Camera thread for marketers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
DLD said:
More DR is better
Click to expand...
Yeah, it really helps with preserving the rich clean shadows of digital, while also allowing for a more organic roll of in the extreme highlights. An area that is still a weak spot for digital.

DLD said:
but I disagree that one needs those 14 stops to look like film or that looking like film is the holy grail of digital.
Click to expand...
I am confused with who you are disagreeing with, as i never mentioned film emulation (except in the loosest of notions)I also don’t see film as the holy grail of IQ, as i am talking about surpassing film IQ

It does take digital surpassing the abilities of film for digital to look as organic, but it in no way has to look like film or emulate it. But i hope to goodness we can get beyond the limiting comparisons to film.

For digital to just keep adding megapixels and never move up up in dynamic range would be a dissapointment. Such a waste of engineering and money.
 
Last edited:
Greg_E said:
My memory may be lacking, but I thought that one company made a sensor that had low light photosites and high light photosites on the same die which gave a very wide (at the time) range. Probably more than 10 years back and certainly didn't help with resolution.

If you used a beam splitter, you could split the image onto two different sensors, and then combine the images in a DSP to get that multi exposure quality, but the exact same instance in time. Adjust the amount of light on each sensor to favor one or the other exposure condition (60:40 or 25:70, etc.).
Click to expand...


I was looking at a beam splitter for a 3D rig, and began dreaming of overlaying two zcams for a rig that captures more dynamic range. I know there is a 5d or 7d video that was made for HDR video, but that was back when HDR was a dirty word.

EDITE:

Found it. It is awful. This is when people went for this look on purpose.
 
Last edited:
Beyond alignment issues and polarizing, the issue with a beamsplitter is light loss. No one wants to make a less sensitive camera.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Beyond alignment issues and polarizing, the issue with a beamsplitter is light loss. No one wants to make a less sensitive camera.
Click to expand...
Right, it is highly impractical.

A more interesting solution for extending the dynamic range of video is to use quad Bayer sensors.
 
Cary Knoop said:
Right, it is highly impractical.

A more interesting solution for extending the dynamic range of video is to use quad Bayer sensors.
Click to expand...
Totally! I think Fuji had a similar concept. Not sure why it never worked out.

Someone said there was artifacts from the pixels not aligning and cross talk, or somethings like that.
 
One of the most effective ways to improve on image quality of current cameras is dynamic range.

May not be the easiest to make, and even seems difficult to market. But it is probably the easiest difference to see.

Most people won’t know it, and many say “i can’t quite put my finger on it” or, as one dvxuser said “why does Red always look like poo?”

No one can explain it, but everyone sees it.
 
Improving dynamic range will be the single most noticeable improvement in digital video today.

I don’t know if it is possible to increase the dynamic range on cmos sensors without some trickery. So, this is not an attempt to create a sensor, but just describe how a sensor with more dynamic range improves naturalism.

48642177336_f12c43a5c6_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
If I had to use one word to describe why 12stops dynamic range isn’t enough, it would be: lace

48643077317_78636f5ce7_b.jpg

(Camera test, intentionally pushing exposure limits)
 
Last edited:
Another thing is that video captures change over time, so one shot can go from dark to light.

For example, it is easy to isolate one moment, and avoid “hot” exposures, but the moment the operator wants to move around, or if light changes, the possibility for breaking the exposure latitude is pretty high.
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
I was looking at a beam splitter for a 3D rig, and began dreaming of overlaying two zcams for a rig that captures more dynamic range. I know there is a 5d or 7d video that was made for HDR video, but that was back when HDR was a dirty word.

EDITE:

Found it. It is awful. This is when people went for this look on purpose.
Click to expand...

I've always hated HDR photographs, this is just the moving version of that,
it looks so affected and unnatural. Ughh, hard to believe that anyone ever thought this was a good look.
 
DLD said:
There's some common sense thinking that lighting fixtures and high end cinema lenses are more long term that cameras, which have both the technological and the physical cycle.
Click to expand...

interesting to see old manual s35 glass dropping in value, as FF35 and auto focus begin to take the industry.
 
DLD said:
I eyballed ARRI totals in a different thread - ~ $400M in revenues. Let's say 3/4 of it is camera based and an average ARRI goes for $60,000, then they ship about 5,000 units worldwide. Give or take.
Click to expand...

I bet not even half of ARRI's revenue is from sales of camera bodies.
 
Seriously, ARRI sells cameras, lots of lenses, camera support accessories, plus a huge line of lighting equipment. The cameras are extremely important, but you have a very limited perspective to think that they account for 3/4 of revenue.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Seriously, ARRI sells cameras, lots of lenses, camera support accessories, plus a huge line of lighting equipment. The cameras are extremely important, but you have a very limited perspective to think that they account for 3/4 of revenue.
Click to expand...

Plus I bet their servicing and rental departments would account for a reasonable sized chunk of revenue.

Additionally there are probably other areas of revenue ARRI has that neither of us have mentioned and have forgotten (or are not even aware of!). Like how much money do they make from merchandising? (their T-Shirts and caps) A few extra percent here or there of revenue, it all adds up.

So as I said, I bet it is not even 50% of ARRI's revenue which comes from purely sales of camera bodies. Wouldn't even surprise me if it is not even close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top