XDCAM Future
 

In a FAQ document Sony clearly states XDCAM is not a replacement for HDCAM rather a responce to the need for a price/quality point between HDCAM and HDV. That is why they went with 1/2 inch optics/sensors and dropped the IMX 50 for SD on the current XDCAM HD offerings, which by the way are consinerably less expensive than their SD cousins. I personally feel however, the XDCAM platform will evolve to a higher level over time because of its flexible file based system, proven chasis and a promising future of higher capasities and transfer rates.

A twin head XD camcorder (they already have a twin head XD deck) would have a read/write speed of 144 Mbs which could accomodate some very attractive compressions schemes including the current HDCAM, although there are most certainly some more efficient codecs out there right now that would be a better choice. Combine 2/3 inch optics/senors with a slick new codec running at 100-150 Mbs and HDCAM will be going the way of Betacam SX.

It seems Sony is commited to this technology and I am very interested in the future of this product line.

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...XDCAM_FAQs.pdf

XDCAM HD futures update
 

There were several Sony folks at the Snader Visual Solutions Expo (1-2 Feb, 2006) including a marketing person for XDCAM HD. There was a PDW-F350 there to play with. This is my impression of what they told me (I may have misinterpretted some of what they said).

1. Codec: My impression is that the 2/3" XDCAM HD announced for availability in June 2007 will have a double density disc with dual heads. That will give about the same recording time with about a 2x increase in data rate. This was a somewhat vague discussion, but my guess is that the final data rate will be somewhere in the 50-100Mbs range. With the improved codec that should give quality equivalent to HDCAM. I have less confidence in the specifics here than the other things they told me.

2. HDSDI output: As discussed elsewhere, the PDW-F350 HDSDI output is not really full 4:2:2. It is 4:2:0 interpolated to 4:2:2. I have been assured that the 2/3" XDCAM (one of the models anyway) will have a full 4:2:2 HDSDI. I hope this is true since it is critical for green screen and such.

3. Viewfinder: The PDW-F350 is not compatible with Sony's HD viewfinders such as the HDVF-C30W. Again, I have been assured that the 2/3" XDCAM HD will be compatible with the HDVF-C30W or equivalent.

4. Workflow: The workflow will be the same or equivalent (or better!) than the 1/2" XDCAM HD. This is great news, since the workflow is the best feature of this camera (along with the general ruggedness and good ergonomics for professional use). That means anyone currently using the XDCAM product, or anyone adopting the 1/2" XDCAM HD products, will have a great path forward. I have high confidence that Sony will deliver some cool products in this family over the next few years.

XDCAM Futures
 

Michael, thanks for the feedback. It's going to be interesting where they price the new XDCAM HD offerings. I for one need a real 4:2:2 HD solution and can't get what I need from the current HDV offerings, but can't afford or justify a ~100k solution for the types of projects I currently produce. I'll take it uncompressed via HD-SDI for my studio chroma-key work, and will gladly settle for compressed out on-location for use in basic editing. Hopefully the technology and demand will make a 25k or so option a reality.

Doesn't the HVX give a real 4:2:2 offering and doesn't the Canon H1 give a 4:2:2 HD-SDI offering?

Yes, but not with 2/3 inch sensors and optics. The difference is quite dramatic, sort of like the difference between a point and shoot APS still camera and a SLR with a large aperature and 35mm image area.

Hooray, that would be great, maybe we can also expect prosumer XDCAM HD eventually.

Ah - but the HVX can't resolve true 4:2:2 due to its vertical pixel shift... Which leaves only the Canon as producing actual 4:2:2 sampling out its HD-SDI. The XL-H1 is looking like a better deal all the time.

-Steve

It's very difficult to assess chroma resolution on the HVX. In 720p I'd think, looking at the figures, it would have more than 4:2:0, probably close to 4:2:2. In 1080p, it is probably very close to 4:2:0.

But, the Canon only does 1080i (or what looks like half rez 1080p) and due to the interlace filtering you're not going to get full vertical detail either, but it should be higher than 4:2:0, closer to 4:2:2.

The resolution of the Canon does look very nice and sharp in interlace modes though.

Really, there's lots of pretty good, pretty cheap HD cameras now, all different, all with some features better or worse than others. You can just pretty much pick on the features you like.

Graeme

Considering all the cameras being compared to here are pretending to be 1080(i/p) camcorders, it's reasonable to ignore the "4:2:2 in 720p" argument, and simply state the HVX is best described as 1080p 4:2:0 off the CCD block? Not to harp on Panasonic, one could state the XL-H1 is 4:2:2 interlaced and some weird approximation between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 in frame mode.

That's how I see it anyway... we're very rapidly approaching the era of the 1080p TV, and a time when most of the new camcorders will record some 1080(i/p) format - regardless of sensor and lens resolution (as sad as that may be).

-Steve

Sure, the HVX is 4:2:0 1080p, but with about the same vertical resolution as 720p, or 1080i.

The canon in 1080i is about the same vertical resolution as 720p as well. Neither are real full resolution 1080p cameras - there are very few of them and they're very expensive, and practically none go up to the 60p needed.

Yes, we're moving towards a 1080p world, and interlace is dead.

Graeme

Low HDTV quality, eliminating much XDCAM HD's Codec's extra quality.
 

I think it is already here, I can buy a 37inch 1080 LCD for equivalent to close to $1500US in he local shop. Manufactures are starting to show off 8Mp models, and there is some talk about Mpeg4 AVC in Europe (though I can't decide what the translation is meaning). Europe might well beat the US again with better TV standards, by delaying a few years. HDV seems to look better (not a concrete assessment) than most of the local transmissions I have seen here, but if they introduce Mpeg4 transmissions (h264 or ordinary Mpeg4) the XDCAM HD footage will come is very handy in comparison.

It is funny to note, we have been testing and knocking, the Sanyo HD1 Mpeg4 camera (9Mb/s) pocket camera based on it's codec performance (and definitely most other picture qualities), but at the end of the day it too is getting better picture than HDTV transmissions most if the time (as long as you set it up right, eliminate noise with lighting and don't move it too much). This makes sense, as Mpeg2 TV goes upto 1080 at 19Mb/s here, and is around double the Mpeg4 9 Mb/s data rate at 720p which is a lot closer to the 720p rate being used. They would have been better off here matching the TV transmission to the HDV, or XDCAM HD, data width (our channels are wider here and there are lots of free channels because our market can only support a quiet limited amount of broadcasters (unlike the US)).

If we shot a scene on both (Sanyo and HDV/XDCAM HD)cameras, with the camera setup, and the scene lit for each, to maximise performance, and properly transcoded it to a HDTV codec to maximise quality performance, at the rates used here, it would be interesting to see wherever the average audience member could tell which is better than which, even us at a, "left" or "right", glance.

I am not saying that Little Sanyo is anywhere near as good as the XDCAM HD, but that TV transmission is so poor as to reduce the difference. For future codecs, for HD DVD/Blueray, for indie film, and just plane better optical qualities from lens and sensor, the XDCAM is obviously much better.

I also noticed something else, certain ads on HDTV transmission come out a lot lot cleaner (in codec noise) compared to even major live broadcasts and prerecorded (filmed) content. The quality of some of the transmission codecs must be low. People are not up taking HDTV transmission so fast here, and they are talking of delaying switchover another 5 years, because they already get the same thing on analogue, if you have a look at he "noisy" HDTV pictures you can see why they could think that.

There is a big difference between the technology for capture in a camera versus the technology for transmission (HDTV). The demands for capture are much higher if you are going to do any kind of post processing and leverage the rapidly advancing technology in modern NLE's. If you are going to do any kind of multi-generational post processing (say a slow motion effect, a stabilization effect, a slight zoom effect, some dissolves and color correction -- and that is not even getting into chroma keying, wire removal, and really fancy FX) then you need much better image capture than the low performance cameras you reference. My limited experience has been that you need every bit of performance out of the camera you can get (4K (4:4:4) 60P 16 bit would be wonderful, but not likely available soon).

I am more talking about the quality of HDTV transmission being so bad that it is crawling with every sort of codec noise, that most of the audience won't notice much of a difference if the XDCAM HD shot 9Mb/s Mpeg4 instead, properly transcoded to HDTV. Of course we will notice a stack of difference if we play both directly to monitors, or through a better transmission model, like on HD disk. The silly irony is, that I was pointing out, that with the state of the HD transmissions, even a cheap codec might keep up, which means the industry should look at improving transmissions.

Over here, we could quiet easily do 36Mb/s, even maybe 50Mb/s channels, that should produce a reasonably clean image. In matter of fact, that is he sot of thing Bluray needs to do so their disks look sufficiently better than transmissions for the rental/purchase markets. I hope they have enough clarity to go to h264 eventually at 50Mb/s, that should produce a descent 200inch large screen difference, and 100Mb/s for their SHD ambitions. The PS3 has enough power to do this sot of thing, and before too long so will new PC's (see my other posts on GPU improvements and clearspeed).

Once again this is not having a go at XDCAM HD, I believe it is every good progressive format for the industry to have, over HDV, and well worth a professionals attention. But the irony is, we may yet see a few people running around with Mpeg4 9Mb/s codec quality cameras doing their own little documentaries for HDTV. I personally think that some people examining the Sanyo are getting too worked up over it's potential, and over it's failings. I am, personally, waiting to see what the 15Mb/s+ H264 cameras will do compared to HDV instead (I haven't gone completely mad ;) .

Have a good night.

I think I have heard this point from every format introduced since 1/2 B+W Portapack days on up. The quality of the cameras is almost always specced higher than the the transmission received at the home. Do you really believe that shows shot on 35MM film look like shows shot on PD-150's? Not everything you see at home is based on the specs most people use as measures. Take a look at a VHS tape of a hollywood film compared to some ones home video? If you can't see the difference then the monitor may not be to blame.
I do agree that transmission of HD on my local cable system looks like it has some horrible artifacts which I can't look at without cringing. However that doesn't mean I want to shoot with a format which has those artifacts to begin with. Nor does it mean I can't tell the difference between production choices on the programs I like to watch.
I am pretty sure XDCAM HD at the 35 data rate will have its uses the same way current HDV cameras have their uses at 25 data rate.

Everything has a use. The problems only arise when people try to get a piece of equipment do what it was never meant to do.

I think these days one of the biggest issues is that everyone expects perfection, but cannot understand why manufacturers cannot give it to us. There is of course the practise of built in obscelescence. But this isn't an evil plan on behalf of the manufacturers. It is how they stay in business and keep making a living. If they gave everything all at once they wouldn't be able to keep innovating.

Certainly it IS frustrating that we cannot have a 60p 4:4:4 camera at 4k res right away. However such a camera even at 2k has problems. Real problems. Keeping the thing cool for a start. There really isn't the technology at the moment to do this properly in a decently sized camera.

Make the most of what you all have. My opinion on high def at the moment is that it just isn't ready for the level that some cameras are being aimed at. If it was we wouldn't have so much concession of quality.

No way (normally). I agree. I am not silly enough to suggest that I think that the footage from a HD1 or PD150 respectively matches an XDCAM or 35mm in any other fashion except the level of noise produced by putting them through HDTV filters masks the increased detail advantage.

But that is why I specified, given that both cameras have similar optical performance same optical quality, and it was properly trancoded as to minimise quality loss.

An analogue channel is a good match for 35mm film, apart from optical performance, compared to the PD150, as the PD150 is very lossily compressed, and the channel is uncompressed and can reveal better detail from the 35mm. But an uncompressed camera that perfectly matches the low analogue resolution, and the optical performance and dynamics of the 35mm camera, will look very comparable even though it has a fraction of the resolution, because it maxes out the channel.

Exactly, for indie, for custom production, for better HD disk formats, and for better HDTV standards. Given the opportunity and money, there is only one choice for pro quality across the delivery formats, and it's not 9Mb/s Mpeg4, even if it came off of a 35mm sensor. As I would prefer a XDCAM HD, over a, theoretically, similar HDV camera, because it will deliver better on better delivery formats.

Yes, Sanyo is not in any way a replacement for a XDCAM HD but because of the HDTV standards problems, a 9Mb/s Mpeg4 XDCAM HD could possibly suit HDTV work only.

They wouldn't need to innovate anymore, we just keep coming back when the camera dies, thats how they will keep in business.

www.red.com (11Mp)
There was a JVC 8Mp one, that is still on the market from another company, for a few years now, based on Mpeg4, I think $10K-$40K (I forget latest pricing) size doesn't look very big. We did a lot of investigation into this stuff in the Digital Cinema camera threads, and we found that this sort of thing is very possible and doable (well at least those of use with engineering knowledge in private back channel correspondence). It required experience, much effort, and significant cash reserves (but nothing compared to major manufacturers). Unfortunately other people had different plans. The few projects that are panning out are, a cheap uncompressed HDSDi recorder, and a professional 720p uncompressed RAW bayer digital cinema camera system (bigger resolutions in development). The XDCAM HD is a toy compared to these, they were aiming more at the top of the line uncompressed HDCAM systems.

But, as a finale word on the subject, I will restate the opinion of somebody I met at the Sony related trade show examining the sample footage, who does local shooting for the international market, probably shoots commercials that go to cinemas as well as TV, XDCAM HD, was not good enough ;).

It wouldn't work quite as easily as that. There will always need to be innovation. But there are also so many other aspects to consider when making a camera. RED will still be out of the price league of the majority on these forums for example. It may be cheapER than the likes of an F900, but it won't be CHEAP. :)

So cameras of certain performance characteristics will always be needed to reach a certain price point. Compromises will always have to be made. I would doubt the abilities of anyone that told me that the format and picture type of these new cameras is holding them back from making anything good.

That's not true at all. Innovation is not like a reservoir that gets empty. If there is innovation it's always there -full if you prefer. Innovation+research=new technology. To give "everything" the customer wants, requires *a lot* of innovation in combination with an excellent marketing policy. They don't give us the "best", because a) their policy is not good enough and b) they don't have enough innovation or they don't appreciate or invest enough on innovation.

I disagree, (and I've been designing electronics) but that's what they want us to believe...

For example there could be a company that would target exclusively the "prosumer" market and give them higher level camcorders with a lower cost by selling direct to the customer.

Yes, and that research costs money.

Have you ever looked inside the average 2/3" camera? It isnt a huge empty space in there. The electronics is literally shoe horned into them. On top of this there are the lenses. The lenses, if designed to perform optimally would be much BIGGER than they are at the moment, not smaller. All lenses are a compromise in some way or another. Its the laws of physics and the way things work.

Manufacturers like Sony don't have a policy to give ENG crews back problems. They try everything they can to bring the weight down in each successive camera because they know the issues that heavy equipment brings.

Also, larger ENG style cameras, and film cameras, are designed to last. That means heavier construction, more expensive materials and all the rest of it. They aren't designed for mass market. You can have a light cheaply built camera that won't stand up to the punishment. Or you can have a much better constructed camera with stronger materials and more complex design. That costs more to implement.

I think people tend to take a very narrow minded view when it comes to making things. Because it isn't just the manufacturing costs that have to be taken into account. The teams of people that make these things have to be paid, and we're not just talking about a group of 3 or 4 people here. There are hundreds of people involved from the design, through to R&D, construction, and a whole lot of other stuff.

Lets take Steadicam as another example. These products are low yield. Have you ever tried machining even a simple component for use in such a device? You might say "oh but Cody built his own Steadicam for much less than the real thing". Actually no he didn't. Factor in the cost of all his machining equipment, his machining and construction time, design time, research and development time along with the test models and mockups he would have made etc and you would find the price wouldn't be far off the real Steadicam device. Perhaps even more!

Electronics manufacturers are not miracle workers.

That is what I was talking about, the situation you quoted where they give everything, which means every innovation, nothing left over to innovate.

Such a camera would be relatively weightless, warp space to capture and focus the image (whoops maybe I shouldn't mention that one, let the cat out of the bag) record anything, anywhere, forwards or backwards in time, and be able to run the universe, or something like that ;). And I forget, editing by re-arranging the universe (very realistic 3D effects) etc. Of course, I know you didn't mean anything like that, but you get the idea, once you get a camera too good, repair and replacement.

But seriously, the way old Eng cameras are design is rapidly becoming history. Now days there are many are programmable circuits with immense power over these Eng cameras, designed by tens or hundreds of people, that are produced by the millions for many different applications, to reduce the price. So most of the design has been done and is spread across the volume pricing. When one person is putting together and customising the components into a camera, he can work for free.

Red, on the other hand, are, at least, customisations of components, if not some complete new components. So, their costs, startup costs, and volume manufacturing and marketing cost, should be significant. But in an established volume manufacturer, there should be systems to get the parts cheaper (or manufacture them cheaper), volume manufacturing capability, established marketing channels (a real killer to try to establish) servicing, etc. So costs of established volume manufacturers should be much lower than for Red (but that doesn't mean they aren't goign to be wasteful anyway).

You can see why so much more is now becoming possible with so much less over the old Eng cameras, but while people are used to paying the old prices the companies might continue to charge them. There is significant investment against starting out in the market.

This process is so advanced, that an Eng camera circuit could be fit inside the size of the Sanyo, leaving room for drives and batteries. toughen cases are cheap enough. Lens systems, my own design idea will potentially greatly increase light gathering and latitude, with less weight.

We already had one engineer design a good 720p digital cinema camera, used to film the German feature film "Drachen Feder" in prototype. They hope to have more camera of commercial release.

Making a steadicam out of existing parts (and maybe bending some piping) is cheap enough and possible.

Seriously, listening to Ken is a good idea, engineers, that are familiar with volume engineering/manufacturing/marketing processes, tend to have some insight into the process.

Ken, maybe you should look at doing camera systems. We have had a number of projects around here, but it is usually the engineers that have the ability and know how.

I personally want to see some low cost solutions to high quality recording, we have enough mid priced ones.

I can confidentially name a few.


Thanks

Wayne.

Reading through this thread has been interesting. On a separate thread I mentioned a "Maximum PC" magazine article from this month which compared the Blu-ray and the HD-DVD formats. The maximum data transfer rate for both was reported at 36 Mbs. If this is true, the best match to a camcorder system would seem to be the XDCAM at 35 Mbs. The P2 system undoubtedly gives a great picture, but at present it will have to be compressed 3:1 to make it onto the proposed HD DVD system. Maybe Sony should consider a light portable prosumer fixed lens (16x would be great) XDCAM-type camcorder with a built-in hard-drive recorder.

XDCAM is faster than 35mbps. On the single laser pickup devices such as the XDCAM camcorders it currently goes up to 80mbps after the last firmware upgrade. Dual pickup devices such as the decsk go twice as fast. Thats one of the main differences between XDCAM and consumer Blu-Ray.

One difference between Sony and Panasonic is that Sony currently have no intention to replace all their tape based cameras with XDCAM. So I wouldn't hold out hope for a small version. It isn't impossible though as they did once consider bringing out an 8cm XDCAM disc.

Wayne, as I stated the likes of Sony and Panasonic don't try and give camerapeople bad backs on purpose. If they could make them lighter and smaller they would. And indeed they are. The XDCAM is much smaller than some previous ENG cameras. And the new F900 is reduced to be more like the 750 in size. What you say in your post might make sense at first. But the problem is that you forget that Sony and Panasonic are businesses. A business exists to make money, as much of it as possible. They are not evil becaue of this. It is just the nature of the beast. If the methods you talk about made more business and financial sense then Sony and Panasonic, JVC etc would all be using those practises. If there is a way of making more money then they will do it.

In the camera that I make my living from I don't want cheap components. I want reliable ones.

I'm sorry, Simon, but my knowledge is not insufficient to judge these things. Even though you verify what I say by saying the replacement cameras are smaller, it is likely they are still a generation or two behind the sort of technology used in the Ambarella chip, and hard-drive technology have practically/economically moved into the uncompressed RAW recording realm in the last few years. The reliability is very high, if you want it to be. But we are talking about what is best for us, not what is best for the companies, so despite what they might wish, or what they might in reality choose to do, the discussion is about what is possible.


Coming attractions:
About $600 of drives will give approx 5 1/2 hours uncompressed RAW 1080/25p footage. Even without backing, up offline, to a cheaper tape/disk process, but buying drive after drive, it is economical for a feature, At 6:1 advanced visually lossless, 33 hours, that would be economical for budget, and even Eng. But for Eng, even 12:1 might be practical on an advanced codec, or just use a more standard codec. Within a year or two you might find the capacity has doubled (1 Terabyte drive planned) and half the cost. If the In-phase (I think that was the one) Holographic optical disks do go 600GB this year (1.6TB eventually) then the possibilities might become cheaper sooner (but I imagine bulkier at first).


But back to the past:
You should also find that the tape mechanism and batteries are themselves a big limiting factor, once they go to hard disk and latest battery technology, and give up the old manufacturing lines for these items, you will find what I said. The problem is companies have hundreds of millions invested in these lines, and selling media, and it is more desirable for them to keep them profitable than to recommission them to another production process. The delusion is, sold by marketing rather than practical realities, is that the desires of us videographers are anything more than secondary to profit.

Even 8Mp has been done a number of times, Olympus/Olympic, had an 8Mp Eng camera a few years ago too. I have already pointed out one approx $7.5K Altasens 1080p (I understand there is a special binning interpolation process for 720p as well) based RAW uncompressed (Most accurate) product. I have not seen the product, but understand it is a dual box product, but the reality is the PC part can be shrunk into a very small PC box, say smaller, in total, than a XDCAM HD, and possibly similar to a Z1 without lens (But I doubt SI is that far ahead in thinking) . The reality is, that if only SI would take the finale step to make a smaller ENG model, with an option for a open source FPGA codec, the XDCAM HD would be history, as far as status (realising Sony would still have the momentum and convenient ease, to sell truck loads to Eng only shooters). But with technology that is used in Ambarella, and CELL microprocessors, little more is needed than a cigarette packet sized board and one or two drives. In reality, with the existing production lines to support, the companies will give you what they can make a lot of profit out, instead of a lot for a little profit (realising that bloat, high wages, in companies/marketing/sales teams can eat up a lot of profit as well).

So, there is room for small, but well funded, unburdened companies to maneuver in the shadow of colossal giants of companies, which Ambarella seems to have done in image processing.

Now as far as businesses and evil goes, it is immoral to profiteer off the poor, and in effect, that is the case for the majority of video camera owners, they are not well paid camera people. There are many other legal issues, that I do not want to go into here. Needless to say, have a look at the DVD set, the corporation, and look through the cut interviews on the extras disks (several hours all up) to find out a little of what is really happening out there. It is moral to care for the poor and take a (reasonably sized) portion for doing it and for them to care for you, I believe it is not a money takes all proposition.

I also do not wish to be drawn to more argument on this, as it is useless trying to argue me into the ground about these things, I've seen too much, and it is really getting off topic.

I however, would really welcome a hard disk based 100-200Mb/s (Mpeg1) or V35Mb/s XDCAM HD, small Z1 like camera for no more than (and preferably a lot cheaper than the Z1, and at least 10 stops). In reality, I think that the XD CAM has sufficient bandwidth for Blu-ray disk, and stacks compared to existing HDTV, but half of what you would really desire for a feature. So, Sony still has room to maneuver there, and drop a XDCAM HD Hard disk down into the realm where the pro-sumer (where they can still make Blu-ray drive sales) and us, can author on Blu-ray, and have the more expensive pro cameras at double the quality. In this way, our material also will have sufficient quality for better HDTV codecs. With the pro cameras having sufficient quality for next generation Blu-Ray and HDTV codecs. That would be one way to ward off potential new competitors from taking business.

Let's just wait to see what direction the market twists and turns, and if the main players, can change their strategy to ward off new competitors from taking business.

I'm a little late, but I've been busy.

That doesn’t prove anything. There are some parameters missing in your argument except weight and space. I bet that if their life would depend on this, they would make it half the size and weight in 2 months! And profitable too!

And if we seek for quality, are we doomed to deal forever with large and heavy lenses? Is it really the nature laws that restrict us or is it our imagination?

Unfortunately innovation does not increase proportionally to the number of people working in a company -far from this. A company will be very lucky to have a couple of true innovative people in good positions. And I am not talking about the "inventions" that get massively registered from big companies like IBM with 3500+ "inventions" per year. This is a paranoia of our time that must be resolved soon before we'll be forced to resolve, from the crisis that will arise.

Yes, since you asked I have designed and made quite a few original constructions in the past, some totally by me or by ordering custom components, even for professional
use, including a thermal binding machine for photo-albums production and a gold-printing modification for the same company that worked flawlessly. I love mechanical
design, it's a challenge and process which I could describe as ...beautiful!


In general I agree with you about the hidden costs.
My point is that what currently *exists* on the market today does not necessarily reflect what is *possible* today, for many reasons. One of them is the very nature of business today: Everything is profit driven (I am not against profit of course, but I think we all have lost control). So a company will not try to make what is possible but *just* what is profitable. I emphasize the word *just*. And most companies will invest more money in research only under the fear of competition and only if they have to. Not to please You and Me with a great product or to achieve the ultimate in technology or to ...save the world! Instead they are destroying our world *right now* for profit, but that's another story...

...which brings us to the subject of policy or...stupidity!
Do you think big companies are clever in general? If you do, I won't try to change your mind, just read the very interesting and invaluable book "in search of stupidity -over 20 years of high-tech marketing disasters" and you'll be surprised!


To finish my point, there is also a universal conservative tendency to keep things about the same and repeat the creative work of others for decades. Usually they do not dare to innovate in a revolutionary new way! If you want to innovate, you have to forget "how things work", clear your mind and start from zero. They don't do it ...they are afraid!

Wayne, I would LOVED to, really, BUT I'm trying to enter the software business now and I don't have time at all! Maybe in the future though.. I have some other ideas too that have to see the light...

Because the only way to let more light in through a lens is to have a bigger front element. Of course the lens can be engineered better to have less light loss by the time it gets thrown onto the CCD's. But there are limits.

Going back to size for a moment, do you think that the Dalsa camera is the large size it is because the makers want to hold back? I doubt it very much. The size has been a problem for production, and the makers will know this. They didn't make it big on purpose.

Sure, except... there is another way! Think about it!


Such a world-class company, they have provided ccd sensors for Mamiya and even for Mars robots but they also rent(!) other manufacturer's cameras???

Their "Origin" camera looks interesting (in specs) but about the size, if you look at the image it seems they didn't care to take advantage of the space, but rather they prefered to make it ...stylish!

http://www.dalsa.com/shared/content/...panel_500w.jpg

It's an impressive camera though, and they target the filmmakers, so it seems they do their best! ;>)

Interesting, in another thread, where there where some, demanding, people, I talked about my idea for a technique to get 3D part surround footage from 2D footage. I also mentioned that a 8 foot+ mirror lens could be used to get the surround. Basically, even a 60 foot mirror lens could be used at a fraction the lens length and weight. The lens is my own unique design idea to overcome all the mirror lens faults (and add everything a conventional lens will do, including aperture). Since I started researching for the Digital Cinema Camera projects I came up with a number of unique new design solutions for most things involved in a camera. For moving, or other awkward shots, in reality, you would use a number of smaller cameras. Theoretically, with such great light gathering power, and the high latitude image sensor design, you could get things like 32 bit video with 200db latitude (over 30 stops) that will work on less than starlight. People that know me here, know that I don't quote fanciful science stuff here, but stick to what is practically possible base/worked off of present technology, materials and science.

Wow that Origin camera is small, for 4K 16-bit, it probably is also from a previous era, at least as far as hard drives are concerned. Do they store the hard drives in that back end, or a separate unit?

On what Ken said. The reason that they choose a bigger chip is to get the 35mm frame for lens. But the reality is that the larger sensors have different advantages too, like larger sensor pads. The larger pixel sensor pads allow for a larger well capacity (the number of electron volts it can store converted from the photons that hit it) which gives larger latitude (12 stops, but it seems that you will get 15 stops if you include the extremes) but also the less the noise floor is compared to the signal, so you can shoot in lower light, which is what Ken was meaning I think. I'm looking at a sensor that has over 300K ev- at the moment, big sensor pads, a good chip will have over 60K ev-. Probably over 13 stops of useful latitude once the noise is included in (I doubt I can source a camera cheap enough though).

Forgot to mention, they would build the Origin big, even if they had the chance to make it small, just because it looks more impressive to that market. I also have to consider how to make my camera designs bigger, if that is what the market is looking for. Not much use making a mini camera strapped to the back of your wrist if they want to shoulder mount it for stability, so putting batteries etc, in the extra body/rail struts is desirable.

I doubt it. It has come in for a lot of criticism because of its bulky size. It makes shooting very awkward at times. No company in their right mind would build a camera that was bulky and awkward with a view that it 'looks impressive to the intended market'. It doesn't work that way, and feature filmmakers don't decide on equipment usage in such materialistic ways.

Wayne, I cannot understand what you mean about the 3d technique you mentioned. You speak about a 8 foot or 60 foot(!) mirror lense? You mean foot as a measure of length (or diameter) or something else? Can you explain?

Anyway, the magic keyword is "mirror" as the answer to Simon's argument about heavy lenses! That's what I meant!

Tell you what. You guys go and make your 3" long camera using mirrors and 3D holographic image capture with a RRSP of $1.50 and then come back when you've done it.

In the mean time I'll just enjoy the cameras that I can actually go out and buy right now.

:)

I was editing my post to say more, but after I saw your reply I changed my mind. I must admit this is the healthier way Simon, besides, research requires a bit of masochism! :>)

...of course then, you must accept the world "as is" and live your life as happily as you are allowed... *not* try to contribute for something better...
But I must add that even a weird large DIY near-sighted box might give you more pleasure than an HDCAM that your rich girlfriend bought you on your birthday!
This justifies masochism during research! :>)

Not if I have to lug it up a Scottish mountain it wouldn't :)

Sorry, it looked small (had trouble finding the size for a quick reply) compared to film cameras I have seen, it must be a lot bigger than it looks, or uses external recorder. But what I say still holds, don't expect them to make a handy cam rather than something bigger than a z1, unless it is really low cost.

It doesn't have anything to do with holograms.

With that sort of attitude, the camera company that bought the competitions camera instead of making something better, would, likely go broke ;) (now do you see what we are getting at, we would not be here to play tiddlies with our cameras, but to make something better, we play tiddlies with ideas and design... ;).

You, mean, we're on the same wave length, this is incredible, somebody at dvinfo that thinks like me ;). I love engineers (unless you try to go in business with them and they flake off rather than work).

Sorry I mean diameter, because the lens is so wide it shits around the sides of objects. Ordinary cameras do this too, and it can be used for partial surround imaging, but the lens is so small as to only give a very limited effect. So say we had a theoretical 60 foot version (which would virtually never be used because it is impractical) in front of a band stage, you would get the data to position yourself anywhere in a virtual audience, really cool, and I just got another idea that makes it even better.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=54884

Is the thread, don't worry about the content, there were a few people dogging me, that I showed up.