4k may be sooner than you think, at least DirecTV thinks so. - Page 3

I have a camera that does 1080p. I'll gladly choose 2160i.

I really hope that interlaced will be booted out this time. It was shoved into ATSC by NHK and Sony 15 years ago, but thankfully this time there is technology in place to allow proper 1080p60. Even my $300 camcorder can do it.

If switching to 4K comes under "interlace must die" banner, I will became a 4K proponent ;-)

That's because most people will never notice the artifacts caused by not capturing a full frame instantly and they only happen briefly in very specific conditions.

Please don't tell anyone about them, OK? Once you know about them, you can't unsee them. I saw a movie that had been shot with a camera that had a CMOS HD sensor. I saw just one pan that left a diagonal artifact and immediately knew what I was seeing. It didn't bother me.

"Most people" will not know the name of it, but they will know that something is wrong.

Compare 0:00-0:30 and 0:30-1:00 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lmeixCQ1es

I don't recall seeing the "rolling shutter" artifact with the tubes that you get with CMOS though.

For half a second, then they'll forget they saw it.

There is tons of stuff being shot with rolling shutter CMOS sensors these days.

Honestly, I'll take rolling shutter artifacts over image smearing and light trails.

But, that's yet another reason (aside from professional connectors and larger, multiple chips) why the networks haul around all that oversized pro gear instead of using consumer grade equipment.

Granted, I haven't seen such comments in a while, but I remember in the early days of HD, more than a few posts from people pointing out comsumer grade equipment when people would cite cost as the reason "X" production wasn't HD.

I suppose it is because in those days cameras were huge and were sitting on a pedestal.

As for making videos of space rockets, NASA still uses film. I think they do it because film has better dynamic range than most CCDs and has no rolling shutter artifacts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFwqZ4qAUkE They do use HD cameras, but only when they see them applicable, like shooting from afar.



The Russians have switched to "modern" video technology, now everyone can see how detrimental it is to the image in certain situations.

Considering that true 1080p is not practically viable with CCDs smaller than 2/3-inch, I believe that to obtain 4K the shooters will either switch to CMOS-based cameras, or that bigger CCD sensors will be developed, but only for professional applications. The JVC GY-HMQ10 has a 1/2-inch CMOS sensor, not CCD sensors like its predecessors HM100/HM150.

I'd rather prefer 1080p or even 720p shot with CCD than 4K shot with CMOS.

1080i > 720p

No, it was the way the tubes worked (more like a CCD than a CMOS). You mean "dolly" not pedestal. And you wouldn't see a rolling shutter on sports activities either where they would need to fast pan. I'm sure at some point they'll figure out an inexpensive sensor that doesn't give us rolling shutter. CCD don't do that because they read the charged sensor which had a full frame on it while the CMOS charges a line at a time.

Back in the day those image orthicon (there was a successor to those I seem to recall in the 1970s) cameras cost $80K and often the zoom lens for it even more.

Err - "pedestal" or "ped" is the universal term for the standard studio camera mounting in UK studios.

Vinten are one of the market leaders : http://www.vinten.com/en/products And you'll notice that the Quattro, Quartz and Osprey (standard in most studios I've worked in) are pedestals, not dollies.

http://www.vinten.com/en/product/quartz-one-pedestal
http://www.vinten.com/en/product/quattro-l-pedestal
http://www.vinten.com/en/product/osprey-elite-pedestal

Dollies, in my experience, are usually rolling bases that sit under tripods... Far less common in studios. And in the UK they're usually called 'rolling bases'... They don't have the same quality of movement as pads (Peds have 'crab' and 'steer' controls and direction rings to allow you to track or crab cleanly, rather than the shopping trolley motion of rolling bases - which you would never really use 'on shot')

http://www.vinten.com/en/product/mid...-dollies-skids

Sony's next Playstation might be called "Orbis" instead of PS4. Regardless, there's some information about the resolution it'll output (4096 x 2160) something close to QFHD (3,840-by-2,160), mentioned in the article at the start of this thread. Not quite 4k, but certainly higher resolution than HDTV.

http://www.ingame.msnbc.msn.com/tech...4-orbis-596055

Iconoscope > Image Orthicon > Vidicon > Plumbicon > Saticon. The last two were refinements of the vidicon.

I suppose you would not have seen jello because of heavy pedestal. In applications where a mobile camera were needed one would use a small film camera instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKgeCQGu_ug Compare with onboard cameras from this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nptFx1jug

They're making CMOS sensors roll faster and faster. The faster they roll, the fewer the artifacts. The limitation is the speed you can read the data off of the sensor. Of course if we keep increasing the resolution (trying to stay on topic), this will be more difficult.

Some company (Sony I think) has solved the problem in cinema cameras by simply using a mechanical shutter just like in motion film cameras. By syncing with the mechanical shutter, the sensor can be reset in darkness so it can then capture an entire frame just like it would in a still camera.

Yeah, I've never heard them called anything but pedestals, or "peds" for short. Instead of legs, like a tripod, it has a single pneumatic column that lets you raise or lower the camera. A big hoop lets you push the camera up or down and steer the wheels. It has a skirt to keep it from running over the cables. At the back are two handles to pan and tilt the camera - one hand has the focus control and video return toggle, the other has the zoom control.

Dollies are either, as you said, a set of wheels to make a tripod roll (I've worked for stations where that's all they had) or a thing that holds the camera and photographer and either rolls on flat floors or track.

Yep - was surprised to hear it called out. I realise that we're two nations separated by a common language, but when I've worked in the US 'ped' has never been a phrase that has caused confusion. (There are many more that are... OOV (Out Of Vision) aka Live VO, Racks aka Shading/Painting, Clean-feed aka IFB aka Mix-Minus etc.)


Yep - the latter is usually called by it's 'trade name' i.e. a Mole, Kestrel etc. this side of the pond. (Dolly is not a term used here really - it has too many sexist reverberations I suspect)

Which looks totally backwards in 21-st century. It is like... I don't know, a steam-powered bullet train, or an iPod with pedals to make electricity for it.

Funny how those "non-HD" formats like DVCPROHD 720p (960x720), DVCPROHD 1080/60 (1280x1080) or HDCAM, HDV and some XDCAM and AVCHD flavors (1440x1080) came about. Not mentioning that SD widescreen also has fewer than 853 pixels horizontally. They say that they did this subsampling precisely because horizontal resolution was less important and could be sacrificed.

Yep - those of us this side of the pond at least get the benefit of a 1440x1080 variant of DVC Pro HD at 25p/50i (the lower frame/field rate helps I guess)

Be interesting to know how much actual content exists between 1440 and 1920 on most PSC camera front-ends (i.e. whether you lose that much in the subsampling)

Don't Philips/Thomson/GrassValley FT (Frame Transfer) CCDs use mechanical shutters for a similar reason (to allow the frame to be clocked out without smearing)? ISTR that they can be 'interesting' with Barco colour-wheel DLP monitor walls if not set-up properly.

Other CCD sensors use FIT (Frame Interline Transfer) or IT (Interline Transfer) and don't have this issue (though ISTR that FT has benefits?)

Not if you're a still photographer. We still use mechanical shutters (the slit frame type, a mechanical "rolling shutter"!) in front of our CMOS sensors. There are people who are sure that those old clunky mirrors and shutters will be done away with any day now even though they're still the best solution.

Yes, it was fun in the days of CCDs to have a 1/16000 shutter speed and be able to sync to flashes at crazy shutter speeds but not many are complaining. The image quality of CMOS sensors has far exceeded CCDs.

How many clicks each shutter can reliably make before replacement? I know people who do timelapses, they replace those shutters pretty much on regular basis. I suppose that the rotating type should be more robust.

Aside from the swing-out LCD panel (which is highly likely to die an early death), for most cameras, the rest of the camera will far outlive the imaging sensor.

For perspective, my fully mechanical non digital Pentax is now almost 25 years old with all it's original parts (and still in use when I shoot black and white). I've tossed at least 2 digital models due to sensor failure since then.


Well, since steam (if generated from a renewable, non carbon burning heat source), is highly environmentally friendly (the exhaust is water) and actually very efficient when running, the only obstacle would be translating it a motive device that could move fast enough to move at bullet speeds. Some sort of rotary piston system resembling a Gatling gun would likely be needed. The general gist is, use heat that is alredy being created by another system (and would normally go to waste) to create the steam and you have a powerful "motor" plant that offers near zero emissions.

In Ipod with pedals would be right up there with laptops that use a crank to get power in third world countries. However, it's more likely such a thing would use a "shake to charge" system, like a self-winding mechanical watch uses - that is, if solar weren't an option. Just bouncing around in your bag would charge it.

Mechanical systems can be very reliable and easy to repair when broken. The systems are often simple enough to repair on the road with basic tools. It's the reason my vintage motorcycle can still remain on the road using tools most people would have in their garage.

My car, on the other hand, has had to go into the shop 3 times in 10+ years: all three for electronic systems or sensors. The rest I can fix myself.

In my experience 'stuck pixels' are more of an issue than mechanical shutters, particularly on old cameras which have run out of memory for their pixel masking.

MTBF is 250,000. Real world stress tests have gone past one million.


Most professional DSLR's now have a "Live View" function for things like animation. The shutter is only activated once. This is no longer an issue.


Yes, they've been using them in motion picture cameras for a long time. It's among the last things you'll worry about failing.

4K+ broadcasting and receiving would be a niche product that would be unitized by a very small percentage of consumers. I don't see how this would be cost effective. The average consumer with their 45-72 inch displays will be perfectly happy with 1080.

I'm sure in 5 years many consumers will take the plunge into larger (80"+) displays, but even then, it certainly won't be the majority. So, I say again, as much as I'd LOVE 4K+ technology to come to market, I can't comprehend how it can be justified.

What am I missing?

If the net' broadcasters never do it, I won't cry. As long as we can get 4-8K displays with matching content on some sort of media, I'm good.

I notice the difference between 720p and 1080p on my 32" display; anyone with a 40" set or larger could certainly benefit from more resolution.

I think even on a display as small as 32" the 4x increase in pixel density 4k would offer over 1080p would be pretty significant.