The best way to find out what will be the system requirements for realtime encoding is to just wait for them to release Streampix 3 with cineform and test it out.

The benchmarks done are not on the Sumix camera, but another one so it may be possible that its different.

As soon as Streampix is available Jose and I will run tests and post results. Hopefully I wont have to return this computer after all.

Farhad, thanks for the credit but anyway I wasn't looking for that.I don't think I'm the only one asking for it.

BTW, if you tell your engineers to search the endless posts from around 2004 till today from several people, I guess you will find lots of information and useful resources, from camera features to compression techniques.
I'm mostly interested in getting a "usable" camera.

-10bit RAW 1.8:1 lossless compressed recording with selectable framerate.
-Color chart based automatic callibration with improved white balance.
-Record everything you want as long as you have enough RAM.

If you add future lossless compressed recording to HDD, I prefer Sumix software instead of StreamPix.

Is there a way to change that 1.8:1 ratio to say 3:1 or even 4:1 and still record lossless?

Is there a way to change that 1.8:1 ratio to say 3:1 or even 4:1 and still record lossless?

Jose, We understand importance of higher compression ratios. Some form of lossy compression must be acceptable also. When image from 3D world is reflected on the little sensor you already have a tremendous loss of information. Further, silicon in sensor is not perfect and produces more aberrations and loss. logically a little bit more loss should not harm anyone. But in practice at this last stage any little loss may cause big grief. The reason is that traditional lossy compressions do not respect the subtle visual clues in the image used by human eyes to reconstruct 3D, motion, edge, and other important features. Eye must again compress data perhaps 1000:1 or more, if our compression and decompression is not compatible with eye's early vision then human being is annoyed and gets tired of watching.
So, in order not to negatively surprise you later we are not going not make any promise here. Also for you not to be pleasantly surprised we agree that this is a main issue and we would cooperate with our customers in experimenting.
By the way, in our business any surprise must be as much avoided, even good surprise has bad aspects for our customers and our business.

Juan, for you to get a useful camera, consider nothing sacred except continue telling us what you need.

Is there a way to change that 1.8:1 ratio to say 3:1 or even 4:1 and still record lossless?

Consering lossless compression one shouldn't except a ratio of more than 3:1.
Actually, some ration between 2:1 and 2,5:1 is realistic:

http://compression.ru/video/ls-codec/index_en.html

Yes, in fact getting to more than 2:1 requires so much computational power that it doesn't make sense for this type of application.

On the other side I don't see how lossy compression could be a bad thing, despite what Farhad may have said. If that were the case SI's camera and RED ONE would be crap, because they are heavily compressing the Bayer Pattern ranging from 5:1 to something around 20:1.
I understand that for some Industrial/Scientific application that could be a bad thing, but not in our case. We need images to look NICE, not CORRECT :)

The secret is in the details, so you need to know HOW to do it right, you can't just throw your RAW to any compression available and expect good results.I'm saying this because a couple years ago, I coded myself a compression (lossy) for the Bayer Mosaic, which was quite good at the testing stage.

BTW, Juan, in the latest versions of CineForm RAW it's now 3.5:1 compression :)

Ohh, sorry, so I need to correct myself. Starting from 3.5 to anything. Is it Mathematically lossless?

BTW, Juan, in the latest versions of CineForm RAW it's now 3.5:1 compression :)

there exists more redundancy in pre-debayered
raw data than with debayered yuv or rgb
data. You'd expect better compression with
raw data. Cineform is great though. :)

Is it Mathematically lossless?

No, not yet, although practically speaking when you get that low with compression ratios, you are on the verge of being "mathematically lossless".

I think for true mathematical lossless compression you would need to be below 3:1, i.e., 2.8, 2.7, etc. It would also be quite a beast processing-wise because you would basically be compressing redundant noise information and reduplicating the noise signal in the image rather than further rendering any "real" image data itself.

So for instance, right now, with the SI-2K, at 2048x1080/10-bit/24P we're hovering around 18.5-20MB/s at 0db gain.

i do recall SI mentioning they were using core2duo mobile processors to record cineform RAW from SI2k. The cutoff was somewhere around 2GHz+ for realtime encoding and preview a year or so ago i think... so im sure a number of the new 45nm Core2duo mobile cpus ought to be up to the task. is it possible those numbers from norpix for quad core encoding are for Cineform RGB rather than RAW? i imagine jason can verify some of this.

as for compression, mathamatically or visually lossless, even a bit lossy would be fine with me as long as it means a real, usable camera solution comes out of it. ram-only recording wont go far, nor will quad core encoding boxes, although i would love to have an excuse to try to find a way to get a new q9300 quad core cpu into a portable computer.

Norpix should have something out soon, possibly even this week.

I just hope all this talk about compression and data loss won't lead to compromises that would leave us with a product no better then whats already available cheaper on the shelf.

Please correct me if im wrong but even if its visually lossless it could still cause problems in post with chroma keying or color correction. Also leaving behind artifacts in certain conditions.

The ideal solution for me, and it seems like for others here would be to preserve bayer. Debayer and encode to whatever you want in post. This way there is no data lost and we would have the full benefit of the sensor. But I'm not sure if that's a practical or possible option at all.


However, looking at the Wikipedia page for the RED One has some interesting data:

"Redcode RAW is a variable bitrate wavelet codec which allows raw sensor data at resolutions of up to 4096x2304 to be compressed sufficiently for practical on-camera recording. Two variants are offered, one with a maximum data rate of 28MB/s (224 megabits), and one with a maximum data rate of 36 MB/s (288 megabits). Compared with the uncompressed data captured by the sensor, these bitrates represent compression ratios of about 12:1 and 9:1, respectively.

Because Redcode is a wavelet codec, similar to CineForm RAW and JPEG2000, the blocking artifacts associated with other digital video compression algorithms are absent. However, sample images detailing Redcode specific artifacts have been posted on the manufacturer's forum. References to such problems existed until very recently when the message threads containing this information were removed by the Reduser.net administrators.

Redcode is a mathematically lossy codec, meaning that decompression does not fully restore the original image data captured by the camera. Red does claim the codec is "visually lossless", meaning that the information loss is not visible to the naked eye when images are viewed, however this is a subjective statement."

So, maybe compression really is a necessary evil.

So, maybe compression really is a necessary evil.

No, it's not. All you need is bandwidth, storage and a powerful CPU ;)

The most problems with compression come up in post, not when you look at your recording.

In my opinion there should always be the option to get the uncompressed raw data with maximum bit depth. Mathematically lossless compression of course is a good thing.

All the stuff like lossy compression or RBG conversion with LUT can be added as a feature.

Time is on the side of less compression and lossless compression as computer technology advances. Lossy compression in combination with image enhancement must be done only in post for distribution. Placing sensors for capturing signature of vibrations can be used to remove undesired mechanical movement in video only if you have raw data.
By the way,the same way equipment and fan noise can be recorded and used to remove the parasitic noise from audio. So there must be no fear of fast HD noise, fan, etc.
If Red one is doing 9:1 compression then SMX-12A2C will start to beat it in overall quality.

Please correct me if im wrong but even if its visually lossless it could still cause problems in post with chroma keying or color correction. Also leaving behind artifacts in certain conditions.

Sean Hellfrisch and Isaiah Saxon just completed their Bjork 3D music video with all green-screened elements. We also have a number of green-screen elements on our website that you can play with.

While the elements on the website and what Sean and Isaiah produced with were at 5:1 compression (we didn't have the 3.5:1 update from CineForm yet), we think the results are still really good.

Also for comparison, the HDCAM-SR 444 RGB mode at 440Mb/s is more compression than 3.5:1 CineForm . . . and HDCAM-SR 444 RGB mode is very high quality. So I think for the price, you will not find anything delivering the compression quality of CineForm in any other off-the-shelf solution (that can also be edited in real-time on the same box you're recording on . . . using J2K at 3.5:1 compression is not a real-time editing solution).

If we would have SDI out
taking this
http://www.magma.com/products/pciexpress/expressbox1/pdf/Specs(70-02360-33).pdf
an SDI card in and an Apple laptop with Finalcut Pro we are ready

a bit more expensive
taking this
http://www.v3hd.com/overview.html
again an laptop Win or Apple we are ready

could it be
could be happy with 10 bit SDI

going crazy reading all the stuuf
ok took it from wiki
The Canon XL H1 Records to HDV.
However, the XLH1 does have an exciting option that none of the other prosumer HD cameras have: a pre-compression HD SDI output. This allows for the exact same signal that is being sent to the HDV codec for compression to be outputted to an HD SDI device through a BNC cable on the side of the camera. Uncompressed recording it can also be sent to a computer via an HD SDI video card such as those offered by AJA and Blackmagic and then recorded completely digitally onto a hard drive for editing or higher quality compression.



Is there any DIY project HD SDI can be send to a SDI Video card
in the magma express box and then pumped in a laptop
my preference am Ibook

Can be portable

Ok, let's concentrate on what we have and what we can do to make it better. The camera doesn't have SDI out, but Sumix will add more in-camera compression modes.

So far the only problem that we have is compression. I don't think the need to use a computer attached to the camera is a problem because SI2K Mini users all around the work do it every day.

For me, 1.8:1 10bit lossless compression sounds great. Maybe an option to record with visually lossless comp so clips are not so heavy? So the only real problem would be RAM recording with long takes, but if we're already compressing, longer takes can be recorded.

So... To make it short: I think as soon as we have the new software update from Sumix we'll be able to test this cam with a real project.

According to Farhad, we'll have to wait till May though. We'll keep on doing more tests while we wait.

here a clip form red (another clip from th peter jackson short) http://jannard.com/images/movies/crossings.mov

one can notice how whites have a red tone (no pun intended ;) ) sumix seems to have the same issue, why is that? is there a way to solve the problem?

not all the shots have the problem, but the ones where the planes are flying and there are clouds there can be seen

Biel, The red tone is just a color correction issue. The samples you have seen from Sumix camera have not been color corrected. We are experimenting with automatic color correction using a Macbeth color chart and least square matching of all colors. The results are pretty exact. We even applied the algorithm on a professional scanner and improvement in color reproduction was surprising. You would expect scanner companies do precision color matching. Some example will appear on our site this week.
I would think that because so many variables affect colors, including lens and filters, exposure, sensor temperature, deBayaring algorithms, etc. that at the end it will be up to the person doing the post processing to use some art of his own.

i do belive sumix color is just great, and the whole camera it's huge! don't get me wrong in that but, if pure white is not white but redish, that in luma speaking it's not pure white but lighter grey, so it's not a color problem but an intensety one, isn't this an issue? that would be like if the camara couldn't represent pure white! at least not correctly

i do belive sumix color is just great, and the whole camera it's huge! don't get me wrong in that but, if pure white is not white but redish, that in luma speaking it's not pure white but lighter grey, so it's not a color problem but an intensety one, isn't this an issue? that would be like if the camara couldn't represent pure white! at least not correctly

Please see attachment the sensors spectral response. Red is quite stronger. Without color correction red dominates.
On the intensity issue, we have designed a better IR cut filter with half the thickness (1mm) and anti reflection quoting for blue green. This new filter with corresponding spacing rings will be shipped to our customers in about one month. Intensity must be improved by 20-30% on the high end of the spectrum.

I did post this a decade ago in some Wayne thread
http://www.theshiveringearth.com/VC25PTechTSE.htm

Film making I do not believe in pixel wars,
but something real, DOF, film look, no cpu wars.

Instead of dealing with rolling shutter artifacts
a mechanical Shutter works since decades
in any 16mm or 35 mm film camera.

What we do need is a way to synchronize
no rocket science i do guess.

A CMOS with resolution, a format as lossless as possible
and an output for example my fetish Mac Laptop is happy with
could be SDI.

Some basics on the camera white balance and so on,
the rest will be a pure post issue.
A case of a scrap tube camera will have
the shoulder mount and shape, there are thousands around.

35mm lenses are around, rail systems and follow focus kits too.
A 35mm optical view finder or 16mm was good enough and still is
for Indie and blockbuster productions, a smallish flat screen monitor,
to have a better look to the scene.
A look through the lens will tell you how light is for real
nothing else, millions of DV cams are proofing this as light is never balanced.
Light is the second big issue, maybe the biggest to show feelings, sound comes next.

CineForm Neo HD seems to have trouble handling large file size AVI files from the Sumix camera.

~600mb files work just fine, but anything above 2gb fails. Here is the error:
http://www.dreamstonestudios.com/personal/daniel/experimental/SMX12A2/cineform/HDLink-Error.jpg

The files play through virtualdub and mplayer. The error states that the format is not supported, when smaller files of the same format work.

I emailed CineForm about 3 days back and they still have not replied. I'm a bit concerned, for a product that costs so much I hope they have decent customer support and will at least bother to respond.

I would prefer an open source lossless compression over cineform

what would be great would be to make the sumix REDraw compatible, their anouncement of redray is stunning (2h of 4k in a dual layer dvd) but maybe they would ask for royalties

do the files that generate sumix contain meta-data like "film speed" shutter, EV, and things like these?

Still have not heard nothing from CineForm support.

CineForm will cost an additional $1,000 on top of the Norpix software.

I would be interested in hearing about alternatives, especially open source. What are our options?

And are they efficient enough for real time encoding or will we need even faster hardware?

While this is not directly related to compression, I thought that Adobe's CinemaDNG announcement at NAB was very interesting....

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200804/041408AdobeCinemaDNG.html

I would be interested in hearing about alternatives, especially open source. What are our options?

http://www.diracvideo.org/

the actual hompege of the dirac project

http://dirac.sourceforge.net/

i can't find if it's lossless

for what it says in the about page:

http://www.diracvideo.org/about_dirac


Dirac is an advanced video compression format designed for a wide range of uses, from delivering low-resolution web content to broadcasting HD and beyond, to near-lossless studio editing.


is cinemaDNG lossless? is there any information about it?

Hallo
maybe vented a million time
http://compression.ru/video/ls-codec/index_en.html
seems to be on hold since a bit
bon the dirac an following the links
looks very promising.

Having in mind what Red does an the other ones
we should talk of a way to get the sumix
ready for filmmaking
and not dreaming of 3D cams and total lossless

Adobe on the other hand is planing, thinking of some flavor
of open format related to way to expensive buffs as Dalsa, Red and so on even Panasonic.
It can't be real open GNU software as Adobe is tied to Apple and Windows.

What we do need is some hold on, beware, I do have only a stupid female brain, doing blonde output
a control for the camera functions,
the parameters to get white balance
or any knee parameters yo like to have,
via the smallest industry 104 card
written on a stupid flash card millions are out.
Star stop is nothing else
as sending it at 10 bit best resolution small money can buy
to an laptop. Preview via an LCD has not to be full resolution
and an optical view finder to have direct control over light and the scene, very old fashioned but
I guess there is no better way to have an idea what's going on on scene.

otherwise
we start to dream about what a 10kx16 k sensor
and a port doing via usb my expresso coffee as well

blonde output
a control for the camera functions,
the parameters to get white balance
or any knee parameters yo like to have,
via the smallest industry 104 card
written on a stupid flash card millions are out.
Star stop is nothing else
as sending it at 10 bit best resolution small money can buy
to an laptop. Preview via an LCD has not to be full resolution
and an optical view finder to have direct control over light and the scene, very old fashioned but
I guess there is no better way to have an idea what's going on on scene.


This was exactly Sumix strategy to release this camera head. A camera head with superior dynamic range and low noise that can be integrated into an individual darling blonde cinema camera for its DIY integrator.

At Sumix after many discussions we are converging on making an integrated camera also. We have almost all the engineering expertise to do this job. But we do not know, given our lack of filmmaking experience, if such camera can be mass produced and commercially viable. But we know we can make such thing is small hand made quantities, and we can tune them according to orders. Perhaps we make then in 5-10 quantities for each batch to be sold to a single serious customer. All details will be fine tuned and polished. We will incorporate presets according to the needs of the customer. We reproduce all the conditions that the customer wants to use the cameras in and make sure that there will be no surprise.
The side effect of this camera (Blonde Mother One) will be that we can share pieces of the technology with you. For example, presently we have an FPGA module with 32 channels of input 12 bit data in size of a little bit bigger than a playing card. This module can process several frames simultaneously for possible operations like matching motions, compression between frames and deciding on temporal versus spatial smoothing. This module is developed for our ultrasound beamforming project. But it is flexible to be used laterin camera also.

maybe the only thing really needed for the "next sumix camera" would be a way to beat the rolling shutter problem without sacrifice fps

Farhad,

What you said is exactly what we need. Turning the 12A2C into a self contained fully independent cam would be just perfect and would also lead to a huge amount of potential customers.

I think simplicity is the way to go. Capture 10bit RAW video and compress it in a way that's balanced between quality and disk space needed. Add very simple controls. Just what's needed to shoot. Everything else can be done in post. Gain, shutter, fps, maybe your color chart based automatic color correction... Output to CF cards (future Cineform recorder and new Scarlet cam from Red do the same). There's nothing else needed really. A very basic digital cinema cam.

Please, don't turn this thread into an "I want this or that feature" nightmare like the Scarlet section at RedUser.net since the cam was announced. Keep it simple and easy. The camera should only have what cannot be done in post. That's capturing, compressing and storing with the gain, shutter, fps and white balance you want.

My only regret is that it's not already finished. I have to shoot a documentary short film in two weeks and I'm afraid I'll have to buy an HV20 plus 35mm adapter to get the image I want. Being the Alternative Imaging Methods freak that I am that's something I hoped I never had to do.

Farhad,

What you said is exactly what we need. Turning the 12A2C into a self contained fully independent cam would be just perfect and would also lead to a huge amount of potential customers.



like me. Would buy such a cam from you instantaneously.

If it works like Jose suggests, this would be my dream cam. No wishlist please, just simple, all manual filming with basic controls.

Jose, does the A. stand for Ángel? One of my best friends is called the same.

Thomas

are those codecs sugested able to encode RAW video?

Of course it would need some way to plug an LCD. I forgot that.

Thomas, the A is for "Antonio". A very common spanish name.

Biel... Don't know.

Farhad, that is exciting news.

I agree with Jose that we should keep it simple and not let things get carried away (like that other forum :)

Even if it was just a way of having the compression and recording handled in the FPGA... then software and a very basic computer could be used to control the rest, such as the PicoITX. I know most would want a completely self-contained cam, but I am a DIY'er at heart.

Regarding CinemaDNG... it is not compression, just a standardized RAW format. I believe it will be an "open" format, not "Open Source" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_format

ye that sounds great...

I didnt know NASA was moderating these forums. If Farhad wants to discuss a probable 3d cam why is treated like roswell area 51???

Seth, I'm a big DIYer as well but many people will want a pc independent cam. Maybe it could have extended features if connected to a minipc.

By the way, if the 12A2C does become a self-contained cam with internal compression and CF recording will be almost like having a 1080p Red Scarlet with the interchangeable lenses that everyone's asking for.

Hurry up Farhad! The Scarlet will be released by this time next year!

And Nicky, we're not trying to keep the 3d cam a secret or treat it like it's something that shouldn't be known. We're just saying that the 12A2C should be improved and ready for professional shooting before starting a new cam. By improvement I mean turning it into a completely independent cam. That'd be a dream come true.

I'm a big DIYer as well but many people will want a pc independent cam. Maybe it could have extended features if connected to a minipc.

I agree Jose.

Sorry to go a bit off track... but I was just wondering if you had done any tests with the Angenieux lens, and how it compared to the Computar?

Also curious as to your opinion of using the Angenieux's optical viewfinder with the Sumix.

I haven't posted any Angenieux test because I don't have it yet. Marie sent it yesterday and it looks like it didn't leave France yet. It's saturday, so I guess it's because of that. I supose it'll arrive by monday-tuesday. I'll post some tests and comparisons between both lenses as soon as I can.

I'm also working on the pre-production of the project I'll shoot with the HV20 and Brevis35, so I haven't done any new test for more than a week. I'm also waiting for the new Sumix software. Too bad it's not released yet, this would have been a fantastic oportunity to test the cam.

How's the new software going Farhad? I can still return the HV20 and I didn't buy the adaptor yet.

Seth, I'm a big DIYer as well but many people will want a pc independent cam. Maybe it could have extended features if connected to a minipc.

By the way, if the 12A2C does become a self-contained cam with internal compression and CF recording will be almost like having a 1080p Red Scarlet with the interchangeable lenses that everyone's asking for.

Hurry up Farhad! The Scarlet will be released by this time next year!

And Nicky, we're not trying to keep the 3d cam a secret or treat it like it's something that shouldn't be known. We're just saying that the 12A2C should be improved and ready for professional shooting before starting a new cam. By improvement I mean turning it into a completely independent cam. That'd be a dream come true.

Oops... Im mistaken - I actually posted somewhere else and thought it was removed from here. LOL!!! kinda embarrassing

I cant wait for the Sumix 12A2C to become sorted!!!

whats all this then?

:)

havent been around here since last year, got away from all this HD stuff for a while. this camera head looks fairly similar to something i had wanted to make myself. this thread is a bit jumbled and hard to read and the website is lacking in information, so can someone clearify some basic questions about this?

1: this is basically a sensor in a box? no in camera functionality other than capture and output? all control is via the connected PC?

2: it outputs over gig-e i understand. what does it output? just plain old ccd raw? or is it pre processed? i guess some recent posts talk about lossless compression options.

3: what are the issues with it? it seems alot of you are trying to turn it into a field camera compressing with cineform or the like and having issues with cpu power and whatnot. im more concerned with dumping raw uncompressed 24/30 1080p footage to disk (raid) with a live 720p preview. is that doable? or is there issues with that as well?

im just trying to get a basic understanding of what this box currently does to see if it can fit my needs.

thanks :)

Ok, the good thing about this is that I don't get tired of explaining all the different features of this cam.

1. Yes and no. This IS a sensor in a box with a C-Mount AND basic internal hardware processing, so it can output a lossless compressed stream if wanted. All features are controlled via software in a computer.

1a. According to Farhad that's going to change soon. Sumix will take this and turn it into a self-contained pc-independent camera.

2. For now it outputs a 8bit (or 12bit) debayered stream. In less than a month it'll output 10bit lossless compressed (2:1) bayer stream with debayered preview.

3. There're many ideas. Most of us are just waiting for the new software (current software cannot be used to shoot anything more than tests) which will include fps control, better white balance, an automatic color correction option that will just work by putting a Macbeth color chart in front of the camera and many other features. With the camera, the new software and a core2duo minipc we'll be able to use the 12A2C to shoot serious projects. You don't need a raid setup to record 24 or 30fps with this cam.

Of course once this cam is pc-independent there will be no need for anything more than the lens, rails, mattebox, lcd and a follow focus. Can't wait!!

does this debayes tream then competes with the RAW form viper? i know the RAW from viper is 4:4:4 RGB RAW, is this the same raw from sumix?

Biel,
I think you cannot really speak of 4:4:4 because every 2nd pixel has a green filter, every 4th a red one and every other 4th a blue one.

With a very good debayering software, you can get about 75% of the theoretical resolution (1920*1080) out of the bayer image.

But, arguably the perceived resolution (what you see) is close to 1920*1080. And the perceived colour resolution is pretty close as well. A Sumix frame would be like a 2 megapixel crop from a raw digital SLR image (eg. cropping the middle two megapixels from your Nikon 80D raw file). For me, that would be heaven.

Jose Antonio, Thomas is an extremely common name in Germany ... and Probably in the rest of the world, too :-)

Farhad, you said mass producing is not your core competence. What about developing a "pc-less" module that links to the cam via gig-ethernet. Design such a module and have someone else manufacture it for you. Depending on the price point, you could sell thousands - which means even more of your cams get sold.

Other option, I think there will easily be 10 filmmakers on this forum ready to pay 1.5 times Scarlett price (= 4500 USD) to buy a pc-less integrated solution. That would get the first batch rolling ...

Exciting times - best thread since Drake :-P,
Thomas

"I'm afraid I'll have to buy an HV20...Being the Alternative Imaging Methods freak that I am that's something I hoped I never had to do."

Jose, I know just how you feel! Last year I was experimenting with the MX72 and MX73 camera heads, but realised that I wouldn't be able to iron out some of the problems in time for a film planned for the summer (of 2008). So reluctantly, I was forced to buy a Canon HV20 to familiarize myself with it in good time for the shooting. Not surprisingly, my focus went off the box cameras and onto the HDV workflow (I had to get a different NLE and learn how to use it), along with other planning for my first full length no budget project. In the meantime my work on RAM recording through USB 2 starts to look increasingly obsolete compared to the promise of this latest GigE Sumix, so maybe I've missed my chance with those cameras?

Like you, Jose, I was disappointed that I had to ultimately use an interim HDV camcorder, but I'm hoping it will be my last! I don't knock the ultimate straight-from-the-camera image quality itself, because in 1080p25 mode I am impressed at the step forward compared to my previous use of SD DV. What I do miss from my brief experience with the Sumix is a chance to use manual prime lenses, and to know that what I'm shooting (however unimportant it turns out to be!) is nevertheless originated on an uncompressed (or almost lossless) format. Which, apart from the credibility angle regarding future sales opportunities, will also take reasonable post processing. In that regard HDV is just as fragile as PAL DV (it's still 4:2:0).

I have collected several C-mount lenses over the course of the tests and these can be migrated to whatever system I can afford to use for a future project. That is the beauty of these modular systems, you can take things with you to the next camera (just like traditional still SLR cameras; I like that ethos). Sorry I can't contribute much lately, I'm busy with my project, but I follow the thread avidly (it's very inspiring) and hope to contribute something practical later on.

All the best,
John.

what is then the sampling of the camera? 4:2:2?

I took my 12A2C camera to a film shoot last week and shot some on free time in between setups. Got some dolly shots a little hand held and tripod.

I'm not happy with the way it video turned out. Looks very soft to me, even after careful focusing. I blame the TV zoom lens I was using wide open.

I just bought 2 Carl Zeiss lenses, should have them in within a week or two. Hopefully they will be sharp enough to render a great image.

The attached picture was not white balanced. Did not have time.

what is then the sampling of the camera? 4:2:2?

To my understanding, colour sampling is an attribute of the codec, not the sensor. You can debayer a raw image to 1920*1080, then either compress it 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 or 4:2:0.

The debayering will have interpolated luminance and colour information that is, in fact, not there. You will have some interpolated full HD image, with every pixel having (interpolated) full luminance and colour resolution.

Yet, I don't think you can call it 4:4:4 or 4:2:2, because that only depends on the codec you then use to compress it.

Hope that helps - please shout at me if I am getting it all wrong ;-)

Thomas