I am continually stunned by the whole RED teams lack of willingness to let it be "good enough" and continually squeezing more and more out of the current technology and not making us, the customer, constantly shell out for the "newer, better, etc..." but providing it as a matter of course.
Kudos for setting the marks so high on what any customer should expect from any company.
Will other settings resolve the same? As I have RPPs and just want to know how to continually reach the same results as your MTF chart(I don't know the math but I can read the modulation chart)...In addition, I will gladly sacrifice my look around to get 4.1K measured resolution.
I think it's a good day for RED being able to leave the 3.2k measured resolution stigma behind them. Whatever the numbers equal out to the important thing is that both M and MX create beautiful imagery. That's really all I care about.
Full marks for questioning the hows and whys of the establishment.
I love how you guys are artists and scientists :-)
I challenge someone to name a cam that is actually better in any way (35mm film stocks do not count) than Red + MX and to name the way.
When you plot out the result, you will typically see the response pattern get bumpy towards the upper end of the resolution range, due to the interaction between the fixed pixel grid spacing and the varying lines and spaces of the test chart. At least that's my interpretation. I've never seen such a response plot be entirely smooth. (If it was entirely smooth, I think that would mean your anti-alias filter was so strong that you'd loose a lot of potential MTF.)
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|