Laurence,

I agree, paying 15 K for such a system well worth it. But the fact is - a lot of people on this part of the forum can't afford paying that much. The good thing though, if Sumix ever gives us the camera, it will be a start - they might come up with a finished product (PC based, USB 2, 3 monochrome CMOSs cam) later or people on this forum will polish the solution.

The reliability of the final camera will be achieved this way or another, it's just time :(

Wayne,
I wish I had any news on the point, but Sumix went silent after I described what the camera should be. There was no confirmation, nothing. They could be developing the cam now or they might have desided the trouble is financially inattractive. I am sending them a letter immediately. Sorry for such an attitude, I was very buisy these two weeks. Among other things, I purchased a USB 2 1280 X 1024 webcam that does 11 frames at full resolution, hoping to reverse engineer it and get 24 frames from a subsampled mode.
The thing is, I turned out to be overestimating my hacking abilities :(
Besides, CMOS imager on the camera is bayer RGB, not monochrome as I hoped buying it.
Although I didn't waste my time ( I found software for synchronizing the 3 monochrome streams, premultiplying by corresponding colors and outputting the final .avi or frame streams - http://www.montivision.com), I am a bit dissapointed: now there's no choise, but to spend more on expensive industrial monochrome cameras if Sumix pulls out.

new HD camera
 

Only just joined this forum, based in the UK. I have the same dream of a low cost HD system as many others. I'm not nearly as technically savvy as you guys as I'm a writer first and foremost. Jesus, some of you guys sound like engineers! I've been following the new developments very closely, including kinetta, sony POV, JVC etc. over in the UK we're limited to the sony hdw750p, the sdx900, imx, cinealta. All are either too expensive or do not provide enough quality.

Last week I rang a guy called Steve Nordhausen who works for silicon imaging. Within 8-12 weeks time a new camera will arrive! Here is the spec so far, forgive me if they are not detailed enough.

SI-1920 HD camera. 1920*1080 3.2 megapixel at 24fps poss 23.976 as well. Single cmos chip. Will stream to computer (PC) poss USB2 connection altough serial ata configuration was hinted at.
Frame grabber software will be required. Apparently 10bit and 12bit solutions are available. Images will be uncompressed. Frame grabber will be required along with another piece of software which I'm still a bit hazy on. Ready for the best bit? Camera will be approx $4000!
Frame grabber $1500. Camera will apparently be compatible with 16mm bolex or sneider lenses along with others. Steve mentioned that a press release would be availble close to release which may be July!

I would appreciate hearing what you guys think about this. Personally I don't think it's vapourware as they already have a 6.6megapixel camera that does the same but at different frame rates. Look forward to hearing from you guys.

8)
 

Adrian, thanks for posting, it was very vise to call the guys instead of dumb ass mailing :)
A few questions though - why would you need a frame grabber if you have USB 2 option? Is it that the data rate exceeds USB 2 top limit or is it just an alternative to USB?
Another thing is low light, what will be the dynamic range of the cam? Have they told you which CMOS is planned to be used?
I'm sorry for this flow of interrogativeness:), but the stufff you wrote about could be one piece of hardware!

thanks for response. I shall forward these queries onto steve. Watch this space.

Steve, no your fine, don't get over anxiouse, but if they have decided to bail out (it might have to go before a couple off montly board meetings first) they should have told you.
Laurence,

I think we are looking for realistically priced systems the price of HDV equipment ($5K or less) but a couple of levels up (lossless to disk, exchangable 35mm lense, really good sensor). At this price people can say, do I buy HDV or do I buy this. Even if people are grumbling at having to pay the HDV price, they can quickly see they are getting better value for the same price with the Sumix and pay for that anyway. Loosless to disk is also cheaper to make than highly comrpessed to tape mechanism (then you get the problem with buying extra HDD).

Steve, in Linux there is a group that does a video aplication layer used by USB drivers for webcams, ask them about this (they probably can direct you to the Linux driver writers), maybe they know of customisable Windows driver too:

www.thedirks.org/v4l

The problem with webcams, is that they probably use very cheap and nasty sensor chips, unless it is by chance something like the Smal sensor. It could also be a bit off putting to Sumix too, but I don't seriusly think there is much chance that any of these cheap wcams will have pro performance.

Adrian, unfortunately we are not engineers, though I am a computer Scientist that had Engineering freinds at Uni (one was one of the best young engineers in the country, and the top silicon engineer in the States graduated from the uni nearly 20 years before). If we were engineers we could do the lot ourselves.

I hate to say this, because the moderators might not like it. But look on the Silicon Engineering site in the news, there was a contract with Sharp for non HDV equipment.

The new chip, unless they use compresson they wont be able to get 1080i through a USB2.0 link. I have thought of the Serial ATA idea, and it could allow some by passing of the controller boards buss, and higher through put, but I have not suggested it because it is not standard in this application, and a better solution is needed, maybe the desktop version of PCI-Express serial bus. I'm not certain but I think there might be a usb like version to come. There is also a consumer AV cable standard that does around 5 Gbit/s per second (can't remember the name).

$4K+, yes there is a market, above the Sumix at that price, as you are talking of 2.5K+ more, and beyond the non pros threshhold of pain.

I have just received a Javascript notification that the limit of messages are around 1000 characters and I'm allready double that. I think one of my messages in another thread has dissapeared too. This is unrealistically small for such technical issues (10K would be better). If a lot of work was being done here then there would be many 1000+ messages floating back and forwards from time to time. Believe me I have aeen this in tecnical discussions (well there is another few hundred characters).

Another message
 

Steve, you mentioned an engineer, a while ago, called Vladimire, or something like that, that name sounds familiar. It could have been a video group, or the Misc (Minium Instruction Set Computer) mailing list I know it from. If he was in Misc, say hi from fellow member.

To Wayne
 

Wayne, thank you for typing that much :) I would sure use your advise and look for guys who deal with webcams but I came to realize that the thing I bought a few weeks ago won't be suitable for serious filmmaking. The hardware bayer pattern on the CMOS sensor ruins all hopes.
As for saying hi to the Russian guy, I would definitely do so if he replies to repeated inquiry I sent yesterday :)
You sure did a right thing making it off with a diploma in computer science ; ) It might be off topic, but what are you doing for living with that big diploma?
It's just I've been into this "cinema-SFX-help_yourself" utopia for the last 2 years, but having no proper tools for getting written scripts shot, I am gradually shifting towards electronics. The area is vast and amazing. Just curious how (if) you apply your knowledge towards sustainable living :)

Steve,

If you have scripts, I'd like to read them. We're always looking if they are of the standard length. No zombie movies though.

I am an software engineer, and I have done some embedded systems work. What I would love to see is an "open" hardware platform that people like me could write and adapt open source software for.

For example, the camera itself would have ...

- A standard CPU/memory/flash configuration
- A standard I/O port such as USB2, Firewire800 or Gigabit Ethernet.
- Support for a few selected imaging chips

If you could upload software into flash (Bayer algorithms, codecs, etc.) then the camera would be incredibly flexible.

We could define a standard protocol (or better, use one that already exists) for the video stream coming down the wire, then provide open-source tools to convert it into the necessary formats for the NLE -- AVI, Matroska, QuickTime, etc.

It's obviously necessary to work with any NLE out there -- Final Cut, Premiere, Avid, etc. in addition to supporting a free alternative (such as Cinelerra).

I for one would *love* to work on a project like this (though my time is already way overcomitted!). If it meant I could get an inexpensive high-quality "cine" camera, I would be really tempted to dig into the software.

[personal preferences]
1. I would like to see a Gigabit Ethernet port on the camera. This is quickly becoming a commodity and is even faster than Firewire 800. (Though I do not have specs on sustained throughput.)

2. To simplify the design I think the camera should not have audio capability -- external sync audio is very practical for filmmaking. This would also free up I/O bandwidth so the video would require less compression.
[/personal preferences]

I was following these threads with fascination in the last few weeks. I will briefly "chip in" in this thread.
I am a cinematographer and I have worked with all formats from 35mm to miniDV. I can see that a homemade HD cam is not far from being a reality. Even the so called Hi end products that are to be released (Viper, Dalsa) are not far as concept from what I've seen here lately. I welcome Rob's observations for a prototype and would like to add few things:
- the camera can be built around a motherboard with Gigabit Ethernet/FireWire
- a minimum 2/3" chip: to keep as close as possible to the depth of field and angle of view of bigger sisters/brothers we want to emulate. Larger chips also have bigger photosites and lower noise. The single CMOS (Bayer) color chip option is attracting some difficulties and postprocessing requirements like unsharp mask... and other things that I would like to have them done at that stage anyway. I can see it as bonus though: the raw files are the "negative" that we all want to have. Both Viper and Dalsa are using the same aproach. From my experience a 1.2 - 2 megapixel RAW file would generate an excellent image for the current projection environement. It will also offer an acceptable data rate to be handled by an inexpensive frame grabber card or even current logic boards and SATA+RAID drives. Don't forget that bigger files and a large data vault will make the post-production costs prohibitive for the indie filmmaker.
I have to go for now, I have an early start for the next day.

PS A link to an interesting chip. Check it out:
http://www.photonlines.com/English/Eframe_intro.htm

<<<-- Originally posted by Valeriu Campan : - the camera can be built around a motherboard with Gigabit Ethernet/FireWire
- a minimum 2/3" chip: to keep as close as possible to the depth of field -->>>

Here's an example of a embedded motherboard that might be suitable:
http://www.technoland.com/tl_embsbc845.htm

This board has built in Gigabit Ethernet and a CPU with enough power (hopefully) to handle the job. Also, it has built-in video, so it may be feasible to have full-resolution preview to a CRT or LCD monitor.

Here's the chip (the 3530 I think) used in the Kinetta camera:
http://www.altasens.com/products.html

The 3560 version (see above) has support for 1920x1080 progressive at up to 60fps. It can also be downsampled to 1280x720p at up to 120 fps (!).

I did some quick calculations, and it appears that Gigabit Ethernet can handle 1280x720 up to 36fps with no compression required. 1920x1080 would require compression of some sort (or multiple Ethernet connections) even at 24fps. Handling frame rates of over 24fps would be nice because I think overcranking is going to be a desirable feature.

(I am not a hardware designer, so I'm not sure if this combination would work -- how the motherboard would communicate with the chip, etc.)

Ohh I am such a complete cretin, I was over at the other thread and realised that if your using a normal one chipper than your raw image data rate falls to one third, because you actually have one monochrome pixel (behind a bayer filter etc) behind each scree pixel. So 2million pixels at 24fps, is actuall 48MB/s, going to 10 bits and we are still in the realm of possibility of fitting on USB2.0.

Anyway we don't want consumer grade single chip solutions do we ;)

Thanks for the compliments guys. I actual have a degree with distinction. But I have been too sick to make a descent living, I have had Ross River Virus, Glandular fever leading to CF, am becoming hyper sensitive to chemicals and a range of other things (this mostly started before I got the degree). So generally I'm not really upto stuff and am really out of the loop as far as software programming goes (I learn't the year before they started teaching Windows programming). Over in the States you have been more lucky, if you can do it you can get a job, over here you have to wave that little peice of paper mostly and then have the track record. But I have a creative mind and whatever it creates I tend not to forget, so I can workout some nifty stuff, like my OS design (which I often can't work on either). I also used to spend every Friday morning going through the electronics engineering industry periodicals at the Uni, and still dream of one day doing my own gadgets (requires a fair bit of study using my one real weak piont, maths). So if I was earning lots of dough, I'd be having a $20-$50K camera, and paying some engineer to design a cheap one for me to sell or something, but allass, it isn't so. The only camera stuff I may think of doing is a film lense adapter with some special features.

Ron, I hear you and your idea, and that is my reason for presenting so much information, that this camera could be received and setup on a preworked out syastem over days instead of months (and after that withn minutes). That we could have a backend system that could be upgraded and reused for any future camera. There is allready a Linux movement, and if you go to the Toas links above, there is an open content platform they have started, and I recently remember an open hardware platform, I think there is one for Power PC too, and I think MS might be running one of thm. But as far as the platform, we have the open work done on the Russian camera, and we have the cheap (compared to embedded boards) nano-itx pc standard by Via. You have sourceforge and in there you will find a wealth of open source video projects for Linux and Windows, and people that might want to help, or even join a project like you are interested in. We are probably almost at a stage of being certain that there is a variety of camera modules out there that such a project could support (but all one chippers).Unfortuately I am too stuffed to do most of it, but I have come up with what information I could for others to work with.

I would support Gigabit erthenet for 720p or 1080 4:2:0, but for 4:4:4 1080 it is still a couple of hundred mb/s short (pluss over head), and unfortunately it doesn't look like anybody is going to do lossless comrpession at the camera head either.

Valeriu, yes the size of the vault is the biggest worry I have aswell, but I am hopng somebody knows of a cheap backup medium used n computer servers that canbe used to store footage. We could also use an adaptive comrpession routine and compress nearlossless with bcakup footage that don't really need lossless. What do you think?

Valeriu

I had a look at those photonlines cameras, quiet an impressive range.

I was wondering, being a digital cinetographer, if you would like to give you opion on the performance of some of these chips sometimes? As they have a wealth of stats, some I don't even know, and the response curves, to the primary colours, on some of them looks a bit worrying (they are not very even/matching responses).

I notice they also have a PCI-X camerlink card too.

Thanks

Wayne.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini : Ohh I am such a complete cretin, I was over at the other thread and realised that if your using a normal one chipper than your raw image data rate falls to one third, because you actually have one monochrome pixel (behind a bayer filter etc) behind each scree pixel. So 2million pixels at 24fps, is actuall 48MB/s, going to 10 bits and we are still in the realm of possibility of fitting on USB2.0.-->>>

That hadn't occurred to me either. Assuming we're sending pre-Bayer images down the pipe, then we have only a 10-bit depth per pixel to deal with?

Actually, some chips appear to send 12 bits per pixel, which would (hopefully) mean you lose less information. I guess you'd then truncate to 10 bits after the Bayer filter, right?

1080p @ 10 bits @ 24 fps = 59 MB/sec
1080p @ 12 bits @ 24 fps = 71 MB/sec

Either one is too much data for USB 2.0 without some compression. Firewire 800 or Gigabit Ethernet could handle it easily, in fact Gigabit Ethernet could handle it up to 36 fps.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini : ... the cheap (compared to embedded boards) nano-itx pc standard by Via. -->>>

Thanks for the heads-up on the Nano-ITX board. I looked it up and it looks interesting ... but only has 10/100 Ethernet. It does appear to have USB 2.0, but something faster would have to be an add-on board.

It also appears to have a 1-GHz CPU. I wonder if that would be fast enough to shove the raw data down the pipe and provide a real-time preview via the RGB port? Would be interesting to find out.

Hey Steve,

I've got a couple of scripts I wrote. You say you are looking for scripts. Are you involved in a producing company?

Wayne,

You say 1080p 4:4:4 might be difficult and that we might have to settle for 4:2:0. I think the happy medium of 4:2:2 should be fine to start with, don't you? Perhaps that should be the goal.

By the way to all,

I'm not sure I should offer this, because I could be getting myself in over my head with certain social inticracies of my own personal life, but it's always a possibility.

As it turns out, my girlfriend's father is a recently retired ELECTIRCAL ENGINEER. Wayne just mentioned if he was an elecrical engineer or knew one, that some of these construction problems might be solved. After several weeks of looking at these threads on DVcommunity, I'm seriously considering talking to him about helping us construct a working model.

Before I get ahead of myself, I'm not exactly sure what type of projects he was used to working on at his work place, but he's supposed to be a real crackerjack. He only retired last year so I'm sure if he was capable of helping us, all he'd need to be brought up to speed technically is some communication with you guys.

Of course, I should mention that most people don't retire in their mid 50's so they can spend an inordinate amount of time with their daughters boyfriend creating digital film cameras, but my girlfriend is quite certain he would love working on such a project for both my benefit and also for the challenge of it. What I could bring to the table would be mostly gruntwork and necessary research, as I'm more of an artist than a technician. But hell, filmmaking is all about gruntwork now isn't it.

Perhaps there's already enough knowledge on the board so this is not necessary, but the words "If I was an electrical engineer" spurred me into realizing that it might be the missing link.

Maybe? Maybe? Input please.

As for logic/motherboard option, all current models AppleMacs have on board Firewire800+400, USB2, Gigabit ethernet, RAID option as part of the OS... and running a flavour of UNIX, I think they would be also Linux friendly.

To Laurence Maher
 

No, Laurence, I'm not with a production company, I wrote that I have scipts but lack the equipment :(( Thanks for the offer, though :)

As long as he is an Electronics Engineer as well. Then he would still need to learn this niche of the market. Whatever you do, there is preciouse little that you could make into a commercially viable venture on your own (firms like Sumix are much more setup for that sort of exertion), so expect to open source it. And very few engineers would like to work on something in there off time, but there are the extraordinary very few that do these things.

The ITX nano is 1Ghz, at the moment, but in the future expect upto 2Ghz in the future and newer interfaces.

Boards, cheap, cost for a embedded board is probably going to be much more than the ITX, a non PC reference design (ARM + etc) off of many companies might be better in some ways but probably will cost $500-$3000, and a DSP board would probably be cheaper and better tha that. I have nothng against the Mac idea (apart from being a diffrent platform to most users's at a bit of a premium) except that I would like a portable should mounted (even breakable into a camcorder) version for on the fly doco's. I have a suggestion that might solve the problem though and bring the price straight down (I think somebody has also done it to). Wirelessly transfer your video to a normal computer hooked upto a 12volt car battery in your car. But the problem is, what cheap and reliable 1 Gb's+ wireless interface (that uses unregulated international spectrum space) exists, and how far will it, go, ahh the Russian Elvis project, that probably has mophed into one of the telecomunications technologies now (4G or whatever). The problem you still get is how far can it reach through buildings, bush (thick forests/jungle) and EM niosy environments (if only we could, no there is another patentable idea, I'll shutup), and if your doing a car chase, or blowing somethign up will the picture breakup. Realistically you maybe limited to a radius of a couple of hundred metters from your vehicle through these obsticals.

To look at in a more advanced way, Ron's project canbe made to be setup with a variety of hardware platforms. Whatever the small capture unit is, it can still be docked with PC, Linux or Mac, and one common programming and decoding model (for different editors) canbe used accross these platforms. So, in this lego version we have camera connected to a small capture unit that may also be able to act as a editor, that canbe connect to other computers.

Well really I'm not too interested in making a product I can sell to the masses or anything. I'm not even interested in selling at all, just really to a select few, and that's if they wanted it. Becasue it's not like there isn't massive time spent in creating each camera. Selling something at a few grand like most people want would not be cost efficent, nor do I have the desire to be a salesman. I want a camera for me so I can shoot movies, and then cameras provided for the people that helped make it happen, becasue they also deserve one. If someone else wants to sell the thing, let them. Meanwhile, I'll be doing what I enjoy . . . shooting.

Anyway, I was just thinking it might help you guys to have someone experienced at creating finished products, and also maybe he'd have knowledge on where to get cheap parts or what not. Just an idea. Maybe what I should do is suggest it to him as a possibility, and have him check out these threads to see if he thinks it's feasible or even if he's interested at all.

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : Well really I'm not too interested in making a product I can sell to the masses ... -->>>

Exactly -- an "open-source" hardware and software design would let people build their own if they like, *and* would allow people to start a (small) business selling cameras if that appeals to them.

I certainly can't afford a $50K camera, but I might be able to afford a few development boards and take some time to work on the software.

If there is enough interest, should we set up a web site where we can gather and share information in a more organized fashion -- start with a Wiki, perhaps?

count me in for the website help! I will be getting the hd camera and 16mm K3 soon I hope! and I can share the help with everyone on that and the 35mm adaptor I jsut made for the dvx100

<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : count me in for the website help! -->>>

I'll be glad to help -- in fact, just today I set up a new web site called "obscuracam.com" ... the domain is still in the process of being set up, though, so it's only available here:

http://66.223.26.77/wiki/wiki/

Obin, you're welcome to begin using it to document your camera. I've already set up a topic that you should see from the main wiki page. Click on the link and then click "Edit" to add text to it. It's also possible to link graphics into topics -- to provide drawings, photos, etc.

I'd love to make this site available to anyone in these forums to use to document various projects -- GG adapters, etc. If you think this is helpful, or have any suggestions, please feel free to contact me -- rob (at) scottclan.cc

(BTW, I'm going to be out of town for a few days, so I may not respond until next week.)

Sorry Laurence and Rob, I have been recovering from flu bouts, and just realised I have been getting you two mixed up lately, my appologies.

Laurence I agree about you girlfreind's father, he would be a great help.

Guys, good on the website idea. There are a number of camera links in the homemade thread that could be put in there.

Great idea for the wiki. Count me in.

Hey Obin, you said you'll be "getting the HD camera". You're still referring to your own or did you say you were going to also purchase one from silicon imaging. Oh, which reminds me . . .

Didn't get too far on that website, but are the silicon imaging cameras too expensive? Do they not use 24p? Seems like the subject kind of came and went.

By the way, I should put out there that I need to get a new editing system up and running some time soon, whether I like it or not. My Digisuite LE has crashed one too many times and I have stuff I need to get done. I was thinking on getting a mac based NLE, but all this various talk about Linux and a bunch of stuff I've never heard of like the free cine . . . whatever it was is kind of pulling me back. I don't want to get something uncompatable with whatever camera system we go with. Truthfully, as far as editing is concerned, I need something both user friendly and stable. I've never touched a linux in my life. Before I buy, maybe you guys should confirm . . . it's okay to get a mac, right? I mean, it'll be compatable here? (Looking at G5 with igniter X HD card, if I go crazy, maybe Cinewave or Kona 2 when it comes out, although this is probably overkill . . . I just want something that kicks ass and still works!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!)

Maybe you guys can give me system advice and/or more cost effective advice, but whatever I get, remember I'm no real tech head. It has to keep working on it's own, without the weekly "fix-it" session. Too many hours go down the drain.

Thanks!

P.S.

I'll talk to my girlfriend's dad then (electrical engineer) and keep you posted.

Hola!!!
 

Hi guys!!!
Sumix isn't dead. Here's the update. Send your requests for the MI-MV40 pdf to my mail, I'll be happy to bounce it back as long as you don't come by hundreds :))

Vladimir will be back at the office next week and will contact you.
Please take a look at the attached pdf file for MI-MV40 sensor. We are
considering to use this sensor for two reasons. 1. The format is larger
than the current sensor we use. Wide angle 35 mm objective can be used
with this sensor by losing about 40% of field of view. 2. The 200 frame
rate will extend the application of this camera tremendously. The two
major problems are 1. It is expensive, $1500 small quantities and $1000
for quantities of 1000 or more. 2. We will have tremendous bit rate,
200*4megapixel per second, the interface and storage will be nightmare.

About adapter for 35mm objective to be used with with 2/3" sensors we
had several discussions with our optic engineers. The problem is that
about 80% of light will be lost if we use ground glass. If we do this
without ground glass, then we must make one adapter for each particular
35mm objective. So we do not know yet what to do about this.

Please let me know what you think

Laurence,
Regarding your NLE dilema: I am using both platforms but have settled for serious and reliable work on Macs. I don't want to start a platform war, but I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Good luck,
Valeriu

Laurence

I read that April Linux format (you should see if you can buy it). The problem is that you have to do command line stuff, and it isn't the most freindlist/complete feature list. The only one really that addresses HD is Cinelerra (that I know of). Now that sort of stuff is fine with some people but most it will not be simle enough.

When we find out what Sumix is doing, and decide what we are putting on it, we don't really know what to buy. Some of the guys here though will be able to address the compatabilities issues with you. I advocate we really need to use plugin codec for the capture software and plugins for the most popular editors. This will solve most of these problems and allow us to freely use Mac, Win, or Linux at will. So I personally think there might allready be softare out there to do this on the Mac, but I don't know what it is.

Steve, what is your email, I really would like to read the pdf?

For our Sumix people: GG glass is not the best, but recently the Static adapter thread has been talking of better alternatives: Chemical ground glass, Minolta Microolense based ground glass camera focusing screens, the Reflexite Intenscreen Beattie camera focussing screen (I think an array of microlenses), holographic projection screen (rejected, but I don't know if all avenues where researched). The focusing screens are available cheaply in a plain format. The microlense screens will add upto 1 1/2 stops (more for medium format) of light over a GG screen. They have been condensing the projected light to also increase brightness. The problem with many screens is visible grain, which is worse in HD but the company that does the Beattie screen will do a custom made order, so I imagine the array canbe made smaller. The Reflexite group probably has the broadest optical experience (including LCD backlighting) and should be considered. I have not read all the Static, 35mm and HD10 adaptor threads, but they are a good source for information on increasing light intensity.

http://www.intenscreen.com/

That sensor (but haven't read the PDF) will probably be great in the sub $3K camera, though if it could get within 90% of the performance of the big boys for $800 cheaper that would be even better. About the data rate etc, we could simply use lower resolutions until we can afford the extra storage / newer technology etc. To solve the 35mm adaptor problem, we could have a set of lense convertors for each of the popular or desired formats to connect them to the adaptor.

Nice Wiki.

8
 

Wayne, look in my profile, you'll find the e-mail there.
I'll also send you a document detailing exact PC configuration for a particular NLE to edit HD @ speeds 120 MB +.
Regards

Whoops, thanks Steve. I use so many forums I forgot about those little email buttons on some of the posts.

Well Wayne, IMHO, $800 to be knocked down 10% image quality is a bad trade, I mean yes, none of us want to pay any more than we have to, but fudging $1000 or so I think is something we need to be able to stomach. Maybe not 5k, but 1k? There's an old saying that filmmaking is 90% work and 10% talent. Don't kill the last 10% that might get your film on the big screen, I say. When it comes down to it, one advantage we'll have with these systems is that we will be indistinguishable from big boys image wise. I don't know as much technically as you guys, but I've spent a lot of time trying to get my feature sold. The only time I got looks was when they saw my relatively decent image and production value vs. someone else's shady job. Beyond that, it's all star power. So I say fight for that 10%, man. It may be all we have, and unless you have a name, it will also be your film's first impression.

Again, just IMHO

By the way,

So ya, I've been looking at the Kona and stuff. Wayne, I think your advice is solid if I was . . . smarter (lolol) . . . but I'm simply not able to do this code writing stuff. (No background in it at all, I can barely get into dos management) As long as you guys think it will be mac compatable, that's what I'll go for.

Any warnings against it?

Thanks!

By the way,

Got a lead on another possible camera. But so far they say it would be 1280 X 1024p. 24p and a little faster. I guess we could just crop the image for a 16 X 9 720p right?

Thats why we need these plugins, for people like yourself to keep familar simple environments, I wasn't trying to suggest that you write them, but it would be good if the manufacturer, or somebody out there (as an open source project), incorporates the ability in the capture software to use plugins, and maybe write some plugins (if special ones needed).

Most people will not notice the 10% drop in quality, if we were at a movies we would have to look for it. Our perception would probably tell us that it is more like 1-5% drop, as most of these performance issues concern production lighting and only certain scenes will show it, and then we can control the lighting a bit more to get rid of it, and make it nearly identical to the big boys). One of the generalisations in life is that the last 20% costs the last 80%, so if we just go up and nudge the borders we can get great results without a, say $4K, chip. I really want to put it to the HDV market, by offering the next best thing to the $50K ENG class at the same price ;) For me that performance will look credible on screen, though maybe not George Lucas credible.

Okay, I see what you're saying about the plugins. Ya, good show.

About camera:

Perhaps I'm just selfish, but if I can compete (with origin of signal, not effects of course) with George Lucas, for 5 or even 6 k, I'll think I got the right camera. I think most indie filmmakers would agree with me . . . well, I think. Surely they'd rather pay the extra $800 to not have to work that much harder to get the image they want if they're doing say Noir or Horror or extravegantly shot sci fi. On the set, and in post, all of the money you saved will be spent again in hours, sweat, and worst of all, frustration. And that's just with the first feature. After you make your second, third, that $800 you didn't spend at first is now several thousand in payback. Of course, I'm a big perfectionist and I'm also not too savvy on just what constitutes that "george lucas" level as opposed to a film that "isn't lucas". It seems to me when I see one of his films that the image has a (despite the stories recently sucking, lolol) certain "glow" to it that most images don't have. Maybe I'm talking about something I have not enough knowledge of? I couldn't find the chip. What's the specs?

P.S.

Please don't think I'm dizzin on you or anything, just interested in what's best for all of us. You DO have some valid points.

HD camera should ship thisweek...mean while I am working out how to use a beamsplitter to keep the viewfinder on the K3 16mm camera...too bad I have to take it all apart..this is a very tough wellmade camera that is in good working order ;)

I understand Laurence, actually Geoge's camera is a bit inferior compared to regular film ;). I'm just looking for good enough, that $800 sensor will maybe add $2000 to the retail price and another $3000 for 3chip ($1000 each extra and cheap $1000 prism) configuration. I'm interested in good enough for me and us, and cheap enough to drive sales, because that is what will make a product, and bring in bulk discount, so as many people out there can benefit. I think the $200 sensor (only a guess) might be 50% better than what many would accept. We will probably get much greater problem from bayer than from a 10% drop in latitude s/n niose ratio). Realistically the best sensor might be say $10K and only have 10-20% better range than something a tenth or a 50th of the pricee, again a big general market educated guess). But this is where all the good stuff comes in, people wanting a cheap camera could go for the $200 (bulk OEM discount) sensor, people who want the next 10% could use the next level up for double the finale system price, and people who want another 10% can go for a unit that adds 50-100% on the finale price again (or a Kinetta etc). But for all these different after market cameras we could use a common cameralink capture direct to disk/PC editor board (as I have suggested here or else where), and the same plugins. So you get a standard to allow you to put together whatever format, editor, plugin, camera sensor you want with the capture board. I think we can all get what we want, there are a number of different priced camera projects out there.

OK,

That Micron chip brochure leaves me scratching my head, I like it, but it says a lot about nothing using some terminology that I am unfamiliar with, could we get some real explanatios on it.

How does True bit work, how does True color work, and what negative effects do they have on picture quality? Some of these sorts of schemes have proved less than desirable in the past.

The 4MP of the unit is spread accross 4:3, so we will be getting around 20% more pixels than 1080 in 16:9 format, but great 720p footage. 200fps at full res is great, but I don't want to pay much more.

Power consumption, good.

Digital rsponsitivity, what on Earth are those figures? What is the real lux range, min & max ratings, at what gain?

Internal Intra scene Dynamic Range ???, maybe I do or don't underatnd that: 59db. OK, I forget how to read this at the moment, but as far as I know brightness doubles every 6dB, bits double every extra bit, so 10-bits = approx 60db, so you would be able to get accurate pixels?? But what about with gain completely up or compleely in negative (gains not even mentioned) as this can effect the range.

The signal to niose ratio is very improtant, you need 60db +6db (for accuracy below the lowest bit) + the desired gain level (that gives grain free footage at the lux desired 5, 3 or 1 lux) (i.e 30db). So for example 96db, gives a stacking clear good picture i low light.

The respone curves of these, and luminace and color would also be good. Pluss all the other regular artifacts, smearing, interpixel leakage causing blooming etc.

Maybe the specs of sensors are a bit much for us, or others, to accurately understand here without explanation from an expert. Maybe we should specify what we are looking for, even if it is "something cheap within reach of the quality of an CineAltar" something to that nature. We could realistically specify no artifacting, dynamic range, s/n, min grain free lux, min gain, desired perforamnce curves etc, but could we ever agree?

Another piont about upscaling, is that single chip footage is effectively allrady upscaled because of the bayer filter, and trying to upscale that might prove a bit more difficult than normal.