Less Pixels More Bit Depth...

[Shawn Larkin]

To Whomever It May Concern,

Great now we have a 28K Camera that no one in the world can view at full resolution--pixel for pixel. (But I can't wait for the next gen "super-duper-ultra-higher-than-the-definition-of-high-definition" monitor and/or video projector.)


So I get how 8K, or 24K, or 28K or 1 Billion K is great for still photography. But we all know managing anything over 2K is tough. Even if it is compressed, managing 4K and 6K will be, well, "interesting" to deal with in post. Thank God parallel processing is just around the corner! But I still wonder how one might actually see all of those pixels for a composite or just, well, to actually see them.

Anyhow, this is not to say I don't LOVE all those pixels. I do. And I can't wait to actually (try to) use them to make movies. But what I and my trusty DI colorist want more than more pixels is--as the title of this post suggests--MORE BIT DEPTH. I say let's go to 16; that's a nice manageable number that really helps with the banding, noise, and other artifacting of the image. It's already supported in the still world and it's about time for those of us in Film Post to use it (...although 16 bit Tiff was a VFX standard forever, 10 bit DPX is the new standard for DI). 10 bits ain't enough and 12 is, well, OK. But I've been playing with 16 vs. 12 vs. 10 and in my testing 16 is where it is at. This is not so difficult as float to process or work with and it really helps when you start pushing the gamut far.

How hard would it be fore RED to develop RED CODE to support 16 bit? I don't know. But I do know that I much prefer grading 16 bit images than 10 or 12 bit images. And you would too if you try it.

So there you have it--One man's opinion about what all of you pixel-steroid abusers might have overlooked.

Or Not...

 

[Jeff Carpenter]

I'm pretty sure the Monstro sensors are 16 bit. Correct me if I'm wrong.

To Whomever It May Concern,

Great now we have a 28K Camera that no one in the world can view at full resolution--pixel for pixel. (But I can't wait for the next gen "super-duper-ultra-higher-than-the-definition-of-high-definition" monitor and/or video projector.)


So I get how 8K, or 24K, or 28K or 1 Billion K is great for still photography. But we all know managing anything over 2K is tuff. Even if it is compressed, managing 4K and 6K will be, well, "interesting." Thank God parallel processing is just around the corner. But I still wonder how one might actually see all of those pixels for a composite or just, well, to actually see them.

Anyhow, this is not to say I don't LOVE all those pixels. I do. And I can't wait to actually (try to) use them to make movies. But what I and my trusty DI colorist want more than more pixels is--as the title of this post suggests--MORE BIT DEPTH. I say let's go to 16; that's a nice manageable number that really helps with the banding, noise, and other artifacting of the image. It's already supported in the still world and it's about time in Film Post use it (although 16 bit Tiff was a VFX standard forever). 10 bits ain't enough and 12 is, well, OK. But I've been playing with 16 vs. 12 vs. 10 and in my testing 16 is where it is at. This is not so difficult as float to process or work with and it really helps when you start pushing the gamut far.

How hard would it be fore RED to develop RED CODE to support 16 bit? I don't know. But I don know that I much prefer grading 16 bit images than 10 or 12. And you would too if you try it.

So there you have it. One man's opinion about what all of you that like pixel-steroid abusers might have overlooked.

Or Not...

 

[Shawn Larkin]

Huh?

Huh?

I did not see it on a the spec sheet. But I think--don't know for sure--that it has more to do with the RED CODE. Anything shooting RAW (in DSLR world at least) can than be processed/encoded/transcoded into the appropriate format with the appropriate bit depth.

AND maybe the hardware has to be optomized for the capture to allow for 16 bit--I don't know.

But I do know that up to now, you can only go to 12 bit with RED ONE. So either way, I want to get the equivalent of 16 bit native resolution files out of the camera/RED CODE. I don't want to take a 10 or 12 bit capture RAW and upres the color bit depth...if you know what I mean.

Is there a link to where this process is specified or shown possible that I don't know about?

Hell, for that matter AND since we are talking about "possibility" here, why not have the option to go to float? I know that would be just as impossible to manage as 28K, but at least they both match then: impossible resolution with impossible bit depth.

The Bottom Line is: those of us that care about quality (and not just pixel quantity), would like more options starting at 16 bit. If you can throw in float just for good measure, why not? I mean, I wouldn't shoot it; that's crazy talk. But I wouldn't shoot 28K for cinema either.

So if anyone knows the "real" spec for color bit depth OR how the camera and RED CODE goes about acquiring the image bit depth, please let us (me) know.

Merci.

 

[NateWeaver]

It's been discussed before (with Graeme involved, I believe), that 13 or 14 bits would be only recording the noise floor of the imaging chain, much less using 16. The CMOS readout would have to get quieter for more than 12 bits to make a difference.

In other words, the A/D is not really the weakest link right now, although that's a really bad way to put it.

 

[Paris Remillard]

Monstro is 16-bit.

 

[Shawn Larkin]

OK Then...

OK Then...

I've read a lot of the previous posts on this stuff. Mr. Nattress, combatentropy, and others really get into it.

Basically, if Monstro is 16 bit, we hope that it's giving us a clean enough image AND the conversion to/from RED CODE can make use of this clean 16 bit signal.

Otherwise--and I am really oversimplifying here--it's best that they continue to stick with 10 bit log / 12 bit linear which best fits the signal at it's cleanest without eating up more (unnecessary) disk space.

As a side note, I would prefer that the image was linear, because ALL the apps anyone uses in post, end up doing a log-to-lin conversion for display and compositing/coloring purposes.

Anyone have anymore info on the possible Epic bit depth resolutions? Will RED have it handled to actually make use of a clean 16 bit signal (that isn't crammed into 10 or 12 bits)?

 

[jbeale]

It may not be directly relevant, but of all the DSLR cameras on the market now that currently provide 14 bit RAW files, I believe there is no clear evidence that all those bits are actually justified. That is, 12 bit would still capture all the "real" sensor information in those cameras, the remaining bits being just noise. Maybe Red's sensors are better than the current DSLRs, but it would be pretty remarkable if they even came close to 16 bits of true DNR.

 

[Kyle Presley]

The only thing you'd get out of a 16 bit Red One is more accurate noise, as Graeme has said over and over and over again. It may help with banding though...

 

[Shawn Larkin]

True DNR

True DNR

I am hoping that Monstro does actually provide a real 16 bit DNR image capture (one that isn't just cramming the noise off a not "true" 16 bit image into the file). And that I can work with that 16 bit file in post. I suppose that is ultimately what this post is about.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

One way to reduce noise is by capturing higher resolution and downsampling. An additional advantage of such approach is higher MTF at higher frequencies after down-sample. No one said that you have to finish or distribute in 9k or 28k. The advantage of 28k or 9k acqusition is the light gathering capability of larger sensor. All things being equal, this is your way to 16-bit, 2k or 4k content. But, this is achieved in post, not in the camera. Whilst your 16-bit lower resolution acqusition is impossible to achieve using existing technology, the end result is possible by using 9k and 28k sensors that you're complaining about. The workflow is different, though.

 

[George Wilcox]

In the world of DSLRs going from 10 bits to 12 bits to 14 bits has resulted in better color reproduction across the board, broader ISO ratings, etc. (although admittedly, there are other technological things improving at the same time). The big benefit of more bits is more natural color reproduction and better shadow and highlight detail - 16 bit is the way to go.

 

[Jarred Land]

Monstro is 16 bit. There is an advantage to 16 bits.. anyone who has worked with 16 bit medium format sensors will tell you the same. The difference is small.. you really need to dive into in-range tonality and highlights to see it... but it is there. The extra processing precision with 16 bits gives you a little more flexibility as well, specially when you start to push things around.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Monstro is 16 bit. There is an advantage to 16 bits.. anyone who has worked with 16 bit medium format sensors will tell you the same. The difference is small.. you really need to dive into in-range tonality and highlights to see it... but it is there. The extra processing precision with 16 bits gives you a little more flexibility as well, specially when you start to push things around.

That's great news. I did run out of tonality steps quite often using HDCAM (in camera) by "pushing things around" (adjusting gamma, colour balance and matrix heavily). The result was awful flickering of clipped tonal ranges. But, this was 10-bit DSP. See my post about it here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22992

I don't think I will have the problem with 12-bit Red One (I haven't tried yet), but I am absolutely confident 16-bit quantization will fix the problem once and for all.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

Hi Jarred

Would 14bit precision have been enough for Monstro? Or with only 2 bits to go is it easier to just sit on byte boundaries?

I ask because i feel I remember Mr Natress suggesting that there was very little chance (in a dalsa discussion) 16bit precision was necessary.

I'm happy either way.

regards

Michael (delighted not to touch 8bit vanilla HDCAM ever again) Lindsay

 

[Graeme Nattress]

You must have a bit depth on your a-to-d that is "better" than the dynamic range of your sensor, or else you're limiting your sensor. Similarly, it's not much use to have a better a-to-d than your sensor is capable of feeding, noise-wise, or else you're just pushing extra bits around for no image benefit.

So, current RED One has a 12bit a-to-d and those 12bits get stored in a 12bit REDCODE.

Now, future RED sensors improvements over the current generation Mysterium, and will warrant higher bit depths on the a-to-d. REDCODE will develop along with the new sensors and new a-to-d so that it all works together as it should.

I've not had any banding issues with the RED One other than that as caused by displays or stuff not actually related to the data in the R3D file itself. That is good.

As to the Dalsa discussion, they were using a 14bit a-to-d and padding that up to 16bits for storage. So two of those 16bits were "marketing bits" so to speak. When RED is talking about bit depth, it's bit depth on the a-to-d, so real bits.

Graeme

 

[Shawn Larkin]

I'm glad that we might actually have a 16 bit sensor with a 16 bit a-to-d and REDCODE that can work with these "real" 16 bit images.

That's exactly what I wanted to hear...if it is true.

 

[J. Eric Camp]

fantastic

 

[jbeale]

DSLR bit depth and noise

DSLR bit depth and noise

In the world of DSLRs going from 10 bits to 12 bits to 14 bits has resulted in better color reproduction across the board, broader ISO ratings, etc. (although admittedly, there are other technological things improving at the same time). The big benefit of more bits is more natural color reproduction and better shadow and highlight detail - 16 bit is the way to go.

My point was that more bits in your recording gives you more dynamic range, less posterization etc. if and only if your sensor + analog electronics + A/D noise level is low enough. Otherwise there is no benefit to adding bits in the camera. You might as well just use a smaller A/D and save cost and data storage space. If you want to add pure noise bits and do your post operations using a higher bit depth, which can help especially if you do big corrections and/or contrast stretches, you can still do that in post regardless of the original acquisition bit depth. In other words, if your system noise exceeds the 12-bit quantization level, then "doing it in post" (upconverting to 14 or 16 bits) is actually just as good.

There is a physics prof. at U. Chicago, Emil Martinec, who put up what I found to be a well-reasoned and well-supported web page regarding DSLR bit depth and resolution for the current DSLRs.

"Curiously, all the 14-bit cameras on the market (as of this writing) do not merit 14-bit recording. The noise is more than four levels in 14-bit units on all of these cameras (Nikon D3/D300, Canon 1D3/1Ds3 and 40D); the additional two bits are randomly fluctuating, since the levels are randomly fluctuating by +/- four levels or more. Twelve bits are perfectly adequate to record the image data without any loss of image quality, for any of these cameras (though the D3 comes quite close to warranting a 13th bit). "

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#bitdepth

 

[NateWeaver]

i think even if, in the move to 16bit, those last 2 bits are recording nothing but noise, the move will help push forward post and getting prepared for the future.

Also, recording the noise floor of the analog chain more accurately I'm sure can have it's benefits. Oversampling spatial resolution does wonders for the refinement of the image. I would imagine oversampling bit depth would have it's own benefits, however small...likely more natural looking grain I'd guess, especially if underexposed images are being pulled out of muck.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

As to the Dalsa discussion, they were using a 14bit a-to-d and padding that up to 16bits for storage. So two of those 16bits were "marketing bits" so to speak. When RED is talking about bit depth, it's bit depth on the a-to-d, so real bits.

Graeme

Graeme

that's interesting to know... thanks!!

What is less useful is making unnecessary post production demands (like dalsa).

On a side note can you tell us the distribution of bits against stops of light for the current camera. Linear, to me, suggests half the light per stop climbing down into the shadows. Is that correct?

thanks again

Michael L