RED ONE footage

[Phil Rhodes]

> Either RED is 1K or 2K (in your mind).

 

No, that's what we philosophers refer to as a false dilemma. It has long been my assumption, based on available evidence and my knowledge of how it works, that it's a very credible 2-and-a-bit-K image, with the remnants of the same sort of chroma smear issues you get from any Bayer pattern sensor. If you want to dismiss those artifacts almost completely, you need to blow it down a lot. That's how this has worked since the dawn of the DSLR, and it didn't seem to hurt the startlingly quick uptake of the technology. This does not detract from the fact that it is a high resolution motion picture camera at an unprecedentedly low price. Denying it, though, is silly.

 

> Graeme is. He has done what you said couldn't be done.

 

No he hasn't. Well, OK. I'll come and shoot a set of chroma interference charts on your camera and I'll compare the results at 2K and 4K. If I'm convinced that it really is a 4096 pixel image with match resolution in all three channels I will gladly revise my assumption.

 

> As for support, why would we be able to properly support Soderbergh and others, but not you?

 

Soderbergh has more kudos than me.

 

> Are you afraid that your attitude has in some way made you a candidate for "non-support"?

 

Yes.

 

Phil

[Thomas James]

I am suprised that a Bayer pattern filter is used in the Red camera. A hybrid primary complimentary filteration system can output 4:4:4 color while using only a single CCD or CMOS chip.

[Jim Jannard]

> Either RED is 1K or 2K (in your mind).

 

It has long been my assumption, based on available evidence and my knowledge of how it works...

You know what they say about assumptions...

> Are you afraid that your attitude has in some way made you a candidate for "non-support"?

 

Yes.

Fear not, a change in attitude will yield a change in support. :-)

Phil

 

I'm not interested in a long term war. Plenty of productive things to do. Respectful (not loaded) questions should and will be answered. My presentation here may have not always been the best (I leak passion fluid) but I'm willing to make a better effort.

 

Jim

Edited September 9, 2007 by Jim Jannard

[Daniel Smith]

I think the reason people get upset reading something like this is because it sounds like you (or really anyone that says something similar) are stating that as fact. And the guys that say the opposite state their opinions as fact. We all have different eyes, and different criteria for what makes a quality, versatile, image format.

 

What I like about Red is the price, and possibly the workflow. Haven't read much about the workflow yet, though.

 

As far as image quality is concerned, the most obvious benefit of the Red is lack of grain. Of course, some of us don't mind grain. In fact, I can't remember anytime a movie has been ruined for me due to grain! :P

Better quality images? I'm not so sure about that one! Higher resolution images? Definitely!

Everyone's putting such emphasis on resolution, and lack of grain! 16mm isn't 4k, but so far from what I've seen, I personally prefer it. I'm sure other people feel that way, too. Apparently, a lot of people agree with you as well! So for those whose utmost concern is resolution, they have a great option now!

 

I should mention that when analyzing the 4k tiff's that have been uploaded, I feel like the sharpness is suffering somehow. From the discussion's I've read, it seems it has to do with the way bayer chips work. In reality, the chip's probably closer to 3.4k or something like that. But even so, still higher resolution then 16mm!

But don't you see? It's the same attitude towards film from the Red enthusiasts. "Film is dead! Game over!" Why can't they both coexist peacefully!?

It's the same reaction when the film guys claim Red isn't up to par.

 

If we had some more footage, we could be analyzing it better, instead of arguing with each other! Where is all the footage!?

Jay

But there are so few Red enthusiasts around here.

 

If people are trying to 'get at them' why can't people get at them without getting at the camera. Or failing that get at them, where they frequent. It reminds me of my friends telling me about how great metal is and how much better it is etc. But I never once attack metal. Only the retards who think it's "better".

 

But from the comments I've seen, the majority of this forum has been very anti-Red.

 

 

> If the Red camera wasn't 4k

 

It's not 4K. It's two and a bit. And that's not bashing, that's counting.

Phil, what does that matter? Resolution is so 'yesterday'.

 

At least, it is now anyway.

 

Try again. The RED is an $18,000 camera, a zoom lens is $9,0000 and a set of primes of $20,000 = $50,000

You not notice I said 'rent'??

 

Why does everyone assume you'll have to buy the damn thing.

[Adamo P Cultraro]

Why do we care what Phil thinks?

[Mark Bonnington]

> Either RED is 1K or 2K (in your mind).

 

No, that's what we philosophers refer to as a false dilemma. It has long been my assumption, based on available evidence and my knowledge of how it works, that it's a very credible 2-and-a-bit-K image, with the remnants of the same sort of chroma smear issues you get from any Bayer pattern sensor. If you want to dismiss those artifacts almost completely, you need to blow it down a lot. That's how this has worked since the dawn of the DSLR, and it didn't seem to hurt the startlingly quick uptake of the technology. This does not detract from the fact that it is a high resolution motion picture camera at an unprecedentedly low price. Denying it, though, is silly.

 

> Graeme is. He has done what you said couldn't be done.

 

No he hasn't. Well, OK. I'll come and shoot a set of chroma interference charts on your camera and I'll compare the results at 2K and 4K. If I'm convinced that it really is a 4096 pixel image with match resolution in all three channels I will gladly revise my assumption.

 

> As for support, why would we be able to properly support Soderbergh and others, but not you?

 

Soderbergh has more kudos than me.

 

> Are you afraid that your attitude has in some way made you a candidate for "non-support"?

 

Yes.

 

Phil

I'd like to propose that references to resolution be suffixed by a letter "-V" or "-H" depending on whether the vertical or horizontal axis is being measured. Are you talking about 2K-V or 2K-H?

 

I think the argument of comparing Bayer chips to film resolution is a bit tricky. The best comparison would be to count the total number of grains on the film plane, then count the number of photo sites on the chip. If the two match up then the resolution should be similar: any deviations and one will have higher resolution than the other. Does anyone have time enough to count all the grains on an S35 film frame? Or maybe those numbers are already posted somewhere? Well, if not, that's ok, because the old-style charted resolution tests were already done a long time ago (wish I could remember where they were posted). Back when DSLR's were getting more and more packed with pixels, there were extensive tests (heated arguments between digital and film shooters) to compare the Bayer chips to film resolution. The point where the comparison broke even was hovering just above 8Mp, and the tide would sway depending on interpretations of grain patterns and CMOS noise and all sorts of other little issues. If the RedOne is built with 11Mp, then that's a good bit more than the 8Mp resolution and is likely to be as good as film resolution, if not better. Now, whether film is up to 4k resolution is a different story. I've scanned high quality slide film at 2k and been able to pick out grain pattern, and scanning the same frame at 4k did nothing except make the dust blotches bigger. So, I think it could be contended that the RedOne might not capture perfect RGB 4k, but then film isn't capturing it either. And if you are convinced that film can hold 4k resolution, then an 11Mp Bayer chip will hold 4k resolution as well. Ultimately, the goal is a good final image and whether the camera shows an official 4k resolution or not is kind of beside the fact. Who listens to advertising anyway?

 

Phil, I wouldn't worry about the support issue, I think the last thing Jim and Company would want to do is give you fuel to justify arguments against the camera. In fact, they'd probably treat you better than Soderbergh.

[Graeme Nattress]

All I remember from last year's IBC is that Phil told me it was a 1k camera, at which point I laughed and asked him if after viewing the image on the 60ft screen it looked like the output from a 1k camera. Now, Phil may have mis-spoke and meant to say 2k, or may not - that's for him to remember not me, but I'm very clear in my recollection of the event.

 

The pros and cons of a Bayer pattern sensor are well known and understood. As are other alternative imaging approaches, and non are in any way perfect. Every single one is a series of compromises, and I'm happy that the compromises we have taken result in a very nice image, with a very usable file size from a compact camera that takes standard cinema lenses.

 

When Phil gets to design and build his own camera, he can choose his own personal set of compromises and I wish him luck in achieving his goals.

 

Graeme

[Tim Tyler]

But from the comments I've seen, the majority of this forum has been very anti-Red.

 

Cinematography.com has not been "anti-Red".

 

Many professionals here have simply asked a lot of specific questions about Red technology over the last year or two, and most have gone unanswered or have been brushed over in much the same way that a politician will avoid being specific.

 

Since the beginning, the Red Team and fans of the project have spoken of their camera as if it has always existed. I personally remember the first Red tent at NAB with its carnival-like atmosphere. The barker outside pointed to a plasma display with computer renderings of the camera and bulleted feature lists while exclaiming "Red is this and Red is that. Red does this and Red does that." as if the camera actually existed anywhere besides on paper and in the minds of its creators.

 

As other members here have written already, it's the not the Red project that has upset many here, it's the way it's been marketed. Most camera professionals are experienced, smart, critical, and often cynical people who aren't interested in using equipment presented to them in an infomercial-like way. Red's marketing strategy is their business, but it's far from the norm when it comes to professional motion picture equipment.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Why do we care what Phil thinks?

 

Because Phil is your new god.

 

Seriously though, it's obvious that RED has >HD resolution. It's also obvious that RED has a greater lattitude than HD. I think, like Jim said, RED is a different animal. It's a completely different look than film or video. I think, with all due respect to RED, that it will take awhile for RED to gain acceptance as looking "cinema like" in the public's mind once features start being made and rightfully so. People have watched 35mm celluloid for 100 years. That is a long time for one standard to reign and people to be influenced as to what looks "movie like." I have shown RED grabs and clips to people I know who know nothing technical at all about all of this, and most have said that RED looks "surreal", "futuristic","Computer generated",and even like "real life through sunglasses." Whereas material shot on 35mm got reactions of "looks like a movie" and "dream like" most often. I know this forum prides itself on professional opinions, but I feel there is merit in non-pro opinions since it is the average person, not the pro, that are spending their money in the cinemas and are the end-users of the finished material.

[Jim Jannard]

Cinematography.com has not been "anti-Red".

 

Many professionals here have simply asked a lot of specific questions about Red technology over the last year or two, and most have gone unanswered or have been brushed over in much the same way that a politician will avoid being specific.

 

Since the beginning, the Red Team and fans of the project have spoken of their camera as if it has always existed. I personally remember the first Red tent at NAB with its carnival-like atmosphere. The barker outside pointed to a plasma display with computer renderings of the camera and bulleted feature lists while exclaiming "Red is this and Red is that. Red does this and Red does that." as if the camera actually existed anywhere besides on paper and in the minds of its creators.

 

As other members here have written already, it's the not the Red project that has upset many here, it's the way it's been marketed. Most camera professionals are experienced, smart, critical, and often cynical people who aren't interested in using equipment presented to them in an infomercial-like way. Red's marketing strategy is their business, but it's far from the norm when it comes to professional motion picture equipment.

 

Tim... with all due respect, you may not have liked how we have marketed this camera. I can understand that. I hope you can also understand that we have not liked how this forum has been allowed to be such a disrespectful environment. I certainly did not want to answer questions that were loaded for an argument.

 

Now that the camera is what we said it would be, maybe we can move forward with more productive discussions.

 

BTW, Stephen has done a very good job as moderator. Slowly but surely he has turned this board around.

 

Jim

[Phil Rhodes]

At no time have I unequivocally told Nattress that it's a 1K camera. He approached me with the statement at IBC 2006 and it was as mistaken then as it is now. My memories of the event are clear, as is my technical opinion of the camera - and it always has been. The provocative statement exists on this forum, somewhere. Contrary recollections are incorrect and I feel no need to defend myself further on this point.

 

> The pros and cons of a Bayer pattern sensor are well known and understood.

 

So - and I really hate to beat a dead horse here - knowing this, why are you still marketing it as a 4K camera?

 

I'm sick and tired of asking entirely reasonable questions and having people fly off the handle. The fact that someone might somewhere have started marketing a device as something it's not, and their embarrassment at being questioned, is not my problem.

 

You won't believe the amount of intemperate foul language I had to cut out of this before I posted it.

 

Phil

[Chad Stockfleth]

well, still some sore feelings i see, but you can't make an omelet as they say....

 

stephen's endorsement (if you will) carries some weight.....

 

most of us aren't anti-red.....maybe anti-propaganda.....

 

i don't speak for everyone.....

 

i hope the thing works and i hope it gets cheaper......

 

congratulations jim.

[Thomas Worth]

I think understand what Phil means by "1K camera." I will attempt to explain.

 

According to Wikipedia, the Nyquist?Shannon sampling theorem states the following:

 

"Exact reconstruction of a continuous-time baseband signal from its samples is possible if the signal is bandlimited and the sampling frequency is greater than twice the signal bandwidth."

 

Basically this means that in order to faithfully reproduce the original (in this case, a photographed scene), the sampling rate must be double the output rate. This is why in the print and design world, the resolution of bitmap files are optimally twice the linescreen (size of the dot) of the printer.

 

In the case of the Red, due to Bayer filtering, the sensor captures approximately 2K of green, 1K of red and 1K of blue. This is going off the Mysterium specs listed on Red's site.

 

Green: ~2K

Red: ~1K

Blue: ~1K

 

Adding these together gives you, of course, 4K. But TRUE 4K would be 4K of R, G and B since each pixel in a color image is a combination of all three.

 

So, since the Red's greatest sampling of color is around 2K (green), based on the Nyquist?Shannon theorem your optimal resolution is somewhere around 1K.

 

Furthermore, any resolution stated over what I have just pointed out is INTERPOLATED. It works the same way with digital SLRs that use Bayer filtered sensors. It is sometimes referred to as "demosaicing," which can basically be stretched to any resolution desired. But it's still being processed, whether via the camera's internal demosaicing program or Adobe Camera Raw's. It's interpolated -- creating more data from less data. Or rather, "filling in the gaps between pixels."

 

Of course none of this means anything necessarily bad. I've shot countless photos on countless dSLRs and have almost never had any complaints. I'm sure the Red camera will produce nice images.

[Tim Tyler]

Tim... with all due respect..

 

Yes, Jim, I suspect that Red discussions here will be more practical now that the project is past vaporware. I have looked forward to this stage for a long time now. For a short time a while back, when it became obvious that the people on both sides of most Red discussions here were not interested in the same things, I asked members to stop discussing Red until it arrived.

 

I'm glad that you and your people are here and contributing. Not many pro camera manufacturers would bother finding the time to do that.

 

It is not fair in my opinion, however, for Red to just answer non-technical, promotional questions. Obviously there are "we could tell you but we'd have to kill you" questions that must be avoided, but I think there were also serious tech questions that were not addressed, and that became frustrating after a while.

 

Unlike other forums where nine out of ten posts simply exclaim "Great job, Jim!", we're usually not interested in stroking egos here. It's not disrespect by any means; just being efficient.

[Jim Jannard]

Yes, Jim, I suspect that Red discussions here will be more practical now that the project is past vaporware. I have looked forward to this stage for a long time now. For a short time a while back, when it became obvious that the people on both sides of most Red discussions here were not interested in the same things, I asked members to stop discussing Red until it arrived.

 

I'm glad that you and your people are here and contributing. Not many pro camera manufacturers would bother finding the time to do that.

 

It is not fair in my opinion, however, for Red to just answer non-technical, promotional questions. Obviously there are "we could tell you but we'd have to kill you" questions that must be avoided, but I think there were also serious tech questions that were not addressed, and that became frustrating after a while.

 

Unlike other forums where nine out of ten posts simply exclaim "Great job, Jim!", we're usually not interested in stroking egos here. It's not disrespect by any means; just being efficient.

 

Tim... there were over 5000 replies on this forum BEFORE we started shipping, so someone was interested to post something about RED. Unfortunately, it was mostly about what we "couldn't do" or if we could, why it wasn't worthy of any consideration. You can imagine the frustration of hearing that while you are busy building a camera. Even today, there seems to be more interest about whether or not we are a 1K camera, a 2K camera or a 3.2K camera. I wonder how much time was spent debating whether or not an HD Cam is really a 1440x1080P camera or a true 1080P camera. In the end, the images speak for themselves.

 

There are some here who profess to be experts on so many things about a camera that have never built one. Those experts told us we could never build our own sensor. Even last week saying that we had an Altasens sensor (although they don't have anything that approaches our specs). It is these experts that care more about trying to debunk a perceived myth than embracing the reality. We are doing many things that most thought were impossible for us to do. It should be no surprise that we are not keen to tell every detail how we got it done. That just doesn't make sense. People are now saying that the RED image is the cleanest they have ever seen. And these are images captured on compressed REDCODE RAW at 27MB/sec on a Compact Flash card. That seems pretty amazing to most, but not here. It has never received notice.

 

We are happy to be here to answer questions and listen to suggestions that might help our program along. If our program gets better, our customers will benefit. But debating whether or not we are valid is simply a waste of time. The members of this forum will determine the future of our involvement here. I came here asking for help a year and a half ago. I'm here now with the same request. But if we have to put up with Phil's nonsense, our time is better served somewhere else. That is pretty easy to understand. I don't need to hear "great job, Jim". But I don't need to hear that our program is a scam or "film is all that matters" either. I would like to hear intelligent suggestions on how we can improve our program. So far, offline suggestions from Stephen Williams are about all I have heard. And I have gained some good insight from him. It would be nice and productive to hear more from the rest of the group. We have changed our program radically throughout development because of suggestions from the industry. And we are not done listening.

 

Jim

[Ralph Oshiro]

Great job, Jim!

[Tim Tyler]

You can imagine the frustration of hearing that while you are busy building a camera. ...

 

But debating whether or not we are valid is simply a waste of time.

 

You're right, I can't imagine the frustration of building a camera, not do I think most members here can, but that's because we're not builders. We're users. We make images for clients and they pay us. We want to offer our clients style, value, reliability, and quality, and that's where the foundations of our questions come from. We still don't know if your product can provide all those things, but it's likely that it'll all be clear very soon now that you're shipping the product.

 

Please put yourself for just a second in our shoes. When a sunglasses manufacturer bursts onto the well established professional motion picture camera manufacturing scene with promises of a very low cost product that will deliver images better than the rest, that in my opinion requires a leap of faith from our community. I mean, if the Michelin Tire Company started manufacturing nine thousand dollar school buses, I'd have some serious considerations before committing to put my kids on one.

 

But now, we know it's for real. Red delivered. Congratulations.

 

Let's put these new tools through the paces and run some tests.

[Ralph Oshiro]

I think understand what Phil means by "1K camera." I will attempt to explain. According to Wikipedia, the Nyquist?Shannon sampling theorem states the following . . .

Great post! However, you forgot to also mention the oft-quoted, "Fowler-Nordheim tunneling principle," another key theory required to fully understand the true capabilities (or incapabilities, depending on how you see things) of the RED digital cinema camera. Anyone who's ever worked with digital audio, or virtually any modern media technology, who HASN'T heard of the Nyquist theorem needs to, um . . . read your post!

Edited September 10, 2007 by Ralph Oshiro

[John Michael Corey]

Jim Jannard & Stephen Williams,

 

I feel exasperated reading many of the replies.

 

I'd like to see a focused discussion group of actual RED-users (whether owners, reservation holders, renters and/or borrowers) whose sole purpose is the evolution of the RED camera as a cinematography tool. Just the nuts & bolts.

 

How about starting a single thread or "sticky" that is specifically dedicated to RED feedback/improvements/suggestions that is open for anyone to read, but only for those approved by the moderator?

 

In no way am i advocating censorship.

 

Sure, some may be left out initially, but they will eventually find their way into the fold. And, initially, some may very well be included who don't belong.

 

I, for one, as it stands right now, realize that i do not belong in such a thread.

 

It'd be a shame to have Jim Jannard & RED leave this forum after having attempted time & time again to establish constructive discussions on what & how to improve the RED camera as a cinematography tool.

 

Stephen, please streamline the dialogue between manufacturer & users.

Please weed out all the potshots, deconstructiveness, & gobbledygook.

 

In no way am i advocating a change for the overall board.

Hobbyists, indie's, and amateurs benefit enormously from being able to participate within this board.

 

It'd also be constructive to have similar such exclusive threads for other manufacturers that are conducting camera development as well. Users are scattered all over the globe, and are constantly on the move. It'd be nice to have a place (this site) where all can come together and give field reports and suggestions 24-7 while on the job or out at play.

 

That seems to be the most streamlined approach for manufacturers to make better tools for cinematographers to use & enjoy. Seems like a win-win situation to me.

 

Let's stop spinning our wheels & smoking our tires, and instead, let's get this race under way.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

It'd be a shame to have Jim Jannard & RED leave this forum after having attempted time & time again to establish constructive discussions on what & how to improve the RED camera as a cinematography tool.

 

Do you think the forum should be tailor made to me just because I'm prone to getting my ego bruised by dissenters of film? If I left, it would be because I'm being way too sensitive. I think Jannard is more mature than to leave this forum because a few people disagree with him.

 

Stephen, please streamline the dialogue between manufacturer & users.

Please weed out all the potshots, deconstructiveness, & gobbledygook.

And you said earlier you didn't approve of censorship.

 

In no way am i advocating a change for the overall board.

Hobbyists, indie's, and amateurs benefit enormously from being able to participate within this board.

So you think that this site should "reasonably accommodate" the RED company? What makes them any more special than other DigiCine companies or film camera manufacturers?

 

That seems to be the most streamlined approach for manufacturers to make better tools for cinematographers to use & enjoy. Seems like a win-win situation to me.

I didn't realize that the purpose of Cinematography.com was to connect companies with their users. I thought this was a forum for professionals, quasi-professionals, and professionals in the making to come and discuss relevant issues in the subject of cinematography and film-making.

[Michel Hafner]

In the case of the Red, due to Bayer filtering, the sensor captures approximately 2K of green, 1K of red and 1K of blue. This is going off the Mysterium specs listed on Red's site.

Green: ~2K

Red: ~1K

Blue: ~1K

Adding these together gives you, of course, 4K. But TRUE 4K would be 4K of R, G and B since each pixel in a color image is a combination of all three.

So, since the Red's greatest sampling of color is around 2K (green), based on the Nyquist?Shannon theorem your optimal resolution is somewhere around 1K.

That's not the optimal resolution, it's the worst case resolution for pure red or blue images. As each photosite contributes to luminance resolution and RGB resolution effective resolution is anywhere between 1K and 4K depending on image content, With normal footage resolution is > 2K as watching material on a 4K projector and comparing to 2K DI material quickly shows.

[Brad Grimmett]

Tim... there were over 5000 replies on this forum BEFORE we started shipping, so someone was interested to post something about RED. Unfortunately, it was mostly about what we "couldn't do" or if we could, why it wasn't worthy of any consideration. In the end, the images speak for themselves.

The images do indeed speak for themselves. That's really what's important and what many people, myself included, would like to see and hear about.

Regarding the 5000 replies....Many of those posts were from fanboys telling everyone how great the camera was and how we would never need film or any kind of video ever again, and doing it many months in advance of the cameras release. Those types of posts got a large reaction from people that are more interested in reality than in hyperbole. But to say they were mostly about what the camera "couldn't do" is disingenuous. Mostly it was a bunch of people flaming each other over something that didn't yet exist. Many of those flamers appeared on this forum at the same time Red appeared on the scene and don't post in any of the other forums. I think it's important to consider who was making those posts when considering whether to listen to what they have to say or not.

People are now saying that the RED image is the cleanest they have ever seen. And these are images captured on compressed REDCODE RAW at 27MB/sec on a Compact Flash card. That seems pretty amazing to most, but not here. It has never received notice.

What people? Most of us have yet to see much footage from the camera at all, which is understandable considering how new it is, so we can't very well take notice of how amazing it is. If it is as amazing as you say I'm sure there will be quite a buzz here and elsewhere. You can't really expect everyone to be amazed at something they haven't seen or used yet, can you?

We are happy to be here to answer questions and listen to suggestions that might help our program along. If our program gets better, our customers will benefit.

I think that is a great attitude, and it will most likely serve your company well.

But if we have to put up with Phil's nonsense, our time is better served somewhere else. That is pretty easy to understand.

 

Jim

Actually, it's not easy to understand. The reality is that this is a public forum that anyone can join. There are going to be people that post things that you don't want to hear, just as in real life people say and do things that you don't like. Obviously, this is just a fact of how we are as human beings. If one, or even a handful, of posters are able to chase you off then those of us with real questions and concerns will be less informed about the camera, which will hurt both us and your company. Hopefully information can be spread and we can all benefit.

[Thomas Worth]

That's not the optimal resolution, it's the worst case resolution for pure red or blue images. As each photosite contributes to luminance resolution and RGB resolution effective resolution is anywhere between 1K and 4K depending on image content, With normal footage resolution is > 2K as watching material on a 4K projector and comparing to 2K DI material quickly shows.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "worse case" resolution for pure red or blue images. 1K is the resolution for red, 1K is the resolution for blue, invariably, and it is not open to interpretation. The Bayer design has the sensor sample red and blue at 1/4 the resolution of the sensor each. With a 4K sensor, that's 1K for red, 1K for blue. That's how Bayer works. Each photosite captures one pixel. However, for a color image you need 3 pixels (red, green and blue) to make one pixel in the final image. It is impossible to derive a true 4K image using a Bayer-filtered 4K sensor. You simply do not have enough pixels. In view of this, you are mistaken in saying that the "image content" has some bearing on resolution. It does not. We don't even get to that point yet.

 

My initial comments did not relate to perceived resolution. With clever demosaicing, I believe it is possible to achieve some very nice results from a Bayer-filtered sensor. This has been proven over and over by digital SLRs. But this isn't about opinion -- that is, what people "think" about images from a Bayer-filtered sensor. This is simply about what the hardware itself is capable of delivering.

 

Back to the 1K thing. The Nyquist-Shannon theorem states that you must have double the amount of information of the output device to accurately reproduce what it is you are sampling (in this case, an image). Considering this, even if the Red sensor did capture 2K of data for red, green and blue (it currently only captures 2K for green), your target resolution (based on the theorem) would be 1K. Let me state for the record that this is not my opinion. This is simply what the theorem states. This theorem is observed in many digital technologies. Here are a couple of examples:

 

+ Digital audio for CD is sampled at twice the output frequency (44 kHz, where the human ear detects a max of 20 khz).

+ Images for print are generally scanned at twice the resolution of the output device

 

Please understand that at this point, I don't have enough information to draw any conclusions on the Red camera. I'm just trying to point out some facts. These facts aren't specific to Red. They apply to all cameras using Bayer.

 

The Red camera may produce great images, but I'd need to shoot with one myself first before forming an opinion.

[Brian Drysdale]

I personally hope for a balanced debate, with people making points on the cameras as they currently stand and the improvements that can be made.

 

Some of the "colourful" responses are what happens with new technology and they become passionate about one brand - it happens with Apple. Then people reply going the other direction. I guess it helped the "audience" figures. However, I know camera people that I talk to on location are still rather sceptical about claims of a revolution.

 

I haven't seen any projected images and currently 4k projection is of less concern than what a film out from RED to 35mm looks like, since that's how most people will be viewing on a big screen for the next few years.

[John Michael Corey]

I think Jannard is more mature than to leave this forum because a few people disagree with him.

 

Maybe Jannard will leave this forum because his time & energy would be better spent elsewhere. If that becomes the case, then it would seem to be a mature decision.

 

And you said earlier you didn't approve of censorship.

 

What would be the difference if RED were to contact 50, 100, or 200 of the world's most renown/respected cinematographers and ask them to participate in a user-manufacturer camera/lens/etc... development feedback forum? And, what if RED and the aforesaid cinematographer group agreed to have all their forum correspondence posted for anyone to read/follow? And, what if cinematography.com was asked if they'd like to host/post this "elite" discussion/developmental thread? Then, please, tell me what the difference would be? Sounds like sharing or disclosing the inner dynamics of what is usually an arcane & guarded process, rather than censorship. Personally, i'd enjoy a front row seat to that dialogue.

 

Additionally, you (or any forum member) would still be free to start your own thread(s) on what RED should or should not do or however you feel about whatever it is that you have to say. Your voice would not be gagged. How is it that this would be censorship?

 

So you think that this site should "reasonably accommodate" the RED company?

 

Having the most discerning critics discussing the good, the bad, and the ugly openly & bluntly with a manufacturer for all to see is hardly "accommodating" them. It's actually putting the company (RED) on the spot. The experts would give honest & tough criticism/feedback on where the camera/lenses/etc... are lacking or in what area(s) they my excel, what ergonomics suggestions they have, work-flow dilemmas & solutions, etc... I don't think the site should have people making personal attacks on one another.

 

Do you think the moderators would fail to be diligent in taking appropriate action if a company attempted to undermine the integrity of this website?

 

What makes them any more special than other DigiCine companies or film camera manufacturers?

 

As i stated previously, any other company may follow the same manufacturer-user feedback model, if they'd like to. So, it would not be a "special privilege" just for RED. But, how many camera or camera-related companies are there that openly & continually discuss their product(s) with their users in an attempt to improve their product(s)? That is one trait that makes RED "more special than other DigiCine companies or film camera manufacturers."

 

I didn't realize that the purpose of Cinematography.com was to connect companies with their users.

 

If "connecting companies with their users" is a by-product of advancing cinematographers' tools, then so be it.

 

I thought this was a forum for professionals, quasi-professionals, and professionals in the making to come and discuss relevant issues in the subject of cinematography and film-making.

 

It seems like that is happening.

However, pot-shots, name calling, arguing for arguing's sake, spouting gobbledygook, and other non-constructive things don't seem to be "relevant issues in the subject[sic] of cinematography and film-making."

 

Stephen Williams & Jim Jannard may like my suggestion, hate it, find it laughable, politely discard it, or simply be indifferent to it.