Interesting camera announcement

Spot|DSE wrote on 4/17/2006, 1:07 PM
Interesting pre-NAB announcement from Silicon Imaging. Uses CineForm technology, but no images of or from the camcorder.
Most interesting is that it uses a large format CMOS sensor, which has been predicted by a few, to be eventually replacing CCDs in camcorders because CCD's really can't grow more, while CMOS can.
It's unfortunate that CineForm isn't making this available to Vegas users.

Comments

GGman wrote on 4/17/2006, 1:10 PM
Dang, I just read this info a minute ago on the Cineform site and I started to post it here. You beat me to it. :-)

http://cineform.blogspot.com/
http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/
http://www.cineform.com/technology/CineForm_RAW.htm

GG

Nat wrote on 4/17/2006, 1:11 PM
Geez, I was also reading the article on Cineform's blog page :P
Nat wrote on 4/17/2006, 1:12 PM
I've read through the specs and can't seem to find wether the CineForm RAW codec is lossy or lossless, do you have an idea Spot ?

Edit : seeing that the camera uses 160Gb 2.5" hard disks I really wonder why panasonic is using expensive P2 cards in their cameras...
Spot|DSE wrote on 4/17/2006, 1:14 PM
Given the description and how it functions, I'd suspect it would be categorized as "lossless" but I can't find any more info either.
"RAW" by it's definition, should mean "lossless" but it also might be marketing hype. CineForm calls it "Visually Perfect" which also suggests it might be lossy. I'm sure they'll have more to say about it in the near future.
winrockpost wrote on 4/17/2006, 1:14 PM
under 20 k,, hmm may be interesting
winrockpost wrote on 4/17/2006, 1:29 PM
just went on their website and they have some sample stills and video up.
GGman wrote on 4/17/2006, 1:37 PM
I just saw the pics and fooatge, too. I wish the RED Cam was at this point too by showing info and footage with some pricing. I don't think RED is going to be that advanced in time at NAB. ??

GG
GGman wrote on 4/17/2006, 2:04 PM
Nat
" I've read through the specs and can't seem to find wether the CineForm RAW codec is lossy or lossless"

read down the page here for info.
http://www.siliconimaging.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10&sid=0f0b795b8e06809d52f3cf9f48628ba5

GG
Nat wrote on 4/17/2006, 2:35 PM
Thanks GG.
As Spot mentioned, to me RAW means "Uncompressed, 1:1 pixel data" but then, we'll have to see how it looks like, looks way more convenient than editing uncompressed.
vicmilt wrote on 4/17/2006, 3:40 PM
Unless I misunderstand something...
not to belay the value of a larger chip, and all...
but 35mm isn't 2/3rds of an inch.

It's one inch and a quarter inches.

Once again I bitch at the world - putting a C mount 35mm lens on a camera does not make that camera a 35mm camera.

In the still world it's quite clear. While both cameras are excellent, the Canon D20 with (functionally) a 2/3" CMOS chip does not compare in finished product to the Canon 5D (or Mark II), which sport sa FULL SIZED inch and a quarter 35mm chip, allowing you to use REAL 35mm lenses in their familiar format. It's only time until they adapt this technology to video.

It's all about depth of field baby. And that limited depth of field is a mathematical function of lens length and image size.

So once again the marketing departments cry "35mm quality".
It just ain't so... not yet.

Now if Sony was really on the ball, they'd come out with a "Sony built" (i.e. incredible) camera utilizing the spinning groundglass concept we find in the various add-ons that DO give a 35mm image and truly use 35mm lenses. They could use the HDV format (it's excellent), but simply use it to capture the larger image.

Now THAT'S a camera to drool over. 2/3" chips are definitely better than 1/2" but it's not over yet... not by a long shot.

(or did I miss something?).

v
GGman wrote on 4/17/2006, 3:48 PM
(or did I miss something?).
v

maybe this might help-
http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/faq.html

Also, check out this info if you have not seen it-
http://www.cineform.com/technology/CineForm_RAW.htm

GG
jetdv wrote on 4/17/2006, 7:09 PM
GG, you going to NAB this year?
Coursedesign wrote on 4/17/2006, 9:00 PM
the Canon D20 with (functionally) a 2/3" CMOS chip does not compare in finished product to the Canon 5D (or Mark II), which sports a FULL SIZED inch and a quarter 35mm chip

Canon 5d & MkII have full "35mm still frame" sensors, ie. 24x36mm, with a diagonal of about 1.7".

The Canon 20D (and probably the old D20 from a few years ago also) has a smaller sensor that's just over one inch diagonally.

Motion picture film originally used 18x24mm (1.18" diagonally), with the frames sideways along the reel. When the first still camera to use "inexpensive" 35mm film (as opposed to 6x6cm) came out, the film of the day couldn't handle blow-ups without a lot of grain, so they chose to use a longitudinal frame that was twice as big.

Camera manufacturers tried to introduce 18x24mm still cameras in the 1970s when film had improved, but they never caught on.

Canon's Dial 35-2 was a very cool camera at the time, pocket size, spring-powered automatic film advance, and 72 pictures on a 36-exposure roll of 35mm film.

But it gets worse.

A 2/3" CCD does not have a 2/3" diagonal.

Instead, it has the same imaging area as a plumbicon (for example) vacuum tube sensor with a neck diameter of 2/3".

My brother was a cameraman for ABC in those days, he said it was hell to keep the cameras color stable over more than half an hour, and a real challenge if the temperature changed.

We are so spoiled today!

:O)

farss wrote on 4/18/2006, 1:41 AM
Kind of funny how the world moves. It seems many decades ago in the days of 3 strip Technicolor the problem was the reverse, the film was so slow getting enough DOF was a huge issue, even the midday sun in California wasn't bright enough so large banks of arc lamps were used to augment the sun.
Shooting indoors was an even bigger problem, the arc lamps would melt makeup and shooting would have to stop every 30 minutes so the doors could be opened and huge fans used to blow the smoke from the arc lamps out.

Bob.
busterkeaton wrote on 4/18/2006, 9:03 AM
On the Silicon Imaging forum there is a post by Cineform's David Newman saying they will have support for FCP soon, so perhaps they will also expand to other NLEs.

"Currently CineForm RAW is only available on the PC,
however we are expecting a fairly swift port to the
Mac and FCP with a Quicktime version of the CineForm
codecs. This work is under-developement, we expect to
have full cross platform support in Q3, 2006."
farss wrote on 4/18/2006, 4:52 PM
I didn't think the issue was Cineform not wanting to make it available to Vegas users, rather the problem is that they can't, note this is a 10 bit implementation.
The same issue applies to all the high end Cineform variants.
It'd sure be nice to be able to post DIs from 35mm, Vegas with Gearshift handling 14bit 2K DIs would have to be a killer app.
Could have picked up a client only yesterday, bummer. Sure sounded like overkill to me shooting for MTV on 35mm but then again I'd have gladly taken their money to post it.
GGman wrote on 4/18/2006, 8:40 PM
Hi Ed,

Can't make it to NAB. I assume you are going and it would be nice just to see everyone in person.

Best regards,
GG
farss wrote on 4/19/2006, 5:05 AM
Having spent a few hours digging through all that's out there about this camera I'd have to say 'Interesting' is a bit of an understatement!
Revolutionary seems a better word at the price of $12.5K, all you need add is a PC, that price even includes the software to edit with.
For anyone who doesn't quite get what this thing is doing, it's recording RAW imager data, in post you get to tweak the image to your taste, pretty much the same as working with camera neg. None of the hard decision have to be made in camera as it bypasses all the lossy processes required for the compression used in HDV, DVCPro HD or HDCAM. Given that you can record several hours of footage to a cheap, off the shelf HDD, P2 and XDCAM look a bit restrictive.
Not to say that this is the camera for everything or everyone but for the indie film maker this has got to float their boat big time.
The big question is why wasn't the Vegas team in there with this. I don't see the camera as a challenge to anything in the Sony lineup, maybe the F950, at a big stretch but not really. Who it's got to really rattle is Panasonic, this thing sinks the HVX 200 big time. People like Arri and Panavision might be a tad nervous, Kodak too for that matter but not Sony, they've never gone after the indie market. Heck even Apple might be a bit worried, it doesn't work with FCP as yet and you get a serious bit of NLE with the camera that'll even run on their own Intel hardware thanks to Boot Camp.

At last something to make this NAB interesting.

Bob.
apit34356 wrote on 4/19/2006, 5:25 AM
Farss, this a big step for production studios, a lot of money is spend undoing the camera processing. Of course, all the camera pre-processing was done because storage systems weren't up to task, today's hardware can handle the requirements.

This is just the tip of the iceburg.
rextilleon wrote on 4/19/2006, 7:53 AM
For those interested---this is the company that will be supplying the chips for this camera: http://www.altasens.com/ It appears as if release and avalibility of the camera will be predicated upon altasen's ability to meet demand.