Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: KOMODO....

Reply to Thread
Page 396 of 505 FirstFirst ... 296346386392393394395396397398399400406446496 ... LastLast
Results 3,951 to 3,960 of 5043
  1. #3951  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bastien Tribalat View Post
    It has been hinted by Jarred that Komodo will have DR close to the DR of Helium. And that there's virtually no loss in DR when you go from rolling shutter mode to global shutter mode to the point that they were thinking of NOT putting the rolling shutter mode.
    the question is what does "close" mean, I hope it will be closer to Helium than Ursa or C200.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #3952  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomasz Nizielski View Post
    the question is what does "close" mean, I hope it will be closer to Helium than Ursa or C200.
    I think that close means at least 14 stops of usable DR. IF Helium is listed at 16.5, then close could mean 16 stops or 15 stops, but I think that for an unbiased approach, 14 stops is the realistic DR. Which still means that it's enough to get a highlight roll-off that's usable.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3953  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    161
    Considering photographic film has 13 stops, anything over is considered a godsend in my book...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3954  
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomasz Nizielski View Post
    the question is what does "close" mean, I hope it will be closer to Helium than Ursa or C200.
    "Close" was quantified in a later post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarred Land View Post
    Yes as we sit, Komodo dynamic range is within half a stop of Helium in both Rolling shutter and Global shutter modes.
    Based on this, the assumption would be that it'd be listed somewhere around 15.5-16 and, depending on testing methodology, end up around 14.5-15 useable stops. Ursa 4.6K and the C200 are in the 12.5-13 range, so it does seem that it's closer to Helium than those.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #3955  
    Senior Member Bastien Tribalat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Cannes area, France
    Posts
    694
    I am no expert at all when it comes to tests, measures and so on BUT DXOMARK lists the DR of Helium S35 8K at 15.2 stops so if Komodo being "close to the DR of Helium" mean something between 14 and that, it would be a big win in my book.
    VIDEO EDITING - COLOR GRADING - VFX
    APPLE FINAL CUT PRO, AVID MEDIA COMPOSER
    ADOBE CREATIVE CLOUD, DAVINCI RESOLVE, REDCINE X PRO...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #3956  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke Marcus Rosen View Post
    Considering photographic film has 13 stops, anything over is considered a godsend in my book...
    Hard to measure film really, since it's a chemical process without any hard cuts to DR range. Everything rolls off physically while for digital everything needs to replicate the physical. Film might have 13 stops in one measurement, but when working with the image there's more to it than just strict stops of DR. This is why it's so hard to just compare film to digital. Digital needs to go way higher in DR in order to actually replicate the dynamic and organic look of film. Just like resolution needs to go to 8K or above in order to replicate physical "resolution" past pixel counts.

    Somewhere down the line we will have a 100 megapixel 25 stops of DR camera before we get something else than pixels in digital form. And then no one will ever look at film again.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #3957  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post
    Hard to measure film really, since it's a chemical process without any hard cuts to DR range. Everything rolls off physically while for digital everything needs to replicate the physical. Film might have 13 stops in one measurement, but when working with the image there's more to it than just strict stops of DR. This is why it's so hard to just compare film to digital. Digital needs to go way higher in DR in order to actually replicate the dynamic and organic look of film. Just like resolution needs to go to 8K or above in order to replicate physical "resolution" past pixel counts.

    Somewhere down the line we will have a 100 megapixel 25 stops of DR camera before we get something else than pixels in digital form. And then no one will ever look at film again.
    Not to veer OT too much, and these may be very easy-to-answer questions, but I'm very much in the dark on the technical side of film and video.

    1.) Have there been cases where people haven't tried to replicate the physical (using film as the standard)?

    2.) From the explanations I've seen online, a sensor's photosites are an array of squares. I'm just wondering if circular, overlapping photosites have been tried (if even possible)? I'm looking at wallpaper right now that looks like a bunch of Venn diagrams - maybe that would be a way of moving away from blocky pixels?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #3958  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,100
    Quote Originally Posted by BrendanLeahy View Post
    Not to veer OT too much, and these may be very easy-to-answer questions, but I'm very much in the dark on the technical side of film and video.

    1.) Have there been cases where people haven't tried to replicate the physical (using film as the standard)?

    2.) From the explanations I've seen online, a sensor's photosites are an array of squares. I'm just wondering if circular, overlapping photosites have been tried (if even possible)? I'm looking at wallpaper right now that looks like a bunch of Venn diagrams - maybe that would be a way of moving away from blocky pixels?
    Square pixels provide the greatest area of light exposure without black space between pixels. Smoothing is done by properly matched optical low pass filters that act to blur the shape of the pixels and smooth edges. Higher resolution plus OLPF produces smooth organic looking images.
    Current top line digital cameras significantly outperform film in most meaningful respects, but the aesthetic response is more like reversal film than negative film. Digital can emulate film aesthetics pretty well, but there are also possibilities for a far greater range of aesthetic choices to pursue as its own distinct medium.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #3959  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto & Vancouver
    Posts
    3,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Karim D. Ghantous View Post
    Unlike almost everyone here, I want the smallest sensor I can get that delivers pro level image quality. Right now Micro 4/3 is the biggest sensor I want to use going forward.

    That doesn't mean I won't use bigger sensors, but right now, you can't go smaller than Micro 4/3 and get image quality that I would be happy with. Eventually? Maybe. I want a Sony RX100 that give me S35 image quality. It won't happen tomorrow but it might happen - or, indeed, it may never happen.
    And you wouldn't be content cropping down to ~5k/~m43 or ~4k/~s16?

    When it comes to sensors, I really don't understand why RED doesn't make their active areas a DCI compatible 16:9 like BMD (as in, 6144x3456 rather than 6144x3240)? It's just seems dumb going through all the effort of making it a custom 1.9:1, when I'm sure most shoots end up as 16:9 delivery and no one would ever complain about the additional ~7% height/vertical res/downsample.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #3960  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike P. View Post
    And you wouldn't be content cropping down to ~5k/~m43 or ~4k/~s16?

    When it comes to sensors, I really don't understand why RED doesn't make their active areas a DCI compatible 16:9 like BMD (as in, 6144x3456 rather than 6144x3240)? It's just seems dumb going through all the effort of making it a custom 1.9:1, when I'm sure most shoots end up as 16:9 delivery and no one would ever complain about the additional ~7% height/vertical res/downsample.
    S16mm/1" video sized format is a favorite of mine. Looks like Komodo will cover that at 2.5K- 3k horizontal resolution depending on lens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts