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 Response To Jim Jannard and 1080P

Jannard said:
Every single camera company of note is currently working on a 4K camera. When they release them, 1080P will "not be enough"... even according to them.

This is so easy to see... what is now isn't what will be. And film will hold up to what will be. 1080P will not. Not rocket science. What does 2K projection and current standards have to do with tomorrow? Absolutely nothing.

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim,

as you know well 4K road is not so easy and it will take a couple of years that main competitors will fully catch up.

At the end of the game all all of them (even RED) are in hands of mass distribution masters and probably in the next years it is for sure a sort of pad/ipad a like...

Main Hollywood studios and distributors looking for more sure income that has a future wise distribution pipelines than it could be 4K theater or 4K home distribution...

BTW, 4K mobile device would be a sort of nonsense or maybe overload...

Old and also new reborn 1080p it's cheaper to produce, sell and distribute with both: media player devices and also a content...

I can see lightweight and mobile Scarlet Fixed and Interchangeable as a future king of so called downscaled 3K to 1080p digital cine professional acquisition...
 
Jannard said:
There are a couple of simple facts...

The ACTUAL MEASURED resolution of the very best 1080P camera (Sony F35) is 1,625,625 pixels.

The very best MEASURED RESOLUTION from slow speed S35mm film from a 4K scan is 5,760,000 pixels. That is 3.5 times the measured resolution of the very best 1080P camera.

EPIC actual MEASURED RESOLUTION is 8,847,360 pixels. That is about 5.5 times more resolution than the very best 1080P camera.

Once again, simple facts.

Jim
Click to expand...

Is their a website or some kind of mathematical formula to find out the actual measured resolution of other cameras? I'd love to learn the actual resolution of 15/65 scanned at 8K, Anamorphic 35 scanned at 4K or 6K, VistaVision, RED One, the DSLR's etc...
 
1080p anyone ?

1080p anyone ?

Sanjin Jukic said:
Jim,

as you know well 4K road is not so easy and it will take a couple of years that main competitors will fully catch up.

At the end of the game all all of them (even RED) are in hands of mass distribution masters and probably in the next years it is for sure a sort of pad/ipad a like...

Main Hollywood studios and distributors looking for more sure income that has a future wise distribution pipelines than it could be 4K theater or 4K home distribution...

BTW, 4K mobile device would be a sort of nonsense or maybe overload...

Old and also new reborn 1080p it's cheaper to produce, sell and distribute with both: media player devices and also a content...
Click to expand...

Sanjin, the only business that needs it's acquisition in the same resolution as it's distribution is news gathering... and that's because of microwave link bandwidth and especially editing turn around time.
 
Stuart English said:
Sanjin, the only business that needs it's acquisition in the same resolution as it's distribution is news gathering... and that's because of microwave link bandwidth and especially editing turn around time.
Click to expand...

Stuart,

as I'm always writing, also rewriting and sketching in many parts Scarlet is already added at my last edit...

Sanjin Jukic said:
I can see lightweight and mobile Scarlet Fixed and Interchangeable as a future king of so called downscaled 3K to 1080p digital cine professional acquisition...
Click to expand...

That means get Scarlet as soon as possible shipping then RED is ready to follow the newest distribution development in 2011 (HD iPad+HD-ipad-like-followers...).
 
Keegan O'Brien said:
Is their a website or some kind of mathematical formula to find out the actual measured resolution of other cameras? I'd love to learn the actual resolution of 15/65 scanned at 8K, Anamorphic 35 scanned at 4K or 6K, VistaVision, RED One, the DSLR's etc...
Click to expand...

Only way to know for sure is to scan or shoot a zone chart and measure it.
 
Keegan O'Brien said:
Is their a website or some kind of mathematical formula to find out the actual measured resolution of other cameras? I'd love to learn the actual resolution of 15/65 scanned at 8K, Anamorphic 35 scanned at 4K or 6K, VistaVision, RED One, the DSLR's etc...
Click to expand...

We have done these tests several times and posted them somewhere.

What I can remember offhand is:

4K scan of fast film- 2.8-2.9K
4K scan of slow film- 3.1-3.2K
RED 4K- 3.2K
RED 4.5K- 3.6K
RED 5K- 4K
Vistavision- 4K

F35 1080P- 1.7K (best 1080P we ever tested)
Alexa 2K- 1.6K (due primarily to low con filter on OLPF).
5D MKII 1080P- marginal 1.2K

Remember to use both height and width for calculations... 4K is 4 times the resolution of 2K at the same aspect ratio.

We are now using 11K zone plates for resolution testing.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
4K scan of fast film- 2.8-2.9K
4K scan of slow film- 3.1-3.2K
RED 4K- 3.2K
RED 4.5K- 3.6K
RED 5K- 4K
Vistavision- 4K
F35 1080P- 1.7K (best 1080P we ever tested)
Alexa 2K- 1.6K (due primarily to low con filter on OLPF).
5D MKII 1080P- Marginal 1.2K.

Jim
Click to expand...

What is actual Scarlet 3K resolution?
 
Resolution 102

This is where we keep track of camera's actual resolution. This list will continue to grow as the tests are done.

Canon 5D- 1080P output. 1.4K of measured resolution (and if you look at the chart closely, you will agree that this number is generous)

Sony F35- 1080P output. 1.7K of measured resolution (much cleaner resolution than 5D)

RED ONE- 4K output. 3.2K measured resolution
RED ONE- 4.5K output. 3.7K measured resolution

EPIC- 5K output. 4K measured resolution

Film (ASA 100)- 4K scan. 3.2K measured resolution
Film (ASA 500)- 4K scan. 2.8K measured resolution
Click to expand...

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=550712&postcount=24
 
The eventual consumer of all visual content is the human visual system and thus all technological developments should
take into account human visual thresholds. Perception limits of the human visual system is estimated at approximately 15 million variable resolution pixels per eye (Deering 1998) at the average diameter of the pupil at ca. 0.5 cm (about f/2.55). With improvements technology we are on the brink of producing hardware that matches or exceeds the needs of the human visual system. While real-time display technology has historically traded off image quality and resolution to meet frame rate and cost constraints, this is becoming less and less the case (Deering 1998). The emerging infrastructure for digital video lacks a critical component: a reliable means for evaluating and measuring visual quality. Such a means is essential for evaluation of codecs, for monitoring broadcast transmissions, and for ensuring the most efficient compression of sources and utilization of communication bandwidths. A video quality metric, such as the DVQ (Digital Video Quality) proposed by Watson (Watson 2001) should incorporate the crucial aspects of early visual processing, including light adaptation, luminance and chromatic channels, spatial and temporal filtering, spatial frequency channels, contrast masking, and probability summation. Such quantitative metric is necessary for evaluating, controlling, and optimizing the quality of compressed video in order to produce images that meet the above-mentioned criteria and do not require amounts of memory or computation that restrict the contexts in which they may be applied (Watson 2001).

Naturally, resolution is not the only criteria, but 15 million pixels is just slightly above 5K, so the latter might just be as close to the ultimate standard of "future proffing" as one can get, unless your aim is to reveal cellular and mollecular structure of your subjects.

1. Deering, M. F. The Limits of Human Vision. Sun Microsystems Internal, 1998.
2. Watson, A. B., Hu, J., & McGowan, J. F., III. Digital video quality metric based on human vision. Journal of Electronic Imaging,
10(1) 2001, 20-29.
 
Jannard said:
4K scan of fast film- 2.8-2.9K
4K scan of slow film- 3.1-3.2K
RED 4K- 3.2K
RED 4.5K- 3.6K
RED 5K- 4K
Vistavision- 4K
Click to expand...

The Full-Frame Epic FF35 digital Vista Vision is going to create sick 4K RGB renders. IMAX. :w00t:
 
I find Michael Shilnov's post ... two above very interesting and possibly quite significant.
Has the recording industry not determined that MP3's are "good enough"?
(but then, I suppose there are MP3's and then there are MP3's)
 
Joseph Hutson said:
Since it's playoff weekend...

You don't throw the football to where the receiver IS...you throw to where the receiver WILL be.
Click to expand...

Where did I heard that before? ... :001_rolleyes:
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
What is actual Scarlet 3K resolution?
Click to expand...

Considering all the numbers above are (somewhat suspiciously) exactly 80% I'm going to say with (somewhat suspiciously) confident authority: 2.4k
 
Michael Shilnov said:
Naturally, resolution is not the only criteria, but 15 million pixels is just slightly above 5K, so the latter might just be as close to the ultimate standard of "future proffing" as one can get, unless your aim is to reveal cellular and mollecular structure of your subjects.

1. Deering, M. F. The Limits of Human Vision. Sun Microsystems Internal, 1998.
2. Watson, A. B., Hu, J., & McGowan, J. F., III. Digital video quality metric based on human vision. Journal of Electronic Imaging,
10(1) 2001, 20-29.
Click to expand...

Except that if you want to crop or zoom digitally instead of optically you want more than 5k. If you want to shoot spherical you need significantly more than 5k. If you want to super-sample 5k you need more than 5k. If you move your eyes slightly you can deduce more resolution than you can 'see'. If you can sample higher than 1:1 you are less dependent on difficult semi-transparent chroma-keys when shooting green-screen... etc... ;)

Even if we had no use for deliverables above 5k, there'll be numerous applications for using the additional resolution in post.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Except that if you want to crop or zoom digitally instead of optically you want more than 5k. If you want to shoot spherical you need significantly more than 5k. If you want to super-sample 5k you need more than 5k. If you move your eyes slightly you can deduce more resolution than you can 'see'. If you can sample higher than 1:1 you are less dependent on difficult semi-transparent chroma-keys when shooting green-screen... etc... ;)

Even if we had no use for deliverables above 5k, there'll be numerous applications for using the additional resolution in post.
Click to expand...

This is what the 28K sensor is for, right?
 
Joseph Hutson said:
It's been said a number of times "2.4K".
Click to expand...

Little dog like a Scarlet beats a big dog like an Alexa in terms of resolution, easy of use, lightweight and price,...just to name a few things at the moment...
 
4K isn't the future either. As I see it, in the long run, we will have a kind of "floating point resolution" that transcend numbers and begin to be an organic representation of light, not bound to bits of color to build an image but rather the position of photons in front of the camera. That will be the end for image resolutions, everything up to that point is meaningless to say "good enough".

Nothing is good enough if you can improve it.

The "floating point resolution" as I call it will be the end because after that there's no physical way of getting higher resolution.
Also, the screens must also be floating point, perhaps even literary speaking in a way of not having fixed representations of "dots", but instead a mass floating freely to represent the positions of photons in small areas on a molechular level.

Of course this is Sci-Fi, but things that we have today, like the Ipad, was something utterly sci-fi 15 years ago. And with the speed of technology today, who can say that I'm wrong?

...or will we even need screens 20 years from now?
 
Christoffer Glans said:
4K isn't the future either. As I see it, in the long run, we will have a kind of "floating point resolution" that transcend numbers and begin to be an organic representation of light, not bound to bits of color to build an image but rather the position of photons in front of the camera.

The "floating point resolution" as I call it will be the end because after that there's no physical way of getting higher resolution.
Also, the screens must also be floating point, perhaps even literary speaking in a way of not having fixed representations of "dots", but instead a mass floating freely to represent the positions of photons in small areas on a molechular level.
Click to expand...

There is research happening in this sphere. Plenoptically derived, stochastically represented, temporally variable, resolution-agnostic, hexachromatically modeled colorspace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top