Edited by jcs, 09 February 2013 - 11:46 PM.
Comparing Actual Camera Resolutions
#1
Posted 27 January 2013 - 08:12 PM
- nahua, Mirrorkisser, gebybaidway and 1 other like this
#2
Posted 27 January 2013 - 08:15 PM
add gh2 ![]()
#3
Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:02 AM
Pretty good list. Couple of things - I'd put the F65 at the top, it is the only true 4K camera sampling from an 8K sensor! GH2 is above FS100 for resolution.
#4
Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:27 AM
Updated. Regarding the GH2- how do you know the GH2 provides higher resolution vs. the FS100? Any links to tests/reports etc.?
#5
Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:35 AM
Why is RED not listed as 5K?
#6
Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:46 AM
RED Epic has 5120 x 2700 Bayer pattern sensor. As Andrew noted, we need at least 8192 photosites (minimally, in green, horizontally) to actually capture 4096 pixel resolution (Nyquist- math and physics). Right now only the F65 has 8K sensor resolution (which provides for the most part full 4K resolution (but not quite: download the brochure from this page: http://pro.sony.com/...hend-F65.shtml )).
The goal of this list/table is to show actual, measured, real-world performance (which can differ greatly from advertised specs).
#7
Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:23 PM
The goal of this list/table is to show actual, measured, real-world performance (which can differ greatly from advertised specs).
Not that I doubt your figures, but what is your source? It be nice to see the measurements/comparisons.
#8
Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:00 PM
Thanks for that list I've thought something like that would be nice for a while. GH2 is possibly about 830 lines with the hack I reckon.
#9
Posted 29 January 2013 - 01:40 AM
guys, where is gopro ?
#10
Posted 29 January 2013 - 02:09 AM
markm- if the GH2 is 830 TV Lines (horizontal resolution), that would mean the FS700 is less (per Andrew), however the FS100 is rated at 1000+ TV Lines. Are there charts, lab data to support these numbers?
Found an FS100 chart: http://www.dvuser.co...fs100/chart.jpg
http://www.dvinfo.ne...olution-gh2.htm
http://www.dvxuser.c...p/t-232565.html (GH2 rated around 800 lines).
I have a GoPro Hero 3 Black Edition. 1920x1080 looks decent, 2.7K looks OK but suspect it's not really 2.7K (haven't tried 12fps 4K; would guess closer to 3K). I don't have any data from tests showing actual resolution. If someone has a source/link I can take a look and add it to the list.
#11
Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:50 AM
It seems quite odd that "post-sharpening" has increased resolution on the 5dmarkIII. If you are gonna do something cool and get cameras into a resolution list, then they would actually need to be measured. Changing sharpening in post does not change results from a real resolution chart.
#12
Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:31 AM
JCS TV lines described in advertising literature I don't believe has any relevence at all so I would disregard that.
I initially thought the GH2 had the same resolution as the Panasonic AF100 at about 630 lines which is an awful performance that doesn't even match 720p. I think it is fairly common for the large sensors to have about 800 including the Sony F3. Really you need tried and trusted experts like Adam Wilt or Alan Roberts to do these tests..
Also sharpening cannot increase resolution.
#13
Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:34 AM
Updated. Regarding the GH2- how do you know the GH2 provides higher resolution vs. the FS100? Any links to tests/reports etc.?
Seriously?
Sean C. Cunningham :: Me @ Facebook :: Me @ Vimeo :: Me @ IMDB
#14
Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:54 AM
Hoo rah cameras..
I'm gonna make a full frame Iphone that shoots raw and fits in your pocket.. I i "AM" form factor.. Siri tells you if the shot was worth a damn also.. my camera is the first to instill concidence with verbal validations. Makes the Dragon sensor look cute. 4k is so 2013.. Real innovation doesn't start until you can see a cold developing on the surface of his fingernails. In a bat cave around midnight at 2,365,432 iso with no noise. 12k for $12k. Where you at now Canon? I hear the ball dropping.
#15
Posted 29 January 2013 - 02:22 PM
Have a look at the details for F65, I think that although a 16-bit process is used, colour information is actually 12-bit by the time you get the footage. Or something like that... maths...
http://www.jgharding.com
Consults, directs and shoots. Loves shadows...
#16
Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:15 AM
I realized that we could reasonably simulate test chart results in software. A camera system (Gaussian) blurs light before the sensor (anti-aliases) then decimates (A to D samples pixels) into discrete photosites.
I downloaded the ISO12233 test chart and converted the PDF into a 1200 pixels/inch bitmap (Photoshop CS6). I then Gaussian blurred it 3 pixels and downsampled (bicubic smoother) to 1920x1080, then sharpened it to make the results more clear (to increase accutance):
Note aliasing starting above 900 lines.
I went back to the blurred 16K image and did the same process down to 1620x910 (+ sharpened):
Note that aliasing starts to become apparent around 600 lines.
Blurring and decimating is a common method to resample pixels. However, there are better resampling methods than bicubic such as the sinc-based Lanczos (Premiere Pro uses Lanczos).
In the 1920 example, we see it is pretty clean all the way up to 1000 line pairs.
Compare to an actual FS100 test chart shot: http://www.dvuser.co...fs100/chart.jpg
Looks like a solid 1000+ TV lines (with two interesting diagonal aliasing bands).
Now compare to the GH2 :
Different chart; Barry Green rates this as around 800 lines perhaps could be rated higher, but not as high as the FS100 chart result. We could say 900 or so before detail extinction.
http://www.dvxuser.c...p/t-232565.html
Philip Bloom's test compared the hacked GH2 to the FS100's 24Mbps codec. It appeared to me that the FS100 low detail/resolution could be due to overcompression. If using an external recorder, the FS100 should be able to do much better in that test case.
The 5D2 was rated at 440lp/ph (vertical resolution), so that would be 880 vertical pixels and if horizontal resolution is similar, we'd get 782lp/pw or 1564 horizontal resolution. Thus approximately 1564x880 pixel resolution. It's possible horizontal resolution is less- if anyone has a reference, please post it.
http://provideocoali..._-_scce_charts/
The 5D3 providing around 1620x910 resolution (the bitmap size before rescaling to 1920x1080 per ML folks) or around 810 TV lines seems reasonable:
(890 line estimate was perhaps a bit too generous).
Closeup of the 5D3 still scaled to 1920x1080 (represented full 1920x1080 resolution on the device):
Closeup of 5D3 1080p video post-sharpened:
We can see decent line pairs out past 800. 810 would be fair and matches the 1620x910 pre-scaled bitmap reported by the ML team.
As always, if there are better chart or other real-world test results, please post them.
#17
Posted 31 January 2013 - 11:10 AM
Pretty good list. Couple of things - I'd put the F65 at the top, it is the only true 4K camera sampling from an 8K sensor! GH2 is above FS100 for resolution.
Andrew, I am guessing, you meant the AF100, instead of the FS100. Please correct me, if I am wrong.
#18
Posted 31 January 2013 - 11:35 AM
JCS I appreciate what you're trying to do but tests like these have to be done by the book and with proper test charts otherwise your results wont match other tests and are meaningless.
#19
Posted 31 January 2013 - 08:05 PM
Hey mark- a chart test is pretty straightforward, right? Align and focus correctly, shoot. Other than having the chart too close, errors in set up result in reduced measured resolution. In my day job I work with cameras, pixels, and math. For example, we could do an automated FFT/DCT for a groups of photographed(video) lines at various resolutions and look at the frequency bins to get an empirical measurement. For such a test, we'd want to clean up via sharpening the source frames to remove as much low-frequency information as possible (improving accutance (a form of microcontrast) as much as possible). I suspect the slashcam.de test did something similar and didn't post-sharpen the 5D3 footage, resulting in an abnormally low high-frequency measurement.
The charts I found looked pretty solid. Which one(s) do you feel weren't done by the book?
#20
Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:30 PM
Andrew, I am guessing, you meant the AF100, instead of the FS100. Please correct me, if I am wrong.
No - GH2 is better than AF100 on a test chart for resolution.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users













