PDA

View Full Version : I vote for the deprecation of the term '2/3"' and its replacement with '16mm'



Eddy Robinson
12-08-2008, 01:41 PM
The dimensions for the smallest Scarlet sensor, 10.1 x 5.35mm, are only slightly smaller than the specifications for 16mm, 10.26 x 7.49mm, although it's about 20% smaller than Super 16mm, which has a frame size of 12.52 by 7.41 mm.

Of course 10.1 + 5.25 only add up to 15.35mm. rather than 17.75mm. But then 2/3" is actually 16.9333:mm. '1/3"' and '2/3"' are misnomers anyway, as there are no sensors of exactly this size. But then since 16 and 35mm refer to the width of the film strip rather than any exact derivative of the frame size, all sensor - film comparison nomenclature is slightly inaccurate.

If we were looking for exact scaling, it might be most accurate to say Scarlet has a sensor size equivalent to Super 13mm. But sine there has never been a 13mm film format, super or otherwise, this is a bit pointless.

Anyhoo, since Scarlet will inevitably be attacked for not being 'true' 2/3", it might as well get attacked for pretending to be 16mm, which at least has the merit of being a film guage people can quickly relate to relative to 35mm. This will establish the market that Scarlet is aiming at more clearly.

Also, it will glorify the vastly superior metric system :shifty:

Kyle Presley
12-08-2008, 01:51 PM
Then people would complain and say "Why does it say 16mm if it's 2/3"?" or "why not make the sensor a little bigger to be S16 sized?"

Eddy Robinson
12-08-2008, 02:21 PM
Then people would complain and say "Why does it say 16mm if it's 2/3"?" or "why not make the sensor a little bigger to be S16 sized?"

Actually, it is neither, so I figure you might as well 'not really' be 16mm. Please re-read the 4th paragraph.

Kyle Presley
12-08-2008, 02:24 PM
Actually, it is neither, so I figure you might as well 'not really' be 16mm. Please re-read the 4th paragraph.

I understand that. Just given the nature of people to find something to complain about. I complain about the complainers.:)

Zaphod
12-10-2008, 02:29 AM
Standard 16 is 10.26 x 7.49 so it is a fair bit smaller than 16mm.

Much closer to 2/3"

David Mullen ASC
12-10-2008, 09:03 AM
Why is there a Phantom HD and a Phantom 4K, rather than a Phantom 2K and a Phantom 4K? Why do people talk about 4K, 2K, then 1080P, 720P instead of 1.9K and 1.2K? In English composition, we call it a lack of parallelism...

Yes, a consistent nomenclature style would be nice, but that's just getting a bit pedantic.

Afterall, we only use terms like S35 and FF35 because they harken to film formats, but someday that's going to seem a bit confusing. On the other hand, referring to the actual width of the sensors, like 22mm or 10mm or 30mm, may also get a bit messy without any industry standards.

But maybe someday that figure, the sensor width, will be in the name of the camera somewhere...

David Rasberry
12-10-2008, 09:10 AM
I would vote for standardizing on the sensor diagonal measure and aspect ratio. This would at least establish the minimum image circle for a lens to cover.

Radoslav Karapetkov
12-10-2008, 09:31 AM
16mm has a ~ 4:3 aspect ratio, so you'd crop it anyway.

But the name "Digital 16mm camera" sounds better. :biggrin:

On the other hand, 2/3" is a marketing-keyword that would appeal to a larger "audience" - broadcasters, videographers, etc.

Filmmakers are fewer, so it's probably a business-naming decision. :devil:

Digital Upstart
12-17-2008, 11:53 AM
But the name "Digital 16mm camera" sounds better. :biggrin:




There is a Swedish manufactuer called Ikonoskop who have made a camera that they describe as just that. I saw them at the IBC exhibition in Amsterdam and they have made this beautiful 1920x1080 (uncompressed, 4:4:4 DNG RAW format) camera that is designed to pick up where their 16mm film cameras left off.

It doesn't have the resolution of Scarlet or the tasty price tag but it was a gorgeous piece of kit.

But you're right: saying 2/3" will attract the broadcasters more.

Radoslav Karapetkov
12-17-2008, 04:13 PM
I know Ikonoskop [from the web].

Interesting cam, no doubt...

Just a small correction, it's not 4:4:4 and it can't be, cause it's bayer pattern. Probably closer to 720p. But these subsampling terms are incorrect here.

The early tests look nice, but we got to see more footage. The 2/3"-Interchangeable Scarlet has firmly captured my attention for the moment... :biggrin:

[Just deliver them faster, please! :sorcerer:]

Luis de la Cerda
12-18-2008, 10:56 PM
I vote for the deprecation of the term '2/3"' and its replacement with 'isodonkey368000' :P

Júlio Taubkin
12-24-2008, 08:21 PM
What about D16? (as in Digital16) So it's D16, S35, FF35. Without the "mm", it wouldn't be misleading, and keep the film vintage sexiness...

Although, my honest opinion, who cares what it's called? D90, 5dMkII, HVX200, PD170, F950, naming was never those guys thing. Except for a-Minima, that one is cool!

Priyesh P.
12-25-2008, 01:51 AM
What about D16? (as in Digital16) So it's D16, S35, FF35. Without the "mm", it wouldn't be misleading, and keep the film vintage sexiness...


Then it gets confused with the D1, D2, D5 etc. video stuff.

Lee Saxon
01-08-2009, 02:39 PM
Of course 10.1 + 5.25 only add up to 15.35mm. rather than 17.75mm. But then 2/3" is actually 16.9333:mm. '1/3"' and '2/3"' are misnomers anyway, as there are no sensors of exactly this size.

Those terms aren't intended to refer to half the perimeter of the sensor (or the diagonal dimension, as is more commonly guessed - way to be different!)

From DPReview :

"Sensors are often referred to with a "type" designation using imperial fractions such as 1/1.8" or 2/3" which are larger than the actual sensor diameters. The type designation harks back to a set of standard sizes given to TV camera tubes in the 50's. These sizes were typically 1/2", 2/3" etc. The size designation does not define the diagonal of the sensor area but rather the outer diameter of the long glass envelope of the tube. Engineers soon discovered that for various reasons the usable area of this imaging plane was approximately two thirds of the designated size. This designation has clearly stuck (although it should have been thrown out long ago). There appears to be no specific mathematical relationship between the diameter of the imaging circle and the sensor size, although it is always roughly two thirds."

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm

Dan Hudgins
01-08-2009, 04:02 PM
It is not fair to Scarlet 2/3" to call it 16mm since it is a high resolution 3K camera which with the right software and OLPF will have a resolution better than many 35mm release prints.

The reason it is unfair is that in film cameras the resolution of the film is constant from one camera size to another so 35mm was better than 16mm and 65/70mm was better than 35mm.

But that is not true for Digital Cinema cameras. With the right lenses and OLPF filters a 3K 2/3" sensor camera can at f/3.5 equal the resolution of a S35mm size sensor camera at about f/6.3. A 2/3" 3K sensor has higher resoltion per mm of sensor area than color movie film as seen in release print taking into account all the generations.

In the digital world the size limits on the lp/mm of color film stocks no longer means that a smaller sensor produces images of 16mm quality. Many fine HD cameras use the 11mm image diagonal sensor that 2/3" has, and have been used to make movies even with just 1920x1080 that are better than some shot on film. With Scarlet being 3K it should be useful for full motion picture production and on the 2K filmout to the release print be little different from what the REDONE looks like.

The only problem you have with the smaller sensors is that you cannot stop the lens down past about f/5.6 to f/8 without the images going soft, and at larger stops like f/1.2 you will probably have less resolution than using an f/1.2 lens on REDONE at 4K size, because it is harder to make sharp fast small lenses of equal resolution as a ratio to the image circle.