Sensor chart

[Scott H. Jones]

Windowed sensor sizes?

Windowed sensor sizes?

If this has been posted before I can't find it: What is the windowed sensor size of 3K 16:9? I need to track some footage in boujou and this info will help with accuracy. It would great to have all the various windowed sizes on hand anyway, ideally on Brook's sensor chart at the beginning of this thread.

 

[Petr Dvorak]

Yeah but it's also small enough to mount on a remote controlled helicopter, motorcycle handlebars, or toss in a small backpack. And keep in mind that major films like Revenge of the Sith were shot on that size sensor.

Tom it was all just fun. Hence clown. :wink:
Result pictures will speak for itself.

btw Attack of the Clones was also shot with this and I think blacks were very noisy.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If this has been posted before I can't find it: What is the windowed sensor size of 3K 16:9? I need to track some footage in boujou and this info will help with accuracy. It would great to have all the various windowed sizes on hand anyway, ideally on Brook's sensor chart at the beginning of this thread.

Until someone writes in with the correct answer...

My best guess is that 3K 16x9 is 3072 x 1728 pixels. So if the RED ONE sensor is 24.4mm wide to get 4520 pixels, then that works out to be:

4K 16x9 = 4096 x 2304 / 22.11mm x 12.436mm
3K 16x9 = 3072 x 1728 / 16.58mm x 9.326mm

But that's just a guess, I don't know what the official numbers are from RED.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I really have to say that Revenge of the Sith, which I'm pretty sure was shot 4:4:4 on the F950, is possibly the cleanest, most beautiful 1080p video I have ever seen. It's just stunning. And the version I saw was some low-bandwidth broadcast cable 1080p encoded to an 8GB bit torrent mkv file!

Even as great as Baraka's 8K recent Bluray looks, in some ways, the Sith 1080p looks even cleaner and with better color. I don't know if this is scientifically possible, I'm just telling you what my eyes saw.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Have to agree, Tom. RotS looks very good.

As for Baraka Blu-Ray, I still need to check it out. I've heard a few reports that while it's overall very good, they let typical consumer delivery mentality take over and they screwed the transfer with excessive edge enhancements and detail sharpening. Essentially tweaking it so the transfer looks its best on a 46" 1080p display, so people with larger DLPs and projectors are not so happy. I guess I should see for myself, haven't watched that film in a long time anyway.

 

[Paris Remillard]

If this has been posted before I can't find it: What is the windowed sensor size of 3K 16:9? I need to track some footage in boujou and this info will help with accuracy. It would great to have all the various windowed sizes on hand anyway, ideally on Brook's sensor chart at the beginning of this thread.

According to Deanan, just multiply pixel size, which on the Red One is 5.4microns, or .0054mm, by the number of pixels in each direction. So, .0054x3072=16.5888mm, by .0054x1728=9.3312mm

EDIT: Oops, sorry, David already posted it.

 

[Shane Betts]

I concur, 645 is a pain, but very rewarding!! There is something very special about MF.

I have very fond memories of my old Bronica ETRs. Favourite camera for a long time and I just loved seeing those MF negs in the enlarger.

BTW, for those still interested so long after the conversation has moved on, the various popular MF sizes are/were: 6x4.5 (Bronica, Mamiya 645, Contax 645), 6x6 (Hassleblad, Bronica and a host of TLR's), 6x7 (Mamiya RB/RZ67, Pentax), 6x9 (mostly roll film adaptors for view cameras) and 6x17 (Panoramic cameras like Fuji, Linhof as well as roll film backs for view cameras). The majority of MF work done professionally would probably have been on 6x7 I would reckon. I was always frowned upon for my ETRs "little" neg but the RB67 used to kill me with it's weight, double wind and rotate the back not the camera. Never really got into the 35mm SLR type body until my D200.

OMG, can't believe how old some of those names make me feel:waaa:

Could somebody also post a physical comparison of R1 at 2k?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Could somebody also post a physical comparison of R1 at 2k?

It would be rather close to 16mm/Super-16 in dimensions. If the 4096 recorded area is around 22mm wide, then the 2048 area is around 11mm wide -- 16mm camera aperture is 10.26mm wide and the Super-16 camera aperture is 12.52mm.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

For the mathematically challenged, the 2K 16:9 crop area on the RED One is 11mm x 6.22mm. That's a bit larger than 2/3", but smaller than S16.

And I see David answered it too.

 

[David Bourla]

And what glass are we supposed to use with FF35? Canon and Nikon still lenses? I'm confused. I mean, standard PL cine glass will fully cover the FF35 sensor? Or will there be cropping?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Most all standard PL cine glass WILL NOT cover FF35. RED has announced their own line of FF35 glass, but I think most, or all,are their 'electronic' lenses. Hopefully they are more suited to cine applications than the offerings from Nikon, Canon, etc.. I may be wishing on a star here, but I'm hoping that the upcoming set of RED primes will cover FF35.

Leica is supposedly working on making cine primes, so there's some hope there. Some sets of PL converted Leica primes are out there now, like the Van Dieman conversions, which supposedly cover FF35.

I think at this point it's a bit early too tell just what the options will be when the FF35 Scarlet / EPIC ship. Of course, there's also the question of what options will be available for the 645 and 617. Or if we will at first have to use existing medium format and panoramic lenses from Mamiya, Fuji, etc..

 

[chuck colburn]

Better start buying medium format glass before it jumps in price like the better used 35mm lenses have. Examples... Contax 21mm was 1-1.5k now 2.5-3k. Angenieux 28-70 f2.6 was .5k now 1.2-2k etc.

I used different medium format lens on a 65mm cine camera project. I liked the pentax 645 series. 2 or 3 were f2.8 fairly fast for the format. The 617 lenses have a nice focale length grouping and cost less then some others. I can see somebody ripping that rectilinear correct wide angle (38mm) off of a Hasselblad SWC to have one hell of a wide angle lens.

Here's a real clean one at a good price. I just noticed that it focuses cinewise too.

http://cgi.ebay.com/HASSELBLAD-SWC-...4|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318|301:0|293:1|294:50

 

[michael zaletel]

Cool. Thanks.

-shooter

 

[Casper Warnich]

S35 or FF35

S35 or FF35

Hey there,
I have a couple of questions that some of you may or may not be able to answer

I'm planning on buying a Red, but I don't know which sensor size I should get. I'm leaning towards buying a Scarlet with either the S35 or the FF35. The FF35 looks like a 4:3 format, which is probably great if you use an anamorphic lens - but I will be using Nikons. So would it make more sense to buy the cheaper S35 (which is much closer to 2:1 and only few mm narrower than the FF35)

Also, will there be a noticeable difference in the noise and low-light preformance between the two sensors?

Finally, the FF35 and S35 comes in both Scarlet and Epic versions. Other than the fps, the bitrate is the only real thing separating them (as far as I can tell). Is the REDCODE 225 just overkill for perfectionists, or will there there a big difference from REDCODE 80? (don't get me wrong, I know there is a difference

I can't wait to buy this camera, everything about it seems so cool.

Casper

 

[Mitch Gross]

The simple answer to all your questions is that no one hear really knows with the exception of some RED employees who are certainly not going to tell. The only camera currently available is the RED One.

 

[Verbeeck Francis]

When RED Is ready with the camera I am convinced that the guys from Cooke will be too happy to provide the glas.
Be ware of the price. An be stun by the quality.
Photo lenses are not well adapted for film. The travel for focusing from closed range to infinity is only 1/3 of a turn. Focus pullers would like a longer travel for accuracy sake.

 

[Häakon]

Indeed, there is going to be a real wake up call for the FF35 shooters (glass-wise) when the camera ships. I don't doubt that RED will hit the best quality point they can with their own FF35 lenses, but as of right now they are all zooms and autofocus (to me, it looks that they're going more after the still market with these lenses and the Scarlet FF model... no photographer is going to drop $33K for a bulkier version of the FF camera than they've already got).

The 645, to me, seems like a huge waste of sensor real estate unless you're choosing to shoot anamorphic (and yes I know, many people like this). But even though David is right that "with a sensor that big, with that much resolution, you can easily just crop of you want a 2.40 image," if you're just going to shoot spherically with it and crop that much you really should just be shooting with the S35 sensor and saving the extra cost / glass hassles. In my mind that's just the wrong use for that camera.

Then again, the S35 is "Mysterium-X only," so the obvious counterargument is that the extra dynamic range of the better sensor always trumps the fact that you're throwing half of the picture away. What was the reason Monstro couldn't be made into an s35-size again?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Indeed, there is going to be a real wake up call for the FF35 shooters (glass-wise) when the camera ships. I don't doubt that RED will hit the best quality point they can with their own FF35 lenses, but as of right now they are all zooms and autofocus (to me, it looks that they're going more after the still market with these lenses and the Scarlet FF model... no photographer is going to drop $33K for a bulkier version of the FF camera than they've already got).

Plenty of people are already starting to shoot on Canon 5D2s, which will begin to air out some of the issues with FF35 cine shooting, in terms of lenses.

Then again, the S35 is "Mysterium-X only," so the obvious counterargument is that the extra dynamic range of the better sensor always trumps the fact that you're throwing half of the picture away. What was the reason Monstro couldn't be made into an s35-size again?

Why not get FF35 and window to S35 is that is your goal? Jim has stated, IIRC, that it is simply is not technologically (nor economically?) feasible to make an S35 Monstro sensor at this time. They might have reached a limit on how many pixels can be crammed into a given piece of real estate and still achieve significant DR gains? My suggestion for people wanting S35 Monstro would be to wait for FF35 Monstro (either Scarlet or Epic), and then either buy those cameras and window them for S35 shoots, or be patient enough for a future S35 Monstro offering, which might come a year later, for example. If you buy and use an FF35 Monstro in the meantime, all your accessories will obviously be usable with future offerings, plus you can probably recover a good portion of the money by selling the FF35 brain used. Then again, by that point, you might conclude that you like the flexibility of FF35, and decide to keep it! :gun:

 

[Häakon]

Plenty of people are already starting to shoot on Canon 5D2s, which will begin to air out some of the issues with FF35 cine shooting, in terms of lenses.

Those people are shooting with Canon still lenses, though. While of course it's "possible" to shoot with those lenses, I can't imagine that will be an acceptable solution for most Hollywood (or even a great deal of independent) productions. The problem with using still lenses for motion picture work is well documented.

Why not get FF35 and window to S35 is that is your goal? Jim has stated, IIRC, that it is simply is not technologically (nor economically?) feasible to make an S35 Monstro sensor at this time. They might have reached a limit on how many pixels can be crammed into a given piece of real estate and still achieve significant DR gains?

I'm not sure, I haven't completely decided which direction I'm going to go yet. I do think buying a FF35 camera with the intention of largely only shooting s35 stuff is a pretty big waste. And if I'm only using a s35 crop of the sensor to get my widescreen image, then that number of pixels wouldn't change at all if they just used a slice of the larger version to make a Monstro version. But I wasn't gunning for that... they've made their plans clear. My main point was just that I think that the FF35 camera may prove to be more of a challenge than expected for those who do not intend to be primarily shooting anamorphic.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Those people are shooting with Canon still lenses, though. While of course it's "possible" to shoot with those lenses, I can't imagine that will be an acceptable solution for most Hollywood (or even a great deal of independent) productions. The problem with using still lenses for motion picture work is well documented.

Yes. That was the point I was making. Cameras like the 5D2 and Nikon D90 are forcing people to start thinking about FF35 cine glass, or rehousing FF35 still glass, or creating new FF35 cine glass, for motion FF35. It's kind of a blessing to DSMC that there are some FF35 motion cameras already out there, so that people can at least dip their toes in the format.

As far as a chopped Monstro sensor for S35, there must be some reason that it's not being offered. I think one problem is that the resolution will not be "True 4K." But that is the case even in windowed S35 mode on the FF35 camera, if I am not mistaken.