Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Arri Alexa and Mysterium-X...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure this has been mentioned yet, but at NAB a rep said that the success of the EVF will directly impact the development of the OVF. In other words, if there isin't demand for an OVF.....

EDIT:
Also, if we simply used different main resolutions in spec charts, we could avoid a lot of this. Ex:

Sony F35
  • Image Resolution: 1920x1980
  • Spatial Resolution: 1.6k
  • Temporal Resolution: 1-50 FPS
 
Andy Jarisz said:
I'm not sure this has been mentioned yet, but at NAB a rep said that the success of the EVF will directly impact the development of the OVF. In other words, if there isin't demand for an OVF.....
Click to expand...

As soon as time and science creates a 1920 or 2K or 4K electronic viewfinder
I think an OVF will not be needed........perhaps.
 
Van Din said:
What about the 5D2? I've heard a lot of DoPs going on this one.
Click to expand...

It's barely measures 720p in it's 1080p mode, and is utterly corrupted by aliases and false colours, and the compression robs the image of much fine detail.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
It's barely measures 720p in it's 1080p mode, and is utterly corrupted by aliases and false colours, and the compression robs the image of much fine detail.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Yet good enough for the season finale of the popular TV show House.
 
Stephen Williams said:
Yet good enough for the season finale of the popular TV show House.
Click to expand...

And yet I had two "WTF" moments when they attempted to dramatically alter footage during the episode and it became noticeably softer.
 
For example, just in the case of Canon 7D you go out to shoot in beautiful landscape, then back home. look at the footage and you are getting immediately pissed off.

Why?

Because it happened that huge amount of aliasing and moire artifacts were polluted your beautiful shots.

7D_aliasing_03.jpg

EXAMPLE 1: Moire+aliasing artifacts on 7D with Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 zoom, some NDs and Circ-Pola filters.

Download 1080p short example 14.6MB >>>>

If you would shoot that example with RED1 then later you'll be happy with your footage at home.

No aliasing and moire.

How Alexa is dealing with the aliasing artifacts it still have to be seen

because the small web sized footage shown on the internet can't tell you something more about it.
 
Laco,

you're welcome.

At the end one more example shooting architecture with 7D and using another lens:

7D_aliasing_04.jpg

EXAMPLE 2: Moire+aliasing artifacts on 7D with Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX zoom, some NDs and Circ-Pola filters.

Download 1080p short example 2 >>>
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Laco,

you're welcome.

At the end one more example shooting architecture with 7D and using another lens:

7D_aliasing_04.jpg

EXAMPLE 2: Moire+aliasing artifacts on 7D with Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX zoom, some NDs and Circ-Pola filters.

Download 1080p short example 2 >>>
Click to expand...

You need to realise that since the Digital revolution, everything is expected to be cheap, how it looks is not important to many. Exciting times indeed!
 
Stephen Williams said:
You need to realise that since the Digital revolution, everything is expected to be cheap, how it looks is not important to many. Exciting times indeed!
Click to expand...

Stephen,

next time I'll bring also RED1 and shoot at the same locations.



Also today Digital Revolution looks exactly something like this:

1. Get relatively cheap camera (RED1) and shoot great images with nice compressed RAW at 4.5K res onboard CF, HDD or SSD.

2. Get cheap camera (7D) and shoot great HD images in H264 with sometimes disturbing artifacts.

3. Get pretty expensive camera (Alexa) and shoot great images at ProRes HD/2K res only or uncompressed with tethered and expensive HDSDI recorder.
 
To include other benefits of high resolution: is in image manipulation where having extra data helps against degradation in color correction etc. Having the highest res is clearly a major advantage.

To me the whole misunderstanding in the arguments in discussing resolution and it's relevance in end output is not only old but filled with misinformation and the naivety lapping it up.

As if shooting something in sd and something in film and finishing on sd is ever going to be a match. Likewise as if shooting in 2k and then 4k for HD delivery is ever going to be a match. These arguments are getting tiresome and just show a lack a basic understanding.

This is like every year when a new group of conspiracy theorists come out with the new end of the world scenario. You think to yourself, you keep getting the prophesies wrong, so when you going to give it up?
 
Jason Sinclair said:
To include other benefits of high resolution: is in image manipulation where having extra data helps against degradation in color correction etc.
Click to expand...

That is a function of bit depth, I believe. Is bit depth considered resolution? Graeme? MMost?
 
Scott Crawley said:
That is a function of bit depth, I believe. Is bit depth considered resolution? Graeme? MMost?
Click to expand...

Typically low noise and high bit depth contribute to "grade-ability", but if you think of the image as multi-dimensional - horizontal and vertical across the image, and bit depth being a perpendicular dimension to them, in many respects spatial resolution does help in grade-ability, not least in the ability to accurately define edges.

Graeme
 
That is a function of bit depth, I believe. Is bit depth considered resolution? Graeme? MMost?
Click to expand...

I'm talking the amount of pixels per frame. More pixels = more information and more clarity (or resolution) and it's this clarity which will enjoy more definite color correction, masking etc.. When you downrez it will be a much better picture. When you are doing complicated corrections this help cannot be underestimated as you are moving into degradation in the layering. So having the sharpest picture to begin which means the edges of the colors or shades are more defined. I believe this is irrespective of bit depth.
 
snap.

Something to add too. Degradation is exponential. I believe, mathematically, a 2k degradation over 10 subsequent grades is going to be 20 times less sharp in those changes than 4k under the same grades. When you downrez it won't go away. In fact the degradation in the downrez is going to do the exact same thing.
 
Jason Sinclair said:
So having the sharpest picture to begin wich means the edges of the colors or shades are more defined. I believe this is irrespective of bit depth.
Click to expand...

More pixels per mm can mean sharper edges, but that isn't so much what allows you more lattitude when grading. It is the bit depth of those pixels. You can't really address one irrespective of the other; they are inter-related.

Thanks Graeme.
 
Yes - just think of bit depth as the third dimension in the image. Now if you reduce the resolution of any of those dimensions, you'll loose the "grade-ability" of that image. Another thing to look at is how, say, error-diffusion dither offloads a reduction of bit depth into the spatial domain thus showing that the three dimensions of the image are intrinsically linked together.

Graeme
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top