Thanks very much,
Ben

Super-16 is 2.26mm wider than regular 16mm. I went back and forth with which 16mm format to included I finally decided that I’ve heard too many people over the years say that 2/3″ HD is the same as Super-16. With this chart I can show that it’s not only smaller than Super 16, it’s actually smaller than regular 16mm. I didn’t want to include both 16mm formats because it just got too cluttered. Ultra 16 is a cool format, but unfortunately it never really caught on, there’s really almost no one set up for Ultra 16, be it cameras or telecines out there. If you compare regular 16mm to Ultra 16, there’s a lot more people shooting regular 16mm.

I’ve been told (and have not confirmed myself) that the Canon uses nearly all of the sensor for light capture (actually a full width 16:9 slice out of the 24x36mm sensor), but it’s not scaling 22MP to 1920. Entire rows of pixels are being dropped and combined before converting to 1920×1080 30p. I’m told this is the primary reason why some 5D images have a problem with aliasing.

I’m sorry I don’t exactly follow your question. If you are asking if the Red cameras has more resolution than the Canon 5Dmk2 is motion images- the answer is yes. If you mean actual resolution on the sensor, the answer is the 5Dmk2, but the Canon doesn’t use all that resolution to full advantage in the video mode. There’s a test going on next week between the Red, 5Dmk2 and GH1. I’ll post more information about this later.

I.

I was wondering, when one shotos a video clip with the Canon’s monster sized sensor, is the entire sensor area being used to capture light, and then the iamge is internally downconverted to 1920×1080? Or when there is video capture, only the center section of the sensor measuring only 1920×1080 is even used?

Thanks and congrats on your rigs!

Cheers. Ben