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

[Jannard]

Read the patent before you cough... Cineform is listed in the application. Patent granted. I just love it when people comment... and have no idea what they are talking about. No offense.

Jim

*cough* cineform *cough*

Not unless he bought it off of one of dozens of other companies that were already offering it. Wavelet + Bayer Pattern wasn't exactly a new concept.

[Tom Lowe]

Jim and Graeme most definitely hold a patent on compressed RAW for video. Im not sure how broad the patent is, or how Cineform fits in.

Edit: sorry, did not see Jim's post right before mine.

[Graeme Nattress]

There were two announcements, one saying that sensor is 17MP at 45 deg with more than 20% extra pixels in both, vertical and horizontal axis.
Second announcement was that there will be 8K x 2K sensor.

I still can’t get it why only 2K pixels they choose for vertical resollution?

This will give only about 1.6K “honest” resolution in vertical axis for 2:1 format and for 16:9 format it will limit the resolution to only 2.8K of “honest resolution” horizontally, since you can’t use any more horizontal pixels if you limit yourself to 1.6K vertically.

I don’t think Sony would do it and all these reports are not accurate.

17MP at 45degrees is correct. It's not 16bit, it's 14 up to 60fps and 12 beyond that (according to Sony's sensor papers).

The reason it's only 2k vertically is 2k x 8k is 17MP. And although the 17MP is correct, the 8k is not. They're measuring their rotated pixels in a way that suits their marketing "k" figure, rather than one which properly describes what they're doing. As they're bayer, they have enough MP for 5.7k and that is all. They chose to arrange those pixels differently by rotating them, but it doesn't really alter things, other than to give them a magically unreal 8k figure to throw around and the lack of a need to demosaic, just extract, so no oversampling will be going on at all at their 4k.

Graeme

[Andrew M.]

Look what I just found:

New specs on pro sony com shows that F65 sensor have 4096x2160 green pixels so for 16:9 format you can use only 3840x2160 pixels so it is not very “honest” 4k but good enough.

“The F65 imager contains a total of 20 Mega-pixels. Half are sensitive to GREEN, and the other half are equally shared by RED and BLUE pixels. The sensor will provide pristine super-sampled HD and 2K images, and this is the first sensor in the industry that provides a dedicated green photosite for each pixel in the 4K (4096 x 2160) output image.”

Maybe that is why they are very careful and does not mention that sensor will provide HD and 2K and 4K images but they say that sensor will provide only “HD and 2K” images?




Andrew

[Deanan]

17MP at 45degrees is correct. It's not 16bit, it's 14 up to 60fps and 12 beyond that (according to Sony's sensor papers).

The reason it's only 2k vertically is 2k x 8k is 17MP. And although the 17MP is correct, the 8k is not. They're measuring their rotated pixels in a way that suits their marketing "k" figure, rather than one which properly describes what they're doing. As they're bayer, they have enough MP for 5.7k and that is all. They chose to arrange those pixels differently by rotating them, but it doesn't really alter things, other than to give them a magically unreal 8k figure to throw around and the lack of a need to demosaic, just extract, so no oversampling will be going on at all at their 4k.

Graeme

The other confusing spec they claim is 16bit RAW yet they're also saying the sensor is 14bit and 12bit in high speed mode. So it sounds like they're just putting 12or 14 in a 16 bit container.

[Tom Lowe]

That would be odd, obviously, if they were putting 12- or 14-bit footage into a 16-bit container.

[Deanan]

That would be odd, obviously, if they were putting 12- or 14-bit footage into a 16-bit container.

Dalsa did the same thing. Convenient but not efficient.

[M Most]

Dalsa did the same thing. Convenient but not efficient.

As I recall, the MX sensor is also 12 bits, although the debayer process promotes it to 16 bit precision. So if Red, at least prior to Epic, were to have offered an uncompressed RAW output in a standard container like, say, TIFF, it would have been the same as well. Am I wrong about that?

[Deanan]

As I recall, the MX sensor is also 12 bits, although the debayer process promotes it to 16 bit precision. So if Red, at least prior to Epic, were to have offered an uncompressed RAW output in a standard container like, say, TIFF, it would have been the same as well. Am I wrong about that?

If we had offered an uncompressed 12bit raw output, we would be saved as 12bit output. There's no
benefit to 4 bits of 0's especially since affects everything downstream for storage.
DPX supports 12bit packing and I believe Tiff/DNG also do.
We'll have to wait and see...

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

The other confusing spec they claim is 16bit RAW yet they're also saying the sensor is 14bit and 12bit in high speed mode. So it sounds like they're just putting 12or 14 in a 16 bit container.

Where do they say this?