3 channel 36 bit 1280 X 720 low $ camera - Viper?

[Wayne Morellini]

There ussually are sites that have links to all the manufacturers in a industry, which would save us a lot of looking around, has anybody come accross any for cameras of chips?

Thanks

Wayne.

[Laurence Maher]

Hey guys. . . .

Isn't this IMPERX IPC2M30HC the camera we've all been screaming about making here pretty much?

Somebody tell me why it's not.

P.S.

What color separation? 4:2:2? What specific interface does it use to send info to the computer? (Just said DIGITAL) Is it SDI, PCI? By the way, what is this CAMERA LINK? What kind of speed does the camera allow in terms of capture . . . how many Mbps?

Signed,

Laurence the Layman

[Rob Scott]

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher :
Isn't this IMPERX IPC2M30HC the camera we've all been screaming about making here pretty much?
-->>>

It looks pretty darn good to me, but I haven't tried to compare signal-to-noise ratios and so forth. I'm still getting up to speed on all that.

The thing is, though, that we still need good capture and conversion software, and if you don't want to lug around a full-sized PC with you everywhere, it would be nice to house it in a nice box with a CPU and some hard drives.

<<<-- What color separation? 4:2:2? What specific interface does it use to send info to the computer? (Just said DIGITAL) Is it SDI, PCI? By the way, what is this CAMERA LINK? What kind of speed does the camera allow in terms of capture . . . how many Mbps?
-->>>

It appears to output raw (pre-Bayer) data, so it would be 4:4:4.

It uses CameraLink, which is a standard for transferring large amounts of image data at high speed. The speed that you get appears to be determined by the type of capture card (typically PCI) that you buy. It appears to be able to support up to 2 Gigabits/second (and possibly more).

[Valeriu Campan]

I agree with Rob Lohman about the pacing issue. I am also prepared to start at a smaller scale having in mind a bigger picture. My main goal is the direct/normal capture at 24/25fps (maybe a little bit higher for some effects) with a max resolution of 1920x1080.
Another little beauty which would be on my list for Mark II:
http://www.redlake.com/high_res/mega2_ES2093.html.
Worth having a look. Very interesting with this package is the controller, that can program 15 presets into the camera and a DVI output for monitoring.

[Obin Olson]

that does look like a good camera...I think it is also very expensive...Silicon Imaging is a good deal on a great camera that's why I plunked down my 2 grand with them...AND they want to work with us for a low cost HD system...most of the companies out don't want to talk video production at all, they are all machine vision and GOV vendors...I know of one such company that had by far the best camera going and they would not even talk less then 50 unit sales at a time! and did not give a rats a** what I wanted to do with it!

[Obin Olson]

BTW guys I don't know how many times it needs to be said but stay away from any camera that uses teh IBIS5 chip, it's junk ---looks like a lowcost spycamera image, LOTS of people are using it and sometime in the future they may update the chip but not yet

[Valeriu Campan]

The Red lake kit is sold for about $6600. This is camera and controller. Yes, I think it is a bit expensive, but I like the output options, direct monitoring, and the larger chip: it exceeds 2/3, the capture area is about 14mm wide (bigger than super16 frame). But for stage one (and current budget), I am happy with the 1280x720 and it fits quite well in the current HDTV format (with a down-conversion). I believe it will deliver better results than 720p for blowups and you can work with it with off the shelf hardware combos.

[Obin Olson]

I am not willing to spend 6 grand for a test project I know of a 4,000 dollar camera that beats the socks off the 1300 but it s 4 grand....gota start small and build up

[Laurence Maher]

Ya, but at least we know it's available at no more that 4 to 7 k now.!!!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! A day to be remembered in my opinion. Soon their will be others to compete, and the more there are, the less expensive they will be. Honestly guys, by the time everyone here builds their own software and everything for capture, we may find the costs end up being close to the same as what the current companies sell as a package. Which sucks, but it's also a great thing . . . true liberation of indie filmmakers. Of course, the hard drive space is going to be a bitch. Let's see what Summix does for us now!

[Wayne Morellini]

Hi

Some itneresting news:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&postid=75642#post75642

quote:---
Concept HD
Guys,

Go to the HD Forum of Cinematography.com. You will find many arguments there by professional DP's against the use of industrial HD cameras in HD productions. I would urge everyone to wait for our camera announcements. Our cameras will not have these shortcomings.
----

Haven't had time to read the threads mentioned (haven't even read this thread yet) but well and truely worth looking at. I still say that any machine vision company should be able to pull through the goods, if they want.

Also while Silicon Imaging may want to offer us HD, Summix was the first and probably also will be offering.

[Wayne Morellini]

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : Ya, but at least we know it's available at no more that 4 to 7 k now.!!!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! A day to be remembered in my opinion. Soon their will be others to compete, and the more there are, the less expensive they will be. Honestly guys, by the time everyone here builds their own software and everything for capture, we may find the costs end up being close to the same as what the current companies sell as a package. Which sucks, but it's also a great thing . . . true liberation of indie filmmakers. Of course, the hard drive space is going to be a bitch. Let's see what Summix does for us now! -->>>

Remember they need volume to lower costs, but if every company got on board they would have to double prices to make profit, so two or three coimpanies would provide enough competition.

[Laurence Maher]

's all i'm sayn . . . by the way . . .

Wayne,

For the longest time now I thought you were "Wayne mm" over at camcorderinfo.com. So I've been having conversations with him that were starting to confuse me (lololol).

So maybe I can remember some of the things I said. I was realizing that I don't trust PC's anymore (far too many times mine has blown up). I'd really like to get a mac with FCP HD. If my observations of the discussions on DVinfo.net are correct, it is a generally accepted opinion that whatever the interfaces we use for our "home made" box camera will be both user friendly and compatable with FCP? In other words, the codec used for capturing footage will be a relatively universally acceptable format for pc and mac, and will be easy to use without conversions? If I'm incorrect about this, please let me know.

One thing I was realizing is that any way you look at it, storage is simply going to be a monster unless the codec we use is a miracle. I know the Prospect HD is terribly expensive because it will only be sold with Boxx systems. I guess the one you're looking to create will have similar "transparent" elements?

Thanks!

[Laurence Maher]

Hey Obin,

What's the 4k camera you think is so much better than the 1300?

[Wayne Morellini]

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : 's all i'm sayn . . . by the way . . .

Wayne,

I'd really like to get a mac with FCP HD. If my observations of the discussions on DVinfo.net are correct, it is a generally accepted opinion that whatever the interfaces we use for our "home made" box camera will be both user friendly and compatable with FCP? In other words, the codec used for capturing footage will be a relatively universally acceptable format for pc and mac, and will be easy to use without conversions? If I'm incorrect about this, please let me know.

One thing I was realizing is that any way you look at it, storage is simply going to be a monster unless the codec we use is a miracle. I know the Prospect HD is terribly expensive because it will only be sold with Boxx systems. I guess the one you're looking to create will have similar "transparent" elements?

Thanks! -->>>

On the interface question I don't know, maybe somebody in the forum that deals with FCP might help. I think if you captured then converted in post it might be less problem, but somebody in the other forum maybe able to help, or Apple themselves.

About the Codec, I don't think anybody has decided yet. I suggested that somebody could make a plugin to support any particular format for capture, and a plugin for any particular editing then support could be programmed for any camera, any codec, any machine and any editor so desired, but of course somebody has to do that sort of work and it is unlikelty that all these combinations will be supported. So it might be a matter to see what the Rob's comeup with first with the SI camera, and see where they want to do any of this from there. Until the camera chioces arrive and you fork out your money, it's relatively free, so we will have to see what happens until then.

I asked David (from Prospect) about his codec, bulk purchase, oem for cameras etc, but got no reply. I think you can arrange special pricing from them, rather than goign through Boxx.

Thanks

Wayne.

[Laurence Maher]

Cool,

Thanks for clearing that up.