Jump to content


Photo

Bayer Filter'd 1 sensor vs. 3-Sensor Camera


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Miller

Mike Miller
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 13 December 2007 - 06:58 AM

http://www.high-tech.../Camera_t_1.htm

This analysis claims 65% of the full horizontal resolution and 80% of the full vertical resolution when using Bayer filter

Kodak, which invented the Bayer filter has similar claims.


Other sites and test claim 1/2 resolution for Bayer filter:

http://www.scss.com....olution/#camres

http://lagemaat.blog...ensors-you.html


How does Red do it? How are they able to achieve full 4K resolution from a 4K single CMOS sensor with Bayer filter when neither Sony, nor Panasonic are able to do it? I do understand that Red is using some innovative algorithm that is superior to Kodak, Sony, Panasonic and everyone else. Could someone shed some light on it? Is Red using licenced technology? Is it their invention? Is it patented? Could someone direct me to their patent number?

I have hard time believing that Red can achieve 4K from a 4K sensor, but everything i possible. The Red concept is quite innovating.
  • 0

#2 Mike Miller

Mike Miller
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 13 December 2007 - 07:10 AM

Projection resolution is about 1.5K for optical and 2K for digital. 2K and 4K are the new digital projection standards. How does the Red camera fit into this, where when work flow is digital, there is no resolution loss, therefore to achieve 2K theater output, no higher than 2K acquisition is needed and for 4K full 4K is needed. Is there any camera that achieves full 4K right now?
  • 0

#3 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 13 December 2007 - 07:37 AM

How does Red do it? How are they able to achieve full 4K resolution from a 4K single CMOS sensor with Bayer filter when neither Sony, nor Panasonic are able to do it?


Hi,

They don't, I think they claim about 70-75%.

Stephen
  • 0

#4 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 13 December 2007 - 08:47 AM

Projection resolution is about 1.5K for optical ............

Only when crappy high speed duplication prints and/or 2K DI's are used. 35mm can be as good as 6K when the bean counters are kept out of the workflow. I saw an early release trailer for "Dan in Real Life" a few months ago that was sharp as a tack in an AMC house in OKC - it looked like it was etched on the screen.
  • 0

#5 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 December 2007 - 09:56 AM

They may claim 75%. I seriously question whether that's achievable, at least not reliably on arbitrary subjects.

Phil
  • 0

#6 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:08 PM

JVC claimed 3 CCD equivalence out of a single chip when they introduced their hybrid primary complimentary color filteration technology in the consumer high definition camera the GR-HD1. Since then JVC is focusing on 3 CCD technology and is now developing a 3 CCD 4k video camera.
  • 0

#7 Mike Miller

Mike Miller
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:08 PM

So is it more like a 3K camera?

Does it mean that a 2K camera would deliver just as good results for digital 2K projection?

Would the Red camera be OK for digital 4K projection, which is one of the new standards? Are there any real 4K resolution digital cameras? Are the Red lenses good for 4K throughout their range and high contrast? How solid are they mechanically?

How good is the camera in low light? How noisy is it?
  • 0

#8 Mike Miller

Mike Miller
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:10 PM

JVC claimed 3 CCD equivalence out of a single chip when they introduced their hybrid primary complimentary color filteration technology in the consumer high definition camera the GR-HD1. Since then JVC is focusing on 3 CCD technology and is now developing a 3 CCD 4k video camera.


JVC was bought by Kenwood. Is the video division staying intact? It was a money loser for Matsushita and the cameras had reliability issues.
  • 0

#9 Mike Miller

Mike Miller
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:22 PM

If these cameras ends up being used strictly for 2K projections, as there are only a few theaters with 4K projectors, would not it be better if the camera was 2K with larger pixels? I think that 4K theaters will be reserved for high end productions shot with film or true 4K cameras.

The camera could have used 3K CMOS, with true 2K resolution output.
  • 0

#10 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 13 December 2007 - 02:38 PM

Are the Red lenses good for 4K throughout their range and high contrast? How solid are they mechanically?

How good is the camera in low light? How noisy is it?


Hi,

The Red (Signa) 18-50 seems optically adequate for many, however there seem to a few issues with the 'made in England' conversion.

Define good? Better than a HVX or Vision 3?

Stephen
  • 0

#11 Mike Miller

Mike Miller
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 13 December 2007 - 02:43 PM

How does it compare to F900?
  • 0

#12 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 13 December 2007 - 02:47 PM

How does it compare to F900?


Hi,

I have tested a F900R V Film and can say the F900R was well behind film. I am sure Red would be better than a F900R, not at all sure about a F23 .

Stephen
  • 0

#13 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 December 2007 - 02:47 PM

This is about the 3rd time around for this discussion.

Yes, a 4K Bayer is equal (with Graeme magic) to about 3K-3.2K.

Yet, if you take 35mm film and do a 4K scan, the RED 4K image is higher resolution. (Tests at several labs)

Also, see Peter Jackson's quote about RED footage needing to be compared to 65mm film and not 35mm film. And no, Peter does not own RED stock. But he has placed orders for a lot of RED ONEs.

RED 4K (3K?) footage has also shown to have more resolution than full frame 35mm sensor cameras that output 1080P.

You can call the numbers anything you want. In the end, it is the direct comparisons that matter.

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard, 13 December 2007 - 02:48 PM.

  • 0

#14 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 13 December 2007 - 02:49 PM

Also, see Peter Jackson's quote about RED footage needing to be compared to 65mm film and not 35mm film. And no, Peter does not own RED stock. But he has placed orders for a lot of RED ONEs.

Jim


Hi Jim,

I also heard that PJ's next film is to be made on film after extensive testing. Can you comment?

Stephen
  • 0

#15 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 December 2007 - 03:18 PM

Hi Jim,

I also heard that PJ's next film is to be made on film after extensive testing. Can you comment?

Stephen


Peter needed certain features enabled and we couldn't get them done in time for The Lovely Bones. We both are ready for his next one.

BTW... you packaged your question to make it sound like the test results were the reason to shoot film. That is inaccurate.

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard, 13 December 2007 - 03:20 PM.

  • 0

#16 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 13 December 2007 - 03:26 PM

Peter needed certain features enabled and we couldn't get them done in time for The Lovely Bones. We both are ready for his next one.

BTW... you packaged your question to make it sound like the test results were the reason to shoot film. That is inaccurate.

Jim


Hi Jim,

I was asking for more information, I had no idea why PJ was not shooting with a Red after his comments following CTL.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Stephen
  • 0

#17 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 December 2007 - 04:06 PM

> Yes, a 4K Bayer is equal (with Graeme magic) to about 3K-3.2K.

Not until you stop suppressing tests, it doesn't.

Graeme is not magic. There is not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Wishing won't make it happen. No you can't have the candy bar you've had six this week already.

Phil
  • 0

#18 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 December 2007 - 11:28 PM

> Yes, a 4K Bayer is equal (with Graeme magic) to about 3K-3.2K.

Not until you stop suppressing tests, it doesn't.

Graeme is not magic. There is not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Wishing won't make it happen. No you can't have the candy bar you've had six this week already.

Phil


I know at some point we'll both be tempted not to post at each other... but how do you explain our resolution being greater than a 4K film scan? The whole world thinks RED footage has amazing resolution except Phil... and Phil has never seen the footage.

Jim
  • 0

#19 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 December 2007 - 11:50 PM

Not until you stop suppressing tests, it doesn't.

Phil


You are quite the conspiracy theorist. How are we suppressing tests with 100 delivered cameras in the field? We have established that we have no NDA or other agreement with our customers about what they can say or do with a RED ONE camera. The LART test was not under our control in any way.

On the other hand, RED ONEs are shooting several feature films by discerning directors and cinematographers who have tested the camera before beginning production. They must have liked what they saw? It is not our place to ask them to publish their test results.

Accusing us of suppressing tests is fairly severe when the facts seem to indicate exactly the opposite.

Jim
  • 0

#20 Gary McClurg

Gary McClurg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Producer

Posted 14 December 2007 - 12:23 AM

You are quite the conspiracy theorist. How are we suppressing tests with 100 delivered cameras in the field? We have established that we have no NDA or other agreement with our customers about what they can say or do with a RED ONE camera. The LART test was not under our control in any way.

On the other hand, RED ONEs are shooting several feature films by discerning directors and cinematographers who have tested the camera before beginning production. They must have liked what they saw? It is not our place to ask them to publish their test results.

Accusing us of suppressing tests is fairly severe when the facts seem to indicate exactly the opposite.

Jim


Easy way to shut him up is just set up a test with him... then when he's proven wrong he can say he's sorry...
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

CineLab

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Opal

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Technodolly