Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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

David Wyatt said:
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:
Click to expand...

JannardoScope?
 
FADE IN TITLE

MESMERVISION

SOUND OVER - Theremin, but big like THX sound . . .

Still like X35 . . .
 
Häakon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree! Chart would be most useful and straight forward. Make a sticky. :)
 
Charts are fine, and necessary... I was just objecting to the label "5K" to describe a new lens format size, since 5K does not connote a sensor dimension. And if the photosites are different sizes on the Monstro and Mysterium-X sensor, then "5K" isn't even the same size area there.

A label doesn't necessarily have to tell you something precise, measurement-wise -- "Super-35" doesn't meant anything in itself, we just know what the standards for Super-35 are. So of course a label is vague -- any label is. "CinemaScope" is a label -- the name doesn't tell you that it is a 2X anamorphic system designed for 4-perf 35mm cameras.

So if there is going to be a new format between Super-35 and Full-Frame 35, you can pick any label, it just would be nice if it seemed to fit into the naming structure. "Super-35" then "Max-35" then "Full Frame 35mm" has a certain labeling consistency to it, more than "Super-35" then "5K" and then "Full Frame 35mm" does.

But RED is the marketing genius, not me, so let them come up with a label for this in-between format. If they want to call it "5K", despite the oddness and inaccuracy of that, then fine, but I suspect no other manufacturer will be using that term. Something more generic like "Max-35" or "Ultra-35" or "X35" has a little better shot at being adopted as a description of this new size.

Or don't call it anything, let it just be something everyone has to find out for themselves, the lens coverage.

Either this is a new format size or it isn't. If it is, it should have a label, a term, not just charts that describe it. You need a shorthand label that has specific dimensions associated with it, otherwise, it's not really a new format.
 
I suppose that if no one is proactive, the name of the new format will be called "5K" because that's the immediate purpose of it, and if it sticks around but the pixel dimensions change over the years (let's say, there is a 6K sensor that is 30mm wide someday), it will be one of those labels where people will ask where the name originally came from, like "MOS"...

"Daddy, why is this camera format called '5K' when many of the cameras that use sensors of that size aren't 5K?"

"Well, son, let me tell you about this company called RED, way back in the late 2000's... "
 
Since the day of standardized image acquisition sizes seems to be coming to an end, I wonder if the old naming system (Academy, Super35, Vistavision, etc.) should be abandoned all together and a numeric system that makes sense put in place instead: Let's say Academy would be called 22x16, Super35 25x19 (rounding up), etc.

Basically use the rounded off mm size of the format as its name.
 
Yes, to what David said. Need to be a bit proactive with this. Calling it "5K" will ultimately be confusing because the same area of coverage will be about 4.7K on Monstro and who knows what else on future sensors.
 
Florian Stadler said:
Since the day of standardized image acquisition sizes seems to be coming to an end, I wonder if the old naming system (Academy, Super35, Vistavision, etc.) should be abandoned all together and a numeric system that makes sense put in place instead: Let's say Academy would be called 22x16, Super35 25x19 (rounding up), etc.

Basically use the rounded off mm size of the format as its name.
Click to expand...

Just not as sexy or memorable as "VistaVision" or "Cinerama"... Nor as fun.

You get into the complaints some people have about Kodak and Fuji's stock numbering system (which I never had a problem with because I like memorizing long lists of numbers...), which is why Kodak started promoting the use of names like "Vision-2 500T" rather than 5218, even when you called to order the stock.

While I agree that we should probably drop these film legacy names like "Academy 35mm" etc. to describe sensor sizes, it's hard to start from scratch, labels tends to stick over time, there's precedent, history, nostalgia, etc. Other problem is that a vague label allows some degree of variation within... not all Super-35 camera gates are exactly the same despite the ANSI standards. Not all sensors are going to be 36x24, etc. So you'd want a label that covered a certain limited range of sizes. "Super-35" sensors could be in that 24mm range, "Max-35" sensors could be in that 30mm range, "Full-Frame 35mm" could be in that 36mm range, etc.

Though now that I think about it, I don't really like the label "Full-Frame 35mm" either...
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Though now that I think about it, I don't really like the label "Full-Frame 35mm" either...
Click to expand...

Me either, I always finding myself saying, "you know, like still photo, with the film sizeways" to describe what I mean by full frame 35. Something unique would be a bit better as long as we're coming up with new names.
 
Logo_X35.jpg
 
I thought X35 might sound a bit much, but that is Red for you, go big or go home. It feels a bit ambitious, but I can't help liking it.

Nice work Corrado.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Either this is a new format size or it isn't.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it should not be considered a new format.

Attributing a single label to the 30x15mm 5K DSMC sensor is practically meaningless when people won't be shooting footage using those dimensions; rather, most people will shoot using one of the standard aspect ratios that will be available as crops from the sensor's active pixel array, each of which having its own (smaller) dimensions and lens coverage requirements.

I'm convinced that image circles are the way to go -- I'll post a chart tomorrow with a fairly comprehensive estimate of Scarlet and Epic image circles, hopefully it'll explain why I think a single label is redundant.
 
Yeah, and there are two full frame 35 standards, one for still, which is 8 perf horizontal (Vistavision) and the other is the full negative area of 35mm movie film over into the soundtrack area which isn't the same as super 35 because it's a 1:33 frame, aka the silent frame . . . that some guys used for better resolution or cropping in 1:33 TV days.

Corrado's got the X35 logo! It's all about hype! Tohoscope? Cinerama? Panavision? I like calling it some crazy name instead of SMPTE SPEC 3.025G4 or actual dimensions. Where's the fun in that? Where's William Castle when you need him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top