Jump to content

Falk Lumo

Members
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Falk Lumo got a reaction from Eno in Nikon Z RAW video support   
    This video, at the very beginning, shows aliasing color artifacts. It is claimed to be ProRes RAW. But the aliasing color artifacts could be from debayering color moiré due a lack of AA filter, of from pixel skipping in the RAW codec. It is hard to tell if not also the same footage was captured in N-Log.
    BTW ... and to avoid any misunderstanding ...
    I do NOT say "aliasing is an issue". I say Nikon aplies pixel skipping in their RAW data pipeline. As with debayering color moiré, I expect plenty of footage where its effects can't be noticed. I even remember the early days of the D800E (stills photography) where people claimed debayering color moiré would never be seen. It took a while. But today, it is pretty well understood when to expect, and not to expect, color moiré. Mostly in very fine farbrics of fashion at a single critical distance actually.
  2. Like
    Falk Lumo got a reaction from amateurmike in Nikon Z RAW video support   
    Hi, as I wrote in my blog article, field tests are missing and I am interested to learn about the practical impact myself.
    OTOH, external 10 bit N-Log may be just as good and may have less risk of flickering (between frames) at lines, edges or fine regular structures like roof tiles or fashion texture. That would be the real-world test I am most interested in.
    @gingercat
    That's absolutely not the case here. The topic has been dealt with in replies above.
  3. Like
    Falk Lumo got a reaction from amateurmike in Nikon Z RAW video support   
    This looks like a sincere question to me. I withdraw my claim you‘re trolling and apologize.
    I for myself have a professionally printed A2 version of my test chart. However, for a zone plate chart, even that shows signs of remaining printing artifacts. And Marc doesn‘t have any usable printed version.
    However and because we only needed a small fraction of the test pattern, there is an established alternative in the testing scene: monitors! As odd as it may seem at first glance, they can be put to good use if a number of rules are respected. I know about at least one professional lens calibration company which is using monitors to display test charts. The most important rule is that monitor subpixels (their projection when photographed or filmed) must be MUCH smaller than a sensor pixel. Other rules are that the test pattern must be resolved with no aliasing, and that there is no flicker. We obeyed these rules. Which is also why we know to have no extra moiré effects from the pixel grid.
    It is also the reason why:
    1. the monitor shows a small fraction of the test chart only, such that the remaining part is fully resolved by the 3840px wide monitor. The original test chart is 8400px wide and 9.6MB large. It‘s pixels are displayed at 100% or 1:1. There is no moiré in the screen display to the naked eye. The test chart file was carefully created to avoid aliasing as much as possible, by myself. Which is no easy task for a zone plate chart.
    2. the monitor appears so small in the video, as it is far away. This makes the monitor pixels and subpixels disappear completely, there are more than 10 monitor pixels per camera pixel ... Hard to beat with any printed chart! It also ensures that we have spatial frequencies beyond 4k to test for. This is crucial for the test and any attempt to reproduce our results!
    3. minor sources of blur (lens, focus, motion) destroy results as we depend on high spatial frequencies being resolved.
    Btw, the article DOES contain a link to a test video before cropping.
  4. Like
    Falk Lumo got a reaction from Eno in Nikon Z RAW video support   
    Hi, as I wrote in my blog article, field tests are missing and I am interested to learn about the practical impact myself.
    OTOH, external 10 bit N-Log may be just as good and may have less risk of flickering (between frames) at lines, edges or fine regular structures like roof tiles or fashion texture. That would be the real-world test I am most interested in.
    @gingercat
    That's absolutely not the case here. The topic has been dealt with in replies above.
  5. Like
    Falk Lumo got a reaction from Super8 in Nikon Z RAW video support   
    Erratum: it wasn‘t removed (as Super8 pointed out correctly), it is on the previous page.
     
  6. Like
    Falk Lumo got a reaction from Eno in Nikon Z RAW video support   
    @Eno, you are right absolutely. My article says skipping, not binning.
    Andrew posted in this thread and I replied already that it is pixel skipping, not binning. And that bit depth has nothing to do with it, as video readouts are all 12 bit. His post and my reply to him got removed, unfortunately.
  7. Like
    Falk Lumo got a reaction from Lars Steenhoff in Nikon Z RAW video support   
    This looks like a sincere question to me. I withdraw my claim you‘re trolling and apologize.
    I for myself have a professionally printed A2 version of my test chart. However, for a zone plate chart, even that shows signs of remaining printing artifacts. And Marc doesn‘t have any usable printed version.
    However and because we only needed a small fraction of the test pattern, there is an established alternative in the testing scene: monitors! As odd as it may seem at first glance, they can be put to good use if a number of rules are respected. I know about at least one professional lens calibration company which is using monitors to display test charts. The most important rule is that monitor subpixels (their projection when photographed or filmed) must be MUCH smaller than a sensor pixel. Other rules are that the test pattern must be resolved with no aliasing, and that there is no flicker. We obeyed these rules. Which is also why we know to have no extra moiré effects from the pixel grid.
    It is also the reason why:
    1. the monitor shows a small fraction of the test chart only, such that the remaining part is fully resolved by the 3840px wide monitor. The original test chart is 8400px wide and 9.6MB large. It‘s pixels are displayed at 100% or 1:1. There is no moiré in the screen display to the naked eye. The test chart file was carefully created to avoid aliasing as much as possible, by myself. Which is no easy task for a zone plate chart.
    2. the monitor appears so small in the video, as it is far away. This makes the monitor pixels and subpixels disappear completely, there are more than 10 monitor pixels per camera pixel ... Hard to beat with any printed chart! It also ensures that we have spatial frequencies beyond 4k to test for. This is crucial for the test and any attempt to reproduce our results!
    3. minor sources of blur (lens, focus, motion) destroy results as we depend on high spatial frequencies being resolved.
    Btw, the article DOES contain a link to a test video before cropping.
×
×
  • Create New...