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 :)

Off the chart...

Sanjin Jukic said:
Such a great news after "heavy" clubbing night here...!!!
Click to expand...

SJ walking in hangover is soooo fitting that it proves we are not dreaming. This is real!

Pawel Achtel said:
1. Data size
Click to expand...

I agree, but with a 16-bit base I would assume the file size won't be that much bigger. At least not prohibitive for decent budgets if RED releases a Rocket "II", or "HDR", or "20-bit", or "Head X-plode".
 
I think the temporal artifact fears are being overstated. 3D renderers all do exactly what people are saying will cause problems (including Pixar's Renderman), and it hasn't been an issue in practice. Heck, theaters show the same image twice in a row and no one notices.

What matters is that you have light samples from all parts of the 1/50 second time slice, which you would with the approach I outlined above. In fact, you could randomize the order that you took you took each HDR time slice from frame to frame, almost exactly mimicking the stochastic motion blur Renderman does.
 
Pawel Achtel said:
If you do two exposures instead of one, you will gain at most 1 stop only and introduce motion artefacts: Hardly HDR.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it has to be just one read cycle. And they may have engineered this in, can you make a read-without-reset sensor? Regardless, if the read-reset-time is short enough, blending frames looks exactly like unblended frames, just slightly darker for the few missed photons in during the reset time. I'm saying that the whole thing happens within the normal 1/48th exposure, not around it.
 
Jannard said:
We have said all along that we love film, but at some point it is headed to the retirement home. Our fear was that digital replacements would not be good enough. We believe that the primary areas needed for digital to "measure up" are:

1. Resolution

2. Dynamic range

3. "Feel"
Click to expand...

Bravo! I'm WAY back in line anxiously waiting for stage 4 (pity me please!) But I'd thought I'd offer my half cents worth to help win over even the most hardcore film afficionado. These areas would be:

4. PRICE - Make RED exhorbitantly expensive so that the ONLY ones who can afford working with it are those who breathe the rarefied air of Corporate/Studio interests, or are just plain rich.

5. Timed lockout of captured footage so that we cannot view our footage for atleast 6-10 hours, but only after changing hands twice using a messenger service of our own choosing.

6. Make all recordable media "Write once" forcing us to buy a continnual supply of CF and SSD's and don't forget the free Orlok upgrade, to render our media so volatile that exposure to even the slightest bit of light will destroy them utterly.

7. Did I mention to make it alot more expensive? Because if it cost so much, it 'MUST' be superior!

8. Build in a generational loss when duplicating so we can truly say: "Who's THE MASTER"?

And the list goes on. . .

Please forgive my extreme sarcasm, post #1 for me, it's late. . . and I know I am not alone in saying that Red is building the camera(s) I have been waiting for my whole life. It's not only going to change my life, but its going to change the world. Bravo!
Click to expand...
 
Subhadip Sen said:
I am not sure what you mean, but there are methods to do it intelligently. Here's the thread I was talking about: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46446.
Click to expand...

Im sure you've seen LED Tv adds bragging about 1000000:1 contrast ratio (Dynamic)

Taking the image and exposing it relativelly to how bright the signal is, to achieve.. It might look good in some instances, but can ruin the picture in others. If you shoot with a camera which does the same thing automatically, you can inevertably ruin your shot. Your link shows the MANUAL way to make it work. Which is why I say... Alternating lines for different ISO captures, or two sensor read circuits with alternating ISOs.
 
Nik Skjøth said:
Im sure you've seen LED Tv adds bragging about 1000000:1 contrast ratio (Dynamic)
Click to expand...

I think what that refers to is the ratio of the darkest pixel the TV can display relative to the lightest pixel the TV can display, *but not displaying both at the same time*. That's what the "dynamic" qualifier means.

Usually the actual contrast ratio for all of the pixels on screen, at any given time, is less than 1:10000 and frequently *much* less than that.
 
Erich Ocean said:
I think the temporal artifact fears are being overstated. 3D renderers all do exactly what people are saying will cause problems (including Pixar's Renderman), and it hasn't been an issue in practice. Heck, theaters show the same image twice in a row and no one notices.

What matters is that you have light samples from all parts of the 1/50 second time slice, which you would with the approach I outlined above. In fact, you could randomize the order that you took you took each HDR time slice from frame to frame, almost exactly mimicking the stochastic motion blur Renderman does.
Click to expand...

Except that Jim has already stated that it's not how they're doing it.

The ways we know they aren't doing it:

1) Multi-sample ala motion blur and stacked. (Aka shoot @ max burst frame rate for 1/48th of a second and combine the frames.)

2) Progressive exposure. (Aka each pixel checks to see if it's 'about' to clip and stops exposing at its max saturation point. Along with "how fast" it exposed". Delta(t) exposure. )

3) Multi shutter conventional HDR.

How they are doing it... well that's the mystery. :D
 
I'm very much enjoying the speculation. (But not nearly as much as I'm enjoying the images and movies).

Graeme
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
Except that Jim has already stated that it's not how they're doing it.

The ways we know they aren't doing it:

1) Multi-sample ala motion blur and stacked. (Aka shoot @ max burst frame rate for 1/48th of a second and combine the frames.)

2) Progressive exposure. (Aka each pixel checks to see if it's 'about' to clip and stops exposing at its max saturation point. Along with "how fast" it exposed". Delta(t) exposure. )

3) Multi shutter conventional HDR.

How they are doing it... well that's the mystery. :D
Click to expand...

Exactly! So let's keep the discussion where it belongs, on the other thread where it went on for 200 pages (in circles). :)

I propose we just assume Graeme in an alien and leave it at that till we see his other side, the delicately balanced side he shares with Jim when they decide how to utilize the mind boggling amounts of data they keep reeling up out of the well.
 
Love the speculation. :-)

Jim
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
The ways we know they aren't doing it:

1) Multi-sample ala motion blur and stacked. (Aka shoot @ max burst frame rate for 1/48th of a second and combine the frames.)

2) Progressive exposure. (Aka each pixel checks to see if it's 'about' to clip and stops exposing at its max saturation point. Along with "how fast" it exposed". Delta(t) exposure. )

3) Multi shutter conventional HDR.
Click to expand...

Thanks, good to know. :-)
 
The trick is to offer features that others don't, or in a way that is better than what has been done before... then improve them over time.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top