EPIC Recording Resolutions

[Brook Willard]

Epic S35
30mm x 15mm sensor
5,120 x 2,700

Epic FF35
36mm x 24mm
6,000 x 4,000

4-perforation Super 35mm
24.89mm x 18.67mm

3-perforation Super 35mm
24.89mm x 13.89mm

RED ONE 4K
22.11mm x 12.44mm
4,096 x 2,304


I'll start with the Epic S35.

To start with, the resolution confuses me. The sensor's dimension is 2:1 but the pixel dimension is 1.896:1. Since some of the sensor is probably blocked off for black calibration, I will assume that the 30mm x 15mm sensor area refers to the 2:1 pixel resolution of 5,120 x 2,560.

If we shoot the standard 24.89mm x 13.89mm 3-perforation Super 35mm size on the Epic S35 sensor, I come up with a recorded pixel area of 4,248 x 2,371.

Moving onto the Epic FF35. By the same math, I come up with a 3-perf resolution of 4,148 x 2,315 and a 4-perf resolution of 4,148 x 3,112.

Conversely, if we decided to shoot the RED ONE's 4K sensor size, the S35 would capture 3,774 x 2,123 and the FF35 would capture 3,685 x 2,074. Not that this is a desirable sensor size... but it's valid for comparison.

This doesn't bother me personally - I'm more excited about the dynamic range, frame rates and body design. Just wanted to let people know what they'll be getting by the current math.

So, to sum it up:

Epic S35 3-perforation recording resolution
4,248 x 2,371

Epic FF35 3-perforation recording resolution
4,148 x 2,315

Epic FF35 4-perforation recording resolution
4,148 x 3,112

[david farland]

Thanks for the maths.....

[Harrison Diamond]

Are we sure that the sensor size listed isn't for a lookaround area that isn't recorded versus the recorded max of 5120?

[Brook Willard]

They haven't given any of those details yet. That said, if it was actually a ~6.5K or 7K in the camera for look-around's sake... I feel like that would've been in the marketing materials.

[Mark Pugh]

They haven't given any of those details yet. That said, if it was actually a ~6.5K or 7K in the camera for look-around's sake... I feel like that would've been in the marketing materials.

Numbers are being pushed around this way and that for marketing purposes.
The S35 is only a 5k camera if:
a) there is no lookaround
b) you're finishing in 2.40:1
It's basically a 2:1 sensor
Shooting 16:9 requires the sides to be cropped.
When it's described as a S35 chip, it's S35 in the theatrical cinemascope release sense of the term. (2-perf).
So yeah, maybe it's a 5k camera, but certainly not for the vast majority of shoots that will be done on it.
I've being raising this for a few days in other threads - no responses.

[Bruce Allen]

Brook, you might want to round your numbers to the nearest multiple of 4.

EDIT: ...and has anyone figured out the discrepancies in pixel count?

BTW, have you noticed 1620 = 1080 x 1.5
...and 2700 = 1080 * 2.5

I think 16:9 rec modes may have no vertical lookaround.

Doing my best guess table now for you man...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Brook Willard]

Eh, these numbers are by the math, rounded up to the nearest pixel.

[Bruce Allen]

Eh, these numbers are by the math, rounded up to the nearest pixel.

It's a programming thing. Compression algorithms generally work best on resolutions that are multiples of 4.

My table attempt so far (pure guess):

FILM REFERENCES
16mm film: 9.6 x 7
super16 film: 11.75 x 7
super35 3-perf film: 24.9 x 13.9
anamorphic 4-perf film: 24.9 x 18.6

SCARLET 2/3
Listed sensor size: 10.1 x 5.35 (3072x1620)
Rec area 16:9 mode: 9.5 x 5.35 (2880x1620 - 1.5x HD)
NOTE: Normal 16mm lenses should work?
NOTE: No lookaround?

RED ONE
Listed sensor size: 24.4 x 13.7 (4900x2580)
Rec area 16:9 mode: 22.11 x 12.44 (4096x2304)
Rec area anamorphic mode: 14.62 x 12.44 (2707x2304??)

EPIC & SCARLET S35
UPDATE: FOR EPIC THIS ONLY HINTS AT THE AWESOMENESS, SEE JIM'S POST BELOW
Listed sensor size: 30 x 15 (5120x2700 - doesn't match)
Likely active sensor: 28.4 x 15 (5120x2700 - that's better)
Rec area 16:9 mode: 24.9 x 15 (4800x2700 - 2.5x HD)
Rec area 1.85 spherical crop: 24.9 x 13.46 (4480x2420 or so)
Rec area 2.35 spherical crop: 24.9 x 10.6 (4480x1908 or so)
Rec area anamorphic lens crop: 17.6 x 15 (3172x2700)

EPIC & SCARLET FF35
UPDATE: FOR EPIC THIS ONLY HINTS AT THE AWESOMENESS, SEE JIM'S POST BELOW
Listed sensor size: 36 x 24 (6000x4000 - DOES match)
Rec area PL spherical 16:9: 24.9 x 15 (4150x2330 or so)
Rec area PL anamorphic: 24.9 x 18.6 (4150x3112??)
Rec area FF lens 16:9 crop: 36 x 20.25 (6000x3376)
Rec area FF lens 1.85 crop: 36 x 19.46 (6000x3244)
Rec area FF lens 2.35 crop: 36 x 15.32 (6000x2556)
Rec area hypothetical FF anamorphic lens 2.35: 28.2 x 24 (4700 x 4000)
NOTE: a very nice lookaround with PL mount lenses (as the movie industry expects?)
NOTE: no lookaround with larger still lenses (as the still industry expects?)
NOTE: that hypothetical FF anamorphic lens would give 18.8 megapixels and 676 sq.mm surface area - vs Red One's 6.2 megapixels and 262 sq.mm surface area! Someone build it!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Brook Willard]

It's a programming thing. Compression algorithms generally work best on resolutions that are multiples of 4.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Of course. I assume that's RED's job to round the numbers off... :) :wink:

I also expect the sensor size or pixel dimension [or at least the recording area] to change by the time the camera ships.

[david farland]

I assumed another reason Red choose 6K for the FF35 was to get 4K of pixel chrominance (when down rezzed)without interpolation (4K bayer = 2.7K)
D

[Peter McCully]

In answer to Bruce Allen. Good work with that breakdown of sizes. Here's a thought. An anamorphic lens for the FF35 that gives a modest squeeze (haven't done the math) to use the full height - which is close to 5 perf 70mm and the full width to bring the unsqueezed width to the 70mm width of 52mm (varies). Actually I think there used to be anamorphic for Vistavision that did just that.

[Joseph Ward]

In answer to Bruce Allen. Good work with that breakdown of sizes. Here's a thought. An anamorphic lens for the FF35 that gives a modest squeeze (haven't done the math) to use the full height - which is close to 5 perf 70mm and the full width to bring the unsqueezed width to the 70mm width of 52mm (varies). Actually I think there used to be anamorphic for Vistavision that did just that.

Technirama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technirama

[Jannard]

With the new EIPC S35 size sensor, you have many options inside the full sensor. Using the full sensor is not a necessity, just like with the RED ONE. Having a 15mm tall sensor allows greater options for anamorphic. Some PL mount lenses have a greater than 28mm image circle. It also allows some creative formats with larger format lenses.

Open your mind. This is an enabling sensor... :-)

Sweet spot- think 4K (just like the RED ONE) at 125fps...

Jim

[Bruce Allen]

Some PL mount lenses have a greater than 28mm image circle. It also allows some creative formats with larger format lenses.

Open your mind. This is an enabling sensor... :-)

Sweet spot- think 4K (just like the RED ONE) at 125fps...

Jim

Thanks Jim! Very sweet indeed!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[RivaiC]

I have asked and i will ask again. Is the 4.5 feature from RED still happen ? Brook RED one calculation doesnt take full R1 potential into the math.

[Jannard]

I have asked and i will ask again. Is the 4.5 feature from RED still happen ? Brook RED one calculation doesnt take full R1 potential into the math.

Yes it will...

Jim

[Jason Murphy]

With the new EPIC S35 size sensor, you have many options inside the full sensor. Using the full sensor is not a necessity, just like with the RED ONE. Having a 15mm tall sensor allows greater options for anamorphic. Some PL mount lenses have a greater than 28mm image circle. It also allows some creative formats with larger format lenses.

Open your mind. This is an enabling sensor... :-)

Sweet spot- think 4K (just like the RED ONE) at 125fps...

Jim

Which is one of the things that I've been really excited about on EPIC bodies: the one aspect ratio designation that says: CUSTOM.

It is going to be fantastic to play around with different lenses and mounts on the EPIC sensors, and furthermore have the potential to shoot at custom aspect ratios. Even better, it will give people huge amount of leeway to experiment in various unique ways of shooting without burning through thousands of feet of film. Between several lens mount types and custom sensor cropping? That's a potent combo for seeing some genuinely new things in motion pictures.

Good times.



Technirama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technirama

Also, are there any Technirama lenses still around? I mean that aren't in a museum? Guess now would be the time to break 'em out. That would be pretty sweet.

[Tom Lowe]

EPIC & SCARLET FF35
Listed sensor size: 36 x 24 (6000x4000 - DOES match)
Rec area PL spherical 16:9: 24.9 x 15 (4150x2330 or so)
Rec area FF lens 16:9 crop: 36 x 20.25 (6000x3376)
Rec area FF lens 1.85 crop: 36 x 19.46 (6000x3244)
Rec area FF lens 2.35 crop: 36 x 15.32 (6000x2556)


Very interesting. So, if this is correct, then in order to achieve "True 4K" (20- to 30% downsampling), you might have to go with FF35 with larger-than-PL lenses?

What would "greater than 28mm image circle" PL mount lenses get you in terms of resolution?

[RivaiC]

Yes it will...

Jim

Thanks Jim, appreciate it

[Peter McCully]

Technirama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technirama

Could well have been. I'll dust off my old Cinematographers Manual

[Bruce Allen]

Very interesting. So, if this is correct, then in order to achieve "True 4K" (20- to 30% downsampling), you might have to go with FF35 with larger-than-PL lenses?

I think that many of the comments about Red "not being 4K" were because of the amount of noise.

With Epic FF35 you'll have much better noise and DR characteristics so I think you'd get a much better image. You'll be able to sharpen the footage more. So it will perceptually look higher-res.

Be very interesting to see PL lenses on FF35 vs S35. S35 would have a slight pixel edge but I think the FF35 shots would look better and maybe even sharper. Human perception of sharpness is weird.

For your crazy no-compromises IMAX feature you could use Nikons, Canons or Red's upcoming FF electronic lenses. But not completely necessary by any means. Just go shoot it, man! Even if it's "just" on 4K bayer. It'll look awesome.



What would "greater than 28mm image circle" PL mount lenses get you in terms of resolution?

Quick (probably wrong) calculations:

Assuming your spherical lens can completely cover the S35 Epic sensor...
S35 Epic for 1.85 can do 27.75 x 15 (4995 x 2700 13.48mp) instead of 24.9x13.46 (4800 x 2596 12.46mp)
S35 Epic for 2.35 can do 30 x 12.76 (5120 x 2180 11.16mp) instead of 24.9 x 10.6 (4800x2048 9.8mp)
S35 Epic for 16:9: no change

With the FF35 sensor you could keep on going from 24.9 x 14 all the way up to 36x24. Doubt most PL mount lenses would go there though. But it's awesome to have the option.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Mark Pugh]

Having a 15mm tall sensor allows greater options for anamorphic.
Jim

?????

It's about the same height as Red One. And the sensor has, basically, a native 2:1 ratio area.
It doesn't seem suited for Anamorphic at all, Jim, especially when compared to the FF35.

[Mark Pugh]

It's great to hear 4.5 is coming to the Red One.
Hurry! Every widescreen feature could do with that 20% performance boost.

[Bruce Allen]

?????
It's about the same height as Red One. And the sensor has, basically, a native 2:1 ratio area..

Height is improved 21% - from 12.4mm to 15mm height.
My scratchings in the sand say 1.9 ratio, not 2.
In terms of pixels, you go from 6.23 megapixels (Red One) to 8.56 megapixels (Epic S35).
Combine that with the lower noise, higher DR, lower compression and higher frame rates and it should be pretty significant...

I agree - monstro is much better suited to anamorphic, of course. But for the people making anamorphic work on a Red One already, this should be a definite improvement.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Tom Lowe]

I think that many of the comments about Red "not being 4K" were because of the amount of noise.


Well, even Graeme, Mullen, Haakon and others agree that Red One is only (roughly) a 3.2K camera in terms of real resolution, so Red One is not "True 4K," so to speak. You need at least a 5K sensor, and 6K would be even better, to achieve "True 4K." That's where FF35 comes in... :weight_lift:



For your crazy no-compromises IMAX feature you could use Nikons, Canons or Red's upcoming FF electronic lenses. But not completely necessary by any means. Just go shoot it, man! Even if it's "just" on 4K bayer. It'll look awesome.


Hehe, I changed the finishing resolution on "The Short Days" 1080p, so I could use my 350D stuff, the new 5Dm2 in low light, and shoot overcranked stuff on Red One, etc. I'll have to wait for a second project before I aim for "True 4K." :) :gun: