4:4:4 10bit single CMOS HD project

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · July 22nd, 2004, 10:43 AM

Jason, you can record on tape without compression.......
Go buy a SDLT600. :)

36 Mbytes/s (72 with its internal 2:1 LOSSLESS compression)

Not trying to be agressive, but you are not the only person in this forum, so if you want it pure big and RAW, there is no problem.
That's the funny thing about this system, if you build it you can have it the way you like!!
But please let others discuss what they want. (Did I overreact :) )

Rob Scott · July 22nd, 2004, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Jason Rodriguez wrote:
Do we have to go with compression? Can't we compress after the fact ...

So far, the two projects (Obin's and mine) are talking strictly raw, uncompressed data to disk. Period. Any talk of compression on-the-fly is for the future. (Though possibly near-future.) And I believe there will always be an option to capture raw and process offline.

Jason Rodriguez · July 22nd, 2004, 11:04 AM

Yep :-)

Sorry, I'm not really sure if this is a group software thing going on, or little side discussions. Sometimes it has felt from the traffic that group consensus was moving towards a compressed solution, but if we can do whatever we want, then that's good.

Wayne Morellini · July 22nd, 2004, 11:10 AM

How much Jaun, any links? I have been considering the use of backuptape to archive footage (and maybe record it). One of the biggest problems with broadcast tape, is that the broadcast manufacturers control it and price it out of reach.

Thanks.

Wayne.

Ben Syverson · July 22nd, 2004, 11:14 AM

Wayne, I'm pretty sure an uncompressed tape system is out of your reach. :)

- ben

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · July 22nd, 2004, 11:15 AM

Google, search for SDLT.
It is a well known standard with support of the biggest computer companies.
Every new generation is backwards compatible and tapes cost around $ 45.

Jason Rodriguez · July 22nd, 2004, 11:20 AM

Is tape back-up fast enough to record to?

I think you'll have to use it as offline, and even then, it's only 130GB a tape for AIT-2, and you need SCSI for most DLT's ($$$).

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · July 22nd, 2004, 11:25 AM

SDLT600. :)

36 Mbytes/s (72 with its internal 2:1 LOSSLESS compression)
300 GB/ 600 GB that's why it is SDLT "600".

Anyway, an ultra 160 card at $400 is ridiculous against its price :) , hahahahaha....

Rob Scott · July 22nd, 2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Ben Syverson wrote:
Wayne, I'm pretty sure an uncompressed tape system is out of your reach.

Why? It's only $7,750.95!

Wayne Morellini · July 22nd, 2004, 11:37 AM

It doesn't matter, just another option for people. It is more about saving and reusing a $1000 dollers of Hard disks per major production (we are aiming for 1080 and eventually SHD in the future) many of thousands per year, and it might be very cheap compared to buying a broadcast/digital film tape mechanism. For some professional people and indies, that is going to be a major bonus.

I posted a good Toms hardware review of tape backup on one of the threads, I think that the stats were even more impresive than the one above (I think they were way over 200Mb/s=SHD). I think they might be a lot cheaper than that device to. They are doing a Raid 5 8 drive review at the moment.

On compression/raw, they are only doing what we can do for the moment, pie in the sky, fantasy etc etc compression comes latter.

<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : I guess maybe a cheap shuttle will do for now untill that board is out..>>>

Don't forget the PCI-E one.

Eric Gorski · July 22nd, 2004, 01:14 PM

i have a question:

..a camera that shoots at a resolution of 2048x1536 would obviously require a great deal of bandwidth and storage... however, if you were going to crop the image in post to a cinemascope format closer to 2048x900, would it be possible to design the software to only capture a window of that size??

Rob Scott · July 22nd, 2004, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Eric Gorski wrote:
if you were going to crop the image in post to a cinemascope format closer to 2048x900, would it be possible to design the software to only capture a window of that size??

Absolutely. These sensors support "windowing," where you can choose the area of the sensor that you are retrieving. Since you are retrieving less data, you reduce the required bandwidth. (Of course, you could also choose to speed up the frame rate.)

Eric Gorski · July 22nd, 2004, 05:53 PM

have those people who have worked with these cameras noticed a considerable amount of strobbing when panning or tracking?

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · July 23rd, 2004, 01:29 AM

To everybody.

Another big question came to my mind.
Why Steve Nordhouser and many other people are so concerned about Sensor's seneitivity (I mean the sensors we discuss here)???
From the specs I've seen the sensors we are discussin or using here are far more sensitive than a normal e.g. Sony 3 CCD Broadcasting camera.
What am I missing here?

Obin Olson · July 23rd, 2004, 08:07 AM

I need some help I will post a RAW file from our capture software and I need to know if it's full RAW as in 10bits? or is it 8bits? we don't know because we don't know what the SDK is doing it's DOCS suck..
www.cameralink.greatnow.com/raw_file.rar

July 22nd, 2004, 10:43 AM	#931
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	Jason, you can record on tape without compression....... Go buy a SDLT600. :) 36 Mbytes/s (72 with its internal 2:1 LOSSLESS compression) Not trying to be agressive, but you are not the only person in this forum, so if you want it pure big and RAW, there is no problem. That's the funny thing about this system, if you build it you can have it the way you like!! But please let others discuss what they want. (Did I overreact :) )

July 22nd, 2004, 11:04 AM	#933
Jason Rodriguez Trustee Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 1,095	Yep :-) Sorry, I'm not really sure if this is a group software thing going on, or little side discussions. Sometimes it has felt from the traffic that group consensus was moving towards a compressed solution, but if we can do whatever we want, then that's good.

July 22nd, 2004, 11:10 AM	#934
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	How much Jaun, any links? I have been considering the use of backuptape to archive footage (and maybe record it). One of the biggest problems with broadcast tape, is that the broadcast manufacturers control it and price it out of reach. Thanks. Wayne.

July 22nd, 2004, 11:14 AM	#935
Ben Syverson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: chicago Posts: 434	Wayne, I'm pretty sure an uncompressed tape system is out of your reach. :) - ben

July 22nd, 2004, 11:15 AM	#936
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	Google, search for SDLT. It is a well known standard with support of the biggest computer companies. Every new generation is backwards compatible and tapes cost around $ 45.

July 22nd, 2004, 11:20 AM	#937
Jason Rodriguez Trustee Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 1,095	Is tape back-up fast enough to record to? I think you'll have to use it as offline, and even then, it's only 130GB a tape for AIT-2, and you need SCSI for most DLT's ($$$).

July 22nd, 2004, 11:25 AM	#938
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	SDLT600. :) 36 Mbytes/s (72 with its internal 2:1 LOSSLESS compression) 300 GB/ 600 GB that's why it is SDLT "600". Anyway, an ultra 160 card at $400 is ridiculous against its price :) , hahahahaha....

July 22nd, 2004, 11:37 AM	#940
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	It doesn't matter, just another option for people. It is more about saving and reusing a $1000 dollers of Hard disks per major production (we are aiming for 1080 and eventually SHD in the future) many of thousands per year, and it might be very cheap compared to buying a broadcast/digital film tape mechanism. For some professional people and indies, that is going to be a major bonus. I posted a good Toms hardware review of tape backup on one of the threads, I think that the stats were even more impresive than the one above (I think they were way over 200Mb/s=SHD). I think they might be a lot cheaper than that device to. They are doing a Raid 5 8 drive review at the moment. On compression/raw, they are only doing what we can do for the moment, pie in the sky, fantasy etc etc compression comes latter. <<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : I guess maybe a cheap shuttle will do for now untill that board is out..>>> Don't forget the PCI-E one.

July 22nd, 2004, 01:14 PM	#941
Eric Gorski Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Western Oregon Posts: 138	i have a question: ..a camera that shoots at a resolution of 2048x1536 would obviously require a great deal of bandwidth and storage... however, if you were going to crop the image in post to a cinemascope format closer to 2048x900, would it be possible to design the software to only capture a window of that size??

July 22nd, 2004, 05:53 PM	#943
Eric Gorski Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Western Oregon Posts: 138	have those people who have worked with these cameras noticed a considerable amount of strobbing when panning or tracking?

July 23rd, 2004, 01:29 AM	#944
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	To everybody. Another big question came to my mind. Why Steve Nordhouser and many other people are so concerned about Sensor's seneitivity (I mean the sensors we discuss here)??? From the specs I've seen the sensors we are discussin or using here are far more sensitive than a normal e.g. Sony 3 CCD Broadcasting camera. What am I missing here?

July 23rd, 2004, 08:07 AM	#945
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	I need some help I will post a RAW file from our capture software and I need to know if it's full RAW as in 10bits? or is it 8bits? we don't know because we don't know what the SDK is doing it's DOCS suck.. www.cameralink.greatnow.com/raw_file.rar