OK, I understand now, that canbe arranged (though the mounting method would have to be thoroughly researched). Now show me a 9 mpixel or 18 mpixel chip that can do 24fps at such latitude and sensitivty, at even four times the price. Now do you understand. Please stop it, I don't need such conviently negative answers everytime I say something "slightly" challenging.

I got around to posting a adaptor screen technology (face plates), and image down scaling technology for direct sensor chip connection (tapers). Good stuff, hi res, high transmission options. The post is here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...489#post261489

Anyone heard anything from SI or SUMMIX? Seem to be out of touch on the boards anyway.

I'm still around. Things are happening. Things will be announced. Instead of "out of touch" think "low profile".

Whatever happened to the camera, I thought it was go for Jan the 9th?

OK Wayne, since you asked, the sensors are in and a bunch of cameras are in production. If you order 20 or more it might take us a few weeks but the Altasens cameras are available.

There is basic support on the Epix frame grabbers, same on the gigabit ethernet interface and the Coreco X64 CL iPro will be ready in a few weeks.

Conact me off the list if you want more information - this is just an announcement.

Thanks,
Steve

Steve, if you would'nt mind refreshing me, have you sucessfully captured 1080@24 over the GIG-E?

Rob,
We have already done that with the SI-3300 at 10 bits per pixel. It shouldn't be a problem with the SI-1920HD at 12 bits - even upacked that is just below the 100MB/sec max rate with our custom driver. 12 bits packed is only 75MB/sec.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : I'm still around. Things are happening. Things will be announced. Instead of "out of touch" think "low pro

file". -->>>

Low-profile..i kinda feel the same way Steve ;)

BTW I think my banging on the Epix hall of doors is about to pay off...

Let's try again, this is Cinema Camera technical related stuff!
 

I've just finished a five day (and night) stiint recovering my system and data. Cheap, plentiful and freeware software, and web compatibility is just not enough to put up with this PC stuff.. I was planing on waiting to see the dual processor ITX server board (in a few months), but now I am wondering if I should just go Mac, unfortunately the only cheap hi-speed power PC system (the XBOX2) won't run the Mac OS ;)

I know a few people here are big on Mac, so any advice on moving to the MAC for Cinema Camera video editing (and capture) on the cheap? How would the workflow/capture (I assume none for Cinema cameras), speed, memory, disk, cameralink/GIGE/USB2 etc be organised?

If anybody would like to discuss the generalities of going from PC to Mac and Mac SD/HD video capture and editing that would be fine too.


Wayne.

WAYNE . . . 3 words . . . MAC, MAC, MAC.
 

If you remember, last year at this time I was in terrible editing hell. I had bought 3 PC's in an attempt to edit one feature, due to the fact that they kept giving me problems as they went on, and eventually would fail. Last summer I bit the bullet and bought a Mac Dual Gig OSX system. And I can safely say that my editing troubles for the most part have dissappeared. I simply can't believe how much time I wasted using PC's but it is a lesson I will NEVER FORGET. Macs are wonderful. They are fast. They are reliable. They are user friendly. And if you buy Final Cut Pro HD, you have opportunities beyond what you imagined. Want to shoot DV? Set it for DV. Want SD? Set for SD. Want HD, set for HD and it's all over firewire. That's right, 4:2:2 1080p 24p . . . clean . . . over firewire. The FCPHD codecs are wondeful, and have revolutionized cheap quality HD editing. Firewire drives are cheap now, about a buck a gig. I've got 500 gigs of mirrored (yes backed up) space to do with what I want. If I need another 250 gig, that's 250 bucks. Not a bad freaking deal. Haven't messed much with SDI or AKA board or gigabit etherrnet, but I'm convined that a mac can do it.

My bottom line is this. Yes, you'll spend a bit more off the start. You'll want an HD display or something, and getting the Mac OSX isn't necessarily cheap. Butt I got myself completely set up from around 8k. That's complete with 500 gigs storage, 500 backup. Two 23 inch HD displays that share the desktop between the 2 of them (I drag from one screen to the next). I've got duel 2 gig speed and mega ram. The machine crashes maybe once a week . . . maybe if it's been on the whole time. It's fast efficient editing that YOU CAN RELY ON. You don't have to open up your computerr guts unless another drive goes in. In one word, Mac is AWESOME.

To think of the years I wasted (around 5 years) listening to all these people claiming PC's are more cost efficient. NO THEY'RE NOT. Becasue by the time you spend the amount of hours fixing they're problems, you've wasted days, weeks, months, and in my case, years. Compared to mac, they suck.

If you're a technician and like repairing things and the challenges of cheap technology, well okay. Otherwise . . . MAC FOR IT!!!!!

You have my word it's the best investment you'll ever make.

By the way, I got mine through my father with a student faculty discount. Mac offers a nice student faculty discount. Like 20 percent. I bought FCP HD for half off. Just about all software is half off.

Find someone going to school and have them buy it for you much cheaper.

P.S. You don't need the newest Mac either, get the next one down from the one that came out most recently. They're cheaper and tried and tested with all the bugs already tested and fixed.

MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


. . . mac?

So, STEVE NORDHAUSER
 

Okay, so you're saying the altezens chip cameras are being put together as we speak? And with all the bells and whistles, 4:4:4, global shutter, 24p +, 1920 X 1080, 12 bit, 64 Mhz, 75-100Mbps? Yes?

Lens mount?

Camera interface? . . . Can Gigabit ethernet go directly into mac (something for mac maybe)?

Accompanying Software?

Bayer Filter or no?

Dynamic Range?

Overcrank/Faster Frame rates?

Expected date ready for shipping?

If this is the camera we're waiting for, I'm seriously interested (Making a semi-budget feature soon)

Details to actionvideo@charter.net or laurencemaher@hotmail.com please

Thanks for your hard work!

SI-1920HD
 

Laurence:

Okay, so you're saying the altezens chip cameras are being put together as we speak? And with all the bells and whistles, 4:4:4, global shutter, 24p +, 1920 X 1080, 12 bit, 64 Mhz, 75-100Mbps? Yes?

Some bells and one or two whistles.
The Altasens is a rolling shutter camera, not global shutter. At 24/30fps, you can skip every other frame to minimize the rolling shutter artifact.
12 bit raw data streaming from the camera.
Up to 150Mpix/sec (think system design with this number)
Up to 60fps, full res (programmable clock)

Lens mount? 2/3" format c mount

Camera interface? . . . Can Gigabit ethernet go directly into mac (something for mac maybe)?

No Mac support. PC for capture.
Accompanying Software?

Interface dependent. Nothing right now that is designed for the DV community. Recording SW is an issue right now. We are working on initial support for Epix and Coreco FGs and gigabit. Epix provides some recording, Norpix is compatible, Obin is coming along.....Still not plug in and start recording the way you need it......

Bayer Filter or no? Mono or Bayer color

Dynamic Range? Yes. Testing now. "Very good" Long discussion that I will address separately. The chip can do 10+ stops at ISO 400, depending on where you set middle grey.

Overcrank/Faster Frame rates? If the system can handle it, 60fps @1080, over 120fps @ 720

Expected date ready for shipping?
Next week.

Re: SI-1920HD
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : Laurence:

The Altasens is a rolling shutter camera, not global shutter. At 24/30fps, you can skip every other frame to minimize the rolling shutter artifact.
-->>>

OK I notice you keep on saying this, but isn't the rolling shutter on the Altsens around 400FPS (becaus of extremly fast read out). This is far above the 60fps, drop every second frame, people have advocated on other cameras to solve the rolling shutter problem. Is there some restriction that stops this fast rolling shutter feature on your camera?


Laurence, thanks for the advice, what I would have hoped for.


Tech news, The 2Ghz+ version of the VIA chip might be delayed 6 months, so I expect we might see slower versions on the original release date. No news on the dual core. The Ibis 3 chip Sumix camera might not be a reality for quiet a while, they will be coming with the other one first.

Laurence, I couldn't have said it any better :)

1920HD
 

Wayne:

From the Altasens 3560 data sheet:

Pixel rate Nominal 150 MHz or 74.25 MHz (SMPTE 274M)

Image Capture Electronic Focal Plane Rolling Shutter

Main clock 74.25 MHz nominal, two pixel values per clock edge

Max. frame rate 60 Hz progressive or 60 Hz interlaced at full resolution with line-mixing


To get data off the chip at 400fps (2.1Mpix x 12 bits) is about a 10Gbps rate. There is no internal storage in the chip and none external. Somewhere, something would have to accept the data at that rate. The internal shift registers, the A/D converters and storage would all have to run at that rate.

Rob S, where are you?

How's the capture software going?

Wayne.

Re: 1920HD
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : Wayne:

From the Altasens 3560 data sheet:

Pixel rate Nominal 150 MHz or 74.25 MHz (SMPTE 274M)

Image Capture Electronic Focal Plane Rolling Shutter

Main clock 74.25 MHz nominal, two pixel values per clock edge

Max. frame rate 60 Hz progressive or 60 Hz interlaced at full resolution with line-mixing


To get data off the chip at 400fps (2.1Mpix x 12 bits) is about a 10Gbps rate. There is no internal storage in the chip and none external. Somewhere, something would have to accept the data at that rate. The internal shift registers, the A/D converters and storage would all have to run at that rate. -->>>

Get my head around that latter, but I don't mean off chip frame rate but the actual special high speed shuttering feature independent of the off chip frame rate. I have to see a freind off on the plane early this morning, so I will have to look it up again latter.

I see, the JVC box camera must have used a memory buffer to eliminate the image skew, I thought the pixels had a buffer memory cell attached to each pixel to do it. That must be one of the biggest bummers since finding out the Ibis was pathetic. I thought I read somewhere of some other mechanism to eliminate rolling shutter. So you can't just snap shot the thing (blocking integration after a shutter period, and read the thing out slowly, at the frame rate (24fps).

Your PDF data sheet says:
It seems to be promising that the camera will reduce rolling shutter lag through high speed read out. Has there been a design change?

The quote from the data sheet just says what we have been doing all along. If you want to run at a frame rate of 24fps, you can readout at up to 60fps with a longer blanking time and get less rolling shutter artifacts. You can also shorten the integration time (like a shutter speed) to minimize motion blur. You will still get the top line one frame readout time ahead of the last but they will all have a shorter exposure.

What you are asking for is a global shutter - expose the sensor - every line - at one time and then stop exposing it. Or you can use a mechanical shutter.

Maybe you are confusing that 500fps Micron sensor?

Thanks for that Steve. While I would like Global shutter, what I am looking for is fast enough readout to reduce the rolling shuter effect to a minium. It sounds like you still end up reading out faster with no on camera buffer with the camera link version, which is OK when attached to a 64-bit card. So when is the GIGe version coming out, which you said would use a buffer?

So we have the Mac-Mini now, and dual cored VIA's out soon (unfortunately I only hear 2GHZ cores by the end of the year) and car PC's.

So is anybody planning projects based on Mac or Linux.

Ronald?

By the end of the year the multi cored 3.5Ghz (maybe) xbox2 will be out. So maybe we will see a 3.5Ghz Mini-Mac. The xbox2 would be an excellent cheap platform for a camera aswell.

If MS wants to send Sony broke the best stratergy would be to allow us to makem a camera out of there


I keep track of various things here, some people I know are, apparently, releasing a 0.5W 60 Bip's $1 processor sometime soon (maybe even faster). I have already reviewed the basic information from 2001, and it seems unsuitable, but I don't know what the present design will do.

But looking at the wider scheme of things, if all we need is VGA, GIGE, SATA, USB2.0, controls etc we don't really need a PC.

Is there anything new on the sensor horizon?

Wayne:
Our GigE cameras have been shipping for a year. The SI-1280F, SI-1300, SI-3300 and the SI-1920HD are all on GigE. There is a 32MB internal buffer so you can average the data rate.

More Wayne:
Some of the camera link frame grabbers support Linux, as does the GigE interface. Mac is still not well supported for capture but as long as the files are movable, is this a big problem?

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : More Wayne:
Some of the camera link frame grabbers support Linux, as does the GigE interface. Mac is still not well supported for capture but as long as the files are movable, is this a big problem? -->>>

I think he was thinking of MacMini as a capturing platform rather than an editing platform. With its low price point, built in GigE and extremely small design, it seems almost custom made for this type of project, and a capture and camera system that could utilize it would be a step ahead (and a bit cheaper) than some of the other projects that are building microATX boxes from scratch. I think that's what he was thinking.

I remember you told me that the 1920 would have memory buffer for high-speed readout, and that how a small MB buffer costs a lot of money, but not that cameras already had it. That put's a whole new spin on things, and what I tell all those people that ask me about what's available.

How much are he 1280f and 1300 (3300 is around 2-3K and Altasens around $5k?) ?

The Mac Mini (unfortunately) is currently 100/10 ethernet. Eventually I think they would adopt GBE, and FirewireB, but at the moment Firewire A is the way to go. Eventually it shoud be a very good (and compact) HD capture (with larger and laptop faster drives). It is just for the interest of the Mac people.

Wayne,
It is only the GigE cameras that have the internal buffer. Some of the camera link frame grabbers have buffers on them.

Joshua, On MiniMac (Austin Powers flashback) - it sounds like they crippled it a bit to avoid hurting their higher end sales. With GigE it might have been interesting and worth thinking about.

Wayne, your estimations aren't bad in gigabit. People should contact me off the list for pricing.

Yes, I'll have to do that.

At the moment I am researching the hispeed sensors and price (for large area, and global and high speed shutter) this thing with IBIS5/Micron 3MP/Alatsens all have compromises. I'm not after a high frame rate (GIGE capacity would be great) but quality picture and high shutter). It would be interesting if they reduced the price of these.

Thanks
Wayne.

I have just stumbled on this one:

http://www.siliconfilm.com/

Sounds simular to that conceptHD (was that the name). Have heard of one that goes in a movie camera years ago to.

Thanks

Wayne.

Well,

I love you guys who all tried, but as I predicted, it looks like it's all going to be way too late.

STRONG rumors suggest a Panasonic DVCProHD camera coming out for under 10 k some time this year. NAB will most likely unleash it. Records to mini-dv and also P2. The quality won't meet the "uncompressed" richness of what you guys have been trying for, but for cost-effectiveness, and rock-solid reliability, and user-friendliness, the trade off will be well worth it.

Sorry guys, I think they beat you to the punch.

. . . like I predicted.

Elvis has left the building.

Yes, lately I have noticed that most people have left, probably bored of waiting for things to come through, something I was worried would happen. I am also had it with this too, and am even considering lesser cameras.

See, it was worth waiting for an excellent solution (that would stay that way until worn out) and pay more for it, but if Altasens wasn't going to be it, you might as well buy cheap and upgrade when an excellent solutions comes. I have even figured out how to pixel shift a foveon x3 (max 1080) but rolling shutter again.

It will take some more research to find out where ever the planned SI and Sumix Altasens can get around the rolling shutter problem "enough" (as JVC advertises they have done with there Altasens cameras). Maybe Steve can fill us in on the flexibility of the SI GigaE cameras in this respect.

Two things are needed:

- To increase readout rate mostly independent of shutter (to use long shutter time (24th-48th's), but fast readout (rolling shutter)).

- To reduce shutter times (good to reduce rolling, reduce exposure, special fast action frame analysis/stop frame) independent of frame rate.

And for those special effects hi-speed photography people (of which the first 100% speed increase is the most useful;l for many of us):

- To increase frame rate.

How flexible (how much can each camera achieve in figures) on this over the GigaE are the cameras? I can already guess there is very little variability on the IBIS and 1300 (included for completeness and courtesy), but what about the Altasens?

Thanks

Wayne.

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : Well,

I love you guys who all tried, but as I predicted, it looks like it's all going to be way too late.

STRONG rumors suggest a Panasonic DVCProHD camera coming out for under 10 k some time this year. NAB will most likely unleash it. Records to mini-dv and also P2. The quality won't meet the "uncompressed" richness of what you guys have been trying for, but for cost-effectiveness, and rock-solid reliability, and user-friendliness, the trade off will be well worth it.

Sorry guys, I think they beat you to the punch. -->>>

IMO, what our guys are trying to accomplish and Pana's HDV are completely
different. I have NO interest in HDV. I am VERY interested in a hot mod
like Juan P's (turning a DVX100a into an uncompressed HD camera).
HDV is *trying* to pack 4X the amount of pixels into
the same bandwidth as DV with an OLD compression scheme.
HDV's scheme involves all kinds of voodoo, none of which is benefiicial to
image qualilty.
HDV is fine for talking heads and other lock down shots, but quickly falls
apart when motion becomes involved. Being a nature videographer I want
REAL HD and not HDV; a poser format.

KEEP ON ROCKING BOYS!

<<<-- Originally posted by Jacques Mersereau : IMO, what our guys are trying to accomplish and Pana's HDV are completely
different. I have NO interest in HDV. -->>>

What Pana is proposing isn't HDV, its real HD. The proposed HDX-100 will record its HD signal in DVCProHD, the same format that the Varicam records to now.

Is that format as good as Obin's proposed 10-bit 4:4:4 uncompressed camera? No.

Is it a worthwhile shooting format, particularly in a sub $10K camera? Yes.

Interesting. There must be some problems somewhere in this information
because as far as I know, DVCPRO HD is 100mbps which will not record
to a standard miniDV tape. (unless they turn an hour tape into 15 minutes?)

DVCPRO HD is also fairly heavily compressed (though it looks good) at 6:1 and I am unsure as to the color sampling.
HDCAM is something like 3:1:0 (?) and
only records 1440 lines, not 1920 as most seem to think.

Nevertheless, . . . semi real HD for under 10K would be a great step forward.

DVCproHD is 100mbps

It will NOT record to tape. Jan crittenden has already said this is an unviable measure. It will record to P2 solid state media.

Single chip 4:4:4 versus 3 chip compressed (is it 4:2:0 or 4:2:2), hmm. Yes RAW should still be better.

MiniDV has had the capability to record ten times as much for a while, it is just not implemented. So maybe they can improve it (but please for a full sized DVCPRO type tape). Is this the dvx100 or the 400 replacement, or cheap 900 alternative?

If they can match FX1 price I think I will think about buying, I have priority methords around the small chip problems. One thing that is a must is a conventional detachable lense mount (we would be going after an adaptor).

Has anybody got any news links to this?

Wayne.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jacques Mersereau :
DVCPRO HD is also fairly heavily compressed (though it looks good) at 6:1 and I am unsure as to the color -->>>

Just occured to me, that this 6:1 is using simular technology to the DV codec?? If so that will not be much better than 25mb/s Mpg2 codec (except perhaps in motion artifacts). If this is 6:1 Mpeg2, then it is reasonably good. I wonder is it variable comrpession for motion artifacts, as the PS2 can take a variable rate. Are we still talking about 8 bit?

Thanks

Wayne.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jacques Mersereau : DVCPRO HD is also fairly heavily compressed (though it looks good) at 6:1 and I am unsure as to the color sampling.
HDCAM is something like 3:1:0 (?) -->>>

I believe that DVCProHD samples at 4:2:2, the same as original HDCAM.

And while it doesn't record the same no. of lines that it displays (just like the Varicam and the CineAlta) the image you do get is still pretty darn good.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini : If they can match FX1 price I think I will think about buying, I have priority methords around the small chip problems. One thing that is a must is a conventional detachable lense mount -->>>

It's not the FX-1 price they're trying to compete with, it's the Z1, so think around $7K-$9K, which is still pretty good. Really, with the camera they're offering, $4K just isn't realisitic.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini : If this is 6:1 Mpeg2, then it is reasonably good. I wonder is it variable comrpession for motion artifacts, as the PS2 can take a variable rate. Are we still talking about 8 bit? -->>>

I'm not sure, but I don't think DVCProHD uses Mpeg2 to encode. DVCPro is its own standard with its own codec. Someone else would know better.

We are still talking about 8-bit, however. The DVCProHD standard (at the moment anyway, they could change it the way Sony changed HDCAM) is 8-bit 4:2:2.

Still, anyway you slice it, it's a hell of a lot better than DV or HDV, and after everything P+K and the Do-It-Yourselfer's have accomplished with lens adaptors, putting good glass on it shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks.

Actually, if they did do sub $5K it would be realistic once they sold the P2 packs for $5K a time ;(

So what sort of image format do they record? How about handling sports action, explosions, and dry forests with billions of long leaves whitish one side, green on he other flashing around in the breeze (like we have here) with things like varaible comrpession (for motion)?

You won't have the motion problems that HDV has. The format compresses each frame individually. It's the same idea as DV compression - just less compressed.