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 :)

For all of us Fanboys/Fangirls

Daniel Kunz said:
wtf4f.jpg


So following your logic the iPhone 4S is the better?
It has WAY more features, Lower price,
comes with a lens, and has it's own NLE built-in. Can't beat that can you?

These are different times, different usages, different specs.
why don't you compare to something more similar?
Like the Alexa-Studio or the Sony F65?
Click to expand...

Really, i didn't know they used these cameras in TV...lol, more like cine production
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-camerascineproduction/cat-cineprodcinealta/

Alexa Studio, Sony F65.... do you think maybe the EPIC would be good for that :001_tt2:
 
Roshdi Alkadri said:
Alexa Studio, Sony F65.... do you think maybe the EPIC would be good for that :001_tt2:
Click to expand...
the epic is basically the same camera as the scarlet, with higher framerates though, but that's it. So what i meant is to compare apples to apples. and not yesterdays apples to today's oranges.
 
In the end it is not about specs, but about the results. how does the footage look. What is the final product like. Specs are meaningless. Results are everything.
 
Daniel Kunz said:
the epic is basically the same camera as the scarlet, with higher framerates though, but that's it. So what i meant is to compare apples to apples. and not yesterdays apples to today's oranges.
Click to expand...

did i miss something here, is one not 2/3 at 1080P at over $80,000 and is used in feature films. How is the 900R yesterday's camera. Its listed today in 2011 and soon 2012 for that price, that performance, how's that apples to oranges? maybe you missed the one below, unfortunately i couldn't insert a price for the c300 just to be fair since there are different prices listed for it

WTF2.jpg
 
Benoît-Joan Clariana-Roig said:
Don't forget that for 80K$ you can also get the F65 a 8K (and a REAL 4K full RBG sensor) cam from Sony with RAW recording today.
Click to expand...

The Sony F65 will sure be a nice camera for some people, but please don't fall for the marketing BS. It's not 8k, it doesn't have any where near enough pixels for 8k. As for 4k full RGB, no, it's not that either.

Graeme
 
Hi Graeme,
thanks for ringing in. I know there is only marketing stuff to read about the F65 but when i read on their website:

" the F65 image sensor boasts the most photosites of any digital motion picture camera (20 million) and is the world's first to offer a dedicated green photosite for every pixel in the 4K output image. The F65 can provide exquisite images of supersampling 1080p high definition, perfect for the time-is-money pressures of episodic television. The F65 can also output 16-bit linear RAW, which preserves all the information obtained from every photosite on the image sensor—up to 8K of resolution. This gives you phenomenal ability to demosaic, adjust grayscale, color correct, composite and even re-frame the image in post.The advantage here is ability to derive 4K, 2K, HD from 16-bit linear RAW."

and:
"As applied in the F65, supersampling and electronic downconverting deliver far higher contrast at high frequencies, for a noticeably sharper picture. "

i expect that not to be BS. Can you please explain to us the difference betwenn RED 5K and Sony's 16bit 8K Raw?
Sony only quotes their sensor as a 8K Sensor but the recording format is 4K:

"When camera is used in 16bit RAW File mode (Digital Negative), in POST one can render multiple resolutions such as:- 4K Cinema (4096 X 2160) 3840 X 2160 2K Cinema HDTV"
 
Sure Daniel!

F65 uses 17.7mp (4096x2160x2) on it's sensor (20mp is quoted, but there's a good chunk of them not used to make the image, which is the case with all sensors. It only makes "sense" to talk about the pixels that are available to go towards the image). That's a little more than the Epic's M-X which is a 14mp sensor.

So let's first look at the 8k number. Now we're not even talking about 8k measured resolution here, just does the sensor have enough pixels. For a 8k image (same aspect ratio as F65), RED would need 8192 x 4320 = 36mp. But Sony are using 17mp. You tell me if they have enough to call their camera 8k or not! They have enough for a little over 5k, not the 8k as claimed.

But they do have enough for 4k - more than enough. They rotate their pixels through 45degrees while keeping the G R G B bayer pattern to allow them to do a "rapid" extract on the greens without need for a demosaic, while interpolating the red and blue. They essentially make a 4k green and insert R and B pixels in the gaps between the rotated green pixels.

"The F65 can provide exquisite images of supersampling 1080p high definition," - indeed they can! Just like a RED has been doing for how many years now. Same advantage for us over lower resolution cameras, and it's nice that Sony are getting back into supersampling (which they did for a while with high end DigiBeta if my memory serves me right).

"This gives you phenomenal ability to demosaic" - but they complain about the evils of demosaicing in their articles, so which is it? Is demosaicing good or evil?

"As applied in the F65, supersampling and electronic downconverting deliver far higher contrast at high frequencies, for a noticeably sharper picture. " - and that's also true of REDs and other high resolution cameras. It's a very good way to do things.

Now let's look at the missing piece of the puzzle that Sony ignore to really talk about.... They claim about demosaicing " For this reason, the final resolution falls, to various degrees, short of true 4K." - which is not strictly true. The real reason cameras such as ours (correctly in my opinion) don't have the same measured resolution as their sensor resolution is that they use a good amount of optical low pass filtering to avoid moire. A good OLPF will reduce your available resolution to around 80% of what you'd achieve without one, but obviously with a lot less aliasing and moire! If you're resigned to only having 80% of your pixel resolution anyway to avoid the worst of aliasing, why not spread out your pixels a bit so that the reconstructed image achieves about 80% of the sensor resolution too? In that case you get low aliasing and less waste on your pixels, and that's pretty much how a standard Bayer pattern CFA works. A good demosaic algorithm will use all the pixels (not just the greens) to extract a good 80% measured resolution. 80% of 5k is 4k, hence the Epic achieves a measured resolution of 4k.

Theoretically I figured you could get a measured resolution of about 4.5k out of an F65 assuming a decent OLPF is used to avoid the worst of aliasing. But if they're going for a measured 4k from 4k samples as they appear to be, their OLPF has got to be a lot weaker which could lead to aliasing on the green. Sony's rough MTF diagram shows 50% modulation at 4k, which would indeed mean a weak OLPF, but as that's just a marketing diagram, I'd want to measure the camera to be sure. From an observational point of view on their sharp demo footage, there did appear to be some strong "edginess" on sharp edges, similar to what I'd expect from a too-weak OLPF, but I need to measure to be sure.

Camera sensor design is more complex than Sony marketing make out. That's fair enough, but that's what forums like this are for where I can try to explain some of the nuances.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Sure Daniel!

F65 uses 17.7mp (4096x2160x2) on it's sensor (20mp is quoted, but there's a good chunk of them not used to make the image, which is the case with all sensors. It only makes "sense" to talk about the pixels that are available to go towards the image). That's a little more than the Epic's M-X which is a 14mp sensor.

So let's first look at the 8k number. Now we're not even talking about 8k measured resolution here, just does the sensor have enough pixels. For a 8k image (same aspect ratio as F65), RED would need 8192 x 4320 = 36mp. But Sony are using 17mp. You tell me if they have enough to call their camera 8k or not! They have enough for a little over 5k, not the 8k as claimed.

But they do have enough for 4k - more than enough. They rotate their pixels through 45degrees while keeping the G R G B bayer pattern to allow them to do a "rapid" extract on the greens without need for a demosaic, while interpolating the red and blue. They essentially make a 4k green and insert R and B pixels in the gaps between the rotated green pixels.

"The F65 can provide exquisite images of supersampling 1080p high definition," - indeed they can! Just like a RED has been doing for how many years now. Same advantage for us over lower resolution cameras, and it's nice that Sony are getting back into supersampling (which they did for a while with high end DigiBeta if my memory serves me right).

"This gives you phenomenal ability to demosaic" - but they complain about the evils of demosaicing in their articles, so which is it? Is demosaicing good or evil?

"As applied in the F65, supersampling and electronic downconverting deliver far higher contrast at high frequencies, for a noticeably sharper picture. " - and that's also true of REDs and other high resolution cameras. It's a very good way to do things.

Now let's look at the missing piece of the puzzle that Sony ignore to really talk about.... They claim about demosaicing " For this reason, the final resolution falls, to various degrees, short of true 4K." - which is not strictly true. The real reason cameras such as ours (correctly in my opinion) don't have the same measured resolution as their sensor resolution is that they use a good amount of optical low pass filtering to avoid moire. A good OLPF will reduce your available resolution to around 80% of what you'd achieve without one, but obviously with a lot less aliasing and moire! If you're resigned to only having 80% of your pixel resolution anyway to avoid the worst of aliasing, why not spread out your pixels a bit so that the reconstructed image achieves about 80% of the sensor resolution too? In that case you get low aliasing and less waste on your pixels, and that's pretty much how a standard Bayer pattern CFA works. A good demosaic algorithm will use all the pixels (not just the greens) to extract a good 80% measured resolution. 80% of 5k is 4k, hence the Epic achieves a measured resolution of 4k.

Theoretically I figured you could get a measured resolution of about 4.5k out of an F65 assuming a decent OLPF is used to avoid the worst of aliasing. But if they're going for a measured 4k from 4k samples as they appear to be, their OLPF has got to be a lot weaker which could lead to aliasing on the green. Sony's rough MTF diagram shows 50% modulation at 4k, which would indeed mean a weak OLPF, but as that's just a marketing diagram, I'd want to measure the camera to be sure. From an observational point of view on their sharp demo footage, there did appear to be some strong "edginess" on sharp edges, similar to what I'd expect from a too-weak OLPF, but I need to measure to be sure.

Camera sensor design is more complex than Sony marketing make out. That's fair enough, but that's what forums like this are for where I can try to explain some of the nuances.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Your Kung fu never ceases to impress me, sir.
 
Hi Graeme,

thanks for your long and precise reply. very informative.

What i am asking myself is how can they claim having a true 4K readout of Green pixels and not have a true 8K Sensor?

"The F65 can also output 16-bit linear RAW, which preserves all the information obtained from every photosite on the image sensor—up to 8K of resolution. This gives you phenomenal ability to demosaic, adjust grayscale, color correct, composite and even re-frame the image in post."

What i understood from their description was that you record 4K but can go up to recording 8K and demosaic that to whatever you need. So following your 80% rule that would still give a true 6.4K image (in theory).
But i guess we will see that when there will be another camera shootout, where RED will participate with the epic and scarlet i hope!
 
Daniel,

As I pointed out, we've got to ignore their 8k statement. It's just wrong. If you need 17.7mp for "true 4k" then surely you need 70mp for "true 8k"? I say you need 36mp for 8k, and they have half of that. Either by my math or Sony's math they don't have 8k.

"up to 8K of resolution." sure "up to", like broadband cable or DSL speeds, where up to 8mb/s means 4mb/s on a good day and you don't stand a hope in hell of getting 8mb/s.

The 80% figure works for a well engineered OLPF, and also for a decent modern demosaic algorithm. Funny that both areas coincidentally lead to a similar percentage figure....

So if they had a 36mp 8k sensor indeed, I'd expect a measured resolution of around 6.4k. But they don't. They have enough pixels for around 5.6k, so I'd expect a maximum measured possible resolution of around 4.5k. Aliasing levels are "to be determined" once I can actually measure a camera.

Graeme
 
Thanks Carlos and Gary. Before RED started there was very little in the way of technical talk on sensors, resolution, measured resolution, aliasing and moire aimed at camera users. We have to understand these things to make cameras, so it only makes sense to share the knowledge so camera users can benefit too. It's fun to write this stuff. From what I can see, the Sony F65 is capable of making a good image, so I don't see why they need to focus their marketing on dissing bayer patterns (which their stills camera division uses to great effect), while using a rotated by 45 degree bayer pattern themselves, and claiming 8k which they don't have.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Thanks Carlos and Gary. Before RED started there was very little in the way of technical talk on sensors, resolution, measured resolution, aliasing and moire aimed at camera users. We have to understand these things to make cameras, so it only makes sense to share the knowledge so camera users can benefit too. It's fun to write this stuff. From what I can see, the Sony F65 is capable of making a good image, so I don't see why they need to focus their marketing on dissing bayer patterns (which their stills camera division uses to great effect), while using a rotated by 45 degree bayer pattern themselves, and claiming 8k which they don't have.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanations Graeme, one realizes the marketing hype that surrounds the products
 
Thanks Graeme.
Very interesting theme. I love that there is some "technical" talk around here, not just the whining, the whishing and the dissing. very helpful indeed.
Thank you for sharing your insights, i hope that some of these marketing guys from sony will put their money where their mouth is.
It's incredible what a landslide RED has provoked in the industry. I whish you the best for the future.
 
Fantastic post Graeme. Thanks for sharing the knowledge. :)


John Marchant said:
I love detail posts from Graeme. A top Sony tip; tilt your head 45 degrees and Graeme's posts become even more detailed ;)
Click to expand...


LOL
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Thanks Carlos and Gary. Before RED started there was very little in the way of technical talk on sensors, resolution, measured resolution, aliasing and moire aimed at camera users. We have to understand these things to make cameras, so it only makes sense to share the knowledge so camera users can benefit too. It's fun to write this stuff. From what I can see, the Sony F65 is capable of making a good image, so I don't see why they need to focus their marketing on dissing bayer patterns (which their stills camera division uses to great effect), while using a rotated by 45 degree bayer pattern themselves, and claiming 8k which they don't have.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I think the technical 'stuff' for sensors is key in being able to give a true representation of what each camera can do. I, and everyone else (I'm sure) appreciate that yourself and others in Red don't just settle for 'Their claim of 8k is bs' - It's always backed up with a reasoned and balanced response. Quite why Canon, Sony et al can't nut up and do the same is mystifying to me.

When the betting is all done, you're supposed to show your hand when called, aren't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top