View Poll Results: Now or waiting?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • S35mm [as techie penitents]

    24 88.89%
  • 35mm [as wi(l)der as possible]

    3 11.11%
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 57
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    314
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Brook Willard
    S35 camera, S35 lens. It's simple for me. Even if I'll be limited to the 35mm area when I start shooting with the camera
    And the 11.5 megapixels of the sensor will be useless. You'll be at the 9.4 figure (4k). If you'll shoot 2k cropped (scale doesn't exist any more) you'll get less than 2.4 megapixels. The same than the Silicon Imaging/Cineform camera.


     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member Muttondraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Surrey. UK.
    Posts
    242
    Default
    I can't imagine Red producing a lens that only covers 35mm but I would like to go wider than 18mm at 35mm. I know it then wouldn't cover the full sensor area but I won't be shooting 2540p so that isn't significant for me. Now if RedOne could scale the full sensor, or could record full bandwidth to cheap mags it would be different.

    Martin
    Last edited by Muttondraw; 12-20-2006 at 11:19 AM.


     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Emanuel

    Using a SLR option, you'll be more limited (36 x 20.25 mm --> 22.2 x 12.6 mm coverage) and the slight difference can be more difference than slight... That is, a wide angle will lose qualities as so wide. I thought to use the Nikkor 17mm for 25mm and now I'll have 28mm -- it's a completely different lens range. So, I should buy the 14mm and spend $1,500 for a 22mm wider range. It hurts.
    .
    Hi Ennanuel,

    There may be some confusion here a 18mm Nikon still lens will have the identical FOV of an 18mm Zeiss or Cooke motion picture lens.

    Most 35mm motion picture lenses will cover S35mm even when they were designed for N35. Only very old zooms are an issue.

    Stephen


     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Cross-Examiner Emanuel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,664
    Default
    Thank you Stephen for your help and concern! I remember now we've been talking about it before and you've warned on this N35 lenses coverage. My bad: speaking on things coming from a different filmmaking field and background than my own.

    Back to the SLR matter. Let's see:

    36mm x 24mm (still 35mm) --> 24.4mm x 13.7mm (S35) or now 22.2mm x 12.6mm (N35). This implies a different FOV isn't it? 'cause the lenses were designed for a larger format. The magnification factor effect.

    Emanuel
    RED ONE @home
    #111
    Emanuel & Co's RED ONE
    #647
    RED ZOOM LENSES
    #156
    #157
    RED 300mm LENS
    #82
    Who am I?

    * LINK *
    ** IMDb **


     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member Brook Willard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    502
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Prince
    And the 11.5 megapixels of the sensor will be useless. You'll be at the 9.4 figure (4k). If you'll shoot 2k cropped (scale doesn't exist any more) you'll get less than 2.4 megapixels. The same than the Silicon Imaging/Cineform camera.
    I'm going to drop megapixel figures here... my mind equates megapixels to still photography.

    If I'm shooting 35mm [and I'm referring to motion picture 35mm here, not still 35mm] film and scanning to 4K, I'm getting a great image. If I shoot digital 4K with the RED, I'm getting a great image... without grain and with truer colors. Great!

    If I'm shooting S16mm and scanning, I'm going to scan to 1080p or 2K. I'm getting the best image possible from the S16mm format. If I shoot digital 2K with RED, I'm getting the same resolution image... without grain and with truer colors. Great!

    Whether or not that extra .5K beyond 4K sits unused on the sensor for 6 months or a year doesn't bother me. It's there! When a realistic means for shooting 2540p REDCODE RAW exists, I'll do it. To bring your numbers back to the equation, those 11.4 megapixels are not useless... they are always available to me whenever I have the means to use them.

    Some people will shoot uncompressed RAW right off the bat and use the full potential of the camera. Most will not. Someday there will be a more reasonable way to shoot S35mm/2540p than there is right now... probably based around REDCODE, even if it requires an external compressor.
    "I've heard that this project is impossible... hehe" ~ Jim Jannard
    The Pursuit of Happyness


     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member Brook Willard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    502
    Default
    And if people are trying to figure out the magnification figures, a 1.6x crop DSLR is nearly identical to S35mm. If you want to figure out your still focal lengths in S35mm terms, the conversion is nearly identical to a 1.6x crop DSLR.
    "I've heard that this project is impossible... hehe" ~ Jim Jannard
    The Pursuit of Happyness


     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Emanuel
    Back to the SLR matter. Let's see:

    36mm x 24mm (still 35mm) --> 24.4mm x 13.7mm (S35) or now 22.2mm x 12.6mm (N35). This implies a different FOV isn't it? 'cause the lenses were designed for a larger format. The magnification factor effect.

    Emanuel
    Hi Emanuel,

    The field of view is different because of the sensor size. Think in terms of a Nikon DSLR when selecting a lens for your Red. You will only get confused thinking of conversion factors! (FWIW a 10mm 2/3" chip is like a movie 25mm lens S35!)

    Stephen


     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member Nick_Shaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    239
    Default
    The main use for those extra megapixels in the short term is for seeing 'outside the frame' on the viewfinder, as you would with an OVF. I think we'll all apreciate that capability.

    Nick
    Workflow Consultant
    Antler Post
    London, UK
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Advisor to Convergent Design on LUTs and image processing for the Odyssey


     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    277
    Default
    And the 11.5 megapixels of the sensor will be useless. You'll be at the 9.4 figure (4k). If you'll shoot 2k cropped (scale doesn't exist any more) you'll get less than 2.4 megapixels. The same than the Silicon Imaging/Cineform camera.
    By Gordon Prince

    Fair point. Though not all sensors are equal, right. Reds 2.4 megapixels will be much larger than the SI silicon camera. That might well mean better dynamics and increased low light performance. Though the si camera did perform very well in the recent test shoots. It will be interesting to see how things will pan out at the 2k level. Does the sheer sixe of the sensor have a bearing on image quality if comparing only part of the sensor used with another camera using all of the sensor but both sized equal ignoring my comments about pixel size?

    Michael


     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member Muttondraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Surrey. UK.
    Posts
    242
    Default
    As you say Mike, different sensors will have different characteristics, resolution is just one specification. I wonder if people get overly hung up about the maximum resolution. I am sure a lot of people will be shooting 4K, because they can, but it will be interesting to see what the overheads are when it comes to the difference in workflow between shooting 4K and scaling in RedCine compared to shooting 2K directly (certainly in the short term). One of the attractive things about RedOne is the flexibility to be able to use different imaging areas for different applications sometimes 4K will be what you need, sometimes 2K is going to make a lot more sense. Remember most feature films which have gone through digital intermediate are less than 2K by the time you see them in your local cinema, so 2K isn't as bad as it might sometimes sound.

    Martin


     

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •