Page 5 of 29 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 284
  1. Collapse Details
    #41
    Senior Member PappasArts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    LA·NY·UK
    Posts
    2,345
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Kholi View Post

    Hope you're enjoying the GH-1, man.

    The GH1 is way way more impressive than it should be for the money. It can deliver an excellent 1080/24. Love having a real View Finder too. Very happy with it! Oh and the lens flange really opens the door to different possibilities.

    BTW, I had the MII a few weeks ago for testing. Just couldn't take the bolted on video BS that it feels like. Can't stand the Narrow DOF either. It's to much. APS-C or M4/3 is the way to go. So No way hands down is that better than the GH1. The 30P thing sucks; wish it did 24. I guess we can call it an IWERKS camera!
    Last edited by PappasArts; 08-09-2009 at 06:31 PM.

    “The talent of an artist is never measured on how real they can create something, it’s on how much life they can give it”


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    677
    Default
    The GH1 is way way more impressive than it should be for the money.
    It's a 'law of diminishing returns' thing, which has been very evident in audio technology for some years, and is now seeming to be coming to video. In audio, you can get some stupidly good results from lower priced gear especially after a bit of post-production - the higher priced gear still gets a better result, but you have to pay three or four times the price to get that 10% edge. Same now seems true when comparing the GH1 with the Red.

    How this will affect professional users remains to be seen - in audio, there's a lot of pros having a tough time because total amateurs can convince customers that they can get good results for a fraction of the price - but as always, it ain't what you've got, it's the way that you use it, and you still need a pro to really get the pro results (well, most of the time).


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #43
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by TimurCivan View Post
    Thats so interesting, i assumed sincei t was till higher than 1080, that it would down sample well... but it didint. interesting.
    There's numbers, and then there's reality.

    Yes, "2K" sounds higher than 1080p. But it's 2K ON A BAYER PATTERN SENSOR, which means you have to chop it down by a good 25-30% to get the real resolution number. So 2048 - 30% = about 1400. So probably 1400 x about 800, more than 720p but nowhere near the 1080p that an HPX3000 or PDW700 could produce.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #44
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    200
    Default
    what would JJ say reading you barry?..

    4k ON A BAYER PATTERN SENSOR is 3.2
    less 20% not 30%

    graeme's numbers


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #45
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Manchester, U.K.
    Posts
    1,158
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozpeter View Post
    It's a 'law of diminishing returns' thing, which has been very evident in audio technology for some years, and is now seeming to be coming to video. In audio, you can get some stupidly good results from lower priced gear especially after a bit of post-production - the higher priced gear still gets a better result, but you have to pay three or four times the price to get that 10% edge. Same now seems true when comparing the GH1 with the Red.

    How this will affect professional users remains to be seen - in audio, there's a lot of pros having a tough time because total amateurs can convince customers that they can get good results for a fraction of the price - but as always, it ain't what you've got, it's the way that you use it, and you still need a pro to really get the pro results (well, most of the time).
    The GH1 is the result of a massive investment in CMOS technology over the years. It's not surprising that the mass produced technology has got to such a high standard. I agree about the laws of diminishing returns. Like in F1 racing - a fast car does not have the same margin left in it for improvement as a slow car does. The last mile is the hardest mile, etc. Rubbish camcorders and tiny CCD sensors have been around for such a long time only because of cost reasons. Now the next generation of technology has become affordable, we are gonna see some big strides until it stagnates again and we need new sensor technology.

    I think the next generation of sensor technology will be free from the CMOS negatives such as jello and fixed pattern noise, and of course as the image processor CPU gets faster, mud and scaling quality issues will vanish as well. Then resolution will increase and we'll eventually have new lens technology, such as a spherical sensor which wraps around the curvature of the lens like how the human eye works, meaning lenses can be made more simplistic and free from distortion.

    In the mean time, I'll be interested to see how much a back-lit sensor improves image quality. These models may only be compacts, but they are just around the corner from Sony & Panasonic. Their margin of improvement might dictate to a large extent how good the GH2 is going to be. Have they found big gains with this?


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #46
    Red Team Graeme_Nattress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,135
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by filmmaker's gang View Post
    what would JJ say reading you barry?..

    4k ON A BAYER PATTERN SENSOR is 3.2
    less 20% not 30%

    graeme's numbers
    http://www.cinematography.net/natress-red-res.html shows the performance of the RED quite nicely. Plotted graphs show the MTF out to 4k, showing very strong modulation at 2k and still good detail at 3k. As to when "you call it", I've called it around 3.2k, but you can see detail beyond that.

    Remember though, that you can't measured resolution properly unless you also measure aliasing at the same time. It's perfectly possible for a camera to measure 100% of it's rated pixel resolution if and only if allows for excessive aliasing. A camera can even respond to detail beyond it's resolution if there is inadequate low pass filtering. However, in both cases, the results can be ugly...

    Graeme
    www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
    www.red.com - RED - 4k Digital Cinema Camera


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #47
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozpeter View Post
    It's a 'law of diminishing returns' thing, which has been very evident in audio technology for some years, and is now seeming to be coming to video. In audio, you can get some stupidly good results from lower priced gear especially after a bit of post-production - the higher priced gear still gets a better result, but you have to pay three or four times the price to get that 10% edge. Same now seems true when comparing the GH1 with the Red.

    How this will affect professional users remains to be seen - in audio, there's a lot of pros having a tough time because total amateurs can convince customers that they can get good results for a fraction of the price - but as always, it ain't what you've got, it's the way that you use it, and you still need a pro to really get the pro results (well, most of the time).
    I consider it allowing talented people the means to express themselves instead of being shut out due to financial summits. It will all boil down to talent instead of what equipment somebody has and that is a push in the right direction in my eyes.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #48
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by filmmaker's gang View Post
    what would JJ say reading you barry?..
    I would certainly hope he'd agree, since I printed the truth.

    4k ON A BAYER PATTERN SENSOR is 3.2
    less 20% not 30%

    graeme's numbers
    Graeme's number is 78%, last I knew. And Graeme will tell you himself that he's got an extremely efficient debayer that performs better than most. And I think you'll find that almost anyone who knows anything about sampling theory would say that a debayer loss of 25% to 30% is entirely reasonable and to be expected.

    If we go by Graeme's 78%, then we're talking about a raster of 1600 x 900. Still quite a bit below what 1080p would register, still falling between 720p and 1080p as I said, and therefore backing up Timur's observations as to why his 2K shots looked softer.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #49
    Red Team Graeme_Nattress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,135
    Default
    Ah but you can only get a 100% rating (even on a 3 chip system) with, to me, unacceptable levels of aliasing... Some will even to respond to detail above 100% with strongly visible aliasing. Not nice.

    Even a MTF curve, being better than just a single figure for resolution, does not tell enough. You need to plot how the curve extends beyond rated resolution and see what happens there too!

    Graeme
    www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
    www.red.com - RED - 4k Digital Cinema Camera


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #50
    Red Team Graeme_Nattress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,135
    Default
    To add, part of the problem is that rez charts generally max out at HD rez, and don't have strong frequency content beyond HD rez. That means you don't see the increase in aliasing from those very high levels of detail.

    Graeme
    www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
    www.red.com - RED - 4k Digital Cinema Camera


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 5 of 29 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •