Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Global Shutter - is it possible for RED?

the only thing that can counter that is that 28k epic with global shutter, can they

A. keep the size down because a lot of global shutter high end cameras are fairly large for the heat dissipation.

B. keep the price to where they say it will, or maybe that's why the 28k is really that much more money, not just for the sensor size but for global shutter plans. because global shutters anyway you spin it, are not cheap to make.

should be really interesting.
 
I Bloom said:
. . . I'll put money on Monstro being global.

Anybody like to bet?
Click to expand...
If this quote is still accurate, you might get a choice of rolling or global shutter in Monstro. According to Jim:

I have resigned myself to having to de-bunk the "rolling shutter myth". People tend to hang on to soundbites. We could easily do a global shutter. It just isn't the right solution. If we made a global shutter sensor, everyone would wonder why the footage looked sterile.

One of the options we have is to give the user adjustable read-reset times... just so we don't hear that we are "marketing". From zero (global) to something (what we recommend and looks right).​

If Red has added this capability to Monstro -- and it's a big if -- the added complexity might explain (at least partly) why Monstro-based Scarlets and Epics will likely be released after the s35 and 2/3-inch brains.
 
Bloom you hustler.

That being said yes the rolling shutter reset edge is moving at a constant speed.
When we window in we are changing the distance it needs to cover and there for it can cover the new distance faster than the former, longer distance. Velocity, time, distance.

However if the M-X has the reset edge cross it's distance in 5ms and the 617 has it cross it's now greater distance in 5ms then the 617 reset edge is actually moving faster but the roller shutter effects should be the same.
 
J. Eric Camp said:
Bloom you hustler.

That being said yes the rolling shutter reset edge is moving at a constant speed.
When we window in we are changing the distance it needs to cover and there for it can cover the new distance faster than the former, longer distance. Velocity, time, distance.

However if the M-X has the reset edge cross it's distance in 5ms and the 617 has it cross it's now greater distance in 5ms then the 617 reset edge is actually moving faster but the roller shutter effects should be the same.
Click to expand...

You have to take into account the magnification of the image onto a larger sensor. Even if the read reset can move at the same speed horizontally and vertically as on a smaller sensor (of which I'm not convinced). The speed that it is moving in relationship to the objects in the frame is still slower. So for each doubling of the sensor height, the speed of the read out must also be doubled so that total readout time will be the same. Between a 5K and a 28K sensor their has to be a limit.

In any case Eric, if the sensor has an option to roll but can be global, I think the bet still goes my way... agreed?

That would be friggin' amazing by the way.

IBloom
 
That would be absolutely amazing.

As to the bet... part of my choosing this side is knowing the RED penchant for the rolling shutter, not that they couldn't achieve a global just that they prefer not to. If both options are present I feel we have a mistrial and we all win.

And yes the reset, readout on a 29k sensor would need to be exponentially faster than that of the 5k sensor to maintain the same properties.

It sounds like they might build the sensor with the "light shielded" discharge capabilities of a global but still purposely enable the rolling shutter.
 
From what I understand, for a shutter to be global each phosphite (pixel) needs an additional transistor.

If this is true, and assuming each pixel has 2-3 transistors already, I'm sure that cramming an additional transistor onto each pixel would be VERY costly.

I'm guessing that all RED sensors will use a rolling shutter.
 
Red won't have a global shutter for M-X or Monstro.:sosp: Maybe in another decade?
 
Justin Anderson said:
From what I understand, for a shutter to be global each phosphite (pixel) needs an additional transistor.
Click to expand...

That is my understanding as well. Of course, any sufficiently fast read-reset is indistinguishable from global, so I expect technology will just keep speeding up.

Justin Anderson said:
If this is true, and assuming each pixel has 2-3 transistors already, I'm sure that cramming an additional transistor onto each pixel would be VERY costly.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The light gathering ability will remain the same thanks to microlenses, but full well capacity (dynamic range) will probably shrink a little bit.
 
On a more serious note. I have shot with a global shutter camera, the Phantom v640. Though the camera is only 2.5K it makes quite beautiful images and I don't think you notice the lack of rolling shutter. I'm hoping to shoot with it again soon actually. So if Red really isn't building a global shutter because they are afraid of "sterile" images, I'd say look at the technology again. I think the many advantages outway the small difference in look.
 
Why would Jim say that global shutter pictures are 'sterile'? One could think it leads to something like highspeed shutter strobing look - but not necessarily, you could still have blurr when using longer exposure times?
Maybe just because Jim loves strechted racecars? I could imagine that a noticable rolling shutter could help to visually smooth pans at 24fps etc. without loosing sharpness (as with blurring).
 
Rolling shutter for us is a MAJOR problem when it comes to plate work and vfx tracking shots.....really REALLY need this issue to go away. it takes so much time trying to get the "wobble" out of shots that it's best to forget handheld work for VFX shots.....I hope it's a faster read/reset time soon. :)
 
I believe that the rolling shutter will get to a speed that it is virtually a global.
 
rolling shutter design intent

rolling shutter design intent

I guess the official red folks have gotten tired of talking about shutter design publicly, but that means the rest of us can speculate unhindered...

I thought the goal, or a goal of Red's designs was to create something that achieved an aesthetic look and motion handling in the same league as, if not the same as, traditional 35mm motion picture film.

Since standard film cameras do not have a global shutter (if you pop a short electronic flash, it will typically not illuminate the full frame), my understanding was that Red didn't plan to spend a lot of money & engineering time making something that everyone used to cinema as it's been seen for a few generations would complain about looking sterile, electronic, video-y, wrong, different, choose your term of opprobrium.
 
jbeale said:
I guess the official red folks have gotten tired of talking about shutter design publicly, but that means the rest of us can speculate unhindered...

I thought the goal, or a goal of Red's designs was to create something that achieved an aesthetic look and motion handling in the same league as, if not the same as, traditional 35mm motion picture film.

Since standard film cameras do not have a global shutter (if you pop a short electronic flash, it will typically not illuminate the full frame), my understanding was that Red didn't plan to spend a lot of money & engineering time making something that everyone used to cinema as it's been seen for a few generations would complain about looking sterile, electronic, video-y, wrong, different, choose your term of opprobrium.
Click to expand...

Well on a camera with a mechanical shutter, the edge which is partially exposing the strobe, is feathered. On a digital shutter it's sharp and perfectly horizontal.

I'm just not convinced that a global shutter is the cause of "sterile" or video images. I will see if I can get a copy of some global shutter material that looked positively filmic to me.

I think that perhaps the issue is that many existing global shutter cameras have a lot of other kinds of digital artifacts because the technology has not advanced far enough. I don't see why the human brain would associate a lack of skew with digital images or that we perceive small amounts of skew as filmic, the way that we for example perceive 24 fps or a 1/48th shutter. I'm actually curious to see more of the difference.

IBloom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top