RED lenses coverage: S35 vs. 35 mm (pros & cons)

RED lenses coverage: S35 vs. 35 mm (pros & cons)

  • Total voters
    27
Status
Not open for further replies.
Emanuel

Emanuel

Cross-Examiner
Following the recent news and the specs upgrade, here we are with a deal to handle: Should the RED lenses cover the S35 format (24.4 x 13.7) or just the 35mm ratio (22.2 x 12.6) -- avoiding the magnification factor effect (that is, being wider)?

In order to a future RED ONE upgrade, the S35 coverage makes more sense, however we're now and now there will be a lot of RED reservation holders who are thinking the same than myself:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=81686&page=10

However, such concern doesn't mean a 35mm coverage preference instead the S35 as I said before. And it is my penitence though my idea. What's yours?
 
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, the "future proofing" of having that S35mm area available on both camera and lens sides of the equation is key. A few mm here and there on focal lengths is something I can deal with.
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course. My only concern is that coming from the 36mm x 24mm (20.25mm @16x9) where the magnification will bring some effects or even damages @my_pocket as it's possible to figure out following the link above-posted. But unfortunately, there isn't choice.
 
Sorry Brook, my bad. For sure you aren't inside my thoughts. I was referring my other post:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=81686&page=10

Emanuel said:
For example, I thought to have a swiss-knife-zoom like the Nikkor 17-35mm lens is and now -- if the things will go like it was announced today, I'll also buy the Nikkor 14mm wide angle (@35mm 22mm instead 28mm). That's $1,500 plus. :( And I'll need my money for all the range of devices in order to accessorize my RED ONE. RED branded too. So, I'd say, aside the RED company's interest in order to satisfy their customers tomorrow (now reservation holders), it is also their own interest 'cause our money isn't elastic.

Well, I have all my confidence in the Jim's knowledge on his own business. He knows we need our money available for our future RED ONE units and respective accessories. Our outcome is theirselves too.
Click to expand...

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... :D 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.

EDIT -- However, we must let the reason speaks. That's why I started this thread in order to show that the RED team handles with a lot of hassles and we must adapt our needs to the possibilities grade.
 
Last edited:
not sure why the question/poll ...
why would RED make a digital camera with S35 sensor and then make RED lens that do not cover it ??

not sure what is meant by magnification ?
if the lens covers S35 then in 2k/1080/720 you are just pulling image from center of lens and that IMO is NOT magification ... however if the lens only covers 35 or S16 then you would need a device (another piece of glass behind lens) for it to cover S35 and that would be " magnification " ..
 
Hi Don!

I owe you an email -- I didn't forget :)

Both questions are fair:

1) I believe my vote and the last post's edit covers your doubt.
2) It's windowed not scaled [RAW doesn't allow it -- read the specs change thread and the Rob's (Lohman) info available there], to my knowledge.

Cheers :beer:
Emanuel
 
I don't understand the poll... I'll use both type of lenses and when I can afford it, move away from still lenses.
Aloha
-A
 
Understood. In my case, I can't. Lightweight 'oblige'.

The poll is a fake poll. I mean: I'd expect 100% of the votes in one direction. :D I just want to make a point in order to dedramatise what we just knew today (specs change thread). And I'm afraid there is a silent majority satisfied with the RED team achievements/announcements and doesn't want more changes. :)
 
Brook Willard said:
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
Click to expand...
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 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:
Emanuel said:
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... :D 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.
.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
Gordon Prince said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Emanuel said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top