Red Vs Viper

[jbeale]

I always thought that DOF is determined by sensor size and focal length. However it does depend on a subjective determination of what is "in focus" so the higher the native resolution, the easier it is to see what is really in focus and what is close, but not quite. Maybe that's your point if you are comparing the Zeiss lens to something less crisp.

 

[Adrian T.]

Due to the 3 x 9,200,000 pixels (27,600,000 total) the Viper resolves far more than other HD cameras.

That's not how you count pixels on 3 CCD cameras! It's got 9.2 mio pixels and that's it. :nerd:

 

[Stephen Williams]

That's not how you count pixels on 3 CCD cameras! It's got 9.2 mio pixels and that's it. :nerd:

Hi,

No it has 9,200,000 Red, 9,200,000 Green & 9,200,000 blue. It would clearly out resolve a 9,200,000 bayer chip.

Stephen

 

[Stephen Williams]

I always thought that DOF is determined by sensor size and focal length. However it does depend on a subjective determination of what is "in focus" so the higher the native resolution, the easier it is to see what is really in focus and what is close, but not quite. Maybe that's your point if you are comparing the Zeiss lens to something less crisp.

Hi,

If a lens on a 2/3 inch chip camera were able to out resolve the lenses of a 35mm camera by 2.5 times then I beleive the DOF would be the same.

The Zeiss Digi Prime lenses are very sharp wide open. FWIW they cost more than twice that of Cooke S4's!

Stephen

 

[Stephen Williams]

If the RED is a good as its claims, I wouldn't shoot on film if I had a 100 million dollar budget. Nevermind 10.

Hi,

You will have to convince the Insurance company, that the risks are no greater than shooting with a Viper. With $10 million at stake they will want to see some tests of the camera & workflow, before giving the green light.

Stephen

 

[Chris Kenny]

It would clearly out resolve a 9,200,000 bayer chip.

Yes, but not by nearly as large a margin as the 27.6M figure suggests.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Viper, D20, Dalsa, Red!

Viper, D20, Dalsa, Red!

Hi Guys,

I almost purchase a Viper, because I was not going to give thousands of $ in rentals fees to get the not for sale D20 or Dalsa Origin, but then I come to find out about Jim's RED, and I put a down payment on my new home in California insted, very very happy, this is why.

The Dalsa Origin is a fantastic camera, at almost full 4k it gives lots of image to work with in S35 format, the problem with small budgets is just that, the info recorded by this camera it is so much that you need a monster recording/editing system, ups already out of budjet, also the camera is big, wrilly BIG, at a rate of nearly $3,000.00 a day, no thanks.

The Arri D20 is a different camera all togheter, also not for sale and a rate more reasonable then the Dalsa but not easy to find, but also not 4k, sorry.

So the RED is not only the best solution, is the only solution, I do not want to show off but I reserved 3 of them, hey 3 cameras and still less the one Viper tag price? Now that is a deal to me, and as far as those in this or other forums everywere that still say that you can not compere aplles to oranges because this camera is not out yet, well, not yet, but soon in off to make it worth well to pospone all of your projects, definitelly it is the case for my projects, and believe me wen I say I do not have the luxury of waysting time, I seriusly do not!!!


D20, not 4k, images very good in deed but at what price tag?

Dalsa yes 4k but not an easy choice of workflow at all and very very costly.

Viper in filmstream mode is an animal of its own, not S35, not 4k and making the color corrections of the green screen is also not an easy task, but still a great camera, just not affordable.

RedOne is 4k, RedOne has Redcode, so no complicated and very costly proposition for recording/editing, now if you also take in consideration the recording media in wich Red can record, thats a all different ball game, the costs here are so low can not be compered at all, you consider package size, not heavy at all, different lens mounts, well you know where I go with this so no choices left for me, Red is my solo choice.

Ciao,

KETCH ROSSI

 

[Adrian T.]

It would clearly out resolve a 9,200,000 bayer chip.

Only if pixel shifting is applied. And as far as I know the Viper doesn't do that.

Right from the Viper Datasheet:
Picture elements: 9.2 million pixels 1920 (H) x 4320 (V) effective
So the horizontal resolution is no more than 1920 pixels... :wacko:

 

[Stephen Williams]

Viper in filmstream mode is an animal of its own, not S35, not 4k and making the color corrections of the green screen is also not an easy task, but still a great camera, just not affordable.

KETCH ROSSI

Hi Ketch,

I find -23 green with XnView (a free programme) removes the color cast.

After Effects is just as easy, just not free!

Stephen

 

[Stephen Williams]

Only if pixel shifting is applied. And as far as I know the Viper doesn't do that.

Right from the Viper Datasheet:
Picture elements: 9.2 million pixels 1920 (H) x 4320 (V) effective
So the horizontal resolution is no more than 1920 pixels... :wacko:

Hi,

If you compare the Viper images to other HD cameras, they are sharper with greater dynamic range. Pixel averaging rather than pixel shifting seems to work rather well IMHO.

As I said, I am waiting to see a back to back test.

Stephen

 

[Adrian T.]

Pixel averaging rather than pixel shifting seems to work rather well IMHO.

Oversampling is a good thing, no doubt. But it's only applied in the vertical direction. Horizontally you don't have spare pixels.

And the maximum output of the Viper is only 1080P.

As I said, I am waiting to see a back to back test.

Me too! :biggrin:

 

[Chris Kenny]

Hi,
If a lens on a 2/3 inch chip camera were able to out resolve the lenses of a 35mm camera by 2.5 times then I beleive the DOF would be the same.

If deep DOF were simply a matter of low resolution disguising out of focus areas, 35mm footage on DVD would appear to have similar DOF to footage from 1/3" cameras on DVD. It doesn't. It's not even close.

We say larger formats have shallower DOF basically because longer lenses have shallower DOF, and with a larger format you use a longer lens to achieve an equivalent field of view.

 

[Poi Boy]

I can hardly wait for the test to confirm that Red crushes Viper.
-A

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

No it has 9,200,000 Red, 9,200,000 Green & 9,200,000 blue. It would clearly out resolve a 9,200,000 bayer chip.

Hmmm... I'm not so sure I would agree. The correlation between pixels/photosites and how they distribute across RGB layers isn't always that simple and it doesn't automatically mean it has superior resolving power to a similar sized bayer sensor... Let alone one that's 3M pixels larger.

Most manufacturers don't play off of pixels in each CCD layer for resolution numbers, and even less so recently. Thomson/GV is a little fuzzy in their own literature on this. Most of their newer stuff simply calles it a 9.2Mpixel CCD block. But the older published materials and the PDF spec sheet on their site like to say 9.2 megapixels per RGB channel. Wooohooo. Like, uh, duh...

In most situations, a 3CCD imager has no more spatial or temporal resolution than a single-layer CMOS (nor does a 3-layer CMOS). Although by having separate color layers, certain tricks like pixel shifting can be used to help boost some properties of resolution.

Anyway, all that said, I'm inclined to disagree with your statement. I'm eager to see a side by side comparison of the Viper and RED One. However, even if the RED One only matches the Viper when shooting 1080p, it will still be the better camera (IMO). And for that reason, I'm expecting RED to have the superior workflow, better configurability and flexibility as well as far more mode and format options. Oh, it costs less too... I can own RED instead of just renting a Viper.

 

[Stephen Williams]

If deep DOF were simply a matter of low resolution disguising out of focus areas, 35mm footage on DVD would appear to have similar DOF to footage from 1/3" cameras on DVD. It doesn't. It's not even close.

We say larger formats have shallower DOF basically because longer lenses have shallower DOF, and with a larger format you use a longer lens to achieve an equivalent field of view.

Hi Chris,

The large DOF on 1/3 inch sensors is due to minimal resoloution of the lenses & sensors. Turn off any detail and you will see what I mean. Nothing is really sharp & that gives the effect of huge DOF.

Focal length does not effect DOF, just F stop an image magnification at the sensor.

Stephen

 

[Stephen Williams]

I can hardly wait for the test to confirm that Red crushes Viper.
-A

Hi,

I have not seen any recent wedge tests from Red, just heard about 11.3 stops. Depends of course on how you define 'crushes' I suppose.

Stephen

 

[Anders Holck]

Oversampling is a good thing, no doubt.

Note that pixel binning is not oversampling. It equals a larger photosite, but won't help reduce aliasing between adjacent bins.

 

[Adrian T.]

Focal length does not effect DOF

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html :whistling:

 

[Chris Kenny]

The large DOF on 1/3 inch sensors is due to minimal resoloution of the lenses & sensors. Turn off any detail and you will see what I mean. Nothing is really sharp & that gives the effect of huge DOF.

The far deeper DOF on 1/3" cameras simply cannot be accounted for by differences in lens or sensor resolution.

If that were the explanation, 35mm adaptors for 1/3" cameras wouldn't be able to achieve shallow DOF.

Focal length does not effect DOF, just F stop an image magnification at the sensor.

Um... focal length is what determines image magnification.

 

[Brook Willard]

DOF discussions rapidly become semantic. Simply put, DOF is determined by your stop, focal length and subject distance. Format has no effect on DOF. A 100mm lens on a 35mm camera has the same DOF as a 100mm lens on a 1/3" camera. Only the FOV changes in that equation.