Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted April 23, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted April 23, 2010 The problem is that they're not calling it a 9.5MP camera, they're calling it a 4K camera. This terminology has traditionally referred to systems such a film scanners which used cosited RGB samples. It is impossible for a 4000-pixel bayer array to derive the same amount of information as a 4000-pixel cosited RGB array, even without compression, (and there is a lot of that) and in my view this makes the claim dishonest. What Graeme then did was to try and justify the 4K claim by pointing out that the red sensor is more than 4000 photosites wide. This invalidates his argument about compression ratios, even if I did need to reevaluate my position based on an error of one twenty-fourth in the maths - which I don't. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. The crying shame of this is that what red have done would still be impressive if they'd just been upfront about these things, and all the other things they've claimed then not done, or done late, or tried to obfuscate. If they'd been straightforward about it, it'd have been easy to like a reasonably good 2K camera for that price. I have never claimed that red was 2K and was therefore a bad camera. Now, to be fair, I think that until the recent sensor refresh it was a fairly bad camera, noisy and clippy all at once when really one is normally expected to offset the other, but this is in no way unexpected given what they tried to do with the technology available. I could have told them that in 2006 (and I did), not that they should have needed me to. They did it anyway. They were warned. And I don't prticularly rate F35 or Genesis, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.