Anamorphic and Panavision cinema ratio 1: 2.3 at 11k capture

Started by Akos, June 16, 2013, 08:17:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Akos

Hi Guys,

i stumbled over a video that shows how to shoot in 3x crop mode at full res with magic lantern

although this is NOT a widely needed feature at all, to zoom in at full res....  it accidentally shows a solution for a very much wanted feature at the same time.

Panavision's cinemascope ratio 1: 2,3

most serious DP's want to shoot in 1:2,3 cinemascope panavision ratio,.. which usually only can get done properly with an anamorphic lens like the Panavision adapter 7200 , which squeezes optically the width and leaves the hight , .... and then with a field monitor that understands how to squizz anamorphic as well , and after in expanding it again in finalcut for example.in order to max out resolution of the chip of the camera.

of course this happens only with that smaller amount of access of pixels on the chip, which is very counterproductive to say the least.

a nightmare to be exact. and huge workload in the aftermath of using such optical anamorphic compressors, which need to be uncompressed after again in final cut etc..

but what you guys at Magic lantern have opened here is a new very much wanted access to the chips full res of the the chip.

in this video here : http://youtu.be/WhiQ9D9vyPI

he shows how you do the 300% AT FULL HD RES ,  or 3 x crop at full res.

if you were to do this,... but widen the YELLOW AREA spot to use the max width of pixels available on this chip ,
see first two picks , which are from this video, but then SEE MY 3rd EXAMPLE pic BELOW , you would have actually created a widescreen 1:2,3 ratio easily without ever loosing resolution any other way would loose , 
and of course the way AN OPTICAL adapter anamorphic ones would loose ,

again : THIS is a VERY big deal !!!!

if The Magic lantern crew would venture into this they are looking at a .."8k-11k".. capture, that's about 3 times more than an alexa can shoot with. Alexa Cameras  shoot at 4k, by the way..... its about the ma possible today
(i will not talk about shitty RED camera stuff here, so don't ask)


these usually optical anamorphic adapters start at 1500 and go up to 10k, and most are not even built anymore.
even with those optical anamorphic lenses the resolution then is not even remotely close to what your crop mode , when used with max width use of all pixels available on this  chip could give us all ...

see third image below where i enlarged the yellow are so it helps you may be understand this very sought after feature amongst P's out there..

also with adapter that create anamorphic compressions optically one is very limited to shoot closer than 4 feet.... so in reality this all is a big nightmare.

and your software could solve all this issues !

please let me know if this is something you are actually reading here, ....

Akos

i wish you insert image feature would actually work here, then i could attache 3 images that would visualize this very well, ....

here a link to the images that can show this easier ,.... and nope , this is not an optical challenge at all i am describing here with Magic lantern , so anyone suggesting optical solutions here , please read more carefully or leave this thread ..

https://www.icloud.com/photostream/#A45aDWbrBEGxO  (make sure you click on this thimbnail view in this link so you can see all three pics above each other)

Andy600

This is nothing new. You can already choose aspect ratios including Cinemascope but you won't get true anamorphic looks without an anamorphic lens. BTW you can pick up fairly decent ones for under $500 ;)

Here's some real anamorphic footage shot and expanded to 2.5k on a MkIII https://vimeo.com/66574661

and here is some on the 50d https://vimeo.com/67023056
Colorist working with Davinci Resolve, Baselight, Nuke, After Effects & Premier Pro. Occasional Sunday afternoon DOP. Developer of Cinelog-C Colorspace Management and LUTs - www.cinelogdcp.com

Akos

you are totally not reading what i just am describing here, let me ad a link so you can see what this is about...:

https://www.icloud.com/photostream/#A45aDWbrBEGxO

if you read more carefully you will see this would become a 11k capture, that about 3 times of what the big Alexa Cameras can do.. !!

there is no lens that could do this ever, since the pixels are not being accessed on this big chip..... the key is access to all 22mb pixels and not just the 1920-1080 which is only every tenth pixel on that chip...

a1ex

Come back here when you are no longer under influence.

On-topic: already done, but only 3.5K on 5D3, and it probably stops after half a second or so.

cbmk

I'm sorry to point this out to you, but you seem to know absolutely nothing of what you are talking about. No current Canon DSLR (or any other electronic camera on the market) will ever be able to record 11K, simply because there are no commercially available sensors of that resolution. The closest thing must be IMAX cameras, which record to 70mm film, which can in theory be converted to 12K digital frames. This, however, is not done, as 11K video files would just take up far too much disk space, and be too heavy to edit. What those 22 milli-bit pixels you talk about do, I have no idea. Even if you meant to write megabyte pixles (abbreviated MB, NOT mb), it still makes no sense. What 3x zoom mode has got to do with any of this, I do not know either. That iCloud document you linked to does not make anything clearer, except the illustration sort of explains why there are advantages to filming in zoom mode.

Now, once again I am baffled of your amazing way to draw lines between unrelated subjects, as the "Panavision aspect ratio" (which by the way is not 2.3:1; Virtually anything can be called Panavision when filmed on Panavision lenses, but the most common are 1.85:1, 2.39:1 and 2.20:1 (non-anamorphic) or 2.27:1 (anamorphic), the latter two being Panavision 70) and everything else mentioned in your post. Please explain thoroughly, preferably after reading all the Wikipedia pages on the subjects, or shut up.

Regards, cbmk

EDIT: Sorry, Alex, didn't see your post before I published mine. I presume yours is sufficient, but perhaps mine will make some things a bit clearer for him. I did not know 3.5K was achieved on the 5D3 though! That is amazing, even though it only lasts for a matter of seconds!

And one more thing: maybe this thread should be closed before anyone else wastes their time reading the nonsense written here?

Akos

Canons5 dmark 3 sensor is indeed :Approx. 22.10 Megapixels (5760 x 3840)

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii#Specifications

so when you do your homework come back again, but not before please!

Akos


Quote from: a1ex on June 16, 2013, 09:45:12 PM
Come back here when you are no longer under influence.

On-topic: already done, but only 3.5K on 5D3, and it probably stops after half a second or so.


nope it would be almost 11k capture,.... to be exact it would become 5760 to 1700 for  xample  thats about 8k not 3,5 k

cbmk

I think you have misunderstood the concept of a number with a "K" behind. That number is not the total number of pixels of the sensor, but the approximate number of horizontal pixels.

Also, it is so far not possible to read the whole sensor without actuating the shutter, so 22MP filming is not, and will not become, a reality.

Please be quiet now.

Akos

in 1983 i had the first sinar CCD sensor in my hands and a few people, like you, said this is never going to be bigger than this scan chip of 3mb ,it took a 5 minute scan to take a picture actually.
which was handed over by the NASA to kodak and then to SINAR cameras in switzerland to develop the very first Digital camera ever for consumers and not just for astronauts.
it was a 135'000$ chip.

took great images....

but questions and ideas that are wanted are important to be put into the spotlights, so dont be so freaking negative and patronizing,and belittling pointing out small irrelevant factors like the the abbreviation of Mb or dreaming about an idea,
may be i am the guy that can put you on a table with the people that actually manufacture this chip....

food for thought!

Akos

Quote from: cbmk on June 16, 2013, 10:18:32 PM
I think you have misunderstood the concept of a number with a "K" behind. That number is not the total number of pixels of the sensor, but the approximate number of horizontal pixels.

Also, it is so far not possible to read the whole sensor without actuating the shutter, so 22MP filming is not, and will not become, a reality.

Please be quiet now.

4k horizontally and 1,7 k approx vertically ends up at about 6mb frame size, with the mark 3 its a vertical res of 5760 ...you do the math now!

i have been talking to Canon about this by the way....so you better be quiet yourself on your end...!

hirethestache

@HireTheStache
www.HireTheStache.com
C100, 5D3, 5D2, 6D

Akos

Quote from: hirethestache on June 16, 2013, 10:47:49 PM
You're kind of a stubborn fellow, aren't you?

seems rather they are all windows programmers here...LOL

you will see this topic becoming very real very soon, then i am sure you will have all intentionally forgotten all your comments here i gather.. LOL

hirethestache

Who at Canon have to been talking to, really. I'll bet you'll say "the head of _____ department," because you're an important person and you only talk to important people.

I suggest you take a break from the forums and come back with a better attitude.
@HireTheStache
www.HireTheStache.com
C100, 5D3, 5D2, 6D

Akos

Quote from: hirethestache on June 16, 2013, 10:51:36 PM
---duplicate, ignore---

you might wanna look at what i do before you go out  like this... i was sponsored and am sponsored by about every major leading photo brand out there, for the last 25 years or so ;)

cbmk

Are you mixing mega-pixels (MP) and megabytes (MB)? A frame of 4000*1700 can take everything from a few kB, if we are talking 1 bit colour with severe compression, to several hundred megabytes, if it is uncompressed 4:4:4 32bit raw. Considering Canon cameras, a raw raw picture at 16MP from the 550D takes about 25MB. In JPEG, it is somewhere near 6MB, but for now, ML supports either H.264 or raw filming, both of which result in quite different file sizes from what you suggest.

The point is that with the current generation of cameras, this is not possible. Of course 12K filming will be a reality in the future, but not on hardware that exists today.

Also, the Mark 3 has got 5760 pixels horizontally, not vertically, which could be called 6K, (if it could film at that resolution) but that is still just a quarter the pixels needed for 12K.

cbmk

Quote from: Akos on June 16, 2013, 10:54:34 PM
you might wanna look at what i do before you go out  like this... i was sponsored and am sponsored by about every major leading photo brand out there, for the last 25 years or so ;)

Please, feel free to show us your work along with some facts that actually make sense.

Andy600

Quote from: Akos on June 16, 2013, 10:52:28 PM
...seems rather they are all windows programmers here...LOL

you will see this topic becoming very real very soon, then i am sure you will have all intentionally forgotten all your comments here i gather.. LOL

Most, if not all the devs are using Linux as far as I know  ::)

Topic should be locked. It's pointless.
Colorist working with Davinci Resolve, Baselight, Nuke, After Effects & Premier Pro. Occasional Sunday afternoon DOP. Developer of Cinelog-C Colorspace Management and LUTs - www.cinelogdcp.com

SDX

Not a single, constructive post here.
Locked until you all are sober again.