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 :)

Why not Full sensor width 2.40 format ?

M

Marcus Struzina

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
305
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Just wondering if there is some obvious reason why the Red one can't have a 2.40 record format that uses the full 4900 pixels sensor width , it would only be 10005800 pixels/frame ( 4900 x 2042 ) as opposed to the current 4k 16:9 (4520 x 2540 ) having 11480800 pixels/frame, it would surely give a slightly better result than the current 2.40 non anamorphic format and make wider lenses just that bit wider?
Loosing the look around on the edges would be the only down side, I don't think lens coverage would be an issue as most contemporary 35 pl glass covers super35 and the still camera glass should have no problems.
 
I think this is a great idea and have been one of the many to suggest it!
 
obviously if your needs are purely for widesceen movies then this would be perfect but since some people need to deliver in 16x9 it suits them.

edit - I just realized that you were talking about eliminating sensor crop - - apols - this would be a good option - although lenses would take on a wider FOV and losing the look around would mean boom poles etc would be hard to predict - this may not bother some people.
 
The pixels outside of the currently recordable area are for sensor calibration. However, I would HUGELY love a 2.39:1 recording optionif only for compression purposes. 90% of what we shoot is cropped 2.39:1 anyway..

I think Jim mentioned that this may be an option at some point .. I really hope it makes it in there.
 
To my understanding RED ONE may have a greater number of pixels but the active amount is 4520. As result you can not go beyond this. At least this is how I understand it. So you might be able to get 4520 x 1884, maybe. But Red to this point has only used a maximum 4096 of the total active 4520. If you check here

http://www.red.com/cameras/tech_specs

This could be an exciting update if the camera could do this. I would still want to have some flexibility so 4520 x 2048 would be nice so you can re frame a little in post if need be. I think based upon the math it would be able to do up to 25p.

I might be wrong this is only a thought.
 
I'm all for using more pixels in a 2.35~2.40:1 mode. Like Darren said above me, so far we have only been able to get 4096 horizontal pixels out of RED, and I think the maximum active is 4520. The extra resolution may be a nice option in some situations.

Potential negatives of doing this would be the increased amount of data that must still be processed within limits of the internal DSPs / compression limitations, bandwidth, etc.. Such a mode may be restricted only to faster media like the RED Drive and upcoming RED FLASH and 16GB+ CF cards at no more than 24~25 fps. We would lose the "look around" area on the sides of the frame. There may be other technical reasons that areas larger than 4096 pixels wide have not been implemented.

While this is interesting to me, I would actually rather see expanded vertical areas for anamorphic shooting modes. Like a 3386x2540 4:3 mode for use with 2:1 anamorphic.
 
I'd imagine getting this to work down the post chain with other apps would be quite tricky given how much difficulty 16:9 has presented. I'd rather see that working perfectly before time is taken away for an admittedly very pretty but less popular aspect ratio.

Noah
 
Cyclotron said:
Just wondering if there is some obvious reason why the Red one can't have a 2.40 record format that uses the full 4900 pixels sensor width , it would only be 10005800 pixels/frame ( 4900 x 2042 ) as opposed to the current 4k 16:9 (4520 x 2540 ) having 11480800 pixels/frame, it would surely give a slightly better result than the current 2.40 non anamorphic format and make wider lenses just that bit wider?
Loosing the look around on the edges would be the only down side, I don't think lens coverage would be an issue as most contemporary 35 pl glass covers super35 and the still camera glass should have no problems.
Click to expand...

Well its a good idea, but i felt, somewhere we are asking too much. If you have seen 21, Russel carpenter shot it with Panavision Genesis Camera, and to get the 2.40:1, they cropped the image. Technically it is 1920x800 lines, still looks good. Just imagine You will have more then 2000 even after the crop.
 
4520x1884 would be nearly a million fewer pixels than the current 4096x2304 16:9, so I'd think camera could handle it in terms of processing and data rate.
 
you talking about native sized "scope" sensor?
 
People, including me, have been asking for this for a while. Must be some reason why we haven't seen it yet. Those areas of the sensor are active. We can see an image there in the viewfinder. Not sure why they can't just change the shape of the window that's cropped out. Maybe it is the quicktimes or something like someone else said. Don't know. I could easily do without the look around, and we'd still have it on the top and bottom anyway. Fair enough trade off. I'll also add my vote for 3048x2540 for 2:1 anamorphics.
 
Hi,

why not solve the issue with a custom mode, which let us configure the captured frame size as we want vs. the frame rates we want vs. the compression we want.

See here:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10333&highlight=custom+format

In the long end this would be a way better approach, since we can all play with format ideas WITHOUT the need to beg RED TEAM all the time and wasting additional valueable development time.

Most industrial CMOS cameras work like this, so its in no way a "Mysterium" to do this.

Axel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top