RED Sensors getting bigger

[K Borowski]

Hahahah. Man, I should quote this as my signature at reduser. :lol:

 

I'd love to see you do it. I'd love to see what sort of reaction it espouses, as well.

[Tom Lowe]

I'd love to see you do it. I'd love to see what sort of reaction it espouses, as well.

 

Okay, it's done. I will leave it up for a week, or until they run me out of town on a rail... haha.

[Chris Keth]

As far as UV protection goes, the reality is that it's very hard to get UV to pass through any sort of glass or plastic. UV transmissive glass has to have a very high quartz content and is very hard to make.

 

I print cyanotype and platinum, which both need exposure to UV light and will not expose without UV, under a piece of $1.29 framing glass from a craft store. I have also done it with a free scrap of plexiglass.

 

It's not difficult to make glass or plastic that passes UV.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Chris Keth

[Keith Walters]

I print cyanotype and platinum, which both need exposure to UV light and will not expose without UV, under a piece of $1.29 framing glass from a craft store. I have also done it with a free scrap of plexiglass.

 

It's not difficult to make glass or plastic that passes UV.

Perhaps I should have said "short-wavelength UV, the damaging kind."

 

Yes ordinary glass will allow some longwave UV through, but it's greatly attenuated.

 

In commercial photolithographic applications you just need to expose it for longer. In that situation just a few percent transmission is still enough, but as far as eye protection goes, for all practical purposes, no UV gets through.

 

I used to expose printed circuit board resist through ordinary window glass using daylight and it would take about 20 seconds in direct sunlight. However, if during the setup the board was accidentally exposed to daylight without the exposure mask and glass, even for a fraction of a second, it was ruined.

 

EPROM memory chips have to be erased using special short-wavelength UV tubes made from quartz glass. If you put a piece of ordinary glass or plastic over the EPROM, it will not erase no matter how long you expose it for.

[John Sprung]

EPROM memory chips have to be erased using special short-wavelength UV tubes made from quartz glass.

Back in prehistoric times, I used to erase them outside in the sunlight. This was back in the 8088 PC days, when I knew assembly code and had the source for the ROM BIOS.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Neil Duffy]

I really hate to bring back this thread to its point, but here goes a try.

 

I take back my earlier comment about the FF35 being the standard 10 years from now. All I can tell is that I think that will be the standard in the next couple of years. After that who knows. If new technology comes out and 1/4 inch sensors capture everything that a human eye can see on a 100 foot projection screen, then yea 1/4 inch will be the standard. And will have 1/4 inch Cooke primes smaller than golf balls.

Edited November 26, 2008 by Neil Duffy

[Stephen Williams]

Are you kidding????

 

Considering that Red only plan to release their FF35 cameras in the winter of 2009 (which with the inevitable delay means 2010 really) I don't think your prediction has no chance at all of happening.

 

Hi,

 

I really se no advantage in shooting FF35with a digital camera or VISTA VISION with film over S35, Academy 1:1.85 or 35 mm Anamorphic, where I have a good choice of lenses and a perfectly good workfow exists today.

 

Stephen

[DJ Joofa]

This was back in the 8088 PC days, when I knew assembly code and had the source for the ROM BIOS.

 

Didn't IBM used to publish the source code for ROM Bios for some early IBM Technical Reference Manual for the PC? I used to have one for XT, and it came with full source code.

[David Mullen ASC]

My main concern is focus-pulling -- I've been watching live Genesis and RED images on an HD monitor lately, and can see how good AC's can struggle with an f/2.8 on medium to close shots of moving actors. I mean, sometimes I'm watching a medium close-up and debate whether I should tell the AC to pull focus forward more for the eyelashes or back slightly for the iris of the eyeball, I can see the difference on the HD monitor. That's scary for a shot that is not even that tight.

 

So to work at f/2.8 on a FF35 / VistaVision-size sensor, with the equivalent of two less stops of depth of field -- an effective f/1.4 in practical terms... it's going to be like shooting in anamorphic where either you start lighting to higher f-stops or you find the best focus-pullers in the business or you live with more focus buzzes. Personally, I think f/2.8 on 35mm cine looks shallow enough for most dramatic scenes.

[Tenolian Bell]

Its interesting that we are participating in this type of discussion. Their really isn't much qualification for who actually works in film or video as a profession. Some kid in high school is free to throw out any prediction they want no matter how ridiculous it really is.

 

Then we who do work professionally in film/video feel forced to answer. When in reality this person who posed the ridiculous comment did not know what they are even talking about in the first place.

[Francis Kuhn]

My main concern is focus-pulling -- I've been watching live Genesis and RED images on an HD monitor lately, and can see how good AC's can struggle with an f/2.8 on medium to close shots of moving actors. I mean, sometimes I'm watching a medium close-up and debate whether I should tell the AC to pull focus forward more for the eyelashes or back slightly for the iris of the eyeball, I can see the difference on the HD monitor. That's scary for a shot that is not even that tight.

 

So to work at f/2.8 on a FF35 / VistaVision-size sensor, with the equivalent of two less stops of depth of field -- an effective f/1.4 in practical terms... it's going to be like shooting in anamorphic where either you start lighting to higher f-stops or you find the best focus-pullers in the business or you live with more focus buzzes. Personally, I think f/2.8 on 35mm cine looks shallow enough for most dramatic scenes.

 

Thank you for posting that, David. The voice of reason. Maybe someone will take you seriously, but I predict your comments will be ignored as people line up with their deposit money for FF35mm and 645s.

 

-Fran

[John Sprung]

If new technology comes out and 1/4 inch sensors capture everything that a human eye can see on a 100 foot projection screen, then yea 1/4 inch will be the standard. And will have 1/4 inch Cooke primes smaller than golf balls.

You might want to find out about diffraction. Bottom line, with small sensors and deep stops, it kills resolution. It comes from the actual physical wavelengths of light, so there's no technical fix coming any time soon. It's the reason that professional cameras don't go any smaller than 2/3".

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

Didn't IBM used to publish the source code for ROM Bios for some early IBM Technical Reference Manual for the PC? I used to have one for XT, and it came with full source code.

Yes, they did, for all three: PC, XT, and AT. I have them all, plus another set still in the original shrink wrap. Perhaps some distant day the grandkids will take them to Antiques Roadshow.... ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[DJ Joofa]

Yes, they did, for all three: PC, XT, and AT. I have them all, plus another set still in the original shrink wrap. Perhaps some distant day the grandkids will take them to Antiques Roadshow.... ;-)

 

Hi John, you have refreshed some good memories now forgotten. I liked the published code in the IBM technical reference manual as it helped me in understanding what the computer was doing, especially during boot up. If I remember correctly there was no support for a "graphics" card/device in those models. Then there was this company "Hercules", that came up with one of the first graphics adapter, perhaps called Monochrome Display Adapter?? (MDA??) at that time, but the PC had no support for it. So Hercules would fool PC Into thinking that it was still in "text" mode.

[Tom Lowe]

My main concern is focus-pulling -- I've been watching live Genesis and RED images on an HD monitor lately, and can see how good AC's can struggle with an f/2.8 on medium to close shots of moving actors. I mean, sometimes I'm watching a medium close-up and debate whether I should tell the AC to pull focus forward more for the eyelashes or back slightly for the iris of the eyeball, I can see the difference on the HD monitor. That's scary for a shot that is not even that tight.

 

So to work at f/2.8 on a FF35 / VistaVision-size sensor, with the equivalent of two less stops of depth of field -- an effective f/1.4 in practical terms... it's going to be like shooting in anamorphic where either you start lighting to higher f-stops or you find the best focus-pullers in the business or you live with more focus buzzes. Personally, I think f/2.8 on 35mm cine looks shallow enough for most dramatic scenes.

 

If you could shoot comfortably at ISO/ASA 1600 or 3200, for example, and stop the FF35 lens down, would that alleviate your worries about DOF?

[David Mullen ASC]

If you could shoot comfortably at ISO/ASA 1600 or 3200, for example, and stop the FF35 lens down, would that alleviate your worries about DOF?

 

Oh, I'm sure I could deal with it, just as I have on my anamorphic shows -- it's not insurmountable. Considering how many years I've wanted to shoot a movie in 65mm, obviously I'm willing to deal with less depth of field if the quality improvement was significant enough to justify it.

 

I just see more of a problem with the notion of FF35 becoming the norm for production, rather than a special case project where you were attempting more quality and resolution. Your typical meat-and-potatoes dialogue scene in some kitchen doesn't necessarily warrant dealing with super shallow focus in an attempt to get higher resolutions.

 

I just wish the 16-bit Monstro sensor being proposed was 6K within the S35 dimensions, so I could get real 4K resolution. Now I'll be stuck trying to decide whether I want to shoot 4K RAW and get to use my cine lenses, or 6K RAW and have to deal with adapted still camera lenses, which I feel is the worst combination of factors -- less depth of field with lenses not specifically designed for cine focus-pulling.

 

But I'm speaking mainly from a practical standpoint, not so much a quality standpoint (though misfocused shots affect quality...)

 

Until you've worked with these modern S35 digital cameras and seen daily focus-pulling problems (always there, just now visible in real time) I don't think it will really sink in how challenging it will be to work in a world of FF35 for live action. But it can be dealt with... it will just weed out the weaker focus-pullers very quickly.

 

Twice this week I had a discussion with two different AC's as to why they couldn't hold a split between two actors despite what the depth of field charts were telling them. I did a shot of two people sitting side by side in two different scenes, at a mild raking angle to the camera, two different AC's, and in both cases, after the first take I had to tell the AC's that the focus looked like it was on one of the shoulders between the two actors. "But I should be holding a split!" But when they actually racked for each actor's face individually, you could see the eyes snap into focus. I've had the same issues when I shoot anamorphic...

 

With modern sharp lenses, film stocks, and digital cameras, I think the focus has to be set on something, it can't be set in midair between two subjects.

[Francis Kuhn]

If you could shoot comfortably at ISO/ASA 1600 or 3200, for example, and stop the FF35 lens down, would that alleviate your worries about DOF?

 

Hi Tom,

 

Hopefully David will reply. But here's a thought: If you have to boost ASA to 3200 just to make a workable stop on FF35, why not just shoot a lower ASA (with equal or better image quality) using a S35 sensor?

 

I could be missing something, or maybe there's some new development that makes a compelling case for these bigger chips, but I'm still not convinced it's necessary for general use to go with these bigger sensors.

 

-Fran

 

EDIT: There's David's reply above. He must type a lot faster than me.

[Sam Wells]

Hi Tom, with the potential of this degree - or more - of modularity (is that a word ? well "functionality" slipped in to the language) FF35 doesn't have to be a 'norm' but a choice, you could shoot your wides, landscapes etc (think your fav filmmaker Malick using 65 in The New World)

 

-Sam

 

ps I would like to have had the Red 645 yesterday, but I am doing weird things with space & reframing lately :blink:

[Tom Lowe]

Oh, I absolutely agree with you guys saying that FF35 can be a choice, not necessarily the new norm. Getting the FF35 sized Epic or Scarlet makes sense, because then you have more options.

 

I also agree wholeheartedly with David when he says the S35 option really needs to be at least 5K so you get a "True 4K" image shooting with PL-mount lenses, for example.

 

Let's see what this announcement is on Dec 3. Jim usually listens to what people are saying, even if he acts like he's not listening.

 

My guess is that higher ISO/ASA ratings and brand-new FF35 cine lenses from top manufacturers (which may come fairly quickly after Epic's release) could dispel many of the reservations people are having about FF35.

[Francis Kuhn]

My guess is that higher ISO/ASA ratings and brand-new FF35 cine lenses from top manufacturers (which may come fairly quickly after Epic's release) could dispel many of the reservations people are having about FF35.

 

Hi Tom,

 

I hear you, but, again, if you are forced to increase the FF35's ISO/ASA just so you can shoot at an aperture that gives you a fighting chance of keeping things in focus, then what's the point of going bigger? Wouldn't these higher ISO settings diminish image quality? Couldn't you simply use lower ASA setting with a smaller S35 chip, traditional cinema lenses at wider apertures and get the same or better quality? Other than maybe shooting wides, where the DOF isn't so much of an issue, I guess I don't understand the need for the bigger chip. It seems like the dog chasing its' tail. :)

 

I'm no expert on sensor characteristics, so maybe I'm missing something here, but I haven't heard any rational explanation on these forums so far.

-Fran

[Tom Lowe]

Hi Tom,

 

I hear you, but, again, if you are forced to increase the FF35's ISO/ASA just so you can shoot at an aperture that gives you a fighting chance of keeping things in focus, then what's the point of going bigger? Wouldn't these higher ISO settings diminish image quality? Couldn't you simply use lower ASA setting with a smaller S35 chip, traditional cinema lenses at wider apertures and get the same or better quality? Other than maybe shooting wides, where the DOF isn't so much of an issue, I guess I don't understand the need for the bigger chip. It seems like the dog chasing its' tail. :)

 

I'm no expert on sensor characteristics, so maybe I'm missing something here, but I haven't heard any rational explanation on these forums so far.

-Fran

 

The reason you want a larger sensor is the same reason people shoot 65mm cinema or FF35 or medium format stills - better image quality and more detail. But with digital, it's important because you start to run out of real estate for photosites on a smaller sensor like S35/APS-C. The Canon 50D is an example of a sensor hitting the wall in terms of trying to pack too many photosites onto a smaller sensor. That is why nearly all serious, high-end DSLRs are Full Frame 35.

 

Increasing ISO should not degrade the image in the manner some people think it might. The new 21MP Canon 5D Mark II shoots ISO 1600 without any noticeable difference to the eye from ISO 800. Also, the more megapixels you have, the better noise reduction you can do at the RAW stage of processing. So, sensors will continue to do two things: get more MP and have higher ISO/ASA ratings. Both factors, IMO, point to FF35 becoming a viable cinema format once again.

Edited November 26, 2008 by Tom Lowe

[Francis Kuhn]

So, sensors will continue to do two things: get more MP and have higher ISO/ASA ratings. Both factors, IMO, point to FF35 becoming a viable cinema format once again.

 

 

So the smaller sensors will not improve as fast as the larger sensors? If not, then it makes sense to go bigger. Maybe. I think I asked the same question about ten pages back in this post. :D

 

BTW I shot this morning with my 1Ds Mark III at 800 and 1600 ASA. Not really all that great compared to 200! But it was impossible to light the scene, so I guess a noisy shot is better than no shot at all.

 

-Fran

[Chris Keth]

BTW I shot this morning with my 1Ds Mark III at 800 and 1600 ASA. Not really all that great compared to 200! But it was impossible to light the scene, so I guess a noisy shot is better than no shot at all.

 

-Fran

 

That's what I'm thinking about the 5DmkII. Sure, maybe 1600 isn't much worse than 800 but how much noisier is it than 100, 200 and 400 ASA? Those are the current working ASAs in digital equipment. Does anyone know of any controlled, reputable side-by-side tests of the available exposure indices on the 5DmkII and on the RED? It would be interesting to see a real test rather than some random footage displayed in a vacuum, away from any comparison to other footage.

[Tom Lowe]

That's what I'm thinking about the 5DmkII. Sure, maybe 1600 isn't much worse than 800 but how much noisier is it than 100, 200 and 400 ASA? Those are the current working ASAs in digital equipment. Does anyone know of any controlled, reputable side-by-side tests of the available exposure indices on the 5DmkII and on the RED? It would be interesting to see a real test rather than some random footage displayed in a vacuum, away from any comparison to other footage.

 

Red One's low-light noise performance is bad from the clips I have seen - very noisy. Modern DSLRs smoke it.

[Chris Keth]

Red One's low-light noise performance is bad from the clips I have seen - very noisy. Modern DSLRs smoke it.

 

I certainly agree with that. What I am wondering is 1. How badly do DSLRs smoke the RED in low light shooting? and 2. Above what ASA setting is the image from one of those DSLRs unacceptable due to noise?