|
|
12-11-2009, 09:12 AM
If I recall correctly, someone asked about the side handle and the response was they were still working out this particular detail for the fixed. It came about when someone asked about the battery because the side handle was to have the battery in it and now we aren't certain where the battery plays into things.
12-11-2009, 09:25 AM
is the RED ARMY really going to take over the industry?
12-11-2009, 09:27 AM
LOCK AND LOAD!Originally Posted by LINKIN
12-11-2009, 09:30 AM
Using this way-handy form (http://www.panavision.co.nz/Main/kbase.asp?cat=13), I was able to find out the FF35 (what I'm accustomed to in the photo world) equivalents of the 2/3" Red mini-primes:
6mm = 20mm
8mm = 26.7mm
16mm = 53.3mm
25mm = 83mm
50mm = 167mm
But I had some trouble finding out at what focal length a 2/3" lens has no perspective distortion (like, for instance, how in FF35, it's 50mm). Anyone know? Is it around 16mm?
Last edited by joshua csehak; 12-11-2009 at 10:01 AM. Reason: forgot to include the link
12-11-2009, 09:41 AM
Well, if you go by the old rule of the length of the diagonal, then for FF35 (36x24) then it's around 43mm, for the full RED sensor (24.4x13.7), it's around a 28mm, and for a 2/3" sensor (9.58x5.39) it's around 11mm.
If you go by the conversion factors for horizontal view, a 50mm in FF35 is a 34mm for S35 and a 13mm for 2/3", more or less.
12-11-2009, 10:36 AM
This is one portion of the so-called "50mm myth". There's nothing magic about 50mm, and "perspective distortion" is a misnomer. Focal length doesn't change perspective (only position does, though sometimes you change focal length because you change position, but it's the position change that changes perspective, not the change of focal length).
12-11-2009, 10:54 AM
It's just a common expression, a "lack of perspective distortion" that a 50mm lens gives you in FF35. We all know what he's talking about, however you want to call it -- a "normal" lens, whatever (though I'm not too fond of that term either.) You could describe it as the focal length that gives you no image magnification or reduction when you look at the subject with your own eyes and then with through the lens. And I wouldn't call that "matching human vision or perspective" either since that ignores peripheral vision.
12-11-2009, 11:16 AM
Yeah, I wasn't quite sure how to put it, but thanks very much for the info. It sounds like the 16 is the "normal" one, the 25 is good for portraits, the 8, for wide-angles, and the 6 and 50 for when you want really wide or telephoto shots. Which makes sense.
I wonder what the best 2/3" zoom options there are out there for the people who go for the interchangeable flavor, since, IIRC, Jarred said Red isn't going to rehouse their fixed zoom for use with the interchangeable Scarlet.
Of course, maybe the best route is to get both, the fixed for ENG stuff (or zoomy shots) and the interchangeable for when you need those extra 2 stops of light, and then you have a backup camera, which is always a good thing.
Or course again, it's not like I don't have at least 5 months to decide...
12-13-2009, 06:25 AM
The larger sensors will have higher resolution, but aside from that, I would be interested to run some tests on finished products to see if a larger sensor actually equals noticeable superior image quality on finished output at, say, 1920x1080.
12-13-2009, 07:20 AM
In my experience with the Red One, scaling from 4k down to 1920 definitely gives you a better looking image than if you were to just crop out the center 1920x1080 of the same shot, but framed twice as wide (or use windowed mode). Sometimes you get a little haloing and other artifacts, especially with lesser-quality lenses, and the scaling makes all that disappear. Anyone else?
What i'm really curious about is how the 3k Scarlet will look scaled down to 1920. I think it'll be just right.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
