tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19092890.post7344501788707323536..comments2024-03-19T08:15:45.946+02:00Comments on Image Sensors World: Lytro Cinema Camera Features 755MP , up to 300fps SensorVladimir Koifmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01800020176563544699noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19092890.post-75843066935502636962016-04-16T23:35:20.081+03:002016-04-16T23:35:20.081+03:00One advantage of this approach if it works is that...One advantage of this approach if it works is that it supports post-production computation of both axial magnification and depth of focus independently. This allows simulation of any combination of image size and lens focal length. I suppose it could also solve the problems caused by special lenses that have significant field curvature.<br /><br />Now, instead of just offering the "film look" Lytro can also offer the "CGI look". Dave Gilblomhttp://www.avcemporium.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19092890.post-62376040141096561072016-04-15T12:28:52.709+03:002016-04-15T12:28:52.709+03:00Considering the final image for professional cinem...Considering the final image for professional cinema shall be essentially artifacts-free, the effective resolution will be about 200-500x lower than then the sensor resolution. This is more pronounced for lenses of shallow depth of field and higher Z depth resolution.<br /><br />In this particular case it could be like 3Mpix final resolution for 755Mpix sensor, yet I would say most DP will be very far from being happy comparing Lytro results to e.g. Alexa at even HD, not to mention 5K production.<br /><br />We have yet to see how well these shots can be integrated with the existing production pipelines and UHD or 5K+ workflows. So far I'm remaining skeptical as the amount of data to process and store is tremendous, yet yielding just mediocre resolution intermediary footage.<br /><br />Yes, it could definitely simplify production, the question is at what price.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19092890.post-62010643994346103932016-04-15T01:52:54.356+03:002016-04-15T01:52:54.356+03:00Maybe this is a computed resolution based on light...Maybe this is a computed resolution based on light field characteristics and post production, not a "real" resolution. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19092890.post-15250185054583073762016-04-13T22:22:46.737+03:002016-04-13T22:22:46.737+03:00It is not clear that they say this thing can do 75...It is not clear that they say this thing can do 755M and 300fps at the same time. You may be looking at 300fps at an aggressive decimation. So 500GB/s (12 400Gbps multi-fiber optical links?) data bus likely does not come into play.<br /><br />Still, a 755Mpix FPA would be very interesting in a lot of areas beyond the silly plenoptics aerial imaging?). But these are hard numbers to do. Take an about 2:1 aspect ratio (between 16:9 and 2.4:1) and you end up with roughly 40k x 19k col/row counts. Even at about 2-3um pitch (16 stops?) we are looking at huge FPAs, well beyond even medium format imagers. <br /><br />Reading out 19k rows at 300fps requires row cycle times on the order of 175ns - I don't know if one could do even 10x slower on rows this long. <br /><br />Looking forward to seeing more details on this thing.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19092890.post-44773679755761730502016-04-12T23:45:35.751+03:002016-04-12T23:45:35.751+03:00Is there really a data bus that can do 1/2 TB/sec?...Is there really a data bus that can do 1/2 TB/sec?<br /> bostonchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02213116601754091217noreply@blogger.com