C500 - 4k from a 3840x2160 sensor?

Will Turner said:
That's what I'm getting at. It's not 4096 full colour pixels.. it is actually 4096 green, red and blue pixels which makes a hell of a difference to the true resolution. Bit of a scam I think!

I'd assume the 1080p mode would be equivalent to the 4k mode in terms of pixels:perceived resolution but apparently not!
Click to expand...

The terminology may seem a bit misleading, but it's bog standard in the digital photography world. Nothing short of a vastly oversampled image would provide 4096 full color pixels. If you wanted to have a 4K camera that samples R, G, & B for each output pixel, you'd need a 26.5 megapixel sensor. The F65 is the only camera that that I'm aware of that currently oversamples for it's 4K image, but 8K doesn't sample enough R, G, & B for every output pixel. Even that camera is likewise using some pretty "fuzzy math" in their 8K sensor marketing.

Only the C300 and presumably C100 camcorders are doing a perfect RGB sample for each pixel of output. Sigma's foveon technology does it as well, through a stacked sensor design - but they don't play in the digital cinema game, only stills.
 
Last edited:
If 60mins eats up 1 TB, I wonder what to do in the field. How do you download in the field when there is no power source nearby? Ofcourse in wildlife, you don't always find the subject infront of you. Still one needs a lot of media. How do you carry so many external hard disks to copy those files? This is a frightening scenario.
 
I was thinking... go Quad HD on the first film... since its close or just go 2k... then it would be 120 mins per 1TB... then on the next film move up to 4k... slowly building up your storage needs and post workflow...
 
you guys do realize that the unit of measure is pixels right? 4k pixels is 4000. 4096 would created a random number that requires more processing and memory for no apparent reason. and no one would be able to differentiate 2 TVs side by side one 4096 and another 3840 with original recording in there native resolutions. the 4096 tv will however degrade 1080 recorded material compared with the 3840.

it's not in bit, a 4km road is 4000m, a 4kg weight is 4000g, and a 4GB hard-drive stores 4,000,000,000 bytes of data.

p.s.: yes, i'm saying every person and standard that said 4k pixels is 4096 is wrong.
 
Amr Rahmy said:
you guys do realize that the unit of measure is pixels right? 4k pixels is 4000. 4096 would created a random number that requires more processing and memory for no apparent reason. and no one would be able to differentiate 2 TVs side by side one 4096 and another 3840 with original recording in there native resolutions. the 4096 tv will however degrade 1080 recorded material compared with the 3840.

it's not in bit, a 4km road is 4000m, a 4kg weight is 4000g, and a 4GB hard-drive stores 4,000,000,000 bytes of data.

p.s.: yes, i'm saying every person and standard that said 4k pixels is 4096 is wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, this is total nonsense.

The standard for 4K digital cinema is 4096 x 1714 for an aspect ratio of 2.39:1 or 4096 x 3112 for full aperture 4K with an aspect ratio of 1.32:1.

I suggest you google how much data you can store on a 4GB hard drive, because you are wrong about that too...
 
i know what the standard is, i specifically mentioned the word standard in the quote you copy/pasted without thinking.

and a 4GB hard drive of storage if existed will not hold 4GB of data. it's not measured in bytes. that's the point, it's not​ measured in bytes.
 
Liam Hall said:
The standard for 4K digital cinema is 4096 x 1714 for an aspect ratio of 2.39:1 or 4096 x 3112 for full aperture 4K with an aspect ratio of 1.32:1.
Click to expand...
According to the DCI specs I've found, it's 4096 x 1716 for 2.39:1, but for 4:3 "full aperture" it's supposed to be 3656 x 2764, and for 1.85:1 it's 3996 x 2160.
 
yes, it's the standard, i did not say it wasn't.

but it was made the standard because someone made a mistake when developing film scan workflow. establishing the number at the scan process instead of the playback in which would need additional overheads. things should not be treated with a blind mob like mentality.
 
Amr Rahmy said:
you guys do realize that the unit of measure is pixels right? 4k pixels is 4000. 4096 would created a random number that requires more processing and memory for no apparent reason. and no one would be able to differentiate 2 TVs side by side one 4096 and another 3840 with original recording in there native resolutions. the 4096 tv will however degrade 1080 recorded material compared with the 3840.

it's not in bit, a 4km road is 4000m, a 4kg weight is 4000g, and a 4GB hard-drive stores 4,000,000,000 bytes of data.

p.s.: yes, i'm saying every person and standard that said 4k pixels is 4096 is wrong.
Click to expand...

Just jumping in here about the harddrive reference because of my IT background. There are two (popular) ways to count storage: Base-2 and Base-10. Under base-2, which was the standard way to count until marketing became involved, 4GB would in fact be 4096 MB. The hard drive manufacturers would count in the more palatable base-10 so that non techs could easier digest what they were buying. So 4GB became counted as 4000 MB. Easier, right? Apple changed Mac OSX only in the last few iterations (I think starting with Snow Leopard) to count in base-10. If you look at a drive marketed as a 4GB drive on a Windows PC or older Mac you will see it show up as a smaller size because the OS is counting in base-2, but they sold you a drive counting 96 MB less than what the OS defines as 4GB.

I'm saying all this to say that the math involved is probably more complex than "4k = 4000" as I'd suspect the pixel tech and hard drive tech have similar computer science roots.
 
the hard drive capacity is used for marketing, because it's what the consumer can understand. it's not how or what the manufacturer is trying to do or make, because they do understand what they are trying to make unlike the 4096 standard.
 
it's not really a standard anyway when considering the close proximity of ultra high definition and 4096width or the other 2160h. ultra HD makes much more sense and is more standard and will not create any artifacts when it comes to TVs or video resolutions of HD and Ultra HD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top