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 :)

an extra 2,561,920 pixels per frame!

M

Mark L. Pederson

REDuser Sponsor
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
7,145
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
59
Website
www.offhollywoodny.com
Jim posted EPIC resolutions HERE

Currently, most folks shoot for 2.40 in the 4.5K wide mode - crop to 2.40 in post.

That's 4480 x 1867 - or 8,364,160 pixels per frame.

EPIC's 2.40 resolution is 5120 x 2134 - or 10,926,080 pixels per frame.

That's 2,561,920 more pixels per frame when shooting for 2.40 on EPIC - which, for the record - is MORE pixels than in one frame of of true 1920x1080 HD.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
That's 2,561,920 more pixels per frame when shooting for 2.40 on EPIC - which, for the record - is MORE pixels than in one frame of of true 1920x1080 HD.
Click to expand...

That statement is a bit misleading, as it would only describe either a theoretical monochrome HD image, or a Bayer pattern sensor that only had 1920x1080 pixels. An actual HD image has 3 times that, because it has records for red, green, and blue, and the vast majority of professional HD cameras are 3 chip designs (although many if not most consumer cameras do, of course, have Bayer chips).
 
M Most said:
That statement is a bit misleading, as it would only describe either a theoretical monochrome HD image, or a Bayer pattern sensor that only had 1920x1080 pixels. An actual HD image has 3 times that, because it has records for red, green, and blue, and the vast majority of professional HD cameras are 3 chip designs (although many if not most consumer cameras do, of course, have Bayer chips).
Click to expand...

Figure you might chime in on that. We can split technicalities all day long - and then we can go on about the HDCAM compression, etc. - my point is ... there's (in my opinion) a very big difference between 4.5K for 2.40 and 5K for 2.40.
 
M Most said:
That statement is a bit misleading, as it would only describe either a theoretical monochrome HD image, or a Bayer pattern sensor that only had 1920x1080 pixels. An actual HD image has 3 times that, because it has records for red, green, and blue, and the vast majority of professional HD cameras are 3 chip designs (although many if not most consumer cameras do, of course, have Bayer chips).
Click to expand...

Its too bad HD cameras don't retain all that resolution in the finished frame.
 
M Most said:
That statement is a bit misleading, as it would only describe either a theoretical monochrome HD image, or a Bayer pattern sensor that only had 1920x1080 pixels. An actual HD image has 3 times that, because it has records for red, green, and blue, and the vast majority of professional HD cameras are 3 chip designs (although many if not most consumer cameras do, of course, have Bayer chips).
Click to expand...

Egads... he's comparing bayer-to-bayer. The reality is that there are that many more photosites on the sensor, and that many more pixels in the image.

He's already comparing it to 4.5K mode on the M sesnsor, so take whatever your favorite "resolution percentage factor" you have for the M and simply apply it to the larger resoultion of the 2.40 mode on the 5K cameras and be happy.

-sc
 
Dustin Cross said:
A 1920x1080 3 chip camera image only has 1920x1080 pixels. Period. It might have more color data than a 1920x1080 Bayer sensor camera, but not more resolution. So the original statement is correct.


Dusty
Click to expand...

Yes. And the beloved HD 1080 CCD cameras record RGB, yes, but none of them A) actually resolve 2MP of full resolution or B) capture that without serious image sharpening.

Sony bills SR @ 440mb/s, but that only pertains to the bit rate at 60p! Turns out, SR @ 23.98 only gets 300mb/s, which is less than ProRes and REDCode and with a Codec that's over 7 years old!

Anyway ... back on track - there's a hell of lot more pixels than I thought shooting 5K (Epic) 2.40 vs. 4.5K (Red One) 2.40 - I can't wait to shoot with EPIC!
 
Last edited:
M Most said:
That statement is a bit misleading, as it would only describe either a theoretical monochrome HD image, or a Bayer pattern sensor that only had 1920x1080 pixels. An actual HD image has 3 times that, because it has records for red, green, and blue, and the vast majority of professional HD cameras are 3 chip designs (although many if not most consumer cameras do, of course, have Bayer chips).
Click to expand...

Mike,

I think Mark is correct giving such comparison. The camera has extra resolution and it is sharper by exactly an extra 2,561,920 pixels per frame. This is how our eyes perceive sharpness: monochrome. I do agree that 3-chip designs have equal colour resolution per pixel, but this is not how our eyes see sharpness. A 6 Megapixel CMOS is going to look about 3-times sharper than a 2 Megapixel 3-chip design. As you know, one can degrade colour resolution in a picture quite substantially before we perceive loss of sharpness.

:beatdeadhorse5:
 
The practical limit of vertical resolution for 1080p is around 800 lines or so.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Anyway ... back on track - there's a hell of lot more pixels than I thought shooting 5K (Epic) 2.40 vs. 4.5K (Red One) 2.40 - I can't wait to shoot with EPIC!
Click to expand...

Obviously, it is considerably more pixels. But I'm of the opinion that the jury's out as to how much difference that's ultimately going to make in finished images that are not likely to exceed 1080p in many cases, and 4K in almost all cases. I'm willing to be amazed, but playing a numbers game is only valuable to a certain point. Once you've exceeded the practical limit of what can be shown on common displays and/or discerned by viewers, you hit a point of diminishing returns, unless you're using that extra information for something other than the original image (hint, hint).
 
First RED takes heat for not being "true" 4K resolution because of the bayer correction factor (~80% of sensor photosite spec).

Now RED is gonna ship cameras with enough additional sensor photosites that you'll easily get full 4K resolution from the images, and they take heat for exceeding "the practical limit of what can be shown on common displays".

This despite that fact that digital 4K projectors that CAN display those images are ramping up across the country.

Sigh.

-sc
 
I think one of Mike's points is just that if you are shooting for HDTV broadcast and the camera you are shooting produces very sharp and detailed 1080P images, then the fact that there are even higher-resolution cameras out there is less relevant if all the high-end choices end up producing similar results for HDTV distribution.

However, for digital cinema applications, I think the trend towards more resolution is a good thing, even if you end up downsampling to a lower resolution. But resolution is only one of many factors that influence picture quality.

But if I'm going to go shoot another 2.40 theatrical movie, then I'll be looking at shooting on the M-X Red One at 4.5K, most definitely.
 
M Most said:
Obviously, it is considerably more pixels. But I'm of the opinion that the jury's out as to how much difference that's ultimately going to make in finished images that are not likely to exceed 1080p in many cases, and 4K in almost all cases. I'm willing to be amazed, but playing a numbers game is only valuable to a certain point. Once you've exceeded the practical limit of what can be shown on common displays and/or discerned by viewers, you hit a point of diminishing returns, unless you're using that extra information for something other than the original image (hint, hint).
Click to expand...

You seem to be advocating a return to an already extinct mode of thinking here, Mike. Where's your sense of adventure? Do you really believe that camera development should be curtailed in favor of the current architecture? Do you really believe that display technologies and emerging exhibition technology will never improve beyond the current HD signal?

Instead of making a closing argument to an already tampered-with jury, I will say this: The train has already left the station on all counts here. When the analog wall is finally breeched by digital technology, the result is sudden, violent change. Some argue that its better, some bemoan the loss of perceived quality that the old way of doing business embodies, some have a vested interest in the status quo (mostly due to poor investment timing).

So unless you're sitting on a stack of receipts or leases for new HD cameras, I don't get the angle here. In any case, the validity and relevance of such arguments is inversely proportionate to the number of photosites on the latest sensor. I think the window has closed on the credibility of holding such views regarding Red's product line. IMHO, this logic has been taken to the cornfield, shot in the back of the head and buried in a shallow grave.
 
I think Mike is just working in the real world and less interested in hypotheticals.

I mean, look at the current Red One -- if you are shooting for 1080P finish for a TV series, you are most likely going to use the 4K HD mode, which is 3840 x 2160, even though the camera can shoot at 4.5K. So even though the camera can shoot 4K and 4.5K, a project finishing to 1080P for broadcast this year will be shooting 3.8K.

And it looks great.

So the ability to shoot 4.5K and higher is a good thing in the abstract, especially for digital cinema applications, but here in 2010, if you are shooting for a 1080P finish this week, odds are high that you'll use 4K HD mode rather than 4.5K mode because any improvements from using 4.5K are probably not significant enough, not to mention that 3840 x 2160 is optimized for downsampling to 1080P so 4.5K may not actually produce a better 1080P image.

I think Mike is just question any simplistic notion that more pixels are always better and always the best approach for any project. When 18MP DSLR's came out, it didn't mean that the 12MP DSLR's were thrown away because they were now useless and the quality suddenly was considered unacceptable. There is a range of picture quality and pixel resolution that is useful for certain applications, there are no hard boundary lines.

I mean, does everyone here only shoot on prime lenses with the highest MTF? Switching to a zoom could be the equivalent of switching from 4.5K to 4K, you know what I mean? Or putting a 1/8 Black Frost diffusion filter on the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top