RPPs... 4K vs. 5K

[Roberto B]

ok.. lists are w/ you but we know some photo players in that fine arts category shooting 35 mm.. poor but great light players btw

 

[David Boorboor]

I vote for X35 and I am new to red so 4k and 5k so last year is funny.

 

[James Brundige]

hehe... not to beat a dead horse (not sure why this topic really matters anyway) but I'd have a hard time believing that anything has sold more than 35mm stills. What was the point of all this again?

Jim

This increasingly silly discussion started with calling a 50mm lens "normal" because it has been considered normal for FF 35 photography.

Back to topic. Will the 30x15 sensor create a new format that needs a label?

The mysterium-X seems a nice compromise between increased performance and the ability to use many existing cine lenses. I have heard many people in last days saying they will hold out for FF monstro, because of the even better dynamic range. I agree there, because I have plenty of resolution with the R1, but would like to see more DR. I wonder if it will make sense to make a 30x15 monstro sensor, or just shoot cropped portions of the FF version.

 

[Roberto B]

ok.. :embarassed: should stand corrected.. they did it on 35 mm too.. but the idea is there anyway.

proper reply.. Sir.

the gang would answer but not necessary anymore.. the best photographers.. those who have made the history of photography.. they did it almost only on 35 mm.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I also think it is safe to say that most every professional had a 35mm system AND a 6x system in his bag of tricks.

Jim

Jim,

They also knew that a 50mm lens was only a normal lens on the 35mm stills camera, which is the point I was trying to make. 35mm was not the 'de facto' stills format of the last 50 years.

Stephen

 

[Álex Montoya]

Stephen, for being a Red skeptic you spend a lot of time in these forums.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen, for being a Red skeptic you spend a lot of time in these forums.

It's important to be up to date with technology and know all of the options available.
Red has come a long way since Jim told me to buy Cooke or Zeiss lenses if I wanted lenses marked in T stops.

 

[Roberto B]

35mm was not the 'de facto' stills format of the last 50 years.

Stephen

:beatdeadhorse:

sounds elitist as that c.com thing.. the red owner shouldn't care about that people.. they do not represent nothing.. people like LT in cannes do.


edit
btw.. you closed there another thread.. why?
on that JJ is completely right.. we all know that walters was murdoch :couch: same style.. funny one actually.. the guy has talent.

 

[Poi Boy]

i admit I haven't read the whole thread but I've never thought of 50mm lens as "normal" in the 35mm format. I would say that 35 to 40 mm feels much more like what the eye sees, thus more "normal" to me. Most of my work, in the old days anyway, was 4x5 and 2 and a 1/4. Today almost all Hasselblad but I must admit that modern day slrs make things so easy that you can get a bit lazy, used one today actually.
Aloha
-A

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Some Thoughts

Some Thoughts

First according to Steven Hilder’s chart, the difference between the “4K” at 24.4mm X 13.7mm and “5K” at 30mm X 15mm Sensors is about 4.36mm of diagonal measurement at 16:9.

Bothe the RPPs at 32mm and the Arri Master Primes at 31.1mm have a diagonal distance that are well within the scope of coverage for a 16:9 aspect ratio. It’s also the difference between 8.4 and 13 megapixels.

In addition, you have ONE more stop between the two different cameras; you are using the latest’s technologies, such as the modular designed S35 Mysterium –x sensor. It’s like we are evolving to next higher level.

We can then have true “4K” print out of the “5K” sensor at 31mm X 15mm, more pixels of resolution, one more stop, and use the modular concept.

Humberto Rivera

 

[kinokamera]

I think 50mm is normal perspective wise. Fir example, when I look through my R3 Leica with a 50mm Summicron on, with my right eye on the viewfinder and my left eye open, objects line up perfectly, as if were not looking through a lens [except for the focus and DOF]. Perspective wise that's what it means, a 50mm focal lenght will give you what our eyes see.

I also think that same stays for smaller formats, except that you get smaller coverage. It's how objects within a frame relate to each other in respect to their distance from the observer. That is why 50mm lens is a normal lens.

 

[Lee Fingersh]

I think 50mm is normal perspective wise. Fir example, when I look through my R3 Leica with a 50mm Summicron on, with my right eye on the viewfinder and my left eye open, objects line up perfectly, as if were not looking through a lens [except for the focus and DOF]. Perspective wise that's what it means, a 50mm focal lenght will give you what our eyes see.

I also think that same stays for smaller formats, except that you get smaller coverage. It's how objects within a frame relate to each other in respect to their distance from the observer. That is why 50mm lens is a normal lens.

There is no "normal" focal length perspective-wise. Perspective is a function of one thing, and one thing only - location. Focal length has nothing to do with it.

Looking around your viewfinder is an equally misleading concept as viewfinder magnification can vary widely among different systems. Does adding a viewfinder magnifier change "perspective"? Obviously, it does not.

Your eye has a field-of-view most similar to a circular fisheye - 180 degrees (not quite because of your nose, and cheek bones etc.). Take an image with a 30/40/50mm (whatever you think is "normal") 35mm-equivalent system of your computer monitor from where your normally sit and tell me that the resulting image looks like your computer monitor looks to you when you are working on it. Not even close, right?

This "normal lens" stuff seems to have roots in many places. One example is, if you shoot a shot with a "normal" lens (50mm-ish), print the result at 8x10, then hold that print at a natural viewing distance of 18 inches, the print will occupy about the same field of view as did the original subject from where it was taken.

Extending this analogy, if you always use the "natural viewing distance" of the image diagonal, you can end up with some similar number like 43mm.

But what about an 8x10 hanging on the wall across the room? Well, if it was shot at 600mm, then it's "perspective" is "natural" since the tiny subject of that print still occupies about the same field-of-view to you looking at the print as did the original subject from the original shooting location. If it was shot at 28mm, then the image looks way too small since you are too far away.

Same goes for an IMAX dome. If you shoot a circular fisheye shot and project it on the inside of a hemisphere and then place your head at the rough center of that hemisphere, then again the "perspective" is "natural" even though you shot with a system about as far away from 43mm or 50mm as you can get.

So, we have circular fisheye, 50mm, and 600mm all as "natural perspective" depending on the resulting viewing situation.

I've found over time that this "natural perspective" or "normal lens" stuff is really a hard group of myths to kill. I'm just trying to help people to understand this highly-confusing topic.