Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - glnf

#1
I don't want to distract anyone working on this. I just like to add a little clarifications for those that are not clear about the goal of this operation. It is actually a very simple idea. The RAW data from the sensor is 14 bits long. Each 14 bit number represents the grey value of a red, green or blue image pixel.

So a typical value looks like this: 1010 0101 0100 10 (the spaces are just for reading convenience)

We could translate the value into the decimal system (it is 10578) but there is not really a need for this. All we have to do is to get rid of the last two digits. So we end up with 1010 0101 0100. That is quite a different value. We write that onto the card. Then, when we retrieve the values from the card we simply add 00 at the end of the number, making it: 1010 0101 0100 00. This is almost the same value (decimal 10576) as initially. So we loose a tiny bit of precision but we save some space and reduce data rate.

There is by the way no need to do any rounding. Chopping off the lowest 2 (or alternatively 4) bits before writing the value to the card and replacing it with 2 or 4 "0" for further processing on the computer does the trick. Instead of adding "0" it would be slightly more elegant to add random values, hence mimicking (a very low level of) noise.

So far goes the theory. Since I haven't done any experiments with the camera I don't know if there are any additional obstacles, eg. a reverse or unusual bit order. (I remember reading something about black level in this thread and that sounded a bit odd to me. And no reason to come up with logs or whatever. That only harms the beauty of this trick.) Cheers, g
#2
Raw Video / Re: 1920x1080 RAW - real resolution?
May 28, 2013, 07:19:56 PM
Well, hello, hi! I'm new here - and, sorry, but this sort of discussions sometimes make me cringe a bit. So please allow me to add a bit of info...

What AndreM observes is correct. But the explanations given so far don't take into account the very basics of an RGB sensor. It is not possible to get the same resolution out of the sensor as when you scale a higher resolution image down. When shooting 1920x1080 we get this amount of pixels but they are divided into 1/4 Red 1/4 Blue 2/4 Green Pixels (in what is called a Bayer pattern). It would be save to assume that because of this we only get the actual resolution of 960x540 since we have to combine the different colors to create the color information. Good algorithms are capable of extracting a color image of a higher resolution but the resolution can't possibly reach the resolution of the sensor.

The only alternatives are 3 chip cameras where every pixel consists of 3 sub pixels, one for each color or a higher resolution chip downscaled. So a crop of the 5D3 sensor might be slightly better, since the camera doesn't have to apply the quick and rather rough down-scaling algorithm but it can't reach the the same quality as the "Full frame RAW photo downscaled" in AndreMs picture. You can find some more infos here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter. Said that, to me the quality achievable with a RAW 5D3 is absolutely astonishing and brings the camera in a league with high-end cine-cameras that cost a fortune. So nothing to worry about really.