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 :)

617!

Joseph Ward

Joseph Ward

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wow. Can't imagine how this will look on the screen!:love:
 
261 MP Overkill ? Diffraction limited above f4.5

261 MP Overkill ? Diffraction limited above f4.5

I do panoramas by stitching, and could never afford one of these.

But when I look at the web about people shooting with 6x17 Linhoffs (or Fotomans ...) who want everything in focus from 10 feet to infinity, they're using apertures in the f16-f45 range!

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00FhIE
> If there is considerable distance from nearest to farthest subject elements in the scene you're photographing, you should probably be somewhere in the f/22-32 range, or even f/45 if necessary, depending on lens and focus spread.
> Great, thanks. Yeah - on page 7 of the [Linhoff] manual it says that f/16 - f/22 is recommended and on page 12 it says that for corner to corner sharpness f/16 to f/32 is recommended.

Let's use a 90mm 'wide angle' lens at f16
http://www.farfoto.com/maxlyons_alanfletcher_photocalc.htm#Ajf_dof
(I'm not set up directly for using the hyperfocal distance).

For this form-factor set the circle of confusion to 0.03mm and a 'crop' factor of 0.5

Set the focal length to 90mm, aperture to f16 and hit the 'compute' button. Copy the caculated hyperfocal length of 28 feet into the distance-to-subject field and press 'compute' again.

Your range of focus is now 13 feet to infinity.

But the diffraction airy disk is 21.4 microns .. or 3.5 PIXELS (for green)

If you go up to Linhoff's recommended f32 then the airy disk is 43 microns, or 7 pixels.

Working backwards, the airy disk is 6 microns (pixel size) at f4.5

And at f32 to f45 you're going to have very long exposures at base ISO of (say) 200.

I think you'd get better results with a pixel size of at least 12 microns, or about 64MP per image.
 
Alan, you are right about the working apertures starting at f/16 for 617 photography but an Airy disk is more than can be stored in one pixel.

The diameter of an Airy disk for f/16 and 550nm wavelength light is 21,4 micron but in an Airy disk you have light and dark (peak and valley) while a pixel can store just one value of illumation. Airy disks can also overlap. Though you loose contrast you still can get some more resolving power. According to the Rayleigh Criterion (which is considered to be the diffraction limit of resolving power, transferred contrast is below 10%) you can get as much as 93lp/mm (line pairs per mm) out of f/16 for 550nm light with a diffraction limited lens. A 6 micron pixel pitch can resolve up to 83lp/mm 550nm light. If you have a lens that is diffraction limited at f/16 and still covers the 177mm image circle diameter (by the way the 617 dimensions are 56x168mm which makes sense as it looks like four cascaded 645 sensors; the 186 was probably a typo on the RED side) you still might be able to outresolve RED's 617 sensor in the center of the frame. However, diffraction limited resolution drops further with the angle of view. Looking at an 28k image on pixel level is not going to look tack sharp like you might be used to from a high class DSLR. So what you're doing is supersampling. It's like scanning a 6x17mm piece of film at 4233spi but with just 4:2:2 color as it's probably not going to be a 3-chip 617-sensor.

For motion picture applications working apertures in the f/16-f/45 range are calling for some huge lights like in the old slow film days of movie making.

If RED Code 500 means 500MB/s then at 25fps you have 20MB/frame. A 16 bit image this size is a 500MB tif-file. I'm not sure if you can see the compression on moving pictures this size but for stills application if you can't get that 500MB/image out of the camera then it's almost useless.

I wonder how you can output such massive high res motion pictures. How about going back to film 70mm/35perf? You better get the best seat in the house: front row center.
 
I'm fascinated by this model (in an "I don't need it and will probably never even see one" way), but I really wonder what will it be used for? Photography I can understand, but the resolution is so high that I wonder who will ever use it for video? Even NHK's Super Hi- vision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision) is only 7680 x 4320.

The (current) highest resolution projector in the world is an 8k projector at the Beijin planetarium (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS187629+07-Aug-2008+PRN20080807).

The 617 concept is incredibly impressive, but the word 'why?' springs to mind. So, why?
 
The (current) highest resolution projector in the world is an 8k projector at the Beijin planetarium ([url said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS187629+07-Aug-2008+PRN20080807[/url]).
Click to expand...

The current highest resolution projector in the world would be an IMAX film projector running 15/70 film.

I think the high end epic cameras will look fantastic printed onto IMAX film. We will be able to get feature length IMAX films and also not have to worry about the camera being too loud to record sync dialog. One of the big drawbacks of filming with IMAX cameras.
 
r2ind said:
The current highest resolution projector in the world would be an IMAX film projector running 15/70 film.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I am referencing digital projectors :umm:

I think the high end epic cameras will look fantastic printed onto IMAX film. We will be able to get feature length IMAX films and also not have to worry about the camera being too loud to record sync dialog. One of the big drawbacks of filming with IMAX cameras.
Click to expand...

Well it's actually a lot higher resolution than Imax, which has a practical resolution equivalent of about 70mp, not to mention a significantly different aspect ratio. An Imax film frame is 69.6mm x 48.5mm. The Red 617 is 186mm x 56mm, for an aspect ratio of 3.3:1 (for reference, cinemascope is about 2.5:1).

It's awesome...I'm just scratching my head over the practical applications.
 
I like this image!

hero_2_large.jpg


What glass goes there?
 
6k monstro 100 fps
9k monstro 50 fps
28k monstro 25 fps???

If this is possible, I bet they will be able to push 9k monstro to +200fps...

How will the skew of the 617 look like? Is this a "only panorama" camera?

Patrick
 
Eddy Robinson said:
The 617 concept is incredibly impressive, but the word 'why?' springs to mind. So, why?
Click to expand...

Because it is possible.

I cannot imagine many people using it. It seems to me quite unpractical to make movies with it. Mr. Jannard build it because it is possible, people will use it even for movies, and only if because of the fact that it is possible. Vision inspires vision.
 
well as to why... i can think of a couple reasons...including the military and NASA that kind of a sensor pushing things at such high frame rates and resolutions would allow for some truly unbelievable AI and image tracking options.

considering i helped NASA put a modula on the space station, i can definately see them using a modular camera system like this.
 
Evin Grant said:
What about a dual lens 3D option (On the 617) with focus comensation compensating inter ocular?
Click to expand...

Yeah, with this realestate you could come up with a dual lens mount and still have space to fit two master primes side by side....
Not sure how you would change convergence without cracking the silicone waffer, though....
shake_head.gif
 
Why you ask?


Cause Jim wants one.:biggrin:
It his company so he can build one.
I'd like to see that thing shooting broad landscapes on a helicopter.
Lord of the rings type stuff. That would be incredible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top