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 :)

3K...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Binning just doesn't play havoc with Bayer patterns, but with any sensor. If you're just averaging pixels together in a group, then you're not performing a proper downsampling filter, and that will just be a problem full stop.

Graeme
 
Jels Prostetnic said:
:)

You'll never win, Jim. Give them an inch and a quarter and they'll want an inch and three eights!

All this reminds me of when we were watching the first moon landing, nearly 40 years ago. All us teenage science nerds were glued to the screen in rapt silence, when this little old lady pipes up with: "It's not very clear, is it?"

A 1969 vidicon camera.
On the moon.
240,000 miles away.
And we're seeing it LIVE.
Click to expand...

Im gonna print this out and hang it above my desk.
 
Jels Prostetnic said:
:)

You'll never win, Jim. Give them an inch and a quarter and they'll want an inch and three eights!

All this reminds me of when we were watching the first moon landing, nearly 40 years ago. All us teenage science nerds were glued to the screen in rapt silence, when this little old lady pipes up with: "It's not very clear, is it?"

A 1969 vidicon camera.
On the moon.
240,000 miles away.
And we're seeing it LIVE.
Through endless satellite and microwave links all the way from the receiver dish installations in outback Australia.
The lighting conditions: Broad daylight direct from the sun, no atmosphere to soften it. (When certain cinematographers die and go to Hell as they surely must, these are the lighting conditions they will be forever required to shoot under:sarcasm:)

I know she probably had approximately zero understanding of what was really going on, but somehow I think that even if they had something like the RED with them, she'd still find something to complain about:innocent:
Click to expand...


some of kubricks finest work
 
Jarred Land said:
Resolution for 3k 2:1 is 3072x1536, and 3k 16:9 is 3072x1728.
Click to expand...

Almost to play a full size 3K with Apple 30" Cinema LCD at 2560x1600.

Impressive.
 
OMG! Are you telling me the old lady actually put up a website on this? LOL.
 
Jannard said:
I have confirmed that we will NOT scale 4K Raw to 2K Raw many times. Please drop 2K scaled from your thinking. It will not happen.

Jim
Click to expand...

you also said we'd never have metric numbers on lenses and look how that turned out. :) just kidding. cant wait to see graemes new debayer magic
 
big lebowski said:
So get a grip and be happy with your 3K @ 60 fps! That's still more than twice the resolution of most movies you see in theaters!.
Click to expand...

That´s not true. The original media of most movies is either 4perf 35mm negative or 3perf. 35mm negative for DI workflow. (unless you´re talking about digital movies). Yes, the scanned files from the negatives are mainly 2K, true, but 3K cropped is hardly twice the size of 2K and you´re not considering the extra quality of starting with a bigger area. Besides you can´t compare the two formats because one allows for the complete FOV of 35mm optics. If that´s not important, then 2k@75 should be even a better format for you.

What many people, including myself, are wishing for (note that I´m wishing, not asking) is 35mm FOV and DOF with a decent top speed. As for me, 48 fps per second is enough. Others may need more. This wishes doesn´t mean I don´t recognize Red achievements at all. Red One is fantastic and they are offering much more than they initially said they would. But if you ask me what would I expect from a digital camera that is supposed to rival modern film cameras (with no compromises), 35mm FOV and DOF with slow motion possibilities is a must.

Now that it´s very clear that 2K scaled is not going to happen. It would be fantastic to know, even an estimate, what top speeds can we wish/ expect for in the future for 4K full sensor Red One. I thinks that´s a fair question.
 
Rodrigo Lizana said:
That´s not true. The original media of most movies is either 4perf 35mm negative or 3perf. 35mm negative for DI workflow. (unless you´re talking about digital movies). Yes, the scanned files from the negatives are mainly 2K, true, but 3K cropped is hardly twice the size of 2K and you´re not considering the extra quality of starting with a bigger area.
Click to expand...

3k 16:9 is 3072x1728. That's 5'308'416 pixels.
2k 16:9 is 2048x1152. That's 2'359'296 pixels.
So 3k IS more than twice the resolution of 2k. You have to think in two dimensions. :wink:

Rodrigo Lizana said:
Besides you can´t compare the two formats because one allows for the complete FOV of 35mm optics. If that´s not important, then 2k@75 should be even a better format for you.
Click to expand...

What's the whole fuzz about FOV? Simply change your lens! :wink:

If I need 75 fps then 2k is the way to go. But if I only need 50 fps why would 2k be better than 3k?
 
I think the comment about resolution of movies is the studies that show what resolution a viewer can see in a cinema, and I can't remember the precise number, but it was pretty atrocious.

Graeme
 
big lebowski said:
If I need 75 fps then 2k is the way to go. But if I only need 50 fps why would 2k be better than 3k?
Click to expand...
well said lebowski.. big well said big lebowski..
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
800 lines is a positive estimate.

If anyone is interrested in a scientific paper about resolution one finds in todays theaters - I posted it somewhere on this forum but cannot remember, so here again:

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

Hans
Click to expand...

Very interesting paper. Thanks for posting. Though the paper talked about the resolution on film negative/print and somebody was asking for the resolution on theater screen. I think it should be possible to derive that relationship by considering the magnification factor and contrast sensitivity function of human eye under theater illumination and flare.
 
Yikes

For a guy who a couple of years ago seriously was considering to sell my but, my wife and the kids that might come (not to mention house and car) to get a Varicam (including workflow) for its filmic characteristics, this thread seems quite absurd. :)

Can we live with 3k???????

hm....


Could Star Wars live with 1080? (well that IS a trick question! But look at the box office)

The whole Red Ride is so insanely fun, and I'll soon have my cam. I love the idea of 3k and LESS compression in the same sentence.

Gunleik
(who didn't read the whole thread, but just got sorta xxxxwhelmed by some of the comments...)

Cheers Graeme!
Next whisky bottle is for you!
 
big lebowski said:
So 3k IS more than twice the resolution of 2k. You have to think in two dimensions.
Click to expand...

Maybe my english wasn´t that clear but I meant that statement considering the idea that the bigger the capture area size (negative, chip, etc) the better the downconversion (or the scan for DI) will look.

big lebowski said:
What's the whole fuzz about FOV? Simply change your lens! :wink:
Click to expand...

When you´re renting a very expensive wide angle lens, or a zoom for that matter and you can´t achieve its widest because of the camera, well then it´s a problem. Go check the price difference between a 14mm and a 16mm S4 or Ultraprime. Or tell the Ultraprime 8R owners that it´s not of a big deal after they payed over 20K por a lens. Not to mention the 24-290 Optimo´s owners.

big lebowski said:
If I need 75 fps then 2k is the way to go. But if I only need 50 fps why would 2k be better than 3k?
Click to expand...

Maybe for you it is the way to go. Perhaps some others don´t want to work on the same projects with two different resolutions and really care about the FOV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top