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 :)

16-bit linear vs 10-bit log?

I'm extremely doubtful anybody is capturing a half-float's worth of dynamic range or color accuracy. Dalsa is probably just shooting to 16bits because there are no official spec'ed formats to run 12bit linear. You have DPX and Cineon for your 10bit Log work and let's not forget that's been used for all 13+ stops worth of data on film for the last 10+ years.

We won't need 16bit images coming out of the camera until we're capturing HDR imagery.
 
Dalsa will need to adjust to a Red centric market very quickly or they will become obsolete.
Aloha
-A
 
Jannard said:
That seems good enough to me for a $17,500 camera that you can actually own. We have 4 features in the works and these will all be shot with prototypes. Getting into 16bit vs. 12 bit debate seems like an interesting discussion, but it just might lead to the wrong conclusion.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely, but the interesting discussion aspect was half the point, it's the technology behind it that I am interested in at this level, and the reasons for or against doing something a particular way on a design level to achieve a particular result. If you take into account the majority of the responses to the question, I don't think anyone here is naive enough to look purely at the numbers and conclude that capturing 16 bits of information must be better than 10 or 12 bit log just because 16 is a greater number.

Just as was pointed out in sampling audio, there is a threshold at which the law of diminishing returns takes over and it is not necessary to spend time and money capturing information that takes up unnecessary bandwidth and storage and will never be used.

I think the majority of responses have been very objective and balanced in taking into account the fact that there is more to it than just pure bit depth.

I don't think anyone is going to post a "put the camera on hold! please re engineer the Mysterium to give us 16-bit sampling, wait, no why don't you supersize me to 24-bit" thread, "oh, and we want true lossless compression and an option to record a full 60 mins on a USB memory stick, thanks!"

Jim, you have an awesome community of people here, I am blown away by the level of technical understanding and openness in those who post that are not engineers (I am sure some are), and the honest, quick and helpful response of your team.

The number of people I've come across who can't even set the white balance on a PD150 (and have no concept of colour temperature anyway), but consider themselves professional camera operators is rediculous.

Sure, perhaps there are some that have ordered a Red and will be coming to it from Sony Handycam world, but it seems to me that the majority here will be combining a state of the art camera with far above average knowledge (and understanding... two different things) of the technology itself, of the entire post process, and the creative elements of lighting, framing a shot, exposure, focus, and actually using the camera to capture top class images.

So I don't think there is any reason for concern.
 
Just because you capture 16bit, does not mean that you capture 16bit of information! Say you digitized VHS at a 16bit depth rather than 8bit depth. You don't get 8 bits of information extra, but just 8bits of noise.

What you need to do is get a Dalsa and measure the information content of the 16bits. You can do this by measuring dynamic range and what a test chart 7 stops under-exposed looks like. They'll tell you what you need to know.

Finally, and no less important, is not just a measure of the noise, but a visual look at it to see what characteristics it has. I'd encourage everyone to download the test images from Dalsa and look at them critically, especially in Photoshop where you can zoom in and also look at red, green and blue seperately. That's what we do when we look at RED images in development, and it's enlightening. Also, go over to CML and download their DPX files for the Genesis, F23, Viper and D20. You'll see "amazing" things in those images......

In the end, it's all about overally image quality, and the form factor that allows you to get the shot.

Graeme
 
These "other" camera names are tossed about with such gay abandon you'd think they were a practical alternative to RED. They are not- never will be. They'll be nothing but a two bit memory once RED hits the streets. The only thing RED owners have to worry about is being trampled to death by the latecomers. I can almost hear the sound of these "other" cameras hitting the ground, like so many hot potatoes. Last century it was Kodak, this is RED'S era.
 
Bill, nice of you to say so, but we should never be complacent. People have made great images with "others", and from looking at what they did right and wrong we can learn.

Graeme
 
Graeme, I wasn't saying it to be nice, I wasn't even saying because I wish it, I was saying it because I believe it- and this from a guy who has Hydroquinone for blood!
Complacency? Heck no, but I don't believe RED has contenders to date, It's what's coming up the pipe that's going to define RED. So, by all means compare cameras, but when comparing please consider (apart from a few extra bits) the practical things like, cost, accessibility, sensor size, and whether or not the damn thing is tethered to a filing cabinet with a team of surgeons operating it. Dalsa? Viper? Gimme a break, guys. RED is an Indie camera that is about to make everything else indie- or obsolete.
Keep spurring.
 
Technical vs. Creativity vs. Budget

Technical vs. Creativity vs. Budget

4K Hub said:
I agree entirely, but the interesting discussion aspect was half the point, it's the technology behind it that I am interested in at this level, and the reasons for or against doing something a particular way on a design level to achieve a particular result...

Sure, perhaps there are some that have ordered a Red and will be coming to it from Sony Handycam world, but it seems to me that the majority here will be combining a state of the art camera with far above average knowledge (and understanding... two different things) of the technology itself, of the entire post process, and the creative elements of lighting, framing a shot, exposure, focus, and actually using the camera to capture top class images.

So I don't think there is any reason for concern.
Click to expand...

Just as DV and FireWire saved many a college/school's video gear budget, RED and FCP should save many a Film School's gear budget and may even let a few private high school's dabble in high rez productions.

Access to cool tools excites the imagination and seeing what a student can do with a DVX-100 or a RED One should always be a great joy for the Red Nation.

IMHO, the difference between knowledge and understanding is experience.

Rosco
 
This has been a really interesting thread. I'm glad Red chose what they did and is making the camera more available(affordable). The images (no matter what the micron size of the pixels) are incredible at 4k. There have been complaints out there about 4k being too good and that people prefer 2k projection to 4k. Sounds like resolution isn't going to be a factor. The range is great, obviously in Film you can pull more data out of overexposed shots, but I think Red is definitely there with underexposed material. There is no sense in capturing too much data since we have to store and backup everything we shoot!

By the way NanoHV, did you see Crossing the Line projected at 4k? or just the super compressed downloads that were available? Even apples 2k version paled significantly in comparison to what Jim was showing in the booth.
 
For what its worth, the Red Prototype "Franky" recorded to 16 bit frames back in the day. We learned alot.

We are now, with less bits, recording much better images.

And thank god, as Graeme mentioned, I was getting a little pissed off buying new terabytes every day just to record noise.
 
Yes, Frankie used to spit out 16bit tiffs, but 4 bits were "blank" so to speak, leaving 12bit data. Wasted tonnes of hard disk space.

Now we're recording to compact flash and just laughing about the old refrigerator days....

Graeme
 
Roxco said:
RED and FCP should save many a Film School's gear budget and may even let a few private high school's dabble in high rez productions.

Access to cool tools excites the imagination and seeing what a student can do with a DVX-100 or a RED One should always be a great joy for the Red Nation.

IMHO, the difference between knowledge and understanding is experience.

Rosco
Click to expand...

Totally, experience goes a long way, and it won't be long before a lot of people get to jump into production with this new technology and gain as much of it as they can.

I'm not sure I am quite with you on the Red + FCP allowing dabbling in high res production. An uncompressed conform even at 2K is going to require a lot more than FCP and a Macbook Pro, not to mention a Bluefish 4:4:4 2K card, and 4K forget about it. FCP is fine as an offline edit tool with SD or HD compressed proxies of your Red RAW 4K media but it's not going to help when it comes to handling your online conform, grading and finishing at full res.

Or am I missing something?
 
Nanohv said:
YES! smaller sensor (~1.3x crop) will make it more AFFORDABLE, more sensor per wafer! Making VistaVision's (36mm X 16mm) size sensor definitely increase the cost.
Yes I did, twice! Nice images!! This has nothing to do with 16bits or 12bits. If your photodiode in each pixels is small, then it will have smaller charge collection capacity than a larger one. It acts as a capacitor while exposing the photodiode to light, it's this charge collection capacity that determine the dynamic range of a sensor/photodiode. This is the most fundamental, if the PD can't collect enough photogenerated charges, then you can't have any more dynamic range. If I'm stuck with smaller sensor, then I can't use 16bits. There's not enough number of electrons, or volts, I can represent for one binary number. If I do have a large pixel and I can collect large amount of of photogenerated chrages, then I'm force to use larger bits number to represent the voltage across the PD.

Comparing the images from the Canon 5D and 1Ds MkII is a good example of how much of a difference one micron difference in pixel's size in the accuracy of colors and dynamic range. This is a fair comparison, because they uses the same DigicII image processing!

The new 1D MarkIII produces great images, the fundamentals are all there to begin with.....not to mention the DigicIII processing!

BUT WHAT AM I COMPLAINING FOR!!, after all, it's <$20,000 It's definitely a better replacement of the HVX, etc....
Click to expand...

Nanohv... what do you make of Rodney Charters quote that it beats film? And PJ's quote that it compares to 65mm film? We don't see RED as just an HVX replacement.

Jim
 
It's not just pixel size, it's pixel DESIGN that makes the difference :-) Size is just one factor. After that, it's what you do to decode that pixel, analogue circuitry and more.

Graeme
 
Yes, Michael is a friend of mine. He's got a superb site for anyone interested in photography. I think the key thing, that forgets to be spoken is, "All other things being equal", a larger pixel is better than a smaller one.

As pointed out, a larger pixel will, for full saturation have less noise. Although it's not photon noise that is the real problem, but read noise, which really must be minimized, and that's down to design more than size, I think.

The other design aspect related to how much of a pixel's size is active area - ie fill factor. You can have a larger pixel perform worse than a smaller one if the small one has a very high fill factor and the large one a low fill factor.

So, "all other things being equal..."

Graeme
 
Yeah, I was just thinking that myself. Maybe it's not such a good idea to let all the secrets out.
 
All above info is basic know-how for any sensor designer. I'm not a sensor designer, but I do know some of the basics of how things work. As to regards to Mysterium, we are not talking about it's design.

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