Re: Why not make the sensor larger?

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
ASAAR wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:31:11 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark) wrote:

Let's look at what was actually said:
"That's not what I mean: I mean taking 16 shots at 1/1000 second of a
race car at midnight at the 24 hours of whatever, ISO 16,000, and then
compositing them into one final product, using all the information
in all 16, to produce and unblurred and not noisy image. The computer
decides what is car and what is background, and matches the images
together and corrects them before averaging them. It's sort of like
the matching done when making a panorama, but the computer has to
figure out the motion vectors properly, and remap each of the 16
images to match. It has to do this in 3-D because of teh different
planes in motion."
You're adding the idea of taking these 16 shots in an extremely short
time (just over 1/60 second, according to yor own post, above); Doug
didn't say that.
I understad some of the problems with doing what Doug propsed, but you
added the 1/60 second (later ammended to 1/30 second after adding
various needed delay), then proceeded to use that figure to argue. You
can't do that. It's called a strawman argument.
I'm not calling you a bad person. I'm just saying your argument here
is one you're making against something you said, not Doug.
I did not "add" or amend times as you say. I simply
computed the consequences of the position being put
forward by Doug, and then by your interpretation
of Doug's idea. You interpreted Doug's position
as sequential 1/1000 second exposures. I computed
the consequences of that idea if:

1) the readout was instantaneous (giving the 1/60 second value),
and
2) the readout was 1/1000 second (which is still many
times faster than currently possible).

The calculations are not based on something I said, but
but based on what you and Doug said.

No intention to insult you here, but you seem so sure that you're
right that you aren't to see any other possibility. Notice the
mention of panoramas, above. We've had discussions here before
about creating arrays of cameras that can allow the taking of many
(dozens?) of virtually simultaneous shots. You're assuming that all
of the 16 shots mentioned would be taken sequentially, using a
single camera. In fact, more than 2 days ago I replied to you :

If you increased the time between frames, then you lose
image stopping action, and in complex situations like
sports or wildlife, things change too much in a very short
time. e.g.:
Maybe someday adventurous sports photographers will solve that
problem by shooting with Gatling Cams.

Think of this future camera as one that extends Nikons CLS from
flash to cameras. The future camera might be called the DX-800, and
it would be the master camera, controlling up to 16 slave cameras.

Ha Ha! You think people complain now about the weight,
bulk, and cost of DSLRs now? Just wait until they
are carrying around 16 of them, with 16 matching lenses!
How many opportunities will they miss when they have
to change lenses?

Actually what you propose has already been done:
the movie The Matrix used a bunch of DSLRs fired in
rapid sequence for some of the slow motion sequences.

You think they will let me in the museum for some
snapshots when I carry that 16 DSLR array up to the
entrance? ;-)

Roger
I've tried to find a link on google to a company that I think was based in LA, renting out multiple dslr arrays (IIRC they were basic dslrs with 50mm f1.8 lenses) mounted on a boom, and used to produce the "3d freeze frame slo-mo" type effect (was used in some well-known movies and tv ads) by triggering them to fire across the wide boom either simultaneously, or with a programmable delay.
They had some high definition video samples on the site, which were stunning, but it looked like there was a lot of planning needed for each short sequence.
I can't remember the details, but they had arrays with dozens of cameras working. I guess that a simple lens like the 50 1.8's would be the way to go, as re-alignment / cropping of frames in post processing would be helped by the very low distortion (Nikkor 50mm 1.8 is near perfect), plus they are cheap as chips.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why not make the sensor larger?
    ... You're adding the idea of taking these 16 shots in an extremely short ... I understad some of the problems with doing what Doug propsed, ... about creating arrays of cameras that can allow the taking of many ... rapid sequence for some of the slow motion sequences. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: What a waste of talent: DOUG, BRET
    ... Manual-focus manual-exposure cameras with separate light meters, specially when using long lenses just aren't in the same league for speed as medium to high-end dslrs. ... Once upon a time they used to lug whole-plate stand cameras and wet tents on a horse-drawn buggy, and they got their shots too - but who does that now? ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Sharpest photos
    ... could be done with today's DSLRs through the use of stitching ... delay between the first and last shots; too long to satisfy an Ansel ... But with enough cameras the delay between the first and last ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Is this a good dslr?
    ... "Most seamless live view system of current DSLRs." ... I guess the class is entry level dslr cameras, so if a new model wasn't at least "competitive" it would be a dismal failure. ... The review understated the performance of anti-shake. ... Nikon and Canon still require that you purchase a wireless controller. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Is this a good dslr?
    ... "Most seamless live view system of current DSLRs." ... I guess the class is entry level dslr cameras, so if a new model wasn't at least "competitive" it would be a dismal failure. ... The review understated the performance of anti-shake. ... Looks to me like they threw together a list of "pros" to keep the Sony punters happy and off their backs. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
Loading