I'm not happy with the way it video turned out. Looks very soft to me, even after careful focusing.

What did you use to debayer?

In camera debayering? That may be another source of softness.

Did you use laplacian to debayer? The other filters are quite soft.

It would have been the default "Bilinear" setting.

Then I think your lens combined with the bilinear filtering softened the image.

By the way, which Zeiss lenses did you buy? Where? And how much did they cost?

Zeiss VarioTevidon 2/18-90mm APO lens Super 16 c-mount
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220223756197&ssPageName=ADME:B:BCA:US:1123

Carl Zeiss Tevidon 2/10mm APO lens for Super 16 c-mount
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220223752904&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOIBSA:US:1123

They are not ideal, first one is a bit too long and other is a bit too wide. But I have a hard time finding good quality lenses especially super 16 c-mount. Its possible I may have paid too much.

Have been watching ebay for a while and just have not seen anything I like. Finally acted when I saw this.

Honestly, I know little about them. I would appreciate it if someone could comment on them.

Knowing the general price of Zeiss glass and the condition these babies seem to be in, I would say you struck a bargain.

Probably a set of carefully selected machine vision primes will be the only thing that may match the quality the same pricepoint. But that would involve so much trial and error that you would have to be very lucky.

My opinion - and I am from Zeiss country ;-)

I just shot a Bilinear vs Laplacian test. You are right, laplacian is much sharper.

But with laplacian enabled, FPS falls to a maximum of ~11.

But that's just the preview. The same happens with my camera. When recording it's actually at 43fps.

You don't have to search so much for good machine vision primes. Some of the best and sharpest out there are the 5mp certified 2/3" Fujinon primes. They're also quite cheap (about $300 each). If you're looking for tack sharp images, go for them.

I'd add another vote for the fujinons. I would also like to see the schneider ones (cinegon and xenon). They're expensive which may mean they're higher quality (of course that's not always true).

Daniel, how do you gauge exposure when you are out shooting? The image has a lot of blown out areas. I found when playing with sensor heads that getting a good exposure is very difficult especially if you're not previewing via a LUT.

What's the level information like in the original frame?

What's the status on getting RAW frames out of the camera? You should only need simple debayering for preview and deal with the main processing later on (where you can choose different solutions for different types of images).

cheers
paul

how does the raw video look lime without debayering? is it possible to see a example of raw video data from the cam?

We have to wait for the new software to have live filtered preview while recording to raw.

You're right. So far the camera doesn't handle highlights very well. Let's see what happens when the new software is ready and we can do the automatic color balance via Macbeth chart.

We have to wait for the new software to have live filtered preview while recording to raw.

You're right. So far the camera doesn't handle highlights very well. Let's see what happens when the new software is ready and we can do the automatic color balance via Macbeth chart.

Im not sure about the camera not handling highlights very well, i suspect is more down to being able to get the right exposure in the field, more a software thing. The RAW sensor has a good range but without knowing where your levels are - after a LUT - it's quite difficult to ballpark.

Light is log, the sensor is linear and all the colour detail is low down and needs to be corrected for.

cheers
paul

Problems with highlights with this camera not like anything I had encountered before. They seem to appear everywhere and difficult to control. Whatever the cause, images from this camera do demonstrate a problem with highlights that I hope will eventually be addressed. Such problems do not seem to be present in the SI-2K for example. As expected, on extreme highlights little to no information is retained.

The image I posted is a bad example, it was not properly composed, white balanced, or lit. Thats why I hesitated to post it earlier, but I figured its better then nothing. It was done in a hurry, the only purpose of it was to test the prototype camera concepts in a production environment.

I agree, the best way to record data from the camera is to preserve Bayer. Debayer in post with more complex algorithms, and only have a simple real time preview. Not only will this allow for higher quality images but also relieve some stress off the CPU during image acquisition. In addition it would add powerful features to the post workflow.

I'm sure machine vision lenses are sharp. But I'm concerned with other things like CA, color, and distortions especially while pulling focus. I may be wrong, but I'm not sure if machine vision lenses are optimized to our needs. I would be interested in seeing more examples. I think they have potential for sure, as most 16mm lenses found on ebay will be older and certainly there has been a lot of progress made in lens manufacturing and quality control.

Daniel,

I'll have to see if i can dig some sample images out from my tests.

when you preview what you are about to shot, what are you actually looking at? Raw sensor information (very dark) or a display that has gone via a LUT?

I understand your test image, but real world unprepared examples are often the best!

If you're going via a LUT then perhaps that LUT needs work. I found that you expose for the highlights and be mindful of what's there in the shadows which is where your real midtones lay. But unless you're looking at full sensor data who knows what has happened to the image?

I have a stack of tests and things that i did but no time to write them up as i intended. I will see if i can find a couple of images that might represent what i mean.

See if you can borrow one of the fujinons, it really was pretty good (better than the 16mm cookes and switars i was also playing with). Nice feel to it too. Of course you may need to ensure that the lens you get is for single sensor and not 3 CCD (which would probably give CA)

cheers
paul

I've dug out a sample of what i mean (my first attempt at uploading images as well...)

the uncorrected image is basically linear result from the sensor and all the information we're interested in is in the shadows. These were 16bit RAW bayered images, debayered (badly!) into 16bit RGB tiffs and then in AE use the cineon Linear to Log for a quick and dirty conversion, some CC tweaks and then output back to 8bit.

Highlights are protected (see the window, top middle) yet there is good range in the shadows, the colours are pretty accurate for the day. The colour sparkling around the branches is just a result of the simple bilinear debayer. They were originally 1080p but i resized them for here.

Lens was a fujinon 25mm f1.4 however that's nor fair because it was a 2/3rds lens and the image circle barely covered this sensor (which was 1"), the edge performance is soft but that's the reason.

I hope the images look okay, my main workstation is calibrated but this laptop isn't and they look too wishy washy on here...

hope this helps...
cheers
paul

With the software that comes with the camera you see exactly what the image will look like once captured as a still or a video. However, there is no real time preview while capturing. You can use the histogram to help expose.

For the image I took that day, I only exposed by what I saw on the lcd. If I saw highlights I would step down and try to find a balance. This balance ended up at a point of strong highlights an too dark shadows. data lost on both ends, but I did not have a chance to do anything more. Had to be quick.

Except for the soft edges and a bit of a hot spot your images look good.

Paul,

let me see if I got you right. Depending on many factors (monitor gamma, LUT, filming environment) we may see a scene that LOOKS underexposed. Yet, it is correctly exposed as we are shooting to protect the highlights.

We then still have enough latitude and low noise levels, so we can pull the mid-tones in post.

If that's what you are saying, it would be great if Jose could repeat the balcony test (with the flowers). I would love to compare latitude to the SLR again.

Please keep posting,

Thomas

Paul,

let me see if I got you right. Depending on many factors (monitor gamma, LUT, filming environment) we may see a scene that LOOKS underexposed. Yet, it is correctly exposed as we are shooting to protect the highlights.

We then still have enough latitude and low noise levels, so we can pull the mid-tones in post.

If that's what you are saying, it would be great if Jose could repeat the balcony test (with the flowers). I would love to compare latitude to the SLR again.

Please keep posting,

Thomas

Thomas, Im just attempting to show the kind of image that comes directly off the sensor. Im concious that this is a summix thread and don't want to pollute it too much. Also light works logarithmically, so a sky is many orders of magnitutude brighter than a skin tone and being able to capture both is fundemental to all cameras. Even in your consumer cams the sensor is probably pulling 12bit off the sensor it's just that the AD converters and compression result in 8 bit HDV files simply because it's easier to transport.

But the dark image is closer to what the sensor sees and once you get RAW from the sensor that could be what it looks like. However in summix case they are sensibly applying a LUT or Gamma adjustment so that the dark image is processed a bit and you can see into the shadows. But a LUT should be more than a gamma curve and you'd want to change it for different situations. It would be nice though to be able to flag or mark certain exposure areas on the display - i've always fancied a zone system with false colours overlaid.

However one of the appealing things about these DIY cameras is that you do have control over everything so i would personally want control over the type of lookup in the camera or have the frames RAW. I hope that with summix you can.

I hope that makes sense. You'll only be able to judge the performance of the summix once RAW output is enabled, but it should be good. However none of these camera are magical!

cheers
paul

Paul,

I am fully supporting your argument, just trying to summarise it. It is the linear sensor response that we have to cram into a log. Depending on how steep the log curve is, midtones may still appear dark.

I understood that the poor highlight handling may just be using the wrong exposure settings rather than a shortfall of the sensor - just wanted to reconfirm that understanding.

On a side note, isn't it interesting how our body copes with variation? Log pattern hearing response, log pattern brightness response ...

Thomas

We probably even have a logarithmic pain receptors. I mean you can feel the lightest touch when only a single hair on your arm is moving or drive a thumbtack into your arm, and anything in between.

and what will happen then?
if it will be reality
i do not have any doubt about
http://redmodz.com/component/content/article/55-nab-2008/84-3k-scarlet

have fun

i do not have any doubt about
http://redmodz.com/component/content/article/55-nab-2008/84-3k-scarlet


I would not be trying to contribute to this thread, if Scarlet had featured an exchangable lens. But its great, isn't it. Sumix has a chance to get a large piece of the pie now.

And what's the fun of having a cam everybody else has ;-)

You're right Thomas... Scarlet sounds almost too good to be true. On the fixed lens part, I'm afraid Red won't put a cheap piece of glass there, so that's not really a big problem. I was wondering, is it really so important to change lenses when you have a high quality 2/3" specific 2.8 8x zoom? Ok, a bit slow, but as you say that's the strong point for the Sumix appart from the feeling that you're using a camera that very few people is using for filming purposes (that's encouraging for us DIYers), but then at less than $3000 for the basic Scarlet we better be ready to see birthday kids shot in 3K digital cinema.

EDIT:

I was thinking of this last part. Red is actually offering the camera for what they call "Soccer moms". But when it comes to "take the footage to Windows Movie Maker (lol) and add your kid's favourite music", how's a standard family computer going to edit 3K? I supose the cam will have 1080p mode but then the soccer mom won't have wide angles.

We have yet to see any footage from Scarlet. It may not be all that impressive. It has some very small pixels which in theory will have an impact on many factors including sensitivity.

I'm not trying to discourage anybody. I myself will probably buy one when its available. Really looking forward to seeing some footage.

I think its way too early to throw in the towel. We should be able to get a higher quality picture through the Sumix camera. Especially by having much less compression.

I still have faith in the Sumix. And even more now that I know it'll become a pc-independent cam.

Farhad, did you get my e-mail? (I used "Send message via e-mail" on your forum profile)

This HD seems just right for the PC-independednt (PC-hidden) camera

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Western_Digital_Velociraptor_300GB/

Sorry that I was too busy last few days to answer some of the questions.
Perhaps by next week new software for SMX-12A2C will be ready. Some features like 10 bit LUT will be released later.

One of my duties is to manage expectations. If we can continue progress and avoid surprises then we are on right track. The PC-less camera will not be competing with Scarlet or other mass production cameras. We agreed to attempt this with Sumix engineers with this idea that this camera will be hand made in batches of 5-10 and later perhaps in larger numbers. Each batch will be made reliable with custom features and presets. The goal will be to make them absolutely reliable in production environment with no surprise. The strength will be in high dynamic range and low signal to noise ratio and also in tested and tried performance. Because of no fear about parts going obsolete we can put in any batch what performance we can get. We are not sure how we will price them. Perhaps the price must be set so the next batch will be justified.

Everything sounds so good it's hard to believe.

So Farhad, you say the new software doesn't come with all the features you told us. Which ones are included and which are yet to come in new releases?

And about the PC-less camera, we were talking about CF cards, just like the Scarlet, but as it's going to have less compression, that 300gb HDD sounds perfect for it.

Anything else you can tell us about the cam?

I just ran across SheerVideo codec. Looks like its a wavelet codec like CineForm. They make some interesting claims on their website such as "SheerVideo is the fastest codec in the world." Advertised as fast and nondestructive.

SheerVideo is not free but its only $149.

This will take at least $850 off the final camera price. Even more when you consider Prospect 2k($1,500) just to edit the captured cineform raw files.

They have a demo, I have not tried it yet.

http://www.bitjazz.com/en/products/sheervideo/

sheervideo is not wavelet. wavelet is always lossy, destructive compression. sheervideo is lossless. it also doesnt support bayer video, so it might not be as useful as cineform raw which has support for raw, luts, nle plugins, adjustable display/debayer options etc and a tested workflow.

Noah, sorry to tell you but you are wrong.
Wavelet can be lossy or LOSSLESS. If you don't believe my word just look into Jpeg2000.
If you are applying a reversible transforn, and not doing any quantization on it, basically you get something which stores all the original information.Mathematically Lossless.

Same thing goes for Block Based compression.If you are using a "reversible" transform and don't use quantization, you get a lossless codec.

here is a great explanation on the mtf issue:

http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Demystifying_Part1.html

how does sumix compete speaking on mtf? compared to say, 3ccd cam? maybe viper... or one chip RED?

oh, juan, yes you are right. Sorry, I do not often hear of people using jpeg2000 for lossless compression but it is definitely available. I also have not heard of redcode or cineform supporting lossless compression.

what i should have said was simply that sheervideo is lossless only as far as i know and that cineform does not support mathematically lossless as far as i know, so its a tough comparison. since from what i understand sheervideo only supports YUV and RGB and mathematically lossless (avg ~2.5:1 compression for live video?) it probably only saves very little if any space per second of video compared to uncompressed raw.

Found some free time today to shoot some resolution charts to test the new lenses but I don't have the equipment or setup here at home to do it properly.

I printed the test chart at 600dpi on an inkjet printer. Lit with a single 200w light. Lenses were both at about f/3

This probably wont be much help to anyone, but thought I would share them anyway.

They turned out a lot darker then what I saw on my monitor. I may have more free time later this week to do it right.

(the ghosting is from another chart under the visible one. I could not tell it was visible at the time)

I did have one that was a little better.

Software white balance left the image a bit blue, the other file is just a quick adjustment to white.

go on this page
http://www.rytterfalk.com/2008/03/07/dp1-raw-pack-for-download/
and click left hand
on recent articles

The sigma DP1 using the same chip as the DSLR S14
with a wide angle glass you have to look at.
It is not high def but look at the footprint
the DP1 way smaller as any DSLR or anything else
and what can be done with.
Stunning
a bit rework with some clever software and miracle
have fun

it is so quiet her..the project is dead
whatt is going on friends.......

i hope it doesn't die!

Well... The project's not dead. It's only sleeping. I don't know about Daniel but I had to return my Sumix cam. I had to shoot a documentary in just two weeks and as the 12A2C was not yet ready for professional work I had to buy a HV20 plus Brevis adapter to get the image feeling I wanted. As I spent a lot of money on the whole equipment, I had to return the sumix to recover a bit.

The new software had many advantages compared to what we had before but it was still far from being ready for pro filmmaking. I don't know if StreamPix already supports this cam.

I haven't talked to Farhad for a long time now but I hope they're still working on the digital filmmaking area and I really hope they have something big in mind because by this time next year the RED Scarlet will be out with RAW 3K recording to flash cards. It will be hard to compete with it.

the problem will come when only one company does the cameras we directors/cinematographers/producers use! i don't want to be paying RED for a thing i need for my work! i don't want them decide what price i have to pay to do my work! that's why competition between companies is good, even if one has to support a lower quality product!

That's why I say I hope Sumix is working on something that's at least a basic filmmaking kit, but if you think about it, developing a FullHD or 2K standalone camera and place it below $3,000 so you can choose between Sumix and the Scarlet is not an easy task.

Let's face it, the RED One doesn't have any competitors so far and it's been out for more than a year. There're no S35mm 4K solutions near or below $17,500 (say $25,000 for a decent filmmaking kit) simply because it's too difficult to achieve.

It looks like the same will happen with the Scarlet. No other company offers a standalone 3K progresive RAW camera or anything near, let alone for just $3,000.

Who are their competitors? Silicon Imaging offers two cameras. The SI2K Mini depends on a pc to work, it's only 2K and it costs more than 4 times the Scarlet. The SI2K is near the price of the RED One and it offers half the resolution and half the sensor size. Dalsa offers 4K at very high prices. NOX offers a very filmlike image and 35mm DOF but again 2K and (I think) 3 times the price of the Scarlet. If those are the nearest competitors, then competition is over for now.

But don't worry. Prices on sensors and boards are going down dramatically. Competitors will come. It will take a little time but they will come.

And answering your post, Biel: What are you talking about? So far people like Panavision and Arri (with film) or Sony, Canon, Panasonic and JVC (with Pro video cams) DECIDED what you had to pay to do your work. And sometimes it was more than any of us could ever pay for. Did you ever consider shooting real cinema with your own camera before RED or SI came out? You don't like RED offering what no other company can offer yet? Fine, don't buy a Scarlet. Just think of what you would do if RED wasn't there and do it. Do you really think what they're doing is a bad thing? Do you consider having a 3K cinema camera for $3,000 a problem simply because there's no other option within that price range? I just don't get it.

Ok, the Scarlet is not here yet. We have one full year to see what other companies (including Sumix) can come up with.

Well done Jose
ok
I worked with Arri and Aataon for about more than 20 years
of my live, in photo with Hasselblad, Linhof, Cambo too.
Doing shorts and commercials for cinema, working for fashion,
the big ones. Names
All HAS to be digital today to go to print. It HAS to be razor sharp,
Meg Pixel, clean, plastic look It HAS to be as some art directors today even don't remember it has been an non digital age out there.
Time of bad pictures as they like to say. They claim to see the
Meg pix res on screen if it has been 12 MP or 36 ....imagine.

Silly but true, 2001, 2002 I phased out, burned out,
cracked down and had to close my biz.

Silicon started hopefully with a German partner it showed off
Mercedes like , price wise. Hmmmmm

Sumix ok the third party software seems do do cineform quite well
but it is a not easy to take with you product yes and I guess will never
be as there is no real intention to step into and compete with the big names in Cine Cams as some of them are also players in industrial cams.

Red is a bit like Ubuntu.One person drives it the intention to have it out mainly related with Apple, it will be a very handy package the Scarlet and it shows clearly a cool work flow with FCP on Apple.
Nobody else in industry is backing up Indie and low budget film as RED.
Lets face it, Sun is going GPL and community, Red is quite doing the same with Scarlet you get what you pay for.

Hunting DOF can burn much money again, you lose dammed real some light and it will be a huge package again. cumbersome to manage, a pain but with High pro looks.

Why copying the old cine style down to the grain pixelwise?
Why not experiment a new style quick, dirty like Hip Hop and Blues
in full digital film.

Regine

please go there
and watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZqxUk_vOIk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUvxwl-8umc&feature=related
30 FPG QVGA with the foveon sensor

so what look at the price in US and the $ is low
imaging 4 of them and start with a dremel.
We have to split the incoming image in 4
possible
the DP1 will pump raw out
we have to stitch it
and voila
we can go from 50 to 3200 ISO

attach an 35 MM lens on photo lens we will have DOF and all
eech camera is a full functional system at least

BTW, don't want to hijack the tread, but I thought Jose's post was very interesting, so I'm curious to see how others feel. Right now there is a lot of understandable buzz about higher resolutions, but I'd like to see what the rest of you think, as it seems like everything I hear is always centered around resolution as the key decider for what makes one imaging system better than another.

Do you see overall image quality (this includes dynamic range, sensitivity, color fidelity, DOF characteristics, etc.), functionality (features in the camera, integration with other systems, and overall workflow), or resolution as the most important attribute of a camera system?

Does highest resolution automatically = highest image quality (this again includes dynamic range, sensitivity, color fidelity, DOF characteristics, etc.)?

At what point does the overall functionality of one system out-weight the perceived higher image quality of another system?

Thanks,

Jason

Hi Jason,

I'm sorry if I sounded too biased towards RED or put resolution as the only thing that matters in digital cinematography when I've always thought that dynamic range, color, etc. are very important as well. In fact I think SI cameras give an image much closer to real 35mm film than the RED One, which is known to have its own "cinema look". Besides all that I think you'll agree what RED is promising with the Scarlet is pretty amazing. It won't be a perfect camera. It'll probably have problems in low light situations due to the extra resolution with the same sensor size as the SI2K and it'll probably have the "unique" film look of the RED One, but it'll also start another revolution simply because almost anyone will be able to shoot digital cinema instead of video (that'll be a problem too).

As a filmmaker I love shooting digital because it's fast, easy, cheap and it can give amazing results but I don't really like "pure" digital image. I'm always adding little imperfections in post so it looks more organic and dirty and I hate when digital cameras overexpose lights that could be perfectly natural and soft if shot in film. That's why I started the other thread about film look in digital cinema, because I love that look so much that I don't want it to die. And it's actually dying. It happened with photography and it will happen with cinema. Even people like Spielberg, who says he'll be shooting 35mm film as long as he can buy reel, are slowly entering in the digital world. In fact I saw a digital projection of Indy4 (which was shot in film) and (IMHO) the main reason I didn't like it was because it looked like a TV show. So organic look and dynamic range are two of the most important things for me when shooting or watching a movie and for me SI cameras have that look.

Now, what I don't get is why SI has been offering almost the same, for the same price for more than two years when RED is offering a 3K standalone camera for 1/4 the price of the SI2K mini. I know SI cameras have been really hard to develop (software as well as hardware) but is extra dynamic range and Cineform really worth all that money?

Jason, that's a very interesting (and under-reported) point. Personally, I prefer larger pixels than higher resolution, so that I could film in available light if required. But everyone seems to be chasing big frame sizes even though 2k cinema is likely to be professionally acceptable for some time to come.

I hope this digital revolution doesn't end up being a "who's got the biggest K" war. Let's see if something between 2K and 5K set a standard, being 5K something like "Ultra detailed cinema". If not we can end up with "Super105mm" 25K sensors in five years. Shooting at full apperture in overlighted sets because all those pixels in such a small surface cannot gather enough light. With lenses as big a 4 cameras. Want narrow DOF? How about shooting with a 28mm lens and having 1 inch of the scene in focus and the rest totally blurred?

Ok, that was crazy... But many people said 4K was too much and RED announced 5K for the EPIC.

Well
we can say wait and see for 5, 10, 15 years.

Keep in mind cost of reel is going high and higher, and
as with photo the material, eg film is fading out.

In any case you have to scan, to do post and than ??
on reel again maybe that changes in some years.

What we need is a proper work flow
and not fiddling around with bits, peaces, and software
used to control industrial cameras.

SI got it, but did not move , simply put.
Look for photo digital backs, even used
crazy high asking prices. And
PIXEL COUNT war is going on
art directors as young never touched an analog camera
are crying for meg Pixels.
THAT is reality as it happen for ELLE, VOGUE and all

Red is not the holy grain but
a better package as SI as the user base is there.

Years ago there was and still is an Arri,
Aaton and even Eclair community.

Today the Red community is growing.

The Si and Sumix community is not there
so no one is pushing them to move the small steps
we do need to use this camera.

I've considered these issues quite closely, i've even had a pop at throwing together a camera from sensor heads and hacking around with software so i've got a fairly good idea of what's involved.

Firstly i don't think scarlet is a 'digital cinema' camera, it's a mass produced point and shoot camcorder, albeit with 3k resolution. (I would love to see what post route 'soccer mums' will use :) )

For me, the most important properties of a camera would be

- dynamic range
- DOF
- sensitivity
- colour accuracy
- frame rates
- resolution (so long as it's 2k min)

there is no sensor currently that checks all my boxes. The good sensors aren't available as they belong to sony, panasonic et al. (you cannot get a FIT based CCD that im aware of for example). But sensor technology changes, and it is my hope that the APS-C sized sensors will become more able and this will filter down. But sensors for what we want are a tiny market compared to the rest. I know kodak have a new range of CCDs coming out that improve again so maybe with these. Altasens have their HDR sensors sometime, but i know very little about them, also CMOS need a lot more processing work than CCDs.

There is an argument against 35mm size as well because the DOF is too narrow vs aperture. With an APS-C sized sensor i can use an f1.4 lens with good shallow DOF (same as f2.2ish on 35) and, most importantly, the low light capability of f1.4. If i wanted the same low light capability on 35 at f1.4, the DOF would be razor sharp and pretty impractical. Also in the case of red, the zooms are around f2.8 upwards which is fine for DOF but lack low light capabilities. So i don't really believe 35mm is the best thing.

Digital has the *potential* to outdo film acquisition in time and i personally think that 35mm isn't the holy grail (nor 65). But the APS-C sized sensors in most dSLRs offer a better compromise for day to day practical uses.

i hope this makes sense
paul

BTW, don't want to hijack the tread, but I thought Jose's post was very interesting, so I'm curious to see how others feel.

Jason,

I meant to add to my message above that I think SI should look into the whole APS-C sensor area. I think it's a sweet spot between all the various possibilities and the glass is plentiful. It would certainly differentiate SI from everyone else at the moment. You could take one of the sensors and bin the pixels to increase senstivity and make the dataflow easier off the sensor. I believe i've read in various places of sensors already doing the kind of frame rates needed. They probably all need a mechnical shutter though...

Or Fahard, perhaps summix could do something for DIYers?

cheers
paul

latitude and sensitivity are the key elements for me, now i'm shooting with hvx with only 4 stops of usable range and it gets me into nerves to shot with that thing, any improvement in latitude is wellcome

anyway, farhad, how would a gpgpu perform in order to encode raw into some kind of lossless codec? would it demand too much power? maybe a mobile computer gpgpu? how does it compete with the actual fpga in the camera?