Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Great Camera Shootout 2011

Tobias, these are the guys that measured the resolution of a number of cameras to be greater than their pixel-count. I wouldn't trust their measurements. As always, best to do your own.

Graeme
 
There is a lot that is not here: For example, on MX teh extra resolution allows for much more effective noise reduction without blurring in post.

In teh dark dress bit, they shot MX at 320 ISO (!?) if you meter for 320 iso, for sure the highlights will tend toward clipping. It would be easy to bring back all detail in the dress with a simple curve in post.
 
They did a good job here. All concerns I thought of immediately were discussed, and they were more coming up with stress tests in as level a starting point as possible. I think that people who are working around these cameras can make a LOT of educated advancements watching these samples.

If it was a matter of taking each camera and making them look as good as possible, it would then be a DP shootout / instructional piece on how to use each camera. Red and Alexa really shined in this video. And areas where Red fell short (highlights in the under exposed scene, for example) it is clear that it could have easily been stopped down and still looked great! The shadow detail went on for miles!

I really like this, because it was a test of the character of the cameras, more than anything else. Seeing what resolved the polka dots, what recovered the highlights, just the default LOOK of Nancy Schreiber's scene, etc. It was kind of fun because there we things about myself that I didn't realize I instinctually cared so much about! Any video that has me backing up to watch a section several times - each time staring at a new part - is doing something worthwhile.

Can't wait for ep. 2 and 3... though I dont see the smarts in waiting a MONTH for each, lol.

... kinda wish they did a lens shootout!
 
I agree w/ you Jeffery that the test showed the character of the Red One MX in a very favorable light. People have been led to believe that the Alexa has some mystical film-mojo. And the Sony F3 has been described as being so sensitive as to almost have night vision. Well the Red looked plenty cinematic, rolled off the highlights gracefully and held shadow details exceedingly well.

On balance, I don't think the Red was represented badly at all. Actually quite good.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Tobias, these are the guys that measured the resolution of a number of cameras to be greater than their pixel-count. I wouldn't trust their measurements. As always, best to do your own.

Graeme
Click to expand...

In response, all the resolution numbers for the SCCE were calculated using the slanted edge approach. Here's a document by Doug Kerr that explains the process and why its used over a straight line approach. http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/MTF_Slant_Edge.pdf

I also have a paper by Jack Holm, who did the actual calculations in the presentation, if anyone wants something more hardcore about calculating SFR or MTF.

It's important to note that in the SCCE what was was being measured was the MTF of the entire system (Lens+Sensor+Processing)

-Scott
 
The slanted edge approach leads to silly results though. We all know you can't have more resolution than a sensor has pixels, but the numbers calculated by that approach result in such numbers as it doesn't distinguish between real resolution and aliases. Jack posted a similar response to Adam Wilt on the PVC article: "The method allows spatial frequency response above Nyquist to be measured, although such frequencies will alias".

The two issues there are the issue of counting aliasing as resolution, which I think we can all agree is a wrongheaded approach, and the 2nd, which is in some ways more serious, which is that figures are presented to an audience without adequate explanation of what they mean, and it's only later when questioned by a careful observer like Adam that any kind of answer is given at all.

And if it's MTF that's being measured - why is the chart labeled "maximum resolution", and why is not an MTF plot provided instead with the area that represents aliasing shown? Even with with the bar graph used, aliasing could have been noted in another colour on the bar to show this, but it is not.

And remember here - I'm complaining about a test that rates the resolution of a RED One much higher than I've measured and quoted to customers. We neither want nor need to show resolution figures greater than we deem possible with our camera systems as that helps nobody, and gives false expectations. So what happens when someone goes out and shoots something and they can't get the resolution quoted - who takes the flak - is it me, or you? If you can sense my frustration here, you're right - I'm frustrated by this.

Graeme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top