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 :)

Scarlet 3k 2/3" DOF

I think Red might do Micro Four Thirds, and not regular Four Thirds. Would someone give out real data as to why Micro Four Thirds is better, not from Four Thirds, just as pure digital standpoint? :help: Every time I read Four Thirds System is better, even from the official site, there are no real data.

The site just states that it is a good balance from quality and compact size. It says that it was made from a complete digital standpoint and not going from Film SLR. That seems nice but then they point out that its fits from tech that is 4:3 CRT TV? That seems not being completely neutral from a pure digital standpoint, point of view.

If there is real data than this is great but if we are to believe them without facts than this is just another business ploy. :greedy: Plus anyone can come up with another standard saying this is better. I'm am tired of all these ''new'' standards and would like the industry to just stick with one and make it the best. Of course that will never happen. :ranting2: Ok, I'm better. :)
 
Joseph Ward said:
I think Red might do Micro Four Thirds, and not regular Four Thirds. Would someone give out real data as to why Micro Four Thirds is better, not from Four Thirds, just as pure digital standpoint? :help: Every time I read Four Thirds System is better, even from the official site, there are no real data.

The site just states that it is a good balance from quality and compact size. It says that it was made from a complete digital standpoint and not going from Film SLR. That seems nice but then they point out that its fits from tech that is 4:3 CRT TV? That seems not being completely neutral from a pure digital standpoint, point of view.

If there is real data than this is great but if we are to believe them without facts than this is just another business ploy. :greedy: Plus anyone can come up with another standard saying this is better. I'm am tired of all these ''new'' standards and would like the industry to just stick with one and make it the best. Of course that will never happen. :ranting2: Ok, I'm better. :)
Click to expand...

Only differences for micro 4/3 is shallower backfocus for no SLR mirror box,
slightly smaller diameter mount and two more pins on the electronic lens interface. Having a standard that was developed from the ground up for digital sensors as opposed to a carryover from film is the main advantage. The telecentric lens design means light hits the sensor at a close to perpendicular angle, so you don't get pixel shading at the edges of the frame as can happen with 35mm film lenses. The other objective was very high quality optics and cameras competitive in image quality with 35mm DSLR's but at a more compact size and weight.

For digital cinema I think it makes more sense than for still cameras since it fills a big hole in sensor sizes between 2/3" and S35 but still allows for reasonably compact optics compared to the bigger formats.
 
David Rasberry said:
I like the 4/3 option too, but it is the new kid on the block as formats go. What RED has done so far more than addresses the major professional market formats. But 4/3 would fill a major gap in sensor sizes between 2/3" and s35. I'd like to see 4k resolution in a 4/3format as the gap filler. Great potential there for compact camera/lens packages that would work especially well for nature and doc shooters where weight and bulk of the lenses make 35mm less than ideal.
Click to expand...

Well start with what brainburst said, then remember that I am talking about a 16:9 sensor in the four-thirds circle, then go back to this:

Regardless of whether it is new, there are already extremely high quality lenses capable of resolving well beyond 3K and optimized to get the most out of digital sensors. And able to go very wide which is one of the big problems with 2/3" . None of that exists in the c mount or B4 world, consequently - if we have to go negative to make the point - 2/3" BRINGS NOTHING TO THE TABLE!! - so why bother?

As far as micro four thirds it probably doesn't gain you much - just a few millimeters of FFD and slightly smaller mount which actually makes it harder to use other format lenses with simple adapters or simple alternative mounts. Micro four thirds is the same sensor size - it just eliminates the mirror and pentaprism which allows the camera to be smaller. Since the RED DSMCs don't have a mirror this is not an issue - you just have an extra half inch of space between the sensor and the lens flange (actually 38.67mm vs. 20 mm to be precise), That 18.67 mm can be just the mount - it doesn't have to be the whole camera AND it may actually be better to have more space so you can separate the OPLF more from the sensor to minimize dust problems.

I have thought about this a lot and believe that a 16:9 sensor in the four-thirds circle is the sweet spot for the low end scarlet and hope that RED will consider it.
 
David Rasberry said:
Only differences for micro 4/3 is shallower backfocus for no SLR mirror box,
slightly smaller diameter mount and two more pins on the electronic lens interface. Having a standard that was developed from the ground up for digital sensors as opposed to a carryover from film is the main advantage. The telecentric lens design means light hits the sensor at a close to perpendicular angle, so you don't get pixel shading at the edges of the frame as can happen with 35mm film lenses. The other objective was very high quality optics and cameras competitive in image quality with 35mm DSLR's but at a more compact size and weight.

For digital cinema I think it makes more sense than for still cameras since it fills a big hole in sensor sizes between 2/3" and S35 but still allows for reasonably compact optics compared to the bigger formats.
Click to expand...

Thank you David, you have given me more of an explanation/details, than even the site. Someone should hire you for a representative or a proponent, of the 4/3rds. :biggrin:
 
I really wish more people would get behind the 4/3rd option and stop pushing for the S35 size. It's just so much more Do-able on so many levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top