July 17, 2013

Graphene Sensors Might Just Revolutionize Low Light Shooting, But Do We Really Need Them?

Technology is downright crazy. To think that we have affordable digital cinema cameras in the present day that blow away the digital cameras that were being used in Hollywood eight years ago is bordering on absurd. Not only that, but technology is progressing at such a rate that everything is nearly outdated the moment it hits the market. And that trend doesn't look like it will change any time soon. A team of scientists in Singapore have recently developed a graphene-based sensor that is 1000x more sensitive to light than current CMOS and CCD designs. What does this mean for the photographic and filmmaking industries? Do we really need them?

According to Gizmag, scientists at Nanyang Technical University in Singapore have been working on a new graphene-based sensor which, they say, will be upwards of 1000 times more sensitive to light than existing CMOS and CCD sensors.

The new sensor is able to detect broad spectrum light, from the visible to mid-infrared, with great sensitivity. According to NTU, this technology will allow photographers to take much clearer images in harsh lighting conditions and, when mass produced, estimates are that graphene sensors will be up to five times cheaper than camera sensors today.

While advances such as these can be awesome to think about, often they are never fully implemented due to the fact that large-scale manufacturing processes don't exist yet for that technology, or it's just too expensive to produce. However, that doesn't seem like it will be a problem for these graphene-based sensors since they rely on existing manufacturing techniques.

graphene-image-sensor

“While designing this sensor, we have kept current manufacturing practices in mind," explains Asst. Prof Wang. "This means the industry can in principle continue producing camera sensors using the CMOS process, which is the prevailing technology used by the majority of factories in the electronics industry. Therefore manufacturers can easily replace the current base material of photo sensors with our new nanostructured graphene material.”

Seems like a pretty big deal, right? Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. Sensor technology, at least in terms of digital cinema, is already potentially on the verge of a breakthrough with the imminent release of DRAGON. The native sensitivity of that sensor is 2000, which is already two stops more sensitive than a 500 ASA film stock. On top of that you have Sony's F5 and F55, which are spectacular low-light cameras. Even cheaper options like Canon's C100 and their DSLR's kick some major tail in terms of low-light performance.

At this point, low-light shooting is almost a non-issue considering the sensitivity of modern sensors. So would a graphene sensor that is 1000 times as sensitive as current sensors be of any benefit to serious photographers or cinematographers? My guess is that there would be all kinds of creative uses for technology like this, much like the work that people have done with the Kinect and DSLRs. Perhaps a new creative medium can be born of this technology, but only time will tell.

What do you guys think? Are graphene-sensors the technology of the future? Will they open up some new creative medium? Are they even necessary now that we have cameras that are already fantastic in low light? Let us know in the comments.

Link: Graphene-based image sensor to enhance low-light photography -- Gizmag

Your Comment

57 Comments

if the sensors will be cheaper then it already sounds good to me. Perhaps we will see a rise in movies shot by moonlight.. i think it would be great at least for a music video.

July 17, 2013 at 10:01AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

"...the imminent release of DRAGON. The native sensitivity of that sensor is 2000, which is already three stops more sensitive than a 500 ASA film stock."
Its two stops more sensitive. 500 ASA + 1stop = 1000, 1000 + 1stop = 2000

July 17, 2013 at 10:09AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Nick

Good catch. My math skillz are weak.

July 17, 2013 at 10:50AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
avatar
Robert Hardy
Founder of Filmmaker's Process
4136

I disagree, low light shooting is not a non-issue at all. Shooting with available light in rural areas after sunset is still almost impossible to pull off. There have been some experimental videos shot in moonlight, yes. But noise is still an unsolved problem here. Unlike film stock grain digital noise is ugly, no discussion about that. I think a camera that could pull off let's say ISO 125000, without excessive digital noise, would change the industry completely. Suddenly in many situations that would have required expensive lighting solutions will be possible to be shot with available light. That would be an amazing future especially for independent filmmakers.

July 17, 2013 at 10:15AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Heiko

Yes, that does seem to be the potential of this sensor. A great cost saver. And no more being under hot lights. That's good not just for shooting movies but for news programming. No more having to blast news anchors with air conditioning to keep sweat from streaming down their face. The electric bill would go down immediately too.

July 17, 2013 at 10:37AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Gene

We're already seeing often the camera being better than we can see, what next.... seeing in what would be for our eyes is absolute blackness?? :-o

Useful for documentaries for sure! (and spies...)

July 17, 2013 at 10:23AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

And stars i assume

July 17, 2013 at 12:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Kevin

The main sales point of the Canon 5D3 is low light sensitivity, which it is really great with. But these graphene sensors could be used in the most inexpensive cameras to give them far greater low light capability than a 5D3.

Another great potential for graphene is exceptionally small pixel size. A sheet of graphene is one atom thick, i.e., it is technically two dimensional. It conducts electricity better than any currently used material, and is clearer than glass. There is potential to make pixels far smaller than the smallest pixels in existence. 4K and 8K could end up looking muddy next to a graphene pixel screen. An exaggeration? Yes. My point is there is potential for 16K+ with graphene pixels.

July 17, 2013 at 10:31AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

"...Do We Really Need Them?"

For most of us, probably not.

July 17, 2013 at 10:52AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

8
Reply

Shooting in deep waters or caves could be a possible NEED for such sensors. But do filmmakers NEED them? Is there a story that can't be told without them? I can't think of any, but maybe someone else can.

July 17, 2013 at 11:07AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Sean K

I don't think it's about whether or not some story could only be told with this technology (it could be told either way), but it's about the resources needed to pull it off.
A more sensitive sensor would allow for not only a lot more flexibility (shooting with deep DOF at night with street lights, for instance) but also allow you to use lights that draw a lot less power which means a lot less spent money, more time and more happiness for people who worry about the environment and our limited energy sources.

July 17, 2013 at 4:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply

Story doesn't matter though...it's all about story telling. And this would allow people to tell stories in a new way and in environments that would allow actors to act in a way they couldn't have before.

July 17, 2013 at 6:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gabe

I think this new sensor is very cool, and is still needed, but with such a dramatic low light improvement, I wonder about how it handles the highlight end? Is this a sensor that will simply burn out if you pumped more than 500 foot candles of light into it? Or start burning pixels out from shooting a backlit sunset scene? Or even does this effect latitude? How much Dynamic Range can we pull from a sensor that specializes in the low light?

July 17, 2013 at 11:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
David Sharp

yeah my question is more about Dynamic Range of low light sensors, if we are talking something that is 1000x more sensitive with 4 stops of total Dynamic range, but if we are talking about a Sensor that is 1000x more sensitive with 14 stops of dynamic range, now that gets more useful. but how much of that is determined by what kinda process is done after the image is formed and before its saved on the card?

July 17, 2013 at 1:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
HVisuals

This will be absolutely needed. Without having to use mass amounts of lighting for a set doing slow motion work. This will be great for slow motion work and having as much light in there as we can!!!

July 17, 2013 at 11:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply

That's a valid point, high speed shooting would benefit greatly I guess

July 17, 2013 at 12:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
hansd

How about a global shutter? Adding one currently crowds circuitry layout, reducing the light-gathering area of each photodiode. Improving the photodiodes' light sensitivity would compensate for this. Of course, the global-shutter circuitry could possibly be moved to another layer in a stacked design.

July 17, 2013 at 1:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Tzedekh

"Do we really need them?"

Do we really need 4K? HD? More DR? It's all relative. I think you'll look back on this post in ten years and laugh at yourself - and I mean that in a completely non-derogatory way.

July 17, 2013 at 11:53AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Brian

Everyone's first concern with low light shooting is noise.
But why do the big movies look as great as they do? Because they use tons of light. Even if the final scene will look dim in the movie, they shoot it with lots of light.
Without light hitting a subject, no color and detail bounces off of them to hit the sensor.
You'll probably get perfectly noise free images with these sensors but they'll be dull and colorless if you don't light, so the question if we really need that is a good one for us (ambitious) filmmakers imo.

July 17, 2013 at 12:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
hansd

Damn ass right I want it. Know why? I'm still...even with all this constant changing tech, no where near having the money to make an indie feature at 200 k. But I know for a fact...in another year...with changes in cameras, lenses, sensors, edit station, software even on set lighting...that whole equation is now cut in half if not more.

Now we're talking.

Now I finally get to prove my worth against the digital movies being made by crappy directors, who may have the ccash...have the credit cards...have the industry connects...know really well how to work a fucking room or a film fest club part off the slopes of Sundance (I HAVE NO DIEA WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THIS INDIE FESTIVAL)...but DO NOT KNOW shit how to make a movie.

How to tell a story cinematically without relying on the "crutch' oof dialogue and stars-celebrities in their supposed cast of real actors, and place the visual glee and gliba of 4 k spaerkling, production value above story. Yeah! Story! Isn't that just idiotic of me...that after graduate film school at one of the big 3..where we studied classic movies, fotreign, expereimental movies, bloackbusters and indies...profitable and not so profitable ones...that the common, the seriousl;y common thread throughout all them which have really stood the test of time...and not just opening box office weekend...but 5-10 years later...and also, maybe above all else, infleunced so many others to seriously want to make movies.

Believe me...I'm not just TERRANCE MALICK land! It can be a helluva popcorn blockbuster!

I'm talking about...people that really have the talent; have studied, have the work ethic...to really make movies, have been stymied...again and again, becvause of the cost.

So...if these tech changes bring thopse costs down even more for ME?

Bring it on baby!

Can't wait to go toe to toe with the rest of you...your cash on your table; your credit cards and all your industry connects.

July 17, 2013 at 12:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
MARK11

you could do all that already, no need to wait for that sensor

July 17, 2013 at 12:34PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
hansd

Sounds like you're just making excuses. People who have great stories and abilities have always found a way around cost.

July 17, 2013 at 2:32PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
steve

You could've just made it in the time it took me to read the whole comment.

July 17, 2013 at 4:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Pat

LOL!

July 17, 2013 at 5:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Brian

Please tell me you are joking, because I really want to believe the best of you.

July 17, 2013 at 5:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Brian

What the hell kind of film are you trying to make? Avatar 2? You can make an indie feature for less than $200K.

July 17, 2013 at 11:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Bry

If I remember from reading the original article a few weeks ago, there was a comment that said the published paper mentioned 1000 times more sensitive than current graphene sensors and not current CCD or CMOS. Meaning you would get cheaper sensors (graphene) with similar capabilities than current sensors tech.

July 17, 2013 at 1:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
MB

Yea I read that too. I couldn't find a number for the sensitivity of a cmos or ccd sensor. The 1000x statement is EXTREMELY MISLEADING. Here is the actual quote from the scientists publication:

"However, the maximum responsivity of these photodetectors is below 10 mA W−1, which significantly limits their potential for applications. Here we report high photoresponsivity (with high photoconductive gain) of 8.61 A W−1 in pure monolayer graphene photodetectors, about three orders of magnitude higher than those reported in the literature"

The first sentence refers to past graphene photodetectors.

July 17, 2013 at 2:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply

Here is the article in ExtremeTech.com. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/157082-graphene-sensor-is-1000-times-...
Apparently, it is about 10 times more sensitive than CMOS sensors, not a 1000 times. Apparently, that will be about 2.5 f-stops better than CMOS, not the total game changer that we think it is.

July 18, 2013 at 12:55AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Patrick M

But it seems, anyway, 10 times is quite a bit, a major breakthrough, so that you wouldn't have to spend $4000.00 to get the low light sensitivity of a DSLR but could get better than DSLR low light performance in any camera, even a $90.00 camera at Best Buy.

I'm trying to imagine what 10x better would look like.

July 18, 2013 at 1:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

About 2.5 f-stops. You need twice as much light for 1 f-stop increase, 4 times more for 2 f-stops, 16 times more for 3 stops, etc... (you need to square the amount of light for each f-stop increase).

July 18, 2013 at 4:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

10
Reply
patrick

There are already "low heat emitting" lights like the LED's, the CFL's and the plasmas for the indoor scenes and TV studios. This however can make a shoot&run production look like a carefully lit flick. You'd still need skill to choose the angles and the framing/composition well but, hypothetically speaking, super high sensitivity sensors will let you get by with practicals and daylight alone. (or those cheapo LED ribbon lights, that work well as fills and backgrounds) That would be great for the low/no budget shoots at the very least.

Personally, the technology - and not the Hollywood over reliance of $200M+ blockbuster bombs, as claimed by Spielberg and Lucas - is what will force the greatest change in film making. If a project can get by without lights, it can get by without grips. If sound can be recorded off a wireless mic placed on each actor, then you don't need a boom mic operator. If clip-on battery packs can power all the electronics, you don't need ... eh, grips (OK, I already said it). If the files can be quickly recorded and managed by the internal cards and small solid state hard drives, one won't need a huge editing suit. If the color palette can be programmed internally, you won't need a grader. If you can have high level auto focus and auto exposure, you won't need focus pullers, a slew of assistant camera operators and grips (I know, I already said that twice). If you have light MoVI style stabilizer supporting lightweight cameras, you won't need dollies, tracks, cranes and jibs. In other words, like a soap opera, a well choreographed film of 100-120 pages can be shot in one day and, unlike the present era soaps, still retain a reasonable cinematic quality that is perfectly suitable for a streaming site or an independent theater using a consumer 4K projector on a 20 foot screen.

The revolution has began long ago. This is simply another step along its way.

July 17, 2013 at 2:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
DLD

Yeah but you're always need the $20 million dollar actors. You could get uncle Bob to play the part but he won't have the same kind of pull. you're also going to need the marketing dollars to make people aware of the film.

Just look at the music industry; anyone can cheaply and easily make a record these days. It's the "getting it out there" part that is hard.

July 18, 2013 at 5:09PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

6
Reply

Needing to get it out there, MuteMath knows well about that, the best group most people have never heard of.

The one movie in the past few years I thought should have been "out there" more was The Debt. Excellent movie! In fact I think it was the best movie in the last 10 years. But how many people have even heard of it? Sad shame.

July 18, 2013 at 11:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

"Do we really need them?"

Do we really need cars that can race around at 140+ mph? Because most stock cars can simply by tuning them.
Do we really need 8+ core CPUs to render video? Because 4 was enough once GPGPU hit the scene.
Do we really need to use RAW hacks on our DSLRs? Because there are already RAW cameras.

This is a terribly lazy question, and deserves at least a little friendly derision.

The answer is "Yes. Obviously we will create a use case, and that use case will eventually become a so-called 'need'."

I for one welcome our graphene-toting, nightvision overlords.

July 17, 2013 at 2:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

The point is, cameras are already extremely sensitive. From a general filmmaking standpoint, more advances in low light shooting do not necessarily make better looking pictures. There will obviously be uses, but likely the reason you would need better low light sensitivity is because you're using available light, and available light, like streetlights and signs, are not full spectrum, so if you're not using any additional light, it's going to be visible, but not very nice looking.

The one major use I could actually see as someone said before is with high-speed shooting, where you need a ton of light. It would make it much easier to shoot high-speed under normal lighting conditions.

July 17, 2013 at 2:35PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Camera Department

Time to make 500 stop NDs

July 17, 2013 at 2:52PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

I think it'd be pretty amazing to shoot in starlight...as in you can see your subjects, *and* the stars in the sky without VFX.

July 17, 2013 at 6:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gabe

Thanks for taking that in stride. Again, the derision is in good fun. Not at all serious. Totally agreed on the point of high speed shooting.

Additionally, it seems that any R&D spent on this type of technology will have manifold applications. One example is the current-gen Samsung Galaxy S4 Zoom [a phone with a fixed lens 10x optical zoom sticking out of the back side, paired with a 16 MP 1/2.3" CMOS] If this thing had an ultra-low-noise graphene sensor [even at the exact same physical dimensions of the current CMOS it uses], it would absolutely be a camcorder-killer: the bane of almost all cellphone camera sensors is low light, due to the less-than-adequate surface area. Imagine having greatly reduced sensor noise, even at smaller sizes, built into your cellphone, with high enough spatial resolution to create meaningful content. Add to that the already existing high-bitrate recording apps like Filmic Pro or LgCamera and the use cases for this technology multiply- while still merely scratching the surface:

-Assistive devices for the legally blind [who still retain some sight, but fare poorly in the dark]?
-Google glass 2.0?
-Automotive cameras like the ones used so frequently in Russia?
-Aerial cameras to feed the 'black box' on commercial flights for better post-accident analysis?
-How about dual or tri-layered graphene sensors for ultra-HDR?
-Imaging devices that can simultaneously record near IR light while also giving a human-vision preview,
-Or documentary cameras that can perform an RGB light split without suffering from the light loss of shooting through a prism?

I'm just spit-balling here, but it seems that lower light shooting will generously benefit all of humanity and science, and the arts will of course be among the greatest long-term beneficiaries.

July 17, 2013 at 7:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

What's really interesting about graphene is the molecular layout. It is formed in perfect hexagonal patterns. My question would be, will the sensors still work on a square pixel level, or will they be the hexagonal pattern? This could also change the way images are seen. No more square pixels, that would be cool, and maybe no need for RGB layouts, maybe the sensor will act for like film, and process the light pass through in a more organic way, rather than having to debayer. This is all speculative, but maybe the fact that this can be cheaper means that we can truly have a revolution of imaging, not in just low light, but in all light. I would love to have a camera for around $600 that can shoot in all levels of light with amazing DR, hardly any noise, and good DOF characteristics. Imagine having a sensor with a base ISO of 10,000 or higher, what would that mean for imaging on a whole? It is an exciting prospect of being able to turn the industry on its head.

July 17, 2013 at 2:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply
Mason

500 stop NDs, lol. 1000x = 10 stops. 2 ^10 = 1024.

July 17, 2013 at 4:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
d

Interesting also for high speed video, because at very high speeds any amount of light is low. Also for astronomy, but I dont think they will be better than supercooled CCD.

July 17, 2013 at 5:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Simon

Why not? This is eliminating wiring that blocks light...no amount of supercooling is going to allow a CCD to do that.

July 17, 2013 at 6:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gabe

I'm surprised noone mentions nature documentaries...

There is a lot of wildlife that is active only during night. Even the scientific community knows little about the activity of these animals during night, since it becomes so difficult for humans to observe them without disturbing them.

I recently saw a documentary, Wild Night of The Lions, shot with the latest camera tech. They used a set of different thermal cameras, and one camera that could shoot just in available moonlight/starlight, to shoot the nightly behavior of animals.

Check the footage here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZRbb0h7C2k

Not so useful perhaps for the ordinary films, but might come in handy if you want to shoot Predator 15 and need the proper Predator vision.

July 17, 2013 at 6:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

That is an excellent link! Clearly this sensor would help immensely for night shooting.

July 17, 2013 at 7:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

I also think, if it lives up to the hype/ claims, this could be useful in space exploration, from earth as well as rovers and satellites. Also underwater.

July 18, 2013 at 1:32PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
tbonemain

Meanwhile, Aptina is coming out with a new sensor tech that also improves a low-light performance.

"Aptina says its combination of a new color filter pattern, redesigned microlenses and novel image processing allows its system to make full use of a 2X increase in light capture, compared with existing sensors." - quote from

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/3175393898/aptina-explains-clarity-plus...

and directly from the manufacturer site (in PDF)

http://www.aptina.com/Aptina_ClarityPlus_WhitePaper.pdf

July 17, 2013 at 7:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
DLD

Not needed, but awesome. It would allow you to stop your lens way down even by moonlight. For still photographers, it would allow small apertures at even very high shutter speeds. Or shooting something lit by a single candle. These could also revolutionize military optic technologies. And if they're cheaper, that's an obvious reason right there.

July 17, 2013 at 7:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Sangye Ince-Joh...

I thought when I got home tonight I would find comments from Canon DSLR users about how excited they are at the possibility of future generations of the 5D being even better in low light with this sensor. Many of them talk about the low light capability of the 5D and it being why they'd never get a GH3, or any other camera, even though those other cameras make a sharper, better looking video. Low light has been the one thing 5D's have they can hang on to over on every other DSLR and mirrorless camera. These sensors could, potentially, make even a $90.00 camera have better low light ability than a 5D3.

July 17, 2013 at 7:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

It is not only about low light capability, but also about gamut. With a higher light sensitivity, I'd presume that different dyes for the R,G, and B pixels could be used that are more restricted to the tristimulus wavelengths (in other words, they have a steeper wavelength blocking curve). This should provide more distringuishible colours at the same sensitivity levels.

Aside from that, without also raising the well capacity of the pixels, the attainable dynamic range will not improve; the wells will only be "filled" (fully charged) quicker.

July 18, 2013 at 2:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Thyl Engelhardt

>Do we really need them?

Do we really have to ask? Too much of a good thing is wonderful

July 18, 2013 at 11:14AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Natt

Interesting. However, the money saved by the cheaper sensor we'll probably have to invest in ND filters :)

July 18, 2013 at 3:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Films shot by starlight would be pretty stellar.

July 18, 2013 at 3:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Jake

"Do We Really Need Them?"

Um DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh

It is the absolute biggest deal in video other than dynamic range.

July 18, 2013 at 4:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Dylan

It is a huge deal for smartphone or glass based cameras where the lense is so small that very little light can make it to the light sensor.
Can't wait to see this on an iPhone or Samsung.

July 18, 2013 at 5:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
xiiiiiiiiii

Yep, they are. I've seen the early canon low light footage. Still grainy noise, and still needed moon light a. lot. These sort of advances help move us to a point where we can film in near blackness and still produce a usable clear picture. Now, trying to get the Canon's quality on a camcorder or phone is going to be a struggle, let alone near blackness, needs a lot of help. On future holographic cinema cameras of 16k+ Sony etc is working on, getting that resolution is a standard professional sensor size is going to shrink the pixel pads like they are consumer image sensor pads. So, the extra ability should come in handy on pro cameras eventually. What do you think?

July 18, 2013 at 5:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
DIY

Do you have links to information about the Sony, and others, 16K, and holographic projection, you talked about? I'm very interested to read about it.

July 19, 2013 at 11:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene