Mr Brawley, trying to doctor your post afterwards didn't work. You still misrepresented what I said, and wrongly. You claim to understand but haven't put in the basic leg work to understand what sensor technology is capable of. If I claim sensor technoligy can do something, it's because I put in well over a decade of leg work into understanding what is available out of commercial interests, not hear say. It's rather like a casual novice voicing his opinion on your filming knowledge. Not pretty. Notice I learn from different sources to the pursuit of truth, because what is more important an opinion, or a right opinion?
You do not understand how
dual gain is used differently between the BM and Arri, even though it was explained. Which follows a scheme I put forwards up to15 years ago. Like so many other advancements in the industry I put forwards years beforehand, and in other cases I independently came up with afterwards (without prior knowledge). And while (yes, that is a valid but uncommon use of And in English) people will say that 'oh, those already existed', you don't see these, or many people, with the ability to also independently come up with sophisticated design solutions (rather than their wishful opinionated thinking about themselves). But, the deeper you get, the more you realise you knew the tip of the iceberg, which is how I feel about knowing sensor technology, there is a lot more depth to know I can't get to. Now, the
dual simultaneous
gain, I don't see how that would not have been derived long beforehand, but I am amazed at even simple things that do get missed, even simple straight forwards (to me) thinking, but people are probably are still designing better golf ball patterns too after all these years (just immediately a new design came into my head I'm calling Sky Rider, it's either going go a long way or right up and flop
). Not being able to see is no qualification to dis on those that can. Do what I do, sit back and learn, and if you can see an advancement, comment.
You wrongly throw in sequential HDR, and then make it out to be less useful then it can be, when in reality I only mentioned simultaneous HDR. People keep harping on simplistically about sequential HDR, not understanding what can be done with it and how to process it. Even resolve long ago included features to interpolate missing frames, which sort of techniques you could use with
dual exposure HDR to correct their result. Running at 48fps, to derive natural looking 24fps frame is another thing, where I had very long time ago proposed techniques to align the HDR frame pairs to reduce artifacts, and which would eliminate them when pulled down from 48fps
dual frame to 24fps single frames. You can go in there and pixel peep to try and sense if their is an occasional minute issue when all advanced techniques are applied, but by that stage you are well and truely in the useful territory. If it was a lot of picture a lot of time, I would agree that is quality loss. But looking at the presumably still lower quality technique of Red HDR, which was put forwards as a temporary solution until simultaneous HDR circuites could be put in (but at that stage on their technology such circuites could, perhaps, reduce their performance). They advise to restrict the use of HDR to 2-3 stops, to reduce issues with their HDR technique. It could do more, but unless you implement better techniques, it's not going give the best results. However, I find
dual frame HDR messy, even if you can do it better and clean it. What I have really been interested in since before the temporary HDR suggestion to Red, is simultaneous HDR. So, that was what I mentioned, no
dual frame, but HDR in a single frame like I put forwards mid last decade onwards, and found some existing technologies which worked the same which Red wouldn't touch. What's best, and what a manufacturer can do, can be two different things. They might not have access/cheap access to the patenting technology, their existing processes might be incompatable, or they might be pursuing the maximum picture performance with minimum noise. With Red and Sony that seems to have been the case, with Sony now pursuing HDR with silicon dynamic range hitting limits. Red pursues lie light low noise and maximum native dynamic range. So, they get over 17 stops allegedly, if you use it correctly, using light control to maximise the use of that range in suffering lighting conditions. Hence forth they have claimed the best sensor etc in the past. What you don't get, is if I'm reading the Arri claims correctly, their simultaneous
dual gain scheme, is really a simultaneous HDR scheme, right along the lines I was hoping for last decade (which Red didn't do either). It really would be SDR sensor technology of the day applied through two
gain ranges to produce HDR (which explains a lot about the timing and range limitations). If you look at the differences in colour rendering in Arri derived images, compared to the monstro or helium (forget dragon these days). You see more delicate colouring in the Red, and more thick colouring in the Arri. I imagine this might be the sensor technique, but maybe it's also post processing. I would have to see the same native Bayer frames side by side debayered the same way.to see. Of course, you are not going get that from the Reds, which I presume are still priority and encrypted (do they even have a Bayer sensor pattern diwn there, has anybody imaged their sensor?) stream). The resilience of the Arri colour in the range I would think is also from the technique. So, this technique I wanted has worked out very well.
You wrongly equate the Arri
dual gain with the
dual gain of others. Go and read the Arri description of it, your
dual gain does not work that way. I was telling the truth.
Anyway, thanks John.