8K DSLRs

[combatentropy]

How about 4K 4/3? (See above)

 

[Guest]

How about 4K 4/3? (See above)

This would be good for those that embrace the m43 format and/or speed booster combo.

I would rather have native s35 4k.

 

[combatentropy]

Well, as long as we're designing things, couldn't the camera debayer and scale into something like ProRes? The resolutions above mean raw pixel data. So if you wanted S35 RAW from a 5.2K S35 camera, yes, the resolution would be this wonky 5.2K. But the camera could record it in ProRes 4K or 2K.

135 and S35 could be ProRes 4K, ProRes 2K, or 5.2K CinemaDNG.
4/3 could be ProRes 4K, ProRes 2K, or 4K CinemaDNG.
The rest of the smaller crop modes could be ProRes 2K or CinemaDNG at their native resolutions.

Or whatever codec (H.265? MOX?) you think is best.

 

[Guest]

All together again with additional format possibilities and references to standard dimensions (color coded dashes to match graphic above):

resolution based on ~1.85-1.9:1 format with (standardized format size for reference)

-SD ~ 1/3" (4:3) 4.8 x 3.6

-720p ~ 1/2" (4:3) 6.4 x .4.8mm

-HD ~ 1"-2/3" (16:9) 9.587 x 5.83mm

-2K = 12.445 x 6 mm (s16 = 12.5 x 7.41 mm)

-3K= 17.3x13.3mm = M43

-4K = 24.89 X 12 mm (s35 = 24.89 x 12 mm)

-4.5-5K = APS-H equivalent

-6K = 37.335 x 18 mm (ff35 = 36 x 24 mm)

-8K = 49.78 x 24 mm (65mm = 52.51 x 23.07 mm)

All from one sensor!

 

[Guest]

Well, as long as we're designing things, couldn't the camera debayer and scale into something like ProRes? The resolutions above mean raw pixel data. So if you wanted S35 RAW from a 5.2K S35 camera, yes, the resolution would be this wonky 5.2K. But the camera could record it in ProRes 4K or 2K.

135 and S35 could be ProRes 4K, ProRes 2K, or 5.2K CinemaDNG.
4/3 could be ProRes 4K, ProRes 2K, or 4K CinemaDNG.
The rest of the smaller crop modes could be ProRes 2K or CinemaDNG at their native resolutions.

Or whatever codec (H.265? MOX?) you think is best.

Right, the actual pixels of the formats I mentioned would be higher, but would then debayer so that s35 was 4K.

Also, I really love the APS-H format, so, having that gov without a booster would be amazing too. The Epic Dragon does all of this in approximation, but not sure on the real world numbers of format size to resolution on the big screen.


I just do not enjoy shooting with any format smaller than s35, unless it is a special perspective. And the idea of using high end or cheap glass through a speed booster, while having benefits, takes the character from the bare lens and introduces another variable that I do not want.


Of course all of this is down the road, but I would rather shoot with a native large sensor. The GH4 4k plus speed booster is a reality now, so it may just be a firmware update and you get your wish. s35 4k as base and over-scanning will be down the line.

And in camera up or down rezzing seems cool too.

Anyway, depending on the most ideal way to implement resolution, my math may be off. Because there are different ways of getting resolution off the sensor.

Ideally, s35 would be about 4K and all the other resolution to format ratios could be wonky, imho.

 

[Guest]

Well, as long as we're designing things, couldn't the camera debayer and scale into something like ProRes? The resolutions above mean raw pixel data. So if you wanted S35 RAW from a 5.2K S35 camera, yes, the resolution would be this wonky 5.2K. But the camera could record it in ProRes 4K or 2K.

135 and S35 could be ProRes 4K, ProRes 2K, or 5.2K CinemaDNG.
4/3 could be ProRes 4K, ProRes 2K, or 4K CinemaDNG.
The rest of the smaller crop modes could be ProRes 2K or CinemaDNG at their native resolutions.

Or whatever codec (H.265? MOX?) you think is best.

Hope I haven't ignored what you are saying. It seems like you are saying that an M43/speedbooster combo that can up/down rez internally will give us all the formats options we could ever want.

I am, however, more prone to longer lenses. I have never been a fan of wide angles. They get some stunning perspectives, but I have always been more of a person with subtle sensibilities.

 

[Guest]

Don't confuse megapixels with actual optical resolution. Academy ratio S35 3-perf film, shot in a good camera with excellent lenses, doesn't even reach the equivalent of 4K. You can scan the film at higher pixel counts, but it won't show any more actual optical resolution, because it didn't record any more. And S35 film is quite sufficient for huge theater displays. There's no point in going any higher. It's a waste of resources.

Even full frame 135 format film, drum scanned, will only yield the equivalent of 4K worth of optical resolution. I've drum scanned a lot of frames, and done the experiments. There's just not much there over 4K, except for the slowest and finest grained B&W, shot with excellent technique (tripod, mirror locked, cable shutter release, and lots of practice), which can get you to around 5K. There are no film / developer / camera / lens combinations known to man that will get you 8K worth of resolution from your 135 format film camera. You can't get around the laws of physics.

That, and there's a lot more to image quality than just resolution. And most of those other qualities can be improved by larger pixel sizes. All other things being equal, you'll likely get significantly better shadow detail and increased dynamic range from a larger sized pixel, for example. You'll also get better low light performance from bigger pixels.

So no. I'm not buying into the 8k idea. I'm not even buying into the "full frame" idea. I think videos and motion pictures look better with a smaller sensor. S35 hits the sweat spot and is an excellent sensor size for cinema cameras and lenses. Full frame 135 format is too big for video, and too small for stills IMHO.

There is also an inherent difference between film and digital. 2k projection has fixed pixels that do not change every frame. With the way our eyes frame blend, a 35mm projection will give two things:

1 - more accumulative resolution, since the grain changes each frame and fills in information that a previous frame did not have.

2 - changing pixels are more graceful, because the brain is constantly getting new information. A static shot in film has infinite amount of movement, whereas there is little difference between a photo and a static digital shot. So, it is at a base level more entertaining to watch film. Just like we can stare at a fire for a long time, but are not interested in a light bulb.


If a 4K display can equal the performance of an HD display, than a 4K would be much better. Seeing pixels on movie screens has been so distracting the last several years. I have been quite happy with 4K projection up to this point. Even when the originating content is 2K.

 

[Guest]

Ok. So we have a native 8K sensor. It's full frame, 3:2 ratio with a full resolution of 8,192 x 5,461.
When we crop that sensor to 1.85:1 we get 8192 x 4320 which is the cinema spec for 8K video.

We should distinguish whether we are talking about theoretical resolution (aka absolute resolution), or pixels on the sensor, or detail pulled from a bayer pattern. These three all give us different equations to work with. I assume you mean real or absolute resolution, which today is more of a theoretical thing, since there is so much interpolation, downscaling, and/or rounding.

So you're using the full width of the sensor, just not the full height when shooting video. Because you're shooting wider.

What I want to know are four things:
1. If you crop a 1.5x (3:2) area of the center of that sensor, how much resolution is that? A windowed mode, like some Nikon cameras can switch between FX to DX mode.
2. If you crop a 1.77:1 ratio out of that already cropped 1.5x area(like you would with and APS-C sensor when shooting video), what resolution do you get?
3. If you crop a super 35mm 4-perf area out of full sensor size, how much resolution is that?
4. How much of a crop would there be to get a native 1920x1080 image out of this native 8K sensor?

I kind of assumed you wanted resolutions that are standard to match formats that are standard. So, I started with something majority of shooters might be after, and reverse calculated from there. Rather than starting with the dimensions you stated.

Basically the reason I want to know this is, I want to know how close to 4K we get when we crop a sensor like this for APS-C (3:2) and super 35mm (4:3) and what a 1920x1080 native crop size would be. Doe sit comes close to 16mm or something?

Depends on where we start. If you start with something that is not tailor made from the beginning, than you have to account for the way the engineers pull 'resolution' from the sensor. So, without a specific camera in mind, one would have to conceptually make up a camera that uses true resolution for image capture, and not interpolation.

To further complicate, a theoretical camera could possibly apply different techniques to pull a variety of resolutions from the same part of the sensor.

The idea being, could we build one camera with a full frame 8K sensor that can also be used in 4K mode at APS-C/Super 35 frame size and HD with 16mm or broadcast lenses and a deep DOF. I highly doubt that's the case, but I'd like to know the cropped resolutions just to see how close they come.

I think if you start with ff35, you are painting yourself into a corner. I would make s35 the one format that gets everything perfect, because cinema standards are higher and more standard, and then build from there, so it would have a ff35-ish frame, but the ff35 might not be standard. Again though, when working with a bayer sensor. you will have to account for resolution based on the de-bayering process.

 

[roxics]

James0b57 and combatentropy, you guys are badass! Thank you so much for figuring that all out. Exactly what I was looking for and more.

I kind of assumed you wanted resolutions that are standard to match formats that are standard. So, I started with something majority of shooters might be after, and reverse calculated from there. Rather than starting with the dimensions you stated.

That was a hope, but I figured that anything cropped from ff35 would probably not come out as a standard resolution and require some kind of downsampling that wasn't as even. I just wanted to see how close they would come.

In an ideal world you could have a ff35 sensor that was exactly 8K, crop it to super35 and it would be exactly 4K, crop it to 16mm or maybe 2/3"(for use with broadcast lenses) and it would be exactly 2K. Preferably a full color nonbayer sensor so that every pixel (photosite?) could each register RGB. But obviously that can't happen. Unless maybe some company builds some kind of organic sensor with moving photosites that can condense or spread out so you can get exact resolutions at typical frame sizes.

But the solutions you guys came up with sound pretty interesting as well.

 

[Guest]

James0b57 and combatentropy, you guys are badass! Thank you so much for figuring that all out. Exactly what I was looking for and more.



That was a hope, but I figured that anything cropped from ff35 would probably not come out as a standard resolution and require some kind of downsampling that wasn't as even. I just wanted to see how close they would come.

In an ideal world you could have a ff35 sensor that was exactly 8K, crop it to super35 and it would be exactly 4K, crop it to 16mm or maybe 2/3"(for use with broadcast lenses) and it would be exactly 2K. Preferably a full color nonbayer sensor so that every pixel (photosite?) could each register RGB. But obviously that can't happen. Unless maybe some company builds some kind of organic sensor with moving photosites that can condense or spread out so you can get exact resolutions at typical frame sizes.

But the solutions you guys came up with sound pretty interesting as well.

Thanks, it was fun.