Camera resolutions by cinematographer Steve Yeldin

[kye]

10 hours ago, leslie said:

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. 

 

Both you and @elgabogomez have said that it looks like both @tupp and I have valid points and that we're trolling each other, and it's a fascinating thing.

The more I think about this test, and the points that Tupp has raised and what is wrong with them, the more I realise that this test is kind of the holy grail because it involves almost every technical aspect in video, every workflow aspect, and every perceptual aspect.  In fact, not only do you have to understand those, but you have to have an underlying understanding of what is actually going on behind those things.

For example, there's the bayer sensor and debayering (and other sensors like X-Trans), there's colour subsampling, and there's image rescaling.  If you don't understand these concepts then you can't have this conversation at all, but knowing how to talk about each of them in isolation isn't adequate either.  These are all discussed in isolation in film-making, with each of them kind of talked about as being in a different place in the pipeline and for a different purpose, and the definitions of these may not give any clues that they are related, but they are.  In fact, they are almost identical.  They are simply different applications of the same mathematics, applied in slightly different ways.

The fact that the whole image pipeline is being discussed, and in the context of resolution, means that you cannot truly understand the signal path from end to end unless you understand that these all have the same underlying mechanism.  This is something I tried to explain, but it's points like this that don't fare well in a conversation where 27 things are all being discussed simultaneously.

I think this is a problem that the world is experiencing in many forms - the discussion of things that are very technical and people have vested interests in.  Take the example of the age of the earth.  Science says that it's a few billion years old.  People can react to that information in one of two ways.  They can believe the scientists and just take that on face value, or they can question how this incredibly large number was derived (and they have every right to do so and being skeptical is a good thing).  The problem comes when the scientists talk about carbon dating, and very quickly we find that almost no-one can wrap their head around the dozens of concepts, methods, processes and even ways of thinking that are required to understand every concept that the analysis that calculates the number is built upon, unless they have a scientific background to begin with.  So the conversation goes off in 100 directions (like this thread did) and it ends with either the person believing the scientists on face value (after having seen a lot more information) or the person decides that the scientists are just baffling them with BS and they "go back to believing whatever they want to believe".  A funny thing about science is that the deeper you go, it gradually splits into quantum physics and philosophy, both of which end with basically no evidence that we exist at all.  There is no "bedrock" of fundamental truth, regardless of how far you dig, so ultimately it comes down to a judgement call that everyone makes.

The problem then remains, how do you determine truth about a topic where the summary isn't deemed trustworthy and the analysis is too long / complex for people to understand?  I think this is a problem that we haven't really found an answer for yet.  

Anyway, coming back to this thread, I'm happy that I understand what's going on here, I've seen enough mis-understandings on Tupp part to see where he's going beyond the limits of his technical knowledge, and I'm also backed up by Yedlin, whose writings and demos are (apart from one person posting in this thread) widely respected across the industry.

[tupp]

On 4/30/2021 at 4:26 PM, leslie said:

From the outside looking in. Its been fun watching you guys troll each other, well thats what it looks like from here anyway.

Look again.  I am not trolling.

I have presented facts, often with detailed explanations and with supporting images and links.  These facts show that Yedlin's test is faulty, and that we cannot draw any sound conclusions from his comparison.

In addition, I have point-out contradictions and/or falsehoods (or lies) of others, also using facts/links.

If my posting methods look like trolling to you, please explain how it is so.

 

On 4/30/2021 at 4:26 PM, leslie said:

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.

It doesn't sound like you are actually interested in the topic of this thread.

 

On 4/30/2021 at 4:26 PM, leslie said:

Sorry to appear so shallow and frivolous,

No need to apologize for your shallowness and frivolity.

 

On 4/30/2021 at 4:26 PM, leslie said:

but i'm now out of popcorn.  

So Before one or both of you have a brain aneurism.

Those are two real funny (and original) jokes.

 

On 4/30/2021 at 4:26 PM, leslie said:

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 

Another real funny joke.

 

On 4/30/2021 at 4:26 PM, leslie said:

t 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 ,

I am not sure that I believe you.

 

On 4/30/2021 at 4:26 PM, leslie said:

although most of it goes over my head anyway, 

So, you don't really have anything to add to the topic of the discussion with this solitary post late in the thread.

You have made similar posts near the end of another extended thread, posts which likewise had no relation to that discussion.

What is the purpose of these late, irrelevant posts?

 

On 4/30/2021 at 4:26 PM, leslie said:

and i really do have to wonder why theres all this friction,

I don't wonder about that.

 

On 4/30/2021 at 4:26 PM, leslie said:

you blokes should be better than this. 

Please...

If you have something worthwhile to offer to the discussion, I'd like to hear it, but don't talk down to someone who is actually contributing facts, explanations and supporting evidence that relate directly to the topic of this thread.