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 :)

Interesting information...

Thanks for the facts!

Great stuff Jim, Keep those pixels coming!

Dave
 
Jim you should be very careful with that sensor!

Ive heard scientist warn of a possible wormhole opening when you activate it... in stereo that would mean 2 possible wormholes... I just saying... be careful.
 
Jannard said:
There are more pixels in the RED 617 Mysterium Monstro sensor (261,352,000) than there are rods and cones in both your eyes (126,000,000 x 2 eyes = 252,000,000).

Just in case you were wondering... :-)

Jim
Click to expand...

I know... now we only need displayz with similar resolution to enjoy it :)
 
So it is basically impossible for a single human being to fully appreciate the awesomeness of a RED 617. Talk about an invention which needs an audience just to have enough rods and cones to view all pixels.

So how good do you need to clean up your set to be able to shoot a movie with this baby? With a bit of luck you should be able to see the entire crew in the reflection of the eyes.
 
Nice little trivia Jim.
I studied AI in 1999 and I kept telling my "Perception and Vision" professor that within 10 years it would be possible to have a sensor that can replicate the human eye.
And at 25 fps it sure does, now you just have to increase the DR and shrink it to 1/4th of an inch...
 
ultrastatic said:
That's insane! But I'd rather have you guys beat the dynamic range of the human eye, which is almost 24 f stops. :shifty:
Click to expand...

As amazing as the eye is, that I believe that sensitivity number includes the rather slow chemical-adaptaion the eye undergoes when the overall luminance of the scene cahnges drastically (i.e. the "eyes adjusting to the dark" phenomenon). That adaptaion slides the "window" of detectable contrast range up and down.

This would be akin to being able to add and remove ND filters in front of the lens.

The actual contrast ratio your eye can resolve at any one time within a scene is far less that... maybe 16-18 stops...

-Steve
 
Joshua Brown said:
Wouldn't want to render the 3d scarlet mount obsolete! Although, I'm quite sure you will get much better results at this stage in technology with the separate cameras/optics.

-Josh
Click to expand...

anyway , i'm not to experienced by now in 3d, but i'd love to see Red dig deeper into this subject and sort out what the best sollution to shoot real working 3d in the future would be, and offer us this sollution asap.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
I am counting the seconds to shoot "home movies" of my sons with the 617.

Talk about archiving images!
Click to expand...

if only you had a few hundred feet of sons to spread across that whole sensor :)
 
oh, definitely, being that large in comparison to height, it is perfect for an extreme version of Red stereo solution.
Also, the 617 being one single body instead of two, may make it easier to have everything aligned for the job.
Actually,

They are smaller than the sensor size. Shouldn't a much bigger lens be used to cover that area...
Click to expand...

.. using one 617 brain specifically for 3D, may give the advantage of allowing the use of 2 lenses to cover that huge area instead of only one, which means much faster lenses than the ones available for large format still cameras.
So, not only stereo vision and (the first camera in the world to have) more resolution then human yes, but also fast lenses. And it may be this very evolution, the one to permit a practical motion capture instead of only large format photography with this monstrous brain.
 
I am counting the seconds to shoot "home movies" of my sons with the 617.

Talk about archiving images!
Click to expand...

mmm, I don't know... I think one day I will put a Cinealta under the Christmas tree when I have kids, being able to tell that Star Wars movies were made with that camera.
 
Good Question

Good Question

The Epic 617 will require specific lenses too many people here get hung up about the sensor and forget the true eyes of a camera are the lenses. Im sure Jim is completely aware of this and its certainly true that for larger sensors lens quality doesnt need to be as good as smaller sensors but none the less they will still need to be as good as they can be to maximise the potential of the sensor. Building good lenses is hugely expensive particularly if you have a small global market for instance check out how many companies now make lenses for 645 camera you will not get past your first hands fingers!
 
Monstro 617 specs

Monstro 617 specs

That's an interesting comparison regarding the eyes and the Monstro pixels.
I will be upgrading to the Epic-X with the hopes of getting the MOnstro at some point. The MOnstro is truly the one I want due to its stops of latitude and resolution.
Hard to say about the glass issue at the moment, but perhaps super 35mm glass could still be used, to a point, while benefiting from the Monstro's specs.
Cheers.
 
It seems to us like there will be endless possibilities for new solutions inside the Scarlet/EPIC system. We can see all sorts of combinations with existing equipment and tremendous opportunities for "new thinking". We are just happy to be here... :-)

Jim
 
Jim, after incredible sunglasses, after incredible cameras,........ will you build a stargate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top