Why 2/3rds?

[Ryan Valle]

I haven't been following much on the Scarlet news lately, but then again, there hasn't been much.

My question though has come into my thoughts just recently with canon's newly announced 7D camera which does HD recording like the Canon 5DmII. The difference between the two though are frame rates and sensor sizes. The 7D has an APS-C sized sensor while the 5D is full frame, which to my understanding is the same size as the RED One and EPIC and some of the SCARLET models.

What I like about the APS-C sized sensor is that it is much larger than a 2/3rd sized sensor and to me, it just seems like I can get more DoF on the APS-C sensor. So why can't RED use an APS-C sized sensor instead of 2/3rd?

I'm not asking for change, but just looking to see if there is a logical reason as to why camera manufacturers don't use the APS-C sized sensor more often?

 

[Emiliano Ranzani]

I haven't been following much on the Scarlet news lately, but then again, there hasn't been much.

My question though has come into my thoughts just recently with canon's newly announced 7D camera which does HD recording like the Canon 5DmII. The difference between the two though are frame rates and sensor sizes. The 7D has an APS-C sized sensor while the 5D is full frame, which to my understanding is the same size as the RED One and EPIC and some of the SCARLET models.

What I like about the APS-C sized sensor is that it is much larger than a 2/3rd sized sensor and to me, it just seems like I can get more DoF on the APS-C sensor. So why can't RED use an APS-C sized sensor instead of 2/3rd?

I'm not asking for change, but just looking to see if there is a logical reason as to why camera manufacturers don't use the APS-C sized sensor more often?

2\3-inch sensors are cheaper to produce and purchase. Also, they have more depth-of-field, which can be a great thing in certain situations.

 

[Yousuf Abbasi]

2\3-inch sensors ... have more depth-of-field

What do you mean by "more depth-of-field?" If you mean that 2/3" sensors can attain shallower DoF vs. APS-C (by cropping less) then I believe you are mistaken. APS-C is a larger sensor which has less crop factor.

 

[Eki Halkka]

What do you mean by "more depth-of-field?" If you mean that 2/3" sensors can attain shallower DoF vs. APS-C (by cropping less) then I believe you are mistaken.

He menas the opposite: depth of field is the area of the image that's IN focus, or "acceptably sharp".

So, more depth of field means steeper DoF, less depth of field means shallower DoF.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Hi Ryan,

My question though has come into my thoughts just recently with canon's newly announced 7D camera which does HD recording like the Canon 5DmII. The difference between the two though are frame rates and sensor sizes. The 7D has an APS-C sized sensor while the 5D is full frame, which to my understanding is the same size as the RED One and EPIC and some of the SCARLET models.

A couple of quick notes. The 7D does shoot 1080p, but can do so natively at 23.98 frames per second. The 5D MkII can only shoot 30.00 frames per second, requiring additional work in post to achieve 23.98 frames per second. You are right: the 7D is APS-C sized and the 5D is Full Frame. However, RED ONE is much closer to APS-C (RED is 24.4x13.7mm, 7D is 22.3x14.9mm) than to Full Frame (36x24mm). Super 35mm film is more similar to the RED ONE and the 7D than in terms of size.

What I like about the APS-C sized sensor is that it is much larger than a 2/3rd sized sensor and to me, it just seems like I can get more DoF on the APS-C sensor. So why can't RED use an APS-C sized sensor instead of 2/3rd?

APS-C sensor can deliver a shallower DOF than a 2/3" sensor. RED can use an APS-C size sensor. However, RED is developing cameras for digital cinematography, whereas Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, etc are developing cameras primarily for photographic use. The APS-C sensor is well suited to that. RED is (or was?) developing sensors specialized for digital cinematography. Since RED has gone into relative silent mode I have assumed all bets are off. It's possible the 2/3" sensor won't even make the product line.

I'm not asking for change, but just looking to see if there is a logical reason as to why camera manufacturers don't use the APS-C sized sensor more often?

Larger sensors are more expensive, especially if you are using three of them as in the many 3CCD cameras that dominate much of the lower and mid end of the video camera market. I expect that, given the success of the 5D MKII, the GH1, and the seemingly impending success of the 7D, that we will be seeing a notable increase in sensor size and a divergence from the 3CCD standard in the lower end of HD video cameras in the upcoming couple of years.

One last item. Keep in mind that sensor size affects many things, but is not the single determinate of a good camera nor a good sensor. Dynamic range, low-light sensitivity, real world resolution, noise, color accuracy, rolling shutter complications, and compression are all important and really, are just the beginning of a long list of other matters (audio, frame rates, crop factor, etc).

 

[Steven Swigart]

Three Reasons:

1. 2/3's is an industry standard and not going away anytime soon.
2. With a RED 2/3 you're shooting in a RAW video format
3. Made from an American innovative company, which is a fresh change.

Asses your needs and make your purchase when you need to shoot.

 

[Kenneth Elkington]

Well Red is making an APS-C sized sensor(roughly), the super 35. But with that increase in size comes an increase in price because the S35 has lower yields, more materials, more data processing and higher research costs.

 

[JohnF]

Why 2/3rds?

1. Deeper depth of field - Good for ENG & Docs

2. Small lenses (compared with 35mm glass) with tremendously useful zoom ranges ie. 16x, 20x and even, I think, 40x!

3. Industry standard - meaning that a lot of operators that already own (S)16mm or 2/3rds glass will benefit from shooting in a 3k RAW format with only a camera body change. - which ATM would be cheaper than some 2/3rds lenses.

The size, shooting format (3K RAW) and the price mean that such a camera would benefit a great number of operators out there and make a real, visible, on-the-screen improvement to their productions.

JohnF

 

[axel ebermann]

I am a documentary filmmaker. Shooting 'on the run' with a Red commando style as a small crew is virtually impossible, because especially in low light the focus pulling would be very, very difficult ...

This is where the 2/3 chips with more depth of field comes in handy

 

[Ryan Valle]

I see I see. Thanks for the responses. It was just bugging my mind lately, but you guys clarified it for me very well.

(By the way, you guys figuried it out already but my uneducated mind did mean more depth of field as more blur, something i just mix up with bokeh. Sorry for the confusion).

 

[M Most]

Why 2/3rds?

1. Deeper depth of field - Good for ENG & Docs

Also good for 3D stereography.

 

[Emiliano Ranzani]

He menas the opposite: depth of field is the area of the image that's IN focus, or "acceptably sharp".

So, more depth of field means steeper DoF, less depth of field means shallower DoF.

Correct :thumbup1:

I am a documentary filmmaker. Shooting 'on the run' with a Red commando style as a small crew is virtually impossible, because especially in low light the focus pulling would be very, very difficult ...

This is where the 2/3 chips with more depth of field comes in handy

As useless as it can be (i.e. anyone knows you're right), I agree. I especially like smaller sensors in conjunction with a wide angle lens: it's great for smooth hand-held shooting (movement-based of course), especially when you're walking in a crowd or similar. You keep the focus at the minimal distance and you only have to worry about framing and keep bumping into the next subject.