Parker]

i think it is a fine decision, as long as using existing S35 lenses like the S4s, etc. is still a viable, and easy-to-implement, option on the new cameras. A 50mm S4 should still be able to 'act like' a 50mm S4 on the new cameras, through menu options and frame guides.

It sounds like this IS the case, so new options are a good thing, cuz they aren't at the expense of older, reliable, options that won't render current lens inventories useless.