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 :)

Panavision videos...

I just saw the infamous video, and to me, it was more like a desperate use of known names to discredit what companies like Red have been able to accomplish. It must be a sign of how much this is affecting their bottomline.

There are much more big productions using Red One that the ones we know as of today. I think is a matter of waiting until they are out, get good reviews, even win Oscars for best cinematography, then they will feel comfortable to say that Reds were used.:bleh:
 
I thought the Panavision videos were all-around fantastic information. Great breakdown of MTF. Just some flawed logic regarding Bayer, but you have to give credit where credit is due. If you start slagging the entire presentation, it sounds like sad fanboyism. Keep it real.
 
We said from the beginning that the science was correct, but the spin on Bayer was seriously flawed. There is no doubt that presentations like these are a good thing as long as they don't mislead customers to a wrong conclusion. How real is that?

Jim
 
Why is a marketing person giving advice on quantifying digital technology?

This was interesting...congratulations RED for putting some fear into them...
 
It's quite good information on things like MTF and perception of resolution, I'm going to point my students to it. They are very correct explaining the difference between photosites and pixels – i.e. discerning the sensor and the data.
Why then do they turn things around when using data terminology like 4:2:0 (?!?) to sensor photosites? That's where the logic get's seriously flawed and quite obviously aimed at a competition they seem to take very serious…

Regards,

uli
 
I think it's just become common place to miss use that terminology My understanding is that even saying 4:4:4 RGB isn't even correct.
If you watch the video in a later slide they have it as 4:2:0 OR 4:2:2 optically which I'll probably be told is also incorrect but I think that their point was on a bayer you have full green but only half red and blue (And this is on their theoretical sensor so it isn't even a direct knock on red or the other cameras.)
It would certainly be interesting to see a similar powerpoint presentation put on by people heavily in favor of the Bayer sensor in comparison to the other two technologies but I'm not really expecting that to happen any time soon.
 
Sony do it in their brochures, saying F35 is an RGB sensor, or words to that effect. What guff. It's a mosaic colour filter array, just like Bayer is a colour filter array. Look at every high end DSLR out there, or medium format digital back, do they use an RGB stripe CFA mosaic, or a Bayer CFA mosaic. Ummm.... Let me think.... Nope, can't think of any that use an RGB stripe mosaic. They all use a Bayer mosaic. I wonder why.

Now, I must admist that the demosaicing algorithms for Bayer can be scary. But that's my problem, not yours. Of course, the simplest demosaic for RGB stripe mosaic is none at all, and Sony distincly say they don't interpolate, so they must be treating those mosaiced pixels as co-sited, when they're not.

Graeme
 
Oh, and Sony make high end DSLRs now too. And yes, they use a Bayer pattern also, not an RGB stripe....

Graeme
 
Jannard said:
We said from the beginning that the science was correct, but the spin on Bayer was seriously flawed.
Click to expand...

Jim (and others),

Would you say that the primary reason that Bayer works as well as it does in the RED or DSLR workflow is because RAW acquisition allows for a great deal of flexibility in grading, and thus the unequal color sampling doesn't result in flawed output color? That was my primary argument with what I was seeing... they didn't seem to allow for the flexibility of RAW and post-processing.

As far as sampling patterns are concerned... are they really suggesting that RGB vertical striping is better than Bayer? I can't begin to imagine the many ways that certain patterns would artifact- painfully - with such an array. And is that what the Genesis sensor uses? Last time I was in Woodland Hills, they told me that it was a "true" RGB sensor, and seemed to indicate that Genesis used a Foveon-like layered sensor with red, green, and blue sampling at each photosite. Columns of color on the chip seem rather dubious to me. It might be 4:4:4 in terms of equal color sampling, but the potential for weirdness seems exponentially higher. Bayer might sample different colors unevenly, but each pixel at least has all three colors very nearby in order to interpolate.
 
Panavison PR department would not let John Gault answer a list of honest but difficult questions for an article I was writing about John's work.

Jim and Graeme answer some difficult questions daily.

If I recall correctly, late last year a senior Euro Panavison exec I spoke to did not know tht REDone included a recorder.....

"But what do you record on..."


Mike Brennan
 
Wiyum, various white papers show it's a colour filter array RGB stripe sensor. The R,G, & B are not-cosited and each is in the horizontal direction 3 pixels away from it's next same colour.

The big benefit of Bayer is it works very well and has stood the test of time in both motion and stills.

Graeme
 
Are there MTF curves available for Red One?
 
Eyeballs

Eyeballs

The Bayer method (combined with the genius and art of the RED de-mosaic process) is a more film-like capture matrix in my opinion than the alternatives. Have you ever seen the blue channel of Kodak's T-grain stocks? 5218 for instance? Green is perfect and the blue channel looks like golf balls.

I dare anyone to compare a Red image to the same shot striped onto Genesis chips and tell me the 'math' says otherwise. Any trained (or untrained) eye, asked which image best represents the resolution and apparent range of film, will answer the same, hands down. Eyeballs.

j.
 
JonFarhat said:
The Bayer method (combined with the genius and art of the RED de-mosaic process)...
Click to expand...

Is Red doing anything in demosaic that other imaging systems don't do? Is there something inherently different in Red's de-mosaic than would be found in, say, Adobe Lightroom when working with RAW files from my Canon? I'd not heard about anything extraordinary... apart, of course, from having that kind of flexibility in a motion picture camera. Do tell.
 
You have to work differently for motion pictures as compared to stills. The human visual system is very sensitive to steady patterns – things you might miss in a still, but clearly see as a kind of 'overlay' in moving images. So, I'm quite sure RED is doing de-Bayering differently, but I'm also quite sure they won't tell you the details. After all, that's probably their most valuable intellectual property, while sensor, mechanics and optics are made by third parties under their guidance.

My two cents,

Uli
 
Yes, we do things differently. And yes, we're getting into the area of secret sauce.

Graeme
 
In defense of Panavision

In defense of Panavision

As a Red believer and owner, I disagree with the negative talk coming from Panavision concerning image quality, but I'd like to speak a little in defense of Panavision.

As I was a focus puller for over 15 years, I find that Panavision should be admired for their great lens quality, reliable cameras, great accessories, and good customer service. Maybe something can be learned from them. I have always been amazed by how simply their accessories fit together as opposed to all of the other camera manufacturers. With the follow focus that snaps onto the body instead of the rods, lens changes are super quick. The iris rod bracket and matte box systems work smoother than many others. They've been great about adding more accessory outlets as new technology has developed over the years (Does anyone else remember the days before on-board monitors and remote focus units?). Anytime I've needed a new adaption to a camera or lens, they've had their shop work on it right away. Except for in the case of just a few special configurations, everything Panavision works together like legos. It just snaps on and the camera is ready. Directors, producers, actors, and cameramen I've worked with love this about them. Even when Panavision has bought camera bodies from other manufacturers, they've modified them as much as they can so that they can use the same accessories which makes for a smooth transition from one camera system to another. Their cameras very seldom break down. When they do, if it's not a simple matter of changing the circuit boards which I can do in 30 seconds, then they have always been excellent about having tech support come out to the set immediately if we are in Los Angeles, or if we are in a distance location, they will do their very best to get a replacement camera to us as soon as possible. The user-friendly design, reliability, and customer service saves lots of time on set. It is what has made them deserving of the great reputation that they have had over the years.

By no means do I mean this to be critical of Red, it's just that I'm not sure if all of the users on this forum understand the contributions that Panavision has made to filmmaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top