Jump to content


Photo

Red is a 3K Resolution Camera. How Is The Noise?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Miller

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

Posted 14 December 2007 - 09:03 AM

Can we then agree that this camera has 3K resolution and Jim will quit calling it 4K and Phil less than 3K until true tests are carried out.

Could Jim pay Phil's ticket to come witness a resolution test or could he arrange for such a test to be carried in England with Phil's presence? I trust Phil. Jim is too much of a salesman.

It is obvious this is a 3. not a 4K camera as Jim is promoting it everywhere. This misrepresentation is what pushes Phil's and everyone else's button.


As Jim himself admits to 3, rather than 4K, lets agree to that and examine the noise. I read somewhere that it is quite noisy, although Jim's Red released in another forum frame grabs that indicate low noise even at around some 10K ASA rating. What is the reality?
  • 0

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11937 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 December 2007 - 09:21 AM

From what I've seen the noise is extremely low - amazingly low, given what the sensor is (again, as always, reportedly) capable of.

This is a source of frustration since a low noise sensor allows much better highlight recovery by the simple expedient of stopping down and/or applying aggressive gamma correction. All the Red images I've seen so far were in dire need of this.

It's a shame they're not making more out of what they're good at rather than pushing things we all know they can't possibly achieve.

Phil
  • 0

#3 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 December 2007 - 10:01 AM

The camera uses a 4k sensor that is Bayer-masked. They claim that they can get around 3K out of it. That makes it a 4K camera in my book.

There are many 3-chip cameras out there with resolution claims of 1920x1080. Guess what -- NONE OF THEM DELIVER THIS RESOLUTION IN THE END!!! There are losses in alignment, the low pass filter, the prism, Nyquist, etc. There is absolutely not a single color electronic camera on earth that resolves exactly the resolution of the stated spec of the sensor. It is just not how these things work.

To bash RED on Bayer masking but not question any other camera manufacturer about the limitations of their systems is vastly unfair. Want a real way of measuring resolution? Get a camera and test it. Otherwise shut up because you apparently don't know what you're talking about.
  • 0

#4 Mike Miller

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

Posted 14 December 2007 - 10:32 AM

QUOTE (Jim Jannard @ Dec 13 2007, 11:47 AM)
Yes, a 4K Bayer is equal (with Graeme magic) to about 3K-3.2K.

QUOTE (Jim Jannard @ Dec 14 2007, 12:18 AM)
No one else has a problem with our 4K resolution and it is not my job to "fly him out".

The above was supposed to be a part of the original post.



F900 delivers 1440x1080 to tape and 1920x1080 to HDSDI. Red delivers 3K. If it had (3) 4K CMOS sensors or one 6K sensor, it could deliver 4K. Why then call it 4K just because it carries 3K over 4K. Would you call HVX200 1080p camera when it delivers 720p over 1080p? I would not, so please don't tell ME to shut up!
  • 0

#5 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 December 2007 - 10:58 AM

QUOTE (Jim Jannard @ Dec 13 2007, 11:47 AM)
F900 delivers 1440x1080 to tape and 1920x1080 to HDSDI. Red delivers 3K. If it had (3) 4K CMOS sensors or one 6K sensor, it could deliver 4K. Why then call it 4K just because it carries 3K over 4K. Would you call HVX200 1080p camera when it delivers 720p over 1080p? I would not, so please don't tell ME to shut up!

Because you are wrong.

F900 format spec is one thing, but that is not a measure of its true resolving power. Don't quote specs. Take a real camera and actually measure its resolving power. NONE OF THEM MATCH THE FORMAT SPEC. This is reality, and RED works just as well as every other camera in this regard, perhaps better.

Sorry to be grumpy, but this is a real sore point with me. People seem to think that 3-chip is this perfect nirvana of absolute performance. It is a fine system, but like all systems there are inherent limitations. It is generally agreed by engineers who actually know what they are talking about that 3-chip and Bayer-masked single chip will resolve about the same in the end when both are performing at their best.
  • 0

#6 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11937 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 December 2007 - 11:00 AM

> It is generally agreed by engineers who actually know what they are talking about that 3-chip and Bayer-masked
> single chip will resolve about the same in the end when both are performing at their best.

With the same number of photosites?

Phil
  • 0

#7 Mike Miller

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

Posted 14 December 2007 - 11:03 AM

They can never perform the same. Three chips are not only capable to deliver full resolution, but also 4:4:4 output. Try that with Bayer.
  • 0

#8 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 December 2007 - 11:10 AM

> It is generally agreed by engineers who actually know what they are talking about that 3-chip and Bayer-masked
> single chip will resolve about the same in the end when both are performing at their best.

With the same number of photosites?

Phil

Yup.
  • 0

#9 Mike Miller

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

Posted 14 December 2007 - 11:17 AM

Why are then the major manufacturers using 3 chips - and on one chip consumer and prosumer cameras - to achieve equal resolution - major manufacturers have to use many more pixels? Are Red engineers so much more knowledgeable than the best brains from Sony, Panasonic, and JVC?
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 December 2007 - 12:21 PM

Why are then the major manufacturers using 3 chips - and on one chip consumer and prosumer cameras - to achieve equal resolution - major manufacturers have to use many more pixels? Are Red engineers so much more knowledgeable than the best brains from Sony, Panasonic, and JVC?


Why are single large-sensor cameras becoming more common? Sony is coming out with the F35, Panavision has the Genesis, there is the SI-2K, the Phantom, the Dalsa, Panasonic is rumored to be working on one... Why are most digital still cameras single-sensor and not 3-sensor with a prism block? Are all of those DSLR's out there unprofessional, unusable too?

There are a lot of people who would like to be able to use 35mm optics on a digital cine camera.

How many companies like Sony et al. are designing 3-sensor cameras where the sensors are larger than 2/3"? Most engineers consider the size of the prism-block to become a problem when you're talking about 35mm sized sensors. So why jump on RED for pursuing a 35mm single-sensor approach when that's what almost every company will do when they want a 35mm sized sensor? Why not jump all over Panavision, Phantom, and Dalsa while you're at at? Why not Sony for their F35? Why not all the DSLR's being made today by Canon, Nikon, etc.?
  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Opal

Glidecam

Technodolly

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc