Jump to content


Mysterium Sensor to be 4900x2580


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Jim Murdoch

Jim Murdoch
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2006 - 07:53 AM

I actually saw this over at CML where Greg Lowry posted a quote from Jim Jannard that was apparently originally posted on www.dvxusers.com. (Whew!!)
Trouble is, the only dvxusers.com site I can find doesn't seem to have anything to do with cinematography!

If it's true, RED are claiming that the mysterium sensor will have 4900x2580 pixels, of which only 4520x2540 will be available for output, giving a standard 16 x9 aspect ratio. So that's basically a little bit smaller than the Genesis chip.

What is disturbing though is that if I read it right, it sounds like RED are only going to be showing recordings of the sensor's alleged performance, not actual live demonstrations of the camera.
"We will, unless a major castastrophy (sic) happens, show 4k footage at IBC."
  • 0

#2 David W Scott

David W Scott
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Director
  • Toronto

Posted 10 August 2006 - 10:57 AM

DVX User
  • 0

#3 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 August 2006 - 12:18 PM

If it's true, RED are claiming that the mysterium sensor will have 4900x2580 pixels, of which only 4520x2540 will be available for output, giving a standard 16 x9 aspect ratio. So that's basically a little bit smaller than the Genesis chip.

No doubt, by the time this camera is released (even if that were tomorrow), someone else will be claiming to have a 6K prototype in the works...followed by claims of an 8K, etc...and the results may still not be as aesthetically pleasing as those of a 40-year-old 35mm film camera with good glass, either in terms of resolution, or in the ability to reproduce the most organic and natural-looking flesh tones.
  • 0

#4 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 10 August 2006 - 02:01 PM

All i can say to that is here, here , and i am in know way a ludite . john.
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 August 2006 - 03:26 PM

I'm not surprised they are showing footage, not a live image -- it's a 4K (or 4.9K) Bayered-filtered image so it has to be processed, and I suspect that the real-time processor is the next step in development, so for now, the footage they shoot has to be processed & rendered by some computer before it can be viewed. Plus it has to be scaled to whatever system they are showing it on, such as the 4K Sony projector.
  • 0

#6 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 10 August 2006 - 11:14 PM

Yes the View Sonic 23 inch 9.2 megapixel LCD Monitor can display 3840x2400 resolutions which is close to 4k. But the monitor costs $6000 so I am waiting for the price to come down. The View Sonic only has a 400 to 1 contrast ratio.
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 August 2006 - 12:51 AM

Yes the View Sonic 23 inch 9.2 megapixel LCD Monitor can display 3840x2400 resolutions which is close to 4k. But the monitor costs $6000 so I am waiting for the price to come down. The View Sonic only has a 400 to 1 contrast ratio.


It would be nice if you signed your posts with a real name...
  • 0

#8 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 August 2006 - 01:43 AM

I'm not surprised they are showing footage, not a live image -- it's a 4K (or 4.9K) Bayered-filtered image so it has to be processed, and I suspect that the real-time processor is the next step in development, so for now, the footage they shoot has to be processed & rendered by some computer before it can be viewed. Plus it has to be scaled to whatever system they are showing it on, such as the 4K Sony projector.


David is exactly right. As a reminder, we pulled the trigger on this project in Dec. 2005 (8 months ago). In that time we finalized the sensor design, began prototyping a body and system, began board designs, received the 1st sensors, built a platform to test the sensors, developed a test platform to shoot the footage we have now (last week until this Sat.) and then have to get the footage processed and ready for a projector we have never seen. I guess fast-track is an understatement.

We are either brave or foolish. We'll see at IBC. Then the real work begins.

Jim
  • 0

#9 David Sweetman

David Sweetman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Student

Posted 11 August 2006 - 02:44 AM

We are either brave or foolish.

Sweeeet. Freakin that line itself makes me want one. Rock on. Can't wait to see what you guys come up with.


geez how would I go about editing that kind of footage...down-res to dv for the offline then get an online? I guess...what's it take to edit 4k?

Edited by David Sweetman, 11 August 2006 - 02:48 AM.

  • 0

#10 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 August 2006 - 07:39 AM

There are several lower data rate options... 2K, 1080P, 720P, compression schemes, etc. But with the ability to maintain 35mm DOF.

Jim

Edited by jannard, 11 August 2006 - 07:44 AM.

  • 0

#11 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 11 August 2006 - 08:06 AM

Dear Jim

What will he bit rate per second be for 4.5k? Will you use Jpeg 2000 compression or be developing your own? Will the recorder be dockable like the Genesis or more in the realm of the D-20?

Árni Heimir
  • 0

#12 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11937 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 August 2006 - 08:31 AM

Hi,

JPEG2000 would be a reasonably smart move.

Phil

Also:

10-bit 4K RGB, that is 4096x3120, works out at just over 1Gbyte/sec plus framing overheads. That said, to store the raw data off a bayer sensor such as the one we're discussing is a slightly more feasible 330-odd megs a second. This is quite achievable with a disk array that would be at least somewhat portable and ought to render down to extremely decent 4:4:4 2K.

Anyone attempting to post 4K off this camera is giving themselves a rather unnecessary headache.

I had hoped that a camera like this would have enough ASIC on board to allow debayered dual-link HD-SDI output up to 2K. Not doing so vastly reduces the number of recorder options, but then they might be banking on those as the moneymaker. This could of course kill the project stone dead - Viper existed for years before it was usable because of the recorder situation.

Phil
  • 0

#13 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 11 August 2006 - 10:40 AM

I would like to see the camera come with 4 1080p60 encoding chips with 4 firewire outputs so that I could record the 4k signal to 4 HD-DVD decks. Then I could hook up my HD-DVD decks to my View Sonic 23 inch monitor that has 4 DVI inputs. I prefer firewire over HD-SDI because HD-SDI sounds like it is more expensive to support. What I would like to see is an affordable solution like Quad HDV.
  • 0

#14 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 August 2006 - 11:58 AM

We recognize that we need to provide solutions from the highest end (RAW 4.5K) down to 30Mbs recorded on board. We have our hands full. But we knew that going in.

Jim
  • 0

#15 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 August 2006 - 12:42 PM

I would like to see the camera come with 4 1080p60 encoding chips with 4 firewire outputs so that I could record the 4k signal to 4 HD-DVD decks. Then I could hook up my HD-DVD decks to my View Sonic 23 inch monitor that has 4 DVI inputs. I prefer firewire over HD-SDI because HD-SDI sounds like it is more expensive to support. What I would like to see is an affordable solution like Quad HDV.


this is nonsense, which is why i assume you only post under androbot, in fact maybe i am addressing a computer programme that randomly spits out technical words. seriously though why bother with this, why not suggest hooking it up to a series of cucumbers, as that would be both affordable and for a few extra pennies organic too boot.

all the best,

technotwat75
  • 0

#16 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 11 August 2006 - 02:48 PM

Yes the View Sonic 23 inch 9.2 megapixel LCD Monitor can display 3840x2400 resolutions which is close to 4k. But the monitor costs $6000 so I am waiting for the price to come down. The View Sonic only has a 400 to 1 contrast ratio.


Hi,

You won't get much more than 400 to 1 from any monitor. Some companies measure the black with the screen turned off to make the numbers sound better.

Stephen
  • 0


Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Opal

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio