Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Ikonoscope A-cam dII

Scarlet C mount and Acam dII C mount lenses...

Scarlet C mount and Acam dII C mount lenses...

Since both Scarlet and A cam dII will come in C mount versions and their sensors are about the same size, you might be able to use the same f/0.95 and Megapixel lenses on both of them?

Goyo Optical has some lenses in 2/3" and 1" that might work, the Megapixel lenses might be better than some C mount movie camera lenses,

http://www.goyooptical.com/products/industrial/highreso.html

Someone would need to do some lens tests for everyone to see what these lenses look like...
 
My 1 minute assessment is that it's not as high res (expected), has about the same noise level as Red One. It looks very much like it is NOT video, which is of course great for some.

Overall, it seems like a win, if your priorities fit. I'm glad to see another RAW option, it will push things forward with respect to post issues.
 
Nice size camera - 10,6 mm x 6 mm or a 2/3 sensor is to small though. Maybe for a second camera. Overall nice design.
 
http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/features/index.cfm?articleid=104645

Some interesting points how the creators approached the camera vs how RED did. I love my REDcode, but I need a small Bcam and Acam may just fit the bill. Really not crazy impressed with footage and until I see more I am going to hold onto my deposit. I am not expecting crossing the line part 2 or anything but Tom is right, give us something.
 
Dng

Dng

I think one issue with the footage is the idea that they can use the free DNG software from Adobe.

DNG has not made as much headway as Adobe would maybe like because if the camera maker writes his own de-mosaic (de-Bayer) code he can optimize it for the sensor and light, if you use a stock program you may face some "minor" image issues that Adobe may not want to deal with since they are not making money off their free software directly?

It may be possable to extract the RAW sensor data from the DNG files, and do a better job to get more film-like results using other code, when they have some sample DNG frames it will be easer to tell what can be done...

I put up a page at my Web site for Acam dII workflow using my system and using the third party freeware DCRAW (tm) to do the DNG conversion, but to maybe get better results later I would need to do the conversion with my own code, we will see how this pans out. At least my system should be able to be used for DI, CC and editing as soon as DNG files are available. VirtualDub should also be able to be used with DCRAW to make AVI to edit in anything else as well...
 
Is this camera shipping now?
 
Real Soon Now

Real Soon Now

I spoke with Ikonoskop recently and they indicated they are making final adjustments and are very close to a ship date. It's anecdotal, but hopefully we'll see user reports in the next few weeks...
 
Those Pstechnik lenses look interesting for the 2/3 users but I am concerned about how such small mechanical lenses operate and hold up over time. I am keen to hear about more information on the RED mini primes.
 
Lenses for 2/3"

Lenses for 2/3"

Luiz R said:
Dan Hudgins, it seems that according to you, it would be better to stick to HD (made for digital cameras) lenses.
Click to expand...

What lens will work "best" for any shot is not something you can put into a lp/mm figure. It is the out of focus parts of the image that give each lens its own mood, and how it handles flair. The number if iris blades may have more of a visable impact on lights in the background than the resolution of the lens, many newer lenses have three blade iris, some 4, a few 6 and the 6 blade sometimes have a star shape rather than a hexagon. "BOKEH" is a big issue for Cinema use, since with the shalow DOS much of the frame is out of focus, see this link,

http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00S2yV

Without sample images you cannot tell much about the "BOKEH" of the lenses.

The only way to tell for sure is to put the lens on the camera and shoot real world tests. In the old days of Holywood cameramen would cary a set of their own "special" lenses like soft focus and ball mount to get shots that other camera men could not.

With todays multi-coating and computer design, much of the "personality" older lenses had is gone, and there could be more of a sterile quality.

Some machine vision lenses will have barrel distortion, so that is the major thing you want to look at in the specs.

Some of the lenses may be spec-ed for "Monochrome" or "B&W" sensor cameras, those may get softer when using a color camera with the OLPF installed, so you should look for that on the spec sheets. The "plate effect" of the OLPF is less as the lens stops down, so if you are shooting at f/8 it would be less of an issue than shooting at f/0.95 etc.

Bolex RX Cine lenses are corrected for a plate of glass behind the lens, but that prism was thicker than the OLPF, so you would need to ADD glass (or the right type) behind those when used on a Digital Camera.

Other cine lenses are not corrected for glass or gel behind the lens, 16mm film was lower resolution than a 3K sensor so there was not so much fuss, but to come close to 2K resolution you need the optical system at the peak of what can be obtained.

Rather than purchase new lenses, I would think it would be best to arrange to test the lenses so you can publish your tests here for everyone to read and see image samples, if the maker does not want his lenses reviewed that should maybe tell you something.
 
How many shots?

How many shots?

C.H.Haskell said:
Those Pstechnik lenses look interesting for the 2/3 users but I am concerned about how such small mechanical lenses operate and hold up over time. I am keen to hear about more information on the RED mini primes.
Click to expand...

I have been looking at machine vision lenses as an option, but for the most part they seem to be built to be put on the camera, and then have the focus and iris locked in place, one time adjustment.

If you are making a feature film, you will only make two or three shots with some lenses, so the mechanical issues may not be such an issue then.

There would be a big cost ratio between a large housing "Cinema" style lens for rental use and a small machine vision lens for one time adjustment.

If you are a rental house you might want lenses that can take constant use, if you are a filmmaker and want a 3.5mm lens for two shots in each feature, then you may wish to go for the lower cost option...
 
I think we are in a point where uncompressed material can be generated with inexpensive hardware (just think about the Epic 28k), but editing systems are still out of the reach for filmmakers.

100mbs data rate cannot be easily edited without a dedicated machine and software.

Apple is far away from this kind of data rate, at list with the already old 8core generation.
New MacPro will come out this coming April, new chip and hopefully full support for Red1... so if you can wait, wait. In the meantime shoot the hell out of the raw cameras, and store it!
 
Many people here are living in the future, without a doubt ahead of the curve to the point where even the big players (read adobe, apple) are struggling to keep up. According to the manufacturer (two swiss engineers) Ikonoskop...Adobe is on board with this uncompressed RAW DNG format which I am still trying to wrap my head around since I have never worked with it. Can someone shed some light on the upcoming Cinema DNG?

Dan thanks for the feedback, and I agree...those mini lenses (linus) would be more so used for a couple of shots in tight places like they were in slumdog millionaire. I am leaning towards illumina primes if anyone wants to let go of some Pm me. cheers.
 
What?

What?

nima said:
I think we are in a point where uncompressed material can be generated with inexpensive hardware (just think about the Epic 28k), but editing systems are still out of the reach for filmmakers.
Click to expand...

What?

I have a suggested workflow on my Web site for the Acam dII now, I will test it as soon as they have DNG frame sets for download, but there is no reason to think that it would not work just fine, full resolution uncompressed.

You do not need real time full resolution playback to grade or edit. My programs work in non-real time on the full resolution frames and can do editing on a single computer if you need to, although you can speed up the workflow if you use a few cheep boxes and boot with FreeDOS or ME floppy when you just need to edit, CC grade, or process frame to resize or letterbox and such.

What is it that I am not getting across? I have full uncompressed editing, CC, sound mixing, freeish, runs on cheep PC boxes, now for freeish download. Works up to about 8K probably and you can do maybe 19.2K (8x2.40) if you need to by turning the frames sideways. Outputs 48bpp type TIF files, inputs from TIF as well, all uncompressed high quality images for quality filmouts at "any" resolution or image aspect flat or scope.

DNG files can be opened in many programs and saved to compressed or uncompressed formats. The free program DCRAW can convert DNG into TIF, so that is what I am suggesting for now. Once you get TIF frames the remainder of the workflow is the same as for using TIF frames from REDCINE made from R3D RED ONE files, or from TIF 35mm film negative scans.

What exactly is "out of the reach of filmmakers"?

I wrote my system for our in house feature film project goals and am letting other filmmakers use/"Beta test" it to help look for any issues that I have not found in my in house testing. Its here, its here now, and if you want to make a film with it all you have to do is ask me for help if you need some, is that not in reach of filmmakers?
 
C.H.Haskell said:
uncompressed RAW DNG format which I am still trying to wrap my head around since I have never worked with it. Can someone shed some light on the upcoming Cinema DNG?
Click to expand...

DNG holds the RAW Bayer data plus some values that tell the loading program how to adjust the de-Bayer (de-mosaic). If the loading program uses the Adobe DNG SDK then the processed files made with one program should match the processed files made with another program. If the de-Bayer (de-mosaic) program ignores the values that are setup for the Adobe DNG SDK then you can get results that do not look the same, maybe better maybe worse.

From a user stand point, you do not get to adjust the DNG encoded presets that are much like the "meta data" in the R3D files, so loading a DNG file is like loading a TIF or DPX file, except that it may take longer becuse the software needs to do the de-Bayer so it can take a minute or longer for 4K files, since the Acam dII is just 1920x1080 it should take about 10 seconds to de-Bayer in the Adobe SDK code, maybe?

I think Cinema DNG is a way to link the sound and image frame files together in a standard folder, the full specs are not out yet as far as I can tell. I was told by Acam dII people that their camera will just save frames as DNG files, I guess each frame will be a numbered file.

There is a problem if you save more that 511 or so files in a folder, the access can slow down under some OS, I overcame that issue in my programs by starting a new folder every 500 files, if you try to save more than 65535 or so frames in a folder not only does the access slow down, you reach a limit, I also over came that problem with my starting a new folder automaticly every 500 files.

I hope the people writing Cinema DNG understand these issues and do not try to save large numbers of DNG frames in a single folder, as the new standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top