Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Helium 8K s35 sensor from RED

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Helium 8K s35 sensor from RED

    Jim Jannard teased about his next big project and he announced the Helium sensor to his Facebook friends last night. Apparently 8K shrunk to fit on a Super 35 sized sensor. Might be interesting to track this hence this thread. Don't know specifics because I'm not a Facebook friend, but it may be the photosites are 3 microns. Much smaller than their Dragon 8K sensor photosites but still much larger than the photosites in my iPhone.

  • #2
    Yawn - resolution is IMHO totally overrated.
    They can't even broadcast 4k - most folks would be happy to get halfway decent HD these days.
    Wake me up, when the average internet speed quadrupled.
    Blog: http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Frank Glencairn View Post
      Yawn - resolution is IMHO totally overrated.
      They can't even broadcast 4k - most folks would be happy to get halfway decent HD these days.
      Wake me up, when the average internet speed quadrupled.
      um, its not about resolution, that is not what 8k is all about, its about a smoother look as pixels created in film are round and in digital its a series of polygons, so the more pixels the rounder it gets and the smoother it looks. yes of course no one is broadcasting 8k.
      this might explain it to you better from Michael at light iron:

      "5. RESOLUTION IS NOT SHARPNESS
      When you look at your Facebook wall you instantly know the difference between an iPhone photo and a DSLR photo. Yet on Facebook, if the compression and size of the photos are identical, how can you tell? Certainly the iPhone is not blurry. In fact, I find iPhone photos to be remarkably sharp and with surprisingly excellent DR and color. So what is the intangible difference between a lowres iPhone photo and lowres DSLR photo?
      The digitally-educated understand that you cannot make a perfect circle using pixels because they are merely a series of polygons. Film, ironically, can actually photograph a perfect circle because it’s not limited to polygon arrangements. By this, the more pixels you can apply towards a perfect circle, the more perfect the circle appears to be. And there is the #1 reason for lovers and haters alike to test Weapon 8K:
      8K is not about sharpness, it’s about smoothness.
      When the stills world migrated to digital cameras, one thing they weren’t necessarily looking for was film-like resolution. What they were actually looking for was a more film-like smoothness. And the smoothness they were after became better and better as sensor resolutions increased. And that is what 8K is all about. The same way a 32 megapixel DSLR camera can look good after being rendered down to Facebook, so will Weapon 8K when rendered down to UHD."

      more from this article:
      http://lightiron.com/arming-8k-weapons/

      Comment


      • #4
        Michael is biased, cause his business model is based on high resolution.
        I also don't share many of his opinions, to say the least.

        But that example (round dots) is IMHO pretty much the biggest BS he ever said, since the dots of your computer screen are still square.
        This whole idea is so wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start.

        The phone photo looks "sharp" cause the phone is sharpening the sh..t out of it.
        If your DSLR photo is "blurry" compared to an iPhone photo, you really have an other problem.
        Blog: http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          I would be more worried about the low light performance because of the small photosites than anything else with that many photosites on an S35 sensor.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Frank Glencairn View Post
            Michael is biased, cause his business model is based on high resolution.
            I also don't share many of his opinions, to say the least.

            But that example (round dots) is IMHO pretty much the biggest BS he ever said, since the dots of your computer screen are still square.
            This whole idea is so wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start.

            The phone photo looks "sharp" cause the phone is sharpening the sh..t out of it.
            If your DSLR photo is "blurry" compared to an iPhone photo, you really have an other problem.
            wow, ok, you have every right to have your opinion but science is science!
            all i know is i shoot film all the time and on the last car commercial i worked on i got basically the same breakdown explained to me to technically by the colorist at technicolor, why does this look so much smoother if we are just looking at digital right now anyway.
            im not a genius but when coming from the experts, it makes completely sense to me, and panavision backs the science, as does arri and red.
            two NABs ago i was also explained the benefit of a 6k 65mm arri coming out, and it was that scaled down it makes the pixels rounder. brief but made me think way back then.
            anyway, respect your opinion, you dont have to buy it, or use or believe it, but that is where the perceptive is coming from, not to broadcast 8k, cause yes, that would be ridiculous.

            Comment


            • #7
              There are obviously a lot of things you can judge an image on, and Red knows this. They know that sensitivity, resolution, latitude, and colour accuracy are all critical components of an image. People give Red a hard time for pushing resolution, but Red is also doing their best to push other metrics too; more than anyone else in the industry, I'd argue.

              They know what they're doing and their images speak for themselves. I'd trust that this sensor will be another step forward, just like their others were.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JLdp View Post
                wow, ok, you have every right to have your opinion but science is science!
                all i know is i shoot film all the time and on the last car commercial i worked on i got basically the same breakdown explained to me to technically by the colorist at technicolor, why does this look so much smoother if we are just looking at digital right now anyway.
                im not a genius but when coming from the experts, it makes completely sense to me, and panavision backs the science, as does arri and red.
                two NABs ago i was also explained the benefit of a 6k 65mm arri coming out, and it was that scaled down it makes the pixels rounder. brief but made me think way back then.
                anyway, respect your opinion, you dont have to buy it, or use or believe it, but that is where the perceptive is coming from, not to broadcast 8k, cause yes, that would be ridiculous.
                Not wrong...but also of suspect relevance.

                As we know because it's been here for a long time, 4k does a damn fine job of "smoothing out circles". It does a damn fine job of most everything.
                We also know the law of diminishing returns.
                Beyond 4k the gains not only become much harder to detect, but more easily lost to processing, motion, compression, diffusion, whatever.

                It's very much like 96khz 24-bit or 32-bit audio - can you PROVE it's better than 48khz 16-bit or 24-bit? Sure you can. Can 99% of even critical listeners really discern any difference? Nope.

                Remembering that the Alexa gathers a 2.8k image.....

                When 6k and 8k cameras cost $3,000 then it'll be something other than chasing your tail. Provided they have good color-science and firmware.
                Cameras: Blackmagic Cinema Camera, Blackmagic Pocket Camera (x2), Panasonic GH2 (x2), Sony RX100 ii, Canon 6D, Canon T2i,
                Mics: Sennheiser, AKG, Shure, Sanken, Audio-Technica, Audix
                Lights: Every Chinese clone you can imagine

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DPStewart View Post
                  When 6k and 8k cameras cost $3,000 then it'll be something other than chasing your tail. Provided they have good color-science and firmware.
                  The 6K Terra will be $6K. Halfway there!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Is there a directly proportional relationship between the K of a sensor and the K (dollar value in 1000s) on the computer needed to handle the footage? I wonder what kind of render farm is necessary to work with 8k raw.

                    NorBro, you've already had one of those Chinese joints, you going back for seconds? I always get hungry an hour later myself.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Oh, I want one bad...haha.

                      I even e-mailed the 'Kine Team' for some more information just out of curiosity...but I know better than that this time around.

                      Specs/features on paper just don't always end up looking good in the footage.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        "Film, ironically, can actually photograph a perfect circle because itís not limited to polygon arrangements. By this, the more pixels you can apply towards a perfect circle, the more perfect the circle appears to be."
                        If that is true then you could only see a perfect circle with film projection. TV screens and digital projectors just use square blocks. 8k will produce flawless 4k, but it is past the point of diminishing returns. To get moire/alias free 4k, you just need about 50% more pixels(6144 wide) with a 4k olpf.(A 3.2K olpf on a 4.6k mini would eliminate almost all moire/aliasing) The larger pixels will give more dynamic range and require less data/processing power.(which translates into more fps, less rolling shutter, less storage costs..etc)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Film is not perfectly analog; it has a limit - the fibers of the celluloid itself. I've scanned a film negative at 1200dpi, and that was more than enough to see the individual fibers and the spaces between them.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ha! 8K in an S35 sensor.

                            Finally even RED found out that S35 is still the Gold standard in cinematography.

                            It's about time!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              8k would pretty much eliminate the need of any OPLF, which was some sort of PITA in the last Red cameras - I give you that.

                              But for broadcast, where the compress the sh...it out of any material, and compression artifacts come in the size of sugar cubes?

                              Seriously?

                              And even for cinema, where much less compression is going on, did anybody ever came out of a movie and said

                              "Wow, great film, but maaaan those circles really pulled me out of the story. Totally ruined it for me, like totally"

                              And how much "perfect circles" are we shooting anyway on a daily basis? And even if, are we talking static images?
                              As soon as you got some motion, you have motion blur - just one pixel of motion blur cuts your resolution in half - usually we have more, so do your math.
                              Last edited by Frank Glencairn; 07-06-2016, 12:27 AM.
                              Blog: http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X