<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Ipp : Wayne, did you get the Cyborg? -->>>

Sorry, I didn't I have too many other things at the moment, and I can't afford it.

I am interesed in maybe making casings for these units commercially. I had designs in mind when I was looking into doing my own camera last year. I am currently thinking of an air tight, water tight, demountable (lego like unit) with some nifty styling, and ergonimic like features, in a shoulder mount version. A handheld version with one drive (so only single chip 720 at first) might be a possibility.

So does anybody know of a firm that could fund, make and sell these sorts of cases cheap and offer some design help. If I do it right then any commercial camcorder could also use it (firewire controls).

There is at least one plastic extrusion company locally here as well.


<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Ipp : Thank you for advice, Wayne.
Just add "camera" in front of the "@" :) -->>>

Still the name of the person, email me if it is conf?

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : OK, this has come up a bunch of times and I've hinted at it. We are getting an Altasens design running. First proto is taking images. Please don't ask too much more but I will release information here when it is appropriate. Figure 6-8 weeks to first shipments. -->>>

As long as somebody offers a good quality 3 chip in the near future?

From another post I constructed:

Hi

I've just read the Bayer pattern doc at Stanford, and just realised I have been laboring under a missconception about Bayer. I thought the bayer was a overlaping complimentary scheeme (that would allow upto double the light sensitivity, as two primaries are sampled for every position) and more correct colour and resolution than a primary scheeme, a bearable compromise at 1080). Does such a scheeme exist, and is it's performance really upto scratch?

The algorithms on the additive primary bayer pattern are mainly res upscaling and smoothing, with a real Raw resolution of 640*360 (double in the green, even though it is cheaper, is this much better than upscalling 3chip RAW DV?) estimation from other primiaries is never going to be completely accurate, as a estimation of primary colour instensity change is going to be hard to predict even if you try to use the intermediatory of another primary, but of course the colours are brillant. The problem then comes into effectively upscaling an bayer upscaled image. So I think we need 4 sensor pixels for evey true pixel (but extra pixels reduce performance), well just my opinion and one I think would affect my purchase.

Thanks

Wayne.

Wayne on Bayer:
Intrinsic t the Bayer concept is that the image is 50% green pixels. Since green is in the middle and the filters aren't perfect, you get some response from part of the blue and green areas. Also, the eye is most sensitive to green. This means that for a scene with the normal array of colors, you get the majority of spatial information (edges, high frequency) from the majory of pixels. Of course low end reds and high end blues will give only 25% of the resolution, but a good algorithim might give 75% overall.

Say guys, I copied this from another thread:

Not sure if this will help or not but I found a codec for free that supports 16 bit per channel as well as an alpha channel making a 64 bit video codec. It works on mac and pc with just quicktime 5. Best of all it is free. They even have a lossless codec that can get 6:1 compression with no loss but that codec is $99.00. I know it isn't 12 bit per channel but it might be an easier way for people to manage files opposed to a series of stills. Besides right now the tiff files will need to be 16 bit anyways.


http://www.digitalanarchy.com/micro/micro_none16.html

Wayne Morellini wrote:
I am currently thinking of an air tight, water tight, demountable (lego like unit) with some nifty styling, and ergonimic like features, in a shoulder mount version. A handheld version with one drive (so only single chip 720 at first) might be a possibility.Wayne, keep me in the loop if you get anywhere with this. I've been thinking about trying to build a "shoulderable" camera out of this project. (Sort of a "Kinetta lite" I guess :-)

Sumix and Steve,
and Robs you need to have a look at some of this.

Took me a while but I finally found that high speed serial interface.

HDMI - High Definition Multimedia Interface. Small like USB, is the next generation of DVI (using:

"High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP)", "VESA’s Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) standard, Display Data Channel (DDC) standard (used to read the EDID), and Monitor Timing Specification (DMT). In addition, the EIA-861 standard specifies mandatory and optionally supported resolutions and timings, and how to include data such as aspect ratio and format information."
www.sigmadesigns.com/support/DVI_HDMI.htm )

It also will also send hi-end surround sound at the same time.

Consumer grade (so hopefully will be cheap). Supported by a lot of big companies, so it should eventually come to multimedia PC's (hopefully replacing the VGA port). The speed is 5GB/s (for one socket). So not as fast as Camnerlinks 2.3GB/s (on SI website), but looking below it should serve much of our future needs.

And it only gets better. One of the links below says that behind the scene the manufacturers are agreeing on mass to use HDMI as the default video connection ;).

You can get DVI to HDMI convertor cables (anybody what AGP graphics cards with DVI input will do HD resolutions, bandwith limitations, and cheap capture cards limitations, just dissapeared). I could not find mention of HDMI on VIA, but they have just announced a graphics/capture addin cards, I would think with DVI, I expect this to eventually carry over to the ITXEden form factor ;).

You can also get HD-SDI to DVI adaptor ($999) using an existing (DVI based) graphics cards?

www.gefen.com/kvm/products/hd.jsp

And this isn't that little single droplet SDI channel that even Firewire beats in speed tests.

And it canbe made to travel 150feet (the 1640feet DVI extender is a bit expensive)..

5Gb/s (8mp*24bits*24=4.608Gb/s, or 8mp*48bits*24 / lossless compressed 2:1=4.608Gb/s, or 16bit*8mp bayer * 24=3.072Gb/s, or 16-bit*8mp bayer *50/ lossless 2:1) Forget the comrpession for the moment, but it will come in handy for in a few years time.

Planning ahead, the shorterm possibilities are: 3.2Gb/s Firewire (also there was supposed to be 1.6Gb/s wireless firewire), 10 Gigabit Ethernet, I think I remember something about a USB like version of the PCI-express bus, but am unsure. If 8mbit/s cameras are made with one of these and an older interface we could use it for 1080 shooting until Main Boards came out with the new interface.

Just looked it up, rumour is USB3.0 will have 200-500MB/s 2005/2006 (and somehting about ultra wide band and being wireless??, but beware the source of this rumour is only the inquirer article he got from some "guy" on a trade show bus or something):

www.the-inquirer.com/default.aspx?article=5920

Could I sugegst these following configurations:

Camera with 10Gb or Gigabit Ethernet (running at Gigabit for the moment)
+ HDMI (allowing us a host of multimedia connectability and recording on the host system).

Camera with External PCI express/USB3 (if such a beast exists)
+ HDMI, or Gb or 10 Gb Ethernet.

The use of 10 Gb Ethernet, allows great ussuability as it becomes available.

We coulde ven go one further and use S-ATA 300 ;), or two of them (then where do we pout the drive ;)


Could I suggest another trick that would be great for your customers in shooting, industrail and security applications. Including upto 40:1 Wavelet compression in the camera head (see the clearspeed device I posted, and also I think Analogue devices has something). This would allow 40+ 8mp cameras for security or shooting, to be hooked to one 10Gb Ethernet trnsmission path, (or HDMI or PCI Express), or even 4 + on Gb Ethernet, which is a major advantge for your customers.

In future (if all goes well, and often it doesn't come through) we may be dealing with a lot of HDMI, what do you think?

www.hdmi.org
whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci847398,00.html
www.whatvideotv.com/articles/frame.html?http://www.whatvideotv.com/articles/general/200209_2.php
www.technewsworld.com/story/32576.html

www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/article/0,,2076_4129_20798291,00.htm
www.siimage.com/press/01_09_03_3.asp

Very insteresting VIA small formfactor platform for Flat panel:

www.via.com.tw/en/Digital%20Library/PR030313CoreFusionMark.jsp

Robs:

Been over to the www.PCIsig.org (the pci standards org), hard to get information there (havvew to register and pay big time just to find out how many MB's per second different PCI standards do) but if you do a search I came accross people in forums trying to maximise framegrabbing to RAID baords.

There will be a mini PCI express, and I'm confused wether 66mhz bus is part of the mini-pci spec (that would give 266mB/s).

PCI express external seems to be name Newcard (that seems to be PCMCIA express card which combines pcie and usb, confusing isn't it), TI has also tried an external connection over Gigabit Ethernet. Speculatively, maybe this is the tech that is being used in the rumoured USB3.0 above.

www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,1583,a=30763,00.asp

www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,895785,00.asp
www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1269435,00.asp
www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1271868,00.asp
www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1267936,00.asp

www.ad.tomshardware.com/cgi-bin/bd.m?count=374&time=QNM2q9hcg4EAABxASaQ&fillin=1&location=banner2/graphic/20040310/pcie-12.html&dns=au&image=http://www.bizrate.com/locator/dist.xpml%3Frf%3Dtom025


www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1585024,00.asp
www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,1583,a=30763,00.asp

Tape BAckup:

Just been checking Tape Backup, found stuff for upto 1.2 tbyte backup and fast rates (some not yet available), I haven't been through the pricing but I think it is too high. So this will have to be researched in the future

www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20040408/index.html

Have fun, another 14 hours down the drain.

Including up to 40:1 Wavelet compression in the camera head...Very interesting idea, Wayne. I have been tossing around the idea of doing a two-stage process - Capture the raw data quickly to disk (no processing except perhaps some real-time RLE compression)
During "pauses" in recording, the camera would process and compress the data in the background.
Basically, after a day of shooting, you leave the camera sitting there (powered on) for a while and it automatically processes all of your footage for you.

I also ran across this open-source project: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/. It's a BBC project to develop a wavelet-based video codec. It supports 4:4:4 (and other encodings). Not sure about 10+ bit depth.

Thanks for all your other research as well! It's a bit like drinking from a firehose, but much appreciated! :-)

I spent a bit of time thinking about mounting systems, but came to a couple of conclusions--

1. The lens mount will depend heavily upon the actual chip and lens system used. If SI is planning a Altasens based design, then it is probably a slam dunk for the frontend. Lens mounts, etc. are very precise components. After it comes out, the requirements will probably be obvious. I'm very curious if SI has a way to prevent dirt from clogging the CMOS chip. Perhaps a glass plate to seal the CMOS surface from dirt would help; don't know if it would disrupt the optical path or not due to its distance from the focal plane.

2. The system design will also depend heavily upon the processing architecture used. I posted some potential Mini ITX power supply and motherboard designs on the Obscuracam Wiki (great idea BTW Rob.) If packaging this and batteries results in something that can reasonably be put on a shoulder, great.

I think the Kinetta design of making the recording module detachable from the camera head is very smart, and straightforward to do given the use of CameraLink or Gigabit Ethernet to connect the camera to the recording system. The computer chassis that most interested me (the Opus Systems Mini ITX automotive mount chassis) is not available for a couple of months, which will coincide nicely with the Altasens system availability.

3. When the above two components solidify to a reasonable degree, the detailed mechanical design of the housing can start. I think we will end up with a system with roughly ENG camera proportions. I've been thinking about thin walled aluminum or magnesium castings, and will probably delve into this when things get a little farther along. Should be fun. My background is in production mechanical engineering (was lead mechanical engineer on the Roomba robotic floorvac) so it's a good fit.

Exciting stuff. Can't wait to see where it leads.

Eliot

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser : Wayne on Bayer:
Intrinsic t the Bayer concept is that the image is 50% green pixels. Since green is in the middle and the filters aren't perfect, you get some response from part of the blue and green areas. Also, the eye is most sensitive to green. This means that for a scene with the normal array of colors, you get the majority of spatial information (edges, high frequency) from the majory of pixels. Of course low end reds and high end blues will give only 25% of the resolution, but a good algorithim might give 75% overall. -->>>

I understand all this, but it is merely a trick with res upscaling. I agree that it would be good at higher resolutions where the 4 pixel bayer pattern falls in a 150dpi area (instead of 75dpi area), so I hope to go over the specs of your 8mp sensor when it comes out. The other problem with bayer is that you are sampling one primary and discarding the other two thirds of the potential light, where as complementary scheems sample two primaries per pixel primaries making the third primary more accurate, are there any good scheems for this?

Laurence, 100% thanks, we are hoping for the ability to support any codec, but until then we could do with what we can get ;) Looked at their test comprssions, pretty impressive numbers, but the scenes are very siimple, I can archieve around 8million:1 compression on a black Imax frame myself, even much more, as I could say a single bit value could flag wherever the frame is black or something else requiring further compression. Used to get in debates at uni with my engineer freind, he didn't get it because he had been told some law on data preservation, but I was approaching it from the veiw of moving data out of the file into the codec instead. Ohh yeah, I would like to see the results from some natural scenes, I don't have anything against the idea of 6:1 lossless compression. . I personally don't believe in a limit to loosless compressiuon of 2 or 2.5:1, I would use interframe compression myself (the whole file even. I had been thinking of doing my own compression routines for some time to use in my OS, and think I can achieve 10:1 over what is regularly been done (actually this has been done by a couple of groups years ago, Israeli Intrelliegence and a Video guy down south who wanted to replace the tape decks in a video wall with a live feed over the phone from his computer, same as the Israelies who popped up and announced they had been using 600:1 compression for years a few months after this guy came out with I estimate 1000:1) they probably are using the same techniques that I am thinking of. I think it is the approach more than anything. One thing that I would do to get high lossless, would be to eliminate niose/grain becuase it doesn't add anything, detracts from the real image, and is hard to compress. I sit on an awfull lot of patentable ideas around here, thgat I have to just ignore.

Rob, I preffer everybody make their own solution for the time being, these things can take a while, but I would like sub $500 solutions (even $200 solution) but need to find a company that can do it that cheap. I forgot the extra details, now I forgot what I forgot before ;) (been up all night). Because of the flexibility of the camera the front camera and lense (don't know how to waterproof a manual lense yet, maybe have to do some follow controlls, maybe there will be patent problems with that) is detachable and folds away for treansport and desktop use. I put a lot of projects on the back burner around here because I can't afford the developement and patent stuff, one was my own PC form factor and selling it to via or something (I have about three I want to do). Another interesting thing that could bge done is to make the case its (no, I'm not going to mention that incase somebody else patents it, that is how it goes in this world).

Thanks

Weyne.

It is even a bit more simple then that Eliot, a number of cases (and even formfactors) can be used in my design. Maybe we should call it the camera form factor, or VTX. Now you remind me I have probably 4 designs I'm thinking of, one a long narrow case (like the Olympus SHD camera), another a really out there design with some very nifty features. But the water housing design can be designed to slip a standard small forma factor case in there (it would be designed for anti shock cushioning, so the case would just be a shell that everything else mounts into). The final one virtually is a case/or custom made small formfactor case with camer bolter on battery in the 51/4 drive bay etc (where to put for Raid drives thogh is a problem), my origional case idea. One place the display and electronic controlls are mounted is on the side.

Do you have any reccomendations on video equipment manufactures (or somebody cheaper) that could manufacture this type of case? I know how to get the best royality deal, but I am more interested in getting value out there (and take my 1%/10$).

Rob, your idea is good, but I was thinking of breaking the interface/burst bandwidth bottle kneck restriction on higher quality data. With HDMI or 10 gbit ethernet interfaces on the camera (we could have both) we don't even need to compress in the camera head until good 8mpixel sensors come ( So PC delayed PC compression is back in vogue again ;). So what about it manufacturers a good idea?


Thanks

Wayne.

New Development:

Whoo hoo, I just checked my email and a manufacturer has emailed me out of the blue about something else, unfortunately they were trying to get me interested in a Movietube 35mm adaptor for $14500 Euro, so I don't I don't think I'll be using them ;) (and this is after I told them a month or so ago I would be interested in buying one of their units if it was cheap enough, instead of building a cheap one myself).

Thanks

Wayne.

Now that we seem to have found most things needed to specifiy a potential camera design, I thought I wouild list them out (haven't been keeping up with the Wiki, but you might like to list this Rob).

Re-edited: cheap battery info added.

Camera 1: Simple Handycam

- camera 720p single chip
(variations allow higher specs)
- Single Hard Disk drive
- small form factor motherboard (nanoITX series, embbeded PC's possbile but expensive).
- PC Interface USB/Ethernet or higher.
- Small form factor or custom case
(At the moemnt Oblin is using an exisitng 16mm Russian Movie camera)

In the future multiple drives and chip versions at higher resolutions would be possible.

My thoughts: if you look at the Hoojum Nanode cases www.hoojum.com/index.php , posted earlier, they look like oblong, tin cans (there is a tin opener that will cleanly cut the can along the rim itself). Maybe we could find non ribbed oblong cans and do the same, or even paint some oblong plastic containers metalic, for ammusement, and also to get our footage straight into the can ;) One thought is to get mouldable mirror perspex and shape one for handheld use (and add some case mod lighting).

Camera 2: Straight shoulder mount

- camera upto SHD multichip (depends on the variations, interface, processing and drives involved)
- Multiple Hard Disk drive.
- Small form factor motherboard (miniITX series, also mini atx, btx, embbeded PC's possbile but expensive).
- PC Interface Cameralink, 10/Giga Ethernet, HDMI (DVI), USB3/Ext PCI express.
- Small form factor or custom case

Each camera also has:

- External LCD (or touch sensitive) or head mounted display.
- Custom control panel or touch plate, and/or, firwire, or standard external controls.
- Standard lense mounts to suit sensor chip, others through adaptors.
- Adpators through image reduction (brighter image) and projection (better DOF).
- Battery, buy your own, but I prefer to get a cheap battery case and stuff it full of cheap nicad cells. Not as good as li-ion but if you know where to get hi-densiity chineese cells cheap off an distibutor, cheap to repack.


Additonals:

Camera: Any supported camera.

This is being achieved by either custom support, plugin or profile files. The sort of support will change during developement.

Software: Custom Capture (the Rob Mobile) and any supported Editor. Or alternative commercial product.

Format: Any supported format

This is being achieved by use of standard (or if needed, custom) codecs and plugins for the capture software and the NLE Editor.

Variations:

Variation 1:

External capture/compression card to take from high speed camera interface to low speed PC interface. Allows lower CPU use, and by passes Cameralink PCI speed restriction.
- Use of Clearspeed like parrallel processor or FPGA.
- But codec support is restricted. So good codecs need to be picked for lossless, visually lossless, and high comrpession are needed, preferably open unlicensed. With Clearspeed this canbe reprogrammed.

Variation 2:

PC variation of variation 1: Using PC with inbuilt 2.3GB/s Cameralink interface (by passes Cameralink PCI speed restriction). If a comrpession engine is added it then reduces cpu load. Main problem is that the PC is tide loacked into a maxioum capability, and gets outdated. But eventually PC speed will outstrip camera SHD/UHD requirements and it will no longer be a problem. Also this puts more of the system in the hands of low volume manufacturers who can charge what they want.
- Extra processing through Clearspeed like parrallel processor or FPGA. With Windows using Clearspeed as a coprocessor resource, a standard codec could benefit (Sometime ago MS put API's/Device drivers in to allow processing requests to be passed to DSP's (simular toi Direct X). I do not know if they are still supported. Advanced stuff.

Variation 3:

Variation 1 pluss ATA drive storage.

Variation 4:

Variation 1 or 3 in the camera head.

HDMI is compatiable with DVI used on AGP graphics cards (but which have HD digital capture is unknown) so the bandwidth restrictions are removed.

So does this look like a good overveiw of the possibilities and technology?

Cameras with 10 Gigabit Erthernet or HDMI are the way to go (hint, hint). If 10 Gigabit Ethernet is going to be commonly available in the next year or two. I think that USB3, PCI Express External, and SATA 300 are good for the next level down (except we need all the SATA channels). We could even buy 8MP today and use it in HD through HDMI till a good enough computer becomes available.




Steve, I just reread your post, and realised that was a BBC wavelet codec, we should defintely watch that one, if it turns out to be near the best it might be good.

We have a number of open codecs being mentioned here, could I suggest we make a list of the industry leaders for Lossless, Near Lossless, Visually Lossless, medium and high compression, and bayer, and see if any of these free codecs come close in quality (compression for lossless) and computation speed.

About the firehose, it is like sucking on a firtehose for hours doing the resarch too.

Hi everybody, I am obviously new to the forum, although I have been reading over everything for the past couple of days. I am happy to see some people finally taking the bull by the horns and trying to make their own solutions. This is the way of thinking that I have always lived my life by. I have been toying with the idea of building my own camera, but after reading everything on this forum I have decided that it would be best to just join the ranks of you guys. Unfortunatly I do not have the electrical expertise to really be much help at the stage you guys are at right now. I wanted to re-iterate everything that has happened on this forum just to see if I am understanding everything correctly.

- Various companies like Sumix and Silicon Imaging are working a few camera designs, the best of which is a 3 sensor camera using the Altasens cmos chip that is being used in the Kinetta (although he is only using one chip)

- These cameras are capable of shooting at a variety of frame-rates and they output RAW 12 bit images via some sort of data cable ie: USB2, eithernet, ect...

- A frame grabber of some sort must be used to actually record the data unto disk

- The companies creating the cameras are not building housings to go with them, so that is something that must be built.

- Rob is working on capture software to record and work with the RAW data so that it may be brought into an editor.

- We should start seeing cameras in the next couple months

If any of that is wrong please let me know!

I do have a couple of questions though after reading through this forum and Obins forum.

- Will these cameras have the rolling shutter problems that Obin is running into? Will there be a variable shutter speed?

- Will it be possible to just run a cable from the camera to a suitible computer system for recording rather than trying to have some onboard computer to do the recording?

- What sort of lense options will we have with these cameras?

All in all I am really excited about everything thats happening here. I said before that I am probably not going to be too helpful in the development of this stuff, but I can hopefully contribute to this effort. I am working on a series of computer controlled motion capture systems from a simple pan/tilt head up to a full crane and dolly system. I am hoping to produce these things for far less money than they are currently going for. My thinking is probably the same as yours, I am sick of companies charging film/video producers through the roof just because the big budget productions can afford it.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini : <<<--
One thing that I would do to get high lossless, would be to eliminate niose/grain becuase it doesn't add anything, detracts from the real image, and is hard to compress. I sit on an awfull lot of patentable ideas around here, thgat I have to just ignore.
-->>>

This is why what you describe isn't lossless. This is exactly what many extreme compressors do to get content over the web. However, the "grain" is part of the image, particularly from film source. This should be preserved, not discarded. Also noise can be your friend (true, not for compression); a small amount of noise helps reduce banding due to the limits of 8bit and even 10. Noise is the natural dithering algorithm. Basically true lossless compression of naturally gathered images is between 2 and 4:1 (the higher the resolution the higher the compression that can be achieved.) Yes, there are special cases like digital black, yet we don't really want to see feature length black, so there is little value in exploiting these cases. Let's stick to technology that exists.

This is one of the only compromises I'm prepared to take to get higher lossless compression. The niose, and the grain are not truelly part of the image, but a defect in the sensor's performance (realising the senor is not perfect anyway). I'm not talking about eliminating texture here, or real detail, only the stuff that the sensor "imagines" it sees, and in such a way to at least partly restore the real image (wether by calculated averaging or interfame comparison).

On the black compression, I was just illustrating what rediculouse compression ratios we can get by using certain images. I'm sorry if you thought I was saying we should depend on that.

Rob Lapiont, yes to most of your questions.

Various companies like Sumix and Silicon Imaging are working a few camera designs, the best of which is a 3 sensor camera using the Altasens cmos chip that is being used in the Kinetta (although he is only using one chip)

Maybe, but the 3chip will be after the success of the single chip versions.

- These cameras are capable of shooting at a variety of frame-rates and they output RAW 12 bit images via some sort of data cable ie: USB2, eithernet, ect...

Mainly RAW 10 for the moment (I think the Aktsens will do 12bit). Most 12 bit requires a special double sample according to Steve (I don't know about the Altsens though).

- A frame grabber of some sort must be used to actually record the data unto disk

Not if your using USB cmaera or GB ethernet adaptor, but USb unrealiable.

- The companies creating the cameras are not building housings to go with them, so that is something that must be built.

Yes.

- Rob is working on capture software to record and work with the RAW data so that it may be brought into an editor.

Yes.

- We should start seeing cameras in the next couple months

At the earliest.

I do have a couple of questions though after reading through this forum and Obins forum.

- Will these cameras have the rolling shutter problems that Obin is running into? Will there be a variable shutter speed?

Some don't I think that Altsens might capture andf output at the same time so they will be like global shutters if that is the case.

- Will it be possible to just run a cable from the camera to a suitible computer system for recording rather than trying to have some onboard computer to do the recording?

That is the only way for the moment.

- What sort of lense options will we have with these cameras?

Whatever the manufacturer ships with it, different sized chips have corresponding lense systems, otherwise you will have to use a lense adaptor using either projected image (keeps DOF but sacrifices some light) or condensed image to the new chip (brighter image but same DOF as the chips normal lense). Mounting a lense straight without sizing down the image will result in loose of angle of vision.


Wish you luck and thank yoiu for coming Rob.

Everybody else see you in a couple of days maybe.

Thanks

Wayne.

Rob, Rob, Rob, Wayne and Obin (mind if we call you all 'Rob' to avoid any confusion?).

To elaborate on some of Wayne's answers....The Micron and Altasens chips have integrated A/D converters so at the max bit depth you are stuck with what they provide. Micron is 10 bit, Altasens is 12 bit.

The cameras come in small industrial enclosures and could be used that way on a tripod. They can be (awkwardly) used with existing software (see Obin's workflow) right now.

Altasens is rolling shutter but at up to 60fps. By the way, there are several Altasens chips. There is the ProCam 2560 1.3Mpix, 3520 1920x1080@30fps and the 3560 1920x1080@60fps - those being max rates if the clock is programmable. Our new camera is using the 3560, but I don't think they are commercially available yet.

The cameralink standard allows up to 10m cables. gigabit is 100m. That should be enough to remote the computer.

Thanks for the info! I have a couple of questions regarding the rolling shutters because I am just learning about them. The problem with them is that because they 'roll' the exposure over the sensor actually happens at slightly different times and this can cause problems especially when the camera is moving over something like a picket fence because there are many vertical lines. It is my understanding that if the shutter is moving fast enough say at (48 frames a sec with only 24 of those frames being captured) that the problem can be avoided? If that is the case would it be feasible to actually run the altasens 3560 chip at 60 FPS or would you be running into alot of rolling shutter artifacts? Again my understanding of this is very new so If I am off base please forgive me.

Rob L

Thank goodness your using the 3560 Steve, I was going to ask you that question..it's the only chip worth using IMHO

Just to be open and honest this Micron camera does have a CMOS issue..when you shoot a subject that is VERY hot in a small spot like a reflection of a light on glass etc you get some sort of ghosting..it's alot like a vertical smear on a ccd but it's horizontal...when you push the footage in post really far you can see it and it's not good..not sure if I have a bad chip or this is just how CMOS chips are..I know that I have seen really cheap spycamera cmos tv cameras and they have this effect and it's MUCH stronger then the 1300..dunno just a FYI....I am sure the Rockwell chip has fixed this or they would not sell it for HD camera production

This will seem laymen-ish, I'm sure, but I thought there was a methoed of using a particular shutter degree in order to compensate for the "strobe" effect from a rolling shutter. I guess I'm wrong ont this? (Please reply and describe why/why not and the difference between rolling/global shutter).

Thanks!

Eliot wrote:
I posted some potential Mini ITX power supply and motherboard designs on the Obscuracam Wiki Thanks for doing that! I think I posted some -- a few of the same ones in fact. When I have a few extra minutes I will try to reorganize the wiki to make it a bit more coherent.I think the Kinetta design of making the recording module detachable from the camera head is very smartI like the idea too, but I'm concerned that we'd just end up at the same price point as the Kinetta. I guess my feeling is, if you can put enough capacity in the camera -- 3-5 hours? -- then it should handle a typical shooting day with room to spare. Transfer the data off overnight -- perhaps a customized FTP program to double-check that everything was downloaded properly -- and erase & go in the morning.

OTOH, I would love to see a professional case for this project, dockable or not. Keep me posted on your thoughts!Steve wrote: mind if we call you all 'Rob' to avoid any confusion?Ahhh ... G'day Bruce! ... another Python fan in the crowd! :-) At my old job, whenever we did job interviews, I would toss out a few Python quotes during the group sessions just to see who would respond to them. It suprised me how many shot something right back (but I also did get a few funny looks).

I think we need to find a way to use a clasical rotating mechanical shutter, as 35mm does.Is this possible, Nordhauser?
I know of a couple of industrial cameras that have this option.

I agree, I have to say that I am so impressed with what is happening on this forum but out of all of the roadblocks the rolling shutter is the only one that worries me. I know that the accepted fix for the 'rolling' artifact is to up the mhz but keep the frame rate low (shoot 48 frames a sec but capture 24) The problem that I have with this is I am worried that it is going to destroy motion blur which is a hallmark of the 'film-look' Even with the highest resolution possible if there is no Mblur its going to have a video look. I know that there are more expensive chips that have global shutters but there has to be another way. Obviously Steve Nordhauser knows alot more about this than I do (since I couldnt have told you what a rolling shutter was a week ago) Obin has also seen the effect of this first hand so if one of you guys has an opinion on how much motion blur you can get with the rolling shutter that would be appreciated.

Also I just noticed but Steve Nordhauser and I only live about an hour from each other, maybe I can drive down when I buy a camera and save on the shipping ;)

I think one of the problems we, as camera manufacturers are facing in bringing a global shutter camera to the DV market is that the sensor companies don't perceive the need. Here are some sensors with global shutter and their specs as they pertain to this group:

Fill Factory - The much maligned IBIS-5 - Can do 1280x720x30fps, 12 bit with an external A/D. 6.7 micron pixels. Color and mono - noisy and the color smearing is pretty bad. Why? Made for machine vision.

Micron MT9V403 - VGA color/mono at 250fps - sports analysis and machine vision. 9.9 micron pixels

Micron MT9M413 - 1280 x 720 @ 500+fps, 12 micron pixels, color and mono. A contender for sure but 10 bit only, 10 tap - 100 I/O lines and expensive for the sensor and interfacing. Made for speed.

Fill Factory LUPA1300 - Very similar to the Micron MT9M413.

Fill Factory LUPA4000 - can do 2Kx1K 30fps, 12 micron pixels, dual slope, 4 tap (I think) sounds exciting????!!!! Are your hopes up yet?????? Mono only. Military and machine vision markets. Might be nice in a 3 chip camera but expensive.

Since I'm having fun discouraging people (OK, I got up too early) we have a prototype that can do 1Kx1K, 12 bit, color/mono, 30fps, 12 micron pixels. Built two cameras and the sensor is no longer available.

There are certainly some CCD solutions out there using interline and frame transfer. People should look at these but they tend to be expensive and slow. These are the areas that CMOS is winning.

It seems that the rolling shutter is not a good idea for this project. I am still intrigued by the Lupa 1300 or 4000 cameras. They have a largger sensor (18mm wide), much closer to 35mm academy. I don't see a rosy future for a 2/3 sensor, that is smaller than the 16mm frame and delivers a similar FOV and DOF and very "video". Most of us are interested in a 35mm motion picture feel. The mini35 adapter at best will deliver about 2 stops loss. Probably the home made adaptors using still camera lenses employ a higher loss of light and more production difficulties with focusing and lens consistency. I think we should concentrate on larger sensors with a global shutter that gives proper motion blur. The cost difference will be compensated by savings made during production using less lights, less equipment or time lost with set ups.

Valeriu: How much do you want to spend on a sensor?

Steve: so basically it boils down to we have no choice? What
is wrong with the MT9V403? That's the only one that you haven't
commented on regarding price or some visual problem.

That still leaves the question whether a physical shutter can
help in any way (motion blur, perhaps => which should hide
rolling shutter artifects?) and if that can be hooked up to the
camera in some form.

To be honest the Lupa 1300 intrigues me as well, but I don't know how much more it costs. I might be mistaken but I think most on this board would rather have 720P with a global shutter than 1080p with a rolling. All of this is conjecture however because other than Obins footage I don't have any experience with a rolling shutter!

The way that I look at this whole process is that in the end all any of us are trying to do is get images that will pass for 35mm film or even super 16. Here is a link to a post filter that will apply a motion blur. Is it pefect....no, is it good enough to cover up rolling shutter artifacts if care was taken during shooting....maybe. In the end no camera system is perfect and even working on a big budget motion picture with millions tied up in equipment you still have to make compromises and in the end they all add up to the visual style of the piece.

http://www.revisionfx.com/mblur.htm

In other news I have been trying to think of a way that I could help out the cause of this forum, and when it comes to actual camera/workflow design I can't really think of anything. But what am considering doing for myself is coming up with a sort of universal matte box that would allow for ND, and color plates that would aid in white balancing and color correcting the in front of the RAW output. If that is something you guys would be intersted in putting into your camera systems just let me know.

PS I am getting a chuckle thinking about camera systems that brag how they can fit in the palm of your hand and then slapping a matte box, 35mm lens, ground glass, c-mount lens, and a computer/battery system

Rob:
We are coming out with an SI-640HF but remember, this is only VGA - that is the down side.

We do supply a trigger input and a strobe output that could be used for synchronization to external motor driven systems - but - rolling shutter is always integrating so ideally you want the camera to set the timing for the external shutter.

That's what I was thinking about, Steve. Have the camera
control the shutter. Or at least allow it to be set at a rate tha
makes sense in regards to framerate etc.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Scott : Thanks for doing that! I think I posted some -- a few of the same ones in fact. When I have a few extra minutes I will try to reorganize the wiki to make it a bit more coherent.I like the idea too, but I'm concerned that we'd just end up at the same price point as the Kinetta.
-->>>

Whoops--I completely missed your hardware page in the Wiki. I went back and put the information I had into the categories you already had.

Perhaps an easier organization method would be to break it down like this:

Current design focus:
-Hardware
-Cameras, lens mounts, and lenses
-Camera-computer connection
-Motherboards
-Storage
-Cases and power supplies

-Software
-General architecture
-Capture software
-Bayer filtering
-Real time compression
-Interface

-Editing
-Potential codecs/hosts
-Premiere + Prospect
-FCP + Blackmagic

Future Stuff
-Cameras (3 chip methods)
-FPGAs
-Compression with various algorithms

This way we have a running storage of all the possibilities that have been unearthed during this thread, but newcomers are able to easily see what the current convergence/focus is on.

I can certainly do some of this, but wanted to see what you thought of it. Other organization methods are great too; I really like the wiki as a running storage of knowledge. Much easier than reading 300 posts as a newcomer.

Thanks,

Eliot

Eliot Mack wrote:
I can certainly do some of this, but wanted to see what you thought of itI've been meaning to reorganize it anyway, and just haven't had time; so if you're up for it, please feel free!

Rob L count me if for matte box!

If a mechanical shutter is required, would this option help?
http://home.teleport.com/~gdi/25pscha.htm.
Vance has done an interesting thing, but his solution is a 25p SD DVCAM D2D recording.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob LaPoint : To be honest the Lupa 1300 intrigues me as well, but I don't know how much more it costs. I might be mistaken but I think most on this board would rather have 720P with a global shutter than 1080p with a rolling. -->>>

Personally, for a start I would be very happy with 720p, global shutter and a LARGE sensor. When first bugs are ironed out, new chips (and cheaper) available, the 1080p would be great.

I'll take a matte box too when this gets off the ground!

The casing would be cheap (the profit most companies would want however would be expensive, so if you got suggestions for cheap companies let me know).

Most Kinetta case features would be very cheap, the detachable head, well I haven't seen a mini-itx board with a camera head on it yet, so we are half way there. I personally would like to look into the prospect of inclunding a remote control robotic head module that could fit inbetween with the camera controlled remotely.

I have further things to cover shortly, as I can't devote too much time time to this project and do the other things waiting for me.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Scott : Thanks for doing that! I think I posted some -- a few of the same ones in fact. When I have a few extra minutes I will try to reorganize the wiki to make it a bit more coherent.I like the idea too, but I'm concerned that we'd just end up at the same price point as the Kinetta. I guess my feeling is, if you can put enough capacity in the camera -- 3-5 hours? -- then it should handle a typical shooting day with room to spare. Transfer the data off overnight -- perhaps a customized FTP program to double-check that everything was downloaded properly -- and erase & go in the morning.

OTOH, I would love to see a professional case for this project, dockable or not. Keep me posted on your thoughts!Ahhh ... G'day Bruce! ... another Python fan in the crowd! :-) At my old job, whenever we did job interviews, I would toss out a few Python quotes during the group sessions just to see who would respond to them. It suprised me how many shot something right back (but I also did get a few funny looks). -->>>

As long as they don't call you "Bob" like in Black Adder II ;) .

Rob L

I wrote something about doing 24fps exposure (film does 48th exposure ussually) and reading out really fast (which is good if your interface can take the bandwith, only USB2 would have problems). This would retain all the motion blur, I think Steve said that was the way to do it.

If you two live near each other, thats great you can talk shop, and check out the optical perforamnce of footage from the latest cameras/prototype (like that 6.6Mpixel camera).

Rob L, I have an extremely good suggestion that I have seen in other forums. The ability to let the thread starter (or selected retainer) modify and update the first post (no time out), or updatable pre post (so they don't wipe out what origionally was there). This would allow people in long threads to list all the links, and updated FAQ information at the start of the thread so newcomers (and old hands) don't have to go through every post to find information. For threads like this and the 35mm threads thats a big saving. I could even get to list all home made camera links in the first post. Even just a modifiable portion of the first post, we could even run polls in it.

Universal Matt box sounds really good.

Thanks

Wayne.

Wayne: as you know that is currently not possible. I'll see what
I can do for such features, but don't count on it. That would
probably be quite a big addon for the software we are using now.

HOWEVER, we do have the Wiki to keep track of things. And, if
anyone wants to collect the links and e-mail them to my I can
definitely add them to any post you want.

The format to send such links (please do collect them into a "big"
bunch) is just plain text (follow the bbCode from the faq please!)
with some explenation, so either:

This is the link to Microsoft:
{url}www.microsoft.com{/url}

-- or --

{url=www.microsoft.com}Link to Microsoft{/url}

Where the {} must be replaced by [] (which I can't do since the
board would otherwise interpret my links).

So if I get such a list of links I can easily add them, no problem!

What about just removing the two day time out for re-editing the first post of the thread. It would really gel information links (even to wikis) for new readers? The only problem is that some people might abuse it.

The problem is that we can only change these settings on a global
scale I think. For now my offer will have to do. I will talk to Chris
about this though, so we'll see what happens!

Yeah I fogot, that will have to go on my l.ist of things to do.

Thanks

Rob

I made an error with the potential camera designs, I forgot to mention sound specs. There are three options integfrated, prosumer external USB/Firewire boxes, and internal sound card. Now because most of our designs will not have a spare PCI slot, we will have to settle for an external box and or integrated audio.

I am not a sound professional so take some of the following with a pinch of salt until you have a pro opinion (as I am winging most of it from memory):

Issues: audio chipsets that have seperate DAC (digital to Anlogue converters for sound output) and ADC (anlogue to Digital convertors for sound input) work best. As if the DAC/ADC is integrated with the main processing chip significant thermal niose will build up and corrupt the signal (especially from the ADC amplifier). Designs that integrate these chips should be avioded. From memory amplifiers should allways be on seperate chips to the DAC/ADC for the same reason.

DAC and ADC (and some seperate sub-components and amplifiers) vary in performance from one another, and any can corrupt the sound chain. Some people replace individual components to improve performance, and you can find discussions in forums on this, but for the rest of us good reviews will have to suxfice. One such mod was to put bluetack across the crystal to stop vibration induced niose being transmitted through it (I do have the knowledge, and have not researched this). Even though some manufactures of cards, or chips, are better than others, it varies from card to card, asnd chip to chip. I don't like Sigtel (I think that was the name) chips some people prefer the high end Cyrstal Semiconductor, AKM DACS and a couple of others (though cheap versions can have less quality). When reading the reviews I noticed that they performance and part price follow each other. The price varies from dollers to hundreds of dollers for dacs, and I guess the smae is true for ADC's.

Third, recording performance is often bad compared to sound reproduction. Looking at the reviews it will be noticed that recorded sound is often a lot worse than what the DACS will produce with significant channel cross talk.

Fourth, advertised performance figures are often far higher than the tested performance, particularly recording. You will also see cards advertised with a frequency (96Khz) only to see the signal drop completely off long before 96Khz, or at 44.1Khz (you might be able to send them a 96Khz track but they can't playit properly).

Fith sound mixing. Certain cards have mixing and processing units that work only at certain frequencies and bit depths. So this will result in all frequencies above that to be down converted and played at the lower frequencies. Other things that have happened, is that only the digital out can use the higher frequency, or only if it is played straight (bypassing the processing/mixing) without any effects. The result of down mixing problems (the full and half versions of the VIA Envy have 36bit hardware mixing) produces quantanisation errors. A lot of consumer market sound advertising is tainted by marketing hype, so read good reveiws from good sources.

Sixth, Signal to Niose ratio is desceptive. Manufacturers can use a gate to artifically boost the SN figure. But how this works is that the gate is applied when there is no sound signal coming through and the SN is measured with no signal, that can make a 50db SN card look like 120db SN card. I think the cards make abrupt volume increases/pops whe the sound signal comes out of quiet periods.

Professional cards cost a lot more (until now) and can handle multitrack recording (for surround purposes), but significantly, you should be able to get better quality recording (get multiple reviews first).

Now when you go and look at sound card reviews pay special attention to comparisons between Creative Audigy Cards and cards based on the VIA Envy chipsets from professional sound companies. A number of these cards are coming out in external versions, the problem is to find a good performance one that has mulit=track input. With a USB2 or firewire version you then by pass the need for an PCI slot.

While many motherboards have sound, only a few of them are very descent due to the low quality integrated dacs/adc (and lack of mixing hardware they use). So check out good reveiws done with Rightmark Audio Analyser (or equivalent) if you are going the motherboard route. VIA bought out a leading audio chip manufacturer a few years ago, and the VIA Vinyl six/eight trac audio DAC and Envy chipset are some of the better ones out (I have not been tracking it for a while so there maybe some better, and I have not checked out recording performance on inegrated). The six track maybe combined with another one for 8 channels, so check that to, as it maybe poor. But motherboard audio is at best descent stereo recording. If you want good mul;titrack recording you have to go for a card.

I have recently come across a new card claiming to, and actually delivering really close to, 120db performance at a cheap price (previously 110db was the ebst from a much more expensive card). It has it's own limitations, that a professional opinion should be sought on, and I guess maybe the first of a number of cards from different manufacturers using this new AKM convertor.

www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,1583,a=123687,00.asp

Just in Digit-life review:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/creative-emu-1820/index.html

The dynamic range of 16bit CD is around 96db, 20bit is around 120db, and 24bit is around 144db. CD is 44Khz, 48Khz for DVD, upto 96Khz for multi channel DVD adio and upto 192Khz for stereo DVD audio. CD is supposed to max out the human hearing range, but tests indicate (and I have heard it) higher frequencies produce a better tighter sound. I would suggest that, ideally, a card capable of a 96db+ range/SN, and 48Khz+ singal would be ideal for good sound. Below this and 72db+ (12-bit+) 48khz for descent sound. A limited number of cards come up to the 96-106db range, and few cards above that, in playback, but at the same time most of them fail/struggle to get to 96db recording.

I have gone and sought 3rd (max CD quality playback) level sound hardware (compared to the 4th, 5th, or 6th level sound from Motherboardfs) and I can tell you there is a big satisfying difference between descent and good sound. Good sound makes a better movie, bad sound makes a bad movie (ever see a DV camera with surround 16-bit sound, no, they don't want you to have it). In a cinema, or on a good home theatre, descent sound will take the edge off your sound and make it sound harsh.

Most of this is from the perspective of hometheatre than from sound recording but I have picked up a bit.

Links:

www.3dsoundsurge.com
News, and a nice forum with much consumer/prosumer discuussion. You can see links to professional forums being mentioned there.

www.digit-life.com
The people that did the rightmark audio analyser, used to do nice reviews I could whole heartedly agree with then suddenly the reviewer dissapeared and eventually a new reveiwer has come in.

www.rightmark.org
Opensource Rightmark Audio Analyser for testing audio.

www.via.com.tw/en/digitalbrilliance/via_audio.jsp
Some of the Via product.

www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,1583,a=130106,00.asp

New High definition audio from Intel is descent looking (haven't read the reveiw but looked at the figures for playback (still not any indication of recording goto digit-life for that), figures don't tell the full story as each brand of Dac has its own style of sound, so you best to check the ADC/DAC sound, some will be warmer, some strongrer/clearer in highs, mids, or bass ).

From 3D soundsurge and digit-life you can get most of the links you need. Sound card companies may also list links to revieiws from the product page.

Wow, look what I just dug up some good links on sound issues at extremetech :

www.extremetech.com/resource_center/0,2409,s=1074,00.asp

I've come accross a number of things in the last week.

In new scientist, 19th June 2004, "Give it Some Gas" p26, they are talking about microengines that burn fuel (propane, m/ethanol) to produce electricity. They sound simular to a couple of designs I wanted to develope myself, so I think they are worth watching next year. Fuel has around 40 times more density than Li-ion battery, the alternative would be some future capacitor that stored more than the battery but may blow your head off if it blew up in your ENG camera, or a fuel cell that has it's own problems.

Commercialisation of micro fuel cells are due over the next couple of years, engines may take that long to come out and catch up. So shortly they might be viable for these cameras. In a interesting side note. In the past, in New Scientist, I saw a car by some UK college that used conventional parts to run very competively on compressed air. If anybody out there is experienced in this area, could we do the same as a power source for this camera?

A couple of the engine designs are simular to some I was hoping to work on myself. Some time ago a freind of mine was trying to put together a Bourke engine (the most efficient engine ever designed, would even run off the lubricant oil being fed the cyclinder). I was musing with a way to eliminate the scotch yoke and turn the piston through it's stroke to produce an electric current, and I pretty sure he then just suggested that the straight up and down motion (less scotch yoke) could be used to produce electricity (details left out), so I named it the Watson engine. Another, my own, sounds a little simular to the turbine version they are talking about there. Which ever way, they definetly are onto something.

www.brighthand.com/article/Toshiba_Shows_Tiny_Fuel_Cell

What kind of fuel?

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini :
that burn fuel (propane, m/ethanol) to produce electricity. -->>>

Laurence well probably see you around, I'm taking a bit of a break because of health problems at the moment.

Thanks

Wayne.

Haven't posted for a while as I have been following the contributions of the more technically knowledgeable people on this forum. I have come up with a possible low cost hd workflow solution. (feel free to respond and pick holes as any feedback is very welcome.)

Hardware:
Camera link camera (silicon imaging or imperx) 1920*1080
frame grabber
Streampix recorder software.
Suitable spec pc with either raid or number of external hard drives.
Use 16mm c mount lenses bolex or sneider (or get c to f mount adaptor and use nikon 35mm?)

1. Use streampix software to record 8bit images from camera and save to hard disk/raid. Save in a file format that is compatible with both streampix and Vegas.
2. Import video files into Vegas Video 5. Here are a list of file formats acceptable, when i last checked, streampix uses at least 3-4 of these:

AC-3 Dolby Digital AC-3**
AIF Macintosh® AIFF
AVI Microsoft® Video for Windows®
BMP Windows® Bitmap
GIF CompuServe Graphics Interchange Format (stills and animated)
JPG Joint Picture Experts Group (JPEG)
MOV Apple® QuickTime® Movie
MP3 MPEG-1 Layer 3 (Audio)
MPG MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 Video
OGG Ogg Vorbis
PCA Perfect Clarity Audio™
PNG Portable Network Graphics
PSD Adobe® Photoshop®
RM RealNetworks® RealAudio® 9
RM RealNetworks RealVideo® 9
SWF Macromedia Flash
TGA Targa™ File Format
TIF Tagged Image File Format
W64 Sony Pictures Digital Wave 64™
WAV Microsoft Wave®
WMA Microsoft Windows Media® 9 (Audio)
WMV Microsoft Windows Media 9 (Video)
Still Image Sequences (Script)

Apparently Vegas 5 is resolution independant and can manage frame sizes up to 2048*2048! 1920*1080 is supported with 23.976,24,25,30 fps options.

I dowloaded the trail version toady and will be web hunting for small clip samples to try.

Further info can be found at "sony pictures digital"
Am I missing something here or is this workable, any responce welcome.

P.S. If this is workable, I also found out about a linescan dalsa camerlink camera currently in beta version that has a frame size of 2048*2048 at 30fps but can be reprogrammed to do 24p, would this be practical?

I think imperx has global shutter, doesn't it? Might not be too good. Not sure about SI.

Hey wayne, ya, . . . duh . . . you already posted the fuel type. Not eating my wheaties. Hope your health is good.

Both Ikegami, JVC, and Kinetta are going to be using the Altasens 3560 in their cameras. How come they don't have any problems with rolling shutter artifacting?

In fact I saw the 3560 and some other cameras built on the 3530 at NAB, and again, there were no problems with rolling shutters. I know there must be solution here because these are manufacturers using the same chips, and aren't having any dificulties with slanted lines, etc., because these types of artifacts wouldn't be acceptable to their production-bases markets.

So again, if this the way the chip is built, and these are the manufacturers successfully using it, then there must be solution somewhere (and it's not in loosing the high frame-rates of the chip, because Kinetta is going to use the 3560, and they are going up to 60fps without dropping frames).

Thats last Century (literally),

Thats old tech, if you really want some thing more advanced you should look up about trapping into the engery from the vacum of free space, just google MEG (or Motionless Electromagnetic Generator)

Its FREE unlimted amounts of Energy to power anything really, (still mostly theory though, which *some* working prototype





=--===----=--=--=-=-=====-==-
----=--=-=-=---=-=-=-==-=-====
-=-=-==-----==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Anhar Miah

easy, run your caemra at 50-60mhz