REDs new "Juggernaut 32k" brain?

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Metrics like line pairs per millimeter, or TV lines per picture height are often cited in spec sheets.

Yes, shifting from a vertical to horizontal axis reference in quoting resolution is misleading to say the least.

I am not sure that I would agree that within the motion media industry a one dimensional figure for resolution is always assumed. Due to differing aspect ratios, various imaging technologies (3 CCD vs 1 CMOS with Bayer mask), scans of analog records vs digital clones, etc I think both dimensions need to be expressed for meaningful comparisons.

In terms of the genuine resolution of the F65 it is my understanding that they reached that 17MP number by having 8,192 photo sites horizontal and 2,160 vertical in their Q67 rotated bayer-ish mask tech. After processing, it creates a 4,096 by 2,160 image that is touted as full 4K. I would expect it to resolve fairly close to a 5K FF 5,120 by 2,700 Epic frame de-mosaiced and down sampled to 4,096 by 2,160 (yes, that would include some cropping due to aspect ratio differential). In terms of zone plate resolution testing the 5K FF Epic frame should exceed 3,800 horizontal even in the most conservative evaluation assuming a high quality electro-optical-processing pathway. Even if the F65 manages to exceed that slightly, I don't expect the pure test chart resolution metric to be much of a differentiator between the two systems. Optical low pass filtering, internal processing of the data set provided by the sensor, shutter artifacts, compression, decoding algorithms, etc are much more likely to delineate the "look" and perceived resolution of the respective systems. I am expecting something like the difference between LCOS and DLP, but until we can directly compare in a butterfly (split screen) on a serious display that's just conjecture.

If you are talking about an 8K system like the NHK UHD implementation, that's a different beast. FWIW, if/when NHK's 8K standard reaches widespread use I would expect 4K digital material and high res scans of modern film stocks (particularly EI 250 or less) to look quite nice, particularly with next generation uprez tech. OTOH, I would expect 1080 material to require extremely effective uprez routines to avoid looking soft. Time will tell...

Cheers - #19

[roryhinds]

Does anyone know the physical sizes dimensions of the RedOne MX sensor & the Epic MX sensor?

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I am pretty sure it is the same chip but the Epic can use more of the real estate.

A search should lead you to a graphic showing the precise dimensions at various settings.

The 5K FF 5,120 by 2,700 option on the Epic is the biggest bite to date. I seem to remember a 5.6 micrometer pitch being noted but I would not put money on it.

Cheers - #19

[Will Keir]

If you are talking about an 8K system like the NHK UHD implementation, that's a different beast. FWIW, if/when NHK's 8K standard reaches widespread use I would expect 4K digital material and high res scans of modern film stocks (particularly EI 250 or less) to look quite nice, particularly with next generation uprez tech. OTOH, I would expect 1080 material to require extremely effective uprez routines to avoid looking soft. Time will tell...

Cheers - #19

So does that mean we can expect old movies shot on film to be available in 4k+ sometime? How far back can we go and "re-post" the film to bring our old favorites into the modern age?

I am surprised going back and watching films I enjoyed 15 years ago with how low their quality looks. The films are still great, timeless but will they get a refresh or the potential to have a refresh? I'm sure the lower quality I see in "Braveheart" is due to compression issues with the DVD. When Braveheart screened in the theaters, what resolution, if any, were we seeing then? I actually never did see it in the theater, too young to take myself. Does film work different in the sense that there are no lines to be seen in the technology?

[Blair S. Paulsen]

If the original film elements were well preserved and the stock wasn't high in grain most films over the last 50 years could be re-mastered at 4K with a meaningful improvement over 2k (1080). Something like the 6K Northlight, combined with well designed algorithms and plenty of careful processing should be able to pull enough real detail into the re-mastering process for 4K-sih results. My friend Garret over at Paramount has done lots of remastering from archive elements and could give you a far more detailed account of the process and the challenges therein.

Be aware that there are lots of potential issues that could severely limit the perceived difference between film A re-mastered at 4K and film B. Not least of which is pixel count and bit depth of VFX plates, compositing techniques, ISO (ASA) of the original stock, DI pipeline for the re-mastering, final output format (DPX vs JPEG2000), filtration used in front of the taking lens, the maximum lp/mm of resolution the lens is capable of at the stops used (My guess is that GWDT went Master Primes due to their performance wide open and their desire to DI at 4K), post cropping, etc.

Looking forward to seeing for myself and hopeful that at the very least the 4K DCP spec is used for distribution. IIF/ACES 16bit OpenEXR during DI, etc.

Cheers - #19

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Well keep in mind that resolution is a one dimensional figure, pixels or dots per length, i.e. inch or mm - like in dpi.

It depends on semantics. Resolution can be measured in varying dimensions and often is, depending on what is being measured. When speaking of 2D images and imagers, linear representations are the most straight-forward. If anyone wants to know the areal resolution (yes, that is a real term) or areal density, they can derive it. And yes, in terms of imaging systems, that is where megapixel counts come into play as you point out.

Were you tend to see multi-demensional and/or non-linear resolution qualifiers and quantities is when dealing with organic or non-uniform structures where linear representations may not work. None of which really applies here unless you're trying to compare dispersion of wavelength reactants within film negatives or something.

I think in this particular case the editor doesn't grasp the fact that 1080p refers to height or lines and the 4K or 8K refers to width or length.

Yep, that's what it looks like.

I think it would only confuse more people if one keeps this 'area resolution' term alive - resolution is resolution, nothing new here.
IMHO

I think the reason it keeps coming up is because many people don't understand the relationship between the linear representation and the areal quantities. When speaking in common linear terms and we say "4K is twice the resolution of 2K", we are right in terms of that linear scale and also by making the correct deduction that the quantities are uniform (pixels are square and remain constant between formats), because we know this to be so. However, we see far too often a great many people who incorrectly assume that 4K therefore has twice as many pixels as 2K and only requires twice as much bandwidth, storage, etc.. I think that's why the areal representation gets driven home so much.


As for the F65 resolution numbers, it will be interesting to see how the camera actually resolves. Supposedly the first one, serial #001, is being delivered TODAY!!!

[geoffboyle]

I believe it was Aaton not Arriflex that scooped up the IP and some of the engineers from Dalsa. IIRC, that sensor program was intended to be the core of the Penelope Delta back.

Would love to know how that's coming along after seeing a prototype at PPW at NAB in 2010. RED takes a lot of flak for being "late" but at least the EPIC was a shipping product in 2011 (yes, lots of bits on backorder, but a shootable rig). The Aaton Penelope is a terrific concept and they had elegant solutions designed into the prototype but it's still in the lab, not on sets.


Cheers - #19

Aaton have always delivered late but they have also always delivered amazing kit.

I've been using their cameras for over 30 years and can't wait for Penelope D

[Patrick Grossien]

I believe it was Aaton not Arriflex that scooped up the IP and some of the engineers from Dalsa. ...
Cheers - #19

What about Deanan? ;)

[Mark Andersen]

On the 4K vs. 2K things, yes there are four times the pixels and four times the real estate. But it could be argued that it is only twice the resolution or better yet, only twice as "sharp" because when you see the image you see two pixels were you used to see one, or twice and much info in any part of the image, one more line both vertically and horizontally than there used to be. Twice as sharp or clear, but four times the pixels. So in theory 8K would be twice as sharp as 4K. IMHO

[Steven Caesare]

I have started using the megapixel spec many people have become familiar with in the DSLR world.

1080P is essentially 2MP (MP=megapixel), and 4K is 8MP. I find this shorthand effective in dealing with the mathematically challenged ;-)

BTW, one of my favorite jokes is to refer to the state lottery as an extra tax for people who can't do math. (In most US states that have lotteries, the chance of winning the grand prize is far less than being struck by lightning or killed in an auto accident).

Cheers - #19

Well, don't shortchange 4K...if you are gonna quote the 16x9 ratio pixel specs for 1080P @ 2MP, then 4K is really more like 9.5MP.

Sounds more impressive too!


-sc