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 :)

November 30th Announcement Feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing to keep in mind is that stills cameras suffer the same "resolution loss" that we are talking about here for the RED One or other bayer-pattern sensor systems. They just don't advertise this. In fact, most like to advertise the full "megapixel" count of the sensor even though they rarely record that. As a quick example, the Canon 7D has an 18.2 megapixel sensor, is advertised as "18 megapixels" and actually gives a recorded image of 17.9 megapixels. With a nominal resolution about 18% lower than that.

I think a lot of stills people are blissfully unaware of how their sensors "see" the image they record. And most stills cameras do a significant amount of internal processing to that "RAW" image as well.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I think a lot of stills people are blissfully unaware of how their sensors "see" the image they record. And most stills cameras do a significant amount of internal processing to that "RAW" image as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this has always struck me as one of the sillier examples of the kind of unproductive elitism in the film world (and there are a lot of them). Bayer is virtually the only technology used in the stills world these days, from the cheapest consumer cameras to the most expensive large format digital backs. Bayer sensors are used by probably tens of thousands of pro photographers every day to shoot images that sometimes get blown up to billboard size, and as stills, tend to be examined with far more scrutiny than individual frames in a moving sequence ever will be. And yet somehow, Bayer has been presented by some people in the motion imaging world as some sort of weakness for the Red One, as if Red is somehow cheating.

The truth is, Bayer is so widely used because for a given photosite count, with proper processing, it delivers a better image than anything else. Three chip designs or striped sensor patterns deliver at best 20-25% more visible resolution using 300% more photosites; in many cases it would make much more sense to just build a higher resolution Bayer sensor.

The real reason why Bayer isn't already widely deployed for high-end motion imaging is not that it's somehow unacceptable for that purpose, but that high-quality Bayer processing is very computationally intensive. The Red One gets around this by recording a raw image, so this computation doesn't have to happen in real time -- but as the RED Rocket and the 1080p RGB recording modes on the new cameras demonstrate, it is now possible to build ASICs which can do such processing in real time, which allows Bayer sensors to be used even in workflows that require high-quality live output.

I expect that as a result of this, we'll see large Bayer sensors increasingly become the dominant technology in high-end motion imaging, just as they have in the stills world. Arri's new cameras all use them. (Though whether this will clue in the industry snobs is anyone's guess. A friend of mine was having a chat with someone at an LA rental house a few days ago who explained they'd be buying into Arri's new system rather than Red's because "The Red uses a Bayer sensor, and is really only a 2K camera", apparently completely unaware that the Arri cameras are also Bayer, and Red's S35 cameras are 5K to Arri's 3.5K.)
 
Chris Kenny said:
I expect that as a result of this, we'll see large Bayer sensors increasingly become the dominant technology in high-end motion imaging, just as they have in the stills world. Arri's new cameras all use them. (Though whether this will clue in the industry snobs is anyone's guess. A friend of mine was having a chat with someone at an LA rental house a few days ago who explained they'd be buying into Arri's new system rather than Red's because "The Red uses a Bayer sensor, and is really only a 2K camera", apparently completely unaware that the Arri cameras are also Bayer, and Red's S35 cameras are 5K to Arri's 3.5K.)
Click to expand...

Indeed, that says it all. If RED had used a RGB stripe sensor, it would be bad (because like that's what early camcorders used), but somehow it's fine for Panavision and Sony to use the RGB stripe pattern.

Similarly, Bayer patterns are fine for Sony to use in their high end stills cameras, but RGB stripe is not. But Bayer patterns are "bad" when RED uses them, but not when Arri (or SI for that matter) uses them.

And somehow it's bad when RED states that the measured resolution is around 78% of the pixel container (which out rezzez ANY "HD" camera), but Canon can call their 1080p on their vDSLRs "full HD", when it measures around 70% of that horizontal and has some of the ugliest aliasing ever seen.

Fact is, people will ignore the facts to fit their prejudice, but I care not because we make a superb image, at a fantastic price, and facilitate very affordable workflows.

OK, rant mode off.

Graeme
 
Chris Kenny said:
Yeah, this has always struck me as one of the sillier examples of the kind of unproductive elitism in the film world (and there are a lot of them). Bayer is virtually the only technology used in the stills world these days, from the cheapest consumer cameras to the most expensive large format digital backs. Bayer sensors are used by probably tens of thousands of pro photographers every day to shoot images that sometimes get blown up to billboard size, and as stills, tend to be examined with far more scrutiny than individual frames in a moving sequence ever will be. And yet somehow, Bayer has been presented by some people in the motion imaging world as some sort of weakness for the Red One, as if Red is somehow cheating.
Click to expand...

Exactly. RED is open about how "it works" and they are often criticized for it. Sometimes even by those representing other camera companies that do the very same thing (Bayer pattern). Most everyone else does it too (Bayer pattern), as you point out, and no one seems to notice or care. And the industry snobs who do pretend to care, often wish to ignore it whenever brand loyalty comes into play -- Sony, Arri, etc..

I brought up stills cameras because these issues are all too often overlooked in the stills world. And like you say, stills are blown-up as billboards, posters, magazine covers. They're heavily scrutinized, more so than individual motion picture frames. This is proof that Bayer sensors not only work, but work incredibly well. RED is giving us cameras that record DSLR quality RAW stills, but at full motion picture camera speeds. And at an incredible price point. Too many naysayers trying to pick apart technical aspects of the RED One, not realizing that their arguments are not critical of the RED One specifically, but of nearly every other camera out there and also proven to be non-issues on a daily basis throughout the world of visual media.
 
I think Chris hit on all the advantages to the striped RGB filter for an HD camera -- simple real-time conversion to RGB, simple downscaling to 1080P. Remember that the Genesis and then F35 were designed years ago, and primarily for 1080P 4:4:4 applications -- not data recording but existing HD tape recording. It's also the reason why the ARRI D20 concentrated first on getting their real-time 1080P recording up and running, and their RAW recording later.

Even now, I don't see the problem with the striped RGB design if the end goal is only to generate 1080P RGB in real time. But it made complete engineering sense back when the Genesis sensor was on the drawing boards several years ago. And considering the popularity of the Genesis and F35 for TV series cinematography because of the HDCAM-SR tape workflow, it still makes sense today, whether or not file-based systems take over in the next few years.

If you guys get tired of the Bayer filter bashing, I get just as tired at the Sony / Panavision / professional DP bashing going on here, so let's give it a rest?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
s get tired of the Bayer filter bashing, I get just as tired at the Sony / Panavision / professional DP bashing going on here, so let's give it a rest?
Click to expand...

Try telling John Galt to stop the bayer bashing :)

The bayer bashing by the Panavision guys is quite aggressive but all I've heard about the stripe sensors is that they alias more.
 
They will probably have an adaptor for B4 video lenses just like there is one for the RED ONE, though those lenses are designed to focus red, green, and blue wavelengths through a prism block onto separate sensors, not onto a single sensor. So it's not as simple as putting a B4 mount on the Scarlet.
 
I don't know that anyone was saying RED was 'cheating' per say. I just think everyone was pointing out that if RED was 4k then so were they since they also used bayer patterns. RED was advertising pretty heavily as being 4k. The rest were saying "We are 4k too, we just don't think you need 4k output so we down convert to 1080p." It's something of a fair statement. Especially because RED also advertised heavily as "No pixel shifting mentioned here." (still their first headline) while simultaneously depending on bayer pattern interpolation which when you really boil it down is pretty much the exact same thing just with three sensors instead of doing it all on one.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
I don't know that anyone was saying RED was 'cheating' per say. I just think everyone was pointing out that if RED was 4k then so were they since they also used bayer patterns. RED was advertising pretty heavily as being 4k. The rest were saying "We are 4k too, we just don't think you need 4k output so we down convert to 1080p." It's something of a fair statement. Especially because RED also advertised heavily as "No pixel shifting mentioned here." (still their first headline) while simultaneously depending on bayer pattern interpolation which when you really boil it down is pretty much the exact same thing just with three sensors instead of doing it all on one.
Click to expand...

First, RED never advertised.

Second, this whole Bayer vs 3 chip argument is an apples and oranges argument. They are different. We've been comparing them for a few years and we have plenty if differences and almost no conclusions. Both have appropriate applications. The whole "this versus that" arguments turn into religion pretty quickly.

My only test would be is there a shot that Red can't get as a limitation of it's technology? RED seems to be delivering images worthy of any application. Whether they use a Bayer or little chipmunks. In addition its just my opinion, but RED is demonstrating progress that seems to be outpacing other Picture Machine Makers (yes that's a new phrase :wink5:).
 
David Mullen ASC said:
They will probably have an adaptor for B4 video lenses just like there is one for the RED ONE, though those lenses are designed to focus red, green, and blue wavelengths through a prism block onto separate sensors, not onto a single sensor. So it's not as simple as putting a B4 mount on the Scarlet.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's as simple as putting a B4 mount on that contains a correctly coated optical flat. If RED doesn't do it someone else will.
 
That's essentially what the current PL to B4 adapter is. I'm expecting to see a B4 mount for the Scarlet/Epic that has the proper optics inside it so people don't have to buy the camera with a PL mount and then use an adapter. Makes sense to me. Hopefully that solution will be quite a bit cheaper than the current adapter as I think they could sell a lot of them for the 2/3" Scarlet.
 
If you're asking about the 8x fixed Scarlet zoom, we don't know for sure. I guessed 7.5-60mm and Jarred told me I was close.
 
Billy Gedney said:
Sweet. I'm guessing that's in 35mm, and the 3.93 crop factor would apply?
Click to expand...

Well focal length isn't dependent on imager size, field of view is. I know this sounds a bit pedantic, but it's good to understand the difference. The equivalent field of view to FF35 would be the focal length times 3.93.
 
that is shallow and pedantic.

and no, he's talking about a native mm size for the scarlet.

there's already been some discussion as to how it converts for s35 equivalents
 
Zachary W. Sprague said:
Mmm... didn't think about that. I just hope there's a decent zoom released for those who'd like to use the Scarlet in documentary applications. I'm sure it'll pop up.
Click to expand...

You'll do fine with good quality 16mm and Super 16mm lenses in PL mount - a Canon 8-64 or 11-138 ? I've got an Angenieux 16-44 T1.3 on ice for when the 2/3 inch Scarlet ships. As tempting as a well priced, sensor specific, servo driven, nifty electronic smart lenses might be - at heart I'm not a fixed lens kind of guy.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top