F65 for $65k - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The DV Info Network > Digital Video Industry News

Digital Video Industry News
Events, press releases, bulletins and dispatches from the DV world at large.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 10th, 2011, 04:57 PM   #16
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 949
Re: F65 for $65k

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Moretti View Post
So can you expalin how rotating 5K 45 degrees creates a 20 million pixel sensor?
Look, it's very simple. You just cannot get 8K of resolution from a 20 MP 16:9 sensor. The only way to do it is with 38 MP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Moretti View Post
The pixel count is what it is.
Exactly. And the pixel count sure doesn't equate to 8K. (Unless the fabric of spacetime has been warped by a Sony Marketing Distortion Field.)
Daniel Browning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2011, 02:21 AM   #17
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,259
Re: F65 for $65k

They never claimed F65 has 8K resolution. Sony refers the sensor as 8K, but has always claimed the sensor provides 4K of resolution.

Sony hasn't been lying to anyone.
__________________
Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0
Peter Moretti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2011, 02:45 AM   #18
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 4,121
Re: F65 for $65k

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning View Post
Look, it's very simple. You just cannot get 8K of resolution from a 20 MP 16:9 sensor. The only way to do it is with 38 MP.
I haven't seen Sony claim 8K resolution, only 4k.
Brian Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2011, 10:03 AM   #19
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 949
Re: F65 for $65k

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Moretti View Post
They never claimed F65 has 8K resolution. Sony refers the sensor as 8K, but has always claimed the sensor provides 4K of resolution.

Sony hasn't been lying to anyone.
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/f..._CameraPDF.pdf

"The F65 can also output 16-bit linear RAW, which preserves all the information obtained from every photosite on the image sensor—up to 8K of resolution."

"Compared to a conventional 4K sensor, Sony’s F65 has an 8K grid with twice the number of photosites. It’s a much finer sampling grid."

"Your choice of resolution: gloriously supersampled HD, supersampled 2K, true 4K or even 8K."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale View Post
I haven't seen Sony claim 8K resolution, only 4k.
Now you've seen it.
Daniel Browning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2011, 10:39 AM   #20
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 4,121
Re: F65 for $65k

They say "true 4k", which I'd take to be the actual resolution. The 8k being the Bayer, which I'd take to be the same term as used by RED, so you just might at push manage 5k or 6k depending on how you de Bayer the data..

In the end, it's a camera for 4k productions and I don't think anyone is really thinking otherwise. plus it's the 4k that's being pushed by Sony their releases. So far, I haven't seen any mention of how you can record the 8k, only the 4k.
Brian Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2011, 12:38 PM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 949
Re: F65 for $65k

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale View Post
They say "true 4k", which I'd take to be the actual resolution. The 8k being the Bayer
But that's just it: the 8K is not Bayer. If it was, then it would be a 38 MP sensor, and it would be capable of the same resolution as a sensor with 8192 pixels (8K) along one of the sides. In this case, the 8K is just a fabrication with no basis in reality. Sony could have called it 10K or 20K and the number would have the same relationship to their camera, i.e., none.

The cake is a lie. If you do not pass 38 MP, then you do not collect 8K. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale View Post
The 8k being the Bayer, which I'd take to be the same term as used by RED, so you just might at push manage 5k or 6k depending on how you de Bayer the data.
First, these are not the same at all. RED says they have a 13.8 MP sensor that is 5K. It is literally 5120 pixels accross. So their numbers have a basis in reality because it is the actual number of pixels (or "photosites", as Sony's Marketing likes to call them), not something made up.

Second, the difference between pixel count and measured resolution has (almost) nothing to do with de-Bayering. It has to do with aliasing and the OLPF, for which the trade-off same for *every* digital camera, whether it's 3-chip, Bayer, RGB CFA, or Foveon.

For example, you can build a 1.9K (HD) 3-chip camera with 1.9K of measured resolution, but has very bad aliasing artifacts. Or you could build a 1.9K 3-chip that measures only 1.5K and has very few aliasing artifacts.

Same exact thing with Bayer. The only difference is that you can "only" get a maximum of 1.8K from a 1.9K Bayer, because you lose about 6% to the de-Bayer.

Video cameras have a long and (in-)glorious history of playing fast and loose with aliasing, many of them measuring 85 or 90% and allowing a ton of aliasing through.

RED could have done the same thing, but they chose to attempt a film-style aesthetic, which means fewer aliasing artifacts. So instead of allowing 94% or 85% through like some video cameras do, they knocked it down to about 78%. That was completely voluntary, as they could have skipped all the effort and expense of an OLPF, which would have given them a measured 4.7K resolution from their 5K sensor. But then it would have had a "video" look to it (aliasing) like most other video cameras.
Daniel Browning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2011, 01:43 PM   #22
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 4,121
Re: F65 for $65k

Sony are not trying for a 8k camera, there's currently no market worth talking about for an 8k camera, they're talking about; “The ability to shoot content in true native 4K resolution". The Sony F35 has a 12.4 mega pixel sensor, but no one claims it's a 4k camera, it's 1080p HD,

The use of "resolution" in that pdf is rather loose, but they're referring to oversampling so that they can say "The advantage here is ability to derive 4K, 2K, HD from 16-bit linear RAW", They don;t claim they're giving you 8k resolution from the camera only "true 4K".

I think RED were a lot more loose with their "4K" in the past than Sony.are with this description of deriving 4k.
Brian Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2011, 06:58 PM   #23
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 949
Re: F65 for $65k

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale View Post
The use of "resolution" in that pdf is rather loose,
What would happen if Canon went around here saying things like "The Canon XH-A1 camcorder can also output up to 3K of resolution", "Compared to a conventional 1440x1080 sensor, the XH-A1 has a 3K grid with twice the number of photosites", "Your choice of resolution: gloriously supersampled HDV or even 3K".

I hope people would describe such claims for what they are: nonsense. There's nothing about the XH-A1 that has anything to do with 3K whatsoever. Saying it has 3K resolution goes beyond just being "loose" with resolution. In the same way, Sony's F65 does not have 8K of pixels, nor could it ever measure that much resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale View Post
I think RED were a lot more loose with their "4K" in the past than Sony.are with this description of deriving 4k.
Is that because the RED ONE's "4K" was not generated by oversampling a higher resolution? Or because Bayer only measures full resolution in luma, and somewhat less in chroma? Or because the measured resolution (3.2K) is less than the "4K"? All of the above?
Daniel Browning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2011, 07:48 PM   #24
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,259
Re: F65 for $65k

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning View Post
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/f..._CameraPDF.pdf

"The F65 can also output 16-bit linear RAW, which preserves all the information obtained from every photosite on the image sensor—up to 8K of resolution."

This is true. But it's not resolution of equal chroma values it's resolution that is mosaiced. The RAW data has 8K of resolution, but the RAW data is not an image of RGB values for each pixel.Think I'm parsing words? Well here's the very next sentence, "This gives you phenomenal ability to demosaic, adjust grayscale, color correct, composite and even re-frame the image in post. The advantage here is ability to derive 4K, 2K, HD from 16-bit linear RAW." No mention of an 8K IMAGE.

"Compared to a conventional 4K sensor, Sony’s F65 has an 8K grid with twice the number of photosites. It’s a much finer sampling grid."

This is true. The pixel density is greater, hence the pixels are smaller


"Your choice of resolution: gloriously supersampled HD, supersampled 2K, true 4K or even 8K."

Sony is saying that HD and 2K would be supersampled. 4K is the native resolution and above 4K up to even 8K would be interpolated. Interpolation schemes are used all the time. Pixel shifting and demosaicing are all forms of interpolation that increase resolution.

Is not saying the image is 8K.


Now you've seen it.

I've seen it misrepresented.
Daniel,

You are freaking out about absolutely nothing. Sony is not lying. I've been to the Sony event at the DGA. Sony never claimed even once that the F65 has 8K of resolution. They clearly stated that their camera is a true 4K image provider. That's all they claimed.

And if you unbiasedly read the brief instead of just taking pieces out of context, you'll see that that's the theme that runs through out the PDF "the F65 is real, true 4K image resolution camera"-- not that it's an 8K image resolution camera. And right in the middle of the brouchure, pages 4 and 5 have diagrams explaining why the F65 is "true 4K," not why it is true 8K.

And your claim that it's really 5K rotated 45 degrees is just not true. You can't get 20 million pixels out of 5K rotated.
__________________
Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0
Peter Moretti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2011, 08:15 PM   #25
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 949
Re: F65 for $65k

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Moretti View Post
The RAW data has 8K of resolution,
You are mistaken. The raw data has nothing even close to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Moretti View Post
4K is the native resolution and above 4K up to even 8K would be interpolated.
Nothing wrong with "inteprolating" whatever they want from a sensor, but to take 20 MP and double the pixel count (38 MP = 8K) through "interpolation" does not justify saying "outputs up to 8K of resolution" or "Your choice of resolution: ... 8K".

If I take a 1920x1080 file and "interpolate" it up to twice the pixel count (4.14 MP, or 2.65K), can I say the camera "outputs up to 2.65K of resolution" or "Your choice of resolution: HD, 2.65K"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Moretti View Post
Sony never claimed even once that the F65 has 8K of resolution.
It's unfortunate they weren't also that accurate in their brochure, which says, literally, "8K of resolution". As in, "The F65 can also output [...] up to 8K of resolution". I can also interpolate a 20 MP raw file up to 8K, 12K, or 20K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Moretti View Post
And your claim that it's really 5K rotated 45 degrees is just not true. You can't get 20 million pixels out of 5K rotated.
Yes, you're right. I was mistaken. A 20 MP 16:9 sensor using standard Bayer would be 6K, not 5K. But that's still a far cry from 38 MP.
Daniel Browning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2011, 01:55 AM   #26
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 4,121
Re: F65 for $65k

Here are some earlier announcement details: "8K sensor: 8768 x 2324 pixel single CMOS sensor (thatís 20.4 Megapixels) ó Super35 3-perf size, 16-bit RAW output, 16:8:8" New Sony Camera: 4K and Beyond | Film and Digital Times: News

I don't think anyone else I've read to date is considering the F65 an 8k camera, all the discussion is about 4k. Sony would only be pulling a fast one of they said this is the big new 8k camera, all their talk is about it giving you 4k and the wide colour gamut, not about allowing you to shoot 8k.

There is an element of our sensor is bigger than your sensor with the camera manufacturers' marketing, but they're all producing 4k at the end of the day, The next interesting thing will be when Arri brings out a camera for 4k, Aaton have their take on one,
Brian Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2011, 11:00 AM   #27
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 949
Re: F65 for $65k

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale View Post
Here are some earlier announcement details: "8K sensor: 8768 x 2324 pixel single CMOS sensor (thatís 20.4 Megapixels) ó Super35 3-perf size,
Something doesn't add up there. The pixel dimensions give an aspect ratio of 3.8:1, but Super35 3-perf is only 1.78:1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale View Post
I don't think anyone else I've read to date is considering the F65 an 8k camera, all the discussion is about 4k. Sony would only be pulling a fast one of they said this is the big new 8k camera, all their talk is about it giving you 4k and the wide colour gamut, not about allowing you to shoot 8k.
Agreed.
Daniel Browning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2011, 11:45 AM   #28
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 4,121
Re: F65 for $65k

Perhaps the "3.8" is part of an arrangement that Sony has come up with that some how matches in with this: "The F65 adheres to the 1.9:1 aspect ratio of the DCI". Certainly it's not a standard figure that you'd expect from a normal Bayer arrangement. Perhaps part of what they term a "unique Double Bayer pixel orientation"

Last edited by Brian Drysdale; September 12th, 2011 at 01:17 PM.
Brian Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2011, 03:01 PM   #29
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 949
Re: F65 for $65k

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale View Post
Perhaps the "3.8" is part of an arrangement that Sony has come up with that some how matches in with this: "The F65 adheres to the 1.9:1 aspect ratio of the DCI".
Hm - maybe the raw pixel count is more similar to a 6K 1:9 Bayer: 6144x3234 = 1:9.
Daniel Browning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2011, 05:00 PM   #30
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 4,121
Re: F65 for $65k

Effectively that may be similar, although from their figures Sony seem to be overlaying two sets, perhaps something that allows what JVC did on the GY-HD100 although using a different method.

Lots for speculation, but I expect time will reveal more.
Brian Drysdale is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The DV Info Network > Digital Video Industry News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:07 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network