1280 x720p
 

more good news for the indie filmaker.
this camera could go straight to theatre.

http://www.filmfestivals.com/cgi-bin...&text_id=23982

Rob do you have a link to the wiki page? I lost it, sorry!

I will post stuff I think you need to write into the software on that page as I think of stuff...glad your getting the camera !!! awesome!

No problem - http://www.obscuracam.com/wiki/wiki

homemade screen
 

Hi everyone this is a link to a homemade screen I made about a year ago. It's made from material you can buy at joann fabric
it duplicates screens costing thousands the materials are less than $100. It's perfect for displaying 1280x720 material .

http://www.btinternet.com/~paulw77/

Perhaps we prefer not to think about this..... but
Can someone evaluate the noise on the 1.3 camera?
Just subtract two images and see what happens.

How many stops does it *really* have? It's easy to find out!

Premiere Pro 1.5
 

HI!

I'm new here... very excited about what you guys are doing..

I was wondering if any of these imaging devices could capture in an even wider format? like full cinemascope or something... maybe 1645 x 700 or something.. anything 2.35:1. Without having to buy a $10,000 anamorphic lens that is :)

Re: Premiere Pro 1.5
 

Most of these chips are 4:3 (1.33:1) aspect ratio, but you can certainly get 2.35:1 by ignoring some of the vertical resolution. The Silicon Imaging (http://www.siliconimaging.com) unit we're working with right now is 1280x1024 and we're planning (for the most part) to use it in 1280x720 mode to match the HDTV standard.

To get more horizonal pixels you'd have to go with a larger resolution chip. Silicon Imaging also has a model with 2048 x 1536 -- which means you could get 2048 x 870 in a "Cinemascope" mode.

You'd only need an anamorphic adapter if you really didn't want to waste vertical space on the chip and if you didn't mind getting rectangular pixels.

i guess 1280 x 545 would still kicks ass.

keep up the good work!

Gee, I get busy for a day and you guys go prolific on me. Rob, I'm very pleased that you are doing this project. I've never been happy with the software costs of the systems we have since we try hard to keep the prices down. I bugged Alison to get your software out the door.

I would like to suggest that anyone who wants to help Rob on software send him a list of skills and appoximate time they can donate. That way he can coordinate the effort and not do it all himself. It doesn't have to be all programming. It can be "wrapping your head" around some aspect. Or, in Obin's case, making test images and sequences.

Rob L: your numbers look good now but remember, they are average and not peak across the bus. You are correct about the color ratios on all Bayers.

Also, we we start benchmarking disk systems, remember, disks slow down on the inner tracks.

Obin,

do you see the rolling shutter artifacts at 24fps with a 1/24th second shutter? I didn't see what I would call any motion artifacts in your footage (although it did seem to have an annoying studder, like a shutter that was too short), so I'm wondering if even at 1/24th of a second (so that you're not dropping frames) they are present or noticeable (the rolling shutter "slanting" effect).

Software update
 

Just a quick update. Last night I split the three parts of the code --

• Frame generator (simulates incoming frames)
• Writer (to disk)
• Preview (quick-and-dirty Bayer filter)

... and now I'm consistently getting between 20-22 fps (I was getting 9 before). Again, I haven't done much in the way of optimization, I just shuffled things around and put them in separate threads so they don't keep each other waiting.

I am using buffered I/O right now; I'm going to switch to standard I/O and see if that makes a difference. I am also wondering if I'm getting a worst-case scenario on my hard drive speed -- they are almost full. I may need to buy a new one and see if I get better speed with an empty drive.

The preview is only getting 1-2 fps, but that code is badly written and I think I can get much better speed just by doing a bit more optimization.

I'm also using SDL for display of the preview. Using DirectX would probably be faster, but I had trouble linking with the libraries.

If I have time I'll put up a Wiki page with some further details about my progress.

BTW, should I start a new thread for this?

I think this thread is fine Rob, Jason i will try and get you an example of rolling shutter artifact today..you won't like it, it's ugly...we can avoid it if we set the camera mhz high

uggh...I posted what i have been doing with HD at dv.com and got a bunch of child-like responses. Guess I will stick to this site!


Rob I really know nothing about DirectX but from what I hear overlay is the way to go...if you can offload anything to a graphics card I would think that would be good because of the raw power that new graphics cards have

Re: Re: Software update
 

Yeah, I'll certainly look into that again once I have made a bit more progress. Thanks!

this may be worth looking at:

http://www.pluginz.com/news/970

" BitJazz Launches Real-Time Nondestructive Video Codec "

Mike Merten

I agree with you fully, see my posts in the other threads on custom camera designs and the viper. The camera here is Obin private experiment, it's also being used as a trial run for the others camera comming (see other threads).

Thanks

Wayne.