Alternatives to SI and Sumix
 

Hello everybody,

Everyone seems to have settled on SI or Sumix as the only box cameras that could be used to build a HD system.
From reading all the threads I have noticed that some people raise the question of other possibilities but get lost in the hustle so I thought it might be useful to start a thread where people can discuss and post links to other possible solutions.

Good Idea.Anyway people is interested on SI and Sumix because they have given us their support, just that.

Hi Juan,

I know what you mean I emailed Steve at SI and found him to be very helpful. I just thought I would start this thread so if anyone wishes to discuss alternatives they can.
I have seen it come up a few times in the other threads but those are really more about getting working systems together. I don’t know if this will be of any use but I am not a programmer and I felt a need to try to contribute something.

I know the monochrome version was posted before but Pixelink have a new colour version out next month

http://www.pixelink.com/products_info.asp?id=43

maybe an option ?

Wow,

Says good resolution and variable frame rate. Global shutter which is good. Do you know about the Mhz, or transfer rate, ? I assume you can do full resolution all the way up to 105 fps. (Awesome). C-mount is cool. Does it record to a PC? Mac? Does it matter as long as it is firewire? Mentions Camera control without software. Is it on-camera? Is it progressive or interlaced framing?

Thanks for the post. Very curious!

There is a frame rate calculator here:
http://66.148.40.196/uploads/pl-a74x_frame_rate_cal.xls.
Steve N mentioned in a post that the kit is based on a IBIS-5A camera. The SDK seems to be for Windows only so far.

Weren't there issues with most "machine vision" camera's that
would render them useless for cinematography? Like smear or
noise or something like that? I think I remember someone talking
about that.

I was looking at the Xcap web site and I found this camera and board package. I know some people here have had problems with Xcap but would this be a package that might be worth looking at?

http://www.epixinc.com/products/sv9m001.htm

The price seems good if the package is up to scratch.

Xcap does what it says, but it is hard to use for cinematography.
That's why some people are writing their own "capture" software
so get it more in line with how we want to use a camera.

Also Xcap isn't very efficient at writing to a Hard-drive, like maybe 40-50MB/s max. So for 1080p, you'll need to write to RAM, which isn't cheap.

Thank you guys,

About how many seconds of footage could I realistically record with 1 gig of ram?

That totally depends on:

1. the resolution of the frames coming in

2. the bitdepth of the images (8, 10 or 12 bits)

3. the framerate

4. the output format (uncompressed bayer, packed bayer, uncompressed RGB etc.)


But to give you some ideas:

1280 x 720 x 8 bits @ 24 fps in bayer = 21.09 MB/s (48 sec. for 1 GB)
1280 x 720 x 12 bits @ 24 fps in bayer = 42.19 MB/s (24 sec. for 1 GB)
1280 x 720 x 12 bits @ 24 fps in packed bayer = 31.64 MB/s (32 sec. for 1 GB)

1920 x 1080 x 12 bits @ 24 fps in bayer = 94.92 MB/s (10 sec. for 1 GB)
1920 x 1080 x 12 bits @ 24 fps in packed bayer = 71.19 MB/s (14 sec. for 1 GB)

1920 x 1080 x 12 bits @ 48 fps in packed bayer = 142.38 MB/s (7 sec. for 1 GB)
1920 x 1080 x 12 bits @ 48 fps in RGB = 569.53 MB/s (1 sec. for 1 GB)

John, people just don't care, thats their funeral. I have been in discussions with people from other companies that would love to be involved, but if nobodies ionterested, wel (sorry bit ticked off today).

I have listed this in my technical thread (and the 10 bit threads), and you will find links to lists of many many cameras and systems there just waiting for somebody to wade through them all and acess them for suitability. I don't know if you are likely to find suitable replacements for the SI and Sumix cameras, and the Altasens is far better. I have suspicions on two. But I would suggest hunt down the mobile phone and digital camera sensor makers and see if any of their products squeeze accross the 720p line (actual throughput/bytes per pixel (depends on the send format) /1280*720/desired readout fraction of a second=1) then check if that is below the actual max frame rate.

Now you will need very fast readout (that is what that desired readout fraction of a second was about), or you will need global shutter.

Wayne,

I know on your other thread you were talking about the possibility of really cheap alternatives, I don’t know if you will be interested in this but I will post it anyway.

I know this is not what we are after but it might give some ideas.

http://www.astrosurf.com/astrobond/ebrawe.htm

Great work
that is a nice page
and the Linux stuff
on a french page
I can not believe it
WOW

Tell me what you think about this box camera built "specifically for digital cinema/tv" . . .

http://www.isgchips.com/Templates/t_quadhdtv.htm

Looks incredible, but I imagine it costs a lot?

Ronald,

I hope you can make some use of it and if you think any of the ideas there might translate to the projects here please post.

Laurence,

That is a serious camera, very big on the WOW! factor only trouble is it’s also very big on the price factor as well $85k as far as I know.

The price for the bare 4-HD sensor is around 50K $. Olympus has developed one type of HD camera based on such sensor.

For alternative choice of camera head, pls. check www.elphel.com

Elphel's camera use the micron's 1.3 Mega and 3 Mega sensor. It can output Motion-Jpeg stream with a speed of 22 fps@1280*1024, 31fps@1280*720.

With Elphel's camera, it is much easier for storage, because the video has been compressed before output, but hard to display: you need additional CPU capacity of decoding the JPEG picture. Generally, To display the video with full speed and resolution, a 3G P4.CPU is needed.

camera head possibility
 

I saw this camera, CCD, 2048x2048, cameralink. according to my (suspect) calculations it will do 60fps at 2048x1080. I could be wildly wrong here, so take it with a pinch of salt. Neither have I seen pictures from this camera.

on the upside, f-mount, and a 4/3" chip.
on the downside, costs a little under $6000.

http://www.cohu-cameras.com/products/7900.htm

How on earth are you able to get 60 fps at 2048x1080 from a sensor wich runs at 8 fps at 2048x2048 ???

Generally, the CCD sensor's data rate is lower than that of CMOS sensor.
if the fps is 8 at 2048 by 2048, it will less than 16 at 2048 by 1080
I have find some CCD sensor with very high data rate, but such sensor is only monochrome type, seems only designed for the 3-CCD camera.

http://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/d...MD00014AEC.pdf

well, i said i could be wildly wrong. if you mail them they can send you out their calculation formula.

The limitation for fps is the maximum frequency of the sensor's clock. Normally, with partial scanning, higher fps can be achieved, but the total pixel is output in certain time is almost constant ( only a littler lower for small window).

Merry Christmas all!

The new "Motion" series cameras from the RedLake is quite interesting: http://redlake.com/high_speed/index.html.
High speed (650fps!!!) at 1280x1024 with 12 micron size pixels. Sensor size is 1", larger than s16mm and closer to 35mm movie frame size.
The cameras have internal memory (4G) where data can be stored before dowloading to laptop computer (PC and/or Mac!!!) via USB cable; no frame grabbers and the host computer is not a high spec machine.

Merry X'mas!

The RedLake should ( I guess) the Micron's MT9M413 sensor. Such sensor has a sensitive area of 15.4mm by 12.3, smaller the 1/4 of 35mm film.
http://download.micron.com/pdf/datas...m413c36stc.pdf

4 GB memory can store about 100 second video in 1280*720*30fps*10bit.

From the RedLake's brochures I understand that you can transfer the data to the computer as well, by-passing the internal memory. I must read the manual closer to see if that's possible.

A recent re-visit to a camera site came up with this:
http://www.visiblesolutions.com/phantomv9.html
A bit scary: global shutter, 1000fps at full sensor (1600x1200), 600 ISO/color, Nikon lenses, optional 12G on board memory will deliver acording to my calulations ~ 4.4 mins@24fps (6400 frames at full resoultion - same as the 400 foot magazine on a 35mm camera), optional continuous output to a external storage device via Gbit ethernet, firewire and SDI output (PAL, NTSC)...
Am I dreaming? Correct me if I'm wrong!
Should find out the price of this toy... Hope is not $$$$$

Uh . . . wow . . . this thing looks tastey.

Someone find out the price please.

I guess, 10K$

I think the Phantom cameras have been mentioned before and I think they are a lot more that $10k.

I hope I am wrong and have emailed them for a price list I will post when I get a reply.

The Phantom costs around $ 95,000.
I got a quotation for it.

Woooops! Maybe a 95% discount will help.

Keep in mind that such gear is targated to the PROFESSIONAL
world. 95K is pretty cheap there, especially for such a system!

It isn't targeted for the con-/prosumer market!

<<<-- Originally posted by Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn : The Phantom costs around $ 95,000.
I got a quotation for it. -->>>

can you tell us WHICH phantom camera is quoted?
i can see that there are more cameras...

and 95K? on their site i also saw 95K but that was just "speed limit"sign.

take a look:
(scroll a bit down)

http://www.visiblesolutions.com/phantomv5.html

he, he is this a concidence? ;)

filip

If you don't like it, it is easy.Send them a mail and ask for a quotation.

to Juan
 

no, no...

please do not treat my previous mail so seriously.

first part of my mail was, i should say "normal" - i just asked about other models - since you said that certain model was for 95K. nothing else. i thought you could know more then us. since you asked them for the prices etc.

second part of my mail was more joke like -

i just saw coincidence between your mentioned price and sign on their site where also 95K is mentioned, but in different context.
(it says: speed limit 95k per second)

sorry if you find that somehow attacking. this was NOT my intention at all.

thank you,

filip

ohh.no problem! :)
I thought you were saying the price was wrong.Maybe now with all these new high speed cameras coming out they get cheaper.
The model was the last one.Don't remember if it was Phantom 7 or Phantom 9.

Good effort, maybe some prices on these cameras people are ralking about.

The whole sale price of the IBIS5a sensor is around 100 eruo, so if you look around you might find somebody that will sell a camera head for $500. There are many lists to look up these things. The cameralink standards organisation has links to companies. Capture board companies have lists with even more companies, then there is the astro list above etc. But for X hunderd of dollers more you can get the high speed version of the FillF and Micron sensors which optically are much better (as far as I know). Even though these sensors can go several hundered FPS global shutter (I think) you don't need use it and make a expensive capture system. A relatively cheap camera system could be made using one of these sensors at a low frame rate instead. As far as I remember these sensors costed several hundered dollers, but that is old information, the ibis5a has been dropping in price quiet a bit, maybe these are to. So it is possible that we could be looking at a low speed camera head for $1500 or less. Then again I could be totally wrong on pricing and it is still more.

The truth is for cheap quality cmos cameras there are very few chioces, apart from Fillf and Micron. I would suggest www.smalcamera.com. Even if they don't have what your after they could make it (including the sensor).

Wayne.

Wayne,

Just wanted to check that link for smallcamera.com, I followed it and there is only a site under construction

I was looking at some sample frames from the Pixelink PL-A742 camera:
http://66.148.40.196/uploads/PL-A742...S125-GMoff.bmp
I noticed a VERY strong "chromatic aberration" artifact. I was told by a Pixelink rep that that is a "normal" CMOS/lens artifact and the chart was shot with a cheap lens. AFAIK, a better lens will allow this kind of artifacts to be even more noticeable, especially with high contrast subjects. Any thoughts on this?
Looking at the chart there is no way to use this on any HD or even SD system.