Administrators Andrew Reid Posted March 14, 2012 Administrators Share Posted March 14, 2012 [html][img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/d16-elle.jpg[/img]I had the chance to interview Elle Schneider today of LA based Digital Bolex. Their D16 camera is a 16mm Bolex using existing off the shelf components and raw processing software developed in Canada. It shoots 12bit raw with no rolling shutter, although the sensor is much smaller and less sensitive than the one in the 5D Mark III.[url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/7480/interview-with-elle-schneider-of-digital-bolex/"]Read full article[/url][/html] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Is there a video anywhere of this prototype working besides this one? vimeo.com/38252059 In the video it is nothing more then a lens on a box with a cable out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shijan Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Looks like its one of Allied machine vision cameras inside :) alliedvisiontec.com/emea/products/cameras.html BTW The footage is terrible as for me. Low dynamic range, digitally burned highlights, magenta tint everywhere in highlights. And Its all that old Kodak CCD sensor fault. I really can't understand why all those new 2/3 cameras builders are decided to use use those crappy industrial Kodak ccds when there are tons of great small modern sensors on this planet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameraboy Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 that kodak sensor is very good ... its big brother of a cam dll sensor ... i dont know how they get such a ugly image from great sensor ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameraboy Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 magenta tint is bad raw debayering ... i ts software problem not sensor ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shijan Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 [quote author=cameraboy link=topic=402.msg2557#msg2557 date=1331811887] that kodak sensor is very good ... its big brother of a cam dll sensor ... i dont know how they get such a ugly image from great sensor ... [/quote] thats why i believe that a cam dll is not good camera too) its footage has same strange look too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameraboy Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 what is wrong with this image... nice analog look... https://vimeo.com/30039857 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shijan Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 [quote author=cameraboy link=topic=402.msg2563#msg2563 date=1331818073] what is wrong with this image... nice analog look... [url=https://vimeo.com/30039857]https://vimeo.com/30039857[/url] [/quote] wrong is that all white things there looks like self illuminated materials. and its all because sensor low dynamic range. also the trick is that analog film handle highlights in very cool and smooth way but can't see many details in the shadows, and the digital sensors (especially ccd ones) can see many details in the shadows but usually blows highlights in very roughly way. BTW you can see same problem with SinaCam footage which also use those Kodak CCD sensor [url=http://www.sinacam.eu/media/]http://www.sinacam.eu/media/[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 [quote author=shijan link=topic=402.msg2562#msg2562 date=1331816643] [quote author=cameraboy link=topic=402.msg2557#msg2557 date=1331811887] that kodak sensor is very good ... its big brother of a cam dll sensor ... i dont know how they get such a ugly image from great sensor ... [/quote] thats why i believe that a cam dll is not good camera too) its footage has same strange look too [/quote] People just don't know how to process the footage from the Ikonoskop. When done right it should look like this: [url=http://youtu.be/U_MHPWgp8Qc]http://youtu.be/U_MHPWgp8Qc[/url] I am not saying that I like small CCD's but they are not as bad as people make them seem imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anselm_eickhoff Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 [quote author=shijan link=topic=402.msg2567#msg2567 date=1331834979] ... and the digital sensors (especially ccd ones) can see many details in the shadows but usually blows highlights in very roughly way. BTW you can see same problem with SinaCam footage which also use those Kodak CCD sensor [url=http://www.sinacam.eu/media/]http://www.sinacam.eu/media/[/url] [/quote] Hi everyone, I'm the admin of the sinaCAM Website. As far as I know the Kodak CCD sensor was used for sinaCAM exactly because of its [i]good[/i] dynamic range compared to equal-size CMOS sensors. Shijan, could you please tell me in which of the videos specifically you see overexposure/too little detail in the highlights or low dynamic range? Thank you, Anselm Eickhoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shijan Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Shijan, could you please tell me in which of the videos specifically you see overexposure/too little detail in the highlights or low dynamic range? [/quote] Hello! For example here on the stones or test chart highlights [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGxkEHuxgRE#ws]sinaCAM ungraded video 1080p[/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg3MpAYu4_k#ws]actionconcept sinaCAM Chart Test[/url] even in extended range mode trees looks almost black and dull sky with clouds time after time blows highlights a little. But i really don't know is it fault of processing, or kodak sensors or ccd sensors at all which can't smooth highlights in correct way, or is it some magic low level sensor turning settings which can be done in secret test laboratolies. For example Si-2k camera or common DSLRs also have this problem but all those white holes in the sky looks softer, maybe its cmos sensor nature maybe not. Compare it all to Alexa or Scarlett or even NEX 7 and the difference become more than visible. [url=http://vimeo.com/28786762]BLOODROP (HD 2D)[/url] From other side all those look is unique in its own way, and like it or hate it people must decide independently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anselm_eickhoff Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Hi Shijan, I'm sorry, but I'm still having a hard time exactly understanding your point. Have you looked at the full quality 10Bit download of the first video you posted? ([url=http://www.sinacam.eu/downloads/sinaCAM_ungraded_video.zip]Link[/url]) I guess you are talking about the trees at 0:07 as they are the darkest I could find in the video, but even though the forest isn't the target of exposure there are a lot of details in the shadows. In the sky there are sometimes hard bright spots, but those are areas that are lit directly by the sun and are thus [i]much[/i] brighter than the areas around it that show a lot of detail. You might be used to [i]lower[/i] dynamic range, where the transition between the bright and normal spots is smoother but you stop getting details much earlier. Now I also don't understand what the "bloodrop" video you posted has to do with it. There the sky is barely visible at all (overexposure, but used for artistic effect here) and the video is completely postprocessed and color-graded. The sinaCAM footage we have published so far is all completely ungraded, so you can see the quality of the base material the camera delivers. If you were to postprocess and color-grade it, you could get much more dramatic or interesting stylistic effects but you would almost always give up overall dynamic range in order to highlight the parts of the picture you deem important. Can you perhaps find a video of another camera with a similarly extreme light situation (shady precipice against dark sky) that doesn't have the problems you are referring to? If you can make your criticism clear, I can talk to sinaCAM engineers as they know more about the exact image processing and sensor differences and they will probably be able to come up with a better answer. Best Regards, Anselm Eickhoff Edit: Sorry if I hijack this thread so blatantly, but what people think about sinaCAM is of course important to us! Mods: feel free to move this discussion elsewhere or remove it completely, if you think this should be discussed in private. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shijan Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 yes seems its more and more offtopic discussion, sorry if its my blame. i don't tried to be critic, i just want to tell that there is huge a difference in dynamic range and in highlights handling. and i really try to understand for myself why it happens. just for test here is ungraded Alexa footage: [url=http://vimeo.com/28826534]16mm CineGrain over Alexa Samples[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liszon Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 I made some grading tests with the sinaCAM footage: [URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/40/03sjf.jpg/][IMG]http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1383/03sjf.th.jpg[/img][/URL] [URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/694/01sd.jpg/][IMG]http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6361/01sd.th.jpg[/img][/URL] [URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/840/02sg.jpg/][IMG]http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/121/02sg.th.jpg[/img][/URL] Full size: (big files!) [url=http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/1779/95739638.jpg]http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/1779/95739638.jpg[/url] [url=http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/4530/49335136.jpg]http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/4530/49335136.jpg[/url] [url=http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5961/73599705.jpg]http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5961/73599705.jpg[/url] --- Exposure, highlights, shadows, clarity and contrast was adjusted in Lightroom 4. I agree that the shadow detail is impressive (take a look at the trees in full size) but its really hard to squeeze real highlight detail from the footage. Best example for this is the shot with that bright brick. It was overexposured, and remained like that after grading. I also used some local adjustments on the house with the windows, and while its easy to do with stills, its a bit difficult with a moving clip because you need to use motion tracking masks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anselm_eickhoff Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Thanks for trying that out Liszon! It might very well be that the exposure of clips from the 'ungraded test footage' is a bit off, as they were really just quick tests. I hope we can provide you with better video material soon! Best Regards, Anselm Eickhoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liszon Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Thanks for saying thanks! (: And good luck with the new video materials! Regards: Artur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.