Why not make CCD a sensor / module option for the DSMC?

[Max Wendel]

Sorry if this has been asked or discussed before, but the search option tells me "CCD" is too short of a word to be included in a search...

I guess the title of my post gives it away, but, if there will be so many modules for the DSMC / Scarlet / Epic, why not make one of them a CCD (i.e. no rolling shutter)?

My shooting style often involves lots of rapid / unplanned / handheld footage, and having the certainty of a no-rolling-shutter sensor is a must for me...

There are no words to describe what RED has done to this industry, a market controlled by a few big bullies that could never give us what we really wanted... and they still don't...

Despite all my wet dreams after falling asleep thinking of Scarlet, unfortunately, as it is now, my next cash burnout will still go towards a CCD-powered Japanese babe... from the same pricks that never gave us what we really wanted...

So, RED, with all that you've given us, maybe I am getting spoiled, BUT, is there any chance we could get a CCD sensor as one of the sensor options for the DSMC?

I know that there are many arguments pro-CMOS, and that rolling shutter seems to be somewhat "controllable" in the RED ONE, but the thing is, it is still there. Of course a lot of it boils down to personal preference, BUT, isn't it nice to be able to buy what one really wants? I, for one, would happily trade some image quality for a non rolling shutter sensor...

Now, there must be a market for die-hard CCD-folks like me, AND, since the DSMC seems to be all about CHOICE, the final question is, very humbly, why not?

 

[Stephen Matthews]

the new shutter speed is virtually the same as a film shutter. Rolling shutter issues for the most part should be gone. Plus modules attach to the back, what you are talking about is a whole new brain.

 

[Ryan S]

I would imagine a CCD based Brain would require a lot more work and money at this stage in the game. If the rolling shutter is your major concern, wait until the Mysterium-X sensors start making their way out to customers. Everything I've read lately says that the skew issues have been dramatically reduced, and I've never found them hugely problematic as it is.

Also, a little trick that another member here showed me- if the search function is giving you guff (and it will) type into google- "site:reduser.net CCD" without the quotation marks. You can use that for anything that the search refuses.

 

[Max Wendel]

@S.Matthews
Thanks for correcting me. I kinda meant "modules" as in a generic term, but thanks for pointing that out.
You mean rolling shutter will be mostly the same as it was in old school film?
But isn't it nice not to have it at all, since the technology is there and has been for many years?
Also, you said "for the most part", can you elaborate?

@Ryan S
Thanks for the google tip...
Sure, more work and money...
But with such titanic sensors as the proposed 645 and 617, it would seem that asking for a 35mm or 2/3 ccd isn't something that Jim can't handle... Plus I can wait!

For handheld footage in general, I do enjoy the creative freedom of not having to consider rolling shutter AT ALL... There is a loss of freedom there somewhere. It might not bother everyone, but it bothers me...

Not sure if this is now widespread, but recently I've even detected rolling shutter on some TV footage... It was a comedy show... Now, the average Joe might never notice it of course, but I did, with the very casual eyes of a couch potato... And I don't like it... I'm sure rolling shutter is not an issue to many people and many styles... But to me it is...

 

[Aaron Newsome]

Unless your camera has a physical shutter, no matter how good the technology, there is also going to be a concern about what the electronic shutter introduces into the picture.

This goes for CCD as well as CMOS sensor based cameras. This also was a concern for me so I bought a digital cinema camera with a physical shutter. Although, I do have have CCD cameras without physical shutter as well and most of they time they do just fine without a physical shutter.

However, I've seen excellent footage from cameras like the RED and other high end cameras, that have convinced me that the majority of the concern for rolling shutter issues is largely overhyped.

 

[Max Wendel]

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the physical shutter the cause of rolling shutter on film?

 

[Peter Mosiman]

Jim and others that attended the CML RED day said that the read/reset sensor times are almost doubled and the rolling shutter is virtually non-existant.
Don't worry...RED's been listening.

 

[Aaron Newsome]

Rolling shutter in CMOS cameras cause issue because each photosite doesn't store it's recorded information into the output frame at the exact moment that all other photosites do. There is a limitation on how fast the storing of the information can be done, as well as how fast the sensor can be "reset" for the next frame. This all happens while light is still falling on the sensor too.

Film cameras do not have that particular issue. Digital cinema cameras with physical shutter also do not have that issue since the sensor is covered by a shutter while the data is read from the sensor and reset for the next frame.

 

[Aaron Newsome]

rolling shutter is virtually non-existant.

see, faster read/store/reset can reduce the effects of rolling shutter to the point where it's really a non-issue.

 

[Max Wendel]

Film cameras do not have that particular issue.

My understanding was that film cameras also suffer from rolling shutter, albeit in a more "analog" fashion... i.e. As the shutter physically moves, partial areas of the film / frame suffer uneven exposure to light...
Is that not so?

 

[Matt W.]

My understanding was that film cameras also suffer from rolling shutter, albeit in a more "analog" fashion... i.e. As the shutter physically moves, partial areas of the film / frame suffer uneven exposure to light...
Is that not so?

"Analog" isn't the word ("mechanical" is; furthermore, CMOS is actually an analogue sensor), but you're essentially right. Based on published read-reset times, and under normal circumstances, the skew on 35mm film should resemble the skew on the next-generation Red sensors. The current sensors are just slightly skewier than film.

The issues with skew on film are minor: vertical lines might get slightly warped during fast pans, unsynced flashes might expose half the frame, etc. The issues on the red are essentially identical, except that whereas unsycned flashes create a fuzzy gradient on film cameras due to a fast-moving and defocused shutter, they clip on a harsh line with CMOS. This also makes any issues with wonky HMIs/fluorescent bulbs worse on red than on film. In terms of normal motion rendering, though, red should be similar to film.

Low-end CMOS sensors and still camera sensors have horrible rolling shutter, though, which can be hugely problematic at telephoto focal lengths and which can make motion-matching nearly impossible. With the red, the rolling shutter can be seen as a plus; it delivers (slightly, arguably imperceptibly) more "film-like" motion but it's not so bad as to totally preclude motion-matching (although it may make it much harder).

Big fast CCDs are way too expensive for Red to introduce. Thankfully, you can rent the Panavision Genesis!

 

[Miltos Pilalitos]

I guess the title of my post gives it away, but, if there will be so many modules for the DSMC / Scarlet / Epic, why not make one of them a CCD (i.e. no rolling shutter)?

The main reason is that a CCD based camera needs a prism to split the light in it's primary colours and this can be a problem in more than one ways. You wouldn't even be able to use standard cinema lenses!

Also, RED's minimal rolling shutter characteristic will be a thing of the past soon.

 

[David Rasberry]

My understanding was that film cameras also suffer from rolling shutter, albeit in a more "analog" fashion... i.e. As the shutter physically moves, partial areas of the film / frame suffer uneven exposure to light...
Is that not so?

Exposure to light is even across the frame, the precise time exposure is initiated varies as the shutter moves so the image is slightly distorted on fast camera moves.

Rolling shutter distortion is a major issue with the current gen VDSLR's as they have very slow sensors not primarily intended for motion capture, but this is not true of RED cameras. If you are fast panning to follow action, the background will be so blurred anyway that a little rolling shutter skew isn't really noticeable. Slow frame rate image stutter from shooting at 24fps vs 30fps for video is much more noticeable than rolling shutter artifacts.

 

[Max Wendel]

Big fast CCDs are way too expensive for Red to introduce. Thankfully, you can rent the Panavision Genesis!

I see... I thought CCDs were only more expensive at the lower end and mostly a technical choice at the higher end...

Funny that consumer CMOS-based video cameras seem to be priced at less than half of what their CCD-based predecessors were only one or two years ago, though most cheap still compacts are still CCD-based...

 

[Graeme Nattress]

CCDs can have rolling shutters too, but they flare vertically, which is quite a negative. Film has the equivalent of a very fast rolling shutter, as do our new sensors. No sensor technology is perfect, but we're pretty sure the route we're on is the right one for now.

Graeme

 

[Max Wendel]

The main reason is that a CCD based camera needs a prism to split the light in it's primary colours and this can be a problem in more than one ways. You wouldn't even be able to use standard cinema lenses!

Also, RED's minimal rolling shutter characteristic will be a thing of the past soon.

A prism is needed for a 3CCD setup, but not with a single CCD. Is a single CCD inherently worse (image quality wise) than a single CMOS?
Panasonic and others now employ 3CMOS sensors in some cameras, and that too I guess would require a prism...

 

[Stefan Christou]

CCDs are old old old. Been holding back development of CMOS for a while due to waste of resources, look at the new $20k Leica, great DR but ISO100 on a medium format camera!!! That sucks.

With the fact the new sensors can do high frame rates, I would expect their read/refresh rates to be way beyond that which would cause jello

 

[Ryan S]

The main reason is that a CCD based camera needs a prism to split the light in it's primary colours and this can be a problem in more than one ways. You wouldn't even be able to use standard cinema lenses!

The Sony F35 has a CCD and a PL-Mount...

 

[Stefan Christou]

A prism is needed for a 3CCD setup, but not with a single CCD. Is a single CCD inherently worse (image quality wise) than a single CMOS?
Panasonic and others now employ 3CMOS sensors in some cameras, and that too I guess would require a prism...

3CCDs where used because they could not fit all the photosites on a single 2/3" chip and still have a good enough signal to noise ratio.

Just because something has always been done that way, doesn't mean it should continue

Edit: If I recall correctly the new(ish) sony 4k (4k in acquisition pixels) cameras use a single s35mm sensor. Now let me find a link....

 

[Max Wendel]

3CCDs where used because they could not fit all the photosites on a single 2/3" chip and still have a good enough signal to noise ratio.

Interesting... I always thought they were used to get a full RGB signal, as opposed to a Bayer pattern signal (of a single chip)...