Home made camera designs?

[Rob Scott]

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : Streampix sells for $1495. -->>>

Steve -- did you get my e-mail? I'd like to try to make a decision about the software by Monday, so please let me know.

(Apologies to everyone for posting this here. I'm not sure if Steve is getting my e-mail messages; you never know when a spam filter could be tossing real stuff into a bit bucket.)

[Rob Lohman]

Obin: Rob and myself do not have a camera yet (whether or not
we are going to get one depends...). Then we both or one of us
needs to start writing software. So I don't see how you can have
something like you want anytime soon (it needs to be tested,
programmed, tested, fine tuned etc.). It is a complete new system
that needs to be learned and programmed.

To what format does Streampix record?

[Rob Scott]

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : So I don't see how you can have
something like you want anytime soon (it needs to be tested, programmed, tested, fine tuned etc.). -->>>

I hope to start on something next week and hope to have a better idea about a time frame.

[Laurence Maher]

Just thought I'd put out that Juan on his thread is talking about ext2 or ext3 for recording to his uncompressed dvx-100 mod. Maybe this should be considered for our cameras?



COPIED MESSAGE:


Yes you are correct I believe that with this application the mac mounts ext3 as ext2 (no journaling). Perhaps someone is working on this though.

Its up to Juan what file system he wants to use. I think there is a strong case for Ext3/Ext2. Its the logical choice.

However, as we saw in the case of VHS vs. Beta the market will sometimes choose a system because its ubiquitous and "open" rather than the best solution available.

The system chosen by the market or by market leaders is not always technologically superior.

The bottom line is that Juan wants to sell his mod. If Juan goes the logical route, people who buy the mod may not understand why ext3/ext2 was chosen.

Users might prefer ext3/ext2 when they actually go to use the mod; however, in choosing to buy they might not understand why a Linux file system was chosen when they want to download the files on Windows and Mac only.

However, a file system that is likely to fail (fat32) cannot be good for long term sales. So perhaps the use of ext3/ext2 has to be sold as a feature and not an unecessary complication. One also has to worry whether the application that allows MAC OSX to read ext2 files will be maintained in future versions of MAC OSX.

The rumour is that Apple is prepared to make LINUX a part of their business plan if that ever makes sense for them. OSX is partly an effort to position themselves to be able to port Linux applications easily. Its not so easy to port linux appliations to windows.



DETAILS:


http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/%2018619


Maybe this can help us?

[Wayne Morellini]

OK Guys

9th

There has been a numnber of questions for me over the break, and things I can answer, so here we go. Forgive the overlap in answers, as I am writing this as I read through the backlog of posts.

pionted at me Richard, from the 9th, your not anti-business, your pro business competition, thanks for revealing this too us. The price of Tapes is too much. I imagine very major camera company is allready monitoring this movement. When we turn up on set with cameras that do RAW 4:4:4 people will start to question the value of overpriced Tape systems like HDV (it will take years though). The Panasonic solid state pro cameras are really a big load of nonsense. They raise the price of storage so much that low compression tape still looks good, and RAW looks impossible. I aim to look into a tape alternative sometime (using backup tapes). One of the biggest benefits of Disk is variable compression, but using a computer to buffer content we should be able to packet out the contents to tape evenly enough. In anyways we still need tapebackup to store content (rather than buying HDD after HDD). It should also be more robust than HDD.

Steve, your post of the 9th about the mbit/byte mixup, that wasn't me, I was quoting somebody else.

Laurence, about Matrix, and vectorscopes etc (I think ENg cameras use it to). Some of these issues are over our heads, but we can suggest and leave it to people like Sumix and SI to decide wherever it is really nessacary and how to do it (as there maybe a cheaper better way to do it). I am interested in throwing all these things back at the engineering professionals who know what to do with it.

The Linux suggestion is just to catter for a cheap entry piont for those who can use it (it is being used more and more on the high end production). Also a number of Open source projects are done for both Linux and Windows, so there is a possibility, if they want to, that Linux OS projects could be converted over. But apprat from that I'm also advocating Windows (and maybe MAc) versions for what others are allready used to.

Blackmagic is also supposed to have a pretty good free codec, I forget wether it is Lossless or wavelet or something. For their capture cards we would need 1 (2 for 1080) HDSDI's, a single HDSDI is not far infront of USB2.0 (which is free). The two HDSDI is still behind camera link. But for a live feed into another system (or live broadcast, except for component out) it is the way to go. I'm not worrying about it myself, I intend to do file transfer and component instead.

Jason, It was Laurence that was talking about Matrix, not me.

Rob great comment, if we want a true blue pro cm,aera with pro interfacing there is allreday $10K+ systems comming to market.

10th

Laurence and Rob, I'll say this, in six months we could have a very freindly camera (with optioinal HDSDI capture cards). Have a look at my previouse posts, if you follow that sort of plan you have a universal easy to get into a system. Using the cheap cameralink, G Ethernet, and USB2 does not stop anybody adding pro interfaces (like HDSDI) afterwards (it would also be very costly to put dual HDSDI in the head and the system (according to previouse posts) and probably no cheaper than having cameralink at the head and adding HDSDI in the system afterwards. Now if you want an expensive version hook the head to whatever you may want, I think we can have the best of both worlds. But we must start with something that has good optical properties for the next 5 years (most pro companies won't wan the low end quality to get too much better). Hey, once we work out a universal system in the opensource domain we could be looking at replacing the system, software and camera head at will. Within a couple of years we might have only to worry about replacing the camera head, as the software will be standard, and the hardware will be quick enough to handle all HD/SHD res. Eventually the cost of ownership, upgrade, and longterm value will be good. We will not need to upgrade the capture software for anything except for a new camera interface or computer platform, or the hardware (until it breaks down) because it breaks down, and eventually even the camera head will be good enough to keep.

What Oblin is doing at this moment might also be possible for Feature work at the moment. If we got specail prices on editor and capture software, all we need is some live simplified controll software (maybe to exteernal custom buttons, firewire controls or touch pannel), and software convertors to the format we want, Plugins to do live conversion/colour correction/editing could also be done. What the Rob's are doing could incoporate these features into the capture software and add support in editors etc. So maybe it is there really quickly (but a lot of people don't want to spend extra thousands to make it happen) what do you think Steve and Oblin?


Steve, I don't know about Indie sales (though I think they can make you rich, as long as the rest of the system is worked out simple enough) but I am also promoting the prosumer, and low end local production markets (and DOCOS) and I think a number of companies can be rich out of that.


11th

So basically Steve, the differences in cameras from different companies resolve downto commands, registers, and memory handeling (not to mention format of data). So all the RObs' have to do is make plugin profile (data) files that tell the software how to handle the new camera, and change the software to understand and execute on these values? Anybody can then make a new profile file by reading the specs and testing out appropriate values, which will help future proof future the system for future cameras?

To Obin Olson's list of requirements, can I add, functionality to take 3 chip RGB or bayer, do bayer remover, then plugin a desired standard codec (so you don't have to write it) and transcoders to convert to desired format and compress with desired compression scheme (of the targeted editor). Built in format conversions would help to. This should suit all the different users here. Only straight Tiffs would be a bit stiff.

I have another suggestion. I only really need RAW for thearactical work, and maybe bush scenes. Otherwise I would go for something with the detail equivalent of 50Mb/s DVCPRO, or 100Mb/s DVCPROHD (400Mb/s would be good too). So could I suggest a software control to switch between codecs, scene to scene, and on the fly (using either a container file with index, or index and seperate files) so I can film outside in high quality and inside in higher compression, or switch on the fly. This will save heaps on HDD space and for at least half the people compression would be the normal mode.

In a year or two, small computers will probably have enough power to handle the above compression features and we will want them, so we should plan ahead now.

Obin, those cmount adaptors is what I was talking about. To get over the FOV problem I think people have suggested using and ultrawide 35mm lense, but if you make a intermediatory reducer inbetween you can get the full FOV of the 35mm, but not the DOF, on a standard prime (test outr for image abbreviations though).

12th

Robs', about the software developement, can you develope it remotely by sending Oblin test software for his camera setup (I understand your rebuilding existing frame software)?

14th

Laurences post ties in with what I wanted to say. I saw an advertisment for Apple's notebooks last week, saying that the OS (which is now based on Unix) will run on any of the old Unix programs for a variety of systems (including SGI). It took me back, and lead me to realise that maybe the new Mac OS is a real chioce. After I thought about wether it supported Linux, now it looks like there maybe something to it. A guy offered me a G3 and FCP for $800, maybe I should have taken him up on it, but I did not know what I was going to get (he thought I was strange to turn it down).

Now back to the other Viper thread where I'm going to be talking about some of my research plans.

[Rob Lohman]

I might be able to develop remote, but that will take a long long
time. It's far easier to test yourself etc. Anyways, I'm sure Steve
and I can work something out. At this moment I'm weighing
options and talking about design before going ahead with
everything.

[Rob Scott]

Robs', about the software developement, can you develope it remotely by sending Oblin test software for his camera setup (I understand your rebuilding existing frame software)?

I will be ordering a camera system today to begin development. Actually, to continue development, since there is plenty I can do until it comes -- Bayer filters, architecture, etc.

[Steve Nordhauser]

Wayne,
Every frame grabber company seems to work with some kind of camera configuration file that defines the camera interface to more generic software. It will be up to Rob if he wants to go that far (quite a bit of initial overhead) in isolating the camera or just do a set of wrapped routines (adjust exposure, gain, etc) for each camera. If I play nicely (don't get greedy) the only reason you would want to go to other cameras is if someone did a camera we didn't want to - like the micron 10 tap. And we are talking about that.

On the bits/bytes thing - I'm very aware that there are both lurkers and people going back and reading our gems here. That was more for posterity and clarity.

[Obin Olson]

Wayne, if you get FOV you lose DOF as you said sooo I think I will stick with c-mount HD resolution lenses, I think I will get me a set of f1.3-f1.6 c-mount primes maybe a 12mm 25mm a 50mm and a 75mm and shoot with that...it will be like shooting on a 16mm Bolex! I see no reason for a zoom unless you like the style of zoom then get an adaptor for a 35mm zoom and loose your dof...what we really need is a LARGE CHIP!!! Steve are you reading this?? that should be the next thing to start thinking about even BEFORE thinking 1080 we all should start thinking bigger chip for a more cinematic DOF feel that is the last tale-tale sign your not shooting film..it makes a HUGE impact if you get 35mm level DOF..I made a 35mm adaptor with ground glass rear projection for our dvx100 and the images are VERY VERY filmlike..it's amazing even on the little DV camera

[Valeriu Campan]

A larger chip is a larger chip!
Even a 2/3 one is less than 16mm. It would be nice to have one closer to the 35mm film frame (~22mm wide) with larger photosites and the chance of achieving higher ISO equivs with less noise.
From my stills experience there is a HUGE difference between compact point & shoot cameras and DSLRs. A 4 Mpixel DSLR gives a better image quality than a 5-6 Mpixel compact. Not all pixels are equal and their numbers are sometimes irelevant in this game. Are there any affordable larger chips able to sustain fps we want? How hard is to manufacture them?

[Steve Nordhauser]

The question is, what are you willing to trade off? I know of a full frame shutter chip coming out in a few months that can do 2Kx1K @30fps with 12 micron pixels. HUGE. Unfortunately, it is only being released in mono. That means a 3 chip camera. The noise is speced at 45 electrons. The Micron is 15 and the Altasens at 3. This is more like the IBIS5. It is going to be expensive - probably more than the Altasens so a 3 chip camera will be over $10K. It doesn't have TrueSnap so the exposure time doesn't overlap readout. This means even at 24fps, the exposure times will be short - no natural lighting for this unless you are on the beach.

I will look for others. One problem is that the DSC companies can afford to make a proprietary sensor that never sees the sensor market.

[Obin Olson]

even 2/3 would be a big step up from 1/2

[Les Dit]

Steve, 45 electrons may be pretty good, what's the well capacity?
For 12 micron , it is probably over 100K , right?

-Les



<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : The question is, what are you willing to trade off? I know of a full frame shutter chip coming out in a few months that can do 2Kx1K @30fps with 12 micron pixels. HUGE. Unfortunately, it is only being released in mono. That means a 3 chip camera. The noise is speced at 45 electrons. The Micron is 15 and the Altasens at 3. This is more like the IBIS5. It is going to be expensive - probably more than the Altasens so a 3 chip camera will be over $10K. It doesn't have TrueSnap so the exposure time doesn't overlap readout. This means even at 24fps, the exposure times will be short - no natural lighting for this unless you are on the beach.

I will look for others. One problem is that the DSC companies can afford to make a proprietary sensor that never sees the sensor market. -->>>

[Wayne Morellini]

Thanks Steve for your comments. My hope is that the Robs' software will become true open so any camera can be used in future. I would have though most of the routines' would be pretty generic but reequiring some different values for each camera.

Obin with that methord you also can gather more light and have the same DOF as the cmounts. I am not sure, but I think the fstop rating of a lense indicates how bright it will be over a particular area, and as 35mm film target area is so much larger than the cmount target area, when you reduce the image down a F1.6 slr lense might act like a f1.0 cmount lense or something like that ;). Anybody, am I right, or have I got that wrong?

To the Robs, because Apple is doing something with Linux?? and allready has Unix support, then a Linux version might be very convertable to Apple platform.

Well guys I'm going to be here weekly for a while, as last months internet bill was $118 (ouch), so I'll probably see you next week. Also check out Obin's thread (if there is anybody left that hasn't), the new people are getting answers to a lot of good questions.

[Rob Scott]

My hope is that the Robs' software will become true open so any camera can be used in future. I would have though most of the routines' would be pretty generic but reequiring some different values for each camera.

That is certainly a goal. The software will probably be more "married" to the line of frame grabber cards than to the specific camera. Though if the communications with the different camera modules are significantly different, that could make it more difficult.

... Apple ... already has Unix support, then a Linux version might be very convertable to Apple platform.

To be pedantic, Apple uses BSD (similar to Linux in some respects) and they have their own graphics/windowing engine on top. There are several cross-platform UI toolkits available to make it much easier to support Windows, Linux and Mac OS with a single set of code. That is going to be the goal, at least with the "Convert" part of the software.