RED Sensors getting bigger

[rory hinds]

From the new RED line up it appears the RED sensor program is one of gaining resolution by making the sensors physically larger.

 

Which would mean having to use new lenses which cover the larger sensors.

 

Fan's are over the moon about this but IMO I don't see this as progress.

The industry is set up to shoot S35 and has post processes & delivery formats to handle 2k & 4k.

 

What we need is higher resolution sensors with the same physical size to accommodate industry standard lenses like Zeiss & Cooke.

 

Shooting with a new RED sensor will mean disabling the outer area of the sensor in "window" mode. So your fancy new 6k sensor will only be recording say 4k when you shoot S35.

 

Has the RED sensor design hit a wall?

Is the only way forward making physically larger sensors?

 

Do we now have to look at Arri or Sony to offer higher resolution and dynamic range in a sensor that caters to an industry standard size?

 

I do like my REDONE and really enjoy shooting digital 35mm. Messing with my optics I don't like

[Paul Bruening]

...and my wife keeps telling me, "See? Size doesn't matter."

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Rory,

 

I am with you, I don't get the point of a FF35 sensor except for background plates. I would be prefer increased Dynamic Range, lower power consumption & exactly the same size sensor as in RED one. I like to use my D300 as a directors finder when location scouting.

 

Anyway we got T stops from your thread you here before.

 

Stephen

 

From the new RED line up it appears the RED sensor program is one of gaining resolution by making the sensors physically larger.

 

Which would mean having to use new lenses which cover the larger sensors.

 

Fan's are over the moon about this but IMO I don't see this as progress.

The industry is set up to shoot S35 and has post processes & delivery formats to handle 2k & 4k.

 

What we need is higher resolution sensors with the same physical size to accommodate industry standard lenses like Zeiss & Cooke.

 

Shooting with a new RED sensor will mean disabling the outer area of the sensor in "window" mode. So your fancy new 6k sensor will only be recording say 4k when you shoot S35.

 

Has the RED sensor design hit a wall?

Is the only way forward making physically larger sensors?

 

Do we now have to look at Arri or Sony to offer higher resolution and dynamic range in a sensor that caters to an industry standard size?

 

I do like my REDONE and really enjoy shooting digital 35mm. Messing with my optics I don't like

[Thomas James]

Traditionally epic films were shot on 65mm and I think Jim Jannard who is 59 years old can remember the golden age of the road show were 70mm films were showcased in grand theatres before the advent of the multiplex theatre. So given the nostalgic value of 70mm film presentations it seems the only thing that is holding back the comeback of this format is the enourmous costs involved. Since a digital equivalent of 70mm can radically slash such production and distribution costs it is only reasonable that 70mm will indeed again see its heyday with the full industry support including support from the lens maufacturers.

[John Sprung]

I would be prefer increased Dynamic Range, lower power consumption & exactly the same size sensor as in RED one.

That would be nice.

 

Dynamic range for any silicon sensor -- equally true for CMOS and CCD -- is the distance between where the number of photons hitting each photosite is so low that the ratio random noise to light from the scene gets high enough to hide detail and the place where the photosite fills up with electrons and can't hold any more, producing the hard clip that is characteristic of all electronic sensors.

 

Given the same footcandles, subject, and f/stop, photosites of any size will fill up and clip in the same parts of the image. But on the low end, bigger photosites give you less variation in the random number of actual image photons from one to the next. So, you get more dynamic range from bigger photosites.

 

To have bigger photosites, you could either use fewer of them, or make the whole chip bigger. It's sort of like using fast film in a large format to get about the same grain you'd see with slower film in a smaller format.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tom Lowe]

Like you said you can always throw on the PL mount and shoot S35, then finish at 4K or more likely 2K.

 

People who say FF35, aka Vista Vision, is not needed for cinema should watch The Searchers, or 70mm prints of films like Lawrence of Arabia.

 

The thing is, there will be resistance to this at first (just as we are seeing here and at other cinematography boards). That is to be expected, because anything new will always meet a certain amount of that. But once the lens issues get worked out and people become accustomed to shooting at FF35, aka Vista Vision, it will be just like the FF35 vs Crop-Sensor situation with DSLRs. Serious photogs, generally speaking, shoot full frame, while prosumers shoot crop sensor.

[Chris Keth]

Traditionally epic films were shot on 65mm and I think Jim Jannard who is 59 years old can remember the golden age of the road show were 70mm films were showcased in grand theatres before the advent of the multiplex theatre. So given the nostalgic value of 70mm film presentations it seems the only thing that is holding back the comeback of this format is the enourmous costs involved. Since a digital equivalent of 70mm can radically slash such production and distribution costs it is only reasonable that 70mm will indeed again see its heyday with the full industry support including support from the lens maufacturers.

 

...but there isn't the industry support. There aren't that many sets of cine primes made for shooting 65mm. If you make your movie and look into distribution, you would find that you can't project 9k and if you had a filmout to a 70mm print, most theaters couldn't project that either. That leave one with the standard projection options of 2k or 4k digital projection and, at best, an anamorphic 35mm print. The 6k options makes sense for filmmaking. The 9k 645 size does not, nor, more obviously, does the 28k 6x17 .

[Chris Keth]

But once the lens issues get worked out and people become accustomed to shooting at FF35, aka Vista Vision, it will be just like the FF35 vs Crop-Sensor situation with DSLRs. Serious photogs, generally speaking, shoot full frame, while prosumers shoot crop sensor.

 

How will lens issues get worked out? I almost guarantee that arri and cooke aren't going to design new sets of fine cine primes for VV, just because the RED can support it. Still lenses could be rehoused but, personally, I don't feel that is good enough. Even if you can look beyond the color matching issues and the massive breathing that comes with still lenses, have you ever put a master prime on a projector next to a still lens, even a top-of-the-line one?

 

I love the idea of bigger and better formats but I think it's pointless until we can do those formats with the quality that we can do spherical S35 and anamorphic 35mm right now. We'd be taking 2 steps forward the three back.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Chris Keth

[Francis Kuhn]

The thing is, there will be resistance to this at first (just as we are seeing here and at other cinematography boards). That is to be expected, because anything new will always meet a certain amount of that. But once the lens issues get worked out and people become accustomed to shooting at FF35, aka Vista Vision, it will be just like the FF35 vs Crop-Sensor situation with DSLRs. Serious photogs, generally speaking, shoot full frame, while prosumers shoot crop sensor.

Hi Tom,

 

Other than the capture medium, what RED are proposing with these larger chip sizes is nothing new. (Although--judging by the accolades piling up on REDuser--you'd think no one had ever thought of any of this before.)

 

Numerous larger formats have been tried and used over the years since cinema cameras were invented and there are many reasons the standard 35mm frame is used. Believe it or not, some very smart people have figured out that it is the best practical compromise between quality and ease-of-use.

 

Anyone inclined to buy first and ask questions later might be advised to first pay a visit to a rental house that's got a Arri 765 camera system and try pulling focus.

 

-Fran

[rory hinds]

I'm thinking RED sensors design can't give them higher resolution at the same size so they are pushing larger sensors needing larger lenses.

 

Maybe RED will become the specialist camera and I guess the writing is on the wall with the RED 617.

 

I guess my point I'm trying to make is that I'd hope RED could be the S35 production camera but as the sensors have to grow in size I don't see that many productions wanting to change lenses to accommodate RED and then have to deal with the workflow.

 

Another way to look at it is my REDONE just got a new lease of life as the new offerings from RED have missed the ball.

All the talk about shooting stills on a motion camera and motion on a still camera has missed the point.

Professional photographers will still want a still camera as their tool and DoP will not want to be shooting a production with a still camera.

 

The right tool for job always wins.

[John Sprung]

I almost guarantee that arri and cooke aren't going to design new sets of fine cine primes for VV, just because the RED can support it.

It's more a manufacturing issue.

 

You could take any existing lens design, and merely double all the dimensions on the blueprints. You'd get a high quality lens covering a frame twice as wide with the same angle of view, and the same f/stops. Weight is proportional to volume, though, which varies with the cube of the multiple, so it would weigh eight times as much.

 

But even with the design essentially in hand, the problem remains that it's not worth the cost of executing it.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tom Lowe]

How will lens issues get worked out? I almost guarantee that arri and cooke aren't going to design new sets of fine cine primes for VV, just because the RED can support it. Still lenses could be rehoused but, personally, I don't feel that is good enough. Even if you can look beyond the color matching issues and the massive breathing that comes with still lenses, have you ever put a master prime on a projector next to a still lens, even a top-of-the-line one?

 

I love the idea of bigger and better formats but I think it's pointless until we can do those formats with the quality that we can do spherical S35 and anamorphic 35mm right now. We'd be taking 2 steps forward the three back.

 

I bet Cooke will design and sell FF35. Watch and see. Plenty of companies will. Arri? Who knows. They are going to have worry about their camera business pretty soon here.

 

It's my understanding that high-end still glass holds up very, very well against high-end cine glass, despite the massive difference in price. As Mullen and others have pointed out, cinema glass is extremely expensive because the market is so small and niche. Canon sells millions of L-series lenses, like the EF 35mm 1.4 L. How many Master Primes are sold each year?

 

I remember someone mentioning recently, for example, that a shootout test was conducted comparing the Hawk 10-24 (a $70,000 USD cine lens) versus the Canon EF-S 10-22 (a $700 USD still lens) and the Canon was considerably sharper across the entire frame! So don't be so quick to rule out still glass. Keep in mind that new Nikon and Canon glass are specifically designed for these new 15- 25MP digital sensors.

 

I'm not saying I know exactly how the whole FF35 glass thing will shake out, but trust me, it will sort itself out.

 

 

Hi Tom,

 

Other than the capture medium, what RED are proposing with these larger chip sizes is nothing new. (Although--judging by the accolades piling up on REDuser--you'd think no one had ever thought of any of this before.)

 

Numerous larger formats have been tried and used over the years since cinema cameras were invented and there are many reasons the standard 35mm frame is used. Believe it or not, some very smart people have figured out that it is the best practical compromise between quality and ease-of-use.

 

-Fran

 

I'm sure there were plenty of reasons. Cost, was one. The physical size of the camera was another. (By the way, neither of which really apply in the same way to digital Vista Vision).

 

Let's see what happens. I am one of the people who strongly argued for Jim to offer Full Frame. I'm actually still kind of shocked that he did it. :lol: But hey, this is good news for all of who love cinema, and who might love to get a chance to shoot a Vista Vision epic one day! ;)

[Guest Glen Alexander]

It's more a manufacturing issue.

 

You could take any existing lens design, and merely double all the dimensions on the blueprints. You'd get a high quality lens covering a frame twice as wide with the same angle of view, and the same f/stops. Weight is proportional to volume, though, which varies with the cube of the multiple, so it would weigh eight times as much.

 

But even with the design essentially in hand, the problem remains that it's not worth the cost of executing it.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

why do you need a 'new' lens to cover VV/ff35? Leica lenses are the best, next Canon, next Nikon, next don't bother. if there's enough demand, someone will make a universal mount/adapter.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

I'm sure there were plenty of reasons. Cost, was one. The physical size of the camera was another. (By the way, neither of which really apply in the same way to digital Vista Vision).

 

Let's see what happens. I am one of the people who strongly argued for Jim to offer Full Frame. I'm actually still kind of shocked that he did it. :lol: But hey, this is good news for all of who love cinema, and who might love to get a chance to shoot a Vista Vision epic one day! ;)

 

once you see those big full-frame images, you'll grin at 4-perf, laugh at 3-perf, and piss your laughing at 2-perf.

[Chris Keth]

I remember someone mentioning recently, for example, that a shootout test was conducted comparing the Hawk 10-24 (a $70,000 USD cine lens) versus the Canon EF-S 10-22 (a $700 USD still lens) and the Canon was considerably sharper across the entire frame!

 

It's not going to cost the difference of $69,300 but you do need to take into account the cost to rehouse that lens. Still lenses aren't suitable for pulling focus, especially with larger formats.

 

I certainly haven't tested every still lens available. I have tested certain good candidates before a couple of jobs and every time concluded from putting them on a projector that the cine glass is better. Perhaps some testing needs to be done to find the still glass worthy of being rehoused.

 

Anyway, I hope everything does shake itself out in a satisfactory way.

[Chris Keth]

why do you need a 'new' lens to cover VV/ff35? Leica lenses are the best, next Canon, next Nikon, next don't bother. if there's enough demand, someone will make a universal mount/adapter.

 

Because as-is, they are not suitable for pulling focus. If you are outdoors and running a T8, it's pretty much fine. Try coming indoors and shooting a tight CU at a 1.4 and see how that works out with a lens that goes from infinity to close focus with a quarter turn of the barrel.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Because as-is, they are not suitable for pulling focus. If you are outdoors and running a T8, it's pretty much fine. Try coming indoors and shooting a tight CU at a 1.4 and see how that works out with a lens that goes from infinity to close focus with a quarter turn of the barrel.

 

of course they are, are you kidding?

 

i shot at f1.2 a car moving at 30mph.

 

rip off that piece of poop rubber,

mount a gear ring with number of teeth you want to have control over, go to 64 or 96 if you want fine grain control

 

get a simple linear pull focus control

 

calibrate infinity and close focus

 

mark these on the controller with a grease pencil

 

check with a blade of a grass or bush

 

i did, it can't be that hard.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Glen Alexander

[Tenolian Bell]

How will lens issues get worked out? I almost guarantee that arri and cooke aren't going to design new sets of fine cine primes for VV, just because the RED can support it. Still lenses could be rehoused but, personally, I don't feel that is good enough. Even if you can look beyond the color matching issues and the massive breathing that comes with still lenses, have you ever put a master prime on a projector next to a still lens, even a top-of-the-line one?

 

I love the idea of bigger and better formats but I think it's pointless until we can do those formats with the quality that we can do spherical S35 and anamorphic 35mm right now. We'd be taking 2 steps forward the three back.

 

I've raised such concerns in the past. In the excitement of big resolution number people aren't really thinking about the practical application in the current real world production environment.

[Tenolian Bell]

I bet Cooke will design and sell FF35. Watch and see. Plenty of companies will. Arri? Who knows. They are going to have worry about their camera business pretty soon here.

 

65mm has been around for decades. You believe Cooke is suddenly going to change course because of Red?

 

It's my understanding that high-end still glass holds up very, very well against high-end cine glass, despite the massive difference in price. As Mullen and others have pointed out, cinema glass is extremely expensive because the market is so small and niche. Canon sells millions of L-series lenses, like the EF 35mm 1.4 L. How many Master Primes are sold each year?

 

Still glass isn't made for motion photography. Cinema lens are made large for easy focus and focus breathing. They are made to match across a full line, eliminate vignetting, and strange color artifacts. Still lens don't have to deal with these issues and aren't made at the same tolerances.

 

I remember someone mentioning recently, for example, that a shootout test was conducted comparing the Hawk 10-24 (a $70,000 USD cine lens) versus the Canon EF-S 10-22 (a $700 USD still lens) and the Canon was considerably sharper across the entire frame! So don't be so quick to rule out still glass. Keep in mind that new Nikon and Canon glass are specifically designed for these new 15- 25MP digital sensors.

 

Before I believe this I would need to see who conducted this test and under what circumstances. Anybody can post any opinion on the internet.

 

If still lens performed the same as cinema lens for a fraction of the cost. Why would companies and rental houses invest in cinema lens. It makes no sense.

[Tenolian Bell]

He's right still lens are not designed for pulling focus. For one they do not eliminate breathing while pulling focus. The barrel of a cinema lens is made wide to provide a smooth pull.

 

What you describe is more work than necessary when a lens has been designed to make this easier.

 

 

 

 

 

of course they are, are you kidding?

 

i shot at f1.2 a car moving at 30mph.

 

rip off that piece of poop rubber,

mount a gear ring with number of teeth you want to have control over, go to 64 or 96 if you want fine grain control

 

get a simple linear pull focus control

 

calibrate infinity and close focus

 

mark these on the controller with a grease pencil

 

check with a blade of a grass or bush

 

i did, it can't be that hard.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

I've raised such concerns in the past. In the excitement of big resolution number people aren't really thinking about the practical application in the current real world production environment.

 

'real' production is a euphomism for slow, behometh, ice age thawing, change.

 

in a real world production and i've observed a quite a few in the last few months, hung out with my grip brothers, did shots of expresso at 10pm with the electricians, chatted with the lighting gang, beers at Hooters with my film loading buddy, real production has too many corporate variables to quanitify based simply on lens decision.

 

economics drives real production, even if a lens is superior if the cost isn't justified it doesn't happen unless the director or someone with a name says, differently. there are hidden variables, is the prodco getting a better deal on the next production? are the costs being spread out over several productions? does the studio vp in charge of production have a political ax to grind? or a bridge to build? as Yul Brenner said, "etcetera etcetera.."

 

simply, if there was a demand for the common 35mm SLR lenses to be rehoused cheaply, it would happen.

 

now will the rental houses won't be able to gouge the market anymore with their over inflated prices? compare rental prices at Calumet or Samy's verse ANY 35mm rental house. for the price of a week rental at a photo shop you get ONE DAY at a 35mm rental house.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Glen Alexander

[Francis Kuhn]

I'm sure there were plenty of reasons. Cost, was one. The physical size of the camera was another. (By the way, neither of which really apply in the same way to digital Vista Vision).

 

Let's see what happens. I am one of the people who strongly argued for Jim to offer Full Frame. I'm actually still kind of shocked that he did it. :lol: But hey, this is good news for all of who love cinema, and who might love to get a chance to shoot a Vista Vision epic one day! ;)

 

Hi Tom,

 

Hey, I'm with you. I hope these larger formats work out. It's just that I see potential problems with little things like, say, pulling focus. The latest chip technology is still subject to the laws of optics!

 

I guess you can always boost the gain and shoot at a deeper stop. (Or hire Glen "1.2--no problem!" as your First! :) ) Should be interesting to see how it all works out.

 

-Fran

[Tenolian Bell]

'real' production is a euphomism for slow, behometh, ice age thawing, change.

 

This type of statement makes you sound young, because honestly this is an old argument. When the Sony F900 first came out nearly 10 years ago. Those who were extremely exited about it proclaimed film dead. They accused anyone who did not believe the F900 was going to replace film of being dinosaurs who lived in the past. As it has turned out the F900 did not replace film.

 

 

Lens manufacturers are going to place their research and development into the lens format that will receive the most use. In cinema the lens format that is most used now and the foreseeable future is S35mm.

 

Because lens manufacturers are in competition with each other lens technology continues to improve.

The best of the current 35mm lens are the best of what technology is able to provide.

 

Cinema does not use rehoused 35mm SLR lens because they don't perform the same task and are not designed for motion cinema needs. In cinema we are shooting with lens that can stop down to T1.3 focus down to 8 inches with no focus breathing, no vignetting, and no color fringing. Virtually no commonly used consumer still lens function under these tolerances. The ones that do are rare and very expensive.

 

 

in a real world production and i've observed a quite a few in the last few months, hung out with my grip brothers, did shots of expresso at 10pm with the electricians, chatted with the lighting gang, beers at Hooters with my film loading buddy, real production has too many corporate variables to quanitify based simply on lens decision.

 

economics drives real production, even if a lens is superior if the cost isn't justified it doesn't happen unless the director or someone with a name says, differently. there are hidden variables, is the prodco getting a better deal on the next production? are the costs being spread out over several productions? does the studio vp in charge of production have a political ax to grind? or a bridge to build? as Yul Brenner said, "etcetera etcetera.."

 

simply, if there was a demand for the common 35mm SLR lenses to be rehoused cheaply, it would happen.

 

now will the rental houses won't be able to gouge the market anymore with their over inflated prices? compare rental prices at Calumet or Samy's verse ANY 35mm rental house. for the price of a week rental at a photo shop you get ONE DAY at a 35mm rental house.

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Hi Tom,

 

Hey, I'm with you. I hope these larger formats work out. It's just that I see potential problems with little things like, say, pulling focus. The latest chip technology is still subject to the laws of optics!

 

I guess you can always boost the gain and shoot at a deeper stop. (Or hire Glen "1.2--no problem!" as your First! :) ) Should be interesting to see how it all works out.

 

-Fran

 

If you had a truly great story to tell about exploring humanity, i'd work for food and a place to sleep. :lol:

[Jay Taylor]

?there will be resistance to this at first?

 

I bet Cooke will design and sell FF35. Watch and see. Plenty of companies will.

 

They are going to have worry about their camera business pretty soon here.

 

 

?trust me, it will sort itself out.

 

Tom,

 

Be honest. You're from the future, aren't you? Can you tell us how things turned out with Obama?

 

I'm just messing with you. :D

 

 

Jay