28k...

[Tanner Stauss]

I am just curious what some of the practical applications would be for a 28K sensor. I can think of a couple uses, but I want to hear what's really in store. I think that there could be a significant rise in opportunities for cinematography and visual story telling in general as a result of such a large amount of detail and output format.

Thoughts?

 

[Dan Hudgins]

28K vs. f/ stops

28K vs. f/ stops

I am just curious what some of the practical applications would be for a 28K sensor.

How much of the frame will be 28K at the compression ratio is one issue, but a bigger one is can any lens at more than one f/ stop resolve 28K at 80% MTF?

If no lens can resolve 28K at 80% MTF, or just at f/4 or something like that, then the extra pixels may reduce aliasing and chroma moire, but they will not make much of the out of focus parts of the frame "sharper" than they would be shot at 5K or something...

Once you get a so called 28K image, how can you project it on a screen at 80% MTF so people can see what detail their might be, it is very hard to make a f/2 projection lens that can resolve that level, and any thermal shift in the projection lens's focus would reduce the resolution down from its peak. Movie 35mm projectors cannot even hold 2K resolution at 80% MTF much of the time, so building a true 28K projector at 80% MTF is maybe not something we will see in the next 10 years (if ever)?

The best use of a 28K sensor would be to down sample (using 100% of the sensor data) to 4K or 2K to get lower noise in low light and such. When you downsample you can interpolate extra brightness data bits, so you can reduce tone banding and such, in this case it depends on what artifacts the compression has added in the first place...

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Things I have heard are... projection on massive screens (like in Time Square, or an HD Jumbotron), having a bigger image to work with so you could easily filmout to whatever (IMAX, whatever, doesn't matter), having a massive area to put two lenses side by side, so you can do 3D on the same sensor, and what Dan said.

 

[michael zaletel]

One important use for a 28K sensor will be security surveillance in crowds, at airports, casinos, city streets for facial recognition and crime scene forensics. You know how we all laugh when they zoom in on an SD video frame of a wide crowd shot to determine that the criminal had two gold teeth and the victim was holding a credit card that expired yesterday? Well, one day they'll be able to zoom in on the tiniest details even from a wide crowd shot. Storage and processing power will probably catch up by the time this is a reality. I also believe higher pixel counts on moving imagery will open the doors to improved VR. Using something like the VR-360 one-shot mirror, you could record more than the equivalent of (8) 4K quadrants surrounding the camera/mirror. Eventually we'll have a projector (or series of them) capable of playing that back in a spherical theatre room.

And finally, If I can ever figure out how to transmit visual data straight to the optic nerve, I'll probably need all the resolution I can get to keep your attention.

-michael zaletel
(shooter)

 

[Nir Shelter]

For generating true 3D environments, higher DR, lower noise and aliasing.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Ultra Wide Angle panoramics.

Put three of those suckers back to back with fish eyes and stitch them together.

360 background plates.

 

[J Davis]

Shooting 3D
With two lenses, one sensor.

 

[J. Eric Camp]

VFX. Plain and simple

 

[Tanner Stauss]

Makes sense to me. I do like the idea of 3D on one sensor.

 

[Chad Lancaster]

75 inch fine art prints

I can't wait!

 

[Deanan]

Where's Waldo, the movie.

 

[Enrique Blein]

Photograph a stamp from a military satellite

 

[Chris Mierzwinski]

The 3d possibility sounds intriguing but unless the lenses physically move to be able to converge at different points, it might not work that way on the single chip. Again unless red has something unique at it's sleeve to make 3d work on the static sensor.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Crop and shift

Crop and shift

Again unless red has something unique at it's sleeve to make 3d work on the static sensor.

With so many pixels you can crop and shift the images to get convergence adjustments without a mechanical adjustment to the lens pair.

14K for each 3D image would be good, 3D needs more fine detail than 2D since the spatial position of subjects comes from very small relationships in the stereo pair, otherwise you get "cardboarding".

Compression does more damage to 3D stereo images than in 2D viewing, so using 28K the compression artifacts may be smaller on the end result and have less impact on the stereo viewing. Even if you down size to feed uncompressed 4K signals taken from the 28K compressed data the end images from the two 4K projectors may look better than showing a pair of compressed 4K signals...

 

[Tanner Stauss]

Where's Waldo, the movie.

wow, knowing the crazy goings ons at RED, I don't doubt this was the original reason for it's creation.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Dan has a point, there is no lens in the world that can possibly resolve 28k or anything near that even with 5% MTF. I don't think it is possible at all.

A hypothetical lens, given the CoC of the sensor, would need to operate at relative apertures of about f/4 or wider to avoid diffraction limit. At the sensor size, the physical aperture would be huge - a lot of fine glass we are talking about! I can't see how it can be much cheaper or smaller than the Hubble telescope.

3D? Well, why not place two sensors close together, it would be MUCH cheaper due to (much) better yield from the wafer. And, it is not the sensor distance between left and right that is a problem, it is the lens size.

Sorry, 15 posts and not a single usage that would make sense to me :confused1:

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Sorry, 15 posts and not a single usage that would make sense to me :confused1:

Bragging rights? :sifone:

 

[Stefan Christou]

At the sensor size, the physical aperture would be huge - a lot of fine glass we are talking about! I can't see how it can be much cheaper or smaller than the Hubble telescope.

Well perhaps Nikon can use some of their photolithography glass. :coolgleam:

 

[J. Bernard Vallon]

Tracking something that cant reasonably be tracked by panning and tilting. Shoot wide, crop in, no quality loss.

As far as lenses, we'll all be buying old school large format lenses, and living at f8. This is a daytime camera.

 

[Chris Newman]

Dan has a point, there is no lens in the world that can possibly resolve 28k or anything near that even with 5% MTF. I don't think it is possible at all.

A hypothetical lens, given the CoC of the sensor, would need to operate at relative apertures of about f/4 or wider to avoid diffraction limit.

Actually, the pixel size is the same as the FF35 and 645 Monstro sensors, so the diffraction situation is no worse than with those, so the sharpest images would likely be around f8 or so.

For example, large format photographers manage to get sharp images that utilize most of the resolution of the film.