Red announces new delay...

[Ian-T]

The advantage of raw isn't spatial color resolution. It's the malleability of the colors. Every 4:2:2, 4:2:0, and 4:1:1 camera already has some degree of color processing baked into the image, which limits your options in post. With raw, you have everything the sensor captured, free to do whatever you please with.

Sometimes I wonder though why we want these digital cameras to act like fim. What I mean is why cause more heartache for ourselves in post when we can "get it right" in camera? RAW I guess would be nice....but who wants to spend that kind of time in post? 4:2:2 might be all we need (with a much more robust codec etc). If we can do that with no major hit in the true sensor quality then I'm all for that. SHooting RAW just means I'll have to spend more money to upgrade my hardware... Oh well.

[1]

...why cause more heartache for ourselves in post when we can "get it right" in camera?...

TOTALLY agree!
Also think it's where we'll be heading eventually.

We will have DSLRs or Scarlets, or AF100s that will have MAGIC BULLET type CC built in, and selectable. Maybe even have it like the current SLRs that can record both JPGs and RAW, i.e. record the color corrected video in 1080P, and also a max. resolution RAW version at the same time for future CC if needed.
There will definitely ALWAYS be a need for in cam CC, at least in the prosumer world.

[Duke]

That's not what Sony says:
Pickup device: 3-chip 1/2-inch type Exmor CMOS
Effective picture elements: 1920 (H) x 1080 (V)

That's effective picture elements (after filtering.)

Nope. Scarlet will have shallower DOF at all FOV angles that are available. Only when you zoom EX1 beyond the maximum level available in Scarlet, it will appear to have a shallower DOF.

Except the EX1 goes wider partially off setting the slightly larger sensor.

Every time you color correct, it's better. Every time you do green- or bluescreen, it's better.

Yep, one pixel better.

But my point is, Scarlet is competing with F23 head to head (talking about the interchangeable lens Scarlet in this case, naturally):

What Red used to say is that the Red One was designed to compete with the F23 (an $80,000 camera) and the Scarlet was designed to compete with the F35 (a $25,000 camera.) The EX1 with Nanoflash is purported to match F35 image quality, but requires an extra stop of light.

[Duke]

This quote from Jim Jannard on Reduser on 6/12/10:

"Sorry man.. All focus is on Epic right now. We need to get Epic buttoned up and out the door, or there will be no Scarlet. "

It sounds like they aren't working on the Scarlet.

[Halsu]

Maybe even have it like the current SLRs that can record both JPGs and RAW, i.e. record the color corrected video in 1080P, and also a max. resolution RAW version at the same time for future CC if needed.

I think that's what they're doing with Scarlet: it has an 1080p RGB mode too, hopefully it can be used simultaneously with RAW.

There will definitely ALWAYS be a need for in cam CC, at least in the prosumer world.

Yep. Both have their places.

[1]

All focus is on Epic right now.

Someone remind me again why anyone needs an Epic?
Better resolution? Better form-factor? What does the thing do, Red One doesn't? I forget.

I think that's what they're doing with Scarlet...

Sweet! very cool.

[Halsu]

That's effective picture elements (after filtering.)

Nope dude, i don't think so. OLPF is a physical filter, it doesn't affect the number of picture elements (= photosites).

Except the EX1 goes wider partially off setting the slightly larger sensor.

In those wider angles, it obviously won't have shallower looking DOF than Scarlet, now will it?

The only place where there might be a difference in EX1's "favor" is (almost) fully zoomed in. Possibly not even there (this will require either actual tests, or proper calculations with the real numbers - the ballpark estimates i come up with are too close to each other to be conclusive).

Yep, one pixel better.

Make that 1036800 pixels better - 4:4:4 has twice the spatial color resolution as 4:2:2, just like 4:2:2 has twice the spatial color resolution as 4:2:0. In other words:

4:4:4 = 1920*1080
4:2:2 = 960*1080
4:2:0 = 960*540

When keying, 4:2:2 has stairstepping in the edges, unless the chroma / matte is blurred.

What Red used to say is that the Red One was designed to compete with the F23 (an $80,000 camera) and the Scarlet was designed to compete with the F35 (a $25,000 camera.)

You missed a zero in the F35 price - it's roughly $250,000, not $25,000.

F23 isn't $80,000, it's more than that - i did find an used one at that price though...

Red one (and Scarlet s35) are comparable to F35, with s35 sized sensor etc. Scarlet 2/3" interchangeable version is comparable to F23.

The EX1 with Nanoflash is purported to match F35 image quality, but requires an extra stop of light.

I'm afraid that's simply not true. Might be close enough in practice for many purposes though.

[Halsu]

Someone remind me again why anyone needs an Epic?
Better resolution? Better form-factor? What does the thing do, Red One doesn't? I forget.

Higher frame rates, higher resolution, higher dynamic range (possibly up to HDRI -style), modular design (smallest usable config is about DSLR size)...

...and of course the cool factor ;-)

[1]

higher resolution

because 4k is just not enough! LOL

[AJUK]

You know, there is a lot of conjecture and some slightly disturbing obsessive behaviour surfacing in this thread!
Can't we just agree that the Red is a pretty good camera, that the Ex1 is a pretty good camera, and that we'd all like to be able to afford to rent or buy them.
Otherwise this is just going to go on and on and on...

[Halsu]

because 4k is just not enough! LOL

Yep - in a few years, the theaters are supposed to have 4K projection. 5-6K cameras are designed to be a flexible source for pristine 4K output. Also, the cameras can double as still cameras -

...i do agree though that it's a bit of overkill ;-)

[1]

in a few years

"A few" being a relative term of course.
4k cinema saturation will take decades!

[Duke]

Make that 1036800 pixels better - 4:4:4 has twice the spatial color resolution as 4:2:2, just like 4:2:2 has twice the spatial color resolution as 4:2:0. In other words:

4:4:4 = 1920*1080
4:2:2 = 960*1080
4:2:0 = 960*540

When keying, 4:2:2 has stairstepping in the edges, unless the chroma / matte is blurred.

I agree that 4.4.4 has twice the color resolution of 4.2.2. Also, 4.2.0 has two pixels with color data on one line, skips the next line and interpolates all the rest.

OTOH, 4.2.2 has two pixels out of 4 in each line with color data in a a square pattern. Because its a two by two square pattern you can't go more than one pixel in any direction without running into another pixel with full color data. It makes 4.2.2 much more effective by conveying more pixels with true color (which is what you're pointing out), and makes the inbetween colors more accurate by less interpolation.

There's a nice article here:
Understanding Color Space

So yes, 4.2.2 stair steps by one pixel, but no you don't need to blur chroma and Lumina anywhere near the way you do 4.2.0. Plus real life objects blur around the edges and the human eye just isn't that sensative to color as we have many more black and white sensors than color sensors in the eye.

I'm not arguing that 4.4.4 isn't technically better. I'm saying that if the audience can't tell the difference and the work flow is easy, who cares. That's my take on 5k-6k compared to 4k too. If the audience can't tell the difference, who cares.

Same with special effects, if the audience can't tell if its a physical effect or CGI, who care how you do it. I suppose you'd say I'm pragmatic rather than an artistic purist.

[Duke]

You know, there is a lot of conjecture and some slightly disturbing obsessive behaviour surfacing in this thread!
Can't we just agree that the Red is a pretty good camera, that the Ex1 is a pretty good camera, and that we'd all like to be able to afford to rent or buy them.
Otherwise this is just going to go on and on and on...

Don't worry about it too much. I respect Halsu and his opinions. I think everyone agrees the Red One is an excellent camera now that they have most of the bugs worked out. I think everyone agrees the EX1 is a very good camera too within its price point.

Its all smoke and conjecture until we have a scarlet to test, and the latest offerings to test them against.

What's interesting is that they are entirely different systems approaches to the same problems. This creates inherently different strengths and weaknesses in each system. This is true whether its CCD/CMOS, HDV, AVCHD, MPG, MXF or RAW.

I think discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each system helps to understand how to use your camera better to take advantage of its strengths and minimize its weaknesses from showing up.

[Halsu]

I agree that 4.4.4 has twice the color resolution of 4.2.2. Also, 4.2.0 has two pixels with color data on one line, skips the next line and interpolates all the rest.

No. 4:2:0 (True progressive, like EX1's) has two samples out of each block of 4 pixels on a line, then skips one line. Rinse and repeat. There's one sample for each 2x2 pixel block, 4:2:2 has two samples for 2x2 block. Lemme ASCII it for you. X is a sample, O is interpolated.

4:4:4

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

4:2:2

XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO

4:2:0 (Progressive)

XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO

4:2:0 (Interlaced)


XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO

All have full sampling on the luma, of course.

As far as stairstepping and blurring go, 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 need to be blurred exactly the same amount horizontally - in addition to this, 4:2:0 needs to be blurred the same amount also vertically.

Edit: it's also noteworthy that instead of simple blurring, the missing chroma data can be interpolated, with a proper algorithm - i've actually written a plugin for After Effects that does this pretty well for 4:2:2, 4:1:1, 4:2:0(i) 4:2:0 (progressive wrapped in i, like HV20 Film mode) and 4:2:0(p)...

[Ian-T]

"A few" being a relative term of course.
4k cinema saturation will take decades!

...maybe a decade and a half...but still no time soon.

[Ian-T]

Edit: it's also noteworthy that instead of simple blurring, the missing chroma data can be interpolated, with a proper algorithm - i've actually written a plugin for After Effects that does this pretty well for 4:2:2, 4:1:1, 4:2:0(i) 4:2:0 (progressive wrapped in i, like HV20 Film mode) and 4:2:0(p)...

How can we get this? And can we see a sample of how it affects these images?

[Gillvane]

I don't need any better IQ than the 5d mark II.

I would watch a good movie filmed with that camera on the big screen.

If Red releases something nice that's in the prosumer budget range, cool, if not there are reasonably priced tools available now to make great images, and get good DoF.

The audience can't see raw or if they are looking for "4K" instead of wondering what's around the corner, you're not doing it right.

[Halsu]

How can we get this? And can we see a sample of how it affects these images?

I'm actually kind of contemplating selling these plugins for a reasonable fee vs. just giving them away... so i don't wanna put up a public link just yet. But those who are interested, send me a PM and i'll send you an "evaluation" copy.

Oh, BTW, the plugins are written with pixel bender, and they require AE CS4 or better.

Anyway, here's a screen grab of EX1 greenscreen footage with and without my chroma interpolation plugin.



Double size to show the effect better:





I'll try to dig up a similar comparison shot from HV20 soon. Here's the interface (i wrote the keyer too...):

[Halsu]

I'll try to dig up a similar comparison shot from HV20 soon.

As promised: HV20 greenscreen footage with and without my chroma interpolation plugin.



Double size to show the effect better:

[Duke]

No. 4:2:0 (True progressive, like EX1's) has two samples out of each block of 4 pixels on a line, then skips one line. Rinse and repeat.

Exactly, that's what I said, although I didn't say out of four, all these are out of 4 maximum as in 4.4.4.

Its the Nanoflash that's 4.2.2 in true progressive (pull down from HD-SDI is removed automatically) and as you can see in your excellent diagram the color data is a maximum of one pixel off in any direction. However, in 4.2.0, the EX1 and HV20 recorded format, the distance to a color pixel can be more than one pixel off. We aren't really disagreeing here.

4:2:2
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO

4:2:0 (Progressive)
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO

I must say your interpolation plugin looks excellent! You've done a great job on that. I'm quite impressed.

[Halsu]

I don't need any better IQ than the 5d mark II.

5D MKII is plenty good enough, as long as the image doesn't have small detail, like venetian blinds or a brick wall, and as long as you don't need to do extensive color correction in post, and you can live with slightly soft image.

The audience can't see raw or if they are looking for "4K" instead of wondering what's around the corner, you're not doing it right.

You're of course right, kind of. I'd watch a good movie shot with MiniDV on the big screen... but still, if i have the option for better IQ, why not go for it.

If image quality wasn't necessary, you'd be happy with a 20 year old VHS camera - i guess that's not the case ;-)

[Halsu]

I must say your interpolation plugin looks excellent! You've done a great job on that. I'm quite impressed.

Thanks - it did take quite a while to figure the stuff out, so i'm kinda proud it works as well as it does ;-)

[Ian-T]

I'll echo what Duke said...that is quite impressive.

[simulacro]

very cool explanations. this thread is a good reason for us the beginners to open everyday the forum. thank you guys