What I would absolutely love to see made is a full frame (or medium format) digital film camera. By that I mean a camera that shoots 24 individual frames per second (for a start). The sensor in a 5D mkIII shoots CR2 (raw) images at over 5K resolution. With a single Digic V processor, the 5D mkIII is capable of 6fps. The 1Dx has two Digic V processors and can shoot 12fps. By that math, a camera with four of those processors should be capable of 24fps RAW 5K. There may even be better processors available. It seems that the biggest obstacle would be heat. If we take the guts of this camera out of the traditional SLR format and place them into a larger box we create enough space for internal SSD drive bays and cooling units. You would edit the footage the same way that you did film, just digitally. Am I the only one that would trip over my own dick running to buy something like that? Moire and aliasing would be a thing of the past. You want a digital camera with the "filmic" look, this would be it. Thoughts?
My Dream Camera
- Thread starter Lucky Hardwood
- Start date
If you make this camera, or are involved in the making of it, you're going to give free ones out to all IndieTalk members, right? 
There's a lot more than just capturing the image(s) though. You need to process them (as you pointed out) keep all that cool (also pointed out) and then have all the infrastructure in the camera to actually transfer that massive amount of data somewhere. 5K is like 7 times the data of 2K, 1.25 GBps (that's bytes) RAW at 10bit. You need a hell of a transfer bus and storage system to maintain that.
Also, at RAW still capture, the 5D can only do a burst of 15 or so images before it's buffer is full. JPEG I think it can shoot all day (or until it overheats). I'm not sure about the 1D.
Not that I don't think manufacturers are playing with us and feeding the different price levels features they feel will always make us want to spend more and upgrade, but there's a reason the expensive cameras are expensive, there's just a LOT of stuff going on between the sensor and the final recording media.
They do have that camera you talk about, except it just costs a lot more than a 5D =)
CraigL
Since file size and processing speed (thank you, Craig 
) are the top two issues, I'd be tickled over a line of DSLRs or camcorders that allowed manual switch from compressed (H.264/MPEG4/AVCHD) to uncompressed (RAW) in a scaling series of chip sizes which would allow for varying resultant file sizes.
Surely what poured out of a 1/2" chip would be considerably less than that of a APS-C or full frame.
What would look less jacked: APS-C images compressed or 1/2" sensor images in RAW?
More 4:4:4 chroma subsampling cameras may be a bit much, but more 4:2:2 cameras would also be great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling
) are the top two issues, I'd be tickled over a line of DSLRs or camcorders that allowed manual switch from compressed (H.264/MPEG4/AVCHD) to uncompressed (RAW) in a scaling series of chip sizes which would allow for varying resultant file sizes.Surely what poured out of a 1/2" chip would be considerably less than that of a APS-C or full frame.
What would look less jacked: APS-C images compressed or 1/2" sensor images in RAW?
More 4:4:4 chroma subsampling cameras may be a bit much, but more 4:2:2 cameras would also be great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling
That's hard to say. There's a limit to how high the native resolution of a sensor can be, you can double the resolution, but you've quartered the amount of light hitting each individual sensor, so you have to crank up the gain, meaning more noise. I think a 4/3 is typically about 600-750 lines of resolution, the rest is interpolated.
I think there'd be less banding and compression artefacts, but better detail... honestly not sure.
Yeah, the subsampling can help a lot. The only advantage 4:4:4 would offer of 4:2:2 I think is for keying, our eyes really don't do very well at chorominance detection, not nearly as well as luminance.
I was reading about a sensor that has already passed their "reliability" testing (whatever that means) that uses organic chemicals to achieve 30 stops of dynamic range!
http://petapixel.com/2013/06/11/fuji-and-panasonics-new-organic-sensor-boasts-insane-14-6-stops-dynamic-range/
Who knows. One-up-man-ship: a game a whole industry can play!
CraigL
I was going to say, he described an Epic ha. For sure, it's a camera worth dreaming about!
I keep hoping that someday a dedicated digital cinema camera using a Foveon X3 will become a reality. Wouldn't be as fast as other digital offerings, but it would nail color and detail like nothing else. Most importantly, skin tones would look way better than on Bayer sensors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor
Frankly, I'd also love an s16 sensor, global shutter, 2K camera with an ergonomic body, PL mount, dual SSD slots, and a built in battery plate for v-locks. But that's never going to happen either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor
Frankly, I'd also love an s16 sensor, global shutter, 2K camera with an ergonomic body, PL mount, dual SSD slots, and a built in battery plate for v-locks. But that's never going to happen either.
Last edited:
I remember seeing some giant prints from the prototype foveon years ago, and talking to the photographer who was testing it - he was convinced at the time that it was going to revolutionize the digital imaging industry. And then... nothing much ever came of it. I feel like it got lost in the megapixel races because it just didn't fit in with the kind of specs companies were marketing - they later started claiming higher megapixel ratings to bring it in line with the competition, but I think it was too late.
It always seemed to me like it made the most sense for video work, as it essentially gave you a 3-chip camera via a single sensor. I assume there must be some technical reason why we've never seen it implemented. I do think it takes somewhat of a hit on sensitivity due to the need to pass light through the silicon, some channels more than others, so that could have something to do with it.
It always seemed to me like it made the most sense for video work, as it essentially gave you a 3-chip camera via a single sensor. I assume there must be some technical reason why we've never seen it implemented. I do think it takes somewhat of a hit on sensitivity due to the need to pass light through the silicon, some channels more than others, so that could have something to do with it.
The sigma cameras that use foveon are basically the only ones on the market. Aside from marketing problems , they are a weird lens mount and don't do low light anything like canon or Nikon, so never really took off.
SD1m does very low res video and Sigma had claimed he video to be "a couple years out" for as long as I can remember.
Probably no budget for r/d though, as sweet as it could be.
SD1m does very low res video and Sigma had claimed he video to be "a couple years out" for as long as I can remember.
Probably no budget for r/d though, as sweet as it could be.
Okay, here's a fool's/noob's wishlist for a dream video, indie, DIY camera. It's understood that I have little technical knowledge or smarts etc.
1. It has a CCD sensor.
2. It can shoot 24fps, 25fps for our UK friends (and anyone else who needs that), 30fps, and 60fps, because though I doubt that I'd ever use it for fiction, I sure do love that gorgeous slow motion...I'd probably use it for fooling around, shorts, and documentaries etc.
3. It's compatible with Canon lenses, batteries, and other Canon accessories because that's what I'm already invested in.
4. It's also compatible with super 16 lenses (hey, preferably without the need for any extra adaptors, if that's possible) cause jax_rox says those are the bomb. (Do I have that right?)
5. It's full-frame, because I love the full-frame look/aesthetic.
6. Moire (including aliasing since aliasing is a form of moire) is nonexistent.
7. Records in all major and desired formats. RAW too, since apparently that's a good thing. 1080P, 2K, 4K, 5K, 8K, whatever to make it forward compatible and relevant.
8. XLR imputs. Though, is that really important when you're recording audio separately?
9. A swivel LCD screen that can easily and comfortably be seen in full sunlight.
10. Full HD out for external monitoring.
11. Whatever everyone currently agrees is a sexy bit rate.
12. Has real, comfortably worked external buttons for every important function, in addition to being able to access those on a touch screen.
13. Also well designed to be ergonomically pleasant to handle and use.
14. Satisfying dynamic range. Gorgeous color rendition.
15. About $200. Okay, maybe I should be more willing to compromise, be more realistic. How about $500? $700? Okay, $900 my final offer. =P
=)
1. It has a CCD sensor.
2. It can shoot 24fps, 25fps for our UK friends (and anyone else who needs that), 30fps, and 60fps, because though I doubt that I'd ever use it for fiction, I sure do love that gorgeous slow motion...I'd probably use it for fooling around, shorts, and documentaries etc.
3. It's compatible with Canon lenses, batteries, and other Canon accessories because that's what I'm already invested in.
4. It's also compatible with super 16 lenses (hey, preferably without the need for any extra adaptors, if that's possible) cause jax_rox says those are the bomb. (Do I have that right?)
5. It's full-frame, because I love the full-frame look/aesthetic.
6. Moire (including aliasing since aliasing is a form of moire) is nonexistent.
7. Records in all major and desired formats. RAW too, since apparently that's a good thing. 1080P, 2K, 4K, 5K, 8K, whatever to make it forward compatible and relevant.
8. XLR imputs. Though, is that really important when you're recording audio separately?
9. A swivel LCD screen that can easily and comfortably be seen in full sunlight.
10. Full HD out for external monitoring.
11. Whatever everyone currently agrees is a sexy bit rate.
12. Has real, comfortably worked external buttons for every important function, in addition to being able to access those on a touch screen.
13. Also well designed to be ergonomically pleasant to handle and use.
14. Satisfying dynamic range. Gorgeous color rendition.
15. About $200. Okay, maybe I should be more willing to compromise, be more realistic. How about $500? $700? Okay, $900 my final offer. =P
=)
Last edited:
The Ikonoskop is actually pretty close to what you want, although the ergonomics of the body are debatable.
Frankly, I'm disappointed nothing came of the Yolk Y2:
or even the Kinetta (though the Y2's prettier
):
I am excited by the announced D-Minima, if that ever comes to fruition.
I mean if you're talking just dreams here without looking to find a way to actually make a workable camera then yeah
To be 100% honest here, if I were to look at a supposed 'dream' camera, I'd be looking at a 4k Alexa Studio, but at a cheap price point.
I also think that's why Hollywood has really embraced the Alexa - it's pretty much everything you need and/or want, at least for the moment. It even shoots raw now, either via an external recorder or on-board (Alexa XT). A 4k Alexa with no rolling shutter - there's my dream camera, at least for now..
What would be nice to see is something more along the lines of Ikegami's ENG camera with an Alexa sensor. I'd like to see cameras with ENG and Prosumer ergonomics (I'm talking EX3s when I say 'prosumer', not FS100's) with high dynamic range and better bitrates and file types.
S16 glass is nice, but then so are 35mm PL lenses. The great thing about S16 lenses is you can pick em up cheap and get a beautiful looking image on something that has a S16-sized sensor (say, the BMPCC).
I've been shooting on Super Baltars this week (50's lenses used on The Godfather) on an Epic. They look amazing, especially on digital, they really soften that hard edge that the Epic tends to have. Because they're 35mm lenses, they're a lot more expensive than equivalent age S16 lenses, both for rental and purchase and that's what sweet about S16 sensors.
Certainly better than a still lens, any day of the week. Check out Shane Hurlbut's blog on kitting out the BMCC if you wanna see some S16 lens action.
Last edited:
I'm thinking these two would generally be mutually exclusive, although I suppose you could have a crop mode for the s16 lenses...
Depends a lot on the compression. AVCHD/h.264 tends to smear a lot of fine detail and drops quite a bit of color information; ProRes, DNxHD, or CineForm would still be compressed but give you a significantly better image.
Five or six years ago I worked on a 3D project for a corporate client - we shot the live 3D elements on an epic frankencam, it had two DVX100's hacked together in sync, with a pair of mac mini's mounted behind in a shoulder rig. It took a raw stream tapped direct from each sensor (based on the old Andromeda hacks) and recorded straight to the mac hard drives, and had to then be processed into a 12bit TIFF sequence for editing, a very similar process to what's being done with the latest magic lantern hack (without the need for hardware modification, of course).
Now those were 1/3" chip cameras - standard definition no less - and the quality we were getting out of it was often noticeably better than the same footage shot side by side in DVCProHD with an HPX500. That was when I first realized that the sensor itself is only a small part of the overall result you get, and that the processing and compression could be the difference between getting decent SD quality or impressive HD quality from the exact same hardware. It was also the first time I realized just how much the manufacturers were holding back in terms of what the hardware was capable of. Some of that was practical; most people at the time wouldn't have wanted the equivalent of a mac mini hanging off the back of their camera. But a lot was market-driven - how do you charge $16k for an HPX500 body if a $5000 camcorder can outshoot it?
The point of all this is that there's a lot more to it than the size or resolution of the sensor. The trend towards raw recording is certainly breaking things open, especially at the lower end - as Stu Maschwitz said recently "It's no longer ok for cameras not to give us everything they've got" . I think what we'll see going forward is that there is no one recipe for getting the ultimate image - there's going to be lots of different combinations of sensor sizes, resolutions, and types, and getting the most out of them is going to come down to learning how to manipulate that data in post to produce exactly the look you want out of the image.
The Ikonoskop is actually pretty close to what you want, although the ergonomics of the body are debatable.
Frankly, I'm disappointed nothing came of the Yolk Y2:
or even the Kinetta (though the Y2's prettier
I am excited by the announced D-Minima, if that ever comes to fruition.
Ikonskop would be perfect, if it were actually super16, or half the price. It's 10.6x6mm, which is the width of regular 16 and slightly less tall. Nitpicking to be sure, but since they are asking 10K Euro (iirc), one should get to pick nits.
Well, and if I thought I wouldn't have to try explaining it to every single producer I would end up talking to here in the US. "Ikon-o-what-now??"
Never heard of the other ones, that y2 is a thing of beauty, at least on the outside.
Edit:
And apparently this happened without my noticing, no wonder a quick search for the d-minima didn't net much:
http://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/aaton-out-of-the-game/
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/05/aaton-new-owners-documentary-style-digital-camera/
Last edited:
And apparently this happened without my noticing, no wonder a quick search for the d-minima didn't net much:
http://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/aaton-out-of-the-game/
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/05/aaton-new-owners-documentary-style-digital-camera/
Transvideo's come to the rescue
http://www.fdtimes.com/2013/06/14/the-cat-is-back/
$32,500 for just the basic Dragon camera (with PL mount) is not a bad price, it's just more than I would like to see for the camera that I envision. Does the Dragon sensor actually shoot 100 individual photographs per second or does it capture more like a regular video camera? As for workflow, you can use Photoshop to process the individual images (batch process for scenes) and a simple interface will create the moving part of the moving picture show. For internal throughput, PCIe flash memory will run at 1.25GBs. Multiple channels could be used for faster data transfer. I would hope for a street price around $10K.
Wait, are you trying to tell me my latest indie epic about two teenage hitmen fighting over a briefcase in the local park doesn't warrant an Alexa??? But what if it gets picked up for theatrical release? I'd hate to lose that opportunity because it didn't look good enough for the big screen. I'm pretty sure I'll be better off launching a kickstarter to buy an Alexa, just in case.