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 :)

Resolution, softness and back focus...

Status
Not open for further replies.
K.Berlin said:
i missed this formula, and my question is where in redcine i should add .6 and 300 %...thanks
Click to expand...

Those are photoshop Unsharp Mask parameters that can be used on 4K Tiffs. RedAlert just has a few options for sharpening in the menu's. I don't know of any in Redcine... yet.
But on down converting, some scaling algorithms are sharper than others.

Graeme Nattress said:
OLPFs don't really change their effect on change of distance. It's more to make any dust less visible and to deal better with flare I think.

Graeme
Click to expand...
That makes sense. I guess I had read that they were using a slightly different filter. I think Evin referred to it in the Red vs. Red thread. But maybe that's mis-information.

IBloom
 
Here is a 100% crop from a frame shot on Zeiss Ultra Primes. It's the sharpest frame I've seen from the Red so far. The first is no sharpening applied the second is with Jim's 300,6,1 USM in photoshop.
eyecomp.jpg
 
Evin Grant said:
Here is a 100% crop from a frame shot on Zeiss Ultra Primes. It's the sharpest frame I've seen from the Red so far. The first is no sharpening applied the second is with Jim's 300,6,1 USM in photoshop.
eyecomp.jpg
Click to expand...

this was shot w/ #199?
 
AFAIK, from my limited knowledge of optics, within reason, distance doesn't alter the anti aliasing strength of an OLPF as the rays go through it parallel.

Graeme
 
MY THEORY BELOW:
I thought the OLPF was a very fine grained form of diffusion, randomizing the path of the rays slightly and thus creating a mild blur effect as the light is scattered and preventing high frequencies from resolving on the sensor.

Moving it forward without then constricting the light with an aperture, would increase its effect. Kind of like trying to peer out through a frosted shower door at someone resting their palm on it. You would need to use a milder diffusion to compensate for the move.
END OF MY THEORY.

Evin, if your results from the other night with Bear turned out inconclusive, have you had other experiences with #102 that make you feel like it's resolving differently, maybe a wider lense or tighter aperture?

Ian
 
It's a very specific square pattern. First the rays are split along one axis and then those two are split along the other axis (per most OLPFs). The rays are essentially parallel coming out so there no significant change in low pass performance by moving the OLPF.

Why we moved the OLPF was for other reasons.
 
Deanan said:
It's a very specific square pattern. First the rays are split along one axis and then those two are split along the other axis (per most OLPFs). The rays are essentially parallel coming out so there no significant change in low pass performance by moving the OLPF.

Why we moved the OLPF was for other reasons.
Click to expand...

Got it.
So the rumors of a difference in resolution are just that, rumors.

Once I told my recent clients, "Fellas, you need to sharpen it. That's how it works." They got really happy.

Ian
 
ibloom said:
Got it.
So the rumors of a difference in resolution are just that, rumors.
Click to expand...

Not specifically from moving the low pass but there are
other variables involved which make it more complicated.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The reduction in flare / improvement in contrast with the new OLPF would give the impression of better resolution.
Click to expand...

We have a new OLPF in a different location. As David points out, flare is reduced, contrast is improved, and small dust particles on the filter will not be as apparent. Grand total = much better. As Deanan points out, there is a bit more we are not likely to share.

Jim
 
ibloom said:
Evin, if your results from the other night with Bear turned out inconclusive, have you had other experiences with #102 that make you feel like it's resolving differently, maybe a wider lense or tighter aperture?
Ian
Click to expand...

No, I no longer think there is a resolution difference. I'll be getting #199 on Monday (fingers crossed) and I'll try to torture test the new OLPF this comming week.
 
Evin Grant said:
No, I no longer think there is a resolution difference. I'll be getting #199 on Monday (fingers crossed) and I'll try to torture test the new OLPF this comming week.
Click to expand...

Hi Evin please post your results when you have them, thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top