Jump to content




Photo

Why does the ArriScan oversample by 50%, per axis?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 February 2015 - 12:29 PM

That is, why 50%, not why does it oversample. Grazie.


  • 0




#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 February 2015 - 12:49 AM

Not sure what you are referring to, unless it is how you can get a 6K scan out of the ArriScanner by how it does a second 3K pass of the frame with a half-pixel offset.


  • 0

#3 Perry Paolantonio

Perry Paolantonio
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, MA

Posted 07 February 2015 - 06:46 AM

Not sure what you are referring to, unless it is how you can get a 6K scan out of the ArriScanner by how it does a second 3K pass of the frame with a half-pixel offset.

 

Now I'm curious about this - what's the reasoning behind the offset?


  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 February 2015 - 08:03 AM

I just explained the reason... to get a 6K scan.
  • 0

#5 Perry Paolantonio

Perry Paolantonio
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, MA

Posted 07 February 2015 - 08:23 AM

Ahh - I misunderstood. I was under the impression the Arriscan used a full 6k sensor and downsampled to resolutions like 2k or 4k. Instead it's using a 3k sensor, taking two images to make a 6k composite, then downsampling that?

 

Is there a technical advantage to making a 6k scan this way, or is it a result of the lack of 6k sensors at the time the scanner was designed? on its face, it sounds kind of kludgy.

 

-perry


  • 0

#6 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 February 2015 - 01:37 PM

My question was, "what's special about 50%?" Am I interpreting correctly, that there's nothing special about 50%, it's just how the Arri engineers got 4K and 6K scans, from a 3K sensor?


  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 February 2015 - 02:25 PM

I still don't understand the original question. What does 50% refer to?

It's a legit 6K scan, nothing kludgy about it.
  • 0

#8 Perry Paolantonio

Perry Paolantonio
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, MA

Posted 07 February 2015 - 04:14 PM

What I'm not really understanding is how it's making a 6k image from a 3k x 2k sensor. From their web site, on the technical specs:

 

Custom CMOS area sensor with piezo actuator for microscanning
Native resolution: 3K x 2K
Max. resolution with microscanning: 6K x 4K

 

 

The way I interpret this is that the sensor is taking 4 shots of the frame, to result in a 6k x 4k image. There are two ways one could do this, I'd think:

 

1) Move the sensor down 2k or across 3k, depending on the image being taken, stitch them together.

 

However, based on what you said earlier in the thread about it moving a half pixel, it sounds like:

 

2) Take multiple images with a micro-shift in the sensor position, and use those to interpolate a 6k image.

 

Now, that's not the same as blowing up a 3k x 2k image to 6k, which would involve making up a lot of image data. A lot of accurate information can be derived by subpixel changes in an image, so you'd probably get a significantly better interpolation to 6k this way than with a single shot at 3k x 2k.

 

But I'm not understanding how this is truly a 6k image if it's doing that. It's still interpolated.

 

Or am I completely misunderstanding what's going on inside the machine?

 

-perry


  • 0

#9 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 February 2015 - 05:21 PM

I still don't understand the original question. What does 50% refer to?

It's a legit 6K scan, nothing kludgy about it.

 

6K is 50% greater than 4K. I'm curious, what's special, about 50%? 


  • 0

#10 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 February 2015 - 05:47 PM

2) Take multiple images with a micro-shift in the sensor position, and use those to interpolate a 6k image.

 

Now, that's not the same as blowing up a 3k x 2k image to 6k, which would involve making up a lot of image data. A lot of accurate information can be derived by subpixel changes in an image, so you'd probably get a significantly better interpolation to 6k this way than with a single shot at 3k x 2k.

 

But I'm not understanding how this is truly a 6k image if it's doing that. It's still interpolated.

 

 

Why do you suggest that this is an interpolation? Data isn't being inferred, it's being directly sampled.

 

At it's essence it's taking advantage of the fact that the image is static in time by trading money spent for time spent - assuming elemental sensor parts  - i.e. pixels - linearly correspond to $ and excluding market forces like supply demand etc. a 6k sensor would cost 4x as much as a 3k, but the time spent doing two scans is closer to 2x worse.

 

4 > 2

 

Maybe I got my logic and math backwards somewhere, but I still think it's a simple case of trading 'space' complexity for time complexity - quite common in industry.


  • 0

#11 Perry Paolantonio

Perry Paolantonio
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, MA

Posted 08 February 2015 - 09:04 AM

 

Why do you suggest that this is an interpolation? Data isn't being inferred, it's being directly sampled.

 

Assume the image is projected onto a plane that the sensor is focused on. If the sensor is 3x2k, and the image fills the sensor area, and there's a miro-movement in the sensor position between images that it takes of the film frame (all of which is what I'm getting from this thread), then how is a 6k image a direct sample? if the sensor is 3000x2000 and the output is 6000x4000, then it must be using those multiple exposures from slightly different positions to interpolate up a new image. Again, this would be more accurate than a single 3000x2000 upscale, but it's still scaling, no?

 

Or is the sensor taking an image, moving 3000 to the left and taking another, then 2000 down for a third, then 2000 to the right for the last, then stitching? That would produce a 6000x4000 image, directly sampled. If that's the case, then I'm not understanding the 'half-pixel offset' that David Mullen describes, thus my confusion.

 

-perry


Edited by Perry Paolantonio, 08 February 2015 - 09:06 AM.

  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 February 2015 - 09:40 AM

It's not scaling nor data interpolation, it's an actual 6K scan. Scaling means resizing and interpolation means estimating data that doesn't exist based on existing data.

 

Here's a quick drawing I did of a grid of photosites.  I took the first grid, let's say it represent the 3K sensor, and then offset it by half a pixel horizontally, then half a pixel vertically, then half a pixel diagonally -- so four scans of the same piece of film:

 

3Kto6K.jpg

 

The blue circles are the first scan and the red circles are from the second, third, and fourth scan.  So you essentially get the SAME thing as if you had built a scanner that had four times the number of photosites.  There is no data interpolation, no scaling, it's an actual scan of the piece of film with four times the resolution, which is what a 6K scan is instead of a 3K scan. There is no difference than if you had actually built a sensor with four times as many photosites.


  • 1

#13 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11229 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 February 2015 - 09:41 AM

Subpixel repositioning like that is something that's been done quite a bit in cameras, particularly things like the Panasonic HVX100 where the green sensor was slightly offset. It does improve resolution quite nicely (perhaps mainly by allowing better antialiasing) but there probably is an argument that it isn't quite as nice as having the bigger sensor to begin with.

 

P


  • 0

#14 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 February 2015 - 09:49 AM

In the case of that 3-chip camera, the green sensor is offset diagonally by a half pixel, which does improve resolution a bit but it's not the same thing as what I'm talking about.


  • 0

#15 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11229 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 February 2015 - 10:59 AM

The query I'd have with it is that the sheer size of the pixels and the optical low-pass filtering ought to mean that each pixel "sees" an area that more or less adjoins the adjacent one (in reality they will cross over slightly, and need to). Without modification, you'd be seeing overlapping pixels. So I wonder if the Arriscan has some mechanical way of altering its OLPF for offset scans.

 

P


  • 0

#16 Perry Paolantonio

Perry Paolantonio
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, MA

Posted 08 February 2015 - 11:07 AM

Thanks, David.

 

That makes more sense. I hadn't considered the spacing between photosites might be wider, with the sensor physically being the same size as if it had 6k horizontal photosites. That's pretty clever, actually.

 

-perry


  • 0

#17 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 February 2015 - 04:02 PM

Here's a quick drawing I did of a grid of photosites.  I took the first grid, let's say it represent the 3K sensor, and then offset it by half a pixel horizontally, then half a pixel vertically, then half a pixel diagonally -- so four scans of the same piece of film

Yes,

 

and the drawing makes it clear there was a flaw in my logic - you'd need four scans not two.

 

Which means that the time spent is 4 times as much - which in turn implies that the cost of pixel density (in dollars or other associated 'bad' factors) isn't linear. There must be something that makes having larger sensor elements worth trading the extra time for...


Edited by Chris Millar, 08 February 2015 - 04:03 PM.

  • 0

#18 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 February 2015 - 04:27 PM

I'm not sure of the exact method, but when I drew the first grid and when I tried a 1/2 pixel offset diagonally overlaid on that, I realized that it wouldn't be the same as an increase from 3K to 6K, which is four times the data, it would be only twice as much data and become in some ways a 45 degree rotated sensor array like in the Sony F65.

 

So I'd have to do some research to confirm how the Arriscanner goes up to 6K, but it seems like it would have to do four scans at 3K with a half-pixel offset up, down, and diagonally to achieve that.


  • 0

#19 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 February 2015 - 05:14 PM

Yip, agree - we're at risk of armchair engineering and over simplifying things and they have some magic/counterintuitive/'data from nowhere' algorithms - but sometimes it is a simple as what makes sense...


  • 0

#20 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 08 February 2015 - 06:17 PM

 

3Kto6K.jpg

 

 

Are "photosites" adequately represented by the small cicles with much space between?  If they are larger then the sensor offsets may produce overlaps rather than just an increased density of circles.

 

Over the complete sensor one could look at or imagine a distribution of photon impacts,  or counted photons.  Ignoring the filters,  one might see a distribution that resembles a monochrome pointillist painting,  with the "gaps" between pixels being visible by the varying density of impacts approaching the pixel edge,  and no impacts in the gaps.


  • 0


Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Zylight

CineLab

Pro 8mm

CineTape

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Pro 8mm

Technodolly

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

CineTape

Zylight

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider