<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher :
Are delivery formats usually not 10 bits? (Don't know much about delivery specs). -->>>

I don't know if it's the right term, but by "delivery" formats I was referring to MPEG and typical codecs used in delivering QuickTime, RealVideo and Windows Media to the end-user (consumer). These codecs are always 8-bit (unless I'm greatly mistaken).

8 bits can certainly deliver a great picture -- just take a look at a DVD on a widescreen HDTV. In the case of films, however, those 8 bits were downsampled from a much higher bit-depth source.

Starting with a 10-bit (or greater) source gives you enough "headroom" to process the images (color-correct, darken, lighten, etc.) the image without losing detail and adding noise.

<<<-- Physical Resolution: 800 (H) x 480 (V) -->>>

Yeat, that listing was confusing. It is compatible with higher-resolution signals, but then downsamples to its physical resolution.

I haven't seen any small 1280-wide LCDs either. However, there are some interesting developments in OLEDs (Organic Light Emitting Diodes).

Note -- there don't appear to be any commercial products yet. OLED appear to be still in the development phase.

They are very flat, can be flexible and can have very high resolution. Since they are light emitting, they don't need the separate backlight that an LCD would. They can also be placed very close to the eye and "project" the equivalent of a 21-inch monitor, which would make it perfect for an "eyepiece" viewfinder. I understand that the Kinetta (www.kinetta.com) camera is using one for exactly that.

The display described in this article is 0.77" diagonal and displays full RGB in 1280x1024 resolution.
http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/ArticleID/4577/4577.html

The company (eMagin) has a developer's kit available (http://www.emagin.com/kitsale.htm) but it would probably be expensive.

<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : Rob and Rob need to program the the capture software so that it's using video overlay to display the live camera image. -->>>

Just a note -- I would love to do this, but I have never worked with DirectX before. I think the initial requirements of the software will be ...

Properly read raw files
Apply Bayer filter
Write to 16-bit TIFF

... and then ...

Set basic presets and read real-time images from card
Write images to raw files
Provide real-time preview of images

... in that order. Does that sound reasonable?

(And as the other Rob was saying, we definitely need to pace ourselves. I have a very demanding full-time job, a family with three small children and various other commitments. I'm going to carve out as much time as I can for this project, but I can't make any promises.)

wow, that would be really great as a viewfinder! looks like you could hook that up to the 2nd port on a dual head graphics card and have your HD resolution overlay display output to that OLED device and mount that thing in the viewfinder!

cool.


I sen't them an email asking about price for the unit

Rob, I think your close but maybe it would go like this:


1. interact with card and camera to setup camera settings

2. display color images into video overlay

3. record raw file to keep datarate down

4. bayerfilter raw file to full color tiff with a highquality bayer filter remover

5. do your color work in Combustion or AfterEffects

6. edit your HD project!

7. make HD or SD master tape for client!

8. watch client smile as he thinks he is looking at a project shot with a 100,000+ camera rig ;)

9. note to self --> we just shot TRUE HD at 4:4:4 10bit and did NOT have to spend $6,000 on camera rental for one week!!! or get a loan for the rig and hope we use it enough to make it worthwile!

10. take the extra 6 grand we saved and spend it on a higher megapixel camera from Silicon Imaging! <--that one's for Steve ;)

<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson :
1. interact with card and camera to setup camera settings
... -->>>

Yeah, I think the order will depend on when I get my hands on a camera! :-)

question for Steve, does the 1300 fit into the standard cameralink spec? if so what would stop it from working with ANY cameralink software or hardware? I have been looking at capture boards and it seems that even the "cameralink" spec boards only work with certain cameras....why is this? seems like it's a far cry from USB or firewire compatibility

why not use 2 usb channels for the camera so that you could get the datarate you need for this camera? or better yet use firewire 800?? that way it would be much more plug-and-play it seems to me can't firewire 800 support the datarate we need?

or build a cameralink-to-firewire800 converter box?

The IEEE high speed serial connector is known as Firewire and i.Link (Japan). The IEEE 1394a-1995 specification provides up to 400 M bit/sec and uses either a 6 pin connector (PCs/Computers) or a 4 pin connector (camcorders and AV equipment). The latest specification IEEE 1394b provides up to 800 M bit/sec (but is slated for 3.2 G bit/s) and uses a 9 pin connector which may operate in 'biligual mode' (will connect to either a 4 or 6 pin IEEE 1394a connectors) or 'beta mode' (will connect to another IEEE 1394b system).

this looks like a good camera also but I bet it's using the ibis5 chip...

http://www.prosilica.com/cv1280F.htm

seems like it would be easer to use because of 1394 hookup

The standard camera link transceiver is rated for something like 65MHz. With just one or two exceptions, all frame grabbers will run at this speed (I think there is a 40MHz grabber out there somewhere). Some will run as high as 85MHz with the newer transceiver chips. All camera link cameras should be able to work with all the grabbers. Most of the time you need a configuration file - every grabber company has their own format. When a camera is "supported", it means that the format file is already made. Most of the time, though, you don't get a GUI interface for controlling the camera.

USB 2.0 is not appropriate for lots of streaming data, especially multi-channel. Firewire is better but fairly slow. We are doing 800mbps on gigabit ethernet - cheap PC interfaces and laptop compatibility right now. Firewire 800 is only marginally interesting. We get 100m distance, use commercial switches and hubs.

Base camera link provides either 3 channels of 8 bits or 2 channels of 12 bit. If you run them at 85MHz, you can do 1920x1080x60fps, 12 bits on a single cable. Now. What you do with 150Mpixels/sec is another story. But, I am not convinced that another interface is necessary. Just more complete support for the existing ones.

Obin,
You are correct, that must be using the IBIS-5. 6.7 microns, extended dynamic range, 10 bit 40MHz. That is the internal A/D converter. We use an external, faster 12 bit converter so we can clock it higher (up to about 38fps) with less roll-off - their internal A/D is the weakest point. I still wouldn't suggest it for this application unless a global shutter is required.

WOW got your lens and shot some stills! great quality! I will try and psot some pics today

Hey Obin,

Looking forward to seeing the pics!

lost power at work today from storm, will post when I go in in the morning! the images are VERY RAW - and at 10bit they look alot like a highres dvx100 with Juan's mod for 4:4:4!! VERY exciting what can be done in post for color work! can pull blacks way up untill you see everything in the details

Hey guys, I'm sure you all know this from Juan's thread, but just in case you haven't and it could be a factor, I thought you might find this helpful for codec design or whatever . . .


Randall Larsen
Regular Crew

Registered: May 2004
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 48
more on file systems
Its probably a rehash of our previous discussions on FAT32 etc. but I found this discussion on Slashdot informative:

http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/03/08/13/2211230.shtml

FAT32 seems to be the only systems readable on all 3 commonly used O/S. The question is raised: what file formating tools exist to format larger than 40gb FAT32 partitions. Some disks come preformatted in FAT32 with much larger partitions. How do we format (or reformat disks) with large Fat32 partitions.


__________________
kind regards,

Randall Larsen



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

June 6th, 2004 12:28 PM



Randall Larsen
Regular Crew

Registered: May 2004
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 48
more on files systems 2
There is according to the discussion on slashdot a $40 tool from Paragon that allows you to mount ext3 files everywhere. ext3 has advantages over FAT32 so maybe Juan should consider ext3.

see the august 13th post of Dougmc.

Not sure whether Paragon allows read and right of xfs from windows.

Paragon's Mount Everything [mount-everything.com] also Ext2fs Everywhere [ext2fs-anywhere.com]

There is another tool that allows reiserfs from windows.

The main objection to FAT32 (in the long run) is that since its not
a jounaling file system. There is a good chance a power outage or a tripped over firewire could cause data to be lost. Other objections to FAT32 are mentioned in the Slashdot discussion.


I add that the max 4gigabyte -2 bytes file size could be a problem with long takes if all the frames go in one pile.

You can make large fs32 disks from Windows Xp from the command line interface: format d: /fs:f32 So thats not a big problem.


__________________
kind regards,

Randall Larsen



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

June 6th, 2004 01:14 PM



Jason Rodriguez
Regular Crew

Registered: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 52
Doesn't work on a mac though :-(

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : Valeriu & Wayne

I agree with keeping the signal as high quality as possible. I think 1080 is much more important for those of us looking to do theatrical realeases. 720 is pushing it.

Also, I'm curious, there was mention of "doing the final encoding at 8 bit". Maybe I'm not thinking straight here (I'm assuming you mean final encoding of footage into a format one can edit with . . . yes, I'm a programming layman) but I think if it's possible it should stay in 10 bit. 8 bit, just like 720, is pushing it for theatrical release. Both 720 and 8 bit are MINIMUM most professionals consider for going to the screen, not hardly preferable, and would make quite a sacrafice when considering a finished product.

Another thing is that you were talking capture rates of 50 Mbps? I heard rumors Canon is coming out with a 50 Mbps HDV camera by the end of the year under 10 grand. If that's true, we all surely would have wasted some serious cash, for what the canon would deliver, complete with lens, would probably be so much more worth the convenience of an extremely cumbersome, and not nearly as feature-filled system. Again 50 Mbps is not theater screen quality really. Might get away with it, but . . . you're pushing it.

We must remember that if we want MEDIUM quality (somewhere between TV and theater movies), that's not too far away for a price similar to what we're talking about drumming up here. If we're going to all this trouble, let's do it to compete with the BIG BOYS, not just to go to the next category closer. Otherwise, somewhere between 2 and 5 years from now we'll realize we're back in the same place . . . wondering why we AREN'T making hollywood level films.

Just IMHO. -->>>

Just lost an hours of typing again.

Summary:

Bayer cannot do true RAW 4:4:4 as the filter looses the relastionship between pixel and colour/intensity that 3 chippers have. So we are loosing resolution and need a higher res to start with to match the target resolution (from my iunderstandaing), So we should not compromise in quality or res comapred to $5K HDV's. So 720p 3 chip, or 1080+ Bayer (to get trueish 720p 4:4:4, at 50Mbyes+ per second) should be our objective for cheap ($21K to 3K) camera. 1080 3 chip, or sub UHD bayer (sized to get true 4:4:4 1080) for $4K-5K camera. I personally only wish to buy one camera until UHDV (speculative) or something comes oput in 5 years time. So what do you think?

When 720p RAW 4:4:4 is resolution upscaled it should look acceptable on a cinema screen. When 1080p 4:4:4, or bayer UHD, is upscaled it should tolerbalky on an Imax screen (I hope).

The human eye sees about 8 bit at any one time, the 10-12bits is for picture processing and post production effects. Most good cameras do 10-12 bits then save in 8 bits.

The Canon 50 Mbits camera will be close to RAW, but RAW 4:4:4 should give better data for resolution upscalling to Cinema, motion, and special effects. So those are the only real uses for RAW 4:4:4. Apart from this the Canon camera will probably be much more in price (my opinion, among otehrs read).

Rob

I agree, but the problem is that we need to know what camera specs before we can do too much with what we are going to use and which path to go. Perople also have not decided what path. The other problem is that there are so few people involved on these threads, and reality so few things to do, that further splitting them up might make them a bit sparse.

Each camera design has it's own thread, except for Silicon Imagaing that is roaming around, and has adopted this thread, so I think we are part way there, all we need is a Home made Camera Developement thread for the Backend camera system (meaning the capture computer and editing sections vs the front end camera and optics). People can work in teams among themselves and email back and forwards (like the Robs) and report into the thread about what is happening and to ask discuss issues with the rest of us. That could even be done on this thread.

So far we have been gathering suggestions and data (plus making arrangemanets).

Next we need to decide what path (format, interfaces, software and parts) we want to go with. I have made a number of suggestions in the three threads. Knowing the specs of the initial cameras and interfaces coming in a few months time,would really help.

The we can draw up plans, and devlopement tasks (that the people involved then discuss among themselves how to schedule). And then we start, and hopefully mostly finish by the time the cameras arrive.

Meanwhile we trial trying to get the existing Silicon Imaging system up and runnign as a test case.

But frankly untril all the good optios are researched and laid on the table to be agreed upon, there is little piont in starting. As there are two Robs who want to do the software, and little agreement from elsewhere, the software will probably be whatever they would like to decide for us.

I must say I have yet to read the rest of the posts in the thread yet.before making this comment.

Thanks

Wayne.

Rob Scott

Problem with HD lcd screens is that you have to wait for cheap ones. I heard of a 4 inch 800*600 PDA LCD last year. But the best chance is to go to the Micro Displays that can be used for headmounted (one of the things I was going to do), veiwfinders, panels (like Kopkins does for teh old JVC Mini DV cams, and some stills camera), and can do projection (one unit could be adapted to all). This was another seperate area of research I was as looking into previously. You can get HD sizes easily in them, my favorite in microdispklay corp that has a no loss colour filtering system in development (uses grattings) with most circuits on the silicon display chip. Though they are cheap to manufacture the end products they are in really jack up the price.

Beware of OEL's, tehre biggest problem is that the primaries don't even fade over time, so affter 1 to two years you are going to have an underiable strong tint of colour, as they loose there white balance, and overall life is down. They also would use much more than the Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCOS) chip microdisplays I just mentioned, also look at Sharp they have a couple of really low powered screen techs (and also the one I mentioned above, should perhaps be in the news archives of www.brighthand.com or www.pencomputing.com).


Rob, about the filtering Bayer to Tiff 16. Maybe it would be good to have an option to save in Bayer and do the filtering to desired format after? This would rediuce processing and HDD load.

Thanks

Wayne.

What has happend to Steve I?

Somebody said that they were going to talk to their Girlfreinds father about the electroncis, what happened?


Steve N

I though cameralink was rated upto 3.2Gb's or something like that, but that the PCI interface is what holds it back, (hence my suggestions for AGP, PCI-E, or Via ref baord witrh cmaera link bypassing PCI bus)?

I thought this camera was 24MB/s wouldn't USB2.0 stream upto 50MB/s?

Obin, we look foward to your Pix's

Posted this to the wrong thread earlier:

Hi

Some itneresting news:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&postid=75642#post75642

quote:---
Concept HD
Guys,

Go to the HD Forum of Cinematography.com. You will find many arguments there by professional DP's against the use of industrial HD cameras in HD productions. I would urge everyone to wait for our camera announcements. Our cameras will not have these shortcomings.
----

Haven't had time to read the threads mentioned (haven't even read this thread yet) but well and truely worth looking at. I still say that any machine vision company should be able to pull through the goods, if they want.
Thanks

Wayne.

About delaying the Mini-ITX MB and doing developement for a normal PC first, I agree. I would like to know what the fastest performance we can expect RAW unconverted on the normal PC before deciding on a minipc baord.

But we could probably findout the Spec of Mini-ITX boards for the next 4-6 months if the developers explained and asked VIA (they might even consider modifying a board to suit our needs as well (like mulitprocessor, gigabit ethernet (is 10Giga ethernet on main boards yet) that would also suite blade servers)? A big ask but you never know, they have many reference platforms for nitch markets, and are competing with the big I.

Steve, if all the Cameralink interface member manufacturers asked VIA they probably would consider making a variation of a server type multiprocessing (2 *1 Ghz to 4*2 Ghz) mini-itx board with cameralink, dual+ GigaE (or 10 Gb Ethernet) onboard for your market. You could then sell customers the whole PC, that could fit in a small (even a rackmounted) silent faneless box, which offers a lot of ergonomic workplace advantages.

Thanks

Wayne.

I'm just wondering about Lossless Mpeg, does it use interframe compression, it doesn't seem to?

Interesting small computers:

www.xenarc.com/product/mp-fl8.html

Thanks

wayne.

Wayne,

I think that's excellent. Nothing will ever be started until we have an agreed upon goal. I think we should all be extremely blatent about what we are looking for from a finished system, and then find the point of agreeance for the entire thing from optics to editing, so we have a set-in-stone battle plan. Until then, we will have little more than cool ideas flying around the thread.

So I guess I'll be the first to say what I'm looking for (keep in mind I'm a technical layman, so all I can do is list basics, and some may sound more lavish than is capable):


A. THE CAMERA

In the camera, I'd like to see . . . .

1. 24fps up to 60fps in full 1920 X 1080p resolution.

2. 3 chips hopefully at 2/3 inches or bigger (at least biggest possible 1 chip), 10 or 12 bit, with native 16:9 aspect ratio.

3. minimum 4:2:2 separtion of colors, hopefully 4:4:4.

4. 66Mhz for 11 stops of latitude? (May not be realistic)

5. (I'm sure we'll need much faster).

6. 35mm still slr lens mount of some kind

7. Some kind of 2ond output tap for a mini-screen for shooting reference.

8. If possible, the camera should have some form of MATRIX ADJUSTMENT (probably in the software).



B. THE RECORDING INTERFACE

1. A camera to computer/hard drive INTERFACE with a data rate fast enough to deliver the above camera specs . . . without worry of glitches due to overload, movement, or general instability, (Ya, I know, vauge . . . I know of SDI, PCI, Camera Link, Firewire 400, Firewire 800, Gig Ethernet, Dual USB). Cable should be durrable and able to carry a signal up to a minumum of 100 feet without signal degradation. I would prefer a single cable so it doesn't get tangled, etc. Connections should be durable if possible. Whatever it is should be plug and go.

2. The COMPUTER AND HARD DRIVES need to be the most user-friendly they can possibly be. Plug and go. It would be wonderful if the hard drives used for recording were easily accessable and interchangable, (and of course inexpensive . . . lolol). This allows long shooting days. The codec used for recording onto the drives needs to create files directly readible by all common platforms . . . Mac, PC, Linux) Personally, I'd prefer the recording computer itself to actually be a Mac for stability purposes, but as long as the recording system is stable and delivers a 100% compatible video file, I'll go with it. In case it matters, I will most likely be editing my projects on FCP HD.

3. SOFTWARE CONTROLS FOR THE CAMERA that will adjust frame rate, matrix settings, exposure, gain, gamma (hopefully with several film-like gamma pre-sets), data rate, resolution, and white balance (hpefully with pre-sets for tungsten and sunlight). Other filters of some kind would be great, but I hardly expect this.

4. WAVEFORM MONITOR/VECTORSCOPE monitoring of the camera signal will be imperative for big screen productions, so we need to be able to run a software application that can do this (adobe premiere, FCP, etc.) on the capturing computer during filming, or we will need a separate output from the capturing computer or camera so we can feed it into a laptop for signal monitoring. (Perhaps use the same out as the HD monitor, but that may not be a good idea . . . not sure, where do you guys normally intercept the signal for monitoring?).

5. A COMPRESSION CODEC should as I said deliver a compatible captured file type. I really don't want to deal with conversion from one file type to another. It's inconvenient, unreliable, and might cause signal degredation of some kind. The data transfer rate should be scaleable, so one can choose to conserve drive space if needed. Hopefully the high end would allow 10 bit, 4:4:4 uncompressed (for near uncompressed/highly transparent compression) recording.


OUTPUT TO MONITOR:

1. Ability to output from recording system to some kind of 1080p HD resolution monitor (monitor being anything that is relatively mobile and gives a REAL REPRESENTATION of the recorded image . . . ya, i know, vague). If necessary, we might have to use this signal to also check waveform monitor and vectorscope.


POWER SUPPLY:


1. Power supply could hopefully be something like a typical car battery, and hopefully will power the entirety of the system.


NOTES:


The reason I suggest 1080p as opposed to 720p is because you can get 720p out of an 1080p image, but you can't get a 1080p image out of a 720p image. Therefore, the 1080p image capability will satisfy all crowds (accept those who want even more, which I have not seen mentioned on these threads). 1080p will allow definite ability to 35mm film blowup when considering possible conversions that might have to be made for effects or color timing or whatever. Whenever you colortime in post, you will lose an average of 20% resolution. As most indie filmmakers do colortime in post, it is better for them to start with the best possible signal. Also, HD projection is not standard practice in theaters. So filmmakers wanting to blow up to 35 will most likely make a conversion to film if they are successful, and there will be yet another massive loss in that process. By the time an HD project does get to a 35mm print, there will most likely be a great amount of lost information, and the best possible with a 1080p image may be a projection result. If we go with 1920 X 1080p then everyone here in the end will get what they hoped for, a great immage no matter what the distribution format.


CLOSING:


Ya, I know, this was a mouthful. I'm sure some of it may sound technically inept. Please feel free to mention what makes sense and what doesn't here. And realize this is my "dream setup". I'm aware that all of us, including me, will have to make compromises for the good of the group. That said . . .


LET's DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, Wayne,

Yeah, it was me who was supposed to ask about my girlfriend's dad . . . kind of touchy with my girlfriend last couple of weeks, so didn't get the courage yet . . . things better now.

You know how that is, no matter how much you want to separate business from your social life, the two always seem to try and trip each other up. Anyway, I'll ask soon. Hopefully I'll talk to him by this weekend.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini :
I would like to know what the fastest performance we can expect RAW unconverted on the normal PC before deciding on a minipc board -->>>

Keep in mind these are all calculations and have not been tested in the real world ...

I expect to get 30 fps writing out raw files (1280x720 10 bits) with a single desktop drive. I'm hoping to get 60fps with a 2-drive RAID 0 array.

1920x1080 10-bit 60 fps would require at least a 4-drive array. The same array should handle 30 fps at 12-bit. 60 fps as 12 bits requires 8 drives ... and so forth. I guess this is why the Kinetta camera has 12 drives in it.

<<<-- But we could probably findout the Spec of Mini-ITX boards -->>>

Good idea. (BTW, 10 GbE is barely available at all, much less on the motherboards.)

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher :
Ya, I know, this was a mouthful. -->>>

Excellent ideas here, Laurence.

I think my "design" matches up in many respects to your list of requirements. There are many "dream" requirements that I've left out -- for now -- just because I'd like to see if we can put together a system that works with the minimum possible feature set first. See http://www.obscuracam.com/wiki/wiki/run.php?iRequest=wiki/ViewPage&iPage=RobScottDesign

Since the firmware should be field-upgradable, we can add dreamier stuff later. :-)

You'll notice I'm currently planning to use the SI-1300 camera, mostly because the bandwidth is managable with 2 drives and because it's relatively affordable. I would love to go for a 1920x1080 system, but I'm not sure my personal budget is going to support it. Having said that, we're should design the firmware so it could handle whatever imaging chip was put into it.

good choice Rob, you will like the 1300 it has very good images and what is lacking you can ad in post because of it's 4:4:4 and 10bit...it is softer then 3 chip HD but that is to be expected...some may even like it MORE then 3 chip because it's like having a soft filter on the front of your lens ;) I don't mind because it's still 4:4:4 and 10bit it' sure beats the hell outa the IBIS5 chip that is also in the same ballpark pricewise as the 1300

Been over to the cinematography HD forum, and checked out the threads on our machine vision camera projects (haven't finished them yet), and they seem to know more about some of the things on the Sumix camera than we do ;) with some useful comments, have a look here (there are more threads):

www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?showtopic=1239&hl=machine+vision

www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?showtopic=1262

From past reading, an agressive mob so watch your step.

Thanks

Wayne.

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : By the way, Wayne,

Yeah, it was me who was supposed to ask about my girlfriend's dad . . . kind of touchy with my girlfriend last couple of weeks, so didn't get the courage yet . . . things better now.

You know how that is, no matter how much you want to separate business from your social life, the two always seem to try and trip each other up. Anyway, I'll ask soon. Hopefully I'll talk to him by this weekend. -->>>

Take all the time you want, I know how touchy these things are, don't rush into it, actually, lay bac,k and forget all about it for a while, love is worth a thousand cameras.

Actually I'm taking the rest of the week off from the boards, I may see you on the weekend. You have all my desires listed in these threads, and they are practical specs to deliver the best perforamance. I advise everybody to keep these things in mind when picking their specs. Like, I don't care if the 16:9 image comes from 4:3 chip (which I can use for standard TV or even IMAX, but no 8mpixel chip), if the 4:3 chip is cheaper better go for it, the difference should be very small for 16:9. We should not accept a single Bayer that is less than 1080, as it softens the image and loses RAW resolution and colour infromation (2/3), inmatter of fact a Mega Pixel bayer image that resolves accurately down to 1080 or 720p would be very good. Otherwise it is 3 chip all the way from 720p to 1080+ for me. Whatever we can do (not resolution or picture quality wise) to get a cheaper digital PC interface is good with me (now that multiple USB2 streaming is out), if anybody finds $100 cameralink interfaces on google etc let us know.

Actually we should be discussing this int he Viper thread, would somebody like to quote this there.

The rest of your comments I hope to look at when I come back.

Thanks

Wayne.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini :
From past reading, an agressive mob so watch your step.
-->>>

Yes, they are, aren't they?

But then, again, they seem to be mostly professional DPs. With time schedules more important than money considerations, of course they don't want to fool with a do-it-yourself camera. Of course they are going to pooh-pooh the idea.

But I think there is large gap -- much too large -- between the $40k+ equipment meant for professionals and the $2k-$5k barely-adequate cameras like the DVX100 and GR-HD1.

That's where we fit in.

Yes Scott, thats right, underneath Conceptual HD.

I agree that there is a huge step between the $40K HD cameras and the $4K HDV cams like the JVC I have.
So now that we are starting to speak of costs and feature wish lists, what are people willing to spend on a camera and supporting computer capture system?
Laurence, you forgot item 9 on your wish list, the price point!

-Les

Hi everyone

I think most of our investment in equipment will take us into the future. For example, raw capture on hard drives. Storage will get cheaper, but we will not be able to go back to stuff that is shot in 4:2:2 480p and make it 4:4:4 1080p.

The big camera companies have a different plan in mind. A friend of mine from Avid told me that the biggest concerns of one of the big three camera companies was the 'direct to disk' movement . Camera profits are nothing compared to profit fom tapes. This is also why we want raw capture and they want compression.

I am not in any way anti business, but our goal is the highest quality output with the best componets. Their goal is profitiabilty, and compession sells tapes. These cameras will probably be better than offerings of the big three because we don't have a vested intrest in compression.

Very exciting times!

Wayne, you said: <<Another thing is that you were talking capture rates of 50 Mbps? I heard rumors Canon is coming out with a 50 Mbps HDV camera by the end of the year under 10 grand. If that's true, we all surely would have wasted some serious cash, for what the canon would deliver, complete with lens, would probably be so much more worth the convenience of an extremely cumbersome, and not nearly as feature-filled system. Again 50 Mbps is not theater screen quality really. Might get away with it, but . . . you're pushing it.>>

Gotta watch the bits and bytes. The standard I know is 'b' is a bit and 'B' is a byte. Screen resolution is best described in pixels because you may use 8/10/12 bit data with some cameras. One frame of data times the frame rate gives you the average speed. The pixel clock rate will tell you the maximum bus bandwidth.

For example, the Altasens at 30fps 1920x1080. About 2.1Mpix per frame, that is 62Mpix per second but a clock rate of 75MHz. One thing software can do is pack data - putting 3 12 bit pixels into two 16 bit words. This would give a data rate of 94MB/sec (big B) average and 112.5MB/sec peak. If you don't pack, it is 124MB/sec and 150MB/sec or you stay in 8 bit.

What makes this more confusing is each pathway specs things differently - PCI-32 is max 132MB/sec, gigabit ethernet is 1Gb/sec, USB 2.0 is 480Mbps, Firewire is 400Mbps. Then, the PCI bus has 64 bit and 66MHz and 133MHz varients. The typical next step up from PCI-32 is PCI-64/66MHz - 4x faster bus. There are a number of camera link frame grabbers for this bus and one that I know of (Matrox Helios) that does the full 133MHz.

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher :
8. If possible, the camera should have some form of MATRIX ADJUSTMENT (probably in the software).
-->>>

Laurence, this is probably a really dumb question, but what exactly is matrix adjustment? Is it on-the-fly color correction or something else?

Rob,

LOLOLOL . . . Someone in the history of time said, "there are no dumb questions, just dumb answers", And I'm about to prove that guy right.

Actually, I'm not exactly sure what the "matrix" settings are. What I know is that on the CineAlta and the like, they exist, and are used along with a waveform monitor/vectorscope to make sure your video signals are calibrated well. This will enable you to make sure you adjust video levels to get the greatest amount of usable data, so you have the most information in both the highs and lows, the best latitude your equipment can provide given your lighting setup. I'm assuming since adobe premeire and FCP have waveform monitor/vectorscopes that you don't need a "matrix adjustment" on the camera. Somehow you can probably pump signals through these software programs (or hopefully whatever else we would use) via laptop on set and then adjust under "levels" in the software. Of course, I don't quite know the intracacies of just how much data will be lost simply by pumping it thorugh the software to calibrate it. But then, I don't think you'd have to do that, as long as you could just get a feed and monitor the signal before it is fed into the capuring system. Really, it's been 10 years since I graduated, and haven't used a vectorscope or waveform monitor since (don't need that for shooting 16mm film or dv video at weddings), so I'd have to relearn exactly what to do with them.

What I do know is this.....

It is suggested in Scott Billip's Digital Filmmaking book, that no HD for film / theater release production should be without an on-set waveform monitor/vectorscope for calibration, unless you are looking to waste some 20% video image quality. Of course, no man is the end-all, but compared to me, he is.

Where I get this info from is SCOTT BILLUP'S: DIGITAL MOVIEMAKING. I learned more about HD from that book in a few days than I think I learned about video alltogether during my school years (technically, that is) Of course, times have changed sense then, but In my opinion, this should be the HD textbook used in colleges today. Great freaking book, really.

By the way, someone asked about my price point.

I'd have to say that the invonvenience of Linux to Mac or PC to Mac or Linux to PC would be a monumental thing. This, of course is only based on the problems I've incurred on PC alone. The way I see it is, if I can't get a PC to edit properly, then how could I possibly get a Linux device to work without prior Linux knowledge, let alone interface the linux well with my PC editor after the fact. So I'd be willing to stick in for 10k if you're talking a camera/capture system that would give me files I could read in Mac FCP. That's a lot, I know, but honestly I can't afford the problems of systems duck-taped together.

I'm can't be for sure where everybody else stands. It seems as though everyone is leaning towards some kind of linux setup. I think the best thing is for everyone to give a similar list of what they want performance and price wise. Not to sound to bold, but is the system you guys are talking about really possible for 5k? I mean maybe it is as a semi-working prototype, but in the end, if some are doing high-profile commercials and some are doing features etc., I'm not sure I quite see that 5k will get us where we'd like to be before a year or 2's time, and I predict by that time other options will be available on the market (not the canons at all, but there's buzz about other companies making HD video out of still cameras etc.).

By the way, check this out. This thread says Black Magic Design has got some pretty good capture boards out for as little as $1200. If that is true, I think it's worth a serious look.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27278

Whoa! . . .

Just got this info from another thread here under Alternative Imagaing . . .

I really hope my excitement is warranted here. For some reason, I've got a bell ringing that tells me you guys might be able to get one of these cards to work with the upcoming cameras. There's some 10 bit HD cards from Black Magic that are currently on sale for as little as 1k !!!! It's SDI / PCI-X 133MHz!!! , but it works with PC or Mac (everybody's happy) !!!!! Other options too. The HIGHEST on the site I saw was $2500, and those of us that wanted to go that way . . . . ohhhh it's a MONSTER !!!

goto:

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/index.htm

Check out the various options and tell me, Laurence Layman (lol) why it will or won't work, please!!!

Enjoy!

Hey Wayne,

Matrix settings are entirely pointless if you're capturing the RAW information off the A/D converters. In the Cinealta, etc. the color matrix settings (which is basically how the signal is distributed on a various number of vectors on a vectorscope, whether that be 12-pole or 16-pole, etc.) are applied after A/D conversion, so they're working with the same data that you're getting if you getting all the information uncompressed off the A/D converters. Typically matrix settings are what's used to adjust the conversion from 12-bit RGB from the A/D's to 10-bit YUV for the HD-SDI out. And believe me, you don't want to be grading on-set. That's going to require some VERY expensive equipment to make sure that WYSIWYG. Having all the information and then grading in post is perfectly fine, that's what the Viper does, and it can look very film-like (Viper RAW files bypass any matrix settings, sharpening, etc.).

Cool about the matrix definition Jason,

So you're saying it's better to capture RAW to like 12 bit and then use FCP or similar software to adjust matrix settings via it's built in waveform/vectorscope and colorize down to 10bit? Is this correct?

Okay, you obviously know more than I do about the subject, but then I guess you'd have to be running some seriously powerful software for it to be able to take a 12 bit file and convert it wo 10, wouldn't you? I mean, pumping it through most softwares alone will be a bottleneck, right?

I'll write Billips and see what he does when shooting RAW.

By the way, his site is great:

www.pixelmonger.com

Tbanks!

Combustion or even After Effects can handle these files easily. Shake is a good option too.

BTW, there are no 12-bit image sequence files, typically they'll either be 10-bit log DPX files or 16-bit TIFF's (with padding so they'll look dark).

But yes, the built-in color correction engine of Combustion is plenty for manipulating these files. My personal preference though is Color Finesse from Synthetic Aperture. That plug-in will give you amazing ability.

Also, you're going to have to run these image sequences through a conversion before they can be used propery in FCP. Typically your workflow is going to include first ingesting and doing basic color-correction on the files/converting to low-res Quicktime, and then editing in FCP, with some sort of window-burn on the quicktime so you can match it back to the right file sequence. Then after editing, you'll go back and do a visual match-back to the proper image file sequence, and from there do your final color-correction. That's the match-back method.

The alternative approach is a modified telecine approach, and that's to take the RAW files, do the complete color correction on them, and then convert them to a hi-res Quicktime file that will become your new master. The only caveat with this approach is that you might be spending a lot of time color-correcting the files that you don't want in your final piece.

My advice: Learn Shake, because you can automate a lot of this match-back process with some clever scripting, apply automatic color correction, etc. It's also a pretty good app for the final conform, and it'll read 16-bit TIFF's nicely. Additionally the editing interface in Combustion will make for a nice conform tool, although you can't script that interface, so they'll be a lot of hand-holding through the conversion process. Another app that might come in pretty handy is Sequence Publisher from IRIDAS. You can use that to automate the inital low-res conversion process, with window-burns, and then to automate the hi-res 12-bit Quicktime process with automation also. Then duplicate your project in FCP, name the hi-res files the same as the low-res files, and after unconnecting all your media, reconnect it with the hi-res 12-bit Quicktimes. You can then export an XML file and import that into Color Finesse v2, which will be an awesome CC app, and do your final CC there, render at 12-bit quicktime and import back into FCP or whereever for final output (if you have the hard-drive speed required for this stuff).

Sound complicated-Oh yah, you bet it is, that's why the Kinetta's going to be so awesome, it'll have it's own built-in real-time color corrector with HD-SDI and dual-link HD-SDI ouputs to make life much easier for everybody. You'll also get lots of metadata embedded in your 10-bit log DPX files if you decide to go the image sequence route, and stuff like Sequence Publisher will like that a lot more than TIFF's from an industrial camera that have no embedded timecode, etc. metadata. Additionally Jeff's going to have much better bayer algorithms than I've seen for these industrial cameras.

So things could change here in the near future, but if my post is anything to judge by, if you want to do the industrial camera approach, be prepared for A LOT of rendering!

<<<-- Originally posted by Jason Rodriguez :
So things could change here in the near future, but if my post is anything to judge by, if you want to do the industrial camera approach, be prepared for A LOT of rendering! -->>>

Absolutely true. If you need a simple workflow, professional features, dual SDI, I would definitely recommend a Kinetta or something similar. Don't rely on a homebrew camera that may involve a much more complex workflow.

I suspect that SDI output will simply be too expensive for our project -- our goal (well, MY goal :-) is to use commodity hardware and standards.

If our project *ever* becomes feasible to use on a high-profile project, it will take a lot of work and probably a few years. In the meantime, I think our project will be of value to those of us with VERY low budgets (i.e., a bit more time than money).

LOLOL

Oh come on guys. I have trouble getting my matrox le to function without crashing on pc, let alone deal with tiff files and biff files and whatever iff files. What I've been saying all along is that anyone who doesn't want to take 3 years making a movie is going to have to fork over some . . . not huge . . . but some . . . cash . . . to make this user-friendly. Here, let's look at it this way....

FOR 5K. . .

. . . By the time any of us build this user un-friendly camera, shoot a film, convert all the files, color correct, render and render and render and then finally edit or whatever, 3 years of our lives will have gone by and the only thing we'll have to show for it is 1 feature film that probably isn't that great because most of what we were doing with this system was experimentation do to lack of features. In the end, after 3 years of hell, you'll also realize just how much time you spent fixing things and patching things and that you probably could have earned a good 30 grand with the amount of fix-it hours spent . . . OR . . . .

FOR 10K

. . . We could put together a system, complete and user friendly, that captures directly into the files needed for editing, open them immediately with user-friendly editing software, and edit immediately, with little rendering time and no problems so you can focus more on the artisitc aspects of your feature film, which you got done from script to screen inside of 1 simple and enjoyable year . . .

THOSE NUMBERS AGAIN . . . .


5k spent = 3 years of your life in hell, 1 finished film, un-reliable equipment your now so pissed at you never want to see it again.


10k spent = 1 year of your life in fun, 1 finished film, reliable equipment you can use again.


Really, by the time 3 years are up, if we go with the 10k option, we'd all hopefully have 3 movies under our belt and be moving on to bigger and better things anyway.

I don't know how many of you have written/directed/produced a full feature of film level magnitude before, but I have, and BELIEVE ME. The last place you'll ever want to be is hanging around in post production hell. This is coming from someone who HAS spent 3 years on a feature in such a fashion. IT . . . SUCKS.


Come on guys, you can't tell me you really want to spend that time and effort.

lolololool---We'd get just as much done all pitching in on 1 camera then traveling around the world helping each other shoot 1 feature a piece!

Really, what is a bigger gamble, forking the cash (for some that means going into a little bank loan/credit card debt, for some, working like an overtime dog several months this year, for some, just cutting back on what you usually don't need to spend your money on, for some, pooling together friendly funds or finding investors for your feature, whatever) or burning those 2 extra years away of your life. You'll live a maximum of 100 if you're really lucky.

Hell, it may not even be 10k, just 7, 8, 9, we don't know for sure.

Everyone here so far says SDI is expensive, but Black Magic Design I think just came out with a card we could use for minimum 1k, maximum 2.5k (unless it won't work for some reason). And it works with both PC and Mac I think. (Unless you guys are talking output to a medium that SDI is very expensive . . . I don't know)

check it out:

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/index.htm

I'm really not trying to knock on anyone/anything here at all, I just think we need to take into consideration the practicalities of our decisions with this. Of course, this is from a feature filmmaker's point of view, not a short project maker. For guys doing shorter projects, some of these arguements would be moot.

I WUV ALL OF UUUUUUUUU!!!!

Comments?

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher :
I'm really not trying to knock on anyone/anything here at all, I just think we need to take into consideration the practicalities of our decisions with this.
-->>>

It's not for everybody :-)

I don't think it's going to be as bad as you make it sound, but this *is* homebrew stuff. Your same arguments could be made about the GG thread -- why build it yourself? It's a pain in the rear! Why not just pay $8k for one that works?

I'm just saying that there is no telling when this would be a polished, fast, easy-to-use, problem-free solution ... if ever.

Luv U 2 !! :-) Seriously, I appreciate your comments. No hard feelings at all.

Laurence,
Clearly you got your tailfeathers scorched recently. Being outside your industry but in a position where my tools can cost big $$ (a good scope starts at $3k and goes to $50K), I understand the frustration. It is probably not cost effective for each person to venture on their own. That is probably the greatest strength of a forum like this. A grouping of individual skills - some camera, optics, programming, work flow, post production knowledge mixed together.

If the overhead for each person building similar systems is only a 5% learning curve, instead of 75% if they work independently, low cost cameras make sense.

Personally, sales to indies are not going to make me rich - lots of overhead for single unit sales, but this is a place where I can do some helping. Remember not to assume targets are stationary when you look at this. The commercial HD camera will come down in price. Our prices will drop or capabilities will go up. In three years you will be looking at multi-camera systems, long term archiving of raw films plus post processing, everyone will be at 1080p, 12 bit for a reasonable price. I think people in Home Made are the ones that are a bit out in front. If they stand still, technology will pass them.

camera link card $695

select camera link and click search

http://www.opsci.com/index.asp?pagetitle=FramgrbrSearch&exten=asp

That's EXACTLY my point, Steve. . . .

A film that takes 3 years to make from this point really acheives nothing. For in the same time, the technology will catch up (perhaps even surpassing the systems we have created before our films are near finished) and the idea of building a hand-crank home grown system will be like trying to take a mule to work now days. You never know, it may happen even faster than we think, and we're stuck, having spent our financial wad on mules while everone around us now is in a Ferrarri. If we are going to do this, we need to find a happy medium between COST and other factors like TIME efficiency, for those of us making features anyway.

Just IMHO

it's worth my time, I shoot projects in a matter of days not weeks months or years....I can see this working out well EVEN without Rob and Rob doing some nice software. All I have to do is build a cheap lowcost mini-atx computer with 2 sata RAID drives for storage use some type of camera mounting system and c-mount lenses along with Norpix Streampix software and I have a true low-cost HD system ready to shoot. at 10bit 4:4:4...can we/I do better? sure! spend more money and buy the JVC 3 cmos ROckwell sensor 1080p camera for 20 grand and then buy a HD deck for 30-40 grand and get an HD edit suite at 20 grand

Good point Obin,

I should point out that I'm speaking for people interested in feature work. For people doing shorter projects, yes, it is indeed worth a different look.

Again, I'm not steppin on toes here. I love all of ya.

this new modular camera will have 1 feature that will always put us ahead of the curve. we can upgrade it component by component.
If obin wants to upgrade to 1080p his major upgrade cost will be the new chip .and someone coming in will be glad to buy his 720p camera look what were doing. we are hand picking each component. with tests and scrutiny. the computers will get smaller and faster the chips bigger. you can,t go into a show room and buy a dragracer I,ts built from the best technolgy of that time. these cameras will be dragracers

Interesting point, Richard. Very interesting point.

Forgot you guys were talking upgradeable.

Ohhhhhhh good showwww!!!

<<<-- Originally posted by Richard Mellor :
these cameras will be dragracers -->>>

That's a good way to put it, Richard.

The software will be upgradable too. Unlike a camera from the big guys, you'll be able to tweak anything you like -- or hire someone to do it. User interface, codecs, file formats ... it will all be "open".

Who knows, we might find a way to squeeze out enough CPU power to put a waveform monitor right in the camera firmware. Zebra stripes? On-the-fly viewfinder color correction? Who knows. And no one will be saying, "We can't add that feature to a camera in this price range. It will cannibalize sales of our $100K model!"