35mm sensors, lenses will soon be useless, Red Two?

[Max Jacoby]

It will have huge implications on art, science as well as politics.

Care to elaborate?

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Let's see if I can upload a picture. I found another still of Reifenstahl probably taken within a few minutes of the one with the mystery camera.

 

 

The thing that looks like a viewfinder in the other shot is definitely a viewfinder. But now the camera seems to have a divergent turret, unlike the Eyemo. The long lens looks just a little different, there's some kind of extra ring around it. Also, the box by the operator's foot is gone -- perhaps it was a battery.

 

In the three hour documentary 'The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl' there's footage of shooting 'Olympiad' which the above photo is either a frame from that footage or was taken at the same time.

Also contemporary scenes of Leni and a couple of her cameramen at the stadium talking about shooting 'Olympiad'. There are closer shots of that camera from behind the operator, it's quite clear that there is no side finder and the veiwfinder is on the rear of the camera and lines up with the taking lens.

 

I'm curious about that camera.

[Joakim Sandstrom]

Care to elaborate?

 

I could go on forever, but generally:

Images are the most powerful form of communication. We trust our eyes and we form our perception of reality based on it. Look at a head, the eyes are two pipelines straight into the brain. A stereoscopic image is so much more powerful than a monoscopic image, it is not even an image anymore, it is a slice of reality. I think the implications for art and science are obvious. For politics, well, take young people for instance, growing up with stereosopic content and the fact that something does not have to be real to feel real... will have tremendous effects on everything. Also negative. Take for example a stereosopic film for kids. They watch the film, being completely absorbed in the presentation. Then some ( evil ) person has managed to hack into the film, suddenly inserting the most terrible images you can think up, people being mutilated, their parents sliced to pieces, whatever awful poop you can dream up. Those kids will to some degree be damaged for life, like people who have experienced war. Stereoscopic content will be that poweful soon.

 

Thanks

Joakim Sandstrom

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Then some ( evil ) person has managed to hack into the film, suddenly inserting the most terrible images you can think up, people being mutilated, their parents sliced to pieces, whatever awful poop you can dream up.

 

The obits for the advertisor that "invented" subliminal advertiseing mentions that he eventually admited it was a hoax to get publicity and clients for his advertising agency.

 

You would need to drug those kids for those results.

 

& I've read an article, which I can't find, where Dan Symmes says Robt.Bernier told him that only the occasional movie, not all movies, should be in 3-D, otherwise 3-D loses its special event quality.

I'll agree with that. 3-D should be reserved for special venues rather for general release.

[Max Jacoby]

I think you're getting a tad carried away with your 3D frenzy there. It's always easy to make grand-sounding statments about the future or future developments whose impacts are not yet known and hence easily overestimated.

[Ruairi Robinson]

I think you're getting a tad carried away with your 3D frenzy there. It's always easy to make grand-sounding statments about the future or future developments whose impacts are not yet known and hence easily overestimated.

 

Hitchhiker: "You heard of this thing, the 8-Minute Abs?"

Ted: "Yeah, sure, 8-Minute Abs. Yeah, the exercise video."

Hitchhiker: "Yeah, this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7... Minute... Abs."

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Joakim - it's a non-issue technically the size of the lenses. All you need is a beam splitter or halfway mirror in front of the lens and another lens can capture any axis distance at 90 degrees. I could capture stereoscopic imagery with a humans eye pupil distance with large format cameras, if I wanted to.

 

Jag tror jag var b-foto åt dig på en musikvideo för en miljard år sedan på Dalarö. Och inte var jag speciellt bra heller. Måste vara 10 år sedan - nån svart artist. Samson eller nåt i den stilen?

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Think maybe perhaps in the near future there will a fusion/integration of sensor and lens. Next round of electronics are 45nm then. how small can you go before you hit the MEMs limit? it's not a stretch to mount the sensor right on the frame of the lens. So you just pick the correct unit with the optical properties you want to capture. my .02

[John Sprung]

Think maybe perhaps in the near future there will a fusion/integration of sensor and lens.

The cost of the chip and OLPF would have to go way down to make that economically practical.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Joakim Sandstrom]

Joakim - it's a non-issue technically the size of the lenses. All you need is a beam splitter or halfway mirror in front of the lens and another lens can capture any axis distance at 90 degrees. I could capture stereoscopic imagery with a humans eye pupil distance with large format cameras, if I wanted to.

 

How would you do that with wide lenses? How would you use for example two UP 12mm in such a config? They produce ~ 90 degrees fov.

 

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/Embed...2_DigiPrime.pdf

With so much science behind a lens, you don't want mirrors or stuff in front of ( or behind ).

 

I want light -> zeiss glass -> sensor.

 

Thanks

Joakim Sandstrom

 

 

Dalarö D:

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Ingarö var det;-)

[Daniel Sheehy]

Hitchhiker: "Yeah, this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7... Minute... Abs."

In 3-D? :P

Edited January 16, 2008 by Daniel Sheehy

[Guest Glen Alexander]

The cost of the chip and OLPF would have to go way down to make that economically practical.

 

-- J.S.

 

agree of course, but the pixel sizes are already down to 7.4um. if you can squeeze the pixel sizes down another 50% say in 6 to 12months, the size of the chip required to get HD, 2k, goes down, i.e., smaller packaging, you wouldn't need a huge chunk of glass in front of it to cover the sensor.

[Cesar Rubio]

agree of course, but the pixel sizes are already down to 7.4um. if you can squeeze the pixel sizes down another 50% say in 6 to 12months, the size of the chip required to get HD, 2k, goes down, i.e., smaller packaging, you wouldn't need a huge chunk of glass in front of it to cover the sensor.

 

There are already 1/3 sensors that pack 1080p resolution in them. The results are awful, less dynamic range and needs lots of light for a proper exposure.

 

The Pike F-210 c camera has Kodak KAI2093 1" CCD sensor, and the pixel size are precisely, 7.4µm. If you go down that size, then the sensor lose a great deal of light sensitivity.

 

Physics play an important role in electronics also.

 

I found the 1" size sensor to be "ideal" for up to 1080p. The Marlin F-033c camera has a Sony ICX414 1/2" CCD sensor with a pixel size of 9.9µm, which gives a better low light performance.

 

The smaller the pixel size in a sensor, the better quality lens you would need to properly expose them also. I've found the Fujinon c-mount prime lenses to be very good quality for the price, and they work great with such pixel sizes. (7.4µm and up).

 

 

Cesar Rubio.

Cambridge Wisconsin, USA.

http://www.davidrubio3d.com/

[John Sprung]

There are already 1/3 sensors that pack 1080p resolution in them. The results are awful, less dynamic range and needs lots of light for a proper exposure.

All very true. The 1/3" format is also diffraction limited at no deeper than f/4. Diffraction basically depends on the wavelengths of the photons, so we don't have any wiggle room there. With the shallow end limited by the optical block at f/1.4, that doesn't give you a whole lot of useful stops. The Sony folks did their homework carefully when they chose 2/3" as the smallest format for professional use.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Michael Lehnert]

This is one of those threads that starts out with a premise by the OP that you would only find in the RED subforum.

 

Now that two parallel viable topics have existed here, I'll briefly chime into the one that I find personally interesting (as David already said all about 3-D Rumblerama being the exclusive future of cinema in post #8), namely the question about...

 

Did Hitler, or even Goebbels, actually use any 35mm cinecameras themselves?

 

That's an interesting question. Did any of them attend the Leipzig trade fair of 1937, when the first mirror shutter reflex Arri Model I was introduced? The best I can figure it, something between 1100 and 1500 Model I's were produced between then and July of 1944. Certainly we have a lot of hand held footage of all the top leaders of the Third Reich, probably most of it from those cameras, and shot at fairly close distances. My guess is that Goering would have been the most likely of them to be interested enough in technology to want to try out a camera. Most of all, I'd like to find out what my two Arri's (#1420 and #1578) were used for back then.

 

Very interesting posts about the non-ARRI gear used in Germany during the 1930s. I had always wondered about the cameras shown in that endless and worryingly unpolitical documentary about Riefenstahl as this is the camera mostly used for pre-WWII newsreel shows and propaganda features.

 

Goebbels was very much into cinema and cine-film technology and understood the power. I fear that he would have loved 3-D Rumblerama. I am also quite certain that he would love the premise and aesthetics of many current filmware in theatres now, but that is a controversial statement of mine and I shreek back at elaborating on it.

 

I don't know if he personally attended the 1937 fair, but it is obvious for a directed political economy as Germany was then, that Arnold & Richter were close collaborators with Goebbels regarding the Arriflex 35 development as it was first introduced in 1937 with the intend to be used for Goebbel's Reichsfilmabteilung der Reichskulturkammer (Reich Film Dept. in the Reich's Chamber of Culture) to get rid of non-German gear. They were also exclusively used by the Ministerium für Propaganda und Volksaufklärung (Ministry for Propaganda and People's Enlightenment) then and were also the mainstay in other Reichsfilmabteilungungen, of course. (Don't expect this to be prominently featured in Arri's 90 years celebration media pack).

 

As for Hitler: he detested to use technology, but loved watching B-movies, incl. Hollywood films. Goebbels gave his companion, Eva Braun, an Agfa 8mm camera with early Agfacolor film batches. This was used for all the private home movie reels so often included in current documentaries showing him and fellow officials at the Berghof, Hitler's private residence at Obersalzberg near Berchtesgaden.

 

BTW, I had posted on this topic in a different context, namely the trouble surrounding the film "Valkyrie" is this thread here.