John Brawley
Well-known member
Honestly I think people are counting Olympus out right now.
I’m limited to what I can say, but they aren’t gone.
JB
I’m limited to what I can say, but they aren’t gone.
JB
OLYMPUS selling off camera division
- Thread starter cyvideo
- Start date
Joshua Cadmium
Well-known member
So, this isn't quite right for a number of reasons. Bear with me though, because I think it will be worth it to break down the why.
First, 2880x1620 is indeed 1.5x in both directions from 1080p. It was most likely chosen because it is a simple ratio to down-sample to 1080 AND it provides enough resolution to have all the green photosites you need for a full 1920x1080 green luma. This is because Bayer pattern sensors have enough green photosites for full green resolution horizontally and vertically but not diagonally. (There's a bunch of great diagrams here: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3...ght-loss-why-we-love-bryce-bayers-baby-anyway .)
Because of that, you only need √2 or 1.41 more resolution in both directions to get enough green photosites to give full green (luma) resolution diagonally as well. (√2 is just the space between two green photosites on a Bayer sensor.)
The increase in both directions is then just multiplied together to see how many more photosites we need: √2 x √2 = 2 . So, you just need 2x the resolution of 1080p to get full green luma. 1080p is 2 megapixels and twice that is 4 megapixels. The closest 4 MP resolution would be 2716 x 1528, but that number is not as easy to down-sample, and maybe you want a little more to counteract the resolution drop from the optical lowpass filter, so you end up at 2880x1620.
That's how Arri got to their resolution number, but that 1.5x is just for luma, not chroma. Red and blue are still undersampled. If you consider sharpness to include red and blue chrominance, then the image is not going to be fully sharp and you would want more photosites for red and blue. (3840x2160 would give you 1920x1080 worth of red and blue, for instance)
So, higher resolution cameras can and do look better when you consider chrominance.
---
Going further than that, one crazy thing that I just realized that was super helpful to me was that you can actually view higher resolution images in a lower resolution display. It actually helps to think about display resolution and capture resolution as completely different things.
A sensor can only capture a certain level of high frequencies before it turns to aliasing or moire (the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.) So, optical low pass filters are often used to blur the image so that higher frequencies are suppressed and don't show up as aliasing. (This does also lower the maximum resolution that the sensor can achieve, since no optics are perfect.)
So on any camera you are always limited to the amount of frequency (detail) you can capture.
However, by capturing at a higher resolution than what you intend to display at, you can actually show higher frequencies (more detail) in that display resolution, than you would otherwise get by capturing in the same display resolution. This is achieved by anti-aliasing through down-sampling.
Proper down-sampling (not nearest neighbor) will make the image smoother with finer gradations and the ability to see right up to the edge of what is possible in the display resolution. This is because higher frequencies are averaged together and combined in a way that better preserves the high frequency detail. This has been used in computer graphics and games for decades.
This article really helped: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing . Pull up the fractal examples at full resolution and see how increasingly higher oversampling (capturing at a higher resolution) helps to see more of the original image.
Fractals are a good representation of the real word because they have unlimited resolution, just like the real world, and are not dependent on sensors or optics or anything else that could get in the way of capturing the signal. It is clear from the examples that capturing at higher and higher resolutions does drastically increase the fidelity of the image, even when the display resolution stays exactly the same.
So, by using a higher resolution sensor, you can capture higher resolution frequencies that you otherwise would not be able to capture at all with a lower resolution sensor (it would either be mush from the OLPF or terrible looking aliasing). Then, by down-sampling, you are making it so that those higher frequencies can actually be seen in a lower resolution display, through anti-aliasing.
And that example with the fractals was not using a Bayer patter sensor, so all of this would be true even if we had perfect, full color, foveon-esque pixels. We don't currently have anything like that, so it is even more imperative to be capturing as many k's as possible, as it will be seen in the final display resolution of the viewer.
This was originally meant to be a simple post, but I think there are some further implications here.
Last edited:
Joshua Cadmium
Well-known member
The bottom line is that oversampling works even if we had a perfect sensor. So, when dealing with imperfect Bayer pattern sensors with subsampled color, super high resolutions should absolutely provide benefits, even at much lower display resolutions.
You are going to see the benefits of 12K and higher even at 2K.
Funny that, indeed.
You are going to see the benefits of 12K and higher even at 2K.
Funny that, indeed.
Last edited:
I am glad, thanks.
John Brawley
Well-known member
Well, that's exactly what I'm saying. The industry will consolidate. I see only Canon and Sony standing within 3-4 years.
Someone else shares the mindset.
https://fstoppers.com/business/best-thing-camera-industry-nikon-exit-501725
https://fstoppers.com/business/best-thing-camera-industry-nikon-exit-501725
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I didnt read past the "nikon should exit" but it's hard for me to comprehend how a duopoly could be good for the industry.
I'm going to make a prediction - the GH6 will shoot 8K continuously. Why? Because smartphones can do it ("so why am I paying you so much money to shoot worse video than my phone?") And high-resolution full readout is an area where smaller sensors probably have an advantage (hence why phones can do it). Thus M43 would remain relevant
I'm going to make a prediction - the GH6 will shoot 8K continuously. Why? Because smartphones can do it ("so why am I paying you so much money to shoot worse video than my phone?") And high-resolution full readout is an area where smaller sensors probably have an advantage (hence why phones can do it). Thus M43 would remain relevant
That's the point. The industry itself is deep sh!t, i.e., a survival mode.
The writer of the piece may not have used the most elegant expression to support his reasoning but Nikon's financials released last week show a dire picture. The company is losing a lot of money and expects to keep losing it even after the pandemic is over (assuming it is over at some point). Meaning that, pretty soon, Mitsubishi is going to have to rethink the whole operation.
Garry Schandling used to do this joke. "I am in bed with this woman. We just finished. I roll over and ask, "Honey, was it good for you too?" She replies, "Garry, this wasn't good for anybody". Well, that's the stage Nikon finds itself in. If it can't be profitable, it needs to pick up its toys and go home. Overall, the market will lose the mount but not any discernable features since those are controlled by the cartel anyway.
Two of the biggest hybrid producers Panasonic and Olympus don't have a reliable auto focus. Up until recently, most sub-$1000 cameras - such as EOS RP or any of the Canon sub-5D series- didn't even even 4K. Olympus was mentioned for its codec. Why do you think that is? Well, it isn't because the engineers are incapable. It is because the features are set not in the marketing department but in the boardroom. In fact, in several of them.
That's why $1,000 Samsung Note20 shoots portraits with a 108 MPX sensor, which is higher resolution than any "consumer" level camera including a $10,000 Fuji GFX 100. The photo-video industry is a cartel. The smartphone industry is a fully competitive market (that's also much, much larger in revenues and profits, estimated at $680 billion compared to ~ $10B-$12B for photo-video and shrinking fast). One could operate as a cartel but one'd also have to pay attention to competition. And the Japanese failed to do so.
combatentropy
Veteran
The corporation is not an outfit conducive to design. I have worked for corporations for many years, and I think about them the way a zoologist thinks about animals.
I don't doubt collusion, but even if there was none, the corporations would still trip over their own feet.
My current guess at the main cause is: a pervasive lack of ownership among its employees. In fact a corporation beats it out of them, on purpose. A corporation looks at employees as interchangeable pieces. If an employee causes trouble or simply takes a job elsewhere, the corporation wants to quickly swap in a different employee and keep the cogs turning. This is fine for a factory. It is a hellscape for a design studio.
In my interactions with my coworkers, the predominant sentiments they present are:
A corporation cultivates such employees through:
The result is that most corporations don't cultivate design. When they do, it is mediocre, designed by committee. Or, as you have witnessed with the cripplecams, they are designs that are deliberately twisted, abhorrent, and unnatural --- because they are designed selfishly, to preserve the profit margin, instead of to help a customer.
---
There are exceptions, the most famous being Steve Jobs. Say what you will about him, he was a weird man, at least among corporate execs.
But also I have a theory, that has so far been confirmed by evidence, that anything noteworthy that has come out of a corporation can always be traced back to a specific individual within that corporation. For example, the SR-71 Blackbird.
I don't doubt collusion, but even if there was none, the corporations would still trip over their own feet.
My current guess at the main cause is: a pervasive lack of ownership among its employees. In fact a corporation beats it out of them, on purpose. A corporation looks at employees as interchangeable pieces. If an employee causes trouble or simply takes a job elsewhere, the corporation wants to quickly swap in a different employee and keep the cogs turning. This is fine for a factory. It is a hellscape for a design studio.
In my interactions with my coworkers, the predominant sentiments they present are:
- Conservation of energy. "Why would I expend more energy than required to keep my job?"
- Risk aversion. "Why would I stick my neck out for this project or customer or what-have-you?"
A corporation cultivates such employees through:
- Paying everyone the same, regardless of performance (unless you're an executive or in Sales. The engineers, the makers, are paid market average, regardless of talent or track record.)
- Punishing mistakes. The corporation does not like to be upset, and when the corporation gets upset...
- Showering them all with a continual stream of paperwork, which drains a minor but substantial portion of energy. It also dampens their spirits, because the work appears to have no effect but to make everything harder. Obstensibly, the paperwork is in reaction to various warnings from Legal, for things that might happen (just as a meteorite might crash into your building) but for most people never do.
The result is that most corporations don't cultivate design. When they do, it is mediocre, designed by committee. Or, as you have witnessed with the cripplecams, they are designs that are deliberately twisted, abhorrent, and unnatural --- because they are designed selfishly, to preserve the profit margin, instead of to help a customer.
---
There are exceptions, the most famous being Steve Jobs. Say what you will about him, he was a weird man, at least among corporate execs.
But also I have a theory, that has so far been confirmed by evidence, that anything noteworthy that has come out of a corporation can always be traced back to a specific individual within that corporation. For example, the SR-71 Blackbird.
Last edited:
The Japanese employees are generally very loyal to their companies. And vice versa. Which is why Japan is known for its "Zombies" - companies that should be gone but continue to operate by issuing zero-interest debt that is funded by the private issues and then resold to the Japanese central bank.
But, overall, the nation is very competent in a number of the manufacturing areas. Their cars, to select one industry, are quite capable and competitive in a very competitive market. Honda and Toyota have done better than Nissan and Mazda but all of the above have done better than the big three American brand names.
But, overall, the nation is very competent in a number of the manufacturing areas. Their cars, to select one industry, are quite capable and competitive in a very competitive market. Honda and Toyota have done better than Nissan and Mazda but all of the above have done better than the big three American brand names.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Right - none of these companies would still be in business without government support, which is why our economic system is called "state-capitalism."
Hey, conglomerates! Stop looking for handouts! If you bought a few less fancy espressos, I'm sure you could make it on your own
Hey, conglomerates! Stop looking for handouts! If you bought a few less fancy espressos, I'm sure you could make it on your own
And the F104 Star Fighter, and the U2. Mr. Kelly Johnson.
combatentropy
Veteran
ding! ding! ding!
John Brawley
Well-known member
This is why I think BMD are so interesting. They are totally driven by Grant and he just is not interested in traditional coporate culture and he is interested in design.
Look at the OS for the cameras. They are so simple and often praised for being so elegant, to the point of them excluding features because they can’t be added as a menu option in the os.
I mean at least they are not afraid to do things outside the norm and they never ever stratify their products with artificial limitations. Their industrial design has always been unique.
You may not always agree with the taste and choices that are essentially made by one person, but at least it’s done with intention.
JB
P-39 and F-104 were decent but not outstanding. Both U-2 and SR-71 were in a class by itself.
PS. Powers fell asleep and the plane descended to ~ 20,000 feet or the Soviets had a very little chance of shooting him down. It was a human error (by his bosses pre-flight) and has been hushed up for many years.
The F104 was not exemplary but as an interceptor, it was a world record holder for rate of climb, speed and altitude, all at the same time. It was the first to carry sidewinder air to air missile, had 20 mm Vulcan cannon, and flew in German, Canadian and Italian Air Forces, was relatively inexpensive. But it landed very fast, short range, needed long runways, didn’t turn well, suffered a lot of fatal mishaps. The SR71, what else can be said? It is the greatest and fastest air breathing aircraft of all time. None were lost in combat, could outrun the missiles fired at it. I don’t remember the Bell P39, have to look that one up? Did you mean the P38 Lightning?