Why 2/3" and not S16 sized sensor?

[Justin Anderson]

I'm sure this has been questioned many times and for all I know Jim has given an answer, but I've been wondering why RED is building a smaller 2/3" sensor for the Scarlet instead of a S16 one.

I would happily pay some extra for the larger sensor & fixed lens.

Being able to match S16 film sizes would allow us to take full advantage of more lenses, as well as 2/3" lenses if we still wanted.

But my bigger concern is the smaller photosites that have to be used when cramming 3000x1700 pixels of resolution onto a 2/3" sensor. My concern is noise, color, and low light capability.
If the CMOS sensor has to be redesigned with smaller photosites for the fixed lens Scarlet anyway, why not design the sensor for the larger S16 format that necessitates a lesser reduction in pixel size?

 

[Alex Mack]

I feel your pain.
I believe one main idea was that using windowed resolution restricts frame rate possibilities (for lower end scarlet boards), and so for the freedom of the tv sensor buyers, everyone will take a 2/3. They do have a recourse that 2/3 is a 16:9 crop of traditional 4:3 16mm. But I do pine for that extra shallowness, that S16 freedom. That would beat out 35mm and 2/3 in my book any day (ideal dof in lowlight).

 

[Justin Anderson]

I feel your pain.
I believe one main idea was that using windowed resolution restricts frame rate possibilities (for lower end scarlet boards), and so for the freedom of the tv sensor buyers, everyone will take a 2/3. They do have a recourse that 2/3 is a 16:9 crop of traditional 4:3 16mm. But I do pine for that extra shallowness, that S16 freedom. That would beat out 35mm and 2/3 in my book any day (ideal dof in lowlight).

Yeah. Good points. I have no idea what kind of additional processing stresses that windowed shooting puts on a sensor.

Essentially I'm going to buy the fixed lens scarlet one way or another and just trust that RED can pull off 3K in a 2/3" sensor.

 

[Justin O'Neill]

But I do pine for that extra shallowness, that S16 freedom.

DoF isn't going to be that much shallower on S16 vs. Scarlet 2/3". It would the difference in DoF between a 25mm and 31mm lens at the same f-stop.

 

[Justin Anderson]

DoF isn't going to be that much shallower on S16 vs. Scarlet 2/3". It would the difference in DoF between a 25mm and 31mm lens at the same f-stop.

For me what's more important is the concern over the size of the pixels.

With the smaller photosites, even if the noise/DR/color is as good as the original RED one, I'll still be perfectly happy.

In an ideal world, I just wish I could get as clean a sensor as the M-X.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

In an ideal world, I just wish I could get as clean a sensor as the M-X.

I think you're going to get your wish. Th sensor in the 2/3" Scarlet is still "Mysterium-X". It is different, having smaller photosites, but as Jarred put it in another post around here, he said it was just like M-X's little brother. I'm expecting performance, sensitivity and noise to be very similar between the 2/3" M-X and the 5K M-X sensors.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

While I wish it were true, I find it hard to believe that the performance will be similar between the S35 and 2/3" chips. The 2/3 chip is significantly smaller and will be much noisier. I will have to live with that because its all I can afford.

 

[MichaelHalsell]

While I wish it were true, I find it hard to believe that the performance will be similar between the S35 and 2/3" chips. The 2/3 chip is significantly smaller and will be much noisier. I will have to live with that because its all I can afford.

Why the sensor output be noisier?

 

[Stephen Gentle]

While I wish it were true, I find it hard to believe that the performance will be similar between the S35 and 2/3" chips. The 2/3 chip is significantly smaller and will be much noisier. I will have to live with that because its all I can afford.

I doubt it will be very noticeably noisier. Although the idea of "smaller photosites == less dynamic range" is a popular one, in reality there are many other factors in the design of a sensor that make a larger difference.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

The performance difference between the two sensors may be smaller than we think but I feel that a lot of people think that the sensor will be amazing because the Mysterium X name is on it. There is a reason why one sensor costs $4000 more than the other.

 

[J Davis]

While I wish it were true, I find it hard to believe that the performance will be similar between the S35 and 2/3" chips. The 2/3 chip is significantly smaller and will be much noisier. I will have to live with that because its all I can afford.

This thread must have been destined for you !

Thanks to Daniel Browning
Myth busted: small pixels have worse performance than large pixels
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30076

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

It's also being discussed right now in the Mysterium-X Dynamic Range thread in Recon. I'm thinking the 2/3" M-X chip is going to kick some ass.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Fixed lens

Fixed lens

Scarlet was originally going to be just going to be a fixed zoom lens on the 2/3" (11mm) model. The mini-prime and C mount versions came later as "optional" versions made without the features of the built in Zoom lens.

It would seem that the 2/3" (11mm) sensor choice was made to hold down the weight and cost of the Zoom lens. The sensor is between Super8 and regular 16mm image camera diagonals, but that does not tell you about the image quality by itself since a sensor can be higher resolution by a factor of 4x or more over what color negative film would resolve in that same area.

A 10MP Super8 size sensor can resolve more than most lenses that can cover that area, so its not so much the sensor that sets the limits but the lens, and one can assume that the fixed zoom lens for Scarlet and the mini-primes would be good enough to match the Scarlet sensor.

Going with the FF sensor may result in about the same cost for the total system if you are going to purchase a large range of mm in your lens set, since you can get some good SLR lenses used for a fraction of what some new 10MP 2/3" lenses cost (e.g. Goyo Optical etc.), so its more the weight of the camera system that would help you figure out to go 2/3" S35 or FF sensor, if you work out the total system cost including a large lens set the cost may be more even than you would think just looking at the sensor "brain" prices?

Had the sensor been the actual diagonal of Super16 camera image, and 1.66:1 ratio, the Zoom lens would have been maybe 25-30% larger and cost with markup another $1000 to make, pushing the retail for the Fixed zoom Scarlet past their MSRP target, perhaps.

 

[Justin Anderson]

Scarlet was originally going to be just going to be a fixed zoom lens on the 2/3" (11mm) model. The mini-prime and C mount versions came later as "optional" versions made without the features of the built in Zoom lens.

It would seem that the 2/3" (11mm) sensor choice was made to hold down the weight and cost of the Zoom lens. The sensor is between Super8 and regular 16mm image camera diagonals, but that does not tell you about the image quality by itself since a sensor can be higher resolution by a factor of 4x or more over what color negative film would resolve in that same area.

A 10MP Super8 size sensor can resolve more than most lenses that can cover that area, so its not so much the sensor that sets the limits but the lens, and one can assume that the fixed zoom lens for Scarlet and the mini-primes would be good enough to match the Scarlet sensor.

Going with the FF sensor may result in about the same cost for the total system if you are going to purchase a large range of mm in your lens set, since you can get some good SLR lenses used for a fraction of what some new 10MP 2/3" lenses cost (e.g. Goyo Optical etc.), so its more the weight of the camera system that would help you figure out to go 2/3" S35 or FF sensor, if you work out the total system cost including a large lens set the cost may be more even than you would think just looking at the sensor "brain" prices?

Had the sensor been the actual diagonal of Super16 camera image, and 1.66:1 ratio, the Zoom lens would have been maybe 25-30% larger and cost with markup another $1000 to make, pushing the retail for the Fixed zoom Scarlet past their MSRP target, perhaps.

^^^Makes sense to me.

 

[Justin Anderson]

This thread must have been destined for you !

Thanks to Daniel Browning
Myth busted: small pixels have worse performance than large pixels
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30076

Wow. Great read!

 

[Peter_N]

I would happily pay some extra for the larger sensor & fixed lens.

...why not design the sensor for the larger S16 format that necessitates a lesser reduction in pixel size?

I would have to agree with you. It would be much easier to get excited about an S16 Scarlet than a 2/3"Scarlet. I guess we'll just have to wait and see the actual product and judge from there.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

While I wish it were true, I find it hard to believe that the performance will be similar between the S35 and 2/3" chips. The 2/3 chip is significantly smaller and will be much noisier. I will have to live with that because its all I can afford.

I think that is an awfully premature and speculative statement.

Obviously, the proof will be in the pudding, but we are being told that the performance should be very similar. Smaller photosites (as stated) does not necessarily dictate a drastically reduced level of performance in those key areas.

A good example is the HVX200 and the HVX200a. Both have the same size sensors, with the same sized pixels on them, and the same amount of pixels on them. Yet, the A model (benefiting from 2-3 years of additional technological advancements) has noticeably improved image quality when it comes to noise, lowlight performance,etc, etc. over the original 200

I for one am in the boat that says the 2/3" MX chip is going to be like nothing we've seen.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

It won't be noisier, it is the same generation, same technology, same knowledge. It will be practically the same sensitivity and noise. The larger resolution and light captured will give you a more information, that when finishing at equal resolutions will let you push it a bit further. But if there are any differences between the 2/3" and the S35 in 2/3" mode it will be a rather small difference... and we won't even know if a "negative" or POSITIVE one till it is out.

 

[David Rasberry]

I think 2/3" was picked because it is a widely accepted standard video format and supports a much broader range of available optics.
There are current gen 2/3" HD cameras out there with a native 1600 ISO rating, so I don't think there will be huge differences in noise,sensitivity and DR compared to S35.

 

[Peter Moretti]

...

Being able to match S16 film sizes would allow us to take full advantage of more lenses, as well as 2/3" lenses if we still wanted.

...

But how do you use 2/3rd's lenses on an S16 camera w/o having to window the sensor? And that, I imagine, would casue a host of resizing issues since S16 is not a multiple of 2/3rd's.