"numerically honest 4k", Sony backhanded slap at Red

[Andrew M.]

My guess puts it around ~5700 x ~3000 if it were rotated 45deg back into normally oriented bayer pattern.

Actually if we know the sensor size it will be easy to calculate the equivalent bayer horizontal and vertical pixel count. Sure debayering process is very crucial but let's talk just photo-sites here.
I would trust that Graeme knows the best how to debayer by now.

It basically doesn't matter if pixels are placed at 45deg 20deg or 90 deg.

What does matter, is what are the dimensions of the sensor and how many square photo-sites are there. (we presume square pixels)

Anybody knows the dimensions of the active area or the whole area of the f65 sensor?

[Graeme Nattress]

For sake of argument, if you take the Sony's 4k resolution, they use twice as many pixels to achieve that in there rot45 bayer as with traditional bayer. So the factor to convert their "8k" to real bayer so we can figure maximal measured resolution from that number of pixels is to divide by root 2 = 5.65k. So what I'm saying is if their pixels were re-arranged to traditional bayer, they could have a 5.65k sensor, with no doubt a measured resolution and low aliasing figure of around 4.3k. Instead, I contend, that with their rot45 arrangement they'll never measure more than 4k and have higher levels of aliasing. But charts will tell us for sure. I see absolutely no way that sensor can measure any good percentage of 8k.

Graeme

[Andrew M.]

Also saying that f65 is 20MP and 10MP are green and than in the same sentence saying that there are 4096 x 2160 green photo-sites suggests that the active area has 16.87MP and the remaining 3.2 MP is look around area.

Andrew

[Deanan]

Also saying that f65 is 20MP and 10MP are green and than in the same sentence saying that there are 4096 x 2160 green photo-sites suggests that the active area has 16.87MP and the remaining 3.2 MP is look around area.

Andrew

They've stated in the sensor papers that the active area is 17.7MP although the FDtimes article said 18.3 but that seems to be a back calculation off the 4.2u pixel size which seems to be a rounded off number.

[AnthonyFlores]

For sake of argument, if you take the Sony's 4k resolution, they use twice as many pixels to achieve that in there rot45 bayer as with traditional bayer. So the factor to convert their "8k" to real bayer so we can figure maximal measured resolution from that number of pixels is to divide by root 2 = 5.65k. So what I'm saying is if their pixels were re-arranged to traditional bayer, they could have a 5.65k sensor, with no doubt a measured resolution and low aliasing figure of around 4.3k. Instead, I contend, that with their rot45 arrangement they'll never measure more than 4k and have higher levels of aliasing. But charts will tell us for sure. I see absolutely no way that sensor can measure any good percentage of 8k.

Graeme

Graeme, forgive me ... I'm not strong in this area ... so are you saying the NET measured resolution for the Sony after debayering is around 4.3k -- thus about equal to the Epic? I think you guys said in one of the recon threads that the Epic minimum would be 4.2k after debayer, and as much as 4.3 or 4.4k.

An "8k" sensor measuring roughly the same as a 5k sensor would be quite interesting indeed ;)

[Graeme Nattress]

Anthony, I'm saying that if they arranged the same number of same sized pixels as a traditional rather than rot45 Bayer, they're net, with a decent OLPF and decent demosaic I'd expect around 4.3k. To me that is the best figure you can possibly get from that number of pixels and Green pixel to red/blue pixels ratio. However, they've gone with rot45 Bayer, and with that arrangement I expect 4k resolution (no more) and significant aliasing. Charts will tell us for sure though. Either Sony will release charts, and they've used Zone Plates in their theory demonstrations in the rot45, or I'll get a F65 and shoot charts.

Graeme

[Tom Lowe]

If aspect ratio is 1.9:1 and measured resolution is 4 - 4.3K, what would the measured resolution be cropped to 3:2 aspect ratio for IMAX?

How would this compare to the Epic? Epic is 16:9, no?

[Graeme Nattress]

Measured resolution would only be 4.3k if they used a real bayer though. It probably maxes out at 4k with their arrangement, and aliasing / resolution at that point will be OLPF dependent. I honestly can't see this camera measuring more resolution and less aliasing than an Epic, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Graeme

[Tom Lowe]

So in terms of using the Epic or F65 for 3:2 IMAX, it will probably be close, with a slight edge to Epic for resolution?

[Graeme Nattress]

I'd expect so, but charts will confirm this one way or another.

Graeme