PDA

View Full Version : 5K 9K come on whats going on!?



Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-17-2008, 02:13 PM
I don't know everything in details, but working as a 1st AC I know a thing or two, and I have also worked with the RED ONE a couple of times.

Just a frustration outburst here. Just read a little about Scarlett and EPIC.

Can't really see what it is they're trying to do... you can built your own still/film camera or what? Why? Fisher Price toys, is that what it is?

And then you can shoot up to 5K and 9K..... WHO WOULD DO AND NEED THAT ANYWAY?

Come one, it's even ridiculous when I have been on RED ONE shoots, and they wanna shoot 4K, even 2K. You don't need it. Yeah okay, if you're Steven Soderbergh, and you have Benicio Del Toro in the leadrole. But the average indie filmmaker is never going to have their films shown on big cinemascreens anyway. Why don't they just shoot 1080 or even 720, good enough.

No no we're gonna shoot 4K!? Even the leading digital film cameras, Panavision Genesis and ARRI D21 "only" records 1080, which is even smaller than a 2K filmscan, and is there seriously anyone here, that honestly can tell me that, that isn't good enough......?!?!

Blu-Ray only supports 1080 at the moment, so why even bother shooting higher resolution than that? You have less discspace and more crap to render in post, and you might even have to downscale it anyway.

Come on?!?!?

David Guest
11-17-2008, 02:17 PM
Depth of field. Latitude in post.
Two fairly common reasons to shoot 4K.

Peter McCully
11-17-2008, 02:22 PM
"I don't know everything in details"...



I don't know what you're on Allan, but your first line sums it up.

To quote the Andy Millman character from Extras, "Are you 'avin' a laugh?"

Michael Ragen
11-17-2008, 02:23 PM
I think you need to look into how CMOS sensors work.
The Only reason to shoot 2k or 3k on a Red is to get higher fps, or if you are stuck with s16 lenses.

You can see the difference between 4k and 2k at 720p resolution.

Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-17-2008, 02:25 PM
Yeah maybe, but not something you can make the big difference between anyway. As said before, the Genesis and D-21, looks more like film with the same DOF, than the RED, and only shoots 1080.

Wouldn't know about post, I'm not a post-guy.

Patrick Tresch
11-17-2008, 02:28 PM
I was laughing through the post! Thanks for that fun Allan!

I don't know you as a 1rst AC but hope you don't react this way with your DP's!

What! Lens change again? C'mon let's do it with the 50! It's allready on camera!

:)

Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-17-2008, 02:28 PM
Just looked a little more. Whats the RED 617 all about? 28K? Please someone, please some one tell me why I need anything in 28K?

Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-17-2008, 02:29 PM
delete

Michael Ragen
11-17-2008, 02:32 PM
Effects plates on a big budget feature? Imax? I'm sure we will see a bunch of great ideas for the 617.

Why would anyone need 70mm if you have 35mm.
Why would anyone need 35mm if you have 16mm.
Why would anyone need 16mm if you have 8mm.

Use what makes sense for the job you are doing.

Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-17-2008, 02:32 PM
I was laughing through the post! Thanks for that fun Allan!

I don't know you as a 1rst AC but hope you don't react this way with your DP's!

What! Lens change again? C'mon let's do it with the 50! It's allready on camera!

:)


Lens change is completely different. Has nothing to do with resolution. Don't know why you bring that up. Just answer my questions, I might even learn something, that I didn't know.

Patrick Tresch
11-17-2008, 02:35 PM
Michael answerd you. CMO don't work like a filmscan or an 1080 D21 output.

If you use a 2k CMO your end resolution will be a bit more than 1k. Shoot 4k if you end up @ 2k dpx for filmout. Now shoot 6k if you want to have a 4k "effective" resolution to go on a 4k arrilaser.

This is not THE exact science just a vague summary... :-)

What made me laugh in your post was more the mood than the technical argument = why increasing K numbers?

Have a nice stay at REDUSER.

Patrick

Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-17-2008, 02:36 PM
Effects plates on a big budget feature? Imax? I'm sure we will see a bunch of great ideas for the 617.

Why would anyone need 70mm if you have 35mm.
Why would anyone need 35mm if you have 16mm.
Why would anyone need 16mm if you have 8mm.

Use what makes sense for the job you are doing.

Completely agree. BUT isn't our effects good enough? The shots in Dark Knight that was shot on IMAX cameras, weren't they good enough. Do you need anything better?

We have reached the peak, everything now is just a way to make more money, which I can't blame them people to do so, just can't understand why industry people let themselves be fooled my it.

Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-17-2008, 02:40 PM
Michael answerd you. CMO don't work like a filmscan or an 1080 D21 output.

If you use a 2k CMO your end resolution will be a bit more than 1k. Shoot 4k if you end up @ 2k dpx for filmout. Now shoot 6k if you want to have a 4k "effective" resolution to go on a 4k arrilaser.

This is not THE exact science just a vague summary... :-)

What made me laugh in your post was more the mood than the technical argument = why increasing K numbers?

Have a nice stay at REDUSER.

Patrick

OK, sounds like I'm finally getting some constructive feedback here.

why increasing K numbers? What do you mean? Because I thinks it's rediculous to make a device that can capture 9 or 28 K. I that was what you were refering to?

Joseph Ward
11-17-2008, 02:40 PM
I think I understand why your asking? The eye can only see what its capable of. I think one answer is for certain applications and for what an artist would want, more canvas/paint on the pallet, if they prefer. Maybe a bad analogy would be why would someone pay for a luxury vehicle if they can just buy a economical vehicle, if they still get/use whatever vehicle to drive? Sorry if this did not help.

Also, Down scaling is better than the other way around. If you blow up an image it looks blurry, distorted, faded color etc. And down scaling is better on image than just whatever straight output size you want. If you want to re size an image or crop, fix, its better to have more resolution to work with. Plus you never know what the future will be as far as picture resolution is concern.

J. Bernard Vallon
11-17-2008, 02:42 PM
Its the same reason people use the H3D at 30+ megapixels to shoot photos that only end up in a 8x10 magazine, or why people would shoot 35mm film for a TV commercial shown at SD.

Michael Ragen
11-17-2008, 02:42 PM
This IMAX stuff in The Dark Knight did look great.
Now there is the 645 9k camera coming out so there will be something of a digital equivalent.

Not everyone can afford to shoot on giant film negs.

You have to remember too, that the idea is that these cameras can be used for stills as well.

There is one camera out similar to the 28k, but it takes a second to expose an entire frame, this one is supposed to be able to do 25fps.

So for bill boards and large print ads this thing would be awesome. And the price is definitely not outrageous.

Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-17-2008, 02:44 PM
I think I understand why your asking? The eye can only see what its capable of. I think one answer is for certain applications and for what an artist would want, more canvas/paint on the pallet, if they prefer. Maybe a bad analogy would be why would someone pay for a luxury vehicle if they can just buy a economical vehicle, if they still get/use whatever vehicle to drive? Sorry if this did not help.

I see what you mean.

Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-17-2008, 02:46 PM
Its the same reason people use the H3D at 30+ megapixels to shoot photos that only end up in a 8x10 magazine, or why people would shoot 35mm film for a TV commercial shown at SD.


Exactly, so why do it then, thats my exact point. Its pointless!

Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-17-2008, 02:48 PM
This IMAX stuff in The Dark Knight did look great.
Now there is the 645 9k camera coming out so there will be something of a digital equivalent.

Not everyone can afford to shoot on giant film negs.

You have to remember too, that the idea is that these cameras can be used for stills as well.

There is one camera out similar to the 28k, but it takes a second to expose an entire frame, this one is supposed to be able to do 25fps.

So for bill boards and large print ads this thing would be awesome. And the price is definitely not outrageous.

Okay, I get the billboards and large print thing, if you use it for stills.

Don't get me wrong, but I thinks it's getting easier and easier for average people to go out there and make films. So if they can't afford shooting on IMAX, well leave it to the professionals, and wait till you're pro too!

Warren Kommers
11-17-2008, 02:49 PM
Allan. This is the best 1080 camera there is. There is no other way to to shoot full frame than by shooting 4k. Only 1 percent will end up using 4k in the end but it's necessary to shoot 4k to get the 35mm DOF and the oversampling makes the 1080 look better. This 9-28k stuff puzzles me a bit but would be great for VFX. Any less DOF than FF35 will be so tricky to pull focus on.

Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-17-2008, 02:51 PM
Allan. This is the best 1080 camera there is. There is no other way to to shoot full frame than by shooting 4k. Only 1 percent will end up using 4k in the end but it's necessary to shoot 4k to get the 35mm DOF and the oversampling makes the 1080 look better. This 9-28k stuff puzzles me a bit but would be great for VFX. Any less DOF than FF35 will be so tricky to pull focus on.


So why doesn't the Genesis and D-21 record more than 1080. Panavision and ARRI are still the oldest and leading companies in this area.....

Joseph Ward
11-17-2008, 02:52 PM
Also, Down scaling is better than the other way around. If you blow up an image it looks blurry, distorted, faded color etc. And down scaling is better on image than just whatever straight output size you want. If you want to re size an image or crop, fix, its better to have more resolution to work with. Plus you never know what the future will be as far as picture resolution is concern.:)

It seems silly, but important if you want to prevent some problems for editing/grading, and want the best final result for your hard work.

Patrick Tresch
11-17-2008, 02:52 PM
why increasing K numbers?

Yes, in your post I think the interesting point to argue on is :

WHY INCREASING K NUMBERS (PIXELS) TO 9 OR TO 28?

Honestly I don't know... I think I could find a use for 5k or 6k today but who knows what future holds in the highend market (not the hvx200 market where "most" of reduser come from).

But while we are on it let's make a small brainstorm...

9k could find new artistic expression that where not possible with lesser resolution. Not as end format but it could be used as pan/zoom and scanning for narrative purpose in video clips and why not in features or documentaries...

Artistic developement has always been hand in hand with technological development...

This technological development could also be a break through for us creatives.

Patrick

Warren Kommers
11-17-2008, 02:54 PM
They should. Thats why RED is all the talk right now because they(sony/arri) had their heads stuck in a HD world. RED looks better resolution wise than a D21 on a 50ft screen fo sho. It also costs far less and takes far less data.

Casey Green
11-17-2008, 02:58 PM
Allan,

I do admit that RED does excel in marketing, but there is always much more in the technical details than meets the eye.

With larger and more advanced sensors comes the ability to use professional glass and have shallower Depth of Field and better dynamic range.

The RED ONE is being used on many Indie productions and commercials, but more and more, it is being used on Feature Films, which definitely require the higher resolution and framerates that SCARLET and EPIC will offer.

It always seems that when new technology emerges, there are those people who always are saying, "What do you need this for?" - as if they have not witnessed this before in many other examples throughout their lifetime.

I remember back in 1987, there was a computer trade show and some of the first demos of 24-bit "digitized" movies playing off of a hard drive full screen in real-time. My friend turned to me and said the same old thing... "What do you need this for?"

...It seems as if digitized video playing from computer drives kinda caught on.

Keep an open mind, my friend. This is only just the beginning.

Warren Kommers
11-17-2008, 02:58 PM
Panavision and ARRI are still the oldest and leading companies in this area.....

I'm a critical guy like you as well Allan and I challenge RED, Jim and Jarred sometimes but believe me.... This quote above is losing traction significantly everyday and the key word is "oldest".

Warren Kommers
11-17-2008, 03:01 PM
Yeah the 28k baffled me quite a bit for many reasons. I can now see how it would be useful for VFX plates. I still say 500fps capability is more useful but I hope I discover new ways to use 9k+ besides stills and VFX plates.

diskojerk
11-17-2008, 03:20 PM
Al,

There was a time, long before any of us were born, when someone had this crazy idea to record the actors voices and have sound in movies. And of course, like anything else, there were critics and nay sayers. To make a long story short, things progress, new technology comes into the picture and older technology becomes obsolete. How many film editors still edit on a flatbed? How many sound mixers mix off old mag tape? It is true that only a very small percentage of anything shot on these camera will reach a large screen. But the same goes for movies shot on film. A lot of TV shows are shot on 35mm. Why? They're not going to a theater. They will rarely see a screen larger than 42 inches. That doesn't stop them from being shot on film. When you say that 1080 or 720 is good enough for what most people are going to do, you're probably right. It is good enough. But why stop at good enough if you know something can be better. The first motion picture camera was hand cranked. Someone looked at that design and said, i know I can make that better. And that went on for a hundred years until someone said, wait a minute, do we even really need film anymore(which is a whole other discussion)? And then someone made a digital camera, and then someone else said, you know what, I bet I can make that even better... Anyhow, I think you get the point.

Benni Diez
11-17-2008, 03:32 PM
"Why increasing K numbers..."

I think it's not primarily about having more pixels. What people want at first are large chips and high dynamic range.
But your photosites can't just grow along with the chip size because bigger photosites are less sensitive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Monstro's dynamic range and readout speed sure has a lot to do with a certain pixel size. So, grow the chip -> increase the pixel count. If you want less resolution, downsize it. You'll get a great s/n ratio and thus maybe a stop or two more to play with in color correction.
The brains are still at a reasonable price, even if you use them for 'just' 2k or 1080.

Alex.Mitchell
11-17-2008, 03:36 PM
You'll never be sorry that you have too much data. 'Sides, just render it out as 1080p ProRes and edit/finish with that if you're not going to use it.

Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-17-2008, 03:41 PM
Al,

There was a time, long before any of us were born, when someone had this crazy idea to record the actors voices and have sound in movies. And of course, like anything else, there were critics and nay sayers. To make a long story short, things progress, new technology comes into the picture and older technology becomes obsolete. How many film editors still edit on a flatbed? How many sound mixers mix off old mag tape? It is true that only a very small percentage of anything shot on these camera will reach a large screen. But the same goes for movies shot on film. A lot of TV shows are shot on 35mm. Why? They're not going to a theater. They will rarely see a screen larger than 42 inches. That doesn't stop them from being shot on film. When you say that 1080 or 720 is good enough for what most people are going to do, you're probably right. It is good enough. But why stop at good enough if you know something can be better. The first motion picture camera was hand cranked. Someone looked at that design and said, i know I can make that better. And that went on for a hundred years until someone said, wait a minute, do we even really need film anymore(which is a whole other discussion)? And then someone made a digital camera, and then someone else said, you know what, I bet I can make that even better... Anyhow, I think you get the point.

I see exactly what you mean. But for that other discussion I can only say, I'm still a 110% on film, no doubt about it. If you want the digital look for a creative reason, fine with me, a lot of stuff is better shown with that clean and (don't get me wrong) "artificial" effect, but again not always. See for example Minority Report, it takes place in this nice clean future, then obvious would have been to shoot it in HD, but film still looks better (but let's not get into this one, as I'm sure we can find tons of other discussion on forum about it).

And you say a lot of tv shows is shot on 35, even though it never goes to the cinema. 35 doesn't only deliver high resolution (or what you might call when we talk film), but also a, guess what, filmlike picture (du'h). But some tv shows like Friends and Will and Grace, yeah don't really see any reason why they shoot that on 35. But then you have other shows like Sopranos and Into the West, it would be a shame not to shoot that on film.

Stuart English
11-17-2008, 04:40 PM
Exactly, so why do it then, thats my exact point. Its pointless!

With respect, it is NOT pointless...and if you are interested in understanding why, there are plenty of people that can explain why.

diskojerk
11-17-2008, 04:51 PM
I see exactly what you mean. But for that other discussion I can only say, I'm still a 110% on film, no doubt about it. If you want the digital look for a creative reason, fine with me, a lot of stuff is better shown with that clean and (don't get me wrong) "artificial" effect, but again not always. See for example Minority Report, it takes place in this nice clean future, then obvious would have been to shoot it in HD, but film still looks better (but let's not get into this one, as I'm sure we can find tons of other discussion on forum about it).

And you say a lot of tv shows is shot on 35, even though it never goes to the cinema. 35 doesn't only deliver high resolution (or what you might call when we talk film), but also a, guess what, filmlike picture (du'h). But some tv shows like Friends and Will and Grace, yeah don't really see any reason why they shoot that on 35. But then you have other shows like Sopranos and Into the West, it would be a shame not to shoot that on film.

It's the 35mm sensor, giving me the closest approximation of film available in a digital camera at an affordable price that appeals to me. I own a 35mm camera, but I can't shoot a single roll of film without spending hundreds or even thousand(s) of dollars in processing and telecine fees.

I think the Scarlet is going to allow people to be creative in ways, that up until now was never accessible in the past. I think the quality of work is only going to progress and come from a much larger pool of people than ever before, which is only going to push the envelope further and further. Twenty years from now we will all probably look back at something like 28K and snicker.

Christian Tanner
11-17-2008, 06:05 PM
i'd like to quote michael ragen again, stating this a few posts ago, because i got the impression the info didn't sink in with everyone...

"You have to remember too, that the idea is that these cameras can be used for stills as well."

epic is part of the dsmc system now. meaning they have to serve dp's AND stills photographers. print media asks for MUCH higher resolution than us dp's are.

tanner

Lee Jay
11-17-2008, 06:12 PM
Well, I've never been to a normal movie theater and seen good quality visuals. The only theater that I've been to that impresses me visually (actually, sonically as well) is the IMAX in town. If, say, the 645 version allows common theaters to eventually produce decent visuals, that might attract me back to the movies again. But I suspect film as the final distribution medium will have to be replaced by super high res digital projectors first, or the film is going to have to be IMAX (too expensive). So these cameras seem far out in front of projection technology (hmmm...opportunity for RED?).

Casey Green
11-17-2008, 06:15 PM
I don't know everything in details, but working as a 1st AC I know a thing or two, and I have also worked with the RED ONE a couple of times.

By the way, just curious, which RED productions have you worked on?

Daniel Browning
11-17-2008, 07:42 PM
Well, I've never been to a normal movie theater and seen good quality visuals. The only theater that I've been to that impresses me visually (actually, sonically as well) is the IMAX in town.

Our local theater, Cinetopia (http://cinetopia.com) has a very nice Christie 2K projection and audio system and only charges $7.25, so I haven't been to a 35mm film projection theater since they opened in ~2004. Do you have a nice 2K theater nearby?

Lee Jay
11-17-2008, 07:50 PM
How would I find out?

Daniel Browning
11-17-2008, 08:45 PM
How would I find out?

GFY.

Google For Yourself. (I didn't mean the other common acronym, "Good For You". ;) )

I suggest maps.google.com and "Cinema near <my city>", then check each one for likely options. Maybe there is a website somewhere with better info, but the above procedure is exactly what I did to find an IMAX theater near Portland that was showing Dark Knight. (I didn't realize we had two of them.)

Steve Sherrick
11-17-2008, 08:59 PM
Allan, understand your question on a fundamental level, but I'd advise doing some testing and fact gathering on this one, especially in regards to Red One. If you shoot something with 4K and then with 2K on Red, you will see why people here are advocating the 4K. Generalizations don't work when you compare the Red with other cameras you mentioned. They are different beasts. The better question to ask yourself is, how do I get my hands on a Red, shoot my own tests, project them on a large screen, and then come to a conclusion based on your own eyesight, rather than numbers on a piece of paper? Don't go all Rian Johnson on us. (just kidding Rian)

Lawrence Karman
11-17-2008, 09:43 PM
Just looked a little more. Whats the RED 617 all about? 28K? Please someone, please some one tell me why I need anything in 28K?

Shooting translights?

Tarek S. Kandil
11-17-2008, 10:59 PM
Allan, The new reds' modularity comes from the basic fact that they can capture stills and motion the same way. This means fundamentally that RED now caters not only the film artist and cinematographers.

Someone was thinking of using a 617 on one angle and one setup for an entire shoot, whereas this is not very feasible for film and close ups etc, and could be seen as lazy, it makes you think of several other apps that don't involve movies.

I know if I had the 617 or the 645 I would break the billboards here. Every graphic designer in a town like beirut makes their money off the countless billboards here. That alone can be killed by a 28K signal capture. The printers are gonna start figuring out a way to plug the thing straight in and pump out an actual size of what you shoot. Film printing could change, as well as other output technologies that have been basing their moves on the current capability of the market.

RED has not exhibited this dependency on the current technology, it chose to become the company that others depend on to improve their product. That's what's called a vision. RED is pulling some very self-actualized moves, while most others are satisfying a social need, if you will.

Governments can use 28K sensors in bodies that small in ways that terrify me.

In building

In investigation

FINE ARTS APPLICATIONS (not movies only)

Its mad...

Tons more

RyanKunkleman
11-17-2008, 11:16 PM
Shooting translights?
yeah we shot some with 5 x 617 cameras it was pretty interesting. those were film of course. one hour processing on 30 rolls of transparency wasnt cheap.
BTW
i like how one guy that obviously doesnt have a great knowledge of the red cameras or the film process in genera gets you guys all worked into a frenzy.

i kinda feel like at this point threads like this should just get locked or deleted.
eh?

Casey Green
11-18-2008, 12:41 AM
BTW
i like how one guy that obviously doesnt have a great knowledge of the red cameras or the film process in genera gets you guys all worked into a frenzy.

i kinda feel like at this point threads like this should just get locked or deleted.
eh?

Interesting. I wouldn't have called many of the replies here coming from anyone "worked into a frenzy". If anything, I think that the lack of RED fundamental knowledge that was evident in the post has only helped others like him perhaps learn a few things about why RED took this approach and what the benefits are.

Of course, there are always a few people who over react, but in general, there's some good responses in here.

Patrick Tresch
11-18-2008, 01:58 AM
bigger photosites are less sensitive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Monstro's dynamic range and readout speed sure has a lot to do with a certain pixel size. So, grow the chip -> increase the pixel count. If you want less resolution, downsize it. You'll get a great s/n ratio and thus maybe a stop or two more to play with in color correction.


??? Are you sure about that???


I'm still not convinced of the DSMC programm. I wouldn't like to use a 10kg 50'000$ epic to shoot stills.

Nor to lend it to the photographer on a shoot to make his stills.

My 2 cents is : specialized tools are best.


Patrick

J. Eric Camp
11-18-2008, 08:52 AM
Allen,

There is a fundamental difference in the programs that are developing the cameras for Panavision, Arri and Red.

The first point is, why shoot higher rez than 1080.
My answer: It looks better. If I shoot 4k, 5k, 6k or 9k and sample it down to 1080 I have more accurate information in that 1080 picture.

Assume a checker board is the subject. If the light bouncing off checker board is covered by one pixel, then that pixel will be a "average" of the different colors. That pixel will register as halfway between the two colors. Now if you have a sensor where the light bouncing off of each individual square is covered by a pixel each, now I have preserved the accurate information in the scene.

Why is RED making these high rez sensors when Panavision and Arri are not. Well first off, the Genesis Sensor is actually slightly higher rez than the RED ONES. How ever how Panavision / Sony chose to deal with light and imaging, that sensor only produces a 1080 image. Different ways of skinning the cat.

The Genesis and D21 are not bad cameras, they have strong points however the D21 and Genesis are two very different cameras.

The Genesis is, while built very well, built on the older HD tech. I feel it will have a ceiling that CMOS will and are already moving past. For instance:

To get a GREAT over sampled 4k image out of a CMOS I am looking at the 6k camera. 4k film out or 4k digital projection. To get a straight 4k image, not over sampled, out of a CCD (current Panavision / Sony builds) I need almost a 12k sensor. As is evident by RED's announcement I fell pretty comfortable saying a 6k CMOS will happen before a 12k CCD.

Who needs 28k? Well right now I see the 28k for very specialized applications. Visual effects will love it. More pixels means cleaner edges. Also that camera is (currently) shaped more like a still camera. A Photographer could just hit record and then sift back thought the video to get the exact frame to use, and use for a large billboard or other high rez application.

As was mentioned, Dark Knight looked good shot on IMAX. If the film version has validity then the digital equivalent surely has merit.

I understand your frustration. I have worked with MANY AC's on their first time with this camera. The RED ONE is already so different and now the DSMC system is yet another leap. Until the dust settles, take a Red Tech / DIT out with you. If they know what they are doing you will never have to think about anything behind the focal plane.

Allan Legarth Nielsen
11-18-2008, 10:36 AM
Allen,

There is a fundamental difference in the programs that are developing the cameras for Panavision, Arri and Red.

The first point is, why shoot higher rez than 1080.
My answer: It looks better. If I shoot 4k, 5k, 6k or 9k and sample it down to 1080 I have more accurate information in that 1080 picture.

Assume a checker board is the subject. If the light bouncing off checker board is covered by one pixel, then that pixel will be a "average" of the different colors. That pixel will register as halfway between the two colors. Now if you have a sensor where the light bouncing off of each individual square is covered by a pixel each, now I have preserved the accurate information in the scene.

Why is RED making these high rez sensors when Panavision and Arri are not. Well first off, the Genesis Sensor is actually slightly higher rez than the RED ONES. How ever how Panavision / Sony chose to deal with light and imaging, that sensor only produces a 1080 image. Different ways of skinning the cat.

The Genesis and D21 are not bad cameras, they have strong points however the D21 and Genesis are two very different cameras.

The Genesis is, while built very well, built on the older HD tech. I feel it will have a ceiling that CMOS will and are already moving past. For instance:

To get a GREAT over sampled 4k image out of a CMOS I am looking at the 6k camera. 4k film out or 4k digital projection. To get a straight 4k image, not over sampled, out of a CCD (current Panavision / Sony builds) I need almost a 12k sensor. As is evident by RED's announcement I fell pretty comfortable saying a 6k CMOS will happen before a 12k CCD.

Who needs 28k? Well right now I see the 28k for very specialized applications. Visual effects will love it. More pixels means cleaner edges. Also that camera is (currently) shaped more like a still camera. A Photographer could just hit record and then sift back thought the video to get the exact frame to use, and use for a large billboard or other high rez application.

As was mentioned, Dark Knight looked good shot on IMAX. If the film version has validity then the digital equivalent surely has merit.

I understand your frustration. I have worked with MANY AC's on their first time with this camera. The RED ONE is already so different and now the DSMC system is yet another leap. Until the dust settles, take a Red Tech / DIT out with you. If they know what they are doing you will never have to think about anything behind the focal plane.

Thank you so much!:)

RyanKunkleman
11-18-2008, 03:57 PM
eric is such a sweetheart. (how are you man?)

i guess that what i was getting at is that there are MANY threads that contain all the information that this gentleman would need to answer his questions. I think people should just be reminded/encouraged to go looking on the forums themselves.

J. Eric Camp
11-18-2008, 05:25 PM
I'm doing alright. Doing an indie film right now. Low pay, long hours. You know, one of the fun ones.

Yes people should look around to try and find answers, but with the new announcements, things are getting lost quick.

Plus I just love to hear myself talk.

I suppose I should clarify one point. CCD's are not necessarily older HD tech. CCD's were the predominant video imaging sensor and CMOS has stormed in with gusto. CCD's have their advantages and CMOS's have their advantages.

Now I REALLY am just talking to hear myself. Or typing to read my self.

David Dennis
11-18-2008, 05:33 PM
One thing that might make this easier for you is to compare it to what happened in digital still cameras.

If you remember, many years ago there were 1 megapixel cameras, perfect in theory for producing 640x480 pictures as you might use on the web sites of the time. Eventually the early DSLRs came in, producing (in the case of my Canon EOS D30) 3.5 megapixel images.

On paper there is no reason at all to produce a 1 megapixel image with a 3.5 megapixel camera, but in reality you could see by just glancing at the two images at the 1 megapixel resolution that one was made with an expensive camera and the other by a piece of junk. So the D30 was worth the money even if images of greater than 1 megapixel were never actually displayed.

I finally got a Nikon D300, which is a 12 megapixel camera. Images on the web are maybe two megapixels (1280x1024 or slightly higher) today, so on paper there was no need for my purchase, since my D30 still works fine. The huge advantage is that I can crop small pieces out of the images and still get solid photographs. And the image quality, thanks to the advance of technology, is much better than the D30 I had previously.

This kind of flexibility makes many hungry for even the massive 267 megapixel images the 617 produces. The simple truth is that as our tools improve, people find a use for them.

Of course there is also the very real lust for the latest and greatest. Everyone loves to brag about their new gadgets. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will buy 9K Epics just so they can say they have them, or so they can rent out their cameras to those lusting after the latest and greatest without even seeing a clear advantage.

I think that's the real frustration that you're seeing - if you have friends with RED Ones, they know they will have a harder time renting their cameras when the biggest and best is now 9K EPIC. Truthfully there's plenty of life left in those cameras because as you pointed out few people really need more than 4K in their productions.

We have people here who are extremely wealthy, and versed in the super-expensive world of major motion picture production. For them something like an Epic is a tiny line item on their budget. They could pay cash for it and barely even notice. In fact, the catering bill for the wrap party (featuring a crew of hundreds of people!) is probably a more expensive line item for them. The important thing is not the money, but that the image is great. Those people are going to buy things like 9K Epics almost regardless of cost.

When you think of those nice folks, you might feel class envy, but you should not. They help Jim deliver the camera at a much lower price, because they provide substantial demand and let him spread those staggering research and development costs over far more units. Those who buy ten EPICs make it possible for Jim to offer you one Scarlet at a price you can (barely) afford.

Hope that was of interest.

D

Steve Ellington
11-19-2008, 02:11 AM
The sensor on the Panavision Genesis is 12 megapixel, which is approximatley 4K. They are downsampling in the camera to 1080p. So why not have the option of using all the resolution a chip can produce? Also, no one is asking questions about why we need higher and higher megapixels on still cameras. I think the same applies to cinema. The higher the resolution, the better -- no matter what the final output format is.

Another interesting benefit of a 28k camera is the ability to reframe in 1080p. Check out the REM "Imitation of Life" music video for an example of the possibilities of high rez reframing in post.

Jeff Brue
11-19-2008, 02:57 PM
Top 10 reasons for more resolution.

1. Repurposing of content
2. Visual effects....ie what if every third pixel was made ir sensitive to create a separate ir tracking image...woohoo realtime 3d capture without multiple cameras ...ala star wars.
3. Repurposing of content.
4. Dynamic range increases from pixel averaging and application of motion vectors for scene reconstruction.
5. Repurposing content.
6. Have you ever shot IMAX? it is a bitch, but its beautiful in the detail.
7. Repurposing content.
8. More detailed motion vector analysis allowing for statochistic compositing methods. ie bojou's magical replace tool.
9. Repurposing content.
10. So when the first time AC bumps the camera on the take the director wants the most, you have plenty of resolution to stabilize it in post.

Finally, the repurposing content statement. From high res prints, to utilizing hdr techniques to insert after film shot product placement. It ultimately comes down to more efficient ways for films, TV shows, and commercials to make money. Data mining is a proven method of utilizing every last drop of value within a product....so we as an industry have a better shot.

Stephen Williams
11-19-2008, 03:10 PM
Top 10 reasons for more resolution.

10. So when the first time AC bumps the camera on the take the director wants the most, you have plenty of resolution to stabilize it in post.
.

Hi,

Whilst you can stabilize the footage it may well be blurred rendering the shot useless.

Stephen

bobaandy
11-19-2008, 03:47 PM
No, no no.
The answer is "Why not?"

shin sugino
11-19-2008, 09:07 PM
when high end digital camera backs came into picture for high end advertising
photography many photographer said digital will never be as good as film.
It was only five years ago. Today you will find extremely hard to find photographer who uses film. Same thing will happen on motion picture film.
Five years from now film stock will be practically gone.
I remember hearing same thing on CD disc. Sounds too digital! Is anyone recording on vinyl now? Time and medium change. It's about learning how to use it. Ditto with 5k,6k,9k,28k. get excited about possibility.You might not use it but don't say useless. You are ac and I assume you are young. Don't act like an old fart DOP who refuse to accept time is changing and have no energy nor
brain to understand digital.

Chuck Z
11-19-2008, 09:09 PM
Why can't the RED One or future RED cameras simply oversample the image in the camera and store it as RAW?

ArtZine
11-19-2008, 10:04 PM
and now..what do u think about >>>>28K<<<<??? come on...we CAN'T process 4K...and it's hard to process 2K yet...so?

donatello b
11-19-2008, 10:45 PM
why shoot 35mm ... super 16 has 1920x1080 resolution ...
why do most evening TV series shoot 35mm ?
when the broadcast standard was SD NTSC they shot 35mm not 16 not S8.

if you really believe HD is the tops.. then IMO your camera career ends at AC .. but then your dream is to direct ...

the standard that all is compared in the world is 35mm - from there you down rez/convert ... 4k is good ..maybe 5k or 6k is closer to the standard ...
perhaps 9k is near 65mm ?

Christian Munoz D
11-19-2008, 11:18 PM
By the way, just curious, which RED productions have you worked on?

Casey,

Here there is some info about Allan Legarth

http://www.allanlegarthnielsen.com/CVandReferences.html

Not much, but I am sure he will learn a lot at the forum.

Welcome Allan!

Nova Invicta
11-26-2008, 04:18 AM
Some of Allan comments are valid and should not be simply dismissed, yes the goal of larger sensors is to increase the dynamic range but equally the color space is important as is the software that finally converts that raw data into the finished picture you desire. In increasing that dynamic range the relationship with optics changes and one of the failings of large format lenses is they have suffered from lower R&D than has been directed at 35mm lenses and thus many of them are not as good at handling chromatic aberations, veiling glare & high contrast and its worse in a moving as opposed to still image they are also generally slow by comparison to 35mm lenses.
Some stills cameras compensate for chromatic aberations using software and in theory Red can include this but the megapixel war is not the only issue to consider to get visually pleasing pictures. Many digital still cameras with lessor pixel count have in the past given better looking pictures because their processors & software worked more in harmony with the hardware.

He also states another valid point often conviently overlooked by arrogant commentators and I will point it out in a way thats now often used. If I want to paint in oils then I should be able to, if I want to paint in watercolor then I should be able to why should I be forced to use one or the other? Likewise we should be able to use digital or film and its not always simply true to say digital is cheaper than film for starters on film you dont need a DIT!

I have seen tests on HDX-200 P2 material taken out to film and when exposed and lit well look pretty good, same for F900R and in the end the public go to see the story whether we like it or not and whilst we strive to deliver the best possible picture the arms race much of the time is subjective as has been proven on shows like the BBC "Blue Planet" so 28MB sensor maybe the holy grail for some but for many its just a number.

Nova Invicta
11-26-2008, 04:21 AM
I meant K not MB!

John Moores
11-26-2008, 08:01 AM
"Why increasing K numbers..."

But your photosites can't just grow along with the chip size because bigger photosites are less sensitive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Monstro's dynamic range and readout speed sure has a lot to do with a certain pixel size.

Yes, you're wrong. Larger photosites are *more* sensitive, with less noise. Increasing the pixel count for any given frame size must by definition result in smaller pixels, therefore less DR and more noise.
jm

Gunleik Groven
11-26-2008, 08:03 AM
Yes, you're wrong. Larger photosites are *more* sensitive, with less noise. Increasing the pixel count for any given frame size must by definition result in smaller pixels, therefore less DR and more noise.
jm

That'd be right, if it was the same technology.
But if other parts of the signal chain and the sensor itself was swapped, there'd be a new situation.

Daniel Browning
11-26-2008, 08:29 AM
Yes, you're wrong. Larger photosites are *more* sensitive, with less noise. Increasing the pixel count for any given frame size must by definition result in smaller pixels, therefore less DR and more noise.
jm

This is a common misconception. If the small pixels have proportionately smaller sensitivity (and FWC and noise), then when they are resampled to the same size as large pixels, the final image is the same.

But they don't tend to scale proportionately: they tend to scale *better*. For example, cheap little digicams have had gapless microlenses for a long time, which is only now starting to trickle down to DSLR cameras. For that and other reasons, the QE/area, FWC/area, and read noise per area on digicams is better than DSLR. For example, the LX3 has 50% higher QE/area than even the D3: 2.20 e-/16-bit raw level [4].

Eric Fossum, inventor of the CMOS APS, the technology behind almost all new DSLR cameras, coined [1] Agranov's Law: "More pixels improve image quality even in the presence of noise". This is based on a paper presented by G. Agranov at 2007 International Image Sensor Workshop, where it was demonstrated that pixels sizes between 5.6 and 1.7 microns all give the same low light performance, but improved performance with more light.

Eric also said that FWC tends to increase with smaller pixels [3]: "What we really want to know is storage capacity per unit area, that is, electrons per um^2. Generally, as technology advances to smaller dimensions, this number also increases. So, in your terms, smaller pixels have greater depth (per unit area) and saturate 'later in time'".

[1] Eric Fossum coining Agranov's Law: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=24828114

[2] G. Agranov's paper: http://www.imagesensors.org/Past%20Workshops/2007%20Workshop/2007%20Papers/079%20Agranov%20et%20al.pdf

[3] Eric fossum http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=30017021

[4] http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=29866728

Bing Bailey
11-26-2008, 09:56 AM
IMAX cameras used for dark knight weighed a tonne and couldn't hold more than a minute or so of footage and couldn't be handheld for very long without crippling the camera guy. if RED creates the digital equivalent its most likely to be used more on other films including the next batman flick. storage costs go down, storage sizes go up. that won't change using imax film based cameras. so yeah there could be a good reason to go for larger chip sizes and higher RES not for indies although nothing would surprise me but definitely for larger studio films

Weston Ford
11-26-2008, 10:01 AM
We have reached the peak,

thats a stupid thing to say.

Stephen Grubb
11-26-2008, 10:42 AM
Hello everyone. My first post. Please be kind

I would just like to throw in my penny/dimes worth.

Assuming that I have the processing power to edit in 4k or above and then down res my finished indie masterpiece to well.... whatevever resolution to post on the net, burn to dvd or sell to my family and friends. Then, if by some miracle my film gains global interest and somebody kindly offers to screen it at every international film festival and cinema chain and hail me as the new Hitchcock then I would be in a position to give them a copy good enough for my adoring audiance to enjoy on the big screen.

"I am so glad I shot that in 4k." I would say....

.....and then I woke up.

The point being that you might curse the day you only shot in HD.

Jannard
11-26-2008, 12:20 PM
The answers are very simple.

1. I wanted to do it.
2. We can do it.
3. We do sell cameras to guys that are pushing the quality levels past current limits "at all costs".

If you have no need to use a 28K camera, we have other solutions. But just because you may choose not to use one doesn't mean there aren't others that want to explore well beyond the horizon.

BTW... we do know of companies that are now quickly seeing how to provide a post solution. It may be a bit of "build it and they will come"... but it appears that we have already motivated some to mobilize their troops.

Jim

Rami Mustakim
11-26-2008, 01:41 PM
The answers are very simple.

1. I wanted to do it.

Jim

That's why I like RED so much.
Freedom is everything!

Steve Sherrick
11-26-2008, 01:48 PM
BTW... we do know of companies that are now quickly seeing how to provide a post solution. It may be a bit of "build it and they will come"... but it appears that we have already motivated some to mobilize their troops.

Jim

If they get a head start on this and refine the workflow before the camera ships, that is going to be huge. I believe all of the camera's in the second generation of RED digital cinema will benefit from post solutions that are in place upon release/shipping of cameras. It instills confidence from the post community which then gets passed along to the producers, who then pass along confidence to employ the cameras on their shoots.

There has been a lot of progress made over the past year in regards to Red and post workflow. All of the major players are involved in some capacity and the acceptance of Red media has increased quite a bit. I expect that in the next 6 months, it will increase further to the point where it's fairly commonplace and the only issues will be platform stability, using compatible systems that can handle the workload, and getting render speeds improved.

Should be really exciting to see what products are unveiled in the near future.

shannyla
11-26-2008, 03:34 PM
The Genesis is, while built very well, built on the older HD tech. I feel it will have a ceiling that CMOS will and are already moving past. For instance:

To get a GREAT over sampled 4k image out of a CMOS I am looking at the 6k camera. 4k film out or 4k digital projection. To get a straight 4k image, not over sampled, out of a CCD (current Panavision / Sony builds) I need almost a 12k sensor. As is evident by RED's announcement I fell pretty comfortable saying a 6k CMOS will happen before a 12k CCD.

Both Genesis and the D21 are CMOS. D21 works exactly the same way as Red, Genesis uses a 12mp row array sensor which is arguably better than a bayer pattern sensor in terms of color accuracy. These aren't 3CCD HD cameras which is what you seem to be suggesting, nor are they "older" HD tech in any way, unless you consider a S35-sized single CMOS sensor to be in some way obsolete. You could maybe argue about recording onto tape, but SR is reliable, known, proven in production, easy to post and easy to archive. The only downside to HDCAM-SR is the cost of the decks but in every other way it's a wonder format if you've been around this business for any length of time.


The sensor on the Panavision Genesis is 12 megapixel, which is approximatley 4K. They are downsampling in the camera to 1080p. So why not have the option of using all the resolution a chip can produce?

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the Genesis (and by definition the Sony F35, for they are the same...) resolution. It seems to me that Panavision decided, with good reason in my opinion, that for moviemaking colour resolution was more important than spatial resolution. So for each pixel there is a dedicated red, green and blue sensor. In a bayer pattern sensor like the Red and the D21, 50% of the photosites sample green, 25% each for red and blue, and the quality of the raw decoding software determines your color accuracy.

The other reason that the Genesis is a 1080 camera is because thats the format of the SR deck that is used to record the signal.

Don't knock the Genesis until you've tried it, of all the digital cinema film replacement cameras it's the one that I would be most comfortable, in terms of the things that professional filmmakers enjoy such as say "will it work when I turn it on..?", shooting a production with. And we've shot productions with literally all of them, starting with the Viper in 2002.

John K
11-26-2008, 04:10 PM
Both Genesis and the D21 are CMOS. .

Genesis uses a 12 MP CCD sensor.
So does the Dalsa Origin.

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion between Bayer masking, RGB masking, single chip CMOS, single chip CCD and 3-chip Prism cameraas.

Either chip technology can be used with any of the color separation technologies; they are two entirely different things.

Daniel Browning
11-26-2008, 04:48 PM
It seems to me that Panavision decided, with good reason in my opinion, that for moviemaking colour resolution was more important than spatial resolution. So for each pixel there is a dedicated red, green and blue sensor. In a bayer pattern sensor like the Red and the D21, 50% of the photosites sample green, 25% each for red and blue, and the quality of the raw decoding software determines your color accuracy.


At the native 4K size, yes, chroma resolution is only half, which makes RED's chroma resolution only 2K. Of course, that's still more color resolution than the 1080p cameras.

Anyway, if sampling color at half-res is so bad, why does Panavision specifically recommend 4:2:2 over 4:4:4 for post production? Even for special effects and green screen? They say the difference isn't visible for most applications. In the same way, Bayer pattern sensors simulate the human eye by having higher luma resolution.

For whatever reason (weak OLPF or a bug in thier magic), the Genesis output suffers some aliasing artifacts. 4K, on the other hand, lets you choose from a variety of software low pass filtration techniques as you resample to 1080, and isn't limited by the physics of birefringent filters like a native 1080p camera is. This nets an effective 15+% resolution gain without aliasing artifacts: 4K makes a better 1080p than a native 1080p camera.



The other reason that the Genesis is a 1080 camera is because thats the format of the SR deck that is used to record the signal.


My guess is that is the primary reason.

Eric Ulbrich
11-26-2008, 09:18 PM
The answers are very simple.

1. I wanted to do it.
2. We can do it.
3. We do sell cameras to guys that are pushing the quality levels past current limits "at all costs".

If you have no need to use a 28K camera, we have other solutions. But just because you may choose not to use one doesn't mean there aren't others that want to explore well beyond the horizon.

BTW... we do know of companies that are now quickly seeing how to provide a post solution. It may be a bit of "build it and they will come"... but it appears that we have already motivated some to mobilize their troops.

Jim

I agree. As a cinematographer Lazlo Kovacks ASC once said all someone needs to be a cinematographer is a camera and the will to point it and shoot. As long as RED will make em' I will shoot on em'. If I can shoot IMAX format for little under 100 grand for a complete package im in. Also, there is much mention of The Dark Knight and its use of IMAX. Does anybody remember the American Cinematographer article on it? How Wally Pfisters Key grip and crane operators were pulling their hair out modifing ultimate arms and technocranes merely to hold an IMAX camera? The 28K 617 may be a big guy, bit its no way in size to the smallest IMAX camera. Thats why progression is a good thing.

Jannard
11-26-2008, 10:51 PM
At the native 4K size, yes, chroma resolution is only half, which makes RED's chroma resolution only 2K.

Just to be clear, so there isn't any misunderstanding of Bayer pattern resolution numbers, there are a lot of variables that determine what final output resolution is from a CMOS Bayer pattern sensor.

The RED ONE, shooting 4K, has been accurately measured by RED's own Graeme Nattress, and several additional independent testers, to be 3.2K (or 80%) of the Bayer pattern. We consider that to be much higher than the "norm". Which also goes to show you that making sweeping generalizations is dangerous business now and going forward with CMOS sensors. The nuances between different company's sensor and pixel designs is creating a huge difference in performance characteristics.

Jim

Stephen Williams
11-26-2008, 11:28 PM
Hi Jim,

I have no reason to doubt your figures, however shooting bluescreen is clearly worse than shooting a green screen due to far less chroma information.

Best

Stephen


Just to be clear, so there isn't any misunderstanding of Bayer pattern resolution numbers, there are a lot of variables that determine what final output resolution is from a CMOS Bayer pattern sensor.

The RED ONE, shooting 4K, has been accurately measured by RED's own Graeme Nattress, and several additional independent testers, to be 3.2K (or 80%) of the Bayer pattern. We consider that to be much higher than the "norm". Which also goes to show you that making sweeping generalizations is dangerous business now and going forward with CMOS sensors. The nuances between different company's sensor and pixel designs is creating a huge difference in performance characteristics.

Jim

Jannard
11-27-2008, 12:18 AM
Hi Jim,

I have no reason to doubt your figures, however shooting bluescreen is clearly worse than shooting a green screen due to far less chroma information.

Best

Stephen

I know that you believe the numbers, I think at least one of the independent tests was posted on your forum.

You are absolutely correct about green screen being preferable to blue screen. All CMOS sensors struggle with the blue channel compared to the green. RED is no different in that regard.

Jim

Bruce Allen
11-27-2008, 12:46 AM
Just to be clear, so there isn't any misunderstanding of Bayer pattern resolution numbers, there are a lot of variables that determine what final output resolution is from a CMOS Bayer pattern sensor.

The RED ONE, shooting 4K, has been accurately measured by RED's own Graeme Nattress, and several additional independent testers, to be 3.2K (or 80%) of the Bayer pattern.

Jim, isn't that for luma?

Stephen is talking about individual color channels. RED's green resolution is high. RED's blue and red resolution is not so high. Because there are very few pixels that sense red and blue.

Certainly RED is not 3.2k for red or blue channels. What do you guys think it is? You know me - I don't care about 4K or 3K - as long as it's over 1.5K it's fine for my purposes ;)

But definitely the bayer sensor means that the red and blue channels will always be more "difficult" on the RED. Maybe one day you guys will do one of those crazy sensors like the RGBE one (with little cyan pixels interspersed in the pattern) to compensate for this?

Personally I find the greens wonderful to work with on RED, but find it difficult to keep the reds red on the RED. They clip easily and quite quickly go towards brown or pink. I think one way to fix this would be to have a few more red / blue / cyan / pink sensors?

Or you guys could just add secondary CC for the reds to REDCINE / Red Alert / etc and then we can just knock those reds into the right place in post? That would be fine with me.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Pawel Achtel
11-27-2008, 12:54 AM
1. Ability to re-frame in post
2. Higher MTF at small detail (after downconverting to 1080 or 720)
3. No alising
4. Large imager delivers higher sensitivity.
5. Lower noise after downsample.

That about somes it up for me.

It is an acquisition format, not delivery format. As long as it is managable in compressed size, there is no downside to 5K or 9K that I can see.

Pawel Achtel
11-27-2008, 12:59 AM
Jim, isn't that for luma?


There is no luma (or chroma) in Raw sensor output. The resolving power of individual colours will vary and, for 4k RAW, it will be less than 2k for Red and Blue colours.

Our eyes are very poor at resolving colour resolution, though.

shannyla
11-27-2008, 01:54 AM
Genesis uses a 12 MP CCD sensor.
So does the Dalsa Origin.

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion between Bayer masking, RGB masking, single chip CMOS, single chip CCD and 3-chip Prism cameraas.

Either chip technology can be used with any of the color separation technologies; they are two entirely different things.



Having rechecked you're quite right about it being CCD, some info I came across had claimed it was CMOS and I'm guilty of not checking enough. And you are quite right about the confusion between colour separation and sensor technologies. I think the issue is that marketing has attached 3-chip to CCD and Bayer Pattern to CMOS in many people's minds, I think as an attack on CCD cameras.

That said, the Genesis is a very interesting application of CCD tech, and the pictures look incredible.

shannyla
11-27-2008, 02:03 AM
At the native 4K size, yes, chroma resolution is only half, which makes RED's chroma resolution only 2K. Of course, that's still more color resolution than the 1080p cameras.

Anyway, if sampling color at half-res is so bad, why does Panavision specifically recommend 4:2:2 over 4:4:4 for post production? Even for special effects and green screen? They say the difference isn't visible for most applications. In the same way, Bayer pattern sensors simulate the human eye by having higher luma resolution.

For whatever reason (weak OLPF or a bug in thier magic), the Genesis output suffers some aliasing artifacts. 4K, on the other hand, lets you choose from a variety of software low pass filtration techniques as you resample to 1080, and isn't limited by the physics of birefringent filters like a native 1080p camera is. This nets an effective 15+% resolution gain without aliasing artifacts: 4K makes a better 1080p than a native 1080p camera.



My guess is that is the primary reason.



Totally agree on both counts, if anyone can actually see the difference between 422 and 444 on an image that has had little or no post capture processing then they have far better eyes than I do. Likewise the 1080 resolution is a chicken and egg question of what came first.

I'm not sure I'd agree with your statement about posting in 422 however. Going down that route would lose you the benefits of shooting in Panalog in the first place, and I've never heard anyone from Panavision UK suggest that route. That said, the Panavision Genesis Display Processor 444:422 convertor is a billable item...

John Moores
11-27-2008, 05:47 AM
This is a common misconception. If the small pixels have proportionately smaller sensitivity (and FWC and noise), then when they are resampled to the same size as large pixels, the final image is the same.

But they don't tend to scale proportionately: they tend to scale *better*. For example, cheap little digicams have had gapless microlenses for a long time, which is only now starting to trickle down to DSLR cameras. For that and other reasons, the QE/area, FWC/area, and read noise per area on digicams is better than DSLR. For example, the LX3 has 50% higher QE/area than even the D3: 2.20 e-/16-bit raw level [4].

Eric Fossum, inventor of the CMOS APS, the technology behind almost all new DSLR cameras, coined [1] Agranov's Law: "More pixels improve image quality even in the presence of noise". This is based on a paper presented by G. Agranov at 2007 International Image Sensor Workshop, where it was demonstrated that pixels sizes between 5.6 and 1.7 microns all give the same low light performance, but improved performance with more light.

Eric also said that FWC tends to increase with smaller pixels [3]: "What we really want to know is storage capacity per unit area, that is, electrons per um^2. Generally, as technology advances to smaller dimensions, this number also increases. So, in your terms, smaller pixels have greater depth (per unit area) and saturate 'later in time'".

[1] Eric Fossum coining Agranov's Law: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=24828114

[2] G. Agranov's paper: http://www.imagesensors.org/Past%20Workshops/2007%20Workshop/2007%20Papers/079%20Agranov%20et%20al.pdf

[3] Eric fossum http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=30017021

[4] http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=29866728

Thanks for info Daniel.
jm

Daniel Browning
11-27-2008, 08:48 AM
I should first say that I've really enjoyed all the Genesis movies I've seen; the images it produces are very good.



I'm not sure I'd agree with your statement about posting in 422 however. Going down that route would lose you the benefits of shooting in Panalog in the first place, and I've never heard anyone from Panavision UK suggest that route.

The information came from John Galt, Senior VP of Panavision. It started when Ben Smithard, a London DOP, asked the CML (Cinematography Mailing List) if there was a noticable difference between 444 and 422. There was a wide variety of responses. Someone said that the color space was improved in 444, but that's wrong, and John Galt responded with a correction. After correcting the error, he went on to say that is it extremely difficult to demonstrate the difference between 444 and 422:



[...]
Although their is a theoretical improvement in color difference blue screen/green screen photography because of the equal full resolution of 4:4:4 RGB). It is extremely difficult to even demonstrate this with real images. Resolution in this context is bandwidth, or spatial resolution, not color.

John Galt
Senior Vice President
Panavision Advanced Digital Imaging


Several people responded to John with surprise and said that they get better matte extractions with 4:4:4. John said his tests showed otherwise:



My comment on color difference photography was not anecdotal, but based on extensive image composite testing done by myself and my engineering group.

The color difference compositing process for both film and electronic imaging was invented by Petro Vlahos, for which be has won two separate Academy wards, one for film and one for electronic compositing. Petro also founded the Ultimatte corporation. I think it is telling that Ultimatte's latest hardware compositing system no longer supports 4:4:4 but still enables beautiful composites of smoke, liquids and fire without artifacts.

Panavision has a film test which compares 4:4:4:, 4:2:2 and HDCAM image compositing. The subject matter includes liquids, flame, smoke and graduated color on a fine mesh cloth, all designed to exercise the process to its limits.

[...]
John Galt
Senior Vice President
Panavision Advanced Digital Imaging


John also said that he's not advocating that 444 be abandoned, but if it doesn't make a difference for even the most difficult green screen, I wonder when it would be useful.

Several months earlier, John also said:



I certainly was not trying to start an argument when I suggested that a Bayer pattern sensor might be considered to have either a 4:2:2 or a 4:2:0 sampling structure. I actually thought I was being charitable.


He went on to explain why he thought Bayer was even worse than 4:2:0. I disagree, particularly when the Bayer camera starts with a total number of samples that is quadruple that of the Genesis/F35.

The reason might be because Bayer sampling with advanced demosiac algorithms do very closely match the vision of the human eye, which has greater luma resolution than color. RED images demonstrate that, I think.

shannyla
11-27-2008, 09:27 AM
Lots of stuff written by Daniel

I agree that video-gamma encoded images in 422 and 444 would be difficult to tell apart. However the best mode to use the Genesis in for dynamic range is Panalog, which although a fairly mild log encoding is still a log encoding and in my experience better results can be obtained in grading and processing with 444 log images, probably down to smoother transitions between color values and therefore less posterization. I will agree that its subtle. I'm not a compositor so matte extraction isn't my thing.

Perhaps 10-bit 422 and 10-bit 444 are comparable, I'd be lying if I said I'd ever even thought of doing a comparison between them, and John Galt is a clever guy.


He went on to explain why he thought Bayer was even worse than 4:2:0. I disagree, particularly when the Bayer camera starts with a total number of samples that is quadruple that of the Genesis/F35.

The reason might be because Bayer sampling with advanced demosiac algorithms do very closely match the vision of the human eye, which has greater luma resolution than color. RED images demonstrate that, I think.

That said, he does occasionally seem to have some strange ideas. I once had a conversation with him about the SSR1 recorder, where I expressed my surprise that you couldn't access the digital media directly as files, that you have to play out from the solid state recorder to an SR tape. He couldn't see my problem with that.

Does a Red have quadruple the number of samples that a Genesis does? At 12 megapixels I'd say they were roughly the same. Remember that the Genesis is a true 1920x1080xR, 1920x1080G, 1920x1080B. Effectively the sensor is 1920x3024... My opinion with regards Bayer sampling is that the quality of the decoder has a disproportionate effect on image quality. This is blatently obvious in the digital stills world, and there is no reason why moving imagery should be any different in this respect.

Daniel Browning
11-27-2008, 10:12 AM
Does a Red have quadruple the number of samples that a Genesis does? At 12 megapixels I'd say they were roughly the same. Remember that the Genesis is a true 1920x1080xR, 1920x1080G, 1920x1080B. Effectively the sensor is 1920x3024...


You're right. 4K is only quadruple the spatial samples, but if color and spatial samples were weighted equally, RED only has 35% more (4096x2304).



My opinion with regards Bayer sampling is that the quality of the decoder has a disproportionate effect on image quality.

Agreed. If you need real-time 1080p output (e.g. for a tape recorder), with meager computer hardware, it's very hard to get the quality high enough with Bayer, whereas RGB stripe requires zero computer power.

On the other hand, if you can record the raw Bayer information and spend lots of computer time and heavy computer power (more than you can fit inside a camera) on the demosiac, then the quality is outstanding.

Graeme Nattress
11-28-2008, 07:12 AM
RGB stripe though "should" require processing to spatially co-locate the samples. If you're resigned to the fact that you've got a single sensor with a colour filter array, the proof is in the pudding that arranging those samples as a Bayer pattern, gives a higher image quality than the RGB stripe method.

Say you take that 4096x2304 and do a Bayer pattern on it. Measured chroma resolution on pure colours (you'll get much better results on any non-pure colour, but let's take worse case here) is 2048x1152. Luma you'll get about ~78% of 4096, which is 3200x1800.

Arrange those 4096x2304 as a RGB stripe, you'll measure luma and chroma the same as 1365x2304. Actually you'll measure less as you'll need an OLPF in there. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt here. We need to make the pixels non-square to get them to produce a 16:9 image with equal resolution, and that'd give 2352x1323, but in reality less. The Genesis / F35 arrangement will get lower resolution still as it's using a 6 pixel macropixel, giving 1672x940 from the starting number of 4096x2304 pixels.

Given the way the eye sees things, Bayer patterns put much more relevant resolution to that eye. Viewing the 4k movies in the RED cinema, the resolution advantage is pretty obvious too.

Graeme

oldphart
11-28-2008, 03:40 PM
RGB stripe though "should" require processing to spatially co-locate the samples. If you're resigned to the fact that you've got a single sensor with a colour filter array, the proof is in the pudding that arranging those samples as a Bayer pattern, gives a higher image quality than the RGB stripe method.
...

Graeme

If we disregard real-life practicalities, would not the stripe pattern have an advantage if the image is displayed on a device with the same pattern at the same resolution?

Jon Schellenger
11-28-2008, 03:53 PM
I just came across this post...

Trust me. There is a reason for this - even the 28K. Soon everyone will know.

For me, count me in. I am very much into something at that resolution.

And I disagree with the quote that the RED is not the same film like quality as Dalsa, or others. Just look at the trailer for Knowing. Case closed!

J. Eric Camp
11-28-2008, 04:08 PM
Both Genesis and the D21 are CMOS. D21 works exactly the same way as Red, Genesis uses a 12mp row array sensor which is arguably better than a bayer pattern sensor in terms of color accuracy. These aren't 3CCD HD cameras which is what you seem to be suggesting, nor are they "older" HD tech in any way, unless you consider a S35-sized single CMOS sensor to be in some way obsolete. You could maybe argue about recording onto tape, but SR is reliable, known, proven in production, easy to post and easy to archive. The only downside to HDCAM-SR is the cost of the decks but in every other way it's a wonder format if you've been around this business for any length of time.



You're misunderstanding the purpose of the Genesis (and by definition the Sony F35, for they are the same...) resolution. It seems to me that Panavision decided, with good reason in my opinion, that for moviemaking colour resolution was more important than spatial resolution. So for each pixel there is a dedicated red, green and blue sensor. In a bayer pattern sensor like the Red and the D21, 50% of the photosites sample green, 25% each for red and blue, and the quality of the raw decoding software determines your color accuracy.

The other reason that the Genesis is a 1080 camera is because thats the format of the SR deck that is used to record the signal.

Don't knock the Genesis until you've tried it, of all the digital cinema film replacement cameras it's the one that I would be most comfortable, in terms of the things that professional filmmakers enjoy such as say "will it work when I turn it on..?", shooting a production with. And we've shot productions with literally all of them, starting with the Viper in 2002.

Number one: I said they are all good cameras.

Number two: I said the genesis is built very well.

I very politely discussed how I view it. So don't misconstrue my thoughts and comments for knocking or bashing the Genesis. It takes pretty pictures.

Now then... I know how a bayer pattern works and I also know how the Genesis sensor which is NOT A CMOS SENSOR works. I Never suggested it was a 3chip CCD, but it is infact a CCD. It works through a combination of RGB strip and pixel binning. The sensor is exactly 5760x2160.
1920 x 3 (RBG) = 5760
1080 x 2 (pixel binning) = 2160.

Six pixels on the sensor for every pixel in the final product.

I said, all systems have their benefits, all different ways of skinning the cat. The camera works, and I am not knocking it. Nor the D21 which is a CMOS sensor.

The reality is, all cameras can be used well if the jack ass behind it puts the effort in.

Graeme Nattress
11-28-2008, 04:08 PM
If we disregard real-life practicalities, would not the stripe pattern have an advantage if the image is displayed on a device with the same pattern at the same resolution?

It's called a Trinitron Tube TV.... Sit far enough back and there you are....

But you can see, from the above, that you just don't get the resolution...

Graeme

oldphart
11-29-2008, 02:43 AM
It's called a Trinitron Tube TV.... Sit far enough back and there you are....

But you can see, from the above, that you just don't get the resolution...

Graeme

I replaced my Iiyaku and Sony Trinitron monitors with Eizo LCD. Still has the same stripe pattern, just 2k wide. Or 6k if you count colour stripes.

Still, I trust your cat-skinning by the results you obtain. Guess you can skin the same cat up to nine times, though, so I expect you to eventually come up with an even better way. Two different green filters? One Y an one C instead of the two greens? Suppose much depends on possible filter quality. It is one thing to play around with software modelling, a totally different thing to realize it physically.

Graeme Nattress
11-29-2008, 05:19 AM
I'm sure that in the future there will be "better ways" but until then....

Graeme

Radoslav Karapetkov
11-29-2008, 06:05 AM
Mr. Nattress, do you think the new black silicon thing could improve those issues you said about the FoveonX3 chips?

About silicon being a poor color filter, etc.?

And, do you think that a similar kind of layered display is possible?

I mean, a display that has three layers of pixels, each behind the other. You know, to imitate the way film produces colors in projection.

Would it be practical?

Graeme Nattress
11-29-2008, 06:10 AM
I don't think anyone knows enough about black silicon yet to know how it would help, but as it's a surface treatment, and the Foveon uses the depth of the silicon to work, I can't see it helping it's colourimetry one little bit.

For projection, I don't see anything wrong in the colourimetry of current high end projection.

Graeme