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 :)

S35/S16 annotation in the resolution tab

Gunleik Groven

Gunleik Groven

REDuser Sponsor
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
13,465
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Location
Norway
Website
quine.no
I really think it would be a good idea to mark 5.5k and the equivalent "lower" res with S35 and S16.

Would clean up a lot of the confusion as to res/FOV I hear.

I walk around shooting 6k all day (if lenses allow), but people know their focal lengths and FOV. And if the cameras are not set up for the FOV they expect, it creates unneccesary grumpyness. :)

Because of the higher pixel-density, I guess S16 glass will have more of a life on the Dragon than on previous REDs. If S16 is in the region of 3k (which I guess it would be), it is a much more relevant choice for slomo and high-end delivery, than it has been up until now.

Whatcha think?
 
Last edited:
Phil Holland said:
5K is closest to S35 however.
Click to expand...

OK.

Good thing wold be to have an "S35" mark (and the you can choose aspect, if you want other than 16:9 in the advanced tab)
Same goes for S16.

Yup. I have used some wides at 5,5k HD and wondered if this really was right. :)
 
previously it was mentioned that they were working on a system where we can dial in any pixel counts or aspect ratios, kind of like a phantom camera...not sure what happened to that idea or if its still a work in progress, but i liked it when they mentioned the concept...but yes pre determined field of views would be cool too on the pre sets
 
+1000

I think this is a fantastic idea, and I hope this is implemented. They could even throw in a Micro 4/3's tab. Could look something like:

5K: S35
4K: M43
3K: S16
2.5K: 16MM

(These are guesses, not sure if totally accurate, but there for demonstration!)

Keeping image circle/FOV paired to the resolution would be a great help to many, I'm sure.
 
I think what would be handy is to have dimensional references along with the resolutions. So when you're shooting full 6K, it shows you that your sensor dimensions are 30.7mm x 15.8mm and likewise shows you that you're at 25.6mm wide when shooting 5K. Put in some presets for S35, 35mm Academy, APS-C, etc.. Those are relatively close to one another, but a lot of people don't think in terms of millimeters and pixels, they just know "S35" or "APS-C."

This could get tricky though because of the 1.89:1 sensor in the camera. If we have a "Super 35" mode, the sensor can't entirely represent full aperture S35. We have more than ample width, but not enough height. Full aperture S35 is 24.9mm x 18.7mm. So then what? For most all intents and purposes, this will never matter for typical shooting, unless shooting with 2X anamorphics. And we already have and/ or are getting ANA modes anyway. Although it's not such a big deal to crop and stretch in post if the anamorphic representation we're looking for isn't implemented yet. That said, I don't ever shoot with anamorphics, but there are plenty of times I wish I had extra sensor height -- mostly for stills, sometimes FX work.

Anyway, I'm also looking forward to the arbitrary resolution and frame aspect controls that have been mentioned so many times in the past. That plus the ability to create and name user presets for shooting modes would be handy.
 
Nick Morrison said:
+1000

I think this is a fantastic idea, and I hope this is implemented. They could even throw in a Micro 4/3's tab. Could look something like:

5K: S35
4K: M43
3K: S16
2.5K: 16MM

(These are guesses, not sure if totally accurate, but there for demonstration!)
Click to expand...


I think trying to cross-link pixel resolutions to established formats is a bad idea. As we have seen, the Dragon sensor has a different pixel density than the MX sensor. What comes with the next sensor design is anyones' guess. Too many people are already accustomed to thinking of RED 4K or RED 5K as specific dimensions and Dragon is going to differ from what they're now used to.

Not only that, but 5K (5120 pixels wide) on the MX sensor is 27.65mm wide. 5K on Dragon is 25.6mm wide. S35 is 24.9mm wide at full aperture. Most people who actually shoot S35 on film are in reality used to something even a bit smaller than that. 35mm Academy format is 22mm wide, nearly the same width as 4K on the M/MX sensor, which is 22.12mm. 4K width on Dragon is 20.48mm wide, which is just a bit wider than the 18mm width of M43…

I guess when I think of adding more industry standard formats like S35, etc.., I would want to have resolutions to match. So a Super35 mode on Dragon should be something like 4976 pixels wide to maintain the same physical dimension and that number I picked is adjusted to be evenly divisible by 16 (* 311 = 4976; 24.88mm wide on Dragon).
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I think trying to cross-link pixel resolutions to established formats is a bad idea. As we have seen, the Dragon sensor has a different pixel density than the MX sensor. What comes with the next sensor design is anyones' guess. Too many people are already accustomed to thinking of RED 4K or RED 5K as specific dimensions and Dragon is going to differ from what they're now used to.

Not only that, but 5K (5120 pixels wide) on the MX sensor is 27.65mm wide. 5K on Dragon is 25.6mm wide. S35 is 24.9mm wide at full aperture. Most people who actually shoot S35 on film are in reality used to something even a bit smaller than that. 35mm Academy format is 22mm wide, nearly the same width as 4K on the M/MX sensor, which is 22.12mm. 4K width on Dragon is 20.48mm wide, which is just a bit wider than the 18mm width of M43…

I guess when I think of adding more industry standard formats like S35, etc.., I would want to have resolutions to match. So a Super35 mode on Dragon should be something like 4976 pixels wide to maintain the same physical dimension and that number I picked is adjusted to be evenly divisible by 16 (* 311 = 4976; 24.88mm wide on Dragon).
Click to expand...

Makes total sense. Maybe the resolution and image circle settings are separated, to be more exact? Something like this maybe?

6K
5.5K
5K
S35
4K
M43
3K
S16
2.5k
16mm

Placed in descending order like this...could help give a sense of the approx resolution of each Industry "format", by seeing them in relation to other Dragon resolutions. But maybe there's a better way.

Love the "idea" of this though...
 
Last edited:
I think it would resonate extremely well with a lot of cinematographers to have a few new formats available - 35mm 2 perf, 35mm 3 perf, S35 and whatever ones of those makes sense, all of them made to the exact measurement of the size of the sensor matching the original formats... I think many cinematographers would instantly fall in love with that.
 
Really loving this idea, BTW. I think would remove a lot of the mystery about coverage on Dragon. Such a great, simple idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top