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 :)

Leica Lens Resolution test...

Jannard said:
1304136624.jpg
Click to expand...

The real exciting part of these charts is not the resolution way out to the aliasing point at around 4.2K... it's the SIZE of the resolution performance at 1K through 3K! Look at the difference in "meat" that you're getting at frequencies the human eye can feel at normal view distances. This is where having high resolution performance matters. It's ironic (and subjective), but at normal theater viewing distances, we're not going to really see a huge leap in individual eyelash detail on a wide shot... it MAY there at 5K, but we won't be able to see it unless we climb up on the screen with a magnifying glass. But having that low and mid-band Nyquist headroom as a fringe benefit of high resolution is where that 5K will pay off in spades.

I've shot with the Alexa several times now and, yea, it's a good camera. But I think they missed the mark on their sensor specs. Okay, bigger photosites equal higher dynamic range and more sensitivity. But honestly, the Epic is about as equally noise-free and as sensitive with almost double the photosite count in its imaging area. (For now, I'm not going to go into the high dynamic range mode benefit and compare Alexa's choice for a large pixel to accentuate dynamic range...) So I'm quite happy that at 5K we get EXCELLENT performance at 2K and above.

We are going to find out very soon enough that lenses are going to have greater and greater demands placed on them in order to deliver the goods as the resolution wars get ramped up... Sony's 8K sensor for the F65? Will most modern lenses even be able to resolve adequately that high? I'd like to see some tests.

Love seeing info like this Jim.

Thanks much!
 
Actually... you can see a significant difference between a 1080P camera and EPIC on a 40' screen. We have the luxury of demonstrating just that on Stage 4 of RED Studios Hollywood. PLEASE stop by. You will be blown away. And you won't be the 1st.

A 40' screen separates the men from the boys very easily. That's why so many features that have done side by side tests have chosen EPIC.

Jim

Christopher Probst said:
The real exciting part of these charts is not the resolution way out to the aliasing point at around 4.2K... it's the SIZE of the resolution performance at 1K through 3K! Look at the difference in "meat" that you're getting at frequencies the human eye can feel at normal view distances. This is where having high resolution performance matters. It's ironic (and subjective), but at normal theater viewing distances, we're not going to really see a huge leap in individual eyelash detail on a wide shot... it MAY there at 5K, but we won't be able to see it unless we climb up on the screen with a magnifying glass. But having that low and mid-band Nyquist headroom as a fringe benefit of high resolution is where that 5K will pay off in spades.

I've shot with the Alexa several times now and, yea, it's a good camera. But I think they missed the mark on their sensor specs. Okay, bigger photosites equal higher dynamic range and more sensitivity. But honestly, the Epic is about as equally noise-free and as sensitive with almost double the photosite count in its imaging area. (For now, I'm not going to go into the high dynamic range mode benefit and compare Alexa's choice for a large pixel to accentuate dynamic range...) So I'm quite happy that at 5K we get EXCELLENT performance at 2K and above.

We are going to find out very soon enough that lenses are going to have greater and greater demands placed on them in order to deliver the goods as the resolution wars get ramped up... Sony's 8K sensor for the F65? Will most modern lenses even be able to resolve adequately that high? I'd like to see some tests.

Love seeing info like this Jim.

Thanks much!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jim, yes of that I have no doubt! Just look at the difference in the charts! I was talking about an individual eyelash on someone in a WIDE shot... probably not going to see that, but at 5K it's probably there! ;-)

I'm curious to see the 48fps material Peter Jackson is shooting projected at 4K... I hope the motion doesn't bother me as being too crisp. I will bet that those images are going to by hyper sharp though!
 
Do not underestimate how much a 35" 4K OLED monitor sitting 3 feet from your eyes will separate the men from the boys, either. To me, monitors are the gold standard. Once you have seen 4K monitors up close, it sets a whole new standard. All I can think of is creating images to take advantage of that format.
 
Funny how Alexa (ARRIRAW) resolves exactly 2k, but Epic (REDCODE) resolves MORE than 4k. Just sayin'...

Thank you very much for the charts. I would love to see an MP chart on Epic.
 
Christopher... you can now check this for yourself. Wide is where one of the most obvious differences between 1080P and 5K (down-rezzed to 4K) lies. The amount of information is incredible. Anyone who questions the difference just has to see it on the big screen to have a religious experience. Don't just read this post. Come to RED Studios and ask to see the 700 reel. Everyone is welcome. See for yourself why Ridley Scott choose RED. He sat in Stage 4 and saw for himself. So can you.

Jim

Christopher Probst said:
Jim, yes of that I have no doubt! Just look at the difference in the charts! I was talking about an individual eyelash on someone in a WIDE shot... probably not going to see that, but at 5K it's probably there! ;-)

I'm curious to see the 48fps material Peter Jackson is shooting projected at 4K... I hope the motion doesn't bother me as being too crisp. I will bet that those images are going to by hyper sharp though!
Click to expand...
 
Tom Lowe said:
And you guys thought I was exaggerating about these Leicas! :w00t:
Click to expand...

Hey! I saw them first... but you seemed to be among the ones that believed my --very-- animated post about them; clearly, since it wasn't but a week and you were already out shooting that demo piece for them! :)

But the recently un-banned SJ must be mentioned! The one and only. A day hasn't gone by since the start of RedUser when he didn't bring up some obscure fact contributing to Leica's world dominance in the world of optics. Please don't dispute so; or you'll get more charts, and quotes, and 20MP samples that your internet provider can handle.

I love these charts, and their discussions. :r3d fanboi:
 
A religious experience would be seeing MY 5K footage projected at 4K! ;-)

Jim, yes I understand your point. The massive increase of resolution performance in low and mid-band frequencies (as shown in the charts) is going to blow socks of a system struggling just to deliver 1920 or 2K... So I may just have to take you up on that offer soon. I've head my head wrapped up in resolution and photosite counts for months working on these American Cinematographer articles... would be nice to see some actual examples of the difference.

Shooting a car spot on Monday night with two Epics... Can't see myself ever going back to a R1, just sayin!

;-)
 
Please stop by RSH. We'll show you.

Jim

Christopher Probst said:
A religious experience would be seeing MY 5K footage projected at 4K! ;-)

Jim, yes I understand your point. The massive increase of resolution performance in low and mid-band frequencies (as shown in the charts) is going to blow socks of a system struggling just to deliver 1920 or 2K... So I may just have to take you up on that offer soon. I've head my head wrapped up in resolution and photosite counts for months working on these American Cinematographer articles... would be nice to see some actual examples of the difference.

Shooting a car spot on Monday night with two Epics... Can't see myself ever going back to a R1, just sayin!

;-)
Click to expand...
 
This is what I call funny... I guess there are no big screens in Germany.

Are there any "other 4K cameras besides RED"? I have to wonder if anyone actually believes this stuff...

Jim

1304163055.png
 
Jannard said:
This is what I call funny... I guess there are no big screens in Germany.

Jim

1304163055.png
Click to expand...

Now I like Arri, but the Alev-III sensor only has 2.8K of active picture area photosites... so that's a little misleading calling it a 3.5K imager!
 
OK... how's like 2PM? Unless Red is supplying lunch then I'm there at noon!

;-D
 
I am down to come by on Wednesday and have a view. I missed the screening at this years' NAB
 
As shown in the resolution tests... ArriRaw (the best they have) measures 2K resolution. That is less than 1/5 EPIC. And trust me... that is visable on the big screen. They have said themselves that it is important to do a 4K scan for film... as Jarred posted.

Jim

Christopher Probst said:
Now I like Arri, but the Alev-III sensor only has 2.8K of active picture area photosites... so that's a little misleading calling it a 3.5K imager!
Click to expand...
 
Everyone is welcome to come next Tuesday at 2pm. Let's make an event of it.

Jim
 
wow, the red epic has a measured resolution of around 4.35k, thats great , even a 2k downsampled from that would look superb..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top