Thoughts regarding S35 vs. FF35 sensor size

[Häakon]

Most people who own a FF35 will be using PL-mount glass on it in a windowed super 35mm mode.
I've been wanting to say something about this for awhile, but haven't had the brainpower to articulate it until tonight. Maybe someone else has some thoughts on this as well.

I remember when I bought my first full-frame dSLR (a 5D) and was comparing the images to my previous dSLR (a 1.6x crop XTi), and the ever pervasive discussion about "zoom factor" came up when comparing the two. That is, with the same glass on both cameras, a 50mm lens on the 5D "becomes" an 80mm lens on the XTi, because you're covering a smaller sensor area and you're really only using part of the glass on the cheaper camera. So while some people have declared that you actually get "longer zoom length" on a cropped camera, we all know that isn't to be true - you're really just seeing part of the picture. I demonstrated that one could just as easily take a center crop of the 5D image to match the size of the XTi's frame, and you'd end up with the same FOV. Again, most of us understand this concept, especially after having shot with the RED ONE's "windowed" modes. Here's where the kicker comes in, though.

The 5D's sensor is 12.8MP while the XTi is 10MP. So while the XTi is a 1.6 "crop" camera, it doesn't have 1.6x less total resolution. Thus, the 5D's photosites are larger (a good thing), but when you take that center slice out of the 5D image to match the frame size of the XTi (and get an equivalent FOV), you actually end up with an image that has less resolution than the "inferior" camera. And when looking at comparative images, it's actually quite a noticeable difference. Now normally this isn't an issue, because you do have lenses that cover the entire full frame and thus you don't waste anything - you get the benefits of both added resolution as well as the larger pixels (better noise performance, more DR, etc.).

However, if you're planning on just using good ol' PL-mount lenses on the FF Epic (specifically ones that only cover the S35 frame), you are making that sacrifice and throwing away quite a good bit of the sensor. And since the jump in resolution between the two cameras isn't very much (5K vs. 6K), one would have to assume that the pixels are indeed quite a bit larger on the FF Epic (I believe they posted specific pixel size information during the November announcement but removed it from the updated Dec. 3 rollout). As a result, you're going to take a decent hit in resolution when shooting this way. To put it another way, you'll likely have more pixels (and in turn higher detail rendition) when shooting with a PL lens on the S35 Epic than the FF35 model.

Of course the monkey wrench in the equation is that the sensors are not the same, and the "Monstro" sensor is supposedly one generation better in terms of latitude and noise and all of that fun stuff. So it doesn't make the comparison apples to apples, because we're dealing with more than just a loss of resolution here.

I do put this out, however, because it seems like with no response to all of the requests for a S35 Monstro camera from RED (it really does appear that this is the best solution more and more every day), many users are thinking of jumping up to the FF version, putting a PL mount on it, and calling it a day. Admittedly, there are still many unknown variables here - not the least of which is the fact that we have no samples of image quality from either of these cameras - but it's just food for thought for those who may be considering this route. That 5K S35 Epic X may just be the best choice yet.

[paul engstrom]

I think you're thinking correctly Haakon--which makes me think an individual's commitment to glass will greatly affect what brain they go for. I suspect a lot of people will stay with s35 sensors (Epic and R1 and Scarlet) to take best advantage of cinema lenses.

That said, I think RED's moves are brilliant--whole new markets (full frame and 645) for geared, non-breathing/ramping cinema lenses, which RED will be at the forefront in delivering.

p

[Bruce Allen]

I totally agree. Except that I don't need >2K real resolution (3K Bayer?). I would gladly swap resolution for more sensitivity, more dynamic range and less noise than the Red One.

*IF* I were to buy a camera (I'll wait to see what happens with rental prices - may continue to rent), I'll wait until the FF35 comes out and see if Monstro is a big improvement over Mysterium X.

If it is... great, I'll get a Scarlet FF35 (and get additional benefit of Anamorphic lenses plus using my fast Nikon lenses for ultra-low light stuff where I want the benefits of the larger sensor size). Otherwise I'll pick up a used Scarlet S35.

But you're right - the 5K S35 may be the best choice yet. We won't know until the FF35 comes out and we can compare the two.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Häakon]

That said, I think RED's moves are brilliant--whole new markets (full frame and 645) for geared, non-breathing/ramping cinema lenses, which RED will be at the forefront in delivering.
I agree completely - and I've given RED many kudos for the willingness to break that barrier. The problem is that without the necessary glass, the larger sensor advantages are relatively moot. Issues with using lenses designed for still cameras are well-documented, and so far all of RED's announced FF offerings are all moderately slow zoom lenses.

In some deranged way, part of me is actually happy that there is no S35 Monstro camera as it encourages users to get into FF cinema - even if they don't intend to use the full sensor. And eventually someone will say hey, this is silly, we need to develop true FF cinema glass to take advantage of such these great, larger imagers. But how long will that take? What will the market be? The glass is so key here. And I don't even think it's really that all these production houses have a ton of PL glass lying around and they want to be able to keep using it, it's that there really isn't a viable alternative right now. Those PL mount primes from RED still haven't seen the light of day, and those are designed for the "old" sensors!

Bruce is right that for 1080 work, the resolution hit one would take by shooting with the FF35 RED will probably not make that big a difference... but the problem is that if it offsets some of the advantages of the Monstro chip it may not worth spending the extra cash to get there. The other problem is that we really don't know how long it will take to arrive as it is... we're already looking at "Winter '09" for the Monstro cams and we all know targets are, well let's just say, subject to change.

Perhaps I'm just being picky, but I definitely notice a difference in the output between 3K and 4K from the RED ONE even when they are properly scaled down, and for most of my work - which ends up finishing in 1080p - 2K is just not a valid format option. I'd like to keep that resolution up as high as possible (all other things being equal), and this is just an observation that when shooting S35 you may get more bang for your buck when going Mysterium-X.

Time will tell, of course... I just don't want to wait. :bleh:

[Emmanuel Cambier]

If it is... great, I'll get a Scarlet FF35 (and get additional benefit of Anamorphic lenses plus using my fast Nikon lenses for ultra-low light stuff where I want the benefits of the larger sensor size). Otherwise I'll pick up a used Scarlet S35.
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Hi Bruce,
The problem I see with the FF35 Scarlet is that it may not support on the fly desqueezed monitoring of the anamorphic signal.
At least that's what I read from the new brochure.

Häakon,
You do raise a good point, we may need to pickup a certain type of PL glass to work with FF35 monstro sensors.
Either Anamorphic Pl lenses, or spherical ones that cover most of the sensor.

Emmanuel

[paul engstrom]

These sorts of thoughts are making me think I'll probably stick with the R1 for awhile, quite possibly with the upgraded sensor.

I'm extremely interested in native iso of upcoming sensors. slower glass is not nearly such a big deal with the faster sensor...

Question: are there any down sides to a faster sensor? Is it a bad thing to be a bit fast for sunshine (ie. using more NDs and IR cut?)? Because the positives seem so big to me--keeping that lighting bill under control is always such a challenge.

p



By the way, Bruce, I got the chance to visit/shoot in South Africa. Wow, what a place!

p

[Alexander Nikishin]

The FF35 Scarlet models benefits are for serious photographers in the Scarlet model and added DR across the two.

Added thought, even if someone did utilize the entire 1.5 sensor with a FF lens, how would you project that format?

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

The solution for this matter would be IMHO a S35 monstro.
You could use your wonderful all timer lenses on a new updated sensor with nice DR and less noise. Why use it only in the FF35 where you are windowing the standard? Am I missing something? Why do you think there is no S35 monstro?

[Alexander Nikishin]

Am I missing something? Why do you think there is no S35 monstro?

I think the missing link here is a larger pixel density sensor in a 2:1 size thus giving you a higher DR sensor such as the FF35 Monstro.

When you go up in resolution with the FF/645/617 sensors you're getting a larger pixel density allowing for more sensitivity/DR.

The smaller, more dense S35 sensors are high res. with smaller pixels allowing for less DR.

Correct me if I'm wrong anyone.

[Gunleik Groven]

OR... The S35 monstro would have Lower REZ higher DR...

We'll see how the R1/Monstro upgrade puzzle comes out. Is the R1 at all capable of handling the higher bitrate with current boards?

[Alexander Nikishin]

I'm extremely interested in native iso of upcoming sensors. slower glass is not nearly such a big deal with the faster sensor...


Well the other main advantage to fast glass (T1.3) is an esthetic one and one that can save you if you have to cheat a location or have a horrible production designer, a very shallow DOF.

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

When you go up in resolution with the FF/645/617 sensors you're getting a larger pixel density allowing for more sensitivity/DR.

The smaller, more dense S35 sensors are high res. with smaller pixels allowing for less DR.


What confuses me is that when using Cine lenses the area covered by the image of the lens is not large enough to cover the FF35 sensor. (my guess) So when using the Monstro with a Cine lens, windowed, you would be using the same amount of sensor as if you were using a full S35 sensor size. Only that with the monstro you would have more DR and less noise, over the same area. In other words, you wouldnt be getting more res from one sensor or another, just better quaility in terms of noise and DR... Its like the R1 has a 4.5 sensor to produce a 4K image, how much bigger can the sensor be in order to obtain the best DR and noise acceptance with the lens we own?

[Alexander Nikishin]

Esteban, in theory the Monstro sensor should have resolution that is less or equal to that of the Mysterium X due to the larger pixels found on the Monstro sensors.

In other words, even though you are shooting in 6K mode with a Monstro sensor, it's pixels are larger and less dense than the Mysterium X's in 5K mode. They may well effectively level out in resolution yet the Monstro will have (According to specs) 2 more stops of DR, something that I am dying for.

To add: I'm not quite sure how the FF sensors will handle the crop factor? Maybe they'll allow for a windowed sensor mode thus allowing for accurate FOV on S35 lenses.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Esteban, to further answer your question, the only thing that would change when shooting with S35 glass on the FF35 sensor would be your FOV due to the crop factor, not resolution.

[Gunleik Groven]

You would have a different (lesser) rez @ the same cropfactor...

[Alexander Nikishin]

I have a question hopefully someone can answer, David Mullen maybe? =)

What would the crop factor of say a 25mm anamorphic lens be on an Epic 645 56x42mm sensor?

[Harry Clark]

I think, Haakon, your analysis is spot on.
One thing to keep in mind is that modern lenses such as S4s and Master Primes will project a circle that is quite a bit larger than the S35 frame.
Now the image all the way out on the edge of that circle is pretty distorted, but there may in fact be a useable area larger than the S35 frame before the distortion is to egregious. And those lenses are meant to cover a 4x3 image, so the 16x9 image that many of us would opt for even with these larger sensors may enjoy a significantly larger area (witness the use of regular 16mm primes and zooms in 2K; they don't cover a 4x3 area of the same width, but they do cover a Red One's 16x9 sensor)
So where to crop a FF Epic or Scarlet may be a question that deserves some investigation. There may in fact be a sweet spot that is larger than S35 (but not the full frame) and that, because of the larger area, preserves much of the resolution and DR improvements that the FF cameras have to offer.
There also may be some solution involving high-quality lens extenders, such as a 1.4X. These may have to be designed from the ground up, but it would be in the interest of Zeiss, Cooke, and Angeniuex to find a solution that allows the current cine lenses to work with these new cameras.
Unknown until we all get to play with the cameras, I suppose.
But the Red Team could offer some instructive insight as to what to expect as they develop these cameras.
Cheers,
Harry

[Mark K.]

Assuming that a person can afford the additional $3,000 required for the jump from S35 Scarlet to FF35 Scarlet, the question to ask yourself is: resolution or dynamic range?

Going by the specs that Red have mentioned so far (and assuming the use of PL-mount glass and S35mm-sized recording format on each camera), your options are either: 5K resolution and 11 stops of DR, or 4K resolution (the s35mm crop of the FF35 sensor) and 13 stops of DR.

For me personally that's a no-brainer. I can't envision any scenario in which I would be likely to have a delivery format higher than a 2K film-out, which means that 4K is plenty of resolution in that regard, and the higher DR of the Monstro sensor would be a bigger boon.

For people expecting to finish in higher delivery formats, I imagine the higher resolution of the S35 sensor could prove more useful.

[David Mullen ASC]

I have a question hopefully someone can answer, David Mullen maybe? =)

What would the crop factor of say a 25mm anamorphic lens be on an Epic 645 56x42mm sensor?

Since 56mm x42mm is 1.33 : 1, and the 2X anamorphic format uses a 1.20 : 1 area to create a 2.40 : 1 image when unsqueezed, there would be very little cropping, basically down from 2.66 : 1 to 2.40 : 1...

... but the problem is that modern 2X anamorphic lenses aren't designed to cover an area as large as 56mm x 42mm. The dimensions of the 4-perf 35mm anamorphic camera aperture are 22mm x 18.59mm.

[Chris Kenny]

It's worth noting that Red sells a lot of cameras by the standards of the market. The 3000+ Red Ones out there probably represent a substantial fraction of all the modern 35mm-format PL-mount sync sound cameras in the world. If, over the next couple of years, Red sells several thousand FF35 motion picture cameras, there's probably going to be a fair bit of interest in building lenses which cover that format.

[David Mullen ASC]

The question is whether there is a need for several thousand new motion picture cameras in the world...

...but yes, I'm interested, curious, and excited by the possibility of new cine lenses being produced to cover the 8-perf 35mm / FF sensor area. I'm sure someone will step up to produce some, I just doubt that it will be a high volume market.

[I Bloom]

My guess is that a S35 Monstro chip is just not a physical possibility with the current technology. The added DR and bit depth might be directly related to the size of the photosites. It's a compromise that has to exist.

My feeling is that if the Monstro sensor when cropped to S35 is above 4K then there isn't much to worry about. We have enough resolution already for most things that call for cine glass. Monstro will still have the advantage.

[I Bloom]

The question is whether there is a need for several thousand new motion picture cameras in the world...

I think it's about want not need. This is the technology of envy.

IBloom

[David Mullen ASC]

My guess is that a S35 Monstro chip is just not a physical possibility with the current technology. The added DR and bit depth might be directly related to the size of the photosites. It's a compromise that has to exist.

My feeling is that if the Monstro sensor when cropped to S35 is above 4K then there isn't much to worry about. We have enough resolution already for most things that call for cine glass. Monstro will still have the advantage.

I'm not sure it is an impossibility -- the Dalsa had a 14-bit A/D processor for their slightly-larger-than S35 sensor. I wouldn't be surprised if the next ARRI digital cine camera had a 16-bit processor with an S35 sensor.

[I Bloom]

I'm not sure it is an impossibility -- the Dalsa had a 14-bit A/D processor for their slightly-larger-than S35 sensor. I wouldn't be surprised if the next ARRI digital cine camera had a 16-bit processor with an S35 sensor.

You are comparing CMOS to CCD technology. Red is likely to stay CMOS.

IBloom

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

The question is whether there is a need for several thousand new motion picture cameras in the world...

...but yes, I'm interested, curious, and excited by the possibility of new cine lenses being produced to cover the 8-perf 35mm / FF sensor area. I'm sure someone will step up to produce some, I just doubt that it will be a high volume market.

Although excited to see how RED could wind up the cine lens industry, my belief is that one of the things that made RED so revolutionary was the ability of a new camera body to be able to use old affordable lenses from many years ago. Along with the usage of old lenses like Mitchell's or PL's, the mounts that have been widened the possibilities like nikon's and canon's also have made the camera a very successful item and have re valued the lenses available in the market today.

I too doubt that the market for this lenses would be a high volume one, and probably not a very profitable one... specially after seeing the images produced by a R1 with any of the lenses mentioned above.

[Andrae Palmer]

Of course the monkey wrench in the equation is that the sensors are not the same, and the "Monstro" sensor is supposedly one generation better in terms of latitude and noise and all of that fun stuff. So it doesn't make the comparison apples to apples, because we're dealing with more than just a loss of resolution here.

Hopefully the Monstro will be better at least that's what we are all lead to believe.

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

Did you notice that the comparison chart between sensors with frame rates and DR is no longer at the Epic_Scarlet revealed link?

[Andrae Palmer]

Did you notice that the comparison chart between sensors with frame rates and DR is no longer at the Epic_Scarlet revealed link?

Instead of going by Reds word... I'll actually look at the images and wait for a third reputable party to conduct a test. Playing the DR sliding game is not cool here.

[Chris Kenny]

The question is whether there is a need for several thousand new motion picture cameras in the world...


A fair number of them will be replacing Red Ones or effectively replacing other cameras. Particularly film cameras, as the transition to digital continues to unfold. (Mind you, I doubt you'll see many rental houses having their 535Bs melted down for scrap any time soon. But they'll probably sit on the shelves a bit more each year from here on out.)

But one also shouldn't underestimate the potential size of the market, if the price is right. Red has already demonstrated there are far more customers for an S35-format motion picture camera than any of its competitors knew existed and/or were interested in trying to serve.

Red has emerged as the leader (by unit sales volume) in the digital cinematography market, and the whole market (to a good first approximation, anyway) will eventually be digital. So assuming Red stays on top as that happens, the technical choices they make are going to significantly shape the future of cinematography.

[I Bloom]

I too doubt that the market for this lenses would be a high volume one, and probably not a very profitable one... specially after seeing the images produced by a R1 with any of the lenses mentioned above.

If Jim can sell cine/still hybrid lenses using the Red mount. I believe the volume will be high enough.

IBloom

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Since 56mm x42mm is 1.33 : 1, and the 2X anamorphic format uses a 1.20 : 1 area to create a 2.40 : 1 image when unsqueezed, there would be very little cropping, basically down from 2.66 : 1 to 2.40 : 1...

... but the problem is that modern 2X anamorphic lenses aren't designed to cover an area as large as 56mm x 42mm. The dimensions of the 4-perf 35mm anamorphic camera aperture are 22mm x 18.59mm.

So, modern anamorphic lenses will cover nicely the FF35, croping on all the sides, I just don't understand why Alexander keep saying the 645 is "the" camera to use with anamorphic lenses.

Emmanuel

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

If Jim can sell cine/still hybrid lenses using the Red mount. I believe the volume will be high enough.

IBloom

Are we talking anamorphic lenses?

[nick allsop]

what is wrong with s35
pro glass is pl mount. s35 is a standard in cinema ff35 is not. ff35 glass is stills glass and is not going to be ideal. yes i want the best sensor but i want it to fit current pro sizes. i'm hoping the epic x select would allow an upgrade to a monstro s35 size sensor when one is designed instead of swapping the whole brain, i'm just guessing what the "SELECT" means.
i'm worried that red might be spending to much time working on unproven formats instead of just being ahead of every body else with current ones.
we are still waiting for the pl mount red primes, red are now going to make 8 more cameras and loads of different lenses with different lens mounts. it will all get very confusing.

[Alexander Nikishin]

So, modern anamorphic lenses will cover nicely the FF35, croping on all the sides, I just don't understand why Alexander keep saying the 645 is "the" camera to use with anamorphic lenses.

Emmanuel

My understanding of a larger sensor area in combination with the 1.33 ratio of the 645 may be flawed due to the giant size (As David has pointed out) that a 2x anamorphic lens can not cover.

Another question to David then....

Is there no benefit then to the larger 645 sensor in comparison to the FF35 sensor resolution wise for anamorphic shooting?

[Michael Lindsay]

Sorry I'm not David..

If you are trying to produce a 2.35 image (or a vertically extended 16:9 image) with Anamorphic lenses the 645 offers no advantage I can possibly imagine over the FF35.

Even the published frame rates suggest there is no other advantage from the potentially higher bandwidth capacity.

regards

Michael L

[David Mullen ASC]

If someone built 2X anamorphic lenses that would cover the 645 sensor area, then there would be some advantage in getting a 2.40 image since the sensor is 4x3, but it seems a better route would be to design some 1.6X anamorphic lenses to cover the 1.50 : 1 FF35 sensor... IF you are going to build new anamorphic lenses in the first place.

Depth of field will be challenging enough with a spherical lens on a FF35 sensor, even harder with anamorphic, and even harder with 645, and even harder with anamorphic on 645...

The 9K 4x3 645 image seems well-suited for IMAX photography though.

[Antoine Fabi]

Hi Haakon,

I would like to believe the same, really.

I was looking at the FF35 only because it seems it will have 16 bit compared to 12 bit for the S35.

But...the EPIC X S35 have a Mysterium X Select and REDCODE 250 instead of 225...

So i guess i dont understand...

Antoine

[Stephen Pruitt]

On the announcements on the 3rd, Jim seemed to become irritated that several of us, myself included, were disappointed that there wasn't a S35 Monstro option. If it were not technologically feasible, that would be one thing, and that's certainly understandable. But he also said that the RED One would be getting a S35 Monstro upgrade, which all but implies that a S35 for Epic REALLY IS possible.

My current thinking, especially given a lot of comments on the 3rd, is that some people (possibly including Jim) aren't as concerned about increasing dynamic range as others. I'm cool with that, but I suspect that anyone shooting indie features knows all too well how hard it is to equalize exposures between indoor and outdoor-though-the-window shots sufficiently to avoid noise and/or blow-outs. As I noted on the 3rd, in response to a comment by Jim, the big boys don't need nearly as much DR as the indie crowd, since they can always custom-build a house with a removable roof to pour in the lighting. Those of us on $100,000 to $1,000,000 feature budgets (which, I'll venture, is just about everyone using a RED One for feature work!) just don't have that choice. We have to make do with the house we can get, whether that means we can get enough light into the house or not (and, usually, we cannot).

So, I'm with everyone else who craves a S35 Monstro. Thirteen stops would have been heaven this past summer as we shot our first feature. Resolution at 5K is almost certainly enough for the new generation 4K digital projectors just coming online, even with the debayered chroma losses. We don't need more K. . . we need more DR.

If anyone can turn this trick, it is Jim Jannard. The question is, since he's stated he'll be offering a S35-sized Monstro for the RED One, why on earth wouldn't he be offering a S35-size Monstro Epic?

Any thoughts?

Stephen

[David Mullen ASC]

I thought it was a Mysterium-X sensor that the RED ONE could be upgraded to, not a Monstro sensor.

I would also prefer a 16-bit S35 Monstro sensor option for the EPIC, preferably 5K, with a 24mm wide area used for picture information, plus a lookaround area, so perhaps a sensor that was 28mm to 30mm wide. I'm sort of assuming that whatever the source is for the Monstro EPIC sensor, it can't accommodate the S35 size limitation for some reason, maybe because it's an adaption of an existing FF35 DSLR sensor. Or somehow make the Mysterium-X system be 16-bit with more dynamic range, like the Monstro, since the size of the sensor is about perfect for S35 photography.

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

Did I miss something?
Can the camera "brains" be upgraded?


Sure... the last poster wanted to hold us to the free upgrade but that was with the old program... which we are happy to honor. Upgrading brains will be cheaper.

Jim

Also, may I quote Jim from his Recon post:


"We also said we would offer a RED ONE sensor upgrade to keep it current in a world of ever-improving electronics. We have kept that promise with a Mysterium-X upgrade path when it is finished, then to the Monstro sensor which will follow."

So I guess one could keep the R1 as is and be able to upgrade the sensor for a price, my question then would be, can the board and electronics of the current R1 handle such those sensors?

[Stephen Pruitt]

Geez, talk about Johnny on the spot! Estebanred found Jim's quote instantly!

Now, just because he said it doesn't mean that it will come to pass, but it is at least a hopeful sign that a S35 Monstro could be available for Epic in the near future.

As for me, I cannot imagine trying to deal with the depth-of-field with a FF35 chip. It's hard enough with the RED One's Academy S35!

Stephen

[Jason Ing]

Or somehow make the Mysterium-X system be 16-bit with more dynamic range, like the Monstro, since the size of the sensor is about perfect for S35 photography.

This would be ideal for people who are happy with their Red Ones, don't necessarily need the new modular system, but still wants the best image quality possible.

I personally think a lot of R1 owners would be happy about this upgrade path.

[Stephen Pruitt]

I'd be deliriously happy with the ability to keep upgrading at least one of our RED Ones if it would yield a picture quality essentially equal to an Epic.

I honestly cannot imagine Jim wanting to leave the RED One in the dust. It was his baby, too many people have them, and he would be perhaps the first techno-geek in history to offer a true "non-obsolescence" promise and actually keep it.

A S35 Monstro would utterly dominate the market.

Stephen

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

As I was re-reading the announcement I came to find a "mysterium x select" in the spec sheet... what would the Select stand for???
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/8591_1228702253.png

[Alexander Nikishin]

Thanks for answering my questions Michael & David.......

The select as I understand it is sort of a way to signify that the Epic X sensors are as Jarred put it, "The best of the batch of Mysterium X sensors" allowing for Redcode 250 vs. 225.

[AIO Films]

i'm worried that red might be spending to much time working on unproven formats instead of just being ahead of every body else with current ones.
we are still waiting for the pl mount red primes, red are now going to make 8 more cameras and loads of different lenses with different lens mounts. it will all get very confusing.

And put the 18mm and 14mm T1.9 primes back in the PL lens series would be really helpful for those who can't afford Ultra Primes or Cooke S4 like me.

[Jason Ing]

As I was re-reading the announcement I came to find a "mysterium x select" in the spec sheet... what would the Select stand for???
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/8591_1228702253.png

I believe it indicates that is the mysterium x for the special limited edition. Note that it is the only sensor that has Redcode 250.

[Michael Hastings]

I'd be deliriously happy with the ability to keep upgrading at least one of our RED Ones if it would yield a picture quality essentially equal to an Epic.

I honestly cannot imagine Jim wanting to leave the RED One in the dust. It was his baby, too many people have them, and he would be perhaps the first techno-geek in history to offer a true "non-obsolescence" promise and actually keep it.

A S35 Monstro would utterly dominate the market.

Stephen

Stephen: I suspect the REDONE would be easy to upgrade all of the way to the same as an FF35 Monstro Epic. Since the REDONE is so much larger, you would just replace all of the processing circuit boards and the sensor - probably with room left to spare - but it wouldn't make much sense - like buying the epic brain and i/o module and removing the circuit boards and sensor and transferring to the REDONE. All you are saving by doing a full upgrade of a REDONE would be the external case - which doesn't save much and might be offset by the cost of making internal adapters to hold the smaller boards inside the REDONE. And it would still be an oversize clunky package compared to the EPIC package.

But what would be the point?

It's like upgrading your old Pentium III computer. You can buy a modern computer with latest processors, high speed DVD reader/writer, 3 gigs RAM, 250 gig harddrive, USB2, built in wifi, flash card slots, high speed video, etc. etc. for $299 from major vendors. Could you replace the motherboard and all that other stuff in your old case - yep but again all you save is the case.

In reality it is like replacing the old Pentium with a current much more powerful laptop and 15" screen for $399. You get all of the goodies, in a much tighter, nicer packaage.

[Stephen Pruitt]

Hi there, Michael. . .

Your point is very well taken, BUT. . . Jim has already announced an upgrade to Mysterium X for $4500. If Monstro is the same $4500 from there, things could really get interesting.

I'm not convinced that the modularity of Epic is going to be as good in practice as it seems just now. One thing is certain: That big block of machined aluminum is as solid as a you-know-what. I suspect that, for hand-held use, rigidity will prove to be more useful than some people think right now. Indeed, while the RED One is a very heavy camera for hand-held use, I'm quite happy with its stability. If I lifted more weights, I'd have no trouble using it at all.

But, you're right. . . we'll have to see what Epic looks like when it comes out.

Stephen

[Michael Hastings]

A $4500 Monstro upgrade would be nice, but (Total speculation here) I think the Mysterium is as far as RED will practically want to go. At some point you get to the limitations of the brain rather than the sensor, and beyond that I think RED would like to gather in the REDONE hardware, not so much for the size but for the fact that it is based on off-the-shelf FPGA hardware which allows for greater flexibility in developing the software upgrades and capabilities. But in the long run you are kind of stuck with the high power draw, long boot up times, etc rather than using custom designed ASICs - like Canon does with their Digic !V chips - so you can get near-instant bootup, much better power consumption, and probably better physical reliability because you have a single chip doing the job of an entire complicated processor board that is more likely to develop problems in the rough and tumble of field use.

I have to believe that this is the direction RED has gone - they have the money and the volume to make it worthwhile, and the REDONE has been the proof of concept that should allow them to bake a lot of the functions into silicon rather than RAM.

[I Bloom]

A $4500 Monstro upgrade would be nice, but (Total speculation here) I think the Mysterium is as far as RED will practically want to go. At some point you get to the limitations of the brain rather than the sensor, and beyond that I think RED would like to gather in the REDONE hardware, not so much for the size but for the fact that it is based on off-the-shelf FPGA hardware which allows for greater flexibility in developing the software upgrades and capabilities. But in the long run you are kind of stuck with the high power draw, long boot up times, etc rather than using custom designed ASICs - like Canon does with their Digic !V chips - so you can get near-instant bootup, much better power consumption, and probably better physical reliability because you have a single chip doing the job of an entire complicated processor board that is more likely to develop problems in the rough and tumble of field use.

I have to believe that this is the direction RED has gone - they have the money and the volume to make it worthwhile, and the REDONE has been the proof of concept that should allow them to bake a lot of the functions into silicon rather than RAM.

That's an interesting suggestion Mike, because essentially what you mean is that the ongoing firmware upgrades of RedOne will not be a part of the DSMC program. If it's true... that is extremely important.

[tillHavis]

I thought it was a Mysterium-X sensor that the RED ONE could be upgraded to, not a Monstro sensor.

I would also prefer a 16-bit S35 Monstro sensor option for the EPIC, preferably 5K, with a 24mm wide area used for picture information, plus a lookaround area, so perhaps a sensor that was 28mm to 30mm wide. I'm sort of assuming that whatever the source is for the Monstro EPIC sensor, it can't accommodate the S35 size limitation for some reason, maybe because it's an adaption of an existing FF35 DSLR sensor. Or somehow make the Mysterium-X system be 16-bit with more dynamic range, like the Monstro, since the size of the sensor is about perfect for S35 photography.

I guess the Scarlet S35 monstro or X with added DR and say 16bit is not going to happen but from what I have read on this forum S35 seems to be the ideal choice for feature work.
I may be wrong but because the S35 takes most professional lenses and the can integrate with current formats it seems to be the perfect choice.
We have the added DR over the fixed 2/3 option plus we would be getting the all important ability to use existing and available professional lenses.

My question is does anybody feel a S35 Scarlet with added DR and extra bit rate would be the icing on the cake. Like many users I feel the 4K/5k resolution is more than enough for me; its the all important DR and bit rate plus the availability of quality glass that would really make the Scarlet a perfect camera. Just my 2 Cents.

[Tom Lowe]

Assuming that a person can afford the additional $3,000 required for the jump from S35 Scarlet to FF35 Scarlet, the question to ask yourself is: resolution or dynamic range?


Let's face it. If you're spending $50,000 or whatever on a new camera system, is three grand really going to make a difference?

I think people should wait as long as they can before buying anything. By the time FF35 Epic comes out, there might already be an announcement about an S35 Monstro camera. You can decide what you want to do at that point. I for one would not even consider the Epic X, unless I was very busy with work and could pay it off pretty quickly. But even then, I would sell the brain on ebay or here as soon as FF35 Epic came out. The DR and larger sensor are of monumental importance to many of us.

My guess is that all the people who are skeptical about the FF35 format now will not be skeptical for long, especially as lens options begin to get sorted out. FF35 will move into the mainstream sooner than many realize, and if you are sitting on an S35 Epic, you might be wishing you had waited for the flexibility of FF35. In the meantime, R1 will continue to kick ass and take names.

Think about this: With FF35, we are talking about a 6K RAW digital Vista Vision camera. This is something cinematographers could only have dreamed about two short years ago. We should embrace this new format, IMHO, and do everything we can to signal to the marketplace in advance that we need quality FF35 cinema glass, pronto. As many here have said, some of the high-end "S35" glass, like Master Primes, already cover a fairly large portion of the FF35 frame.

A lot of people like to say that Jim is a visionary, but IMO, his embrace of FF35 is actual living, breathing proof of his visionary outlook.

[Stephen Williams]

I think people should wait as long as they can before buying anything. By the time FF35 Epic comes out, there might already be an announcement about an S35 Monstro camera. .

Hi Tom,

Probably even the replacement for Monstro if you wait long enough.

Stephen

[Tom Lowe]

Quit being a smartass. :) :tongue:

I think FF35 Epic and Scarlet will come at just the right time, with just the right specs. Even little red riding hood might agree.

[Joe G.]

I'm in disbelief of all this apparent complaining about the FF35. This camera will take ANY lense you want to put on it. It will allow S35 frames all day long with 2 more stops of light recorded. It will also allow full frame images at even higher resolution.

As long as it has a windowed mode, there is no basis for complaining, whatsoever. This is the obvious choice (to me anyway). There is no need for Red to churn out yet another model, when everything is already covered.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

mail4joeg wins a cookie. It's been said before, but it doesn't hurt to say it again...

But there is one more solution for those who think they must have an S35 sized Monstro -- Keep your RED One! Jim has stated that there will be an upgrade path for the RED One for the Mysterium-X sensor and later on, the Monstro sensor. Perhaps that is the way to go... Of course, it seems it would be a compromise in which REDCODE levels will be recordable, but I think people are so focused on the newly announced cameras and no one is thinking about the viability of the current RED One and how future upgrades will take place.

RED is not dropping the RED One, they are continuing to support it. It is positioned in their lineup as a camera between the Scarlet and Epic, somewhat of an all-in-one camera without all the modular flair. The One will offer many features that Scarlet will not like ramping and various frame frame sizes, etc.. It will keep its S35 sized sensor, which will eventually be available in the form of Monstro. The catch is that it's not going to have much of the same internal processing power and bandwidth that Epic will have, so that will translate to higher compression ratios. But a good compromise for a camera that fits right into the middle of their line-up. At times I wonder if people are being too eager to trade in their RED One for the "next best thing" when in actuality, the best camera for their needs may already be in their possession.

[roryhinds]

while the RED1 takes great images the ergonomics are poor.
In a handheld situation RED1 is awaked to work with.
Its interesting to remember RED marketed the RED1 as being modular to.

The EPIC & Scarlet systems seem to have address ergonomics with their small form factor. Having a camera system that locks together instead of bits hanging off it is worth the upgrade for sure.

I'm looking forward to see what RED bring out with Epic & Scarlet and how it works ergonomically.

[David Rasberry]

I'm not sure it is an impossibility -- the Dalsa had a 14-bit A/D processor for their slightly-larger-than S35 sensor. I wouldn't be surprised if the next ARRI digital cine camera had a 16-bit processor with an S35 sensor.

Bit depth and dynamic range are not exactly the same thing. Each pixel of a sensor, whether CMOS or CCD, puts out a linear analog voltage in response to photon density accumulated over exposure time. The DR of the sensor is defined by a logarithmic ratio of maximum voltage response to inherent thermal noise of the sensor and AD circuits. It is an expression of contrast range.

Bit depth determines the number of discrete value levels encoded by the AD converter over the total available DR.

Discrete shades of gray by bit depth:

8 bit = 256
10 bit = 1024
12 bit = 4096
14 bit = 16384
16 bit = 65536

Greater bit depth gives a broader color gamut and a more subtle resolution of details within the available DR.

[JonathanF]

I thought it was a Mysterium-X sensor that the RED ONE could be upgraded to, not a Monstro sensor.

I would also prefer a 16-bit S35 Monstro sensor option for the EPIC, preferably 5K, with a 24mm wide area used for picture information, plus a lookaround area, so perhaps a sensor that was 28mm to 30mm wide. I'm sort of assuming that whatever the source is for the Monstro EPIC sensor, it can't accommodate the S35 size limitation for some reason, maybe because it's an adaption of an existing FF35 DSLR sensor. Or somehow make the Mysterium-X system be 16-bit with more dynamic range, like the Monstro, since the size of the sensor is about perfect for S35 photography.


If someone built 2X anamorphic lenses that would cover the 645 sensor area, then there would be some advantage in getting a 2.40 image since the sensor is 4x3, but it seems a better route would be to design some 1.6X anamorphic lenses to cover the 1.50 : 1 FF35 sensor... IF you are going to build new anamorphic lenses in the first place.

Depth of field will be challenging enough with a spherical lens on a FF35 sensor, even harder with anamorphic, and even harder with 645, and even harder with anamorphic on 645...David,

I could not have said it better. For my $ I'll take additional bit depth and more dynamic range over the additional resolution above 5k any day of the week.

Most of us shooting for theatrical release are going to be mastering to the DCI spec soon enough anyway and for all practical purposes and that's a 4k standard so while it'll be nice to have a 5k camera master I'm pretty happy working 4k and will be for the foreseeable future. In fact, two of the last 3 films I worked on had full DI and the OCN was scanned at 4k and then downrez'd to 2k and output from the recorders at that resolution.

1:1.85 is losing the advantage of the available negative real-estate anyway so the actual resolved resolution of a 1.85 release is already far below 5k in my book after a trip through DI and a 10 bit log grading post process and recording back to film. Thankfully most of the reputable effects houses are doing everything after the scans in floating point anyway so we don't loose too much there anymore given the increasing number of VFX shots in our films.

People forget that a 1:1.85 release print uses only 0.825" x 0.446" of the _available_ area for a Normal 35 Academy aperture at 1:1.37, 0.8661" x 0.6299".

People can go on all they want about resoution, but the real gains in terms of image quality in my book are going to come from improved bit depth and better processing. At 24 fps there's only so much we're going to gain that audiences are going to perceptually appreciate with added resolution, especially given the nature of commercial projection these days.

I'll take stops over more rez at this stage without any question.

One other thing worth noting is has anyone here looked at the price of 62mm Maxi PL glass lately? That's what you're looking at cost wise for good Cine optics at these larger sensor sizes people are going on about.

As a sidebar, I once held a Super Panavisoin 70 lens and I'll tell you now, I don't want to be schlepping a bunch of those around anytime soon... glad we don't use those things anymore (kind of).

You go to these larger formats and people forget that, just like the transition from 16 to 35, it involves a lot more than just the camera.

All the support equipment scales as well and no one's even discussing the availabilty of key camera support equipment for all these wonderful new formats.

My $0.02 for what it's worth.

J

[Dominic Jones]

Most of us shooting for theatrical release are going to be mastering to the DCI spec soon enough anyway and for all practical purposes and that's a 4k standard so while it'll be nice to have a 5k camera master I'm pretty happy working 4k and will be for the foreseeable future.
Hi Jonathan,

Whilst I essentially agree with all your points, I thought I'd add in a tuppenceworth of my own on the 5K front - the reason why 5K becomes a "magic" number for 4K delivery is that the bayer pattern approach yields just over 75% accuracy compared to full RGB approaches. Therefore, 5K acquisition is almost ideal for creating 4K deliverables, whereas as 4K acquisition falls a little short of the mark.

In actual fact, assuming a similar level of accuracy as the Red One (which is ~78%, iirc), you would want a minimum bayer resolution of about 5.1K to produce a "true" 4K image.

By the maths of it, assuming an S35 window size of 24x18mm, and that the FF35's active (6K) sensor area is true 135 size (36x24mm), the S35 resolution of the FF35 would be exactly 4K, so the question then becomes: Do you want oversampling to create a truly full-colour image, or are you willing to sacrifice a little colour accuracy for higher DR?

The noise issue will be interesting, as oversampling also reduces noise, so that battle can really only be fought once real-world tests can be done side-by-side. My guess would be that (unless there's a massive jump in performance as regards noise between the two) the differences will be negligible - but that's a total guess.

Of course, with most productions currently finishing at 2K (as in your experience), there's really no question that the FF35 would yield a better image.

Interesting times, and no doubt...
Dom.

[JonathanF]

Dom,

Your point is well taken, but as we see with Primos or MP's, the construction of Cine lenses requires they be a lot larger than still lenses for the same focal length. I don't think I want to work with optics that are that much larger (and heavier) than what we're using now just to support a larger format sensor.

I'm also pretty sure that MP quality glass at this image circle size will require selling children into slavery or other equally distasteful options. I don't hear any discussion from manufacturers about new ranges of lenses either. Sure, you hear the odd rumor now and then, but never anything concrete (no offense to anyone but I'm not talking about Sygma glass or Nikon SLR lenses here but real top tier Cine lenses).

In this economy I don't see any of that happening (or the producer's paying for the increased rental on the lens package for an 8 week shoot). I know I've been in meetings where 65 was raised and it was always a really short discussion. Costs go up exponentially on all fronts. The budgets just aren't there these days to justify it. Go ask ILM what the price difference is for VFX at 5k vs 4k, or 4k vs. 2k. The discussion is always real short when production gets the numbers.

As a bit of a digression from the lens issue, I would also encourage you to go look at the difference between images produced at lower bit depths with more resolution vs those at higher bit depths at slightly lower resolutions.

If you can find a suitable monitor like one of the 10 bit HP Dreamcolor monitors the facilities are using as reference monitors now for VFX and compare the same frame at 4k 8bit (what you get to graphics on all but the most recent Nvidia 10 bit cards released earlier this year) and compare to 3k at 10 bit you'll be pretty surprised.

Put all this cine stuff aside for a moment as you can do this test with two HP monitors, one 8 bit and one 10 bit (assuming suitable graphics cards as the 10 bit DisplayPort interface graphics cards are exceptionally recent) and a high end DSLR with Raw source in photoshop. Remember DVI-D is only 8 bits to graphics. You'll need to use the displayport interface to actually get the 10 bits to the monitor.

Mind you you'll need to calibrate the monitors so they are comparable in terms of white and black point, but there is an astonishing difference.

I have to say I see dramatically more improvement in the perceptual image quality when I get more bits then I do when I get marginally more resolution, and at 24 fps the perceptual difference of more resolution to the viewer at 50ft of distance is going to be negligible compared to a higher bit depth master.

But the big issue that hasn't even been broached is the fact that there are only two common projection formats or aspect ratios, 1.85:1 and 2.39:1. I know Vittorio (for whom I have immeasurable respect) has shot some 2.0:1 (Univisium) stuff that was released in the original format, but most of us don't have the moxie to pull that off in a meeting with distributors even if we can get it past a producer.

The simple fact of the matter is, the vast majority of all theatres are set up and have lenses, aperture plates, and screen masking for just two aspect ratios, 1.85:1 and 2.39:1. A small percentage of theatres (although not in the majority) are set up for 1.37 or 1.66 but they are a less than single digit minority, and are generally boutique venues.

From a practical business standpoint releasing in anything other than 1.85 or 1.39 is going to cost you so many screens the distributor is going to crush the idea before the ink is put to paper on the contracts.

With that in mind; the 2.0:1 sensor shooting for 1.85:1 theatrical release tosses 7.5% of the image away on the sides with the 2.0:1 sensor.

If you're using the 24x36mm sensor you only use 81% of the sensor giving away 9.5% on both the top and bottom of the frame.

I won't do the math on the scope relationship for this discussion as I'd have to go looking at what scope optics are even available for a sensor of that size before I even think about it.

So how the bayer filter matches up to what resolution is a little more involved than just saying 5.1k is actually 4k, because you have to know what format your release will be projected in because that's the only relevant portion of the horizontal dimension of the sensor at the end of the day.

From a practical, in the field, solving every day production issues standpoint, I'll take the extra stops over an extra 1k of resolution.

I do however appreciate the technical thoughts on the bayer resolution issues, but there are the practical mechanics of getting films into theatres that need to be kept in mind if this discussion is to have any relevance in the real world. I just don't want people thinking it's as simple as more resolution is better. That's the kind of logic you hear in the consumer market, and it's really more complicated than that.

More bits for me please.

Cheers,

J

[JonathanF]

Dom,

Another quick note on the noise issue is that while resolution does improve the noise issue, those who have shot with eng cameras will note that gain has an equal if not greater effect on the noise and that never sensors will likely improve on the sensitivity of earlier sensors.

This alone will likely result in a greater reduction in noise than just adding resolution.

I have yet to see any real discussion on this, or how the new sensors differ from the R1 sensor in this area, but if you look at the image in each of it's component channels you'll see clearly that the RedOne, like other CMOS and CCD cameras, requires a bit of additional gain on the blue to compensate for the narrower wavelength (tapping into 20 year vintage physics from college here so permit me a little leeway).

This is why some people will use 80 series filters to improve the quality of green screen plates and using tungsten lights (or compensating for the color temp shift in post). It makes the guys who have to pull keys in post's life a lot easier as the reduction in the noise is pretty drastic. You just add that 2/3 stop in up front when you shoot and Bob's your uncle. It's low tech noise reduction but it works like a charm.

Cheers,

J

[Dominic Jones]

Hi Jonathan,

Just wanted to follow up a couple of points here - I'm not sure where the discussion of lenses fits in, as we're talking standard S35 "gates" on both systems, so I'll skip that part, unless I've missed something?!

There's no doubt that higher bit-depth is always preferable all other things being equal, but the equation between bit-depth and "true" resolution still stands, and it is one that each DP will have to decide upon (often for each project) - of course, this thread relates primarily to those who are going to purchase, which means people have to decide which direction will be preferable for them (or their rental clientele) in the majority of situations. Just to be clear, I am not "supporting" either point of view (I know my preferences, but this isn't about what I would or will do) - rather, just trying to clear up the seemingly myriad choices for those who prefer S35-based shooting, as you yourself seem to (and I'm with you there for the majority of cases!). It is also worth noting that differences in ratio are irrelevant to this conversation, as both are wider than the sensor's native 1.78:1 ratio, and we're working with horizontal resolutions only, which are independent of ratio, of course.

Also, please bear in mind that I'm talking about the specific case when 4K delivery is required. I am fully aware that this is - currently - rarely done and often cost-prohibitive, but anyone who expects that to be the case for long will be sadly mistaken - Moore's law is in effect now with a fully digital path through principal photography, post and on to distribution, and many of those planning camera purchases now will be wanting to ensure that their particular bird still flies as and when 4K becomes a larger part of the distribution market...

Regarding noise and exposure, you've kind of answered your own point! if you're going to add an extra 2/3 stop (or 1, or 1+1/2, depending on filter of choice - 1+1/2 (an 80B) being ideal for an R1), then you can equally add more light to compensate for a less sensitive sensor!! In a documentary environment you do make a valid point, but for drama and promos my post assumed a well-exposed image shot at native sensitivity - apologies if I didn't make that clear... Of course, there are ancillary benefits to faster sensors (such as smaller and less costly lighting packages), but let's stick to the camera sensitivity side of things for the sake of simplicity!

Hope that helps to clear a few points up, I think essentially we're both on the same page!!

Cheers,
Dom.

[JonathanF]

as both are wider than the sensor's native 1.78:1 ratio, and we're working with horizontal resolutions only, which are independent of ratio, of course.

Actually on the S35 sensor native is 2:1. My preference would be an academy formatted sensor to be honest. That's the only thing I can really think of that makes the Arri even worth consideration. Makes shooting scope a bit more attractive, although arguments can be made that even cropping the sensor on the S35 X will be better, so we'll have to wait and see how that all plays out (and how we get to view scope in the EVF and LCD).


Hope that helps to clear a few points up, I think essentially we're both on the same page!!

Yeah, I agree that we're pretty close here, but I really have to say the whole resolution thing is a bit distracting from the real discussion we should be having which is how do we actually get a better image.
;)

J

[Dominic Jones]

Ah, ok - didn't realise the S35 will have a 2:1 sensor - that does change the issue a bit... Are you taking that from the stated 30x15mm sensor spec (which almost undoubtedly includes blanking pixels and the like), or is that a confirmed spec from Red for the recording area? Would be a very odd choice for an "S35" sensor if it is the case...

And I totally agree - image quality is the key. As I said, I'm thinking for these posts not so much in terms of what I want from the system, but rather the issues others are talking about, particularly as regards 4K delivery.

There's no doubt, in my mind at least, that less noise and higher DR are much more beneficial to the final image than huge resolution, but with an eye to the bayer downsampling that is so very important - having shot 2K material for a 2K finish with the R1, I can safely say it is not really up to par compared to 3K/4K material for same, so assuming that a similar situation is true of the Epic's sensor, I would definitely want >4K resolution for a 4K finish...

I'm more than happy to be proven wrong by the Epic's images, though! :)

Cheers,
Dom.

[JonathanF]

Ah, ok - didn't realise the S35 will have a 2:1 sensor - that does change the issue a bit... Are you taking that from the stated 30x15mm sensor spec (which almost undoubtedly includes blanking pixels and the like), or is that a confirmed spec from Red for the recording area? Would be a very odd choice for an "S35" sensor if it is the case...

May I point you to: http://red.cachefly.net/14/mysterium.jpg

That has the sensor dimensions. I am in 100% agreement with you on the sensor size, I'd much rather not see a 2:1 sensor, but that's what we have in the R1 and it looks like that's what we'll be living with on the Epic S35. In a perfect world I'd like a 0.980 x 0.735" sensor. That would make every existing (quality) cine lens out there usable. Especially the good scope glass. I'd be slapping a PV mount on for sure then, especially if the viewing issues with scope were resolved.


so assuming that a similar situation is true of the Epic's sensor, I would definitely want >4K resolution for a 4K finish...

...but I'm going to reserve judgment on that till I see what redcode 250 looks like. That could easily be a game changer.

As for the larger sensor, I'm sure it will look good but it's already hard enough to pull focus in scope with a S35 frame, I don't even want to imagine what my focus puller is going to say if he has to pull for scope on a FF35 frame. Can you imagine a 100 at FF35? at f4 you'd have like a cm of leeway.

Wide open you'd be screwed.

;)

J

[Dominic Jones]

The sensor in the R1 is not 2:1 - it is 1.78:1. There is a 2:1 recording mode (and this was the first mode enabled), but the sensor is 1.78:1 and can be recorded as such...

That said, the S35 chip does seem to be wider in ratio, but we'll have to see what the specs released end up being before jumping to conclusions, I think.

I do agree that an Academy ratio sensor would be great for anamorphic shooting, but I imagine the thinking is that many people would not want to pay extra for all that sensor they're not using much - not that many people shoot with anamorphics as compared to spherical lenses in the Red user-base, as far as I can tell (I would imagine that the ratio is very different for Arri, however).

Yes, RC250 may make a big difference, although my gut instinct is that the issue is sensor noise, not compression artifacting - although of course, with a new sensor that may all change as well... I also doubt whether - short term at least - many people will be recording using the 250MB/s (or 225MB/s) modes very often. That's a hellish data rate to record real-time.

As for FF35 focus pulling, yes it will be more of a challenge, but not insurmountable for a good AC - and remember, a 100mm lens on an FF35 is exactly the same as a 100mm on an S35 chip, except for the FoV - DoF does not change with gate size (although your choice of lenses will become slightly longer). I have personally pulled on very long lenses wide open, and it's not that big of a deal, if you've got experience. Macro work is by far the most challenging, often with a DoF measured in millimeters! Of course, if you're planning on focusing yourself while operating, by eye, then that's a different issue!!

[JonathanF]

The sensor in the R1 is not 2:1 - it is 1.78:1. There is a 2:1 recording mode (and this was the first mode enabled), but the sensor is 1.78:1 and can be recorded as such...

Oops, you're right Dom.. my bad. I need some more sleep.


I have personally pulled on very long lenses wide open, and it's not that big of a deal, if you've got experience. Macro work is by far the most challenging, often with a DoF measured in millimeters! Of course, if you're planning on focusing yourself while operating, by eye, then that's a different issue!!

Well, I like to think I've got a pretty talented focus puller and with the 150 MP wide open at 1.3 from close up it can get real challenging, and I've been doing it for more than 15 years. I like to be a little kinder and give credit where credit is due in a situation like this because pulling focus in this shot (Check your PM for a couple links) was _not_ easy. ;)

But you're right on the R1 sensor. I've been in the studio too many hours this week. I'm not looking at shooting scope with the R1 because of the viewing issues in the EVF and the LCD, but if that ever changes, or if the Epic resolves those issues, I'm very keen on doing my next scope film digitally on one or the other if I can slap a PV mount on the camera. Then the focus will get real interesting.

[Dominic Jones]

Yeah, no doubt that a 150 @ T1.3 ain't so much fun!! I'm probably a little spoilt these days as my FP is a ninja! And all credit where credit is due, it's a very tough job (I know, I've been one!!) at the best of times - I just don't think that FF35 is going to be such a total game changer (I probably won't be shooting much of it anyway though!). I also doubt you're going to see much T1.3 glass that covers the Vista frame any time soon...

Now get some sleep!! :)

Cheers mate,
Dom.

[Dominic Jones]

Oh, btw - Build 18 for the R1 offers de-squeezed anamorphic monitoring, if that's of any interest to you?

Just in case you hadn't noticed - it can be a full-time job keeping up with the Red code dept!

[JonathanF]

Dom,

I have at least one more drink in me before I fall down.

And yes, that build 18 DOES interest me if that's in there... now I'm going to have to play with it... you just made my week off less relaxing.

Thanks mate!

J

[Dominic Jones]

Ha ha, sorry bro!!

Does indeed include anamorphic de-squeeze, but do bear in mind that it's beta and has been for some time. I've tested it (moderately) heavily, and it seems stable, but have not (as yet) shot in anger with it - others may well have, so perhaps try (a) searching for Build 18 threads and (b) posting a separate thread under the R1 forum - we're pretty well OT here!

Off for a wee dram myself - I'll have one for you!!

Take care mate,
Dom.

[david farland]

Nice thread....figures published in Dec (& few more) for sensors were....

R1 = 5.4 micron - 4K - 24.4 x 13.7mm - 28mm (diag)- 10+ stops - 4K (horiz) - 3.2K (luma rez) - 2.7K (chroma rez)
Mx = 5.4 micron - 5K - 30 x 15 mm - 33.5mm (diag) - 11+ stops - 5K (horiz) - 4K (luma rez) - 3.4K (chroma rez)
Mo = 6.0 micron - 6K - 36 x 24 mm - 43.3mm (diag) - 13+ stops - 6K (horiz) - 4.8K (luma rez) - 4K (chroma rez)

The major points of 6K over S35 will be 13 stops (using larger 6 micron pixels) & 4K chrominance but you'll need the FF35 lenses (hello Viewfactor).

Pawel tested his master primes (here (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=346908&postcount=52)). 14mm & 35mm lens had a 31mm image circle. The 6K sensor has a 43mm image circle (max diag).
I guess people will buy several mounts and use whatever lenses they have or can afford to get full 6K.

Dave,

[JonathanF]

R1 = 5.4 micron - 4K - 24.4 x 13.7mm - 28mm (diag)- 10+ stops - 4K (horiz) - 3.2K (luma rez) - 2.7K (chroma rez)
Mx = 5.4 micron - 5K - 30 x 15 mm - 33.5mm (diag) - 11+ stops - 5K (horiz) - 4K (luma rez) - 3.4K (chroma rez)
Mo = 6.0 micron - 6K - 36 x 24 mm - 43.3mm (diag) - 13+ stops - 6K (horiz) - 4.8K (luma rez) - 4K (chroma rez)

So in theory then you should be able to do partial sensor extraction on the Ro and that could for all practical purposes result in the ability to shoot with a 23.76 x 17.82 sensor at 3.96k or 3.168K luma rez and 2.64 chroma rez. You would then have the same sensor dimension as the D21 and 13 stops instead of 11.

That kind of settles it for me.

Now what I would want in that case is a shooting mode for partial sensor extraction with just a little 'look around' room that's not going to disk. Seems that should be possible.

For a $5k premium it seems a no brainer to me.

Thanks for the post David, I really hadn't thought about it in these terms.

:J