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

Paulo Emílio said:
A Feature film total in NOKIA N8 :

http://www.olivethemovie.com/
Click to expand...

very cool, paranormal was shot on an HD cam, the blair witch project on home video equipment, and 28 days later on mini DV. The thread is not about these "rare" and "unique" projects going on the big screen, its about quality and price with the high end products.

The iphone can do 1080P and i own one too, so what?

Resolution, latitude, RAW, form factor, professional inputs/outputs are other things to consider, i'm guessing many people will run out and purchase the Nokia N8 after seeing that just like many filmmakers went for mini DV etc. when the other features made it to the big screen.
 
The other way to look at the 8k claim is this - if they're saying it's 8192 pixels horizontal, what is it vertical? It's 2160 vertical as 8129x2160 = 17.7mp. 8k should obviously be 4320 high. So if it's 4320 high, it's 4096 wide. So which is it.... Either way it isn't 8k.

Graeme
 
Thanks Graeme, did that math aswell. weird stuff. i hope they don't calculate their prices like that.

i have the feeling that alot of people didn't get the sarcasm on my iphone 4S comparison.
 
It's times like this that I'm happy I passed my math O and A levels.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
It's times like this that I'm happy I passed my math O and A levels.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Graeme, all i ever got in math were marks in the 90 percents. After attending film school, i forgot like 80 % of that. I never had to come across most of the equations per say. Glad to have you around buddy :)
 
Math is fun, but if you don't use it, you loose it. I'm lucky I can use enough of it, but if I look through some of the notes from university, I find half of it gibberish!

Graeme
 
They should have something like a Nutrition Facts for cameras.
 
Well if they're as useless on the ones on food, we're screwed.... (don't get me started or I'll rant...)

Graeme
 
So basically f65 uses a common Bayer cfa but non-square photosites? It does seem misleading to quote horizontally measured "k" values for non-square pixel aspects... that said its a ton of resolution and will be interesting to see how it performs realtive to the 4-5k raw we are used to (red).
 
Bayer with rotated through 45 degree square pixels.

Graeme
 
Imaginary numbers for marketing purposes? Interesting.... I'm rather fond of the primes myself.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Bayer with rotated through 45 degree square pixels.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I've seen the spec thrown around that the F65 has a 8768 x 2324 sensor, which is a 3.8:1 ratio, and other specs say it is designed around the 1.9:1 DCP standard aspect. Doesn't that seem to imply non-square pixels, possibly even pixels with a 1:2 ratio? That would explain why they keep calling it 8k, since it would actually use 8k photosites horizontally but subsamples its "8k" in the vertical? Makes sense from a marketing standpoint to squeeze extra pixels in horizontally since that's how most manufacturers report their resolution specs, so they can say they have 8k which appears to be 190% more resolution than their 5k competitor when really they only have 45% more. Not sure about from an sensor design standpoint though...

The irony would be if that is the case, the F65's oversampled 4k may not really be oversampled in the vertical dimension.
 
No, the pixels are square and rotated 45 - the "8k" is a stair-step count across two rows. The 8k spec is pure marketing and it's easy to see from the pixel count that there's just not enough pixels...

The F65 is not oversampled for 4k.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
No, the pixels are square and rotated 45 - the "8k" is a stair-step count across two rows. The 8k spec is pure marketing and it's easy to see from the pixel count that there's just not enough pixels...

The F65 is not oversampled for 4k.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Oh so its just a creative way of counting? That seems very odd that just because the pixels are rotated 45deg they suddenly treat every other row as counted with the previous row...

I'm still not sure I see how that works with the 8768 x 2324 spec I've seen. If they just counted every two rows as one horizontal row, that would mean it is essentially a 4384 x 4648 pixel array just with a 45 degrees rotated pixel configuration, right? That still isnt right. Do you mean they combine some rows with the one above but not every other row pair or something? Maybe I'm not visualizing this correctly. Either way, wouldnt a 20MP bayer cfa sensor be oversampling for 4k if it is sampling more pixels in either direction than 4096x2160? Why do you say it isnt oversampled?
 
A 20mp standard bayer would provide oversampling for 4k, but a simple extraction like they're doing provides "just" sampling.

Funny thing is that Sony obviously think Epic is 4k worthy as they use Epic material to demo their 4k projector at CES - not F65 footage.

Graeme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top