4:3 Epic

[Joseph Ward]

4:3 Epic?:matrix:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15745&page=5

[Alexander Nikishin]

Please.

[Tom Lowe]

Imax! Imax!! Imax!!!!

[Robert Sanders]

Man, I would love it if Epic's sensor was 4x3. I'm a huge proponent of anamorphic photography.

[Peter Majtan]

Let's not jump ahead of ourselves. Re-read the post and the reaction:

Originally Posted by Jens Jakob Thorsen:


This is great news! If it it at all possible I would LOVE to shoot 4:3 4,5K and get higher res when I use my Anas......

Jim then responded:


Not going to ever happen with the RED ONE (don't get greedy on us). :-)

You'll need Epic for this one.

Jim

This could just mean that You can "fit" 4,5K 4:3 inside the EPIC's 5K 16:9 sensor, especially knowing that EPIC is going to be more then 5K.

I just don't want to go back to anamorphic. I think it is a step backwards. You would be better served with the same amount of photosites aranged in 16:9 ratio. How many would shoot anamorphic? That would mean that if You don't shoot anamorphic You are loosing so much res, that You be better off with Red One. Which would render EPIC as a "dedicated" anamorphic camera. This does not sound right to me...

[Chris Kenny]

I just don't want to go back to anamorphic. I think it is a step backwards. You would be better served with the same amount of photosites aranged in 16:9 ratio.

Thing is, if you arrange a larger number of photosites in the same area, they're smaller. That's hard to do, and has diminishing returns eventually. On the other hand, you can't just make a larger 16:9 sensor, because then Super35 glass won't cover it anymore. So, there might not be that much more room to grow the pixel count while sticking with a 16:9 Super35 sensor.

And some people do want to shoot anamorphic, so Red's highest-end camera should probably be able to do that really well.

I speculated about this when Epic was first announced, and was told then that Epic would still have a 16x9 sensor. But as I said then, its market positioning relative to the Red One's makes a lot more sense if it has a 4:3 sensor. And that also explains the name....

[Joseph Ward]

How many would shoot anamorphic? That would mean that if You don't shoot anamorphic You are loosing so much res, that You be better off with Red One.

I would like Anamorphic! :love: Who's to say that you can't have great 5k or more res with 4:3 or better DR.

You don't need eyes to see you need a vision.:)

[Peter Majtan]

Ayoji - do You have any idea how much do the ana-lenses cost? I am also not a fan of the elongated bokeh and motion artifact amongst other things. I am sure there are plenty who would like to shoot anamorphic on Epic (or Red One for that matter). Most ASC members included. But I am not one of them. I would like to have just a single type of lenses to use on both Red One and Epic (and what ever else may come in the future from RED). This would for me be the deal-breaker, unless (which is highly probable) EPIC has other aces up to its sleeve...

[Peter Majtan]

Another factor to consider it that many modern digital cinema projectors do not have anamorphic lenses, and if You end up "squaring" the pixels in the end, there is truly no point. Another issue is VFX and CGI - nightmare with anamorphic...

[Chris Kenny]

I would like to have just a single type of lenses to use on both Red One and Epic (and what ever else may come in the future from RED). This would for me be the deal-breaker, unless (which is highly probable) EPIC has other aces up to its sleeve...

Well, if Epic is 4:3, I'm sure it'll have modes to window the sensor for spherical 16:9, 1.85, 2.40, etc.

[Peter Majtan]

But then You would end up with resolution almost equal to Red One...

[Joseph Ward]

Let's not jump ahead of ourselves. Re-read the post and the reaction:
This could just mean that You can "fit" 4,5K 4:3 inside the EPIC's 5K 16:9 sensor, especially knowing that EPIC is going to be more then 5K.

Your right. Jim might or might not be saying something about Epic.
Surprise...?, in a Surprise...? lol :ninja:

[Joseph Ward]

Ayoji - do You have any idea how much do the ana-lenses cost? I am sure there are plenty who would like to shoot anamorphic on Epic (or Red One for that matter). Most ASC members included. EPIC has other aces up to its sleeve...

Maybe Red Anamopric Lenses if it is true.:weight_lift:

[Chris Kenny]

But then You would end up with resolution almost equal to Red One...

Well, 5K is a horizontal photosite count. Presumably it's 5x1024, so at 16:9 Epic should be 5120x2880 vs. Red One's 4096x2304, or 14.7 megapixels vs. Red One's 9.4M megapixels. 56% more resolution is nothing to sneeze at.

And if it is a 4:3 5K sensor, the full sensor resolution (if you did want to shoot anamorphic) would be 5120x3840, nearly 20 megapixels. Now that's epic.

[Peter Majtan]

You are right Chris, I got lost there for a second. It has been a long day (since yesterday...)
My bad...

[Tom Lowe]

Well, 5K is a horizontal photosite count. Presumably it's 5x1024, so at 16:9 Epic should be 5120x2880 vs. Red One's 4096x2304, or 14.7 megapixels vs. Red One's 9.4M megapixels. 56% more resolution is nothing to sneeze at.

And if it is a 4:3 5K sensor, the full sensor resolution (if you did want to shoot anamorphic) would be 5120x3840, nearly 20 megapixels. Now that's epic.

That would put the camera squarely into the realm of the very top-tier DSLRs, and yes, that would be f*cking epic!

[Craig Ryan]

with 2.40:1 anamorphic, if it IS a 5k 4:3 sensor, that would yield a projected 9216 x 3840 image...9.2k if you like...:love:

[Craig Ryan]

Here's a Microsoft paint quicky scaled down to 10% just to get an idea of the real difference in size between the possibilities:


http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/49_1214984255.jpg

So as we can see even if EPIC is a 16:9 sensor, there will still be a significant difference between it and the new 4.5k RED ONE spec.

[Pawel Achtel]

Well, 5K is a horizontal photosite count. Presumably it's 5x1024, so at 16:9 Epic should be 5120x2880 vs. Red One's 4096x2304, or 14.7 megapixels vs. Red One's 9.4M megapixels. 56% more resolution is nothing to sneeze at.

And if it is a 4:3 5K sensor, the full sensor resolution (if you did want to shoot anamorphic) would be 5120x3840, nearly 20 megapixels. Now that's epic.

And what glass would resolve this? Anamorphic lenses are not as sharp as regular and even Master Primes have their limits.

[Tom Lowe]

Here's a Microsoft paint quicky scaled down to 10% just to get an idea of the real difference in size between the possibilities:


http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/49_1214984255.jpg

So as we can see even if EPIC is a 16:9 sensor, there will still be a significant difference between it and the new 4.5k RED ONE spec.

Holy .... SHIT!

[Peter McCully]

I agree that a 4x3 or to be more specific, a super 35mm full frame sensor would be ideal. Then the windowing can go through 16:9, 2.4:1, etc, all keeping the width. Plus, if folks want to shoot anamorphic they can,using the whole sensor. And Imax with the whole sensor.

[Peace Villow]

with 2.40:1 anamorphic, if it IS a 5k 4:3 sensor, that would yield a projected 9216 x 3840 image...9.2k if you like...:love:


Here's a Microsoft paint quicky scaled down to 10% just to get an idea of the real difference in size between the possibilities:


http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/49_1214984255.jpg

So as we can see even if EPIC is a 16:9 sensor, there will still be a significant difference between it and the new 4.5k RED ONE spec.

How come 5K 4:3 (with 2.40:1) become 9216x3840???
AFAIK, full aperture of 5K is 5120x3890.

[Craig Ryan]

Its just theoretical resolution; if you had a 4:3 sensor, shot with anamorphic 2.40:1 glass, the projected resolution would be stretched horizontally.

[Tom Lowe]

Are you sure about that, Craig??

[Craig Ryan]

Now I'm not so certain...I wouldn't doubt it if I'm missing a critical aspect (no pun intended) here...in my limited knowledge, when anamorphic glass is used to yield a 2.40:1 image, the film stock used is a 4:3 film format right? With this logic, I calculated:

EPIC theoretical 5k 4:3 sensor = 5120 x 3840

INTENDED ASPECT RATIO: 2.40:1

3840 X 2.40 = 9216.

EDIT: This doesn't necessarily mean the image will RESOLVE that much resolution, but that should be size of the image.

If this is incorrect, by all means, help me out here. Willing to learn the ways of the force.

[Tom Lowe]

how are the number of horizontal lines staying the same??

[David Mullen ASC]

Anamorphic lenses normally have a 2X squeeze, so the projection gate is roughly 1.20 : 1, unsqueezed optically to 2.40 : 1.

The pixel resolution of an anamorphic image is whatever it is - optically doubling the width during projection doesn't double the pixel resolution, all it does is reduce loss of vertical resolution compared to cropping to achieve 2.40 -- in other words, the main resolution advantage to shooting with anamorphic lenses versus cropping a spherical image to 2.40 is increased vertical resolution due to not cropping, not increased horizontal resolution.

I don't have the exact numbers, but a 4K file for an anamorphic image is around 4096 x 3428, whereas a 4K file cropped to 2.39-ish for a film-out is around 4096 x 1714. So you have twice the vertical pixel resolution for the 35mm release print. It's less important if you are talking about digital projection though since they don't use anamorphic lenses for DCI projectors, they just crop vertically. So the anamorphic image would be converted to a spherical one and end up with the same pixel dimensions for projection digitally, though I guess there may be some improvement from downrezzing an anamorphic image vertically.

If you put a 2X anamorphic lens on a 4x3 (1.33 : 1) sensor, the unsqueezed image would be 2.66 : 1. So what gets used is slightly more square than 4x3.

The original intent of CinemaScope was to use Full Aperture (silent) 1.33 : 1 with the 2X anamorphic squeeze to get a 2.66 : 1 image that would compete with Cinerama (whose three 6-perf 35mm spherical images added up to a 2.66 : 1 frame).

And the sound would have run interlock on a separate 35mm mag track, as it was for Cinerama projection. But quickly they decided to put the soundtrack on the CinemaScope print, which shaved the width down from 2.66 : 1. With smaller CS perfs in the print and mag stripes on both sides of the projected frame, the image was shaved down to 2.55 : 1.

Then they decided to go with a standard optical soundtrack on the left side, which offset the image (as with standard Academy and 1.85) and trimmed the size further to 2.35 : 1. This is why modern contact prints of early CinemaScope movies like "20 Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" look offset, the titles not centered -- because the image was centered on the negative and meant to be projected in 2.55 : 1.

Then in the early 1970's, the anamorphic gate was shaved down top & bottom slightly, made a little less tall, to hide negative splices better, changing the aspect ratio to nearly 2.40 : 1 (2.39... : 1) once unsqueezed by the 2X anamorphic projector lens.

What this means is that IF the EPIC sensor is 5120 x 3840... then a "scope" image (2.39... : 1 with a 2X squeeze) would end up trimming the sensor image from 1.33 : 1 to 1.19.. : 1, or to around 4570 x 3840 if you used the max vertical pixel resolution.

And then for a 4K film-out to 35mm anamorphic, this would be downrezzed to 4096 x 3442-ish... and for 4K DCI projection, it would be downrezzed vertically and unsqueezed to 4096 x 1714-ish (assuming 4096 is the correct figure for 4K projection standards.)

At no point would the horizontal file size be doubled to the 9K range... you have to keep in mind that either you retain the square-ish file dimensions and keep the 2X optical image squeeze, which is fine for a film-out to 35mm anamorphic... or you unsqueeze the image to a standard file size for digital projection, and there's no reason to change the dimensions horizontally to the 9K range as opposed to stick to the 4K range and reduce the vertical. Not until we have 9K projectors...

[Craig Ryan]

Hi Tom,

Bare with me here, I'm not trying to patronize you or anything, just kinda thinking out loud to explain myself. :)

The theoretical sensor is 5k 4:3 with 5120 x 3840 res but when you shoot with the anamorphic glass, you're squeezing a 2.40:1 image into that 4:3 frame, so when its projected at the right aspect ration, you retain the vertical 3840 res, so in theory *holds up index finger*, you would get a projected, 9216 2.40:1 image. Am I way off or something? :)

EDIT: didn't see David's post above before posting this. Thanks David!

So what I learned; while the image will retain vertical res, the horizontal resolution won't change..and with current projection technology, the image is going to be converted to a cropped 4k file for digital spherical projection, which means oversampling which is always great.

[David Mullen ASC]

You got to keep straight the difference between film projection and digital projection. 35mm anamorphic print projection doesn't have pixels... and when you shoot with standard 2X anamorphic lenses, you have a file that is roughly 1.19... : 1 with a 2X image squeeze. That is what gets recorded to 35mm.

If you shot with spherical lenses and cropped to 2.39... : 1, then your file size would be cropped vertically to 2.39... : 1 and the laser recorder would basically scan out every line twice to double the height of the image and create a 1.19... : 1 frame with a 2X image squeeze. The 2X anamorphic projector lens corrects this to 2.39... : 1.

Most digital projection nowadays uses spherical lenses so you have to convert your 2X anamorphic image to a spherical image in the dimensions that the digital projector uses. So while one could just double the horizontal pixel dimensions rather the cut in half the vertical pixel dimensions... there are no 9K projectors out there.

[Peter Majtan]

Which is why I have said in the beginning I don't see reason for EPIC to be 4:3. It only makes sense for anamorphic film out. Now - realistically - how many people will buy Epic to shoot 4:3 with anamorphic lenses for analog film out for anamorphic projection??? This would make one "elitist" camera - no offense...

4:3 would make sense for still photography, but then again - who is going to buy $40K Epic to shoot stills?

I think the way forward is 16:9 - which seems to be the standard nowadays for all new digital cine & video cameras. This way new 1.33x anamorphic lenses could be developed for both filming and projection if there is substantial demand...

Just my two pesos...

[amrrahmy]

shooting anamorphic in digital makes less quality than cropping from the native capture.(this one is for the less smart people - i'm talking about the digital capturing and manipulation of the files not to do anything with any imperfections with the anamorphic lens)

there are allot of advantages from a 4:3 camera as oppose to a 16:9.

for example, a 4:3 camera that have an option of 2.4 aspect, would run much smoother than a 16:9 camera.(and that can start a whole new chain reaction that can also lead to faster fps, better audio recording, added features in the viewers, better sync with other cameras or ext audio.)

shooting 4:3 and having about or 2x the height can lead to all kinds of new possibilities.

it would have more look around room.

there are tons more of advantages, but i'm not going too deep into it for the sake of my peace.

[Peace Villow]

Which is why I have said in the beginning I don't see reason for EPIC to be 4:3. It only makes sense for anamorphic film out. Now - realistically - how many people will buy Epic to shoot 4:3 with anamorphic lenses for analog film out for anamorphic projection??? This would make one "elitist" camera - no offense...

4:3 would make sense for still photography, but then again - who is going to buy $40K Epic to shoot stills?

I think the way forward is 16:9 - which seems to be the standard nowadays for all new digital cine & video cameras. This way new 1.33x anamorphic lenses could be developed for both filming and projection if there is substantial demand...

Just my two pesos...
Do you meant there are no advantages to use 4:3 sensor other than for anamorphic film out???

[David Mullen ASC]

There's no reason why a 4:3 digital camera would run "smoother" than a 16:9 camera. In fact, look at the problems of getting 4K 16:9 to work compared to 4K 2:1 in the RED -- more vertical information is more data to process and compress, etc. More data means reduced frame rate options, more chance for codec errors, etc.

Certainly if you are going to crop to 2.40, there is no advantage of 4:3 over 16:9 other than you are wasting a lot more of the sensor with 4:3 being cropped. It's the same reason why 3-perf 35mm (16:9) is becoming more popular than 4-perf 35mm (4:3) even for 2.40 projects.

The advantages of 4:3 sensor are:
* For 4:3 projects (which lie in the extremes -- standard def TV and IMAX...)
* For vertical repositioning, especially useful for visual efx plates and material to be rear-projected for process shots
* 2X anamorphic lens photography for 2.40 projects

Greater lookaround in the viewfinder doesn't necessarily mean you need a 4:3 sensor, you could just have an oversized 16:9 sensor for extra space on all sides, not just top & bottom.

Also, the higher the resolution of the sensor, the less it matters one way or the other since there is not much loss from cropping.

[Tom Lowe]

To me, the #1 reason for 4:3 is IMAX.

The specs being discussed for Epic don't seem that far off from 5-perf 65mm if the film is put through a scanner.

BTW, David, is there much or any degraining done to 5-perf 65mm in the DMR to 15-perf? Or it is just a straight optical blow up?

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know of any 5-perf 65mm project that did a straight optical printer blow-up to IMAX. There have been clips, I remember some older IMAX movies about visual effects that had a letterboxed image from "2001" that was probably an optical blow-up.

But nowadays, any conversion to 15-perf IMAX will probably be done digitally. As to whether it needs some sharpening + degraining... well, it would depend on the quality of the 5-perf 65mm photography. I'm sure Dave Keighley at the DMR facility would do some tests to determine the amount of sharpening + degraining needed to not be distracting on a big IMAX screen, maybe very little would be needed for 5-perf 65mm photography. It may depend on if it were shot on 50 ASA film or 500 ASA film.

[Peace Villow]

There's no reason why a 4:3 digital camera would run "smoother" than a 16:9 camera. In fact, look at the problems of getting 4K 16:9 to work compared to 4K 2:1 in the RED -- more vertical information is more data to process and compress, etc. More data means reduced frame rate options, more chance for codec errors, etc.

Certainly if you are going to crop to 2.40, there is no advantage of 4:3 over 16:9 other than you are wasting a lot more of the sensor with 4:3 being cropped. It's the same reason why 3-perf 35mm (16:9) is becoming more popular than 4-perf 35mm (4:3) even for 2.40 projects.

The advantages of 4:3 sensor are:
* For 4:3 projects (which lie in the extremes -- standard def TV and IMAX...)
* For vertical repositioning, especially useful for visual efx plates and material to be rear-projected for process shots
* 2X anamorphic lens photography for 2.40 projects

Greater lookaround in the viewfinder doesn't necessarily mean you need a 4:3 sensor, you could just have an oversized 16:9 sensor for extra space on all sides, not just top & bottom.

Also, the higher the resolution of the sensor, the less it matters one way or the other since there is not much loss from cropping.
If we take a 4:3 active frame from a 16:9 sensor of 5K, we get an active frame smaller than 5120x3890 (full aperture from 4:3 sensor of 5K) right?

[Brook Willard]

Yes, pvillow. That was covered in my sensor thread (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15863).

[Tom Lowe]

I don't know of any 5-perf 65mm project that did a straight optical printer blow-up to IMAX. There have been clips, I remember some older IMAX movies about visual effects that had a letterboxed image from "2001" that was probably an optical blow-up.

But nowadays, any conversion to 15-perf IMAX will probably be done digitally. As to whether it needs some sharpening + degraining... well, it would depend on the quality of the 5-perf 65mm photography. I'm sure Dave Keighley at the DMR facility would do some tests to determine the amount of sharpening + degraining needed to not be distracting on a big IMAX screen, maybe very little would be needed for 5-perf 65mm photography. It may depend on if it were shot on 50 ASA film or 500 ASA film.

Didn't Baraka get an IMAX run? I was living outside the US when Baraka was released so I am unsure about that.

If you happen to talk to Dave Keighley, would you mind asking him if he thinks a 21MP Canon 1DsM3 frame would blow up nicely to 15-perf IMAX, and same thing with EPIC? I'm curious to know if these technologies are on their radar screen.

I guess they could always take a 5- or 6K movie and downsample it to 4K, then show it on their new "4K IMAX" system. :(

[Peace Villow]

Yes, pvillow. That was covered in my sensor thread (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15863).
Just saw your thread Brook.
I completely agree with you.

With 4:3 (27.47 x 20.61mm) sensor we can get 4:3, 16:9, and 2.40:1 projects at its highest resolution.

[David Mullen ASC]

Didn't Baraka get an IMAX run?

"Baraka" was released in standard 5-perf 70mm; the prints still play now & then at 70mm festivals. If it were shown in an IMAX theater, odds are that they would have dragged in a 5-perf 70mm projector into the theater to show it. I don't recall a blow-up to IMAX for that movie. Ron Fricke did make "Chronos" (1985) in IMAX, I remember seeing that.

[Tom Lowe]

"Baraka" was released in standard 5-perf 70mm; the prints still play now & then at 70mm festivals. If it were shown in an IMAX theater, odds are that they would have dragged in a 5-perf 70mm projector into the theater to show it. I don't recall a blow-up to IMAX for that movie. Ron Fricke did make "Chronos" (1985) in IMAX, I remember seeing that.

Yeah. I had heard someone say that Baraka got a short IMAX run, but it was in a conversation with someone so I have no idea if this person's info was correct. Like you said, the more likely scenario is that a a couple of IMAX theaters might have dragged out a 70mm projector.

I'm still waiting for it to come back to the Aero. I missed it last year.

[Harry Clark]

All bow to the power of Ron Fricke.
Harry

[M Most]

...and for 4K DCI projection, it would be downrezzed vertically and unsqueezed to 4096 x 1714-ish (assuming 4096 is the correct figure for 4K projection standards.)

Yes, it's actually 4096x1716, as specified in Table 3, section 3.2.1.8 of the current DCI specification document.

[Rubancam]

Hey Guys, i am new to this tread and excited to see this site with lot of info about Red.

i have a question that If i shot a movie on Red at 4K and do all my post including applying effects, color correction etc in Final cut studio at a lower resolution ( with the QT reduced res). Now What do i do if i have to make my movie printed on film for the theatre release? Can Final cut do the job or Do i have to take my EDL to some big production house where they use Quantel Pablo or some other way to finalize for film.

Thanks in advance.

[Tom Lowe]

Rubancam, in theory, you could export a large digital file from FCP that could be printed to film. You might have to upgrade your system and it might be slow, but you could probably do it.

But let's face it. If you get a film distribution deal, the distributor or studio or production company is going to pay for the filmout, new music, and all of that, right?

[David Mullen ASC]

You could put anything on film, just a question of picture quality. You shot 4K RAW, so you'd want to at least work in 2K RGB if not 4K RGB, create a color-corrected master, for a film-out to 35mm. You could even work in 4:4:4 1080P if you can't afford 2K or 4K. But anything below that resolution is a waste of quality for a 35mm film-out.

I believe you'd have to take your EDL and convert the original R3D 4K RAW files of the clips you ended up using, create a new edited master in the higher format you've chosen to finish to (2K RGB, 4K RGB, or 4:4:4 1080P), and color-correct that.

Don't know the resolution / color-subsampling limits of FCP or Apple Color but I'm guessing it may be 1080P 4:2:2, but I have no idea actually.

If you can wait on the film-out, you may be better off just creating a nice HD version that you can digitally project for people.

[amrrahmy]

Hey Guys, i am new to this tread and excited to see this site with lot of info about Red.

i have a question that If i shot a movie on Red at 4K and do all my post including applying effects, color correction etc in Final cut studio at a lower resolution ( with the QT reduced res). Now What do i do if i have to make my movie printed on film for the theatre release? Can Final cut do the job or Do i have to take my EDL to some big production house where they use Quantel Pablo or some other way to finalize for film.

Thanks in advance.

wrong section, go to workflow section, you will find step by step instructions in allot of threads.

[Joseph Ward]

What if???
What if Epic was going to be a 65/70mm equivalent?
Reason?
#1 RedOne- S35mm size
#2 Scarlet- 16mm size
#3 Epic- ...
:red_bandana:

[Peter Majtan]

Epic is (so far) confirmed as S35 cine size - equal to Red One, except higher res and (maybe) 4:3, just maybe...

[Joseph Ward]

Until Godzillas nemesis Monsto attacks!:ninja:

[Tom Lowe]

Jim, any hints regarding 4:3?

Pretty please. :)

[Brook Willard]

I think all the guys at RED have forgotten about us in here... :)

[Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso]

Uhmmm... IMAX... XD

[Tom Lowe]

I think all the guys at RED have forgotten about us in here... :)

I think they should turn this Epic project over to me and you, Brook. :)

[Brook Willard]

They take care of the tech, we take care of the concepts. Best. Camera. Ever. :)

[Tom Lowe]

They take care of the tech, we take care of the concepts. Best. Camera. Ever. :)

And Jim takes care of the moolah. :)

[Brook Willard]

And Jim takes care of the moolah. :)

And Jarred takes care of the marketing. :) :wink:

Don't forget about Matt Uhry and David Mullen and Finner...

[reality]

Jeeze, you guys are so tactless. You need to talk a course in the art of persuasion.

[Alex G. Cohn]

I don't see the point in creating a 4:3 Digital Cinema camera just so you can take advantage of anamorphic film lenses.

Film lenses are designed the way they are, because 4x3 is the standard for 35mm film, and has been for a century.

16:9 is the standard for high-definition digital content, so wouldn't it make more sense to design anamorphic lenses that squeeze 2.40:1 onto a 16:9 frame?

Somebody let me know if I am not making sense...

[Yaque Silva-Doyle]

These standards are based on a long lineage and the cost of building new glass for the camera far far out ways creating some new anamorphic format.

One lens could cost you as much or more than the camera, and for many people, rental companies, and studios changing out hundreds of thousand of dollars for some new and now non existent lens make no sense. This would also make very little sense for a lens company from marketing stand point.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think 1.34X anamorphics is an idea whose time has come. Vantage claims they can convert their Hawk V-series 2X anamorphics, but I have yet to hear of anyone taking them up on the offer, or any rental house buying a set that way. Joe Dunton was considering building a set, but then he was bought out by Panavision before that happened.

I say 1.34X because 1.7777777... (i.e. 16/9) x 1.34 = 2.3822221

[David Mullen ASC]

Film lenses are designed the way they are, because 4x3 is the standard for 35mm film, and has been for a century.


To be accurate, 4-perf 35mm movie film has a 1.33 : 1 (4x3) shape... 8-perf 35mm still film is 1.5 : 1 (3x2). Spherical lenses can cover all sorts of aperture shapes, but the 2X anamorphics by Chretien back in the 1920's were originally designed with the 4x3 35mm 4-perf movie frame in mind.

[Michael Lindsay]

What would be really epic:

An oversized 16:9 sensor that is at least 16mm tall (28.44mm wide).

Scope fans get a very similar experience

S35 shooting would still have a healthy 'look around'

Plate shooter can with MP and still lenses (and probably red lenses) shoot really oversized super highrez material.

2.35 non scope fans can have a wider rather than smaller option!

everyone wins!!

Michael Lindsay

[Häakon]

Hi Michael,

I've been championing that for ages but no one seems to get it. I agree with you completely; that seems to be the best solution for everyone.

[Michael Lindsay]

Hi Häakon

Well lets hope there are 'some' people who got it... and are working on it.

hopefully

Michael

PS dalsa is even bigger..

PPS 32mmx18mm plus 1mm look around would be as big as I'd like to see. Probably wouldn't need to be that big.

[Craig Ryan]

A bit OT, but I think as far as the term "Epic" is concerned, I think Christopher Nolan just raised the bar considerably with the IMAX sequences in The Dark Knight. As much as I love scope films, those 15 perf 70 sequences simply quenched a thirst I've had for a long time, and now I can't look back; theres a time and place for everything, and IMAX definitely should now be considered for at LEAST if not all the major action sequences for Hollywood blockbusters in the future...

Epic is obviously RED's attempt to maximize the capabilities of the super 35mm format in a digital format, which is more than admirable of course, but after that.. (and this is far off I know) I hope RED has something down the pipeline that is far beyond super 35mm and would rival IMAX.

[David Mullen ASC]

You have to decide if you want to go beyond the coverage of Super-35 lenses and thus get into building new optics or adapting medium-format lenses.

Dalsa's sensor is 34mm wide instead of 24mm wide, so wider-angle PL-mount optics and zooms will vignette, hence they built some lenses in that range that will cover their sensor (longer focal lengths seem to cover the 34mm area fine.) I'm not sure if the 34mm wide sensor was deliberate or just a byproduct of adapting a sensor created for some other product like a scanner or telecine.

My feeling is either stick to the 24mm-wide Super-35 area that most cine lenses will cover... or make a serious jump to the medium-format sizes of VistaVision or 65mm cameras (as the Phantom 65 does, for example). But then be prepared to start building new lenses for the camera, or adapting older medium-format lenses.

And if your plan involves new optics anyway, then why not stick to 24mm wide and just make the sensor 4x3 (18mm tall) and use 2X anamorphics, or keep to the current 24mm x 14mm 16x9 size and build 1.34X anamorphic optics?

Or, I guess, you could make the sensor 18mm tall, to allow people to use 2X anamorphics, but make it 16x9 so that you'd crop the sides for anamorphic photography or 4x3 photography. So that would be a 32mm x 18mm sensor.

So 2X anamorphic shooters would get to use a 22mm x 18mm area of the sensor, more or less the same area they are using now in 4-perf 35mm for anamorphic. 16x9 shooters could use a larger area if they wanted to.

By my calculations, that would make the 32mm wide sensor roughly 6K across if it more or less is the 4.5K RED sensor (24mm wide) expanded to 32mm wide, or roughly a 20MP sensor if 16x9. Actually it would be similar to the Dalsa sensor in size (which is 34mm x 17mm) but be 6K instead of 4K, if you kept the same size and distance between photosites as on the current RED sensor.

But if EPIC is really aimed at normal production work, I'm not sure they should venture outside of Super-35 lens coverage. They should stick to a 24mm wide sensor (or slightly bigger actually so the actual recorded area is 24mm wide, not 22mm as with current 4K recording, but still have the lookaround area.) Maybe a 26mm x 15mm sensor...

[Peter Majtan]

David, I think the new Mysterium X is going to be more dense resulting in even higher "K" resolution for the 32x18 mm sensor. I base this on the fact that Scarlet is going to be 3K in a 2/3" sensor and EPIC is going to be at least 5K for the same size S35 sensor as Red One. This would make Your point even stronger - I am with You on that one. Personally, I would prefer 16:9 sensor with 1.33x anamorphic glass. This would satisfy majority of people...

Just my two pesos :)

[Tom Lowe]

My feeling is either stick to the 24mm-wide Super-35 area that most cine lenses will cover... or make a serious jump to the medium-format sizes of VistaVision or 65mm cameras (as the Phantom 65 does, for example). But then be prepared to start building new lenses for the camera, or adapting older medium-format lenses.

And if your plan involves new optics anyway, then why not stick to 24mm wide and just make the sensor 4x3 (18mm tall) and use 2X anamorphics

I think this is right on.

I'm telling you guys right now, the ability to shoot 4x3 is going to be very important. IMAX is about to really take off and fulfill the promise we all thought it had 20 years ago. No one who has seen the Dark Knight on IMAX is going to disagree. Not to mention anamorphics.

What is the downside to 4x3? If you want to shoot different aspect ratios, why not just have a windowed sensor? You're still getting the same resolution in terms of vertical lines - 5K or whatever.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, the only downside is extra cost and more data to process and manage with a taller sensor, which in turn affects choice of frame rates, etc.

I'd guess that even though the Arri-D20 has a 4x3 sensor, 99% of the users only used the 16x9 slice of it, partly because the RAW output only recently as been implemented. But even so, I suspect that the majority of users will still only use a 16x9 slice.

Besides, you could shoot for IMAX with a 16x9 image and let it be slightly letterboxed.

Anyway, I think a camera specifically designed to be a digital IMAX camera, while it should have a 4x3 sensor, it should also be at least 6K just to be radically better than a 4K digital camera.

But I'm all for a 4x3 sensor, or one that is 18mm tall, because I'm one of those people who like shooting with anamorphic lenses.

So let's dream and say that the EPIC will have a 4x3 sensor that is 26mm x 19mm (for look around capability) and has 5K's worth of pixels within the 24mm-wide (Super-35) picture area. And it will have an uncompressed output option.

Of course, that's a 19MP-to-20MP sensor, compared to RED's current 11MP-ish. Lot more data to deal with.

And that there will be an IMAX version that has a larger 4x3 sensor that is at least 6K across and uses medium format lenses. Now you're talking about at least 27MP...

[Tom Lowe]

So let's dream and say that the EPIC will have a 4x3 sensor that is 26mm x 19mm (for look around capability) and has 5K's worth of pixels within the 24mm-wide (Super-35) picture area. And it will have an uncompressed output option.

Of course, that's a 19MP-to-20MP sensor, compared to RED's current 11MP-ish. Lot more data to deal with.

And that there will be an IMAX version that has a larger 4x3 sensor that is at least 6K across and uses medium format lenses. Now you're talking about at least 27MP...

Hallelujah, Brother Mullen! http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

Jannard! are you reading this?? :)

[Craig Ryan]

As far as IMAX goes, while it would be cool to consider Epic the IMAX capable camera, I still contend there should be an even larger beast that isn't limited by the 35mm format. New Lenses, new projector, new everything. No limitations. And while we're at it, just toss in an enormous IMAX sized 10k sensor FTW.

Also, has anyone heard any details about the new digital projection IMAX is planning to transition to?

[Tom Lowe]

Sure, we all want that. But let's face it - that 35mm 4K stuff from Dark Knight looked pretty good on an IMAX screen. Epic might look better, and its ratio - if it is 4:3 - is also much more suited to IMAX.

IMAX is already claiming they are going to run 4K projection. So, Epic would seem ideal for this. Even if you were just shooting lions in Africa for an IMAX movie or whatever.

[Craig Ryan]

Tom, where did you hear about them doing 4k? Thats pretty disappointing if they are going to replace all of their film projectors with digital 4k...*groan*. As much as I love 4k, it still stands no chance against IMAX.

I agree that the 35mm stuff did look incredible, but not in the same ballpark of the IMAX stuff. After a while I'll admit I didn't notice the transitions a few times, but when I did notice them, it was usually when I realized how sharp the IMAX stuff was, rather than the 35mm being softer, which is good.

Also good point about Epic; it would look pretty damn good in 5k glory on an IMAX screen. Just the pessimist in me hopes that they don't abandon the standard of 15 perf 70 behind and settle for lesser digital formats in the future.

[Joseph Ward]

It seems that the real argument is which side people choose.

16:9- windowed/crop anamorphic
4:3- windowed/crop 16:9

Whatever RED chooses, we all win, because they will have complete system(lens, end to end delivery from camera to screen,etc.), for Epic!

I think 4:3 is better by the way. :) lol

[Tom Lowe]

Craig, a lot of us agree with you. 4K is totally lame for IMAX digital. It needs to be 8K, IMO. To really mimic 15/65, maybe 10K.

Hopefully IMAX is not talking about "replacing" 15-perf 65mm, but rather, just saving money on the DMR from 35mm or CGI films. As David Mullen has pointed out, upressing a 4K movie to 15-perf IMAX is a total waste.

But hey, a 20MP 4:3 digital image, well exposed, might really play well on that screen, projected digitally. Who knows. I'd love to see a 4:3 4K image (captured at 5- or 6K) projected digitally on an IMAX screen. (They are talking about using two 2K projectors).

The only camera I can think of, right now, that can shoot those specs would be a hassy or a 1DsM3 doing timelapse downsampled to 4K. Dalsa is Bayer 4K, right?, so it's not a "true 4k" and it's certainly not 5K.

If anyone can arrange a screening, I can probably arrange some 4K 4:3 footage downsampled from 5- or 6K. :)

[Peter McCully]

Just to recap, there's no word yet from the back room about the choice of 4x3 over 16:9 for Epic? As I first understood, Epic MysteriumX for Epic was 16:9. If that was their intention, then I guess, like me, the other contributors to this thread will hope J J changes his mind!

[Craig Ryan]

Great points Tom, I'm with you 100%.

I can see now why they are deciding to implement 4k for the 35mm DMR stuff...David Mullen makes a great point, as usual.

I for one would love to see some of you time lapse stuff projected like that. I guess we have to wait and see what Epic has to offer so we can see what live action 5k footage would look like in comparison to the 35mm DMR 4k.

[Ariana]

You hit lens limitations very quickly at 70mm. The biggest advantage you get with 70mm is the grain size is much smaller relative the resolving power of the lens.

[David Mullen ASC]

You also gain from the fact that the larger negative image is being enlarged less compared to a smaller format.

[Pawel Achtel]

Craig, a lot of us agree with you. 4K is totally lame for IMAX digital. It needs to be 8K, IMO. To really mimic 15/65, maybe 10K.



You also gain from the fact that the larger negative image is being enlarged less compared to a smaller format.

This is nonsense. I totally disagree with you guys :bleh:

1. There are no 70mm lenses that are widely available or affordable or in half decent selection or in any mass market quantities. I will stay with Master Primes over any medium format lens, thank you.

2. Large format makes it a nightmare for DOF. It is too shallow for most subjects.

3. The size of the body would mean the camera would be bulky and heavy - not always good to get a good shot.

4. 4k is more than enough for IMAX. 4k is a data bandwidth nightmare anyway. You would gain more noticeable quality by extending the dynamic range or refresh rate. 60Hz would be a good start. 8k? 10k? I don't think you comprehend the problems this would create. 4k is not suffering from being soft, for god's sake, I don't know what it is that you are trying to achieve. It is like having audio sampled at 1MHz - it would be (much) higher quality and who cares!

5. Most of your 35mm gear would be obsolete. Is this really what you want?

6. If you can't afford decent S35mm glass, do you really need a camera that requires medium format lenses that no one can produce with desired quality and quantity? I propose that a decent PL lens, like a MP has higher MTF than any IMAX lens out there.

IMAX sized sensor sounds like complete and utter waste of money for no good reason whatsoever.

OK, time to hide before fertilizer hits the ventilator :innocent:

[Joseph Ward]

I understand people who invested in S35 PL lenses want Epic to be compatible. It just seems to me that Epic should be a whole new camera with new products(lenses). RED is making Scarlet to be 2/3 chip and wont have interchangeable lens or upgradeable, so why Epic should be practically the same as Red One. Red One will always have sensor upgrades anyway. I never read from RED that Epic will be 16:9 or 4:3(only FULL FRAME S35MM NEW MYSTERIUM X SENSOR) and even if they did(16:9 or 4:3), RED still decides what can be changed. If people who wanted anamorphic for RedOne still can use the camera for it why not Epic be the same but in reverse? All who want 16:9 can use Epic even if it is 4:3. That way you can still use your old lenses.:w00t:



It is great that we can argue these things now. Remeber Film verses Digital? Now its Digital verses Digital.:) Thanks to RED!

[Tom Lowe]

4k is more than enough for IMAX. 4k is a data bandwidth nightmare anyway. You would gain more noticeable quality by extending the dynamic range or refresh rate. 60Hz would be a good start. 8k? 10k? I don't think you comprehend the problems this would create. 4k is not suffering from being soft, for god's sake, I don't know what it is that you are trying to achieve. It is like having audio sampled at 1MHz - it would be (much) higher quality and who cares!

Pawel, my good friend, I can't agree with you on this.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1082/imaxcomparisonzh4.png

I think most of us agree that 4K is a good resolution at which to scan 35mm cine film. If that is the case, then a 15-perf IMAX neg holds more like 20K, or higher! The AC article about Dark Knight mentioned a number of 18K for 15-perf IMAX, but it was unclear exactly what they were talking about.

In any case, 8- or 10K seems much more appropriate for "Digital IMAX" IMO.

That is not to say that 4K cannot hold up on an IMAX screen - because in fact, that is what many of us are hoping for with a 4:3 Epic sensor.

[Joseph Ward]

Tom, Epic would be the Ultimate if it was 70mm equivalent! The camera would be one Huge MoFo though.lol:gun:

[Tom Lowe]

I understand people who invested in S35 PL lenses want Epic to be compatible.

Is there a reason why a S35 PL mount could not be made to work with Epic if it was 4:3, or are you talking about a larger sensor (which seems less likely at this point)?

[David Mullen ASC]

If we all start shooting regular movies on 4K Bayer cameras, then how is IMAX going to be radically better looking in comparison if we also shoot IMAX movies on these same 4K Bayer cameras? People need something they can't get normally.

And larger sensor areas do compensate for lower MTF characteristics of medium format optics. Just look at some 65mm footage shot on some 30 year old lenses compared to 35mm footage shot on modern Master Primes. It's not just an issue of getting less grain. If you have double the amount of information being recorded, the lens could be half as sharp and you'll end up with the same level of detail, so even if the lens is 75% as sharp as the Master Primes, you end up with more fine detail recorded on the larger negative. Plus that larger image is enlarged less to fill the same size screen. You can't match that level of resolution just by using a sharper lens on a 35mm camera.

[Joseph Ward]

Is there a reason why a S35 PL mount could not be made to work with Epic if it was 4:3, or are you talking about a larger sensor (which seems less likely at this point)?

I meant 4:3 S35 since it would benefit all, but I wouldnt mind if it were 70mm equivalent! :biggrin:

[Peter Majtan]

I have said this before - the giant movie screens on steroids don't mean much to me and I don't count them as IMAX. I can just sit in any of the 5 front rows in a 4K digital theatre and get the same experience...

Fo me IMAX is the "original" Dome-Imax. A completely different experience from "normal" cinema. It is not about the resolution - it is about Your entire field of vision being covered by image. I still remember the first time I saw Everest in the Dome-IMAX in Paris, back in 1997. That was awesome...

IMAX is not about the resolution, it is about the different experience...

Just my two pesos... :)

EDIT: With the planar screens Your brain gets the reference You are watching a movie. In the dome that complete lack of any surface/edge reference due to the dome curvature of the screen gives You a complete immersion into the movie. In that particular movie (Everest) I saw people around me (including me!) grabbing onto the seat handles feeling we are going to fall over in some shots...

[Paris Remillard]

I'm glad that this is being discussed, because when I suggested the idea of different formats when people were still cranky after NAB, I got torn a new a-hole for it. But Vistavision makes the most sense in terms of flexibility to me.
If the sensor were Vistavision sized, you wouldn't have to go to medium format lenses. There is a huge amount of fantastic stills 35mm lenses that, because of economies of scale, could be easily and cheaply adapted to cine use. Or be used with something like the Birger solution(if it ever ships and works), with no adaptation to the lens needed.

It may even be cheaper to make the sensor because it is a standard still camera format.

To quote part of what I posted before:

"I'd honestly like a camera(EPIC or not) with a vistavision/full frame stills (36x24mm) sized sensor. a Vistavision sensor size would still be less physical area horizontally (36(ish)mm) than the relative width of cinemascope after unsqueeze (43(ish)mm). So the desire isn't any more outlandish than the desire for anamorphic, in terms of format size. The larger sensor size would just allow close to the same horizontal FOV and DOF of 'scope, with spherical lenses. Use stills 35mm lenses (or make the Red lenses with a larger image circle) for full coverage, or cine 35mm spherical or 2:1 anamorphics on cropped areas. If it's a 5K sensor, the cine 35mm crops would be 3.33K. If it were a 6K sensor, you'd still get full aperture cine 35mm 4K on the CROP. Lots of options. Or, imagine having an anamorphized(is that even a word) lens on a 36x24mm frame. Now you're into 65mm territory. It would be like having a 65mm, vistavision, full aperture 35mm, super35 , and high-end still camera all in one 6 pound camera. Take full advantage of the flexibility of digital."

[Tom Lowe]

Good post, parisrem.

[Joseph Ward]

Wow I didn't realize Vistavision!

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel, my good friend, I can't agree with you on this.
I think most of us agree that 4K is a good resolution at which to scan 35mm cine film. If that is the case, then a 15-perf IMAX neg holds more like 20K, or higher! The AC article about Dark Knight mentioned a number of 18K for 15-perf IMAX, but it was unclear exactly what they were talking about.

In any case, 8- or 10K seems much more appropriate for "Digital IMAX" IMO.

That is not to say that 4K cannot hold up on an IMAX screen - because in fact, that is what many of us are hoping for with a 4:3 Epic sensor.

And, Tom, what is the MTF of the ENTIRE IMAX path: filters, lens, negative, post, DI, print, projector, screen? :) I'd be surprised if it can produce 3k.

You can't see 8k or 10k or 20k. You can see 24fps very easily. It flickers!:w00t: Why not fix that?

[Joseph Ward]

Can someone post camparison picture of VistaVision and 4:3 image? Thanx:nerd:

[Pawel Achtel]

... If you have double the amount of information being recorded, the lens could be half as sharp and you'll end up with the same level of detail, so even if the lens is 75% as sharp as the Master Primes...

This is not true, David. The MTF of the combined path is bound to the lowest common denominator, not the highest in the path.


Plus that larger image is enlarged less to fill the same size screen.

This is also not true. The physical size of the sensor has nothing to do with the sharpness displayed on the screen. The resolution of the sensor has more to do with this. But higher resolution of the sensor is not going to give you visible difference if all other elements: lens, DI, print, negative, projector and screen do not have sufficient MTF to carry it through. My point is that they don't.

Being an engineer and not beancounter (or pixel counter) I try to improve things where the improvement makes sense. Making 8k or 10k sensor does not make sense because it would not improve the final image quality. It would only be a technical nightmare to implement, store, process and distribute.

Making sensor 70mm would make it expensive and not justified.

Making 70mm sensor and retaining pixel count would make the camera, say ASA 2000 and would require ND 4.0 to shoot during day time. The camera is already very sensitive as it is. This would pose a challenge to linear ND filters and known IR contamination issues.

If I were to improve Red One, I'd use maximum 5k sensor (but preferably 4k), and focused R&D on DR and improving frame rates.

Get rid of that stupid flicker (a.k.a. 24fps) :devil:

OK guys, fire at will :)

[Joseph Ward]

24fps sucks with stereo 3d.:angry2:

[Paris Remillard]

Can someone post camparison picture of VistaVision and 4:3 image? Thanx:nerd:

Vistavision is the same size as stills full-frame, 8-perf 35mm. Look at the format comparison chart at the bottom of the second page of Brook's Red One FAQ:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1487&page=2

Vistavision would be the same as the green stills full frame, the first image.
Full aperture 4:3 cine 35mm would be half of that, 18x24(ish)mm, 4-perf. Since 35mm film moves through a standard motion picture camera vertically, the image can only be as wide as the Vistavision frame is tall. Vistavision has horizontal pull-down, as do 35mm still cameras, so the image is the same size on both.

I guess that there's not a 4:3 cine format listed in that chart, but it would be about the same width as the Mysterium or crop dSLRs, but slightly taller.

Just take the first image, cut it in half and lay that over the original. It's half of the physical area.

There's also a good chart here: http://www.photozone.de/sensor-dimensions
Also doesn't have cine 4:3, but APS is very close. Just add 2mm to the vertical.

[Robert Sanders]

What would be really epic:

An oversized 16:9 sensor that is at least 16mm tall (28.44mm wide).

Scope fans get a very similar experience

S35 shooting would still have a healthy 'look around'

Plate shooter can with MP and still lenses (and probably red lenses) shoot really oversized super highrez material.

2.35 non scope fans can have a wider rather than smaller option!

everyone wins!!

Michael Lindsay

Agreed. As long as the sensor has the proper height for the anamorphic lenses to focus on I'd be thrilled. If the sensor is wider then it makes all the 16x9/1.85 folks happy too.

[Paris Remillard]

Is my math right in thinking that if the Epic/Mysterium X sensor was cut from the same wafer used to make the 3K 2/3" Scarlet sensor, it would be around 8K horizontally assuming the same 24.4mm width of the current Mysterium (or 12K if we're playing with the idea of Vistavision)? I don't know how the hell you'd move all of that data, but...
That does allow for nearly 2x larger photosites at 5-6K for less noise, greater sensitivity, etc... And since Jim said that Scarlett will have greater DR than Red One, that's not a bad direction to be heading.

[Joseph Ward]

Thanks Parisrem. Since RED stated that Epic is going to be S35mm full frame I guess VistaVision(still full frame) seems out of the question:waaa:

Ohh is it just me but does VistaVision look like 65/70mm?:detective2:

[Tom Lowe]

And, Tom, what is the MTF of the ENTIRE IMAX path: filters, lens, negative, post, DI, print, projector, screen? :) I'd be surprised if it can produce 3k.

You can't see 8k or 10k or 20k. You can see 24fps very easily. It flickers!:w00t: Why not fix that?

LOL...Dude, what are you talking about! That IMAX neg is almost the size of a freekin business card. What are you saying, that they are using the bottoms of coke bottles as lenses? Because unless they are, I don't see how they would be losing anywhere near that kind of resolution. I don't even think they do DIs on 15-perf IMAX pictures.

[Pawel Achtel]

LOL...Dude, what are you talking about! That IMAX neg is almost the size of a freekin business card. What are you saying, that they are using the bottoms of coke bottles as lenses? Because unless they are, I don't see how they would be losing anywhere near that kind of resolution. I don't even think they do DIs on 15-perf IMAX pictures.

They do, and it is 4k. So, this is the ceiling. Take into account the prints, projector and screen and 3k looks like practical limit for 70mm originated material.

However, in many cases, like Wild Ocean 3D, all underwater sequences were shot with Fujinon HA10X5B-W50 HD Cine Style zoom lenses using HDCAM cameras. The resolution would be roughly 1.5k, in the best case scenario. But, due to compromises in underwater optics, the end result was not better than ~1k. Still, it looked quite good. You'd be surprised how good 1k or 2k can look like.

The point is that the size of the IMAX neg does not matter! This is not the weakest link. And, it is the weakest link that limits the final quality. The final MTF is a multiplication of all of the elements in the entire production and post production path.

OK, back into hiding in my bullet-proof bunker :) LOL

[Harrison Diamond]

Pawel, are you certain that the IMAX film segments themselves are DMRed at 4K? They scan it at 5.6 or 8K, last time I checked, while the DMR is done at 4K for 35mm blow-up.

TDK, according to IMDB, used Hasselblad lenses on the IMAX cameras, and Hassy feels confident with their lenses on a Fifty megapixel still camera. With a 48mmx36mm sensor. The IMAX negative is just shy of 70x49mm.

On a related note, if we scale the current 4.5K Mysterium sensor from the RED One at 4520px across with a 24.4mm width (2.40:1 max and 16:9/2:1 look-around width, I believe?) to the same width as the IMAX negative, we end up at a little shy of 13K. Allow for the 72 or whatever percentage effective resolution after debayering, and you end up pretty darn near 10K.

Worst case, you can always design new lenses. And sensors get better, and computers get faster, and electronics get smaller. Without the whole film transport mechanism, I think an IMAX digital can get small and light enough (behind the lens/sensor anyways) to really make it more versatile, though the data rates and costs would undoubtedly make it remain somewhat limited in its adoption in the long run.

I for one saw some things in TDK in IMAX that would provide an incentive to use that format for artistic reasons, just like I use my "full frame" 35mm digital still camera sometimes over my '1.5 crop' digital still camera when I need a particular look.

Not to mention I feel that making this format more feasible and widespread could have much broader implications for certain segments of the cinema industry.

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel, are you certain that the IMAX film segments themselves are DMRed at 4K?
Yes.


Worst case, you can always design new lenses...
I have been waiting for my "off the shelf" MP 14mm for 6 months. Who and when do you think can design and produce those new lenses?

Hassy lenses are not strictly cine lenses and there is no evidence that they have MTF better than MPs. They are made by Zeiss too, so I would expect that, in line with their pricing, you get what you pay for.

The selection of Hassy lenses is poor.

The fastest Hassy lenses are f/3.5 (with one exception being f/2.8 for the 80mm) and mostly f/4. They let about 1/10th (or over 3 stops less) of the light that MPs do. If you want shallow DOF, just use MPs open wide on S35mm sensor and it will look just like IMAX.

In practical terms you are not gaining anything by using 70mm sensor. There are however substantial costs and compromises in doing so.

[Tom Lowe]

Where are you getting that IMAX films do 4K DIs??? That's completely silly. Why would you spend mountains of money and drag around a huge 15-perf 65mm camera and then bottleneck yourself at 35mm resolution?

It's all done optically when you are talking about a real 15-perf IMAX film, like EVEREST.

[Craig Ryan]

Pawel, you make some great points from an engineering POV.

However, you clearly have not seen TDK in IMAX yet. Go now.

The DIs were NOT done at 4k for the IMAX material. I've read from various articles including the AC one, that the prints were done at 5.6k (for who knows what reason..) and 8k.

You are clearly more knowledgeable than me with the technicalities of optics, but I ask you this, why would you ever say no to more? All we are wishing for is a more economic version of the most impressive film format in history. 4k does NOT hold up to IMAX, if you saw the TDK in IMAX and compare the 4k 35mm stuff to IMAX sequences you'll see a HUGE difference in the resolving power/clarity/detail/shapness.

Also you mentioned earlier about 35mm becoming obsolete if a larger format came out. No one has suggested that Epic or the RED ONE be changed into a format beyond the scope of 35mm...its all just speculation of a dream digital IMAX camera that isn't limited by 35mm. In which case, 35mm stuff would still have its firm place in the industry. Time and place for everything. That's all. :)

And, what Tom said :)

[David Mullen ASC]

All I'm suggesting is that the IMAX experience has to be radically better than normal feature filmmaking, and if normal digital filmmaking is going to be 4K in the future, then digital IMAX origination can't be 4K as well, it has to be twice as good or else what's the point, as an audience member, of spending more money to see the same picture quality as regular digital movies are delivering?

And I don't personally believe that current 4K Bayer digital cameras on the market (RED and Dalsa) are already creating IMAX levels of resolution. I've seen RED footage digitally projected in 4K and while it had a certain visual resemblence to a clean 5-perf 70mm picture in terms of grainlessness, it did not contain IMAX-level of detail. Speaking as an avid IMAX viewer ever since I saw "To Fly" in 1977...

I've seen IMAX tests of HD footage transferred to 15-perf 65mm and projected, and it does not hold up, or at least, it doesn't look as good as 15-perf 65mm material does. But at least when you are talking about 3D underwater footage, HD works fine in IMAX. You don't have a lot of wide day exterior shots with underwater footage, and having two images overlaid on each eyeball, so to speak, makes you feel like there is more detail, partly because you are noticing the 3D effect more. And most of the spectacular 3D underwater shots involve things close-up to the lens where the resolution of HD seems sufficient.

But if you look at 2D footage transferred from HD to IMAX, you can tell that there is a lack of resolution on the IMAX screen. One test I saw compared F900 HD footage to the ultra-HD footage from the Olympus 4-CCD camera (nearly 4K), both transferred to IMAX, and the F900 footage reminded me of 16mm on the giant IMAX screen. There were so many HDCAM and CCD artifacts, HD lens artifacts, and noise and compression artifacts visible at that size. And it was quite soft.

[Pawel Achtel]

All I'm suggesting is that the IMAX experience has to be radically better than normal feature filmmaking, and if normal digital filmmaking is going to be 4K in the future, then digital IMAX origination can't be 4K as well, it has to be twice as good or else what's the point, as an audience member, of spending more money to see the same picture quality as regular digital movies are delivering?

And I don't personally believe that current 4K Bayer digital cameras on the market (RED and Dalsa) are already creating IMAX levels of resolution. I've seen RED footage digitally projected in 4K and while it had a certain visual resemblence to a clean 5-perf 70mm picture in terms of grainlessness, it did not contain IMAX-level of detail. Speaking as an avid IMAX viewer ever since I saw "To Fly" in 1977...

I've seen IMAX tests of HD footage transferred to 15-perf 65mm and projected, and it does not hold up, or at least, it doesn't look as good as 15-perf 65mm material does. But at least when you are talking about 3D underwater footage, HD works fine in IMAX. You don't have a lot of wide day exterior shots with underwater footage, and having two images overlaid on each eyeball, so to speak, makes you feel like there is more detail, partly because you are noticing the 3D effect more. And most of the spectacular 3D underwater shots involve things close-up to the lens where the resolution of HD seems sufficient.

But if you look at 2D footage transferred from HD to IMAX, you can tell that there is a lack of resolution on the IMAX screen. One test I saw compared F900 HD footage to the ultra-HD footage from the Olympus 4-CCD camera (nearly 4K), both transferred to IMAX, and the F900 footage reminded me of 16mm on the giant IMAX screen. There were so many HDCAM and CCD artifacts, HD lens artifacts, and noise and compression artifacts visible at that size. And it was quite soft.

David, I largely agree about HD to IMAX comments, but perhaps not as much about 4k to IMAX. I think it looks stunning as long as other components are of matching quality and bandwidth.

In relation to 8k, 10k or 20k...the extra resolution does not come for free. It costs additional and substantial bandwidth. If I can afford the additional bandwidth due to technological and innovative advancements, I would like it where I can see the most benefit. Where I can see the most benefit (to Red One), is not the extra resolution. It is dynamic range and frame rates. Once we are cranking 14-16 bit (with 13-15 stops) Raw with low compression at 60-120 fps, OK, I take your points as worthwhile improvements as long as you can get glass to match, power to process, displays to display, etc... Also, the only point I would agree on would be to increase the sensor resolution rather than physical size. I can't see any rationale to increase the sensor size. It is not analogue medium and the MTF of the sensor does not depend on its size. It depends on quantity and quality of the photo sites. And, because I do not want the camera to be more sensitive than it is (due to the need of heavy ND filtering), the sensor size should remain as it is: S35 - no more, no less.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

But if you look at 2D footage transferred from HD to IMAX, you can tell that there is a lack of resolution on the IMAX screen. One test I saw compared F900 HD footage to the ultra-HD footage from the Olympus 4-CCD camera (nearly 4K), both transferred to IMAX, and the F900 footage reminded me of 16mm on the giant IMAX screen. There were so many HDCAM and CCD artifacts, HD lens artifacts, and noise and compression artifacts visible at that size. And it was quite soft.

I saw superman returns on imax and I thought it looked awesome, though there is quite a difference between f900 footage and genesis footage I think.

[Pawel Achtel]

4k does NOT hold up to IMAX, if you saw the TDK in IMAX and compare the 4k 35mm stuff to IMAX sequences you'll see a HUGE difference in the resolving power/clarity/detail/shapness.

It is not 4k that does not hold up, it is the 35mm film :devil:

[Robert Sanders]

The big question is "who" is Epic being built for? It is my opinion that RED is responding to the very high-end Hollywood market. It looks like it was designed to address all of the concerns from mainstream cinematographers. Basically, a no-holds-barred version of the REDONE.

Now, what do today's cinematographer's want? They want to know that they have the option to use any PL mount lenses available. And that list includes anamorphic photography. I understand that many simply don't get "why" someone would opt for a lens format when there's a "simpler solution" like cropping. It's a credible argument, no doubt. But the argument chooses to ignore the realities of mainstream Hollywood cinematography -- cinematographers will NOT be told that anamorphic is "old school" and no longer needed. They'll laugh you off the stage.

So, how do we accommodate anamorphic photography in a simple, straight-forward way. Basically, how do we continue to shoot anamorphic like we do on 35mm, only with a 4K digital camera?

That's the question.

To ignore it or argue against is not smart. Just my opinion.

[Tom Lowe]

I wish the red team would give us some hints regarding their thoughts on 4:3.

[Alex G. Cohn]

Basically, how do we continue to shoot anamorphic like we do on 35mm, only with a 4K digital camera?

But are people "really" shooting anamorphic these days? It seems like virtually every single 2.35:1 film is actually being shot on S35, even the major blockbusters. The real anamorphic shows are coming few and far between.

[Robert Sanders]

These are the ones that come off the top of my head (I'll need to be checked). But I'm pretty passionate about anamorphic cinematography and I follow who's shooting what and why...

The Dark Knight - Anamorphic
Batman Begins - Anamorphic
The Incredible Hulk - Anamorphic
Indiana Jones - Anamorphic
Transformers - Anamorphic
Transformers 2 - Anamorphic
There Will Be Blood - Anamorphic
Mamma Mia! - Anamorphic
I Am Legend - Anamorphic
The Island - Anamorphic
The Brave One - Anamorphic
Rush Hour (all 3) - Anamorphic
Michael Clayton - Anamorphic
Shooter - Anamorphic
The Number 23 - Anamorphic

And there's no doubt that there are probably 3 Super35 films for every one anamorphic film. But the format is FAR from dead or dying out anytime soon. You just can't duplicate that "look". Even if someone produced a set of 1.34x anamorphic lenses for 16x9 sensors, you'd lose most of the qualities that create that "look" since they're inherently part of the 2x squeeze.

[Alex G. Cohn]

These are the ones that come off the top of my head (I'll need to be checked). But I'm pretty passionate about anamorphic cinematography and I follow who's shooting what and why...

The Dark Knight - Anamorphic
Batman Begins - Anamorphic
The Incredible Hulk - Anamorphic
Indiana Jones - Anamorphic
Transformers - Anamorphic
Transformers 2 - Anamorphic
There Will Be Blood - Anamorphic
Mamma Mia! - Anamorphic
I Am Legend - Anamorphic
The Island - Anamorphic
The Brave One - Anamorphic
Rush Hour (all 3) - Anamorphic
Michael Clayton - Anamorphic
Shooter - Anamorphic
The Number 23 - Anamorphic

And there's no doubt that there are probably 3 Super35 films for every one anamorphic film. But the format is FAR from dead or dying out anytime soon. You just can't duplicate that "look". Even if someone produced a set of 1.34x anamorphic lenses for 16x9 sensors, you'd lose most of the qualities that create that "look" since they're inherently part of the 2x squeeze.
And I would love to see modern films matching the 65mm, 2.20:1 grandeur of Lawrence of Arabia, but I know that most studios are cheapskates.

But then I'm actually not that big a fan of 2.35:1, whether that's anamorphic or S35. I much prefer 1.85:1, as I feel that it allows for more vertical action, and makes people larger on the screen.

[Robert Sanders]

Yup. I find beauty in both 1.85 and 1.78 aspect ratios as well.

I've just never shaken my affinity for anamorphic lenses. I became obsessed with how they worked and how they were built when I was in film school. I tracked down a rare set of 16mm anamorphic lenses built for making educational films. It was kinda cool being the only anamorphic S16 project on campus.

[Joseph Ward]

Would 4:3 anamorphic fit onto VistaVision? Get biggest and let everything else be worked on it. It looks good going from big to small, than small to big.:)

[M Most]

And I would love to see modern films matching the 65mm, 2.20:1 grandeur of Lawrence of Arabia, but I know that most studios are cheapskates.


I would hardly call spending over $50 million per movie being "cheapskates."

Everything is relative. "The Dark Knight" requested and was granted the use of Imax as a shooting format for at least a few weeks of production. What a production chooses to spend their budget on is usually their choice. The studio approves a budget, and the money is spent on whatever is deemed to be the best use of it. Sometimes that's above the line talent. Sometimes it's visual effects. Sometimes it's sets or locations. And sometimes it's on the technical details. But in almost no case does a bigger piece of negative in itself make for a better movie.

[Craig Ryan]

But in almost no case does a bigger piece of negative in itself make for a better movie.


Maybe not 0overall, but it definitely has a huge impact on the experience of the film. No one is really arguing that a bigger format is going to inherently make a movie better. However, having the option to a large format definitely can change the entire feel of the movie. Imagine 2001 A Space Odyssey shot on 16mm...thats my point.

[Alex G. Cohn]

I would hardly call spending over $50 million per movie being "cheapskates."

Everything is relative. "The Dark Knight" requested and was granted the use of Imax as a shooting format for at least a few weeks of production. What a production chooses to spend their budget on is usually their choice. The studio approves a budget, and the money is spent on whatever is deemed to be the best use of it. Sometimes that's above the line talent. Sometimes it's visual effects. Sometimes it's sets or locations. And sometimes it's on the technical details. But in almost no case does a bigger piece of negative in itself make for a better movie.
They don't care about 65mm film, because the screens themselves are nowhere near the size they once were. But they are screwing themselves over though, because they have reduced the theatrical experience to the point where it is actually less than that of sitting at home and watching the DVD.

[Alex G. Cohn]

Yup. I find beauty in both 1.85 and 1.78 aspect ratios as well.

I've just never shaken my affinity for anamorphic lenses. I became obsessed with how they worked and how they were built when I was in film school. I tracked down a rare set of 16mm anamorphic lenses built for making educational films. It was kinda cool being the only anamorphic S16 project on campus.
1.78 is great on a flat-screen TV, but in theaters it almost looks like 4:3.

[Tom Lowe]

They don't care about 65mm film, because the screens themselves are nowhere near the size they once were. But they are screwing themselves over though, because they have reduced the theatrical experience to the point where it is actually less than that of sitting at home and watching the DVD.

This is why IMAX is the future, IMO.

[David Mullen ASC]

Would 4:3 anamorphic fit onto VistaVision? Get biggest and let everything else be worked on it. It looks good going from big to small, than small to big.:)

The VistaVision negative is roughly 1.5 : 1 -- if you put a 2X anamorphic lens on the camera, you'd get a 3:1 image unsqueezed.

There was an anamorphic VistaVision (8-perf 35mm) process called Technirama, which involved using 1.5X anamorphic lenses to create a 2.35 image.

[M Most]

They don't care about 65mm film, because the screens themselves are nowhere near the size they once were. But they are screwing themselves over though, because they have reduced the theatrical experience to the point where it is actually less than that of sitting at home and watching the DVD.

Then I suggest you try to come up with a business plan that will allow profitable creation, distribution, and exhibition of 70mm prints. The advent of multiplexes with smaller screens, and the decline of movie palaces with larger screens was not dictated by the studios, it was dictated by business principles. And the studios' reluctance to have 70mm releases is due at least in part to the lack of venues to exhibit them in, not to mention the high cost of their creation, since much of the infrastructure that allowed that in the past is now gone.

It's easy (and apparently popular) to claim that the home viewing experience rivals the theater. The problem is that in the vast majority of cases, it's just not true, at least not until a lot more homes have 20 to 40 foot screens, much larger multichannel digital sound systems, and an audience.

[Joseph Ward]

Is Super Hi-Vision or Ultra High Defintion by NHK the same as 65/70mm?
http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/super_hi/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4320p[IMG]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UHDV.svg

[Tom Lowe]

It's easy (and apparently popular) to claim that the home viewing experience rivals the theater. The problem is that in the vast majority of cases, it's just not true, at least not until a lot more homes have 20 to 40 foot screens, much larger multichannel digital sound systems, and an audience.

Well, 1080p blurays are often sharper and carry more picture detail than movie prints shown at multiplexes. Also, you don't need a 50ft screen when you are sitting 8 feet away from a 56" 1080p flatscreen. I think sound is not really an issue if you have a nice system. Not to mention that I can drink beer, fool around with my GF, and rewind or FF any scenes I like if I watch a movie at home. :)

What the movies really have going for them is the communal experience. It's enough to get me to drive 30 miles and sit in traffic and deal with parking and pay extortion-style prices for a Coke, so there must be something to it!

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

What the movies really have going for them is the communal experience. It's enough to get me to drive 30 miles and sit in traffic and deal with parking and pay extortion-style prices for a Coke, so there must be something to it!

I still think that the 50 foot screen adds a lot to a movie experience, especially when you have a 2:40:1 film. It becomes a real larger than life experience.

[Darren Orange]

It's simple people like being with people. It's part of the experience why do you think all these midnight showings are doing so well. Anything that improves that experience the more it attracts people.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

It's simple people like being with people. It's part of the experience why do you think all these midnight showings are doing so well. Anything that improves that experience the more it attracts people.

I love midnight screenings especially when it's the last of the trilogy and they show the first 2 before hand.

I remember watching the matrix on 35mm film and thinking how much more detail I had missed out on by only having seen it on dvd and VHS.

[oldphart]

The VistaVision negative is roughly 1.5 : 1 -- if you put a 2X anamorphic lens on the camera, you'd get a 3:1 image unsqueezed.

There was an anamorphic VistaVision (8-perf 35mm) process called Technirama, which involved using 1.5X anamorphic lenses to create a 2.35 image.

I like the idea of a next-generation camera for the VistaVision format. If you could use the best 35mm still optics rehoused for cinema needs, there would not be any problems getting the lenses you need. There is no lack of lenses for any conceivable use. I'm quite fond of my old 20mm Flektogon, it is totally distortion-free and with digital processing I can correct the slight darkening in the corners.

Bandwidth is not going to be a problem in a couple of years. Each new networking technology is 10x faster at the same or lower cost. The processing power will not be a problem, either. When storage and processng go through another improvement cycle, we may even get rid of the optical low-pass filtering in the camera. Just make a sensor which resolves more than the lenses, and the lenses will do the filtering for you.

One aspect of very high resolution nobody has mentioned, is that you get much better positional accuracy for details in the picture. Modulation Transfer is not the only limiting factor.

We can see this in book printing. A professionally made offset master at 2400dpi will give visibly better results than a 600dpi laser printer, even though you can show that the printed page can barely resolve 600dpi with the paper you use and the individual dots are too small to see with the naked eye at normal dstance.

I believe the future display format will be something like 12k @ 72fps with 12 bits depth, and probably more than three colours in order to widen the gamut. Not the near future, but more or less inevitable unless somebody comes up with a practical holographic continous-spectrum method. A digital Lippman-process in 3d would be awesome!

[Alex G. Cohn]

I believe the future display format will be something like 12k @ 72fps with 12 bits depth, and probably more than three colours in order to widen the gamut. Not the near future, but more or less inevitable unless somebody comes up with a practical holographic continous-spectrum method. A digital Lippman-process in 3d would be awesome!
12k seems a bit much. How do you expect someone to pull focus on a motion picture that is being projected at that resolution? I've seen stuff that looked perfectly sharp at 2k, but was actually slightly out of focus when seen at 4k. I'd imagine that that problem will only be worse at 12k.

[Tom Lowe]

12K does seem like a lot. Keep in mind that this would totally leave all 35mm films & TV shows shot over the last 100 years utterly obsolete on such a viewing system. At least at 4K, 35mm can be scanned and might hold up at that resolution, if the film or TV show has been preserved well.

Once you go to 8K or beyond, 100 years of entertainment will be lost, and only material acquired on new cameras would fit the newer, higher-res format. For this reason alone, I think 4K will be the new gold standard (the new 1080p) for some time to come.

[M Most]

1
Once you go to 8K or beyond, 100 years of entertainment will be lost, and only material acquired on new cameras would fit the newer, higher-res format. For this reason alone, I think 4K will be the new gold standard (the new 1080p) for some time to come.


Huh?
We now have HD. Have you seen any loss of television material that was either shot or posted in SD as a result of that? Old formats are converted to new formats. That is something that is done all the time and has been done for years. I don't understand why you would think that suddenly ends.

[Tom Lowe]

Dude, you can scan 35mm at 1080p, 2K or 4K... you cannot scan it to 8K or 10K without essentially upsampling it, similar to upresing a DVD to 1080p. DVDs and NTSC look like crap on a 1080 screen, once you are used to seeing real 1080p footage.

My point is, once you move past 4K, then 90% of stuff shot over the last 50 years or more will look like crap on the display compared to native 8K or 10K or whatever. Therefore, 4K is as far as you can push resolution before you start to lose most of the entertainment created over the last 50 to 100 years. Yes, you can still play 4K on a 10K screen, but it's going to look like garbage compared to footage acquired at 10K. This is just common sense stuff.

[Craig Ryan]

It's going to be quite a while before the general public gets used to something beyond 4k as a standard for all content; for instance I doubt regular television programs, as we know them today, will ever be shot at something greater than 4k because the experience becomes too immersing for the variety of content we see on TV everyday. And most films/movies also don't even require anything beyond 4k either. There's only a small variety of content that's suitable for the immersive quality beyond 4k, so in theory, even if 12k systems become common place in the future, they will only be used for a small amount of content. I don't see the typical sitcom being produced in 12k; but I could see it produced in 1080p. So really, even when the average Joe gets a taste of higher resolutions, I think all of the content that's been produced over the last 100 years that wouldn't hold up at 12k or even 4k, would still be plenty acceptable in the future; my philosophy when it comes to imaging formats is simply, time and place for everything. Then there's the concept of virtual reality, which I think would require a whole new type of content that doesn't exist yet. So no matter what technology comes about in the future, there will always be a place for the lower resolution content thats already been made, even when Joe Schmo has a 12k home theater.

[Peter Majtan]

It's like SACD/DVD-Audio all over again. All thought that we needed to go up from CD quality. Welcome to SACD/DVD-AUDIO specifications. As much as I have Onkyo SACD player and few titles (my favorite is Sting's "Sacred Love" - which sounds stunning on my 7.2 THX system) - it doesn't change the fact that the industry actually moved backwards. More then half of music sold today is in MP3 (or AAC) format - lower then the plain CD. Why? Because the consumers demanded it...

I think 4K is going to be "SACD" - only for selected few... Most people will stick with HD (compressed on too...) for years to come. Any true revolution will not be related to resolution, but rather other aspects of visual experience, such as richer colors, HDRI, stereo, etc...

Just my two pesos...

PS: I will not master any of my own project in anything else then 2K for at least 5~10 years from now... :)

[Pawel Achtel]

It's like SACD/DVD-Audio all over again. All thought that we needed to go up from CD quality. Welcome to SACD/DVD-AUDIO specifications. As much as I have Onkyo SACD player and few titles (my favorite is Sting's "Sacred Love" - which sounds stunning on my 7.2 THX system) - it doesn't change the fact that the industry actually moved backwards. More then half of music sold today is in MP3 (or AAC) format - lower then the plain CD. Why? Because the consumers demanded it...

I think 4K is going to be "SACD" - only for selected few... Most people will stick with HD (compressed on too...) for years to come. Any true revolution will not be related to resolution, but rather other aspects of visual experience, such as richer colors, HDRI, stereo, etc...

Just my two pesos...

PS: I will not master any of my own project in anything else then 2K for at least 5~10 years from now... :)

Totally agree, Peter. That's 4 pesos already :greedy:

[Tom Lowe]

PS: I will not master any of my own project in anything else then 2K for at least 5~10 years from now... :)

We'll see if you're still saying that 2 years from now when Epic 5K (True 4K) is ruling the lands. :)

4K may come faster than many people think. It will not only be driven by new 4K cameras, but also by gamers. Already, I can play games at more than 2K, which goes beyond the 1080p bluray specs. Once 4K monitors start really hitting the scene, things might move faster than most of us expect. Of course, Sally Homemaker and Joe Six-Pack might lag behind, but that is true of 1080p now. Most gamers have computers that could outpower Joe Six-Pack's PC about 20 times over. :weight_lift:

[Joseph Ward]

4:3 S35mm, VistaVision/Technirama S35mm, 65/70mm sizes will do just fine!:weight_lift: Anything under seems backward anything else over is just overkill. Not if anything overkill is a bad thing. lol:biggrin:

[Peter Majtan]

Tom, I have no doubt that 4K will become "mainstream" for acquisition when it comes to digital cinema. But I will still run my DI at 2K for my own projects. When paying client demands 4K I would be happy to oblige, providing he is willing to pay the cost. I just can't justify the heavily increased cost for everything associated with 4K-DI, from humungous storage, CGI rendering times, film-out - I could go on and on... In the end most people won't be able to tell the difference between 2K & 4K at normal viewing distance - be it at home on 4K-TV's or on a 30' screen in the theatre...

And Yes - we are planing on getting Epic - just to be clear... :)

My two pesos...

Man I better cut down on the pesos, or I won't be able to get Epic...

I take one back... :)

[Tom Lowe]

Lol, Peter, don't worry. The Peso will soon be worth more than the Dollar. :)

[Joseph Ward]

another sensor comparison.

By DaveT at Scarletuser.com
http://www.scarletuser.com/showthread.php?t=739