Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 8x10 ...... digital  (Read 12392 times)
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2011, 05:19:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Indeed, you are not a tinkerer.
Not at all, I like to build, construct, but I must see in this sense. Perhaps if I had nothing to do with free time ...
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2011, 06:10:31 PM »
ReplyReply

My intuition tells me that the sooner we will see MF camera that will make films and it will be sooner than later.

What would be the point of that? HD video can be made with pretty much any current camera. Absolutely nobody has 2k/4k projecting capability outside of high-end screening rooms and a handful of movie theaters. Even when they become more popular, 4k has only about 7 megapixels AFAIK, which could be pulled for a fraction of the cost from 35mm form factor cameras of the near future.

Perhaps more importantly, MF would mean even shallower DOF, which is already a major problem when shooting with a FF camera. Can you imagine pulling focus on paper-thin DOF of MF, or the floodlights required to light a scene properly with the poor high ISO performance of MF sensors?

Not to mention the ergonomics of still cameras, which are not suited for motion.
Logged

design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #42 on: August 30, 2011, 06:35:35 PM »
ReplyReply

What would be the point of that? HD video can be made with pretty much any current camera. Absolutely nobody has 2k/4k projecting capability outside of high-end screening rooms and a handful of movie theaters. Even when they become more popular, 4k has only about 7 megapixels AFAIK, which could be pulled for a fraction of the cost from 35mm form factor cameras of the near future.

Perhaps more importantly, MF would mean even shallower DOF, which is already a major problem when shooting with a FF camera. Can you imagine pulling focus on paper-thin DOF of MF, or the floodlights required to light a scene properly with the poor high ISO performance of MF sensors?

Not to mention the ergonomics of still cameras, which are not suited for motion.

I think that in the future will not need 100MP, especially since you'll be watching it on the iPad. "MF" I mean the producers and the concept of the camera (modularity). As for ergonomics - smart you are :-)  the answer is simple so you assume DB to another body which is more for the moviemaker - if you want to make films. Why? to enter the market more professional, where Arri and RED
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
LiamStrain
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116



WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 31, 2011, 11:13:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Not to regress...


So, there's no way to stitch sensors physically? And if it is impossible, can someone enlighten my why?


The vast majority of sensors have a surrounding housing (typically 1/8-1/4" around the outside of the sensor itself) in order to collect and distribute all the signals needed (this makes them flatter - rather than having a dense backing structure = thinner cameras. So combining existing sensors (Dalsa/Kodak) means 1/4 - 1/2" gaps between them. There is not a good work around for this problem, until chips specifically designed to be combined are developed.

I also would expect that the difficulty of combining the data captured in a meaningful way (many individual high resolution chips - combined in firmware or software, into one cohesive image) would take some serious horsepower.
Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #44 on: December 10, 2011, 05:20:42 AM »
ReplyReply

but again suitable for uses like telescopes but not MF cameras.

So, there's no way to stitch sensors physically? And if it is impossible, can someone enlighten my why?

This is a bit like placing televisions side by side to get a bigger picture...

It might be possible to get it to work for some applications, if you design a chip specifically for the job, with pixels right up to the edge of the device.

Fiber optics might work.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4026



« Reply #45 on: December 10, 2011, 06:45:54 AM »
ReplyReply

A lot of video was made with groundglass adapters, one could use the same trick for stills.

Edmund
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #46 on: December 10, 2011, 12:03:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that in the future will not need 100MP, especially since you'll be watching it on the iPad.

I guess you've never heard of UHDTV. When even TVs are 33 megapixel, our medium format shots will at last have a worthy screen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Television
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 07:04:52 AM by Graham Mitchell » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #47 on: December 10, 2011, 01:54:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that in the future will not need 100MP, especially since you'll be watching it on the iPad.

You mean the iPad X with the 100MP screen?
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #48 on: December 11, 2011, 06:26:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I guess you've never heard of UHDTV. When even TVs are 33 megapixel, our medium format shots will at least have a worthy screen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Television

HDTV penetration is 50+ in only a few western countries now. UHDTVs are years and years away - and they require much more than just the display.
Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #49 on: December 11, 2011, 12:52:58 PM »
ReplyReply

HDTV penetration is 50+ in only a few western countries now. UHDTVs are years and years away - and they require much more than just the display.

Yes, but, while we are waiting for the broadcasters to catch up, it would be a good format for a stills projector or specialist video... but the format is similar to IMAX? ¿why a different standard?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #50 on: December 12, 2011, 06:05:00 AM »
ReplyReply

You mean the iPad X with the 100MP screen?


No Smiley

base is to read with understanding ... You do not need a matrix of 100 megapixels to deliver the image to the content to be published on ipad. newspapers on paper disappear, what is certain. it becomes so sooner than we think
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7973



WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 12, 2011, 07:35:46 AM »
ReplyReply

The quality of a well shot blue ray image from a good player on a good plasma screen (Panasonic typically) is nothing short of breathtaking at 46-50 inch.

I mean pure fall of your chair amazing even for someone used to high quality large prints.

4K has close to zero value for household applications.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637


« Reply #52 on: December 12, 2011, 07:52:11 AM »
ReplyReply

4K has close to zero value for household applications.

Hi Bernard,

The requirements for typical household viewing distances, combined with moving images instead of stationary ones, and lack of side by side comparison explains it all.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #53 on: December 12, 2011, 01:07:08 PM »
ReplyReply

The requirements for typical household viewing distances, combined with moving images instead of stationary ones, and lack of side by side comparison explains it all.

That, combined with people's reluctance to drop €€€ on a new TV just so they can get their football fix in HD is not exactly a winning proposition in today's economy. Convincing the rest of us who did drop the €€€ on a 1080p setup to move up to 2k/4k is not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7973



WWW
« Reply #54 on: December 12, 2011, 04:43:38 PM »
ReplyReply

The requirements for typical household viewing distances, combined with moving images instead of stationary ones, and lack of side by side comparison explains it all.

I agree, but since movie theatres are not doing that great... the market for 4K as a whole is tiny at best and not likely to grow for many years. Realistically, most people would benefit a lot more from correctly optimized 1080p with less compression.

So the value/need to have larger sensor cameras support 4K is very low IMHO but I understand that some people (think Red) will try to convince us that we need 4K at least in the processing pipe to generate 1080p down the road... while Canon is a lot more realistic with their pure RGB 1080p offering.

MFDB are focusing on surviving in the tiny niche they have burried themselves in with crazy pricing, I don't expect them to ever be able to procude video coming close to Panasonic G2 quality, even at... 100 times the price.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 12, 2011, 05:20:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree, but since movie theatres are not doing that great... the market for 4K as a whole is tiny at best and not likely to grow for many years. Realistically, most people would benefit a lot more from correctly optimized 1080p with less compression.

Even that is ignoring the realities of the marketplace. 1080p content is still not near 100% penetration of "HD" content delivered to homes via cable, satellite or online - so it's either 1080i or 720p. And when it is 1080p, it's compressed to oblivion to fit more channels in the fiber, less bw cost to deliver the video, etc. But you don't hear many people complain, it's only the movie buffs and early adopters.

What I'm saying is that we're stuck with HD (and "HD") into the foreseeable future - 5 years, more likely 10 or even more.

Oh, and let's not forget that you won't get benefit from higher-than-1080p resolutions in a home setting until you get a BIG screen - and that's even more costly, as it requires not only the expensive set/projector, but also a big living room (costly).

Remember, these are the people who think 128kbps MP3 is just fine.

48 fps on the other hand is another matter. Not sure how many current HD TVs are compatible with those streams, but it might be the next big thing rather than more resolution.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 06:03:58 PM by feppe » Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7973



WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2011, 05:33:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Even that is ignoring the realities of the marketplace. 1080p content is still not near 100% penetration of "HD" content delivered to homes via cable, satellite or online - so it's either 1080i or 720p. Adn when it is 1080p, it's compressed to oblivion to fit more channels in the fiber, less bw cost to deliver the video, etc. But you don't hear many people complain, it's only the movie buffs and early adopters.

What I'm saying is that we're stuck with HD (and "HD") into the foreseeable future - 5 years, more likely 10 or even more.

We are saying exactly the same thing.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Ajoy Roy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #57 on: December 13, 2011, 12:45:50 AM »
ReplyReply

There are x-ray detectors corresponding to the required sizes
http://www.diraxray.com/en/structure/x-ray-detectors/ccd-x-ray-detectors/
Now you develop the colour mask add decoding chips, and you have a low resolution large area detectors
or even this
http://www.rayonix.com/products/mx-he-series/

mind you these have between 10 and 36MP resolution at around 40x40 cm plate, so you can think of 15"x15" Polaroids!
Logged

Ajoy Roy, image processing
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #58 on: December 13, 2011, 02:52:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, Bernard... I have a 50 inch Pioneer and the (2 megapixel) and some broadcast HD pictures look as good as ff 35mm... but, if you are using a Bayer-interpolated sensor with an anti-aliasing filter you need to down-sample from 30 or 40 Mpx to get an optimum 2Mpx file.

The quality of a well shot blue ray image from a good player on a good plasma screen (Panasonic typically) is nothing short of breathtaking at 46-50 inch.

I mean pure fall of your chair amazing even for someone used to high quality large prints.

4K has close to zero value for household applications.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7973



WWW
« Reply #59 on: December 13, 2011, 03:17:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, Bernard... I have a 50 inch Pioneer and the (2 megapixel) and some broadcast HD pictures look as good as ff 35mm... but, if you are using a Bayer-interpolated sensor with an anti-aliasing filter you need to down-sample from 30 or 40 Mpx to get an optimum 2Mpx file.

I am not sure where you got this 30-40mp figure from.

A 12 MP image that is critical sharp and well sharpened already looks very good at pixel level, it looks amazing after downsizing to 1080p.

There might be a tiny difference between 30mp and 12mp downsize, but I doubt anyone would be able to see it on screen at 1080p.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad