Levan:
I will try to address your questions. First, yes there are cameras that will run much faster. The Altasens 3562 can do 1920x1080@60fps and 720p at 120fps. Speed costs money so you don't go faster than you need to. The interface between the camera and capture costs more, the system design is more difficult and the RAID storage goes up. Read about Obin's exploits in trying to get 1080p @24fps recorded without issues to understand why people don't go to 150Mpix/sec data rates without good reason.

When you say upgradable sensors, you really mean camera head since you need the associated timing control, A/D, gain stages and interface to make a camera head and the design of each is unique. I believe that this has come up a few times. It is a good goal. You need a point of continuity- probably the interface to the camera head - and approximately the same data rates to keep the rest of the system the same.

8/10 bits. The signal captured by the sensing site on the sensor is analog - continuously varying voltage. To create a digital value, you must go through an Analog to Digital converter (A/D). While you can set the range of the A/D to cover the full signal at any number of bits, the bits determine how many steps there are from black to white. Think of a really bad setup - 2 bits - so you get four combinations or steps. No matter what you do afterwards to smooth those steps so the image doesn't look ....steppy, you can't get more information beyond what is captured at the A/D. More is better. It is more complicated once you talk about log/linear and compression, but I'll wait until you digest this and let you ask.

Pleased to meet you too. It is an adventure here.

Edited:
But, how come nobody mentions the frame rate? I mean, I think it is a major disadvantage not to have higher frame rate capture possibility, of course I don't mean like those super high speed CMOS cameras that shoot at thousands of frames per second, but to have at least 60fps would be nice, for some slow motion effects.

Also I wonder if I understood it right, does this camera has an option to upgrade the sensor in future when newer sensors will be available?

Also can somebody explain the case with 8bit and 10bit thing.

AND NICE TO MEET EVERYONE :*)

Thank you steve,

It is always like this, but having unswers to some question must lead to new questions. First of all, I know about Altasens camera, but I am not technician, on their web site I only see the specifications that might or might not be uderstandable for me. I would like to see the actual footage from the camera. What I do as for my business I shoot TV commercials, and I work on 35mm film. If you go to www.sarke.ge/clips you will be able to download my works. ( there was some problem with the server, so maybe not today ) Working on 35mm is a lot of cost, and that is not a new to you, so what I am trying to do repace it with something else. My current workflow is, I shoot on film, I develope, I do telecine and color correction on those expensive equipment, transfer it to SD and edit the commercial. I do own my editing hardware (final cut) I plan to buy FinalTouch HD for color finishing, and I would like to have a nice camera, to have a film like image, with a good DOF and enough color information and resolution to color correct my images with my FinalTouch. So the missing component at this moment is a camera, and I have a nice budget for it, around 25K. (of course less is always better :*) ) Now, problem is I don't have enough technical knowledge to assume wich camera is better just by reading the specs. With DRAKE camera I saw samples and I liked it. I went to NAB this year in hope to find something appropriate for me, I was also hoping to see KINETTA, but the only thing there I found was a DVX-100 upgraded by reel-stream. They showed me footage, the image looked nice but since it was using the standard lenses of DVX-100 it was FLAT. But then they refered me to P+S technics. Well the whole package would seem nice, but I am not sure if it was the best. After return, I learned about DRAKE from the thread. I also saw all this sumix and altasens and other cameras, but none of them have a nice site like DRAKE, the site that would explain everything, using some samples. At this moment I am defined to buy DRAKE system, but the only thing that concerns me is this 8bit and low fps problem.

Now this leads to a question, how about Altasens, how can it be compared to DRAKE in terms of actual picture quality? The most important thing for me is to have a flexibility in post color correction, because most of my work is beautiful for its beutiful colors, and I don't want to have the problem of setting the color on the stage while I shot, I want to think about it later. (like I do with film). So I need to have enough color info for that. I am not sure if the 8bit thing has to deal with it, but is seems that is does. (dynamic range???). Of course the DOF is another thing that is MUST for me. My final product is SD, and I not concerned with the final resolution, but I care for film look, and I think the higher the resolution of the footage, more flexible I will be in color correction process.

What does Altasens camera record to? Is it hard drive or what? How can I then transfer the image to my Macintosh?

Now about 8 bit vs 10 bit thing, this is what I udnerstood: sensor itself may capture (sense) the image and responds to it with different voltage, if you just think of it it could be more than even 10 bit, then this voltage has to be translated to digits, so that it can be recored as a pixel information. The higher the bits, more it differentiates between voltages. Every pixel, has its individual digital record, and it is either 8bit or 10bit or it could be 12bit or more. Now what is dynamic range?! I could understand it as a ratio of the lowest and the highest voltages a sensor can read, and thus bits are steps between them? more bits means more steps. I am right?

Now that is maximum I could get, I am totaly confused with this "log/linear" thing. But I know what compression is and I also understand what 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 means.

"A 10bit lookup table and a 8bit data stream are recorded in real time" <-- now this is from DRAKE site, what does it mean?

By the way, good news is that final version of DRAKE will have 10bit and 12bit options for recording.

I am all up to DRAKE, the only thing is fps.

Now I looked up at all the text and I have written a huge post, I hope nobody gets mad at me :*)

the number bits IS the dynamic range (in the digital world). So 10 bits is a
larger dynamic range than 8 bits.

Log encoding is a way to encode more bits into less bits. In this case 10 bits
get scaled into 8 bits, as I understand it some information will/could be lost in
this transformation (but this should be kept to a minimum). The most important
thing is that you keep your dynamic range (you don't just chop bits off).

The lookup table basically tells how to transform the 8 bit signal back into
10 (or how many) bits.

I almost agree with this. The dynamic range is the span from bright to dark that you can resolve. You have two things ready to bite (byte?) you. First, camera noise may render some of the bits unusable - lost in noise regardless of the A/D bit count. Second is the full well capacity of the sensor. For a low noise sensor, a deeper well means that the range of bright to dark can be greater, so more bits can be used to acquire the pixel value.

Log encoding is changing that linear description of the signal and converting it to a non-linear response - usually mimicing the response of the eye. This lets you use more steps to describe brightnesses that the eye is sensitive to. If done correctly, you can use this to decrease the number of bits per pixel without losing steps in the areas of brightness that are important. Rob is right - this is the way to decrease the number of bits used - truncation is evil.

The lookup table is just a map - if this value comes in, put this value out.

the number bits IS the dynamic range (in the digital world). So 10 bits is a
larger dynamic range than 8 bits.

Log encoding is a way to encode more bits into less bits. In this case 10 bits
get scaled into 8 bits, as I understand it some information will/could be lost in
this transformation (but this should be kept to a minimum). The most important
thing is that you keep your dynamic range (you don't just chop bits off).

The lookup table basically tells how to transform the 8 bit signal back into
10 (or how many) bits.

Rob, Steve, thanks a lot for your time. It is great that this kind of forum exist and one can get info and support from others.

Now I want to discuss the next thing: it's CMOS vs CCD in terms of bits. Like when you say 8bits on CCD sensor, it turns to 24bits since it there are 3 CCD, 8bit for each color, total of 24. When we are talking about CMOS 8bits does this also mean that there are 8bits for each color (RGB), I got confused because CMOS is a single chip. Now, if it is only 8 bits vs 24 bit, there should be a lot of difference between those two images, but there is not. Even I definately would say that CMOS images look much more appealing than CCDs. But how come 24bis vs 8bit is not a better image? but, then I get confused, there is no way CCD can be better, because then ARRI wouldn't choose CMOS in their D-20. On NAB I saw some footage of this camera and it was amazing, I think only high class professionals would differentiate it from film.

Also one more question, I didn't completely understood the log/liner bits, but I did get the fact that using log, would give us more details with lower bits. So, is DRAKE using log? I mean is it 8bit log?

Thats it,
I hope answers to my questions will aslo be usefull for other readers of this forum. :*)

Levan,
I'll address the first half since someone in cinematography is better suited to discuss log/linear.

The difference you are describing isn't CCD vs CMOS. It is single chip color vs 3 chip color. In a 3 chip camera, a beam splitter will separate out the R,G, and B parts of the incoming image and send them to individual monochrome sensors. As you say, with 8 bit A/D converters, this gives you 24 bit color although you can go to 10 or 12 bits per color per pixel and use a log encoding to bring you back down to 24 bits.

Single chip color almost always uses a Bayer color filter of 50% green, 25% blue and 25% red pixels. One 8-12 bit value is generated for each pixel. The other colors are interpolated. Rather than go into detail, try some of our website - tasty but less filling:

http://siliconimaging.com/ARTICLES/CMOS%20PRIMER.htm
http://siliconimaging.com/RGB%20Bayer.htm

The color from a single chip camera is not quite as good as a 3 chip but the cameras are much cheaper (a 3 chip is like 3 independent cameras) and recording is 1/3 the bandwidth. This does clobber your resolution when you look at blue or red objects however.

What does Altasens camera record to? Is it hard drive or what? How can I then transfer the image to my Macintosh?

Well, as I understand it, there's no Altasens cameras. Altasens are just CMOS sensors. Not really a camera. It seems the new JVC 2/3" HDV camera will sue those. But I don't think any camera is suing them already. Also, if threre will be any industrial cameras using them, I think they will be expensive cameras, like the Dalsa. So not really a good optio for DIY I guess.

Great links Steve, I read it carefully. Now this definetely means that CCD is superior to CMOS, since in some way, 3CCD means that each pixel in the image has exact information of the shades of gray of Red, Green and Blue, while in CMOS, proportion (intensity of) Red Green and Blue are assumed base on Bayer filter, so it might have some (bot very little) mistakes itself.

This all is interesting, but when I look at images of CCD cameras, they look flat and unartistic. Could it be because they use different kind of lenses. I mean, as I know there is prism inside that splits the colors for 3CCDs, while in CMOS, the light travels direct and hits the sensor. Could it be the reason?

And one more question. In the artical there is info that visible wavelength is from 400-750nm. What about this sensors, do they sense full range? Or does this range also vary depending on the sensor?

Does anybody know what is the price for DALSA? Is their camera already available at all?

One more question to Michael. why would ALTASENS manufacture sensors, if nobody uses it? And why they call it camera, if it is just a sensor?

I also visited www.siliconimaging.com. There are two things I want to know. How good are the images from this cameras? Could I use those higher frame rate cameras for cinema projects rather than scientific observations? and I want to set up an array of up to 125 digital cameras (could be still), sycronised, connected to a computer and recording frames. To create special effect, like the one used in matrix?

I know I am going out of the subject of this thread, we are here to talk about and discuss DRAKE, but... :*)

Levan,
I'll try again. One sensor or three. It has nothing to do with CCD or CMOS. I can make a 3 chip CMOS camera easier than a 3 chip CCD. There are many single chip CCD cameras.

Look at the data sheet for one of our cameras or at the Micron data sheets. You will see a set of response curves. There should be a monochrome response of the sensor over a range of wavelengths. There should also be the R,G,B respsonse that is a function of the Bayer color filter mask interacting with the monochrome sensor response. The response is not in any way linear. It is most sensitive in green.

As Michael said, Altasens is a sensor company, like Micron, Fill Factory and many others. Camera manufacturers (like Silicon Imaging and Drake - mentioning them since this is their thread) buy sensors like any other integrated circuit and build cameras using them.

People are using the Altasens sensor. We have a camera with one. They don't have their yields up high enough yet for high volume quantities which is keeping the camera manufacturers (us again) from announcing that we are ready to ship thousands of cameras. For now it is tens.

Yes, industrial cameras can be used as the head of an HDV camera. The cost is fairly high in single pieces because the cost of a single sale is high (someone has to pay for the time I spend on this board). OEMs pay much lower prices because it doesn't cost much more to support a sale of 50 cameras than a sale of 1. On the other hand, unless you are a student, the time spent designing a camera to own a single camera is just not worth it.

Steve: thanks for expanding on my text with the "analog" part. I wanted to
describe this, but my knowledge about sensors (wells and noise) is too limited.
Therefore I just talked about the digital part (# of bits).

Levan: the number of bits has nothing to do with how many chips you have.
A 3 CCD or 3 CMOS camera will simply have more resolution (if the resolution
on each chip is the same and you just have more chips) to play with. Both
systems can output at 8, 10 or 12 bits *PER* pixel.

That value is always PER pixel. In the case of Bayer for each color there is
just one pixel (basically, you would interpolate this to three colors per pixel).
In a 3 CCD/CMOS setup there are 3 colors per pixel.

That is the reason that an RGB datastream will be 3x times as large as an
(unprocess/not-interpolated) Bayer datastream.

That is the reason we like to store the Bayer stream and convert this (again,
through interpolation) into the RGB stream on a computer after you have
recorded the footage.

Yes, Rob, I now understand that there can be both 3CCD and 3CMOS chips, and I guess this means that CCD can also use Bayer technology. But what this means is that, using one CMOS sensor is not defining each pixel color as it would with 3CMOS or 3CCD. As I understand, using bayer filter assigns final color to each pixel rather than 3 (RED GREEN and BLUE) gray levels of the color of this pixel. So by using bayer filter, you are not exact in color information. But, then on the other hand, all the 3 CCD camera images look more like video than even one CMOS image. I have never seen footage from 3CMOS sensors and I can not judge it. So what is the reason for that? Could it be that the prism that brakes light into RGB takes away DOF or anything else that make film different from video. All the CMOS sensor shot I have seen look more filmish, even those with not so good optics. Or maybe I am mistaken. But, I saw VIPER on NAB, and saw footage from this camera. I wouldn't be right to say that it was BAD, but as of my final decision I didn't like it. Anyways I couldn't afford it, but even if I could I would better buy the DARKE. Now, I am judging DARKE solely by it's sample from the web page of course, and I haven't seen it, and I haven't had a chance to play with it, and I definetely will as soon as it will be on sale, before I buy, but from this point of view I like it. I am no professional here, but I think that the good look of the images from DRAKE are all due to CMOS, maybe I am absolutely wrong and forgive me if I confuse other readers. So to finalize,what I tried to say here is that, I understand that technically 3CCD should be superior to 1 CMOS, but on the practice from a guy who is not a professional engineer or technician, 1CMOS works better. Maybe this is due to the prism.

I also saw P+S technics mounted to XL2, and it really looked nice, but all the compressions of mini DV format is not for me. I wonder if P+S technics would add some DOF to DRAKE.

That's it.

Personally, I think the reason CMOS looks so much more like film isn't because it's CMOS - rather it's the complete lack of compression and zero in camera sharpening. I suspect the results would be the same with a CCD.

Personally, I think the reason CMOS looks so much more like film isn't because it's CMOS - rather it's the complete lack of compression and zero in camera sharpening. I suspect the results would be the same with a CCD.

But, VIPER, when recording in filmstream mode is also uncompressed and 4:4:4, and also if you have seen modificatoin of DVX100 by reelstream (www.reelstream.com) is also uncompressed, but it can not be compared to DRAKE at all. But then I really expect to see DVX100 modified by reelstream with mini35 and some good lenses. I expect to see samples of this setup.

CCD or CMOS ? Single sensor or 3sensors? Sensor size?
Viper is a geat camera,with high resolution 3x 2/3" CCDs + RGB prism. It is based on the same technology like other video cameras. ARRI is a movie camera manufactor and the D 20 use only a single 35mm CMOS with considerably less resolution. The result looks mutch more like film. The sensor is the main different and this example shows, a single CMOS can be mutch better as 3 x CCDs. But it need a lot of other things.

We had started this project, because we wonted a digital camera for film like pictures. Original it was designed only for one movie and only as a camerahead + long cable + PC Unit. We had top engineers for optics, mechanics, electronics and software. All with movie making know how. The result was so excellent that we develop this independent, little and lightweight Drake camera. Now the serial production has begun and we wait for parts.
Our engineers work on next projects, but in the future we will not discuss details on forums till it will be ready. We will not do the same inapt like Altasens or other companys who said: "...it will be available in n days..." and nothings comes. (BTW: Kinetta use also Altasens...). If we talking about future projects here, then it is always ready.

DRAKEs biggest advantage is, it is a modular camera. The main body contain hardware for recording mutch more than 1280x720p, 8Bit, also more than 1920x1080p, 12 bit. Thats why Drake is ready for future sensors and in the near future you can select (or upgrade) between different cameraheads with different sensors.

[QUOTE=Rai Orz]CCD or CMOS ? Single sensor or 3sensors? Sensor size?
Viper is a geat camera,with high resolution 3x 2/3" CCDs + RGB prism. It is based on the same technology like other video cameras. ARRI is a movie camera manufactor and the D 20 use only a single 35mm CMOS with considerably less resolution. The result looks mutch more like film. The sensor is the main different and this example shows, a single CMOS can be mutch better as 3 x CCDs. But it need a lot of other things.

Yes, that is exactly, what I thought, but could you in brief explain what is IT, that makes CMOS footage look more like film, and what about 3 CMOS sensor? Would it be better or do you think it might have a higher resolution but loose that special look of film?

CCD or CMOS?
CMOS dynamic range is higher than CCD. Its mutch more like film. Thats the main different.

one ore 3 sensors (CCD or CMOS)?
The different resolution is mentioned before. But practice and theory are often different. Colors and resolution are easy to handle with 3 chips. One chip nead a debayer software. But there are a lot of different debayers out. And not all are good. I like to compare debayer software with translation software. Each software translate words, but with bad software nobody understand sentences. That is one of the tricks.
The other big different is the prism itself. It need a longer optical distance between lenses and sensor, because the prism light path is longer. With one chip each film lenses (S16mm) work. With prism you need special lenses. And thats the third main different. A lens with longer distance (between lens and sensor) will never have those short DOF.

All together and you know why ARRI D20 (and Drake) go the one single CMOS way.

Thank you Roi!

I was almost sure, by logicaly thinking, that prism was the reason for loosing DOF, but I couldn't see the theoretical arguments. Now I understand.

Rai is Drake hardware? or is it software running on Linux/windows with a HIGHSPEED Frame Grabber card?

Rai, i tried emailing your new email, but it just bounced back, so i forwarded to your old one.

Email me again to confirm the address please.

Thanx
Keith

Rai is Drake hardware? or is it software running on Linux/windows with a HIGHSPEED Frame Grabber card?

Drake is hardware and software. It is also ready for 1080p if you mean that, but that will not be all...

A bit of an update on the Drake:

According to the website they were planning on rolling out the camera for sale and rental beginning in June. With no update to the website I emailed Marcus to find out what was going on.

He e-mailed me back to tell me that they are doing some new tests on the camera to bring it to true 12-bit recording, and are now looking at releasing it for sale in August.

So that's where it's at right now, 12-bit (probably 4:2:2, maybe 4:4:4, they didn't say) 2/3" chip 720p (though it may be 1080p by the time they get 12-bit going, they say their working on that too) for $20,000.

Hmm.. Updates! ;)

Rai i just sent you an email using the forum's "email member" feature. Feel free to reply when you have a second, thanks.

No update?
No new clips?
Whats going on?

Updates here on DVInfo from the Drake team have been inconsistent at best
(I'm not judging anyone here, their time is obviously valuable). The high price
tag (for most people) of the camera (system) may have resulted in some loss
of interest as well? I know I certainly can't afford that kind of money.

Expect more from them, I forget what has been mentioned here, but I imagine new models/upgrades, smaller cameras, and obviously with new models different price points.

Haven't heard from Rai for months myself, so must be busy with something.

The market is tough, price too high and people that can afford it start looking at upgrading their expectations to name brand equipment. Just a matter of finding the sweet spot where people wont go for higher or lower price equipment.

Here is the update about DRAKE. After discussing with DRAKE team when the camera will be available (they promised to have one prototype ready by the begining of August) I went to Germany to actually see and test the camera. And this is a long way too. What I saw was not very impressive in terms of how camera was set up. It of course was not the final version as you can see designs on their web page, but to my surprise it was not even a stand alone camera, it was a camera head connected to a small computer, and it was not easy to move the camera even for 20 meters from where it was set up. Well but this is not a big deal, because you could easily get an idea that it is not finished, it is just that I expected that the camera was much far ahead in terms of development stage. Well, on the other hand, I saw materials shot will camera, and I also had a chance to shoot surrounding with it. I shoot the sky, with some clouds and after some experimenting with the curves and setups I achieved a very good quality of the picture, no I could say that I was very happy with the picture, I also shot myself. Well to sum, the quality was so good that I decided to purchase one. Well I discussed with Marc and he promised to have the prototype ready by the end of August. So we agreed and I left. Several days ago I got news that they have some kind of problem with the sensor and camera will not be ready for the next half year. Well I am kind of upset, because I have delayed several of my project from June to end of August in hope to shoot with DRAKE, and what I got at the end of the August is nothing. And yes, they knew it, they knew I delayed my projects.

I also recomended the camera to so many people, that would help them to sell the camera in the Russian, Caucasus and Ukraine markets, and I feel very uncomfortable telling them that camera is not available at all.

So, keep in mind, DRAKE is a very good camera in terms of picture quality, at least what I saw was increadable. It is very film like and has lots of functions. The best part is that it records in a file format so that you can change all the setting later in post production and you need not to worry about it during the actuall shot. Well I would recomend this camera to all of you out there who seek something that looks like film and have less budget. But keep in mind my experience.

Drake, sounds vaguely familiar from the past?

End of last year, I think, they showed a full working prototype in one unit (with detachable head for filming on mount) that seemed to have small computer audio sockets on the back. You probably saw an adaption of that or the unit the used to film Dragon feather last year. Haven't heard from Rai for a while.

What sensor did it have, the old one or the new one? Some of these production engineering problems can be fiddly and delay it much, but this is a disappointment, maybe they are delaying for a new sensor or two.

Two months ago, i saw the working DRAKE camera on a HD event in germany. But what i saw was not a small computer, it was the camera from their web page. I dont know why they show you not this camera. I saw also new 12Bit (not 8bit) uncompressed materials shot with this camera and it was ultas impressive.


BTW: Last months. the german magazine computervideo showed DRAKE on their cover.

http://www.computervideo.de/ausgaben/cv4_05-inhalt.htm

A half year ago, the german magazin CUT had a cover story with the DRAKE team:

http://www.cut.biz/heft.php?abo_id=1122&show_jahr=2005&show_ausgabe=4&show_rubrik=.14Titel&show_id=1718

Levan, Thanks for sharing your experience!
Same question: Which sensor have you experimented with? Still the IBIS5A?
In coincidence only yesterday film-tv-video have published a report on the Drake camera at
http://www.film-tv-video.de/newsdetail+M5c49fab1f8d.html
Unfortunately it's in German language only but downloadable as a pdf of 8 pages. You have to register first (for free of course). Here they say that "a fully developed and intensively tested Drake camera will be available from August 2005, the price of a complete system being about 15,000 Euro excl. VAT."
There are some nice pictures accompanying the report. The design of the "final" Drake version looks "cool", IMHO.

Thanks Wolfgang, i went to this side, registry and found this link to the PDF without registry need:

http://www.film-tv-video.de/uploads/tx_ttnews/T_0705_Drake.pdf

..........

Wayne,
I don't know the details but there have been some serious health issues involved. I don't think they went dark on purpose. I know they are still dedicated to bringing out a moderate cost lossless compression camera.
Steve

I'm glad to see that they are getting some exposure and we already know that the camera is a working device. It's like anything, production takes time.

Just look at kinetta, the camera was all over the place and has recently fell silent and nobody really knows whats going on with that either. They were delayed for altasens and now we know altasens is in full production and that camera still isn't out.

Give them some time and drake will surely show up.

Wayne,
I don't know the details but there have been some serious health issues involved. I don't think they went dark on purpose. I know they are still dedicated to bringing out a moderate cost lossless compression camera.
Steve

Hmm, yes, I did know of a health issue, but I thought that stabilised a while ago, hope it's ok. My head is swimming today, 5am and time for bed.

Well, I have no idea why they didn't show the working prototype if they had one, maybe the camera that you all saw was 8 bit. What I have experienced was 12 bit version of DRAKE and yes, as I said the pircture was very impressive. As I know they still used IBIS5A. Well, when I returned to my country, I called Marc if everything was going as scheduled (we agreed that I would recieve a working prototype by the end of August), and he explained that unfortunatelly they have problems with 12 bit version, it appeared that the sensor they use (I guess IBIS5A) had some internal problems and when recording 12 bit it sent out some vertical lines on the image destroing the image quality. Marc explained that they decided to find some company that would manufacture them a sensor with their own design. So he said that i would take at least 4 month to do that. Also manufacturer of sensor they currently use said that it will also take about half year to improve the error in the sensor. Please all consider that I am not a technician and I don't understand many technical details, but this is what I was explained. I really wish that there is a camera available to ship from August 2005, as in that report, but it is not, because if there was one I would be the first one to purchase, and I would recomend it to all of you, it really is the best camera available at this moment that we can afford (at least some of us).

So, if you will know any update please also let us know.

And all of you who are interested there is a Russian company that created a Digita Cinema Camera, that is based on 1' CMOS sensor, thus can use 35mm optic on PL mount, and the camera can produce 2400-1350 pixels picture with up to 150fps. It has a separate recording device. I talked to the manufacturers and the price of the camera is from 18 000 USD to 150 000 USD depending of configuration. I will be visiting the company within next week and I will let you know details if you are interested. They also promised to have some samples of what they shoot by the end of this week on the web page. www.ctt.ru . Oh, and don't try to reach them on phone numbers that you see on web page, bacause it is not the number they have in use, I had to ask my friends in moscow to find the company. I know the mobile but I can not give away on the forum, you can e-mail if you are interested and I will refer you to them.

And for 18000USD you get the HD version only.

Even thou I think the image resolution of this camera is better than DRAKE I like drake better because of its functions. Hope some day DRAKE will be available.

Yes, problem is you introduce a product and then find out customers want this and want that. We thought it curious Drake wanted 8 bits, I imagine customers said more (great 12bit mode on it).

There have been people in the forums that say they want minimal camera, even just viewfinder and couple of buttons, and that might be alright for them, but for everybody else they like the convenience and accuracy of a full set up. Look at film cameras nowadays, they have plenty of digital gear on them, and there is a reason for that.

A shame the ibis is playing up in 12 bits, but where they get there own sensor from this sounds curious? Truth is there are a number of sensors on the market, that ccd sensor that was suggested before on the technical thread looks like a good one with something like 90% QE and very good resolution and frame rate. FF doers a nice 4MP sensor that will do 2MP at 30fps, and own the custom sensor maker Smalcamera. Somebody mentioned a new Foveon sensor on the other thread. Altasens has new 1/3 inch sensor (just look at how well the HC1 is doing with their 1/3 inch). A number of options, of people with the tech to ask to make a good one for you. I wonder what it will be like?

Does anybody know of any cheap 720p+ capable camera (pref with memory buffer and pixel packing) usb/firewire/Gige for less than $400, even cameralink etc, would be tempted to have a go at it? Sensor chip prices have dropped a lot. There is no way the sumix ibis is worth the $1000.

That russian camera site looks interesting but if that camera is 18k usd for a hd-sdi camera head than your better off buying a sony or ikegami box camera for a similar price IMHO and have all that features and support.

Still have the problem of finding a way to record that hd-sdi signal - nothing cheap currently available except a big ole computer with pci-x

First of all DRAKE also costs 18000USD. The advantage of russian camera over sony and ikegami is that it is CMOS sensor, and since it is one 1' sensor you can use all of the 35mm optics on it and have full advantage of DOF of 35mm film, without any Micro35 adapter or something like that. Also CMOS sensors tend to record more film like pictures that 3 CCDs. Also this russian camera, is 4:4:4 uncompressed like drake. Well, yes you can buy well know brand, but what you get is actually lower quality. Well at least if you seek something that will shoot images close to film. I will have update on this camera withing next 10 days, because I am planning to visit the company soon and see the camera for myself.

It is very strainge that nobody from DRAKE team have replied to the post yet. Don't you think? and I have sent them e-mails and don't recieve answers.

Drake is a full solution not just a camera head. I was making reference to the Russian one (not drale) that seems to just be a hd-sdi camera head. Also if you open the pdf it actually says 2/3" not 1" so some uncertainty their, but it looks like a single cmos sensor solution for the same price as a full resolution 3 ccd. By 4:4:4 do you mean raw bayer or do you mean true 4:4:4 over dual link hd-sdi debayered on the camera or something similar to raw bayer over one channel of hd-sdi. I don't speak russian so its hard to figure out what they are talking about on their site.

I also don't want to start a ccd vs. cmos war so I will just say that such generalizations that cmos is more film like can easily be proven false or true depending on the sensors in questions. I can only say this because I've seen first hand how they work and what they output and understand that how the charge builds up, is held, converted, and output and understand loses at each step from an engineering standpoint. I'm not a movie maker, I'm an engineering student so it's part of my studies to understand that.

I am not technician. So I might not understand the technical process of the CMOS sensor and how it is different from CCD. All I know and can evaluate is the picture when I look at it. I have seen picutres from DRAKE and also some high speed cameras based on CMOS sensor and this is my judgment based on. CMOS has artistic look, maybe this is because it is single sensor and all the CCD cameras I've seen are 3CCDs and maybe, the prism that splits the beam makes it look more videolike, maybe single CCD camera will make a better picture I have no idea.

Well about this russian camera, I don't know wether it is bayer 4:4:4 or true dual link, I don't even know what is the difference, but if you explain it to me in brief I would appreciate and I will ask the russian guys. And what is drake, bayer or true?

The pdf on the web page is old I guess, because I discussed this with them and I know it for sure, it is 1" sensor, and you can use standart 35mm film lenses on it with PL mount.

This camera is also a solution, not just a camera head. Well of course DRAKE had amazing functions and that is why I like DRAKE so much, but this is also a camera with processor inside. It records on a recorder that is separate but it is a size of a book and not heavy at all, so you can hold it on you belt or whatever. This camera also has it's own software interface with 16 profiles for setting, and manual and automatic white balance. And the pictures you see there are old, they have ordered special cases for the camera, so it is going to look as normal camera, with it's unique design.

As I know this sensor was developed by this company in Taiwan, it is their own design, and the sensor they use in both cameras (HD and DC) are the same. They guy from the company claims that it has a quality as good as ARRI D20, well, we will see, I think they will have samples uploaded on the site on monday.

And Keith please explain in brief what are other technical specifications I have to check and ask, and I will and post what they tell me here. THX.

Just look at kinetta, the camera was all over the place and has recently fell silent and nobody really knows whats going on with that either. They were delayed for altasens and now we know altasens is in full production and that camera still isn't out.

My take on Kinetta, is that Jeff is more interested in perfecting his exact camera than coming to market and making money. To watch just the features he discusses publically on his mailing list, you can tell the amount of time and energy he is investing.. to make his ideal digital cinema camera, not to sell it, but to have it.. so I get the sense that time-to-market for him is irellevant.

Like i've said before.. wait for early 2006.. exciting times!

Levan

If the russian camera is true dual link 4:4:4 and it is a single sensor then it has to debayer on the camera in real time. (take the raw image from a sensor with a CFA and decode it back to 3 seperate colour channels) Their is another method I described earlier in another thread about how hd-sdi in 4:2:2 is actually 2 channels serialized and can be used to transport 1920x1080 bayer data over a single channel and ignore the other one.

Like I said I can't read russian so I am missing a whole lot of information that is listed their so I could have it all wrong.

So its hard for me to tell you what I would be looking for as I am a lamen of movie making and looks and stuff and more interested in the technical aspects. I would want to see the spectral response for the CFA on the sensor because this will completely determine how true your colours are. I'd also be very interested in if the sensor is truely global shutter and the exact dimensions of the photosensitive area. (1" optical 16 x 9 should be 14.2mm x 8mm, or 16.2mm diagonal, 2/3" is 11mm diagonal)

If it does debayer on the camera then I'd want to see the algorithim used to debayer it, and be very very critical on how the algorithim handles high contrast - poor algorithms will result in random colours at high contrast areas.

All I can say is see what it outputs and if you like it then great, if you don't then too bad.


Adam
Thanks for that little info on kinetta.

Levan,

When you were refering to the sensor being designed by a company in Taiwan, were you refering to the Drake or the Russian camera? If you are refering to the Drake having a similar sensor to the Arri d20, are you sure about that.....is'nt the drake 720p? The Arri outputs at 1080p with a 35mm sized sensor at I believe 12.5 megapixel (i think it's the same cmos chip that is in the Panavision Genesis cam that they are shooting the new Superman movie on). Is this a type of chip that they are planing on upgrading the Drake with? If so that would be amazing.

Keith, I didn't exactly understood your explanaitions but I will try to get answers anyways. So I will know if it is true or bayer 4:4:4. (and which is better? ). Oh, yes and by the way, what is the size of D20, or when we refer to say the "sensor with the size of 35mm film", what does it mean? is it 1" or more? And the global shutter thing, why is it so important? Just to know.

Omar, I was refering to Russian camera. I didn't mean that they use the same chip as in Arri D20, I said that the developer of the camera told me over the phone (and he had a very definitive voice tember) that their camera does have the same quality as the ARRI D20. It was just comparison from his side, and he stated it without any proof yet, I haven't seen the pictures from the camera yet, but he was so sure when he was saying this that I kind of believe him. well, we will see. No DRAKE I think is in search for a sensor manufacturer at this moment, trying to develop the sensor of their own design. I don't know how far they went on it yet, because they don't reply to my e-mails. I hope they are doing fine.

Levan, thank you for the clarification....I can't wait to hear and see what you find out on the russian camera. Sounds very exciting.

thanks,
Omar

35mm film frame size is 22mm x 18.5mm I think somewhere around that and It depends on if it is regular 35mm or super35. 1" optical is about a 1.6x factor so a 50mm lense will be close to an 80mm on a true 35mm camera.

ARRI D20 uses a custom sensor from FillFactory (now Cypress)
Drake uses Ibis5A (FillFactory)
Panavision has bought some years ago a sensor manufacturer, so they are supposed to make their own sensors.
Dalsa also has its own D-Cinema camera using its own sensor/s.

CMOS and CCD look almost the same.Forget about saying CMOS is more "organic".
The infamous "video look" has nothing to be with that.It is related to the after sensor image processing (border enhancements and some other several things)
A key factor for "film like" quality is called "dynamic range".
Has anyone looked at the images from DVX100 "CCD" miniDV camera from Reel-Stream?
If don't please do it now.

JUAN,

Yes, I keep myself updated about Reel-Stream. Well, yes whatever they did to DVX100 it has a much better and realy impressive dynamic range, but if you watch close the commercial by Obin that is in the gallery on their site, you can see that it is not what you expect from film. Now download the commercial, it is about some flowers or something, well, it starts with the garden and a small fountain. When there is no movement in the picture the quality seems remarkable, but the shots of humen in the picture, where the man is sitting at the computer and the last shot, when they are togather sitting in the garden, is so video like. I think that film look is not just dynamic range, it is combination of it with DOF, motion blur etc. I don't know, maybe it is because of the beamsplitter, that splits color information in RGB for each sensor, I don't know, what causes it to look like move videolike that CMOS. Look at any camera with CMOS, even those that are not aimed to be cinema cameras, they make more organic output. For example look at footage of CineSpeedCam, it is designed for slow motion captures, it has speed up to 10000fps, it record to RAM, you can not use this camera for cinema production, because it is limited in recording time to several seconds, but anyways, if you download some samples shot with this camera, and evaluate it in terms of film look, you will understand. On NAB this year I say, CineSpeedCAM and also another high speed camera (don't remember the company) both on CMOS sensors, and both were great. DRAKE is also great, and I think it is because of CMOS.

Keith, I talked to the camera people in russia. They told me that it is true 4:4:4, but there is a recorder at this moment that supports only 4:2:2, he told me that I don't need more, but If I insist on 4:4:4 they can make one like that. I don't know about 4:4:4 and 4:2:2, I think for distinguishing by human eye there is no difference between this two, but how about color grading?! Also, It is originally Global shutter, but he told me they can make rolling shutter if needed. What is the difference and advantages of each?

Well, that's about it at this moment, I think I will have some frame grabs on my mail today and I will update to my web page, so you can see.

...but the shots of humen in the picture, where the man is sitting at the computer and the last shot, when they are togather sitting in the garden, is so video like.

Also that woman's face looks like hardened clay.