Epic is the Ultimate "Film Slayer".... IF

[Tom Lowe]

It seems to me that Epic is the perfect storm to finally put chemical film out to pasture, in much the same way that high-end DSLRs did over the last few years for stills. It will shoot a "real" 4K, RAW, s35mm, cine glass, overcranking onboard, solid-state or harddrive recording, etc.

The ONE THING Epic needs to do in order to fulfill it's destiny, though, is match (or come close to) chemical film's dynamic range. Aside from nostalgia, DR is really the last leg film is standing on right now, IMO.

Similar to Clinton '92's precept "It's the economy, stupid," the Epic team should have a poster on the wall reading, "It's the dynamic range, stupid." :weight_lift:

With a sensor upgrade next year, I think Red One will do the same.

[Babu Kantamneni]

Yes!!!

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

It's not the pixels, honey, it's the dynamic range.

:)

[Tom Lowe]

It's not the pixels, honey, it's the dynamic range.

:)

Yep. :)

[Bang WOW Bang]

OK RED will have 5K D-Camera named EPIC

wait a min.......

Ikegami and NHK had a 7K UHD camera back in 5 years ago.

STRL , a research Labs under NHK.

I was there 5 years ago as a witness of this Camera born.

Cheers,

Stewart
HKG - CHINA

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

So Tom,

You say that most movies from the past century won't hold up at even 1080p.

Does that mean that their real resolution is actually lower than 1080p?

[Brook Willard]

I'd agree with Tom on the old film resolution front.

As for Epic, there are a few things I think the camera "needs" in order to be a "film killer" [man I hate that term].


Dynamic range well in excess of 11 stops.
Higher sensitivity/lower noise, particularly in tungsten-lit conditions.
A completely redesigned camera body.


Resolution? Pff. The RED already out-resolves just about every film stock as is. Going to 5K almost seems like overkill... particularly if I pay for sensitivity as a result of the smaller pixels.

That said, the Mysterium sensor design is probably three years old at this point. I'm sure a lot has changed. Just look at the D3's sensor!

Anyway, those are my three big hopes. I wouldn't mind a four-perf sensor, but I'd be willing to bet it's too late in the game for that. I just love the irony of a camera named "Epic" that can't take proper advantage of anamorphic lenses. :)

[Noah Kadner]

Also the post workflow will really need to be simple and bullet-proof in order to truly cause a stir.

Noah

[Jaime Vallés]

A completely redesigned camera body.
How so?

[Ivan G]

A completely redesigned camera body.

LOL! I don't see how that will work but I feel you man!

[Brook Willard]

Also the post workflow will really need to be simple and bullet-proof in order to truly cause a stir.

Noah

I'd imagine that by the time the camera ships in ~mid 2009, the RED's workflow will be fairly awesome, complete and accepted. The Epic's workflow is just a slightly higher data-rate version of that workflow! I bet it'll be a simple transition.

How so?

I may go into details at some point, but I'll just let it be for now.

[Joe Walker]

I second the bullet proof workflow...I like the current workflow, but its far from perfect, and still needs some bugs worked out of it.

[Brook Willard]

Think of what happened with P2 cameras. They were scary as all hell to lots of houses at first. Then by the time the 2nd and 3rd P2-based cameras came out... it was bulletproof. Now people don't even think about it.

[Tom Lowe]

I'd agree with Tom on the old film resolution front.

As for Epic, there are a few things I think the camera "needs" in order to be a "film killer" [man I hate that term].


Dynamic range well in excess of 11 stops.
Higher sensitivity/lower noise, particularly in tungsten-lit conditions.
A completely redesigned camera body.


Resolution? Pff. The RED already out-resolves just about every film stock as is. Going to 5K almost seems like overkill... particularly if I pay for sensitivity as a result of the smaller pixels.

That said, the Mysterium sensor design is probably three years old at this point. I'm sure a lot has changed. Just look at the D3's sensor!

Anyway, those are my three big hopes. I wouldn't mind a four-perf sensor, but I'd be willing to bet it's too late in the game for that.

Yeah, if you watch Blurays at 1080p, pixel for pixel, you can actually see the film grain all over the place. Some newer movies might hold up at 4K, but not many, and like we have discussed before, a lot of FX shots and DIs are bottlenecked at 2K.

I think the reason that Epic's 5K is exciting is that it will produce a "real" 4K. This below article mentions why...


The reasoning behind the Epic’s 5K sensor becomes clear: If a 4K sensor like the Mysterium yields 3.2K lines of resolution, that’s about 80% “spatial efficiency” (78% if you want to get picky about it). If the Epic’s 5K sensor works the same way, then it should resolve about 4K, allowing Epic shooters to say they’re working with a true 4K system with a reasonably straight face (grin).

LINK (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/more_red_res_testing_the_mysteryium_resolved/P1/)

But like Brook said, if packing more photosites into a s35mm sensor means more noise, that's a tough trade off.

I don't know enough about dynamic range and CMOS sensors to have any idea HOW Red can increase DR, I just think that's really the last hurdle to get over before digital usurps chemical film for motion pictures.

[Chris Gearhart]

Yeah, smaller photosites don't excite me.

[Davide B.]

Yeah, if you watch Blurays at 1080p, pixel for pixel, you can actually see the film grain all over the place. Some newer movies might hold up at 4K, but not many, and like we have discussed before, a lot of FX shots and DIs are bottlenecked at 2K.

I think the reason that Epic's 5K is exciting is that it will produce a "real" 4K. This below article mentions why...



But like Brook said, if packing more photosites into a s35mm sensor means more noise, that's a tough trade off.

I don't know enough about dynamic range and CMOS sensors to have any idea HOW Red can increase DR, I just think that's really the last hurdle to get over before digital usurps chemical film for motion pictures.

Are you sure that the films look bad on blu-ray because of a lack of resolution in the original print? It could very well be that the transfer was bad. Some of these 1080p masters were done long ago before the technology was good. And there are still some really poorly done transfers like "Double Indemnity."

As per digital catching up with film: what film stock are you talking about? Most of the time when people talk about the DR of film they're talking about Vision 2 stock. But Kodak has replaced Vision 2 with Vision 3 which is even better than when it comes to DR and fine grain. Right now digital is working on catching up with last-gen film technology. It's going to be awhile before digital gets good enough to kill film. And digital still cameras still haven't caught up with film in terms of dyanmic range--although that hasn't kept them from taking over the photography market. I'm sure digital could eventually beat film in terms of latitude. But it could be awhile, especially if Kodak continues to come out with new revisions.

davide

[Erik Greensmith]

I think having a rock solid camera that any assistant anywhere trained on Arris and Panaflexes can pick up and run with and not have to re-learn their jobs will bring about the rapid adoption. Producers will love the cost and the old school camera boys won't call bullsh!t. If they can mount their gak the way they want, that's all that really matters. Phat photosites might make the techs giddy, but it's all for nothing if nobody likes shooting with it.

[Evin Grant]

I've heard it stated from reliable, film resources, that the average film print in your average cineplex even today is around 800 lines. Maybe even less once gate weave and projectionist focus error are factored in. Remember most movie theaters hire high school kids.

[Daniel Browning]

Resolution? Pff. The RED already out-resolves just about every film stock as is. Going to 5K almost seems like overkill... particularly if I pay for sensitivity as a result of the smaller pixels.




But like Brook said, if packing more photosites into a s35mm sensor means more noise, that's a tough trade off.



Yeah, smaller photosites don't excite me.

Actually, one of the best ways to increase sensitivity and reduce noise is to *add* more pixels. In still cameras, the smallest photosites have the highest efficiency; most capture over twice as many photons as the same area of a sensor with larger photosites.

It's easy to see for yourself. Take a 1/1.7"-sized crop of a 12 MP APS-C and resample it next to a G9 using the same raw converter. The digicam will have *less* image noise.

Another example would be to compare a 450D-sized crop of the 5D and resample them to the same size, the smaller, denser photosites result in less image noise.

The DSLR with the lowest image noise right now is the 1Dsm3. It has many more and smaller pixels than the D3 or 1Dm3, but their greater total efficiency results in a higher total number of photons captured.

Add to that the fact that even the *same* amount of noise in a high-resolution image looks much better than a lower-resolution image. This demonstration (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14268) shows how it more quickly resamples into a fine, smooth grey, whereas noise in a lower number of photosites is more visible.

People think smaller photosites are worse because they make flawed comparisons, such as viewing 100% pixel size instead of correctly resampling to the same resolution with a sinc algorithm (hint: nearest neighbor is evil), comparing different sensor sizes, or using different processing (two different raw conversion methods). For example, chroma desaturation in high ISO D3 make it appear to have lower read noise than it actually does.

So we can already be sure that EPIC will have less image noise than the RED ONE. The more pixels the better!

As for dynamic range, I will hold out hope for another full stop of measurable dynamic range some day. Watching live view on DSLR heat up to a noisy mess in less than an hour at less than 15 FPS really makes me appreciate how great a feat it is to get such low read noise in the RED ONE.

[Davide B.]

That's very interesting. I've never heard that argument before. So you are saying that given two sensors that are the same size and that process images the same way the one with MORE pixels will have LESS noise?

Everything I've experienced myself and have encountered in the work of others seems to work counter to your argument. You state that the 1DsMarkIII has the lowest noise of any DSLR, but isn't the Nikon D3 the current low noise king? It has half the photosites of the 1DsMarkIII and achieves lower noise with less severe noise reduction. I'm just pointing to one comparison here but there are far more on the net with the same conlcusions: http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/comparison.shtml

In it Michael Reichman reiterates the point that I thought was common knowledge: "The 1D MKIII's sensor at 10MP is closer to the D3's 12MP than the 1Ds MKIII's 21MP, and the pixels of the Nikon are bigger, so theoretically of lower noise. The D3 is also closer in price to the 1D MKIII than to the 1Ds MKIII."

I thought that sensors with larger and fewer photosites were inherently less noisy than ones that are more denseley packed with smaller photosites. Isn't this why 12mp digicams are far noisier than 6mp digicams at high isos? Isn't this why Pentax had to reengineer the way their sensors worked in order to achieve the same level of noise in their 14mp K20d as they had in the 10mp K10d.

edit: I see that you are a reader of the Luminous Landscape so you are probably already familiar with the article I quoted. So I have a different question for you then: does the D300 have lower noise then the D3 then? You claim that people aren't resizing and resampling images properly when doing these tests. So why not try to compare images from cameras with the same number of photosites but in different sized sensors. I know for a fact that the images I get off my 6mp DSLR are far cleaner than those that I get off of my 6mp Canon Powershot. Would you attribute this to the dslr having heavier noise reduction? I always thought it was because the photosites in the dslr were larger and less densley packed therefore generating less heat.

[Daniel Browning]

That's very interesting. I've never heard that argument before.

Thanks, I enjoy sharing useful information.



So you are saying that given two sensors that are the same size and that process images the same way the one with MORE pixels will have LESS noise?


Yes. The greatest density of photosites are the most efficient and the lowest density are the least efficient. By that I mean the signal to noise ratio.

Larger sensors do not have a proportionately less amount of noise than smaller sensors, relative to area, which is light gathering ability. In other words, a sensor that is 23 times larger does not have that much less noise. As size drops, efficiency (per unit of area) goes *up*. More on this below.



Everything I've experienced myself and have encountered in the work of others seems to work counter to your argument. You state that the 1DsMarkIII has the lowest noise of any DSLR, but isn't the Nikon D3 the current low noise king?


The D3 is the per-pixel low-noise king, but the 1Dsm3 is the per-image low-noise king, by a small margin. Only the latter title has any meaning.



It has half the photosites of the 1DsMarkIII and achieves lower noise with less severe noise reduction. I'm just pointing to one comparison here but there are far more on the net with the same conlcusions: http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/comparison.shtml


Your edit is correct, this is the kind of flawed comparison that I was talking about when I said "People think smaller photosites are worse because they make flawed comparisons, such as viewing 100% pixel size instead of correctly resampling to the same resolution with a sinc algorithm".

To illustrate, imagine a 200 MP camera, let's call it ACS (I love Hubble!). If we compared 100% crops from ACS and D3, and the ACS had three times more noise, this flawed comparison would indicate that the D3 is better. Now imagine resizing those 200 megapixels down to just 12. The reduction in noise would be far greater than just a magnitude of 3, and the D3 would appear to be much noisier.

Now change the illustration from ACS to 1Ds3 and 200 megapixels to 21. See how it reduces apparent noise?

The comparison is further flawed by using inequal exposures (1/40 vs. 1/50), not accounting for Nikon's black point clipping (not apparent in their image anyway) or especially their chroma desaturation.



In it Michael Reichman reiterates the point that I thought was common knowledge: "The 1D MKIII's sensor at 10MP is closer to the D3's 12MP than the 1Ds MKIII's 21MP, and the pixels of the Nikon are bigger, so theoretically of lower noise. The D3 is also closer in price to the 1D MKIII than to the 1Ds MKIII."


The D3 is an excellent camera. I think it has as much as a full stop less image noise than the 10 MP 1Dm3, quite an achievement.



I thought that sensors with larger and fewer photosites were inherently less noisy than ones that are more denseley packed with smaller photosites.


Again, true at the pixel level but not when viewing the image as a whole. Another illustration of the 100% comparison flaw: take a beautiful 12 MP image: the 100% crops look great and the 8x10 prints look great. Now resize it to 21 MP. Add just a little noise in photoshop, enough to be visible at 100%, but not enough to be visible in the 8x10 print. Print both at 8x10 and compare: they are identical. But at 100% crops, one looks worse than the other.

In real life, are you going to crop a 4x6 out of your 21 MP image? Or are you going to resize it to 4x6 for printing? (People do all sorts of things online that they wouldn't in real life.)



Isn't this why 12mp digicams are far noisier than 6mp digicams at high isos?


A common misconception. Resize the 12 MP down to 6 MP and it will look better. Especially if the 6 MP is an older model.



Isn't this why Pentax had to reengineer the way their sensors worked in order to achieve the same level of noise in their 14mp K20d as they had in the 10mp K10d.


Right. Engineers are increasing density and efficiency at the same time. The big sensors are still nowhere near the digicam efficiency, but they've been following Moore's Law so far, which means we have a lot to look forward to.



Does the D300 have lower noise then the D3 then?


No.



You claim that people aren't resizing and resampling images properly when doing these tests. So why not try to compare images from cameras with the same number of photosites but in different sized sensors.


Let's compare the Canon G9 with the Canon 5D. Both 12 megapixels. The G9 packs 12 megapixels in 37 square mm. The 5D spreads itself out over a luxurious 864 square mm. That means the 5D has the opportunity to capture 23 times more light (a function of area). But does it? And does it have 23 times less noise? No, because it is far less efficient than the digicam.

Imagine someone took the Canon 5D sensor and wanted to make a 1/1.7" digicam out of it. So they got an exacto knife out and cut the center 37 square mm out of the 5D sensor and put it in a little camera. On that area, the 5D had 0.5 megapixels. But they're *good* pixels. If you look at the 0.5 MP image at 100%, it's clean and nice, whereas the 12 MP G9 image at 100% looks very noisey. Now resize the 12 MP G9 down to 0.5 MP... the 5D crop looks terrible in comparison. If you don't have an exacto knife, you can do the same experiment by cropping the center 0.5 MP in photoshop out of the Canon 5D. Thus proving that sensors can have *more* pixels in the same area to capture more light and less noise.

If they made the 5D with the same pixels as the digicam, it would have 280 megapixels. And by the time you resize that back down to 12 MP to compare with the real-life 5D, it would have a lot less noise. Obviously, they would if they could. But it dispels the fear that more pixels will mean more noise.



I know for a fact that the images I get off my 6mp DSLR are far cleaner than those that I get off of my 6mp Canon Powershot. Would you attribute this to the dslr having heavier noise reduction? I always thought it was because the photosites in the dslr were larger and less densley packed therefore generating less heat.

I have the same experience with my Canon DSLR and digicams. In addition to the comparison flaws I have explained, I think there is another big reason why so many have the misconception about dense pixels: digicams stink. They have small sensors and terrible processing (no raw, or if they have it it's dog slow). Thank goodness RED got it right.

[Steve White]

Daniel Browning - your posts in this thread have been nothing short of wonderful. Thank you for clearing up the misconceptions about noise.

I think the legitimate fear of the smaller photosites has to do with clipping and dynamic range. For a given photosite, you can only bin so many photons before you've filled it. The total number of photons you can represent in your image is your dynamic range for that photosite. This argument is flawed too however, since what really limits you is the combination of how many photons you collect, how many photosites you have, and how many photons each photosite can hold (plus what the signal to noise of each photosite is).

Suppose for example, that you bring in 100 detectable photons with your lens and focus them onto a single photosite, that can hold 50 photons. In this case, you end up with clipping.

On the other hand, suppose you had 100 photons evenly focused into 4 smaller photosites that could collect 25 photons each, occupying the same area as your 50 photosite detector. In this system, you actually collect all 100 photons and have fully capured the image. While the dynamic range of each photosite is lower, the dynamic range of the image is higher.

Now the problem is in how you represent the data. It's easy to make mistakes of course, but if you sampled RAW, you're at a good starting point so that someone with better algorithms can get better results.


I know for a fact that the images I get off my 6mp DSLR are far cleaner than those that I get off of my 6mp Canon Powershot. Would you attribute this to the dslr having heavier noise reduction? I always thought it was because the photosites in the dslr were larger and less densley packed therefore generating less heat.
Keep in mind that the DSLR probably has a significantly larger lens than your digicam. Suppose they had the exact same sensor, but the DSLR had a 72 mm outside diameter lens, and the digicam had a 36 mm outside diameter lens. In this case, the 72 mm lens collects 4x as much light as the 36 mm lens. Thus, the sensor has 4x as much information to produce the image. This is of course, why telescopes have such large lenses - they need to collect a lot of light.

[Bing Bailey]

wasn't this an EPIC thread ?

[Steven Caesare]

Daniel Browning - your posts in this thread have been nothing short of wonderful. Thank you for clearing up the misconceptions about noise.

I think the legitimate fear of the smaller photosites has to do with clipping and dynamic range. For a given photosite, you can only bin so many photons before you've filled it. The total number of photons you can represent in your image is your dynamic range for that photosite. This argument is flawed too however, since what really limits you is the combination of how many photons you collect, how many photosites you have, and how many photons each photosite can hold (plus what the signal to noise of each photosite is).

Suppose for example, that you bring in 100 detectable photons with your lens and focus them onto a single photosite, that can hold 50 photons. In this case, you end up with clipping.

On the other hand, suppose you had 100 photons evenly focused into 4 smaller photosites that could collect 25 photons each, occupying the same area as your 50 photosite detector. In this system, you actually collect all 100 photons and have fully capured the image. While the dynamic range of each photosite is lower, the dynamic range of the image is higher.

Now the problem is in how you represent the data. It's easy to make mistakes of course, but if you sampled RAW, you're at a good starting point so that someone with better algorithms can get better results.


Keep in mind that the DSLR probably has a significantly larger lens than your digicam. Suppose they had the exact same sensor, but the DSLR had a 72 mm outside diameter lens, and the digicam had a 36 mm outside diameter lens. In this case, the 72 mm lens collects 4x as much light as the 36 mm lens. Thus, the sensor has 4x as much information to produce the image. This is of course, why telescopes have such large lenses - they need to collect a lot of light.

But your photon count per area ratio doesn't change. If the smaller photosite can only handle 50 photon, but you can fit twice as many sites in the same physical area, you still can handle detecting all ths photons.

Two five gallon buckets fit in my bath tub. I can pour 10 gallons of water in and hold it all. replace the buckets with ones that can only hold 2.5 gallons each. However, four of these smaller buckets fit in my bathtub. I can still pur 10 gallons of water...

[Zack Birlew]

Epic is going to be awesome, that much is clear. The more interesting question is how is the RED One going to upgrade its sensor and how much will that cost?

Once that gets into the picture, then things will really get interesting. Also, the accessories are obviously going to be different, otherwise, why would you buy the Epic if you can save *possibly* a few thousand by buying a RED One with an upgraded sensor? Perhaps there's something about Epic that hasn't been revealed yet?

Well, enough speculation. I agree, from what I've been reading about the RED One so far, the dynamic range has got to get better. Having 11 stops or whatever at a high ISO isn't very helpful if you can't even see the images through the garbled video gain. Another thing that could change the game is if RED actually does implement or allows for the IMS interchangeable lens system by default. Then the camera would truly be open to independent and pro filmmaker alike, because then you can use any lense with the RED cameras.

Workflow is another big issue. This year's NAB and REDUser party were very eye opening as far as the RED workflow goes. I thought my Mac Pro would have handled everything just fine, well, now I know that I would need a Kona card or equivalent, a production LCD, and a big RAID array in order to do the kinds of things I planned on doing with my RED. Even then, I would need at least a Macbook Pro in the field with me just so I could offload footage, not a big deal but it didn't hit me until then. Also, Scratch would almost be a neccessity. But, granted, you can get around a lot of this by working in 2K or lower resolution. However, I think the biggest problem right now is that there still isn't support for 4K 16:9. Obviously most of this can be solved with software support and bigger storage devices (ie. RED Flash, fast 32gb CF cards, etc.) but that's just the way it is at the moment and a big part of what needs to be overcome to become a true replacement to film.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

honestly.. I think Red One, is the "film killer" that we were all looking for (not literally, but maybe..) I would hate to see people off the bat shy away from using RED ONE because Epic is a bigger badder version. The New sensor will be a must have, wether you stick with red one and opt for the upgrade or go ahead and grab the epic. I believe Epic is designed for HIGH HIGH end work and will be amazing on the effects shots, but RED ONE will still be a work horse for most features, commercials, and tv shows (hopefully)
How much better can things get? i mean I had the HD laser eye surgery and i see 20/13 and yet i thought superbad (shot on genesis) looked good. I havent seen RED stuff Printed to film and projected yet, But i cant wait.

[Steve White]

But your photon count per area ratio doesn't change.
That is not a fact, that is an assumption. If you were designing photosites, you would want to increase this ratio, lower the area, and decrease the noise floor.

[Tom Lowe]

Zakaree, I never thought Red One would be the "nail the in coffin" for film. I have always speculated (openly here and at cinematography.com, etc) that Red's second offering would be the beast to slay chemical film for motion pictures. Epic seems tailored made for this role, if only the DR can be brought closer to film. But as some have pointed out, even high-end DSLRs have not completely matched film's DR, but that did not stop them from putting film still cameras out to pasture. (I realize that some photogs do continue to shoot chemical film stills, but they are few and far between these days.)

Daniel Browning, thanks for your posts. I think I actually learned something here today! What you seem to be saying is that a Canon 350D (which I shoot on) will have less visible noise than a 450D, when viewed pixel for pixel, but once you downsample the 450D's image to 8MP, it will appear cleaner than the 350D. So, for example, if your end goal was a 1920x1080 pixel frame, the 450D downsampled to 1920x1080 would show less noise than the 350D downsampled to 1920x1080.

[Daniel Browning]

Daniel Browning, thanks for your posts. I think I actually learned something here today! What you seem to be saying is that a Canon 350D (which I shoot on) will have less visible noise than a 450D, when viewed pixel for pixel, but once you downsample the 450D's image to 8MP, it will appear cleaner than the 350D. So, for example, if your end goal was a 1920x1080 pixel frame, the 450D downsampled to 1920x1080 would show less noise than the 350D downsampled to 1920x1080.

You're welcome. Yes, that's what I'm saying. The 450D is no slouch when it comes to per-pixel noise, either, but I think the 350D still beats it by a small margin. (I haven't got a 450D yet, I'm waiting for the 1000D ;-).)

Your remark about downsampling to 1920x1080 highlights an important difference between stills and digital cinema. With still photography, you can choose between getting less noise by printing smaller (8x10), or getting more resolution by printing larger (30x20).

That choice doesn't exist in cinema. When I first saw a top-notch 2K digital projection, the difference from film projection was so striking that I vowed to never go back to a regular 35mm theater again. Unfortunately, 2K digital projection is rare and 4K is rarer still. Sure, filmouts are ubiquitous, and the whitepapers cite nearly 1.4K, but my eyes tell me the comparison is even more disparate. Anyway, 1080p, 720, DVD9, and web distribution will all benefit from the resize. Remember the ISO 12,000 stills that Jim posted?

By the way, Tom, I really enjoyed your Joshua Tree astrophoto timelapse. Last time I was there I had telescopes but no cameras. Next weekend I'm shooting some star-and-landscape timelapse in the Oregon desert with a 5D, 20D, 350D, and the 24mm f/1.4.

[Dj Joofa]

Daniel, in general there is a trade off between resolution and dynamic range. However, it is not always clear how to achieve the most optimal trade off.



Again, true at the pixel level but not when viewing the image as a whole. Another illustration of the 100% comparison flaw: take a beautiful 12 MP image: the 100% crops look great and the 8x10 prints look great. Now resize it to 21 MP. Add just a little noise in photoshop, enough to be visible at 100%, but not enough to be visible in the 8x10 print. Print both at 8x10 and compare: they are identical. But at 100% crops, one looks worse than the other.


I don't think the above example is a good reflection of what you want to say. Consider this. You started with a 12 MP image, which had some spectrum, and you upsampled it to 21 MP. Now the upsampled image has a compressed spectrum in relation to the original 12 MP image, in addition to the replicas of the compressed spectrum. (The replicas don't concern us too much as you would going to get rid of them when you later downsize.)

Now you added noise to the 21 MP image. Typically noise will manifest itself as high frequencies and probably will do damage in the areas after (or starting nearby) the first compressed spectrum finishes. So at 1-1 at this stage you of course see that noise. Now you downsized. The downsizing will remove the noise you added, and stretch the compressed spectrum to more or less the same size back as you started.

You see the problem, you got back to where you started from. I don't think this is a good example. A real example would be when you start from a high-resolution image with noise, as in this case the noise spectrum is overlapping the signal spectrum, because the signal spectrum now is unmodified and not compressed in relation to some other image. Now you downsized. The downsizing will remove high frequencies and stretch the spectrum.

However, the difference here is that unlike the first case where the removed high-frequencies were mostly noise, in this case it is noise + some actual signal spectrum. Therefore, the image becomes a little blurred / smoothed, and that is the price you pay for downsizing.

Now that is a separate question that is the blurred downsized image still better in visual quality than a (smaller) sized image of the same size as the downsized image, i.e., acquired with a sensor with fewer number of photosites?

[Phil Bates]

If there was no Phantom, film's last hold out for me would be frame rate. When I shoot on film, I rent a 435 with the capability to shoot 160fps. I am hoping Epic can do better than that at 2K.

Phil
www.artbeats.com

[Tom Lowe]

By the way, Tom, I really enjoyed your Joshua Tree astrophoto timelapse. Last time I was there I had telescopes but no cameras. Next weekend I'm shooting some star-and-landscape timelapse in the Oregon desert with a 5D, 20D, 350D, and the 24mm f/1.4.

very cool. my mom lives up in the Salem area, so I was going to check out the deserts there late this summer. do me a favor and post the results from that shoot here or over at the timescapes forum (see my signature) if you get a chance. i'll be curious to see how your shots turn out. good luck!

[Dan Hudgins]

It seems to me that Epic is the perfect storm to finally put chemical film out to pasture, in much the same way that high-end DSLRs did over the last few years for stills. It will shoot a "real" 4K, RAW, s35mm, cine glass, overcranking onboard, solid-state or harddrive recording, etc.

The ONE THING Epic needs to do in order to fulfill it's destiny, though, is match (or come close to) chemical film's dynamic range. Aside from nostalgia, DR is really the last leg film is standing on right now, IMO.

Similar to Clinton '92's precept "It's the economy, stupid," the Epic team should have a poster on the wall reading, "It's the dynamic range, stupid." :weight_lift:

With a sensor upgrade next year, I think Red One will do the same.


If you put two sensors in and a 45 degree Pellicle mirror you can overlap the curves and get more than 20 stop range to the tones, in other words more than the lens can take even with good coating. You could make a cemented lens that might make 18 stops for the camera. The image would look flat though on the screen since that dynamic range would need to be put in what can be projected.

I went through this with my brother using special films to get detail in the shadow under a car and in the reflections of the sun on its chrome at the same time, after all the work to get that he said it looked too flat and he wanted more contrast! Be careful what you ask for!

You can see what this would look like, make two shots with your RED ONE (tm) one +8 stops and one -8 stops, then use my fuse command to mix the two images together. To get better results the top end should be rolled off before you mix the images so there is not a hard clip, and the shadow should be rolled off so the blocking does not get mixed in, i.e. two S curves before mixing the frames.

There is no reason that they cannot make the Epic have a 18 stop or better range with two sensors since the streaking issue for the hot low end sensor seems under control and they know how to make a IR free ND filter for the high end sensor.

If they use 6 mono sensors they can make a camera with better color and more range than film, that WOULD end the issue once and for all time(?)

[Daniel Browning]

Daniel, in general there is a trade off between resolution and dynamic range. However, it is not always clear how to achieve the most optimal trade off.


I think the trade off is pretty clear. Image noise, for a constant size image, has decreased far more in recent years due to higher numbers of efficient pixels, than it has for reducing noise at the pixel level. You can see it by looking at any given sensor size and comparing performance at the pixel and image level. Both have improved, but the latter has improved faster and has more proven future potential (on 1/1.7" now, and hopefully in larger sensors in the future).



I don't think the above example is a good reflection of what you want to say. [...] You see the problem, you got back to where you started from. [...] However, the difference here is that unlike the first case where the removed high-frequencies were mostly noise, in this case it is noise + some actual signal spectrum. Therefore, the image becomes a little blurred / smoothed, and that is the price you pay for downsizing.


You're quite right. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.



Now that is a separate question that is the blurred downsized image still better in visual quality than a (smaller) sized image of the same size as the downsized image, i.e., acquired with a sensor with fewer number of photosites?

The downsize also has the benefit of removing the softening effect of the OLPF (to the degree that it is resized by the amount of the optical filtration), whereas the native image does not.

There are, of course, a great variety of downsizing and sharpening algorithms and their varied effect on subject matter, depending on the sizes and ratios involved and individual taste. And, as always, YMMV; the FZ50, for example, bungled the analog ISO so that 200 pushed three stops has far less noise than the analog 1600.

There are a lot of same-sized sensors out there, so it's easy to make your own comparison. To me, the downsized photos have clearly better detail and noise characteristics.

[Dj Joofa]

I think the trade off is pretty clear. Image noise, for a constant size image, has decreased far more in recent years due to higher numbers of efficient pixels, than it has for reducing noise at the pixel level.

Daniel, it is a simple matter if you are doing things manually as many software provide fixed length filters with fixed co-efficients with a few selectable options, and even then they are not optimal.

An automated software that is always "optimal" without manual supervision is a whole different beast. Before we go forward we need an understanding of what is the definition of being "optimal?" And, for that we are going to dig on the surface of some estimation theory here.

Whenever there is a mentioning of the word "optimal", it should all always come with the question but in what sense? And, typically answer boils down to a certain metric (objective function).

Suppose you are downsizing. So you are given a filter and at each location you convolve it with certain neighboring pixel values. Convolution basically means that you multiply filter coefficients with pixel values and sum them up. Now this step can be seen as linear prediction in the classical estimation theory consideration:

Given n samples (pixels), to go with a filter with n number of co-efficients, with what is the best estimate of a quantity (your current pixel value) at hand. Least squares is a widely used metric in signal processing. Now under certain assumptions (which are very realistic) the arithmetic mean is the least square estimator for a number of samples. Hence, an optimal estimator in a widely used sense.

However, we know that a filter that downsamples by averaging has poor visual response. Why did that discrepancy happen? Because, this particular estimator did not employ the photometric visual response.

If you are going to estimate a quantity from n samples with a linear combination such as c_i * x_i, where, c_i are co-efficients, and x_i are samples, and i are index, then based upon the values of c_i you can realize many different types of filters.

All c_i = 1/n gives a mean filter, just seen above. You can even have a (truncated) sinc filter, lanczos, etc. However, we just saw that in the least squares sense mean is the best one. Even better than lanczos?

Interestingly, though least square sense gave you a sense of the nature of the estimator, it did not say that th co-efficients c_i are the "best" ones. It just minimized the objective function in terms of "error". If you have some a priori notion about the probability distribution of c_i's then you can even use a Bayesian estimator, for a quadratic loss function for finding a set of c_i's that are closer to their "actual unknown values."

Now to make matters more complicated, if we assume stochastic behavior, then the beast starts getting unmanageable, as a whole new set of filters pop up, Wiener filter, Kalman filter, etc.

None of them is particularly optimized for visual response. On the other hand those filters that work visually may not be the most optimal under certain sense.

The problem then boils down to incorporating photometric visual weights into objective functions. Now a whole, separate area has sprung up, as we are not always clear that what is the best way that such visual weights can be incorporated into a purely number crunching statistical metric.

I shall leave it at there as it is already giving me nasty aftertastes.

[Daniel Browning]

Now to make matters more complicated...

That whooshing sound was your post going over my head. :)

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

What about randomized pixels?

That's another characteristic of film that I don't see in digital.

Is there some good software solution to achieve the random-pixels effect of film?

[Steven Caesare]

That is not a fact, that is an assumption. If you were designing photosites, you would want to increase this ratio, lower the area, and decrease the noise floor.

Isn't the light intensity (i.e. photon count per unit of surface area) determined by how much light your lens gathers and focuses on a given area?

So if you maintain the same sensor size (i.e. surface area), and use the same lenses, then how can the sensor's photosite size/count change that intensity?

[Steve White]

So if you maintain the same sensor size (i.e. surface area), and use the same lenses, then how can the sensor's photosite size/count change that intensity?
The photosites can't change the intensity, they measure it. Every photosite you have can measure the intensity over some absolute range, with some uncertainty. For example, you could have a photosite that can generate a signal from 0 to 1 Volt. This is your dynamic range. This signal is sampled by a Analog to Digital converter with some bit-depth - say 4096 values (12-bit). These 4096 divisions are your precision.

Even if no desired photons struck the photo-site, you would still get a signal, say 100 +/- 50 mV. In this case, the 100 mV is called the noise floor, a signal value below this is not terribly useful, since you have difficulty telling if it's signal or not... so you would probably try and crush the noise to black. To do this, you would probably need to sluff off 150 mV or so, leaving you with 850 mV of useful information. You still have the +/- 50 mV noise in the rest of the image though.

In order to improve the dynamic range of a photosite, you want to do several things.
First off, 0 to 1 Volts is your total dynamic range. If a single photon generated 1 mV, then you could collect 1,000 photons. If it generated 1 μV, you could collect 1,000,000 photons. Alternatively, you could invert the math, and sample 1000 V. You can guess which approach uses less power. Therefore, if possible, you want to decrease the sensitivity/gain. Low sensitivity sounds bad, but it isn't if you also have low noise and high precision.

Next up, you want to decrease the +/- 50 mV uncertainty. By reducing your noise variance, you effectively lower the noise floor. If you brought the uncertainty down to +/- 10 mV, you would how have 890 mV of useful information. This has the added benefit of reducing your image noise too.

Finally you want to decrease the noise floor. If you got it down to +/- 20 mV, you would now have about 970 mV of useful information.

Once you optimize your sensor to a noise floor and uncertainty on the order of 1/4096 of your total dynamic range, you increase the bit-depth of your D/A and start over.

This analysis assumes that the signal you get off your photosite is linearly proportional to number of "photons". I'm pretty sure CMOS and CCDs are linearly proportional to some measure of intensity per unit area. These assumptions don't really work for film due to the way grains collect light.

[Steven Caesare]

Right. They can only measure.

Hence the example of concern of a smaller site being "overloaded" by 100 photons is offset by the fact that the site is smaller, and fewer photons fall on it.

[Steve White]

Yeah. So when a photosite gets smaller, the total charge it can hold is also reduced, decreasing the dynamic range of the individual site. However, the decreased area also decreases the intensity, so this shouldn't be too much of a problem.

The other thing to keep in mind, especially with regards to CMOS sensors, is that there are a number of transistors on each photo-site, which decrease the fill factor (photosensitive area)/(total photosite area).

Moore's law has largely been successful due to the shrinking of transistor sizes. Just because you shrink a photo-site doesn't mean you actually shrunk the photosensitive area. In fact, if your transistor sizes shrunk significantly, it may be possible to actually decrease the total photosite area, but increase the photosensitive area.

Not only would the chip have a higher fill factor, but it could also have higher dynamic range per photosite.

[Brook Willard]

Graeme... save us...

[Steven Caesare]

Yeah. So when a photosite gets smaller, the total charge it can hold is also reduced, decreasing the dynamic range of the individual site. However, the decreased area also decreases the intensity, so this shouldn't be too much of a problem.

The other thing to keep in mind, especially with regards to CMOS sensors, is that there are a number of transistors on each photo-site, which decrease the fill factor (photosensitive area)/(total photosite area).

Moore's law has largely been successful due to the shrinking of transistor sizes. Just because you shrink a photo-site doesn't mean you actually shrunk the photosensitive area. In fact, if your transistor sizes shrunk significantly, it may be possible to actually decrease the total photosite area, but increase the photosensitive area.

Not only would the chip have a higher fill factor, but it could also have higher dynamic range per photosite.

Ok, I've contributed enough to the delinquency of this thread.

[Steve White]

Apparently I'm embarrassing myself? Never mind then.

[mezmo]

It seems to me that Epic is the perfect storm to finally put chemical film out to pasture, in much the same way that high-end DSLRs did over the last few years for stills. It will shoot a "real" 4K, RAW, s35mm, cine glass, overcranking onboard, solid-state or harddrive recording, etc.

The ONE THING Epic needs to do in order to fulfill it's destiny, though, is match (or come close to) chemical film's dynamic range. Aside from nostalgia, DR is really the last leg film is standing on right now, IMO.

Similar to Clinton '92's precept "It's the economy, stupid," the Epic team should have a poster on the wall reading, "It's the dynamic range, stupid." :weight_lift:

With a sensor upgrade next year, I think Red One will do the same.

Hi Tom,
It's important to remember that EPIC like RED will be Digital camera,
not a Film camera, it will have an EPIC look, not a film look.
Film is Film and Digital is Digtal. EPIC will never achieve a Film look
because it does not have Film running thru it.
People who want to shoot Film will not use EPIC they will use film for
that film look. For many reasons, not just DR.
I don't know why Digital has to replace film? Would the only reason be
that YOU happen to own a Digital Camera called RED?
I shoot Stills on Film and Stills on Digital and I shoot Films on Film
and Films on Digital. And heaven forbit, on odd occasions I mix and match. So please don't inform the Digital Police, cause I'm sure your a member.
Mezmo

[Harry Clark]

I thought Red One was the Ultimate Film Slayer?
Oh well...
Cheers,
Harry

[Christoffer Glans]

I thought Red One was the Ultimate Film Slayer?

The characteristics of film will be a feature people will want even after digital cinema surpass it's dynamic range and quality.
Why do some keep shooting with 16mm or even 8mm? Because of it's unique quality, even if it's technicaly worse then most digital cinema cameras.

People need to realize that there is a difference between reaching the same quality of 35mm film and slay it's format. 35mm will not die for at least another 20 years, even if digital cameras gets better and better.
It will not die with a bang but with a whimper... when the labs stop making 35mm stock.

[Tom Lowe]

And heaven forbit, on odd occasions I mix and match. So please don't inform the Digital Police, cause I'm sure your a member.
Mezmo

Lol, yes, I have my badge, pepper spray and official arm band. :)

[Brook Willard]

Alright, Epic would be the """ultimate film slayer""" if...

It has a usable dynamic range in excess of 15 stops.
It has a 4:3 sensor.
It has a true metered rating of 500 ASA.
It resolves a true 4K from the 5K RAW file [which I expect it to].
It is capable of 180fps onboard using the full sensor [though 100fps is nothing to sneeze at... I'm excited].
It is designed to ergonomically match or exceed the Arri 235.

I'm sure there are others that I'm forgetting about. The thing is, this is the reality. Until a digital camera can claim all of these features, there will always be distinct measurable advantages to shooting film. There will also be disadvantages. Even when a digital camera gets to this level, most productions will continue to shoot film.

There is no critical threshold that a camera's features/abilities can pass that will suddenly cause everybody to abandon film for it.

Ultimately, even if the Epic doesn't have these features [and I'll admit that some of them are downright ridiculous requests to make in 2008], it will not "fail". It will succeed in ways beyond that of the RED ONE. It'll be another great new tool that will do great new things. And when RED introduces the 6K 8 months after the Epic ships, we'll all be arguing about whether or not that camera will finally put film to bed.

Film will outlive everybody on these boards. It doesn't matter what "everybody" shoots, it doesn't matter what Storaro or Soderbergh shoot, it matters what you and/or your clients shoot.

[mezmo]

Hi Brook,
Even if Digital puts Film to bed, people like me
will wake it up again when we want to shoot film. It's a matter of choice and I alone make that descision on films I shoot and produce. As do 90%
of DP's working in the industry today. If they don't, they are not DP's IMHO.

A lot of film bashing comments on this forum do the RED camera system a huge damage when Pro DP's visit here for info and tech comments on RED ONE and new products in the pipeline like EPIC

There is a negative attitude towards the established film community on this
forum and it's obvious to these guys as they visit reduser. net.
Most I know log off as fast as they log on, or just don't bother with the site
after reading some of the many sub standard threads posted here.

RED's fast getting a reputation as the 'camera for kids' or the 'camera for
wankers' as fanboys spew out the usual 'film is dead', or other assorted film
slayer comments on a regular basis.
The small handfull of well known DP's with the courage to post here is evidence of this. And that's a pity as many here could benefit if more people from the established community were to contribute
with serious technicial discusssion and suggestions on things like design
and building of a new higher spec RED camera system like EPIC.

I was hoping we could get away from some of the digital vs film discussion
for a moment at least on EPIC threads.
Alas, I'm here again making the same old points, over and over.
I'm tired of all this and hey, it's time to put me to bed.
Nighty nite. Mezmo

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, the sad truth is that ultimately, the economics of film are more likely to see its demise than its picture quality, which are unique and lovely. Right now, the main technical advantage that film has over digital is dynamic range -- and the fact that it is an "analog" imaging system, which has certain advantages and disadvantages in post workflows.

Now that I'm shooting a RED feature, I'm realizing that the whole RAW workflow is different that either film or videotape, and while it allows greater image quality than any HD videotape system (I think), the processing time for full 4K debayering means that most of the time in post until the final finishing (I'm talking about feature work where you may shoot twenty or forty hours of material for a 2-hour movie) everyone is working with lower-rez quicker debayered conversions which do not show off the ultimate quality. Now maybe that's similar to shooting in 35mm where you see DVD dailies until six months later when you do the final D.I. or neg cut, but I find that telecine transfers of 35mm, though expensive (especially if done to HD), still look better than some of the quick and dirty lower-rez conversions I'm seeing from RED RAW files. So I'm sort of trusting that since the image looks great on the set on an HD monitor (despite being a somewhat noisy & quick 720P debayered signal), and look great in the still frames I pull up from the RAW recordings, that they will look great when I do the final work in post. Sort of like when shooting features in 35mm...

Having just finished one 35mm feature before beginning this RED feature, all I can say is that both seem to produce lovely images but I certainly want to be able to shoot 35mm for a long time...

[Tom Lowe]

David how does that workflow... work? Can't you basically archive the files, then give dupes to some kid at a PC or MAC and tell him, "Process these files at 1080p with roughly these color settings..."

Are you finishing 4K for filmout? or 2K?

[Häakon]

Why do some keep shooting with 16mm or even 8mm? Because of it's unique quality, even if it's technicaly worse then most digital cinema cameras.
People still listen to vinyl records, too, and whether or not you wish to call that a "dead" format, it is far from the mainstream. So, then, when people say that film is going to "die," I think that what they mean is that the majority of people won't be shooting on it - in their independent work or on large-budget feature shows. Film probably won't truly be "dead" (as in, one won't have the ability to shoot on it at ALL) for decades, but I don't think that's what most people mean when they say things like digital technologies are in the process of killing film. Perhaps a better way to look at it would be to say that digital capture will unquestionably become the standard in our lifetime - whether or not you believe that means that film is "dead."


Alright, Epic would be the """ultimate film slayer""" if...

It has a 4:3 sensor.
If you're shooting with anamorphic lenses, yes. But the majority of productions are not shot that way, and any sensor ratio different than your shooting ratio means that you are throwing away resolution for no reason. Obviously people shoot in different resolutions so there is no one chip size which would be perfect for all - but a chip with a 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 ratio would better serve the community at large than a 4:3 one.


So I'm sort of trusting that since the image looks great on the set on an HD monitor (despite being a somewhat noisy & quick 720P debayered signal), and look great in the still frames I pull up from the RAW recordings, that they will look great when I do the final work in post. Sort of like when shooting features in 35mm...
I think it's just a workflow difference you have to get used to. I rather like it, because if you can get things looking great on those proxies, you realize they look nothing short of stellar when you relink them to their 4K counterparts. :-)

[David Mullen ASC]

The other solution would be to have 16x9 sensors and make high-quality 1.34X anamorphic lenses for 2.40 without cropping. They could also be used on 3-perf movies.

I think the quality would be higher than 2X anamorphic and yet retain some of the optical characteristics of anamorphic, if front anamorphic elements are used, not rear-adaptors.

But I have a hard time convincing most companies of the need for 1.34X anamorphic lenses.

[mezmo]

Now ya talkin David,
3 Perf Anamorphic or Digital Anamophic @ 2.40, I'm in.
Maybe some Russian glassmakers would be interested?
Mezmo

[Häakon]

But I have a hard time convincing most companies of the need for 1.34X anamorphic lenses.
It's not a bad idea, but then you have to take a step back and ask yourself why you'd make the choice to shoot anamorphically in the first place. With the resolution of these cameras getting higher and higher each year, the original purpose behind shooting with such lenses (retaining maximum quality from the fixed size of the film negative) is rendered next to irrelevant. Indeed, the only reason to shoot anamorphically with digital technologies from this point forward is because of the resulting aesthetic that some find pleasing (elongated bokeh, distinctive flaring).

With that in mind, if you're using lenses which only distort the image by 1.34x instead of 2.0x, such effects are minimized (and thus, you defeat the purpose of shooting this way). So while I certainly agree that these kinds of lenses would help you squeeze every bit of resolution from your chip if your desired aspect ratio is "wider" than the native aspect of the sensor itself, I would argue that the resolution difference is not enough to warrant such a use, that you lose the ability to crop/reframe your image with such a strategy, and the more severe effects of shooting with traditional 2.0x anamorphic lenses are minimized, which is the reason you'd make such a choice in the first place. I think these are reasons why there would be little demand for such lenses.

[Emanuel A.]

Are you finishing 4K for filmout? or 2K?Good question with no answer though.

[Mark K.]

Having just got back from a Cinematographers Conference one thing seems very clear to me: Film is FAR from being dead.

Video tape on the other hand...

[Philip Powell]

Alright, Epic would be the """ultimate film slayer""" if...

It has a usable dynamic range in excess of 15 stops.
It has a 4:3 sensor.
It has a true metered rating of 500 ASA.
It resolves a true 4K from the 5K RAW file [which I expect it to].
It is capable of 180fps onboard using the full sensor [though 100fps is nothing to sneeze at... I'm excited].
It is designed to ergonomically match or exceed the Arri 235.



I would also add that the sensor should be balanced for 32K. That would make it "play nice" with more of the interior lit world.

[mezmo]

It's not a bad idea, but then you have to take a step back and ask yourself why you'd make the choice to shoot anamorphically in the first place. With the resolution of these cameras getting higher and higher each year, the original purpose behind shooting with such lenses (retaining maximum quality from the fixed size of the film negative) is rendered next to irrelevant. Indeed, the only reason to shoot anamorphically with digital technologies from this point forward is because of the resulting aesthetic that some find pleasing (elongated bokeh, distinctive flaring).

With that in mind, if you're using lenses which only distort the image by 1.34x instead of 2.0x, such effects are minimized (and thus, you defeat the purpose of shooting this way). So while I certainly agree that these kinds of lenses would help you squeeze every bit of resolution from your chip if your desired aspect ratio is "wider" than the native aspect of the sensor itself, I would argue that the resolution difference is not enough to warrant such a use, that you lose the ability to crop/reframe your image with such a strategy, and the more severe effects of shooting with traditional 2.0x anamorphic lenses are minimized, which is the reason you'd make such a choice in the first place. I think these are reasons why there would be little demand for such lenses.

Hi Haakon,
Shooting 3 perf Anamorphic is very attractive in my view with a camera
like the Aaton Penolope, this camera will also have a 'slap on' 6K Digital
back slated for production next year. Shoot Film or Digital, the choice is yours, just change the Mag. (optical viewfinder included)
Also high quality wide screen acquisition is of great interest to
many people using Film or Digital and well worth looking into.
The main reason for shooting Anamorphic is more to do with image quality
and less to do with bokeh and vertical flaring.
The use of ALL Film and Digital's celluloid or sensor real estate without cropping is the order of the day here. In fact a 1.34x Anamorphic bottle could produce less bokeh/flaring
and max quality on 3 perf(film) or RED 2.40/16x9 sensor without the use of 4 perf (film)
or a D20/Dalsa full height sensor.
Cheers Mezmo

[Häakon]

The main reason for shooting Anamorphic is more to do with image quality and less to do with bokeh and vertical flaring.

The use of ALL Film and Digital's celluloid or sensor real estate without cropping is the order of the day here.
Hi Mezmo,

Without question, using all of a sensor's real estate without cropping yields the most resolution - no disagreement there. But, say for example, you are aiming for a 2.40:1 release - you are best served shooting on a camera with a 2.40:1 shaped sensor (for maximum resolution). Making a 4:3 sensor of the same height and then squishing the image into it with anamorphic lenses won't net you more resolution - it nets you less. What you're really talking about is a sensor which has a narrower aspect ratio than the finishing ratio you are shooting for. It is only in this case where anamorphic lenses will net you more resolution.

What all this means is that the problem here is merely the ratio of the sensor itself; ie, if the aspect of the sensor is not wide enough for your project, then you will gain more resolution by shooting anamorphically than by letterboxxing the image in post. The solution, then, is not anamorphic lenses - it's a wider sensor. The catch of course is that not every project wants to shoot with the same aspect, so inevitably something has to give to make the best "all-around" sensor size to meet the most needs. I believe a 1.85:1 shaped sensor (this is very close to 16:9) is probably the best choice - and fortunately, it's essentially what we've got!

I also maintain that as cameras get higher and higher in resolution, the need for squeezing every little bit out of the sensor becomes less and less important; you already have all the resolution you need. More advantageous is the option to reframe in post if desired. Let's not forget: 5K is right around the corner... I am sure 6 7 8K will be here before we know it. The real change will actually be when we move away from the s35mm format and start producing sensors which are larger in size. (Think "medium format" as it relates to the still world). This will probably require a whole new set of lenses and infrastructure to be developed (which is why many will resist such a move), but clearly it's the way to break the quality barrier. Just because we've done things one way for a hundred years doesn't mean we can't ever move beyond it (and I'm confident we will). Note that you're already having to use a completely different set of lenses to shoot anamorphically as it is - so you've already made this adjustment!

So, yes, I believe the only reason that users will want to shoot anamorphically with all the resolution we have these days is because it provides a different look. And as an artist, I see nothing wrong with that!

[mezmo]

Hi Haakon,
I suppose what David was talking about above was getting the most out of
the 16X9 and 4X3 sensors available to us at the moment. The D20/1 with it's 4X3 sensor in Data mode will shoot Anamorphic in 3K now using pretty
much all sensor real estate as I understand it. For RED with it's 16X9
style sensor, Anamorphics would be preferable to cropping a 2.40:1 aspect
ratio from a 16x9 frame. Hence the interest.
My own view is (and this is a personal preference) that a well shot 4 perf
Anamorphic film is a joy forever as a theatre going experience. Yes it's expensive but it's still the reason an audience will go to the movies rather
than wait for the DVD in many situations. It can put bums on seats by word of mouth.

In Digital land we are missing out here, this side of the business is under developed with the lack of a high quality 2.40:1 DIGITAL IMAGING DEVICE. that can match the look of
4 perf Anamorphic film. Most Digital stuff I see looks soft when it's stretched out to 2.40:1 from the current crop of D cameras. Maybe RED can do somthing here with EPIC and some tricky SUPER WIDE sensor design.

I might point out the the Aaton Penelope will be able to shoot a real 2.40:1
Aspect Ratio in 2 perf film mode. I've done some 2 perf tests with converted Arri's and the results are stunning, used some of the newer Kodak filmstocks and a few DI tricks.

Love to see something similar or better happen in Digital Land, if it turns out to be lens design or sensor design, only time will tell. So Lets just keep all our options open.
Cheers Mezmo

[David Mullen ASC]

But there really isn't a difference between cropping to get 2.40 and using a shorter film gate like 2-perf to get it, it would be like RED making a shorter sensor that was naturally 2.40, compared to cropping a taller recording to get it.

With anamorphic lenses, you have other optical characteristics that are unique. back in the 1950's, we had 1.5X anamorphic for Technirama and 1.25X anamorphics for Ultra Panavision, so why not 1.34X anamorphics for today's world of 3-perf film Super-16 cameras and digital cameras with 16x9 sensors?

I think you'd get plenty of anamorphic bokeh (you can see artifacts in those old Technirama and Ultra Panavision movies).

[Finner]

...back in the 1950's, we had 1.5X anamorphic for Technirama and 1.25X anamorphics for Ultra Panavision,

What did you shoot in the 1950's with that gear David?

[Häakon]

Hi Haakon,
I suppose what David was talking about above was getting the most out of
the 16X9 and 4X3 sensors available to us at the moment.
In that case, yeah, you'd need 1.34X anamorphic lenses to get the most bang for your resolution buck out of the RED ONE sensor (assuming you're shooting for a 2.4:1 ratio). I was looking at it more toward future cameras - specifically the Epic (which this topic/forum is about) :-) - which some have suggested have a 4:3 sensor from the get go. And I personally think that approach is an very inefficient way to get the most resolution possible out of your camera.


For RED with it's 16X9 style sensor, Anamorphics would be preferable to cropping a 2.40:1 aspect ratio from a 16x9 frame. Hence the interest.
Essentially that's the same thing as above, but yes I agree. :-)


My own view is (and this is a personal preference) that a well shot 4 perf Anamorphic film is a joy forever as a theatre going experience. Yes it's expensive but it's still the reason an audience will go to the movies rather than wait for the DVD in many situations.
Because a movie is shot anamorphically, that's the reason an audience will go see it in a theater? I would love for you to expand on this, because other than very particular filmmakers, I would reckon that most people don't even know what 4 perf anamorphic is/means, letalone that they're aware of any quality differences that may exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there isn't a difference - just that I don't think this is the reason people are still going to the theaters to see films. If anything, I think it's simply because a 50ft. screen is larger than a 50" plasma.


In Digital land we are missing out here, this side of the business is under developed with the lack of a high quality 2.40:1 DIGITAL IMAGING DEVICE. that can match the look of 4 perf Anamorphic film. Most Digital stuff I see looks soft when it's stretched out to 2.40:1...
It sounds like what you feel is "missing," however, is a perceived amount of resolution - correct? That the quality you don't feel you can attain with the current crop of digital offerings (compared to 4-perf anamorphic) is an inherent sharpness? Again, all that means is that the camera manufacturers need to keep investing in sensor research to develop larger area and higher density sensors... but that has nothing to do with shooting anamorphically. Perhaps a 6K or 8K camera will be what it takes for you to feel that the resolution is finally "there" or "on par" with film. But I believe that technology is inevitable. Two years ago, the best we had was 2K. Now we have 4K in the RED ONE, and in a year, 5K with Epic. Do you think it will stop there? :-P


But there really isn't a difference between cropping to get 2.40 and using a shorter film gate like 2-perf to get it, it would be like RED making a shorter sensor that was naturally 2.40, compared to cropping a taller recording to get it.
Absolutely correct. That's precisely why the point is we need a WIDER sensor (of the same height). This will resolve more than a 4:3 crop of that sensor with anamorphic lenses at that same height, but doesn't require a specialized set of lenses or unstretching work in post for commercial distribution.


With anamorphic lenses, you have other optical characteristics that are unique. back in the 1950's, we had 1.5X anamorphic for Technirama and 1.25X anamorphics for Ultra Panavision, so why not 1.34X anamorphics for today's world of 3-perf film Super-16 cameras and digital cameras with 16x9 sensors?
No reason really, other than I just don't think there's a point. Sure, one could make a specialized set of lenses to squeeze a little more resolution out of the chip, but then why not just buy the Epic which has more resolution to begin with and be done with it? If the problem is getting more resolution from the chip, then it seems to me the easiest solution is to shoot with a chip of higher resolution. :-) The most obvious reason for this is that your spherical lenses will work for everything and you don't need two sets.

The reason those different kinds of anamorphic lenses existed in the first place was because film had a set physical frame size (and "resolution") that you had to work with. In order to be compatible with each camera body, 35mm film has to have specific dimensions and be consistent from camera to camera. Since that wasn't changable, people came up with creative ways to get the most out of that film negative so they weren't wasting "resolution" by cropping. Anamorphic lenses weren't created because someone wanted to see strange distorted bokeh and funky lens flares. :-) All of that was merely a side effect of shooting with the non-standard lenses, which some artists still see as a nice aesthetic tool for telling their stories. But the point is, as far as resolution is concerned, there isn't a reason to shoot that way anymore. Make a wider sensor and shoot it natively (unstretched), and you will get the most resolution from it possible.

Increasing the size of the sensor will probably mean new sets of lenses are required to cover the larger area of that bigger sensor, but this is nothing new - medium and large format cameras in the still world are working examples of this. You're also talking about using a totally different set of expensive lenses just to shoot anamorphically - why not instead use a totally different set of expensive lenses to shoot better spherical pictures to begin with?

I realize that this industry is deeply rooted in their ways and seems remarkably resistant to change, but great technological leaps are going to take some change to happen... that's just the reality of it. Cramming more and more pixels into a sensor won't ever match the quality of equivalent pixel density on a larger sensor. The future will be larger physical sensors with extremely high native resolution, not the same smaller sensors we have today with anamorphic lenses trying to squeeze out every last pixel we possibly can.

Unless, of course, the goal *is* strange distorted bokeh and funky lens flares. :-)

Just my .02.

[mezmo]

But there really isn't a difference between cropping to get 2.40 and using a shorter film gate like 2-perf to get it, it would be like RED making a shorter sensor that was naturally 2.40, compared to cropping a taller recording to get it.

With anamorphic lenses, you have other optical characteristics that are unique. back in the 1950's, we had 1.5X anamorphic for Technirama and 1.25X anamorphics for Ultra Panavision, so why not 1.34X anamorphics for today's world of 3-perf film Super-16 cameras and digital cameras with 16x9 sensors?

I think you'd get plenty of anamorphic bokeh (you can see artifacts in those old Technirama and Ultra Panavision movies).

Hi David,
I meant in my post that I'd love to see a purpose built Digital 2.40:1 option,
whatever the sensor size or the optics envolved, similar to the 2 perf film option. and yes 1.34X Anamophics on a RED ONE would be a good place to
start.
Mezmo

[mezmo]

Hi Haakon,
There are thousands of films shot using Anamorphic glass that people have
flocked to a cinema to see. They have no idea how the film was shot but
"the photography was amazing" is the usual comment. High quality
cinematography has a HUGE effect on how an audience percieve a story and a film. I"ve noticed when test screening an ungraded film to a test
audience well over 50% will pick up on the fact that the film is unfinished
and is a bit "rough around the edges".
People know good quality cinematography when they see it and they don't have to know the technicial detail behind it. It's also the reason (not the only reason) but a good reason
why people bother at all to seek out the theatricial experience in this day and age.

On sensors, if your talking about adapting medium format stills glass to a wider sensor,
that's an interesting idea too, but I don't see a lot of discusssion about it here and on other forums. I suppose the fisrt question would be, is this possible?

Mezmo

[David Mullen ASC]

The Phantom 65 has a 4K sensor that is twice as wide as 35mm, so it uses medium-format lenses / 65mm lenses.

It's the need for larger lenses that's the main problem with 65mm cameras, plus getting two stops less depth of field compared to 35mm.

[Häakon]

On sensors, if your talking about adapting medium format stills glass to a wider sensor,
that's an interesting idea too, but I don't see a lot of discusssion about it here and on other forums. I suppose the fisrt question would be, is this possible?
David beat me to it. :-) But yeah, why wouldn't it be possible? The big hurdle I see is the glass... lenses would obviously be more rare and expensive than 35mm versions, though if such cameras were to become more standardized, there would be a demand for those lenses (and you'd see manufacturers take a good look at producing them). In my opinion, it's when the sensor breaks away from the legacy 35mm size that the revolution will truly begin. There is no doubt in my mind that this will happen, but it's unlikely that it will happen soon. Too many people have been shooting one way for too long to embrace such a huge change overnight. Digital photography still has to take a larger foothold in Hollywood cinema first as it is.

Of course, with that kind of resolution, again, anamorphics become completely moot. As I originally stated, it then becomes completely a choice of style to shoot with such lenses. I agree that good cinematography has a big impact on the way a film is received, but I don't believe that the difference between using anamorphic lenses or not is like the difference between watching a finished and ungraded version of a film. But I respect your opinion nonetheless. :-)

[mezmo]

Hi David and Haakon,
Not aware of the Phantom 65, will google and check it out, yes, large format does bring with it slow glass, larger camera size and the extended data processing woes. I'm still interested in Anamorphics that could work on 16x9 style sensors or three perf film formats. Even while newer solutions
for digital wide screen formats are in the development stage. The use of such glass on 3 perf film production would warrent the cost alone. The use on a camera like RED ONE/EPIC or the Aaton Penelope would be a bonus.
Digital and Spherical just seem soft to me, with all the cropping that has to go on for a 2.40:1 result on the present crop of 16x9/4x3 cameras. Anamorphics may give a better result here as sensors become higher Rez but remain mostly 16x9/4x3 in format size for some time to come.
It's worth the discussion Haakon, don't dismiss Anamorphics as simply old tech, a 1.34x
Anna on a 5K EPIC or a 6K Aaton maybe just the thing to get Digital looking sexy on the
big screen.
Cheers Mezmo

[Tom Lowe]

I have always thought that a 65mm-size sensor (or even a 35mm still size sensor, which is roughly the same as Vista Vision) would be fantastic for a digital cinema camera. The resolution could easily skyrocket into the 6K and 8K realm within a year or two. Plus you have reduced noise and larger real estate in general.

The problem, of course, as David mentions, is finding ACs who can pull focus on that badboy. :)

[Mark K.]

I have always thought that a 65mm-size sensor (or even a 35mm still size sensor, which is roughly the same as Vista Vision) would be fantastic for a digital cinema camera. The resolution could easily skyrocket into the 6K and 8K realm within a year or two. Plus you have reduced noise and larger real estate in general.

The problem, of course, as David mentions, is finding ACs who can pull focus on that badboy. :)

Just shoot your own little Lawrence of Arabia with it - the desert will give you plenty of light, so you can stop down considerably for a comfortable DOF to work with!

[Tom Lowe]

Just shoot your own little Lawrence of Arabia with it - the desert will give you plenty of light, so you can stop down considerably for a comfortable DOF to work with!

what about sunset and magic hour shots? you will need a jedi focus puller.

[Mark K.]

Ah... :unsure: that's when you have your subjects wandering over the horizon - so you can focus at infinity whilst wide-open! :)

[Charles Angus]

Somebody was saying that the legacy 35mm format is holding back digital image quality, and that larger sensors will be better.

Even anamorphic movies have trouble with focus - bigger formats will be even worse. People lean, don't hit their marks, etc.

Sensor resolution is useless if you're resolving blurriness...

Example:
25mm lens, 2.8, hyperfocal is 28' - this would be a middling lens on S16mm
50mm, 2.8, hyperfocal 115', similar lens on 35mm
100mm, 2.8, hyperfocal 461' similar horizontal FOV on anamorphic 35

Not real precise on the relationships of lenses to formats and whatnot, but demonstrating the (effectively) drastically reduced DOF as imager size increases.

35mm lenses and DOF are familiar to filmmakers and (subconsciously) to audiences. Anamorphic (with its inherent characteristics) is also.

I don't see any reason to muck around with something that's working - 35mm sensor size is the way to go.

About anamorphic, I think its more than just the weird bokeh and flares. The feel of the lenses is very different between anamorphic 2.40 and spherical S35 2.40. I'm sorry I can't describe it better, maybe someone else can.

I just know that when I watch Alien (anamorphic) the look is very different than American Beauty (S35 2.40), and its not just the lighting and art direction.

[Häakon]

Hi Angus,

Great post! Just a couple of thoughts...


Sensor resolution is useless if you're resolving blurriness...
That's for sure! But then, focus pulling is an art and craft as special and technical as any other job on the set. The best films demand the best talent, but also the best picture quality. Clearly the 35mm format isn't going to disappear anytime soon, but I don't see any reason that we should hold back the progress of technology because we're scared that we won't be able to pull focus properly. Much larger sensors will likely offer much better native sensitivity and this would allow DPs to close down a couple of stops and have equivalent DOF as 35mm at a wider aperture with the same amount of light. It's definitely something that would need to be addressed, but I believe it can.


About anamorphic, I think its more than just the weird bokeh and flares. The feel of the lenses is very different between anamorphic 2.40 and spherical S35 2.40. I'm sorry I can't describe it better, maybe someone else can.
I agree with this, but the point remains it's an aesthetic difference. The reason that the format was developed was to squeeze (no pun intended!) the most resolution out of the negative as possible. But the unique picture qualities (side effects) that result from shooting anamorphically are what make "Alien" feel different than "American Beauty," not because it's a sharper picture. By the time you shrink those films down to DVD, any resolution benefit that the former film had would be completely nullified and yet those unique image properties remain.

My perspective is that a larger sensor would render the resolution advantage of shooting anamorphically on a 4:3 sensor moot. The reason to shoot that way, then, would be strictly as an intentional stylistic choice. And that's fine. But to champion for a 4:3 sensor simply for the benefit of the resolution gain seems silly to me - if you design a 2.40:1 sensor (or whatever aspect you prefer), you'll get the maximum resolution from the camera without having to shoot with anamorphic lenses. Keep in mind, again, that this would be a 2.40 sensor the same height of a comparable 4:3 one. The reason that anamorphic lenses net more resolution on the cameras we have now is because we have to crop our sensors to get the ratio we want - thus throwing away a part of the usable image. If the sensor itself was wider, this wouldn't be an issue.

The problem that exists with creating a wider sensor is that traditional 35mm lenses wouldn't cover one that is wider than the standard 35mm frame. Thus, a push for a "medium format" digital cinema camera is the next logical step.


I don't see any reason to muck around with something that's working - 35mm sensor size is the way to go.
I fully respect your opinion but graciously disagree. After seeing the full 4K screenings that RED has presented over the last couple of years, it's painfully obvious how low-res most prints in the public cinema are - especially after multiple generations of duplication and viewing. Digital projection will help this, no question, but there's a limit to how much resolution exists in a 35mm film frame. Perhaps that is enough resolution for your personal taste - heck, some can't even see the difference between DVD and Blu-ray (or it's not a big enough deal to warrant spending the money to upgrade their collection). For me, though, it is a big deal, and as someone who has chosen to spend his life creating motion picture, I want the best available canvas with which to work with as technology will allow. To be blunt, 35mm resolution just doesn't cut it in 2008. Keep in mind as well that oversampling has a huge impact on the quality of an image - so even if 4K is the next "frontier" for digital cinema, we're going to want 6, 7, or even 8K acquisition devices to reach that optimal point and net the best 4K frame possible. Do we really want to cram 8K worth of pixels in a sensor the size of a s35mm frame? At some point, the laws of efficiency are going to kick in and we're going to hit a usable limit. The obvious remedy, then, is to increase the size of the sensor. Give us some bigger pixels, more resolution, higher dynamic range, and better sensitivity - the goal of all digital sensor progression for as long as it has been around. The RED ONE, to me, provides the first really acceptable digital alternative to shooting film, but it's just the beginning - not a means to an end.

All of this is just thinking aloud, of course - I'm not a sensor engineer and I don't have all of the answers - but I do think it's a discussion worth having! :-)

[Tom Lowe]

I think the APS-size or chemical still 35mm-size sensor might make the most sense. It is roughly the same size as Vista Vision, I think. And who wouldn't want to shoot Vista Vision!?! :)

Shooting on APS-C "cropped" sensor cameras (like RED) makes you realize how much better "full frame" is. If that is true for stills, why not for motion pictures?

Does it all come down to pulling focus? If so, keep in mind that you could potentially have your 1st AC pulling focus off a large 2K HD montior. That would help!

[Charles Angus]

Lighting bright has its own problems - my favourite example is in The Pianist. Adrian Brody is playing the piano by moonlight, but clearly the "moonlight" is a 12k or some very large fixture, and the light is illuminating his nose like some kind of party trick!

All problems can't be solved by adding light and stopping down, is all I'm saying.

It would be nice to see parallel systems, maybe, like when people still shot 65mm. We could have our large format sensors for the big shows where it matters (epic vistas and whatnot) and ordinary 35mm size sensors for the mere mortals.

I think, for the moment at least, S35mm is the best choice for EPIC. It's the norm and everybody is used to it.

[Häakon]

All problems can't be solved by adding light and stopping down, is all I'm saying.
Hi Angus,

I never suggested anyone "light brighter." I simply said that a larger sensor would likely be more sensitive, requiring less light for a given scenario. One can then stop down to acheive the same brightness as the camera with the smaller sensor, and this brings the DOF much closer together. One doesn't have to light any differently. :-) It just means that DPs will know to get the same shallow look that they are used to at higher f/stop numbers, which actually yields another benefit: you don't need ultra fast (expensive) glass to get the traditional shallow DOF that many find desirable.

Tom's suggestion of a standard 35mm size sensor might be a good compromise - it would certainly allow for better resolution at equivalent pixel density. Given that the RED ONE already works with 35mm still lenses, it makes me think... do the standard motion picture/PL-mount lenses cover that same area? And if so, why didn't we make a standard 35mm sized sensor to begin with?

[Tom Lowe]

Is Epic at the point of development right now where they can still consider some of these suggestions?

As long as you're making a "full frame" 35mm sensor, you might as well up the resolution to 6K. :)

Then your 4K downsamples would be flat-out stunning.

[Deanan]

Given that the RED ONE already works with 35mm still lenses, it makes me think... do the standard motion picture/PL-mount lenses cover that same area? And if so, why didn't we make a standard 35mm sized sensor to begin with?

PL mount lenses cover a 30/31mm image circle which is smaller
than what still lenses cover.

[Häakon]

Gotcha. Interesting though, that if the RED lenses are just rebranded still lenses, it shouldn't be very difficult to make a "pro" 35mm lens with a PL mount.

[Tom Lowe]

I was digging around for something else and came up with this thread in a search. It's a very interesting read from back in May of 2008. It's interesting to see how far Epic has come, but also how many ideas that were tossed around by the community here back then actually came to be included in the DSMC/Epic program.

I assume this discussion near the end of the thread about FF35mm took place before FF35 Epic cameras were announced? Does anyone know the date FF35 Epic was announced?

[Joseph Hutson]

I assume this discussion near the end of the thread about FF35mm took place before FF35 Epic cameras were announced? Does anyone know the date FF35 Epic was announced?

Something like November 13th, 2008?

[Joseph Hutson]

Something like November 13th, 2008?

Ha. I didn't even look anywhere to find the answer 'til after my last post...and according to wiki, I was right.

Funny how some of those facts just stick... :biggrinjester:

[Shawn Nelson]

The way I look at it, Epic Mk1 never happened and we're now going to get Epic Mk2, which is I think a HUGE win for those of who took faith and have been waiting. Look at HDRx, that wasnt even on our maps until very recently. Here's to skipping generations!!

[Joseph Hutson]

The way I look at it, Epic Mk1 never happened and we're now going to get Epic Mk2, which is I think a HUGE win for those of who took faith and have been waiting. Look at HDRx™, that wasnt even on our maps until very recently. Here's to skipping generations!!

And even a bigger win when you start off being ahead of the competition's next generations... :laugh: