info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
4K Cameras for DP work...
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Jay Bala
Nov 11, 2014, 1:16:37 PM11/11/14
to
1080i/P or HD is "enough" for most movie related work, even for theaters, but with significant advancements in light sensitivity, viewing angle, bandwidth, and dynamic range of the pick up devices along with moving on from 2/3" size sensors I believe we can get dramatically better quality output with no down side with true 4K, 24x14mm sensors. Or, a bit larger sensors at 4096x2160 pixels still accommodating very large supply of PL mount lenses.
Other contributing factors are proximity viewing devices and significantly lower cost of 4K products of all kinds (as of now (2014) you can get a 40" 4K TV for under $400 including taxes and delivery to your doorstep... not the best for quality tho), but in the very near future the tablets or even large phones, notebook computers and desktop will have native 4K: 3840x2160P which is: 3x720P (1280x720) or 2x1080i/P (1920x1080).
4K work flow wouldn't be much more costly than the good old 2K. Its all facilitated by tremendous boost in processing power of computer CPUs that a little cary-in-the-bag location device can even have multiple such CPUs. Its not impossible to put 12 of the fastest CPU/image processors into a camera within two years without modifying the cinema camera size, lets not forget the very low power consumption and speed throttling capability to minimize heat dissipation and power consumption.
This is kind of technology was unheard of when 2K was thought about back in the 1970s. In fact, 4K doesn't have to be just more pixels, but a brand new standard from the ground up based on emerging technologies and products of 2014) and expand to its full form functionality by the 2020.
I would hold the standard very high, like dithered 10 bit as the minimum... yes, yes, its a bit too high :-) 4,000+ scan lines. Let the CPU power do the down-converting (for now) and advances in compression technologies come to the rescue.
I like this: 4096x2144 progressive, square pixel, aspect ratio. It deals better for compression work, and scaling, too.
Best regards,
Jay Bala.
On a side note, CMOS has come a very long way, but the good old CCDs (not the 1/4" consumer CCDs, but the very advanced versions) had a sense of analogue look to it that its more natural, effortless flow, pleasing to watch... certainly a better experience. It would be interesting to see a well designed 24x14 mm, 4K, 4,000 scan line, 3xCCD or a 4CCD (R-G1-G2-B) film camera.
Other contributing factors are proximity viewing devices and significantly lower cost of 4K products of all kinds (as of now (2014) you can get a 40" 4K TV for under $400 including taxes and delivery to your doorstep... not the best for quality tho), but in the very near future the tablets or even large phones, notebook computers and desktop will have native 4K: 3840x2160P which is: 3x720P (1280x720) or 2x1080i/P (1920x1080).
4K work flow wouldn't be much more costly than the good old 2K. Its all facilitated by tremendous boost in processing power of computer CPUs that a little cary-in-the-bag location device can even have multiple such CPUs. Its not impossible to put 12 of the fastest CPU/image processors into a camera within two years without modifying the cinema camera size, lets not forget the very low power consumption and speed throttling capability to minimize heat dissipation and power consumption.
This is kind of technology was unheard of when 2K was thought about back in the 1970s. In fact, 4K doesn't have to be just more pixels, but a brand new standard from the ground up based on emerging technologies and products of 2014) and expand to its full form functionality by the 2020.
I would hold the standard very high, like dithered 10 bit as the minimum... yes, yes, its a bit too high :-) 4,000+ scan lines. Let the CPU power do the down-converting (for now) and advances in compression technologies come to the rescue.
I like this: 4096x2144 progressive, square pixel, aspect ratio. It deals better for compression work, and scaling, too.
Best regards,
Jay Bala.
On a side note, CMOS has come a very long way, but the good old CCDs (not the 1/4" consumer CCDs, but the very advanced versions) had a sense of analogue look to it that its more natural, effortless flow, pleasing to watch... certainly a better experience. It would be interesting to see a well designed 24x14 mm, 4K, 4,000 scan line, 3xCCD or a 4CCD (R-G1-G2-B) film camera.
Jay Bala
Nov 13, 2014, 12:06:24 PM11/13/14
to
Jay Bala
Nov 14, 2014, 10:27:09 PM11/14/14
to
Jay Bala
Nov 15, 2016, 12:27:14 AM11/15/16
to
For kids who want to see where the exact 0.4*pi came from:
((2pi)/(phi^2)) / (5/(phi^2)) = (2/5) * pi
((2pi)/(phi^2)) / (5/(phi^2)) = (2/5) * pi
0 new messages