Author Topic: 1190 x 2800  (Read 1641 times)

lightspeed

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 62
1190 x 2800
« on: June 02, 2022, 07:52:48 AM »
would it be possible to have a 1190 x 2800 resolution so we can film without rolling shutter.

Walter Schulz

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8492
Re: 1190 x 2800
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2022, 07:57:38 AM »
This is not how it works. This is not how any of this works.

Skinny

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
Re: 1190 x 2800
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2022, 12:19:18 PM »
You can get 2x anamorphic adapter, rotate it 90 degrees and shoot in 1,125:1 aspect ratio or something close to it.. which is easy with ML. And you will get 9:16 aspect ratio, vertical.

lightspeed

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: 1190 x 2800
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2022, 12:23:05 AM »
yes that's what I mean. but I don't want a anamorphic mode. can you not do 1190 x 2800 and then just turn the camera 90.

names_are_hard

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 540
  • 200D idiot
Re: 1190 x 2800
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2022, 03:39:33 AM »
Has been suggested several times before.  It's an interesting idea.  Likely needs someone to mess around with registers to see if any cam will record in "portrait raw".  Might work.

lightspeed

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: 1190 x 2800
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2022, 04:14:07 AM »
I don't know why the camera wasn't designed to have rolling shutter up and down. you move side to side much more.

ArcziPL

  • Contributor
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 190
Re: 1190 x 2800
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2022, 09:07:39 AM »
This won't eliminate the problem but change the appearance of its result. All objects moving in the direction of sensor readout will get extended in length. Moving in the opposite direction will get squeezed. Maybe it will be less disturbing than the jello effect, maybe more. I don't know without seeing some examples.
M50.110 [main cam] | G7X III [pocket cam] | 70D.112 [gathers dust] | M.202 [gathers dust] | waiting for M5II

Walter Schulz

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8492
Re: 1190 x 2800
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2022, 09:55:30 AM »
That is the point!
Should be possible to test "disturbingness" to some extent without additional coding. Cam in portrait orientation, do some recording with panning left/right. In post crop aspect ratio and rotate.
No idea how much increasing resolution may add to squeeze/extention.

And there should be no difference for rotating objects jello (fans, propellers, ...) but orientation.

lightspeed

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: 1190 x 2800
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2022, 10:25:24 AM »
I saw a video on it and it looked like it fixed the rolling shutter. that's where I got the idea. I didn't see any squeeze/ or extension so perhaps its not noticeable.

names_are_hard

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 540
  • 200D idiot
Re: 1190 x 2800
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2022, 02:22:12 PM »
This will not and cannot remove rolling shutter effect.  That effect will always be present on a sensor that is scanned one line at a time.

Reorienting the scan direction relative to the scene can change the appearance of the distortion.  Will it be a pleasant change?  Depends on the scene.

Skinny

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
Re: 1190 x 2800
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2022, 06:56:06 PM »
For footage shot hand-held with some shake it probably won't be a pleasant change... but I think for filming from the car window it can provide better results.

lightspeed

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: 1190 x 2800
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2022, 05:52:00 AM »
here's a video that shows the effect.


names_are_hard

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 540
  • 200D idiot
Re: 1190 x 2800
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2022, 10:28:53 PM »
This looks how I'd expect, and still shows rolling shutter.  They've chosen scenes with fast horizontal pans, but no vertical pans.  Distortion of objects is still visible, but it's a different kind of distortion.

It might be nice to have this as an option within ML, it needs someone to mess around with registers to get a portrait resolution.