Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BJL on August 30, 2013, 02:15:04 pm
-
A possibly interesting idea in a Nikon patent:
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/05/21/nikon-patent-for-onoff-optical-low-pass-filter-olpf.aspx/
One use I see is that when extracting video from a high resolution stills-and-video sensor, the OLPF could be stronger for the lower resolution of the video output, weaker or completely off for high resolution stills.
P. S. AFAIK, the difference between the D800 and D800E is that one of the birefringent plates is oriented differently with respect to the other, to get filtering or not. The idea here seems to be allowing rotation of one plates to switch between the two options ... or to use an intermediate position for a weaker filter.
-
More at http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/08/30/nikon-creates-selectable-strength-low-pass-filter
Sounds a fascinating technology.
-
the OLPF could be stronger for the lower resolution of the video output, weaker or completely off for high resolution stills.
Does this mean that regular video doesn't use the whole sensor resolution plus downsampling? I never thought digital video worked that way...
-
Does this mean that regular video doesn't use the whole sensor resolution plus downsampling? I never thought digital video worked that way...
It seems that many/most still cameras cannot read all of their 20 million or so pixels at a rate of 30 times (or 60 times) per second, so they use some subsampling, such as reading every third row. That make aliasing worse than if all pixels are read and then binned when down-converting to 1920x1080. The folks at RED are happy to provide evidence of the asymmetrical moiré caused by this in Canon DSLRs, for example.
I do think however that sufficiently high sensor resolution and data rates could make OLPF filters unnecessary within a few years, at least in all but cheap video+stills compacts.
-
I was thinking in noise consequences rather than aliasing. It's a shame having a big sensor and not being able to use all captured photons for video.
-
This is pretty much the holy grail of digital capture. Yet, in typical Nikon marketing fashion, I expect them to promote this as one bullet point on the spec sheet of the D4x... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is pretty much the holy grail of digital capture. Yet, in typical Nikon marketing fashion, I expect them to promote this as one bullet point on the spec sheet of the D4x... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Agree. D4x will be a tad expensive I guess, probably around 7k €. I would like a D710 though... with D4 sensor in D800 body... :'(
-
Agree. D4x will be a tad expensive I guess, probably around 7k €. I would like a D710 though... with D4 sensor in D800 body... :'(
As a D4 owner I can only say that sometimes you may be unhappy to get what you wish for. The D4 is a finicky unpredictable sensor.
Edmund
-
As a D4 owner I can only say that sometimes you may be unhappy to get what you wish for. The D4 is a finicky unpredictable sensor.
Hi Edmund,
Interesting, can you provide more details?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Impressive tech, can't wait to see it in action.