PDA

View Full Version : MEDIUM FORMAT, help me out Tom



Michael Ragen
09-09-2008, 09:51 AM
If this is already planned to be full frame 35 pretty please make a medium format version.

I don't care if it is limited to 24fps and timelapse.

Long exposure times- 30 seconds

One wide angle Medium Format Red Prime to start

Hasselblad and Mamiya mounts

possibility of plugging in 1080p or 2k Red LCD with 1to1 focus

It doesn't need to be 39 Megapixels, just super sensitive

I miss my Mamiya 7ii... although I sold it to help pay for my Red One :)

Tom... Thoughts?

Joseph Ward
09-09-2008, 10:58 AM
I thought Tom would of like, IMAX format size.:biggrin:

Tom Lowe
09-09-2008, 11:21 AM
Of course many of us here would prefer a much larger format. My guess is that Jim is planning something radically different from modern "full frame" DSLRs.

I think the 15/65mm format would be perfect!!!! :) Jim??

The main thing I am interested in is advanced exposure control. For instance, I would like to see a "ratchet" timelapse feature that controls exposures through very small-increment shutter speed adjustments (thousandths of a second), but can only lengthen or shorten exposures in one direction. In other words, the "ratchet" feature would be similar to the "click-click-click" on a rollercoaster when you going up the incline. The rollercoaster can go up, but never back. Why is this important? The "Holy Grail" of timelapse is the ability to shoot day-into-night shots, or night-into-day on fully auto exposure settings (in-camera matrix metering, for example). But modern DSLRs do not view an image sequence as a video that needs stable, smooth transitions -- they view each frame as a still. So exposure times jump all over the place as cars or clouds pass through frames. The "ratchet" feature would know in advance that it is trying to make an HD video with very smooth exposure transitions. So, for example, you could be shooting in the middle of the desert with 1/2000th daylight exposures, which would very gradually transition through dusk (1s exposures) all the way to wide open Milky Way night shooting with exposure times of, say, 45 seconds. Not even the great masters like Ron Fricke have truly been able to pull off shots like that!

Regarding exposure times: if it can do 30s exposures, there is no reason it cannot do 90s or 150s. If you are using medium format lenses, you will need longer exposure times than you would with Canon EF bodies.

Daniel Browning
09-09-2008, 11:47 AM
So, for example, you could be shooting in the middle of the desert with 1/2000th daylight exposures, which would very gradually transition through dusk (1s exposures) all the way to wide open Milky Way night shooting with exposure times of, say, 45 seconds.


There's no reason you can't do that now with a laptop. So before RED wastes their time building a feature like that into the camera, it should be well-proven in software first.

It would not be a simple linear rate change over time; the exposure variance would be logarithmic around sunset, and it would vary by the time of year (length of sunset), percentage of cloud cover, haze, horizon lines, etc.

Furthermore, changing the shutter speed would make movement in the frame go from strobe-like to smooth, so it would be better to modify the sensor amplification instead of (or in combination with, at much longer intervals) shutter speed. In other words: start at ISO 50, then 51, 52, etc. Not actual analog amplification, of course, but in the metadata for a software push.

Of course, using a laptop for 24-hour timelapse is not fun, what with the 100 pound batteries and all, so after the software is figured out we can ask RED to implement it right in the camera.

Tom Lowe
09-09-2008, 11:58 AM
It would not be a simple linear rate change over time; the exposure variance would be logarithmic around sunset, and it would vary by the time of year (length of sunset), percentage of cloud cover, haze, horizon lines, etc.

Furthermore, changing the shutter speed would make movement in the frame go from strobe-like to smooth, so it would be better to modify the sensor amplification instead of (or in combination with, at much longer intervals) shutter speed. In other words: start at ISO 50, then 51, 52, etc. Not actual analog amplification, of course, but in the metadata for a software push.


I am talking about in-camera (through the lens) real-time metering of the light. What time of year it is makes no difference to a light meter. As long as the shutter speed changes are very small (and only go in one direction) the resulting shot should be free of the flickering that now plagues such shots.

I have seen plenty of timelapse where the photog manually rode the shutter speed from daylight to night, and I don't recall any strobe-like scenes becoming smooth. Exposure times might decrease, for example, resulting in the action (ie, the clouds and stars) to "speed up", but I am not quite sure what you are talking about.

The ISO speed changes is an interesting possibility, but the ramp would have to be so massive that it might not work. To go from an ISO 10 1/20 shot to an ISO ___ exposure (that would mimic a 65s shot, for example) is a huge change. Can anyone do the math on that? And of course the noise levels would change drastically.

Also, keep in mind that any curve you apply to the exposure is going to have to be fairly nimble. For example, a drastic lighting change you might have is a full moon dropping behind a ridge at 2AM. Your exposure time is going to DOUBLE in about 2 or 3 frames.

Daniel Browning
09-09-2008, 12:22 PM
I am talking about in-camera (through the lens) real-time metering of the light. What time of year it is makes no difference to a light meter. As long as the shutter speed changes are very small (and only go in one direction) the resulting shot should be free of the flickering that now plagues such shots.


I misunderstood you earlier; I see what you're saying now. I can see a few problems with that: one dark cloud will reduce exposure for the rest of the day, whatever increment is used will probably not be fast enough to keep up with sunset without being large enough to introduce errors by the AE system. Anyway, I would like some software to try this out on my next timelapse shoot.



I have seen plenty of timelapse where the photog manually rode the shutter speed from daylight to night, and I don't recall any strobe-like scenes becoming smooth.


At 1/2000 every 30 seconds, cars appear and disappear, like a strobe light. 15 seconds every 30 seconds they are smooth blobs with light trails. Flowers blowing in the wind in the foreground would appear to jitter instead of blur. Ramping shutter works fine for some subjects/compositions, but not all. (Of course, some people don't mind the strobe/jitter.)



The ISO speed changes is an interesting possibility, but the ramp would have to be so massive that it might not work.

It would only be useful if combined with other exposure modifications. It could go from ISO 100,101,102...400, say, then stop down the lens and start back at 100. If your foreground was within the depth of field for a variety of apertures, you could start at, say, f/22 and go down to the widest aperture that still keeps the foreground (say, f/8).

If there was an internal or software-controllable external ND system, you could combine that and get quite a lot of EV without resorting to modification of the shutter. (You'd have to add some gaussian blur to simulate the same level of diffraction you get at the narrow apertures for the shots using the wide apertures).

Andrew Walker
09-09-2008, 01:46 PM
I would love to see some type of smart intervalometer where you could set limits. But it seems like it would create way more problems than it would solve. Personally I like doing everything manually. Shots that require you to go from day to night or vise-versa seem like they would be pulled off a little easier if you just composited the two different times together. So with that in mind it would be nice to have an overlay function in the new camera where you could take a previous frame and overlay it with what the sensor is seeing and have a 1:1 view for that as well.

Bert Reimer
09-10-2008, 04:14 PM
How about a floating metering area. Dimensions set by user, it would pick the brightest area of XbyY pixels to meter on. It would be set to ignore spots smaller that Zradius pixels. This way it would work around clouds and trees(if you were panning) and ignore stars and streetlights.

Steve Sanacore
09-10-2008, 04:27 PM
There is no need for anything bigger than a 35mm (24x36), sensor for 99% of the jobs out there. Even an aps sensor is good enough for 90% of that work as long as the optics are superb.

Looking forward to this.

Martin Weiss
09-10-2008, 04:59 PM
Tom, could you elaborate on this one:

If you are using medium format lenses, you will need longer exposure times than you would with Canon EF bodies.
My understanding is that exposure time is independet of the size of the negative / chip sensor. Am I wrong or did I misunderstand you?

Tom Lowe
09-10-2008, 05:14 PM
Tom, could you elaborate on this one:

My understanding is that exposure time is independet of the size of the negative / chip sensor. Am I wrong or did I misunderstand you?

I think all the top-of-the-line medium format and hassy lenses are are not faster than about f/3.5. I could be wrong about this, since I have never shot in that format, but that is what I have read.

Kyle Presley
09-10-2008, 05:21 PM
I bought a medium format Bronica today with a standard 75mm F/2.8 lens. Don't know if Bronica counts as "top of the line," though.

Tom Lowe
09-10-2008, 05:29 PM
What is the fastest lens available for the Hasselblad H3DII-50?

Kyle Presley
09-10-2008, 05:51 PM
not sure, but it's bundled with an 80mm f/2.8...

GTA
09-10-2008, 11:20 PM
I think all the top-of-the-line medium format and hassy lenses are are not faster than about f/3.5. I could be wrong about this, since I have never shot in that format, but that is what I have read.

The fastest is the HCD100 @ f2.2.

Tom Lowe
09-10-2008, 11:26 PM
Generally speaking, much slower than the fastest 35mm glass.

Daniel Browning
09-11-2008, 01:07 AM
Generally speaking, much slower than the fastest 35mm glass.

It's helpful to keep in mind that larger formats don't *need* glass that is as fast as 35mm to get equivalent depth of field and total light gathering ability for a given field of view and perspective.

Here's an illustration for anyone who wasn't already aware of that: Imagine you've framed a shot with a certain perspective and field of view. Picking up your 35mm still camera, the 50mm f/2.0 does it perfectly. To get the same field of view and perspective on medium format would require a 75mm lens standing in the same spot. Now your FOV matches, but at f/2.0, the depth of field is much thinner with the 75mm lens. So you have to stop down to f/3.0 or so to get the depth of field deep enough to match the 50mm at f/2.0.

You might think you're getting less total light, but you're not: it's the same. Here's why: at f/3.0, the intensity per-area of light is lower. But there is more total area. So in the end it comes out equal. Why is that? Like with many things, it all comes back to aperture. 50mm/2.0 = 25mm. 75mm/3.0 = 25mm.

You might also wonder if the medium format has more noise. Photon shot noise, which is the noise you see in the mid-to-upper part of the histogram, scales just fine with MFDB, so it has a greater maximum level of signal-to-photon-shot-noise than is possible with 35mm. But the principle concern is usually read noise, which dominates the lower part of the histogram, and that depends mostly on the manufacturer's implementation. Based on current products on the market, Medium Format Digital Backs (MFDB) aren't doing so well in this area.

GTA
09-11-2008, 03:06 AM
But the principle concern is usually read noise, which dominates the lower part of the histogram, and that depends mostly on the manufacturer's implementation. Based on current products on the market, Medium Format Digital Backs (MFDB) aren't doing so well in this area.

Well that's not necessarily the case.

True to say that 35mm options have a much broader ISO range while MFDB are normally something like 50 - 800 ISO.

However an MFDB on a long exposure - say 30s to 1 min, will be much cleaner than a 35mm.

Also while 35mm maybe used in Photojournalism, sports, etc... you will not see the same for MFDB. Therefore the ISO and sensitivity needs are a little bit different.

Daniel Browning
09-11-2008, 08:48 AM
However an MFDB on a long exposure - say 30s to 1 min, will be much cleaner than a 35mm.


Exposures that long will have a large component of thermal noise (and maybe amp noise), depending on the ambient temperature. That's different again from photon shot noise and read noise.

At ISO 50, I bet the MFDB looks pretty good compared to 35mm for most, if not all, of the histogram. Particularly if the shot fills the histogram all the way to the right and you can crush the blacks a little.

But if the shot is still in the lower 20% of the histogram at ISO 50, then I'm sure the D700 can beat the MFDB. It will have more photon shot noise for the same exposure, so the highlights will be a little noisier, but the read noise is so much lower at analog ISO 1600 that the lower part of the histogram will be another story.



Also while 35mm maybe used in Photojournalism, sports, etc... you will not see the same for MFDB. Therefore the ISO and sensitivity needs are a little bit different.

Right. MFDB has so many limitations (price, read noise, FPS, etc.) that it's only useful to a few photographers right now. Hopefully that will change some day.

GTA
09-12-2008, 12:51 AM
Exposures that long will have a large component of thermal noise (and maybe amp noise), depending on the ambient temperature. That's different again from photon shot noise and read noise.

At ISO 50, I bet the MFDB looks pretty good compared to 35mm for most, if not all, of the histogram. Particularly if the shot fills the histogram all the way to the right and you can crush the blacks a little.

But if the shot is still in the lower 20% of the histogram at ISO 50, then I'm sure the D700 can beat the MFDB. It will have more photon shot noise for the same exposure, so the highlights will be a little noisier, but the read noise is so much lower at analog ISO 1600 that the lower part of the histogram will be another story.



Right. MFDB has so many limitations (price, read noise, FPS, etc.) that it's only useful to a few photographers right now. Hopefully that will change some day.

Mmmm... gonna disagree with you about the D700 comment. :biggrin: If you see them side by side then I am sure you would be convinced.

I don't claim to know the science (as yourself) but work on an image by image comparison. Take a night time shot for example at 10-15 seconds and anywhere in the MFDB shot will be clean.

Price is still comparitively high compared to 35mm but still in no way as it was five years ago. 22 - 31 MP models can be picked up for not a great deal more than a Canon 1Ds.

But in reality, if you shoot sports or journalism then a medium format really doesn't make sense - even if it shot 3fps! ;-)

Pietro Impagliazzo
09-12-2008, 10:51 AM
Of course many of us here would prefer a much larger format. My guess is that Jim is planning something radically different from modern "full frame" DSLRs.

I think the 15/65mm format would be perfect!!!! :) Jim??

The main thing I am interested in is advanced exposure control. For instance, I would like to see a "ratchet" timelapse feature that controls exposures through very small-increment shutter speed adjustments (thousandths of a second), but can only lengthen or shorten exposures in one direction. In other words, the "ratchet" feature would be similar to the "click-click-click" on a rollercoaster when you going up the incline. The rollercoaster can go up, but never back. Why is this important? The "Holy Grail" of timelapse is the ability to shoot day-into-night shots, or night-into-day on fully auto exposure settings (in-camera matrix metering, for example). But modern DSLRs do not view an image sequence as a video that needs stable, smooth transitions -- they view each frame as a still. So exposure times jump all over the place as cars or clouds pass through frames. The "ratchet" feature would know in advance that it is trying to make an HD video with very smooth exposure transitions. So, for example, you could be shooting in the middle of the desert with 1/2000th daylight exposures, which would very gradually transition through dusk (1s exposures) all the way to wide open Milky Way night shooting with exposure times of, say, 45 seconds. Not even the great masters like Ron Fricke have truly been able to pull off shots like that!

Regarding exposure times: if it can do 30s exposures, there is no reason it cannot do 90s or 150s. If you are using medium format lenses, you will need longer exposure times than you would with Canon EF bodies.

RED should seriously consider this.

Kyle Presley
09-17-2008, 06:40 PM
You might think you're getting less total light, but you're not: it's the same. Here's why: at f/3.0, the intensity per-area of light is lower. But there is more total area. So in the end it comes out equal. Why is that? Like with many things, it all comes back to aperture. 50mm/2.0 = 25mm. 75mm/3.0 = 25mm.


Are you sure about this? When I shoot medium format, I use the same metering for my Nikon SLR's as I do my Bronica. I compared the iris diameter of my medium format lenses to my Nikon lenses at various stops and the medium format lens's iris is physically wider than the corresponding stops on the SLR. Of course, I'm comparing apples to oranges though: the MF lens is a 75mm and my Nikon is 50mm, however they are about equal in terms of field of view. My point is, because of the larger field of view of medium format, you will always have shallower depth of field for an equivalent focal length. If you do stop down to get the equivalent DoF, there IS less light. You will have to change shutter speed to get the equivalent photos from both formats.



50mm/2.0 = 25mm. 75mm/3.0 = 25mm.


Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I think that holds true for lenses with the same flange depth, but medium format lenses have a longer flange depth, so less light DOES reach the film plane, that explains why the diameter of the MF irises is larger than the equivalent nikons'.

Daniel Browning
09-17-2008, 10:04 PM
Thank you for the discussion, Kyle. I hope that you will find my post informative and helpful.


Are you sure about this? When I shoot medium format, I use the same metering for my Nikon SLR's as I do my Bronica.


Right.



I compared the iris diameter of my medium format lenses to my Nikon lenses at various stops and the medium format lens's iris is physically wider than the corresponding stops on the SLR. Of course, I'm comparing apples to oranges though: the MF lens is a 75mm and my Nikon is 50mm, however they are about equal in terms of field of view.


Also correct. 75mm @ f/2 = 37mm. 50mm at f/2 = 25mm. The 75mm lens has about 50% more aperture at the same f number.



My point is, because of the larger field of view of medium format, you will always have shallower depth of field for an equivalent focal length.


That's not actually true. There are only two things that affect depth of field: the aperture (mm, not f number) and focus distance. Nothing else. Not field of view or film/sensor size. Here's why.

For a given perspective (subject distance), a larger format requires a longer focal length to get the same field of view. A longer focal length with the same f number will have a wider aperture (in mm), and therefore, a thinner DoF.

Looking at the same focal length on both formats is interesting. If you have the same perspective (distance to subject) and focus distance, then the depth of field will be the exact same. That contradicts what you said above, but we both know why: you were talking about moving closer with the medium format camera to get the same field of view as the 35mm format. Of course, sometimes changing distance is impossible or just ruins the shot, which is why I talk about a fixed perspective and focus distance.

But lets look at what happens when you move closer to get the same field of view. The perspective changes. And the focus distance gets closer. The change in focus distance is what causes the medium format to have thinner depth of field. If you moved closer with the 35mm camera, it would have the same depth of field again as the medium format (but again, it would have a different field of view).



If you do stop down to get the equivalent DoF, there IS less light.


There is half the light intensity per area, but there is double the area. Therefore the *total* amount of light is the same.



You will have to change shutter speed to get the equivalent photos from both formats.


If the technology was equal, then you would get equivalent photos without slowing the shutter speed. Here's why: The MFDB will have the disadvantage of needing a one stop push. The 35mm will have the disadvantage of needing twice as much enlargement for a given print size -- bringing them back to equivalence. If you do slow the shutter speed on the Medium Format, then it will have *more* total light than the 35mm, and will look better at equivalent print sizes. Another way to think of it is if you shrunk the Medium Format negative (or MFDB file) down to 35mm size, the light intensity would go up one stop.

Unfortunately, the technology is not equal. You might be able to try the above experiment with the same film in 35 and MF, but since film has non-linear response, even a one-stop push might skew the comparison. If the scene had low contrast and was exposed to fit entirely within the linear portion of the film response curve, then the experiment would work.



Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I think that holds true for lenses with the same flange depth, but medium format lenses have a longer flange depth, so less light DOES reach the film plane, that explains why the diameter of the MF irises is larger than the equivalent nikons'.

A longer flange depth doesn't mean less light reaches the film plane, it just places constraints on the lens design. Longer depths require more telecentric lens designs, shorter and it bangs into mirrors and causes vignetting (angle of incidence). The more important technical limitation is that MF lenses need to throw a larger image circle than 35mm and have longer focal lengths for the same FOV.

For another illustration of the amount of light and equivalence, consider the following:

Subject distance: 5 feet.
Focus distance: 5 feet.


APS-C camera, ~425mm^2 sensor/film area, 35mm, f/1.4, 1/250, ISO 100.
35mm still camera, ~850mm^2 sensor/film area, 50mm, f/2, 1/250, ISO 200.
Medium format, ~1700mm^2 sensor/film area, 75mm, f/3, 1/250, ISO 533.


All three of those shots will have the same perspective, field of view, depth of field, and total amount of light. If they had the same linear film or sensor technology and perfectly matched lenses, then the final image would also be the same.

Notice how 35/1.4 = 25, 50/2 = 25, and 75/3 = 25. Again demonstrating that total light gathering ability and depth of field are determined by actual aperture.

Kyle Presley
09-18-2008, 03:27 PM
Wow, that's a lot of information. Let me digest this. I'm still a little confused as to how all this works if it's metered the same. Let me read through a few more times. Thanks for the reply Daniel.

Kyle Presley
09-18-2008, 03:41 PM
OK, I get it now. I didn't fully understand the relationship between focal length and f stop as it applies to aperture. Now I think I have a better grasp of this. You're much better at articulating this stuff than I am. I fully concur with what you're saying, I just misunderstood at first. I love this forum, it's full of knowledgeable people, and no consultation fees! Do you mind, Daniel, if I ask what your photography background is?

Daniel Browning
09-18-2008, 03:49 PM
Do you mind, Daniel, if I ask what your photography background is?

Not at all. I got into photography about two and a half years ago; video shortly after that. My day job is software, but in my spare time I shoot weddings/events, timelapse, astrophotography, macro, and landscapes.

jean_dodge
09-20-2008, 04:26 AM
What if?

What if this new Red still camera was revolutionary in extending the dynamic range by virtue of using its large sensor to fracture an image into say, quarters - what if the lens used a prism or even a moving sensor somehow (I'm a terrible inventor, don't quote me on this stuff!) to enable multiple exposures within say, 1/1000 of a sec in order to enable handheld shots that became HDR composites?

Some motion picture ultra high speed scientific cameras used a spinning prism to create fast multiple images that filled a normal transporting 35mm film frame with four images per frame, thus quadrupling the effective frame rate at the sacrifice of image size/resolution. With a still life or a cooperative human model, you can already use a DSLR to make an HDR image by employing fast bracketing, at say 5 fps or so and the results are good enough to fool the eye, even when shot handheld.

As mentioned above, for 90% of photojournalism work, and any work for print that is bound into a book or magazine, sensors larger than Super35 size are mostly overkill, as is anything above 24 megapixels unless your job is to make huge enlargements. Red has experience making large sensors - so I'm just thinking about ways in which they might employ this tech to still photography. It seems like HDR, panorama, timelapse and high frame rate are areas in which they might reasonable be expected to deliver surprises or advantages over DSLR companies like nikon, canon et al.

I doubt this is what Red is doing, but it does seem to be within their grasp.

My other guess as to what this "revolutionary" still camera might be would be a possible bridge between MF and 35mm, combining some good aspects of both.

Kyle Presley
09-20-2008, 06:40 AM
What about a medium format 6x6 sensor with very large pixels? Native HDR without multiple exposures.

Deanan
09-20-2008, 08:27 AM
That's not actually true. There are only two things that affect depth of field: the aperture (mm, not f number) and focus distance. Nothing else. Not field of view or film/sensor size. Here's why.


Not exactly true. Circle of confusion is the third factor (and images size as an extrapolation).

Additionally, other factors in the system like OLPF, grain, noise, etc affect the sharpness quality and CoC which in turn affect the perceived depth of field. Ultimately, you also have to factor in qualitative assumptions about what the cutoff for in focus and out of focus is.

Daniel Browning
09-20-2008, 08:49 AM
Not exactly true. Circle of confusion is the third factor.

Oops, forgot about that one. That's one of the neat things about capturing and viewing at 4K: the depth of field is thinner.

Deanan
09-20-2008, 09:04 AM
Oops, forgot about that one. That's one of the neat things about capturing and viewing at 4K: the depth of field is thinner.

I forgot to mention that the debayer also affects DoF.

To some extent, the scaling algorithm does a little bit also.

Tom Lowe
09-20-2008, 09:16 AM
Deanan, what do you think about the exposure "ratcheting" idea? It might be a pain to design, but Red's DSLR Killer would be the only camera on the planet with that feature. The resulting shots would really be something, IMO.

Deanan
09-20-2008, 09:52 AM
Deanan, what do you think about the exposure "ratcheting" idea? It might be a pain to design, but Red's DSLR Killer would be the only camera on the planet with that feature. The resulting shots would really be something, IMO.

I used to do lots of timelapse years ago and I would do similar things with multiple exposures and accumulating the exposures for each frame. it works well and you have the advantage of being able to control things more precisely when you're 'developing' the timelapse in post. However it did require custom tools to blend or select images and laptop to control the camera.

I had a simpler version that just used a light sensor to ramp the iris in one direction.

Tom Lowe
09-20-2008, 10:01 AM
Yeah, but ramping the IRIS will obviously change your DOF, and it's not enough control to go from a daytime desert, for example, to a moonless desert exposed for the Milky Way. You're talking about going from 1/2000s to like 45s.

Deanan
09-20-2008, 10:31 AM
Yeah, but ramping the IRIS will obviously change your DOF, and it's not enough control to go from a daytime desert, for example, to a moonless desert exposed for the Milky Way. You're talking about going from 1/2000s to like 45s.

It works ok for some types of shots and is simple to implement. The DOF change can also be a nice addition sometimes.
More complicated shots I had to use external control to change exposure time but this also has limitations.

Tom Lowe
09-20-2008, 10:42 AM
Yeah. A system that uses internal (through the lens) matrix light metering with uni-directional, small-increment shutter ramping seems like the best solution... at least that I can think of.

Deanan
09-20-2008, 10:58 AM
Yeah. A system that uses internal (through the lens) matrix light metering with uni-directional, small-increment shutter ramping seems like the best solution... at least that I can think of.

What I used to like to do the most was to do multiple exposures per frame at the same exposure or at multiple exposures (depending on the goal) and then doing weighted averages.

Later I also started to shoot a sample frame, analyze it, and then trigger another frame with the correct exposure.

Unfortunately, I haven't had time to do any timelapse in the last 8 years.

Tom Lowe
09-20-2008, 12:13 PM
What I used to like to do the most was to do multiple exposures per frame at the same exposure or at multiple exposures (depending on the goal) and then doing weighted averages.

Later I also started to shoot a sample frame, analyze it, and then trigger another frame with the correct exposure.

Unfortunately, I haven't had time to do any timelapse in the last 8 years.

Well, what about automating this with DSMC? :)

Please.

Nova Invicta
09-29-2008, 10:23 AM
Most of the points discussed here are complex by comparrison to the Red One which basically removes the complexity to the posting of raw images which is also the reason the camera is cheaper than anything Sony or Panny do. Hasselblad already have a 50MP camera back and Leica have created a halfway format with 37.5MP. The biggest weakness of Red One and most digital cameras is dynamic range if Red is really radical it will find a way of resolving this. Kodak newer bayer filter is a step in this direction and its first application in mobile phones will start to erode the whole digital compact market which will need to move up to full frame 35mm or to keep it small micro 4/3rds type cameras. Likewise DSLRS will need to move up like Leica is doing and Nikon is rumored to be doing to medium format type sensors with dynamic range over MPs being more important.
Once again however the topic is hijacked by the sensor when the "System" is all important also and that includes lenses, accesories & software.

Joseph Ward
09-30-2008, 12:41 PM
We know that DSMC will have movie mode because Jims dsMc distinct difference of DSLR. If Red were to make a Medium Format DSMC they might as well combine it with Epic. Epic/DSMC

P Andersson
09-30-2008, 02:10 PM
i don't think yet, but when hasselblad, leaf and phase one start thinking about making a movie mode it should get interesting, or maybe there will be a view camera back that can do it.

anyway, since the larger sensors will downscale, it should be possible to build a large sensor medium format style, that could also use the lenses for 35mm slrs and pl mount stuff, and then just pull the correct amount of data from the sensor

it always made sense to me to have the sensor in its own housing, just like a film mag and let that evolve on its own

Joseph Ward
10-02-2008, 10:17 PM
Is there any Digital Large Format Cameras out now? lol

Tom Lowe
10-02-2008, 10:47 PM
I think FF35mm, aka Vista Vision, is big enough for a movie camera. When you get into medium format, the lenses are slow, etc.

Jonas Hed
10-03-2008, 02:50 AM
Since you are talking about automatation of functions why not make it programmable? Importing scripts with an SD-card or similar which make it possible to call certain commands like how redline work but for the cameras internal system. A wild idea ;)

J. Bernard Vallon
10-04-2008, 07:42 AM
Is there any Digital Large Format Cameras out now? lol

This is pretty large format:

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

Joseph Ward
10-04-2008, 08:04 PM
This is pretty large format:

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

Thats huge! That camera is made for billboards.:clown2: hehe

GTA
10-06-2008, 05:35 AM
Deanan, what do you think about the exposure "ratcheting" idea? It might be a pain to design, but Red's DSLR Killer would be the only camera on the planet with that feature. The resulting shots would really be something, IMO.

Actually it has already been done by an Austrian company specialising in time lapse...

http://www.brainsandpictures.com/timelapse

An exposure curve is applied so that the transition from Day to Night is natural and not fooled by cloud/sun scenarios.

Tom Lowe
11-16-2008, 10:53 AM
I think I am going to bump a couple of these older threads just to show that Jim and Red DO listen to us. :)

P Andersson
11-16-2008, 11:45 AM
i don't think yet, but when hasselblad, leaf and phase one start thinking about making a movie mode it should get interesting, or maybe there will be a view camera back that can do it.

anyway, since the larger sensors will downscale, it should be possible to build a large sensor medium format style, that could also use the lenses for 35mm slrs and pl mount stuff, and then just pull the correct amount of data from the sensor

it always made sense to me to have the sensor in its own housing, just like a film mag and let that evolve on its own

And Done!

Only the view camera option left, but that is being discussed in another thread.

Michael Ragen
11-16-2008, 02:47 PM
yup. They do listen. Now to come up with the extra cash for the 645.

Tom Lowe
11-16-2008, 03:38 PM
Michael, do you have any experience driving a getaway car... 'cuz I'm working on a plan. :gun: :)

Michael Ragen
11-16-2008, 10:41 PM
I plan on pickin up either the 2/3 or s35 scarlet and then I'm going to play wait and see with epic. The ff35 and 645 make the most sense to me even if a Pl mount live on them most of the time. I'm also hoping for a clean 1280 ISO on monstro. And sorry Tom and can't talk about my bank robbing skills on a forum with real names. :detective2: