Yes, i asked Andrey for material, in fact you can download the current raw image from the elphel public camera at any moment ;)
I'll compile my little tool tonight and post the raw files.
And i forgot to say that the previous video is completly amazing!

This is what was talked about an week or two ago, that Andrey had an Bayer compression scheme for the 323. It would also be interesting to see how good an result could be achieved by Jpeg compressing the bayer sensor image in camera, rather than speculating how bad it is. When I say how good can be achieved, by trying all Jpeg compression options and setup available in the existing circuit.

Oh Ive got to finally cut a section from the film in Rome! Some of it is a bit over exposed but when the light is good I have some really nice images with the Fish eye lens. Personally I like the 313 image better due to the bigger % of sensor area thats being used in the video. But its too slow for me.

Yes a bigger then standard image is going to result in great looking video or film. I will want to film 4:3 though for the PC. Although even many PC monitors now days are wide screen.

I get 2000x800 @ 85% quality on the 333 at exactly 24 frames per second.

http://www.buysmartpc.com/333/333framecc.jpg
(color corrected)

I am very pleased.

Impressive Daniel. What data rate does that work out to?

If its the mjpeg stream the data rate is going to be either dependent on the the jpeg size (how complex is the image??) , the camera cpu, the write speed of the hard drive (if you have a really cheap slow laptop drive) or perhaps the bandwidth.

So if your filming a face with blue sky the image will be small & thus also the data rate, If your filming in the forest with loads of leaves its going to be huge. You need to think about this before you set up the camera. There perhaps needs to be a variable % quality setting that adjusts the quality level of the jpeg stream?

You can see this effect with any digital camera. the elphel when filming mjpeg is in effect a super fast digital camera.

Phil

I'm curious if I can push it any higher. I don't know if the bottleneck is the computer or I reached the limit of the camera.

x64 3500 amd
1 gig ram
7900 geforce
7200 sata II hdd

I have not yet found a laptop available to me fast enough to handle the 333 stream at 2000x800@85. The best I have found so far was 11 fps on a new sony vaio.

Currently I am building an acrylic body for the camera to hold all the necessary computer components. While I will still require a power source, it would be nice to integrate everything into a single unit. I have a prototype built, and while I am satisfied with the size I still need to refine it to get a more professional appearance. A keyboard and mouse is not a very mobile solution so I plan to use the Nostromo N50 for input. I will address noise issues with sound dampening foam and proper cooling.

I filmed that clip above with my Acer & that clip is full resolution 2048x1536 12fps. I think you need to play with the settings in knoppix? Or you have a really slow hard drive?

Are you filming inside with it? If you are then you you have to think exposure & use a LOT of extra light. Light the inside up like a TV studio. If exposure needs to be longer then the frame rate the frame rate will drop. its probably this thats causing the slow down. Try it outside in the sun.

I noticed a slowdown at higher exposure times, but I try not to touch the exposure setting and just add more light.

The tests were done with the laptop outside on a sunny day. I'm not sure about the laptop specs, I believe it was an intel core duo with a 5400 hdd.

Yes then for sure you need to pop that drive out & stick in a 7200rpm one (Hitachi make a good one). Format that drive to Fat32 & buy a little cadi for it so you can replace it with the Sony one after filming & use it with your editing PC. I plug it into a windows machine & run all the ogg video into Virtualdub to make a avi from it. you can also stitch all the files together with this.

Daniel, I always put some something like zMatte 'deartifact' on the Elphel footage to get rid of the (mostly) red and green spots. Look at your frame rendered with deartifact:
original
deatifact
Zoom in to see how good it works, it also gets rid of some pixel blocs, although for that I put a very small box blur on all my Elphel footage.

Besides that, it looks very good... what lens did you use?

Oscar, please check your link. I am unable to view the image.

I believe the lens was "TV ZOOM LENS T6X13.5 13.5-81mm 1:1.8"

whats with the color spots? what sort of debayer algorithm does the 333 use? i dont think i get that on my sumix m73 with sumix's lapacian debayer. I do with nearest color debayer though. what exactly does zmatte deartifact do? sharpness loss with filter doesnt look bad, but itd probably be nice not to have to filter and recompress all footage just to get rid of artifacts that should have been avoided with a good debayer in the first place.

Really??! jeez..have to go and try right now...the company firewall will probably say "noway in hell" like always ;)

EDIT:
I tried to find a menu where I could download a RAW frame...but really couldnt find it...? Any pointers?

Thanks! Much appreciated.

//O.