How can a single-chip camera claim 4:4:4 color?

If you care to phrase a question on the subject that is free of ambiguity, I'll present to DALSA and post the response. If not, I'll drop he matter on this board, but it seems a subject worthy of further exploration with the companies making the cameras.

Today, I also heard from Radu Corlan at Vision Research regarding the Phantom 65 (which uses a 4K bayer-striped CMOS sensor). He wrote: "The Phantom 65 will output full-resolution images (up to 4096x2440)". When I ask for clarification regarding whether he meant "viewable" reconstructed RGB 4:4:4 images, he replied: "yes, the kind you would show on an IBM monitor or the 4k sony projector."
 
I've very familiar with that article and the method ARRI uses. Some very experienced cinematagraphers who have seen the DALSA 4K images projected have said they're spectacular and certainly the best of what's available at present. For me, what's on the screen is what ultimately matters, not a white paper or theory.

I still don't understand why you're so dismissive, but I'll drop the matter.
 
Yes, the Dalsa images are lovely. I don't see what the issue is when even the Dalsa paper I pointed out confirms precisely what I'm saying. I just thing there's a difference in language between pixel resolution, and the measured amount of detail in the image, for which all bayer sensors have the same limitation, and by which all reconstruction algorithms are so limited.

Graeme
 
Sure, I accept the technical difference that you describe. In the end the decision about the image's acceptability (or otherwise) requires a subjective appraisal, and apparently reconstructed 4K output can look damn good. Let's bring the discussion back to RED. If 4K output can look good on the screen, is there a reason why RED has decided not to offer a 4K output option, or has that decision been made yet?
 
We haven't said we're not offering a 4k compressed output. There's a lot we've not said, because we're still working things out. We are most certainly offering a 4.5k uncompressed output, similar to the Dalsa.

Graeme
 
But if you are going to compare these two cameras then I have to ask dose the DALSA offering all the other formats that RED is offering?

And thank Graeme that was a very informative read.
 
I'll keep trying to be informative. As you know, over the years, I've written articles that de-mystified many aspects of digital video and tried to stomp on some myths too. I think it's great that readers of forums like this can become more educated on the technical aspects of video, and not have to rely on myths and legends to make informed opinions about their productions.

Graeme
 
Tell me boys,

Does the audience walk out of a film and go "gee that was a great movie, but pity about the 4:4:2 colour space." "yeah, they shoulda totally gone with 4:4:4..."?... in a bell curve: no.

Graeme is right when he stressed about the right lighting... and the right story and even DVX100 miniDV footage can inspire.

The techy side is good to know I guess, and that's what led me to learning about this camera, but once you're on the set, if you're a director it's about actors playing off actors and creating a scene.

Heck, you could have 5:5:5 colour space and if the performance is average, ur stuffed.

El Stupido
 
Yes, but that argument has little relevance in a camera forum.

We could talk about how the performances would look great on Super 8, too, if it was Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman.

But that doesn't stop us from using 35mm whenever possible, right? Who in their right mind would waste an opportunity to shoot Pacino and Hoffman, by using Super 8?

The tools are constantly evolving because better is, well, better.

RED makes things better than they were. The HVX makes things better than they were. The DVX made things better than they were.

Discarding the tool as a point of discussion is a rather counterproductive angle for someone to take on a camera-discussion board. It is true that no camera has made a lousy film into a good one, but it is also true that those behind the camera, with the skills, will choose the best tools available to them whenever they can.

Frankly if there are beginners in the RED forum who don't know how to light and who don't know how to get their actors to perform, then they're in the wrong place! A $40,000 camera system is not the right place for someone to be experimenting. This is a serious tool for those who know how to use it.
 
If the 8mm look suited the scene. Yeah man I'd shoot Pacino on it. Or though maybe I'd treat it that way.

This forum is dragged down by the 4:4:Bore talk. It's like arguing who's better: Kirk or Picard. Who cares?

When's that new form factor being released? There's a seminar soon or something isn't there.

There should be room for wider discussion of the craft in a camera forum like this. You are missing the point of it all.


El Stupido
 
Or... if you are going to talk amongst yourselves in an exclusive little clique... tell us Cretins w.t.f a Bayer pattern is.

Sounds like a sharp gun used in the French Revolution.

be inclusive, not exclusive... Barry... or whatever your real name is.

El Stupido.
 
For the love of pete... I'm not missing the point at all. This is the CAMERA forum. Where we discuss CAMERAS.

If you want to discuss the larger picture, why not go to the FILM DISCUSSION section? Or the LIGHTING section? Or the CINEMATOGRAPHY section? Or the SCREENWRITING section?

We're quite inclusive here. We also like to keep some organization.

Sorry, but the whole "it's just a tool" platitude is really, really old. It's obviously not just a tool, it's the whole point the community is here.

Those who don't want to discuss the technical aspects should probably not spend time in the technical sections of the forum, right? We have technical sections for those who want to get as technical as they can. We have general sections for those who don't want to get bogged down in technicals. It's all here.

As for the rest of your post -- I'm really trying to understand here -- your screenname is "el stupido" but you're questioning what my real name is? Is that sarcasm? My screen name is my birth name.
 
super 8, 16, 4:1:1 , HD , 2k, 4k ,....

the STANDARD that ALL is measured against is 35mm ..
35mm is what 97% of those posting here would prefer to shoot but the COST is out of range ... 35mm lens with 35mm Dof ... 35mm is the WORLD standard .... 35mm is equal to 4:4:4 , 2k-4k or any format- color space when you have it telecined/scanned ... RED will do similar type formats/color space = the user has a choice to shoot in whatever format suits their project and budget and/or use them all in same project all with ONE camera ... for project 1 shoot 720p .. project 2 2k windowed .. project 3 super 16 2k, project 4 1080i etc - also your choice 35mm DoF or 2/3/16 DoF ... 35mm sensor for X $$$

you'll be able BUY or you will be able to RENT or maybe you'll be able to borrow from friend? ... or you go with another camera .. freedom of choice !
 
what we most of all like would be a digital camera with 35mm look.

Most of us not only uses digital because its cheap, but for its superb workflow.
 
It was irony. El Stupido is my brithname too. My parents are cruel spanish communists who locked me in a basement with only a Hamster as my friend till I was 10.

Graeme thanks for that link. I understand more now.

I don't think I was every saying 'it's just a tool'. Obviously I wouldn't be here if I was thinking that...

But your rant on approp forums makes sense. Fair enuff.

I used the percentage of audience awareness anaolgy to start it off. And I come back to that, Subjectivly & Objectivly... how much difference can you really see between 4:4:4 & 4:4:2???

That's not off topic is it????????????????????????????????

El Stupido
 
Well, in the final image, you probably can't. You can tell in the source footage if you apply lots of effects though that add too much saturation or too much colour correction though. But, because of the way the RAW is converted to RGB, I don't think you'll see any nasties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top