New solution for people wanting a DIY HD camera from Micron and Ambarella
 

Hi all,

Las night I was searching for new possible DIY HD cam methods (Farhad, don't take it personal... It's just that I can't stop) and found a very interesting piece of hardware made by Micron (now Aptina) and Ambarella.

It's called DEVcam and it's basically a Do-It-Yourself Sanyo Xacti system with a Micron sensor. A whole working system powered by just two AA batteries with FullHD@30fps (doesn't say "progresive", so I guess it's interlaced), 720p60 and 480p60 capture mode including sound recording. It all comes in a single board and according to Aptina, it's quite cheap (below $700). It also comes with a 2" lcd and it's ready to work right out of the box. It records video and audio to SD cards using H.264 codec.

Pros:

- It's a fully working system.
- It doesn't need a computer to work.
- It records to sd cards.
- As it comes without any external case, it can be used for our personal projects.
- We all know Micron sensors can give very good quality and superb dynamic range (for those of you who don't know, just take a look at my first DIY HD cam thread), so even if compression is similar to other hybrid HD cams, image quality should be better.

Cons:

- I think 1080 mode is interlaced. I mailed Aptina asking for more info.
- FullHD mode is 1440x1080 real pixels. I don't know if those are simply 4:3 or 16:9 with non-square pixels.
- H.264 means heavy compression. Similar to the HD2 cam from Sanyo.
- I just asked but I think 1080@30fps and 720@60fps are fixed framerates. No possible 24fps mode.
- I also asked if there's a full manual mode for exposure, white balance...

Besides all that I think this board can help us develop a very nice cam for non-professional work. I've seen Xactis attached to homemade 35mm adaptors (and even Redrock M2s!) and they offer a very interesting option for people who want 35mm DOF for home videos and basic amateur short films.

This developing kit would hopefully take a step further offering better image quality and dynamic range than a Xacti cam.

As for me, I'm going to take everything I bought for the other DIY HD cam project, buy one of these boards and put everything inside a box with an EOS mount. We'll see what happens.

I leave a PDF flyer attached. For those of you who want to know more, just google "DEVcam HD" and you'll find lots of pages.

BTW, if you are sending them an email, please let them know that it would be quite useful if they opened access to datasheets for the different sensors they offer.There used to be a time when they were open, and so Elphel was using the sensors.Now it seems that just for reading a datasheet you need to be from CIA or something.If someone is going to steal their secrets, I guess they won't do it from a specs sheet.

What is the bitrate of the video? h264 doesn't mean it will be bad, bitrate does matter.

It could have external shutter, an mechanical one ...great
what does it out SDI ?????????

The Ambarella A2 Fact Sheet says it can support bitrates up to 40mbps.

I believe it has an HDMI out. I'm still waiting for an answer from Aptina.

Dear Jose
sounds to good to be true in any case could be a poor indie cam
a decent DOF Adapter, mechanical shutter, look to the other tread
a magma express Box a card in there and an apple laptop voila

well we are not there but beside Si Sumix is not 2 K and who cares

Please, have in mind that I'm presenting this product for people who want an already made, pc independent HD solution. This is not a Sumix cam or something you can make serious projects with, but as it just needs two AA batteries and a SD card, if you include a homemade DOF adaptor, you can have good quality HD home videos with a cinematic feel. Well, maybe even more. Yesterday I saw a couple of music clips made with a Xacti HD1000 and a Redrockmicro M2 and I just couldn't believe they were made with a hybrid cheap cam.

Anyway I'd love to find a FullHD progressive H264 hybrid cam. So far I didn't find a single one. Not even this DEVcam kit. Here's a list with the newest ones. Many of them say "1080p" but then you visit their site and they're all 1080i. The first brand to release a truly progressive full 1920x1080 H264 cam with a decent bitrate is going to sell it like hotdogs.

http://hiperdef.com/tag/videocamara/ (sorry it's in spanish).

So
serious project means
High tech overkill
Quad CPU
half million Pickup
and test shots but no movie bah NON

problem is
this board board is
with a tiny Cmos form factor
for cheap lenses.
The problem starts there

great electronics, lenses ...scrap

such a board with a 2 K Cmos will be heaven
if it will sell big numbers
I don't believe
it is like loudspeaker DIY a niche
where you can talk and meet great people

Hugs
Régine

Jose, this will be a toy, 1/4.5" sensor with 39 dB S/N. Economical wise it is waste of operator value if you provide him a tool that costs much less than his time.
Also, we can never compete with Sony in low cost consumer HD Video cameras. There is so much that goes into optimization and production efficiencies. A high performance camera has more than 50% of its cost in it precision case. How would you like to put a cheap camera in an expensive case and offer it to an even more expensive operator to use it. Economy must be economical and this idea is not.
Regine is right on the money, let's make movies instead of working on producing cheaper cameras. I have many stories from past years that people tried to make new modalities instead of using tools and flexibilities they already had, although at higher costs, but ready and useful.
In Sumix we work on technologies that can prevail in test of time. SMX-12A2C is based on well thought architecture. It has flexibility that people can exploit and make their work look unique and even better than expensive cameras that come with built in processing. Price is already low comparing to human expenses of film making even considering another $10k in lenses , computers, fixtures and batteries.

After saying all these things, let me admit that we are considering the same sensor MT9M032 B&W for our 3x3 3D camera. But this camera will have 12 megapixel effective pixels, No Bayer (avoiding aliasing) as fast as hell >60 fps , depth of focus will be much better than 35mm camera. There will be no need for focusing while taking the clips. Focusing is done in post, so less skillful operator can operate the camera and cost of camera and operator will match better. Perhaps you will need a much more expensive and imaginative director as possibilities will multiply.

Correction, 3D camera with 3x3 sensors, total of 9.

Farhad

Hi Farhad,

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I presented this kit just for people who want a cheap and easy to use option to shoot very basic HD videos. I don't think it can be better than any of the many cheap HD hybrid cams out there (Xacti, Aiptek...) and of course I wouldn't recommend it for serious projects.

Just wanted to make it clear.

Règine,

Yes, this cam cannot be used for professional projects and the 12A2C is not yet ready to give its best if you want to shoot for real, but it will be in about a month, so please be patient. Sumix is working to make it happen. You'll just need the cam, a decent laptop and your audio equipment to shoot whatever you want using the Sumix software so it won't be difficult or messy at all.

I'm sorry if anyone took this thread and its contents as a possible replacement for the Sumix cam. It's quite clear it's not.

Jose, I can not thank you enough for your enthusiasm and your quick ideas. You just gave us a chance to rehash where we are going. I am sure soon there will HD webcams under $100. The goal is not commodity cameras, but to have HD pro cinema cameras available to independent film makers. A $10k system may be rented like $200 a week or less. On the other side, according to marketing 101, your product must be unique. A film maker must have ability to do his own post processing from raw data and produce his own signature work. This is where Red and Si are going wrong. They are spending their resources on post processing that must eventually be under the control of the film makers. We try to produce tools that you will understand, there will be no magic and no surprises. You find third party tools and you make your own and share. Future more capable cameras will use the same tools.
Again, Jose, thanks for inspiring us. Your independence and that of others on DVinfo will keep our communications responsible and our goals easier to achieve. Without responsible and unbiased communications, independent film makers and Sumix together will be food in this jungle.

I don't understand... You say film makers must have total control over raw datas, which Red offer, but at the same time you say they are wrong ?

What is the compression ratio of Red Raw?

RedCode RAW is 12:1.

So... If we're looking for a way to control everything, 12:1 is a lot of data lost. Is not bad, of course. You can still control many aspects of your clips in post, but what you have to work is not an unaltered clip (well... even a RAW uncompressed clip is somehow "altered", but you get the idea).

12:1 means it is already cooked. I suggest someone does a simulation, synthesizing a short video of a 3D object with subtle 3D features and some edges. Then apply the RedCode Raw. Then see after the 12:1 compression of the RedCode Raw if visual clues for motion and 3D are not distorted. See if color can be manipulated on demand and does not create artifacts.
12:1 compression means from a 12 bit image raw out of sensor, you just need one bit of information per pixel. It is like super concentrate. Raw concentrate is oxymoron. It is only to surprise.

Farhad... your 3d camera Idea is interesting, please tell us more or email me directly - nicky@gorillafilms.co.za

3D camera
 

We see the 3D camera design from an engineering point of view that will solve many fundamental cost issues and technical issues which present Bayer single sensor or 3 sensor prism cameras can not solve. On the other hand 3D output can produce a new world of possibilities for making fantastic movies either in 2D or 3D.
I tried earlier to explain some merits of our 3D camera design for two reasons, first to present a road map that shows-- it would be senseless to go after DOF adapters or 35mm sensors, and second, posting here is a cheap way to protect us from predatory patenting by other companies.

Bayer pattern will always have problem with aliasing. Aliasing will not show itself in single frame static images, but in video, human vision is confused with detecting false motions. No simple low pass optical filter can solve this problem adequately. The ideal filter is not a theoretical spatial low pass filter with sharp cut off frequency (no tail in frequency domain.) The ideal filter is a box filter with no tail in spatial domain. This is exactly what a pixel does with 100% fillfactor or with microlens and no Bayer filter.

If you design lenses for narrow single color light (narrow light bandwidth) and small individual sensors, a $100 lens can beat a $100k zoom lens for 35mm sensor with respect to quality. For each single small lens you have unlimited depth of focus, but when several of them used together for 3D reconstruction then depth of focus can be chosen almost arbitrarily shallow, but only in post processing.

Sensor quality can also improve when they are designed for narrow bandwidth of light. It is possible to achieve QE close to 90%. On the other side shooting redundant sensors at lower frequencies we can capture very low light crevices and this way increase the low dynamic range and low light sensitivity.

Multiple sensors working with offsetting clock edges in effect can add their frame rates together. from 9 sensors with 30 fps each you can produce a 270 fps video. We will not push frame rate that high, but a factor of 2 or 3 will be adequate when needed. On the other side pixel count will also add. So, from several 1.6 mega pixel sensors we can reconstruct 10 mega pixel or more.

The most beautiful aspect of this camera will be the ability to do harmless compression, a kind of compression that is compatible to human vision without distorting 3D and movement visual clues. When there are fast movements pixel resolution can be sacrifices for more continuity in frame to frame movements. When things are slow then pixel count can increase and show high resolution and high contrast effect.

Sensors will be cheap, optics will be cheap, for computation we will depend on Intel's multi-core technology.

On the uses of such camera I am sure there will be creative forces unleashed.
I can only imagine of few narrow ideas. Image enhancement can be done with respect to depth and velocity of objects. Magnifications of object near and far can be altered to some extend. Point of view of camera can be altered in post to some extend. Two or more videos can be combined together, with using depth information so parts of each can overlay on others. You can even use the output for a 3D display when they are perfected.

So, it seems you are somewhat re-inventing Integral Imaging ?

Farhad... Im really feeling you, forget 35 DOF - choose/emulate in post! Not only high FPS (without needing so much light for shutter), but finally HDR video can be achieved too? I do believe 3d design can solve many fundamental issues for camera design.

I believe you are referring to what is known as "the correspondence problem"? the main obstacle in image-demoisacing? 3d solves that right?

Im just a young film-maker in Africa but I think about this sort of design all the time. I am convinced that in the future these 3d cameras will take off big time especially with 3d compression (another subject).

Ive got a loreo 3d lens arriving soon which Ill put on my 35 adaptor rig on my HD camera, I also plan on purchasing the SVS software from videre design to construct depth maps. I cant wait to play with 3d channels on live-action footage! - Ill share results soon.

Sorry to drift from the original thread - maybe we need a separate section?