Alternatives to SI and Sumix

Valeriu Campan · January 5th, 2005, 05:40 PM

Thank you for the reply. This is part of the message I received fromPixelink:

"..._The lens used for these images was an inexpensive C-mount lens that does not have any correction for_chromatic aberrations. With a high resolving power, the Bayer artifacts become more noticeable._ As the lens resolving power is reduced (or the focus moved away from the ideal) the Bayer artifacts go away..."

Imagine what will happen if you shoot with Zeiss Digiprimes or Cooke S4!
I will talk to a tech from the local distributor today and try to pick his brain.

Wayne Morellini · January 5th, 2005, 10:56 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by John Nagle : Wayne,

Just wanted to check that link for smallcamera.com, I followed it and there is only a site under construction -->>>

Sorry about that John, it is actually http://www.smalcamera.com/ with one L.

I'm just chucking this in here, I think with a bit of co-op work they might come to the table, but still you can check the links to the sample images etc in my technical thread. I don't think it is the most brilliant sensor, but excellent as a cheap alternative to Altasens/Ibis5a.

Now the Ibis5a is supposed to use a special pad around it's sensor to collect stray light that misses the sensor, without using a microlense (which redices the maxiumnum aperature that canbe used). I think it was also to recude niose, but still people says it needs lots of light, strange marketing technology. I wonder what it actually does. Out of curiousity are the images dull in color, or just washed out in lower light levels?

Re-edit: Just had a look at some of the sensor specs again, rolling shutter, but enough data rate to run higher shutter (but calculations for region of interest regioning max shutter not made clear). Again this is a good sensor for a cheap (even doco special) camera, not Altasens quality. There is hidden (somewhere) their 1920 wide security camera (which would need two on a split prism), but seriously they have there own sensor designs and produce there own cameras, they would have a lot of designs they could make hidden from the public.

Thanks.

Lester Mclewis · February 1st, 2005, 06:54 AM

Check Out the Basler 622f camera, Who knows it might be the one used in the Drake(Just a Guess)

Steve Nordhauser · February 1st, 2005, 09:21 AM

Lester,
The Basler is an IBIS-5A again. You can tell from: 6.7 micron pitch, CMOS, global shutter, 1.3Mpix, 24fps.

Wayne,
The IBIS-5A has some adjacent pixel smearing which ruins the color purity.

Jon Schroth · February 1st, 2005, 04:34 PM

Anybody know how the mono version of the IBIS-5A performs?

It seems that most of the complaints about this chip are related to color.

Also, in general, I am curious how a bayer filtered color image that has been converted to grayscale differs visually from one captured in monochrome.

Omar Saad · February 1st, 2005, 07:21 PM

Hey guys, sorry if i'm a bit behind the curve on this, but i've been reading on the technical disscussion thread and concerning the SI-1920HD; what would be the difference in going with this cam vs. the SI-3300M. I know that the 1920 is a 2/3" chip at 2 mpixel and the 3300 has a 1/2" chip at 3 mpixel. Is there a significant difference in resolution, pic quality, or light latitude? Wouldnt the 3300 @ 3mpixel be output a better image or does the larger chip on the 1920 make that big of a difference? Just wondering what would be the better cam to go with in putting together an HD camera setup. Thanks, Omar

Steve Nordhauser · February 2nd, 2005, 08:22 AM

Jon,
We sell the SI-1280F (IBIS-5A) in mono and color. You will get the best mono image with a mono sensor. The IBIS-5A is already not too sensitive - you toss over half the light with a Bayer filter. You also do not get an even spectral response at every pixel. For example, a pure red object will show up on 25% of the pixels of a color sensor - you lost spatial resolution. It will show up on all the pixels of a mono sensor.

Omar,
The SI-3300 has smaller pixels (3.2 microns vs 5.0 on the SI-1920HD) so it is less light sensitive. It also has a max clocking rate of about 60Mpixels/sec (24fps) where the SI-1920HD can do 150Mpix/sec. This allows faster readout so you can minimize rolling shutter artifacts, even at a frame rate of 24fps. As you said, the larger sensor gives you a shallower DOF. Both are low noise sensors, the 1920HD is better. The SI-3300 is viable for a camera, especially for the cost differential.

Wayne Morellini · February 2nd, 2005, 10:44 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser :
Wayne,
The IBIS-5A has some adjacent pixel smearing which ruins the color purity. -->>>

There is allways something ;) Are the high speed versions of the IBIS and Micron 1.3MP a viable cheaper camera to the Altasens? Say, could you make a camera for $1-2K out of them? Their architectures are far superior to the IBIS and micron (global shutter aren't they).

Now my question on the other thread, you mentioned a memory buffered GIGE camera, I believe, sometime ago, when is that coming? It will be interesting to see the tests when they start rolling in of the new cameras.

Laurence Maher · February 15th, 2005, 01:14 AM

Well,

I love you guys who all tried, but as I predicted, it looks like it's all going to be way too late.

STRONG rumors suggest a Panasonic DVCProHD camera coming out for under 10 k some time this year. NAB will most likely unleash it. Records to mini-dv and also P2. The quality won't meet the "uncompressed" richness of what you guys have been trying for, but for cost-effectiveness, and rock-solid reliability, and user-friendliness, the trade off will be well worth it.

Sorry guys, I think they beat you to the punch.

. . . like I predicted.

Elvis has left the building.

Wayne Morellini · February 15th, 2005, 02:13 AM

Well you would be better going for the FX1 through component output. Now there is no gaurantee you won't be able to do this through the Pana, but maybe Juan will offer a RAW solution for it. But seriously, without these, even the IBIS and Micron RAW are still worh looking at. It is all a compromise between price, features, performance and convience, which you would like.

Rai Orz · February 15th, 2005, 07:54 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : Well,

I love you guys who all tried, but as I predicted, it looks like it's all going to be way too late.

STRONG rumors suggest a Panasonic DVCProHD camera coming out for under 10 k some time this year. NAB will most likely unleash it. Records to mini-dv and also P2. The quality won't meet the "uncompressed" richness of what you guys have been trying for, but for cost-effectiveness, and rock-solid reliability, and user-friendliness, the trade off will be well worth it.

Sorry guys, I think they beat you to the punch.
-->>>

NO! This will be just another DV Toy. No DOF, together with extrem compression. Just home made video pur. No, no. Let others play with those "kindergarten" things...

Joshua Starnes · February 15th, 2005, 10:48 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rai Orz : NO! This will be just another DV Toy. No DOF, together with extrem compression. Just home made video pur. No, no. Let others play with those "kindergarten" things... -->>>

Anything recording to 100mbs DVCProHD is not a DV toy. It's not uncompressed video, but you can get great professional images out of DVCProHD.

Aaron Shaw · February 15th, 2005, 11:48 AM

Indeed. The Varicam has been used on some very, very high end stuff and it uses DVCproHD. This isn't a lightweight format.

That said, it isn't an uncompressed camera. The market is absolutely still there.

Rai Orz · February 15th, 2005, 11:50 AM

Do you realy think the big companys bring out a realy good HD camera under 10 k ? Why? HDTV okay, but wait for the downsides (small sensors, compression artefacts, etc.)

Aaron Shaw · February 15th, 2005, 11:57 AM

Oh I'm not saying it will replace your camera. Far from it. I'm just saying that it's an interesting option.

February 1st, 2005, 06:54 AM	#48
Lester Mclewis Tourist Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Fort Wayne Indiana Posts: 2	Hd Alternatives Check Out the Basler 622f camera, Who knows it might be the one used in the Drake(Just a Guess) __________________ Lester Mclewis

February 1st, 2005, 09:21 AM	#49
Steve Nordhauser Silicon Imaging, Inc. Join Date: May 2004 Location: Troy, NY USA Posts: 325	Lester, The Basler is an IBIS-5A again. You can tell from: 6.7 micron pitch, CMOS, global shutter, 1.3Mpix, 24fps. Wayne, The IBIS-5A has some adjacent pixel smearing which ruins the color purity. __________________ Silicon Imaging, Inc. We see the Light! http://www.siliconimaging.com

February 1st, 2005, 04:34 PM	#50
Jon Schroth Tourist Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: White Plains, NY Posts: 1	mono Anybody know how the mono version of the IBIS-5A performs? It seems that most of the complaints about this chip are related to color. Also, in general, I am curious how a bayer filtered color image that has been converted to grayscale differs visually from one captured in monochrome.

February 2nd, 2005, 08:22 AM	#52
Steve Nordhauser Silicon Imaging, Inc. Join Date: May 2004 Location: Troy, NY USA Posts: 325	Jon, We sell the SI-1280F (IBIS-5A) in mono and color. You will get the best mono image with a mono sensor. The IBIS-5A is already not too sensitive - you toss over half the light with a Bayer filter. You also do not get an even spectral response at every pixel. For example, a pure red object will show up on 25% of the pixels of a color sensor - you lost spatial resolution. It will show up on all the pixels of a mono sensor. Omar, The SI-3300 has smaller pixels (3.2 microns vs 5.0 on the SI-1920HD) so it is less light sensitive. It also has a max clocking rate of about 60Mpixels/sec (24fps) where the SI-1920HD can do 150Mpix/sec. This allows faster readout so you can minimize rolling shutter artifacts, even at a frame rate of 24fps. As you said, the larger sensor gives you a shallower DOF. Both are low noise sensors, the 1920HD is better. The SI-3300 is viable for a camera, especially for the cost differential. __________________ Silicon Imaging, Inc. We see the Light! http://www.siliconimaging.com

January 5th, 2005, 05:40 PM	#46
Valeriu Campan Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 223	Thank you for the reply. This is part of the message I received fromPixelink: "..._The lens used for these images was an inexpensive C-mount lens that does not have any correction for_chromatic aberrations. With a high resolving power, the Bayer artifacts become more noticeable._ As the lens resolving power is reduced (or the focus moved away from the ideal) the Bayer artifacts go away..." Imagine what will happen if you shoot with Zeiss Digiprimes or Cooke S4! I will talk to a tech from the local distributor today and try to pick his brain.

January 5th, 2005, 10:56 PM	#47
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	<<<-- Originally posted by John Nagle : Wayne, Just wanted to check that link for smallcamera.com, I followed it and there is only a site under construction -->>> Sorry about that John, it is actually http://www.smalcamera.com/ with one L. I'm just chucking this in here, I think with a bit of co-op work they might come to the table, but still you can check the links to the sample images etc in my technical thread. I don't think it is the most brilliant sensor, but excellent as a cheap alternative to Altasens/Ibis5a. Now the Ibis5a is supposed to use a special pad around it's sensor to collect stray light that misses the sensor, without using a microlense (which redices the maxiumnum aperature that canbe used). I think it was also to recude niose, but still people says it needs lots of light, strange marketing technology. I wonder what it actually does. Out of curiousity are the images dull in color, or just washed out in lower light levels? Re-edit: Just had a look at some of the sensor specs again, rolling shutter, but enough data rate to run higher shutter (but calculations for region of interest regioning max shutter not made clear). Again this is a good sensor for a cheap (even doco special) camera, not Altasens quality. There is hidden (somewhere) their 1920 wide security camera (which would need two on a split prism), but seriously they have there own sensor designs and produce there own cameras, they would have a lot of designs they could make hidden from the public. Thanks.

February 1st, 2005, 07:21 PM	#51
Omar Saad Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: San Luis Obispo, CA Posts: 38	Hey guys, sorry if i'm a bit behind the curve on this, but i've been reading on the technical disscussion thread and concerning the SI-1920HD; what would be the difference in going with this cam vs. the SI-3300M. I know that the 1920 is a 2/3" chip at 2 mpixel and the 3300 has a 1/2" chip at 3 mpixel. Is there a significant difference in resolution, pic quality, or light latitude? Wouldnt the 3300 @ 3mpixel be output a better image or does the larger chip on the 1920 make that big of a difference? Just wondering what would be the better cam to go with in putting together an HD camera setup. Thanks, Omar

February 2nd, 2005, 10:44 AM	#53
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : Wayne, The IBIS-5A has some adjacent pixel smearing which ruins the color purity. -->>> There is allways something ;) Are the high speed versions of the IBIS and Micron 1.3MP a viable cheaper camera to the Altasens? Say, could you make a camera for $1-2K out of them? Their architectures are far superior to the IBIS and micron (global shutter aren't they). Now my question on the other thread, you mentioned a memory buffered GIGE camera, I believe, sometime ago, when is that coming? It will be interesting to see the tests when they start rolling in of the new cameras.

February 15th, 2005, 01:14 AM	#54
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	Well, I love you guys who all tried, but as I predicted, it looks like it's all going to be way too late. STRONG rumors suggest a Panasonic DVCProHD camera coming out for under 10 k some time this year. NAB will most likely unleash it. Records to mini-dv and also P2. The quality won't meet the "uncompressed" richness of what you guys have been trying for, but for cost-effectiveness, and rock-solid reliability, and user-friendliness, the trade off will be well worth it. Sorry guys, I think they beat you to the punch. . . . like I predicted. Elvis has left the building.

February 15th, 2005, 02:13 AM	#55
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	Well you would be better going for the FX1 through component output. Now there is no gaurantee you won't be able to do this through the Pana, but maybe Juan will offer a RAW solution for it. But seriously, without these, even the IBIS and Micron RAW are still worh looking at. It is all a compromise between price, features, performance and convience, which you would like.

February 15th, 2005, 07:54 AM	#56
Rai Orz Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 136	<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : Well, I love you guys who all tried, but as I predicted, it looks like it's all going to be way too late. STRONG rumors suggest a Panasonic DVCProHD camera coming out for under 10 k some time this year. NAB will most likely unleash it. Records to mini-dv and also P2. The quality won't meet the "uncompressed" richness of what you guys have been trying for, but for cost-effectiveness, and rock-solid reliability, and user-friendliness, the trade off will be well worth it. Sorry guys, I think they beat you to the punch. -->>> NO! This will be just another DV Toy. No DOF, together with extrem compression. Just home made video pur. No, no. Let others play with those "kindergarten" things...

February 15th, 2005, 10:48 AM	#57
Joshua Starnes Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 356	<<<-- Originally posted by Rai Orz : NO! This will be just another DV Toy. No DOF, together with extrem compression. Just home made video pur. No, no. Let others play with those "kindergarten" things... -->>> Anything recording to 100mbs DVCProHD is not a DV toy. It's not uncompressed video, but you can get great professional images out of DVCProHD.

February 15th, 2005, 11:48 AM	#58
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Indeed. The Varicam has been used on some very, very high end stuff and it uses DVCproHD. This isn't a lightweight format. That said, it isn't an uncompressed camera. The market is absolutely still there.

February 15th, 2005, 11:50 AM	#59
Rai Orz Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 136	Do you realy think the big companys bring out a realy good HD camera under 10 k ? Why? HDTV okay, but wait for the downsides (small sensors, compression artefacts, etc.)

February 15th, 2005, 11:57 AM	#60
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Oh I'm not saying it will replace your camera. Far from it. I'm just saying that it's an interesting option.