tupp

Darn this thread it tasty as the other other EOS M RAW thread. Both threads are some of the greatest browsing pleasures for nerds like us. 🙂  Anyone shooting narrative shorts with this beauty? How does it hold up against a BMPCC? Anyway our friend @ZEEK has provided us with beautiful pieces like this one.
 
 

On another forum someone was dreaming of a speedbooster for this to push it up to super 16 sensor size. Maybe time to rethink the classy classic EOS-M rather then waiting for a speedbooster for this little kitten.:)

Even though you'd expect it to be, it's not interlaced, it's 24p footage someone put into a 1080/30p timeline from what I can tell.
Is there any fast way to do this with After Effects or Premiere or Compressor?

I have a 30p stock footage clip that looks like it was shot at 24p and then encoded at 30p with repeating frames. Is there any software I can run this through to detect the repeated frames and remove them?

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.

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.
 
 
There are problems with the few Yedlin videos that I have seen.  Also, one of his videos linked above is lengthy and somewhat ponderous.
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
Exactly.

Well?

Up by this point in the discussion, I think both of you (tupp, kye) are deep into your own trench and will never settle with the other. Yedlin’s test is for the world he is living in which is of world class feature film budgets, not “everyone’s regular 4:2:0 cameras “ or “monochrome, foveon or ccd sensor cameras”.
Moving pictures have a way of pulling you into a story, engaging the viewer with more than pretty detailed pictures. Once you consider that filmmakers (world class directors, producers, cinematographers) are the target audience for his tests, it gives both of you and your valid points a perspective and a way to back off to more productive discussions. 

This is from a resolution test of the ARRI Alexa: 

Source is here: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3335_s11.pdf (top of page 10)
Pretty obvious that the red has significantly less resolution than the green.  This is from the number of green vs red photosites on the sensor.
But you're totally right - this has no impact on a test about resolution at all!

I wish I lived in your world of no colour subsampling and uncompressed image pipelines, I really do.  But I don't.  Neither does almost anyone else.
Yedlins test is for the world we live in, not the one that you hallucinate.

You're really not getting this... 
You rejected the test because it involves interpolation, which is common to almost every camera, as most cameras have less photosites than their output resolution has colour values.  You also rejected the test because the Alexa is a 6K camera and not a 4K camera and therefore involves interpolation.
The Alexa isn't a common camera, sure, but it shares the same colour subsampling properties of most cameras, shares the same 'over-capture' aspects as many other workflows, and is a high quality imaging device, so if you can't tell 2K from 4K from an Alexa 65 then it's a good test and it is applicable to most other situations.
A camera with a Foveon sensor does not share the same colour subsampling properties of most cameras, therefore isn't a good test, which is why it's a red herring and not applicable to any sensible conversation about perception.

If 2K and 4K+ are only perceptually different with cameras that are very uncommon then who cares.  You might care about this as a theoretical exercise for its own sake, but I'd suggest that not many other people do.
If this was a thread comparing perceptual differences between 600x400 and 640x480 then no-one would have cared because it doesn't apply to the real world or to our lives in any way.  
This thread is only useful because of its applicability.
See my above point.

The whole point of the test was to compare the perceptibility of 2K vs higher resolutions.
This is the point you keep missing.
Determining if there is a difference between 2K and some other resolution on a camera that no-one ever uses is a useless test.
Once again, missing the point.

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: 
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.
 
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.
 
Absolutely.
I haven't been posting numerous detailed points with supporting examples.  In addition, you haven't conveniently ignored any of those points.
 
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.  
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.
 
 
You are incorrect.  Not all camera sensors require interpolation.
 
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:
 
 
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.
 
 
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'").
 
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.
 
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).
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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).
 
 
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.
 
 
 
Well, it appears that you had no trouble learning Natron!
 
That could be a problem if the viewer is not set at 100%.
 
I am not sure why we should care about that nor why we need to reformat.
 
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):

 
That could cause a perceptual problem if the viewer is not set at 100%.
 
I converted the pixel chart to a PNG image.
 
I perceive an LED screen, not a projection.
 
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.
 
This statement seems to contradict Yedlin's confirmation bias.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Nuke is still a question mark in regards to the 1-to-1 pixel match.
 
A "general impression" is not conclusive proof, and Yedlin's method and execution are flawed.
 
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.
 
Likewise, but it appears that you have an incorrect impression of what I argue.
 

Pixels "impact" adjacent pixels?  Sounds imaginative.  Please explain how that works in the "real world."
 
 
Yedlin's comparison is far from perfect.  In general:
 
 
Actually, they don't, especially if one shoots in black and white.
 
 
      Irony:
  ... and...
... and...
 
 
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?
 
 
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.
 
 
Again... irony:
... and...
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
Well, we need to clarify exactly what you are hinting at here (see above paragraph mentioning "imaging pipeline").
 
 
Coincidentally, in our most recent "equivalence" discussion, someone linked yet another problematic Yedlin test.
 
 
I am beginning to agree with that.

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:
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:

 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
... 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?
 
"Projected?" -- not necessarily.  "Percieved?" -- of course.
 
Why do you say "projection."  I am not "perceiving" a projection.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?!
 
He is heavily reframing the original image within his node editor viewer.
 
I wan't asking about the whole idea of his work. You said:
I was asking you to cite (with links to Yedlin's video) those specific reasons covered by Yedlin.
 
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
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.  
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.
 
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.
 
Yes, but, again, the problem could begin with Yedlin's node editor viewer.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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: 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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:
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
In a resolution tests, all such variables should be controlled/eliminated so that they do influence the results.
 
 
Please cite those reasons covered by Yedlin.
 
 
Again, we agree here and I have touched on similar points in this thread: 
 
 
 
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?: 
 
Also, did you forget that I have already covered such photosite/pixel-group counting in this thread?:
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.
 
 
I make no claims in regards to resolution in "the abstract."  I simply assert that Yedin's comparison is not a valid resolution test.

 
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."
 
 
I would guess that one could often discern the difference between 4K and 2K, but I will have to take your word on that.
 
 
I am not "debating differences between resolutions."  My concern is that folks are taking Yedlin's comparison as a valid resolution test.
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
Great!  I am happy that you have made your decision without relying Yedlin's muddled comparison.
 
 
There will likely be less of a gradient with a lower resolution.
 
 
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.  
 
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."
 
 

Okay, but the demo is flawed.
 
 
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.

Looks fascinating!

Hey guys,
Since the middle / end of last summer I've been making a feature length documentary. I have 3 more shoots to do, and then it can be finished. However I wanted to share a small teaser I've made in anticipation of sending it out to festivals etc.
I'd love to hear all feedback, comments, criticism etc. Please don't be shy!
Shot entirely handheld (apart from one shot) with BMPCC4k, Viltrox speed booster and Sigma 18-35.

We have, we did, and....  *sigh*
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, 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....

So Natron we go!
As you can see, latest win version with default settings shows no subsampling on enlarged view. The only thing we should care about is filter type in reformat node. 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.
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.
And yes, I converted the chart to .bmp because natron couldn't read .gif.
It's the only thing you're percieving. Unless you're Neuralink test volunteer, maybe.
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. Working screen resolution can be any, the more the better, of course, but for the sake of working space for tools, not resolution itself. 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 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. 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). 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. 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, I don't feel any necessity to change your mind, looks like it's more a kye's battle to fight.

This is my concern too.  Hopefully I have dissuaded them from your arguments sufficiently.
Once again, you're deliberately oversimplifying this in order to try and make my arguments sound silly, because you can't argue against their logic in a calm and rational way.
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.
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.
My point has been, ever since I raised it, that camera sensors have significant interpolation.  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.  
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.
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!
"Scanning back" you say.  Well, that's a super-broad term, but it's a pretty niche market.  I'm not watching that much TV shot with a medium format camera.  If you are, well, good for you.
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!
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.
So, you criticise Yedlin for his use of interpolation:
and yet you previously said that "We can determine the camera resolution merely from output of the ADC or from the camera files."  
You're just nit-picking on tiny details but your argument contains all manner of contradictions.

Not worth bothering with, just like equivalence arguments Kye.     Like hitting your head against a brick wall.

@tupp
Your obsession with pixels not impacting the pixels adjacent to them means that your arguments don't apply in the real world.  I don't understand why you keep pursuing this "it's not perfect so it can't be valid" line of logic.
Bayer sensors require debayering, which is a process involving interpolation.  I have provided links to articles explaining this but you seem to ignore this inconvenient truth.
Even if we ignore the industry trend of capturing images at a different resolution than they are delivered in, 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.
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.
I don't understand why you persist.
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, match resolutions through the whole pipeline, and deliver in a format no-one delivers in".
Obviously, such a statement would be pointless.