2/3" CCD?

Its 4K but the down side to Phantom 65 is 4:2:2 tho its the most
promising camera pointing in the right direction, for now.

If there is a way to bypass the compression and dump raw CCD (RGB)
data to a RAID, the effective resolution can be boosted by externally
processing with different algorithms. May be even pixel shifting...
This can be done with the colorist without having to duplicate work.

Extreme high cost/complexity and compromise is when you do this in
camera/real-time. A fiber channel network of dual quad core Macs will
crunch at least a 1000 times faster than any in camera computation.
For external, an hour of material could be computed frame by frame
over a weekend. There are some exciting possibilities.

Regards,
Jay Bala.


On Mar 8, 3:03 am, davi... DeleteThis @earthlink.net wrote:
> The RED camera, the Panavision Genesis, the Arri D20, the Dalsa
> Origin, all have 35mm-sized single sensors.
>
> There is also a Phantom 65 digital camera with a 65mm sized sensor --
> I believe it's 4K, which seems odd in that you get the resolution of
> 35mm but the depth of field of 65mm, plus the limitations of lenses
> made for that size.
>
> David Mullen, ASC
> Los Angeles
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD? 

Sony is coming out with the F23, their replacement for the F950, an
HDCAM-SR camera that is basically the Panavision Genesis, except that
it has a 2/3" CCD prism block. I asked the Sony engineers involved why
they stuck with 2/3" sensors, and their reply was that (1) the market
for 35mm-style cinematography was smaller than the ENG/EFP broadcast
market, and more the well-represented by cine camera companies like
Panavision, Arri, etc., and (2) their customers (private owners and
rental houses) have spent millions of dollars over the past few years
investing in expensive HD lenses for 2/3" cameras and would be pissed
off if Sony now started using 35mm-sized sensors.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD? 

I think the smaller companies will lead the way with larger CCD.
Larger companies are about protecting legacy. Ultimately, its the
competition that drives the market.

I saw a few still frames from RED and Phanton65, they look good.

Regards,
Jay Bala.


On Mar 10, 5:03 am, davi....DeleteThis@earthlink.net wrote:
> Sony is coming out with the F23, their replacement for the F950, an
> HDCAM-SR camera that is basically the Panavision Genesis, except that
> it has a 2/3" CCD prism block. I asked the Sony engineers involved why
> they stuck with 2/3" sensors, and their reply was that (1) the market
> for 35mm-style cinematography was smaller than the ENG/EFP broadcast
> market, and more the well-represented by cine camera companies like
> Panavision, Arri, etc., and (2) their customers (private owners and
> rental houses) have spent millions of dollars over the past few years
> investing in expensive HD lenses for 2/3" cameras and would be pissed
> off if Sony now started using 35mm-sized sensors.
>
> David Mullen, ASC
> Los Angeles
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD? 

Does anyone know what they are charging for a weekend rental of RED,
Phantom65 or other "full size" sensors?

70mm interest me most... try it with highest resolution lens from
Panavision.

Regards,
Jay Bala.
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD? 

All too new to know rental prices.

If the Phantom 65 is "only" 4K, then it seems to me to be a weird
combination of the resolution of 35mm... but the depth of field of
65mm, which doesn't seem like an advantage, unless the sensor is
naturally 2.35, in which case it's a little like 35mm anamorphic, but
even then, if the horizontal resolution is only 4K, then it seems no
better than the Dalsa or RED camera even for 2.35.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD? 

First, I dont recall seeing CCD size at max rez... may be the company
skipped on the full 65mm CCD size detail. Tho they clearly state full
frame size for 35 mm and that uses only part of the "65mm" size CCD.

Assuming it really has a full size 65mm CCD, now the question is ...
is 4K enough? Quick answer is no. Long answer is, considering the CCD
and realtime in camera compression technology we have... I would
rather have larger pixels than sheer number to counter low noise and
strive for lossless compression.

Next, its what you do with the information coming off the CCDs. We can
do a lot, externally processing and manipulating in a lossless
environment and color correct to suit the story should give us near
65mm resolution.

Considering analogue/film lens works well with larger pixel CCDs, I
would rather have less digital noise and a 4Kx2K done right. Esp. raw
CCD data dumped to RAID. Someday we may have low noise CCDs and have
truly exotic super high rez lenses to paint those tiny pixels.

Also, It would be impractical on the set or to deal with 8K-3CCD data,
16K would be next to impossible. I read somewhere, there is a medium
format camera with over 400Mega pixels. Tho its not for video, we are
not too far from 16K, full 70mm frame.

Regards,
Jay Bala.



On Mar 15, 8:04 pm, davi... DeleteThis @earthlink.net wrote:
> All too new to know rental prices.
>
> If the Phantom 65 is "only" 4K, then it seems to me to be a weird
> combination of the resolution of 35mm... but the depth of field of
> 65mm, which doesn't seem like an advantage, unless the sensor is
> naturally 2.35, in which case it's a little like 35mm anamorphic, but
> even then, if the horizontal resolution is only 4K, then it seems no
> better than the Dalsa or RED camera even for 2.35.
>
> David Mullen, ASC
> Los Angeles
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD? 

They make a Phanton HD and a Phantom 65 camera.

The Phantom HD is really a 4x3 2K camera with a 35mm-sized sensor
which can either be recorded as uncompressed 2K data or cropped to
1920 x 1080 HD (16x9) and sent out a single-link HDSDI cable to an HD
recorder (single-link meaning that the HD recording is limited to
4:2:2). So if you want full color, you have to record it in data mode
(as a bunch of TIFF files apparently.)

To make a 4K camera, they basically just doubled the size of the
sensor, mostly just horizontally (the sensor is 1.66 : 1), hence why
it is 4K but now 65mm wide and needs 65mm optics. But there is
probably sensitivity and noise advantages to using larger sensor sites
on a larger sensor... but the downside is not being able to use 35mm
optics and having to deal with 65mm-level depth of field just to get a
4K resolution image.

David Mullen, ASC
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD? 

I just checked their web site, I got the following information:

· 4K (4096 x 2440) resolution
· Up to 125 frames-per-second (fps) frame rate at full resolution
· Adjust frame rate in 1 fps increments
· Shutter speeds as fast as two microseconds (1/500,000 second)
· 14-bit sensor depth (42-bit color)
· 11-stop dynamic range
· * ISO 600
· Circular buffer recording / Run-Stop

The Phantom 65 has allocated formats for standard 70 mm 2.21:1
(4096x1860 pixels), HD (1920x1080), UHD (3840x2160), and 35mm mopic at
1.85:1 using an active pixel area of 25.6mm x 13.85mm
(2048x1108 pixels) making this camera fully compatible with all 35mm
equipment as well. User selectable aspect ratios can also be set in 8
pixel vertical increments. Using the available 4:2:2 output...

Reading from bottom to top tells me:

1) We are stuck with 4:2:2 color space. Not a great news.
Esp. for low rez. 65 mm, 4:4:4 is absolute minimum.

2) The same unit will make a very nice 35mm camera as it is honestly
full frame-35mm (25.6x13.85mm) with sq. pixels. And anamorphic lens
will work well and should give the most out of the 2K rez. Considering
4:2:2 compression, every enhancement must be ahead of this... low-con
filter, net, anamorphic, etc.

3) Its good that aspect ratio can be changed at 8 pixel vertical
increments.

4) Now, its not clear why they did not mention the physical CCD size
for 70 mm! But looking at the first bullet point and if we
extrapolate, it would imply, at 70 mm, the CCD is 4x the area of
standard 35mm on this camera. But its not stated. it makes me wonder
if there is some kind of squeezing going on...

Regards,
Ja Bala.


On Mar 18, 2:34 am, davi....RemoveThis@earthlink.net wrote:
> They make a Phanton HD and a Phantom 65 camera.
>
> The Phantom HD is really a 4x3 2K camera with a 35mm-sized sensor
> which can either be recorded as uncompressed 2K data or cropped to
> 1920 x 1080 HD (16x9) and sent out a single-link HDSDI cable to an HD

> recorder (single-link meaning that the HD recording is limited to
> 4:2:2). So if you want full color, you have to record it in data mode
> (as a bunch of TIFF files apparently.)
>
> To make a 4K camera, they basically just doubled the size of the
> sensor, mostly just horizontally (the sensor is 1.66 : 1), hence why
> it is 4K but now 65mm wide and needs 65mm optics. But there is
> probably sensitivity and noise advantages to using larger sensor sites
> on a larger sensor... but the downside is not being able to use 35mm
> optics and having to deal with 65mm-level depth of field just to get a
> 4K resolution image.
>
> David Mullen, ASC
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD? 

It's only 4:2:2 when you use the single-link HDSDI output; otherwise
it sends out RAW data with full color bandwidth.

5-perf 65mm (Super Panavision) is not 4X the area of 4-perf 35mm
either; it's only 1 perf taller but twice as wide, hence why it has a
2.21 : 1 aspect ratio compared to 4-perf 35mm, which is 1.33 : 1.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD? 

On Mar 18, 10:19 pm, davi....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net wrote:
> It's only 4:2:2 when you use the single-link HDSDI output; otherwise
> it sends out RAW data with full color bandwidth.


I had to look elsewhere for that information. Also, I noticed it uses/
thread Mamiya 645 lens. Then the CCD is Medium format size?!
Intersting. Shouldn't that make it larger than 70mm? I think they
should get someone to write a comprehensive article.

Regards,
Jay Bala.
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD? 

Medium format lenses just means that they cover more than a 35mm
frame. There are all sorts of medium format sizes.

The Phantom 65 sensor is twice as wide as the Phantom HD/2K sensor, so
it can have twice as many horizontal pixels, I think from 2048 to 4096
across. So the sensor in the HD/2K version is 35mm-sized, but 35mm
cine lenses won't cover the 65mm-wide sensor of the Phantom HD. Hence
the need to go to medium format still camera lenses.

Even many 65mm features like "Far and Away" or "2001" had to resort to
using some medium format lenses.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD? 

> The Phantom 65 sensor is twice as wide as the Phantom HD/2K sensor, so
> it can have twice as many horizontal pixels, I think from 2048 to 4096
> across.


It is 2x wide. Also, it is more than twice as high, (4096x2440) vs.
(2048x1108) making it over 4x the area of its 35 mm CCD area. But one
catch is the word "mophic" in the following:
-------
35mm mopic at 1.85:1 using an active pixel area of 25.6mm x 13.85mm
(2048x1108 pixels) ....
---------

If there is no squeezing... the 65 mm CCD dimension are 51.2mmx30.5mm.
Something just doesn't add up.

Regards,
Jay Bala.
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD? 

On Mar 22, 6:38 am, "pixmoviema...@aol.com" <jay1b....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> It is 2x wide. Also, it is more than twice as high, (4096x2440) vs.
> (2048x1108) making it over 4x the area of its 35 mm CCD area. But one
> catch is the word "mophic" in the following:
> -------
> 35mm mopic at 1.85:1 using an active pixel area of 25.6mm x 13.85mm
> (2048x1108 pixels) ....

The Phantom HD sensor is actually nearly a square, 2048 x 2048.

In HD mode, it uses a 1920 x 1080 (16x9 or 1.78) area of the sensor.
In data mode, you'd record 2048 x 2048 but a final 1.85 area would
only be 2048 x1108. In theory, you could use a standard 2X anamorphic
lens to get scope, since the sensor is square.

The Phantom 65 sensor is 4096 x 2440, so twice as wide but not twice
as high. This is a native 1.68 : 1 aspect ratio. So you'd use 4096 x
2214 for 1.85 and 4096 x 1714 for a 2.39 picture.

David Mullen
 >> Stay informed about: 2/3" CCD?