Home made camera designs? - Page 17 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Alternative Imaging Methods

Alternative Imaging Methods
DV Info Net is the birthplace of all 35mm adapters.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 28th, 2004, 05:16 AM   #241
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina
Posts: 444
Mbits, sorry.But it at least transfers 80 megabytes more or less :)
It has smaller transfer rates than Gigabit ethernet, think about the possibilities of 10 G ethernet, around 800 Mbytes directly to your machine!!!! ( although I don't know of a normal computer which can handle this datarate )
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2004, 09:26 AM   #242
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,761
<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : This may be silly to ask, but Wayne, did you just post what I think you did? Are we talking an HD camera being created here that will illiminate the need for a video capture card? Please give details if so. (Not sure how this works). What type of files would it create? How exactly does it work? -->>>

Well it has been mentioned before, but mostly as Rob said. Firstly you can do away with the Cameralink PCI card (most small boards don't support the PCI-66 format, and not the more primitive PCI-mini) and use it for something more productive, like good sound (I will be posting an update over at the viper thread sometime). It has cost and conveince benefits to. As Ethernet specs are standard the support is standard, the Cameralink data then canbe packed and sent down the gigabit stream to be read at the other end by cameralink compatable software (modified or fead by driver transcodec) as done allready. I think the 80MB/s is a big restriction, but for a 2Mp*24fps 8 bit bayer pattern that is 48+MB/s. The advantage I see is that even if we can't get 10GB's Ethernet Mainboards today we can use it at 1GB/s (as long as pixel combing is used) until the 10gb/s mainboard are available.

Still maybe I am missing something here, how much are the SI camera link to Gigabit Ethernet adaptors anyway? They look a bit big for a small case but maybe there will be a smaller version comming out? I still think that HDMI format is very good alternative, but life is soo much politics.
Wayne Morellini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2004, 04:59 PM   #243
New Boot
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: CaLi
Posts: 6
Split Image

I have an idea that I will be testing out this week, Let me know what you think. Its based on using two 3ccd cameras mounted side by side to produce a wideangle image. One camera would capture half of one frame and the other cam would capture the other. Here is the idea>>>> http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/...e_cam_copy.jpg

I realize that recording two images on two seperate tapes and joining them later is very inconvenient, and the risk of the camera set up being off by one or two pixles would be vissible in the composite image so it's tedious. But im going to try it out.

My question is, would it be possible to make a program that records these two video streams and joins them together and dumps them on to a hard drive?
Or is there a program out there that could do this in HD as maybe a split image trasition in realtime?

Also... If this were to work, I want to use a 35mm or cine lens as the main lens BUT... would the DOF be preserved after being deflected through the mirrors? can this be worked with?

I'll be doing a really rough test at work today and hopefull post my results soon.


Alex
Alex Monita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2004, 05:22 PM   #244
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 112
Alex,

Just make the two overlap a bit and shoot an easily alignable image (like a focus star or something) in the overlap space. A focus star clapboard would be even better.

Assuming you've got the two rigidly connected, you should only have to line up the star at the beginning of the shot in, say, After Effects and the rest of the shot should align fine.

I have my doubts about how perfect the colour match would be, though.


-j
Jay Silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2004, 09:36 PM   #245
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Pavilion, USA
Posts: 64
In regards to strapping to cameras together for an HD frame. I actually had the same idea about a year ago. I am not going to say that it is impossible, it certainly is possible, but it is impractical. In order to do this right what i found was that an image would have to be projected onto ground glass and then either filmed directly or split with a beam-splitter or two mirrors at exactly a 90 degree angle with a perfectly 'sharp' edge and then reflected back into the camera lens. The beam-splitter looses too much light, and the 90 degree mirrors cost about 500 bucks. If you don't record an image you have to be at close to full zoom before the image depth is crushed enough to merge the images. Again the idea is possible but considering the best you can get is a 'close to 720p at 2.35 aspect' that would still have to be upressed and color depth is only 4:1:1 its just not worth it. Also it would only work with a progressive camera because there is no way to match up the interlacing. So good luck, I'm not saying that ive considered everything but to the best of my knowlege it just isn't worth it. You might want to check out stereoscopic beam-splitters its basically the same idea except backwards, but again you need to project the image on GG.
__________________
Whatever works
Rob LaPoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2004, 09:58 PM   #246
New Boot
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: CaLi
Posts: 6
Yes, I've had trouble matching white balance on a couple of two camera shoots but I dont think it will be a problem to cc because I am joining them in After Effects.

I was thinking that the image that a lens projects focuses at a certain distance from it, and if it were to pass through a beam splitter or mirrors, maye the distance can be adjusted so that the focal point becomes the "END" of the "Y" aperatus that would be projected directly on the CCD head.

In other words push the lens closer to the "Y" so that the focus would be right where the light hits the CCD's?

I picked up two 35mm mirrors from two old slr cameras and Im getting my hands on two vx2000's to try this out on.
Alex Monita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2004, 04:14 AM   #247
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: denton, texas, usa
Posts: 416
I'm not exactly sure what I'm missing here. I guess I don't understand how using 2 cameras side by side and combining into 1 image is worth it whatsover. Can't move the camera at all really. Maybe pan/tilt, but your project would be EXTREMEMLY LIMITED creativity wide, wouldn't it? What's the point. Can someone tell me what I'm missing?
Laurence Maher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2004, 01:52 PM   #248
Silicon Imaging, Inc.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Troy, NY USA
Posts: 325
1/10 gigabit:
We are certainly watching the 10gig technology but it is still a few years away from practical (low cost) integration. The GigE interface will run up to about 800Mb/sec continuously. The current price is about $1K over the base camera link camera price with all power supplies and cables. We are going to be releasing GigE native cameras (one box, a little longer than the current box) fairly soon.

For the costs involved in going to GigE, I think a 2:1 lossless compression in a cheap FPGA (or integrated into our GigE FPGA) would be the solution. Let me know if someone finds and easy to implement (for VHDL/Verilog source code) for a lossless compression CODEC.
__________________
Silicon Imaging, Inc.
We see the Light!
http://www.siliconimaging.com
Steve Nordhauser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2004, 06:35 AM   #249
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,761
If we had two GBE links on each MB that would solve a lot of problems, but we will have to go with compression. Still that clearspeed is bloody fast in inline reprogrammable C code, maybe even a clearspeed cameralink to gbe ethernet comnpression "credit card". Pound for pound, couldn't we get 2:1 to 50:1 compression today? If 10 GBE FPGA is years away we might as well go to mass market HDMI now (is there a 10Gb/s version)?
Wayne Morellini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2004, 08:04 AM   #250
Silicon Imaging, Inc.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Troy, NY USA
Posts: 325
Wayne, I think you are mixing metaphors. 10 gigabit is rapidly becoming real. The support structure (switches, cards, etc) will take a little while to become affordable (out of the backbone and into the office network). This is just a transmission medium, like camera link and HD-SDI. Of course you need a PCI bus to keep up with this. 1Gb ethernet can move data at about 100MB/sec. That is the full bus bandwidth of PCI-32. I'm still a camera link fan for cost since it doesn't add too much to the camera and our bundles are $500 for capture at 32 bits and probably $1K at 64/66. HD-SDI requires the video processing up front. Certainly dual GigE would give you twice the bandwidth into a 64 bit machine, but why not camera link - you won't be straining it in the least.

FGPAs are just hardware that is reconfigurable. The difficulty is that although it looks like programming, it is hardware design. As Scott has pointed out, there are some public domain or licensable solutions. I looked at the clearspeed website. They have a 64 parallel processor CPU. The big thing with parallel processors is that you need to parallel-ize the application to gain any benefit. Since they say you can just program away in C, they must be solving that problem during compile. The SDK was $25K with $1K/chip in volume.
__________________
Silicon Imaging, Inc.
We see the Light!
http://www.siliconimaging.com
Steve Nordhauser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2004, 05:05 PM   #251
Tourist
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1
Hello all, my question is about The AJA Kona 2 card and Final Cut Pro HD. The AJA website said that the Kona 2 card can convert raw 720*1280 into DVCPRO-HD using HD-SDI. My question is this, is there a way to convert the signal from one of the inexpensive cmos cameras(silicon imaging 1300 for example) into HD-SDI. I know that DVCPRO-HD is not the ideal system for feature film work(8 bit, 960*720 after bayer filter)but i am just a poor filmaker trying to get my film made. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel. Also, is there any way to manipulate the signal before compression(white balance, basic color correction). If this idea is entirely stupid and there is a much better solution please let me know. Any posts that point me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.

Steve Floyd
Steve Floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2004, 06:48 PM   #252
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wilmington NC
Posts: 1,414
I don't know of a "system" yet....I am working on stuff with lossless or near-lossless codecs but nothing yet...keep our fingers crossed
Obin Olson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2004, 01:54 AM   #253
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: denton, texas, usa
Posts: 416
Say guys, a friend of mine just emailed me an announcement of a relatively new codec from apple called the "H.264/AVC". Is this something we could use?

http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/h264.html

Claims to be some greatly sophistocated codec that can do scaleable HD. I don't know really what to look for that much, but one of you guys probably does. Check it out and tell us what you think
Laurence Maher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2004, 02:25 AM   #254
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina
Posts: 444
H264 is more lossy than Divx or Xvid.It is meanto for extremely low bitrate video, head to head with Windows media 9, some peolple say it compresses more....
So I don't think it is suitable for capture.IMHO.
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2004, 08:27 AM   #255
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,761
<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : Wayne, I think you are mixing metaphors. 10 gigabit is rapidly becoming real. The support structure (switches, cards, etc) will take a little while to become affordable (out of the backbone and into the office network). This is just a transmission medium, like camera link and HD-SDI. Of course you need a PCI bus to keep up with this. 1Gb ethernet can move data at about 100MB/sec.

That is the full bus bandwidth of PCI-32. I'm still a camera link fan for cost since it doesn't add too much to the camera and our bundles are $500 for capture at 32 bits and probably $1K at 64/66. HD-SDI requires the video processing up front. Certainly dual GigE would give you twice the bandwidth into a 64 bit machine, but why not camera link - you won't be straining it in the least.

FGPAs are just hardware that is reconfigurable. The difficulty is that although it looks like programming, it is hardware design. As Scott has pointed out, there are some public domain or licensable solutions. I looked at the clearspeed website. They have a 64 parallel processor CPU. The big thing with parallel processors is that you need to parallel-ize the application to gain any benefit. Since they say you can just program away in C, they must be solving that problem during compile. The SDK was $25K with $1K/chip in volume. -->>>

No, I'm not mixing metaphores, I know what I'm saying, even if I don't indicate that at times;). I know you mentioned GBE FPGA, so naturally a 10GBE FPGA might be possible. The Russain FPGA design looks almost credit card sized. I know if a MB had 10GBR or GBE that we can dump the capture card cost, if the camera also has GBE or 10 GBE. I know that these MB ports can bypass the PCI buss, or we could use a PCI-E or 66Mhz/64bit PCI in future. If HDMI is used then simular saving might be possible, and you never know the next version might even be 10GB's. Over the short distance even DVI to DVI might be an option. Just looking at cost reduction. You could also interface Clearspeed to GBE. Anybody can have the option to spend the money and have HD-SDI, Boxe, and Cineform, but I am interested in the entry point cost aswell (that is why USB 2.0 would have also been good, but it is not upto realtime processing requirements). So everything from the handheld, single drive, nano-itx 720p version to the 4 drive SHD version canbe done at minimal or maxi costs. 2 GBE (now available) on MB is enough for SHD bayer.

I am surprised at that pricing from clearspeed. This leads me to believe it maybe possible that they may have done a small run of 10K-100K chips, and are trying to pay expenses off those chips until they have mass market buyers (100K+), instead of doing a loss leader. Nothing wrong with that, hardware is very expensive and potentialy very low margin, and it is a very high performance product, not good for us though, but if they can get into a mass market product with runs at least in the millions, I think it should be available a lot cheaper.

Thanks

Wayne.
Wayne Morellini is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Alternative Imaging Methods

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:50 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network