Jump to content

RedRay a reality?


Keith Walters

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
This is nonsense. You're not shooting a chart, on a tripod in a lab, you're shoooting wide open, with 500T, out here in the real world.

Typical 19th century thinking.

That was the case when most of the audience were watching programs on 20" interlace-scan TVs.

With the sudden proliferation of huge and dirt cheap HDTV screens, producers are having to rethink their priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With the sudden proliferation of huge and dirt cheap HDTV screens, producers are having to rethink their priorities.

 

I tend to doubt you really need 10K to extract all the useful information out of 35mm (at least as shot in the real world), but it's certainly true that producers are having to rethink things.

 

I watched though Firefly (the TV series) on Blu-ray a couple of weeks ago. It was shot on 35, but clearly with SD-only deliverables in mind. At 1080p many shots appear grainy as hell and focus issues are common. The CG shots also don't hold up well at all; they're all upscaled SD and some have other flaws that become apparent on a large screen even outside of that.

 

I'm sure the phrase "Relax, you'll never see that on TV!" was spoken a lot during production. With 1080p being comparable to or higher than the resolution of theatrical release prints, that's not a phrase anyone should be saying anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I'm sure the phrase "Relax, you'll never see that on TV!" was spoken a lot during production. With 1080p being comparable to or higher than the resolution of theatrical release prints, that's not a phrase anyone should be saying anymore.

Yes, similar to: "Relax, color TV is an expensive fad. It'll never catch on in your lifetime" :lol:

Actually there was quite a long discussion about this subject on this thread

I have noticed that a lot of the new season's prime-time offerings are looking a lot better than last season's! The standout, believe it or not, was "My Name is Earl". If I could see pictures of that quality at my local cinema all the time, I'd be going to the movies a lot more often :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, it's Nyquist. To resolve N lines, you need 2N samples or more.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

To resolve N cycles, you need at least 2*N samples. Therefore, to resolve N line pairs, you need at least 2*N samples, which means to resolve N lines (not line pairs) you need at least N samples.

 

Graeme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
To resolve N cycles, you need at least 2*N samples. Therefore, to resolve N line pairs, you need at least 2*N samples, which means to resolve N lines (not line pairs) you need at least N samples.

 

Graeme

I still don't get it. (Maybe I AM just a poor figment of some hack scripwriter's imagination:-)

 

Here's a one-hundredth fragment of a 4,000 line display.

(That's 4,000 pixels horizontally, not 4,000 scanning lines like a TV set)

 

40lines.gif

 

The 40 stripes represent physically unmoveable columns of pixels.

The darker ones are set to a brightness value of 100 (out of a 256-level grey scale), the lighter ones to a value of 240.

The display is indeed showing 40 vertical lines, and the same thing 100 times repeated would show 4,000 lines, no argument there.

But what I can't figure out is, given that each on those lines can only have one level of grey across its width, (that is, it can't be brighter on one side than the other, as would happen if you projected a light image onto the same screen) what possible sequence of grey values could you apply that would make it display say, 19 lines, or 18 lines?

 

Anything below 20 lines seems to work out, which is pretty much in line with what Harry said...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was hoping for a cinematography discussion, and a theoretical physics match broke out!

 

Quantize this: 6.4K is the maximum resolution you'd need to scan at in the real world.

 

That isn't 19th century thinking, that is the old rule of thumb that you want to scan double the resolution and then donwconvert to preserve the actual resolution of the original medium.

 

Sure, you can scan 10K, but if film doesn't resolve 5K worth of information, why bother?

 

4K DIs look almost indistinguishable from optical prints.

 

 

Come on guys, even Dark Knight was scanning the IMAX plates at only 8K. Maybe that wasn't enough, but 6.4K for 35mm is, sorry.

 

I've seen a lot of film scans, and you're just wasting scanner time jacking the resolution up any higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the condition is > not >=, or in words "at least". Second, the image you show is not bandwidth limited, it being square waves, and hence have infinite frequency content. Low pass filter them so that no frequency above the fundamental exists, and then make sure to put the result through a reconstruction filter and what goes in = what goes out.

 

Graeme

 

I still don't get it. (Maybe I AM just a poor figment of some hack scripwriter's imagination:-)

 

Here's a one-hundredth fragment of a 4,000 line display.

(That's 4,000 pixels horizontally, not 4,000 scanning lines like a TV set)

 

40lines.gif

 

The 40 stripes represent physically unmoveable columns of pixels.

The darker ones are set to a brightness value of 100 (out of a 256-level grey scale), the lighter ones to a value of 240.

The display is indeed showing 40 vertical lines, and the same thing 100 times repeated would show 4,000 lines, no argument there.

But what I can't figure out is, given that each on those lines can only have one level of grey across its width, (that is, it can't be brighter on one side than the other, as would happen if you projected a light image onto the same screen) what possible sequence of grey values could you apply that would make it display say, 19 lines, or 18 lines?

 

Anything below 20 lines seems to work out, which is pretty much in line with what Harry said...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Second, the image you show is not bandwidth limited, it being square waves, and hence have infinite frequency content. ....

 

Graeme

Erm ... I have yet to see a pixel-based display device that can display anything else!

You can't, as far as I know, actually make a screen pixel lighter on one side than the other.

Certainly, when you focus an optical image on a camera chip, the actual intensity of incident light on any particular pixel can vary across its surface if the focus is sharp enough, but the photosite doesn't output an exact reproduction of this, it only outputs the average value.

Which switches near-instantaneously to the next average value. Ergo, a square wave.

Ditto for the corresponding pixel on the screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
to resolve N lines (not line pairs) .....

 

Yes, you're counting both the darks and lights as each being a line. If you think of the light stuff as being a background on which you draw dark lines, it's only the darks that get counted. That's my drawing on paper mindset getting in the way. Either way, the point remains: Nyquist is not nonsense.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's what you get when you bring a jelly donut to a pie fight.

 

If you want to engage in a technical fight with Graeme, you had better bring a nuke and a helmet. He actually does something beside talk.

 

For the rest of you... you can actually see what can be done with a RED ONE here:

 

http://red.cachefly.net/redreel/RedReel_h264_720.mov

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
If you want to engage in a technical fight with Graeme, you had better bring a nuke and a helmet. He actually does something beside talk.

Bah. I'd already built a ZX80 kit and upgraded it to ZX81 with fast mode AND 2K of RAM, while he was still saving up for HIS ZX81 :P

 

AND A-V out instead of that crap RF modulator...

Edited by Keith Walters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you're counting both the darks and lights as each being a line. If you think of the light stuff as being a background on which you draw dark lines, it's only the darks that get counted. That's my drawing on paper mindset getting in the way. Either way, the point remains: Nyquist is not nonsense.

-- J.S.

 

Correct - Nyquist is not nonsense. It's often misquoted, and misunderstood, but not nonsense. It can be counter-intuitive though, and I suspect that's where a lot of the misunderstandings come from. I remember what it was like myself when I was introduced to it in the audio realm and I couldn't quite grasp how the 22khz waveform could be represented in a 44.1khz CD signal. But I got it figured out, and I remember generating test pulses to go through the D-to-A into an old tube osciliscope so I could look at the effects of the output filter....

 

Graeme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To resolve N cycles, you need at least 2*N samples. Therefore, to resolve N line pairs, you need at least 2*N samples, which means to resolve N lines (not line pairs) you need at least N samples.

 

Graeme

 

I do understand this concept, Graeme, but there is a fundamental flaw in your arguement: You're talking about resolution as if a 1000:1 contrast ratio object is a "higher resolution" object than a grey card. It is not.

 

So, in the real world where, I forget, the actual contrast of average subjects is only 1.6:1, the way you measure it, film/digital systems resolve fewer line pairs per millimeter with a grey card than a 1000:1 test chart.

 

While I can understand the definition working out that way on paper for the sake of easy scientific calculation (lines are easier to measure than solid grey), in actuality you should be worrying about the real-life 1.6:1 contrast differential objects.

 

No one on here shoots film or digital of just 1,000:1 test charts all day.

 

Sure, I'll concur, were that the case, you *would* need to have 10K or 12K scans. . .

 

 

BTW, I own a copy of the classic '50s Kodak Publication by I think Mees & James that contains basically every field of photographic science, including optics, photochemistry, densitometry, the physics of light, etc., so I AM versed and qualified to talk on this subject.

 

 

Even Mees says that one will never get 1,000:1 contrast in the real world, so that is why he uses 1.6:1 in an attempt to give actual photographers/cinematographers information that would be applicable to the work that they do.

 

Also, keep in mind the distortion you get due to lenses. With the lens equation the sensor/film size is always the most important factor. The lens would only be the limiting factor with microfilm. But due to the way the equation works, you can't shouldn't shoot at any stop other than 2 to 2-1/2 stops from wide open, or the aperture diffraction and lens edge distortion will further reduce the lp/mm resolving power of your system.

 

So, maybe people should be working on a "lens replacement" rather than arguing about 1,000:1 resolution charts and controlled shooting conditions that just do not exist in a world with Steadicams, F/1.0 lenses, and intentionally shaking, softening the image.

 

There are so many instances where cinematographers diffuse, soften, fog, flash, or intentionally introduce color casts that are technically wrong, and probably have resolution penalties.

 

Resolution should be the last concern on people's minds. Pleasing flesh rendition and pleasing color rendition are what we worry about, not the K count. Otherwise, why would the 2K DI have so quickly become so ubiquitous? Clearly the industry feels that a 2K negative that is further degraded by three generations of contact printing is good enough, whereas it wasn't in the past.

 

So once again the "improvements" promised by technology have actually given way to technological compromises for the sake of efficiency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct - Nyquist is not nonsense. It's often misquoted, and misunderstood, but not nonsense. It can be counter-intuitive though, and I suspect that's where a lot of the misunderstandings come from.

 

Nyquist is not nonsense, worrying about 1,000:1 lp/mm resolution that can only be achieved in the real world by contact printing an etched grating onto film is what is nonsense.

 

Throwing immense amounts of resolution out with every step of the process is what cinematography is all about.

 

That is actually where the "art" comes in. Hypothetically, a camera system that gave the same exact response as the human eye (ignored color temperatures, or automatically neutralizes them, has immense latitude, can see in almost complete darkness) would make a lot of the creative aspects of cinematography moot, because no supplemental lighting or creative uses of shadow/contrast would be required anymore. If they were used with such a system, people would complain that the lighting was "fake" or "overly dramatic".

 

The limitation in resolution and dynamic range is where the creativity comes in. What do you show people, and what do you throw out? That is the interesting part of the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I grow increasingly tired of this argument, not only because the numbers are so self-explanatory as to make the matter axiomatic (a 4K bayer chip does not make a 4K image). What I don't get is why they couldn't call it 2K camera for $17500 and be happy, and be able to avoid all this criticism. It's not like anyone would have complained that it was too expensive! It's not the pictures I object to; the pictures are reasonable; I just can't deal with the attitude.

 

As it happens having seen and played with quite a lot of Red footage now, it seems to me that the choice is between clippy or noisy (especially in the blue) and it really doesn't make terribly nice pictures, but that is, amazingly, not the point at issue!

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grow increasingly tired of this argument, not only because the numbers are so self-explanatory as to make the matter axiomatic (a 4K bayer chip does not make a 4K image). What I don't get is why they couldn't call it 2K camera for $17500 and be happy, and be able to avoid all this criticism. It's not like anyone would have complained that it was too expensive! It's not the pictures I object to; the pictures are reasonable; I just can't deal with the attitude.

 

As it happens having seen and played with quite a lot of Red footage now, it seems to me that the choice is between clippy or noisy (especially in the blue) and it really doesn't make terribly nice pictures, but that is, amazingly, not the point at issue!

 

P

 

I must say that it is nice that your 1K rant is now a 2K rant. Maybe we should just give you some more time...

 

As for not making terribly nice pictures... maybe you were the DP? We would all love to hear your thoughts on the new posted reel.

 

Nice to hear from you.

 

Jim

 

As of Feb. 2009 (one and a half years after shipping began):

 

Commercials Shot on RED- Nike, Toyota, Petsmart , Coffee Mate, Microsoft , JVC , Mikes Hard Lemonade , Bratz Dolls, MLB , Zune, Claritin , Disney, Klenpeter IceCream, Blue Cross, Harley Davidson, Dr. Pepper, Mitsubishi, NBA, KFC, Sears, Gucci, Discovery Channel, Pokeman, Ruby Tuesday, SoapNet, AMEX, Adidas, Comedy Central, Hannah Montana, Nintendo Wii, AllState, CocaCola, US Olympics, Walmart, Mazda, Porshe Cayanne, Hot Pockets , Jaguar, 7-11, Panasonic ToughBooks, Subway, Ford, Midway Games, Pepsi, Samsung, EasyBank, Alfa Romeo, Sega, Etonics, Ponds, Mercedes, Nascar, Coke, Reebok, Gatorade, Korbel, Nissan, Mazda, Volkswagon, Saab, CVS, NFL Monday Night Football, SunSilk Hair Products, Palmolive, Hannah Montana Dolls, Wrigleys Gum, Nevada Tourist Council, Rock the Vote, Guitar Hero, Red Lobster, Olay, Mattel Toys, McDonalds, Cartier, Sebastian Hair Products, Discovery Channel, Old Navy, EA Games, Herbal Essence, Empario Armani, GE, Wienerschnitzel, Wild Planet, Children’s Miracle Network, Pfizer, Tangueray, Tap Out, AAA, Sprint, Taco Bell, Major League Baseball, Direct TV, Coors

 

TV Series Shot on RED- ER, Southland, Leverage, Wallander, Sanctuary, America, The Librarian 3, 26 Miles, In Love with Barbara, Icy Killers, The Amazing Mrs. Novak, The Tracey Ullman Show, Safe Harbor, Ms. Washington Goes to Smith

 

Features Shot on RED- Che, Game , The Informant, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt , Knowing, Book of Eli, The GirlFriend Experience, Balancing the Books, Another Harvest Moon , Fenomen, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Undead , Mostly Ghostly, My Bloody Valentine 3D, Toe To Toe, Seres Genesis, The Combination, Butterfly Effect 3, Downstream , Forelorn, Bitch Slap, Sensored, Stay Cool, Asylum Seekers, Overnight, The Red Canvas, Gauge, Kenny Begins, Big Fan , Woodshop , Van Wilder 3, Labor Pains, Cedar Boys, Melancholy Baby, Alls Faire , 14 Days , Billy and Jack , Seaviper , Stacy’s Mom, Overnight, Cold Storage, Spiderhole , SnowMen, Lourdes, Manure, Warriors, Mystery Team , The River Why, The Things We Carry, The Frost , Works in Progress, Dreams and Shadows, Into Temptation, Beyond the Mat , Pohjoinen Ulottovuus, Gutter King, The Nothing Men, True Nature, Tossed and Found, The Sculptor, Smash Cut , Mea Culpa, Hunter Prey, Repo Chick, Drei, Red Dirt Rising, Winning Favor , Five Hours from Paris, S. Darko , Warning, The Dark Country, Achumundu Achumundu, Fair Game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't get is why they couldn't call it 2K camera for $17500 and be happy, and be able to avoid all this criticism.

As it happens having seen and played with quite a lot of Red footage now, it seems to me that the choice is between clippy or noisy (especially in the blue) and it really doesn't make terribly nice pictures, but that is, amazingly, not the point at issue!

P

 

Because if you put a 4K R3D file in a 2K timeline (2048x1080) it doesn't fit. Most HD cameras resolve differently, yet they are called HD cameras and fit in a HD timeline. I actually really like the picture of the RED camera (the F35, D21 as well). Sorry you don't . Oh well.

 

bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because if you put a 4K R3D file in a 2K timeline (2048x1080) it doesn't fit. Most HD cameras resolve differently, yet they are called HD cameras and fit in a HD timeline. I actually really like the picture of the RED camera (the F35, D21 as well). Sorry you don't . Oh well.

 

bob

 

I happen to think RED produces quite nice images too, but not because of its reslution. I honestly couldn't care less about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

<DictoRobotary = "ON"> <EchoMachine = "ON">

 

Blast!

Another year has passed, and we still have not learned the secret of RedRay -ray-ray-ray....

The vital question of whether it can be used with anything other than RedCode,

must be deferred for another Terrestrial year!

Plan 8 has failed.

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

 

Your planet is now moving out of range, but we will be back next year.

With a new plan.

Yes! Your security measures were more sophisticated than we expected.

Plan 8 has failed, but we will be back!

OUR NEW PLAN (name TBA) IS WELL UNDER WAY.

 

We will turn your dead into zombies.

We will turn your chiropractors into dead vampires,

We will turn plywood, curtains and clocks into aircraft cabins!

We will turn night into day AND BACK AGAIN!

Our ships will come, bristling with a new generation of wooden tables, Tesla coils and 1920s radio parts.

Resistance is futile...

 

At least, we have come away a list of all the RED One movies, TV shows and commercials, apparently obtainable nowhere else, so that's better than nothing I suppose ....

 

</DictoRobotary> </EchoMachine>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grow increasingly tired of this argument, not only because the numbers are so self-explanatory as to make the matter axiomatic (a 4K bayer chip does not make a 4K image). What I don't get is why they couldn't call it 2K camera for $17500 and be happy, and be able to avoid all this criticism. It's not like anyone would have complained that it was too expensive! It's not the pictures I object to; the pictures are reasonable; I just can't deal with the attitude.

 

If you count photosites it's a 4K camera. If you look at measured resolution, it's a 3K+ camera. Why would they call it, of all things, a 2K camera?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<DictoRobotary = "ON"> <EchoMachine = "ON">

 

Blast!

Another year has passed, and we still have not learned the secret of RedRay -ray-ray-ray....

The vital question of whether it can be used with anything other than RedCode,

must be deferred for another Terrestrial year!

Plan 8 has failed.

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

 

Your planet is now moving out of range, but we will be back next year.

With a new plan.

Yes! Your security measures were more sophisticated than we expected.

Plan 8 has failed, but we will be back!

OUR NEW PLAN (name TBA) IS WELL UNDER WAY.

 

We will turn your dead into zombies.

We will turn your chiropractors into dead vampires,

We will turn plywood, curtains and clocks into aircraft cabins!

We will turn night into day AND BACK AGAIN!

Our ships will come, bristling with a new generation of wooden tables, Tesla coils and 1920s radio parts.

Resistance is futile...

 

At least, we have come away a list of all the RED One movies, TV shows and commercials, apparently obtainable nowhere else, so that's better than nothing I suppose ....

 

</DictoRobotary> </EchoMachine>

 

OMG... how did you ever get so clever?

 

What is it exactly that you do?

 

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
What is it exactly that you do?

 

Jim

I think you've already answered your own question.... :blink:

 

So... can you use the RedRay format for anything other than Redcode?

 

What am I missing here?

Is there some device attached to a sensitive part of your anatomy that's going to go off if you tell me?

Has some other race of aliens beaten me to it?

 

You're frightening me, Jim...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...