Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Sparta 2/3 RAW in development

D

DMcGarry

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I heard about this camera for the first time today:

http://www.cineraw.es/paginas/camara.htm

Before I'm sat on, I just want to make it clear I'm NOT calling this a Scarlet 2/3 killer and I realise the Scarlet specs are superior. This is just posted out of interest and to see if anyone else knows more about this camera currently in development?
 
Well, I heard about this camera as well. It's funny how much the shadow picture looks like a decked out RED One! I'm not paying any attention to it until it becomes a reality. There have been many camera projects like this that have come and gone, some are like this one where they try to go the commercial route but none have really made it so far. The Ikonoskop A-Cam DII is the only one worthy of note but they seem to be having some kind of problem getting the camera ready. They've sorely missed their deadline, some might say it's on the same level or worse than the RED One delay situation. What's worse now is that the Scarlet is imminent and nearly all interest in the Ikonoskop has faded as far as I can tell. Right now everyone is ga-ga over the Panasonic GH1, so things are pretty tight in the low budget cinema camera market at the moment and the SPARTA, if it really does come out, is going to face some stiff competition.
 
Zack Birlew said:
Well, I heard about this camera as well. It's funny how much the shadow picture looks like a decked out RED One!
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts. Also funny the project was originally called BLUEcam before they changed to SPARTA. You can definately see the influence RED has had on this project.

The DVX thread is pretty heated but can that 4,999 Euro pricing be for real? Probably wise not to pay too much attention, perhaps a case of vaporware? Then again RED was a scam at one time. :thumbsup:
 
Kodak sensor?

Kodak sensor?

Seems they may be using the same sensor as the Acam dII, just 1920x1080x12bits.

Acam dII was having problems with the frame rate, only getting 15fps!

At E4999 I am not sure how that goes head-to-head with Scarlet.

My workflow should work with CINERAW's Sparta, when they get some RAW data files out for testing and conversion to 16bit TIF develops...
 
I just looked at their video. I just deleted the video. They got a loooonnggg way to go.
They need to pull the crappy video off the site. Not Impressed. Call me in 2 years.
 
RAW data vs. processed data

RAW data vs. processed data

Although RAW data is best for not having a "burned in" look, like the "builds" for RED ONE give, making a good imaging system is not as simple as hooking up a chip and recording the data.

Even with good RAW data, the quality of the final images depends a great deal on the amount of digital signal processing that the image goes through, you cannot look at true RAW sensor data and see something that will look like the computer processed film images people think film looks like on the screen.

The sample frames from Sparta show a high noise level and aliasing, and quite a bit of blooming. I was thinking they overexposed, but when you see the high noise level, I am not shure what you can do with the iris.

It looks like the "Drake" camera, very "linear light" not gamma adjusted for the mid-tones. If they did gamma up the mid-tones you would get even more noise, so maybe they need to turn down the pre-A2D gain and increase the light level, maybe drop the EI from 250 to something much lower?

How low they can go with the EI at 180 degrees depends on the sensor and A2D, they did not give details of the gain settings used, did they?
 
Those images look heavily processed ... they look nothing like what I would expect from "uncompressed" RAW, even if you didn't demosaic it. I've seen RAW images from Kodak CCD's in the KAI model line ... and as noted, the quality of these images is far inferior to what the listed specs would have been indicative of.

Also RAW images direct from Kodak CCD's in a correctly constructed camera actually look pretty good and require a minimal amount of image processing compared to what might be needed for CMOS ... so again, I'm really puzzled by what I'm seeing when it's being described as "uncompressed RAW".
 
Link?

Link?

Jason Rodriguez said:
Also RAW images direct from Kodak CCD's in a correctly constructed camera actually look pretty good and require a minimal amount of image processing
Click to expand...

Can you post a link to the raw images from the KAI-02150 you speak of?
 
cameras from Spain and Sweden are in development but Greek one will be probably released soon
 
What are all the artifacts in the example tiffs and movie? They look like DCT blocks. There's also, what looks like, analogue ringing on the bright areas. Darn weird if you ask me...

Graeme
 
Jp4?

Jp4?

Graeme Nattress said:
What are all the artifacts in the example tiffs and movie? They look like DCT blocks. There's also, what looks like, analogue ringing on the bright areas. Darn weird if you ask me. Graeme
Click to expand...

I was thinking it looks almost like JP4 encoding? (not saying it is, can PNG do that also?)

Take a look at the example images on the Elphel web site.

The blocking artifacts in some of the Elphel images stand out so much its hard for me to understand why the do not seem to matter to the maker of that camera, also the in-camera de-Bayer has its own issues, and the blooming comes from what, the interpolation or the moc-DRX (see note in this link about using two gains for the two greens)?

http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT4187053130.html

I wish them well, but PLEASE record true RAW sensor data, not macro noise mucked up block based compression, H.264 is bad enough, anthing worse than that is going the wrong way...

If you look at their PDF it says there are two recording modes, the example seems to be in some 8bit format, maybe not Bayer data (hence the monochrome images). If they were saving Bayer data there would be no problems making color video from them.

Maybe someone from CINERAW can tell more about the noise, aliasing, and blooming? My Brother looked at the video for about two seconds and walked away...

Also, what's up with the audio, where are the mic inputs on the camera body? Where is the beep/flash output for auto-slate on double-system sound recording? Does it have SMPTE LTC I/O?
 
I don't mean to sound like a fan boy or crap on the competition (hey, it's healthy to compete) but I don't understand the USP of this camera.

It's not promising to do anything better than Scarlet, sooner or for cheaper.

Even back in the days when RED was a "scam" it was apparent that a fantastic entrepreneur had recruited proven talent from the likes of AJA etc. and had the capital and connections to back the R&D.

Most of all, RED had many USP's.

...on a lighter note, anyone notice the writing at the bottom of the page? :)
Legal.jpg
 
As I pointed out on DVXUser, I think they should have gone for APS-C or S35mm. 2/3 is not great for cinema work. Also, CCD seems odd. How do you post process CCD RAW? Can AE do it?
 
DNG based workflow

DNG based workflow

Tom said:
As I pointed out on DVXUser, I think they should have gone for APS-C or S35mm. 2/3 is not great for cinema work. Also, CCD seems odd. How do you post process CCD RAW? Can AE do it?
Click to expand...

If you look at their PDF it seems, like the Acam dII, they are not developing their own de-moasic software, but using the Adobe freeware called "Adobe Camera RAW (PC/MAC)".
 
Dan Hudgins said:
If you look at their PDF it seems, like the Acam dII, they are not developing their own de-moasic software, but using the Adobe freeware called "Adobe Camera RAW (PC/MAC)".
Click to expand...

Oh, so ACR can do CCD RAW? ACR is the best. I love that interface.
 
I live off ACR :)
Well, that's a good step. As for it being 2/3? I don't want to reiterate pages of posts about the merits of Zodiac/Ben Button etc.

Short story: I believe you can make cinematic images with 2/3, it just benefits more from a controlled environment.

Just throwing it out there, this isn't connected to that Blue cam parody that was online a few months ago, is it?

Personally I like the bundle for the price point, what would draw me away from Scarlet to Sparta would be APS-C size sensor and/or serious frame rates (which we know costs serious money)
 
Eren, most of us agree that 2/3 can make beautiful cinema. There is no doubt. But it's not as ideal as S35 or FF35. I think Revenge of the Sith, Buttons, etc, are great examples of 2/3 looking awesome. The 4:4:4, super-duper cine lenses, and 9-figure budgets didn't hurt those pics, either.
 
No ofcourse not Tom, I know that the Viper needed excessive sweetening from the men in lab coats at Lowry Digital for example.

The point I'm trying to make is that 2/3 is fine, the price is fine, the shipping time is fine...but nothing screams "fantastic". I think the pople behind Sparta need to change something in that equation.
I'm assuming that their shipping dates cannot budge so either the price should drop or they should introduce a larger sensor/high frame rates in order to make the Sparta a viable tool for film makers.
Otherwise you can get the 2/3 Scarlet cheaper or S35 Scarlet sooner/not for much more.

I fail to see a unique selling point.
 
60p at 1080p is a selling point!! That right there is the missing equation, in many ways. that spec has been missing for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top