Tom York Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 This is getting good... er, I mean bad. :) I think everyone has the right to post whatever they want. However, I must say that I was actually also learning a lot from the firts few posts. Is there any way to get back to that discussion? The posts from Keith Walters and Graeme Nattress are very informative. I now have just one question: How do you get from 1K red, 1K blue, 2K green to "4,000 horizontal pixels (with all three colors independently present and accounted for) that can differ significantly from each other". I realize that there are several tricks like 'macro-pixel-shifting' and that a low-pass filter, while imperceptally blurring or taking away from the image, takes care of the gap-problem between the photo sensors on the chip. But my question is if it is still possible to get a full 4,000 pixels that are original and a true representation of what is being digitally photographed with the Red Misterium. I do want to say, however, that if it isn't possible... this in no way diminishes the quality of the images that I have seen from the Red and that I am planning on being a heavy user. I judge the image by what I and audiences will ultimatelly see in the final product, even if 'technically speaking' the math indicates another thing. Many thanks in advance to those who share their knowledge with the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Sheehy Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Graeme has stated, for the record, that Phil claimed we were a 1K camera (person to person) at IBC last year. It boils down to a simple issue of test charts. Graeme has said he has returned some extraordinary results, that Phil & others find difficult to believe unless they see them for themselves. Even if the charts are early tests, they are definitely worth showing... after all, the camera has only gotten better right? Besides, showing these charts won't tell anyone how you did what you did, it just shows definite proof that you have achieved it. So, the question we all want to know the answer to; will you or will you not show us the test charts that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Graeme's claim to get "just over 75% of the sensor resolution as measured luma resolution" I dunno. Ever since people began asking about Bayer stuff I've been saying you get get about > 70% of the sensor resolution as measured luma resolution. Try to get any much than that (we're getting just over 75%, which I'm happy about) and you're using too weak an OLPF and you're in for a nasty alias surprise. However, you don't just want resolution - I've seen some demosaics from some stills cameras that are as nasty as hell in attempts to "win" on resolution. We've put a lot of effort into the raw compression / demosaic combo, doing some things differently from how you'd expect, and of course, that leads to the visual image which people are enjoying looking at, and enjoying working with. We understand that you are under no obligation to... but it would go a long way towards promoting healthy discussion instead of personal sniping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom York Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 It boils down to a simple issue of test charts. ....will you or will you not show us the test charts that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Graeme's claim to get "just over 75% of the sensor resolution as measured luma resolution" Now that the cameras are out, why can't someone else do this and let Jim and company keep working. I mean, isn't it part of a DP's job to test cameras and stuff? Why can't someone like Phil take the camera for a spin and test the hell out of it to his heart's content. If he is a DP or equivalent film professional then he will most likely have a preexisting relationship with a rental house that will be getting the Red. He then could publish his results here for all of us to scrutinize. I just don't see why the Red company should fall all over them selves to appease a few people. As far as I know Panasonic or Sony don't publish test charts. They just keep cranking out newer and better models each year. And that is what Red should be focused on now that they are close to finishing with the Red one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Cangi Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Graeme has stated, for the record, that Phil claimed we were a 1K camera (person to person) at IBC last year. His post infers that our sensor is sub 2K 4:4:4. He has also posted that we are at best a 2K camera (does that also infer that it is less?). As for our personal conversation, looks like you just did post it. At the end of our 20 minute "personal" conversation I told you that I only wished you the best. Still do. Jim I read his post. That he inferred anything is your opinion. His comment does not explicitly state it. As for the "personal" nature of our phone conversation, that is also your opinion. Your call to me was unsolicited and in no way mutually personal. I kept your inappropriate remarks personal at the time as a benefit-of-the-doubt courtesy to you, based on the final tone of that conversation. Since then, I have watched you continually bully and insult those who disagree with you, and I'm over it. Your temper tantrums are adding nothing constructive to the educational nature of threads like this one. Moreover, they paint a questionable picture of your character. You might be a dominating force in the boardroom, but, in here, you are just another username with a personal opinion. Please show some common consideration for those of us who came here to learn something. You can play emperor on your own site. Thank you for wishing me the best, although I can't help but feel that you are just saying it to placate me. End of vent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts