![Happy :)](./images/smilies/1.gif)
https://vimeo.com/82497785
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
I'm getting 16 bit 5K images, so the DR is quite good - but it would be even better using the multi-sampling you've been doing. So I'm going to do that as well. Personally I don't think there is any limit to what is possible.MattiasN wrote:ok
have you test to do multi capture and merge them to singel clip ?
i guess that Canon DSLR camera you have does have big sensor i mean it have good dynamic range so you do not need
Imagine a movie in which each frame is of the same scene and nothing is moving. You could easily merge all the frames in the same way you are doing and get a higher definition (DR and/or rez). But any movement within the scene complicates it. So one has to determine for each pixel in one frame it's corresponding location in subsequent frames (and in previous frames) - and doing the merge along those movement lines. And making sure any incorrect correspondences don't get caught up in the integration (merge).MattiasN wrote:16 bit 5K images that would be nice to capture
inter-frame integration process does sound complicated hmm is it like stacking photos like in macro shots i have seen when i have google about lenses
Carl,carllooper wrote:More great work Mattias.
ps. I've been using a Canon DSLR in my own work but am thinking of getting the 4K version of these (under $1K):
http://ww2.ptgrey.com/USB3/Flea3
At 4K it has a data rate of 21 fps. At 3.5 K (ie. transferring a sub-region of the sensor buffer) it'll run at 24 fps. My Canon, while 5K, runs at something like 1 fps when doing on the run RAW transfers.
Yes, having a larger sensor pixel (ie. larger sensor array) will put less stress on the lens requirements (although you'd need a larger lens of course). But even where photosites are smaller than the purported resolution of a lens, the statistical sum of the sites, over the area designated as the rez limit, will give you a stronger signal in comparison to a single sensor pixel covering the same area. For the same lens , a 4K sensor pixel will still be giving you a 7X stronger signal per same area as the 1.5K sensor pixel. The strength isn't in terms of resolution per se, but in terms of bits per area, ie. in terms of dynamic range. And that can often be more important. To put it another way: a 4K signal downsampled to 1.5K will look much better than a signal originating at 1.5K - but it will also look sharper as well, despite both being 1.5K. There are legitimate reasons for this - something exploited in Super Resolution methods.JeremyC wrote:Carl,
I would be interested in how well a CMOS sensor performs compared with a CCD sensor. However, wrt to the Flea 3 you linked to its pixel size is only 1.5 um and people more technically quick than me have pointed out that very small photo sites demand an extremely good lens otherwise having all those extra photo sites is useless and you might as well have something like a 1.5K sensor. I would love to get hold of a 4K sensor to build my own telecine but the only thing I've seen so far where the pixel sites are 5.5 um and larger and so correspondingly more expensive are the Kodak ones but they are CCD and whtehr the latest CMOS sensors can match them is another thing I need to investigate.