Sensor chart

[Jarred Land]

Thanks to Brook for giving us a new Relevant Format template for the new sensors, thought I would share...


http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/1_chartx.jpg

[KETCH ROSSi]

Thanks Brook... and Jarred for sharing, that is a chart alright :) :)

ciao

[Peter Majtan]

How about including "other" 2/3" sensors and 1/3" for comparison? Great work Brook...
:D

[Tom Lowe]

645 is such a beast!

Thanks, Brook.

I might add IMAX and 5-perf 65 to put these sizes into perspective. Maybe Vista Vision as well.

[Esteban Sosnitsky]

as instructive as always..
thanks for sharing

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, VistaVision is the same as the FF35 example...

I don't know who in the world shoots 3-perf Academy width, everyone shoots Full Aperture when shooting 3-perf 35mm. I'd just drop the 3-perf Academy example.

However, if you wanted to, you could toss in the 2-perf 35mm format, which only uses the Academy width.

[SalaTar]

now scrap some of that due to debayer.

[Bruce Allen]

Nice chart dude... after all your good deeds this year, Jim is gonna don a beard and drop a Scarlet under your tree, right?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Noah Kadner]

It would be cool to see what a 720x480 NTSC imager would roughly look like too. Sure makes that Red One look small. :)

Noah

[Peter McCully]

It looks to me like the Epic 617 sensor is depicted in the illustration as 186mm wide rather than 168. Is this possibly a mistake?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Nice chart. :) I think it gets a sticky.

[Mark Andersen]

Jarred, I'd like to see how Epic 645 compares to 65mm cinema or even IMAX. I thinking digital Baraka here.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Here ya go...

EPIC 645 is larger than standard 65mm, but smaller than IMAX. EPIC 617 is a bit taller than IMAX and more than twice as wide. Other flavors like Panavision 70 are mostly based on standard 65mm. For Panavision Ultra 70, it's shot standard 65mm with a 1.25X anamorphic squeeze and a delivery aspect of 2.76:1

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/535_1229444851.jpg

Sorry, I did these as a quick comparison so they're sensor illustrations for the two film formats. I'll go back and make the 65mm and IMAX show their respective film strip representations sometime soon here. :usd:

[Tom Lowe]

It certainly seems to me that 645 could be printed out to 70mm IMAX with stunning image fidelity. The question is, will 70mm IMAX prints and projectors even be around in the future?

With IMAX moving to their stupid, bogus "4K" digital format, the thing I wonder is: Where can we even screen 8- or 10K footage?

[Roberto Lequeux]

Thanks! I needed something like this. Please also add a 1/3 and medium format still for comparison.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Which medium format still type would you want to compare? EPIC 645 and 617 are essentially the same as the medium format still types that often bare the same names; the 6x4.5cm and 6x17cm formats. Then there's 120, 135 and 220 stills. Brook already had 135 still film on his chart above. I'd have to go look up the dimensions of 120 and 220. And they are hardly used these days compared to 645 and 617.

Here's how a 1/2.5" 4x3 digital sensor compares. 1/2.5" seems to be one of the more common sizes these days, actually the same ~5.75mm width, but in a 16:9 aspect ratio. Some cheaper cameras are even smaller. :blink:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/535_1229449762.jpg

[Jarred Land]

Then there's 120, 135 and 220 stills. Brook already had 135 still film on his chart above. I'd have to go look up the dimensions of 120 and 220. And they are hardly used these days compared to 645 and 617.


Hey Jeff, 120 and 220 are the same size, a 220 ROLL is just longer in the roll for more exposures.

And I dont understand your comment about 120 not being used compared to 645... They are the same thing... you use a 120 or 220 roll to capture 645 frames with ( unless your shooting polaroids ) . And I use both of them all the time.. they actually are still quite popular, albeit a total pain in the ass.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Thanks Jarred... I haven't dealt with medium format film in some time, so I guess I'm all lost and confused, my brain pulling up numbers that I haven't thought about or dealt with in a while. ooops.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Very useful chart.

Thanx Brook and Jarred. :construction:

[Brook Willard]

Looks like there's some weird JPEG encoding that happened - the line down the middle got a little messed up at some point. It goes through some of the non-centered formats [Academy] but not some of the centered ones.

I have a chart with 70mm added, but it looks like Jeff already took care of that. The original chart had a few extra formats added with their dimensions and recording areas. If the opportunity presents itself, I"ll post the larger chart.

David, I included 3-perf academy format for its comparison to the RED ONE's 4K recording area. You are correct that it is not a popular format, but it's the RED ONE's closest cousin, so it seemed like a good idea to include it.


Nice chart dude... after all your good deeds this year, Jim is gonna don a beard and drop a Scarlet under your tree, right?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Heheh.

[Petr Dvorak]

Omg Scarlet 2/3 is soooo small, omg!! :waaa: :clown2:

[Roberto Lequeux]

Something seems to be a bit off, 4 perforation S35 looks taller than Misterium-X.

[Tom Lowe]

Omg Scarlet 2/3 is soooo small, omg!! :waaa: :clown2:

Yeah but it's also small enough to mount on a remote controlled helicopter, motorcycle handlebars, or toss in a small backpack. And keep in mind that major films like Revenge of the Sith were shot on that size sensor.

[Casey Green]

Fixed Lens Scarlets DO make great stocking stuffers!

:w00t:

[Kyle Presley]

Hey Jeff, 120 and 220 are the same size, a 220 ROLL is just longer in the roll for more exposures.

And I dont understand your comment about 120 not being used compared to 645... They are the same thing... you use a 120 or 220 roll to capture 645 frames with ( unless your shooting polaroids ) . And I use both of them all the time.. they actually are still quite popular, albeit a total pain in the ass.

I concur, 645 is a pain, but very rewarding!! There is something very special about MF.

[Brook Willard]

Something seems to be a bit off, 4 perforation S35 looks taller than Misterium-X.

That's because it is taller. The S35 sensors are not large enough to do 4-perforation super 35mm or proper anamorphic. I'm sure there will be modes that are closer than the RED ONE is... but it is still a three-perf sensor. That's one of the enormous benefits of the FF35 and 645 models.

[Deanan]

And keep in mind that major films like Revenge of the Sith were shot on that size sensor.

Yup, Scarlet 2/3" is the Yoda of sensors.
Small, but still kicks ass.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Size doesn't matter! :biggrin:

[David Mullen ASC]

That's because it is taller. The S35 sensors are not large enough to do 4-perforation super 35mm or proper anamorphic. I'm sure there will be modes that are closer than the RED ONE is... but it is still a three-perf sensor. That's one of the enormous benefits of the FF35 and 645 models.

4-perf 35mm Full Aperture (Super) is 24.84mm x 18.67mm, but most frames you compose for within that are 24mm wide.

3-perf 35mm Full Aperture is 24.89mm x 13.87mm.

The 4-perf 35mm anamorphic camera aperture is 22mm x 18.59mm.

Other cameras with sensors in the S35 range:

The Arri-D21 sensor (2.8K RAW) is around 4x3, so is very close to 4-perf Super-35 -- it is 23.76mm x 17.8mm.

The Dalsa Origin sensor (4K RAW) is larger than S35 and around 2x1, but that makes the height closer to 4-perf S35 -- it's 34mm x 17.2mm.

The Phantom HD sensor (2K RAW) is square and 25.6mm x 25.6mm.

The RED ONE Mysterium sensor (4.5K RAW) is 24.4mm x 13.7mm, extremely close to 3-perf 35mm Full Aperture.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The RED ONE Mysterium sensor (4.5K RAW) is 24.4mm x 13.7mm, extremely close to 3-perf 35mm Full Aperture.

Ah, yes... But will we ever get to record an image that size with the RED One? 4.5K is coming, but as of the last report, it was to be 2:1. Actually 4480x2240 sticks in the mind for this one. Or 24.18mm x 12.09mm. I guess it's all speculation until we see what RED gives us. Either way, it's all good.

[Peter Majtan]

Omg Scarlet 2/3 is soooo small, omg!! :waaa: :clown2:

Hey Petr, You got it the other way round. Scarlet is bigger then 99% of video cameras out there. It is EPIC that is so HUUUUGGGGEEEEEE! :)

[Mark Andersen]

The 645 is 3:4 aspect ratio sensor. Seems great for stills (which I am sure is the intent) but it has a lot of extra real estate for cinema work. I assume there will be numerous windowed formats, such as one similar to standard 65mm.

[Peter Majtan]

The 645 is 3:4 aspect ratio sensor. Seems great for stills (which I am sure is the intent) but it has a lot of extra real estate for cinema work. I assume there will be numerous windowed formats, such as one similar to standard 65mm.

Think Anamorphic here... :)

[Mark Andersen]

Don't know a lot about anamorphic. I guess you need Imax/medium format type anamorphic lenses to cover the 645. Do these lenses exist? I would think panavision 70 ana lenses might not have a large enough image circle, but I guess you could window down. any thoughts here?

[David Mullen ASC]

I doubt Panavision has complete sets of the old Ultra Panavision 65 anamorphic lenses -- those only had a 1.25X squeeze anyway to squeeze 2.7 : 1 onto a 2.2 : 1 neg.

Plus the 5-perf 65mm neg is only 23mm tall, and the 645 neg is 42mm tall.

There was an old format called CinemaScope 55, which used a 55mm negative and big anamorphic lenses with 2X squeeze, only used on two features: "The King and I" and "Carousel". But even that format was probably not 42mm tall.

With a sensor that big, with that much resolution, you can easily just crop of you want a 2.40 image.

[Moir]

It's easy to forget how incredible sensor (or indeed film) technology is: an image recorded onto something the size of a postage stamp looks fantastic when projected onto a cinema screen. We take a lot for granted!

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Brook.

Great.

Just for the reference to compare with Panavision and Arri original papers about the formats see the pictures below:

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/Cine_formats2.jpg
Panavision film formats.

http://homepage.mac.com/sanjinjukic/RED/cine_formats1.jpg
Arri film formats.

[Joshua Brown]

Ah this chart is great thanks so much! And I never knew that revenge of the sith was shot on a 2/3" sensor? What camera/brand? I always assumed they were done on film. But I guess I should have assumed otherwise given Lucas' bent toward technology.

-Josh

[David Mullen ASC]

"Phantom Menace" was shot in 35mm anamorphic (Hawk). One scene was shot on a Sony HDW-750 HDCAM in interlace.

"Attack of the Clones" was shot on the Sony F900 HDCAM

"Revenge of the Sith" was shot on the Sony F950 to HDCAM-SR

[Joshua Brown]

"Phantom Menace" was shot in 35mm anamorphic (Hawk). One scene was shot on a Sony HDW-750 HDCAM in interlace.

"Attack of the Clones" was shot on the Sony F900 HDCAM

"Revenge of the Sith" was shot on the Sony F950 to HDCAM-SR


Lets hope the next few will be shot on red eh? I would LOVE to see that!

-Josh

[Scott H. Jones]

If this has been posted before I can't find it: What is the windowed sensor size of 3K 16:9? I need to track some footage in boujou and this info will help with accuracy. It would great to have all the various windowed sizes on hand anyway, ideally on Brook's sensor chart at the beginning of this thread.

[Petr Dvorak]

Yeah but it's also small enough to mount on a remote controlled helicopter, motorcycle handlebars, or toss in a small backpack. And keep in mind that major films like Revenge of the Sith were shot on that size sensor.

Tom it was all just fun. Hence clown. :wink:
Result pictures will speak for itself.

btw Attack of the Clones was also shot with this and I think blacks were very noisy.

[David Mullen ASC]

If this has been posted before I can't find it: What is the windowed sensor size of 3K 16:9? I need to track some footage in boujou and this info will help with accuracy. It would great to have all the various windowed sizes on hand anyway, ideally on Brook's sensor chart at the beginning of this thread.

Until someone writes in with the correct answer...

My best guess is that 3K 16x9 is 3072 x 1728 pixels. So if the RED ONE sensor is 24.4mm wide to get 4520 pixels, then that works out to be:

4K 16x9 = 4096 x 2304 / 22.11mm x 12.436mm
3K 16x9 = 3072 x 1728 / 16.58mm x 9.326mm

But that's just a guess, I don't know what the official numbers are from RED.

[Tom Lowe]

I really have to say that Revenge of the Sith, which I'm pretty sure was shot 4:4:4 on the F950, is possibly the cleanest, most beautiful 1080p video I have ever seen. It's just stunning. And the version I saw was some low-bandwidth broadcast cable 1080p encoded to an 8GB bit torrent mkv file!

Even as great as Baraka's 8K recent Bluray looks, in some ways, the Sith 1080p looks even cleaner and with better color. I don't know if this is scientifically possible, I'm just telling you what my eyes saw.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Have to agree, Tom. RotS looks very good.

As for Baraka Blu-Ray, I still need to check it out. I've heard a few reports that while it's overall very good, they let typical consumer delivery mentality take over and they screwed the transfer with excessive edge enhancements and detail sharpening. Essentially tweaking it so the transfer looks its best on a 46" 1080p display, so people with larger DLPs and projectors are not so happy. I guess I should see for myself, haven't watched that film in a long time anyway.

[Paris Remillard]

If this has been posted before I can't find it: What is the windowed sensor size of 3K 16:9? I need to track some footage in boujou and this info will help with accuracy. It would great to have all the various windowed sizes on hand anyway, ideally on Brook's sensor chart at the beginning of this thread.

According to Deanan, just multiply pixel size, which on the Red One is 5.4microns, or .0054mm, by the number of pixels in each direction. So, .0054x3072=16.5888mm, by .0054x1728=9.3312mm

EDIT: Oops, sorry, David already posted it.

[Shane Betts]

I concur, 645 is a pain, but very rewarding!! There is something very special about MF.

I have very fond memories of my old Bronica ETRs. Favourite camera for a long time and I just loved seeing those MF negs in the enlarger.

BTW, for those still interested so long after the conversation has moved on, the various popular MF sizes are/were: 6x4.5 (Bronica, Mamiya 645, Contax 645), 6x6 (Hassleblad, Bronica and a host of TLR's), 6x7 (Mamiya RB/RZ67, Pentax), 6x9 (mostly roll film adaptors for view cameras) and 6x17 (Panoramic cameras like Fuji, Linhof as well as roll film backs for view cameras). The majority of MF work done professionally would probably have been on 6x7 I would reckon. I was always frowned upon for my ETRs "little" neg but the RB67 used to kill me with it's weight, double wind and rotate the back not the camera. Never really got into the 35mm SLR type body until my D200.

OMG, can't believe how old some of those names make me feel:waaa:

Could somebody also post a physical comparison of R1 at 2k?

[David Mullen ASC]

Could somebody also post a physical comparison of R1 at 2k?

It would be rather close to 16mm/Super-16 in dimensions. If the 4096 recorded area is around 22mm wide, then the 2048 area is around 11mm wide -- 16mm camera aperture is 10.26mm wide and the Super-16 camera aperture is 12.52mm.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

For the mathematically challenged, the 2K 16:9 crop area on the RED One is 11mm x 6.22mm. That's a bit larger than 2/3", but smaller than S16.

And I see David answered it too.

[David Bourla]

And what glass are we supposed to use with FF35? Canon and Nikon still lenses? I'm confused. I mean, standard PL cine glass will fully cover the FF35 sensor? Or will there be cropping?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Most all standard PL cine glass WILL NOT cover FF35. RED has announced their own line of FF35 glass, but I think most, or all,are their 'electronic' lenses. Hopefully they are more suited to cine applications than the offerings from Nikon, Canon, etc.. I may be wishing on a star here, but I'm hoping that the upcoming set of RED primes will cover FF35.

Leica is supposedly working on making cine primes, so there's some hope there. Some sets of PL converted Leica primes are out there now, like the Van Dieman conversions, which supposedly cover FF35.

I think at this point it's a bit early too tell just what the options will be when the FF35 Scarlet / EPIC ship. Of course, there's also the question of what options will be available for the 645 and 617. Or if we will at first have to use existing medium format and panoramic lenses from Mamiya, Fuji, etc..

[chuck colburn]

Better start buying medium format glass before it jumps in price like the better used 35mm lenses have. Examples... Contax 21mm was 1-1.5k now 2.5-3k. Angenieux 28-70 f2.6 was .5k now 1.2-2k etc.

I used different medium format lens on a 65mm cine camera project. I liked the pentax 645 series. 2 or 3 were f2.8 fairly fast for the format. The 617 lenses have a nice focale length grouping and cost less then some others. I can see somebody ripping that rectilinear correct wide angle (38mm) off of a Hasselblad SWC to have one hell of a wide angle lens.

Here's a real clean one at a good price. I just noticed that it focuses cinewise too.

http://cgi.ebay.com/HASSELBLAD-SWC-M-T-38MM-F4-5-BIOGON-SUPERWIDE-MINT_W0QQitemZ170291954271QQcmdZViewItemQQptZFilm_ Cameras?hash=item170291954271&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1234%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C 240%3A1318%7C301%3A0%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50

[michael zaletel]

Cool. Thanks.

-shooter

[Casper Warnich]

Hey there,
I have a couple of questions that some of you may or may not be able to answer :-)

I'm planning on buying a Red, but I don't know which sensor size I should get. I'm leaning towards buying a Scarlet with either the S35 or the FF35. The FF35 looks like a 4:3 format, which is probably great if you use an anamorphic lens - but I will be using Nikons. So would it make more sense to buy the cheaper S35 (which is much closer to 2:1 and only few mm narrower than the FF35)

Also, will there be a noticeable difference in the noise and low-light preformance between the two sensors?

Finally, the FF35 and S35 comes in both Scarlet and Epic versions. Other than the fps, the bitrate is the only real thing separating them (as far as I can tell). Is the REDCODE 225 just overkill for perfectionists, or will there there a big difference from REDCODE 80? (don't get me wrong, I know there is a difference :)

I can't wait to buy this camera, everything about it seems so cool.

Casper

[Mitch Gross]

The simple answer to all your questions is that no one hear really knows with the exception of some RED employees who are certainly not going to tell. The only camera currently available is the RED One.

[Verbeeck Francis]

When RED Is ready with the camera I am convinced that the guys from Cooke will be too happy to provide the glas.
Be ware of the price. An be stun by the quality.
Photo lenses are not well adapted for film. The travel for focusing from closed range to infinity is only 1/3 of a turn. Focus pullers would like a longer travel for accuracy sake.

[Häakon]

Indeed, there is going to be a real wake up call for the FF35 shooters (glass-wise) when the camera ships. I don't doubt that RED will hit the best quality point they can with their own FF35 lenses, but as of right now they are all zooms and autofocus (to me, it looks that they're going more after the still market with these lenses and the Scarlet FF model... no photographer is going to drop $33K for a bulkier version of the FF camera than they've already got).

The 645, to me, seems like a huge waste of sensor real estate unless you're choosing to shoot anamorphic (and yes I know, many people like this). But even though David is right that "with a sensor that big, with that much resolution, you can easily just crop of you want a 2.40 image," if you're just going to shoot spherically with it and crop that much you really should just be shooting with the S35 sensor and saving the extra cost / glass hassles. In my mind that's just the wrong use for that camera.

Then again, the S35 is "Mysterium-X only," so the obvious counterargument is that the extra dynamic range of the better sensor always trumps the fact that you're throwing half of the picture away. What was the reason Monstro couldn't be made into an s35-size again?

[Tom Lowe]

Indeed, there is going to be a real wake up call for the FF35 shooters (glass-wise) when the camera ships. I don't doubt that RED will hit the best quality point they can with their own FF35 lenses, but as of right now they are all zooms and autofocus (to me, it looks that they're going more after the still market with these lenses and the Scarlet FF model... no photographer is going to drop $33K for a bulkier version of the FF camera than they've already got).

Plenty of people are already starting to shoot on Canon 5D2s, which will begin to air out some of the issues with FF35 cine shooting, in terms of lenses.


Then again, the S35 is "Mysterium-X only," so the obvious counterargument is that the extra dynamic range of the better sensor always trumps the fact that you're throwing half of the picture away. What was the reason Monstro couldn't be made into an s35-size again?

Why not get FF35 and window to S35 is that is your goal? Jim has stated, IIRC, that it is simply is not technologically (nor economically?) feasible to make an S35 Monstro sensor at this time. They might have reached a limit on how many pixels can be crammed into a given piece of real estate and still achieve significant DR gains? My suggestion for people wanting S35 Monstro would be to wait for FF35 Monstro (either Scarlet or Epic), and then either buy those cameras and window them for S35 shoots, or be patient enough for a future S35 Monstro offering, which might come a year later, for example. If you buy and use an FF35 Monstro in the meantime, all your accessories will obviously be usable with future offerings, plus you can probably recover a good portion of the money by selling the FF35 brain used. Then again, by that point, you might conclude that you like the flexibility of FF35, and decide to keep it! :) :gun:

[Häakon]

Plenty of people are already starting to shoot on Canon 5D2s, which will begin to air out some of the issues with FF35 cine shooting, in terms of lenses.
Those people are shooting with Canon still lenses, though. While of course it's "possible" to shoot with those lenses, I can't imagine that will be an acceptable solution for most Hollywood (or even a great deal of independent) productions. The problem with using still lenses for motion picture work is well documented.


Why not get FF35 and window to S35 is that is your goal? Jim has stated, IIRC, that it is simply is not technologically (nor economically?) feasible to make an S35 Monstro sensor at this time. They might have reached a limit on how many pixels can be crammed into a given piece of real estate and still achieve significant DR gains?
I'm not sure, I haven't completely decided which direction I'm going to go yet. I do think buying a FF35 camera with the intention of largely only shooting s35 stuff is a pretty big waste. And if I'm only using a s35 crop of the sensor to get my widescreen image, then that number of pixels wouldn't change at all if they just used a slice of the larger version to make a Monstro version. But I wasn't gunning for that... they've made their plans clear. My main point was just that I think that the FF35 camera may prove to be more of a challenge than expected for those who do not intend to be primarily shooting anamorphic.

[Tom Lowe]

Those people are shooting with Canon still lenses, though. While of course it's "possible" to shoot with those lenses, I can't imagine that will be an acceptable solution for most Hollywood (or even a great deal of independent) productions. The problem with using still lenses for motion picture work is well documented.

Yes. That was the point I was making. Cameras like the 5D2 and Nikon D90 are forcing people to start thinking about FF35 cine glass, or rehousing FF35 still glass, or creating new FF35 cine glass, for motion FF35. It's kind of a blessing to DSMC that there are some FF35 motion cameras already out there, so that people can at least dip their toes in the format.

As far as a chopped Monstro sensor for S35, there must be some reason that it's not being offered. I think one problem is that the resolution will not be "True 4K." But that is the case even in windowed S35 mode on the FF35 camera, if I am not mistaken.

[Alexander Nikishin]

What was the reason Monstro couldn't be made into an s35-size again?

There was never really a formal answer but the one that made the most sense was the lack of a sensor that could encompass the larger pixel density (6 microns vs 5.4 of the Epic X) in an S35 size while maintaining full 4k resolution.

The added latitude and sensitivity seems to come from the larger pixels of the monstro.

[DS Williams]

The epic 617 is so small! :p

[DS Williams]

Will 35mm cine glass cover the Mysterium-X s35, seeing that it is 30mm across which is wider than 35mm film?

[Mitch Gross]

I just answered this question in another thread. It is not about the width; it's about the diagonal. A lens projects a circle of light and the frame must fall within it. Super 35 has a diagonal a little over 31mm and the diagonal of the 30x15 frame is 33mm. Most S-35 glass projects a bit bigger than the S-35 frame so it would then cover the new RED frame.

[Christian Edwards]

should the 2/3 be expressed in inches ? im not really a film guy but in my understanding of the correlation between film and digital should'nt the 2/3 sensor be derived from s16mm not 16mm film ?

[Felix K.]

Yeah but it's also small enough to mount on a remote controlled helicopter, motorcycle handlebars, or toss in a small backpack. And keep in mind that major films like Revenge of the Sith were shot on that size sensor.

Yeah, and they had to fill in artificial backgrounds via greenscreen so that they could get any depth :P

"Come to the dark side! We have cookies! Not lenses, though!"

[David Rasberry]

should the 2/3 be expressed in inches ? im not really a film guy but in my understanding of the correlation between film and digital should'nt the 2/3 sensor be derived from s16mm not 16mm film ?

2/3" format refers to the diameter of a vidicon tube, an obsolete reference these days, but it has stuck.
The old black and white 2/3" vidicon TV cameras very closely matched the TV projection aperture of standard 16mm film in image size. 16mm camera lenses could be used on them with very little difference in field of view.

[JD Holloway]

Hey where did the chart go?

[JD Holloway]

AH found it on red.com

[Carsten Kurz]

Still someone should include it again in the first posting, since this is a sticky thread.

- Carsten

[Christian Edwards]

Still someone should include it again in the first posting, since this is a sticky thread.

- Carsten
True

[Kyle Presley]

Could we get this back, please?

[Justin O'Neill]

Yeah I keep sending people to this page and the image is gone!

[Jeetu Chawla]

Thanks to Brook for giving us a new Relevant Format template for the new sensors, thought I would share...


http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/1_chartx.jpg

Hi Jarred,

I'm aware that the site had crashed a while back & hence we've lost almost all images & relevancy to all links... but can we please have the images restored to the stickies atleast...

Newbies like me keep joining the forum & are kinda lost without these great tutorials!

Thanks!
:001_rolleyes:

[Curran Giddens]

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7283/1chartx.jpg (http://img35.imageshack.us/i/1chartx.jpg/)

[Jeetu Chawla]

Curran... thanks a ton!

the reason why this forum rocks
:thumbup1:

[Ralph Wong]

I'm a little surprised at the size of the 2/3" sensor. It almost looks like the same size as the area the RED one uses when it shoots 2k. Of course the most important thing is how the image comes out in the end. I shot tests using the same subject in 4k, 3k, and 2k, and did not notice the difference on my HD monitor. I'm sure there would be a difference projected on the big screen, though. I am curious how much better the RED one 3k will be than the Scarlet 3k. At first I thought it would be negligible given that the resolutions will be the same. However, this sensor chart makes me think the RED one 3k will be far superior. Am I wrong in this assumption?

[Mitch Gross]

The problem I have with Brook's chart is that it notes full sensor size but not actual image area used for given formats. This is true on all of the notes frames, REDs included. It would be useful to have these noted as well.

Don't get me wrong -- sweet chart. I just think it could be even sweeter.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Some of the format sizes and resolutions listed don't match up, most of it is referencing what RED posted in the past. Mysterium-X S35 has a recordable width of 5120 pixels as listed above, the sensor size is 30x15, but 5120 pixels equates to about 27.68mm width for recordable area.

I'd say the chart could do with a refresh after we get more info at NAB.

[David Rasberry]

I'm a little surprised at the size of the 2/3" sensor. It almost looks like the same size as the area the RED one uses when it shoots 2k. Of course the most important thing is how the image comes out in the end. I shot tests using the same subject in 4k, 3k, and 2k, and did not notice the difference on my HD monitor. I'm sure there would be a difference projected on the big screen, though. I am curious how much better the RED one 3k will be than the Scarlet 3k. At first I thought it would be negligible given that the resolutions will be the same. However, this sensor chart makes me think the RED one 3k will be far superior. Am I wrong in this assumption?

When this question was posed in another thread, JJ's comment was that S35/R1 3k would have a slight advantage over 2/3" 3k, and that the 2/3" chip is exceptionally good.
Most 16mm lenses won't cover 3k on an R1 though, so you would lose the advantage of compact optics, especially wide range zooms.

http://reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5212&d=1266536496

Chart is to scale based on Jim's last stated pixel pitch for the 2/3" of 3.3 microns and R1/S35 pitch of 5.4 microns.

[nageswara rao s]

nice chart work. but actually scarlet's 2/3" sensor size is 10.1mm *5.35mm. so its actual capable resolution is 3060 *1621 according 3.3 microns per mm not 3072*1728, so it gives 4,961,844 pixels only, that is 93.4% of 3k resolution. in debayer pattern we can get 80% of resolution from sensor for processing and usable only, then 4,961,844*(0.8) = 3,969,475 pixels. that is 74.7% of 3k and 1.6 times more of 2k resolution. am i calculating the correct way or not? but red team are saying it captures 3k resolution how it could be possible where as actually capturing at 93.4% of 3k? please provide me some more information on this, seniors.thanks in advance. good views about charts and sensors also you guys.
with best regards
nageswara rao surapaneni

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Some of the details on the chart here are not quite right. Either based on old info or numbers rounded off incorrectly -- they're close for generalized reference. You are correct that the photosite/pixel size on the 2/3" MX sensor 3.3 microns (as far as what I've seen from RED and based on how the math works out). The sensor's recordable area is 3072 pixels wide by 1620 high. It seems you're applying the 3.3 micron dimension to the incorrect (assumed) dimensions that were posted on the old chart.

80% resolution is a blanket assumption often used in the industry. RED has shown they are getting close to 88% nominal (almost 3.6K measured from 4096 pixels recorded) or more from the MX sensor on the RED One. Much of this depends on the OLPF design and the algorithms used to process the Bayer data. Scarlet 2/3" records 3K and it has been said repeatedly over and over, it will make superior 2K and 1080p images and deliver nominal / measured resolution close to 2.8K. The sensor's recordable area is 3072x1620 (2880x1620 when recording 16:9) and there is an additional active look-around area. Recordable area dimensions should be 10.138mm x 5.346mm.

Of course, all specs subject to change... It's not official until we can buy it.

[nageswara rao s]

thank you Mr jeff kilgroe for providing me best known information, available to you sir. good day

[Shawn Nelson]

where'd the chart go? I can't see it.

[Kemalettin Sert]

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7283/1chartx.jpg (http://img35.imageshack.us/i/1chartx.jpg/)

cant find this chart on red.com

[Jeff Kilgroe]

cant find this chart on red.com

Uhm.... probably because it contains info that is no longer accurate or wasn't entirely accurate to begin with. And it was not made by RED.

[Kemalettin Sert]

Uhm.... probably because it contains info that is no longer accurate or wasn't entirely accurate to begin with. And it was not made by RED.

sorry for my bad english i meant red chart on red.com :) site looks little complicated.

[jericho vir filomeno]

was the R1 camera sensor like s35 or 35mm? tnx

[Callum Just]

S35

[Robert Grindlinger]

Great info!

[Pascal Parvex]

Very interesting Chart. The biggest, the Monstro, has a 3:1 ratio?

[Karim Iglesias]

please post the chart again please

[Danny Dunlop]

Yes please sir, we want some more chart.

[Harry Stanton]

Where is the chart?