5 ms·
It's interesting that this $45000 camera has a high speeding rolling shutter CMOS sensor (rather than a global shutter). They're spiel claims to minimise the j
by enb 8y ago
It's interesting that this $45000 camera has a high speeding rolling shutter CMOS sensor (rather than a global shutter). They're spiel claims to minimise the jello effect rather than eliminate it. Would have expected more at that price.
- KaiserPro 8y agoI've been out of the film world for about 5 years now, but from what I remember, RED's cameras are all rolling shutter. I suspect that this is the tradeoff for pixels of that size and speed on CMOS.
- phkahler 8y ago>> I suspect that this is the tradeoff for pixels of that size and speed on CMOS. Probably. I find it interesting that people in the film industry prioritize everything having to do with light (bit depth, color gamut, resolution) over spatial/temporal characteristics. Not saying it's the wrong choice, it's just interesting.
- dharmab 8y agoI guess you can hide temporal artifacts with camera work and editing, but poor lighting and color are harder to fix.
- rjplatte 8y agoThey're nigh-impossible, if the data isn't there.
- dylan604 8y agoExactly. Work within the limitations of the gear you are using. If you can’t do swish pans and other fast camera movements as a trade off to get higher resolution, higher bit depth, larger dynamic range, etc, then so be it. The one tell I see with the rolling shutter is light flashes where only part of the frame catches the flash. The next frame is then usually flipped as to which part of the frame caught the flash.
- dagmx 8y agoYou also need to account for the speed of the rolling shutter. Not all rolling shutters are equal and most modern cinema ones are fast enough for most use cases without artifacts. If it was egregious, people would definitely choose less artifacts over light performance. It's all compromises and we're just getting better at making those compromises smaller.
- CyberDildonics 8y agoFirst, I don't think that is true at all. High budget film movies are meticulous about every aspect that they can loosely quantify, even if it means someone eventually making decisions by eye. Second, there is no reason that every shot has to be done with the same camera. Back before digital cameras and fluid manipulation it might have been more difficult to match shots in a sequence, but even so vistavision cameras were still used for visual effects plates. If there was a fast whip pan where the rolling shutter would have a large impact, it could be shot with a different camera.
- flyinglizard 8y agoIt’s not for saving money. Rolling shutter sensors have better dynamic range and better light sensitivity (e.g. BSI is only possible on rolling shutter sensors). Rolling shutter sensors can also have stacked RAM which results in very, very fast readout and cancels rolling shutter artifacts.
- pvarangot 8y agoEven on non-BSI stacked sensors rolling shutter results usually in better IQ because it's a "simpler" pixel and readout logic. Global shutter is more a feature for machine vision sensors only now, where artifacts are not tolerable because you are processing the image assuming absolute and precise temporal locality in each pixel's information and acceptable image quality for those products has flatlined the last few years on ~60% QE and around 15ke- FW.
- dylan604 8y agoI'd imagine a global shutter would negatively impact the battery life as well. Keeping the full sensor energized 100% of the time vs the sliver of the chip as it scans must have an impact to consider.