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 :)

Scarlet's 3K. 1K green 1K red 1K blue?

This conversation has happened hundreds of times here (and many more times in other places)...

In the end, it doesn't matter... The footage released already shows that the image holds up at full size, and 95% of the time people use Scarlet, they're going to be delivering 1080p or 2K, so you get the benefits of oversampling (so you get "true" 2K, in that it has as much measured resolution as the pixel raster).

It's what the image looks like that matters in the end though. If you're thinking of the interchangeable Scarlet, I'd be more worried about lenses personally.
 
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?56187-Scarlet-Resolution

It helps to search the forum a bit before making a new topic, but this link should provide you what your looking for...

To paraphrase Ted at the may 2011 reducation(my raid died so I don't have the PDF currently) , the resolution is a container, the bigger the container the more it can resolve: all cameras have fall off from both the bayer process, lens, and codec settings (though R3d files figured a way around that last one to be visually lossless via wavelets)... (end of paraphrase)

So yes the haters can argue a red one (non mx) doesn't resolve 4k, and a scarlet is less then 3k, but those same fools basically fail to realize their "HD" camera doesn't resolve 2k, since it too has fall off from lens, codec, and bayer process, and that most competitor cameras resolve no where near what the specs say.

Personally I think resolution junkies should look to the Epic, Red One and future models. If you are sweating Scarlet the Monstro sensor will blow your mind...
 
David Battistella said:
I think your initial approach is a little "way off the mark".
Click to expand...

It's rather understandable though - there really are only 50% of the nominal resolution of green photosites , and 25% of red and blue in bayer cameras. Luckily, thanks to clever placement of the photosites, as well as smart debayer algorithms, the cameras can actually resolve much more than the raw numbers would let one assume...
 
All photo sites are used for luminance resolution, with values corrected to compensate for the filters. Shoot a black and white image and you are getting the full pixel resolution of the sensor in the file. Green, red and blue are interpolated for color information and the color sample ratio of 2G to 1R and 1B is approximately the same as the human eye. This is then overlaid on the luminance information to produce a full RGB pixel raster equal to the pixel resolution of the sensor. With sophisticated algorithms the optical resolution of the final image will be about 80% of the pixel resolution depending on lens and other optical elements in the light path.
Bayer pattern sensors are the closest mechanical mimic of the way the eye perceives color and resolution. They efficiently produce visually meaningful data and that is why they are so universally used in both still and motion cameras. Red is certainly not the first to do this with motion cameras, just the first to take the technology to levels that match or exceed the performance of similar sized film formats in a way that is comparable to the best modern digital still cameras in a practical compact fully featured professional level system.
 
2.6K by my math: 3072 x 0.85 = 2611.2 The new way RED is debayering is resulting in about 85% of the specified resolution. This means that for Scarlet Interchangeable (if it still exists), one would need a lens that resolves about 130 lp/mm. (2611/10.1 {this is the sensor width} = 258.51; 258.5/2 {1 line pair} = 129.25 {this is the line pairs per millimeter}.)

I just bought two Fujinon C-mount lenses that are made for 5 megapixel cameras, in the hopes that the Scarlet Removable still exists. I have read that they resolve about 150 lp/mm.
 
Kyle Presley said:
2.6K by my math: 3072 x 0.85 = 2611.2 The new way RED is debayering is resulting in about 85% of the specified resolution. This means that for Scarlet Interchangeable (if it still exists), one would need a lens that resolves about 130 lp/mm. (2611/10.1 {this is the sensor width} = 258.51; 258.5/2 {1 line pair} = 129.25 {this is the line pairs per millimeter}.
Click to expand...

Has that new debayering science ever been implemented? I keep asking about it and I don't get an answer one way or another.
 
I don't know why it wouldn't be. I am sure it is, or it's such a marginal thing, nobody really cares. I know it's being used in the RED One. It's important because when shooting 4.5K you are getting a nearly 4K measured resolution. Graeme???
 
Pierre Henri Landriau said:
So does someone know the repartition of the resolution?
Click to expand...

Someone's probably shot colour charts on the RED ONE and could give you a rough estimate of what you get out of the Mysterium-X sensor and RED's image processing algorithms.

Probably a more useful thing to do though would be to get some well shot RED ONE MX or EPIC footage and play with it in RedCine-X or DaVinci to see how it handles in post... They all use the Mysterium-X sensor (just different sizes, and for Scarlet, higher pixel density) so it should be a pretty good representation.

David Battistella said:
No one even knows if the camera is 3k
Click to expand...

True. I'd be stoked if it stayed 2/3" 3K (I mean, I've been shooting DSLRs and other cameras that struggle to measure over 720p and have aliasing, crappy codecs and all that, so a camera that records RAW over 2K is a massive leap, not to mention the frame rates it pulls), but if they put it up to, say, s16mm at 4K, that would be pretty incredible. That's quite unlikely though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top