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 :)

a bit disappointed with the 4K coming from the Scarlet

From my testing with high organic spatial frequency (i.e. tree bark, old oil paintings, etc):

4k @ RC 8:1 gives 2k DCP
4k @ RC 6:1 gives 2k DCP with ability to do 20% crop
5k @ RC 3:1 gives 2k DCP with ability to do 75% crop (for background plates and mattes).
4k @ RC 3:1 gives 2k DCP with ability to do 30% crop (not very useful mode on the scarlet due to the fps)

I did some quick testing for 4k DCP (nothing exact):
5k @ RC 5:1 gives 4k DCP with no ability to crop

All this testing is highly dependent on what I was shooting (i.e. high dof on faces gave totally different numbers).
 
No I don't think I am proving his point, but perhaps I am thinking of this backwards.

The problem I have is that you both are attempting to make empirical determinations based upon your sense of how it looks rather than an actual measurement. How good it looks is perception, and the perception of sharpness is effected by more than just resolution. Contrast contributes to our perception of sharpness as much as if not more than resolution. How do you separate the two? How does one accurately measure sharpness (edit and resolution)? By shooting a chart, right? He isn't talking about shooting charts, is he?


Mike P. said:
Scott, you realize you're proving him correct, right?

In your explaination, you're saying software is responsible for deleting (reduction) and rebuilding (upscaling) image/sharpness using it's own software/processing and that it has nothing to do with the quality of the capture device. What he's saying is that the reduced/upscaled image (regardless of the software) looks very close to as good as the source 4k... Basically that the software is upscaling to an image that is as good as the original AFTER having thrown away data. The 4k source isn't going to get any better, so if the upscale looks as good, there is a bit of a problem.

That said, if the lenses used are poor resolvers, you won't see the advantages of higher resolution capture anyway (which is what I think is happening.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Andy Corleone said:
As I said in the begining some extra resolution but not a huge different: only really noticiable at 200% and up

http://www.flickr.com/photos/89764934@N08/8158502867/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/89764934@N08/8158532118/in/photostream/
Click to expand...

These pix does not say anything. there are several reasons possible for a picture being soft. For example your lens might be the issue, if your lens does not resolve above 4k resolution then your pictures will be soft as well. Also it's highly recomended to render the 4k trough the rocket since rocket renders in full resolution is far sharper than CPU renders. And red does not apply sharpness in camera so to make a comparison you need to add post sharpening to the red material. When the exposure / focus is ok, the lens is ok, the render is ok and the sharpening is done right then and only then a 1080 crop out of the center of the image will look amazingly sharp. your GH1 does apply downscaling from a quite big sensor and sharpening in camera so to make it justice the red material will need proper treatment.

Regarding the lens and sensor size it simply works so that the bigger sensor area that is used the less does your lens need to be. So when cropping the red you actually take a closer look at your lens resolution, using a poor zoom will very much lover the quality of your final image. this might not be as visable when looking at an image captured with full sensor but when using just a small part of the lens projection the issues are scaled up. So using the Leica C's will show hugh difference from using a cheap canon 18-55 zoom or such for example. Personally I find high quality still glass to hold superb lens resolution. My canon FD 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2 at f5.6 hold such high resolution so that I in HD can inter cut well shot material zoomed in to a 1080 crop with material that is downscaled from 5k... have some tests frames at the office, might upload tomorrow if I have the time.
 
Andy Corleone said:
I did some test during the weekend, and find the 4K coming from the scarlet a bit disappointing. I don't even know if they are really 4K. When I compare 1080p vs 720p there is a considerable step up in resolution. but when I compare 1080p to Scarlet 4K the improvement is very minimal. I'm not saying is not improvement what I'm saying is very minimal.

I'm loving the RAW format and all the potential of Grading and Adjustment but the advertised resolution I don't find it realistic. Just wondered if with the upcoming sony 4K cameras we re going to see something different and that was one of the reason of the sub-real price cut.


Don't take me wrong, I'm just wondered If I'm missing something?
Click to expand...

Man, you are definitely missing something. I have been shooting with the camera for a year and the image is stunning. It almost feels like people at the moment just need to say something bad about RED. It almost feels that the good news with the Epic and the imminent price release for the Sony F5/F55 have something to do with it...
 
put it this way, to compare 1080 to SD you could blow SD up or just look at them both at their native size,but why would you bring down the HD by cropping out it's added detail just to compare... that added detail is the big difference between the two and the reason for the jump in acquisition technology in the first place.

mah yeah this is why you test charts and full chips from sensors, line up the framing guide, record, and then compare much easier. And if you compare a 1080 crop of 4k it would have to be compared to the same cropped portion of the the 1080 material as that is the fair way to compare the two, not by cropping one to meet the other that makes no sense... to me at least.
 
You'd want to crop to a 1920x1080 frame so that you can reframe, use digit zooms, use image stabilization, digital pans.... Basically a lot of "techniques" that a professional shoot would never even consider, but for a videography shooter or even low-budget commercial shooter, can be a blessing (and save your butt sometimes too.)

Plus it's a valid concern; realistically, there should be nothing preventig each and every frame from looking like an 8mp still for an APS-c DSLR, no? If it doesnt look that good, or you need to downsample to see the benefits, than what exactly are you paying for?
 
Did someone ever test resolution of the Scarlet? I didn´t find anything on the net. Something clear like "it resolves about 1800 TV Lines"
 
I find it very funny that the images are being discussed, but no one but me actually posts sample images.
Is there a fear of posting an image ? What gives?
 
Yes. I would love to see a Resolution Chart shot with a scarlet.

BTW The Lens I used is pin sharp was able to Render 36MB from the d800 perfectly

I really interested about this "4k trough the rocket since rocket renders in full resolution is far sharper than CPU renders." is this true? I understand would be faster but Sharper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top