View Full Version : Pixel count, pixel size, sensor width doesn't add up

Mark Pugh
11-16-2008, 05:12 AM
According to the new brochure,

Red One:
pixels are 5.4 microns
sensor width is 24.4 mm
total pixels: 4900 wide

S35 Epic and Scarlet:
pixels 5.4 microns
sensor width is 30mm
total pixels is 5120 wide, just 220 pixels more than Red One


Mark Pugh
11-16-2008, 05:30 AM
On the S35 Brains:

.0054mm per pixel,multiplied by 5120 pixels gives a captured sensor area 27.6mm wide.
does this mean the look-around area is just 2.4mm of sensor width (30mm-27.6)?
That's much less than the Red One in 4k.

The FF35 cameras have a total pixel width of 6000 (36mm)
Does this mean there is no look-around at all?
Is that the way Red will release the cameras, or will the FF35 really be a 5k or 5.2 or 5.5 camera, with look-around?

These different figures for the different cameras suggest very different look-around offerings to get the quoted resolutions in captured images.
It seems that if you want to shoot 6k on the FF35s, there'll be no look-around, and very little for 5k on the S35s.

Mark Pugh
11-16-2008, 03:53 PM
Maybe this is all too geeky for a Sunday.

It's a simple question -
when it says in brochure that the FF35 is a 6k camera, does it actually shoot at a lower resolution, and 6k includes look-around?
Ditto for the 5k S35s.

This would be in line with how the Red One is listed there - as a 4.5k camera.
It's not shooting 4.5k, though.