sony

[Jeff Coatney]

Sony has just validated 4K as the future. We like that.

Jim

In fact, they seem quite desperate to communicate to their customers and shareholders that they're doing everything they can to get there. I really like that I already own part of that 4k future.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sony will make 6K CMOS sensor to de-Bayer @ 4K resolution (67% of full RGB)

Sony will make 6K CMOS sensor to de-Bayer @ 4K resolution (67% of full RGB)

Sony will make 6K CMOS sensor to de-Bayer @ 4K resolution (67% of full RGB)!!!???

A couple of highlights from Sony 4K roadmap presentation:

 

[paulherrin]

haha i was going to mention it previously, but i like their use of color theory... arri gets the sickly green, and red gets the well... dangerous red

should i mention again how highly legitimate this power point presentation is?

i'm tired of seeing simulated test images. that zone plate is not from their sensor. and there's not 17 million pixels unless you duplicate them.

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

Competition is good as an earlier post stated.

What makes RED stand out and what will continue to make it stand out are two things:

1) The upgradable modular design which allows RED to continually improve with out causing new purchases from ground up.

2) Perhaps more importantly; Jim and team listen to users and ACT on those comments and issues.

I know that on Spiderman we are in a continual discussion with Jim, Jarred, Deanan and team about small firmware, software and hardware changes for our little Epics and they dilligently work daily (and nightly) on those changes.

It is that simple. They are dedicated to us..... and react faster than any other camera company. No fanboy rantings.... just what is.....

Peter

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Let's make this plain and clear.....

Q67 is an every essential way a Bayer pattern and don't let Sony tell you otherwise.
Their argument boils down to "if we use more pixels, we can get a higher resolution image"
My argument is that if we use exactly the same number of pixels as Sony would in a given sensor we'd get an image with higher measured resolution and lower levels of aliasing (assuming they use Q67 and we use traditional Bayer pattern).

If you think about it, their numbers say it all.... They give Bayer 33%, and Q67 = 67%. We know Q67 is Bayer, so how do they do that. They double the number of pixels on the sensor, and double 33% to 67% (rounding up on the Q67, rounding down on the Bayer).

All they have done is double the number of pixels on the sensor.

Graeme

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Whatever but probably Sony 4K camera acquisition system will cost about $300.000 for sure.

So this possible super high price tag will not work with the most of us here...

Btw, also that Sony 4K camera guy (Hugo Gaggioni) reminds me on one Swiss banker from Lugano...

 

[sandro-bachmann]

In fact, they seem quite desperate to communicate to their customers and shareholders that they're doing everything they can to get there. I really like that I already own part of that 4k future.

second that..

 

[Graeme Nattress]

The other thing is that such a Sony 4k camera won't measure 4k either, unless you just love a good amount of aliasing! Just like their F35 doesn't measure 1080p and has significant aliasing.

Graeme

 

[Maz Mawlawi]

Sony and affordable are two words that don't usually go together. They are often priced high with crippled capabilities. Red has the best bang for the buck by far and is way ahead of its competition in the things they offer us. My only two complains that I ever had about Red was 1) accessories are not widely available and things are often out of stock or on back order and there are no other places to buy them except from Red. and 2) Epic is not out yet... ;-P

 

[M Most]

The other thing is that such a Sony 4k camera won't measure 4k either, unless you just love a good amount of aliasing! Just like their F35 doesn't measure 1080p and has significant aliasing.

Graeme

Sounds to me like you're calling the Sony future product a scam.

Graeme, I know this is RedUser, but neither you nor anyone else here has seen what Sony is proposing to build. And just as Red doesn't want people drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about it's future technology and unreleased products, you really should be granting Sony the same courtesy. When they release something that can then be tested, and all of these things either proven or unproven, then it will be fair to analyze the results. Until then, it's all speculation, and you know well how valuable that usually turns out to be (I.e., not very).

 

[Stuart English]

The Presentation

The Presentation

Forgive us for being a little feisty, but it's just more happy talk and unsubtle put down of other systems we've seen multiple times before.

The proof will be in the images, no doubt about that. We look forward to the competition and the validation that 4K resolution is the future.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Sounds to me like you're calling the Sony future product a scam.

No, I'm criticizing a proposed sensor scheme that they're promoting with some very biassed and obfuscated math.

As Stuart mentions, we're happy they've finally thought about going beyond HD. Sony's projector division has been a strong advocate of 4k for long enough now. It's nice to see their camera division catching up!

Graeme

 

[Michael Olsen]

All they have done is double the number of pixels on the sensor.

Graeme

When the Q67 thing was first spoken about, I took a good look at this chart they posted:

It's just like you said. The pixels (or perhaps more accurately, photosites?) have all been cut in half vertically and horizontally. Any given green, red, or blue pixel (photosite?) on there is 1/2 the size of its equivalent on the normal bayer. And, indeed, they even left the black "full size" pixel guides in place to show that their green pixel (photosite?) doesn't fill the black outline of a full pixel - it fills half of it, spatially.

It really does look like all they've done is shrink the size of the individual color receptors, rotate the grid thereof 45 degrees, and double the number of pixels available.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, it seems a bit silly to double the number of photosites within the same area and then claim more resolution, which is obvious, but not an apples to apples comparison.

 

[Lucas Riccabona]

... as i ve no deeper understanding of such technical backgrounds i was just curious about your opinion ... and the GE logo in the background ...

g

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, it seems a bit silly to double the number of photosites within the same area and then claim more resolution, which is obvious, but not an apples to apples comparison.

Exactly!!!!!!

And what they don't show is good the Bayer pattern image would look if it also had double the number of photosites!

And when they do show the Bayer images, they use what looks to be pretty poor demosaicing and limited or no optical filtering. They show their Q67 and then use some filtering to clear up the residual chroma aliasing, full well knowing such techniques also clear up normal Bayer images too.

Graeme

 

[Michael McVicar]

I also wonder in that what is basically shrinking the size of each pixel how the DR and noise floor are affected.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I also wonder in that what is basically shrinking the size of each pixel how the DR and noise floor are affected.

RED has showed that that is doable...

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, you can shrink the pixel if you make the pixel better. Or you can keep the pixel the same size and improve the pixel, like M to M-X. But all other things being equal, a smaller pixel will lead to some compromise in DR. Sony themselves show that in one of their graphs.

Graeme

 

[Frank Cueto]

Imagine it this way...

pixel(photosite) = bucket
Light Photon = Rain drop

Bigger bucket catches more raindrops ;-)

if you have a smaller bucket, then you need to make it rain more!

jejeje...