Let's talk sensor...

[Brook Willard]

Alright, let's talk about sensors here. Not Monstro... because we know nothing about it and it won't be around for at least a year after Epic arrives. Just Epic and the "X" sensor it'll ship with.

The place to start is with the RED ONE. Here's what we know:

The RED ONE full active pixel array is 4,900 x 2,580. The extra pixels on the sensor were originally specced to be used for black calibration, etc.

The maximum useful sensor area of the RED ONE is 4,520 x 2,540, sized 24.4mm x 13.7mm.

The maximum CURRENT recording resolution is 4K: 4,096 x 2,304. This was always specced as the primary shooting resolution of the camera: 4K. It is what we all think of when we think of 4K these days and is what I will base most of my calculations off of. The 4K recording area of the sensor is 22.11mm x 12.44mm.

To compare, three-perforation Super 35mm film gates are 24.89mm x 14.0mm. Granted, there are multiple gates available... but this will be the figure I use for the sake of this thread.

There is, of course, four-perforation Super 35mm film - sized at 24.89mm x 18.66mm.

When all relevant formats are put into a diagram, this is what it looks like:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1215155417.jpg

There are a few things to take away from this:

First, the RED ONE 4K recording area is significantly smaller than a normal three-perforation Super 35mm film gate. While there is generally some cropping applied to a film negative before it reaches final distribution, that figure changes and is not measurable for the sake of this discussion.

So, for the sake of this discussion, the RED ONE 4K we've all become so familiar with is only 78.93% the size of a normal three-perforation film gate. This will surprise some, but there is indeed a subtle field of view conversion factor with the RED ONE when shooting 4K. A 50mm lens on a RED ONE in 4K will have the apparent FOV of a 63mm lens on a standard three-perforation gate.

This will surprise some, but it is the nature of the beast. It has not bothered many over nearly a year of field production. That's not to say I like it, just that I accept it.

Another thing to note is the relation between the 4.5K look-around area of the RED ONE versus the 4K recording area. The look-around area is 21.65% larger than the recorded area. Something to remember.

The amount of "look-around" on a film camera varies on the viewfinder optics, ground glass and position of the moon in relation to the sun. Regardless, just know that that area is indeed outside of the size of the film gate.

So this is how it all stands today. There are good things and bad things about all of this... but it is what we have with the RED ONE. The great thing about the Epic is that it's an opportunity to improve upon the RED ONE with all of the lessons we [and RED] have learned along the way.

So, Epic.

The only sensor specification we have for Epic at this point is that its 5K recording resolution is planned at 5,120 x 2,880. Since RED will not put an optical viewfinder with spinning mirror shutter on the camera, one must assume that there will be a look-around area to this camera as well.

Since Epic is a thoroughly professional camera specifically designed for film production [not ENG/EFP, not to replace a video camera, not to be a great upgrade from an HVX, etc], I personally feel that every opportunity to make it the best cinema-style camera possible should be taken. Since we're only talking about the sensor in this thread, that's where we'll start.

While the RED ONE 4K FOV has not bothered many in 16:9 shooting, that is not to say that it isn't perfect. For the Epic, the actual 5K recording area absolutely should be the full size of a Super 35mm film gate - no more and no less.

That would mean that the 5K recording area in 16:9 mode should be 24.89 x 14mm.

Based on the RED ONE's look-around area's size in relation to the recorded area, Epic's look-around area should be 21.65% larger than the recorded area. That means that the sensor's look around area should be 27.47 x 15.45mm. By the same math, its resolution should be 5.6K: 5,650 x 3,178 pixels.

Having a sensor that large will result in vignetting in the look-around area... just as the "look-around" area in an optical viewfinder on a film camera will vignette on certain lenses. Regardless, the sensor must be that large in order to be the same size as Super 35mm film while still retaining the look-around area that people love so much.

When all of these dimensions get put down onto the same diagram, this is what we get:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1215155468.jpg

Epic is yellow. I was too lazy to add labels.

With Epic added, it's still very clear that RED is lacking something that film still has: a four-perforation frame. While it may seem old fashioned, many commercials still shoot 4:3. More importantly, many projects shoot anamorphic.

Now obviously one can shoot a 4:3 extract out of a RED ONE 4K frame for the sake of anamorphic. There is a conversion, of course, but many people are accepting of it. Ever see that put down on paper?

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1215155487.jpg

For those playing at home, shooting a 4:3 extract on a RED ONE in 4K is 44.43% the size of a four-perforation film gate. That's a 225% conversion factor. Ouch. Think 16mm film.

Now when RED enables the inevitable 4.5K anamorphic mode, the size will be 53.88%. Relative to the Arri D-21, the RED ONE 4:3 extract is 59% the size. So this will get better... but it'll never be good.

Accordingly, since the Epic is a truly professional cinema camera, it needs to have a real 4:3 four-perforation sensor. No more conversion factors, no more nonsense, just a real film-sized sensor.

Besides, one cannot help but to point out the irony of a camera named "Epic" that can't shoot anamorphic properly.

To match a four-perforation film gate, the Epic's 5K recording area should be 24.89 x 18.66mm. By this math, the resolution would be 5,120 x 3,840.

Next, the sensor still needs to be large enough to have a proper look-around area. By the 21.65% conversion used on the RED ONE, the Epic's sensor should be 27.47 x 20.61mm with a full resolution of 5,650 x 4,238. That's 23.9 megapixels, kids.

Put into our favorite diagram, here are the final formats:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1215155532.jpg

Nice. Now that's how it should be.

That said, it's only a 23.14% pixel density increase. If the Epic's 5K sensor was exactly the same size as the RED ONE's 4.5K sensor, there would be a 28.43% pixel density increase. So not only should this size and resolution increase make the sensor more comparable to film, it would also result in a lower pixel density which means higher sensitivity and lower noise. We're not talking about shoehorning a zillion pixels into a small space... just making the space larger.

Those are my thoughts on the sensor. Obviously RED has their lips zipped about any specifications beyond the marketing materials we received at NAB, so it's hard to know where things stand on the camera's development.

Regardless, this is what I want out of this sensor. I may have buggered up some math here, but I think that the logic is sound. I just want a properly film-sized recording area with look-around. I'd prefer the sensor to be four-perforation instead of three-perforation as well.

Thoughts? Anybody from RED care to comment?

[Sanjin Jukic]

The answer should be:

Let's talk MONSTRO!!!

[Brook Willard]

No, let's not. We're talking about the sensor in a camera that's right around the corner, not a sensor that has zero specifications and won't drop until 2010.

To those that are curious, I wrote this thread on an internet-free laptop today before Monstro was announced. It's unfortunate that I wasn't able to post this thread before the announcement.

Either way, I'd like to keep it on topic.

[Richard Lackey]

Yeah that yellow outline looks pretty Monstro to me.

Brook, I think what you have explained so well is the only logical approach on which to base a no-nonsense digital cinema camera like Epic. It covers all the bases and provides the maximum flexibility in shooting formats that could be made available.

I'd still like to see the spinning mirror shutter and optical EVF to take care of the look around issue, but I am slowly realising that this mechanical way of thinking does not fit into what Red is about, and what they are doing, which is pushing technological boundaries.

Have you done the calculations to determine whether a 5120 x 3840 pixel Bayer sensor will give us a true 4K output when debayered? This is what I have been wondering but don't really understand the math.

[Brook Willard]

That sort of question is a good one for Graeme. "True" 4K or not... it matters not to me. Frankly, I'd imagine that most of Epic's post options will remain 4K for some time. If he writes a great debayering algorithm that puts out a [near] pixel-perfect 4K file... that's awesome.

I just hope the sensor ends up the right size.

[amrrahmy]

the problem is that people look at the 4k red one #, and say it's a 4K, or 4.5K footage, or when they add the rest of the pixels would be 4.5K 16:9 footage.
it's not it would be more like a little less than 3K footage that is not as good as a 3K with no crop factor.
it would be much better to use a 3K 4:3 full frame sensor. if people were more smart!!!

[Shawn Booth]

All I care to, and can say, is thank you Brook. This is informative, perhaps one of those true great posts.

I will follow where this goes. I wish I could contribute more to this thread.

[Charles Angus]

Nit-picky point, Brooke.

Lower pixel density only results in lower pixel density per pixel, with the same sensor technology.

Eg. comparing the 1ds III to the original 1ds, the Mk. III is less noisy, when compared at the same rez.

Increasing pixel density and downrezzing to the baseline rez can reduce noise.

If EPIC's 5k sensor was the same size as RED ONE's, and used the same sensor technology, we would expect a lower noise image at 2k or 4k.

[Brook Willard]

Fair enough, that technical stuff is not my area of expertise. I see bigger pixels capturing more photons, resulting in lower noise in low light. That said, my primary concern is sensor size.

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

4:3 fullS35 size...YES!!!

[Peter Majtan]

Brook - isn't the 4.5K Red One only available as 2.40:1? You have it in all the diagrams as 16:9...

[amrrahmy]

that's suppose to be the final ratio 4.5K 16:9. but it would be better if the diagram was of the actual image size after the resizing.to have a real perspective.

[Peter Majtan]

You can't get 16:9 4.5K, it doesn't work like that. The moment You crop it to 16:9 You go back to 4K... And if You do end up choosing to shoot 2.40:1 in the first place - why would You go 16:9 later? Just a thought...

PS: Any news from Apple support?

[amrrahmy]

i said the "final" not the current or soon to be.
it's suppose at the end, to be 4.5K 16:9 (maybe 60fps - that one might flop)

[Dustin Cross]

By the time Epic ships won't all TV broadcasts in the US be 16x9? What aspect ratio does the rest of the world use for TV?

Why would you want 4:3 other than anamorphic?

Dusty

[amrrahmy]

too many reasons, i cant talk about all of them.

i'll give u some, a full frame sensor doesn't have a crop factor.
that will get u the best image possible, and a faster camera, and can use a real shutter and can record raw and faster the work and the process of the camera, and eliminate any artifacts and mistakes in the algorithm when removing the crop factor, better faster work flow, u don't have to re-size the image.
u'll have more view in the view finder and the monitors, so u can put all the info in the dark area outside the image, and have a clear view of the content being filmed and view all the info and settings at the same time.
u can record in 4:3 for 2.4 and use the rest of the image to ur liking.
a camera capable of shooting 4:3 with an option of 2.4 would be really stable recording data in 2.4 mode.

someone else can take it from here? and adding some more reasons.

[David Mullen ASC]

By "full frame" sensor, you must be referring to the 8-perf 35mm still camera format (VistaVision).

There is no crop factor if you are comparing 4x3 Super-35 to 16x9 Super-35 cine formats, except vertically.

Anyone used to shooting in 35mm for filmmaking doesn't really have to deal with any crop factors when using the RED at 4K, other than the fact that at 4096 pixels across, you have an Academy-width image, not a Super-35 width image.

I'm not sure what you are referring to in regards to having to "resize" the RED recorded image. It's 4096 pixels across in 4K recording mode, which is a standard file size for D.I. work. And it has to be converted from RAW Bayer to RGB anyway, so the notion of a true "size" is a bit nebulous anyway.

I think the oversized sensor is a useful idea -- I like the lookaround area on the monitor and viewfinder outside the 4096 recorded area.

As for 4x3... I'm all for it because I like shooting anamorphic movies, but I also recognize that anamorphic makes up less than a third of all 2.40 shooting, so it's a niche within a niche. If someone just made some decent 1.34X anamorphic lenses, I'd live with a 16x9 sensor, which satisfies the majority of shooters.

[Steve Murray]

Brook,

Thanks for always boiling things down to a manageable level and I love your frame illustrations. I go back to your original post with the nice chart of all the formats all the time. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1487

Thank you!

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Just simple deductive reasoning applied to Jim's announcements tells us EPIC should have a larger sensor than RED One.

EPIC is said to be 5K with the ability to derive pristine 4K+ from the Bayer data. RED One is 4K~4.5K with the ability to deliver pristine 3K or a bit over.

Jim has said that the Mysterium X upgrade for the RED One will still leave the camera at 4K. I don't think RED will be producing the Mysterium X in multiple densities. So assuming the same photosite density across all Mysterium X sensors, we could assume that EPIC has a larger sensor. The NAB literature and announcements said "full frame" sensor for EPIC. It's a vague description, but I also took it then as a larger size than the RED One. However, I'm still thinking that EPIC will have a 16:9 proportioned sensor for some reason.

I'm not sure what to make of the Monstro announcement. It's cool, yes, but what does it mean, if anything? For now I have many other concerns and desires to talk about more relevant products.

[amrrahmy]

the "usable" recording area is not the same as the playback.the 4K or 4.5K would is not usable until it's re-sized, maybe someone else can explain it better.
the recorded footage has the information for a smaller size footage, it's the way the sensor works, it has a 1.5 crop factor, it's not full frame(it's doesn't mean a size, it is how the sensor works). the crop factor sensor is much smaller than the recorded footage, all the extra pixels are for holding more information more or less, u can't use the 4K or 4.5K footage without resizing to a 66%, or close give or take, to get the image.

u can see pictures and videos, or maybe tutorials that would be more useful to see how a crop factor sensor works, and see some pictures takin by a dslr, in full scale, and see them again scaled down, and u'll notice the difference, same thing with the camera footage, if u look at the 4k image(or part of it) and see the same part re-sized, u would notice the difference. u cant miss it.

i meant a full frame sensor, didn't mention the size, a full frame sensor with half the size would make a better image.
full frame sensors are 4:3.

[David Mullen ASC]

I still don't know what you are referring to in regards to this 1.5 crop factor. When does this 66% resizing take place?

Obviously oversampling is better. If you need to end up with a 4K file, starting out with a 6K sensor is going to look better than if you had a 4K sensor, but I don't get all this talk about a 1.5 crop factor and 66% resizing. Are you talking about a 4K finish? A 2K finish? An HD finish?

And why is 4x3 "full frame"? There really isn't such a term in cine technology. There is "Full Aperture" but that can be any aspect ratio. 4x3 is traditional but it is not particularly "fuller" -- for example, in 16mm, the 4x3 standard 16mm gate is physically smaller than the 1.68 Super-16 gate.

Again, it comes down to what purpose does a 4x3 sensor serve you if your delivery formats are widescreen in some form or another? You can't take advantage of more pixels vertically if you just end up cropping them to achieve a widescreen shape, so there is no oversampling advantage - unless you use anamorphic lenses. Otherwise, the only advantages are: ability to reposition the image vertically, or deliver a 4x3 commercial (but then, most 4x3 is for standard def video, so cropping a 4K image to achieve 4x3 720 x 480 is no big deal, resolution-wise. You are already way oversampled.)

"Full frame" is only a term in DSLR still photography to differentiate sensors that match the size of the 8-perf 35mm still camera frame from those that are half size, i.e. match the size of the 35mm cine formats. Those are the only people who factor in conversions for FOV from what they are used to in 35mm still photography. It's meaningless for cine shooters where the RED sensor already matches the size of 35mm cine formats, so there is no conversion factor. And most cine formats use some form of cropping to achieve aspect ratios like 1.85 or 2.40.

So please explain where this 1.5 crop factor comes from and when this 66% resizing happens.

[amrrahmy]

the 4.5K would be 2983 give or take few pixels.(and it's still depends on the recorded material, maybe a bit less in some cases).

[amrrahmy]

there is no 4K finish, it's not a 4K file, that's the whole thing it's a 3K file to start with, not a 4k file(it's a pretend 4K file).

[amrrahmy]

i'm not usually very good at explaining stuff, and english is my fourth language.

if u google a bit u'll find all the info u need to know about diff kinds of sensors, and how they work and store data, u can take dslr cameras for example, look at a footage from a d2x or any other camera with crop factor, and look at footage from a d3 with and without down scaling. that is pretty easy.
i dont have links, but it's not hard to find, it wont take u 10-15mins to find all necessary info.

[David Mullen ASC]

there is no 4K finish, it's not a 4K file, that's the whole thing it's a 3K file to start with, not a 4k file(it's a pretend 4K file).

Where did you get this idea???

A 4K Bayer RAW image that is debayered to 4K RGB may only have an effective resolution of 3K, but that doesn't make it a 3K file size. The size of the files is the size of the files regardless of line chart resolution measured. I could make a 4K file out of a DV image.

It records 4K RAW Bayer files that are converted to whatever you want, usually 4K RGB files. The only time it is a 3K file is when you shoot in 3K mode or create 3K files yourself.

And this still doesn't explain where the 1.5 crop takes place.

Again, you are mixing up DSLR terms with cine technology terms.

Yes, obviously you will get a better 4K RGB finish if you started out with a RAW file with higher pixel resolution. Everyone knows that.

[amrrahmy]

full frame means 4:3 1:1 pixel recording, that's universal and used for cine, photo, animation, math, chemistry, physics among other stuff.

[David Mullen ASC]

full frame means 4:3 1:1 pixel recording, that's universal and used for cine, photo, animation, math, chemistry, physics among other stuff.

Just provide an outside link or reference that says that is true in cinema technology because I've never run across one. And I read a lot of cinema technology books and magazines...

[amrrahmy]

may only have an effective resolution of 3K
there u go.

I could make a 4K file out of a DV image.
it would still be considered a dv image and not a 4k image.
if a dv image would save the image as a 4k image, it doesn't mean it's a 4K image.
if i put a merc badge on my mitsubishi, it would still be a mitsubishi.

[amrrahmy]

also the 4K file out of the dv image would loose some info(quality) in the process.

[David Mullen ASC]

You're missing the point -- it is still a 4K file size. Effective resolution is a different issue than file size. The RED shoots 4K RAW files and it generates 4K RGB files. If you simply look at the file sizes, you can see that. It doesn't create 3K RGB files and then uprez them to 4K RGB files. That's not how a debayering algorithm works -- it doesn't just take the green pixels and uprez them from 2K to 4K, and the red and blue pixels and uprez them from 1K to 4K. It doesn't take a 4K RAW recording and create a 3K RGB file and then uprez that to a 4K RGB file. It creates 4K RGB files from 4K RAW files that have an effective resolution of 3K -- but they are still 4K file sizes.

[amrrahmy]

i think u can look in the arri d21 site.
and u can look for manuals and tutorials of full frame sensors.

for full frame to be 4:3 u can find that in books easily.
for a cinema camera to have a full frame sensor, it would have to find a book made more recently.but a full frame sensor is always 4:3 1:1 and it doesn't have a crop factor. that's why it's 4:3, and not a cheap small sensor with crop factor.

[amrrahmy]

it's a smaller sensor than it records(the crop factor happens at the start before the image is recorded),it records a 4K file that is 3K more or less.

[amrrahmy]

sorry i don't see ur posts when i'm writing.so i post later, hope that's not too confusing.

[Brook Willard]

Regarding crop factors and still cameras.

No part of my diagram or discussion has anything to do with still cameras and their 8-perf "full frame" size. Any 1.5x or 1.6x crop factors that people are getting caught up on are unrelated to the sensor size issues that I'm discussing. If people are trying to visualize the still vs. motion film issues, RED has my chart on the subject up on their website (http://www.red.com/cameras/technology) to help clear things up.

As David said, "full-frame" and 4:3 are two different things from two different industries of film.

[amrrahmy]

u cant use the recorded file as a 4K file(u can but that wont be the best quality of the image, or usable actually), u can however resize the file, do whatever u want in post and resize again to whatever u want and that would get u the best results.
and u can use a nice dv cam with a (16 or 35mm adapter) and make a usable 2K or 4K image for theater projection.(but not for bluray or internet - u will have to go with the native, u cant upsize for monitors or really expensive tv(that are actually monitors - they are also pretend tvs, but in a good way this time)).

[David Mullen ASC]

The RED camera does not crop the Mysterium sensor to 3K and then uprez it to 4K (unless you select 3K RAW mode but convert it to 4K RGB later.)

It records 1:1, pixel for pixel. In 4K mode, it records 4096 pixels across, the same pixels on the sensor, 4096 pixels across (it doesn't use the area outside of 4096 yet). 1:1.

But because it is a RAW Bayer image, it cannot create a 1:1 RGB image without an algorithm -- a 1:1 conversion from RAW to RGB is not possible no matter what the sensor is, not unless you drop the Bayer design. A 1:1 conversion of a 4K RAW recording would give you 2K green pixels and 1K red and blue pixels each. To truly get 4K RGB 1:1 from a sensor, you need a sensor that had 4K each of red, green, and blue photosites, not a Bayer design.

[amrrahmy]

the charts also are for the recorded size with the crop factor(not the usable size).not to mention that the compressed files(no matter how good the compression is - i think it's really good by the way) or not as good as uncompressed footage.
so the chart is not really that accurate if ur trying to compare quality.

[Peter Majtan]

EPIC is said to be 5K with the ability to derive pristine 4K+ from the Bayer data. RED One is 4K~4.5K with the ability to deliver pristine 3K or a bit over.

For EPIC to resolve pristine 4K it would have to have at least 5252 (which is slightly more then 5K - 5120). I am confident it's going to have even more - close to 6K...


I don't think RED will be producing the Mysterium X in multiple densities. So assuming the same photosite density across all Mysterium X sensors, we could assume that EPIC has a larger sensor.

Now this will not work as Scarlet (based on Mysterium-X) is 2/3" with 3K resolution. Maybe EPIC will have the same density as Scarlet, but in full S35 frame...


The NAB literature and announcements said "full frame" sensor for EPIC. It's a vague description, but I also took it then as a larger size than the RED One.

Doesn't it say "full frame S35"? (Same size as Red One...)

[Dustin Cross]

Is there a way to hide posts from amrrahmy? He (or she) doesn't understand anything about Red and post nothing but crap.

[amrrahmy]

1:1 is the crop factor, it's 1.5:1(or somewhere between 1.2-2.0 depending on the sensor), u keep confusing the #s.
that happens before the info gets recorded on the pixels.(the recorded being 1:1 after that is the doing of the codec) but that happens to the 1.5:1 size, that's way u need to resize to a usable 3K or so image.

if u just look for crop factor info and possible see a couple of videos and tutorials, u would get a far better idea.

also i'm out for today, i will take a look at the thread tomorrow.
i'll try to help out with any info needed, if i can.

[Dustin Cross]

Since we live in a 16x9 world it doesn't seem smart to make future Red sensor 4x3. If you want to use anamorphic, only use the middle of the sensor. If there is truly enough demand, someone will start making 1.33x cine anamorphics to use with a 16x9 sensor.


Mahalo,
Dusty

[Peter Majtan]

Amrrahmy - what You are referring to as a crop-factor only applies when You are using 35mm STILL PHOTOGRAPHIC lenses with a smaller sensors (APS in still - or S35 in cine). Red One is digital CINE camera and when used with CINE lenses (RED's, ARRI's, ZEISS's, etc...) - will yield NO CROP FACTOR what so ever as its sensor if full-frame S35 cine size...

[amrrahmy]

okay,
did u see other posts saying that the 4K image would make prestine 3K files.
did u see other posts saying(i think some of them by jim) that the 5k epic would make pristine 4K files.

why is that??????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????

[J. Bernard Vallon]

the whole notion of a crop factor in dslr land is just mental shorthand for how lenses will look on today's cameras compared to how the same lens would have looked on YESTERDAYS cameras. Since a 50mm looks the same on a red as it would on yesterday's film cameras, there is no crop factor. Look at the evolution of digital medium format cameras as another example. A camera is only called "full frame" if it is 48x48 or more, until thm it has a crop factor.

[J. Bernard Vallon]

4k bayer sensors produce 4k images with the apparent sharpness of a 3.2k RGB image due to the imperfect spacial sampling of bayer color matrix. The file size is 4k, the only thing that is less is sharpness. Since red is sharper than many film stocks anyway, no one really cares.

[amrrahmy]

4k images with the apparent sharpness of a 3.2k RGB image

the only thing that is less is sharpness

Since red is sharper than many film stocks anyway
dont go cheap on the stocks.

no one really cares
i do(but i'm not of any importance, u can just exclude me).
that my last post on this thread.

[J. Bernard Vallon]

there are plenty of reasons not to use a red. Sharpness isn't one of them. Unless your choices are Imax or Red, red is sharp enough for any finish today.

[Brook Willard]

Man this thread got off topic fast. This is why I hate crop factors.

[Bruce Allen]

Brook, what a great post. And thanks for pointing out that we're only seeing 78% of the normal frame. That explains so many things that have been confusing me. You rock.

I fear RED is already too far into production on the Epic sensor to do what you suggest, though.

However, I will cross fingers they size up the sensor as you say to allow for look-around with a correct-size recording area. I think that the 4/3 aspect ratio thing may only come with Monstro. But hey, maybe I got it backwards and Epic will be 4/3 size, and Monstro a bit larger to allow for full-size recording area ;)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[J. Bernard Vallon]

With the lens market what it is, i'll bet if someone designed a set of 1.33 stretch anamorphic primes that were of excellent quality and aperture, people would be happy using them as an anamorphic solution to a 16:9 red.

2:1 anamorphics were designed because all cameras at the time used 4:3 frame sizes, not nessisarily because it was the perfect choice. Today nearly all cameras are 16:9, why not make a new set of anamorphic as appropriate.

[David Mullen ASC]

okay,
did u see other posts saying that the 4K image would make prestine 3K files.
did u see other posts saying(i think some of them by jim) that the 5k epic would make pristine 4K files.

why is that??????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????

You're confusing effective measurable resolution with file sizes, and uprezzing with debayering algorithms. I think you are also confusing the RED with HD cameras that reduce pixel resolution before recording. You are also mixing up DSLR issues with cine camera issues.

4K RAW Bayer can create an effective 3K resolution even though the file size is 4K RGB. So 5K RAW Bayer can create a 4K RGB file that has a true 4K resolution.

But recording 4K RAW and converting it to 4K RGB does not involve cropping & uprezzing to or from 3K. It involves converting a 4K RAW Bayer pattern into 4K RGB, in which the measurable resolution of the image in those 4K files is 3.2K, according to RED. But the loss of resolution isn't due to overall cropping, it's due to the fact that a Bayer pattern has 50% of its photosites filtered green, and 25% filtered red and blue respectively. So the overall RGB resolution is around 75% of what a monochrome version of the Bayer image would be. Plus there is an optical low pass filter that reduces high frequency detail to prevent aliasing. Something that allowed nearly 100% resolution retained from 4K RAW to 4K RGB would have aliasing artifacts.

So if you want measurable 4K RGB resolution, you have to start out with a sensor and a RAW recording with even more resolution than 4K. But it's not a question of cropping, it's an issue of oversampling to improve picture quality.

[Finner]

Just put an ignore on that amrrahmy guy. He really has no clue what he is talking about. I figured this out quite a while ago.

[amrrahmy]

okay, since u insist.


oversampling to improve picture qualitythat's cropping
so the image recorded is not the image played back and u need to remove the oversampling.

4K RAW Bayer can create an effective 3K resolution even though the file size is 4K RGB
so it can't create a workable 4K file from a 4K recorded image.only 3K

so ur saying there is ||||no|||| factor (and the image recorded is 1:1)at the same time that ur saying(that the image is not 1:1 and is oversampled by 25%) and u can only use the image by reducing the size to 75%.

applying anything to the image will reduce it's quality compared to an uncompressed image.




You're confusing effective measurable resolution with file sizes

no i'm not, i said the 4K recorded is 3K usable.(it's a 3k image pretending to be a 4K image.)it doesn't mean that the file size is not 4K, it means the actual file size quality wise is less than 3K, not size wise.quality wise.
and also that an uncompressed full frame 4:3 1:1 3K would have more quality.

[David Mullen ASC]

You're still confusing your terminology.



and also that an uncompressed full frame 4:3 1:1 3K would have more quality.

More quality than what? Now you're mixing apples and oranges, saying that a 4x3 sensor would have more quality than a 16x9 sensor. Not if you need a 16x9 image. And again, 1:1 is meaningless when talking about conversions from RAW to RGB. You can't record 3K RAW Bayer and get 3K RGB of equal resolution. There is no 1:1, pixel for pixel, process possible when talking about RAW Bayer conversions to RGB. It's only possible in sensors where there is an equal number of red, green, and blue photosites, which is not what a Bayer sensor is. A 3-CCD HD camera with individual 1920 x 1080 sensors can create an RGB recording where there is 1920 x 1080 pixels for each color, but even then, there is an optical low pass filter involved to reduce aliasing, so there is some loss of measurable resolution.

[David Mullen ASC]

okay, since u insist.

that's cropping
so the image recorded is not the image played back and u need to remove the oversampling.

so it can't create a workable 4K file from a 4K recorded image.only 3K

Oversampling is not cropping. Cropping is cropping. Chopping off part of the picture is cropping. Oversampling or resizing or uprezzing or down-rezzing does not have to involve cropping, otherwise the framelines you composed with in the camera would be useless.

You can create a perfectly "workable" 4K RGB file from a 4K RAW recording, it just won't measure out using a line chart at 4000 lines. But it is still "workable" and it's not a 3K file, it's a 4K file.

You can't play back the image exactly as you recorded it -- because a RAW image is not viewable. It has to be converted to color to be viewable. A RAW image is a monochrome image with a Bayer pattern to it.

Measurable sharpness is not the same thing as file size. By putting an old lens on the RED or a diffusion filter or having the focus slightly off, my 4K RGB files might not even measure out to 2K in resolution. But they are still 4K RGB files.

This is just a silly numbers game. What matters is how it looks. The 4K image from the RED looks pretty good, and pretty sharp. A 5K sensor would give you even more sharpness. But there is no particular practical reason for measurable 4K to be some sort of exact target that you need to hit. Lenses, film stocks (in film cameras), contrast of lighting, filters, atmospheric haze, working f-stop, etc. all affect sharpness in ways that can exceed the differences between 3K and 4K. So there are limits to how much you need to think about these numbers.

[Jose Alvarez]

also i'm out for today, i will take a look at the thread tomorrow. i'll try to help out with any info needed, if i can.

Sorry but nothing of all the things you have said made much sense at all. I'll have to decline that offer.

[amrrahmy]

Oversampling is not cropping. Cropping is cropping. Chopping off part of the picture is cropping. Oversampling or resizing or uprezzing or down-rezzing does not have to involve cropping, otherwise the framelines you composed with in the camera would be useless.
resizing the image to a smaller image is cropping, u dont have to crop a par of the image to be cropping, resizing to a smaller image from a biggr image is cropping.

You can create a perfectly "workable" 4K RGB file from a 4K RAW recording
it's a good thing that u quoted the workable part, "workable" is not workable


You can't play back the image exactly as you recorded it -- because a RAW image is not viewable. It has to be converted to color to be viewable. A RAW image is a monochrome image with a Bayer pattern to it.

i'm talking about the quality.(it wont be "workable" if u can play it back full size)


Measurable sharpness is not the same thing as file size. By putting an old lens on the RED or a diffusion filter or having the focus slightly off, my 4K RGB files might not even measure out to 2K in resolution. But they are still 4K RGB files.

relative quality.

[amrrahmy]

it's 3am the next day dude, and i only posted because i was quoted.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

For EPIC to resolve pristine 4K it would have to have at least 5252 (which is slightly more then 5K - 5120). I am confident it's going to have even more - close to 6K...

Yes, I just said 5K because that's all RED has said about it so far. I believe it will be a bit over actual 5K myself, even a full 6K possibly.



Now this will not work as Scarlet (based on Mysterium-X) is 2/3" with 3K resolution. Maybe EPIC will have the same density as Scarlet, but in full S35 frame...

Do'h! :biggrin: I guess my logic is a little flawed today. Good point.


Doesn't it say "full frame S35"? (Same size as Red One...)

Nevermind... I guess the NAB brochure also says it about the RED One. My brain is not functioning today. I think I'll go do something else like take a nap.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think we are running into a language barrier here because my definition of "cropping" and "workable" are different than yours. But here is the Wikipedia definition of cropping:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cropping_(image)

And my definition of "workable" is "something that works". And my 4K RGB files seem to be working just fine.

[J. Bernard Vallon]

I always hate when people do this, but it seems necessary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cropping

"19. Photography. to cut off or mask the unwanted parts of (a print or negative)."

also

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Oversampling

notice the discussion part way down about anti-aliasing.

neither discusses the other in any way.

Edit: sorry to step on your toes david, i hadnt loaded your post yet.

[amrrahmy]

In the printing, graphic design and photography industries, cropping refers to removing unwanted areas from a photographic or illustrated image. One of the most basic photo manipulation processes, it is performed in order to remove an unwanted subject or irrelevant detail from a photo.

removing artifacts from the image and resizing the image, it doesn't have to be the lower half or the left half of the image u can remove pixels and manipulate pixels into smaller sizes and it would be cropping.

[amrrahmy]

u can remove some of the bit depth of the image and re-size it into a smaller image, and it would be considered cropping also.

[amrrahmy]

u can mask small artifacts inside the image it doesn't have to be a big block of the image.

[J. Bernard Vallon]

Ive never heard either of those refered to as croping. Always either down-sampling or re-sampling or down-resing. Eitier way we are arguing terminology. The one technique results in a crop factor, which the red doesnt do except in 2k or 3k modes, and the other doesn't.

more to the topic;

I don't know if it would be possible to put a 4:3 'four perf full frame' sensor in the Red, looking at my sensor you'd need a new sensor-holder-thing. Id imagine epic would have something similar, but who am i to say. Its red digital cinema, i'm sure they could replace it if they felt like it.

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Just put an ignore on that amrrahmy guy. He really has no clue what he is talking about. I figured this out quite a while ago.

I think you should listen to Finner in this case.


Fredrik

[amrrahmy]

Ive never heard either of those refered to as croping

other than the crop factor and the down-sampling, the others or done manually thought the whole image, pixel by pixel, it's hard work and takes time, that's dedication to make the best possible quality and not something otherwise "workable", it's called art.

[Peter Majtan]

What...? Come again...?

[Peter Majtan]

Anyway, Amrrahmy, what is Your Red One's serial number again? Have You EVER even downloaded any 4K r3d RAW file and play with it in Red Cine, or Red Alert?

Now to be fair - I do not have Red One myself. But I am not arguing with the ones that have it about the issues related to this camera. And I did downloaded tons of r3d RAW files in all sorts of resolutions and work with them in both Red Cine and Red Alert...

[amrrahmy]

yes, i downloaded tons of samples. and seen how good or bad the image can be.

[Craig Ryan]

David Mullen has displayed commendable patience here. :pinch:

Brook, excellent thread...I had my ghetto resolution diagram in another thread but have no experience with film, so I had no clue what the actual sensor sizes were compared to film and how the FOV would be effected, or anything for that matter and was hoping someone would clear as this up for the n00bs like me. I think it's interesting no one wearing a RED cap has chimed in yet.

[Brook Willard]

Perhaps I should've posted it under another name. :) :)

[Dale Launer]

Wow. Cropping. Who thought that would be such a difficult concept to grasp?

[Andrew M.]

blame it on language barrier........

[Pawel Achtel]

I think we are running into a language barrier here because my definition of "cropping" and "workable" are different than yours. But here is the Wikipedia definition of cropping:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cropping_(image)

And my definition of "workable" is "something that works". And my 4K RGB files seem to be working just fine.

I feel sorry for you, David. But it is actually quite funny reading your patient and measured explanations to this guy :)

[Robin Balas]

This thread is strange, so I'll add some more ;)
If a 4K image will allow downsampling to 3K and up again to 4K without any visible or significant measurable loss in resolution, the "4K is really 3Kish" statement is true.
But a bayer matrix is not that simple. If you shoot a near monochrome subject you record some real info in ALL pixels. Then you loose by downsampling. If you shoot a pure red image you will not loose much. The point is the bayerchips is hitting color resolution harder than monochrome resolution. The claim that 4K RED is more like 3K is oversimplified because it depends what you are shooting. I find that using a RGB foundation is not a good way to approach these kind of discussions in this thread even if the chip is RGB.
Someone please do what I propose with a RED in real life, I haven't one yet but have done it with medium format stills cameras, and I find my statement to hold tight there. The priciple shouldn't be very different from RED to a high quality still camera, but I can't do this myself yet. So downsampling the 5K EPIC to 4K will loose you monochrome info, but not color info as I see it.
MHO.

[Tom Lowe]

Good post, Brook. I agree with you about the sensor size and aspect ratio. 4:3 is also good for one other thing we have not discussed... IMAX! :)

If we are talking about numbers like 5,120 x 3,840, you have to start to worry about how many pixels can be crammed onto a chip that is relatively small compared to a 35mm still frame. Even the top-of-the-line Nikon D3 is nowhere close to this resolution, and its sensor is much, much larger than Red One's.

[Steve Murray]

Good post, Brook. I agree with you about the sensor size and aspect ratio. 4:3 is also good for one other thing we have not discussed... IMAX! :)

If we are talking about numbers like 5,120 x 3,840, you have to start to worry about how many pixels can be crammed onto a chip that is relatively small compared to a 35mm still frame. Even the top-of-the-line Nikon D3 is nowhere close to this resolution, and its sensor is much, much larger than Red One's.

IMAX (15/70)
* camera aperture: 70.41mm (2.772″) by 52.63mm (2.072″)
* aspect ratio: 1.34:1

Why do you want 4:3 for Imax? To use Anamorphic lenses?

Canon has already managed to cram 5,616 x 3,744px into the Mark III so I think in 2 years perhaps the EPIC can easily be 6,000+px wide at S35mm, don't you?

[Joseph Ward]

With the lens market what it is, i'll bet if someone designed a set of 1.33 stretch anamorphic primes that were of excellent quality and aperture, people would be happy using them as an anamorphic solution to a 16:9 red.

2:1 anamorphics were designed because all cameras at the time used 4:3 frame sizes, not nessisarily because it was the perfect choice. Today nearly all cameras are 16:9, why not make a new set of anamorphic as appropriate.

Do you suggest that 16:9 have a anamorphic lens that stretches to wider look? I would like to see how that would look.:turned:

[David Mullen ASC]

This thread is strange, so I'll add some more ;)
If a 4K image will allow downsampling to 3K and up again to 4K without any visible or significant measurable loss in resolution, the "4K is really 3Kish" statement is true.
But a bayer matrix is not that simple. If you shoot a near monochrome subject you record some real info in ALL pixels. Then you loose by downsampling. If you shoot a pure red image you will not loose much. The point is the bayerchips is hitting color resolution harder than monochrome resolution. The claim that 4K RED is more like 3K is oversimplified because it depends what you are shooting. I find that using a RGB foundation is not a good way to approach these kind of discussions in this thread even if the chip is RGB.
MHO.

But you don't downsample to 3K and go up again to 4K, you convert 4K RAW Bayer to 4K RGB, and the resulting measurable resolution is 3K-ish. But there is no conversion to 3K involved in the process, no downsampling and uprezzing -- it's an algorithm that has to take the Bayer pattern and reconstruct full color from it.

Otherwise, you'd be doing it the "dumb" way -- converting 1:1 the 50% green photosites in a 4K RAW Bayer sensor to 2K and the 25% blue and red photosites to 1K, and then uprezzing 2K to 4K for the green channel and 1K to 4K for the red and blue channels.

Also, 35mm film is not "full resolution" in all color layers either. The red record tends to be soft-focus and the blue record tends to be grainier. In fact, some people do this post trick of throwing the red channel info out of focus slightly to give a digital image more of a "film look".

My point is that the notion that a 1:1 pixel for pixel process is ever achievable with a Bayer design is nonsensical -- it has to go through a conversion, a transformation, process to recreate full color. There are never going to be an equal number of red, green, and blue filtered photosites, plus that would be considered a "dumb" or simplistic conversion algorithm that does not take advantage of the fact that there is some color info in each photosite for the other two colors.

[Joseph Ward]

Brook can you show 65/70mm, and 8mm sizes also compared to S35. Please. lol:biggrin:

[Tom Lowe]

IMAX (15/70)
* camera aperture: 70.41mm (2.772″) by 52.63mm (2.072″)
* aspect ratio: 1.34:1

Why do you want 4:3 for Imax? To use Anamorphic lenses?


It's a lot closer to the IMAX aspect ratio than 16:9.


Canon has already managed to cram 5,616 x 3,744px into the Mark III so I think in 2 years perhaps the EPIC can easily be 6,000+px wide at S35mm, don't you?

A closer comparison would be Canon's brand new XSi, which uses a sensor closer in size to Red One and (presumably) Epic. Right now that camera is packing photosites in like sardines and only has 12.2MP - 4272 x 2848. What is being suggested for Epic is closer to 20MP - on a tiny XSi-sized sensor. Not an easy thing to do. Plus Epic's sensor needs to pump out 24 or 30 or 60 frames per second, compared to the XSi, which is designed for single shots.

[Steve Murray]

A closer comparison would be Canon's brand new XSi, which uses a sensor closer in size to Red One and (presumably) Epic. Right now that camera is packing photo sites in like sardines and only has 12.2MP - 4272 x 2848. What is being suggested for Epic is closer to 20MP - on a tiny XSi-sized sensor. Not an easy thing to do. Plus Epic's sensor needs to pump out 24 or 30 or 60 frames per second, compared to the XSi, which is designed for single shots.

My point is that all cameras in the current market were developed at least a year ago and 2 years from now and with Jim's persistence.... well, who knows how amazing a chip we will get. I'm hoping for 120 fps at 5K.

[Matt Uhry]

Back to the initial spirit of Brooks post... If they are going to call the camera EPIC, the usable part of the sensor, not including look-around, should be at least as big as super 35 18x24mm, otherwise it's not really Epic and it should be called MOW or Sitcom.

I'm very happy with my Red one, but I'd like to see Red fix some current problems that actually happen every day, on real jobs before announcing great sounding futuristic projects with lots of hype and no real details.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Brook Willard]

I'd like to see Red fix some current problems that actually happen every day, on real jobs before announcing great sounding futuristic projects with lots of hype and no real details.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Well said.

[Anders Holck]

My only real beef with RED is the marketing:

"RED offers the Mysterium ™ Super 35mm cine sized (24.4×13.7mm) sensor, which provides 4K (up to 30 fps), 3K (up to 60 fps) and 2K (up to 120 fps) capture, and all this with wide dynamic range and color space in 12 bit native RAW"

"And 12,065,000 pixels deliver resolution that can only be called Ultra High Definition."

To be perfectly fair it would need a few disclaimers:
*Actual 4k recordable area is 22.11mm x 12.44m
* 3k and 2k uses a smaller sensor crop.
*Actual recordable area is currently 9,437,184 pixels.

They have a killer product, there is no need to oversell it by confusing anyone.

[Tom Lowe]

Anders, keep in mind that with new builds, specs are literally changing. So it might just be an issue up updating the website and simple semantics.

[Brook Willard]

The bummer is that if they do enable a 4.5K mode on the RED ONE and you do get to shoot the advertised resolution with the advertised sensor size, you lose the advertised look-around area. I want to prevent this on Epic.

If I'm shooting 5K, it should be 24mm wide and have a look-around area.

[Phil Bates]

Brook, I thoroughly enjoyed your post. Thanks for the effort putting it together!

You deserve better than all the weirdness that took over this thread.



Since Epic is a thoroughly professional camera specifically designed for film production [not ENG/EFP, not to replace a video camera, not to be a great upgrade from an HVX, etc]...

This statement is the only thing that gave me pause. I realize that the 5K resolution by itself sets this apart from video cams, but strickly speaking, couldn't the Epic with it's lighter body easily take on some ENG/EFP roles?

I would agree with you that Epic shouldn't compromise on design for great cinematography, but on the other hand I need Epic to work in a wide variety of scenarios including quick limited crew setups. I hope that your speculation doesn't imply a limitation on the convenience side of shooting.

Thanks again for the great post, :)
Phil

http://www.artbeats.com

[Brook Willard]

People can and should use the camera for whatever they'd like to use it for in my opinion... as long as that doesn't detract from its primary functionality in any way, shape or form.

[David Mullen ASC]

Does the EPK/EFP crowd consider the RED ONE to be too large & heavy for that work? It seems to me to be in the same size/weight category as the F900 / Varicams / Digital Betacams that I see used for EPK's on the shows I shoot.

Or is that work now being down on the prosumer-sized cameras?

Maybe because I come from a 35mm and pro HD world, but the RED ONE already is a step down in size from what I'm used to in 35mm, more the size of a Super-16 camera, and it seems comparable to professional HD equipment in size. So it seems odd to me that so many people here complain about the size of the thing. My only answer is that they must be used to the size range of cameras like the Canon HDV's, the HVX200, the Sony EX1, etc.

Personally, EPIC might as well be the size of the RED ONE, and then design a RED TWO to be smaller than either, because it seems odd that the higher-end camera would be smaller than the cheaper one... If EPIC is going to smaller than RED, then by that logic, the Scarlet should be the largest one of all!

[Justin O'Neill]

IMAX (15/70)
* camera aperture: 70.41mm (2.772″) by 52.63mm (2.072″)
* aspect ratio: 1.34:1

Why do you want 4:3 for Imax? To use Anamorphic lenses?




1.34:1 is REALLY close to being the same aspect ratio as 4:3. It would be 4.02:3. My guess is there is some rounding up to get the 1.34 number and it really is the same as 4:3.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Does the EPK/EFP crowd consider the RED ONE to be too large & heavy for that work? It seems to me to be in the same size/weight category as the F900 / Varicams / Digital Betacams that I see used for EPK's on the shows I shoot.
I'm probably insane to some degree, but for EFP I don't find the RED to be too large; provided I take the proper lens and accessory selection with me for the job. I shot two days of hang-gliding and parasailing last week (man, I really need my EVF). I'll be shooting a kayaking event later this month. RED is very comparable in size, a bit longer in many configurations, compared to the F900, Varicam, etc.. My typical RED setup weighs less than some of the HD rigs I've used in the past.

I should be shooting a lot of ski / snowboard action this coming winter. And I have to lug my gear onto the slopes or into the terrain park in a backpack or on a sled, just like everyone else.

Much of this type of production has gone to prosumer cameras like the HVX200 and EX1. The combination of image quality, mobility and price are too hard to resist. But I've been turning up some people who still shoot EFP and documentaries on 35mm for one reason or another. Most have been willing to give RED a try or at least let me give them a demo so they can entertain the possibility. Most are not scared by the workflow as it is now, but I've got a few hold-outs waiting for the camera to no longer be considered "beta".

I have so far found the RED to be a terrible camera for shooting wildlife. The long boot time, lack of a sleep or power-save mode and the cooling fan just make it difficult for the task. All stuff that's been covered here before. I had a perfect opportunity at a large buck just the other day -- huge specimen, his antlers still in velvet, staring right at me as I set up. He went about his business, I went about mine and I thought it was going to work out. As soon as the RED cooling fan kicked on as I powered up the camera, he darted off. Oh well... I'll try and find another I guess and power up the camera earlier when I'm a bit farther away.

[Bob Torrance]

By "full frame" sensor, you must be referring to the 8-perf 35mm still camera format (VistaVision).

If someone just made some decent 1.34X anamorphic lenses, I'd live with a 16x9 sensor, which satisfies the majority of shooters.

Look at the new Hawk V-lite lenses. Both 1.34 and 2x anamorphic. Small, lightweight, t2.2.

Could be a reason for a full height Monstro sensor.

bob

[Joseph Ward]

By "full frame" sensor, you must be referring to the 8-perf 35mm still camera format (VistaVision).

There is no crop factor if you are comparing 4x3 Super-35 to 16x9 Super-35 cine formats, except vertically.

Anyone used to shooting in 35mm for filmmaking doesn't really have to deal with any crop factors when using the RED at 4K, other than the fact that at 4096 pixels across, you have an Academy-width image, not a Super-35 width image.

I'm not sure what you are referring to in regards to having to "resize" the RED recorded image. It's 4096 pixels across in 4K recording mode, which is a standard file size for D.I. work. And it has to be converted from RAW Bayer to RGB anyway, so the notion of a true "size" is a bit nebulous anyway.

I think the oversized sensor is a useful idea -- I like the lookaround area on the monitor and viewfinder outside the 4096 recorded area.

As for 4x3... I'm all for it because I like shooting anamorphic movies, but I also recognize that anamorphic makes up less than a third of all 2.40 shooting, so it's a niche within a niche. If someone just made some decent 1.34X anamorphic lenses, I'd live with a 16x9 sensor, which satisfies the majority of shooters.

Does VistaVision have to be at 48fps to work?

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

So the RED One isn't a truly professional cinema camera?

And what about Scarlet? :)

[Peter Majtan]

No Rado - they are just saying that Red One is still "beta" - not a public release production-certified unit. But this should change soon hopefully... :)

[Brook Willard]

So the RED One isn't a truly professional cinema camera?

RED is a cinema camera, wannabe ENG/EFP camera, HVX upgrade, etc. It wears a lot of hats... and that's fine.

Epic should wear one hat and one hat alone. Anything else it gets to work as is great... but cinema should be the priority - the rest is just a bonus.

[Andrew Benz]

"Epic should wear one hat and one hat alone. Anything else it gets to work as is great... but cinema should be the priority - the rest is just a bonus."

One way or the highway... got it.

[Brook Willard]

Just my feelings. I welcome people who disagree, but many of the issues that plague the RED are the result of it trying to do too much.

[Andrew Benz]

Brook,

You should know that I respect your feelings and ever growing Red/Filmmaking knowledge. Also, I think these are two wonderful threads. Seriously, thanks man. You raise many great points (lower center of gravity, 90 degree evf to name only two) and I am all aboard in a big way except for this last point. I agree that it cannot be everything for everyone. But wouldn't the ability to do great, lightweight, well balanced, handheld from the ground level to high over your head by one's self while having the ability to get nat sound for indie and docco be a wonderful thing for the upper the echelon were you guys work as well? Build up big and strip for success when needed.

I could very well be missing a point. Am I off the mark Brook?

Thanks Dude... your latest sky diving footage was sick. The inset of the hdv(?) into the Red 4K really told the story.

PS- To me part of the problem I have with my Red cam is not that it is all things to all people but the fact it is built like a pot bellied stove kicked over it's side and then we get to affix parts to it that allow us to interface with it and hoist it upon whatever we need to do the job. My Dad said it not me... He is 77 and a former Mechanical/Electrical Engineer. He said it more to get my goat when I unpacked it for the first time.** Big Note People-- do not rip my head off for this comparison, my Pops was pulling my leg. I mean no disrespect. I come in peace.:)

PS-- I should have posted this in the more appropriate thread. I did not mean to high jack the discussion.

[Brook Willard]

No worries about the hijack - this discussion has gone so awry from my original intent that the thread is now just another Epic stream of consciousness. People spent so long defining "full frame" that it killed the intent and detail of the original post.

Thanks for the kind words - you're actually pretty spot on. Let me redeem myself by clarifying with a point I mentioned in my ergonomics thread.

If the camera is well designed, it will be a lot of things to a lot of people. My goal is to make sure that features that the cinema market needs to not get reduced or removed to make it easier on those who are not in the cinema market. That's all fine with the RED ONE [as it's a camera with many markets], but - in my opinion - not with the Epic.

An example: the adjustable lens mount. The lens mount on the RED is great for a lot of people. You get to collimate the camera without needing a collimator, rental house, camera technician or experience. It's very logical.

Unfortunately, the decision to use an adjustable mount made of aluminum resulted in many issues. The mount is not thermally stable and will shift collimation depending on how warm/cold the camera is. The mount is adjustable and therefore never locks down as solidly as it would if a shimmed mount was used. Since the mount's adjustment is based on a moderately low-resolution helicoid, it will often be just out of square to the sensor [resulting in backfocus issues on different areas of the sensor]. The sensor itself is not actually centered in the lens mount, resulting in a center point shift during a zoom. The adjustable collimation system made the lens mount throat necessary, resulting in a throng of ergonomic issues that I detailed in the other thread.

That's what I mean. A true cinema camera should have a shimmed mount that is flush to the body made of stainless steel, invar and standard shims... and it shouldn't be collimated with a 65mm S4. That will prevent all of these issues on the Epic.

A properly shimmed mount will hold collimation to very tight tolerances over a long period of time. The issues that the original RED ONE PL mount had was not a general PL-mount issue... it was a specific RED issue. If the mount is designed properly this time around, shims are definitely the way to go... even if it makes it more difficult for somebody to set their collimation when they live 1,000 miles from a proper camera house.

And at the end of the day... a proper mount with shims may seem frightening to those who don't have a collimator handy. Does that mean that nobody outside of the cinema community can use the Epic? No! A proper mount will actually hold collimation, so the entire issue goes away. Now everybody - even the documentary crowd - gets to benefit from what the cinema crowd requires.

So ultimately, if professional cinema is placed at the forefront of the design mindset with no concessions made for other types of production... everybody will win in the end.

The amount of black & white drama that I introduced in my prior posts is just to emphasize how important I think this stuff is.

[Andrew Benz]

Brook,

Your thorough explanation brings the overall discussions tightly into focus for me as to the real issue in your observations and now in your words," A true cinema camera should have a shimmed mount that is flush to the body made of stainless steel, invar and standard shims..." I agree 100% with you. This improvement upon the Epic along with it's other features should truly place this camera in a different league. Stability with the mount and it's sensor being completely flat to the lens is key, like you have stated... especially on big, big productions were it is a must and a ever so slight miss focus throughout the shoot cannot be explained away as art.

But it also helps further delineate the camera line leaving the sensor upgradeable Red One alone in it's ability to use various mounts/mount systems such as the P+S Technik IMS system. This is just another great tool that cannot be shrugged off for some genres and styles. The lens flexibility of the Red one w/Mysterium X would be unreal ( it would be now... just waiting for the IMS deal to be legal to with Red).

Scarlet is a whole 'nother deal but a very valid tool for acquisition that deserves a laundry list of atta boys but not in this discussion.

Thanks for the clear path to the heart of your discussion. I hope we see your thoughts become real. We all need it.

Cheers Brooks and thanks for your patience.

Andrew

[Brook Willard]

No worries, thanks for understanding it Andrew.

Obviously the lens mount point is one of many... it's just one that's easy to use to illustrate the broader concept I was describing.

[Matthew Lochman]

Not being snippy at all- I just think organizing a list of benefits could be useful...

1.
2.
3.

Maybe if we present it this way than RED can give us a clear rebuttal.

I wonder if there would be an issue with the rolling shutter having a farther distance to roll in the same amount of time... Data rates, etc...


you sure know how to rouse 'em brook...

maybe with 4:3 RED can develop some way to split up the frame/pixels to please those 3d/DNR crazies! :gun: :tongue: (peace-only kidding)

[Matthew Lochman]

Brook I just re-read this post and want to clarify that it was was not specifically directed to you- Your post was awesome, and your positions well stated- I kinda just want to hear what others think about it- Though you are welcome to bust out a list too...

[Brook Willard]

No worries, I didn't take offense to it in any way.

Here are a few benefits:

1: FOV of the Epic will match FOV of a normal film camera without the need for conversion factors.
2: Epic will be able to shoot 4:3 for TV without the need for conversion factors.
3: Epic will be able to properly utilize 2:1 anamorphic lenses.
4: The look-around area will be outside of what should be the recorded area.

Etc. :)

[Joseph Ward]

Stupid question. Why doesnt Red make RedOne upgrade Mysterium X sensor real 4perf S35mm and Epic something else(VistaVision). What Im really trying to understand as what was the logic of saying RedOne is S35mm but on Brooks charts its not?:help:

[Ariana]

I'd wager to guess that non anamorphic formats not being shot four perf anymore. The 4:3 format is all but dead except for shooting anamorphic and the market there is severely limited by the scarce number of 2:1 lenses.

The sensor i believe is super35 sized and the recording formats fall into it. I don't quite understand the drama over trying to match a 'normal' film field of view. FOV is all over the place depending on which format you're shooting and especially if you're paying attention vertical FOV too. If there was a standard framing then we wouldn't have tons of different ground glass formats.

People often think of focal length as their definition for FOV when it should be a separate but related variable. That's especially true when you start talking about anamorphics.

[Brook Willard]

I'd say 30% of my jobs are 4:3.

[Ariana]

Are you shooting 4-perf for those jobs?

[Brook Willard]

Nah, we rent wider lenses and crop on the RED.

As dead as I wish the format was, there are still a lot of 4:3 jobs.

[Tom Lowe]

Dude, please don't diss 4:3.

[Brook Willard]

Didn't mean to offend... :)

Regardless of my feelings about it, I still want it in this camera enough to make a thread like this... :wink:

[Ariana]

So what's the problem trimming 16:9 to 4:3? If you ask for 4:3 then you'll be trimming everytime you do 16:9 or 2:40. It's vicious cycle. Since almost every tv being sold these days is now 16:9 it stands to reason that that will be the most common format in the coming years. It makes sense to design the camera around the most common denominator.

[Brook Willard]

As I described in the first post, cropping 16:9 to 4:3 results in a sensor area that is 44.43% the size of a normal 4:3 four-perforation movement. Accordingly, you must use significantly wider lenses.

To get the equivalent FOV of an 18mm on a normal four-perforation movement, you'd need an 8mm lens on the RED using a 4:3 extraction from the already undersized 16:9 area.

That's the issue.

[Ariana]

It's the same issue that's been around for years posting/shooting 16:9 with both 16:9 and 4:3 deliverable. My point is still the same, with 16:9 being dominant format for the next 10-20 years, that should be the camera's main format. To make the main format 4:3 is ass backwards.

[Lachlan Ward]

Not if you make 4:3 by having the sensor made large enough that the 16:9 is hitting 24.89mm x 14.0mm of the sensor, of coarse the down side to that is that the 4:3 will be, for lack of a better phrase over sampling.
I'm rubbish at maths so I can't work out what the 4:3 sensor size would be from that, I'm sure its an easy formula sitting in this thread somewhere.

I would rather be putting on bigger lenses than smaller ones to match back to 35mm.

Plus your ultra wide anamorphic stuff would get a bit Imax-y. I see no harm.

or am I completely off the mark here?

[Mitch Gross]

The problem with 4:3 on a RED is that the significantly smaller image area means that the relative depth of field created is significantly greater than that of 35mm film's 4:3. It is also magnifying the optics more which means that any lens issues are magnified. And lastly it means that RED's much-touted 4K resolution is not used, thereby diminishing the advantages of shooting on RED in the first place. I'm not saying it still can't be a good tool for the job; just listing some of the issues involved.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

So, in connection with the highest requirements:

The future RED Epic camera will be the professional cinema camera [no compromises].

RED One is a good professional cinema camera. [some compromises]

And the RED Scarlet will be an OK professional cinema camera. [some (more) compromises] :)

[Häakon]

I have been so busy shooting that I haven't had a proper chance to reply to this thread as I had wanted to several weeks back. I would, however, like to thank Brook for taking the time to make the comparison drawings.

A lot of people seem to think that a 4:3 sensor would make a superior "Epic," though I have trouble understanding why as the majority of motion pictures are neither shot anamorphically or in a 4:3 ratio and you will never get more resolution from a chip than shooting in its native space. Brook's renders really help to illustrate something that I have attempted to bring to light several times but haven't really been able to convey properly: that - as shown in Brooks' final render (where even he declares a 4:3 Epic sensor is how things "should be") - when shooting a movie in a 2.40:1 ratio, a 4:3 Epic sensor (at 24.89 x 18.66mm recording area) gains you next to NOTHING in image area compared to a RED ONE shooting 2.40 in the upcoming 4.5K mode. This is SO important, because if you are shooting with spherical lenses the only gain you would receive from such a seemingly mammoth sensor increase is negligibly higher resolution (and a ton of vertical crop room). In fact, the wasted sensor area is so massive that you would likely have to sacrifice higher framerates or other technical improvements - things that clearly many users have made a demand for - just to record a 4:3 image.

I understand why those who appreciate an anamorphic image are trying to champion a 4:3 sensor in future cameras, but what they don't seem to understand is there is not a limit on physical sensor size in which we need to cram pixels as there is with 35mm film. The obvious solution for shooting high resolution widescreen movies is a high resolution widescreen sensor; you can still shoot anamorphically on such a chip, you would just sacrifice the extra area on the sides of the target area rather than the top and the bottom as you would have to do to shoot spherically on a 4:3 sensor.

Larger, wider sensors - which, yes, just like still film will require lenses that cover a larger area - are the future for high-resolution digital acquisition. Whether or not RED will be the company which leads that revolution remains to be seen, but I believe that forcing ones' self to think inside a 35mm box is going to be a major handicap in the years to come.

[Bob Torrance]

- when shooting a movie in a 2.40:1 ratio, a 4:3 Epic sensor (at 24.89 x 18.66mm recording area) gains you next to NOTHING in image area compared to a RED ONE shooting 2.40 in the upcoming 4.5K mode.

I don't follow. Wouldn't a 4:3 sensor (full frame 4 perf) just include more top and bottom area that isn't planned for anyway? And it would give you a lot more verticle resolution with anamorphics (2:1). If you wanted to shoot straight 2.40 you would just use what is already there (5K).

I'm I wrong?

bob

[Poi Boy]

Thanks for the great thread Brook ! I'm with Haakon on this,
I think going 4.3 would be a mistake. Give me larger and wider please.
Aloha
-A

[Häakon]

I don't follow. Wouldn't a 4:3 sensor (full frame 4 perf) just include more top and bottom area that isn't planned for anyway?
Yes, and that's exactly the problem - it's completely wasted space that most of the time you are likely never going to use. The only gain you'd get from buying a 4:3 Epic, then (if you aren't shooting anamorphically), is an increase from 4.5K to 5K. Is that worth a $23,000 difference to you? It sure isn't to me.

Here's a graphical example of the differences:

http://www.haakondazs.com/reduser/ratios.gif

Note that these aren't to scale, it's just a visual representation of what's being discussed here. The first image is the RED ONE sensor - in a 4.5K 2.40 mode (which Jarred has indicated is forthcoming). We get to dip into the overscan area and use the maximum width of the sensor to record a great widescreen image.

The second (yellow) image shows Brook's proposal of a 4:3 sensor which has nearly the same recordable width as the RED ONE's. When shooting with spherical lenses, we gain almost nothing with this larger format sensor except a ton of room above and below the shot which will just be thrown away. Again, sure, a sensor like this would net us much more resolution if shooting with anamorphic lenses - but only in that case.

The third (blue) option is to develop a sensor that is physically larger than the 35mm standard we've been forced into for the last century. Since nearly all films today are shot in a widescreen aspect ratio (be it 1.85:1 or 2.40:1), it makes zero sense to have a sensor that is 4:3. Look at the size increase between the RED ONE and the 2.40 Epic - it's massive. Compared to the proposed 4:3 Epic, there's just no comparison. One could still use the middle 4:3 portion of the sensor to shoot anamorphically - and you'd get identical vertical resolution to the spherical widescreen image. The best of both worlds. Plus, larger sensors of the same resolution mean larger pixels - which translates into better sensitivity, less noise, and I would guess more room to improve dynamic range.

The still world already has large sensor (medium/large format) cameras which take full advantage of these properties. In fact, even the 35mm still "full-frame" size is significantly larger than the current RED offering. Also, for those who believe that 4K is the "most resolution we need" right now, keep in mind that oversampling is king. Even if you never end up finishing for anything larger than a 4K print in your lifetime, it is always better to have a larger canvas to work with and then downsample in post. You smooth out aliasing, reduce noise, and get an apparently sharper image as a final result. It's the same reason that you'd want to shoot with an 8MP dSLR rather than a 1MP one - even if your final output is only going to be 1MP. The larger image always looks better oversampled than the native one.

I realize that pushing the envelope in this way requires new thinking, new lenses, and a different approach than what is currently "standard." But we will never truly get an "epic" digital cinema camera until we break through those perceived limits and make an imager that goes beyond conventional "rules." There will be a limit to how many pixels one can cram into a 35mm sized box (one could argue we're already there), and thus enlarging the sensor size itself is the logical next step of evolution. RED is a company who in my mind prides themselves on not being constrained by what is deemed a physical limit but who instead smashes those perceptions and delivers above and beyond what is expected or even considered possible. They've given us 4K on a compact flash card for $17.5K - even Jim himself didn't imagine such a scenario when he first dreamed up his plans for the RED ONE two years ago. Maybe this is where "Monstro" needs to go... I'm not sure what they have cooking. But to me anyway, a 4:3 sensor of the same width that we've already got and a negligible resolution increase isn't worth double the price and it's not something I'd call "Epic." RED ONE was absolutely revolutionary in my mind, and I believe the next revolution will come when we shatter the 35mm barrier.

[Joel Kaye]

but I believe that forcing ones' self to think inside a 35mm box is going to be a major handicap in the years to come.

That's right. RED's biggest opportunity is leaving film as it is in the dust by going with bigger sensors and using full frame lenses. They'd instantly obsolete all the pl mount lenses out there and create demand for their own lenses which could be based on full frame SLR lenses. That's what I'd do - forget film even exists and ask "what's the best way to make a great moving picture".

[Joseph Ward]

If not 4:3 what about 2.76:1 or 4.00:1 :weight_lift: lol

[Häakon]

If not 4:3 what about 2.76:1 or 4.00:1 :weight_lift: lol
It's actually a good question - what is the best sensor ratio? Because there are a multitude of aspects in which movies are shot (and in the digital age, the choices are truly limitless), clearly there isn't a true "one size fits all" option. Because the majority of motion pictures are shot in either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, however, and because broadcast HDTV is by definition 16:9 (1.77:1), it makes the most sense to make the sensor similar in aspect to those three approaches as you retain the highest possible resolution for your production. Keeping it 16:9 makes the most sense to me personally as it covers all three bases and allows for slight vertical reframing in post for 2:1 or 2.35:1 productions.

[I Bloom]

Yes, and that's exactly the problem - it's completely wasted space that most of the time you are likely never going to use. The only gain you'd get from buying a 4:3 Epic, then (if you aren't shooting anamorphically), is an increase from 4.5K to 5K. Is that worth a $23,000 difference to you? It sure isn't to me.

Well, is it 4.5K vs 5K or 4.5K vs 5.5K, I guess we'll see.
Have we gotten so spoiled that one thousand extra pixels is something we scoff at. I hope not, whether it's worth 23K USD is another question. My guess is you'll get your money's worth from Monstro in other ways. Like another digital cinema company (now defunct I think) had a slogan I liked "It's not about counting pixels it's about making pixels count."


Here's a graphical example of the differences:

http://www.haakondazs.com/reduser/ratios.gif

Note that these aren't to scale, it's just a visual representation of what's being discussed here. The first image is the RED ONE sensor - in a 4.5K 2.40 mode (which Jarred has indicated is forthcoming). We get to dip into the overscan area and use the maximum width of the sensor to record a great widescreen image.

The second (yellow) image shows Brook's proposal of a 4:3 sensor which has nearly the same recordable width as the RED ONE's. When shooting with spherical lenses, we gain almost nothing with this larger format sensor except a ton of room above and below the shot which will just be thrown away. Again, sure, a sensor like this would net us much more resolution if shooting with anamorphic lenses - but only in that case.

The third (blue) option is to develop a sensor that is physically larger than the 35mm standard we've been forced into for the last century. Since nearly all films today are shot in a widescreen aspect ratio (be it 1.85:1 or 2.40:1), it makes zero sense to have a sensor that is 4:3. Look at the size increase between the RED ONE and the 2.40 Epic - it's massive. Compared to the proposed 4:3 Epic, there's just no comparison. One could still use the middle 4:3 portion of the sensor to shoot anamorphically - and you'd get identical vertical resolution to the spherical widescreen image. The best of both worlds. Plus, larger sensors of the same resolution mean larger pixels - which translates into better sensitivity, less noise, and I would guess more room to improve dynamic range.

Aren't you just magnifying the same image over a wider area? Which translates to less light per photosite, which balances out the additional noise of a compact sensor?
And also doesn't it depend in part on the coverage area of the lenses. If you have lenses that can cover this new format you are proposing then alright. Otherwise that sounds like suicide for Epic. Part of the genius of Red One was that they dipped into the existing pool of 35mm lenses. A 4:3 Epic would have the same pool of lenses. Likewise depth of field is an issue on larger formats that make them undesirable for practical cinematography?


The still world already has large sensor (medium/large format) cameras which take full advantage of these properties. In fact, even the 35mm still "full-frame" size is significantly larger than the current RED offering. Also, for those who believe that 4K is the "most resolution we need" right now, keep in mind that oversampling is king. Even if you never end up finishing for anything larger than a 4K print in your lifetime, it is always better to have a larger canvas to work with and then downsample in post. You smooth out aliasing, reduce noise, and get an apparently sharper image as a final result. It's the same reason that you'd want to shoot with an 8MP dSLR rather than a 1MP one - even if your final output is only going to be 1MP. The larger image always looks better oversampled than the native one.

I realize that pushing the envelope in this way requires new thinking, new lenses, and a different approach than what is currently "standard." But we will never truly get an "epic" digital cinema camera until we break through those perceived limits and make an imager that goes beyond conventional "rules." There will be a limit to how many pixels one can cram into a 35mm sized box (one could argue we're already there), and thus enlarging the sensor size itself is the logical next step of evolution. RED is a company who in my mind prides themselves on not being constrained by what is deemed a physical limit but who instead smashes those perceptions and delivers above and beyond what is expected or even considered possible. They've given us 4K on a compact flash card for $17.5K - even Jim himself didn't imagine such a scenario when he first dreamed up his plans for the RED ONE two years ago. Maybe this is where "Monstro" needs to go... I'm not sure what they have cooking. But to me anyway, a 4:3 sensor of the same width that we've already got and a negligible resolution increase isn't worth double the price and it's not something I'd call "Epic." RED ONE was absolutely revolutionary in my mind, and I believe the next revolution will come when we shatter the 35mm barrier.
I love the EPIC section. Reminds me of the good ol' days before August '07.

[Miguel "Macgregor" De Olaso]

Uhmm, remember that anamorphic film gate is smaller than S35mm.
Now if we use anamorphic lenses in a 4:3 S35mm sensor we would get an image that is...

[Ariana]

It depends in part on the coverage area of the lenses. If you have lenses that can cover this new format you are proposing then alright. Otherwise that sounds like suicide for Epic. Part of the genius of Red One was that they dipped into the existing pool of 35mm lenses. A 4:3 Epic would have the same pool of lenses. Likewise depth of field is an issue on larger formats that make them undesirable for practical cinematography?
.

I agree with that. The rental companies are not going to be happy with having to buy whole new sets of lenses to support a bigger sensor. Same with anyone else that owns PL lenses.

[Peter Majtan]

Häakon - the scale is not right, nor are the proportions. I have done the same exact mistake (thinking too fast) when someone mentioned first 4:3...

You need to realize that the 5K refers to horizontal resolution regardless of ratio...

So 5K Epic with 4:3 ratio will have lot more pixels then 16:9 and even more then 2.40:1:


http://www.derylgroup.com/downloads/DERYL/REFERENCE/EPIC%205K%20resolution.jpg . http://www.derylgroup.com/downloads/DERYL/REFERENCE/EPIC%205K%20photosites.jpg

What I think You (and I originally) are referring is the total number of photo-sites... Now that is a different story all together... I think You might have (like me) little more insight into how sensors are designed and made. The most critical issue and cost is related to the number of photo-sites... This would explain why we both reacted the way we did (incorrectly)...

Lets say the number of photo-sites is given:

4:3 Epic with 5K = 5120 x 3840 = 19,660,800 photo-sites

Now if we arrange the same number of photo-sites in a different ratios, we will get:

16:9 => 5911 x 3325 - and EPIC would then be 5.7K

or

2.40:1 => 6868 x 2862 - and EPIC would then be 6.7K

Conclusion:

If the 5K is locked to the horizontal resolution (regardless of ratio), I prefer the 4:3 ratio...

But if the 5K was calculated based on 4:3 ratio - I prefer 16:9, as this would give us the best overall performance and compatibility...

Just my two pesos...

Peter



EDIT:

I have also overlaid the scale resolutions known for RED ONE for comparison:


http://www.derylgroup.com/downloads/DERYL/REFERENCE/EPIC%205K%20resolutionR1.jpg . http://www.derylgroup.com/downloads/DERYL/REFERENCE/EPIC%205K%20RedOne.jpg

[LawrenceDinkins]

I asked an executive at BOB, why RED was not among their thosands of cameras. After all RED has 4K. The answer was: They only considered real cameras for the Olympics.
I hope the reputation of 4K RED camera improves before next Olympics.
PS: There are several non-RED 4K cameras in use at the Olympics..

[Stuart English]

I asked an executive at BOB, why RED was not among their thosands of cameras. After all RED has 4K. The answer was: They only considered real cameras for the Olympics. So, that tells something about the reputation of 4K RED camera.

No, I suggest that says a lot more about the timescale of the decisions that have to be made about equipment that is being used at the Olympics.

[Peter Majtan]

Keep in mind that 99% of all new digital sensors for motion pictures (both sine and video) are 16:9 ration for full compatibility with broadcast standards... This is also why Red One has a 16:9 sensor. You can assume that EPIC will follow in the same direction. In my honest opinion - it should...

So the "best" EPIC I could hope for would be the orange one on the right side...

With 5.7K it will give us 5911 x 3325 pixels of RAW resolution...
This would transfer beautifully to 4255 x 2394 of RGB resolved image...
Perfect for 4K mastering and delivery with room to spare for re-framing and/or image stabilization...

This alone would be KICK ASS!!! (pardon my French...)

Anything more then that will of course blow my mind, but I would even settle for the 5120x2880, as I never plan to use anamorphic glass...
But that is just me...


EDIT:

We can safely assume that EPIC will resolve somewhere between 78% (Red One) and 72% (Scarlet) of RGB out of the RAW files. This is because its pixel density will be higher then Red One, but lower then Scarlet...
So in the worse case scenario of EPIC only resolving 72% we need a sensor with 5688 pixels of RAW resolution to get pristine 4K (4096).
In the best case scenario of EPIC only resolving 78% we would need a sensor with 5252 pixels of RAW resolution to get pristine 4K (4096).
So 5.5K EPIC would be the "ultimate answer" to 4K pristine delivery, bet it at 4:3 or 16:9...

[Tom Lowe]

If the number of vertical lines (ie, the horizontal resolution) is locked at "5K," then obviously 4:3 would provide the most real estate. That is the logic many of us have been working from - since basically that is what Red One's "4K" is based on. But if we are talking about number of photosites, then yeah, an argument could be made to go with a 5.7K widescreen format, for example. I could understand people wanting more horizontal lines.

If the number of vertical lines is locked at 5K, then can we all agree that 4:3 would be the best? It allows for serious anamorphic shooting as well as possible IMAX shooting.

I do realize that no one knows for sure yet what the new IMAX 4K digital projection system will be in terms of aspect ratio, but still, if current IMAX 15/65 projects are incorporating stupid F900 footage, then surely EPIC could be useful to IMAX teams looking for a lightweight, portable camera that could be DMR'd to 15/65 cleanly.

[I Bloom]

If the number of vertical lines (ie, the horizontal resolution) is locked at "5K," then obviously 4:3 would provide the most real estate. That is the logic many of us have been working from - since basically that is what Red One's "4K" is based on. But if we are talking about number of photosites, then yeah, an argument could be made to go with a 5.7K widescreen format, for example. I could understand people wanting more horizontal lines.

If the number of vertical lines is locked at 5K, then can we all agree that 4:3 would be the best? It allows for serious anamorphic shooting as well as possible IMAX shooting.

I do realize that no one knows for sure yet what the new IMAX 4K digital projection system will be in terms of aspect ratio, but still, if current IMAX 15/65 projects are incorporating stupid F900 footage, then surely EPIC could be useful to IMAX teams looking for a lightweight, portable camera that could be DMR'd to 15/65 cleanly.

I agree with you, it's hard to see the point in arguing this. More vertical resolution, and a larger gate overall is better. You can always window it to 16x9 so what do you care if more sensor real estate is available.

I imagine the outcome of this discussion though really has to do with forging chips and processing throughput as well as cost. We'll just have to see what they come up with.

IBloom

[Tom Lowe]

I agree with you, it's hard to see the point in arguing this. More vertical resolution, and a larger gate overall is better. You can always window it to 16x9 so what do you care if more sensor real estate is available.

I imagine the outcome of this discussion though really has to do with forging chips and processing throughput as well as cost. We'll just have to see what they come up with.

IBloom

Yeah, I wish Jim would tell us if we are chatting about this uselessly, or if the aspect ratio of the chip is still under consideration.

I can imagine, though, that there might be business or competetive reasons why this 4:3 issue is being met with silence from Red Team. Who knows.

[Häakon]

Peter, thanks for your post; you are absolutely right in that I am thinking in terms of photosites and not a "locked" horizontal resolution. The new digital cinema "K" standards tripped me up, as I am used to thinking of sensors in terms of overall MP and not a fixed number of pixels in a sensor width... but this is just a semantics issue. The point I was trying to make was twofold; in order to really improve upon current digital offerings, we need to a) expand sensor size beyond the 35mm (motion picture) standard, and b) continue to make widescreen (and not 4:3) chips. Above and beyond that, you can "label" the resolution output whatever you like. :-)

In looking at your new examples, the sensor I would vote for is one that is the height of the red box on the bottom and the width of the green (6,868 x 3,840). That's a 16:9 ratio that works out to about 26MP... or - surprise - very close to the size of the chip in the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III (if it were 16:9 in shape). I guess that would make it a "6.7K" camera, though I think such nomenclature sells it short. That being said, I personally believe that you need such real estate to provide a sufficient oversample for a superior 4K final image, and while I am sure that this may seem like a huge number to a lot of people, remember that the RED ONE at 12MP seemed pretty massive to a crowd used to a maximum 2.4MP (1,920 x 1,280) sensor cap before its release. I have routinely said that the RED ONE is the best "1080" camera out there. For Blu-ray or the web, there isn't a better digital offering... I honestly believe that. The future, however, will be 4K on the big screen. The next truly "ultimate" camera should produce a 4K image similar to the way that the RED ONE produces a 1080 image today. And I dream big because RED has shown - consistently - that they can think out of the box. Perhaps that is too large an order for "Epic," but to be honest, a $20,000+ premium for a new chip seems like a pretty large order too.

[Joseph Ward]

Likewise depth of field is an issue on larger formats that make them undesirable for practical cinematography?

If they make a large format that the DOF is only good for a nose length(literally), in which a persons nose can only be in focus, then we have a problem. :)

[Jannard]

You are making wrong assumptions about Epic's size and possible configurations.

Jim

[Häakon]

Thanks for the clarifications, Jim. :-)

[Peter Majtan]

You are making wrong assumptions about Epic's size and possible configurations.

Jim

The question Jim is who do You mean by "You"... :)

[Jannard]

The question Jim is who do You mean by "You"... :)

Everyone who has guessed at the size specs. There has never been a posted pixel spec given for Epic.

Jim

[Peter Majtan]

Well You did announce it as "5K EPIC"...

There is only so many possible pixel specs to fit in a "5K" description, mostly differing on the format ratio... Unless of course the "5K" is the red herring...

[Jannard]

Well You did announce it as "5K EPIC"...

There is only so many possible pixel specs to fit in a "5K" description, mostly differing on the format ratio... Unless of course the "5K" is the red herring...

It is a 5K sensor... but your assumptions are wrong. I'm not going to help you out here though. Complete specs will be given before the cameras are available.

Jim

[Peter Majtan]

At the best You could have meant 5K as 5.5K (as with Red One) and it could have been related to resolved resolution. So it is safe to assume that EPIC will have horizontally somewhere between 5120 ~ 7052 pixels. Vertically I dare to assume You will follow the 16:9 ratio which should put the total resolution somewhere between:

5120 x 2880 pixels

and

7052 x 3996 pixels

Right? :)

[Jannard]

At the best You could have meant 5K as 5.5K (as with Red One) and it could have been related to resolved resolution. So it is safe to assume that EPIC will have horizontally somewhere between 5120 ~ 7052 pixels. Vertically I dare to assume You will follow the 16:9 ratio which should put the total resolution somewhere between:

5120 x 2880 pixels

and

7052 x 3996 pixels

Right? :)

You are assuming just about everything wrong and I'm not prepared to help you get this right. My best solution (and I do like you) is to drop the conjecture until we post the specs.

Jim

[Peter Majtan]

Thanks Jim in any case... It's always a pleasure & wait we shall... :)

Just a last question: Will You announce any more details at IBC?

[Häakon]

I fully respect your decision to stay mum on the word until you're well and ready, Jim. I have a feeling we're still a ways off anyway. I wasn't really "guessing" at specs myself, just offering my opinion on what the DC camera of the future "should" offer, as well as putting in my two cents on the 4:3 issue - which was essentially Brook's input in the original post. As far as Epic is concerned, I am still pretty optimistic... you haven't been in the business of letting people down so far. :-)

[Peter Majtan]

For me EPIC will be "epic" even if it resolved 4K in 16:9 and did it at 120 FPS with the current DR of Red One. Anything else & above this is a big plus...

Häakon - is that really Your number-plate? :)

[Häakon]

But of course. There's no CG in this house. :-)

[Peter Majtan]

I guess "I DO 4K" is taken by Brook? :)

[Häakon]

But don't you know, 4K will be obsolete in "early 2009." :-)

[Peter Majtan]

I will be personally happy with "I DO 3K" after the little redhead is out... :)

[Jannard]

I can't imagine anyone being disappointed in Epic... unless they expect a 7K sensor. Remember, we have an image circle to deal with.

Jim

[Paris Remillard]

Remember, we have an image circle to deal with.

Jim

So, no Vistavision, huh.... : ) oh well...

[Joel Kaye]

Likewise depth of field is an issue on larger formats that make them undesirable for practical cinematography?

I'm pretty sure a full frame 35mm SLR lens has the same DOF as a PL Mount 35mm lens. 35 is the 35, right? You'd just get a wider field of view.

I don't think it would be suicide for RED at all because you still could put a PL mount on the camera and have it be a center cut of the sensor the same way a 16mm lens works on a RED right now. BUT RED could introduce full frame lenses that are wider and have more total pixels.

Now that might not be feasible now or for EPIC, but it's a pretty smart target to try to hit someday.

[Harrison Diamond]

I personally think that if you're gonna go larger than Super35, you may as well go for something really big... if you need bigger, you can afford the extra cost... I'm talking 65mm or bigger. That way you get another well-established cinematographic format, plus super35 and vistavision at the same time. Just put on an interchangeable lens mount system that can offer PL mount, PV mount (or whatever variant Panavision uses for their system 65 lenses), Arri Maxi PL, maybe a Hasselblad or other MF stills mount, and smart Nikon and Canon mounts.


Which brings me to what you're saying about Depth of Field joelnet. You are correct that the same lens will have identical DOF whether mounted on a 35mm SLR or a Super35 camera. Indeed, if the image circle is large enough, the same lens will offer the same DOF on even a 65mm camera, or a 16mm camera.
However, it is our perception of DOF that changes, since we don't shoot the same lens for the same shot on different formats. Each format means a different field of view. So your telephoto on 16mm becomes your normal on super35 becomes your moderate wide on VistaVision becomes your ultrawide on 65mm.

So to get identical fields of view, the larger your format, the longer your focal length must be, and consequentially the shallower your depth of field at a given f/stop and focus distance. That's why it's much easier to get shallow DOF on a super35 camera versus say 16mm, and why, if you see say a 65mm or IMAX picture, depth of field on a moderately wide shot will be noticeably shallower than if you shot the same scene with the same framing and the same aperture on super35.

[Michael Ragen]

Silentwave,
I definitely agree with what you are saying about the extra large sensor and interchangeable mounts. It hadn't really crossed my mind that if the sensor was say Vistavision, then I could shout s35 most of the time and then throw on some slr glass when shooting effects plates or whatever.
Down the line something like this with a 65mm sensor makes sense when the technology is cheaper, even if you are only shooting 65 a small percentage of the time and you can still keep the camera body small.
Hell, I wouldn't mind being able to shoot some moving images on a 4x5 sized sensor. I'm sure in the future we'll be able to upgrade our brains with focus pulling chips. :spidy:

[Joseph Ward]

Backlit CMOS!!! :biggrin:

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200806/08-069E/index.html

[Tom Lowe]

Backlit CMOS!!! :biggrin:

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200806/08-069E/index.html

is this for real?

[Brent J. Craig]

Backlit CMOS!!! :biggrin:

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200806/08-069E/index.html

It's actually quite a clever idea. Similar to pre-flashing film to increase it's relative sensitivity, Sony is bring the blacks up off the sensor's noise floor by pre-flashing the sensor. Betcha Red does something cooler.

[Daniel Browning]

is this for real?

Yes. Back illumination has been around for a long time for CCDs. Everyone has been trying to get it to work for CMOS image sensors, but the costs were always too high for volume production (like many sensor technologies).

The first to develop it was TSMC (the foundry for Omnivision). On May 27 they made a breakthrough by getting the manufacturing process under such strict control that the yield is high enough and costs low enough for volume manufacturing. The first products to get it will be mobile phone cameras, of course, since they are the cash cow. Hopefully larger sensors will follow soon after.

Sony announced theirs just a few weeks later.

[Todd T]

"Backlit" in this case means where the light from the image enters the photodiode relative to the substrate of the sensor. The improvement in sensitivity is due to a shorter path through the silicon, and no underlying conductors (wiring) absorbing or reflecting photons. No light is generated be the sensor or any of its components.

[Joseph Ward]

I think Epic should be a differen't sensor size than RedOne because RedOne is going to be hardware/sensor upgradeable, and Scarlet is 2/3 inch sensor size. If Epics sensor is the same size as Redone but solid in the way Redone was promissed, (without 1k resolution more) then Redone is the Bcam? If it was 4:3, Vistavision or something more in size, then were talking!:)