View Full Version : New DIY HD Cinema Camera Project
Pages :
1
[ 2]
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Take Vos July 2nd, 2007, 10:34 AM Jose,
Instead of recording full HD, have you thought about recording HD with 1:2.40 ratio, like 1920 x 800?
Cheers,
Take
Jose A. Garcia July 2nd, 2007, 11:29 AM Of course I have. In fact I like that ratio more than 16:9. It looks more filmic. But I'm afraid till now anything more than 720p (or 1280x533 if you want 1:2.40) can't get to 24fps.
I'll try to optimize everything so the board doesn't have to do anything else than capturing (by avoiding all automatic calculations and setting everything manually).
Jose A. Garcia July 2nd, 2007, 11:36 AM I forgot! One of the greatest things that I've noticed is that this sensor is 1/2.5" but you can actually see it has a narrower DOF. Of course nothing compared to film, but still looks better than video.
Well, that and real progresive!
Take Vos July 2nd, 2007, 12:24 PM Jose,
I believe RAW will be the only way to limit the bandwidth so you can capture on disk. You can do the demosaicing in post.
I have a 250 GB disk that will handle 60MB/sec continues transfer rate.
Cheers,
Take
Jose A. Garcia July 2nd, 2007, 01:08 PM It's getting better! 1920x800 at 20fps! And it captures at that speed.
Orkan Bayram July 2nd, 2007, 02:54 PM As I understand you are using the SLR lenses you got. I didn't really get the process there, how do you send the light coming through the lens to the GG (this part is easy to understand:)) and then to the sensor (this is tricky)? Do you have some kind of a lens between GG and the sensor?
Btw I appreciate your work, and I would love to see some screengrabs and pictures of your setup maybe.
Have luck!
Jose A. Garcia July 2nd, 2007, 04:51 PM No Orkan, I'm not using the slr lenses yet. The board comes with a C-Mount lens and that's all I'm using right now.
Wayne Morellini July 2nd, 2007, 09:27 PM Wayne and Noah, I have info that streampix has solved direct to disc recording with sumix M73, so there is no longer short clips only and recording to ram with their software (and also with sumix software).
I also hope Jose that jour software that is coming with your micron board is capable of recordind to dics instead of ram.
Jose, I have give up because this is very time consuming process (Unless you are trying to make a product that you can sell...) and I need a camera for my curent projects. (but this also hasn't stop me from making other cool stuf, and I think I will have something that you can use in your project, very soon).
Great, how much does it cost to get the grade of stream-pix that does this? Has Sumix improved their software to do this as well?
Jose A. Garcia July 3rd, 2007, 05:59 AM Well... Definitely I have to look for other solutions. I have the Elphel there in case nothing works.
Wayne, I know you've been researching on this for quite a long time. I also know you were looking for a complete independent solution but I'm just looking for something to plug to the computer. Is there anything out there with good image quality and global shutter (if possible) that's able to deliver 2k 1:2.40 or 1920x800 at 24fps? I don't care if it's GigE, CameraLink... As long as the whole package's not more than $1,300-$1,500.
Thanks!
Igor Babic July 3rd, 2007, 06:56 AM Wayne, this is what my friend got from sumix support team:
"Re: [sumix.com #8710] Question regarding SMX-M72 camera
Dear
Good news.
We almost finished testing the fast recording mode. According to prelimenary experiments it allows to write app 30-32 frames per sec directly to HDD at resolution 1920x720. The recording is limited only by HDD capacity. The recorded file contains some simple header and sequence of RAW (bayer) frames.
We need to prepare new tools for conversion this format to avi or to a set of separate files (bmp, jpg...)"
This was on 15. May 2007. This came to late for us bacuse we have already started our production. Their site shows nothing new about this. So if anybody is interested please contact them, they are very responsive.
Jose, sory for offtopic, but there is one thing in this sumix email for you to consider:
"Direct recording to HDD can not getting on smoothly. From time to time there will be jerks and stops. The effect is due to Windows and incompatibility of data transfer speed of USB2 and HDD"
I dont know if this applys to your camera...
Jose A. Garcia July 3rd, 2007, 07:19 AM Too bad... We need constant frame rate for this. Damn! Almost there! 1920x720 at 30fps!!
Jose A. Garcia July 3rd, 2007, 01:54 PM Hey! Did you think I was going to let you all without any clip from the micron board?
http://www.cus-cus.net/dvinfo/Video03-1280x533.avi
The three clips are 1280x533 (1:2.40) 24fps. This of course is me. Please don't pay attention to that and focus on the camera. This was recorded at about 2 in the afternoon. No color correction. In fact the camera has a white balance and color correction option but these three clips are just what the camera actually sees. Debayered, Mjpeg encoded and uploaded.
http://www.cus-cus.net/dvinfo/Video04-1280x533.avi
Very slow pan. It's not smooth, I know :). It was also 8 in the evening so it was a bit dark. A bit of noise too.
http://www.cus-cus.net/dvinfo/Video05-1280x533.avi
My hand. More darkness. More noise. I'll record something better tomorrow.
So... As I said, I'm looking for another solution. In fact I'm looking for two different solutions:
- One would be a 1" sensor (or 36x24mm to match exactly a 35mm frame) able to deliver 1280x720p at 24fps. In fact the Pike camera (with a 1" ccd) does it and delivers full HD but it's $5000
- The other one would be a smaller chip (about 1/2.5" or 1/2"... or even 1/3") but able to deliver 2k or full HD at 24fps so I can add an adapter.
If anyone knows about something like that...
Take Vos July 3rd, 2007, 02:21 PM Hello Jose,
Your clips show good promise, I didn't find it too noisy.
I myself am working with the Pike.
It does not handle full frame HD @ 24fps. The firewire bandwidth is the limitation. Currently It can handle 1800 x 750 @ 24fps, 14 bit (transfered as 16 bits) pixels. It will do full HD at 8 bit per pixel I guess.
I have heard that they will release new firmware this month that does packed 12 bit transfers. So that it will do 2048 * 854 @ 24fps, 12 bit.
There is a Pike that has a 2048 x 2048 1.2" sensor, I myself have the 1920 x 1080 1" sensor.
Currently my Pike has a noise problem that I am not yet investigating. I am confident that I can get rid of it somehow (cooling, battery power, electrical isolation). But I need to get the software of high enough quality first.
Jose A. Garcia July 3rd, 2007, 05:54 PM I supose the 1/2" version will cost more than $2000 too and it will also have those noise problems you mention. I thought CCDs were better than CMOS handling noise.
David Delaney July 3rd, 2007, 10:45 PM Wow, I thought the video looked great. Nice job!
Take Vos July 4th, 2007, 12:09 AM Hello Jose,
I think CMOS actually handles noise better as it can handle much lower light conditions. It only becomes a problem with very large shutter times (30 minutes) and very low light like in telescopes.
But I am not sure what is going on in my camera. First there is some static noise (non uniformity of the pixels), strange thing is it doesn't seem to go away with a simple flat field calibration.
Also there is some weird non linearity going on, which shows up in the waveform as dark stripes. At first I thought it was an error in my part, or some weird LUT (which are disabled), but they are different from the left and right part (the sensor is divided through the center) which means the non linearity is caused before the AD converter. It seems to only show in the dark part of the image, so it could be the non linearity of the transistors in the amplifier, maybe with the bias I can skip above this non linearity part.
All-in-all, there is a lot to figure out.
Cheers,
Take
Jose A. Garcia July 4th, 2007, 02:50 AM I've just been contacted by Omnivision. They'll send me a demo board in a few days.
Take, I know this can be too obvious but, have you thought about the possibility of your camera being damaged?
Take Vos July 4th, 2007, 05:34 AM Hello Jose,
It could be a possibility, I have thought of this, but I thought that normal sensor data would look pretty bad without calibration.
I will have to contact the support department with some of the images I have taken.
Cheers,
Take
Jose A. Garcia July 4th, 2007, 08:42 AM Well... You can see it's not true. As I said, the clips I posted were completely untouched. I didn't even use the internal white balance included with the camera.
I've also seen images taken with other Alliedvision cameras and they don't look bad at all.
Jose A. Garcia July 4th, 2007, 09:19 AM Hey... Alliedvision has the Marlin F-131C with a 2/3" GLOBAL SHUTTER color CMOS sensor delivering 720P at 25fps. That's the sensor size of the SI-2k Mini. It's not 2k, but it's HD, global shutter and it doesn't need an adaptor to get a very nice DOF. You can add a C to F mount converter if you want.
It also has less pixels than the SI-2k with the same size. That means more light, less noise... and for 900euro!
The only bad point I see is that it doesn't deliver full HD.
Solomon Chase July 4th, 2007, 10:45 AM Hey... Alliedvision has the Marlin F-131C with a 2/3" GLOBAL SHUTTER color CMOS sensor delivering 720P at 25fps. That's the sensor size of the SI-2k Mini. It's not 2k, but it's HD, global shutter and it doesn't need an adaptor to get a very nice DOF. You can add a C to F mount converter if you want.
It also has less pixels than the SI-2k with the same size. That means more light, less noise... and for 900euro!
The only bad point I see is that it doesn't deliver full HD.
The Marlin F-131C uses the ibis-5a sensor. Search the board for info. Ibis-5a is an "industrial type" sensor used by sumix, avt, silicon imaging, pixelink, etc. in some of there cameras.
Not very good color performance, but global shutter and shallow DOF are a plus.
Jamie Varney July 4th, 2007, 12:36 PM The Marlin F-131C uses the ibis-5a sensor. Search the board for info. Ibis-5a is an "industrial type" sensor used by sumix, avt, silicon imaging, pixelink, etc. in some of there cameras.
Not very good color performance, but global shutter and shallow DOF are a plus.
Anyone know if the ibis-5a sensor itself can be purchased in single quantities?
Edit: Never mind, I guess digikey sells them.
Wayne Morellini July 4th, 2007, 04:53 PM Hello Jose,
I think CMOS actually handles noise better as it can handle much lower light conditions. It only becomes a problem with very large shutter times (30 minutes) and very low light like in telescopes.
But I am not sure what is going on in my camera. First there is some static noise (non uniformity of the pixels), strange thing is it doesn't seem to go away with a simple flat field calibration.
Also there is some weird non linearity going on, which shows up in the waveform as dark stripes. At first I thought it was an error in my part, or some weird LUT (which are disabled), but they are different from the left and right part (the sensor is divided through the center) which means the non linearity is caused before the AD converter. It seems to only show in the dark part of the image, so it could be the non linearity of the transistors in the amplifier, maybe with the bias I can skip above this non linearity part.
All-in-all, there is a lot to figure out.
Cheers,
Take
You are using CMOS? It partly sounds like the CCD split sensor window CCD scanning problem, where because of technology speed restrictions, they use different AD converters for the two halves of the sensor. To get around that problem they simply calibrate them. The rest sounds partly similar to what we have seen on Sanyo HD1 in dark noise, and fix pattern noise (which is removed with fix pattern noise removal). I suggest contacting the supplier and ask them about the problems.
Wayne Morellini July 4th, 2007, 07:44 PM Wayne, I know you've been researching on this for quite a long time. I also know you were looking for a complete independent solution but I'm just looking for something to plug to the computer. Is there anything out there with good image quality and global shutter (if possible) that's able to deliver 2k 1:2.40 or 1920x800 at 24fps? I don't care if it's GigE, CameraLink... As long as the whole package's not more than $1,300-$1,500.
Thanks!
I stopped too long ago with the research. Go through my thread technical thread and you will find links to lists of manufacturers and cameras. By sensor, Micron had some sort of global reset mechanism that helps. Cypress Ibis and Luma (was that the name) had global shutter. Some Kodak had global shutter, and I don't remember much apart from that. Altasens has an heap of new sensors. Sumix and some other manufacturers do cheap Ibis cameras, and Elphel and some others Micron.
Now, here is the rub with the Ibis5a cameras, do it wrong and you land up with an worse sensor, do it right and you land up with an better camera, problem is many seem to do it cheaply, without good external Analogue to Digital converter, and other external support circuits they put in the Drake version.
But the problem with the research, was that I was in too much ill health to do the research for everybody, who were more than prepared to be erratic and not do much research. Even getting good camera companies to do the simple software changes to enable video streaming and control would have been good. If we had all gotten together and done the research consistently we would have been TEN times further on, cheaper price/better camera. Sumix was going to make an cheap camera for us, but we let them down and ran after Silicon Imaging, Micron and Altasens, that only delayed us for years and gave us cameras at 4-6 times the price, and Sumix let us down and went away. Now we have Elphel, and I have got to admit, I am less than cinematically appealed to it, it is community only, and everybody keeps disappearing from it and alternative projects keep turning up. We will get what we deserve. We really need to pull together to get an company to support us.
Having said all this, here are the simple options, under $500 webcam+optical adaptor. Under $2K Elphel, or HD camera plus Intensity HDMI/Component. Red is coming out with an cheaper camera. As Sumix is no longer interested, why not ask Silicon Imaging about an cheap Ibis5a/new 1/2inch Altasens/Kodak/hopefully not Micron 720p, camera based on their cineform Digital Cinema POV, for $1000+ (you supply computer/hard drives). Such an camera, based on an improved version of their Ibis5 camera, can't hope to compete with the top end Altasens, so they can afford to cut us an break, and sell it as an industrial camera too. Of course, it could be GigE direct to hard disk. The Ibis and I think, new altasens, offers latitude extension technologies, however, it is preferable to be able to do at least 50fps 100% shutter for transfer between different media formats, which is where the Ibis and many others fall over.
Wayne Morellini July 4th, 2007, 08:08 PM Wayne, this is what my friend got from sumix support team:
"Re: [sumix.com #8710] Question regarding SMX-M72 camera
Dear
Good news.
We almost finished testing the fast recording mode. According to prelimenary experiments it allows to write app 30-32 frames per sec directly to HDD at resolution 1920x720. The recording is limited only by HDD capacity. The recorded file contains some simple header and sequence of RAW (bayer) frames.
We need to prepare new tools for conversion this format to avi or to a set of separate files (bmp, jpg...)"
..
"Direct recording to HDD can not getting on smoothly. From time to time there will be jerks and stops. The effect is due to Windows and incompatibility of data transfer speed of USB2 and HDD"
I dont know if this applys to your camera...
This USB problem, is what they were supposed to be going to solve, around 3 years ago. Performance depends on main board with good USB interface, windows configured for realtime, alternative USB interface driver, and efficient third party windows realtime core. With some, or all, these factors they should be able to easily get stable performance. However, trying to get it to work on all systems, without any enhancements is probably the problem. This doesn't matter so much, as long as we can get an range of regular hardware to work properly with the software. You could ask them about this.
Wayne Morellini July 4th, 2007, 08:17 PM My technical thread I mentioned, lots of tid bits in it:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=694425#post694425
Igor Babic July 5th, 2007, 05:09 AM This USB problem, is what they were supposed to be going to solve, around 3 years ago. Performance depends on main board with good USB interface, windows configured for realtime, alternative USB interface driver, and efficient third party windows realtime core. With some, or all, these factors they should be able to easily get stable performance. However, trying to get it to work on all systems, without any enhancements is probably the problem. This doesn't matter so much, as long as we can get an range of regular hardware to work properly with the software. You could ask them about this.
I was maybe misinformative. Later statment of USB problems was from one of previous emails. In their last email they say that they solevd this or about too.
Take Vos July 5th, 2007, 05:17 AM You are using CMOS? It partly sounds like the CCD split sensor window CCD scanning problem, where because of technology speed restrictions, they use different AD converters for the two halves of the sensor. To get around that problem they simply calibrate them. The rest sounds partly similar to what we have seen on Sanyo HD1 in dark noise, and fix pattern noise (which is removed with fix pattern noise removal). I suggest contacting the supplier and ask them about the problems.
No, I am using a CCD, indeed a split CCD which I knew already and can compensate for (except for the large temperature depended drift).
It looks like fix pattern noise but I am unable to remove it using a normal flat field image. If I take a compensated picture (per pixel intensity multiplier) from the same flat field it indeed is clean, but when I look at something lighter or darker it appears again. It seems there is no linear correlation between light intensity and the fix pattern noise.
I will post some pictures in my own thread "Mirage Recorder" tonight, maybe you can take a look if this is normal fix pattern noise (and I am doing something stupid) or if the camera is bad.
Cheers,
Take
Jose A. Garcia July 5th, 2007, 08:47 AM Wayne:
First of all, I've already spent time and money on this and I'm not giving up. I want my camera and I'll do whatever I have to.
Besides that, you're right. We have to stick together to get what we want. You can count me in but I need your help. I've already visited all the urls on your list and have sent emails to everyone offering a 720p/1080p/2k solution. Too bad there were only two or three appart from Micron, Altasens, Omnivision... you know, the usual ones.
Micron doesn't offer anything larger than 1/2.5".
I was also thinking about contacting Silicon Imaging about a 720p big sensor solution. If I have to go for 720 instead of full HD, I want real DOF. No adaptors. We can't ask them for another 1080p solution cause they already have one and it's an expensive option, whether it's their HD1920 camera or the SI-2k Mini.
Altasens doesn't support small projects, as I said and I don't think we can gather like 10K people.
I already have a 720p solution here at home. Working and giving great image and motion feel. At 96Mhz and 1/48 you can't really notice rolling shutter but it's USB and it's a small chip (1/2.5"). As I said, if I have to stay with 720p, I want 2/3" at least. Of course, I don't have to say that the image you get at 720p with this camera is far better than the one you get with a HDV cam at full HD.
I'm ready... Now, where do we start?
Jose A. Garcia July 5th, 2007, 08:59 AM What about some Cameralink product from Epix? I've seen many full HD color cameras and Cameralink framegrabbers are about $500.
Jose A. Garcia July 5th, 2007, 03:53 PM I have been talking with Steve from Silicon Imaging. They don't intend to make something smaller than the SI-2k mini in terms of resolution for filmmaking purposes.
All he says is that they would supply PCB cameras for the Micron or Cypress sensors if we gather a group together for another open source design.
I wanted to ask another question. What exactly is wrong with the Ibis? I need to see something shot with the marlin.
Appart from that... 2K looks sooo good (even at 20 or 22fps) with the micron board! 1600x666 doesn't look too bad either. But do you think 720p will be enough?
Jamie Varney July 5th, 2007, 04:23 PM What I have been seriously considering is interfacing a Micron MT9T031P12STC with a Gumstix Verdex XL6P. Add an IDE hard drive and a small LCD and we should have a camera that can do 720P and possibly even 1600x680.
The biggest obstacle I can see is writing the Linux True IDE driver with DMA, and making it fast enough to write 24MB/s to the hard drive. Assuming this can be done my only other concern would be the rolling shutter, I have no idea how bad it is on this chip.
Daniel Schaumberger July 6th, 2007, 07:22 AM Hi Jose,
did you read about that hydra mod for Panasonic HVX200?
http://www.reel-stream.com/
http://www.freshdv.com/2007/03/reel-stream-mods-the-hvx200.html
They hook up some electronics to the ccd inside the HVX200 then the whole thing is connected by a Gigabit Ethernet (over CAT 5e or 6 cable) to any Intel / Mac computer running their SculptorHD 2.0 software.
The image is captured as raw data directly from the ccd's.
NATIVE FRAME SIZE:
2100 x 1090
RECORD MODES:
Full RGB(4:4:4) only
best regards
Daniel
Jose A. Garcia July 6th, 2007, 05:31 PM Hi Daniel,
It sounds quite good in fact but I supose it'll cost even more than an unaltered HVX. We're trying to keep things cheap here. Let's say $2000 or little more for the whole package, at least for me.
Hi Jamie, and welcome to the thread :)
A couple of things about your option: first, the T series in Micron offer the same as the P series (the one I'm testing) but with less resolution and also less speed. The MT9P031 offers 1920x800 at about 22fps using USB (the worst possible interface for our purposes). Your option would get those 22-24fps at 1600x666 (1:2.40) and larger resolutions would mean less fps. That was in fact the sensor used in the Elphel 333. The new 353 uses the P series. Besides that, they both cost the same. 250euro for a camera head and 900euro for the whole demo board.
I really think CMOS is the way to go. They offer a much more filmic image. Also global shutter is a good option but rolling shutter at 96Mhz is almost unnoticeable, so we don't have problems with that.
I haven't seen large full HD CMOS sensors for the cheap yet. So the main options would be:
- Large 720p sensor. Between 2/3" and 1". Bad points: We don't have 2k.
- Small 2k sensor + DOF adaptor. About 1/2.5". Bad points: pixel sizes are probably too small to collect enough light with the adaptor attached.
Maybe it's possible to find a 2/3" or 1" 1600x1200 sensor cheap enough to use in this project.
There has to be something we're missing.
The interface: I think GigE is the perfect interface. It doesn't require a framegrabber like the CameraLink and also GigE boards are quite cheap if your computer doesn't have one. USB can't do it. When I'm capturing with the demo board I can see the sensor goes at very high speeds, while the board sends less than half of the images through usb. Firewire 800? Maybe...
Computer independent solution? Not yet. We would need someone to program a FPGA with IDE interfaces, flash card slots and LCD outputs appart from the fact that we'd also need a piece of software to control the sensor. Maybe in time... For now we need the camera and a computer.
Unless of course we can plug a camera head to one of those Gumstix boards (the first time I read about them) and then add a HDD and a LCD. We would still need the software to control de sensor.
I need help on this.
Jamie Varney July 6th, 2007, 07:11 PM I really wish that I had the money to purse this little project of mine, but I have some family issues at the moment so it may be a while before I can try. That said Avnet sells the raw MT9T031 sensor for $39.00 US and the Gumstix is only $160.00 US. EarthLCD sells lots of LCD's that would work for under $100.00. From there we would just need a HD, case, power supply and optics and we should have a working camera.
One advantage to having a degree in Electronics Engineering is that I am nearly positive that I can interface the sensor to the Gumstix. But like I said before, writing to the HD at full speed is going to be a real issue. Most likely the raw bayer data will have to be streamed to the hardrive and it will have to be demosaiced and converted to a usable format later.
Sigh, maybe in a few months I will be able to start buying parts and see what happens :-(
Jose A. Garcia July 6th, 2007, 08:10 PM Wouldn't it be easier to program a FPGA to do all that? And believe me. Buy the P031 sensor. It costs the same and it gives 2k at more than 24fps. At least the sensor does it. The problem is finding a good interface to capture at that speed.
Well... the best part of this is that we've got an electronics engineer here!
Why not start with something like the SI-2k Mini? A camera head you can plug to the computer and start capturing... We just need the sensor, a board with a GigE interface... And the difficult part: software to control and capture.
Jamie Varney July 6th, 2007, 09:54 PM Wouldn't it be easier to program a FPGA to do all that?
It may be for somebody, but I doubt it would be for me. My experience with FPGA's is limited to the small Xlinx boards we used back in school. I do however have a friend with more recent experience with them, I will talk to him about it when he gets back in town.
And believe me. Buy the P031 sensor. It costs the same and it gives 2k at more than 24fps.
For some reason back when I was looking at sensors I crossed this one off my list, but I honestly don't remember why. I will take another look at it and see, but it would sure help if I had the full datasheet.
Take Vos July 7th, 2007, 12:46 AM Hi,
Personally I am going for the record in bayer format, then make a codec that can handle this format. It is a pretty CPU/GPU expensive codec, compared to for example a MPEG codec.
I am hoping that Final Cut Pro sends hints to the codec when it wants RT-extreme (real-time, low quality playback), in that case I can easily switch between different debayer algorithms. I have one high quality debayer and one fast debayer algorithm.
I will be releasing my digital negative file format, so that other people can implement this and share the tools build for it. I will probably make the QuickTime codec a free download.
Cheers,
Take
Jose A. Garcia July 7th, 2007, 03:35 AM Hey... This is already sounding like a real team!
Take, if we develop a camera head based on the micron chip and with a GigE interface, do you think you could write a tool to control the camera and capture with your codec?
Jose A. Garcia July 7th, 2007, 03:43 AM By the way and now that we're talking about Apple. Wouldn't it be possible to use a Mac Mini to capture? It has a sata disk and a core duo chip. You can get one for about $800. The camera head, a mac mini and a LCD would make it really portable.
It would be like a OSX based SI-2k and using Take's codec instead of Cineform.
What do you think?
Take Vos July 7th, 2007, 05:50 AM Jose,
The codec would be extremely simple, it basically is packed (12/14 bit) bayer pixels. The headers (per image) include things like:
- width
- height
- bit depth
- color model (bayer rggb, bayer grbg, rgb)
- LUT (integer to half)
- color conversion matrix
- orientation (horizontal and vertical flip)
- camera euid (for loading calibration data)
- left and right average dark current (measured from dark frames (shutter = 0.0 sec) just before the recording starts or from the left and right light covered zones).
- nr frames since midnight
- frame / second
It needs both rgb and bayer modes, as Final Cut Pro only works fast when the codec for reading is the same as the codec on the timeline. So the result of internal Final Cut Pro renderings will be stored as lossless RGB with the same codec.
It is a simple file format so that it would be easy to implement in a recorder, but as it is a proper QuickTime codec, you can also save it as a QuickTime file (which would happen inside Final Cut Pro).
My current capture software is Boom Recorder (with a Mirage Recorder license) it handles things like buffering and viewing. And of course it also does all the old stuff like timecode, high quality audio, metadata and auto file naming.
Currently I am only implementing IIDC cameras, but it would not be extremely difficult to add GigE once it is finished.
The MacMini may be a little to light for doing this stuff, especially if you want to view the result. Mirage Recorder uses quite a lot of GPU power to draw the images on the screen. CPU usage is quite low 30-40% but with only one CPU this would be 60-80%. The internal disk is also not fast enough, and there is not a good interface for an external one either.
I am writing it for the MacBook Pro, using the firewire800 with the Pike and a eSATA ExpressCard connected to a disk.
One last thing, you can not configure the Pike to do exact 24 fps, I am planning to clock the Pike externally with a frequency divider (2000) on a audio word clock. This will make the Pike also lock to audio.
Cheers,
Take
Wayne Morellini July 7th, 2007, 06:00 AM Take.
I had an look at that picture, it seems like an form of column noise. The Sanyo HD1 had it worse, I can't remember the explanation, there was an explanation over in the Sanyo HD forum, in one of the threads I was in. I remember it was an thread about the problem (mis-named problem too). See what the firm ware does, it might be the only hope. What you describe is an different response at different levels, which really requires an non linear fixed pattern to partly solve, which might be as simple as defining the noise at an few levels and mapping an mathematical function to estimate it at any point, you know what I mean.
We rejected CCD's and firewire an long time ago because of various problems. I think, the situation might have been, that you can get CCD's to perform as well as the best CMOS, but at an price (cooling, power consumption, expense). There are some fill-factor advantages in CCD's, but the more complicated it is the less fill factor, so the more reliance on micro-lensing, and less widest aperture. For us, in todays market, there is little reason to look past CMOS Altasens, and some of the other, newer, sensors. Though my knowledge is to limited of present technology (in those days details of the Altasens technology was not even available).
Jose A. Garcia July 7th, 2007, 06:37 AM Ok, so Mac Mini is a no go.
We stay with camera head, GigE interface and a laptop.
Wayne Morellini July 7th, 2007, 07:04 AM Jose, I was not referring to you. The Epix suggestion is good. But we have to look at fitting in between the cracks left in the market by the SI, Red (coming out with smaller camera) shake up with Canon HV20, and Sony XDCAMHD EX, attacking the low end of the market.
As for format, it depends on taste, extremely fast aperture 2/3inch, or 16mm, should give you descent depth of field (as Drake did) but another format for lenses (non cinema, is 4/3rds) which is an bigger sensor compromise for digital sensors and DOF. Apart from those,we are back to 35mm lens adaptors again. What some people do is use wider angle lens to get an descent field of view without lens image adaptor, but that means using the lens with the best aperture to get the DOF (expensive).
You have an 720p system, what is it, if you don't mind me asking?
I'm ready... Now, where do we start?
Well, I'm no longer doing much with this, it is up to you guys. There is an couple of suggestions above for an cheap system, and getting an company, like Sumix and SI, to do something, Elphel and Red are already aiming something, Elphel could need the help. I am onto several non camera projects (though I have my eye on an couple of potential camera projects). I've tried to start things an number of times, and have been constantly STUFFED around, so have little interest in an repeat performance.
Reading your next posts. 720p benefit, is 50fps (if available) and marketing, it doesn't challenge the 1080p market as much, so can afford to be less.
The internal analogue to Digital converter in the Ibis has been very poor and noisy, some additional external circuit design also improve performance, as Drake designer had revealed to me. Actually, somewhere, I have the reference to the original camera that the Drake was based on. Problem is many camera companies go the easy way, and just use the internal ADC. The other problem is, is when are they going to replace the Ibis5a, they have additional technology with the buy out of FF and Smal by cypress to replace it, but I think for the last 3 years not much happened. But performance may well be improving in the background through technological refinements. Ibis has less advantage now that other sensor companies have latitude extension technologies.
According to macosrumors there is an gaming Mac Mini coming, actually they were talking about gaming Imac last year, but makes some sense. The GPU in the standard PC Mac Mini is not the best. So an newer version would be best.
Heroine Warrior does an Cinelerra Open Source edit capture solution, that has been used on major productions to capture raw 4:4:4 1080p for years.
http://www.heroinewarrior.com/cinelerra.php3
Jamie,
Good idea about the gumstix.
www.ambarella.com have an camera control/h264 codec chip, that can write to an IDE interface (and many others, even has USB). Such an chip can be directly connected to the sensor, even to USB camera, I image. H264 Intra frame codec is the new professional work codec, and would be quiet desirable for your project. About the ambarella chips, more advanced versions are more powerful, but all work around an large parallel array of SPARC RISC microprocessors. So I imagine it might be able to be reprogrammed to do what ever compression/code you like. There is also now two rival software development tool companies offering tools that take normal code and convert it into parallel code effectively, even FPGA code (forget names).
Daniel
I tried to talk reel-stream into releasing the board for more general solutions in times past. I think we could get better results than the HVX200 mod. I wonder if they would be more interested now.
Well, I wish you guys the best with this, I am just waiting for an affordable solution nowadays.
Jose A. Garcia July 8th, 2007, 07:37 AM Hi Wayne,
About the Ambarella chip. It sounds great but we can't use it with the USB micron board. We'd get the same speed that I get when capturing to laptop.
The main problem here is finding a camera head with a good 2k sensor and an interface fast enough to deliver 24fps at full res or finding someone who can create a different board for the Micron sensor. When we have that, we can do whatever we want, like having it attached to the Ambarella chip or connect it directly to the computer.
Jamie, the full datasheet for the MT9P031 chip is at www.framos.co.uk Just register and download it.
I'd go for full 2k. I don't care if I have to build the adaptor. In fact I already have all the parts.
2/3" 720p sounds very good, but I prefer 2k.
Jose A. Garcia July 8th, 2007, 06:27 PM I've gone through 30 or 40 google pages trying to get info about cmos sensors we don't know. No luck so far. It looks like all interesting options have already been discussed.
Jamie and Take, what do you think about this solution?
Micron camera head - Ambarella chip - FPGA board or similar with USB interface to the laptop - Simple recording software and camera control under OSX to go directly to Final Cut.
I suggest USB because the laptop captures an already encoded H.264 clip, so needed bandwidth is much smaller.
If the Ambarella chip has an interface to connect it to the computer, we wouldn't even need the FPGA.
That way we could send 2k H.264 clips to the laptop...
Do you think it's possible?
Jamie Varney July 8th, 2007, 07:34 PM The biggest problem I see with this setup is this line from the Ambarella website: "The codec supports both interlaced 1080i format, as well as progressive 720p." found here: http://www.ambarella.com/technology/compression.htm
And personally I would like to avoid H.264 since I plan on doing extensive chroma keying.
I am not saying this setup won't work, its just it may not give us the quality we are all looking for :-(
Jose A. Garcia July 9th, 2007, 02:51 AM I just sent an email to Ambarella asking if it would be possible to have 1920x800 (near 2k but 1:2.40 ratio) progresive encoded.
I'm also very interested in vfx, and if H.264 can't be used for chroma keying it won't be an interesting solution.
Well see. Maybe we can find a lossless encoding chip.
Take Vos July 9th, 2007, 05:30 AM Why do you want to do lossless encoding?
A single 7200 rpm SATA harddisk is fast enough to sustain bayer 1920x800@24fps,14bits uncompressed.
Wayne Morellini July 9th, 2007, 11:54 AM The ambarella, from memory has, storage (I think some form of ATA) and USB, and sensor interfaces. So, sensor->Ambarella->storage interface (card/hard disk/USB). Because it is not an PC, it should deliver close enough to full USB (2.0, I assume) speed to enable 50fps 720, fully buffered. You could do USB camera->ambarella, but unless the camera is buffered you will loss some bandwidth because of the peaking during readout. Still compared to an PC, it might be better.
H264 Intra is the replacement for Mpeg Intra in professional work-flow. It is available in lossless compression and down. What ambarella will handle is another matter, but they do offer professional versions for broadcast flows (from what I can tell). But if it is re-programmable, even just for h264 Bayer compression, it would be nice. This should be an very powerful chip compared to the fastest PC's, from memory. it is not something for most of us to hassle Ambarella about, they certainly don't give me answers to all my questions, but as we have an engineer here, it is worth looking at.
Still, we already have Juan or reel-stream, and Elphel with possible engines suitable for an camera recorder. There are an few more sensor chips, refer to the Elphel thread, I post them sometimes, hoping that Andrey will relent and see an better sensor for his cameras (but changing suppliers, and designs, is an good reason for not changing, as an major hassle). Only one chip I don't mention, not really higher performer (probably better than Micron) but cheap, something for private development.
|
|