New DIY HD Cinema Camera Project

Wayne Morellini · July 4th, 2007, 08:17 PM

My technical thread I mentioned, lots of tid bits in it:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...425#post694425

Igor Babic · July 5th, 2007, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini

This USB problem, is what they were supposed to be going to solve, around 3 years ago. Performance depends on main board with good USB interface, windows configured for realtime, alternative USB interface driver, and efficient third party windows realtime core. With some, or all, these factors they should be able to easily get stable performance. However, trying to get it to work on all systems, without any enhancements is probably the problem. This doesn't matter so much, as long as we can get an range of regular hardware to work properly with the software. You could ask them about this.

I was maybe misinformative. Later statment of USB problems was from one of previous emails. In their last email they say that they solevd this or about too.

Take Vos · July 5th, 2007, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Morellini

You are using CMOS? It partly sounds like the CCD split sensor window CCD scanning problem, where because of technology speed restrictions, they use different AD converters for the two halves of the sensor. To get around that problem they simply calibrate them. The rest sounds partly similar to what we have seen on Sanyo HD1 in dark noise, and fix pattern noise (which is removed with fix pattern noise removal). I suggest contacting the supplier and ask them about the problems.

No, I am using a CCD, indeed a split CCD which I knew already and can compensate for (except for the large temperature depended drift).

It looks like fix pattern noise but I am unable to remove it using a normal flat field image. If I take a compensated picture (per pixel intensity multiplier) from the same flat field it indeed is clean, but when I look at something lighter or darker it appears again. It seems there is no linear correlation between light intensity and the fix pattern noise.

I will post some pictures in my own thread "Mirage Recorder" tonight, maybe you can take a look if this is normal fix pattern noise (and I am doing something stupid) or if the camera is bad.

Cheers,
Take

Jose A. Garcia · July 5th, 2007, 08:47 AM

Wayne:

First of all, I've already spent time and money on this and I'm not giving up. I want my camera and I'll do whatever I have to.

Besides that, you're right. We have to stick together to get what we want. You can count me in but I need your help. I've already visited all the urls on your list and have sent emails to everyone offering a 720p/1080p/2k solution. Too bad there were only two or three appart from Micron, Altasens, Omnivision... you know, the usual ones.

Micron doesn't offer anything larger than 1/2.5".

I was also thinking about contacting Silicon Imaging about a 720p big sensor solution. If I have to go for 720 instead of full HD, I want real DOF. No adaptors. We can't ask them for another 1080p solution cause they already have one and it's an expensive option, whether it's their HD1920 camera or the SI-2k Mini.

Altasens doesn't support small projects, as I said and I don't think we can gather like 10K people.

I already have a 720p solution here at home. Working and giving great image and motion feel. At 96Mhz and 1/48 you can't really notice rolling shutter but it's USB and it's a small chip (1/2.5"). As I said, if I have to stay with 720p, I want 2/3" at least. Of course, I don't have to say that the image you get at 720p with this camera is far better than the one you get with a HDV cam at full HD.

I'm ready... Now, where do we start?

Jose A. Garcia · July 5th, 2007, 08:59 AM

What about some Cameralink product from Epix? I've seen many full HD color cameras and Cameralink framegrabbers are about $500.

Jose A. Garcia · July 5th, 2007, 03:53 PM

I have been talking with Steve from Silicon Imaging. They don't intend to make something smaller than the SI-2k mini in terms of resolution for filmmaking purposes.

All he says is that they would supply PCB cameras for the Micron or Cypress sensors if we gather a group together for another open source design.

I wanted to ask another question. What exactly is wrong with the Ibis? I need to see something shot with the marlin.

Appart from that... 2K looks sooo good (even at 20 or 22fps) with the micron board! 1600x666 doesn't look too bad either. But do you think 720p will be enough?

Jamie Varney · July 5th, 2007, 04:23 PM

What I have been seriously considering is interfacing a Micron MT9T031P12STC with a Gumstix Verdex XL6P. Add an IDE hard drive and a small LCD and we should have a camera that can do 720P and possibly even 1600x680.

The biggest obstacle I can see is writing the Linux True IDE driver with DMA, and making it fast enough to write 24MB/s to the hard drive. Assuming this can be done my only other concern would be the rolling shutter, I have no idea how bad it is on this chip.

Daniel Schaumberger · July 6th, 2007, 07:22 AM

Hi Jose,

did you read about that hydra mod for Panasonic HVX200?
http://www.reel-stream.com/
http://www.freshdv.com/2007/03/reel-...he-hvx200.html

They hook up some electronics to the ccd inside the HVX200 then the whole thing is connected by a Gigabit Ethernet (over CAT 5e or 6 cable) to any Intel / Mac computer running their SculptorHD 2.0 software.
The image is captured as raw data directly from the ccd's.

NATIVE FRAME SIZE:
2100 x 1090

RECORD MODES:
Full RGB(4:4:4) only

best regards
Daniel

Jose A. Garcia · July 6th, 2007, 05:31 PM

Hi Daniel,

It sounds quite good in fact but I supose it'll cost even more than an unaltered HVX. We're trying to keep things cheap here. Let's say $2000 or little more for the whole package, at least for me.

Hi Jamie, and welcome to the thread :)

A couple of things about your option: first, the T series in Micron offer the same as the P series (the one I'm testing) but with less resolution and also less speed. The MT9P031 offers 1920x800 at about 22fps using USB (the worst possible interface for our purposes). Your option would get those 22-24fps at 1600x666 (1:2.40) and larger resolutions would mean less fps. That was in fact the sensor used in the Elphel 333. The new 353 uses the P series. Besides that, they both cost the same. 250euro for a camera head and 900euro for the whole demo board.

I really think CMOS is the way to go. They offer a much more filmic image. Also global shutter is a good option but rolling shutter at 96Mhz is almost unnoticeable, so we don't have problems with that.

I haven't seen large full HD CMOS sensors for the cheap yet. So the main options would be:

- Large 720p sensor. Between 2/3" and 1". Bad points: We don't have 2k.
- Small 2k sensor + DOF adaptor. About 1/2.5". Bad points: pixel sizes are probably too small to collect enough light with the adaptor attached.

Maybe it's possible to find a 2/3" or 1" 1600x1200 sensor cheap enough to use in this project.

There has to be something we're missing.

The interface: I think GigE is the perfect interface. It doesn't require a framegrabber like the CameraLink and also GigE boards are quite cheap if your computer doesn't have one. USB can't do it. When I'm capturing with the demo board I can see the sensor goes at very high speeds, while the board sends less than half of the images through usb. Firewire 800? Maybe...

Computer independent solution? Not yet. We would need someone to program a FPGA with IDE interfaces, flash card slots and LCD outputs appart from the fact that we'd also need a piece of software to control the sensor. Maybe in time... For now we need the camera and a computer.

Unless of course we can plug a camera head to one of those Gumstix boards (the first time I read about them) and then add a HDD and a LCD. We would still need the software to control de sensor.

I need help on this.

Jamie Varney · July 6th, 2007, 07:11 PM

I really wish that I had the money to purse this little project of mine, but I have some family issues at the moment so it may be a while before I can try. That said Avnet sells the raw MT9T031 sensor for $39.00 US and the Gumstix is only $160.00 US. EarthLCD sells lots of LCD's that would work for under $100.00. From there we would just need a HD, case, power supply and optics and we should have a working camera.

One advantage to having a degree in Electronics Engineering is that I am nearly positive that I can interface the sensor to the Gumstix. But like I said before, writing to the HD at full speed is going to be a real issue. Most likely the raw bayer data will have to be streamed to the hardrive and it will have to be demosaiced and converted to a usable format later.

Sigh, maybe in a few months I will be able to start buying parts and see what happens :-(

Jose A. Garcia · July 6th, 2007, 08:10 PM

Wouldn't it be easier to program a FPGA to do all that? And believe me. Buy the P031 sensor. It costs the same and it gives 2k at more than 24fps. At least the sensor does it. The problem is finding a good interface to capture at that speed.

Well... the best part of this is that we've got an electronics engineer here!

Why not start with something like the SI-2k Mini? A camera head you can plug to the computer and start capturing... We just need the sensor, a board with a GigE interface... And the difficult part: software to control and capture.

Jamie Varney · July 6th, 2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jose A. Garcia

Wouldn't it be easier to program a FPGA to do all that?

It may be for somebody, but I doubt it would be for me. My experience with FPGA's is limited to the small Xlinx boards we used back in school. I do however have a friend with more recent experience with them, I will talk to him about it when he gets back in town.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jose A. Garcia

And believe me. Buy the P031 sensor. It costs the same and it gives 2k at more than 24fps.

For some reason back when I was looking at sensors I crossed this one off my list, but I honestly don't remember why. I will take another look at it and see, but it would sure help if I had the full datasheet.

Take Vos · July 7th, 2007, 12:46 AM

Hi,

Personally I am going for the record in bayer format, then make a codec that can handle this format. It is a pretty CPU/GPU expensive codec, compared to for example a MPEG codec.

I am hoping that Final Cut Pro sends hints to the codec when it wants RT-extreme (real-time, low quality playback), in that case I can easily switch between different debayer algorithms. I have one high quality debayer and one fast debayer algorithm.

I will be releasing my digital negative file format, so that other people can implement this and share the tools build for it. I will probably make the QuickTime codec a free download.

Cheers,
Take

Jose A. Garcia · July 7th, 2007, 03:35 AM

Hey... This is already sounding like a real team!

Take, if we develop a camera head based on the micron chip and with a GigE interface, do you think you could write a tool to control the camera and capture with your codec?

Jose A. Garcia · July 7th, 2007, 03:43 AM

By the way and now that we're talking about Apple. Wouldn't it be possible to use a Mac Mini to capture? It has a sata disk and a core duo chip. You can get one for about $800. The camera head, a mac mini and a LCD would make it really portable.

It would be like a OSX based SI-2k and using Take's codec instead of Cineform.

What do you think?

July 7th, 2007, 12:46 AM	#88
Take Vos Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Amsterdam The Netherlands Posts: 200	Hi, Personally I am going for the record in bayer format, then make a codec that can handle this format. It is a pretty CPU/GPU expensive codec, compared to for example a MPEG codec. I am hoping that Final Cut Pro sends hints to the codec when it wants RT-extreme (real-time, low quality playback), in that case I can easily switch between different debayer algorithms. I have one high quality debayer and one fast debayer algorithm. I will be releasing my digital negative file format, so that other people can implement this and share the tools build for it. I will probably make the QuickTime codec a free download. Cheers, Take __________________ VOSGAMES, http://www.vosgames.nl/ developer of Boom Recorder and Mirage Recorder

July 4th, 2007, 08:17 PM	#76
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	My technical thread I mentioned, lots of tid bits in it: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...425#post694425

July 5th, 2007, 08:47 AM	#79
Jose A. Garcia Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sevilla (Spain) Posts: 439	Wayne: First of all, I've already spent time and money on this and I'm not giving up. I want my camera and I'll do whatever I have to. Besides that, you're right. We have to stick together to get what we want. You can count me in but I need your help. I've already visited all the urls on your list and have sent emails to everyone offering a 720p/1080p/2k solution. Too bad there were only two or three appart from Micron, Altasens, Omnivision... you know, the usual ones. Micron doesn't offer anything larger than 1/2.5". I was also thinking about contacting Silicon Imaging about a 720p big sensor solution. If I have to go for 720 instead of full HD, I want real DOF. No adaptors. We can't ask them for another 1080p solution cause they already have one and it's an expensive option, whether it's their HD1920 camera or the SI-2k Mini. Altasens doesn't support small projects, as I said and I don't think we can gather like 10K people. I already have a 720p solution here at home. Working and giving great image and motion feel. At 96Mhz and 1/48 you can't really notice rolling shutter but it's USB and it's a small chip (1/2.5"). As I said, if I have to stay with 720p, I want 2/3" at least. Of course, I don't have to say that the image you get at 720p with this camera is far better than the one you get with a HDV cam at full HD. I'm ready... Now, where do we start?

July 5th, 2007, 08:59 AM	#80
Jose A. Garcia Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sevilla (Spain) Posts: 439	What about some Cameralink product from Epix? I've seen many full HD color cameras and Cameralink framegrabbers are about $500.

July 5th, 2007, 03:53 PM	#81
Jose A. Garcia Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sevilla (Spain) Posts: 439	I have been talking with Steve from Silicon Imaging. They don't intend to make something smaller than the SI-2k mini in terms of resolution for filmmaking purposes. All he says is that they would supply PCB cameras for the Micron or Cypress sensors if we gather a group together for another open source design. I wanted to ask another question. What exactly is wrong with the Ibis? I need to see something shot with the marlin. Appart from that... 2K looks sooo good (even at 20 or 22fps) with the micron board! 1600x666 doesn't look too bad either. But do you think 720p will be enough?

July 5th, 2007, 04:23 PM	#82
Jamie Varney Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Columbus Ohio Posts: 36	What I have been seriously considering is interfacing a Micron MT9T031P12STC with a Gumstix Verdex XL6P. Add an IDE hard drive and a small LCD and we should have a camera that can do 720P and possibly even 1600x680. The biggest obstacle I can see is writing the Linux True IDE driver with DMA, and making it fast enough to write 24MB/s to the hard drive. Assuming this can be done my only other concern would be the rolling shutter, I have no idea how bad it is on this chip.

July 6th, 2007, 07:22 AM	#83
Daniel Schaumberger Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Atlantis Posts: 58	Hi Jose, did you read about that hydra mod for Panasonic HVX200? http://www.reel-stream.com/ http://www.freshdv.com/2007/03/reel-...he-hvx200.html They hook up some electronics to the ccd inside the HVX200 then the whole thing is connected by a Gigabit Ethernet (over CAT 5e or 6 cable) to any Intel / Mac computer running their SculptorHD 2.0 software. The image is captured as raw data directly from the ccd's. NATIVE FRAME SIZE: 2100 x 1090 RECORD MODES: Full RGB(4:4:4) only best regards Daniel

July 6th, 2007, 05:31 PM	#84
Jose A. Garcia Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sevilla (Spain) Posts: 439	Hi Daniel, It sounds quite good in fact but I supose it'll cost even more than an unaltered HVX. We're trying to keep things cheap here. Let's say $2000 or little more for the whole package, at least for me. Hi Jamie, and welcome to the thread :) A couple of things about your option: first, the T series in Micron offer the same as the P series (the one I'm testing) but with less resolution and also less speed. The MT9P031 offers 1920x800 at about 22fps using USB (the worst possible interface for our purposes). Your option would get those 22-24fps at 1600x666 (1:2.40) and larger resolutions would mean less fps. That was in fact the sensor used in the Elphel 333. The new 353 uses the P series. Besides that, they both cost the same. 250euro for a camera head and 900euro for the whole demo board. I really think CMOS is the way to go. They offer a much more filmic image. Also global shutter is a good option but rolling shutter at 96Mhz is almost unnoticeable, so we don't have problems with that. I haven't seen large full HD CMOS sensors for the cheap yet. So the main options would be: - Large 720p sensor. Between 2/3" and 1". Bad points: We don't have 2k. - Small 2k sensor + DOF adaptor. About 1/2.5". Bad points: pixel sizes are probably too small to collect enough light with the adaptor attached. Maybe it's possible to find a 2/3" or 1" 1600x1200 sensor cheap enough to use in this project. There has to be something we're missing. The interface: I think GigE is the perfect interface. It doesn't require a framegrabber like the CameraLink and also GigE boards are quite cheap if your computer doesn't have one. USB can't do it. When I'm capturing with the demo board I can see the sensor goes at very high speeds, while the board sends less than half of the images through usb. Firewire 800? Maybe... Computer independent solution? Not yet. We would need someone to program a FPGA with IDE interfaces, flash card slots and LCD outputs appart from the fact that we'd also need a piece of software to control the sensor. Maybe in time... For now we need the camera and a computer. Unless of course we can plug a camera head to one of those Gumstix boards (the first time I read about them) and then add a HDD and a LCD. We would still need the software to control de sensor. I need help on this.

July 6th, 2007, 07:11 PM	#85
Jamie Varney Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Columbus Ohio Posts: 36	I really wish that I had the money to purse this little project of mine, but I have some family issues at the moment so it may be a while before I can try. That said Avnet sells the raw MT9T031 sensor for $39.00 US and the Gumstix is only $160.00 US. EarthLCD sells lots of LCD's that would work for under $100.00. From there we would just need a HD, case, power supply and optics and we should have a working camera. One advantage to having a degree in Electronics Engineering is that I am nearly positive that I can interface the sensor to the Gumstix. But like I said before, writing to the HD at full speed is going to be a real issue. Most likely the raw bayer data will have to be streamed to the hardrive and it will have to be demosaiced and converted to a usable format later. Sigh, maybe in a few months I will be able to start buying parts and see what happens :-(

July 6th, 2007, 08:10 PM	#86
Jose A. Garcia Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sevilla (Spain) Posts: 439	Wouldn't it be easier to program a FPGA to do all that? And believe me. Buy the P031 sensor. It costs the same and it gives 2k at more than 24fps. At least the sensor does it. The problem is finding a good interface to capture at that speed. Well... the best part of this is that we've got an electronics engineer here! Why not start with something like the SI-2k Mini? A camera head you can plug to the computer and start capturing... We just need the sensor, a board with a GigE interface... And the difficult part: software to control and capture.

July 7th, 2007, 03:35 AM	#89
Jose A. Garcia Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sevilla (Spain) Posts: 439	Hey... This is already sounding like a real team! Take, if we develop a camera head based on the micron chip and with a GigE interface, do you think you could write a tool to control the camera and capture with your codec?

July 7th, 2007, 03:43 AM	#90
Jose A. Garcia Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sevilla (Spain) Posts: 439	By the way and now that we're talking about Apple. Wouldn't it be possible to use a Mac Mini to capture? It has a sata disk and a core duo chip. You can get one for about $800. The camera head, a mac mini and a LCD would make it really portable. It would be like a OSX based SI-2k and using Take's codec instead of Cineform. What do you think?