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 :)

Why...

Graeme Nattress said:
Yes, and I really enjoyed it.
Click to expand...

Without hijacking thread. So did I...love the blatant Bladerunner edge to the story. Not being a fan of the 8th series, was dubious, but thoroughly enjoyed it. Being shot on RED was icing to the cake.
 
Jannard said:
DR does not directly equate to sensitivity.

Jim
Click to expand...

Yes i know, DR is not related to sensitivity. But few time that i did test or shoot with DP, they come up saying if the next generation (Epic and Scarlet) will be more sensitive by, at least, one stop...

Just asking if by any chance i could come up with an answer to them...

thanks.
 
Full specs will be posted well before anyone can order. Best I can do for now.

Jim
 
[QUOTE=Jannard;
The downside to EPIC-X is that you have a ton of choices and need to put your thinking cap on to use them all. Or just pick what you know and stick with it.

I love it when a downside is an upside.
 
Seems to me the only big change / benefit from Red One to EpicX, as far as choices go, is for 2.40 widescreen captured with spherical lenses, which will indeed be vastly superior.
30mm is FANTASTIC news for anyone shooting spherical for a widescreen cinema release.
The vertical height of the EpicX sensor will be only 1mm higher than RED ONE, so 16:9 images woun't gain much resolution at all. 1.85 will gain a tiny bit more.
Most 16:9 work's for TV, of course, so there's usually resolution to burn at 4k, anyway. We're already in heaven at 4k.

But need to go to the 36x24 FF35 to have a comparable sensor height as 35mm film for an anamorphic capture, and to be using anywhere near the full width of the sensor. The issue there isn't just pixels, it's optical resolution of the lenses as well.

EDIT: LOOKING AT EVIN'S CHART AND GUESSES ON ANOTHER THREAD, I TAKE A LOT OF THIS BACK:
R1 chip size is 24.4x13.7mm (16x9)
R1 full pixel array is 4900x2580
R1 chip active chip area 22.5x13.5mm
R1 active pixels 4520x2540
R1 Currently useable area 20.4x12.2mm
R1 currently useable pixels 4096x2304

Epic chip size is 30x15 (+18.6% horiz. Vs. R1)
Epic full pixel array (estimated) 5520x2742
Epic active pixel area 2:1 (estimated) 27.7x14.7mm
Epic active pixel array (2:1 according to brochure) is 5120x2560
Epic active pixel area 16:9 (estimated) 25.8x13.94
Epic active pixel array 16:9 (estimated) is 4779x2700
epic active pixel area 2.40:1 (estimated) is 27.7x11.6mm
Epic active pixel array 2.40:1 (estimated) is 5120x2133

There's a bigger boost than I thought from Red One to Epic X

But FF35 will still be great for anamorphic, and "Big TV" 4:3 should anyone still be needing it...
 
sensitivity and DR

sensitivity and DR

Etienne Caron said:
Yes i know, DR is not related to sensitivity. But few time that i did test or shoot with DP, they come up saying if the next generation (Epic and Scarlet) will be more sensitive by, at least, one stop...
Click to expand...

As I understand it, if you had a camera that was the exact same sensitivity as the Red One but it had one more stop of dynamic range, that means you could shoot at one stop slower than with R1 and then push it one more stop in post and end up with the same overall look with equivalent noise level in the dark areas. So for my purposes, that would be equivalent to one stop more sensitive (if you push it) or one stop more headroom (if you don't). Choose either one after the fact, by setting your equivalent ISO sensitivity in post.

Now, as another example, if a new camera had one more stop of DR but one stop less sensitivity, then if shoot it the same as R1 and I push 1 stop in post I would get (again relative to R1) the same sensitivity as the old camera (same amount of noise in the dark areas) but 1 stop more headroom.

If I'm misunderstanding something, hopefully I'll be set right!
 
jbeale said:
As I understand it, if you had a camera that was the exact same sensitivity as the Red One but it had one more stop of dynamic range, that means you could shoot at one stop slower than with R1 and then push it one more stop in post and end up with the same overall look with equivalent noise level in the dark areas. So for my purposes, that would be equivalent to one stop more sensitive (if you push it) or one stop more headroom (if you don't). Choose either one after the fact, by setting your equivalent ISO sensitivity in post.

Now, as another example, if a new camera had one more stop of DR but one stop less sensitivity, then if I push 1 stop in post I would get (again relative to R1) the same sensitivity as the old camera (same amount of noise in the dark areas) but 2 stops more headroom.

If I'm misunderstanding something, hopefully I'll be set right!
Click to expand...

A sensor has a native sensitivity (although sometimes hard to pin down exactly) and then has ever increasing noise characteristics as you "push it". It is possible to have two sensors with the same native ISO but one sensor is less noisy as it is pushed. Native and useable are two different things.

ISO, dynamic range and sensitivity are generally related but not attached at the hip. A lot has to do with pixel size, pixel design, A/D conversion and a bunch of other stuff that only Graeme understands.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
2. While all the other film formats were pretty much "one format options", RED is many. Inside of our 30x15mm sensor lies many formats. RED 5K, S35, 35mm, S16, 16, 2/3", special ratios (2:1, 2.40:1. 16:9, etc.) and anamorphic of different flavors. You can use RPPs or Master Primes to shoot full 5K resolution, full frame. You can use S4s or Ultra Primes to shoot 4.5K. You can use shoot 2K with just about anything, including S16 lenses and B4 with our adaptor.
Click to expand...

I predict much freaking out and handwringing in Internet forums over the fact that you can't shoot the full 5K with some cine lenses. People are so used to lower resolution formats that I think many of them are still uncomfortable with the idea of leaving any resolution on the table... even though once you get up this high you can actually afford to, if it makes sense for some other reason. It's going to take people a while to get used to the idea.
 
Which brings up the question, if you're recording 4k or 4.5k, could you still get the full 5k in the viewfinder as "look around" space, which could still be quite useful even if it's partially vignetted and/or not in sharp focus?
 
Chris Kenny said:
I predict much freaking out and handwringing in Internet forums over the fact that you can't shoot the full 5K with some cine lenses. People are so used to lower resolution formats that I think many of them are still uncomfortable with the idea of leaving any resolution on the table... even though once you get up this high you can actually afford to, if it makes sense for some other reason. It's going to take people a while to get used to the idea.
Click to expand...

And they better start thinking about FF35 glass on top of that, because Monstro has larger photosites than Mysterium X, meaning you will need lenses with even larger image circles to achieve 5K on Epic Monstro.

This is why the FF35 glass issue is so vital, IMO. Once people get a serious taste of FF35 Monstro in all its glory, they will be hooked.

BTW, Jim, LMFAO at the "Cliff Clavin" comment. :thumbsup:
 
Graeme,

The general consensus has been A/D sampling at the mean of the voltage variability of a photosite. Any thought gone into "oversampling" in the vertical/voltage domain? E.G. 16, 20 or even 24 bits at the A/D level? In theory wouldn't this give an improvement to the quality of the noise, and a reduction of 'noise aliasing' at the noise boundary?

Especially in a linear/RAW system this could have an interesting impact on the noise characteristics of the system.

Really excited for REDrocket BTW... Was wondering why Red hadn't yet leveraged the CUDA or other recent LSI DSP products.
 
As far as I know 14 bits is state of the art in video-rate A/D. Maybe 16, but I really doubt the last two bits have much real data.
 
Jannard said:
A sensor has a native sensitivity (although sometimes hard to pin down exactly) and then has ever increasing noise characteristics as you "push it". It is possible to have two sensors with the same native ISO but one sensor is less noisy as it is pushed. Native and useable are two different things.

ISO, dynamic range and sensitivity are generally related but not attached at the hip. A lot has to do with pixel size, pixel design, A/D conversion and a bunch of other stuff that only Graeme understands.

Jim
Click to expand...

Then perhaps Greame can comment.

In my now one year with the R1, I have resolution to spare. Amazing images all around.

I do not have DR to spare - I have bumped into real limitations in several locations. Monstro is reputed to have 3 more stops?? If so , that's my upgrade path, if available. How does that impact current lens decisions?

In particular, will it be possible to shoot 4-5 K on the Monstro chip with RPP's and gain the DR benefit? And what will that do to Depth of Field performance?
 
Jannard said:
A lot has to do with pixel size, pixel design, A/D conversion and a bunch of other stuff that only Graeme understands.

Jim
Click to expand...

That's gotta be the quote of the day. It certainly gave me a good chuckle this morning.
 
First Light Films said:
Then perhaps Greame can comment.

In my now one year with the R1, I have resolution to spare. Amazing images all around.

I do not have DR to spare - I have bumped into real limitations in several locations. Monstro is reputed to have 3 more stops?? If so , that's my upgrade path, if available. How does that impact current lens decisions?

In particular, will it be possible to shoot 4-5 K on the Monstro chip with RPP's and gain the DR benefit? And what will that do to Depth of Field performance?
Click to expand...

DR is as much about how you grade the image as you shoot it. I've seen low light stuff that looks great, and other stuff that didn't.

Sensitivity is a funny one as it's really down to pixel design, something I don't know and only know enough to play a pixel designer on TV. You can always trade DR for more sensitivity though, just as you can trade resolution for more DR.

I'm rather confident how good the new chips will look though...

Graeme
 
Vincent Follézou said:
For those who want to understand who work the resolution on a digital camera i strongly recomended this serie of video : http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Demystifying_Part1.html
Click to expand...

You should be very careful of Panavision videos. There is a clear motive to defend their market share, which is quite threatened by anything red.

They use a very simplified explanation of Bayer sensors, which occludes the advantages they offer. There is plenty of chroma information in a bayer sensor.
 
Jannard said:
Correct. They were true 4K scans (from a 4K sensor in the scanner) but the measured output results are not 4K. Just like the RED ONE shoots a real 4096 pixel image that measures 3.2K output. :-)

Easier said this way... S35 film does not resolve 4K. Not matter what you scan it with. You could scan it with an 8K scanner and it will still only resolve just over 3K of measured resolution.

Jim
Click to expand...

What about chromatic resolution independent of Black and White resolution? Has chromatic resolution been measured in both formats?
 
Colour resolution is harder to measure, but if you look at film, it does seem that the resolution it colour dependent.

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