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...

Thank you for the offer Jannard. Will it be the Alexa and Epic, Leica 50mm shots alone? Or could we also peak at the MP, Leicas and RPPs on an Epic?
 
Quite phenomenal results there - congrats!

This may be a stupid question but I'm just wondering which is the limiting factor at the moment - lenses or the sensor? The measured resolution seems right on spec for where I would expect a debayered 5k image, but if that is the case (the sensor being the limiting factor), why do the Leica's test better than the Master Primes or RPPs? Any help to fill in my blank in knowledge would be appreciated :)
 
Brad Allen said:
Quite phenomenal results there - congrats!

This may be a stupid question but I'm just wondering which is the limiting factor at the moment - lenses or the sensor? The measured resolution seems right on spec for where I would expect a debayered 5k image, but if that is the case (the sensor being the limiting factor), why do the Leica's test better than the Master Primes or RPPs? Any help to fill in my blank in knowledge would be appreciated :)
Click to expand...

Along with a good sensor,the lens must also be good and capable of extracting the sensors true or full quality,better resolution,better light,more sharpness, actualy to be verry honest and straightforward both the sensor and the lens are important its a combined effort in creating the best image possible
 
Jannard said:
Anyone who questions the difference just has to see it on the big screen to have a religious experience.

Jim
Click to expand...

I especially love that one .... have to print it out and fix it to the door of my editing suite ....... :w00t:
 
The beauty of living 3.1 miles away from mission control, and the coolest Captain.
I'll be on the Atlantic, otherwise would have been there.

I also would have liked to see the other results- MP's and RPP's on EPIC
 
Evin Grant said:
Made by teutonic elves out of unobtanium, magic faerie dust and transparent aluminum with dragon tear lens coatings.
Ohhhh I do covet them so.
Click to expand...

Let's see this test with a Nikkor 35 mm G (no need to put it on the Alexa, because the pathetic resolution says nothing about a good lens.)

It would be interesting to see how close it would be, optically speaking.
 
Does anyone have corresponding charts for 35mm and 70mm (Kodak Vision 3)?
 
Quick questions:
Are all shots unmodified (unsharpened, ...)?
Is the vertical shits due to different gamma (log etc)?

thanks
 
To quote Deanan:
attachment.php
 
The vertical offset of the integrated mid-grey point is indeed due to the gamma curve used, the Arri-log-c having a greater mid-grey offset. Any sharpening would show up as a squaring off of lowest resolution peaks and troughs, but they all look quite sinusoidal, so I'd say not. Not that post-sharpening can manufacture resolution or reduce aliasing.

It's not just how much resolution, or how low the aliasing, but also how strong the MTF at the lower frequencies. Having a good amount of MTF at these lower frequencies corresponds well to perceived resolution and contrast.

Graeme
 
Matthias Hutter said:
Thanks Graeme!

I didn't think about the curve shapes, makes sense ... :)

Matt
Click to expand...

And just to be sure I'm clear - it's not a right or wrong thing, and it doesn't effect the results either way.

Graeme
 
I definitely agree that it's a big deal how much higher resolution Epic is than Arri, and something you shouldn't be shy about.

However I'm curious to see a more apples-to-apples comparison (how measured resolution compares at the same nominal resolution)
 
It's great to see the Alexa [HD] resolving more than 1500 horizontal lines, even if it does require shooting on a very expensive [yet so dreamy...] set of primes. On the last tests I worked on for a very, very large 3D movie [that eventually shot 2D] we weren't able to get more than 720p [1280 horizontal lines] of *actual* image resolution when recording uncompressed HD, cropping slightly for post convergence and VFX and scaling to 2K.

That said, I believe it was Arri who convinced us all a few years ago that Super 16mm film has more than 2000 horizontal lines of resolution [when the 416 was introduced], so I suppose that makes uncompressed ArriRAW roughly equivalent?

I'm not trying to be cute here, it's actually very nice to see the Alexa recording enough image resolution to be roughly equivalent to HD cameras of yore.

I'm very much looking forward to personally testing the Alexa M with an Epic. I know there won't be a performance difference from the Alexa to the Alexa M, but I'm very interested in also testing the production overhead introduced with a "remote" sensor assembly.

Awesome test, Jim!

If people could see the impact of resolution that I've seen between the Epic and other cameras while testing or how unbelievably engaging scenes from the movie that I'm working on are in 2D 4K... well, people could step back from the technical and start to realize how amazing it is for storytelling.

Jim is the first to admit that the Alexa sensor has 1/2 to 1 stop more dynamic range than the MX without HDR enabled... yet Arri [and they are not alone...] seems to be in outward denial that the Epic has at least 4-5x the actual image resolution of their cameras. It's not like one camera "wins" and one camera "loses," it's that different cameras have strengths and weaknesses. I've watched Jim tell ASC cinematographers who are testing to shoot quarter-billion-dollar movies the *actual* strengths and weaknesses of each camera system available without being smug, without lying and without overselling his own camera or downplaying other cameras' strengths. It just seems like the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Here is a question that I have, having just awakened to this thread.

Resolution: Does higher resolution result in psychologically _perceived_ higher dynamic range?

In other words, do our brains react to a 4k image in a different way to a 2.5k image if viewed at 4k projection?

My theory is that this accounts for part of the "feel" aspect that we enjoy from a Red image.
 
Hi People,

Please come to Berlin.*

Let's have this event here in Berlin aswell.*

I am happy to organise it and a Party along.*

This will be good Medicine !!

And please bring my Epic x along

Best
Marco

P.s. Luckely, I had a quick talk to Jannard 2 Years ago, that " Redinvected " me along with My Red One.*
 
Dan, the vastly higher resolution is coupled to a much increased MTF at lower levels of detail and this aspect is easily perceivable at lower projection resolutions as it is projected at full resolution. The very fine detail, without artifice of electronic over-sharpening or artifacts from aliasing adds verisimilitude to the image which to me, appears as a naturalness. The other benefit of higher resolution projection is you can sit closer to the screen and get a more immersive experience where the screen fills all your vision, like IMAX, but you still can't see any pixels or electronicness to distract you from the beautiful illusion.

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