Thoughts on Modern Cameras

[MIKI-814]

CCD's-CMOS-pixels-Red... for a while I thought I was in the wrong forum

[MovieStuff]

......how can there be dual 1ghz ARM processors that run graphics unlike anything from 5 years ago and yet there isn't chip level instruction to have a CMOS pass off an image at 1/48 of a second as captured as a whole? It seems like an instruction set.....

Well, certainly, the amount of money that it would take to write new firmware to allow for global shutter is nothing compared to the money they've already spent on producing the hardware and CMOS has been around for years; certainly long enough to fund the R&D required for a basic firmware change, if that's all it takes. So, unless this is a coordinated effort on all the camera manufacturers to keep CMOS in a rolling shutter state until they've milked the market before making the big switch to global shutter as "the new thing" to stimulate new sales, I'd say that it is an inherent design issue on the part of the CMOS chip that prevents implementation of a global shutter. Otherwise, the first camera manufacturer to have a global shutter on a cheap CMOS camera would be all over the competition and wouldn't hesitate to push it as hard as possible. We aren't seeing that at all, presently. If you want global shutter, you still need a CCD.

Roger

[Nigel]

Roger

By no means do I understand CCD or CMOS to any sort of level beyond what camera manufacturers tell. That is why until now I haven't really thought about it.

Rolling Shutter artifacts suck. It is one reason why I have stayed away with shooting a lot of video with my Nikon.

Dalsa makes a CMOS they claim doesn't roll. What little I have used the Alexa I have not seen it roll as I have with an SLR. But, we also weren't shooting fast pans.

We agree. This may be the 3rd time we have too. ;)

Good Luck

[Nigel]

MIKI-814

Well, it is the state of the world. Unfortunately pixels are quickly replacing silver halide. I will continue to shoot film but I can't keep my head in the sand when it comes to cameras and camera tech.

Good Luck

[reflex]

Design engineers are extremely aware of the need to develop affordable CMOS sensors with global shutters and extended dynamic range. The limiting factor is Moore's Law.

A typical modern CMOS array requires a photodiode and three transistors per pixel, read column by column (hence the rolling curtain shutter effect). It's compact and relatively inexpensive to manufacture.

A low noise CMOS array with global shutter requires 6 or 7 transistors per pixel, perhaps with an additional charge capacitor in the array. You also need a good DSP chip to handle image bloom and noise -- in other words, the problem is understood and there are working designs (like the Falcon cameras), but it's currently impossible to produce at a reasonable price. That will change over the next 3-6 years as chip fabs become able to inexpensively manufacture sensors with 4x the gate density.

The interesting thing is that once affordable global CMOS sensors hit the market, there will be an awkward lag -- the chips will be sufficient to shoot HD video but they won't measure up against the current crop of column-addressed CMOS chips in DSLR applications (still photos) until several issues are addressed (noise, parasitic light sensitivity).

So, yeah, in 6 or 7 years we should be rid of jellyvision at the prosumer level.

Let's hope that manufacturers also take heed of Nigel's complaints about ergonomics, too. He's bang on -- there are a handful of essential functions that need high quality dedicated controls that can be operated blind without having to peer at a row of identical knobs or slippery M&M shaped buttons.

I'm eagerly looking forward to the next few years of development in digital imaging. Yes I love film, but I would absolutely love something *better* than film. Especially if it's easy to use.

[wado1942]

Well like I've said, I have no intention of ever replacing film. I want to replace conventional video as soon as possible, though and CMOS anything won't do it for a long, long time.

[reflex]

Well like I've said, I have no intention of ever replacing film.

So if something better than film comes along in a few years -- something absolutely fantastic -- you'll continue to shoot film? That's romantic, but doesn't really make sense.

[wado1942]

I didn't say I'd never stop shooting film, but if a better video camera came my way, I would think about buying one. Right now, I have no plan to replace my aging system because there's nothing worth while that I could afford, which should be read "when I get hired to do a shoot, I do film. If I HAVE to shoot video, I hire somebody with his own camera." If something absolutely killed film and there weren't any other practical options, I'd probably give it strong consideration, but how can I replace film with video when video is moving backwards?

[reflex]

how can I replace film with video when video is moving backwards?

Video isn't moving backwards at all. It's just that people expect products to be released at ever-cheaper prices, and it's impossible to provide perfection in a $299 camcorder that's destined for Walmart. A lot of R&D money goes into creating low cost system-on-a-chip image DSP processors (like Canon's DIGIC series), because the technology can be amortized over dozens of products. That said, those same R&D departments are acutely aware of Moore's Law and are working on astounding products that are financially out of reach right now but will be mainstream in a decade.

The problems with CMOS will be resolved and digital imaging will continue to get better.

Whether we like to admit it or not, some people on this forum are like ostriches -- they post imaginative arguments about 8mm film having amazing resolution and stunning quality that digital will never match. The truth is that Super 8 looks like Super 8 - magical and unique. But it's a tiny little consumer-grade format that provided limited resolution and image stability back in its heyday during the 1970s. These days, it's expensive and quaint.

We are a dying breed, and the sooner digital image companies get their act together in the prosumer marketplace, the better.

[wado1942]

I don't know, I think there's innovations left and right and that the future standard model for cameras is a good idea... high resolution, single chip, progressive scan designs. The fact of the matter is, when I started really shooting video, the quality was pretty good for prosumer work, editing was largely lossless etc. Now, merely cutting two shots together degrades the quality, you can't have any kind of motion, it takes twice as long to render stuff than when I started with my comparatively primitive editor. Everybody's so uptight about having so many millions of pixels written in the manual, they seem to forget about all the other aspects of the camera. More important, they forget that not a person on the planet will ever see all the resolution they're supposedly capturing. That's backwards to me.
Now, if the typical prosumer creates relatively artifact free videos that really DO have HD resolutions (none of this 500 TV line stuff) without aliasing, motion issues, lossless editing with better than 8-stops latitude (without using temporaly shifted, multi-exposure trickery) for under $2,500, then that is moving forward.

[Nigel]

Wado

You miss the point. I know you are being hyperbolic when you say making a cut degrades the image. But, if you think that film is all there is then you are missing out not only on work but options.

I'm sure in 1865 people thought that painting was the only way to truly capture a person's essence. How silly is that?

I love Super8. I love film. The fact of the matter is is that film is moving toward niche. Just look at this forum. How busy is it today compared to 10 years ago when it started? Compared to its peak in 2004, 2005, 2006. I didn't come here for three years and never missed it because 1) I wasn't shooting Super8 2) Super8 isn't something I deal with anymore unless I want its look. 3) Super8 is a hobby and by comparison a relatively expensive one.

Personally I think 16mm will die before Super8.

And, I hope film lives on both professionally as well as personally. But, to think that something won't come along that allows me to capture images in ways yet imagined just goes to show how little imagination you have. We have phones that Dick Tracy would deem miracles.

Good Luck

[wado1942]

I shoot on video every day, so it's not like I'm refusing to use it. It's very high end equipment that I myself could not afford, though. I'm just saying that for the first time, the defacto-standard prosumer video production is getting worse instead of better. That does not motivate me to get rid of my film equipment, it motivates me to wait till the new standard model of video shooting gets back up to what conventional 3-CCD cameras could do.

[MIKI-814]

Well, it is the state of the world. Unfortunately pixels are quickly replacing silver halide. I will continue to shoot film but I can't keep my head in the sand when it comes to cameras and camera tech.

Maybe pixels are replacing silver halide(or maybe just up to a point, who knows) but that's not any reason to invade a specific "small gauge film forum" with CCD's and pixels and only CCD's and pixels...

If that replacement is true it would be certainly quite easy to come across de right digital forum out there, I guess :roll:

[MovieStuff]

Maybe pixels are replacing silver halide(or maybe just up to a point, who knows) but that's not any reason to invade a specific "small gauge film forum" with CCD's and pixels and only CCD's and pixels...

If that replacement is true it would be certainly quite easy to come across de right digital forum out there, I guess :roll:

I dunno. I would say that the majority of the public uses the terms film and video interchangeably, if incorrectly. Obviously we know the difference but, still, the reality is that small gauge film making encompasses a wide range of disciplines not the least of which is digital imaging for telecine transfer, which is now the defacto method of releasing anything shot on film these days. So what's the difference between discussing pixels that make up a telecine image and pixels that make up an original image other than a perceived breach of forum etiquette? Not much, IMHO. Besides, you posted previously about this so you already knew this particular thread wasn't about film. So why come back to it if it holds no interest to you? It's not like Nigel discussing pixels takes up extra space inside your computer. :lol:

Roger

[wado1942]

In my observation, even a lot of pros use film, video/tape interchangeably.