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 :)

New project...

Eric Lange said:
Basically professional film makers and cinematographers are not going to switch to light field cameras on mass over night.
Click to expand...

Actually I can see that happening. If the specs are otherwise good (e.g. 3K minimum, good DR, etc.) then it's a no-brainer. Light field capture does make fast AF redundant, just like mirrorless cameras make DSLRs redundant, and that annoys some consumers. Well, stiff shit. Do people want a digital camera or don't they? If they do, then they should take advantage of what it can offer.

Eric Lange said:
I.e. you can step through time[/U]... from hours to decades and one day centuries.
Click to expand...
Metaphysically, that's apparently already possible, through what is called the Akashic record. I'm not saying that's true or false, but it does remind me of what you're talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Actually I can see that happening. If the specs are otherwise good (e.g. 3K minimum, good DR, etc.) then it's a no-brainer. Light field capture does make fast AF redundant, just like mirrorless cameras make DSLRs redundant, and that annoys some consumers. Well, stiff shit. Do people want a digital camera or don't they? If they do, then they should take advantage of what it can offer.


Metaphysically, that's apparently already possible, through what is called the Akashic record. I'm not saying that's true or false, but it does remind me of what you're talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
Click to expand...


He, he...

I could point to scores and scores of personal incidences over a 30 year period where very skilled and highly acclaimed (technical) artists totally pass on what is touted as the latest and greatest technology (in a lot of those cases the "Tech" in question was undoubtedly the best and most advanced of its kind on the planet... BUT still took 20 years to find wide scale eventual adoption (in most instances)). A camera that you can't "screw" a Cooke or Zeiss or Angieux prime on is a major mental stumbling block for Cinematographers DP(s) Directors etc. that have honed their craft over several decades and have a very particular shooting style and "grammar" and "Feel" to their work. I'm not going to labour that point; as we have rendering systems and 15 years of SW development (minor pivot) that can do some really wonderful things with high end lightfield imagery... So I'm not going to trash a seemingly PRACTICAL lightfield based cameras, but a camera that has 1000 other applications where the film business is by far the "Minor" application. YKWIM? :-)

The thing about film making is that it's not about the tech... Or the desire to "Own" or rent "Tech" its ALL about the IMAGE... [@Karim " Do people want a digital camera or don't they? " ] So as you know there was already an excellent digital work flow for things shot on "Film" and disturbingly a lot of filmmakers have gone back to film. It will be interesting to see how the system MTFs work out for lightfield "type" imagers.

RE: "Mirrorless cameras" ... I've mainly been working in disciplines where we favor symmetric/biogon type lenses for non-retrofocal camera systems (very large format)... I've been arguing for decades to get rid of the stupid mirror box for hand held digital cameras... BUT it turns out that so much technical development has gone into retrofocal lenses with a long throw that for a lot of instances they are pretty damn hard to beat unless you really need super low distortion lenses that have some very special glass for really very decent MTFs, but you still have to compensate for light fall off at the edges and not every sensor plays nice with a chunk of curved glass very close to its surface., weird color artifacts and fringing etc from oblique rays. So almost always it takes a lot of time and technical will (from more than one company) to step wise integrate these technologies so that they work really well. So right now we are seeing sensor designs that in some instance can accommodate "closer glass" (for larger formats), but that's still in the minority.

Just as a reminder "Team Jannard" patent all kinds of stuff just to have a particular base covered so it's not necessarily the case that "New Project" is this new camera... Would be nice/interesting if it was of course and the broader possibilities that could be very big indeed.

[Karim writes: "Akashic_records"]. Does beg the question what the product / series names of such a Jannard Lightfield camera would be?
 
I'll stick up for Eric, light field as we have seen it, is over kill. I said it from when it was announced, and shiw d just one of the post processing methods to determine 3D. Why do you think I was coming up with methods for stage wide lens earlier last decade (not so viable). Basically, once you have a two input (lens/sensor space) you can do set 3D. With a 3 input your can get some reasonable refocusing, but 4 is better, and I would say more to give good results at different orientations. When I came up with a multiple 2D view to 3D grsgphics system in the 1980's, I realised you could not resolve for certain indentations/holes unless you hadbs view looking sufficiently down it. It is less important for filming than for 3D mapping.

The idea behind my system was probably to give a true 3D presentation on 8-bit computers, maybe 16 bit, I can't remember. A major issue in those days with the extremely low performance.

My memory is back. My memory cognitive issues if past months was probably chemically related (not those sorts of chemicals) maybe still revealing an underlying condition). I'm doing some testing, hopefully more latter this week.
 
Eric Lange said:
He, he...
The thing about film making is that it's not about the tech... Or the desire to "Own" or rent "Tech" its ALL about the IMAGE... [@Karim " Do people want a digital camera or don't they? " ] So as you know there was already an excellent digital work flow for things shot on "Film" and disturbingly a lot of filmmakers have gone back to film. It will be interesting to see how the system MTFs work out for lightfield "type" imagers.
Click to expand...

Exactly right Eric. It was a load of BS, most of the cameras were very disappointing at first then only adequate, no better than film, up till recently. Unfortunately we had a bunch of self inflating people side tracking low end professional camera development from the beginning, rather than trying to do better as a service for the community. I tried to support good camera development for the community while I did my own non camera projects, but the air was sucked out of the other "look at me" developments. As in Kath and Kim, "Look at me, look at me" "I'm effluent" (rather than "affluent"). The original Kardashians. Back then I wrote that 12 stop was a minimum, and then 16+ stops as a sweet spot, but we got a lot less stops. So, no wonder there are some people going back to film, precisely at the wrong time with Helium. Those are reasons I kept away, price and performance.

JVC has a camera that with a firmware upgrade could stake most 4k digital cinema camera, with a minor hardware upgrade definitely so, with a new sensor and higher throughput hardware, every digital cinema camera this side of $10kAU, for the price of a mini Ursa 4k, but with better pro video features. That is reality.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
I'll stick up for Eric, light field as we have seen it, is over kill. ... snip... :-)

The idea behind my system was probably to give a true 3D presentation on 8-bit computers, maybe 16 bit, I can't remember. A major issue in those days with the extremely low performance.

My memory is back. My memory cognitive issues if past months was probably chemically related (not those sorts of chemicals) maybe still revealing an underlying condition). I'm doing some testing, hopefully more latter this week.
Click to expand...

It's OK Wayne I don't need "Sticking up for"... I certainly don't feel "Set upon" ... I think there are really interesting points raised all round. I'm not taking a "I'm right.. It must be this or that" (approach).. and someone else must be "Wrong"... I think with these "Communal" conversations it's interesting to throw stuff out there and see what stands up or falls over after various folks try to kick the shit out of something. It's all good.

Just to clarify : When I say "Stupid Mirror" box ... I mean the shutter / reflex / pentaprism arrangement that has been used in SLRs... I'm not talking about S-3d "Mirror-box" or necessarily the way rotating mirrors have been used in cinematic cameras. Also "Lightfield" has a lot of (arguably more useful) non-3d applications.

Ta.

:-)
 
Ah, but something's got to be right and something's got to be wrong sometimes, the art is seeky the right. :)

Even Jim rejected light field a while back. I don't mind it, as a minimal multiple source system, where a group of pixels acts like a small number of multiple cameras, but that pretty Mich restricts you to 2,3,4,6,8,9 source, but realistically 2,4,8,9.

Indeed that cheap cinema camera project I was looking at before, that I put off after I couldn't find a suitable sensor) was using a camera array like the patent also does, but the camera itself was way way more revolutionary in different ways beyond the camera. If only I could find a sensor like the new Sony, or helium, to get enough light on the small aperture. It was going be millimeters thick.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Actually I can see that happening. If the specs are otherwise good (e.g. 3K minimum, good DR, etc.) then it's a no-brainer. Light field capture does make fast AF redundant, just like mirrorless cameras make DSLRs redundant, and that annoys some consumers. Well, stiff shit. Do people want a digital camera or don't they? If they do, then they should take advantage of what it can offer.


Metaphysically, that's apparently already possible, through what is called the Akashic record. I'm not saying that's true or false, but it does remind me of what you're talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
Click to expand...

I too can see this happening. I'll refer to the dense field version in the posted patent and the fact you can change your reality in an image by simply adjusting focus means this tech opens up more possibilities than even I can imagine Sure it looks different and because of this those invested in camera-as-box will dismiss it.

They simply do not understand we live in exponential times rather than their accustomed linear world where the big camera companies released camera improvements on a schedule. And those who are steeped in their training and are trapped in that will continue to make big movies using the old methods... just like Nostalgics are making movies using film now... just like vinyl records are making a comeback as niche.

But there are huge numbers of noveau movie-makers who have never smelled the VOCs (volitile organic compounds) given off by film and aren't attached to that dying tech. They leap at the chance to try something new.

I'm with them.

But of course this may not be what the Big Reveal is all about so we may be discussing a smelly RED Herring. It may be something as mundane as Cold Fusion via electrolysis. '-)
 
Think of it this way. I had ideas for lens that even covered the entire set to collect light, and frame and angle in post. Very ambitious. I can pick very good angles and framing. But this can make make worse film making. That is because the best shoot might not be present in an performance, you have topical your perspective and get the actors to make it happen . So, while a El cheapo shout might pick what they can get, an real artist might at the same time make sure the best shoot from the chosen angle of the shout on the day. This is what I said about post, arrange the look on set and adjust to make it better in post. Sometimes it won't sometimes it will. But you can land up with a better and or faster product.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Think of it this way. I had ideas for lens that even covered the entire set to collect light, and frame and angle in post. Very ambitious. I can pick very good angles and framing. But this can make make worse film making. That is because the best shoot might not be present in an performance, you have topical your perspective and get the actors to make it happen . So, while a El cheapo shout might pick what they can get, an real artist might at the same time make sure the best shoot from the chosen angle of the shout on the day. This is what I said about post, arrange the look on set and adjust to make it better in post. Sometimes it won't sometimes it will. But you can land up with a better and or faster product.
Click to expand...

Wayne, if I've translated your post correctly you are saying "You can shoot a person taking a crap poorly and it is just shit... or you can shoot it better and it becomes "performance art" ? '-)
 
Not what I was talking about exactly, I'm talking about the interaction of the performer with the camera and its point of view used, and what the director and camera gets them to do for a hettrr shoot and performance.

If you have s totally post environment then there is less to work each other off, hence performances might not fe as good and the better shot from any angle might not be there. If you are shooting from a certain "story" shit angle, you can immediately see its not the vest and demand a reshoot, a reperformace. It is about recognising you have gold in front of you before it is too late., and producing that gold.

It is a boon for cheap productions, you see a great performance and work out the exact shoot latter, you can whip around that virtual scene faster then you can move on set. But to make sure of higher quality on a but gger production you want to verify the shot angkeband framing on something good is there and refine if you can latter. Say if you are filming two people up close up for 5 minutes. Say there is stuff happening in the background off conversation you have in there. In post you realise it might be a bit better if you occasionally pull a long angle shot including the background action, as the 5 minutes of livers dialogue is actually a bit long. The sort of shot style used in the 70's, maybe the 60's. Now the shot works better. Now say the durectir and everybody is just working too long hours, their judgement is down, maybe they are doing other stuff that affects their judgement. Now you get the chance to polish up in post.

Now, I'm not saying you can't make a really great film shot in this surround and sorted out in post, but on a hundred million dolker plus film, you want to make sure you have it well sorted before post (hopefully).
 
I would vote to put three 4K Cameras on the back of the next iPhone so that customers are able to shoot Stereoscopic in a horizontal or vertical format, with the iPhone being able to assist with being held level as well as maybe using an oversize sensor to automatically correct.
 
Wayne, I'm getting the feeling that movies are just becoming redundant at this point. I'll probably post a thread about it later. If so much of a film can be created post facto, what's the bloody point? Just make animated cartoons instead. A good episode of The Simpsons is no less engaging than a good film.

Andrew, that's not a bad idea per se. I suspect that Jim is way past giving us more of the same, though.
 
Ohh, I have an interest in science fiction writing, I would like to see this done on dead series, even as animation frames like done in old missing footage of Doctor Who, or Watchmen, even as a graphic novel. Secretly, the reason for the graphic novel is that it acts like a storyboard. If somebody sees it and thinks this would make a great standalone movie and wants to films it, you are on your way and they have a story board to start off. Besides, good to get the look right or better with a graphic artist then for somebody to take the script and Hans graphic design over to a non vested party.

A lot of science fiction shows get canned without resolution (which often is big mysteries to be revealed). You wonder what happens to them sometimes, but when you see one of the stars having a coffee by herself down a local cafe the other side of the world when they should he filming, you know the show is not likely to come back. One of the classic series was Space Above and Beyond, filmed over gete, big big cliff hangers and reveals inntje last episode, then nothing. Babylon 5 was able to round out the story in a number of telemovies, but crusader was killed stone dead. Stargate Universe andnAtlantus were two others, before we apparently am now going back to the original stargate stream from the movie. But, that bug series of movies used animation for the last onebI saw. That martian one was another. Basically you don't heed to see much to tell the story, just frames like in Watchmen, so cheap to do, and the actors would probably live to line up at the audio booth for old times sake.

Now, the practicalities of doing what you said. The present way of doing it is very expensive. Cameron is the closes I know of to doing it the way I envisoned in maybe the 1980's when I was seeding ideas for 3D techniques to model reality. I had read articles in the costs at some stage and envisioned open source industry database of 3D models (and undoubtedly techniques) to greatly reduce the cist of 3D modeling. Basically people were trying to model trash cans to put in a film, and the original trash can maker was claiming copyright over the image. By building up a collection of models, textures and techniques, they don't have to be recreated for new jobs. By the right tools, you simply and quickly generate a scene and then refine it. Even doing dirt was an issue. I was one of the first groups to learn maya in the country l, and I was bewildered at how primitive it was, most if the tools I had in mind were not there with only a few just coming out (like the cloth module, but most are workflow related). They seemed simple to me, but then most things that are obvious to me others don't see. So give it time to get more holodeck design like, but you need people that can think like that to design it.

But let's look, live filming still works out cheaper (for some time) for quality, wuth the post stuff I mentioned. But what canbe done I've been looking at since the 90's, is you can send placement actors in and digitally replace them totally automatically, virtually, in post. So a placement actits goes in at $50 an hour (you say "I need an extra placement actor" and all the extras stand up :) you them replace them with the star's image you are paying $100k per on screen minute for. The actors could even pick to be put in afterwards, choosing between offers. You could even have a negative bidding war between stars to have favourable placement sometimes :) . Technically its possible. The placements are there only to provide context of movement and object manipulation. You could even use a vw beetle racing duwn the streat as a placement firba Ferrari (the seating position isbtje biggest obstacle, as the Ferrari is more laud back and higher. However, ironically, this technology would be very good for fantasy cartoons. Placement actors would provide the natural motion to the chacters and fantastic sets be arrange around them.

I wanted to do a short film with motion capture in the 80's (to do in the 99's) called Night Flight to Venus, using the Boney M song about a commercial flight between Earth and Venus. Was going be very hyoerreality like.
 
I'm starting to think someone forgot to carry the one in an early equation and they are having to reverse engineer all their math to find the error... or maybe the engineers working on the project are turning their attention to ordering black friday/online monday/sale-on-everything pre-Christmas items.
 
In the personal drone Zakaree, that would be a bit cramped wouldn't it? :)
 
Well, if it is a personal drone that you could fit in, that you would be dllifferent Karim. I've looked into many different ways to to a flyable body suit, it aircraft, in the past. And doing a suit with many ruggedised drone propellers with auto passive and active leveling (as you loose some, or things go wrong, it can attempt to auto level you for a siftwr landing at least. But if you do go down hard with lithium ion batteries it could be in a fireball. I can imagine 10 minutes battery life for somebody like me. Silicon nano wire maybe more, butbI font know how cpmbistable. But here is an idea making an combustion resistant diesel like gel to run engines could give you a great boost and low burn factor in an accident. Better still, a cold burning mother, they can be the center of a propeller. Here is another idea, a hydrogen and sepetate oxygen gel, combining both in a cold burn reaction, and if you get stranded an ability to combine them to produce water. But maybe it is possible to have both stabilised in the same gel, with a trigger reaction to burn them.

I am hoping to get around to getting a descent 3D printer to make parts for an all day drone design I've bernntjinking off. I had one propulsion design last decade you could hopefully circumnavigate the earth O don't know how many times, even drive it at hypersponic speed. I would need a printer at the atomic level to do that though. We should give up on the 10x silicon nanowire battery technology, and realise that if you can print it at the atomic scale for one offs you maybe able to achieve some huge energy densities, and maybe some Nobel like mistakes attempting to do so.

Just some ideas from your merry season genius.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top