The actual wait time for a camera installation will be in the order of 3-5 days. Even though we haven't finalized pricing yet, I can tell you now that everything will be included in the price, including shipping both ways, installation and the device itself. Our goal is to carry out installation the same day the camera is received and send it out the same day or the day after.

Hope this helps.
Juan

I need a ballpark price Juan..what is it!

This will help me decide if I want to get an XL2 or not ;)

Hi Juan

Great News. I would very much like to be a beta tester for the pal version of the camera. Tell me what do I need to do?

Edon

Juan -- just sent ya a fairly important email -- let me know what you think about it,

Juan, congradulations.

I have an important question for everybody. I've heard of cameras that have the ability to output a uncomrpessed frame (via firewire or secret inernal header). I understand that the JVC GY-DV500 has an internal header for 4:2:2, but what cheap cameras can you download uncompressed frames?

Thanks

Wayne.

Great work reel stream on your system. Can you post full res video from you setup.

michael pappas

I for one would like to see this header! I own the GY500 JVC and it's a great camera...would love 4:2:2 outa it!

If anyone has the service manual for that camera, I can look at it and post here where it is if it exists.

Juan

<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : I for one would like to see this header! I own the GY500 JVC and it's a great camera...would love 4:2:2 outa it! -->>>

Your going to find this amazing, I've used that camera and I allways use it (and the 5000) as the reference of the minium picture quality I want out of a camera. As it is 4:2:2 I assume it must be before the comrpession stage. I forget who told me about this origionally, but I have also discussed it with a camera technician (I think it is used for servicing), he quickly stopped talking about it when he realised what I was after. Maybe somebody over at abcdv.com might know (they do hidden feature thing on these cameras) I think the guy has a pro group on camcordinfo.

But what I am interested in is other smaller, cheaper cameras (PD150 and smaller). The quality may not be there compared to 12-bits and require extra work, but the RAW detail should be interesting. Even single chip, if we get past the loss of detail or mis-colouration, it would be a major improvement.

I would be very interested in having my Canon XM1 (the 25fps PAL GL1) converted to export uncompressed BMP-sequences to a computer for greenscreen work.

How long do you reckon before this is possible? Can I be a beta-tester?

The project it will be used on is a scifi movie (90 mins), shot completely on greenscreen in a single location. One of the people on my crew is a color correction expert who is developing new color software, so the final image would look great.

Is there any plans for a version based on the new Sony consumer HDV? With this virsatility it doesn't matter that it's not the pro version?

Is there any reveiws of the Sony's image performance now?

Thanks

Wayne.

Wayne:

You can find out more about this topic in the reel-stream forum->general:

http://forum.reel-stream.com

Several people have asked about the new Sony FX1/Z1.

Cheers,
Juan

Yes, things seem to have gone dead here, pity.

Wayne.

Hi Juan

I'm a bit tired so don't want to get into starting another forum up. But what ZI said about the Sony ZI camera goes down to 4.7:1 mpeg2 compression, is that true? That is quiet a remarkable feat, do they apply that during movement and extra details? Do you think that the quality of 4.7:1 Mpeg2 is too close to a 8 bit raw file. 4.7 would almost be visually lossless.

How exactly does the pixel shift HD feature work, what are the parameters now?

We all are worrying about tapping into the hardware directly, but most of this data is available by a reprogrammed rom and a compliant FIrewire400 port. The firmware in these cameras could be changed much cheaper to do this.


Thanks

Wayne.

what ZI said about the Sony ZI camera goes down to 4.7:1 mpeg2 compression, is that true? I'm not sure, but it doesn't make sense to me. The bandwidth of the tapes is the same as mini DV(25Mbps), and the sampling pattern has the same kernel size (4:2:0~4:1:1), but the frame size is over 4 times the size of miniDV. I fail to see how compressing the data at a smaller ratio than DV will yield bandwidth that can fit on the 25Mbps DV tape. It just doesn't add up.How exactly does the pixel shift HD feature work, what are the parameters now?
The CCD's in the DVX are not aligned. There is a half-pixel shift in both axes on the green CCD which carries about half of all the image information. This half-pixel shift captures details which lie in between sensor elements of the red and blue sensors. Utilizing this knowledge, a mosaic can be built which is similar to what is obtained from a single color HD CCD. The image can be demosaiced in a similar manner to obtain the HD image, which is 4 times the size of an individual sensor, 1546x990.The firmware in these cameras could be changed much cheaper to do this.Nope.

Cheers,
Juan

DV uses something like mjpeg, HDV uses mpeg2 varient (and it seems more variability than the JVC HDV mod, though I'm still really unclear on what I was reeading late last night). So you can regard mjpeg as more sloppy than mpeg2 at compression, while mpeg4 is more tight again, and wavelet as possibly more tight again. A company like Cineform has a very tight visually lossless codec yielding upto 6-10:1.

So with the newer techniques the latter codecs store they can store more detail in less space. But still I think 50Mb's would have been better, until I saw this variability thing (if I'm reading it right). This might also explain it's adoption, that Sony has Bluray as there pro version, so that canbe really variable.

I think cineform is making it's codec available to variouse licencies, so a hardware codec chip might become avaialble for it.

Any thoughts?

Wayne.

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------

The image can be demosaiced in a similar manner to obtain the HD image, which is 4 times the size of an individual sensor, 1546x990.

_____________________________________

that is near HD
so if it is true how to do this anyway
maybe a stupid question
but I had a lousy night
ronald

WOW
than we take a static adapter
and we ha do have the Indie Cam
DO WE ??
that sounds so cool dammed cool anyway
to cool to be true

OR ??

<<<-- Originally posted by Ronald Biese : WOW
than we take a static adapter
and we ha do have the Indie Cam
DO WE ??
-->>>
Yes Ronald,WE DO!
As I understand the SD RAW mode for DVX100 is done and that "HD mode" is a BONUS !!!:)
Canon XL2 is the next one in the Andromeda's "Roadmap" - more resolution plus changeble lenses! ...I know nothing about what lenses can be used...may be lenses from Canon still cameras?

I know the programing development kit may make it easier with xl2 but if it doesn't do pixel shifting too get at least 720p, then you would be better to go to the Sony instead, cheaper, HD is understood natively in the controls etc. Just an opinion.

Actaully with the programing developement kit, can you just program it to take the raw data and output it out the firewire?

Dear Juan & Wayne

Yes, found it in the German XL2 documentation, written like this, exact like this:"CCD Pixel Shift, horizintal"

A lousy translation but as the XL2 has changables lenses
a mini 35 Adapter, the Juan Mod and the Indiecam is born

What do you think Juan ?? will it work I like to know

Ronald

I forgot, I don't know where ever that pixel shift is usefull for HD or not. But if so, great. But still, does the programmers kit allow you to output raw to firewire? This would solve many problems (and be cheaper) now if the camera was half the price ;).

I'm waiting for input from Juan too...but while waiting here is my thoughts:


Wayne,
Green pixel shift on DVX100 produses some kind of a mosaic since the greens are in
between other pixels,so with the help of a Juan's custom "deBayer" application the
result is REAL HD image!
If we assume that the REDs end BLUEs are shifted too,then the RAW output should be equal
to the output from CMOS sensor with the 3xHorizontal and 3xVertical number of pixels...
However the REDs and BLUEs are aligned,but still I like the images posted from DVX100 ( http://forum.reel-stream.com/viewtopic.php?t=51&sid=7e9a1d29df0c09188b568415fb2eebc4) more than the ones on SI webpage...

In current state the Andromeda's output is uprocessed RAW data from sensor through USB2 only(no FireWire).
All the corections/demosaics should be maded in software later.However you can set on the "Magic Box" to output 10bcc instead of 12.

Ronald,
In "classic 3CDD" sensors there is no pixel shift-I'm very curious about that XL2 documented "CCD Pixel Shift, horizintal".
At least I beleave the shift in DVX100 is because Panasonic have plans to release a consumer HD camera using DVX100
as a base and ONLY implement the demosaic algorithm in the DSP chip...

Well all XL did have pixelshift to do something like 16:9 as I do know, it was mentioned since the first XL 1 that this is not a true 16: 9 biy it has been theremaybe Cannon will do something like Pana, but Cannon is all the time a closed box

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=114&modelid=7471#f0

they do it only with the green snsor, with the GL's as well and the XL2 to

Yes, Canon used this to lower the number of pixels needed and increase low light ability. Also this fits the way DV pixels format are recorded. I do not know it's performance compared to straight three chip image quality. I defintely am interested in it compared to single chip bayer, because the pixels collect RGB light for all pixels and do not suffer Bayers throw away 2/3rds of the colours for each pixel mentality.

Realistically (especially on 4:2:0 imagary) you are going to get better HD range and low light ability, even when using SD progressive chips. So this fits 720p and HDV 1440*1080 prety well.

Hello everyone,

The green channel CCD contains a great deal(~half) of the RGB image information. If the XL2 has ~only~ horizontal shift, then the resolution can be doubled only in the horizontal direction, which wouldn't be great if we can't get all the vertical CCD real-estate to fire.

On the DVX the green CCD is physically shifted in both directions.

The pixel shift can be used to increase the resolution depending on the physical arrangement. In the XL1s for example, the ~280k pixel CCD's are used with pixel shift to get a higher resolution image.

On the DVX the resulting image resolution is past 720P just because of the size of the sensors.

Had a look at globalmediapro, and the price of the XL2 is way cheaper than in Australia, where it is so expensive to make it rediculouse for a prosumer SD camera.

If what you say is true, it is exactly the same as Canon did to get 270Kp to act like 410Kp. Actually their patent should reference any older patents the incamera pixel shift decoding technology is based upon. A good place to start.

A cheaper way to do all this is if somebody could hack the firmware of the cameras to download the raw through the 400Mb/s firewire. Possibly even SD cameras may be enticed to give up a bigger frame.

Wayne:

You cannot 'hack the firmware' on any of these cameras without HEAVILY modifying the board and desoldering/soldering components. Most of these cameras use programmable logic which is DESIGNED to protect the IP of both the camera manufacturer and the IC manufacturer.

If the camera does happen to have a feature to do something which is 'hidden' then that's something different. But making it do something it wasn't designed to do will always take modificiations. And what you're talking about will take heavy modifications. It's a million times easier to just take the signals out and record them.

Juan

As long as it is within reason it is viable. I imagine that there is methords for service centres to upgrade the firmware to repair bugs, it can almost be garranteed on all but he cheapest cameras (in matter of fact I know for certain that this is possible on at least one camera). Firewire will take it. If we look at the security taken on Playstation 2's (and many consoles) to prevent hacking, some mods were so simple as rewire a few traces to bypass the security, or find a software methord to run programs, I don't imagine cameras are normally going to be any more difficult. I have also heard of one of these cheap cameras running 3D games off the LCD, after being reprogrammed. The biggest problem, not having a program manual, is working out the memory map/timing, and obtaining different specs for the different parts. The existing firmware should show you how much of it works. I don't mean to be direspectfull, but I think it can work. But in the end a software upgrade could be sold for $100-$200. I guess I am just getting impatient waiting for variouse projects/cameras to come through, and am open to cheap options.

Thanks for your comment

Wayne.

Wayne,

I really understand what you're trying to say, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how at least the DVX100 works. It is not a playstation, it's very different. There are entire set-hardware stages between the raw data and the firewire. You'd have to literally build a new circuit, and it would so difficult that, like i said, piping the signals out is an easy task compared to it.

If the whole camera ran off a microcontroller or microprocessor, then that'd be different. but it does not. What you're saying would involve changing the circuit VERY significantly(i'm talking 100's or 1000's of jumpers, external IC's and circuitry, SMD soldering galore), that if you had those skills why not just build your own camera?

Juan

I understand where your coming from too, if a camera has re-programmable (even tapping in a new rom) stages (no just a processor but several processor, DSP's and DSP compression stages, which need to be bypassed if they are not reprogammable). For a tech centre to propperly test a sensor for fault they also would need a way to check the whole frame uncompressed. Then you can get that information, even if you get some abstraction of it (say 8 bit before comrpession but with better routines, then you are doing much better than the straight camera). In this modern day and age I would not be suprised if a number of cameras use reprogrammable stages all the way, and nearly all of them use at least one reprogammable stage. Maybe this camera is one that has it wired down propperly, but that doesn't mean all cameras are like that. It also maybe cheaper to tap and the signals (realisign that there will be light loss from splitting the signal and maybe some extra niose) but for the end user the process is fair bit more excpensive. Of curiosity how much is the conversion now?

The best thing is that camera hacking is uncommon, so some manufacturers may not have taken enough precautions against it. Just a thought for anybody out there that wants to do it. I'll just leave it there.

Thanks

Wayne.

I haven't had experience with all cameras, but I do know how all the prosumer Sony cameras are setup (PDX10, PD150, PD170, etc) and even all the consumer models because i have access to all their service manuals with full schematics. I'm also extremely familiar with the DVX100/A.

There is simply NO WAY of doing what you say with just repogramming software in any of these cameras, period. The problem is that it is NOT cost effective for the company to use all programmable stages when they can purchase set-hardware IC's that are extremely cheap and do the job. You CAN'T reprogram these IC's.

And BTW, what is more cost effective for servicing: writing tons of design software and modifying the entire circuit to allocate for service features such as outputting uncompressed frames

OR

simply probing the chip like i'm doing and getting raw frames anyway.

There's just zero cost overhead with the last method. They have no reason to make it more complicated. It's a lot cheaper for them to just replace the CCD without even testing it.

And i'm not really sure what you're talking about light loss from 'splitting a signal' and 'extra noise'. Digital signals don't suffer any degradation when being probed directly, that's the whole point. These are basic concepts.

Juan

Sorry if I have annoyed you Juan, I said I would leave it at that last time. I think it is cheaper to design with reprogrammable stages that are at least, poked different values for different cameras' different feature sets, if they don't they are probably either making them unhackable or still stuck in the stone age. Either way I'm surprised. And I wasn't talking about digital signal degregation.

What's the pricing on the mod now?


Thanks

Wayne.

Dear Wayne: as Juan told you there is no way other as to take literally the raw data out.

Sony Germany and my guy there I do know since 25 years, here is nothing hidden in a Prosumer or Consumer or Pro cam. They do not have a modul approach even if you don't believe it.

The only cam, Pro, I do know is the Ikegami edid Cam, since 5 years out, writing direct to disk and came from an Avid Idea as ENG Cam. Never a big bang as ENG People and the rest are tape wise.

There was a small Company in Berlin, they build the same, but as they had no big name and no marketing staff they sold only a few and are now Ikegami dealer. Maybe Ikegami is the only one even in the Pro scene, with a modul aproach anyway.

You wont believe, look in a consumer cam as a XL xx if a controller for a 5 axis welding machine would be build this way no service and no time between failure !!

I have accepted Juan's explanation, though I have doubts, and suprised at the Camera industries backwardness (which must cost them to make different IC's (=small chip runs) for each camera rather than have a general reprogrammable (which canbe setup through on chip registers) parts that can be shared accorss the millions of cameras sold, rather than hundreds of thousands or less for individual models).

No wonder they make so little money on something that should cost half the price (allways wondered where they wasted that money). But I lack the time to examine servicing manuals, in detail, or to get and detail look at all the proper datasheets, that is what is really needed, so I'll leave it at that.

It's is no wonder the projects are coming in at such cheap prices compared to the camera companies. Inevitably small consumer electronics companies are going to send them virtually broke. Look at those sub $200 Solid State MPEG4 cameras and realise that, in effect, the physical performance difference (please note what I exactly mean here) between them and a proper camera is narrowing fast.

Sony might have to rename themselves, PLAYSTATION INC, just to survive . So I can't help camera companies ignorance, serves them right for doing us over for years.

Wayne:

In fact the ENG market is a very lucrative one.Lots of cash flow just to get the latest fastest thing available....
Also just think about the cost of a pro Video Zoom lens.How much of those 50,000 bucks do you think goes for the manufacturing cost?

What is not so lucrative on the camera side is the consumer market, that is why they get their money from tape, memory sticks and the like.

Most of the camera's cost goes to: Lens system , housing and tape mechanism.
IC's are in fact very cheap for big companies which have their own foundrys in most cases.Also take note that many many different models share the same IC's.
For example DV compressor is the same for your handycam and for an ENG style camera..

It's not a matter of backwardness or not. It's just a matter of circuit design. There are very few circuits out there that use ONLY programmable logic! Most use a combination of cheap IC's and programmable IC's (either ASICS or microprocessors/controllers). You can't just 'jumper' and bypass these set hardware units.

Let me be more specific. The firewire link layer on the DVX100 is a set chip. Right there, your idea is dead. Because the DV stream functionality of firewire is built into the set circuitry in this chip, you'd have to have a competely programmable circuit connected to that IC in order for you to program your own customized firewire protocol for the raw data. but guess what, that chip is actually(among others) hooked up to the MPEG compressor layer IC, which is ALSO set circuitry. You get the picture?

This is not just the DVX, I know for a fact all Sony consumer and prosumer cameras are setup in a similar way, and because it is such a standard way of setting up these kind of circuits, i'm sure almost every other camera is setup like this. This is not backwardness, or mediocrity, this is THE WAY this kind of circuits are designed. Why would you ever sit down to design an A/D, or a firewire layer, or an MPEG layer IC, when you can just purchase one? manufacturers only use programmable logic for what they NEED programmable logic. Everything else they would be wasting money. And they are right in doing so.

Juan

So they do use shared IC's, as I guessed, but it seemed to be implied that they were each with different ones, which would lead to short runs and high prices, and you know how much third party IC's are used in CE. So how come cameras have different controls and features if they use the same IC. I would guess it is that features are selected for the model, would that be right, by on chip registers, would that not be the case in a stratified market like this in many different electronics products. So that is programmable. It occured to me a while ago that what I meant by progammability, you didn't mean. I let it be known that the register stuff was included, and shared memory, that another processor can get at before processing.

So propper saving is using a lrage volume IC that can be configured in different ways, usingf short run IC's would be backwards. Now the moral question, not stoping people from modifying a camera (through design or otherwise) and giving the most features for a price is the moral thing to do, otherwise is backwards. So that is the angles I was responding to, and what I mean by backwards.

Now on camera pricing, how muchg more do you think it really costs to manufacture most of these cameras compared to a modern $249 VHSC camcorder, all those flexible prices, like the GS120 that is around $500 at the moment, exactly, we are hoodwinked. Where ever the profit is being made by the IC manufacturer on higher performance parts, or the camera maker, or even retail end, there is significant profit. The real cost difference between the low performance parts and the higher perforamnce parts might only be upto double, the case, lense, sensor, block (as panasonic obviously has done) can be mass produced cheaply. This stratification is market driven economies at work. It is not until you get to the high end, or brand new catergories (like even the JVC HD1/10 was when it was first released) that you are likely to see truely high cost parts to get the maxium perforamnce. Is it a conspiracy? Well, I leave that up to others than me.

Now Jaun, are you saying that the firewire chip, is not a chip that can be setup to accept different format of data, like the firewire standard provides for? Do you concure, that through reconfiguring setup, and/or command, registers, and accessing by the controll processor to the data through shared memory,l that it might be possible to gather and pass raw output to the firewire that is designed to operate between 12.5MB/s (as used in old cameras) to 50MB/s?

It is a matter of design, and with the examples of real world camer reprogrammability I have mentioned before, I think it is highly unlikely that it is impossible on all cameras out there. But this does require significant time and effort as you suggest.


I am glad to have the chance to debate the two Jauns at the same time, but lets just leave it there and move on. I have a new camera you might want to try, I'll wait to I'm certain they are on the market, and can't be made incompatible. I am certainly impressed with the results from the DVX100 compared to normal, and compared to what we have been getting with the Micron 1.3MP based Cinema camera projects. I imagine that cheaper chips could even have enough get up and go to match the Micron based camera. Would you agree? So what do you think, would a $500 GS120 3 chip, or the 400, be able to match the Micron, or a IBIS5? None of these are the camera I was talking about, but are an interesting discussion, especially if they have pixel shift and the mod canbe done cheap enough to warrant it.


Thanks, and my Regards,

Wayne.

So how come cameras have different controls and features if they use the same IC.

Because the one or two(at the most) programmable IC's are embedded in several layers of NOT programmable logic. Even if we suppose for a second that reprogramming an FPGA already on a printed circuit board doesn't take any modification to the board itself, that will not do you any good if there are four pre-set hardware IC layers between your FPGA code and the firewire port. Get it now?

And this applies for microcontrollers/microprocessors/ASICS, etc as well.

Now Jaun, are you saying that the firewire chip, is not a chip that can be setup to accept different format of data, like the firewire standard provides for?

In the printed, and soldered circuit board in which it is in, in these cameras, yes that's correct. There's nothing 'software' or 'slight' modification that you can do to reconfigure the firewire interface.

In fact, the firewire link layer is hardwired to the MPEG encoder IC which is also not-programmable hardware.

You have to build a new circuit, period.

And if you can point to one camera that doesn't work in this manner, i'd like to hear it, make sure you have actually seen the schematics. Hand waving arguments about how you think cameras work are fine, but what i'm talking here are facts that I can point out in schematics, not opinions.

Cheers,
Juan

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini : I am glad to have the chance to debate the two Jauns at the same time, but lets just leave it there and move on.-->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Juan P. Pertierra : Because the one or two(at the most) programmable IC's are embedded in several layers of NOT programmable logic. Even if we suppose ... that will not do you any good if there are four pre-set hardware IC layers between your FPGA code and the firewire port.-->>>

Thanks, that's something.

Wayne.

I've been waiting months and months to see this project materialize and nothing yet. . .

Is this going to happen? Where's the website that was once "in progress"?

What is the level of progress of this project? I've not been here for a lot of months and aren't able to read all the posts - could someone summarize?

<<<-- Originally posted by Ron Severdia : I've been waiting months and months to see this project materialize and nothing yet. . .

Is this going to happen? Where's the website that was once "in progress"? -->>>

http://www.reel-stream.com/

<<<-- Originally posted by Flax Johnson : <<<--
http://www.reel-stream.com/ -->>>

Yes, it has already happened.

Juan,

Do you have an estimate of when you might start to sell this product? I'm interested in knowing a timeframe if that is at all possible to give.

From what I've read, it supposed to become widely available this summer (for DVX only), at a price point less than what a new DVX would cost.

So, theoritically, by the end of the summer, for what an XL2 or Z1 would cost, you could have a DVX with Andromeda that will shoot 4:4:4 12-bit 720p video - plus the laptop and external drives you're going to need for capture.

Juan,
You should really consider making this mod for the XL2, and not the dvx...and I'll tell you why. The Chip on the XL2 is a double sized, cropped 4:3 chip. They crop it to allow for true 16:9. If you did it this way, you'd have no trouble what so ever obtaining a true uncompressed HD single from a DV cam.

You'd have to imagine that with your mod, and a 16:9 lense converter the images would be out of this world for the cost.

Thanks,
Frank

I think he might be able to the do the xl2 eventually. They might be trying to figure the xl2 out still.

Frank,


Juan started this project MANY months before the the Xl2 was even announced. He's no doubt invested a LOT of time and money in the DVX mod. If you look at the website
www.reel-stream.com
you'll see that the next camera they plan to mod is the xl2.

The work they are doing isn't exactly easy... so... one camera at a time my friend. You shall have your Xl2 mod, but not before the DVX.

If memory serves there was also a problem with the green CCD offset on the XL2. The CCD is only offset horizontally so it was only possible to interpolate more resolution horizontally, as opposed to the DVX which is offset diagonally so 720P can be taken from it. Like I said I am just going from memory on this but I am pretty sure that was one of the big XL2 problems.