Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted June 13, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted June 13, 2011 Say I was shooting a sci-fi piece in which I was absolutely committed to using strobe lights, flickering fluorescent tubes, gunfire, and other brief duration lighting effects that don't agree with rolling-shutter cameras. Let's also assume that I'm not happy with workarounds such as cutting in frames of an illuminated scene, or tweaking up in postproduction. This is a show that would have been a 5D job under any other circumstances. What cameras are there which have: a: a global shutter, and b: a price point somewhat comparable with a 5D There isn't anything, is there. Red has made rolling shutter OK. Bah! P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted June 13, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted June 13, 2011 On the other hand, Red has staked out a price/performance point that makes it possible to do projects that couldn't have been funded before. So, let the good times -uh- roll....? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 14, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted June 14, 2011 Say I was shooting a sci-fi piece in which I was absolutely committed to using strobe lights, flickering fluorescent tubes, gunfire, and other brief duration lighting effects that don't agree with rolling-shutter cameras. Let's also assume that I'm not happy with workarounds such as cutting in frames of an illuminated scene, or tweaking up in postproduction. This is a show that would have been a 5D job under any other circumstances. What cameras are there which have: a: a global shutter, and b: a price point somewhat comparable with a 5D There isn't anything, is there. Red has made rolling shutter OK. Bah! P Wouldn't a CCD video camera have less of a problem? There must still be some cheap HD cameras that use CCD's instead of CMOS sensors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hong Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Wouldn't a CCD video camera have less of a problem? There must still be some cheap HD cameras that use CCD's instead of CMOS sensors. CMOS has gone mainstream.. I dont know much HD camera that comes with CCD anymore.. except those cameras that state 3ccd on the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted August 22, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted August 22, 2011 Indeed, three chip cameras tend to be CCD (2/3" and under), while large single chips (35mm film-ish size) tend to be CMOS. Most CCD's get their immunity to rolling by having two frames worth of sites, one of which takes the picture, the other is there to store it and read it out. The "pulldown" from the sensor area to the covered storage/readout area is extremely fast. CMOS can't do that rapid shift trick, it has only the single sensor frame's worth of photosites. To make a 35-ish size CCD, you'd have to get two frames worth of good photosites on the same chip to make one camera, which would be a big yield problem for the chip foundry. Theoretically it could be done, but it would be expensive. Genesis and Sony's F-35 are CCD, I don't remember offhand if they use the full frame storage technique, or just a fast column readout. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted August 22, 2011 Author Premium Member Share Posted August 22, 2011 Viper certainly did it like that. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now