Scarlet stills?

[Tommi Hares]

I'm sorry if this has been asked before, but I need to be sure: What is the resolution of still images from the (current spec) 2/3 Scarlet? Does it matter at all if the images stored in "still mode" or "movie mode"? I mean, is the Scarlet in essence a very high FPS still RAW camera?

 

[Tim Hole]

Essentially yes that is exactly what it is. A camera that has the ability to shoot at frame rates between 1-150fps, in REDCODE which is a lossy compression wavelet-based codec. The resolution for the still should be identical to the motion. But having never shot with the Scarlet 2/3" obviously I can't state that from personal experience.

 

[Jonathan Stevenson]

You are exactly right. The point of DSMC is that stills and motion are no longer distinguishable as far as single frames are concerned. (at least in regards to quality)

It is a still... taken from a 24fps motion stream. Just think really high frame rate DSLR.

Jim

 

[Tommi Hares]

Tim, Jonathan

Thank you for your reply! So the resolution is somewhere around 5mpix @3000x1644?

 

[David Rasberry]

Thank you for your reply! So the resolution is somewhere around 5mpix @3000x1644?

3072 x 1620 last we heard.

 

[Tommi Hares]

3072 x 1620

Thank You!

 

[David J. Shuman]

Is this resoulution before de-Bayering?

Is this resoulution before de-Bayering?

I'm assuming that resolution mentioned above is before de-Bayering.

I have always regardedthe2/3 as QUAD 720, instead of QUAD 1080 HD which the larger sensors are aiming at.

This is still a DREAM SYSTEM!, you can always stitch several 2/3 stills for multi-mega pixel images, panoramas for landscapes and still subjects.

 

[David Rasberry]

Debayering does not reduce the native pixel resolution of the image. Only cropping or scaling do that.

 

[David J. Shuman]

Scarlet 2/3 should be an awesome system then

Scarlet 2/3 should be an awesome system then

Even for stills he HRx is a big boost. So many possibilities.

 

[Tommi Hares]

before de-Bayering..

Wait, what? Isn't the raw format 1:1 with the sensor (pure data)? Hence the word "Raw"? Isn't it the job of the interpreter to make the "final pixels"? Isn't it for the raw uninterpreted data, why we have the means and the data latitude to disassemble the stored bits to appropriate representation of the "data recorder's" objective photographic intentions via set of simulated variables?

Algorithms are cool, but they never change the outcome do they? It's just an idea what the sensor thought was real? In my mind resolution = stored data. An algorithm might not use them all, but that doesn't mean they weren't recorded.

 

[Aaron Newsome]

Algorithms are cool, but they never change the outcome do they? It's just an idea what the sensor thought was real? In my mind resolution = stored data. An algorithm might not use them all, but that doesn't mean they weren't recorded.

Remember, the sensor records the image with a bayer pattern over the sensor. This means that each photosite on the sensor only "sees" one color. Red, green or blue.

At each photosite position on the sensor, the final image needs all three values for Red Green and Blue to make up the image.

Debayering fills in the holes. It doesn't change the size or the resolution of the image.

 

[David Rasberry]

Remember, the sensor records the image with a bayer pattern over the sensor. This means that each photosite on the sensor only "sees" one color. Red, green or blue.

At each photosite position on the sensor, the final image needs all three values for Red Green and Blue to make up the image.

Debayering fills in the holes. It doesn't change the size or the resolution of the image.

Right. The debayer process takes a 4 pixel block, 2 green,one red, one blue, and interpolates the recorded values to produce 4 full color RGB pixels in the final image. No reduction in pixel resolution.