A-cam dII 'High Definition RAW Format Motion Picture Camera

Otis Grapsas said:
It won't be long. The software and the hardware are functioning and only need a few weeks of work for GUI, main conversion application and an alternative workflow. HDD and SSD storage is fully tested. I'm currently designing another revision of the enclosure and discussing our options with the machine shop. This is a lengthy process. The Kodak sensors will be available in quantities in January and other sensor options are already available. I'm also evaluating a series of lcd and driver components and an affordable solution for optics. All our components are in good supply. When it's ready we willl show photographs and detailed specifications and get some material shot with it. I don't want to get into preorder stage with 3d drawings or a nonfunctioning camera or make the customer wait 4 months to get his camera.
Click to expand...


Nice, thanx Otis. I really wonder how your camera will look. Good luck :thumbup:
 
Zak Forsman said:
what's the difference? it still comes out when it comes out. whether you tease it or not. oh wait, i know the difference... awareness level.
Click to expand...


He he you nail it Zak! Thats how it is, but people still dont get it. They are like kids :laugh:
 
I notice that most of the preliminary Ikonoskop footage is all close-ups, which provides for a shallower DOF. I'm not really familiar with the DOF of 16mm or 2/3" chips. Any good examples out there? I'm wondering if it's shallow enough for me. I sure ain't buying a new camera that necessitates the use of a 35mm adapter again, unless that camera is like $2000 or less, all in. In any case, I absolutely love the form factor of Ikonoskop, and that could be the deciding factor for me.
 
Sean, you can use a DSLR to preview the DOF of 2/3" compared to super35.

If you are using a crop factor dslr, the 2/3" at f1.4 willl achieve an equivalent dof of f3.5 on the crop factor DSLR but with much higher light gathering.

F1.2 lenses will be equivalent to f3.0 on the dslr.

In other words, if you intent to use super35 with f2.8 lenses such as those on the Red lenses or most affordable zooms, there is very little difference in terms of DOF compared to 2/3" with f1.2 lenses, and the light gathering advantage of 2/3" is very high. If you can afford exotic f1.4 200mm etc lenses on super35, you will not be able to get an equivalent DOF in 2/3".
 
Thank you Otis. Alas, I don't understand. Heheh. My lack of knowledge, not yours!

I would hope to use Nikon 35mm lenses with Ikonoskop, and I believe that will be an optional mount you guys will offer.

But as for the DOF, what I think you're saying is:

Shooting with my 35mm lens wide open at f1.4 on Ikonoskop will give me the same DOF as shooting with my 35mm lens stopped down a bit to f3.5 on a DSLR.
 
sean90291 said:
Shooting with my 35mm lens wide open at f1.4 on Ikonoskop will give me the same DOF as shooting with my 35mm lens stopped down a bit to f3.5 on a DSLR.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The crop factor for 2/3" compared to super35 (or crop DSLRs) is 2.5x. So your 100mm is a 250mm. For wide agle you do need 16mm or 2/3" lenses of course.

The crop factor could be an advantage or a disadvantage.

Most 35mm cinematography is done at higher than f3.5 because the DOF is limiting, so the f1.4 2/3" and 16mm lenses can achieve that shallow DOF just fine using much more affordable optics and as an advantage, you are working at f1.4 vs f3.5. That means you can work at asa400 instead of asa2500 or do the same shot with 6.25x less light. If you have unlimited lighting or work in daylight, this is not important.

Super35 can do shallower DOF such as f2.0 if you have the right lenses but that requires more expensive optics and increases focus pulling requirements. If you can afford the optics and focus issues and you plan to have lots of material shot below f3.5 for DOF creative reasons, you have to get super35 because that's not achievable on 2/3" sensors or 16mm.

If you use a DOF adapter and you find you mostly use f3.5 and up, 2/3" is a much better option due to the much lower lighting requirements. The same applies to any DOF adapter user that would like to stop down but is limited by focus screen issues.
 
Last edited:
sean90291 said:
But as for the DOF, what I think you're saying is:

Shooting with my 35mm lens wide open at f1.4 on Ikonoskop will give me the same DOF as shooting with my 35mm lens stopped down a bit to f3.5 on a DSLR.
Click to expand...

Hm, perhaps there is a misunderstanding. With a crop factor, you have to multiply both focal lenght and aperture by the crop factor to get the equivalents. Two examples:

A 50mm f1.4 Nikon on 2/3" will give you identical results to a 125mm f3.5.

For super35 200mm f4 results, you need to use a 80mm f1.6.
 
P.S. I don't work for Ikonoskope so I don't know what mounts they will offer or how they will adapt. Everything I said on 2/3" stills applies since the Acam is a 2/3" single sensor camera.
 
Oh. Weird. I thought you worked for them, because you're so informed about the camera, etc. Do you have a relatonship with Ikonoskop at all? You're very knowledgeable in these matters in any event.
 
No relationship with Ikonoskope. I'm familiar with the specifics because I use the same sensor in a camera I'm developing and I have evaluated many one sensor implementations from all aspects.
 
Oh! I see now. Please tell us more about your camera! I'm guessing you don't have a website yet? You're waiting until your specs are closer to being nailed down?

And yes, there is a lot of good Ikonoskop info you've provided. They should pay you a commission. Heheh.
 
The specs were locked for the last 4 months, but then we added support for the new Kodak CCD. We were using the 1" version but this 2/3" replaces it in every aspect.

You will find some info here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=132566&page=7

Post 65.

Ikonoskope has a light camcorder form factor and our solution is shoulder mount. I hope both cameras go well and the market opens for more fully uncompressed solutions.
 
So you will be using the DNG codec as well? Can you tell me, currently, what software is out there that can import/use of the DNG codec? I mean currently, as in right now, today. I am not familiar with that codec.

Maybe I should wait until I see your camera before making any next decisions! One thing is certain--the choices for the filmmaker are about to explode.
 
Last edited:
DNG is not really a codec. It's a time consuming raw still camera format that is not even supported in major editors. We have to provide something a film editing professional will accept, so we use a proprietary solution. I have written a DNG implementation though. It could be useful when the format support is wider. Today DNG is supported in After Effects.

For Ikonoskop workflow, there is this thread:

http://www.ikonoskop.com/forum?action=listPosts&forumID=8&parentID=220
 
Otis Grapsas said:
This thread probably contains more info than the Ikonoskope forum:)
Click to expand...

So true! While RED gushes and chums and basically practices marketing by schizophrenia, Ikonoskop is the polar opposite and run their operation with the frenzy of a tree sloth. You have to be amused at their video samples, what was it? 2 seconds long? LOL. What's their motto? "Boring is the new cool"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top