Drake System
 

Wow nice Images, are you using the Basler 622f camera?
Curious, Keep up the Great work!

I think they are using a IBIS5-A from FillFactory.
Basler cameras, especially the larger ones are quite expensive.

It has been almost two months since we last heard anything on
this project.... did they get kidnapped by Panavision or Sony or...?

Have they released yet, details, price? Is the website up? This Altasens thing has dragged on for too long, I think I might even settle for one little boosted IBIS5a cheap.

Wayne.

Last I understood this cam won't be exactly "cheap" Wayne...
(ofcourse that is how you define cheap, it's cheap for what it
can potentially deliver, however I doubt it will be available for
under $5K).

Wayne and Rob,
I don't know what the other people are charging, but our IBIS-5A camera (just the head with interface) is cheap enough that you could get the camera on GigE or camera link, cables, power supply, frame grabber or ethernet I/F, and a PC for under $5K. Recording software will be $1500 unless you roll your own. I still say the SI-3300 (Micron) is a better camera for cinema overall.

Steve: thanks for the support! I know the IBIS is "cheap", but these
guys talked about a complete system with mattebox, and I believe
screen and all sort of other stuff. From the feeling I got they wanted
to sell complete packages instead of just the software for example.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : I still say the SI-3300 (Micron) is a better camera for cinema overall. -->>>

Why do you say that?

Steve, I checked out your website and it sure looks like there is a lot of cool stuff there that might help people in this forum out.

Do you have (or are you developing) any camera/pc/software solutions that can use interchangeable lenses and would be good choices for indie moviemakers?

Joel,
I've been pretty vocal about this. The IBIS-5A looks good on paper, especially with an external 12 bit A/D, but the color is more washed out, there is much more FPN and if you use it in global shutter mode at 24fps, you don't get much integration time.

The SI-3300 can do 1920x1080, has lower noise and about the same sensitivity. On the down-side it is rolling shutter and a smaller sensor so you get deeper DOF.

Our cameras use C mount lenses. There are tons of great optics out there for some of the 16mm cameras. Right now the software side is still "roll your own" of get good cinema tools. Obin, Rob S. and others are working on this.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : Joel,
I've been pretty vocal about this.

The SI-3300 can do 1920x1080, has lower noise and about the same sensitivity. On the down-side it is rolling shutter and a smaller sensor so you get deeper DOF.
-->>>

Thanks for the information Steve. I know I'm looking for a nice combination of tonal range and shallower depth of field...like everyone else I suppose ;-)

I guess I'll keep watching and waiting until I can become an early adopter of a system that really puts a better result in my editing software. I think there's a big market out there for this stuff.

Hey folks, sorry, for the long waiting period.

I would like to communicate first some fundamental news:

- The DRAKE system is ready for sales.

- The whole "DRAKE Story" will publishes in a magazine. But, because they have exclusive rights, we can not now publish all details here.

-Due to multiple suggestions we added some details.

- New: Power Backfocus. A remote controlled, servo driven focus system that also change every lens in macro lens (also vario zooms at each focal length)

- New: Second view finder device. (also Wireless PAL / NTSC out)

-The DRAKE camera head can insert in the DRAKE budy, only with one single klick. With a second klick a support rag incl. matebox and other things can mounted to the camera head. Now, you can dismount the head with a klick (with or without mounted support rag), connect it with a cable (up to 10m with a single cable and up to 80m with power cable) and use it like a small dv camera. In this mode, you can also use a 5, 7 or 8" TFT, video view finder or what ever (PAL NTSC or XGA) to controll all things.

BTW: Drake use the newest IBIS5 Senser, but not a standart industrial camera head. As Steve Nordhauser said: "The IBIS-5A looks good on paper..." but we found, there is no camera, no SUMIX and no Silicon Images camera, to use all the IBIS5 power. Together with a local manufacter we build a new DRAKE camera head. Sorry, it is not only a head. It is a "stand alone camera". Inside, there is fist a controll unit with MC/FGA and second a sensor unit, only with a sensor plate, but with a power slided backfocus unit. So we are ready to change the sensor plate, yes, only the sensor plate!!! (As i said, we also make tests with micron an other sensors, but till now IBIS is the best if you use all tricks).

Thanks for that, how long before you can tell us price, or other details (and which Journal should we read)?

Wayne.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : The IBIS-5A looks good on paper, especially with an external 12 bit A/D, but the color is more washed out, there is much more FPN and if you use it in global shutter mode at 24fps, you don't get much integration time.

The SI-3300 can do 1920x1080, has lower noise and about the same sensitivity. On the down-side it is rolling shutter and a smaller sensor so you get deeper DOF.
-->>>

FPN: FPN are more or less or defect sensity pixels. Every sensor came with FPN. Every video camera too. But there are ways to correct FPN. Some sensor chips have inside FPN corrections, other cameras do it on board. You must know, on chip corrected FPN is not even the best way. As a good or bad bayer filter, there are good or bad FPN corrections. The IBIS5 show more FPN, because there is no on chip correction. But if you write a good software and do a good adjustment you can absolute eliminate all FPN. We do this in our DRAKE camera head like some video cameras do it and it work mutch better than other on sensor solutions. SUMIX do it not, or not good, with there IBS5, the pictures were not usable, maybe SI have the same problem.

"...don't get much integration time...": Nonsense! Read the paper and compare. There is NO OTHER WAY for cinema pictures and to get real movie camera motion blur: You need the same fps and exposure times like a movie camera. Movie cameras shoot at 24fps. But the exposed time is a little bit, not mutch!, shorter, because the shutter is close while film is slide to next picture.
At global shutter, the IBIS exposed at one time, and than, (lets say, the electronic shutter stop exposed) the data can read out. But this time is, if we read only 1280x720Pixel, like the time a movie camera do it. So why to hell every one say it dont work, if we shoot a big movie with it?

-rolling shutter: The only way to make it unvisible is to shoot stills without motion, or expose with extreme short times (but than you must have suns of light)
But the main bad thing is: You never have motion blur. It will be like high speed sport videos.

Is it possible to hold integration for 24th a second and then have a high speed rolling shutter readout to eliminate the effect?

I think this long process, and he many hours, are wearing us down a bit.

Rai,
I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers - I'm impressed that you have a completed project and have gotten the best from an IBIS-5A.

My take on the FPN is that if you do it on chip, on the analog side of the sensor, you can maintain most of your dynamic range. We do it digitally - both offset and up to a two point gain correction. If the offset is 200 counts for a pixel, you subtract that. You have lost 200 from your total range. Sure you can stretch the data back out to the clipping level.

We have found that the electronic global shutter leaks - maybe 1.5%. We have seen some smearing during readout if you have a bright spot in the image.

I am guessing you have tweaked the readout time to the point where the column amplifiers and shift registers start groaning to extend the exposure time as long as possible.

As you have said, doing a feature film is a great test. One question to ask is "how much of the film is shot with a solid understanding of the differences of this camera from other cameras?" Meaning, you understand the limitations and differences and compensate - have you made it automatic enough for a filmmaker without that understanding?

I have no problems with your suceeding - indies need all the breaks they can get considering the ways the large camera manufacturers have treated them. I think that I am just explaining why we have been shipping IBIS-5 and 5A cameras for two years and don't like them for this application. You have provided the first commercial option. Again, congrats.