Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Sensor chart

Häakon said:
What was the reason Monstro couldn't be made into an s35-size again?
Click to expand...

There was never really a formal answer but the one that made the most sense was the lack of a sensor that could encompass the larger pixel density (6 microns vs 5.4 of the Epic X) in an S35 size while maintaining full 4k resolution.

The added latitude and sensitivity seems to come from the larger pixels of the monstro.
 
The epic 617 is so small! :p
 
Will 35mm cine glass cover the Mysterium-X s35, seeing that it is 30mm across which is wider than 35mm film?
 
I just answered this question in another thread. It is not about the width; it's about the diagonal. A lens projects a circle of light and the frame must fall within it. Super 35 has a diagonal a little over 31mm and the diagonal of the 30x15 frame is 33mm. Most S-35 glass projects a bit bigger than the S-35 frame so it would then cover the new RED frame.
 
Tom said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and they had to fill in artificial backgrounds via greenscreen so that they could get any depth :P

"Come to the dark side! We have cookies! Not lenses, though!"
 
Christian Edwards said:
should the 2/3 be expressed in inches ? im not really a film guy but in my understanding of the correlation between film and digital should'nt the 2/3 sensor be derived from s16mm not 16mm film ?
Click to expand...

2/3" format refers to the diameter of a vidicon tube, an obsolete reference these days, but it has stuck.
The old black and white 2/3" vidicon TV cameras very closely matched the TV projection aperture of standard 16mm film in image size. 16mm camera lenses could be used on them with very little difference in field of view.
 
Hey where did the chart go?
 
AH found it on red.com
 
Still someone should include it again in the first posting, since this is a sticky thread.

- Carsten
 
Can we please Restore images??

Can we please Restore images??

Jarred Land said:
Thanks to Brook for giving us a new Relevant Format template for the new sensors, thought I would share...


1_chartx.jpg
Click to expand...

Hi Jarred,

I'm aware that the site had crashed a while back & hence we've lost almost all images & relevancy to all links... but can we please have the images restored to the stickies atleast...

Newbies like me keep joining the forum & are kinda lost without these great tutorials!

Thanks!
:001_rolleyes:
 
Curran... thanks a ton!

the reason why this forum rocks
:thumbup1:
 
I'm a little surprised at the size of the 2/3" sensor. It almost looks like the same size as the area the RED one uses when it shoots 2k. Of course the most important thing is how the image comes out in the end. I shot tests using the same subject in 4k, 3k, and 2k, and did not notice the difference on my HD monitor. I'm sure there would be a difference projected on the big screen, though. I am curious how much better the RED one 3k will be than the Scarlet 3k. At first I thought it would be negligible given that the resolutions will be the same. However, this sensor chart makes me think the RED one 3k will be far superior. Am I wrong in this assumption?
 
The problem I have with Brook's chart is that it notes full sensor size but not actual image area used for given formats. This is true on all of the notes frames, REDs included. It would be useful to have these noted as well.

Don't get me wrong -- sweet chart. I just think it could be even sweeter.
 
Some of the format sizes and resolutions listed don't match up, most of it is referencing what RED posted in the past. Mysterium-X S35 has a recordable width of 5120 pixels as listed above, the sensor size is 30x15, but 5120 pixels equates to about 27.68mm width for recordable area.

I'd say the chart could do with a refresh after we get more info at NAB.
 
Ralph Wong said:
I'm a little surprised at the size of the 2/3" sensor. It almost looks like the same size as the area the RED one uses when it shoots 2k. Of course the most important thing is how the image comes out in the end. I shot tests using the same subject in 4k, 3k, and 2k, and did not notice the difference on my HD monitor. I'm sure there would be a difference projected on the big screen, though. I am curious how much better the RED one 3k will be than the Scarlet 3k. At first I thought it would be negligible given that the resolutions will be the same. However, this sensor chart makes me think the RED one 3k will be far superior. Am I wrong in this assumption?
Click to expand...

When this question was posed in another thread, JJ's comment was that S35/R1 3k would have a slight advantage over 2/3" 3k, and that the 2/3" chip is exceptionally good.
Most 16mm lenses won't cover 3k on an R1 though, so you would lose the advantage of compact optics, especially wide range zooms.

attachment.php


Chart is to scale based on Jim's last stated pixel pitch for the 2/3" of 3.3 microns and R1/S35 pitch of 5.4 microns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top