Mokara

You wouldn't need a NUC. Those imaging units are meant for remote cameras, all you would really need is the cable from the sensor module and run that to a computer. Other than the software to control it, the only other thing you would need is the lens mount itself. The material used for the case is irrelevant. Anything that was rigid enough would do.

Presumably if you are handy with fabrication you could make your own camera with something like this: https://www.ximea.com/en/pci-express-camera/pci-express-camera-cmv12000-cmv20000 That could be an idea for someone, lol. Just have the ximea sensor module attached to a lens mount, and have it hooked up to a laptop or desktop computer to do everything else. The only other thing you would need then would be a software app to run it.

So, basically a Ximea sensor module and an Intel NUC bolted into a plastic case with a couple of cables? Presumably with some software they wrote to run the thing?

Heat will limit your frame rates, not rolling shutter, since most of the heat generation comes from reading and clearing the registers. Rolling shutter limitations are more due to how long it takes to actually clear the register and how long it takes for the supporting logic to actually process the resultant data.

Rolling shutter has nothing to do with sensor size. Sensor resolution perhaps, but the physical size of the sensor is irrelevant.

Depends on the camera. Old Canon consumer cameras for example shot everything as 60i, then reconstituted 30p or 24p in camera from that (fake progressive footage, my old HF-S10 does that for example). In later cameras the interlaced footage may be reconstituted in a similar way, but in reverse.

Fortunately we professional vanity cat video shooters are not regarded as "amateurs"

I entered a response as a professional vanity cat video shooter.

So you want gnome porn? Um...ok

If you are shooting 4K on a non-oversampled sensor it doesn't matter because it is basically 1080p anyway.

Ya, but you are using fewer high capacity drives. I know from personal experience, I have a ton of older low capacity drives, and replaced most of them with 10 and 12 TB drives. Fewer numbers mean I can have them all in my server instead of popping small ones in and out. The small drives are super cheap nowdays, but why bother when for a little bit more per byte you can save a ton of physical space (not to mention all the support cards and cables needed to run them all).

In the past instead of that 12TB unit you would have bought a bunch of 2/3/4 TB units. So, by moving to the larger drive (since they are now affordable you don't need to build an array of smaller drives), you have reduced the number of drives you need by 3 - 6 times. Hence the number of drives sold is lower. That is one of the factors at play, the other being the movement to SSDs as system drives. Those two things (affordable large capacity HDDs for bulk storage, and affordable SSDs replacing system drives) account for the reduced overall numbers of HDD units being sold.

The maximum rolling shutter is determined by the maximum frame rate a particular mode has. Most cameras can shoot 1080p at 60 fps, so the worst rolling shutter can be is 16.7 ms. 4K on the other hand usually tops out at 30 fps, which means that in a camera that can just manage that the rolling shutter delay will be up to 33.3 ms (but not more). If you have a camera that can shoot at 120 fps, rolling shutter cannot be worse than 8.3 ms. It is one of the reason why high frame rate cameras are desirable, even if you don't actually shoot at that frame rate. You know that the camera is capable of reading the sensor at that speed.

Because people still have PVRs in their cable boxes? The amount of HDDs used to store owned movies is negligible. And if you are stealing them off the web you will still need to store them. Computers still come with storage, what is different is that it is increasingly SOLID STATE STORAGE which does NOT use SPINDLES. Even some servers are moving over to SSDs for the speed since memory cost is relatively competitive now. The people predicting hard drive sales falls are SPINDLE MANUFACTURERS (you not see the connection?). Obviously when the demand for 1TB HDDs in laptops etc falls due to manufacturers increasingly using SSDs instead, HARD DRIVE SALES FOR PCs WILL FALL. HDDs will still be used in server farms, but these are BIG drives, as opposed to the SMALL drives consumers are discarding IN FAVOR OF SDDs. Hence fewer hard drives spindles being sold. THAT IS WHAT THE OPs LINK WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT. Why is this so hard to comprehend? It has fuck all to do with streaming. FFS The cost of storage continually decreases, especially for solid state storage. Most of these changes are being driven by that, not usage patterns. HDDs will eventually become a thing of the past, just like rotary telephones (and DSLRs), and be completely replaced by solid state media.

Most people are watching TV as well as streaming services however, and if you have a cable box you probably have a PVR inside it. That is pretty much the only thing which might be impacted by streaming, and the impact is probably very small considering that people will be doing both. The changes the spindle manufacturers are talking about are driven by the move to SSDs on personal computers and the ready availability of individual high capacity drives. Storage requirements overall are not changing, if anything they are increasing. Even if you store your stuff on the cloud rather than a portable local disc, it still is stored on a HDD. But the HDDs in data centers have much larger capacity than the ones people use at home. Bigger HDDs = fewer HDDs = fewer spindles = depressed spindle manufacturers. That does not mean the sky is falling. The headline in the OP's link is misleading ….. it does not mean people are moving away from storage, it just means that there is less need for spindles from the guys who make spindles. Tough for them no doubt, but the demand for storage is still the same. That is not what was driving the hard drive market.

Why would streaming have an impact? The data still has to be stored somewhere. The company making the prediction sells the spindles found in most hard drives. If they are selling fewer it means that there are less low capacity drives being made and more high capacity drives. The same amount of stuff is being stored. The drop in low capacity drives (used primarily in consumer products) is probably being driven by the transition over to SSD based media now that they much more price competitive in those low capacity applications. Obviously the decline in low capacity market is going to have the biggest impact on the spindle manufacturers because you need fewer of them to do the same thing now. That doesn't mean that hard drive use is changing, just that a lot of what used to be hard drives are now SSDs. In other words the only thing that is changing is the data storage media. Tough luck for the spindle manufacturers.

That is not how contract manufacturing works. Sony have standard manufacturing processes, and the contracting entity has to make their designs with that in mind, but they do actually design the product. They can't include something the manufacturer can't readily make for example. It might seem at a superficial level that various sensors are similar, but that is primarily because the underlying manufacturing process by necessity has to be the same. Do not confuse that with design however. That is why people think these parts are "off the shelf" when actually they are made to order.

I am well aware of what a processor is. Are you? Having processors and having processors capable of handling the data stream within a cameras thermal envelope are two completely different things. That is why camera's video capabilities are usually limited. It is not an issue with the sensor, the processors can't handle the data throughput without overheating. That is where the bottleneck is. Panasonic have the most efficient processors (which is why they usually have the most advanced video capabilities in smaller cameras - sensors have nothing to do with it, everyone's sensors are capable of far more than what the processor can handle). After them comes Sony. Nikon are a way back from that and Canon are in the far distant rear. They do however design them. Apple doesn't make anything itself. But it does design everything that is made for them.

May be damage to the sensor filter as well.

But, do they have a processor capable of handling the data?

Just a word of caution before you do that....those high core i9 based laptops usually throttle because of overheating, so performance is not necessarily much better than the i7 variants. If you want brute strength performance you need a desktop. I don't think they really believe that anyone is going to buy the base model (other than those who buy them as a status symbol). The market they are addressing will be buying the higher priced configurations, and generally the sorts of users who might use machines like that have large budgets and can afford the investment.

That thing looks like it is going to be a dust magnet that will be hard to clean. Upgradeable....with proprietary parts of course!! Apple's general philosophy is that it is not innovation until they do it. Then it is ground breaking (even though someone else has been doing it for years). I doubt that there is enough of a high end market to make those sorts of investments worthwhile, not with Intel and AMD already competing in that space. To make money with those sorts of processors they would need to get into the server market, otherwise it is just more practical to use Intel. That thing will be a bitch to clean once dust starts hanging up in the ventilation intakes, lol. But I guess that if you can afford one, you can afford an intern with lots of time to spare too.

Sure you do. All the cool kids have one. If you don't as well, they will point and laugh

I don't see how I am a Canon apologist when it should be pretty clear from my posting history that I am very critical of them. That said, I try to be objective, and what I tried to explain is the reason why they do the things they do. I don't like their products in general, but I understand why they are like that. There is no conspiracy to screw over consumers. I don't think you understand the economics of manufacturing. The difference between list price and what the manufacturer actually gets is pretty substantial. Even what might seem to you to be small differences in cost of materials can have a significant impact on margin for the manufacturer. There is a difference between what is possible, what is reliable and what can be supported. No manufacturer with half a brain is going to include features in a product that may be unreliable, may shorten the working life of the product or requires some hobbyist approach to use the results. That is just begging for service calls and unnecessary returns, which literally results in a loss for when it comes to that particular sale. Canon (and every other camera manufacturer for that matter) is a business, they are not there as a charity to pander to consumer whims, their products have to make a profit. Doing something like what Magic Lantern were doing might be possible for a hobbyist, but would introduce too many uncertainties to be feasible for a commercial product. EVERY product on the market is capable of doing MUCH more than the specs, but doing so would kill the profit. So, they go for what is reliable and useable for the target audience.

Most of those "crippling restrictions" are due to hardware compromises in the name of cost, or licensing issues (again, to reduce cost). A company makes a judgement call on what consumers of a particular product will actually use versus the costs of adding features, and design their products around that. At the lower end of the market margins are relatively small, so even the small cost of individual features can turn a product from a money maker into a money loser. And remember, it is the manufacturing cost we are talking about, not the retail cost (which incorporates things such as middleman overhead, marketing and such). Camera companies compete against other camera companies, not themselves. Leaving features out which would otherwise make their products more competitive against similar offerings from the enemy for no real reason is just plain stupid. That does not happen.