Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996

> Red One Sensor Size and Anamorphic Lenses

Published : 13th April 2009


It’s all about sensor size in Red One and Anamorphic lenses on it.
Red say: Physical Size 24.4mm x 13.7mm (Super35mm) 1.78
Active Pixel Array 4520 (h) x 2540 (v). This is 1.78
Full Pixel Array 4900 (h) x 2580 (v). This is 1.89

Ok, what’s Full Pixel and Active Pixel? Is the Full Pixel Array what we see as surrounding view in the viewfinder, what is not on the recorded image?
Then, what are the pixels and sensor sizes for 4K 16:9 and 4K 2:1?
And, As long as Anamorphic lenses are made for putting a 2.35 or 2.40 image in a Normal 35mm area which is 20,95 mm x 17,52 mm for Panavision and 22x18,6 for Arri, what comes out of putting then on the Red One camera? For its sensor doesn’t have the proportion.


Cheers


Saul Oliveira
Second AC
Madrid



Full is what is on the chip. Active is what you actually see including the look-around area outside captured picture, so ignore Full. But neither of these is the number you should use, since while you can define the resolution you use on the camera you cannot define it that large. 4K means 4096. To figure out the ratio of your image you divide by that to get the appropriate vertical resolution. In the case of 2:1 it is 2048. It's actually much easier to figure this out if you just do the math based on the fact that each photosite is a 5.4 micron square. Multiply that by 4096x2048 to get the physical size of the sensor.


The sensor is about the same width as Academy aperture but is significantly shorter than the near Full aperture in the "standard" anamorphic 2.40 spec. So you will not get the proper framing or field of view from your anamorphic lenses. If a frame is natively 2:1 and you use a 2x anamorphic, the result after de-squeezing the image will be a 4:1 frame! If you wish to use 2x anamorphics to get a standard 2.40 frame, then you will need to crop the sides in post, which will also lower the effective resolution of the image. This is what Soderberg did in "Che."


Or you could shoot on a Phantom HD or Arri D21 which do have sensors of the correct size.


Mitch Gross
NYC DP
Applications Specialist
Abel Cine Tech



Also take into consideration that in Build 18, 2x Anamorphics are supported. This is equivalent to cutting the side off as Mitch has mentioned in post. Either way you slice it, its cropping.
4K 16:9 is 4096x2304 ( full active pixels)
4k 2:1 is 4096x2048
4k ANA is 4096x1364
On Anamorphic productions I've shot both 2x Lomo Anamorphics with Spherical in 4k 16:9 cropped to 2:40 in post for wide angle and telephoto shots.


Good luck,


Dane Brehm
310.710.2658
Cinema Data Tech
Phantom | Red | Codex




Or you could just shoot with Hawk Vlite 1.3X
Anamorphic lenses designed for the RED sensor aspect as well as the F35 :


www.rogueelementlenses.com/images/hawk/V-Lite1.3X%20Techn.%20Data.pdf


Michael Bravin
Chief Technology Officer
Band Pro Film & Digital



Very True. I'd be curious to know how many complete sets are in Spain? or Germany even? Very well designed glass.
Good luck!
Dane Brehm
310.710.2658
Cinema Data Tech
Phantom | Red | Codex


style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
No no no!!!


Anamorphics use the full height of the sensor, so you will use the full 2540 pixels high. You will multiply by 1.175 to get the correct width for 2.35:1 acquisition (anamorphic is 2.35 acquisition and 2.40:1 projection) 2540 x1.175 =2985 pixels wide
You will print this 1.175:1 image onto your film stock for distribution
The projector lens will unsqueeze it into 2.35 on the screen.
The logig is quite the same with the D21, which has a 1.33:1 sensor, and not a 1.175:1. So you crop less, but you still crop "pillar box" from 1.33 to 1.175.
The only solution to use the full sensor width is to use Hawk 1.3X anamorphic system.
With these VERY RARE lenses, you use the full 1.78:1 sensor, squeeze it by 1.33X to get 2.35:1 with a milder anamorphic effect.


Danys BRUYERE
Deputy Managing Director
Operations & Technologies
TSF, Paris




Aside from all the numbers and math, pillar boxing is pillar boxing.... the interesting side affect is more depth of field, and the anamorphic distortion.... plenty of anamorphic lenses work well but its only the Panavision brand that easily give you those killer flares.


Another thing to consider is old lenses on a digital acquisition camera... the lack of quality or anomalies that become obvious can be quite an issue. with that said though if your whole show is shot with these lenses you might be fine, just don’t start swinging lenses from old to new... it will become very obvious.


That’s my 2 cents for 2009
Jim Matlosz
dp, la, ca




Jim wrote:


>>but its only the Panavision brand that easily give you those killer flares.


Jim


This might interest you Blue Flare to go:


http://www.vantagefilm.com/en/news/news_2005-09_01.shtml


Michael Bravin
Chief Technology Officer
Band Pro Film & Digital




I looked at some old Todd-AO lenses at Clairmont that had a good flare to them, also.


Best,


Graham Futerfas
Director of Photography
Los Angeles, CA
www.GFuterfas.com




I'd love to rent/try a set of these filters [Vantage Films "Blue-Vision"]....anyone know who would have a set in the US.


cheers,


Jeff Barklage, s.o.c.
www.barklage.com
USA based DP




Jim wrote:


>>but its only the Panavision brand that easily give you those killer flares.


I love it when a bug becomes a feature... Microsoft would be proud!


Tom Tcimpidis
L.A. bug zapper




I have a Set of LOMO Anamorphics that I use on my Music Video's but at a stop of T2.8+. I know a few Music Video DPs who would love to try something else besides a Streak filter.


Thanks for the post,


Dane Brehm
310.710.2658
Cinema Data Tech
Phantom | Red | Codex




Tom Tcimpidis wrote:


>>I love it when a bug becomes a feature...? Microsoft would be proud!


Yeah, I don't get what it is about the blue streak flare that people like in the PV anamorphics? It is a defect that has become a badge of honor I guess. Since so many shoot super 35 2.35 / 2.40 with the easy advent of the DI process, the blue streak shouts "I shot mine with REAL anamorphics!!"
?If that is all that lets you know that you used anamorphics instead of super 35 (or 16 or 8) then I think you are missing the point of what anamorphics give you in terms of a look.?


I love the anamorphic look and feel but don't care at all about the blue flare or fanfare shouting "I shot mine with REAL anamorphics!"


Roberto Schaefer, asc




Jeff Barklage wrote:


>>I'd love to rent/try a set of these filters [Vantage Films "Blue-Vision"]....anyone know who would have >>a set in the US?


Otto in LA has a set. Don't scratch 'em, I think they are 10k to replace.

Rhet Bear
director of photography
www.rhetbear.com
LA Based




>>I love the anamorphic look and feel but don't care at all about the blue flare or fanfare shouting


So I'm imagining a _fictitious_ historical conversation regarding the design parameters for the Genesis between John Galt and a Sony engineer, and John's trying to explain the mystique of the PV flare to the Sony guy, who doesn't speak much English, and John finally ends the conversation sure that the engineer understands him. Months later, the first camera arrives, they boot it up and point it into a light, and there's that magical blue flare line... but... it's... vertical!
With apologies, of course.


Speaking as VFX - we loooovvve the extra resolution of 'Scope, but please don't shoot vfx plates with giant honking flares baked in. We want to go home at dinnertime, not be ordering in pizza and Red Bull. We can drop them in later if that's what you really want. Oh, and make sure that production understands that they need to go 4K finish.


Tim Sassoon
(just rehabbed a show originally shot over/under stereo 2-perf 2.4:1)
SFD
Santa Monica, CA




Todd-AO anamorphics what we use once shooting anamorphic flare elements (flashbulbs on black) for the trailer for "The Fan". Seemed some of the best horizontal flare to luminance matte in. Now there's probably software plugins without the optical serendipity.


Mark Doering-Powell
LA based DP



Roberto Schaefer, asc


>>I love the anamorphic look and feel but don't care at all about the blue flare or fanfare shouting "I >>shot mine with REAL anamorphics!"

I agree with you Roberto, until you compare real anamorphic with super 35, you really have no idea. and by comparison I mean same situation swap cameras, process print project side by side. it’s a very different way of telling a story.
The Blue flare is just a cool side affect. but the reality is in my opinion that is, if you’re not shooting full aperture 35 and real anamorphic lenses your just spinning your wheels, like shooting an Imax film on an f900, sure you can blow it up, by why?


Jim Matlosz
dp, la ca




For the record, Panavision does not advise using anamorphic lenses on the genesis from what I am told at least.. basically the genesis is not full aperture, and again that pillar boxing..Isn’t that where this all began?
Anyway, all fun and games, I’m just saddened by the dumbing down and compromising that we are all subject to. I’m still a purist at heart, maybe that’s my problem.


Jim Matlosz
DP LA CA




I have shot multiple projects on RED with anamorphics and will keep doing so. I generally get lots of great comments about the artifacts created by the anamorphic lenses...but I have never been in a post house where the grader, client or anyone else has made comment or noticed any lack of resolution, or sharpness, even on those expensive post house hd monitors.
I don't shoot everything anamorphic for obvious reasons... but I find that it's nice to have the extra tools available when required.


My 2 cents.


Simon Ozolins
DOP Australia
www.simonozolins.com




Jim Matlosz wrote:


>>RS wrote: "I love the anamorphic look and feel but don't care at all about the blue flare or fanfare >>shouting "I shot mine with REAL anamorphics!"
>>I agree with you Roberto, until you compare real anamorphic with super 35, you really have no >>idea....The Blue flare is just a cool side affect.? but the reality is in my opinion that is, if you’re not >>shooting full aperture 35 and real anamorphic lenses your just spinning your wheels....


Jim- I'm not sure if I read you right and you misunderstood my position. Again, I love anamorphic, I just don't get the love affair with the blue flare from the PV (and some other) anamorphic ?lenses. I know the difference in the look. I see the difference in the look. I love the difference in the look. I just don't care for the blue flare. All it is to me is an advertising brag saying you shot in anamorphic. If the viewer can't see or feel the difference themselves, then why even try to tell them with a blue flare? And now you can put the blue flare on any lens you shoot with the Vantage blue flare filters. What a waste. And they are ridiculously expensive. That being said, maybe it makes sense. If someone wants so badly to do something dumb like put an artificial blue flare on their film to convince someone that they shot anamorphic (whether they did or not), then make them pay a lot of money to do it!! Bravo Mssrs.Vantage. Make 'em pay!


Roberto Schaefer, asc




>>but I have never been in a post house where the grader, client or anyone else has made comment >>or noticed any lack of resolution, or sharpness, even on those expensive post house hd monitors"

After film out and project on a 40' screen?


Regards


Chan Chi Ying
DP HK




Roberto Schaefer, ASC:


>>I love the difference in the look. I just don't care for the blue flare."


I have to strongly agree with Roberto; I've never understood the love of these type of flares. Of course, it is a matter of personal taste; but I find them very distracting. I can think of one recent example that really had me shaking my head. In the latest Indiana Jones picture lensed by the talented Janusz Kaminski, whose work I usually greatly admire, there were so many flares throughout movie that really took me out of the narrative. In fact, there was one scene inside a tent with several practical’s in the shots, each creating it's own horizontal streak across the frame, making it sometimes hard to follow the action. By comparison, a couple nights before, I had the pleasure to also see projected the first Indiana Jones feature so beautifully lensed by Douglas Slocombe, BSC; it was also in Panavision anamorphic, but without all these distracting flares.


While we're on the subject, I've always found it quite curious that animated productions often add CGI flares. I suppose this is in order to add to a sense of realism, as in for example the opening of "Wall-E". I would think this should suggest the opposite of reality, that it is a scene being photographed by a camera and film crew. So I also agree, as Roberto seems to suggest, there are messages being delivered by the inclusion of flares aside from just their aesthetic. Whether it's "this is being shot with a camera, and not CGI", or "look at me, I'm shooting anamorphic; (just in case you couldn't tell)".


James Mathers
Cinematographer
Digital Cinema Society, President
Studio City, CA




>>While we're on the subject, I've always found it quite curious that animated productions often add >>CGI flares.


As a vfx guy, I've shot a number of "flare libraries" over the years so that compositors could "grace" their shots with the necessary flares ...sometimes it is to add the light source flare notably absent when filming miniatures against black velvet but helpful when you add the sun in the shot later...With regard to flares in Wall-E and other animated projects, I think this reinforces my spiel about "visual vocabulary" in the sense that the flare makes it look like a "real movie" even though we know that "no cameras were used in the making of this picture."
Flares, lens distortions, motion blur, and other artifacts of photochemical 24fps recording of live scenes have become so ingrained in the vocabulary that their presence is less noticeable than their absence.
That said, I find "old school" anamorphic blue flares to be distracting, as I find headlight ghost images distracting, whether anamorphic or spherical... but a nice string of internal reflection flares from a zoom lens when the sun is just out or just in frame is sometimes pleasing... don't ask me why

Mark H. Weingartner
LA-based VFX DP/Superv




I like the blue anamorphic flare just because it's a bit different.
The occasional flare can be interesting, but as with everything too much is distracting. It's the quirks that make it interesting, as long as the quirks remain minor characters and don't become the leads.


I believe someone told me that The Orphanage was shot with Hawk anamorphics. That movie was interesting in that it did seem to be anamorphic but had considerably fewer anamorphic artifacts than any other anamorphic movie I've seen.


Art Adams | dp
San Jose | CA | USA
www.artadams.net




Mark H. Weingartner wrote :


>> With regard to flares in Wall-E and other animated projects, I think this reinforces my spiel about >>"visual vocabulary" in the sense that the flare makes it look like a "real movie"...


I agree. I think this goes to the more general issue of "reality" and "movie reality." Flares are part of that, but there are also such things as night exteriors looking blue, copious amounts of light and shadow in those same night exteriors, hospital rooms looking green, and numerous other visual representations that are different than what your eyes and brain might perceive in the real world, yet familiar enough as movie conventions that they aren't questioned.


Mike Most
Chief Technologist
Cineworks Digital Studios
Miami, Fl.




>>Flares, lens distortions, motion blur, and other artifacts of photochemical 24fps recording of live >>scenes have become so ingrained in the vocabulary that their presence is less noticeable than >>their absence.


At the start of digitally captured projects, post houses would often apply film grain to create an illusion that film was the capture medium. When something of very high quality also has attributes which aren't normally considered desirable on their own (grain, flicker, etc), we will often associate these attributes with (in this case) film in attempt to diminish the new medium's shortcomings (dynamic range, gamut, etc).


Greg Ciaccio
Location Based Services
Company 3



>>When something of very high quality also has attributes which aren't normally considered >>desirable on their own (grain, flicker, etc), we will often associate these attributes with (in this case) >>film in attempt to diminish the new medium's shortcomings (dynamic range, gamut, etc).


With all due respect, IMHO that's a bit Eeyore :-) There are good technical reasons to add film grain irrespective of cultural conditioning - to dither the image, which can give the illusion of greater bit depth, make it easier to watch by giving it a kind of Brownian life, and protect against the ravages of 8-bit presentation (MPEG-2). Plus, the need to match digital sources and film sources together. Film is inherently very noisy, but it's a good noise, so we don't mind. The difficulty in my experience is the pseudo-randomness and sampling grid evident in most grain algorithms.


http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Pooh-Benjamin-Hoff/dp/0140067477


Tim Sassoon
SFD
Santa Monica, CA




>> At the start of digitally captured projects, post houses would often apply film grain to create an >>illusion that film was the capture medium.


…and, of course, digital matte paintings, CG elements, and multi-element comps as seen in photochemically shot motion pictures all have grain added to them so that they match...funny how people can complain about something being noisy and too clean at the same time... and be right.


Mark H. Weingartner
LA-based VFX DP/Supervisor




The difficulty in my experience is the pseudo-randomness and sampling grid evident in most grain algorithms...which is why I have been encouraged to shoot full frame "grain maps" for different stocks for use in "re-graining."


oops... another secret revealed


Mark H. Weingartner
LA-based VFX DP/Supervisor




>>...which is why I have been encouraged to shoot full frame "grain maps" for different stocks for use >>in "re-graining."


Another good reason to shoot a few seconds of full-frame 18% gray card, flat lit. It's a really good VFX practice, every bit as valid as taking "room tone" audio.


Tim Sassoon
SFD
Santa Monica, CA




>>Another good reason to shoot a few seconds of full-frame 18% gray card, flat lit. It's a really good >>VFX practice, every bit as valid as taking "room tone" audio.


Sufficiently defocus the gray card, the film grain will pop out. Do this for stills as well.
Cheers,


Michael Vitti,
vittiPhoto productions
www.vittiphoto.com
still and motion photographer, editor and workflow consultant
New York, NY
646-327-3662




Well that clears things up!
We live in a blury holographic projection of grainy space-time. No evidence thus far of anamorphic flares.


Mark Doering-Powell
LA based DP



 

CML has just published the "Little RED Book"

This book is an edited collection of conversation's during 2009 about ways to use the RED one and how to get around any problems you may encounter.

Impress others with your knowledge!

Be the envy of your friends!

Buy it today!

Available as an A5 book or a PDF if you just can't wait!

>