TRUE RESOLUTION OF 4K AFTER DNG DEBAYER VS PRORES

I was wondering if someone out there, smarter than me, could shed some light on this question.

A client recently referred to a posting he had once read that the original RED ONE, after debayer, was around 3.2K. His logic followed that should one shoot the same scene in Cinema DNG and Prores that the Prores version would have theoretically higher resolution as there was no loss due to the absence of debayering.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

I doubt I'm smarter than you, but this is my understanding of this particular issue.

The image must be debayered. Full stop. Whether that is done in-camera prior to compression (e.g., for ProRes) or in an NLE using the raw file, it doesn't matter. The image coming off the sensor must be debayered at some point, either before or after being stored.

The exception, I believe, is a three-chip (sensor) camera.

Thanks Jason, And the client thanks you also as he's now standing right next to me.
I'd assumed as much but we all know what assuming achieves. Thanks again for the prompt response.

3 chip cameras aren't bayered; they don't need to be, each chip is a color.
On single chip cameras with a bayered filter the recorded resolution is about 75% ish of the original resolution. There is some magic math which happens which can bump that lightly, but 3.2K approx real resolution is a good starting point to understand.

BUT

Who cares?

Whether it's really 4K or 3K or what have you, the point being is that it is still, when you think about the Modular Transfer Function of the whole imaging system (lens/sensor/codec/output/projection/screen/eye) it all becomes pretty moot if the images themselves look good. I don't hear people complaining, say, of S16mm not looking sharp enough when they're watching it (at least none of the S16mm I've shot), or the problems of the Star Wars Prequels being over 1080p in a theater (or Tron Legacy for that matter).

Numbers are nice to look at to roughly compare two systems, but mean nothing really if the images these systems make look "appropriate," for what you're after. I won't say good, because that indicated kind of a universal. What matters is if you and the clients/director are happy with what you're fliming.

And hell, even on the RedOne/EPICX I never shoot with a naked lens because actresses/makeup hate it and it complicated their jobs.

I pretty much agree with everything you just said. I've just finished an eight week shoot on a DSLR at the clients request using a set of converted vintage lenses for the very reason's you've just stated. She much preferred the look of that particularly camera paired with those lenses over a RED One with a PL RED zoom on the same subject with the the same focal length, color temperature lighting etc.

I must admit i've never made a decision based on pixels but on feel and and emotional response. My guy asked the question though because he'd been asked wether certain things were true 4k or 4k in name only. He had to justify numbers due to potential deliverables and the people in the distribution chain who rightly, or wrongly, wanted to be ahead of the curve and they in turn had to justify to other people etc, etc. Salary protection basically. Nothing wrong with that I suppose and basically the way of the world. I wouldn't mind some confirmation of your thoughts from BM engineers though just for extra clarity.

Thanks for the cogent and considerate reply.