David Stump's RED files are up

Status
Not open for further replies.
jbeale said:
So you might end up with many different effective latitude numbers, depending on if your final output is 4k, 2k, HD or SDTV and they might be considerably different.

Exceptionally good point. Couldn't agree more.
 
gunleik said:
I must admitI have never had that much fun examining something as dull as a chroma-chart before.

Not to veer the thread, but I'm hoping that some of this chart-tastic fastidiousness rubs off on the generous folks who take it upon themselves to perform side-by-side tests of the various 35mm lens adaptors.

-Stu
 
@polispol: I'm pretty sure those blurry grey spots are bits of dust, either directly on the sensor or some surface close to it, eg. a cover glass or anti-alias filter. At least dust on the sensor on my DSLRs looks very similar, and is easily cleaned off with a small brush like the VisibleDust.com product.
 
I had the same feeling, jbeale, it seems a lot to pictures with dust on the sensor taken with my DSLR nikon. Even the fact of having a high F-stop (11 at that picture) doesn't help to that.


btw my english is getting worse everyday!
 
rememver frankie is not sealed, and i can gurnatee that there is Dust on the sensor.. there was construction happening in the back of the warehouse as well that didn't help things much.

CML needs help with mirrors they are getting hit hard.. so if anyone wants to throw some up that would be very cool.
 
Last edited:
mikkowilson said:
Ok, mirror copies of the files are going up to: http://red.mikkowilson.com

They are big files, and taking quite some time to upload.
Files in red are still uploading.

- Mikko
Thanks Mikko, but can someone post David's comments? I can't subscribe to that forum, I have requested it many times and never get susbscribed, I am subscribed to other CML disscusions, but not that one.

Thanks again.
 
pablovi said:
Thanks Mikko, but can someone post David's comments? I can't subscribe to that forum, I have requested it many times and never get susbscribed, I am subscribed to other CML disscusions, but not that one.
I managed to subscribe to the future-cameras forum right away first try; I don't know why it worked for me. There is much commentary by onlookers but David Stump hasn't posted much more real detail yet, he says that's coming soon and that he's a slow typist.
 
A new post from Mr. Stump today, including this:

"I think there may be more work coming in terms of characterizing the
sensor and tweaking the matrix. I'm currently studying the top end of
the exposure curve. I think there may be another half stop to a full
stop up there just lurking, waiting to be used by tweaking the top end
of the matrix. Which may also yield a little more sensitivity."
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
Yup, we still have a fair bit of characterizing to do, but we're on track, so no worries.

Graeme

No worries from me. I'm thrilled to hear that you may get even a little bit more from the sensor than what we've seen so far.
 
jbeale said:
I managed to subscribe to the future-cameras forum right away first try; I don't know why it worked for me. There is much commentary by onlookers but David Stump hasn't posted much more real detail yet, he says that's coming soon and that he's a slow typist.

Thanks, well it seems I never get the confirmation e-mail, everytime I try I never get it. Thanks again.
 
Rob Lohman said:
My normal email address didn't work either, had to sign up with another one

Thanks, I tried another e-mail with no luck, I'm gonna try with eve yet another account.
 
I did a very strange thing. I opened the well exposed shot in Photoshop, made another layer, scaled that down 50% and then enlarged it 200%, trying to see what the visual difference is between 4k and 2k. Conclusion: it is very very hard to see. Only in the very fine details you see a difference when you look closely, everywhere else there is none. This was looking my screen that made the image 2 times wider than the distance of my eyes to the screen - well, if I had a screen like that :)

What does this mean? Are we looking at the limit of what the lens can resolve? Or is 4k just not that much better than 2k? Would it be better visible with a moving image..?

Don't get me wrong, I don't care about the amount of pixels that much. I think at the image size we are talking about lattitude and color are much more important. I was just curious about what 4k actually meant.
 

Attachments

  • 2k4k.jpg
    2k4k.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top