4:4:4 10bit single CMOS HD project

Eric Gorski · June 24th, 2004, 12:23 PM

would a F-C mount adapter like this work?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30035&item=3822549795&rd=1

Rob Scott · June 24th, 2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Eric Gorski wrote:
would a F-C mount adapter like this work?

Yes, actually I'm planning to buy one of those pretty soon. It won't do me much good right now though; I have no F-mount lenses either.

I have a pretty nice (but slow) Canon EOS lens, but haven't seen any C-mount adapters for EOS. Nikon F-mount seems the way to go for using 35mm SLR lenses with a camera like this, especially if I can build a good GG (ground glass) adapter at some point.

Steve Nordhauser · June 24th, 2004, 12:39 PM

C mount adapters:
Yes they work fine. You will get a narrow FOV because the c mount sensor is smaller. Edmund has them for $65 and bhphotovideo lists one at $29.95 out of stock though.

General Brand
Price : $ 29.95
Shipping Cost >
C-Mount Adapter for Nikon Lens

Mfr # VA304 • B&H # GBCMN

Great way to have excellent optics cheaply.

Rob Scott · June 24th, 2004, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Steve Nordhauser wrote:
You will get a narrow FOV because the c mount sensor is smaller.

Yup, which a GG adapter will fix, and also give shallower depth of field. I wonder how practical (and expensive) it would be to design and produce a quantity of C-mount-to-F-mount GG adapters that would work directly with these cameras. That would be really nice.

Eric Gorski · June 24th, 2004, 01:37 PM

does a 'narrow FOV' mean that it would negate the properties of a wide-angle lens?

Dennis Jakobsen · June 24th, 2004, 01:59 PM

If so you could just add a fisheye to get some of the FOV back, or would the image still be distorted?

Rob Scott · June 24th, 2004, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Eric Gorski wrote:
does a 'narrow FOV' mean that it would negate the properties of a wide-angle lens?

That's correct. It would be like putting instamatic film into a 35mm camera -- only the center of the image would be used; the rest would be cut off.

Quote:

Dennis Jakobsen wrote:
...fisheye to get some of the FOV back, or would the image still be distorted

Yes, you could use an extreme wide angle lens to try to get a "normal" FOV, but you would probably end up with a lot of distortion.

Steve Nordhauser · June 24th, 2004, 02:43 PM

Rob:
I would test that distortion because it tends to be worse at the edges of the lens. You will be using the center of the lens. I don't have anything wider than about a 28mm in my Canon bag or I could do a test shot. But, you can get a 6mm c mount lens for $120 or so. If you aren't solving the DOF problem, as Obin found, c mount might be easier.

Rob Scott · June 24th, 2004, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Steve Nordhauser wrote:
But, you can get a 6mm c mount lens for $120 or so. If you aren't solving the DOF problem, as Obin found, c mount might be easier.

Thanks for the info! Using 35mm SLR lenses is more of a long-term idea right now. I just ordered a cheapo C-mount lens off eBay for this phase of the project.

Once the system gets to where it's usable I'll decide where I want to go with it. There is something very attractive about having access to a wide variety of high-quality F-mount lenses ...

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · June 24th, 2004, 02:58 PM

Just to refresh, from a post within this thread.
About FPGA designs and camera

http://www.elphel.com/model313/index.html

Just a thought.Wouldn´t be useful to have a sticky thread with a compendum of all this technical things to be accessed in a simple way?

I mean chips, software tools, codecs, camera sensors, shutters, raid cards, source code, etc,etc.

@Nordhauser, could you give an idea of the pricing a sensor , Bayer pattern of 1920x1080 active pixels, 24x18 mm would have?
two, three more times the price? I mean only the sensor not the camera head....An IBIS4 1280x1024 costs around 1,000.
I think about same chips we have now (same design) but with bigger pixels...
Don´t know if small pixels but with a wider space between them would be cheaper (I think it would be a waste of space but know nothing about manufacturing procedures)

Eric Gorski · June 24th, 2004, 03:16 PM

a 6mm c-mount lens... isn't the same as a 6mm f-mount? in terms of field of view? right? like a 6mm f-mount would be crazy fish-eye?

is there an easy conversion table?

Valeriu Campan · June 24th, 2004, 03:18 PM

<<<--

Don´t know if small pixels but with a wider space between them would be cheaper (I think it would be a waste of space but know nothing about manufacturing procedures) -->>>

Smaller pixels will give much more noise and less sensitivity. Look at the compact digital cameras and DSLRs side by side for same pixel count

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · June 24th, 2004, 03:25 PM

I know,I know, but I said bigger sensor total area, with the same pixel area we have now.Clearer now?

Eric Gorski · June 24th, 2004, 03:27 PM

i'm alittle confused by the siliconimaging website... is the SI-1300 camera you guys are using just the circuitboard with the little lens on it, or is it the black box with the connections?

Rob Scott · June 24th, 2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Eric Gorski wrote:
is the SI-1300 camera you guys are using just the circuitboard with the little lens on it, or is it the black box with the connections?

It's the cute little black box.

June 24th, 2004, 12:39 PM	#423
Steve Nordhauser Silicon Imaging, Inc. Join Date: May 2004 Location: Troy, NY USA Posts: 325	C mount adapters: Yes they work fine. You will get a narrow FOV because the c mount sensor is smaller. Edmund has them for $65 and bhphotovideo lists one at $29.95 out of stock though. General Brand Price : $ 29.95 Shipping Cost > C-Mount Adapter for Nikon Lens Mfr # VA304 • B&H # GBCMN Great way to have excellent optics cheaply. __________________ Silicon Imaging, Inc. We see the Light! http://www.siliconimaging.com

June 24th, 2004, 02:43 PM	#428
Steve Nordhauser Silicon Imaging, Inc. Join Date: May 2004 Location: Troy, NY USA Posts: 325	Rob: I would test that distortion because it tends to be worse at the edges of the lens. You will be using the center of the lens. I don't have anything wider than about a 28mm in my Canon bag or I could do a test shot. But, you can get a 6mm c mount lens for $120 or so. If you aren't solving the DOF problem, as Obin found, c mount might be easier. __________________ Silicon Imaging, Inc. We see the Light! http://www.siliconimaging.com

June 24th, 2004, 12:23 PM	#421
Eric Gorski Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Western Oregon Posts: 138	would a F-C mount adapter like this work? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30035&item=3822549795&rd=1

June 24th, 2004, 01:37 PM	#425
Eric Gorski Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Western Oregon Posts: 138	does a 'narrow FOV' mean that it would negate the properties of a wide-angle lens?

June 24th, 2004, 01:59 PM	#426
Dennis Jakobsen New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 13	If so you could just add a fisheye to get some of the FOV back, or would the image still be distorted?

June 24th, 2004, 02:58 PM	#430
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	Just to refresh, from a post within this thread. About FPGA designs and camera http://www.elphel.com/model313/index.html Just a thought.Wouldn´t be useful to have a sticky thread with a compendum of all this technical things to be accessed in a simple way? I mean chips, software tools, codecs, camera sensors, shutters, raid cards, source code, etc,etc. @Nordhauser, could you give an idea of the pricing a sensor , Bayer pattern of 1920x1080 active pixels, 24x18 mm would have? two, three more times the price? I mean only the sensor not the camera head....An IBIS4 1280x1024 costs around 1,000. I think about same chips we have now (same design) but with bigger pixels... Don´t know if small pixels but with a wider space between them would be cheaper (I think it would be a waste of space but know nothing about manufacturing procedures)

June 24th, 2004, 03:16 PM	#431
Eric Gorski Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Western Oregon Posts: 138	a 6mm c-mount lens... isn't the same as a 6mm f-mount? in terms of field of view? right? like a 6mm f-mount would be crazy fish-eye? is there an easy conversion table?

June 24th, 2004, 03:18 PM	#432
Valeriu Campan Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 223	<<<-- Don´t know if small pixels but with a wider space between them would be cheaper (I think it would be a waste of space but know nothing about manufacturing procedures) -->>> Smaller pixels will give much more noise and less sensitivity. Look at the compact digital cameras and DSLRs side by side for same pixel count

June 24th, 2004, 03:25 PM	#433
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	I know,I know, but I said bigger sensor total area, with the same pixel area we have now.Clearer now?

June 24th, 2004, 03:27 PM	#434
Eric Gorski Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Western Oregon Posts: 138	i'm alittle confused by the siliconimaging website... is the SI-1300 camera you guys are using just the circuitboard with the little lens on it, or is it the black box with the connections?