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 :)

Sensor size chart.

D

Daniel García

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
173
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ok I am not one of those religious "fixed-lens-scarlet-is-worthless" mentality guys, and please don't convert this into one of those discussion. I could afford a fixed-lens Scarlet but I'm not sure I could afford the lenses. But I need to check my logic:

Red One accepts S35mm and 16mm PL mount lenses. How does the 16mm frame size compare to a 2/3" sensor? I thought they were similar. Maybe it wouldn't be economically sensible, but would it be optically possible to use 16mm cine lenses with the Scarlet?:unsure:

This is what we need to base this discussion in reality:
Everyone has seen those promotional charts comparing the 4K, 2K, 1080, 720 and SD image sizes.
What we now need is a similar chart comparing the S35mm, 16mm, 2/3" and 1/3" sensor sizes. That would help set everyone's expectations about Scarlet nearer reality and further from speculation (oh, please).

Please, can anyone with accurate data care to upload/link a chart? :help:
 
That would, unfortunately, be pretty much impossible. There is no "industry standard" dimensions for 2/3" sensors... most fall around 11mm horizontally, which is less than 1/2". So although it is stated to have a 2/3" sensor, we won't actually know the size of the physical dimensions of the sensor until it is officially announced, thus a size comparison chart is impossible. Who knows... maybe RED's 2/3" sensor will actually be 2/3 of an inch!
 
DaNni said:
This is what we need to base this discussion in reality:
Everyone has seen those promotional charts comparing the 4K, 2K, 1080, 720 and SD image sizes.
What we now need is a similar chart comparing the S35mm, 16mm, 2/3" and 1/3" sensor sizes. That would help set everyone's expectations about Scarlet nearer reality and further from speculation (oh, please).
Click to expand...

You didn't really need to start this thread off the way you did by tipping your hand as to which side of the fixed lens or interchangeable lens holy war you support. That might backfire and devolve this potentially enlightening thread into yet another shouting match.

I'll take your request and add to it a bit by asking for an overlay of the two charts.
________
Toyota gt-one
 
I'm sorry Ethan if something bothered you. I'm not really sure how it should have been phrased.

To re-state my position: I haven't made up my mind yet on this debate. Please help me get to a conclusion based on facts.


By the way, I'm not interested in a flame war, because whichever way it is, I don't really mind very much: Scarlet will be HUGE anyways. I'm a student and could never afford a RED. I can dream of a Scarlet that'll be vastly superior to anything else I could get my hands on.



PS:What would the overlay be useful for?
 
What I've found out so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_mm_film
16mm= 10.26 by 7.49 mm
S16mm=12.52 by 7.41 mm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Table_of_sensor_sizes
2/3" (aprox.) = 8.8 x 6.6 mm

Ok... it seems the 16mm cine lenses would cover the 2/3" sensor, with the loss of some FOV.

A 24mm lens would have an effective coverage of 24 x (12.52/8.8) = 35mm

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Take into account: 1) the difficulty of engineering a proper lens mount (the Red One had to go back for a second try), 2) the price rise it would provoke and 3)the chunk of FOV you lose.

I think RED made the right decision. Let's hope they make a nice integrated lens.


Also, as someone commented on another thread... if there's so much interest there will be third parties that'll mod the Scarlet to accept other lenses... the people who want it are the ones who can pay for it.

I'll be interested on hearing people with more insight into this.
 
Courtesy of Brook Willard

5_1184983969.jpg
 
On the Brook Willard chart 2/3" is almost identical to the S16mm area.

But in fact it should be a little smaller.

Uhh, I got confused...

What are the dimensions of the 2/3" actually?!
 
Sorry, but what resolutions and measurements are these charts based upon? Each pixel on the Red is 5.398 microns, no? So 4096 across would be just over 22mm, about the same as Academy 35mm (what the chart calls Arri Standard 35mm. Arri Super-35 is 24mm across, which would be about 4446 pixels (pretty close to Red's 4.5K as noted in the chart). 2/3" B4 is much smaller than Super-16, even a good chunk smaller than regular 16mm.

I think the idea of this chart is terrific, but I do think it needs a bit of tweaking. And I think it would be good to note the physical dimensions of each format similar to how the American Cinematographer's Manual does. With the exception of the Red sensor, all the measuments are SMPTE standards.
 
A lot of the specs out there for existing 2/3" sensors are for 4:3 format, not 16:9, or even 1.66:1 like Super16. Also, many of the 2/3" sensors not really 2/3" diagonal, but smaller. So, it's tough to go off of those figures.

Considering the full Super35 sensor in the RED ONE, I would guess that RED would not cheap out and create a 2/3" sensor that was any smaller than a full 2/3".

1" = 24.5mm
2/3" = 16.3mm
 
No 2/3" sensor comes anywhere near to being 2/3" in any dimension. Sensor sizes are based on the "type" of sensor that approximates the performance of the old tubes, so in the tube days you'd have a 2/3" diameter tube; when we went to chips the sensors that approximated the performance of that tube were designated as a '2/3" type' sensor. But it sure didn't measure 2/3" in any possible direction. Neither does a 1/2" sensor measure 1/2", nor does a 1/3" sensor measure 1/3" in any way.

It's like a 2x4 hunk of lumber -- get out your tape measure, it doesn't measure 2" or 4" in any way. But it's still CALLED a "2x4".

I can't speak definitively for what Red will do, but I feel quite confident in saying that their 2/3" sensor isn't going to be 16.3mm wide! A video 2/3" sensor is typically about 9.6mm wide by 5.4mm tall. Count on Red's sensor being about the same size. That would give it the DOF and FOV of a 2/3" video camera, or about the same DOF/FOV as a 16mm movie camera.

For a total list of common sizes for film and video formats, check out the Panavision NZ page.
 
Barry Green said:
No 2/3" sensor comes anywhere near to being 2/3" in any dimension. Sensor sizes are based on the "type" of sensor that approximates the performance of the old tubes, so in the tube days you'd have a 2/3" diameter tube; when we went to chips the sensors that approximated the performance of that tube were designated as a '2/3" type' sensor. But it sure didn't measure 2/3" in any possible direction. Neither does a 1/2" sensor measure 1/2", nor does a 1/3" sensor measure 1/3" in any way.

It's like a 2x4 hunk of lumber -- get out your tape measure, it doesn't measure 2" or 4" in any way. But it's still CALLED a "2x4".

I can't speak definitively for what Red will do, but I feel quite confident in saying that their 2/3" sensor isn't going to be 16.3mm wide! A video 2/3" sensor is typically about 9.6mm wide by 5.4mm tall. Count on Red's sensor being about the same size. That would give it the DOF and FOV of a 2/3" video camera, or about the same DOF/FOV as a 16mm movie camera.

For a total list of common sizes for film and video formats, check out the Panavision NZ page.
Click to expand...

Barry what do you think would happen if they did make a sensor that was actually 2/3, what would that do to the market at those prices ?
 
s diagonal measurements, like TV's. It won't be 16mm wide, but it could well be 16mm diagonally, like 16mm film.
Click to expand...
??? 16mm film isn't 16mm diagonal. It's 16mm wide, from the outside edge to the other outside edge. Subtract out the width of the sprockets and you end up with about 10mm wide between the sprocket holes. In Super16, they eliminate one side of sprockets and push the image all the way to the edge, which results in about 12.4mm wide.

I feel quite confident in predicting that Red's 2/3" sensor won't be anywhere near 16mm diagonal either. More like 11mm. If they were to make a true 16mm-wide sensor, they'd have to engineer a whole new class of lens to cover that. That's quite unreasonable to expect from a product that's slated to retail (including lens) for under $3,000.

Red's Scarlet sensor is stated as being 2/3", and that means it'll be a little smaller than 16mm film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top