Camera resolutions by cinematographer Steve Yeldin

[tupp]

11 hours ago, tupp said:

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.

10 hours ago, kye said:

The whole point of the test was to compare the perceptibility of 2K vs higher resolutions.

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.

 

11 hours ago, kye said:

This is the point you keep missing.

Right.  I keep missing the point that the comparison is between 2K and higher resolutions:

17 hours ago, tupp said:

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.

 

 

10 hours ago, kye said:

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.

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:

17 hours ago, tupp said:

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.

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?"

[kye]

3 hours ago, tupp said:

it is irrelevant whether the starting images were captured with an common or uncommon camera

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.

3 hours ago, tupp said:

Now, what was that you said about my "missing the point" on "determining if there is a difference between 2K and some other resolution?"

See my above point.

[tupp]

6 hours ago, kye said:

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 we follow your reasoning, then who cares about Yedlin's comparison?   He used an exceedingly uncommon camera for his test.  You have to rent an Alexa65, and doing so is extremely expensive.  Furthermore, on my entire continent there are only five locations  where the Alexa65 is available for rent.

I am not sure what cameras in your mind are uncommon, but I would bet that there are more Foveon cameras in use than the Alexa65.  Likewise, with X-Trans cameras, scanning back cameras and Ursa 12K's.

You said yourself, "I'm not watching that much TV shot with a medium format camera," and the Alexa65 is a medium format camera!

So, why should anyone care about Yedlin's test when he used such an uncommon camera?

You seem stuck on the notion that the results of using an uncommon camera vs. using a common camera will somehow differ resolution-wise -- even if both cameras possess the very same effective resolution.

However, the reality is that the particular camera that is used is irrelevant, as long as the captured images meet the resolution requirements for the comparison. If an uncommon camera has the same effective resolution as a common camera, then both cameras are equally qualified to shoot images for the same resolution test.  It's a simple concept that's easy to grasp.

 

 

6 hours ago, kye said:

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.

Well, please explain how your notion of an SD resolution comparison is applicable to our discussion on a comparison higher resolutions.

[kye]

23 hours ago, tupp said:

So, why should anyone care about Yedlin's test when he used such an uncommon camera?

You seem stuck on the notion that the results of using an uncommon camera vs. using a common camera will somehow differ resolution-wise -- even if both cameras possess the very same effective resolution.

However, the reality is that the particular camera that is used is irrelevant, as long as the captured images meet the resolution requirements for the comparison. If an uncommon camera has the same effective resolution as a common camera, then both cameras are equally qualified to shoot images for the same resolution test.  It's a simple concept that's easy to grasp.

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.

[tupp]

2 hours ago, kye said:

You're really not getting this..

What I get is that there are some hair-brained notions floating around this thread on what cameras can and cannot be used in a resolution test, notions which have absolutely no bearing on the fatal flaws suffered in Yedlin's test.

 

2 hours ago, kye said:

You rejected the test because it involves interpolation,

No.  I rejected the test primarily because:

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.

 

And again, the test doesn't "involve" interpolation: 

On 4/21/2021 at 4:45 PM, tupp said:

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.

Incidentally, Yedlin's test is titled "Camera Resolutions," because it is intended to test resolution -- not post "interpolation."

A 1-to-1 pixel match is required for a resolution test, and Yedlin spent over four minutes explaining the importance of a 1-to-1 pixlel match at the very beginning of his video.  In addition, you even explained and defended Yedlin's supposed 1-to-1 match... that is, until I showed that Yedlin failed to achieve it.

Yedlin's haphazard test accidentally blurred the "spatial" resolution of the images, which makes it impossible to discern any possible difference between resolutions (Yedlin's downscaling/upscaling convolutions notwithstanding).

What is it that you do not understand about this simple, basic fact?

 

2 hours ago, kye said:

which is common to almost every camera, as most cameras have less photosites than their output resolution has colour values.

Not that this matters to the fact that Yedlin's test is fatally flawed, but you seem stuck on the notion that the results of using a camera with an interpolated sensor vs. using a camera with a non-interpolated sensor will somehow differ resolution-wise -- even if both cameras possess the very same effective resolution.

However, the reality is that the particular camera that is used is irrelevant, as long as the captured images meet the resolution requirements for the comparison. If a non-interpolated camera sensor has the same effective resolution as a sensor that is interpolated, then both cameras with both such sensors  are equally qualified to shoot images for the same resolution test.

 

2 hours ago, kye said:

You also rejected the test because the Alexa is a 6K camera and not a 4K camera and therefore involves interpolation.

No, I didn't.  You are making that up.

In addition, how do you make sense of your notion that a 6K camera necessarily involves interpolation while a 4K camera doesn't involve interpolation?

 

2 hours ago, kye said:

The Alexa isn't a common camera, sure,

Well, then who cares about Yedlin's test that used an exceedingly uncommon camera?  You said:

On 4/22/2021 at 2:58 PM, kye said:

If 2K and 4K+ are only perceptually different with cameras that are very uncommon then who cares.

 

2 hours ago, kye said:

but it shares the same colour subsampling properties of most cameras,

No, it doesn't.

The most common digital video cameras shoot with a 4:2:0 color (chroma) subsample.  However, it is unlikely that anyone who would go to the trouble and expense to rent an Alexa65 package (along with all of the effort to achieve an appropriate high-end production value) would do any kind of subsampling at all.

So, no -- the Alexa65 doesn't "share the same chroma subsampling properties of most cameras."

 

2 hours ago, kye said:

shares the same 'over-capture' aspects as many other workflows,

The actual number on how many projects are down-sampled is likely unknown, but, in regards to down-sampling, again: 

On 4/21/2021 at 4:45 PM, tupp said:

... 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.

So, Yedlin's results are further misleading in the sense that his "2K" image down-sampled from 6K is not the same as the more common down-sample of 4K to 2K, nor is it the same as 2K shot with a 2K camera.

 

3 hours ago, kye said:

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.

Using your logic from earlier in the thread, the results from an uncommon, high-end Alexa65 cannot possibly be applicable to those from the cameras that most of us use, because our cameras are lower quality.

On the other hand, the Ursa 12K -- with a non-Bayer sensor -- is a also a high quality imaging device with twice the resolution of the Alexa65.  Are you saying that the Ursa 12K -- with a non-Bayer sensor -- isn't good enough for a resolution test?

Regardless, such notions of what cameras can and cannot be used in a resolution test have absolutely no bearing on the fatal flaws suffered in Yedlin's test.

 

3 hours ago, kye said:

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.

Really?  Well, it seems like the red herring is actually your hypothetical test with a Foveon sensor that "does not share the same colour subsampling properties of most cameras," because the title of Yedlin's video is "Camera Resolutions," which indicates that his test compares differences in "perceptible" resolution -- not differences in color nor color "subsampling."

[kye]

2 hours ago, tupp said:

What I get is that there are some hair-brained notions floating around this thread on what cameras can and cannot be used in a resolution test, notions which have absolutely no bearing on the fatal flaws suffered in Yedlin's test.

 

No.  I rejected the test primarily because:

 

And again, the test doesn't "involve" interpolation: 

Incidentally, Yedlin's test is titled "Camera Resolutions," because it is intended to test resolution -- not post "interpolation."

A 1-to-1 pixel match is required for a resolution test, and Yedlin spent over four minutes explaining the importance of a 1-to-1 pixlel match at the very beginning of his video.  In addition, you even explained and defended Yedlin's supposed 1-to-1 match... that is, until I showed that Yedlin failed to achieve it.

Yedlin's haphazard test accidentally blurred the "spatial" resolution of the images, which makes it impossible to discern any possible difference between resolutions (Yedlin's downscaling/upscaling convolutions notwithstanding).

What is it that you do not understand about this simple, basic fact?

 

Not that this matters to the fact that Yedlin's test is fatally flawed, but you seem stuck on the notion that the results of using a camera with an interpolated sensor vs. using a camera with a non-interpolated sensor will somehow differ resolution-wise -- even if both cameras possess the very same effective resolution.

However, the reality is that the particular camera that is used is irrelevant, as long as the captured images meet the resolution requirements for the comparison. If a non-interpolated camera sensor has the same effective resolution as a sensor that is interpolated, then both cameras with both such sensors  are equally qualified to shoot images for the same resolution test.

 

No, I didn't.  You are making that up.

In addition, how do you make sense of your notion that a 6K camera necessarily involves interpolation while a 4K camera doesn't involve interpolation?

 

Well, then who cares about Yedlin's test that used an exceedingly uncommon camera?  You said:

 

No, it doesn't.

The most common digital video cameras shoot with a 4:2:0 color (chroma) subsample.  However, it is unlikely that anyone who would go to the trouble and expense to rent an Alexa65 package (along with all of the effort to achieve an appropriate high-end production value) would do any kind of subsampling at all.

So, no -- the Alexa65 doesn't "share the same chroma subsampling properties of most cameras."

 

The actual number on how many projects are down-sampled is likely unknown, but, in regards to down-sampling, again: 

So, Yedlin's results are further misleading in the sense that his "2K" image down-sampled from 6K is not the same as the more common down-sample of 4K to 2K, nor is it the same as 2K shot with a 2K camera.

 

Using your logic from earlier in the thread, the results from an uncommon, high-end Alexa65 cannot possibly be applicable to those from the cameras that most of us use, because our cameras are lower quality.

On the other hand, the Ursa 12K -- with a non-Bayer sensor -- is a also a high quality imaging device with twice the resolution of the Alexa65.  Are you saying that the Ursa 12K -- with a non-Bayer sensor -- isn't good enough for a resolution test?

Regardless, such notions of what cameras can and cannot be used in a resolution test have absolutely no bearing on the fatal flaws suffered in Yedlin's test.

 

Really?  Well, it seems like the red herring is actually your hypothetical test with a Foveon sensor that "does not share the same colour subsampling properties of most cameras," because the title of Yedlin's video is "Camera Resolutions," which indicates that his test compares differences in "perceptible" resolution -- not differences in color nor color "subsampling."

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.

[tupp]

5 hours ago, kye said:

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.

Well, you seem to live in a world in which you make up your own "realities" about what I am saying and that's okay, but posting insinuations based on those fantasies is a whole other thing.

Regardless, such fantasies have no relation the fatal problems with Yedlin's test.

However, just to make it clear, I never suggested that chroma subsampling should be avoided in resolution tests.  If fact I implied the opposite by pointing out that 4:2:0 cameras are more common than the Alexa65, and thus, according to your logic, we shouldn't use an exceedingly uncommon camera such as the Alexa65:

7 hours ago, tupp said:

The most common digital video cameras shoot with a 4:2:0 color (chroma) subsample.  However, it is unlikely that anyone who would go to the trouble and expense to rent an Alexa65 package (along with all of the effort to achieve an appropriate high-end production value) would do any kind of subsampling at all.

So, no -- the Alexa65 doesn't "share the same chroma subsampling properties of most cameras."

Of course, chroma subsampling essentially is a reduction in color resolution (and, hence, color depth), but it doesn't really affect a resolution test, as long as the resulting images have enough resolution for required for the given resolution comparison.

Again, none of this discussion on cameras/sensors has any bearing on the fatal problems with Yedlin's test.

 

 

5 hours ago, kye said:

Yedlins test is for the world we live in, not the one that you hallucinate.

Classic projection and irony.

Slipshod tests like Yedlin's are for those who need conformation of their bias.

 

[elgabogomez]

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. 

[kye]

13 hours ago, tupp said:

Well, you seem to live in a world in which you make up your own "realities" about what I am saying and that's okay, but posting insinuations based on those fantasies is a whole other thing.

Regardless, such fantasies have no relation the fatal problems with Yedlin's test.

However, just to make it clear, I never suggested that chroma subsampling should be avoided in resolution tests.  If fact I implied the opposite by pointing out that 4:2:0 cameras are more common than the Alexa65, and thus, according to your logic, we shouldn't use an exceedingly uncommon camera such as the Alexa65:

Of course, chroma subsampling essentially is a reduction in color resolution (and, hence, color depth), but it doesn't really affect a resolution test, as long as the resulting images have enough resolution for required for the given resolution comparison.

Again, none of this discussion on cameras/sensors has any bearing on the fatal problems with Yedlin's test.

Classic projection and irony.

Slipshod tests like Yedlin's are for those who need conformation of their bias.

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!

[kye]

9 hours ago, elgabogomez said:

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. 

I guess I really haven't succeeded then.  

The imaging pipeline is complex enough that it's difficult to understand the whole thing (which is one of the reasons why Yedlins video is an hour long) and so when you get two people both talking at length using technical language its hard to understand which one of them is correct.

This challenge happens in any topic that is complex and where people have vested interests (for example, the topic of carbon dating and the implications it has for the age of the earth and the religious implications for Bible literalists).

Is there something I can do to better explain why Yedlins test is valid and Tupps criticisms aren't valid?  The reason I haven't backed down is because I don't want people to come away from this thread thinking it doesn't hold up, but unfortunately the more mud gets thrown at something the more that its hard to tell where the truth is.

[tupp]

On 4/24/2021 at 11:44 AM, elgabogomez said:

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”.

Yedlin's test isn't really applicable to any "world," because his method is flawed, and because he botched the required 1-to-1 pixel match.

Again, the type of camera/sensor doesn't really matter to a resolution test, as long the camera has enough resolution for the test.  Resolution tests should be (and always are) camera agnostic -- there is no reason for them not to be so.

 

On 4/24/2021 at 11:44 AM, elgabogomez said:

Moving pictures have a way of pulling you into a story, engaging the viewer with more than pretty detailed pictures.

What does that notion have to do with testing resolution?

 

On 4/24/2021 at 11:44 AM, elgabogomez said:

Once you consider that filmmakers (world class directors, producers, cinematographers) are the target audience for his tests,

There's not much to a resolution test other than using a camera with a high enough resolution and properly controlling the variables.  There is no "special" resolution testing criteria for "world class" filmmakers that would not also apply to those shooting home movies -- nor vice versa.

Furthermore, I don't recall Yedlin declaring any such special criteria in his video, but I do recall him talking about standard viewing angles/distances in home living rooms.

By the way, if you think that there are special criteria in resolution testing for "world class" filmmakers, please list them.

 

On 4/24/2021 at 11:44 AM, elgabogomez said:

it gives both of you and your valid points a perspective

The fact is that Yedlin's resolution test is flawed.

 

On 4/24/2021 at 11:44 AM, elgabogomez said:

and a way to back off to more productive discussions. 

Not sure how to take this.  By "more productive discussions," I hope that you mean "additional productive discussions" and not "discussions that are more productive."

 

 

On 4/24/2021 at 8:14 AM, tupp said:

Of course, chroma subsampling essentially is a reduction in color resolution (and, hence, color depth), but it doesn't really affect a resolution test, as long as the resulting images have enough resolution for required for the given resolution comparison.

On 4/24/2021 at 9:26 PM, kye said:

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)

Your example involves color channel resolution resulting from a crude Bayer sensor interpolation, which has nothing to do with chroma subsampling.   Chroma subsampling occurs after sensor interpolation (if a sensor needs interpolation).

In addition, chroma subsampling also applies to imaging generated by other means -- not just camera images.

 

On 4/24/2021 at 9:26 PM, kye said:

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!

By posting those resolution charts, along with stating, "Pretty obvious that the red has significantly less resolution than the green," you have unwittingly demonstrated that there is a discernible distinction between different resolutions and/or that there is a large problem with Yedlin's test.

Of course, we all know that the green photosites in a Bayer matrix have twice (2x) the resolution as the red photosites.  So, you are actually admitting that there is obvious discernibility between two resolutions that differ by 2x -- in a test shot with an Alexa camera.

Furthermore, Yedlin's Alexa65 test shows no discernible difference between two even more disparate resolutions -- 6K:2K is a 3x difference.

So, how is it that we see an *obvious* distinction between resolutions that differ by only 2x in a well controlled, empirical study, while we see no distinction between resolutions that differ by 3x in Yedlin's uncontrolled test?

It certainly appears that something is wrong with Yedlin's comparison.  As I have suggested, the problem lies with his convoluted, nonsensical methods and in his failure to achieve a 1-to-1 pixel match.

Again, contrary to your relatively recent stance, it doesn't matter to a resolution test whether or not the test camera uses chroma subsampling or uses a Bayer sensor or is common or uncommon with a certain level of quality.  All of your constantly changing conditions on what particular camera can work in resolution tests are irrelevant.

Resolution tests should be -- and always are -- camera agnostic, as long as the camera has enough resolution and sharpness for the resolution test.

Earlier in the thread, you said yourself:

On 4/13/2021 at 4:00 PM, 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.  I don't know if this is do to with lens limitations, to do with sensor diffraction, OLPFs, or debayering algorithms, but it seems to match everything I've ever shot.  

It's not a difficult test to do..  take any camera that can shoot RAW and put it on a tripod, set it to base ISO and aperture priority, take it outside, open the aperture right up, focus it on a hard edge that has some contrast, stop down by 4 stops, take the shot, then look at it in an image editor and zoom way in to see what the edge looks like.

So, you are saying that ANY raw camera can be used to duplicate the zoomed-in moments in Yedlin's test.

In the very same post, you also stated:

On 4/13/2021 at 4:00 PM, 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, you can even cut them up and put them side-by-side or do whatever you want.  If you don't have a camera that can shoot RAW then take a timelapse with RAW still images and use that as the source video...

 So, you additionally say that we can use ANY 4K camera that can shoot raw video (or even a still camera) to duplicate Yedlin's entire test.

The question is:  which stance of yours is true?  For resolution tests, can we use ANY raw 4k camera or are we now required to use the particular common/uncommon camera with the particular sensor or quality that happens to suit your inclination at the moment?

Of course, even if there is an prominent difference in the resolution between green and red/blue photosites it doesn't matter -- as long as the resolution of the red/blue photosites is high enough for the resolution test.

Furthermore, the study that you linked showed the results of a better debayering algorithm in which the chart clearly shows the red channel having the same resolution as the green channel.  So, your notion that the difference in resolution between green and red/blue photosites doesn't really matter to a resolution test -- as long as the camera's effective resolution (after debayering) is high enough and as long as the image is sharp enough.

Additionally, there is a huge difference in execution between your linked empirical camera study and Yedlin's sloppy comparison.  Unlike Yedlin's demo, the empirical study:

•  is conceived and performed with no confirmation bias;
•  is made in accordance with empirical guidelines set by TECH 3335 and EBU R 118;
•  directly shows us the actual results, with no screenshots of results displayed within a compositor viewer;
•  doesn't upscale/downscale test images to other resolutions;
•  uses a precision resolution test chart that clearly shows what is occurring.

Can you imagine how how muddled those fine resolution charts would look if the tester had accidentally blurred the spatial resolution as Yedlin did?

[kye]

11 hours ago, tupp said:

Yedlin's test isn't really applicable to any "world," because his method is flawed, and because he botched the required 1-to-1 pixel match.

Again, the type of camera/sensor doesn't really matter to a resolution test, as long the camera has enough resolution for the test.  Resolution tests should be (and always are) camera agnostic -- there is no reason for them not to be so.

 

What does that notion have to do with testing resolution?

 

There's not much to a resolution test other than using a camera with a high enough resolution and properly controlling the variables.  There is no "special" resolution testing criteria for "world class" filmmakers that would not also apply to those shooting home movies -- nor vice versa.

Furthermore, I don't recall Yedlin declaring any such special criteria in his video, but I do recall him talking about standard viewing angles/distances in home living rooms.

By the way, if you think that there are special criteria in resolution testing for "world class" filmmakers, please list them.

 

The fact is that Yedlin's resolution test is flawed.

 

Not sure how to take this.  By "more productive discussions," I hope that you mean "additional productive discussions" and not "discussions that are more productive."

 

 

Your example involves color channel resolution resulting from a crude Bayer sensor interpolation, which has nothing to do with chroma subsampling.   Chroma subsampling occurs after sensor interpolation (if a sensor needs interpolation).

In addition, chroma subsampling also applies to imaging generated by other means -- not just camera images.

 

By posting those resolution charts, along with stating, "Pretty obvious that the red has significantly less resolution than the green," you have unwittingly demonstrated that there is a discernible distinction between different resolutions and/or that there is a large problem with Yedlin's test.

Of course, we all know that the green photosites in a Bayer matrix have twice (2x) the resolution as the red photosites.  So, you are actually admitting that there is obvious discernibility between two resolutions that differ by 2x -- in a test shot with an Alexa camera.

Furthermore, Yedlin's Alexa65 test shows no discernible difference between two even more disparate resolutions -- 6K:2K is a 3x difference.

So, how is it that we see an *obvious* distinction between resolutions that differ by only 2x in a well controlled, empirical study, while we see no distinction between resolutions that differ by 3x in Yedlin's uncontrolled test?

It certainly appears that something is wrong with Yedlin's comparison.  As I have suggested, the problem lies with his convoluted, nonsensical methods and in his failure to achieve a 1-to-1 pixel match.

Again, contrary to your relatively recent stance, it doesn't matter to a resolution test whether or not the test camera uses chroma subsampling or uses a Bayer sensor or is common or uncommon with a certain level of quality.  All of your constantly changing conditions on what particular camera can work in resolution tests are irrelevant.

Resolution tests should be -- and always are -- camera agnostic, as long as the camera has enough resolution and sharpness for the resolution test.

Earlier in the thread, you said yourself:

So, you are saying that ANY raw camera can be used to duplicate the zoomed-in moments in Yedlin's test.

In the very same post, you also stated:

 So, you additionally say that we can use ANY 4K camera that can shoot raw video (or even a still camera) to duplicate Yedlin's entire test.

The question is:  which stance of yours is true?  For resolution tests, can we use ANY raw 4k camera or are we now required to use the particular common/uncommon camera with the particular sensor or quality that happens to suit your inclination at the moment?

Of course, even if there is an prominent difference in the resolution between green and red/blue photosites it doesn't matter -- as long as the resolution of the red/blue photosites is high enough for the resolution test.

Furthermore, the study that you linked showed the results of a better debayering algorithm in which the chart clearly shows the red channel having the same resolution as the green channel.  So, your notion that the difference in resolution between green and red/blue photosites doesn't really matter to a resolution test -- as long as the camera's effective resolution (after debayering) is high enough and as long as the image is sharp enough.

Additionally, there is a huge difference in execution between your linked empirical camera study and Yedlin's sloppy comparison.  Unlike Yedlin's demo, the empirical study:

•  is conceived and performed with no confirmation bias;
•  is made in accordance with empirical guidelines set by TECH 3335 and EBU R 118;
•  directly shows us the actual results, with no screenshots of results displayed within a compositor viewer;
•  doesn't upscale/downscale test images to other resolutions;
•  uses a precision resolution test chart that clearly shows what is occurring.

Can you imagine how how muddled those fine resolution charts would look if the tester had accidentally blurred the spatial resolution as Yedlin did?

 

On 4/22/2021 at 1:02 PM, kye said:

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?

Well?

[tupp]

On 4/21/2021 at 10:02 PM, kye said:

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?

4 hours ago, kye said:

Well?

As I answered that question before, I have already demonstrated that it is easy to achieve a 1-to-1 pixel match.

However, I will add that there is no sense/logic to your notion that I should perform such a test myself, just because I have shown that Yedlin's comparison is invalid.  I have demonstrated that we can draw no conclusions regarding the discernability of differing resolutions from Yedlin's flawed demo, and that fact is all that matters to this discussion.

In addition, there are several comparisons which already exist that don't suffer the same blunders inherent in Yedlin's test.  So, why would I need to bother making yet another one?  The execution in these demos is not perfect, but they are implemented in a much cleaner and more straightforward manner than Yedlin's video.

Here is one resolution comparison shot with a GH5s at 10bit and evidently captured in both HD and UHD.  Does a GH5s use the correct type of sensor and is it also common/uncommon enough and does it additionally have enough quality -- to meet your approval for a resolution test?

The tester emphasizes the 200% zoom, but at 100% zoom I can see the resolution difference between UHD and HD on my HD monitor.  However, this test should really be viewed on a 4K monitor at minimum viewing distance, giving priority to the 100% zoom.

This comparison is more straightforward than Yedlin's test.  There is no upscaling/downscaling, and the images are not screen-captures of a software viewer, and there is no evidence of accidental pixel blending.   However, it should be noted that the tester performs the comparison with a confirmation bias.

Here is a similar resolution comparison showing faster moving subjects.  Likewise, I can see a difference in resolution on my HD monitor with 100% zoom, but the video should really be viewed on a 4K monitor at minimum viewing distance.

Now, I do not claim that higher resolutions are better than lower resolutions.  I simply state the fact that I can discern a difference in resolution between HD and 4K/UHD at a 100% zoom, when viewing these two comparisons on my HD monitor.

One more thing... if the Nuke viewer behaves the same as the Natron viewer, I suspect that peculiarities in the way the viewer renders pixels contributed significantly to Yedlin's "6K = 2K" results. Combining this potential discrepancy generated by the Nuke viewer with Yedlin's upscaling/downscaling and with the accidental pixel blending, it is easy imagine how a "6K" image would look almost exactly like a "2K" image, when viewed on "4K" timeline.

[kye]

2 hours ago, tupp said:

As I answered that question before, I have already demonstrated that it is easy to achieve a 1-to-1 pixel match.

However, I will add that there is no sense/logic to your notion that I should perform such a test myself, just because I have shown that Yedlin's comparison is invalid.  I have demonstrated that we can draw no conclusions regarding the discernability of differing resolutions from Yedlin's flawed demo, and that fact is all that matters to this discussion.

In addition, there are several comparisons which already exist that don't suffer the same blunders inherent in Yedlin's test.  So, why would I need to bother making yet another one?  The execution in these demos is not perfect, but they are implemented in a much cleaner and more straightforward manner than Yedlin's video.

Here is one resolution comparison shot with a GH5s at 10bit and evidently captured in both HD and UHD.  Does a GH5s use the correct type of sensor and is it also common/uncommon enough and does it additionally have enough quality -- to meet your approval for a resolution test?

The tester emphasizes the 200% zoom, but at 100% zoom I can see the resolution difference between UHD and HD on my HD monitor.  However, this test should really be viewed on a 4K monitor at minimum viewing distance, giving priority to the 100% zoom.

This comparison is more straightforward than Yedlin's test.  There is no upscaling/downscaling, and the images are not screen-captures of a software viewer, and there is no evidence of accidental pixel blending.   However, it should be noted that the tester performs the comparison with a confirmation bias.

Here is a similar resolution comparison showing faster moving subjects.  Likewise, I can see a difference in resolution on my HD monitor with 100% zoom, but the video should really be viewed on a 4K monitor at minimum viewing distance.

Now, I do not claim that higher resolutions are better than lower resolutions.  I simply state the fact that I can discern a difference in resolution between HD and 4K/UHD at a 100% zoom, when viewing these two comparisons on my HD monitor.

One more thing... if the Nuke viewer behaves the same as the Natron viewer, I suspect that peculiarities in the way the viewer renders pixels contributed significantly to Yedlin's "6K = 2K" results. Combining this potential discrepancy generated by the Nuke viewer with Yedlin's upscaling/downscaling and with the accidental pixel blending, it is easy imagine how a "6K" image would look almost exactly like a "2K" image, when viewed on "4K" timeline.

You criticised Yedlin for using a 6K camera on a 4K timeline and then linked to a GH5s test (a ~5K camera) as an alternative...   what about the evil interpolation that you hold to be most foul?  Have you had a change of heart about your own criteria?  Have you seen the light?  
You even acknowledge that the test "is not perfect" - I fear that COVID has driven you to desperation and you are abandoning your previous 'zero-tolerance, even for things that don't matter or don't exist' criteria!

Yedlins test remains the most thorough available on the subject, so until I see your test then I will refer to Yedlins as the analysis of reference.  
Performing your own test should be an absolute breeze to whip up considering how elevated you claim your intellect to be in comparison to Yedlin, who also published such a test.

[tupp]

8 hours ago, kye said:

You criticised Yedlin for using a 6K camera on a 4K timeline

No I didn't.

What is the matter with you -- why do you always make up false realities?  Also, I already corrected you when you stated this very same falsehood before.

I never criticized Yedlin for using ANY particular camera -- YOU are the one who is particular about cameras.

The fact is that I have repeatedly stated that the particular camera used in a resolution doesn't really matter:

On 4/27/2021 at 6:03 PM, tupp said:

Resolution tests should be -- and always are -- camera agnostic, as long as the camera has enough resolution and sharpness for the resolution test.

 

Once again, here are the two primary points on which I criticized Yedlin's test (please read these two points carefully and try to retain them so that I don't have to repeat them again): 

On 4/12/2021 at 7:27 AM, tupp said:

1. Yedlin's downscaling/upscaling method doesn't really test resolution which invalidates the method as a "resolution test;"
2. Yedlin's failure to meet his own required 1-to-1 pixel match criteria invalidates the analysis.

The particular camera used for a resolution test doesn't matter!

 

 

8 hours ago, kye said:

and then linked to a GH5s test (a ~5K camera) as an alternative...

Actually, I linked two tests.  I am not familiar with the camera in the other test.

 

 

8 hours ago, kye said:

what about the evil interpolation that you hold to be most foul?  Have you had a change of heart about your own criteria?  Have you seen the light?  

It is truly saddening to witness your continued desperate attempts to twist my statements in an attempt to create a contradiction in my points.

I have repeatedly stated that the camera doesn't matter as long as it's effective resolution is high enough and it's image is sharp enough.  So, camera interpolation is irrelevant, as I have also already specifically explained.

The "interpolation" that Yedlin's test suffered was pixel blending that happened accidentally in post (as I have stated repeatedly) -- it had nothing to do with sensor interpolation.

 

 

8 hours ago, kye said:

You even acknowledge that the test "is not perfect"

Yes.  *Both* tests that I linked are not perfect.  The first tester has a confirmation bias, and he doesn't give a lot of details on his settings, and the second comparison just doesn't give a lot of settings details, and the chosen subject is not that great.

Nevertheless, both comparisons are implemented in a much cleaner and more straightforward manner than Yedlin's video, and both tests clearly show a discernible distinction between resolutions having only a 2x difference.

Unless the testers somehow skewed the lower resolution images to look softer than normal, that clear resolution difference cannot be reconciled with the lack of discernability between 6K and 2K in Yedlin's comparison.

 

 

8 hours ago, kye said:

I fear that COVID has driven you to desperation and you are abandoning your previous 'zero-tolerance, even for things that don't matter or don't exist' criteria!

Again, it's sad that you have to grasp at straws by using insults, instead of reasonably arguing the points.

 

 

8 hours ago, kye said:

Yedlins test remains the most thorough available on the subject, so until I see your test then I will refer to Yedlins as the analysis of reference.

Your declaration regarding Yedlin's demo doesn't change the fact that it is not valid.

So far, the most thorough comparison presented in this thread is the Alexa test you linked that shows a "pretty obvious" (your words) distinguishability between resolutions having a mere 2x difference.  The test that you linked is the most empirical, because it:

On 4/27/2021 at 6:03 PM, tupp said:

•  is conceived and performed with no confirmation bias;
•  is made in accordance with empirical guidelines set by TECH 3335 and EBU R 118;
•  directly shows us the actual results, with no screenshots of results displayed within a compositor viewer;
•  doesn't upscale/downscale test images to other resolutions;
•  uses a precision resolution test chart that clearly shows what is occurring.

 

 

8 hours ago, kye said:

Performing your own test should be an absolute breeze to whip up

This:

11 hours ago, tupp said:

there is no sense/logic to your notion that I should perform such a test myself, just because I have shown that Yedlin's comparison is invalid.  I have demonstrated that we can draw no conclusions regarding the discernability of differing resolutions from Yedlin's flawed demo, and that fact is all that matters to this discussion.

 

 

8 hours ago, kye said:

considering how elevated you claim your intellect to be in comparison to Yedlin,

I never made such a claim, and you've crossed the line with your falsehoods here.

Unless you can find and link any post of mine in which I claimed that my intellect was elevated in comparison to Yedlin's, you are a liar.

[kye]

9 hours ago, kye said:

You criticised Yedlin for using a 6K camera on a 4K timeline

 

43 minutes ago, tupp said:

No I didn't.

What is the matter with you -- why do you always make up false realities?

Do I?

On 4/12/2021 at 10:27 PM, tupp said:

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.

 

[tupp]

I thought that you were just being trollish, but now it seems that you are truly delusional.

Somehow in your mind you get the notion that I am "criticizing Yedlin for using a 6K camera on a 4K timeline" from this passage:

On 4/12/2021 at 7:27 AM, tupp said:

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.

Nowhere in that passage do I mention Yedlin, nor do I mention a camera, nor do I ever refer to anyone "using a 6K image on a 4K timeline."

Most importantly, I was not criticizing anyone in that passage.

Anybody can go to that post and see for themselves that I was simply making a direct response to your quoted statement:

On 4/12/2021 at 1:08 AM, 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.

Even YOU did not refer to Yedlin, nor to a camera nor to using 6K on a 4K timeline.

Making up things in your mind is harmless, but posting lies about someone is too much.  You need to take back your lie that I claimed that my intellect was elevated in comparison to Yedlin's.

Also, if you are on meds, keep taking them regularly.

[kye]

7 hours ago, tupp said:

I thought that you were just being trollish, but now it seems that you are truly delusional.

Somehow in your mind you get the notion that I am "criticizing Yedlin for using a 6K camera on a 4K timeline" from this passage:

Nowhere in that passage do I mention Yedlin, nor do I mention a camera, nor do I ever refer to anyone "using a 6K image on a 4K timeline."

Most importantly, I was not criticizing anyone in that passage.

Anybody can go to that post and see for themselves that I was simply making a direct response to your quoted statement:

Even YOU did not refer to Yedlin, nor to a camera nor to using 6K on a 4K timeline.

Making up things in your mind is harmless, but posting lies about someone is too much.  You need to take back your lie that I claimed that my intellect was elevated in comparison to Yedlin's.

Also, if you are on meds, keep taking them regularly.

What are you hoping to achieve with these personal comments?

How is this helping anyone?

This whole thread is about the perception of resolution under various real-world conditions, to which you've added nothing except to endlessly criticise the tests in the first post.  This thread has had 5.5K views, and I doubt that the people clicked on the title to read about how one person wouldn't watch the test, then didn't understand the test and then endlessly uses technical concepts out of context to try and invalidate the test, then in the end gets personal because their arguments weren't convincing.

This is a thread about the perception of resolution in the real world - how about focusing on that?

[leslie]

From the outside looking in. Its been fun watching you guys troll each other, well thats what it looks like from here anyway.     5.7 k of views proves i'm not alone im my thinking either.

Subjectively i thought we might have had a three way going with elgabogomez having a go, half a page back, but he seems to of bowed out.  Sorry to appear so shallow and frivolous, but i'm now out of popcorn.  

So Before one or both of you have a brain aneurism. Can you agree to disagree ? else its going to degenerate into world war 3. Which in turn will put a dent in the coming zombie apocalypse, which is what im actually hanging around for 😉

It may not be readily apparent but i do have a fair amount of respect, for you two dudes and i think  both of you have some valid points  in your arguments , although most of it goes over my head anyway,  and i really do have to wonder why theres all this friction, you blokes should be better than this. 

 

[tupp]

On 4/29/2021 at 2:55 PM, kye said:

What are you hoping to achieve with these personal comments?

What were you hoping to achieve with your personal insults of me below:  

On 3/26/2021 at 6:42 PM, kye said:

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.  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.

  

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.  I find it baffling, but sadly, not out of character.

 

On 4/24/2021 at 2:43 AM, kye said:

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.

 

On 4/28/2021 at 3:09 PM, kye said:

I fear that COVID has driven you to desperation and you are abandoning your previous 'zero-tolerance, even for things that don't matter or don't exist' criteria!

 

I didn't mind any of these blatant insults nor the numerous sarcastic insinuations that you have made about me (I have made one or two sarcastic innuendos about you -- but not as many as you have about me).  I don't mind it that you constantly contradict yourself and project those contraditions on me, nor do I mind when you inadvertently disprove your own points, nor do I care when you just make stuff up to suit your position.

However, when you lied about me making a fictitious claim comparing myself to Yedlin, you went too far.

Here is your lie:

On 4/28/2021 at 3:09 PM, kye said:

... considering how elevated you claim your intellect to be in comparison to Yedlin...

I never made any such claim.  You need to take back that lie.

 

On 4/29/2021 at 2:55 PM, kye said:

How is this helping anyone?

Classic projection...  You should ask yourself the same question -- how are your personal insults (listed above), contradictions and falsehoods helping anyone?

 

On 4/29/2021 at 2:55 PM, kye said:

This whole thread is about the perception of resolution under various real-world conditions, to which you've added nothing except to endlessly criticise the tests in the first post.  This thread has had 5.5K views, and I doubt that the people clicked on the title to read about how one person wouldn't watch the test, then didn't understand the test and then endlessly uses technical concepts out of context to try and invalidate the test, then in the end gets personal because their arguments weren't convincing.

I have given many reason's in great detail on why Yedlin's test is not valid, and I even linked two straightforward resolution demos that disagree with the results of Yedlin's more convoluted test.

Additionally, you unwittingly presented results from a thorough empirical study that directly contradict the results of Yedlin's test.  Those results showed a "pretty obvious" (your own words) distinguishability between two resolutions that differ by 2x, while Yedlin's results show no distinguishability between two resolutions with a more disparate resolution difference of 3x -- and the study that you presented was also made with an Alexa!

I cannot conceive of any additional argument against the validity of Yedlin's comparison that is more convincing than those obviously damning results of the empirical study that you yourself inadvertently presented in this thread.

 

On 4/29/2021 at 2:55 PM, kye said:

This is a thread about the perception of resolution in the real world - how about focusing on that?

Indeed, it's a question you should ask of yourself.