Dynamic Range test (real one)

[Jannard]

This test was done by Graeme Nattress at the RED factory today. Great care was taken to perform the test accurately. The data clearly demonstrates 11 1/3 stops of dynamic range... or greater than 66db. Just as advertised back at NAB 2006.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/10724/1166058035.jpg

A Stouffer T4110C calibrated 41 step Transparent Step Wedge Chart was shot at F4.0 on the RED Frankie prototype camera.

The RAW sensor data was taken into REDCINE Prototype, and demosaiced. At no time was any noise reduction or data manipulation applied.

The data analysis mode of the REDCINE Prototype was used to align 41 sample areas with the 41 steps of the wedge chart. Individually red, green and blue averages were calculated for each of the sample areas. Log base 2 was taken of each average.

The graph plots the log green averages for each sample area against the calibrated value for each wedge in the test chart.

Graeme Nattress

[Emanuel]

:dankk2: Jim -- useful/real(ly one) and fair(ly) productive indeed :thumbsup:

EDIT -- Poi Boy had the true 11 figure!

[Poi Boy]

That is great ! mine goes to 11; well, actually 11 and a 1/3.
Hopefully this will quite some of the whiner, snobs at cml. On second thought, it won't but who cares, mine goes to 11.
Aloha
-A

[Ruairi Robinson]

This test was done by Graeme Nattress at the RED factory today. Great care was taken to perform the test accurately. The data clearly demonstrates 11 1/3 stops of dynamic range... or greater than 66db. Just as advertised back at NAB 2006.



A Stouffer T4110C calibrated 41 step Transparent Step Wedge Chart was shot at F4.0 on the RED Frankie prototype camera.

The RAW sensor data was taken into REDCINE Prototype, and demosaiced. At no time was any noise reduction or data manipulation applied.

The data analysis mode of the REDCINE Prototype was used to align 41 sample areas with the 41 steps of the wedge chart. Individually red, green and blue averages were calculated for each of the sample areas. Log base 2 was taken of each average.

The graph plots the log green averages for each sample area against the calibrated value for each wedge in the test chart.

Graeme Nattress


Well, thats fantastic. I have no idea what you are talking about, but I see over 11 stops and I understand that are gud.

Out of curiosity - how does that compare to modern film neg?

In English, please :)

[Brook Willard]

This is GREAT, thank you guys so much for doing this test for us. Any chance of seeing the frame that the range was judged from?

[jbeale]

Great news, thanks for posting this chart! I'm curious... since the T4110C wedge has 41 discrete steps, I would expect to see steps or individual points on the graph. I assume the continuous line shown is drawn between the specific density values on the wedge (nominally 1/3 step apart).

At the bottom left region of the plot, it appears the response from approximately 2.5 to 3.2 stops is quite flat (horizontal line). Should that region be included as part of the effective dynamic range?

[Graeme_Nattress]

The chart is calibrated in optical density, from which the horizontal axis is defined. Yes, it is a touch flat there, but when you analyse the data, there's still information there that hasn't quite been swamped by noise. The graph scale would have to be bigger to see that, and being log to match the power law nature of optical density doesn't help.

Remember this is our first such chart, and we'll be using the tools as an internal reference as we work on the sensor to ensure we deliver great characteristics.

We think this method of measuring dynamic range is so much less succeptable to error than the series of 1 stop charts, which has a large opportunity for human error in both setting up of the tests and analysis. Our analysis is performed on the raw demosaiced data, in a very controlled environment, with no use of external software to measure an image, where you're never quite certain how the numbers are created, which makes it repeatable and accurate.

Graeme

[bruceallen]

This is very encouraging and much better than previous results. Would anyone at Red mind repeating the same test using another camera that the outside world can use as a reference? Any other camera?

Alternately, please do something like DPReview does when they test dynamic range using a Stouffer wedge. They post images and give more info than just a simple graph.

I do have a serious question, though, for future cameras: is there anything stopping you from putting little dots of ND paint on every fourth sensor or so and then using info from those darker pixels when the highlights start clipping? You could afford to give up some resolution for this because you have so much to start with.

I'd much rather have a 3K Red with great dynamic range than a 4.5K Red with only average dynamic range. I know I'm going to get mocked for this and I know the Fuji SR high-dynamic range system didn't do that well in still cameras. Still, dynamic range is so important for moving pictures.

Thanks!

Bruce

[insanityfw]

I don't know exactly what it all means, but I also know that 11 stops is very, very good.

I do know this.... You'll have to pry my reservation spot from my cold, dead hands if you want it.

[glenn chan]

How much of the dynamic range is useful?

From the Origin images up on CML (well practically every camera on the comparison tests there), the highlights tend to exhibit color shifting. Is there some metric/test where this can be evaluated? Dalsa is pretty open about their camera doing 10-12 stops, since those last two stops exhibit color shifting (my understanding anyways).

Perhaps putting error bars on there would be helpful, as it would indicate the amount of noise. And presumably it's possible to tradeoff noise versus grayscale tracking (i.e. apply processing to achieve good grayscale tracking; this can magnify noise at certain points of the slope).

[Graeme_Nattress]

Glenn, the test shows very good linearity. Luma linearity is even better that what you see in that chart. You'll get a colour shift in highlights when one channel clips before the other. The un-clipped channels still have data, and will show some detail, albeit in the wrong colour. With the settings we used for the chart as shown, the three channels all clipped at the same point (or very, very close) so there'd be no colour shift in the highlights. That means that all the dynamic range you see would be useful, to whatever you determine is your tolerable noise floor.

Graeme

[Anders Holck]

Wouldn't a simultaneous clip point depend on the spectral composition of the illuminant?

[Jarred Land]

This is very encouraging and much better than previous results. Would anyone at Red mind repeating the same test using another camera that the outside world can use as a reference? Any other camera?

Alternately, please do something like DPReview does when they test dynamic range using a Stouffer wedge. They post images and give more info than just a simple graph.

I do have a serious
Bruce

good points Bruce. the DPreview does use the same wedge chart.. its a far superior way to judge latitude on a digital imager with within a single frame. Its basically the same as shooting 41 single frames of a luminant with a stack of 1/3 stop NDs. As Adam Wilt stated, its a little more relivant.

The actual wedges dont do much though looking at them, as most displays cant display the range, and even DPreview pumps the brightness and pushes the wedges.. if you look at the 41step chart they show where the clipping happens, its actually just a generated wedge from the data collected form the chart.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Yup. This was at 5000k as that's pretty much in the middle.

Graeme

[Graeme_Nattress]

Spot on Jarred, but much less time consuming and open to error than taking 41 shots! That would be painful. Also, having it all in one shot means it's a doddle to automate the pulling out of the step wedge values. The first graph I did by hand - took about 30 minutes, and the second graph was done with the automated software, and it took less time to make this graph, even including the time to write and debug the software.

[glenn chan]

1- Graeme: From the images I've seen, I think I'd have to agree- grayscale tracking/linearity is very good. But if you could measure for useful dynamic range, wouldn't the Red fare even better in comparison to the competition?

OTOH, people have different ideas about what they can play with. So perhaps post stills of a high dynamic range scene + test chart would let people draw their own results. Shooting a scene can also be helpful since the final product will be an image, not a set of numbers like S/N ratio. People don't watch movies with vectorscopes. :D

2- Sort of along the lines of what Anders is saying, would using color filters help avoid one channel clipping (or getting too non-linear) before the others?

[Jannard]

As Jarred and Graeme have pointed out, the charts on DPReview.com are manufactured from the data. They are NOT the images of the chart shot by the camera. We used the same methodology that is done at DPReview. It is absolutely the best way to measure dynamic range. Additionally, the noise from our Mysterium sensor is extremely low compared to other digital cinema cameras and comparable to the best DSLRs. Add in the resolution and you can see why we are all so excited about this project.

Jim

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/10724/1166070872.jpg

[Graeme_Nattress]

Glenn - so good to have such great a discussion! Pity I never get long enough to chat to you when we meet up.

1) Yes, and in other tests we've done, it can look better still. Shooting a scene is great, but what we've got here is repeatable and produces numbers, and graphs, so when we work on the sensor, we can compare our changes in a repeatable manner.

2) True, but you'd need a different filter for each light source. We can optimize for any light source in camera, or in software, or you can do so with filters. Filters reduce sensitivity though. We have lots of choices here.

Graeme

[Jannard]

The requests for high dynamic range scenes keep coming in... as we have stated before, Frankie is opposed to being moved around too much. Spike will be completely mobile and is due to be put together sometime this month. It is fair to expect us to post much more footage once Spike is up and running.

Jim

[Graeme_Nattress]

Jim, in working with the RED footage, to me, how it behaves in Photoshop is exactly like an image from a high end DSLR. What's amazing, is that you can also see it in motion!

Graeme

[Anders Holck]

Ok great. Seems like a great tool with the automation.

But wouldn't you want to rate the camera as 5000k native then as that will boast the max dynamic range and color fidelity.

Also I can't really get why some wouldn't want to rate a cameras sensitivity. Most DSLR's seem to have 10 1/2 stop of RAW dynamic range and puts normal exposure about 4 1/2 stops below saturation, which translates to an over exposure latitude of about 2 1/6 of a stop, over the white patch. Wouldn't you want to do something alike with the RED.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Anders, we can choose what is native kelvin for the camera. Would you like 5000k?

We can rate a sensitivity or iso, but you can rate it yourself too, picking how many stops above and below you want. Looking at DPReview, DSLR's don't have 10.5 stops though - but again, hard to rate given that white clip is easy to spot, but black detail into noise floor is hard to determine.

Graeme

[Jarred Land]

yes indeed.. great post Glen.

Filters are great for balancing things out, but as Graeme mentioned, putting on a color filter always results in a loss of light from the reduced transmission optically of the filter..

So you kinda defeat the advantage because by shifting down the highlights with a filter you also push down the lows past the black clip point.

Thats why DSP's use curves, and even better when they use curves in individual channels, to roll off highlights.

I think the Wedge test should be the new standard for digital DR tests.. its only a $40 chart (calibrated!!), is backlit which is usually easier to get more accurate results, and is a whole lot easier then the classic method with alot less margin for error.

As Graeme mentioned during the shoot today, ramping stops on lenses and using ND's really is testing the accuracy of the markings on the glass and the accuracy of the ND's.

[Graeme_Nattress]

That's right Jarred. I mean, exactly how accurate are those marks on the lens, and how accurate and repeatable can you set them. Given each camera tested on the CML graph used a different lens, I can see this as a big source of error. With this method, the accuracy of the lens' markings is eliminated, as is the user error of setting the lens to such marks. As you get down into the shadows, you're trying to see if there's still detail not being masked by sensor and quantisation noise. This is not easy. Practically any source of error will show up as distortion of the curve in the shadows. I'm not saying our test has no errors, but it was very repeatable and we did try to eliminate as many sources of error as possible, including full automation of the measuring of the chart.

Also, I think this chart is also going to show you the minimum dynamic range, rather than a more liberal range which the multiple shot method contributes to, as pointed out by Adam Wilt.

Graeme

[glenn chan]

Filters are great for balancing things out, but as Graeme mentioned, putting on a color filter always results in a loss of light from the reduced transmission optically of the filter..
That's ok since most of the time you will have enough light. Where you don't have enough light, it's not a big deal to ditch the filters to get the most low light possible.

2- What if you could change the color filters on the bayer sensor itself? (since each photoshop needs a color filter over it.)

In low light situations, perhaps you could optimize sensitivity by using filter choices that let in more light. i.e. the Sony F900 lets in a lot of infrared-ish light to increase sensitivity.

And for the color accuracy nuts, I'd like to see to a RGB+E filter option please. :D (Although Sony likely holds some sort of patent for that; it is arguably an obvious improvement though, if you're trying to reproduce the appropriate CIE CMFs).
On the other hand, I've never seen accurate color... so even if you do achieve it, it may be that no one cares.

FYI: Accurate color is really hard even if it's your eyes looking at the real world... look up metamerism.

[Jannard]

Glenn... sleep tight. Graeme is awake.

Jim

[Poi Boy]

The following is a CML post from Jim. You continue to impress and inspire me with your mad skills.


" s1st... my apologies (again) for stirring up a sh$tstorm.

We have struggled from the beginning here at CML. My introduction to Geoff was rocky. I'm betting we would do much better if we could start over.

I had hoped for constructive criticism when I 1st posted here. No one told me I needed a helmet. We really don't mean to be a disruptive force on this board, but it seems we are. Maybe it is our frustration showing. We recently posted, with Geoff's assistance, many test shots of green screen work done with the help of David Stump. I don't recall one post of feedback about the quality of the images. The next thing that happens is an exposure latitude chart that puts us below consumer cameras. You might imagine your reaction if this was your project and the results of that chart did not match up with the results you had in-house.

The testing of dynamic range is best done on a single exposure. The Stouffer T4110c is the best tool. If you take multiple exposures while adjusting the f-stop and using neutral density filters that are not calibrated... the results are influenced by several non-sensor factors. The DSLR world has already embraced this testing methodology for good reason. And like it or not, these are high speed DSLRs.

We set up our own lab for this test. It is easy and accurate. Graeme spent a whole day automating the results process. There is no speculation to the results. Our suggestion is that David Stump come to RED to supervise the process (we invited him today). We cannot tell anyone what to do with their testing process but we encourage all interested to investigate this methodology.

It sounds like Jessica would delete the "future cameras" from this list. I'm OK with that. We will be done soon. In some ways it might be better to wait until our project is finished before discussing it.

Geoff... I appreciate you hosting the RED images. I appreciate your early skepticism at NAB. It has motivated me to not only finish the project, but to deliver more than we originally promised. I do not want you to grovel, anymore than I want to. You have built a great home here. It is possible that there is just not a room for us. We are as passionate about this project as cinematographers are about their work. Everyone wants their work to be shown in the best light.

Jim "

Aloha
-A

[Jim Arthurs]

I hope having to deal with this little "crisis" hasn't slowed REAL work on the camera, or tied up the RED Team. Testing is useful, but wouldn't it all be better if done on, at least, the next generation of RED test platform?

Won't critics simply suggest that whatever results are obtained today not be reflective of the 2nd and 3rd generation of RED prototypes? I remember something similar just last year with the HVX200 and results of first beta units compared to shipping ones...

I'll say it again, you guys should just go information DARK until those handful of field ready prototypes are pulling in footage. All this drama from the "full disclosure" of process seems ultimately distracting from the real job at hand...

[Jannard]

Jim... this is a valid point of view. We do have our hands full. And the drama is distracting. But we feel obligated to keep our reservation holders informed. The "open development" process can't just be when it is convenient to us. We are committed to it, for better or worse.

Jim

[Stephen Williams]

. I mean, exactly how accurate are those marks on the lens, and how accurate and repeatable can you set them.
Graeme

Graeme,

Cooke & Zeiss lenses are indivulally calibrated for T stops & Focus marks, one of the reasons they are expensive.

Stephen

[Jannard]

Stephen... are you sure that you can set f4 EXACTLY on a Cooke lens? We can't. And do you use calibrated NDs when performing a multiple shot dynamic range test with NDs? A single shot Stouffer T4110c chart takes the guess work and imprecision out of the process. Case in point... the CML test showed the RED camera at 8 stops. Our test (same methodology as dpreview) shows 11 1/3 stops. Out test is repeatable. The CML test has no published methodology. Our 12 bit A-D suggests a 12 stop possibility. The sensor specs call for >66db. Repeat testing using the Stouffer chart and careful testing validate the specs. Which do you think is the accurate testing method?

Jim

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen... are you sure that you can set f4 EXACTLY on a Cooke lens? We can't. And do you use calibrated NDs when performing a multiple shot dynamic range test with NDs? A single shot Stouffer T4110c chart takes the guess work and imprecision out of the process. Case in point... the CML test showed the RED camera at 8 stops. Our test (same methodology as dpreview) shows 11 1/3 stops. Out test is repeatable. The CML test has no published methodology. Our 12 bit A-D suggests a 12 stop possibility. The sensor specs call for >66db. Repeat testing using the Stouffer chart and careful testing validate the specs. Which do you think is the accurate testing method?

Jim

Hi Jim,

I never stated that I could set a Cooke S4 lens exactly. I am sure I would be within 1/10th stop, as the wedges are 1/2 stop intervals, I don't see that as a major problem myself.

I don't use ND filters with wedge tests (neither does Geoff Boyle). I think you need to ask David Stump that question.

The CLM methodology I understand as follows:- Light the chart for T2 and stop down, relight the chart for T22 & open up. The beauty is that anybody can repeat the tests themselves at home.

I understand that the sensor has been tweaked to produce more than 2 extra stops of dynamic range, that would be confirmed by the difference of the 2 results.

I don't have a problem with David Stumps methodology of testing or Dprevew's. I would be interested for other cameras to be tested with a Stouffer chart.

In conclusion, I don't think there is anything wrong with your sensor, I am waiting patiently in line for may turn to test the camera!

Best wishes

Stephen

[Brook Willard]

[shrugs] Sometime next year somebody will get all of the market's 4K cameras together and do a proper test using one lens swapped between bodies. Then we'll know.

Until then, I'd love to see the test frame if possible. I understand if it's not one of those things that the team wants posted.

[Jannard]

Brook... I am not sure if you know what you are asking for. The frame is dark (RAW). Do you have the tools to interpret it? The images at dpreview are re-manufactured from data off the RAW image.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/10724/1166070872.jpg

Jim

[Brook Willard]

Oh, don't worry, I understand that it's dark. I have the tools handy to process and analyze the RAW file... anything from Photoshop to shake or SCRATCH, depending on what format we're talking about here. I'm interested because I'm planning on shooting a similar test with 5217 and 5218 in the next few weeks [ingesting@2K via ARRISCAN] and a discussion regarding dynamic range and grain/gain structure could be quite interesting.

[Stephen Williams]

[shrugs] Sometime next year somebody will get all of the market's 4K cameras together and do a proper test using one lens swapped between bodies. Then we'll know.
.

Hi Brook,

There will only be 2 cameras AFAIK, better to include 2K & HD cameras IMHO.

Stephen

[Brook Willard]

Hi Brook,

There will only be 2 cameras AFAIK, better to include 2K & HD cameras IMHO.

Stephen
Agreed, the more the merrier. I'd just love to see the test performed in the same environment with the same glass... that was my point.

[Stephen Williams]

Agreed, the more the merrier. I'd just love to see the test performed in the same environment with the same glass... that was my point.

Hi Brook,

Unfortunately the Genesis, Viper & Sony cameras do not support PL mount. I guess Genesis will use PV glass, Viper & Sony Zeiss digi primes, the rest Zeiss or Cooke glass.

Stephen

[bruceallen]

Jim,

I was actually referring to the kinds of images posted in their dpreview.com D200 review (not synthesized). Like this one:

http://www.boacinema.com/temp/dpreview.jpg

All the best with the camera! I can't wait to use it (admittedly I'll probably be renting...).

Bruce

[Brook Willard]

Bugger, shows the extent of my experience with said cameras. I'm so locked into working with Arris where I go to school and where I work that I often forget to look beyond.

[Muttondraw]

Lets get this all in perspective. I found the images David Stump produced very encouraging, I found them encouraging when I first downloaded them. I was under no impression that this was the best that RedOne is ever likely to produce. There have been many caveats issued enroute to all the images posted. I think it is clear that the sensor is uncharacterized and there have been improvements with the way the data from the sensor is interpreted, this was known and made clear when the images were posted.

Geoffs graph was interesting. I think it was a mistake not to make it clear on the graph that it was work in progress, but CML does assume some level of interpretation of information posted there, it is not intended for novices. Graemes work with this test is again very interesting but it has limited meaning because it isn't comparative and it too isn't using a production camera of course.

The CML graph didn't write off RedOne for me and this graph doesn't make me think RedOne is top of the pile. I would reiterate what I said on the "latest info" thread. I think it is important to bear in mind that this is all work in progress and nobody should be coming to any conclusions about RedOne at this stage. The only tests that really count are independent tests using the finished product and they can't happen until the product exists.

I don't think OTT fanboyism and rubbishing of the contributions over at CML is particularly helpful to the Red team or the dvxuser forum. I like the enthusiasm over here but lets not get over excited, Jim and the team have got a way to go before they are out of the woods. Lets enjoy being part of the development process and try to contribute helpfully, (that means both positively and negatively).

Sometimes it feels like it's Red versus the rest of the world, not because of the way red is attacked, but because of the speed with the which the drawbridge keeps being pulled up. Lets all just chill a bit and not be so keen to talk-the-talk all the time.

Martin

[Darkline]

Hi Red Team,

I just wondered, a while ago you said you'd found a way to extract more lattitude from the sensor with some clever re-programming.... So my question is this, this new 11 1/3 stop test that you've achieved, is this with the new modifications made to the sensor or with the old set-up that David Stump used to get his 8 1/2 stops?

Have you gained more lattitude simply out of a new (more accurate) testing method, or did you actually increase the sensors DR after Stump's visit.

[Graeme_Nattress]

I think what we have is a more accurate method. Now we can start with more geeky changes to the sensor to see what they can do for us, knowing we have a repeatable reference, and can generate a new graph in a matter of minutes.

Graeme

[Graeme_Nattress]

I never stated that I could set a Cooke S4 lens exactly. I am sure I would be within 1/10th stop, as the wedges are 1/2 stop intervals, I don't see that as a major problem myself.

The wedges are 1/3 stop intervals, but each wedge of the chart is calibrated to a much more precise level than 1/3 stop.

Especially as you get down to the dark regions, the slightest (and I do mean slightest) error gets magnified and you won't be able to see where there is any remaining detail in the blacks.

Graeme

[Muttondraw]

I notice that Geoff over at CML has said when he does the next test series he will include the Stouffer T4110c test. So we should get to see some comparative results next year. Excellent.

Martin

[Darkline]

I think what we have is a more accurate method. Now we can start with more geeky changes to the sensor to see what they can do for us, knowing we have a repeatable reference, and can generate a new graph in a matter of minutes.

Graeme

So you're saying the old test of 8.5 stops was inaccurate and according to your methods it's 11.5 on the same footage? e.g if the milk footage was shot again it wouldn't look any different to what we have already seen in terms of DR.... I guess if David Stump came back he'd use the same method of testing as he did before and therefore get exactly the same results? Or are you asking him to come back once you've finished more sensor tweaking?

Either way if 11.5 stops is the starting point then thats pretty good!

What we need is to see all those other cameras measured with the same technique otherwise it's very hard to draw conclusions. (of course that's not Red's job, but is that info out there at all?)

BTW if any of this seems like a moan it isnt. You're doing an amazing job and I cant wait to get my hands on the camera. I just take great interest in the development of it all and how you're coming along.

[Graeme_Nattress]

The RGB Tiffs that David received were processed to generally look "nice" - the default raw conversion, which is not optimised to gain extra dynamic range in artificial tests. I think if I took David's frames and re-processed them, I'd be able to see the 11.5 or so, but that's a lot of frames to process and analyse, but with this new method, it can be done in minutes, and it's accurately repeatable.

Graeme

[alacritymedia]

Martin hits some key points in his post about the vitriol the Red project has stirred up in the community and the need for some perspective at this stage of the development process. I also feel the Red Team's need to stand up for their project and the reservation holders who were getting pilloried by their peers over the 8 stop DR measurement. :violent5:

Ted refers to himself as the "leader of the rebellion" which implies an existing structure to rebel against. A lot of this brouhaha is inevitable. Now, those of us who are not actually on the Red Team can enjoy the holidays and look forward to 2007, which fanboys like me refer to as the "Year of the Red".

Blair S. Paulsen
RedOne #19

[Stephen Williams]

The wedges are 1/3 stop intervals, but each wedge of the chart is calibrated to a much more precise level than 1/3 stop.

Especially as you get down to the dark regions, the slightest (and I do mean slightest) error gets magnified and you won't be able to see where there is any remaining detail in the blacks.

Graeme

Graeme,

With all due respect I was referring to David's Stumps tests. AFAIK they were 1/2 stop wedges, so I believe my comments still stand.

Best wishes,

Stephen

[Graeme_Nattress]

They were not un-processed at all. I don't have the frames and didn't do the processing, but looking at them, they were not optimum. Also, with Dave having stepped on the cable, we had a lot of bad noise in the image, which isn't normally there. I'd prefer to leave them as a historical artifact.

Yes, Dave's test were in .5 stops. Sorry, thought you were talking about the stepwedge chart.

Graeme

[Stephen Williams]

They were not un-processed at all. I don't have the frames and didn't do the processing,
Graeme

Graeme,

I think you should mention that on CML.

Stephen

[Graeme_Nattress]

The defaults I put into the REDCINE proto were designed for a basic "nice" look. There's a fairly pretty looking contrast curve in there (that will crush highlights and shadows), and indeed, there was no knee processing of highlights at that time, and if I remember rightly, the gamma was not REC709 but a rough approximation. The proto changes rapidly around here. The current version is very different and more advanced.

So, if those images Dave took show 8.5 stops, that's because that's how my code processed them. If I'd set better defaults, they'd have looked better. My fault entirely.

Graeme

[Jannard]

In review, the processing error was my fault... things are moving so fast around here that stuff like this happens. But I promise not to do it again.

Jim

[Emanuel]

IMHO, that's the results* that counts. If the numbers (resolution etc) standard is guaranteed...

(and it is the same poster who left the HVX purchase 'cause its lower CCD native resolution who is saying...)

EDIT -- * Imaging...feel of the image, that «basic "nice" look» as Graeme has been defending...and (above all) scoring.

[Sproketz]

Martin hits some key points in his post about the vitriol the Red project has stirred up in the community and the need for some perspective at this stage of the development process. I also feel the Red Team's need to stand up for their project and the reservation holders who were getting pilloried by their peers over the 8 stop DR measurement.
RedOne #19
The Red project itself has stirred up nothing.

A few big mouths on both sides of the fence are causing 90% of the bad blood. Geoff's chart is what it is and Red came back with better tests. Done. Red should be putting out better data or not putting out anything at all until a camera is ready. I saw the chart and was a little concerned but felt it was sort of irrelevent because the camera still has alot of development work to go. If anything, the chart simply brought "top end" issues to the front of the discussion which is a good thing.

Early yesterday morning, a mean spirited thread about this got started over at DVinfoNet and the mods quickly removed it.

Thanks DVinfo for taking the high road.

[Emanuel]

Early yesterday morning, a mean spirited thread about this got started over at DVinfoNet and the mods quickly removed it.

Thanks DVinfo for taking the high road.I think you're talking about of that thread opened by Robert Jackson, even if he's a fair guy and his intentions are just good ones.

If your concern is what I'm thinking: the energy spent on this coming from the RED team on your quoted «bad blood». I can just agree, even if I don't believe they care about such damage in any way other than as inform us. It's marketing too. Good marketing. And it runs for the truth sakes.

[Darkline]

Thanks Graeme.

I had no idea that the frames David took away had been processed. This makes full sense now.

EDIT

Out of interest, has the 'milk' footage been converted using your old processing or the new, higher DR processing?

[freezer]

Nice results indeed. I find it kinda funny that you came up with this testing procedure, which has been used for scanner testing for decades :D

Some years ago I worked for a development company in the highend scanner market here in Austria.

When evaluating a scanner's performance we also used the Kodak grey wedge and let a little script extract the data to plot the latitude.
There are also several other testing methods, including the possibillity to plot the sharpness curve of the scanner lenses. We could also perform a spatial calibration to smooth out any imperfections in the lenses, glass plate or mechanical drive. That would go well par into the subpixels.

I think that kind of calibration could be done today to even out any chromatic aberrations and make cheap lenses more valuable.

[penfever]

This is a really educational thread. I love all of the technical discussion of stops of exposure, even if I don't totally understand it.
Can RED's end-users expect the capacity to tweak these settings individually, or will it be more of a Pana-style "cine-look" "xyz-look" settings arrangement? Would these settings be things we would even want to tweak, or is it totally unneccessary after the sensor is corrected, calibrated, et cetera?
And also - is this hard clipping we're talking about here, or does the RAW format of shooting allow for some adjustments in latitude through the capture system, like film? I seem to recall hearing something like that...

[Graeme_Nattress]

Once the sensor is set, it's set. It's us tweaking for "best", not you.

Graeme

[Gopher_Greene]

That's why I don't care what whomever tests say, only that the red team is tweaking the sensor for optimum performance. So you guys do your testing and let the red team do thier's to max out this little red jewel. I just want to get my hands on mine and make some movies.

[EL_STUPIDO]

To the Red crew: good luck with spike. Waiting for the 'download footage' link that comes out of these tests. Actually I reckon you guys - my handle says it all - I totally don't get the specifics of your tests, but the fact that your passionate enoug to post em... I am predicting theres no release till YOU are happy with these tests you are doing. And that's fine by me.

I just want an F off camera that is cheaper than 35mm

what are the costs per minute in terms of storage now compared to film stock?

Is Kodak nervous?

El Stupido

[glenn chan]

Doesn't Kodak make most of its money on film for the distribution side of things? (Not acquisition.) Accoding to John Pytlak (he works for Kodak), Kodak's sales have been increasing. Some companies like Technicolor have also opened new facilities for film processing.

That being said, Kodak's business will eventually dry up. Film will likely be eventually replaced by digital acquisition and projection. (Then again, weren't people saying this a few decades ago?)

[Stephen Williams]

.

That being said, Kodak's business will eventually dry up. Film will likely be eventually replaced by digital acquisition and projection. (Then again, weren't people saying this a few decades ago?)

Hi,

FWIW the patent for the Bayer sensor belongs to Kodak, as they developed it some 25 years ago.

Film is dead has been a headline for over 50 years now, it's nothing new.

Stephen

[Jannard]

It it Nikon or Canon that stopped making film still cameras? Or both?

Jim

[tonacidigital]

I think that this is the last Nikon film camera:
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=6&productNr=1799


As for canon:
Canon's most recent quarterly report (3Q 2006) shows how little film camera sales contribute to its total camera sales:
http://www.canon.com/ir/conf2006q3/p14.html

[donatello]

"Accoding to John Pytlak (he works for Kodak), Kodak's sales have been increasing"

kodak is a public company .. you can read their quarterly and yearly finacial reports online that they file with SEC ... when i read them last spring the reports did not support "film sales" as increasing ( still film or movie film ) .. don't remember if "kodak sales " did increase" ( kodak makes many products which could be their overall sales covering all products have increased )

[Jannard]

The primary reason for digital replacing film in still cameras was the ability for sensors to provide a better image at acceptable frame rates. 12MP at 4fps works for stills. The trick is getting 12MP at 24fps (or better yet- 60fps) for motion. My bet is that film sales for motion pictures won't suffer until there is a quality digital alternative. Up to now there hasn't been.

Jim

[tonacidigital]

The primary reason for digital replacing film in still cameras was the ability for sensors to provide a better image at acceptable frame rates. 12MP at 4fps works for stills. The trick is getting 12MP at 24fps (or better yet- 60fps) for motion. My bet is that film sales for motion pictures won't suffer until there is a quality digital alternative. Up to now there hasn't been.

Jim

Not to mention the magical RED CODE compression that makes the data more manageable.

[glenn chan]

I believe John Pytlak was referring to sales of film stock. Sorry that wasn't clear.

http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20DW/DataRecording.htm

Kodak Entertainment Imaging (Motion Pictures) is doing just fine, thank you. Last year set records for film sales volume, and featured the introduction of the new VISION2 family of films

[planetearth]

What I don't understand is how Jim and Graeme can respond to so many posts and so many forums and still get a camera made. It takes up 90% of what little free time I have just to read the damn things, never mind actually responding to them in an articulate way. Thank you very much guys. Do you sleep? Have you cloned yourselves?

[Graeme_Nattress]

I don't know how we do it either :-)

The important thing is though, that when you're enjoying what you're doing, you find yourself spending more and more time on the project.

Graeme

[Emanuel]

You speak english natively -- that's your secret! ;-)