The next gen sensor

[Björn Benckert]

For me anyway, this clears up a lot about HDRx.

Thanks Björn.

Glad to help. what most people miss (I include myself in this group on number of occasions) is that to have any use of HDRx your A track needs to be over exposed... Which feels like a strange thing to do. But simply your X track should be under clip and A track above or you did not really extend the DR. Over and over again I make the mistake of putting A track right under clip and the X track 2 stops below that gets only 1/4 of the light.... So in other words Im then under exposing with somthing like 2,5 stops or so. So look at your X track and set highlight exposure right under clip and don't look to much at the A track, as it should be toast in the highlights. Then decide how much difference in motion blur you can have between the two. if there is a lot of motion do 1 or 2 stops if there is no motion you can go higher.

 

[Mark Toia]

As for resolution, 8K would be nice even for us with Weapon MG, but that is not important in my opinion. Keeping it at 6K with the above improvements would make a serious change to the quality we already have. Resolution hunt is over, time to get those colors and sensitivity :smiley:

tend to agree.
20 stops and 200 Fps at. 6k would be all I'll need for the rest of my career.

 

[Jeffery Anderson]

I do wonder about the RAW and DR conversation.

...as RAW sensor data wouldn't be effected by ISO


as to the future... being able to finish in 16-bit 4k is going to be better than other cameras can do for a long time comin'

in the pro market -- cheaper higher quality projectors and monitors... in the consumer market -- more so TVs and broadcast standards

24 or 60p,12-bit 4k broadcast would make a huge difference

 

[Christoffer Glans]

100% that 1 stop HDRx is the first 50% of the foto bucket fill of the A frame. So 1 stop HDRx X track is the same as lowering your shutter angle to half. Then the A track is the result of the photo buckets being filled for the remain of the exposure time.

Shooting HDRx and merge in between the two tracks result in a Glitch in the motion blur. Basically one layer has a different motion blur / shorter motion blur than the other. Shooting 360 shutter on the other hand makes it possible to perfectly blend two or more frames together. So shooting 100fps and then make 50/50 blend between frame one and two and then leave out 3 and 4 and then blend 5 and 6... and so on gives you a perfect 25fps 180deg shutter where the frames are built up by half the exposure and dual readout. Strange enough in a lot of situations that would actually trump doing one readout with double the light and half the compression. simply due to the fact that the two readout / frames mixed with each other get a "noise mix" that basically cut the moving noise in half. Also this recording procedure works like an ND 3 for the sensor. So it´s a way to prevent over exposure at a certain stop without having filters in the mix.

Now as the camera does not do 100 fps at full frame size etc we could debate that this is not to much gain and the use would be quite narrow. But as data and frame rates goes up the frame summing and averaging functions of cameras will be huge. Simply put when we can record enough frames per second and the cameras have the built in frame averaging functions, then the ND filters will be far less in demand. Instead you can just have a slider that devided down the exposure time without loosing the motion blur.

I'm not sure that what you say differs much from what I said haha I know it's two exposures based on exposure time, but the "half-exposure" "fill" differs between different stop changes. 3 stops isn't the same as 5 stops etc., there are different exposure times for the x-track based on how many stops of change you choose. It still gives you a better result if you shoot 50 fps HDRx and post-convert it down to 25 fps. You can't do it at 6K but it works at 5K 2:1 and for special shots that is enough resolution. The results I've got shooting like that shows promise and almost no glitchy ghosting even at 6 stops HDRx. I'm not really that "techy" when it comes to cameras, I go with testing testing testing and it doesn't really matter how the HDRx really works under the hood, shooting 6 stops HDRx at 50 fps and doing post in the correct way just looks good

 

[Björn Benckert]

I'm not sure that what you say differs much from what I said haha I know it's two exposures based on exposure time, but the "half-exposure" "fill" differs between different stop changes. 3 stops isn't the same as 5 stops etc., there are different exposure times for the x-track based on how many stops of change you choose. It still gives you a better result if you shoot 50 fps HDRx and post-convert it down to 25 fps. You can't do it at 6K but it works at 5K 2:1 and for special shots that is enough resolution. The results I've got shooting like that shows promise and almost no glitchy ghosting even at 6 stops HDRx. I'm not really that "techy" when it comes to cameras, I go with testing testing testing and it doesn't really matter how the HDRx really works under the hood, shooting 6 stops HDRx at 50 fps and doing post in the correct way just looks good

But then how do you convert 50fps to 25fps 180 deg? not really possible. The reason why it looks better in 50fps is simply that then you got shorter shutter, or half the problem compared to 25 fps. But to get the same motion blur you would need to double the motion blur and sure that can be made in post and with tricks like difference matting the X and A track and only apply the post blur around the difference but it´s not really a straight process. And yes the example I wrote above was for 1 stop HDRx then you get half the fill up in X track. If you got 5 stops then you only get 1/32 of the exposure etc.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

But then how do you convert 50fps to 25fps 180 deg? not really possible. The reason why it looks better in 50fps is simply that then you got shorter shutter, or half the problem compared to 25 fps. But to get the same motion blur you would need to double the motion blur and sure that can be made in post and with tricks like difference matting the X and A track and only apply the post blur around the difference but it´s not really a straight process. And yes the example I wrote above was for 1 stop HDRx then you get half the fill up in X track. If you got 5 stops then you only get 1/32 of the exposure etc.

I described in detail in another thread about the process, but it's essentially post pixel blur. Applying it on the 50 fps material before converting down to 25 fps also helps the tracking of movement for that blur and reducing artifacts. As long as it's not extreme motion it will look great. But after testing just using a shorter shutter on HDRx at 25 fps it does not give me the same composed quality between the two tracks and post blur and that has to do with the frames being closer to each other in time for each calculated A/X composed image. Generally the difference between the X and A-track is less apparent when shooting 50 fps and converting it down to 25 fps.

 

[Brian Boyer]

I don't know how feasible 20+ stops is going to be in the very next RED sensor but at least 8 true, undisputed stops above middle gray at ISO 250 - 2000 would be freaking awesome.

Greater sensitivity is always welcome but I've said many times before I think highlight latitude is what people most often respond to and associate with a refined image.

Color-wise, I'd like the next sensor to be even better-looking (whatever that means). I'm feeling like that's going to entail it being more forgiving in some regards. In particular, more forgiving of certain types/formulations/applications of makeup, funky lighting and their combination.

I was watching a show where the actor opened his front door and stepped forward in the doorway. His face looked fine when he opened the door but turned a horrible greenish-yellow when he stepped into the key light. Was that the fault of the makeup? The light? The color science? Who knows?

This can be a problem with all current CMOS sensors and I'd like to see RED take the lead on this.

When people refer to skin tones, they're often talking about makeup. If you want to test how well a sensor renders skin, kids are usually your best bet, as their skin is near perfect and they aren't usually made up. I find Dragon handles this scenario extremely well.

Women 18+ usually have some degree of makeup on their faces in everyday life. Productions are where you start to find makeup applied to everyone and to more than just the facial area. I think many people don't take this into account and fail to factor in the effects of makeup when determining skin tone.

A camera obviously can't fix a bad makeup job but it can render colors in such a way that doesn't exacerbate the problem.

If RED can manage 8 stops up top at all ISOs and negate the majority of makeup issues that plague current sensors, they'd have the most sought after camera on the market, regardless of what other specialty features it may be lacking.

 

[Randall Weatherington]

Then to throw another monkey into the wrench works, I see where Panavision has introduced a new Millennium DXL camera using the RED 8K sensor with Light Iron color science.
Graham...