[Anvh]

wow that thing is HUGE!!
must cost a small fortune...
and I'd have to look at the fps specs

it doesn't need binning at all, actually with a 36x24 crop it would be 2.4K, which is just about perfect (perhaps on the low side, but not by much)

anyway, I have a lot of work to do before I even start choosing the final sensor...


edit: it seems to need a mechanical shutter; I can't make one

hey you wanted to have a big sensor XD

they also have a 2k 30x30mm sensor
http://www.fairchildimaging.com/products/fpa/ccd/area/ccd_3041.htm

---

Last edited by Anvh; 04-26-2012 at 08:52 AM.

[Samuel H]

people are ALWAYS adverse to change.... then once they get used to it, they won't want to change that either when something better comes along....
There is a reason some people get called "Visionaries"....

hell if we listen to all the small minded people, we'd still be watching soundless black and white while an orchestra plays live music...

I guess you'll have to see it for yourself: 48p looks like shit, at home and in a theater
if it can look different from a cheap soap opera, somebody has to find the way to make it work; it seems Cameron has failed miserably (in this round)

[Samuel H]

hey you wanted to have a big sensor XD

they also have a 2k 30x30mm sensor
CCD 3041 - 2k x 2k Multiport Scientific CCD

and I see they also make the scmos sensor that the BMD is rumoured to use
http://www.fairchildimaging.com/main/documents/sCMOSWhitePaperVersion4-b-LR1.pdf

so I guess these sensors, even though they're designed for medical equipment, are not as expensive as I would fear; no idea yet, though

[D0n]

I guess you'll have to see it for yourself: 48p looks like shit, at home and in a theater
if it can look different from a cheap soap opera, somebody has to find the way to make it work; it seems Cameron has failed miserably (in this round)

says a handful of people that watched ten minutes of the film? where the faster frame rates will pay off is in the action sequences... don't get me wrong... I like the look of film.. I'm just being realistic that the "standard" way isn't necessarily the only or even the best way...
24p became standard not because it was the best way known, but simply because it was the best way to save on film costs....

[D0n]

and I see they also make the scmos sensor that the BMD is rumoured to use
http://www.fairchildimaging.com/main/documents/sCMOSWhitePaperVersion4-b-LR1.pdf

so I guess these sensors, even though they're designed for medical equipment, are not as expensive as I would fear; no idea yet, though

might be cheaper to take three k-01 sensors and "m" processing engines and stick 'em in a prism for rgb capture then combine them into one 4k pro res or dng output file?
put that into a 645-d body please, while yer at it...

[Samuel H]

if I can get Sony to sell them to me, that's what I will use
but no: no prism on APS-C, that'd be huge and would create lots of problems, and the sensor in the k-01 already records much more data than I need (that's why I'm binning to 2.5K before enconding to DNG)

[falconeye]

I guess you'll have to see it for yourself: 48p looks like shit, at home and in a theater

So I assume you haven't seen it.

48p looks great and this is what Cameron promotes.

4k OTOH is a different story. The reports you quote are about 4k rather than 48p. The footage was 48p too but this is uncorrelated.

4k if you've ever seen it on a large screen (I did on a 55 inch screen) is mind blowing. It turns the screen into a window and it is unforgiving. The human eye will spot any imperfection. It is a bit like with old movies where the special effects don't look real anymore.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Either perspective can be defended because it is all a matter of what you perceive. And no matter what, you own that.

My mind - for whatever reason - does not handle 3D at the current level of technology well at all. Avatar was a lovely movie made virtually unwatchable by the 3D - for my senses. All I saw was similar to the pop-ups you got in those "3D" pop-up books you liked in nursery school. To me, Avatar technologically was a total deception. I left the theater and had a headache. Obviously, my perceptions and reactions are not at all the norm. However, in 50 years I suspect that most people will laugh at Avatar because it will look pretty much like what the 1960s Japanese monster movies look like to us now.

Bottom line, my mind - for whatever reason - does not let me perceive these tech innovations as virtual reality, or as though we are looking through a window. I know most people will agree with falconeye on this kind of thing, but it just doesn't work that way for me.

JNR

[Samuel H]

about me:
* haven't seen it
* I actually haven't seen 48p on a theater, ever
* I have seen high fps at home, though, and it looks like shit; put the screen back at 24p and it looks great
* I know if my camera is set to record 24p or 60p just by looking at the LCD screen: if it looks like a cheap soap opera, it's 60p; luckily, I know this shitty look is lost when I conform to 24p

about others:
* most people who saw those 10 minutes of The Hobbit complain that it looks like a cheap soap opera, like a 70s TV show, not a multimillion dollar movie
* the complaint is about 48p: lots of people have seen 4K footage projected at 4K, and most say it looks great
* Stu Maschwitz is a great guru that I respect a lot; he made a very successful business by taking 30p footage and making it 24p; he has this to say about the matter: Prolost - Blog - Movies at High Frame Prolost - Blog - Your New TV Ruins http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/interviews/?articleid=3213230
(and yes, I trust him more than Cameron or Jackson; among other things, because he's not trying to sell me anything)

about this argument: I expect most of you to go watch The Hobbit - I know I will - and then we'll all know for ourselves
that is, unless they decide to drop every other frame and project it at 24p, as is being rumored after the awful response to that 10 minute screening (which, by the way, was made with "the best projecting equipment ever built by man", almost direct quote from event organizers)


in the meantime, you can watch this: http://maximum-attack.com/basement_red_fps.zip
it's a test shot on RED, at 24fps and 1/48s shutter (the usual settings) vs 48fps and 1/64s shutter (Jackson's settings)
I got it from the comments here: http://nofilmschool.com/2012/04/peter-jackson-shows-10-minutes-the-hobbit/



edit:
oh, and I will try not to engage any further in this discussion, or to talk too much about my camera, sensors, etc, and not the K-01; sorry if I derailed the thread
http://xkcd.com/386/

[falconeye]

it's a test shot on RED, at 24fps and 1/48s shutter (the usual settings) vs 48fps and 1/64s shutter (Jackson's settings)

That was one thing I wanted to say too. 48p may have been accompanied by a faster shutter speed (and you confirm it).

A faster shutter has less blur and this lack of blur (especially at 4k on top) may be the culprit, making us using different comparisons.

But there is no reason why 48p shouldn't be shot with a 1/48s shutter (sounds even kind of a genuine setting).

[Anvh]

But there is no reason why 48p shouldn't be shot with a 1/48s shutter (sounds even kind of a genuine setting).

There is some lag of the shutter or the read out off course so the shutter time needs to be slightly faster.

[Anvh]

and I see they also make the scmos sensor that the BMD is rumoured to use
http://www.fairchildimaging.com/main/documents/sCMOSWhitePaperVersion4-b-LR1.pdf

so I guess these sensors, even though they're designed for medical equipment, are not as expensive as I would fear; no idea yet, though

Most likely the ones that just aren't good enough for medical or sold to consumers?

[Samuel H]

Most likely the ones that just aren't good enough for medical or sold to consumers?

quite probably - they have 3 bins for every design, depending on the number of dead pixels and their distribution
I guess doctors pay a lot to buy the top bin, we pay much less to buy the bottom bin

[FullertonImages]

Either perspective can be defended because it is all a matter of what you perceive. And no matter what, you own that.

My mind - for whatever reason - does not handle 3D at the current level of technology well at all. Avatar was a lovely movie made virtually unwatchable by the 3D - for my senses. All I saw was similar to the pop-ups you got in those "3D" pop-up books you liked in nursery school. To me, Avatar technologically was a total deception. I left the theater and had a headache. Obviously, my perceptions and reactions are not at all the norm. However, in 50 years I suspect that most people will laugh at Avatar because it will look pretty much like what the 1960s Japanese monster movies look like to us now.

Bottom line, my mind - for whatever reason - does not let me perceive these tech innovations as virtual reality, or as though we are looking through a window. I know most people will agree with falconeye on this kind of thing, but it just doesn't work that way for me.

JNR

It's not just your mind that won't tolerate 3D, it's you body. And it's not just you, it's everybody. People seem to have different tolerance levels for putting up with 3D, but as a whole, it is both mentally and physically requiring you to do thing that you aren't supposed to, or at least, aren't used to doing.

It all has to do with what they simply call Disparity, which is the disparity between the focussing distance and the intersection distance of our eyes. This is how they trick our brains into thinking we are seeing a third dimension, when everything is clearly being projected onto a flat plane. I'm sure you know how 3D works, so I don't need to explain it, but the problem is that in real life the distance at which our eyes focus and the distance at which they intersect is essentially always the same. If you're looking at something 40 feet away, like a movie screen, your eyes are both focussing and intersecting at 40 feet. But with 3D, if they want to make something look closer than the screen, then we get what they call Negative Disparity. They have to make our eyes cross as if we were looking at something 20 feet away, which they do by moving the image the left eye sees to the right, and the time the right eye sees to the left, until the intersection distance is as it would be if we were looking at something 20 feet away. Our eyes then tell our brain, I'm at this angle, therefore I'm looking at something closer to me. But then our eyes also tell our brain, but I'm focussing on something 40 feet away, this isn't right. And you brain doesn't like this. This is the mental side of why 3D gives people headaches.

But then there's Positive Disparity, which is when things look further away then the projection plane, and which is the physical side of things. things don't get too far away before our eyes are effectively viewing perpendicularly; and hte distance of most movie screen is past that point. So in order to make thing look deeper into the scene, they have to have a positive disparity, and basically move the right eye image to the right, and the left eye image to the left, which forces our eyes to have to view at the wider than parallel angle. Pretty much at no other time in life do our eyes do this, which is why it causes many people physical discomfort and headaches, and the feeling that they can't quite bring some of the images into focus.

This is why I hate 3D and hope it goes away. Which it won't. It's both physically and mentally against our nature.

[Class A]

* Stu Maschwitz is a great guru that I respect a lot; he made a very successful business by taking 30p footage and making it 24p; he has this to say about the matter:

I watched the Stu Maschwitz interview and found his argument to be utterly unconvincing. He talks about the benefits of "taking away information" and he is of course right when the reduction serves to remove sources of distraction.

However, the 24p judder in pans is a distraction. People just got used to it. It seems that film buffs associate the lack of 24p artefacts with seeing a commercial. It reminds me of vinyl fans that feel if they don't hear the surface noise, the occasional "pop", and the wealth of distortions introduced through the analogue pickup process, they feel short changed, because they are not getting the "real thing".

I've yet to see the comparison shot with the RED (too big to download from where I'm now) but I can already say that if Stu Maschwitz has a point then it is probably that viewers have expectations they want to see met, rather than judging of what technology allows (not forces!) more realistic playback.