Is this going to completely fuck the game up? Are we now going to see quantum sensors inside our cameras?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpfIHdn1Df0
Picture unrelated...
those examples looked awful.
>>2692743
>Less light absorbed by silicon as pixels get smaller = lower quality image.
Nope. By that logic, we would all have started with D810's and progressed to Kodak EasyShare's.
Sounds like this is solving a problem invented by a marketing consultancy.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Joel Image-Specific Properties:
>>2692743
Fuck the camera this is all I saw.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:27 01:45:07 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 576 Image Height 648
This is the best picture they had of the guy for the video, would you trust this guy?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:27 18:45:31 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 160 Image Height 194
>>2692743
>>2692751
>>2692754
>>2692756
Cannot be trusted.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 456 Image Height 320 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2015:10:27 01:58:24 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 456 Image Height 320
Here is a video shot all on the quantum sensor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbShbMRudUM
And the behind the scenes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyqfjlWNo-A
I realize that this isn't photography, but the technology used is similar and can be applied to photography.
Will this goo atop a regular sensor be the new standard? Or is this all just complete bullshit...
>>2692762
Yeah if I was them I wouldn't be branding a film was shot with their sensor yet. The footage looks bad. I don't know what the fuck it is, but I'm pretty sure I can count every pixel in that footage (look at solid large colors like the sky at 2:55). Not to mention the artifacting. Gotta love 8 bit 4:2:0 footage.
This might be a low mp sensor, if this works like on sensor HDR, they need much higher mp.
>>2692762
This looks like an average movie from the 80s
>>2692743
the iphone6 video shutter is totally rigged.
>>2692762
>looks like some 80s shit
i thought this was supposed to be a tech demo?
>>2692743
>what is foveon sensor
Seriously, that's all it really is.
Quantum is just dicking around with another method of doing away with bayer filters.
>>2692743
I thought vaporware was supposed to actually look cool
>>2692743
>ratings and comments disabled
hmmm...
Of course quantum sensors are the future. It's an in any way superior technology.
I predict that oversampling will become a thing with image capturing. Means, there will be e.g. quantum full frame sensors with like a gazillion of mega-pixles but "only" spitting out somewhat like 8k. Due to the downsampling, the sharpness, dynamics and colours will be incredible!!
Same happend to audio when the A/Ds got fast enough to sample 192khz. Since there is no real need to process (or even play) 192khz they (mostly) just spit out e.g. 96khz, which is way enough for anything. Due to the oversampling there are no aliasing errors and artifacts in the high frequencies, which sounds amazing.
With imaging the benefits of oversampling will be even more visible. This gonna be a whole new level of imaging, more sensitive, faster, paralell, global shutter sensors with more pixels per space + oversampling.
... also light field sensors will become more interesting with this technology.
.. I hope you're not making the very repeating old fault again, and denying a new and better technology just because you got used to your old shit...
>>2693565
>Due to the downsampling
Downsampling is generally shit for video.
Left is 1:1
Right is downsampled
>>2693586
*facepalm*
>>2693586
>>2693586
I find it really confusing how you can be so stupid. Did you never downsample a (maybe slightly blurred) shot and notice, that its sharpness got enhanced? Noise got reduced? Colours got more defined?
But instead referring to this experience, you relay a comparsion shot of some crop factors of a random camera brand, with no details about what got compared at all, and where the connection to your predication even is.
... what' wrong with you?
>>2693586
>Downsampling is generally shit for video
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2009:10:07 11:34:46 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 624 Image Height 352
>>2693586
wat
>>2693719
Down-sampling is POST is different from down-sampling ON SENSOR.
We were talking about SENSOR tech.
When talking SENSORS you don't want more pixels than you're going to capture the video at.
To explain the picture:
That's a Nikon D4 attempting to shoot 1080p video.
On the right is the (almost) full frame sensor readout scaled down (on sensor!) to 1920x1080.
On the left is the same sensor but cropped (on sensor) to 1920x1080.
>>2693827
Also feel free to compare the video between Sony A7/A7r/A7s
(hint: A7s is clearly superior at video because no scaling or line skipping)
>>2693827
>>2693829
>downsampling in post is different from downsampling on sensor
you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
but, dude, to make it easy for your simple mind: I'm talking about "the good kind of downsampling". you see? new and good technology, not bad. I think people in future will make rather good stuff than bad. get it? G O O D . .. not bad. Like good food, mhmm tasty. not bah.
>>2693871
>a gazillion of mega-pixles but "only" spitting out somewhat like 8k.
>good
>>2693885
go home, old man.
>>2692766
>Gotta love 8 bit 4:2:0 footage.
That has nothing to do with the strange texture artifacts.
