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...

Trond Lindblom said:
I just realized something....

avatar9_11.gif


Terminator_Eyes.jpg
Click to expand...

jim, jarred, kelly is there any thing you would like to tell us?
 
ultrastatic said:
I'd rather have you guys beat the dynamic range of the human eye, which is almost 24 f stops. :shifty:
Click to expand...

24 stops! Come on, guys. It's hard enough to hide things with Duvetyne now.

re Akube's post on larger format lenses... Lenses for large format (4x5 or 8x10) cameras aren't necessarily all that large. With 35mm camera lenses we're playing some optical tricks with the lenses to get them to focus on the film/sensor at a given spacing - and all those internal lenses yield a large package. With a large format camera you just put the lens out at the focal length. On my 4x5 my 135mm lens is sitting out there about 135mm from the film plane.

So I would guess that the construction of the lens mount for the Red 617 sensor will have to be very flexible (a bellows?) to accommodate the still camera lenses that will be used.
 
Rado is right - the average human eye's DR is about 14 stops. But what we do have (unlike sensors) is variable sensitivity. Specific film stock or sensor has its given sensitivity - in case of Red One it is ISO-320. Human eye's sensitivity is variable and can easily adopt to extreme environments. That's what makes eyes so special...

:) Peter
 
Florin Andrei said:
The brain actively compensates for that by "wagging" the eyes in all directions constantly, in brief but rapid and constant little motions, so the image projected on the retina moves constantly (even when you try to keep your eyes focused in a single point - they still move involuntarily)...
Mama Nature is clever.
Click to expand...

Oh yes she is.
And we have one of the best tracking systems built in, despite our own constant movement we are able to follow fast moving objects through woody environments or other visiually difficult areas..
fascinating stuff indeed.
 
It's pretty hard to define the DR of the human visual system, since we are composing the image in our brain as we think we've seen it. Even while scanning a scene with fast eye movements, the eye is constantly adapting to the light and the brain is updating it's composition…
 
Peter Majtan said:
Rado is right - the average human eye's DR is about 14 stops. But what we do have (unlike sensors) is variable sensitivity. Specific film stock or sensor has its given sensitivity - in case of Red One it is ISO-320. Human eye's sensitivity is variable and can easily adopt to extreme environments. That's what makes eyes so special...

:) Peter
Click to expand...

I've been fascinated with this subject. How do you know the amount of f-stops 14 rather than 24? Is there a chart published on the internet some where?

I've also wondered what is the f-stop range for a typical sunlit scene (darkest shadows to highlights in the clouds)?

The f-stop range of a typical plasma TV screen?
The f-stop range of consumer still camera vs high end DSLR's?
The f-stop range of print (whitest paper to darkest ink)?

Thanks and sorry to stray off topic,

Phil
http://www.artbeats.com
 
Mark Pugh said:
Jim - could you do 3d with one sensor? seems neat and tidy to me.
Click to expand...

Rod/Cone mapping.

The huge oversampling available in a chip like this makes dual lens systems very attractive. And, heck, ill just record it on 64 striped drives.
 
Eric/VERAXYZ said:
The other solution is to carry out radial distortion correction on every frame in post, (bi-cubic convolution), very time consuming. .
Click to expand...

if you shoot a grid reference for each lens used, it would be pretty easy to take out the distortion in post. Wouldn't take too long at all.
 
Mark Pugh said:
Jim - could you do 3d with one sensor? seems neat and tidy to me.
Click to expand...

I think that could totally be done computationally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vda2RAEuW_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nice6NYb_WA
http://www.vimeo.com/1513129

Look at these tech demos, people are already taking 2D images, and being able to create 3D models from just a series of flat images.

I don't think it would be to much of a stretch to think that you could apply some of these concepts of extracting a model from a 2D image, then using the derived 3D to create the 2nd polarized image.

You could film something regularly, then process it (most likely with a few model artists guiding the program and doing touch-up when necessary) to create a 2nd frame that is slightly off-set from the first.

With a smart enough program, good artists, and a high enough resolution camera, I think you could create a secondary image that is almost as good as if you used two synced cameras, and indistinguishable for most people from regular 3D.

Also, another idea, what stops you from simply have a sliding sensor?

3d1sensorqn0.jpg


Just have a single sensor that slides back and forth on a track behind the dual lens set-up. Have it slide back and forth faster than the frame rate, so it could, zoom to one position, capture 1/24th, then zoom back over, another 1/24th.

I mean it would have to be very fast and very precise, but still, is there anything that would feasible stop someone from making a single sensor design like that?
 
WesScog said:
I think that could totally be done computationally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vda2RAEuW_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nice6NYb_WA
http://www.vimeo.com/1513129

Look at these tech demos, people are already taking 2D images, and being able to create 3D models from just a series of flat images.

I don't think it would be to much of a stretch to think that you could apply some of these concepts of extracting a model from a 2D image, then using the derived 3D to create the 2nd polarized image.

You could film something regularly, then process it (most likely with a few model artists guiding the program and doing touch-up when necessary) to create a 2nd frame that is slightly off-set from the first.

With a smart enough program, good artists, and a high enough resolution camera, I think you could create a secondary image that is almost as good as if you used two synced cameras, and indistinguishable for most people from regular 3D.

Also, another idea, what stops you from simply have a sliding sensor?

3d1sensorqn0.jpg


Just have a single sensor that slides back and forth on a track behind the dual lens set-up. Have it slide back and forth faster than the frame rate, so it could, zoom to one position, capture 1/24th, then zoom back over, another 1/24th.

I mean it would have to be very fast and very precise, but still, is there anything that would feasible stop someone from making a single sensor design like that?
Click to expand...

When you see the mass of a sensor and all that is hooked up to it, the idea of sliding it around at a phenomenal rate of speed with wicked high precision... seems daunting at minimum.

Jim
 
There are many systems to shoot 3D with one sensor. Just look at all ways to project 3D. You can use a prisma and polarized filters, strobing LCD, rotating prismas etc. But if you use one sensor, you will either lose 1/2 or 3/4 of the light, and/or run the sensor at 2x the capture rate.

..but most of all fun ways a patented so I guess a 2 separate cam way is good, because:
1) It works
2) The method is public and "free".
3) You don't lose light.

But I have been know to be wrong :) If you own a nice patent, then you rock.
 
What if you partitioned the 617 sensor behind the 2 lenses and recorded to 2 streams simultaneously instead of sliding the sensor back and forth?
 
indierider said:
What if you partitioned the 617 sensor behind the 2 lenses and recorded to 2 streams simultaneously instead of sliding the sensor back and forth?
Click to expand...

That is the plan...

Jim
 
I guess that makes me wonder how you can change the angle of each lens without messing up the focusing on the sensor. Don't our eyes make small adjustments, like the left eye looks more towards the middle for close objects and straighter for objects far away? I am probably way off, but either way, it's obvious that some killer 3d stuff will be shot with RED products this next year, whether it's 2 Epic X's or 1 617.
 
Steve Freebairn said:
I guess that makes me wonder how you can change the angle of each lens without messing up the focusing on the sensor. Don't our eyes make small adjustments, like the left eye looks more towards the middle for close objects and straighter for objects far away? I am probably way off, but either way, it's obvious that some killer 3d stuff will be shot with RED products this next year, whether it's 2 Epic X's or 1 645.
Click to expand...

Yes you do need adjustable intraocular (spacing of the two lenses relative to each other) and adjustable convergence (angling of the two lenses to different focusing distances) to achieve true 3D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top