Home Made HD Cinema Cameras - Technical Discussion

Wayne Morellini · July 21st, 2004, 01:14 AM

On your last post, Ben, read the threads, you will realise that this is all future stuff that we have people/companies preparing or "allready" doing. We are trying to set up a no-brainer system for most non techy people.

I've been waiting for somebody to use the Sumix camera to see what the results are, and I think it's really great that you are, but don't rain on everybody else's parade, they are only looking for better solutions (for me that is cheap mass market solutions cheaper than FPGA). If it doesn't suite your needs or is more than your ability, don't worry about it, just do your own part of the project the way you want. We will still put you on the wall of fame as one of the first.

Ben Syverson · July 21st, 2004, 01:22 AM

I see, Wayne -- no harm intended, I hope I did not offend. However:

Quote:

This stuff might not be obviouse to many people, but that is the real world of how things are done, otherwise we will end up promoting a outdated DOS like product, in a Linux/Windows like world.

Kind of like supporting CameraLink in the real world? ;)

I know why CameraLink is used: because the camera manufacturer's existing pipeline is already set up for it. The engineering costs are lower because they're used to it. Plus, they make a bunch of money off of CameraLink board sales. Plus, they probably sell way more units to science/industry than to film.

My point is: so what? Are these companies interested in our market or not? If not, we can continue to find workarounds to use their products -- that's fine for now. But if they're listening to our input, clearly they will understand that we want something simpler than CameraLink, and that there's a financial incentive for them to provide it. It is not a fantasy that we can just tell them what we want. That's how capitalism works. It's called "demand." It's up to them to decide whether they want to supply. If they don't, odds are someone else will.

Even if you do have some connection to someone could could possibly start a design for a motherboard with a built-in CameraLink chipset, it will take 12-18 months to get to us, and then it will be the only choice if you want built-in CameraLink. I thought this whole project was about supporting open standards, and making it easier for us little people to put together custom cameras?

HDMI/DVI is a red herring -- who here can capture that? Raise your hand.

Basically Wayne, you need to realize that even though many of these interfaces/formats/technologies you talk about might be available in 1-3 years, they will not be widespread enough to be seen as viable for new camera designs for even longer than that. Look how long it took Firewire to take off. It was introduced in 1995. 1995. I'm a massive Firewire advocate and early adopter, and I bought my first Firewire device in 1999. Now you can start to see the timescale we're dealing with. We need to leverage proven technologies that we use today.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, I'm just trying to keep this fantastic parade from turning into a masturbatory tech orgy. :) Why not build sexy ladies into our future camera designs while we're at it? :)

- ben

Wayne Morellini · July 21st, 2004, 01:30 AM

OK Tony,

I can finally get to you. It is very different from what you believe. What we are trying to do is put together a $5k HD camera system that has the features of a $50K camera (or less when Kinetta comes) if not the quality. We can use high quality HD (Altsens etc) sensors, or low quality ones, shoulder mount cases, veiwfinder, lcd, or external monitor, professional film and video lenses. We are trying to, eventually, record in everything from RAW (nice detail), lossless and 20:1 wavelet, The software being made allows this mix and match (lego). The IBIS sensor, used in the Sumix camera, is the lowest cost sensor you should consider to get consumer/prosumer video quality. The Altsens based cameras are currently is the best affordable solution to get high end quality.

The big advantage is low entry costs and high quality at Prosumer prices, but it is a work in progress.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tony Hall : Ok, I don't get it... single CCD HD cameras with security camera lenses that record straight to PC with no monitor for up to $7K? This just sounds insane to me. Are you just doing it for the fun of it or is there actually going to an advantage to using your camera? -->>>

Thanks

Wayne.

Wayne Morellini · July 21st, 2004, 02:34 AM

Thank you Ben.

We use Camera Link cameras, and capture boards, because they are faster cheaper and better than HDSDI solutions. We benefit from their low overhead volume manufactured price. When enough sales comes from us they will be more responsive. But allready we have too manufacturers bringing out HD market targeted models (mentioned above). SI also gives us massive discounts on capture cards/software. We are waiting for the planned Gigab Ethernet cameras to come out from SI. I have investigated USB with Steve, and it has too many problems. It will just take time to mature this market, as with most markets.

We can't dictate, we don't have the numbers yet to produce the demand, people have enough trouble even dictating to Sony, but this project has the potential to make even them responsive. It is politics, offend them, and, like most of us, they will leave until we have the numbers to bust down their door.

Your arguement against cameralink in the mainboard, I don't know wether it is in the posts above, but that was also my arguement against cameralink in the motherboard aswell.

We are doing opensource standard with cheap interfaces, not really open standards interfaces, though cameralink is an industry standard.

Ben, the thread tell were the debates went, please read them. The interfaces are allready here or extensions to existing ones (like HDMI is like a DVI mini plug). These interfaces are the main lowcost players, from the main players, with the widest future support, they are unlikely to be supplanted any time soon. So this affects wether we go with cameralink, gigabit ethernet (presently the favourite), USB etc. For the moment Cameralink is the only available practical one with the cost advantage, until Gigbe comes out in camera heads. Not an orgy but just stating the possiblities to choose from to make the best future, rather than being a victim of it.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ben Syverson : I see, Wayne

HDMI/DVI is a red herring -- who here can capture that? Raise your hand.-->>>

Everybody with an AGP 3D card with DVI input put up your hands, now those that don't have the HD input enabled version put yours down. Now all we need is cameras (it's cheaper and has more bandwidth that a PCI 32 Cameralink capture card). As most consumer HD equipment will have HDMI derivative of DVI, we can only hope that Mainboards are released with input and output ports. But for now we are looking at a slow Gigbe future (found out from Steve, in the threads, 10gigbe won't be cheap enough for a year or two). I have prompted him to consider using the dual Gigbe lines now becoming available on mainboards.

Thanks

Wayne.

Ben Syverson · July 21st, 2004, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Everybody with an AGP 3D card with DVI input put up your hands, now those that don't have the HD input enabled version put yours down.

DVI input? These cards output to monitors.

Rob Scott · July 21st, 2004, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Ben Syverson wrote:
DVI input? These cards output to monitors.

Yes, that's the problem with both DVI and HD-SDI.

DVI, as you noted, is output-to-monitor only. No good for capture.

On the other hand, HD-SDI is fairly affordable for capture, but for emitting you need embedded chips and so forth. (Unless I'm mistaken.)

Ben Syverson · July 21st, 2004, 07:39 AM

Rob, that's what I thought. DVI was never intended to be a video transfer format -- and if I understand correctly, it's 8bit only? Actually, isn't HD-SDI 10bit only? Not that I care -- I am actually capturing at 8bit, but as long as we're fantasizing here, we might as well fantasize about technology that's better than what we have now. :)

Rob Scott · July 21st, 2004, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Ben Syverson wrote:
Actually, isn't HD-SDI 10bit only?

IIRC, HD-SDI is 4:2:2, 10 bit. Seeing as how we'll be able to capture 4:4:4 12-bit with the AltaSens chip, I don't see why we'd want to bother with the expense of HD-SDI.

Ben Syverson · July 21st, 2004, 07:52 AM

Exactly.

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · July 22nd, 2004, 09:55 AM

Sorry guys to tell you this, but SDI supports both 10 and 8 bits.
And the new Declink cards supports input and output of 12 bit YUV 4:4:4 thru HD-SDI. $ 2,400 if I'm not wrong.The older version 4:2:2 10 bits is now $ 995!!!!!

Rob Scott · July 22nd, 2004, 10:00 AM

Quote:

by Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn wrote:
Sorry guys to tell you this, but SDI supports both 10 and 8 bits. And the new Declink cards supports input and output of 12 bit YUV 4:4:4 thru HD-SDI. $ 2,400 if I'm not wrong.

Input and output, huh? I didn't know that. Could be interesting as an add-on to one of these projects.

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · July 22nd, 2004, 10:12 AM

Yes, is the cheapest alternative for uncompressed HD editing on Mac.
The problem is that at this moment they only have a Windows beta driver...

Wayne Morellini · July 22nd, 2004, 10:22 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Scott : Yes, that's the problem with both DVI and HD-SDI.

DVI, as you noted, is output-to-monitor only. No good for capture.

On the other hand, HD-SDI is fairly affordable for capture, but for emitting you need embedded chips and so forth. (Unless I'm mistaken.) -->>>

No, I'm pretty certain there is DVI in (on some cards meant to take signals from HDTV receivers and sets).

DVI is a transmission standard, so there are tansmission and reception chips. It is rumoured that everything from HD TV sets, to DVD players (probably recorders) will have HDMI version of DVI. If we are writing the software, and setting the standard, we should be able to tell it to send what we want, how we want. As long as it is thinking it is sending data, or some exisitng stream format, we can encapsulate/pack what we want in it. Pluss it will also carry multichannel sound. It is a good format, with it we can plug it into HD sets, capture/sorage devices built to input from HDMI devices, easily with one plug also. But still there are no cameras that take this yet (that I am aware of), it is only there as a "suggestion, to the camera manufacturers", for a simple high speed low cost alternative to cameralink for us (and their other customers). They then need to take it, analyse it (do the big research report) and report to their managers and then maybe the board, and the the company maybe approach the cameralink standards committee about maybe developing it into a side standard to cameralink (as it would have a lot of mass market cost benefits for them).

Confused here, HDMI is cheap, HDSDI is expensive compared to even cameralink (read the threads not so easy to FPGA). Didn't you want HD-SDI instead of Cameralink, now your knocking it, I must have misread something somwhere {: .

"Fantasiz.." No, it's called rational "objective" market and technology "analysis", something any good company engages in (but to the extent of a 200+ page document, and hunbdreds/thousands of hours research). There are many things, and people, to consider apart from our own needs, we have to consider what family of tech to use to keep it cheap and simple, and importantly to stop it from getting outdated, and how to best suite the needs of professional and non computer people. I preffer 10Gibe, or HDMI, even usb, but I can't get what I want so I have to settle for Gigbe instead, we all have to make compromises for the greater good.

Thanks again.

Wayne.

Wayne Morellini · July 22nd, 2004, 10:43 AM

If anybody if insterested in HD-SDI, we have discussed it previously. People are able to setup their systems how they want, with HD-SDI cards for re-trasmission, but you need to run a transcodec (that the HD-SDI card may allready have) to take the output of Rob's software and transcode it for transmission. This means Rob doesn't have to build in support for HD-SDI, you just need to set the output format to something their is a transcoder for. Trying to do this live at the same time as recording might be a problem, unless Rob's software outputs a data stream to the other process (meaning that the HD-SDI doesn't need to read it from disk, that could max out the the raid array). Maybe even a ram disk could do this, with the file being progressively discarded, or sync the HDSDI to read Rob's output file as it is being written to virtual memory (before being written to disk).

If somebody wants to use HD-SDI for camera hookup, I am sure there are cameras, cards and capture programs available to do this (actually that Linux ??Cinnella?? might allready do this) outside of this system.

Thanks

Wayne.

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn · July 22nd, 2004, 10:58 AM

Wayne,
Virtual memory is on disk, if it weren't the case it would be actual memory.That's why it is "Virtual".
And in fact the card always get its info for outputing from memory.
It relays on an applet that reads a file from disk (when you are reading from a file) and sends it to memory.
When capturing is the same way (at least most of the time).
Capture card---> DMA---> Memory---> some process---> disk writing.

July 21st, 2004, 01:14 AM	#16
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	On your last post, Ben, read the threads, you will realise that this is all future stuff that we have people/companies preparing or "allready" doing. We are trying to set up a no-brainer system for most non techy people. I've been waiting for somebody to use the Sumix camera to see what the results are, and I think it's really great that you are, but don't rain on everybody else's parade, they are only looking for better solutions (for me that is cheap mass market solutions cheaper than FPGA). If it doesn't suite your needs or is more than your ability, don't worry about it, just do your own part of the project the way you want. We will still put you on the wall of fame as one of the first.

July 21st, 2004, 01:30 AM	#18
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	OK Tony, I can finally get to you. It is very different from what you believe. What we are trying to do is put together a $5k HD camera system that has the features of a $50K camera (or less when Kinetta comes) if not the quality. We can use high quality HD (Altsens etc) sensors, or low quality ones, shoulder mount cases, veiwfinder, lcd, or external monitor, professional film and video lenses. We are trying to, eventually, record in everything from RAW (nice detail), lossless and 20:1 wavelet, The software being made allows this mix and match (lego). The IBIS sensor, used in the Sumix camera, is the lowest cost sensor you should consider to get consumer/prosumer video quality. The Altsens based cameras are currently is the best affordable solution to get high end quality. The big advantage is low entry costs and high quality at Prosumer prices, but it is a work in progress. <<<-- Originally posted by Tony Hall : Ok, I don't get it... single CCD HD cameras with security camera lenses that record straight to PC with no monitor for up to $7K? This just sounds insane to me. Are you just doing it for the fun of it or is there actually going to an advantage to using your camera? -->>> Thanks Wayne.

July 21st, 2004, 02:34 AM	#19
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	Thank you Ben. We use Camera Link cameras, and capture boards, because they are faster cheaper and better than HDSDI solutions. We benefit from their low overhead volume manufactured price. When enough sales comes from us they will be more responsive. But allready we have too manufacturers bringing out HD market targeted models (mentioned above). SI also gives us massive discounts on capture cards/software. We are waiting for the planned Gigab Ethernet cameras to come out from SI. I have investigated USB with Steve, and it has too many problems. It will just take time to mature this market, as with most markets. We can't dictate, we don't have the numbers yet to produce the demand, people have enough trouble even dictating to Sony, but this project has the potential to make even them responsive. It is politics, offend them, and, like most of us, they will leave until we have the numbers to bust down their door. Your arguement against cameralink in the mainboard, I don't know wether it is in the posts above, but that was also my arguement against cameralink in the motherboard aswell. We are doing opensource standard with cheap interfaces, not really open standards interfaces, though cameralink is an industry standard. Ben, the thread tell were the debates went, please read them. The interfaces are allready here or extensions to existing ones (like HDMI is like a DVI mini plug). These interfaces are the main lowcost players, from the main players, with the widest future support, they are unlikely to be supplanted any time soon. So this affects wether we go with cameralink, gigabit ethernet (presently the favourite), USB etc. For the moment Cameralink is the only available practical one with the cost advantage, until Gigbe comes out in camera heads. Not an orgy but just stating the possiblities to choose from to make the best future, rather than being a victim of it. <<<-- Originally posted by Ben Syverson : I see, Wayne HDMI/DVI is a red herring -- who here can capture that? Raise your hand.-->>> Everybody with an AGP 3D card with DVI input put up your hands, now those that don't have the HD input enabled version put yours down. Now all we need is cameras (it's cheaper and has more bandwidth that a PCI 32 Cameralink capture card). As most consumer HD equipment will have HDMI derivative of DVI, we can only hope that Mainboards are released with input and output ports. But for now we are looking at a slow Gigbe future (found out from Steve, in the threads, 10gigbe won't be cheap enough for a year or two). I have prompted him to consider using the dual Gigbe lines now becoming available on mainboards. Thanks Wayne.

July 21st, 2004, 07:39 AM	#22
Ben Syverson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: chicago Posts: 434	Rob, that's what I thought. DVI was never intended to be a video transfer format -- and if I understand correctly, it's 8bit only? Actually, isn't HD-SDI 10bit only? Not that I care -- I am actually capturing at 8bit, but as long as we're fantasizing here, we might as well fantasize about technology that's better than what we have now. :)

July 21st, 2004, 07:52 AM	#24
Ben Syverson Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: chicago Posts: 434	Exactly.

July 22nd, 2004, 09:55 AM	#25
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	Sorry guys to tell you this, but SDI supports both 10 and 8 bits. And the new Declink cards supports input and output of 12 bit YUV 4:4:4 thru HD-SDI. $ 2,400 if I'm not wrong.The older version 4:2:2 10 bits is now $ 995!!!!!

July 22nd, 2004, 10:12 AM	#27
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	Yes, is the cheapest alternative for uncompressed HD editing on Mac. The problem is that at this moment they only have a Windows beta driver...

July 22nd, 2004, 10:22 AM	#28
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Scott : Yes, that's the problem with both DVI and HD-SDI. DVI, as you noted, is output-to-monitor only. No good for capture. On the other hand, HD-SDI is fairly affordable for capture, but for emitting you need embedded chips and so forth. (Unless I'm mistaken.) -->>> No, I'm pretty certain there is DVI in (on some cards meant to take signals from HDTV receivers and sets). DVI is a transmission standard, so there are tansmission and reception chips. It is rumoured that everything from HD TV sets, to DVD players (probably recorders) will have HDMI version of DVI. If we are writing the software, and setting the standard, we should be able to tell it to send what we want, how we want. As long as it is thinking it is sending data, or some exisitng stream format, we can encapsulate/pack what we want in it. Pluss it will also carry multichannel sound. It is a good format, with it we can plug it into HD sets, capture/sorage devices built to input from HDMI devices, easily with one plug also. But still there are no cameras that take this yet (that I am aware of), it is only there as a "suggestion, to the camera manufacturers", for a simple high speed low cost alternative to cameralink for us (and their other customers). They then need to take it, analyse it (do the big research report) and report to their managers and then maybe the board, and the the company maybe approach the cameralink standards committee about maybe developing it into a side standard to cameralink (as it would have a lot of mass market cost benefits for them). Confused here, HDMI is cheap, HDSDI is expensive compared to even cameralink (read the threads not so easy to FPGA). Didn't you want HD-SDI instead of Cameralink, now your knocking it, I must have misread something somwhere {: . "Fantasiz.." No, it's called rational "objective" market and technology "analysis", something any good company engages in (but to the extent of a 200+ page document, and hunbdreds/thousands of hours research). There are many things, and people, to consider apart from our own needs, we have to consider what family of tech to use to keep it cheap and simple, and importantly to stop it from getting outdated, and how to best suite the needs of professional and non computer people. I preffer 10Gibe, or HDMI, even usb, but I can't get what I want so I have to settle for Gigbe instead, we all have to make compromises for the greater good. Thanks again. Wayne.

July 22nd, 2004, 10:43 AM	#29
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	If anybody if insterested in HD-SDI, we have discussed it previously. People are able to setup their systems how they want, with HD-SDI cards for re-trasmission, but you need to run a transcodec (that the HD-SDI card may allready have) to take the output of Rob's software and transcode it for transmission. This means Rob doesn't have to build in support for HD-SDI, you just need to set the output format to something their is a transcoder for. Trying to do this live at the same time as recording might be a problem, unless Rob's software outputs a data stream to the other process (meaning that the HD-SDI doesn't need to read it from disk, that could max out the the raid array). Maybe even a ram disk could do this, with the file being progressively discarded, or sync the HDSDI to read Rob's output file as it is being written to virtual memory (before being written to disk). If somebody wants to use HD-SDI for camera hookup, I am sure there are cameras, cards and capture programs available to do this (actually that Linux ??Cinnella?? might allready do this) outside of this system. Thanks Wayne.

July 22nd, 2004, 10:58 AM	#30
Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Buenos Aires , Argentina Posts: 444	Wayne, Virtual memory is on disk, if it weren't the case it would be actual memory.That's why it is "Virtual". And in fact the card always get its info for outputing from memory. It relays on an applet that reads a file from disk (when you are reading from a file) and sends it to memory. When capturing is the same way (at least most of the time). Capture card---> DMA---> Memory---> some process---> disk writing.