Page 3 of 4

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:17 pm
by Wayne Steven
Still a small frame. Large frame would be closer to 30cm than 0.

More importantly, when is BM going upgrade their sensors they pale compared to Arri's ability to deliver across it's filming range?

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:27 pm
by Que Thompson
Wayne Steven wrote:More importantly, when is BM going upgrade their sensors they pale compared to Arri's ability to deliver across it's filming range?


I'm interested in this. This goes back to "better K's". Out of curiosity, what sensor is in the Arri Alexa and how much does it cost now? Also, is the Pocket 4k sensor better on paper?

How much does color science play into all of this?

How much can a sensor be customized?

Is a great image as simple as grabbing the same sensor from a great camera or is that like thinking a pair a Jordan's will make you play like Michael?

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:32 pm
by Curtis Campsall
I'm interested in this. This goes back to "better K's". Out of curiosity, what sensor is in the Arri Alexa and how much does it cost now? Also, is the Pocket 4k sensor better on paper?

How much does color science play into all of this?

How much can a sensor be customized?

Is a great image as simple as grabbing the same sensor from a great camera or is that like thinking a pair a Jordan's will make you play like Michael?[/quote]

Sadly the Arri Alev III is not available in anything but an Arri camera, it is proprietary, which is why they are so expensive. Also the LF and 65 versions are not new sensors, are the super35 version rotated 90 degrees and stitched together, 2 wide for LF and 3 for 65. Professional cinematographers were not screaming for LF, they love the Arri sensor, LF is the answer to the demand for 4k. They are absolutely all about better K's and were not willing to sacrifice what is great about the sensor to cram more pixels into the super35 chip. This is a huge adjustment at the high end as they don't use EF lenses or whatever that are made for that size. Cine primes and zooms have been optimized for super 35 for years, now lens makers are scrambling to supply for the larger formats. This is not mass produced consumer stuff, hand made and very expensive.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:30 pm
by Rakesh Malik
Curtis Campsall wrote:Also the LF and 65 versions are not new sensors, are the super35 version rotated 90 degrees and stitched together


That's a nice sounding fantasy, but it's not feasible in reality. Think about it for a minute... see if you can figure out how to stitch them together without gaps between them, and also still get power and control to the sensors.

Good luck with that one...

They're actually new sensors using the same pixel design as the rest of the AlevIII. Part of why they're so insanely expensive is that they're so big, especially the 65mm one that isn't available for purchase at any price.

, 2 wide for LF and 3 for 65. Professional cinematographers were not screaming for LF, they love the Arri sensor, LF is the answer to the demand for 4k.


Which is in turn mostly coming from the Netflix requirements, because of the various misconceptions regarding Netflix and its push for 4K+ acquisition...

(misconceptions meaning that a Netflix approved camera is required only for Netflix funded projects...)

They are absolutely all about better K's and were not willing to sacrifice what is great about the sensor to cram more pixels into the super35 chip. This is a huge adjustment at the high end as they don't use EF lenses or whatever that are made for that size. Cine primes and zooms have been optimized for super 35 for years, now lens makers are scrambling to supply for the larger formats. This is not mass produced consumer stuff, hand made and very expensive.


Arri took advantage of the fact that there are already several well-established lines of medium format lenses available when developing the Alexa 65. It was a good move; they're all high end, professional lenses since no one who isn't a professional photographer uses a $40,000 medium format stills camera, except the occasional trustafarian.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:24 am
by Denny Smith
rick.lang wrote:Since the dawn of the age of digital sensors, I’ve never shot ‘full frame’135 film gate. Prior to then that is what I shot for stills for decades on real film. I don’t miss it.

Now Rick, now, no porky’s here — didn’tnyountest and use a Nikon Z6 on a shoot? It‘s a FF 135mm format digital camera!
Cheers

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 3:27 am
by timbutt2
Curtis Campsall wrote:Sadly the Arri Alev III is not available in anything but an Arri camera, it is proprietary, which is why they are so expensive. Also the LF and 65 versions are not new sensors, are the super35 version rotated 90 degrees and stitched together, 2 wide for LF and 3 for 65. Professional cinematographers were not screaming for LF, they love the Arri sensor, LF is the answer to the demand for 4k. They are absolutely all about better K's and were not willing to sacrifice what is great about the sensor to cram more pixels into the super35 chip. This is a huge adjustment at the high end as they don't use EF lenses or whatever that are made for that size. Cine primes and zooms have been optimized for super 35 for years, now lens makers are scrambling to supply for the larger formats. This is not mass produced consumer stuff, hand made and very expensive.

This is in part why I say 6.6K for the Blackmagic VistaVision "Full Frame" Camera. Using the 4.6K sensor to create a "Full Frame" Camera I came up with this:
Screen%20Shot%202019-12-30%20at%2012.36.38%20AM.png
Screen%20Shot%202019-12-30%20at%2012.36.38%20AM.png (351.32 KiB) Viewed 1552 times


You can see the proposal I made here in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=105058

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:26 am
by rick.lang
Denny Smith wrote:
rick.lang wrote:Since the dawn of the age of digital sensors, I’ve never shot ‘full frame’135 film gate. Prior to then that is what I shot for stills for decades on real film. I don’t miss it.

Now Rick, now, no porky’s here — didn’tnyountest and use a Nikon Z6 on a shoot? It‘s a FF 135mm format digital camera!
Cheers


Haha! Exactly right! I conveniently ‘forgot’ about that exception to the rule. And it was a good experience too. Sorry about that slip, your honour.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:31 am
by Denny Smith
No worries Rick, you can have that one!
Cheers

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 10:11 am
by John Brawley
Here's a mental exercise.

Name me some ACTUAL 135 / Vista Vision FF sized sensor real bona fide CINEMA cameras (on both H and V axis) that shoot ProRes or better.....

Tell me how long those cameras have ACTUALLY existed in the market to buy....

Tell me how much they cost.....

JB

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:11 pm
by Wayne Steven
Que Thompson wrote:
Wayne Steven wrote:More importantly, when is BM going upgrade their sensors they pale compared to Arri's ability to deliver across it's filming range?


I'm interested in this. This goes back to "better K's". Out of curiosity, what sensor is in the Arri Alexa and how much does it cost now? Also, is the Pocket 4k sensor better on paper?

How much does color science play into all of this?

How much can a sensor be customized?

Is a great image as simple as grabbing the same sensor from a great camera or is that like thinking a pair a Jordan's will make you play like Michael?


Hi Que. A bit if a complex question.

Pocket 4k Sensor is probably better in low light pickup, noise and resolution but otherwise in general, no.

I've tracked the Arri, and it comes custom (you can't buy it) and on such small production runs, it might cost alit more than the Sony sensor. It used to belong to a company that bought some of my favourite sensor companies, then sold the Arri section to, I keep forgetting their name, who now own Fairchild that makes the Ursa Mini and Aptina which makes these sensor in the broadcast 4k micro studio, and everything else BM uses, except any Sony sensor. They own the Kodak sensor division, but O forget if they own the Thomson grass valley one. Sensors world blog should have it on its list of sensors company acquisitions. It's amazing just how many of them there are.

But, there is the one Red uses, which maybe owned by the one above. However, there is the Jazz one in America, or cmosis, which BM could use.

Now, I would say color science plays a big roll in bringing out the color in harsh conditions. Arri uses a dual simultaneous sensor pixel analogue to digital pickup. This basically works like double exposure HDR, but the two different iso ranges get picked up at the same time. Neat isn't it? Why isn't anybody else using it, the concept should be public domain, I certainly suggested it publically on camera development circles years before the Alexa. But the mysteries of parenting where you can do a version of a previous idea, and own the concept (hey, how come I don't 'own' the concept. Ahh the mysteries of parenting. Maybe somebody patented it the day before I suggested it and licences it exclusively to Arri, for 20 years. Maybe somebody patented it 5 years before hand, and it's about to lapse. Ahh, the mysteries of parenting. If only Red was here, they could explain how owning the concept works?).

You notice not much progress with them, and Arri next gen sensor spec seems not different from what a more recent materials upgrade of the pixel should give. Frankly, the dynamic range from that dual pickup is a bit disappointing and old hat due each of the ranges. I would expect over 20 stops on more modern technology. Which makes me ask, is Arii sensor supplier division tapped out? It isn't so hard to do. Sony is a mass producer of both sensors and sensor models. It can afford to develop and license advanced technologies. On the other hand Arri, is Arri, and they can only do so much, and their new supplier can only do so much as they are not Sony, and a number of special features can be tied up on exclusive arrangements, plus the next gen sensor could have been arranged before the sensor section was transfered to their be sensor supplier.

Yes, a sensor can be very customised, but there is limited customisations available through little companies, technology licensing money gives you more.

When you take Michael Jordan's shoes, you take Michael Jordan's shoes, it's up to you what you do with them. A camera is more than a sensor, or the sum of it's parts.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:55 am
by CaptainHook
Rakesh Malik wrote:
Curtis Campsall wrote:Also the LF and 65 versions are not new sensors, are the super35 version rotated 90 degrees and stitched together


That's a nice sounding fantasy, but it's not feasible in reality. Think about it for a minute... see if you can figure out how to stitch them together without gaps between them, and also still get power and control to the sensors.

Good luck with that one...

They're actually new sensors using the same pixel design as the rest of the AlevIII. Part of why they're so insanely expensive is that they're so big, especially the 65mm one that isn't available for purchase at any price.

You're both sort of correct. "Stitching" is one of the most common ways to create large sensors like in DSLRs etc because most processes don't allow a reticle/die size that large. But yes it's not done quite how Curtis presents it, you still create a new sensor.

These days, stitching is widely applied in the digital imaging industry. Various lithographic tools have different sizes of the reticle field of view, but in general terms, one can state that all full-format imagers (36 mm x 24 mm) or larger are stitched devices.

You can read more about stitching where the above quote comes from here :

https://harvestimaging.com/blog/?p=1599

Part 1 about butting is here:

http://harvestimaging.com/blog/?p=1568

Not specifically directed at any one, but a lot of cost is also the inevitable lower yield of good chips since there's much higher chance of getting a "defective" die/chip. Play with this tool and increase wafer/die size to Super35/Full Frame sizes and watch the estimated yield numbers decrease (top left as "Fab Yield") - remembering the wafer cost etc is the same but you have far less sensors you can put in cameras and sell. Also don't forget some of the 'good' ones still might not be good enough to pass calibration etc.

https://caly-technologies.com/die-yield-calculator/

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:24 am
by timbutt2
CaptainHook wrote:
Rakesh Malik wrote:
Curtis Campsall wrote:Also the LF and 65 versions are not new sensors, are the super35 version rotated 90 degrees and stitched together


That's a nice sounding fantasy, but it's not feasible in reality. Think about it for a minute... see if you can figure out how to stitch them together without gaps between them, and also still get power and control to the sensors.

Good luck with that one...

They're actually new sensors using the same pixel design as the rest of the AlevIII. Part of why they're so insanely expensive is that they're so big, especially the 65mm one that isn't available for purchase at any price.

You're both sort of correct. "Stitching" is one of the most common ways to create large sensors like in DSLRs etc because most processes don't allow a reticle/die size that large. But yes it's not done quite how Curtis presents it, you still create a new sensor.

These days, stitching is widely applied in the digital imaging industry. Various lithographic tools have different sizes of the reticle field of view, but in general terms, one can state that all full-format imagers (36 mm x 24 mm) or larger are stitched devices.

You can read more about stitching where the above quote comes from here :

https://harvestimaging.com/blog/?p=1599

Part 1 about butting is here:

http://harvestimaging.com/blog/?p=1568

Not specifically directed at any one, but a lot of cost is also the inevitable lower yield of good chips since there's much higher chance of getting a "defective" die/chip. Play with this tool and increase wafer/die size to Super35/Full Frame sizes and watch the estimated yield numbers decrease (top left as "Fab Yield") - remembering the wafer cost etc is the same but you have far less sensors you can put in cameras and sell. Also don't forget some of the 'good' ones still might not be good enough to pass calibration etc.

https://caly-technologies.com/die-yield-calculator/

Oh yay! This sounds like a fun game. Wonder what the prize is if I win... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thank you for sharing this information Captain Hook! It's incredibly helpful.

I just finished seeing 1917, which was shot on the ARRI Alexa Mini LF and I was astounded and impressed. I saw it on the big Dolby Cinema screen and was on the edge of my seat throughout the whole film. I highly recommend it. Beyond the movie being amazing, gripping, and mesmerizing, I was very impressed with the look from the VistaVision sensor of the ARRI LF. For a movie like this it was very beneficial. I definitely want to see more movies shot on this sensor...

That said, I'm still fine with shooting Super 35mm sensor size for another 3-5 years. If I'm going to shoot LF then I would want to have the budget of a big feature film that is going to get theatrical distribution because that's where I think the LF format works best. So that means it's fine to have a very costly camera that you'd more than likely rent for the production rather than own. Same with the glass.

I've given my proposal for an LF sensor resolution above, and I even gave a roadmap for Blackmagic to attempt using the original URSA to test the larger sensor. Make the camera more expensive and make it for those true die-hards. Let them test out using a Blackmagic LF sensor and then it can eventually make its way to the Mini body.

Again, thank you for sharing this information Captain Hook! I hope everyone is safe at Blackmagic with the bush fires happening in Australia.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:00 am
by Wayne Steven
Yes Captain Hook, I forgot to address that one. Arri basically has no place to put those sensors either, unlike consumer manufactures. Arri's methodology is not one for cheap cameras. Still, at a large pixel in an old matured process on modern equipment with an accuracy far exceeding the requirements, how much is the rejection rate going be?

Now, please leave Peter Pan alone.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:47 pm
by Dennis Sørensen
Wayne Steven wrote:.. Arri uses a dual simultaneous sensor pixel analogue to digital pickup. This basically works like double exposure HDR, but the two different iso ranges get picked up at the same time. Neat isn't it? Why isn't anybody else using it...


BMD is using this "dual gain" in their (Fairchild) 4.6K sensor. It employs two 11bit A/Ds.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:08 pm
by Dennis Sørensen
My biggest problem with LF right here and now is that all the LF/Fullframe cameras coming out is that their sensors arent good enough. So what is BMD suppose to buy to put into their camera? Sure ARRI has it figured out and so does RED. But those are not off the shelf sensors they can buy. I am taking about the typical Sony sensor we see in Z-cam F6/F8, Kinefinity MAVO LF and such. They arent performing any better than their S35 counterparts.

Sure BMD could make Fairchild stitch them together, but the MST4625A (4.6K sensor) is still FPN prone. This is the biggest problem for the 4.6K sensor. If it didnt have that, BMD we have such a grip of the lower end of the industri. I have seen so many try a Ursa mini only to leave it because they could expose it as they are used to with their C100, A7S, GH4/5 and such.

So what are they suppose to use for this?.. The Nikon Z6 / Sony A7iii / Pansonic S1 sensor?.. naah, no thanks.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:02 pm
by Wayne Steven
Dennis, they don't have simultaneous dual gain like Arri, that's what I said. One range at a time is half useless in normal lighting. I have been publicly suggesting ways you might trick a Sony sensor into simulating simultaneous dual gain here. But I have realised an alternative to get 20, 50, 1000000 stops (but even 50 is probably going be inconvenient). We have been missing out for so long.

Anyway, let's back up. There is a full frame 8k camera already that BM could ibuy in with interesting 16.5 stop sensor, the Fran 8k cinema camera. The company was in trouble, so they might appreciate letting somebody else take it on.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:49 am
by Krishna Pada
Dennis Sørensen wrote:My biggest problem with LF right here and now is that all the LF/Fullframe cameras coming out is that their sensors arent good enough. So what is BMD suppose to buy to put into their camera? Sure ARRI has it figured out and so does RED. But those are not off the shelf sensors they can buy. I am taking about the typical Sony sensor we see in Z-cam F6/F8, Kinefinity MAVO LF and such. They arent performing any better than their S35 counterparts.


Maybe, LF/ Fullframe sensors do not perform better than s35 counterparts.
It's not only about sensor performance, but the look, the lensing. The shallow depth of field that you can achieve with a large format sensor is amazing. Hence, it might be the order of day.
Even if the DR remains 14+, a full-frame sensor in UMP (or even pocket 6K with 12+ DR) will be a killer, any day.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:45 am
by John Griffin
Dennis Sørensen wrote:My biggest problem with LF right here and now is that all the LF/Fullframe cameras coming out is that their sensors arent good enough.

So what are they suppose to use for this?.. The Nikon Z6 / Sony A7iii / Pansonic S1 sensor?.. naah, no thanks.

Why not in a P6k body? - in the S1/S1H it's got (better) DR, dual ISO and the color looks good even in the highly compressed internal codec so with Pro Res and BRAW it would be even better.....

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:01 pm
by Howard Roll
At $3000, the PocketFF is a hard sell with no ibis, modern af, or stills functionality save a shutter release. LPe6 likely not up to the task necessitating a full redesign.

Ursa FF with a Sony sensor? Pass.

Maybe the FF is the first of the rebooted micros? Seems like that would move the most units initially. Whatever 2020 brings let’s hope for some design that’s more functional and less Gamerz.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:56 pm
by Dennis Sørensen
Wayne Steven wrote:Dennis, they don't have simultaneous dual gain like Arri..

.. with interesting 16.5 stop sensor, the Fran 8k cinema camera...

So the dual gain 2x 11bit ADC is not the same way ARRI does it? Care to explain why that is?

Haha.. 16.5 stops. Sorry. But no camera has that amount of dynamic range. Neither the Fran did.

Krishna Pada wrote:
Dennis Sørensen wrote:My biggest problem with LF..


Maybe, LF/ Fullframe sensors do not perform better than s35 counterparts.
It's not only about sensor performance, but the look, the lensing. The shallow depth of field that you can achieve with a large format sensor is amazing. Hence, it might be the order of day.
Even if the DR remains 14+, a full-frame sensor in UMP (or even pocket 6K with 12+ DR) will be a killer, any day.
John Griffin wrote:
Dennis Sørensen wrote:My biggest problem with LF...


Why not in a P6k body? - in the S1/S1H it's got (better) DR, dual ISO and the color looks good even in the highly compressed internal codec so with Pro Res and BRAW it would be even better.....

If they dont perform any better, then why?.. Shallow depth of field.. That is so over used by semi professionals. It is very rarely used by the top end of hollywood. Subject separation is not about aperture. Its about composition, lighting, color and such.

Again 13 stops of Sony sensor in a UMP. No thanks. Pocket 6K fullframe. No thanks. Dont need it. It will be expensive, power hungry and akward front heavy.

Howard Roll wrote:At $3000, the PocketFF is a hard sell with no ibis, modern af, or stills functionality save a shutter release. LPe6 likely not up to the task necessitating a full redesign.

Ursa FF with a Sony sensor? Pass.

Maybe the FF is the first of the rebooted micros? Seems like that would move the most units initially. Whatever 2020 brings let’s hope for some design that’s more functional and less Gamerz.

I agree.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:51 pm
by Wayne Steven
Dennis Sørensen wrote:
Wayne Steven wrote:Dennis, they don't have simultaneous dual gain like Arri..

.. with interesting 16.5 stop sensor, the Fran 8k cinema camera...

So the dual gain 2x 11bit ADC is not the same way ARRI does it? Care to explain why that is?

Haha.. 16.5 stops. Sorry. But no camera has that amount of dynamic range. Neither the Fran did.


Dennis, your information is out of date.

So, the Arri, as I said before, takes samples through both gain circuites at the same time. The pocket etc, only uses one at a time, limiting performance. The reason why, is probably a patent license to do so.

Now, the fran used a special HDR scheme, and it you look closely at the pixels you can see patterns of difference between the HDR and normal pixels. The latter reds went to 16+ stops native. The Sony's had also been creeping up. Even Samsung does 16 stops in its own version of simultaneous HDR scheme on its latest top mobile phone sensors. Sony might not be too far behind. There were cheap around 20 stop HDR car crash cams a few years ago, and last decade there was 27 stop+ cameras with great color. Thanks technology came from the 70's where it was 17 stop early on. Another HDR scheme which adjusted the gain per pixel also had high numbers close to 20 years ago. I know, I have a camera with it in the side draws next to me, I have to get around to getting working. That was around 16 stops then, but the tech us over 20 now.

As I made out, you have ti look for cameras with high stop numbers on stratified product lines, as not everybody wants to give you it cheap.

Now, what is your definition of a stop, because it sounds very pure, because in reality, I'm seeing stops in different cameras in this range, once you take on noisy stops which isn't too bad.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:58 pm
by John Brawley
Some bad info here.

Blackmagic use a few different sensors.

As some have said the Ursa Mini Pro 4.6k, the G2 and the micro cinema cameras all use a dual gain sensor, just like Arri do.

The original pocket did as well as the original BMCC.

No one is making 20 stop sensors. Anyone claiming so isn’t telling you the whole story. There’s no way you can get a useable nice looking picture of it. Maybe you can get 20 stops but not in motion and considered good enough for use.

Cause you know, they’d be shipping or announced. But apparently if you believe some they’ve been around for years.

Yet whenever questioned, asked to prove or show with a link you get a lot of hot air and nothing of substance to back up wishful thinking from someone that likes infer they are a sensor expert...yet keep on getting basic things wrong (like the dual gain spec)

Here’s a 20 stop claim from RED for a camera they don’t even ship anymore. See how that worked out ?

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread ... the-Dragon

REF have a HDR option too (Not used above) called HDRx

They claim 1-3 extra stops.

The truth ? Rarely is it useable without adding extra unacceptable motion artefacts. It’s a case if sometimes it works, mostly on simple or static frames without movement. That doesn’t count. REF don’t even count it in their claimed DR.

JB

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:21 pm
by Wayne Steven
John, you know that isn't true it's been shown before with links and photos on the forum (which every argumentative lazy opinionated person has refused to look for, but claimed they knew effectively, everything, without any devotion to researching sensor technology. Talking in general here, rather than about you John.). Now, I notice you are using tricks like, not in motion or usable stops, as you know what you claim is not true, but it's hopeless as motion is still a series of frames and of course the technology techniques tend to transfer to sensors built for higher frame rates, and ussuable stop is a subjective term which instead, in reality, is what you can extract from a frame. It would pay to do your own un-opinionated research instead of blowing here. I'd rather trust the science of what has been done I've seen with my own eyes, and previously posted.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:25 pm
by Adam Silver
John Brawley wrote:No one is making 20 stop sensors. Anyone claiming so isn’t telling you the whole story. There’s no way you can get a useable nice looking picture of it. Maybe you can get 20 stops but not in motion and considered good enough for use.

Cause you know, they’d be shipping or announced. But apparently if you believe some they’ve been around for years.

Yet whenever questioned, asked to prove or show with a link you get a lot of hot air and nothing of substance to back up wishful thinking.

JB


Yup...back in the 70s. Yeah, I was shooting on my Polaroid One-Step with 25 stops of DR! I actually developed the technology. I was 6 years old at the time. I would have helped Blackmagic create something with 30+ stop of DR, but they won't hire me!

Too much? :lol:

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:31 pm
by Wayne Steven
See what you started John, just opinionated presidents of their own little bubble, without any basis of merit. No respect for reality or truth, just their own windiness.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:45 pm
by John Griffin
If they dont perform any better, then why?.. Shallow depth of field.. That is so over used by semi professionals. It is very rarely used by the top end of hollywood. Subject separation is not about aperture. Its about composition, lighting, color and such.

Again 13 stops of Sony sensor in a UMP. No thanks. Pocket 6K fullframe. No thanks. Dont need it. It will be expensive, power hungry and akward front heavy.



Low light performance is better for a start. Not every user is at 'the top end of Hollywood' (and who there uses a P4k/P6k anyway) It doesn't have to be 'awkward front heavy' as the P6k already has the same mount and uses the same lenses. You don't want one but as someone with a background in stills the 36x24 frame is much more familiar and intuitive than APS-C / S35 and it's not all about subject separation with a shallow DOF as you can use a smaller aperture with modern high sensitivity (and low noise in 24x36) sensors and have a choice.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:21 pm
by Wayne Steven
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.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:20 am
by CaptainHook
Wayne Steven wrote:You do not understand how dual gain is used differently between the BM and Arri, even though it was explained

The dual gain readout in the BMCC, Pocket/Micro (HD), and 4.6K do work similar to ARRI's dual gain where the dual gain is readout simultaneously and combined for higher dynamic range. The "dual gain" on the Pocket 4K/6K that you might be thinking of is different and is used to achieve lower noise at higher ISO's by 'changing the gain'.

Dennis and John are correct as they are only speaking about specific cameras, not the newer Pocket ones.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:51 am
by Wayne Steven
Ok. I understand what you mean about the 4.6k. Yes, I looked back, and this wasn't a Sony sensor in next FF sub-debate that somebody dragged the 4.6k into. It started out as 4.6k, and I mistook Deniss's next question (late night) sorry. I eat humble pie, because as I keep telling these guys, truth matters. Which was only one thing John was saying. Anyway, how come it doesn't have 18 stops by now :) Seriously, I noticed that the Alexa does significantly better in difficult lighting in grading tests, where, given the same hardware setup, I would have expected more consistent results accross the dynamic range of the scene like the Alexa. Is this the colour science?

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:59 am
by Wayne Steven
As wonderous as the new Sony sensors are, unless you have the highest dynamic range version of the sensor, I would still prefer something like the Fairchild in a new micro, but with better low light noise and dynamic range. One reservation I had about the pocket 4k. I notice the recent Samsung 108mp mobile sensor pictures look significantly better then the latest top end Sony sensor, which look more gleamy and not as color dense. So, I wonder if Samsung is using a similar scheme.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:59 am
by rick.lang
Wayne, one of the reasons Alexa does better than 4.6K in lower light may be that the Alexa uses two 14bit sensor signals and the 4.6K uses two 11bit sensor signals.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:39 am
by Aaron Swann
Wow I thought the pollution here in Victoria from the bushfires was bad... Wayne you just took it to the next level! How is it that somebody with such extensive knowledge on all things Sensors never has a shred of evidence to back up their claims. You provide garbage links that prove nothing and then post replies stating that everyone on this forum is ignorant. I apologise to everyone else for my, what may seem insensitive rant however I used to enjoy coming to this forum, reading about the exciting new products along with people's experiences using those products. I don't care about speculative DR 20+ stop sensors that theoretically exist. I care about getting the most out of the BM camera I'm currently using...

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:04 am
by John Brawley
Aaron Swann wrote: How is it that somebody with such extensive knowledge on all things Sensors never has a shred of evidence to back up their claims. You provide garbage links that prove nothing and then post replies stating that everyone on this forum is ignorant.


Yeah....

Ask for links and you get "you're lazy use the search function"

Contradict him and you get, "im a genius and invented this 15 years ago and you guys don't know wehat you're talking about"

Except he's often wrong. As PROVEN in this situation.

Didn't see any apologies or mea culpa about this stupid dance we've been forced to have with his fantasies.

I usually ignore him, but his posts show up in the quotes of others and I feel compelled to point out where I know he's blatantly wrong.

You point it out, and you get a bunch of noise about how he knew all this stuff 15 years ago and what an ignorant person you are.

Even when you have RARE example of a BMD person who can ACTUALLY confirm what he's claiming is wrong, he doesn't apologise for derailing what would have been a useful thread, he just bangs on further about his genius.

His contributions are rarely useful and often wrong. It makes it difficult to have an actual conversation about the issues because there's all this other noise being inserted into the dialogue that's usually wrong or at best, way off topic and self aggrandizing.

JB

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:10 am
by Robert Niessner
To be fair, this time Wayne did apologize for his wrong claim...

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:23 am
by John Brawley
Robert Niessner wrote:To be fair, this time Wayne did apologize for his wrong claim...


I have his posts set to ignore so I only see his posts when they’re quoted by others.

He still ignored what is common knowledge about the dual gain sensors used.

I’m just tired of the noise generated even when you try to ignore it, especially when he often posits as an expert yet gets it totally wrong.

JB

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:30 am
by Wayne Steven
Robert Niessner wrote:To be fair, this time Wayne did apologize for his wrong claim...

Take a leap. I apologize for wrong claims, I don't usually make one, but I virtually never see any of you guys man up and apologise for the litany of falsehood I've seen you repeatedly make..

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:31 am
by Wayne Steven
rick.lang wrote:Wayne, one of the reasons Alexa does better than 4.6K in lower light may be that the Alexa uses two 14bit sensor signals and the 4.6K uses two 11bit sensor signals.


I was talking about the strength of colour rendering primarily.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:06 am
by Wayne Steven
Aaron Swann wrote:Wow I thought the pollution here in Victoria from the bushfires was bad... Wayne you just took it to the next level! How is it that somebody with such extensive knowledge on all things Sensors never has a shred of evidence to back up their claims. You provide garbage links that prove nothing and then post replies stating that everyone on this forum is ignorant. I apologise to everyone else for my, what may seem insensitive rant however I used to enjoy coming to this forum, reading about the exciting new products along with people's experiences using those products. I don't care about speculative DR 20+ stop sensors that theoretically exist. I care about getting the most out of the BM camera I'm currently using...


You are polluting Aaron. Let's take a look at this, you no evidence, yet claim any evidence is "garbage". Yeah, you sound like pollution. Don't offer a shred of evidence but post "garbage" links, sounds like pollution statement again. "Extensive knowledge", after I said I only know the tip of the iceberg about sensors, pollution statement again, pollution doesn't read (getting the trend of the sort of person I have to deal with). Posting replies stating everybody on the forum is ignorant, No!, another pollution statement. Showing up a handful of ignorant people is not the same as saying everybody is ignorant. Most people won't act like you towards innocent people, because they are being innocent. Like John living in his ignore bubble isn't aware that most of what he said was proven wrong, but all his clients can read the reply. Doesn't pay to be wrong and use ignore. He is often wrong when I started out trying to say the right thing, but I still view his posts. His harrassment is very unfair.

You should apologize for a lot more, you are just talking self centeredness and not community advancement, and most of you guys are, your opinion this and your opinion that, just reading what somebody else says on the tip of the iceberg as knowledge, not even knowing the tip, and after you are concretely shown up to be wrong, you are still, your opinion this, your opinion that in an unreality bubble.

"speculative DR 20+ stop sensors that theoretically exist.". There we go, sensors that actually existed, for many years, and sold on market, are "speculative" and "theoretical", even though links were posted that proved so, another speculative trumpian garbage statement polluting in complete denial of facts, by somebody who theoretically may not want to be wrong, but theorectically maybe doesn't want to bother to put the effort into being right. Just block me Arron, so I don't have to listen to your libelous ******** (BS) any more.

(re-edit, Please your stuff is garbage. Corrected a few grammar mistakes and other items).

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:14 am
by Wayne Steven
John Brawley wrote:
Robert Niessner wrote:To be fair, this time Wayne did apologize for his wrong claim...


I have his posts set to ignore so I only see his posts when they’re quoted by others.

He still ignored what is common knowledge about the dual gain sensors used.

I’m just tired of the noise generated even when you try to ignore it, especially when he often posits as an expert yet gets it totally wrong.

JB


:roll: (John the expert, and I was cross talking about the Sony sensors by mistake, which is really a you know who thing to do to me. But that's cool, I apologise for mucking it up. I deal mainly with other sensors then the particulars of that brand or many of the many thousands out there. But notice the big fuss made about only one mistake compared to a long list on the other side).

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:15 pm
by Adam Silver
John Brawley wrote:
Aaron Swann wrote: How is it that somebody with such extensive knowledge on all things Sensors never has a shred of evidence to back up their claims. You provide garbage links that prove nothing and then post replies stating that everyone on this forum is ignorant.


Yeah....

Ask for links and you get "you're lazy use the search function"

Contradict him and you get, "im a genius and invented this 15 years ago and you guys don't know wehat you're talking about"

Except he's often wrong. As PROVEN in this situation.

Didn't see any apologies or mea culpa about this stupid dance we've been forced to have with his fantasies.

I usually ignore him, but his posts show up in the quotes of others and I feel compelled to point out where I know he's blatantly wrong.

You point it out, and you get a bunch of noise about how he knew all this stuff 15 years ago and what an ignorant person you are.

Even when you have RARE example of a BMD person who can ACTUALLY confirm what he's claiming is wrong, he doesn't apologise for derailing what would have been a useful thread, he just bangs on further about his genius.

His contributions are rarely useful and often wrong. It makes it difficult to have an actual conversation about the issues because there's all this other noise being inserted into the dialogue that's usually wrong or at best, way off topic and self aggrandizing.

JB


I'm with both of you guys here. I started using Blackmagic cameras back in late 2016, and I was pleasantly surprised to see how many really good people are here to help each other out. Sure, there may be arguments from time to time. We're all human, but nearly every thread Wayne is involved in turns to crap. I'm so tired of it.

I'm grateful for most of the regulars I see posting including Rick Lang, Denny Smith, John Brawley, Jamie LeJeune, Rakesh Malik, Ali Plank, Xtreemtec, Ellory Yu, carlomacchiavello, John Paines, Brad Hurley, timbutt2, Dmitry Shijan, Joseph Moore, Florent Piovesan, David Chapman, Andrew Kolakowski, Adam Langdon, and many more.

I thank you all for teaching me new things or expanding my thought process on equipment, shooting style, lighting, sound, etc. I also think the BM staff is amazing including Grant, Kristian Lam, captainhook, and Tony Rivera among others.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:29 pm
by Dennis Sørensen
Wayne Steven wrote:As wonderous as the new Sony sensors are, unless you have the highest dynamic range version of the sensor, I would still prefer something like the Fairchild in a new micro, but with better low light noise and dynamic range...


Me too Wayne. If just the fairchild sensors had FPN supression, then the 4.6K cameras would have been such popular cameras. Why get a Kinefinity or Z-cam if they didnt have those. Sure you can always expose correct and the problems isnt there. Thats what I tell people.. But some times doing doc work you cant light a whole scene and it requires you to go 1-2+ stops in post, and it will deteriorate fast.

Also. Ya, you seem kind of crazy with all the 27+ stops cameras you are talking about. Next time. Just have sources with test that shows what you say and then people cannot argue against it. If you could show a Xyla 21 test with what you are saying, then end of discussion.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:03 pm
by Wayne Steven
John Brawley wrote:
Yeah....

Irrelevant rant deleted.


Let's rain on this pollution too. Nice refreshing rain.

Yes, he has a history having a go at a man that has a brain disease that causes him not to remember details (actually not the only brain disease). Smokey here, need more water. Yes, they are lazy. They repeatedly expect you to spend hours looking up information from years ago, even the same information, and according to Arron, won't even except evidence contrary to what they WANT (get the idea), pestering instead. Wasting somebody else's life for a neurotic joy ride torturing a sick man to do it. Wow the pollution is bad.

Ok, the next comes under jealously. Not taking the hint or evidence that they are wrong they won't even accept truthful statements about origins of ideas. I don't think I've ever called my self a genius here but others smarter than anybody else here have. So John's opinion doesn't matter, he resorts to various tactics because he has been wrong. I don't know if he has ever once apologised for wasting many hours of my time from time to time (that ignore button is a relief, for me. I want them to give me an block button so certain people (to be polite) can't see my posts. One feature I can't get implemented. I'm just the messenger, don't go shooting reality.

John, Rants, about one occasion I'm wrong, which I appologised for, and conflates that in trumpian statement to all other occasions. 'Oh, that Wayne, he was wrong about one thing, he must be wrong about everything. I should know, I'm right about so many things'. See, how the two sound so similar. He has no proof I'm majority wrong, but even often, but repeatedly the opposite seems the case.

So, the situation is a handful of less than 0.1 of a percent, come along and try to grind my time with their forced "dance"s in their fantasies that THEY must be right, because they are basing things on the hear say of the industry rather than researching things and thinking about what is being said. I've often had them talking nonsense about things I'm not even talking about, as if they are actually talking about what I was talking about, the subject at hand. Trying to force the argument off the rails, in order to Win over, in effect, truth. No appologies from them, and they will rant all week in strange ways. Hmm, sounds like Pollution, again. My time is important, and now you have wasted enough if it.

He dwells on internally felt points, which are again inaccurate, except being regarded as ignorant part, but just when they earn it. Where as with evil people you have to earn respect, with some others you have to earn disrespect, and you may be giving way more respect then deserved for way longer than needed. Now, with my life being wasted by them, I just give up and cut to the chase. We are all ignorant, that's part of humbleness. Realising your ignorance (writing on tip of iceberg) opens you up to learning, and accepting the actual truth explained to you, and exploring the iceberg. I get national socialists try these very same tactics as the handful do here. I can explain to them, basically, that reality is a lot different than they imagine. Do you think it reasonable that I just gobbled up whatever you say, yes sir, no sir, such people are in a fantasy bubble. They sprook half baked ideas, fantasies and partly baked truths, with no real idea of the technical truth.

Wow, he really goes off here. I apologise, and he accuses me of not appologising. I make a useful contribution and he accuses me of not making a useful contribution. In the dealings I've had he doesn't usually appologise (if at all) or make an useful contribution, just wasting. The situation I Have Suffered, has been bad. Objecting to right statements is not constructive, but disruptive and derailing, which is what they have been doing a lot of. The handful, in mis-catergorised logic, has loved to do that. The problem isn't really me! People function in various ways, and it gets a bit complicated, they stick to feelings of truth rather than truth. Every little micro rant (and often that's what they are dressed up) requires a lengthy sophisticated answer to address points.

I looked up how things were being discussed when Captain pointed out what was happening, which I often do to verify facts and what the right line of argument is before replying. Many people who make issue, don't seem to, and dynamically derail the argument in real time. This time, I had forgotten the original sub-argument, and it was me who did it. So, a taste of your own medicine for a change, except I stuck to what I thought the argument was in a correct way. Anyway I'm nodding off to sleep here, so I have to finish up (took a sleeper hours ago).

The summary there is disturbing. No recognition of useful contribution. From somebody who is intent of dissrupting contribution and calling right wrong, basically noise. From somebody who is one of a handful who makes it difficult to have a REAL useful conversation, in order to make himself feel better, while in reality being "usually wrong or at best, way off topic" at hand. I have had a number of discussions with only certain people who constantly conflate the subtopic at hand as being something else and distort things, as I have mentioned above. To such people their error is the only truth that was, and is, being discussed by the other person, instead of what is actually being discussed, some sort of trumpian fantasy untruth, even though the actual subject and truth was very different. You can't win. These people mis-catergorise all sorts of stuff actively, listening to their look up table rather than accessing what is actually said. I'm not the problem.

(Re-edit: tidied up the odd grammar mistake, and a handful of little things. Boy these people).

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:23 pm
by Wayne Steven
Dennis Sørensen wrote:
Wayne Steven wrote:As wonderous as the new Sony sensors are, unless you have the highest dynamic range version of the sensor, I would still prefer something like the Fairchild in a new micro, but with better low light noise and dynamic range...


Me too Wayne. If just the fairchild sensors had FPN supression, then the 4.6K cameras would have been such popular cameras. Why get a Kinefinity or Z-cam if they didnt have those. Sure you can always expose correct and the problems isnt there. Thats what I tell people.. But some times doing doc work you cant light a whole scene and it requires you to go 1-2+ stops in post, and it will deteriorate fast.

Also. Ya, you seem kind of crazy with all the 27+ stops cameras you are talking about. Next time. Just have sources with test that shows what you say and then people cannot argue against it. If you could show a Xyla 21 test with what you are saying, then end of discussion.


Dennis, I think I spent 6 hours last time looking those links up, as they are old and the sources are disapearing. They also didn't have that chart back then. It's just all this 'in the know' whining about HDR this or that dismissive is not actually knowing much and wrong. You think I am spending time arguing against confirmation that the Fairchild has simultaneous dual gain, like the fruit cakes do when proven wrong, forget it. I'm not about that, they are, and they should be ashamed of themselves Now my white matter brain disease, and the other Parkinson like one, is under control, I'm not wasting my time on them as much. They can make an effort and learn or give up.

27 stop is not crazy, it's just information, real information. If someone thinks they define the world then they are either God or most likely crazy. These people think like their experience of the world defines the world. No it does not, there is a lot more our there, and the more useful stuff you learn the more useful you can be.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:40 pm
by Wayne Steven
Adam Silver wrote:.


Adam, it's because of people like these that the threads turn to dung. You could try putting blame where it's actually deserved. Nobody ever asked anybody to make a federal case out of arguing against any correct thing said by the Victim. Read things carefully, and realise what they do. I'm just contending with their wrong attacks and fantasies, otherwise they are not worth talking to anymore. Unfortunately, only a few people here are serious, like Rick, many are like toying around here like with a hobby. I suppose since my sickness development is like a hobby too, but that's much more productive. The critics are just toying and dancing around while the real world is outside.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:08 pm
by Wayne Steven
Here is a post on the 27 stop+ technology. I can't find a link to one where I posted all the direct links which go into their website, sorry. But it is evident enough it is not theoretical or speculative, they had it working years back. To go to the next level, requires investment:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79937&start=250#p448887

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDRC

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:07 pm
by Aaron Swann
Wayne,

Perhaps all of your posts should be confined to "Off Topic"... Very little of the information you post is actually relative or helpful to a Cinematography thread. If you want to play the brain disease card that's your personal choice, perhaps you could create a disclaimer with the info you post, that way at least the susceptible won't take you seriously. Lastly your retaliatory posts require a little more creative. Also, do you even work with, own or use cameras?

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:39 pm
by Que Thompson
Aaron Swann wrote:Wayne,

Perhaps all of your posts should be confined to "Off Topic"... Very little of the information you post is actually relative or helpful to a Cinematography thread. If you want to play the brain disease card that's your personal choice, perhaps you could create a disclaimer with the info you post, that way at least the susceptible won't take you seriously. Lastly your retaliatory posts require a little more creative. Also, do you even work with, own or use cameras?


:lol:

This is going to be EPIC! I'm taking bets on number of paragraphs in the response... I say 6.

Image

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:02 pm
by Wayne Steven
Que Thompson wrote:This is going to be EPIC! I'm taking bets on number of paragraphs in the response... I say 6.


No, I've already shown him up, he just irrelevantly pestering again. He's hurt by the truth. Anyway, going have to look at summarising the response to the nonsense. They should not be starting problems so often, that's what generates replies. :Roll: They need to have a look at their own opinion of themselves compared to reality.
Pretty much everything I say is relevant to cinematography, but you need maturity to read that. Their insecurity produces their peesterung.

That link to the Red Dragon thread John posted was pretty irrelevant (stuff, will he leave it alone doing stuff like that). I went through the main posts last night, I think he was maurandingly try to make a concept of a point on a side track. But it went back on him, as it turns out the micro does the HDR he hates, but strangely keeps talking about the wrong HDR not in question. A headache.

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:19 pm
by John Brawley
Aaron Swann wrote:Wayne,

Perhaps all of your posts should be confined to "Off Topic"... Very little of the information you post is actually relative or helpful to a Cinematography thread. If you want to play the brain disease card


He always plays the attacked victim when you ask him to put up or shut up.

If he’s saying that for real then he just shouldn’t be posting. I’m going to ask for moderation. I suggest if anyone doesn’t like a post then you ask for moderators. Let’s get this cleaned up.

The long unreadably dense posts that say nothing but fantasy tech irrelevant to moving picture image making. Half the sensors he points out are for phones or shoot at super low resolution or just aren’t actually available.

JB

Re: A full-frame Blackmagic Camera?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:32 pm
by Robert Niessner
I guess Wayne is talking about this - the HDRC sensor.
https://www.ims-chips.de/home.php?id=a3b15c1de&adm=
https://sensorlab.ims-chips.de/content/ ... 0k1p3z.pdf

It has been developed by Prof. Dr. Bernd Höfflinger from the German IMS Institut. A CMOS sensor with logarithmic response. The HDRC project has been transformed into the HiDRaLoN project but so far the resulting sensor still hasn't resulted in a higher resolution than 1296x1092 pixels. There is still the problem with dark current and image noise. The sensor was used in cars from Daimler, and it seems also in medical imaging and some industrial application.

I've read about this sensor in the early years of this millenium, but it never went into any mass product.