Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

why 5k? go after uncompressed instead please

doondoon said:
By the way I'm not knocking RED or the picture. I own own and love it.
Click to expand...

That seems to conflict with this statement:

doondoon said:
Neither one of these cameras shoot at 4K (they're both lower resolution than the RED). Nonetheless, the images I saw projected were way beyond RED. So I'm not sure why everyone is so excited about 1K more of resolution?
Click to expand...
 
To me, it's not about the extra 1K. If there was a single image problem RED didn't need to work on, it was resolution. For the short term, 4K is more than enough.

The thing I'd love to see Graeme work on when the 5K ships is a special debayer that results in as near a pixel-perfect 4K image as possible.

So I'm not excited about the extra resolution. What I am excited about would be a four-perforation sensor, a super 35mm plus look-around sized sensor, a better lens mount, a newly designed body with proper ergonomics and real power outputs, redesigned accessories, a lower optical axis, higher frame rates, lower compression, more dynamic range, less noise, more sensitivity, etc. If we need to have an extra 1K of resolution to justify a completely new [and more professional] product... so be it! Bring it on.
 
Ariana said:
That seems to conflict with this statement:
Click to expand...

Well fortunately the world isn't black and white.

Just because I thought that uncompressed Arri D-21 footage looked better than RED doesn't mean I can't also love RED footage/camera.

They're not mutually exclusive.
 
Brook Willard said:
To me, it's not about the extra 1K. If there was a single image problem RED didn't need to work on, it was resolution. For the short term, 4K is more than enough.

The thing I'd love to see Graeme work on when the 5K ships is a special debayer that results in as near a pixel-perfect 4K image as possible.

So I'm not excited about the extra resolution. What I am excited about would be a four-perforation sensor, a super 35mm plus look-around sized sensor, a better lens mount, a newly designed body with proper ergonomics and real power outputs, redesigned accessories, a lower optical axis, higher frame rates, lower compression, more dynamic range, less noise, more sensitivity, etc. If we need to have an extra 1K of resolution to justify a completely new [and more professional] product... so be it! Bring it on.
Click to expand...

well put.
 
Brook Willard said:
The thing I'd love to see Graeme work on when the 5K ships is a special debayer that results in as near a pixel-perfect 4K image as possible.
Click to expand...

Pixel perfect means you'd end up with harsh and aliasy edges. You want to have a greater ratio of pixels to resolution so you can define the edge nicely rather than push it to edge of pixel parity with edge. The same applies for film with the proportion of resolution to grain (ie. large vs small formats).
 
Deanan said:
Pixel perfect means you'd end up with harsh and aliasy edges. You want to have a greater ratio of pixels to resolution so you can define the edge nicely rather than push it to edge of pixel parity with edge. The same applies for film with the proportion of resolution to grain (ie. large vs small formats).
Click to expand...

Good point, well taken. I still think that an optimized 4K [and 2K] debayer would be of value, if for no other reason that it would cut out an unnecessary step. A lot of people will shoot 5K and immediately scale to 4K or 2K for the rest of their post process. If there was a one-step way to do this that would result in a [potentially] higher-quality image with less processing time... great!
 
Deanan said:
Pixel perfect means you'd end up with harsh and aliasy edges. You want to have a greater ratio of pixels to resolution so you can define the edge nicely rather than push it to edge of pixel parity with edge. The same applies for film with the proportion of resolution to grain (ie. large vs small formats).
Click to expand...

If the cam is announces as a "5k camera" the image should be that also, and not 4.5k in reality. If the image is aliasy and edges, then the image should be processed and scaled before presented to the user.
 
JanneSFE said:
If the cam is announces as a "5k camera" the image should be that also, and not 4.5k in reality. If the image is aliasy and edges, then the image should be processed and scaled before presented to the user.
Click to expand...

It's a RAW camera. We state the RAW sensor 'k' that is well understood in the DSLR world what exactly RAW, Bayer, etc. means. The whole this K or that K argument has been beaten to death a thousand times on every forum already.
 
I think it is completely accurate to list the specs in terms of how many "K" the sensor has horizontally, as opposed to measured "K" after de-Bayering, processing, etc. -- as long as you keep the "RAW" nomenclature next to the number of pixels to be clear, as in "4K RAW" or "4K Bayer", whatever, not just "4K".

Trouble with labelling a camera by measurable resolution is that few people will obtain the same real world results anyway -- there are too many other factors that influence resolution. Plus the number of horizontal pixels is not really a good way of measuring resolution. You start selling a camera as having "true" 4K resolution and half the people will come back complaining that they only managed to measure 3.8K in their own tests... and this gets even worse as people experiment with different de-Bayering software. Not to mention what lens they used for the test. 4K quickly becomes 1K if a lens is slightly misfocused...

Just list the cold hard facts about the pixel dimensions of the Bayer-filtered sensor; eventually more and more people will begin to understand the difference between RAW and de-Bayered RGB anyway.
 
Question? Would Rolling Shutter or Global Shutter make a difference in the amount of data/time whether RAW or Redcode Raw?
 
I didn't realize the "4k" camera was a description for the raw data. Feel like the RED ONE fell down in my list of favorite cam's... remember reading somewhere "PIXEL SHIFTING AND UP-REZZING NOT SPOKEN HERE"
 
JanneSFE said:
I didn't realize the "4k" camera was a description for the raw data. Feel like the RED ONE fell down in my list of favorite cam's... remember reading somewhere "PIXEL SHIFTING AND UP-REZZING NOT SPOKEN HERE"
Click to expand...

4K Raw has absolutely nothing to do with pixel shifting or uprezzing. You clearly do not undersdand what raw sensor data is and how it relates to final resolving power and MTF. This is fine, just don't make bitching comments on something you don't know or don't understand.

4K raw resolution is well recognised specification and broadly used in specification of all DSLRs cameras and Digital Cinema cameras and therefore readily comparable.

It is a specification much more easily understood than MTF, which is represented by graphs instead of a single digit. Therefore MTF is not easily comparable. However MTF is directly linked to and depends on the resolution of raw sensor data, so comparing and measuring raw resolution is meanigful, simple and clear (to most).
 
Pawel Achtel said:
Nope, not even at 28MBps.

It is by far the best compression I have seen in any camera and, because it is applied on RAW instead of RGB, the end result is substantially better than even that of an uncompressed 4:4:4 RGB.

The whole concept is brilliant and very well thought out.
Click to expand...
so why bother w/ uncompressed requests?.. what would graeme's job be?
 
Pawel Achtel said:
4K Raw has absolutely nothing to do with pixel shifting or uprezzing. You clearly do not undersdand what raw sensor data is and how it relates to final resolving power and MTF. This is fine, just don't make bitching comments on something you don't know or don't understand.

4K raw resolution is well recognised specification and broadly used in specification of all DSLRs cameras and Digital Cinema cameras and therefore readily comparable.

It is a specification much more easily understood than MTF, which is represented by graphs instead of a single digit. Therefore MTF is not easily comparable. However MTF is directly linked to and depends on the resolution of raw sensor data, so comparing and measuring raw resolution is meanigful, simple and clear (to most).
Click to expand...

Yes I know, just not my point, but thank you for caring :)

Cheers
 
I have plenty to keep me busy with....

Graeme
 
:-) I think that would be a good job, but it wouldn't help Scarlet and Epic though, would it. Unless Jim takes me up on the idea of powering them of a whisky fuel cell.

Graeme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top