tupp
-
Posts
1,148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by tupp
-
-
-
23 minutes ago, kye said:
Let me ask you this. If Yedlin has made such basic failures, and you claim to be sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to easily see through them when others do not, why don't you go ahead and do a test that meets the criteria you say he hasn't met?
I will then proceed to persistently claim you haven't met your own criteria, criticise every line you have written in isolation,
Well, I posted an image above of a compositor with an image displayed within it's viewer which was set at 100%. Unlike Yedlin, I think that I was able to achieve a 1-to-1 pixel match, but, by all means, please scrutinize it.
28 minutes ago, kye said:and generally take the perspective that if the test does not directly apply to every single camera ever made, every screen and every eyeball in existence then it can't have any value whatsoever. I think it will be fun, I've seen it done recently with such gusto....
There is no need for any such resolution tests to apply to any particular camera or display. I certainly never made such a claim.
-
On 4/17/2021 at 11:11 AM, tupp said:
My answer is that it is important to point out misleading information, especially when it comes in the form of flawed advice from a prominent person with a large, impressionable following.
In addition, there are way too many slipshod imaging tests posted on the Internet. More folks should be aware of the current prevalence of low testing standards.
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:This is my concern too.
Wait. You, too, are concerned about slipshod testing?
Then, how do you reconcile Yedlin's failure to achieve his self-imposed (and required) 1-to-1 pixel match?... you know, Yedlin's supposed 1-to-1 pixel match that you formerly took the trouble to explain and defend:
On 3/30/2021 at 3:48 PM, kye said:- He talks about how to get a 1:1 view of the pixels
- He shows how in a 1:1 view of the pixels that the resolutions aren't discernable
As I have shown, Yedlin did not get a 1:1 view of the pixels, and now it appears that the 1:1 pixel match is suddenly unimportant to one of us.
To mix metaphors, one of us seems to have changed one's tune and moved the goal posts out of the stadium.
Also, how do you reconcile Yedlin’s failure to even address and/or quantify the effect of all of the pixel blending, interpolation, scaling and compression that occur in his test? There is no way for us to know to what degree the "spatial resolution" is affected by all of the complex imaging convolutions of Yedlin's test.
On 4/17/2021 at 11:11 AM, tupp said:Are you saying that camera sensors capture images at a lower resolution than the rest of the "imaging pipeline," and, at some point in the subsequent process, the sensor image is somehow upscaled to match the resolution of the latter "imaging pipeline?" Is that what you think?
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:Once again, you're deliberately oversimplifying this in order to try and make my arguments sound silly,
There is absolutely no need for me to try and make... such an attempt.
I merely asked you to clarify your argument regarding sensor resolution, because you have repeatedly ignored my rebuttal to your "Bayer interpolation" notion, and because you have also mentioned "sensor scaling" several times. Some cameras additionally upscale the actual sensor resolution after the sensor is interpolated, so I wanted to make sure that you were not referring to such upscaling, and, hence, ignoring my repeated responses.
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:because you can't argue against their logic in a calm and rational way.
Absolutely.
I haven't been posting numerous detailed points with supporting examples. In addition, you haven't conveniently ignored any of those points.
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:This is how a camera sensor works:
Look at the pattern of the red photosites that is captured by the camera. It is missing every second row and every second column.
In order to work out a red value for every pixel in the output, it must interpolate the values from what it did measure. Just like upscaling an image.
Demosaicing is not "just like" upscaling an image. Furthermore, the results of demosaicing are quite the opposite from the results of the unintended pixel blending/degradation that we see in Yedlin's results.
Also, not that it actually matters to testing resolution, but, again:
- some current cameras do not use Bayer sensors;
- some cameras have color sensors that don't require interpolation;
- monochrome sensors don't need interpolation.
On 4/17/2021 at 11:11 AM, tupp said:Not that such commonality matters nor is true, nor that your 4K/2K point actually makes sense, but lots of folks shoot with non-Bayer matrix cameras.
For instance, anyone shooting with a Fuji X-T3 or X-T4 is not using a Bayer sensor. Any photographer using a scanning back is not using a Bayer sensor. Anyone shooting with a Foveon sensor is not debayering anything.
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:This is typical of the arguments you are making in this thread. It is technically correct and sounds like you might be raising valid objections. Unfortunately this is just technical nit-picking and shows that you are missing the point, either deliberately or naively.
It's not just "technically" correct -- it IS correct. Not everyone shoots with a Bayer sensor camera.
What is "missing the point" (and is also incorrect) is your insistence that Bayer sensors and their interpolation somehow excuse Yedlin's failure to achieve a 1-to-1 pixel match in his test.
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:My point has been, ever since I raised it, that camera sensors have significant interpolation.
You are incorrect. Not all camera sensors require interpolation.
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:This is a problem for your argument as your entire argument is that Yedlins test is invalid because the pixels blended with each other (as you showed in your frame-grabs) and you claimed this was due to interpolation / scaling / or some other resolution issue.
No, it is not a problem for my argument, because CFA interpolation is irrelevant and very different from the unintentional pixel blending suffered in Yedlin's comparison.
Yedlin's failure to acheive a 1-to-1 pixel match certainly invalidates his test, but that isn't my entire argument (on which I have corrected you repeatedly).
I have made two major points:
On 4/12/2021 at 7:27 AM, tupp said:- Yedlin's downscaling/upscaling method doesn't really test resolution which invalidates the method as a "resolution test;"
- Yedlin's failure to meet his own required 1-to-1 pixel match criteria invalidates the analysis.
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:Your criticism then is that a resolution test cannot involve interpolation, and the problem with that is that almost every camera has interpolation built-in fundamentally.
No. The starting images for the comparison are simply the starting images for the comparison. There are many variables that might affect the sharpness of those starting images, such as, they may have been shot with softer vintage lenses, or shot with a diffusion filter or, if they were taken with a sensor that was demosaiced, they might have used a coarse or fine algorithm. None of those variables matter to our subsequent comparison, as long as the starting images are sharp enough to demonstrate the potential discernability between the different resolutions being tested.
You don't seem to understand the difference between sensor CFA interpolation and the unintended and uncontrolled pixel blending introduced by Yedlins test processes, which is likely why you equate them as the same thing.
The sensor interpolation is an attempt to maintain the full, highest resolution possible utilizing all of the sensor's photosites (plus such interpolation helps avoid aliasing).
In contrast, Yedlin's unintended and uncontrolled pixel blending degrades and "blurs" the resolution. With such accidental pixel "blurring," a 2K file could look like a 6K file, especially if both images come from the same 6K file and if both images are shown at the same 4K resolution.
Regardless, the resolution of the camera's ADC output or the camera's image files is a given property that we must accept as the starting resolution for any tests, and, again, some camera sensors do not require interpolation.
Additionally, with typical downsampling (say, from 8K to 4K, or from 6K to 4K, or from 4K to HD), the CFA interpolation impacts the final "spatial" resolution significantly less than that of the original resolution. So, if we start a comparison with a downsampled image as the highest resolution, then we avoid influence of sensor interpolation.
On the other hand, if CFA interpolation impacts resolution (as you claim), then shooting at 6K and then downsampling to 2K will likely give different results than shooting at 6K and separately shooting the 2K image with a 2K camera. This is because the interpolation cell area of the 2K sensor is relatively coarser/larger within the frame than that of the 6K interpolation cell area. So, unfortunately, Yedlin's comparison doesn't apply to actually shooting the 2K image with a 2K camera.
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:I mentioned bayer sensors, and you said the above.
I showed above that bayer sensors have less red photosites than output pixels, therefore they must interpolate, but what about the Fuji X-T3?
The Fuji cameras have a X-Trans sensor, which looks like this:
Notice something about that? Correct - it too doesn't have a red value for every pixel, or a green value for every pixel, or a blue value for every pixel. Guess what that means - interpolation!
Except you might also notice that the X-Tran sensor does not have a Bayer matrix. You keep harping on Bayer sensors, but the Bayer matrix is only one of several CFAs in existence.
By the way, the Ursa 12K uses an RGBW sensor, and each RGBW pixel group has 6 red photosites, 6 green photosites, 6 blue photosites and 18 clear photosites. The Ursa 12K is not a Bayer sensor camera.
It is likely that you are not aware of the fact that if an RGB sensor has enough resolution (Bayer or otherwise), then there is no need for the type interpolation that you have shown. "Guess what that means" -- there are already non-Foveon, single sensor, RGB cameras that need no CFA interpolation.
However, regardless of whether or not Yedlin's source images came from a sensor that required interpolation, Yedlin's unintended and uncontrolled pixel blending ruins his resolution comparison (along with his convoluted method of upscaling/downscaling/Nuke-viewer-'cropping-to-fit'").
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:"Scanning back" you say. Well, that's a super-broad term, but it's a pretty niche market.
You recklessly dismiss many high-end photographers who use scanning backs.
Also, linear scanning sensors are used in a lot of other imaging applications, such as film scanners, tabletop scanners, special effects imaging, etc.
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:I'm not watching that much TV shot with a medium format camera.
That's interesting, because the camera that Yedlin used for his resolution comparison (you know, the one which you which you declared is "one of the highest quality imaging devices ever made for cinema")... well, that camera is an Alexa65 -- a medium format camera.
Insinuating that medium format doesn't matter is yet another reckless dismissal.
Similarly reckless is Yedlin's dismissal of shorter viewing distances and wider viewing angles. Here is a chart that can help one find the minimum viewing distance where one does not perceive individual display pixels (best view at 100%, 1-to-1 pixels):
If any of the green lines appear as a series of tiny green dots (or tiny green "slices") instead of a smooth green line, you are discerning the individual display pixels.
For all of those who see the tiny green dots, you are viewing your display at what is dismissed by Yedlin as an uncommon "specialty" distance. Your viewing setup is irrelevant according to Yedlin.
To make the green lines smooth, merely back away from the monitor (or get a monitor with a higher resolution).
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:And finally, Foveon. Now we get to a camera that doesn't need to interpolate because it measures all three colours for each pixel:
So I made a criticism about interpolation by mentioning bayer sensors, and you criticised my argument by picking up on the word "debayer" but included the X-Trans sensor in your answer, when the X-Trans sensor has the same interpolation that you are saying can't be used!
Wait a second!... what happened to your addressing the Foveon sensor? How do you reconcile the existence of the Foveon sensor with your rabid insistence that all camera sensor's require interpolation.
By the way, demosaicing the X-Trans sensor doesn't use the same algorithm to that of a Bayer sensor.
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:You are not arguing against my argument, you are just cherry picking little things to try and argue against in isolation. A friend PM'd me to say that he thought you were just arguing for its own sake, and I don't know if that's true or not, but you're not making sensible counter-arguments to what I'm actually saying.
I have responded directly to almost everything that you have posted.
Perhaps you and your friend should actually read my points and try to comprehend them.
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:So, you criticise Yedlin for his use of interpolation:
Yedlin didn't "use" interpolation -- the unintentional pixel blending was an accident that corrupts his tests.
Blending pixels blurs the "spatial" resolution. Such blurring can make 2K look like 6K. The amount of blur is a matter of degree.
To what degree did Yedlin's accidental pixel blending blur the "spatial" resolution? Of course, nobody can answer that question, as that accidental blurring cannot be quantified by Yedlin nor anyone else.
If only Yedlin had ensured the 1-to-1 pixel match that he touted and claimed to have achieved... However, even then we would still have to contend with all of the downscaling/upscaling/crop-to-fit/Nuke-viewer convolutions.
I honestly can't believe that I am having to explain all of this.
On 4/15/2021 at 2:09 PM, tupp said:Nevertheless, introducing any such blending/interpolation into a resolution comparison unnecessarily complicates a resolution comparison, and Yedlin does nothing to address nor to quantify the resulting "technical resolution" introduced by all of the scaling, interpolation and compression possibly introduced by the many convoluted steps of his test.
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:and yet you previously said that "We can determine the camera resolution merely from output of the ADC or from the camera files."
Yes. There is no contradiction between those two statements.
Sensor CFA interpolation is very different from accidental pixel blending that occurs during a resolution test. In fact, such sensor interpolation yields the opposite effect from pixel blending -- sensor interpolation attempts to increase actual resolution while pixel blending "blurs" the spatial resolution.
Furthermore, sensor CFA interpolation is not always required, and we have to accept a given camera's resolution inherent in the starting images of our test (interpolated sensor or not).
On 4/17/2021 at 6:17 PM, kye said:You're just nit-picking on tiny details but your argument contains all manner of contradictions.
Yedlin's accidental bluring of the pixels is a major problem that invalidates his resolution comparison.
In addition, all of the convulted scaling and display peculiarities that Yedlin employs severely skew the results.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:So Natron we go!
Well, it appears that you had no trouble learning Natron!
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:As you can see, latest win version with default settings shows no subsampling on enlarged view.
That could be a problem if the viewer is not set at 100%.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:The only thing we should care about is filter type in reformat node.
I am not sure why we should care about that nor why we need to reformat.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:It complements original small 558x301 image to FHD with borders around, but centering introduces 0.5 pixel vertical shift due to uneven Y dimension of original image (301 px) so "Impulse" filter type is set for "nearest neighbour" interpolation. If you uncheck "Center" it will place our chart in bottom left corner and remove any influence of "Filter" setting.
Why did you do all of that? All we need to see is the pixel chart in the viewer, which should be set at 100%, just like this image (view image at 100%, 1-to-1 pixels):
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:The funniest thing is that even non-round resize in viewer won't introduce any soft subsampling with these settings. You can notice some pixel line doubling but no soft transitions.
That could cause a perceptual problem if the viewer is not set at 100%.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:And yes, I converted the chart to .bmp because natron couldn't read .gif.
I converted the pixel chart to a PNG image.
On 4/15/2021 at 2:09 PM, tupp said:Why do you say "projection." I am not "perceiving" a projection.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:It's the only thing you're percieving. Unless you're Neuralink test volunteer, maybe.
I perceive an LED screen, not a projection.
On 4/15/2021 at 2:09 PM, tupp said:Any crop can be a "1:1 portion," but for review purposes it is important to maintain standardized aspect ratios and resolution formats.
For some reason, Yedlin chose to show his 1920x1080 "crop-to-fit" from a 4K image, within an often square software "viewer" (thus, forcing an additional crop), and then he outputted everything to a 1920x1280 file. WTF?!
It's a crazy and wild comparison.
By the way, the comparisons mostly discussed so far in this thread involve an image from a single 6K camera. That image has been been scaled to different resolutions.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:Well, that's how any kind of compositing is done. CG artist switches back and forth from "fit in view" to any magnification needed for the job, using "1:1" scale to justify real details.
It seems that the purpose of Yedlin's comparison is to test if there is a discernible difference between higher resolutions -- not to show how CG artists work.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:Working screen resolution can be any, the more the better, of course,
This statement seems to contradict Yedlin's confirmation bias.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:And this is exactly what Yedlin is doing: sitting in his composing suite of choice (Nuke), showing his nodes and settings, zooming in and out but mostly staying at 1:1, grabbing at resolution he is comfortable with (thus 1920x1280 file - it's a window screen record from larger display)
In what should have been a straightforward, fully framed, 1-to-1 resolution test, Yedlin is shows his 1920x1080 "crop-to-fit" section of a 4K image, within a mostly square Nuke viewer (which results in an additional crop), and then he outputted everything to a 1920x1280 file, that suffers from accidental pixel blending.
It's a crazy and slipshod comparison.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:In general: I mostly posted to show one simple thing - you can evaluate footage in 1:1 mode in composer viewer, and round multiple scaling doesn't introduce any false details.
That's actually two simple things.
As I have said to you before, I agree with you that a 1:1 pixel match in is possible in a compositor viewer, and Yedlin could have easily acheived a 1-to-1 pixel match in his final results, as he claimed that he did. Whether or not Yedlin's Nuke viewer is viewer is showing 1:1 is still unknown, but now we know that the Natron viewer can do so.
In regards to the round multiple scaling not showing any false details, I am not sure that your images are conclusive. I see distortions in both images, and pixel blending in one.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:I considered it as a given truth. But you questioned it and I decided to check. So, for AE, PS, ffmpeg, Natron and most likely Nuke it's true (with some attention to settings).
Nuke is still a question mark in regards to the 1-to-1 pixel match.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:Сoncerning Yedlin's research - it was made in a very natural way for me, as if I was evaluating footage myself, and it summarised well a general impression I got working on video/movie productions - resolution is not a decisive factor nowdays.
A "general impression" is not conclusive proof, and Yedlin's method and execution are flawed.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:Like, for last 5 years I need one hand's fingers to count projects when director/DoP/producer was seeking intentionally for more resolution. You see it wrong or flawed - fine,
Again, I make no claim for or against more resolution.
What I see as "wrong and flawed" is Yedlin's method and execution of his resolution comparison.
On 4/19/2021 at 10:14 AM, slonick81 said:I don't feel any necessity to change your mind,
Likewise, but it appears that you have an incorrect impression of what I argue.
-
On 4/15/2021 at 4:06 PM, kye said:
Your obsession with pixels not impacting the pixels adjacent to them means that your arguments don't apply in the real world.
Pixels "impact" adjacent pixels? Sounds imaginative. Please explain how that works in the "real world."
On 4/15/2021 at 4:06 PM, kye said:I don't understand why you keep pursuing this "it's not perfect so it can't be valid" line of logic.
Yedlin's comparison is far from perfect. In general:
On 4/15/2021 at 2:09 PM, tupp said:Yedlin went into his comparison with a significant confirmation bias. Your statement above acknowledges his strong leanings: "his idea sounds valid - starting from certain point digital resolution is less important then other factors." By glossing over uncontrolled variables and by ignoring significant potential objections, Yedlin tries to convert his bias into reality, rather than conducting a proper, controlled and objectively analyzed test.
On 4/15/2021 at 2:09 PM, tupp said:Nevertheless, introducing any such blending/interpolation into a resolution comparison unnecessarily complicates a resolution comparison, and Yedlin does nothing to address nor to quantify the resulting "technical resolution" introduced by all of the scaling, interpolation and compression possibly introduced by the many convoluted steps of his test.
On 4/15/2021 at 4:06 PM, kye said:Bayer sensors require debayering
Actually, they don't, especially if one shoots in black and white.
On 4/15/2021 at 4:06 PM, kye said:which is a process involving interpolation. I have provided links to articles explaining this but you seem to ignore this inconvenient truth.
Irony:
On 4/4/2021 at 12:01 PM, tupp said:The conversion of adjacent photosites into a single RGB pixel group (Bayer or not) isn't considered "scaling" by most. Even if you define it as such, that notion is irrelevant to our discussion -- we necessarily have to assume that a digital camera's resolution is given by either the output of it's ADC or by the resolution of the camera files.
We just have to agree on whether we are counting the individual color cells or the combined RGB pixel groups. Once we agree upon the camera resolution, that resolution need never change throughout the rest of the "imaging pipeline."
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:< ... crickets... >
... and...
On 4/4/2021 at 12:01 PM, tupp said:We can determine the camera resolution merely from output of the ADC or from the camera files. We just have to agree on whether we are counting the individual color cells or the combined RGB pixel groups. After we agree on the camera resolution, that resolution need never change throughout the rest of the "imaging pipeline."
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:< ... crickets... >
... and...
On 4/13/2021 at 8:50 PM, tupp said:Did you forget that not all 4K sensors have a Bayer matrix?:
On 4/4/2021 at 12:01 PM, tupp said:There is no debayering with: an RGB striped sensor; an RGBW sensor; a monochrome sensor; a scanning sensor; a Foveon sensor; an X-Trans sensor; and three-chip cameras; etc.
On 4/14/2021 at 3:25 AM, kye said:< ... crickets... >
On 4/15/2021 at 4:06 PM, kye said:Even if we ignore the industry trend of capturing images at a different resolution than they are delivered in,
Okay, not that it actually matters to this resolution discussion, but you have been hinting that there is a difference in resolution between what the camera sensor captures and the actual resolution of the rest of the "imaging pipeline," So, let's clarify your point:
Are you saying that camera sensors capture images at a lower resolution than the rest of the "imaging pipeline," and, at some point in the subsequent process, the sensor image is somehow upscaled to match the resolution of the latter "imaging pipeline?" Is that what you think?
On 4/15/2021 at 4:06 PM, kye said:it still means that your mythical image pipeline that doesn't involve any interpolation is limited to cameras that capture such a tiny fraction of the images we watch they may as well not exist.
The camera's resolution is determined at the output of the ADC or from the recorded files. It is irrelevant to consider any interpolation nor processing prior to that point that cannot be adjusted.
Also, you seem to insinuate that cameras with non-Bayer sensors are uncommon. Regardless of the statistical percentage of Bayer matrix cameras to non-Bayer camers, that point is irrelevant to the general discernability of different resolutions perceived on a display.
Even Yedlin did not try to argue that Bayer sensors somehow make a difference in his resolution comparison.
On 4/15/2021 at 4:06 PM, kye said:Your criticisms also don't allow for compression, which is applied to basically every image that is consumed. This is a fundamental issue because compression blurs edges and obscures detail significantly, making many differences that might be visible in the mastering suite invisible in the final delivered stream. Once again, this means your comparison is limited to some utopian fairy-land that doesn't apply here in our dimension.
Again... irony:
On 4/13/2021 at 8:50 PM, tupp said:On the other hand, even if the subject of Yedlin's comparison is scaling methods and other image processing effects, his test is hardly exhaustive nor conclusive -- there are zillions of different possible scaling and image processing combinations, and he shows only three or four.
Considering the countless possible combinations of scaling and/or image processing, it is slipshod reasoning to conclude that there is no practical difference between resolutions, just because Yedlin used some form of scaling/image-processing and in "real life" others may also use some form of scaling/image-processing.
Such coarse reasoning is analogous to the notion that there is no difference between Nickleback and the Beatles, because, in "real life," both bands used some form of guitars and drums.
There are just too many possible scaling/image-processing variables and combinations in "real life" for Yedlin to properly address, even within his lengthy video.
... and...
On 4/15/2021 at 2:09 PM, tupp said:Yedlin does nothing to address nor to quantify the resulting "technical resolution" introduced by all of the scaling, interpolation and compression possibly introduced by the many convoluted steps of his test.
On 4/15/2021 at 4:06 PM, kye said:I don't understand why you persist.
One could ask the exact same question of you.
My answer is that it is important to point out misleading information, especially when it comes in the form of flawed advice from a prominent person with a large, impressionable following.
In addition, there are way too many slipshod imaging tests posted on the Internet. More folks should be aware of the current prevalence of low testing standards.
On 4/15/2021 at 4:06 PM, kye said:Even if you were right about everything else (which you're not), you would only be proving the statement "4K is perceptually different to 2K when you shoot with cameras that no-one shoots with
Not that such commonality matters nor is true, nor that your 4K/2K point actually makes sense, but lots of folks shoot with non-Bayer matrix cameras.
For instance, anyone shooting with a Fuji X-T3 or X-T4 is not using a Bayer sensor. Any photographer using a scanning back is not using a Bayer sensor. Anyone shooting with a Foveon sensor is not debayering anything. Anyone shooting with a monochrome sensor is not debayering their images.
On 4/15/2021 at 4:06 PM, kye said:match resolutions through the whole pipeline, and deliver in a format no-one delivers in".
Well, we need to clarify exactly what you are hinting at here (see above paragraph mentioning "imaging pipeline").
On 4/16/2021 at 8:01 AM, noone said:Not worth bothering with, just like equivalence arguments Kye.
Coincidentally, in our most recent "equivalence" discussion, someone linked yet another problematic Yedlin test.
On 4/16/2021 at 8:01 AM, noone said:Like hitting your head against a brick wall.
I am beginning to agree with that.
-
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:
Shure. Exactly this image has heavy compression artifacts and I was unable to find the original chart but I got the idea and recreated these pixel-wide colored "E" and did the same upscale-view-grab pattern. And, well, it does preserve sharp pixel edges, no subsampling.
I applaud you for making your single-pixel "E's!"
Likewise, I couldn't find the original version of that pixel chart, but the black integer rulings are clean. I apologize that I forgot to mention to concentrate on the black pixel rulings, as I did earlier in the thread:
On 4/4/2021 at 12:01 PM, tupp said:If the the charts are displayed at 1:1 pixels, you should easily observe with a magnifier that the all of the black pixel rulings that are integers (1, 2, 3, etc.) are cleanly defined with no blending into adjacent pixels. On the other hand, all of the black pixel rulings that are non-integers (1.3, 1.6, 2.1, 2.4, 3.3, etc.) should show blending on their edges with a 1:1 match.
I had also linked another chart that is a GIF, so it doesn't suffer from compression, and all rulings of any color shown are clean, but it lacks the non-integer rulings:
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:I dont have access to Nuke right now, not going to mess with warez in the middle of a work week for the sake of internet dispute, and I'm not 100% shure about the details, but last time I was composing something in Nuke it had no problems with 1:1 view, especially considering I was making titles and credits as well.
Natron is free and open source, and is available on most platforms.
Creating something in a compositor and observing the work at "100%" within a compositor viewer might differ from seeing the actual results at 1-to-1 pixels. It is important to also see your actual results, rather than just a screenshot of a viewer with an enlarged image.
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:And what Yedlin is doing - comparing at 100% 1:1 - it looks right.
We seem to agree on many things, but we depart here. Not sure how such a sizeable leap of reasoning is possible from the shaky ground on which Yedlin's comparisons are based.
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:Yedlin is not questioning the capability of given codec/format to store given amount of resolution lines.
"Resolution lines" usually refers to a quality of optical systems while the resolution of digital video "codec" involves pixels, but I think I know what you are trying to say.
I agree that Yedlin is not trying to test the capability of any codec/format to store a given amount of pixels. There is absolutely no reason for such a test.
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:He is discussing about _percieved_ resolution.
... which is precisely what we are discussing in this thread. This issue has been covered in earlier posts. Why would anyone test "non-perceived" resolution?
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:It means that image should be a) projected, b) well, percieved.
"Projected?" -- not necessarily. "Percieved?" -- of course.
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:So he chooses common ground - 4K projection,
Why do you say "projection." I am not "perceiving" a projection.
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:crops out 1:1 portion of it and cycles through different cameras.
Any crop can be a "1:1 portion," but for review purposes it is important to maintain standardized aspect ratios and resolution formats.
For some reason, Yedlin chose to show his 1920x1080 "crop-to-fit" from a 4K image, within an often square software "viewer" (thus, forcing an additional crop), and then he outputted everything to a 1920x1280 file. WTF?!
It's a crazy and wild comparison.
By the way, the comparisons mostly discussed so far in this thread involve an image from a single 6K camera. That image has been been scaled to different resolutions.
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:And his idea sounds valid - starting from certain point digital resolution is less important then other factors existing before (optical system resolving, DoF/motion blur, AA filter) and after (rolling shutter, processing, sharpening/NR, compression) the resolution is created.
Again, I make no claims as to whether digital resolution may be more or less important than other factors, but I argue that Yedlin's comparisons are useless in providing any solid conclusions in that regard.
Yedlin went into his comparison with a significant confirmation bias. Your statement above acknowledges his strong leanings: "his idea sounds valid - starting from certain point digital resolution is less important then other factors." By glossing over uncontrolled variables and by ignoring significant potential objections, Yedlin tries to convert his bias into reality, rather than conducting a proper, controlled and objectively analyzed test.
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:He doesn't state that there is zero difference
He suggests that there is no perceptual difference between 6K and 2K.
He tries to prove that notion by downscaling the original 6K image to 2K, and then by comparing the original 6K and downscaled 2K image cropped within a 4K node editor viewer, and then by outputting a screen capture of that node editor viewer to a video file with an odd resolution -- all of this is done without addressing any blending/interpolation/compression variables that occur during each step.
Again, WTF?!
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:and he doesn't touch special technical cases like VFX or intentional heavy reframing in post, where additional resolution may be beneficial.
He is heavily reframing the original image within his node editor viewer.
On 4/13/2021 at 8:50 PM, tupp said:Please cite those reasons covered by Yedlin.
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:The whole idea of his works:
I wan't asking about the whole idea of his work. You said:
On 4/12/2021 at 12:00 PM, slonick81 said:More to say, even in rare "resolution preserving" cases when filming resolution perfectly matches projection resolution there are such things as lens abberations/distorions correction, image stabilization, rolling shutter jello removal and reframing in post. And it works well usually because of reasons covered by Yedlin.
I was asking you to cite (with links to Yedlin's video) those specific reasons covered by Yedlin.
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:starting from certain point of technical resolution percieved resolution of real life images does not suffer from upsampling and does not benefit from downscaling that much.
That notion may or may not be correct, but Yedin's convoluted and muddled comparison is inconclusive in regards to possible discernability distinctiveness of different resolutions
On 4/14/2021 at 4:35 AM, slonick81 said:For example, on the second image I added a numerically subtle transform to chart in AE before grabbing the screen: +5% scale, 1° rotation, slight skew - essentially what you will get with nearly any stabilization plugin, and it's a mess in term of technical resolution. But we do it here and there without any dramatic degradation to real footage.
Thank you for creating that image. It is important for us see such images with a 1-to-1 pixel match -- not enlarged.
It appears that your use of the term "technical resolution" includes some degree or delineation of blended/interpolated pixels, not unlike those shown by the non-integer rulings in the first pixel chart that I posted. I am not sure if such blending/interpolation is visually quantifiable (even considering the pixel chart).
Nevertheless, introducing any such blending/interpolation into a resolution comparison unnecessarily complicates a resolution comparison, and Yedlin does nothing to address nor to quantify the resulting "technical resolution" introduced by all of the scaling, interpolation and compression possibly introduced by the many convoluted steps of his test.
On the other hand, you have given a specific combination of adjusted variables (+5% scale, 1° rotation, slight skew), variables which Yedlin fails to record and report.
However, how do we know that the "technical resolution" of your specific combination will match that of, say:
- a raw 4K shoot, edited in 4K in Sony Vegas with no stabilization nor scaling and then delivered in 4K Prores 4:4:4?;
- someone shooting home movies in 4:2:0 AVCHD, edited on MovieMaker with sharpness and IS set at full and inadvertently output to some odd resolution in a highly compressed M4V codec?;
- someone shooting an EOSM with ML at 2.5K raw and scaled to HD in editing in Cinelerra with no IS and with 50% sharpening and output to an h264, All-I file?
Do you think that just because all of these examples may or may not use some form of IS, sharpening compression that they will all yield identical results in regards to the degree of pixel blending/interpolation?
Again, just because Nickleback and the Beatles both use some form of guitars and drums, that doesn't mean that their results are the same.
If one intends to make any solid conclusions from a test, it is imperative to eliminate and/or assess the influence of any influential variables that are not being tested. Yedlin did not achieve his self-touted 1-to-1 pixel match required to eliminate the influence of pixel blending, scaling, interpolation and compression, and he made no effort to properly address nor quantify the influence of those variables.
-
On 4/12/2021 at 12:00 PM, slonick81 said:
The attached image shows 1px b/w grid, generated in AE in FHD sequence, exported in ProRes, upscaled to QHD with ffmpeg ("-vf scale=3840:2160:flags=neighbor" options), imported back to AE, ovelayed over original one in same composition, magnified to 200% in viewer, screengrabbed and enlarged another 2x in PS with proper scaling settings. And no subsampling present, as you can see. So it's totally possible to upscale image or show it in 1:1 view without modifying original pixels - just don't use fractional enlargement ratios and complex scaling. Not shure about Natron though - never used it. Just don't forget to "open image in new tab" and to view in original scale.
Thank you for taking the time to create a demo.
I agree that achieving a 1-to-1 pixel match when outputting is easy, and I stated so earlier in this thread:
On 4/7/2021 at 2:40 PM, tupp said:It really is not that difficult to create uncompressed short clips or stills with a 1-to-1 pixel match, just as it was done in the pixel charts above.
Indeed, with vigilant QC, a 1-to-1 pixel match can be maintained throughout an entire "imaging pipline."
However, Yedlin did not achieve such a pixel match, even though he spoke for over 4 minutes on the importance of a 1-to-1 pixel match for his resolution comparison.
I do appreciate your support, but your presentation doesn't seem conclusive. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are trying to demonstrate.
After opening your demo image on a separate tab, the only things that seem to be cleanly rendered without any pixel blending, is the thinner vertical white line (a precise three pixels wide) and the wider horizontal white line (a precise six pixels wide). The other two white lines suffer from blending. Everything else in the image also suffers from pixel blending.
If you make another attempt, please use this pixel chart as your original image, as it gives more, clearer information:
If the chart rulings labled "1" are a clean, single-pixel wide, then you have achieved a 1-to-1 pixel match.
On 4/12/2021 at 12:00 PM, slonick81 said:But that's real life - most productions have different resolution footage on input (A/B/drone/action cams), and multiple resolutions on output - QHD/FHD for streaming/TV and DCI-something for DCP at least.
Not that it matters, but there is no doubt that in "real life" many shooters capture at a certain resolution and maintain that same resolution throughout the "imaging pipline" and then output at that very same resolution. Judging from quite a few of the posts on the EOSHD forum, many people don't even use lower res proxy files during editing.
Regardless, when testing for differences in discernabillity from various resolutions, it is important to control all of the variables other than resolution, as other variables that run wild and uncontrolled can muddle any slight discernability distinction between different resolutions. If we allow such varibles to eliminate the discernability differences in the results, then what is the point of testing different resolutions?
The title of Yedlin's comparison video is "Camera Resolutions," and we cannot conclude anything about differing resolutions until we eliminate the influence of all variables (other than resolution) that might muddle the results.
On 4/12/2021 at 12:00 PM, slonick81 said:So it's all about scaling and matching the look, and it's the subject of Yedlin's research.
Judging from the video's title title and from Yedlin's insistence on a 1-to-1 pixel match, Yedlin's comparison should center around detecting discernability differences of various resolutions.
However, it appears that we agree that Yedlin is actually testing scaling methods and not resolution, as I (and others) have stated repeatedly:
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:He is comparing scaling methods - that's what he is talking about in this section of the video.
On 4/4/2021 at 12:01 PM, tupp said:Correct. That is what I have stated repeatedly.
The thing is, he uses this same method in almost every comparison, so he is merely comparing scaling methods throughout the video -- he is not comparing actual resolution.
Once again, I appreciate your support.
On the other hand, even if the subject of Yedlin's comparison is scaling methods and other image processing effects, his test is hardly exhaustive nor conclusive -- there are zillions of different possible scaling and image processing combinations, and he shows only three or four.
Considering the countless possible combinations of scaling and/or image processing, it is slipshod reasoning to conclude that there is no practical difference between resolutions, just because Yedlin used some form of scaling/image-processing and in "real life" others may also use some form of scaling/image-processing.
Such coarse reasoning is analogous to the notion that there is no difference between Nickleback and the Beatles, because, in "real life," both bands used some form of guitars and drums.
There are just too many possible scaling/image-processing variables and combinations in "real life" for Yedlin to properly address, even within his lengthy video.
On 4/12/2021 at 12:00 PM, slonick81 said:More to say, even in rare "resolution preserving" cases when filming resolution perfectly matches projection resolution
Shooting and outputting in the same resolution probably isn't rare. I would guess that doing so is quite common. However, until someone can find some actual statistics, we have no way of knowing what is the actual case.
In addition, I would guess that most digital displays are not projectors. Certainly, there might be existing sales statistics on monitor sales vs. projector sales.
On 4/12/2021 at 12:00 PM, slonick81 said:there are such things as lens abberations/distorions correction, image stabilization, rolling shutter jello removal and reframing in post.
In a resolution tests, all such variables should be controlled/eliminated so that they do influence the results.
On 4/12/2021 at 12:00 PM, slonick81 said:And it works well usually because of reasons covered by Yedlin.
Please cite those reasons covered by Yedlin.
On 4/12/2021 at 12:00 PM, slonick81 said:And sometimes resolution, processing and scaling play funny tricks out of nothing. Last project I was making some simple clean-ups. Red Helium 8K shots, exported as DPX sequences to me. 80% of processed shots were rejected by colourist and DoP as "blurry, unfitting the rest of footage". Long story short, DPX files were rendered by technician in full-res/premium quality debayer, while colourist with DoP were grading 8K at half res scaled down to 2K big screen projection - and it was giving more punch and microcontrast on large screen then higher quality and resolution DPXes with same grading and projection scaling.
Again, we agree here and I have touched on similar points in this thread:
On 3/26/2021 at 1:00 AM, tupp said:Resolution and sharpness are not the same thing. There is a contrast element to sharpness, and it involves different levels (macro contrast micro contrast, etc.). One can see the effects of different levels of contrast when doing frequency separation work in images. Not sure if Yedlin specifically covers contrast's relation to sharpness in these videos. By the way, here is a recent demonstration of when micro features and macro features don't match.
On 3/27/2021 at 12:17 PM, tupp said:By the way, my above quote from @jcs came from a 2-page "detail enhancement" thread on EOSHD. The inventive and original approach introduced within @jcs's opening post gives significant insight into sharpness/acuity properties that are more important than simple resolution.
On 4/12/2021 at 3:31 PM, kye said:A 4K camera has one third the number of sensors than a 4K monitor has emitters. This means that debayering involves interpolation, and means your proposal involves significant interpolation, and therefore fails your own criteria.
Did you just recently learn that some camera manufacturers sometimes "fudge" resolution figures by counting photosites instead of RGB pixel groups?
Did you forget that not all 4K sensors have a Bayer matrix?:
On 4/4/2021 at 12:01 PM, tupp said:There is no debayering with: an RGB striped sensor; an RGBW sensor; a monochrome sensor; a scanning sensor; a Foveon sensor; an X-Trans sensor; and three-chip cameras; etc.
Also, did you forget that I have already covered such photosite/pixel-group counting in this thread?:
On 4/4/2021 at 12:01 PM, tupp said:The conversion of adjacent photosites into a single RGB pixel group (Bayer or not) isn't considered "scaling" by most. Even if you define it as such, that notion is irrelevant to our discussion -- we necessarily have to assume that a digital camera's resolution is given by either the output of it's ADC or by the resolution of the camera files.
We just have to agree on whether we are counting the individual color cells or the combined RGB pixel groups. Once we agree upon the camera resolution, that resolution need never change throughout the rest of the "imaging pipeline."
Not that it matters, but there are plenty of camera sensors that have true 4K resolution. Indeed, the maximum resolution figure for any current monochrome sensor cannot be "fudged," as there is no blending of RGB pixels with such a sensor. It's could be the same situation Foveon sensors, as the RGB receptors are all in the same photosite.
On 4/12/2021 at 5:00 PM, KnightsFan said:@tuppI think you are technically correct about resolution in the abstract.
I make no claims in regards to resolution in "the abstract." I simply assert that Yedin's comparison is not a valid resolution test.
On 4/12/2021 at 5:00 PM, KnightsFan said:But I think that Yedlin is doing his experiments in the context of real cameras and workflow, not an abstract.
In light of Yedlin's insistence on a 1-to-1 pixel match and his use of what he calls "crop to fit" over "resample to fit", I am not sure that Yedlin shares your notion on the context of his comparison.
Also, what kind of camera and/or workflow is not "real."
On 4/12/2021 at 5:00 PM, KnightsFan said:I mean, it's completely obvious to anyone who has ever played a video game that there is a huge, noticeable difference between 4k and 2k, once we take out optical softness, noise, debayering artifacts, and compression.
I would guess that one could often discern the difference between 4K and 2K, but I will have to take your word on that.
On 4/12/2021 at 5:00 PM, KnightsFan said:If we're debating differences between Resolutions with a capital R, let's answer with a resounding "Yes it makes a difference" and move on.
I am not "debating differences between resolutions." My concern is that folks are taking Yedlin's comparison as a valid resolution test.
On 4/12/2021 at 5:00 PM, KnightsFan said:The debate only makes sense in the context of a particular starting point and workflow because in actual resolution on perfect images the difference is very clear.
Well, if that is so, then Yedlin's test is not valid, as his comparison shows no difference between "6K" and "2k" and as his "workflow" is exceedingly particular.
On 4/12/2021 at 5:00 PM, KnightsFan said:And yeah, maybe Yedlin isn't 100% scientific about it,
The thing is, in any type of empirical testing one usually has to be "100% scientific" to draw any solid conclusions. If one fails to properly address or control any influential variables, then the results can be corrupted and misleading. In a proper test, the only variable that is allowed to change is the one(s) that is being tested.
On 4/12/2021 at 5:00 PM, KnightsFan said:maybe he uses incorrect terms, and I think we all agree he failed to tighten his argument into a concise presentation.
Yedlin's made-up terms are not really consequential to what is being discussed in this thread.
In regards to the lack of tightness of Yedlin's argument/presentation, I suspect that there are a few posters in this thread who disagree with you.
On 4/12/2021 at 5:00 PM, KnightsFan said:I don't really know if discussing his semantics and presentation is as interesting as trying to pinpoint what does and doesn't matter for our own projects... but if you enjoy it carry on 🙂
I am not at odds with Yedlin's semantics nor am I arguing semantics. What gave you that notion?
The method and execution shown in Yedlin's presentation are faulty to the point that they misinform folks in a way that definitely could matter to their own projects.
If you think the topics that I argue don't matter for you own projects, that is fine, but please do not unfairly single me out as the only one who is discussing those topics. There are at least two sides to a discussion, and if you look at every one of my posts in this thread you will see that I quote someone and then respond. I merely react to someone else who is discussing the very same topic that evidently doesn't matter to you. Why have you not directly addressed those others like you have done with me?
By the way, I do not "enjoy" constantly having to repeat the same simple facts that some refuse to comprehend and/or accept.
On 4/12/2021 at 5:00 PM, KnightsFan said:I will say that for my film projects, I fail to see any benefit past 2k. I've watched my work on a 4k screen, and it doesn't really look any better in motion. Same goes for other movies I watch. 720p to 1080p, I appreciate the improvement. But 4k really never makes me enjoy it any more.
Great! I am happy that you have made your decision without relying Yedlin's muddled comparison.
4 hours ago, kye said:In Yedlins demo he zooms into the edge of the blind and shows the 6K straight from the Alexa with no scaling and the "edge" is actually a gradient that takes maybe 4-6 pixels to go from dark to light.
There will likely be less of a gradient with a lower resolution.
4 hours ago, kye said:In terms of Yedlins demo, I think the question is if having resolution over 2K is perceptible under normal viewing conditions.
The viewing conditions in Yedlin's demo are not "normal":
- He uses a framing that he calls "crop to fit" which is not the normal framing;
- we see the entire comparison through the viewer of Yedlin's node editor;
- the image suffers at least one additional pass of pixel blending/interpolation that would not be present under normal conditions.
4 hours ago, kye said:When he zooms in a lot it's quite obvious that there is more resolution there,
It is obvious when he zooms in here that the actual resolution of the two compared images is identical, as the pixel size does not change. However, there might be a difference in the interpolation and/or "micro contrast."
4 hours ago, kye said:I'm happy from the demo to say that it's not perceptually different.
Okay, but the demo is flawed.4 hours ago, kye said:Of course, it's also easy to run Yedlins test yourself at home as well. Simply take a 4K video clip and export it at native resolution and at 2K, you can export it lossless if you like. Then bring both versions and put them onto a 4K timeline, and then just watch it on a 4K display,
Don't forget to verify a 1-to-1 pixel match within the NLE timeline viewer with a pixel chart.
If the NLE viewer the introduces it's own blending/interpolation, try making short clips and play them in a loop back-to-back with a player that can give true 1-to-1 full screen 4K.
-
4 hours ago, kye said:
Based on that, there is no exact way to test resolutions that will apply to any situation beyond the specific combination being tested.
There is a way to actually test resolution which I have mentioned more than once before in this thread. -- test an 8K image on an 8K display, test a 6K image on a 6K display, test a 4K image on a 4K display, etc.
That scenario is as exact as we can get. That setup is actually testing true resolution.
5 hours ago, kye said:So, let's take that as true, and do a non-exact way based upon a typical image pipeline.
I propose comparing the image from a 6K cinema camera being put onto a 4K timeline vs a 2K timeline, and to be sure, let's zoom in to 200% so we can see the differences a little more than they would normally be visible.
Huh? Not sure how that scenario logically follows your notion that "there is no exact way to test resolutions," even if you ignore the simple, straightforward resolution testing method that I have previously suggested in this thread.
What you propose is not actually testing resolution.
Furthermore, it is likely that the "typical image pipeline" for video employs the same resolution throughout the process.
In addition, if you "zoom in," you have to make sure that you achieve a 1-to-1 pixel match with no pixel blending (as stressed by Yedlin), if you want to make sure that we are truly comparing the actual pixels. However, zooming-in sacrifices color depth, which could skew the comparison.
5 hours ago, kye said:This is what Yedlin did.
You don't say?
He also laid out the required criteria of a 1-to-1 pixel match, which he did not achieve and which you dismiss.
5 hours ago, kye said:A single wrong point invalidates an analysis if, and only if, the subsequent analysis is dependent on that point.
Yedlins was not.
TWO points:
- Yedlin's downscaling/upscaling method doesn't really test resolution which invalidates the method as a "resolution test;"
- Yedlin's failure to meet his own required 1-to-1 pixel match criteria invalidates the analysis.
11 hours ago, tupp said:Yedlin failed to meet his own required criteria for his test setup, which he laid out emphatically and at length in the beginning of his video.
5 hours ago, kye said:No he didn't. You have failed to understand his first point, and then subsequently to that, you have failed to realise that his first point isn't actually critical to the remainder of his analysis.
Yedlin took the very first 4 minutes and 23 seconds in his video to emphasize the 1-to-1 pixel match and its importance. Such a match is required for us to view "true, 4K pixels," as stated by Yedlin. If we can't see the true pixels, we can't conclude much about the discernability of resolutions. Without that 1-to-1 pixel match we might as well just view the monitor through a 1/2 Promist filter.
Yedlin didn't achieve that 1-to-1 pixel match, as you have already admitted.
5 hours ago, kye said:You have stated that there is scaling because the blown up versions didn't match,
No. I stated that there is some form of blending and/or interpolation happening. I suspect that the blending/interpolation occurs within the viewer of Yedlin's node editor.
He should have made straight renders for us to view, and included a pixel chart at the beginning of those renders.
5 hours ago, kye said:different image rendering algorithms can cause them to not match, therefore you don't actually know for sure that they don't match (it could simply be that your viewer didn't match but his did)
Yes, but, again, the problem could begin with Yedlin's node editor viewer.
6 hours ago, kye said:you assumed that there was scaling involved because the grey box had impacted pixels surrounding it, which could also have been caused by compression, so this doesn't prove scaling
I did not describe it as "scaling." As I have said, it appears to be some form of blending/interpolation. Compression could contribute to the problem, but it is not certain that it is doing so in this instance.
6 hours ago, kye said:and actually neither of those matter anyway, because even if there was scaling, basically every image we see has been scaled and compressed
Not that I claimed that it was "scaling," but whether or not we commonly see images "scaled" has no bearing on conducting a true resolution test.
Compare differences in true resolutions first, and discuss elsewhere the effects of blending, interpolation, compression and scaling.
6 hours ago, kye said:Your "problem" is that you misinterpreted a point, but even if you hadn't misinterpreted it could have been caused by other factors, and even if it wasn't, aren't relevant to the end result anyway.
It is plain what Yedlin meant by saying right up front in his video that a rigorous resolution test uses a 1-to-1 pixel match to show "true 4K pixels."
Evidently, it is you who has misinterpreted Yedlin. Again, if you think that a 1-to-1 pixel match is not important to a resolution test, you really should confront Yedlin with that notion.
-
On 4/8/2021 at 2:00 AM, kye said:
His test applies to the situations where there is image scaling and compression involved, which is basically every piece of content anyone consumes.
No it doesn't.
Different image scaling methods applied to videos made by different encoding sources yield different results. The number of such different possible combinations is further compounded when adding compression.
We can't say that Yedlin's combination of camera, node editor, node editor viewer, peculiar 1920x1280 resolution and NLE render method will match anyone else's.
On 4/7/2021 at 10:07 PM, tupp said:Well, you left out a few steps of upscale/downscale acrobatics that negate the comparison as a resolution test.
Most importantly, you forgot to mention that he emphatically stated that he had achieved a 1-to-1 pixel match on anyone's HD screen, but that he actually failed to do so, thus, invalidating all of his resolution demos..
On 4/8/2021 at 2:00 AM, kye said:If you're going to throw away an entire analysis based on a single point,
... Two points... two very significant points.
Even though you quoted me stating both of them, you somehow forgot one of those points in your immediate reply.
On the other hand, it takes only a single dismissed point to bring catastrophe to an analysis or endeavor, even if that analysis/endeavor involves development by thousands of people.
For example, there was an engineer named Roger who tested one part of a highly complex machine that many thousands of people worked on. Roger discovered a problem with that single part that would cause the entire machine to malfunction.
Roger urged the his superiors to halt the use of the machine, but his superiors dismissed Roger's warning -- his superiors were not willing "to throw away their entire analysis and planned timetable based on a single point."
Here is the result of the decision to dismiss Roger's seemingly trivial objection.
On 4/8/2021 at 2:00 AM, kye said:then have a think about this:
1<0 and the sky is blue.
uh oh, now I've said that 1<0, which clearly it isn't, then the sky can't be blue because everything I said must now logically be wrong and cannot be true!
Is it a fact that the sky is blue?:
Regardless, a single, simple fact can debunk an entire world of analysis.
To those who believe that the Earth is flat, here is what was known as the "black swan photo," which shows two oil platforms are off the coast of California:
From the given camera position, the bottom of the most distant platform -- "Habitat" -- should be obscured by the curvature of the Earth. So, since the photo show's Habitat's supports meeting the water line, flat earthers conclude that there is no curvature of the Earth, and, thus, the Earth must be flat.
However, the point was made that there is excessive distortion from atmospheric refraction, as evidenced by Habitat's crooked cranes. Someone also provided a photo of the platforms from near the same camera position with no refractive muddling:
This photo without distortion shows that the supports of the distant Habitat platform are actually obscured by the Earth's curvature, which "throws away the entire analysis" made by those who assert that the Earth is flat.
Here is a video of 200 "proofs" that the Earth is flat, but all 200 of those proofs are rendered invalid -- in light of the single debunking of the "black swan" photo.
Likewise, Yedlin's test is muddled by blended resolution and by a faulty testing method. So, we cannot conclude much about actual resolution differences from Yedlin's comparison.
By the way, you have to watch the entire video of 200 flat earth proofs (2 hours) "to understand it." Enjoy!
On 4/8/2021 at 10:25 AM, John Matthews said:Do you know the word humility?
I certainly do. Please explain what does humility have to do with fact?
Incidentally, I did say that Yedlin was a good shooter, but that doesn't mean that he is a good scientist.
On 4/8/2021 at 10:25 AM, John Matthews said:Yedlin's not just any old dude on the internet... the guy's an industry insider with butt-loads of films to back it up.
It doesn't matter if Yedlin is the King of Siam, the Pope or and "inside straight" -- his method is faulty, as is his test setup.
On 4/8/2021 at 10:25 AM, John Matthews said:I think he might know something on the topic of resolution.
Yedlin failed to meet his own required criteria for his test setup, which he laid out emphatically and at length in the beginning of his video.
Furthermore, his method of downscaling (and then upscaling) and then showing the results only at a single resolution (4K) does not truly compare different resolutions.
-
31 minutes ago, kye said:
He took an image from a highly respected cinema camera,
So what? Again, does that impress you?
Furthermore, you suggested above that Yedlin's test applies to 99.9999% of content -- do you think that 99.9999% of content is shot with an Alexa65?
33 minutes ago, kye said:put it onto a 4K timeline, then exported that timeline to a 1080p compressed file, and then transmitted that over the internet to viewers.
Well, you left out a few steps of upscale/downscale acrobatics that negate the comparison as a resolution test.
Most importantly, you forgot to mention that he emphatically stated that he had achieved a 1-to-1 pixel match on anyone's HD screen, but that he actually failed to do so, thus, invalidating all of his resolution demos.
39 minutes ago, kye said:Yeah, that doesn't apply to anything else that ever happens, you're totally right, no-one has ever done that before and no-one will ever do that again..... 🙄🙄🙄
You are obviously an expert on empirical testing/comparisons...
-
53 minutes ago, kye said:
Why do you care if the test only applies to the 99.9999% of content viewed by people worldwide that has scaling and compression?
Yedlin's resolution comparison doesn't apply to anything, because it is not valid. He is not even testing resolution.
Perhaps you should try to convince Yedlin that such demonstrations don't require 1-to-1 pixel matches, because you think that 99.9999% of content has scaling and compression, and, somehow, that validates resolution tests with blended pixels and other wild, uncontrolled variables.
-
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:
You raise a number of excellent points,
Yes, and I have repeated those same points many times prior in this discussion.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:but have missed the point of the test.
The overall context is that for a viewer, sitting at a common viewing distance, the difference won't be discernible.
I was the one who linked the section in Yedlin's video that mentions viewing distances and viewing angles, and I repeatedly noted that he dismissed wider viewing angles and larger screens.
How do you figure that I missed Yedlin's point in that regard?
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:This is why the comparison is about perceptual resolution and not actual resolution.
Not sure what you mean here nor why anyone would ever need to test "actual" resolution. The "actual" resolution is automatically the "actual" resolution, so there is no need to test it to determine if it is "actual".
Regardless, I have used the term "discernability" frequently enough in this discussion so that even someone suffering from chronic reading comprehension deficit should realize that I am thoroughly aware that Yedlin is (supposedly) testing differences perceived from different resolutions.
Again, Yedlin is "actually" comparing scaling methods with a corrupt setup.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:Yedlin claims that the video will appear 1:1, which I took to mean that it wouldn't be a different size, and you have taken to mean that every pixel on his computer will appear as a single pixel on your/my computer and will not have any impact on any of the other surrounding pixels.
Not sure how 1-to-1 pixels can be interpreted in any way other than every single pixel of the tested resolution matches every single pixel on the screen of the person viewing the comparison.
Furthermore, Yedlin was specific and emphatic on this point:
Quote"We are going to go 1-to-1 pixels or 'crop to fit.' Now what that means is... within this 4K image, there is an area that is 2K or HD size pixels across, and what we're going to do is extract that and fill the frame with it.
So when we go 1-to-1 pixels on a 4K mastered image, we take a fully, professionally mastered 4K image... we DO NOT change the image structure AT ALL. We take all of those true 4K pixels exactly as they were mastered, and we fit each one of them onto one of your HD screen pixels."
Emphasis is Yedlin's.
It's interesting that this basic, fundamental premise of Yedlin's comparison was misunderstood by the one who insisted that I must watch the entire video to understand it -- while I only had to watch a few minutes at the beginning of the video to realize that Yedlin had not achieved the required 1-to-1 pixel match.
It makes perfect sense that 1-to-1 pixels means that every single pixel on the test image matches every single picture on one's display -- that condition is crucial for a resolution test to be valid. If the pixels are blended or otherwise corrupted, then the resolution test (which automatically considers how someone perceives those pixels) is worthless.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:Obviously this is false, as you have shown from your blown up screen captures.
It's obvious, and, unfortunately, it ruins Yedlin's comparisons.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:This does not prove scaling though. As you showed, two viewers rendered different outputs, and I tried it in Quicktime and VLC and got two different results again.
Problem number one is that the viewing software is altering the image (or at least all but one that we tried).
Well, I didn't compare the exact same frames, and it is unlikely that you viewed the same frames if you froze the video in Quicktime and VLC.
When I play the video of Yedlin's frozen frame while zoomed-in on the Natron viewer, there are noticeable dancing artifacts that momentarily change the pixel colors a bit. However, since they repeat an identical pattern every time that I play the same moment in the video, it is likely those artifacts are inherent in Yedlin's render.
Furthermore, blending is indicated as the general color and shade of the square's pixels and of those pixels immediately adjacent have less contrast with each other.
In addition, the mottled pixel pattern of square and it's nearby pixels in the ffmpeg image generally matches the pixel pattern of those in the Natron image, while both images are unlike the drawn sqaure in Yedlin's zoomed-in viewer which is very smooth and precise.
When viewing the square with a magnifier on the display, it certainly looks like its edges are blended -- just like the non-integer rulings on the pixel chart in my previous post.
I suspect that Yedlin's node editor viewer is blending the pixels, even though it is set to 100%.
Again, Yedlin easily could have provided verification of a 1-to-1 pixel match by showing a pixel chart in his viewer, but he didn't.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:Problem number two is that we're both viewing the file from Yedlin's site, which is highly compressed. In fact, it is a h264 stream, and 2.32Gb, something like 4Mbps.
... and who's fault is that?
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:The uncompressed file would have been 1192Mbps and in the order of 600Gb, and not much smaller had he used a lossless compression, so completely beyond any practical consideration. Assuming I've done my maths correctly, that's a compression ratio of something like 250:1 - a ratio that you couldn't even hope would yield a pixel-not-destroyed image.
Then perhaps Yedlin shouldn't misinform his easily impressionable followers by making the false claim that he has achieved a 1-to-1 pixel match on his followers' displays.
On the other hand, Yedlin could have additionally made short, uncompressed clips of such comparisons, or he could have provided uncompressed still frames -- but he did neither.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:The reason I bring up these two points is that they will also be true for the consumption of any media by that viewer that the test is about.
It really is not that difficult to create uncompressed short clips or stills with a 1-to-1 pixel match, just as it was done in the pixel charts above.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:There's no point arguing that his test is invalid as it doesn't apply to someone watching an uncompressed video stream on a screen that is significantly larger than the TXH and SMPTE recommendations suggest, because, frankly, who gives a toss about that person?
I am arguing that his resolution test is invalid primarily because he is actually comparing scaling methods and even that comparison is rendered invalid by the fact that he did not show a 1-to-1 pixel match.
In regards to Yedlin's and your dismissal of wider viewing angles because they are not common (nor recommended by SMPTE 🙄), again, such a notion reveals bias and should not be considered in any empirical tests designed to determine discernability/quality differences between different resolutions.
A larger viewing angle is an important, valuable variable that cannot be ignored -- that's why Yedlin mentioned it (but immediately dismissed it as "not common").
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:I'm not that person, probably no-one else here is that person, and if you are that person, then good for you, but it's irrelevant.
Not that it matters, but there are many folks with multi-monitor setups that yield wider viewing angles than what you and Yedlin tout as "common."
Also, again, there are a lot of folks that can see the individual pixels on their monitors, and increasing the resolution can render individual pixels not discernible.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:You made a good point about 3CCD cameras, which I'd forgotten about,
Have you also forgotten about RGB striped sensors, RGBW sensors, Foveon sensors, monochrome sensors, X-Trans sensors and linear scanning sensors? None of those sensors have a Bayer matrix.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:and even if you disagree about debayering and mismatched photosites and pixels, none of that stuff matters if the image is going to get compressed for digital distribution and then decoded by any number of decoders that will generate a different pixel-to-pixel readout.
It matters when trying to make a valid comparison of different resolutions.
Also, achieving a 1-to-1 pixel match and controlling other variables is not that difficult, but one must first fundamentally understand the subject that one is testing.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:Essentially you're arguing about how visible something is at the step before it gets put through a cheese-grater on its way to the people who actually watch the movies and pay for the whole thing.
Nope. I am arguing that Yedlin's ill-conceived resolution comparison with all of its wild, uncontrolled variables is not valid.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:In terms of why they make higher resolution cameras? There are two main reasons I can see:
The first is that VFX folks want as much resolution as possible as it helps keep things perceptually flawless after they mess with them. This is likely the primary reason that companies like ARRI are putting out higher resolution models.
That's not a bad reason to argue for higher resolution, but I doubt that it is the primary reason that Arri made a 6K camera.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:The second reason is that electronics companies are companies, and in a capitalist society, companies exist to make money, and to do that you need to make people keep buying things, which is done through planned obsolescence and incremental improvements, such as getting everyone to buy 4K TVs, and then 4K cameras to go with those 4K TVs. This is likely the driver of all the camera manufacturers who also sell TVs, which is.... basically every consumer camera company.
I can't wait to get a Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Fuji TV!
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:Not a whole lot of people buying a GH5 are doing VFX with it, although cropping in post is one relatively common exception to that.
Cropping is a valid reason for higher resolution (but I abhor the practice).
My guess is that Arri decided to make a 6K camera because the technology exists, because producers were already spec'ing Arri's higher-res competition and because they wanted to add another reason to attract shooters to their larger format Alexa.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:So, although I disagree with you on some of the technical aspects along the way, the fact that his test isn't "1:1" in whatever ways you think it should be is irrelevant, because people watch things after compression, after being decoded by unknown algorithms.
Perhaps you should confront Yedlin with that notion, because it is with Yedlin that you are now arguing.
As linked and quoted above, Yedlin thought that it was relevant to establish a 1-to-1 pixel match, and to provide a lengthy explanation in that regard.
Furthermore, at the 04:15 mark in the same video, Yedlin adds that a 1-to-1 pixel match:
Quote"would be a more 'rigorous' way to view the image, because we're looking at TRUE 4K pixels..."
Emphasis is Yedlin's.
On 4/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, kye said:That's not even taking into account the image processing witchcraft that things like Smooth Motion that completely invents entirely new frames and is half of what the viewer will actually see, or uncalibrated displays etc. Yes, these things don't exist in theatres, but how many hours do you spend watching something in a theatre vs at home? The average person spends almost all their time watching on a TV at home, so the theatre percentage is pretty small.
The point of a resolution discernability comparison (and other empirical tests) is to eliminate/control all variables except for the ones that are being compared.
The calibration and image processing of home TVs and/or theater projectors is a whole other topic of discussion that needn't (and shouldn't) influence the testing of the single independent variable of differing resolution.
If you don't think that it matters to establish a 1-to-1 pixel match in such a test, then please take up that issue with Yedlin -- who evidently disagrees with you!
-
On 3/31/2021 at 10:38 PM, seanzzxx said:
I had a shoot with a Sony a7sii and an Ursa back to back. The Ursa was shot in 1920x1080 prores 444, the a7sii shot UHD in mega compressed h264. The difference in PERCEIVED resolution between these two cameras is night and day, with the Ursa kicking the A7s it’s butt, because the image of the former is so much more robust in terms of compression noise, color accuracy, banding, edge detail, and so on.
Keep in mind that resolution is important to color depth. When we chroma subsample to 4:2:0 (as likely with your A7SII example), we throw away chroma resolution and thus, reduce color depth. Of course, compression also kills a lot of the image quality.
On 3/31/2021 at 10:38 PM, seanzzxx said:One is more resolute but the other camera has a lot more perceived resolution because the image is better.
Yedlin also used the term "resolute" in his video. I am not sure that it means what you and Yedlin think it means.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:His first test, which you can see the results of at 6:40-8:00 compares two image pipelines:
- 6K image downsampled to 4K, which is then viewed 1:1 in his viewer by zooming in 2x
- 6K image downsampled to 2K, then upsampled to 4K, which is then viewed 1:1 in his viewer by zooming in 2x
It is impossible for you (the viewer of Yedlin's video) to see 1:1 pixels (as I will demonstrate), and it is very possible that Yedlin is not viewing the pixels 1:1 in his viewer.
Merely zooming "2X" does not guarantee that he nor we are seeing 1:1 pixels. That is a faulty assumption.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:As this view is 2X digitally zoomed in, each pixel is twice as large as it would be if you were viewing the source video on your monitor, so the test is actually unfair.
Well, it's a little more complex than that.
The size of the pixels that you see is always the size of the the pixels of your display, unless, of course, the zoom is sufficient to render the image pixels larger than the display pixels. Furthermore, blending and/or interpolation of pixels is suffered if the image pixels do not match 1:1 those of the display, or if the size image pixels are larger than those of the display while not being a mathematical square of the display pixels.
Unfortunately, all of images that Yedlin presents as 1:1 most definitely are not a 1:1 match, with the pixels corrupted by blending/interpolation (and possibly compression).
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:There is obviously a difference in the detail that's actually there, and this can be seen when he zooms in radically at 7:24, but when viewed at 1:1 starting at 6:40 there is perceptually very little difference, if any.
When Yedlin zooms-in, we see a 1:1 pixel match between the two images, so there is no actual difference in resolution in that instance -- an actual resolution difference is not being compared here nor in most of the subsequent "1:1" comparisons.
What is being compared in such a scenario is merely scaling algorithms/techniques. However, any differences even in those algorithms get hopelessly muddled due to the fact that the pixels that you (and possibly Yedlin) see are not actually a 1:1 match, and are thus additionally blended and interpolated.
Such muddling destroys any possibility of making a true resolution comparison.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:Regardless of if the image pipeline is "proper" (and I'll get to that comment in a bit), if downscaling an image to 2K then back up again isn't visible, the case that resolutions higher than 2K are perceptually differentiable is pretty weak even straight out of the gate.
No. Such a notion is erroneous as the comparison method is inherently faulty and as the image "pipeline" Yedlin used unfortunately is leaky and septic (as I will show).
Again, if one is to conduct a proper resolution comparison, the pixels from the original camera image should never be blended: an 8K captured image should be viewed on an 8K monitor; a 6K captured image should be viewed on an 6K monitor; a 4K captured image should be viewed on an 4K monitor; 2K captured image should be viewed on an 2K monitor; etc.
Scaling algorithms, interpolations and blending of the pixels corrupts the testing process.
On 3/31/2021 at 8:32 AM, tupp said:2) Yedlin's claim here that the node editor viewer's pixels match 1-to-1 to the pixels on the screen of those watching the video is obviously false. The pixels in his viewer window don't even match 1-to-1 the pixels of his rendered HD video. This pixel mismatch is a critical flaw that invalidates almost all of his demonstrations that follow.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:Are you saying that the pixels in the viewer window in Part 2 don't match the pixels in Part 1?
I thought that I made it clear in my previous post. However, I will paraphrase it so that you might understand what is actually going on: There is no possible way that you ( @kye ) can observe the comparisons with a 1:1 pixel match to those of the images shown in Yedlin's node editor viewer.
In addition, it is very possible that even Yedlin's own viewer when set at 100% is not actually showing a 1:1 pixel match to Yedlin.
Such a pixel mismatch is a fatal flaw when trying to compare resolutions. Yedlin claims that he established a 1:1 match, because he knows that it is an important requirement for comparing resolutions, but he did not acheive a 1:1 pixel match.
So, almost everything about his comparisons is meaningless.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:Even if this was the case, it still doesn't invalidate comparisons like the one at 6:40 where there is very little difference between two image pipelines where one has significantly less resolution than the other and yet they appear perceptually very similar / identical.
Again, Yedlin is not actually comparing resolutions in this instance. He is merely comparing scaling algorithms and interpolations here and elsewhere in his video, scaling comparisons which are crippled by his failure to achieve a 1:1 pixel match in the video.
Yedlin could have verified a 1:1 pixel match by showing a pixel chart within his viewer when it was set to 100%.
Here are a couple of pixel charts:
If the the charts are displayed at 1:1 pixels, you should easily observe with a magnifier that the all of the black pixel rulings that are integers (1, 2, 3, etc.) are cleanly defined with no blending into adjacent pixels. On the other hand, all of the black pixel rulings that are non-integers (1.3, 1.6, 2.1, 2.4, 3.3, etc.) should show blending on their edges with a 1:1 match.
Without such a chart it is difficult to confirm that one pixel of the image coincides with one pixel in Yedlin's video. Either Steve Yedlin, ASC was not savvy enough to include the fundamental verification of a pixel chart or he intentionally avoided verification of a pixel match.
However, Yedlin unwittingly provided something that proves his failure to achieve a 1:1 match.
At 15:03 in the video, Yedlin zooms way in to a frozen frame, and he draws a precise 4x4 pixel square over the image. At the 16:11 mark in the video, he zooms back out to the 100% setting in his viewer, showing the box at the alleged 1:1 pixels
You can freeze the video at that point and see for yourself with a magnifier that the precise 4x4 pixel square has blended edges (unlike the clean-edged integer rulings on the pixel charts). However, Yedlin claims there is a 1:1 pixel match!
I went even further than just using magnifier. I zoomed-in to that "1:1" frame using two different methods, and then I made a side-by-side comparison image:
All three images in the above comparison were taken from the actual video posted on Yedlin's site.
The far left image shows Yedlin's viewer fully zoomed-in when he draws the precise 4x4 pixel square. The middle and right images are zoomed into Yedlin's viewer when it is set to 100% (with an allegedly 1:1 pixel match).
There is no denying the excessive blending and interpolation revealed when zooming-in to the square or when magnifying one's display. No matter how finely one can change the zoom amount in one's video player, one will never be able to see a 1:1 pixel match with Yedlin's video, because the blending/interpolation is inherent in the video. Furthermore, the blending/interpolation is possibly introduced by Yedlin's node editor viewer when it is set to 100%.
Hence, Yedlin's claimed 1:1 pixel match is false.
By the way, in my comparison photo above, the middle image is from a tiff created by ffmpeg, to avoid further compression. The right image was made by merely zooming into the frozen frame playing on the viewer of the Natron compositor.
On 3/31/2021 at 8:32 AM, tupp said:At one point, Yedlin compared the difference between 6K and 2K by showing the magnified individual pixels. This magnification revealed that the pixel size and pixel quantity did not change when he switched between resolutions, nor did the subject's size in the image. Thus, he isn't actually comparing different resolutions in much of the video -- if anything, he is comparing scaling methods.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:He is comparing scaling methods - that's what he is talking about in this section of the video.
Correct. That is what I have stated repeatedly.
The thing is, he uses this same method in almost every comparison, so he is merely comparing scaling methods throughout the video -- he is not comparing actual resolution.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:This use of scaling algorithms may seem strange if you think that your pipeline is something like 4K camera -> 4K timeline -> 4K distribution, or the same in 2K, as you have mentioned in your first point, but this is false. There are no such pipelines, and pipelines such as this are impossible.
What? Of course there are such "pipelines." One can shoot with a 4K camera and process the resulting 4K files in post and then display in 4K, and the resolution never increases nor decreases at any point in the process.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:This is because the pixels in the camera aren't pixels at all, rather they are photosites that sense either Red or Green or Blue. Whereas the pixels in your NLE and on your monitor or projector are actually Red and Greed and Blue.
Are you trying to validate Yedlin's upscaling/downscaling based on semantics?
It is generally accepted that a photosite on a sensor is a single microscopic receptor often filtered with a single color. A combination of more than one adjacent receptors with red, green, blue (and sometimes clear) filters is often called a pixel or pixel group. Likewise, an adjacent combination of RGB display cells is usually called a pixel.
However you choose to define the terms or to group the receptors/pixels, it will have little bearing on the principles that we are discussing.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:The 4K -> 4K -> 4K pipeline you mentioned is actually ~8M colour values -> ~24M colour values -> ~24M colour values.
Huh? What do you mean here? How do you get those color value numbers from 4K? Are you saying that all cameras are under-sampling compared to image processing and displays?
Regardless of how the camera resolution is defined, one can create a camera image and then process that image in post and then display the image all without any increase nor decrease of the resolution at any step in the process. In fact, such image processing with consistent resolution at each step is quite common.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:The process of taking an array of photosites that are only one colour and creating an image where every pixel has values for Red Green and Blue is called debayering, and it involves scaling.
It's called debayering... except when it isn't. There is no debayering with: an RGB striped sensor; an RGBW sensor; a monochrome sensor; a scanning sensor; a Foveon sensor; an X-Trans sensor; and three-chip cameras; etc. Additionally, raw files made with a Bayer matrix sensor are not debayered.
I see where this is going, and your argument is simply a matter of whether we agree to determine resolution by counting the separate red, green and blue cells or whether we determine resolution by counting RGB pixel groups formed by combining those adjacent red, green and blue scales.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:This is a good link to see what is going on: https://pixinsight.com/doc/tools/Debayer/Debayer.html
From that article: "The Superpixel method is very straightforward. It takes four CFA pixels (2x2 matrix) and uses them as RGB channel values for one pixel in the resulting image (averaging the two green values). The spatial resolution of the resulting RGB image is one quarter of the original CFA image, having half its width and half its height."
Also from the article: "The Bilinear interpolation method keeps the original resolution of the CFA image. As the CFA image contains only one color component per pixel, this method computes the two missing components using a simple bilinear interpolation from neighboring pixels."
As you can see, both of those methods talk about scaling.
Jeez Louise... did you just recently learn about debayering algorithms?
The conversion of adjacent photosites into a single RGB pixel group (Bayer or not) isn't considered "scaling" by most. Even if you define it as such, that notion is irrelevant to our discussion -- we necessarily have to assume that a digital camera's resolution is given by either the output of it's ADC or by the resolution of the camera files.
We just have to agree on whether we are counting the individual color cells or the combined RGB pixel groups. Once we agree upon the camera resolution, that resolution need never change throughout the rest of the "imaging pipeline."
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:Let me emphasise this point - any time you ever see a digital image taken with a digital camera sensor, you are seeing a rescaled image.
You probably shouldn't have emphasized that point, because you are incorrect, even if we use your definition of "scaling."
There are no adjacent red green or blue photosites to combine ("scale") with digital Foveon sensors, digital three chip cameras and digital monochrome sensors.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:Therefore Yedlin's use of scaling is on an image pipeline is using scaling on an image that has already been scaled from the sensor data to an image that has three times as many colour values as the sensor captured.
Please, I doubt that even Yedlin would go along with you on this line of reasoning.
We can determine the camera resolution merely from output of the ADC or from the camera files. We just have to agree on whether we are counting the individual color cells or the combined RGB pixel groups. After we agree on the camera resolution, that resolution need never change throughout the rest of the "imaging pipeline."
Regardless of these semantics, Yedlin is just comparing scaling methods and not actual resolution.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:A quick google revealed that there are ~1500 IMAX theatre screens worldwide, and ~200,000 movie theatres worldwide. Sources:
- "We have more than 1,500 IMAX theatres in more than 80 countries and territories around the globe." https://www.imax.com/content/corporate-information
- "In 2020, the number of digital cinema screens worldwide amounted to over 203 thousand – a figure which includes both digital 3D and digital non-3D formats." https://www.statista.com/statistics/271861/number-of-digital-cinema-screens-worldwide/
That's less than 1%. You could make the case that there are other non-IMAX large screens around the world, and that's fine, but when you take into account that over 200 Million TVs are sold worldwide each year, even the number of standard movie theatres becomes a drop in the ocean when you're talking about the screens that are actually used for watching movies or TVs worldwide. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/461316/global-tv-unit-sales/
When one is trying to determine if higher resolutions can yield an increase in discernability or in perceptible image quality, then it is irrelevant to consider the statistics of common or uncommon setups.
The alleged commonality and feasibility of the setup is a topic that should be left for another discussion, and such notions should not influence nor interfere with any scientific testing nor with the weight of any findings of the tests.
By dismissing greater viewing angles as uncommon, Yedlin reveals his bias. Such dismissiveness of important variables corrupts his comparisons and conclusions, as he avoids testing larger viewing angles, and he merely concludes that larger screens are "special".
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:If you can't tell the difference between 4K and 2K image pipelines at normal viewing distances and you are someone that posts on a camera forum about resolution then the vast majority of people watching a movie or a TV show definitely won't be able to tell the difference
Well if I had a 4K monitor, I imagine that I could tell the difference between a 4K and 2K image.
Not that it matters, but close viewing proximity is likely much more common than Yedlin realizes and more more common than your web searching shows. In addition to IMAX screens, movie theaters with seats close to the screen, amusement park displays and jumbo-trons, many folks position their computer monitors close enough to see the individual pixels (at least when they lean forward). If one can see individual pixels, a higher resolution monitor of the same size can make those individual pixels "disappear." So, higher resolution can yield a dramatic difference in discernability, even in common everyday scenarios.
Furthermore, a higher resolution monitor with the same size pixels as a lower resolution monitor gives a much more expansive viewing angle. As many folks use multiple computer monitors side-by-side, the value of such a wide view is significant.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:Let's recap:
- Yedlin's use of rescaling is applicable to digital images because every image from every digital camera sensor that basically anyone has ever seen has already been rescaled by the debayering process by the time you can look at it
Whatever. You can claim that combining adjacent colored photosites into a single RGB pixel group is "scaling." Nevertheless, the resolution need never change at any point in the "imaging pipeline."
Regardless, Yedlin is merely comparing scaling methods and not resolution.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:There is little to no perceptual difference when comparing a 4K image directly with a copy of that same image that has been downscaled to 2K and the upscaled to 4K again, even if you view it at 2X
Well, we can't really draw such a conclusion from Yedlin's test, considering all of the corruption from blending and interpolation caused by his failure to achieve a 1:1 pixel match.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:The test involved swapping back and forth between the two scenarios, where in the real world you are unlikely to ever get to see the comparison, like that or even at all
How is this notion relevant or a recap?
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:The viewing angle of most movie theatres in the world isn't sufficient to reveal much difference between 2K and 4K, let alone the hundreds of millions of TVs sold every year which are likely to have a smaller viewing angle than normal theatres
Your statistics and what you consider be likely or common in regards to viewing angles/proximity is irrelevant in determining the actual discernability differences between resolutions. Also, you and Yedlin dismiss sitting in the very front row of a movie theater.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:These tests you mentioned above all involved starting with a 6K image from an Alexa 65, one of the highest quality imaging devices ever made for cinema
That impresses you?
Not sure how that point is relevant (nor how it is a recap), but please ask yourself: if there is no difference in discernability between higher resolutions, why would Arri (the maker of some of the highest quality cinema cameras) offer a 6K camera?
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:The remainder of the video discusses a myriad of factors that are likely to be present in real-life scenarios that further degrade image resolution, both in the camera and in the post-production pipeline
Yes, but such points don't shed light on any fundamental differences in the discernability of different resolutions. Also how is this notion a recap?
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:You haven't shown any evidence that you have watched past the 10:00 mark in the video
You are incorrect and this notion is not a recap.
Please note that my comments in an earlier post regarding Yedlin's dismissing wider viewing angles referred to and linked to a section at 0:55:27 in his 1:06:54 video.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:16 AM, kye said:Did I miss anything?
You only missed all of the points that I made above in this post and earlier posts.
On 4/2/2021 at 6:30 AM, kye said:and it's quite clear that the level of perceptual detail coming out of a camera is not that strongly related to the sensor resolution:
No, it's not clear. Yedlin's "resolution" comparisons are corrupted by the fact that the pixels are not a 1:1 match and by the fact that he is actually comparing scaling methods -- not resolution.
-
7 hours ago, kye said:
A friend recommended a movie to me, but it looked really long.
I watched the first scene and then the last scene, and the last scene made no sense. It had characters in it I didn't know about, and it didn't explain how the characters I did know got there. The movie is obviously fundamentally flawed, and I'm not watching it. I told my friends that it was flawed, but they told me that it did make sense and the parts I didn't watch explained the whole story, but I'm not going to watch a movie that is fundamentally flawed!
They keep telling me to watch the movie, but they're obviously idiots, because it's fundamentally flawed.
They also sent me some recipes, and the chocolate cake recipe had ingredient three as eggs and ingredient seven as cocoa powder (I didn't read the other ingredients) but you can't make a cake using only eggs and cocoa powder - the recipe is fundamentally flawed. My friend said that the other ingredients are required in order to get a cake, but I'm not going to bother going back and reading the whole recipe and then spending time and money making it when it's obviously flawed.
My friends really are stupid. I've told them about the bits that I saw, and they kept telling me that a movie and a recipe only make sense if you go through the whole thing, but that's not how I do things, so obviously they're wrong.
It makes me cry for the state of humanity when that movie was not only made, but it won 17 oscars, and that cake recipe was named Oprahs cake of the month. People really must be stupid.
Oh, that is such a profound story. I am sorry to hear that you lost your respect for Oprah.
Certainly, there are some lengthy videos that cannot be criticized after merely knowing the premise, such as this 3-hour video that proves that the Earth is flat. It doesn't make any sense at the outset and it is rambling, but you have to watch the entire 2 hours and 55 minutes, because (as you described the Yedlin video in an earlier post) "the logic of it builds over the course of the video." Let me know what you think after you have watched the entire flat Earth video.
Now, reading your story has moved me, so I watched the entire Yedlin video!
Guess what? -- The video is still fatally flawed, and I found even more problems. Here are four of the videos main faults:
- Yedlin's setup doesn't prove anything conclusive in regards to perceptible differences between various higher resolutions, even if we assume that a cinema audience always views a projected 2K or 4K screen. Much of the required discernability for such a comparison is destroyed by his downscaling a 6K file to 4K (and also to 2K and then back up to 4K) within a node editor, while additionally rendering the viewer window to an HD video file. To properly make any such comparison, we must at least start with 6K footage from a 6K camera, 4K footage from a 4K camera, 2K footage from a 2K camera, etc.
- Yedlin's claim here that the node editor viewer's pixels match 1-to-1 to the pixels on the screen of those watching the video is obviously false. The pixels in his viewer window don't even match 1-to-1 the pixels of his rendered HD video. This pixel mismatch is a critical flaw that invalidates almost all of his demonstrations that follow.
- At one point, Yedlin compared the difference between 6K and 2K by showing the magnified individual pixels. This magnification revealed that the pixel size and pixel quantity did not change when he switched between resolutions, nor did the subject's size in the image. Thus, he isn't actually comparing different resolutions in much of the video -- if anything, he is comparing scaling methods.
- Yedlin glosses over the factor of screen size and viewing angle. He cites dubious statistics regarding common viewing angles which he uses to make the shaky conclusion that larger screens aren't needed. Additionally, he avoids consideration of the fact that larger screens are integral when considering resolution -- if an 8K screen and an HD screen have the same pixel size, at a given distance the 8k screen will occupy 16 times the area of the HD screen. That's a powerful fact regarding resolution, but Yedlin dismisses larger screens as "specialty thing,"
Now that I have watched the entire video and have fully understood everything that Yedlin was trying to convey, perhaps you could counter the four problems of Yedlin's video listed directly above. I hope that you can do so, because, otherwise, I just wasted over an hour of my time that I cannot get back.
-
37 minutes ago, kye said:
You only think it's flawed because you didn't watch the parts of it that explain it.
The video's setup is flawed, and there are no parts in the video which explain how that setup could possibly work to show differences in actual resolution. If you disagree and if you think that you "understand" the video more than I, then you should have no trouble countering the three specific flaws of the video that I numbered above.
However, I doubt that you actually understand the video nor the topic, as you can't even link to the points in the video that might explain how it works.
44 minutes ago, kye said:I have spent many many hours preparing a direct response to answer your question, and all the other questions you have put forward. I think after a thorough examination you will find all the answers to your questions and queries.
Please click the below for all the information that you need:
I see. So, you have actually no clue about the topic, and you are just trolling.
-
15 minutes ago, kye said:
The whole video made sense to me.
Good for you!
15 minutes ago, kye said:What you are not understanding (BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED IT) is that you can't just criticise bits of it because the logic of it builds over the course of the video. It's like you've read a few random pages from a script and are then criticising them by saying they don't make sense in isolation.
Nope. The three points that I made prove that Yedlin's comparisons are invalid in regards to comparing the discernability of different resolutions.
If you can explain exactly how he gets around those three problems, I will take back my criticism of Yedlin. So far, no one has given any explanation of how his set up could possibly work.
20 minutes ago, kye said:The structure of the video is this:
- He outlines the context of what he is doing and why
Yes. I mentioned that section and linked it in a previous post. There is no way his set up can provide anything conclusive in regards to the lack of any discernability between different resolutions.
22 minutes ago, kye said:He talks about how to get a 1:1 view of the pixels
He assumes that the 1-to-1 pixel view happens automatically, in a section that I linked in my previous post. Again, here is the link to that passage in Yedlin's video.
It is impossible to get a 1-to-1 view of the pixels that appear within Yedlin's node editor -- those individual pixels were lost the moment he rendered the HD video.
So, most of his comparisons are meaningless.
29 minutes ago, kye said:He shows how in a 1:1 view of the pixels that the resolutions aren't discernable
No he doesn't show a 1-to-1 pixel view, because it is impossible to actually see the individual pixels within his node editor viewer. Those pixels were blended together when he rendered the HD video.
In addition, even if Yedlin was able to achieve a 1-to-1 pixel match in his rendered video, the downscaling and/or downscaling and upscaling performed in the node editor destroys any discernable difference in resolutions. He is merely comparing scaling algorithms -- not actual resolution differences
Furthermore, Yedlin reveals to us what is actually happening in many of his comparisons when we see the magnified view. The pixel size, the pixel number and the image framing all remain identical while he switches between different resolutions. So, again, Yedlin is not comparing different resolutions -- he is merely comparing scaling algorithms
45 minutes ago, kye said:- Then he goes on to explore the many different processes, pipelines, and things that happen in the real world (YES, INCLUDING RESIZING) and shows that under these situations the resolutions aren't discernible either
That is at the heart of what he is demonstrating. Yedlin is comparing the results of various downscaling and upscaling methods. He really isn't comparing different resolutions.
49 minutes ago, kye said:You have skipped enormous parts of the video, and you can't do that.
Once again, you can't skip parts of a logical progression, or dare I say it "proof", and expect for it to make sense.
Your posts don't make sense if I skip every third word, or if I only read the first and last line.
Yedlin is not comparing different resolutions -- he is merely comparing scaling algorithms. You need to face that fact.
50 minutes ago, kye said:Yedlin is widely regarded as a pioneer in the space of colour science, resolution, FOV, and other matters.
Yedlin is a good shooter, but he is hardly an imaging scientist and he certainly is no pioneer. There are just too many flaws and uncontrolled variables in his comparisons to draw any reasonable conclusions. He covers the same ground and makes the same classic mistakes of others who have preceded him, so he doesn't really offer anything new.
Furthermore, as @jcs pointed out, Yedlin's comparisons are "way too long and rambly."
1 hour ago, kye said:His blog posts consist of a mixture of logical arguments, mathematics, physics and controlled tests. These are advanced topics and not many others have put the work in to perform these tests.
From what I have seen in these resolution videos and in his other comparisons, Yedlin glosses over inconvenient points that contradict his bias, and his methods are slipshot. In addition, I haven't noticed him contributing anything new to any of the topics which he addresses.
1 hour ago, kye said:The reason that I say this is that not everyone will understand these tests. Not everyone understands the correct and incorrect ways to use reductive logic, logical interpolation, extrapolation, equivalence, inference, exception, boundaries, or other logical devices.
Indeed... I don't think that Yedlin even understands his own tests.
1 hour ago, kye said:I highly doubt that you would understand the logic that he presents, but one thing I can tell with absolute certainty, is that you can't understand it without actually WATCHING IT.
Well, I don't understand how a resolution comparison is valid if one doesn't actually compare different resolutions. You obviously cannot explained how such a comparison is possible.
So, I am not going to risk wasting an hour of my time to watching more of a video comparison that is fatally flawed from the get-go.
-
On 3/27/2021 at 8:18 PM, kye said:
You can't make comparisons, discuss, criticise, or even comment on something you haven't watched.
You are incorrect.
Regardless, I have watched enough of the Yedlin videos to know that they are significantly flawed. I know for a fact that:
- Yedlin's setup cannot prove anything conclusive in regards to perceptible differences between various higher resolutions, even if we assume that a cinema audience always views a projected 2K or 4K screen. Much of the required discernability for such a comparison is destroyed by his downscaling a 6K file to 4K (and also to 2K and then back up to 4K) within a node editor, while additionally rendering the viewer window to an HD video file. To properly make any such comparison, we must at least start with 6K footage from a 6K camera, 4K footage from a 4K camera, 2K footage from a 2K camera, etc.
- Yedlin's claim here that the node editor viewer's pixels match 1-to-1 to the pixels on the screen of those watching the video is obviously false. The pixels in his viewer window don't even match 1-to-1 the pixels of his rendered HD video. This pixel mismatch is a critical flaw that invalidates almost all of his demonstrations that follow.
- At one point, Yedlin compared the difference between 6K and 2K by showing the magnified individual pixels. This magnification revealed that the pixel size and pixel quantity did not change when he switched between resolutions, nor did the subject's size in the image. Thus, he isn't actually comparing different resolutions in much of the video -- if anything, he is comparing scaling methods.
On 3/27/2021 at 8:18 PM, kye said:Your criticisms are of things he didn't say. That's called a straw man argument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
In one of my earlier posts above, I provided a link to a the section of Yedlin's video in which he demonstrates the exact flaw that I criticized. Somehow, you missed the fact that what I claimed about the video is actually true. I also mentioned other particular problems of the video in my earlier posts, and you missed those points as well. So, no "straw man" here.
As I have suggested in another thread, please learn some reading comprehension skills, so that I and others don't have to keep repeating ourselves.
By the way, please note that directly above (within this post) is a numbered list in which I state flaws inherent in Yedlin's and please see that with each numbered point I include a link to the pertinent section of Yedlin's video. You can either address those points or not, but please don't keep claiming that I have not watched the video.
On 3/27/2021 at 8:18 PM, kye said:I'm not surprised that the criticisms you're raising aren't valid, as you've displayed a lack of critical thinking on many occasions, but what I am wondering is how you think you can criticise something you haven't watched?
The only thing I can think of is that you don't understand how logic, or logical discourse actually works, which unfortunately makes having a reasonable discussion impossible.
In light of the fact that I actually linked portions of the video and made other comments about other parts of the video, logic dictates that I have at least watched those portions of the video. So, stating that I have not watched the video is illogical.
Unless, of course, you missed those points in my post, in which case I would urge you once again to please develop your reading comprehension.
On 3/27/2021 at 8:18 PM, kye said:This whole thread is about a couple of videos that John has posted, and yet you're in here arguing with people about what is in them when you haven't watched them, let alone understood them.
Actually, neither you nor any other poster has directly addressed the flaws in Yedlin's video that I pointed out. If you think that I do not understand the videos, perhaps you could explain what is wrong with my specific points. You can start with the numbered list within this post.
-
7 hours ago, John Matthews said:
For me, he effectively demonstrates the insignificance of taking professionally prepared 4k+ content, downscaling it to 2k, and upscaling it to 4k again.
Agreed, but what is the point of all the downscaling and upscaling? What does it prove in regards to comparing the discernability of different resolutions? How can we compare different resolutions, if the differences in resolution are nullified at the outset of the comparison?
In addition, is this downscaling and then upscaling something that is done in practice regularly? I have never heard of anyone intentionally doing so.
Also, keep in mind that what Yedlin actually did was to downscale from 6K/4K to 2K, then upscale to 4K... and then downscale back to 1080. The delivered videos both on Yedlin's site and in your YouTube links are 1080.
7 hours ago, John Matthews said:The resulting images, even when compared A/B style, don't show any difference. I'd love for you to prove otherwise. I really didn't think of it like this until after watching him.
I honestly do not understand why anyone would expect to see much of a general difference after straight downscaling and then upscaling, especially when the results are rendered back down to HD. Please enlighten me on what is demonstrated by doing so.
Furthermore, Yedlin merely runs an image through different scaling nodes in editing software while peering at the software's viewer, and I am not sure that doing so gives the same results as actually rendering an image to a lower resolution, then re-rendering it back to a higher resolution.
8 hours ago, John Matthews said:Again, his point wasn't necessarily this though- it was to show there are many other considerations BEFORE pixel count that show significant importance as long as the detail threshold is met.
Of course, there are numerous imaging considerations that transcend simple pixel counts. That issue has been examined endlessly on this forum and elsewhere, and I am not certain if Yedlin adds much to the discussion.
By the way, my above quote from @jcs came from a 2-page "detail enhancement" thread on EOSHD. The inventive and original approach introduced within @jcs's opening post gives significant insight into sharpness/acuity properties that are more important than simple resolution. In that regard, the 1+ hour video on resolution by Steve Yedlin, ASC is far surpassed by just six short paragraphs penned by JCS, EOSHD.
-
6 hours ago, kye said:
I said:
On 3/25/2021 at 3:57 PM, kye said:I've posted them quite a few times, but it seems like people aren't interested. They don't follow the links or read the content, and after repeating myths that Steve easily demonstrates to be false, the people go back to talking about if 6K is enough resolution to film a wedding or a CEO talking about quarterly returns, or if they should get the UMP 12K.
I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it's been over a decade since the Alexa was first released and we have cameras that shoot RAW in 4, 9, and 16 times the resolution of the Alexa, but the Alexa still has obviously superior image quality, so I really wonder what the hell it is that we're even talking about here....
Then Tupp said that he didn't watch it, criticised it for doing things that it didn't actually do, then suggests that the testing methodology is false.
Your interpretation of my interaction with your post here is certainly interesting. However, there is no need for interpretation, as one can merely scroll up to see my comments. Nevertheless, I would like to clarify a few things.
Firstly, as I mentioned, I merely scanned the Yedlin videos for two reasons:
- I immediately encountered what are likely flaws in his comparisons (to which you refer as "things that it didn't actually do");
- Yedlin's second resolution video is unnecessarily long and ponderous.
Why should one waste time watching over an hour of long-winded comparisons that are dubious from the get go. Yedlin expects viewers to judge the differences in discernability between 6K, 4K and 2K footage rendered to full HD file on the viewers' own monitors. Also, we later see some of the footage downscaled to 2K and then upscaled to 4K.
Unfortunately, even if we are able to view the HD file pixels at 1-to-1 on our monitors, most of the comparisons are still not valid. His zooming in and out while switching between downscaled/upscaled images is not equivalent to actually comparing 8K capture on an 8K monitor with 4k capture on a 4k monitor with 2K capture on a 2K monitor, etc.
In regards to my claims of flaws in the video which are "things that it didn't actually do," here is the passage in the video that I mentioned in which the pixel size and pixel quantity did not change nor did the subject's size in the image. By the way, I disagree with his statement that the 2K image is less "resolute" than the 6K image when zoomed in. At that moment in the video, the 2K image looks sharper than the 6K image to me, both when zoomed in and zoomed out.
So much for the flaws in the video "that it didn't actually do."
As for the laborious length of some of Yedlin's presentations, I am not the only one here who holds that sentiment. Our own @jcs commented on the very resolution comparisons that we are discussing:
On 8/10/2017 at 2:36 PM, jcs said:I think Yedlin could have made a better point by shortening the videos dramatically: way too long and rambly
Please note that this comment appeared in an informative thread about "Multi-spectral Detail Enhancement," acuity and sharpness, which is somewhat relevant to this thread regarding resolution.
6 hours ago, kye said:What an idiot.
Is there a block button? I think I might go look for it. I think my faith in humanity is being impacted by his uninformed drivel. I guess not everyone in the industry cares about how they appear online - I typically found the pros I've spoken to to be considered and only spoke from genuine knowledge, but that's definitely not the case here.
Nice comments! Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my points!
-
16 minutes ago, John Matthews said:
I'd recommend you watch the whole video. It was rather eye-opening for me.
His point is to gather data without any imperfections if possible and add value to his content through a streamlined image processing pipeline, regardless the camera used to capture. I highly doubt any viewer would ever see a flaw with his strategy.
Thank you for the recommendation!
I don't see any flaw in his strategy, but it also seems rather generic. Not sure if I should spend an hour watching a video that can be summed-up in a single sentence (as you just did).
Also, I hesitate to watch a lengthy video that has fundamental problems inherent in its demonstrations (such as showing resolution differences without changing the pixel size nor pixel number).
-
On 3/24/2021 at 12:06 PM, BenEricson said:
Attached a photo of my setup. I'm working on a project with vintage C mount lenses. Not trying to win some sort of depth of field contest. The camera has beautiful texture and looks great at F8 or F11. OLPF shows up next week. Throw a 4 stop ND on there and rate it at ISO50 with a light meter.
Very cool!
Your rig reminds me of @ZEEK's EOSM Super 16 setup. It shoots 2.5K, 10-bit continuously or 2.8K, 10-bit continuously with ML at around 16mm and Super 16 frame sizes.
- PannySVHS and BenEricson
-
2
-
15 hours ago, John Matthews said:
I've been watching some resolution insights by cinematographer Steve Yeldin that I think many might find very interesting. Not sure if this has already been posted...
We've certainly talked about resolution, and other Yedlin videos have been linked in this forum.
I merely scanned the videos (that second video is over an hour in length), so I don't know all the points that he covered.
Resolution and sharpness are not the same thing. There is a contrast element to sharpness, and it involves different levels (macro contrast micro contrast, etc.). One can see the effects of different levels of contrast when doing frequency separation work in images. Not sure if Yedlin specifically covers contrast's relation to sharpness in these videos. By the way, here is a recent demonstration of when micro features and macro features don't match.
Also, I am not sure that his resolution demo is valid, as he seems to be showing different resolutions on the same monitor. I noticed in one passage that he was zoomed in to see individual pixels, and, when switching between resolutions, the pixel size and pixel quantity did not change nor did the subject's size in the image. Something is wrong with that comparison.
To properly demonstrate resolution differences in regards to discernible detail, one really must show a 6K-captured image on a 6K monitor, a 4K-captured image on a 4K monitor and an HD/2K captured image on an HD/2K monitor, etc. -- and all monitors must be the same size and and same distance from the viewer.
The only other demonstration that I have seen by Yedlin also had significant flaws.
Furthermore, there are other considerations, such as how resolution influences color depth and how higher resolution can help transcend conversion/algorithmic losses and how higher resolution allows for cropping, etc.
8 hours ago, kye said:I've posted them quite a few times, but it seems like people aren't interested. They don't follow the links or read the content, and after repeating myths that Steve easily demonstrates to be false,
There are problems with the few Yedlin videos that I have seen. Also, one of his videos linked above is lengthy and somewhat ponderous.
8 hours ago, kye said:I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it's been over a decade since the Alexa was first released and we have cameras that shoot RAW in 4, 9, and 16 times the resolution of the Alexa, but the Alexa still has obviously superior image quality, so I really wonder what the hell it is that we're even talking about here....
I would put the Panavision Genesis (and it's little brother, the Sony F35) up against an Alexa any day, and the Genesis has lower resolution and less dynamic range than the Alexa. However, the Genesis has a lush, striped, RGB, CCD with true HD -- 1920x1080 RGB pixel groups.
Similarly, I recall that the Dalsa Origin demos showed a thick image (it shot 16-bit, 4K), and the Thompson Viper HD CCD camera yielded great footage.
2 hours ago, John Matthews said:Yes, as he says in the video, people are just looking at that ONE number to make easy choice as to which camera is better. Maybe this is what separates a real cinematographer from wannabes. The image is what counts, not the megapixels (after you get to the "accepted" amount of detail threshold).
I certainly agree that there is a threshold beyond which higher resolution generally is not necessary in most cases, and I think that that such a threshold has been mentioned a few times in this forum. On the other hand, I don't think that such a threshold is absolute, as so much of imaging is subjective and a lot of SD productions are still very compelling today.
1 hour ago, BenEricson said:If Steve only cared about image quality, he would just shoot 35 or 65 and be done with it.
I have shot a fair amount of film, but I would not say that the image quality of film is "better." It's easier (and more forgiving) to shoot film in some ways, but video is easier in many other ways and it can give a great image.
1 hour ago, BenEricson said:Image quality is all subjective, anyway.
Exactly.
-
2 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:
You could try one of those bags for snorkeling. Then you don't have to worry about paint getting in the camera.
If you're worried about impact damage, you could put some socks or something inside the bag.
This is a good suggestion. A snorkel bag is usually very thick plastic/vinyl. Just substitute taped foam pads for socks!
-
20 minutes ago, Ben J. said:
Gotcha, so you think that would be enough to prevent paint from getting in and keep the camera from getting damage from force impact?
If you wrap your rain cover properly, you shouldn't have to worry about paint getting in.
In regards to the impact, I don't know anything about the force of paint ball guns. If you don't use an insulated (padded) rain cover, you could tape pieces of foam sheet onto vulnerable areas on the camera and then put on the rain cover/bag.
You could also run some impact tests with a paint gun, rain cover, foam pads and a wine glass.
-
26 minutes ago, Ben J. said:
Well I meant either. I prefer using a gimbal but with the water housing that obviously would be too big or most likely cause problems, hence using a glidecam; I meant either one.
Use the Glidecam with a rain cover and keep all flaps on the rain cover tucked-in (or use tape). Should be okay.
Another option is to use a heavy, clear freezer bag around the camera, with the opening taped to the lens hood.
Camera resolutions by cinematographer Steve Yeldin
In: Cameras
Posted
Setting aside the fact that this is the first time that you have made that particular claim regarding "the whole point of the test," a 1-to-1 pixel match is crucial for proper perceptibility in a resolution comparison. Yedlin spent over four minutes in the beginning of his video explaining that fact, and you additionally explained and defended the 1-to-1 pixel match.
I and @slonick81 were able to achieve a 1-to-1 pixel match within a compositor viewer, but Yedlin did not do so. So, Yedlin failed to provide the crucial 1-to-1 pixel match required for proper perceptibility of 2K and higher resolutions.
Right. I keep missing the point that the comparison is between 2K and higher resolutions:
You have fascinating and imaginative interpretation skills. What gave you the notion that anyone referred to, "a camera that no-one ever uses?"
Again, it is irrelevant whether the starting images were captured with an common or uncommon camera, as long as those images are sharp enough and of a high enough resolution, which I previously indicated here:
So, as long as there is enough sharpness and resolution in the starting images, the resolution test is "camera agnostic" -- as it should be.
In addition, the tests should be "post image processing" agnostic, with no peculiar nor unintended/uncontrolled side-effects.
Unfortunately, the side-effect of pixel blending and post interpolation are big problems with Yedlin's test, so the results of his comparison are not "post image processing" agnostic and only apply to his peculiar post set-up and rendering settings, whatever they may be.
Now, what was that you said about my "missing the point" on "determining if there is a difference between 2K and some other resolution?"