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

Otis Grapsas said:
They have an engineering attitude which is a good thing. I honestly prefer a watch on a table or a badly done night shot compared to that stereotypical well photographed sexist video with models drinking milk and implying sexual behaviour of most intimate nature. The market is full of boys (of any age) but it's getting boring and many female and male cinematographers find it insulting.
Click to expand...


Thank you for echoing my feelings exactly. I start to feel like I'm the only one that finds it all very high school.
 
augenblick said:
hawaj, what's your point?

Peter
Click to expand...


that comparing unequal systems as equal makes very deformed opinions which in most times last forever :)

... and then they get back to you like a bumerang when you really don`t need them - from clients, producers etc. and it`s very tuff to get rid of them


Petr
 
Last edited:
comparing apples to coconuts again . . . . Its like when your qiuet notebook change to screaming monster when you start rendering or playing HD footage
Click to expand...

The Red's higher res does not enough explain the difference. If you switch to 2K windowed mode, does it suddenly run like an Ikonoskop? Let me make an even clearer comparison, based on what you said:

How come the Panasonic HMC150 does not "change to a screaming monster" when it is rendering or playing HD footage?
 
Last edited:
COME ON, RED THIS RED THAT, RED FOR THIS FOR THAT FOREVER, COME ON PEOPLE, RED ISN'T GOD. I HAS IT FLAWS BUT DON'T EXPECT IT TO BE PERFECT. Ikonoskop is a quiet new in market. Red is even newer. Panasonic, sony, been playing for more than 30 years, thats why the make cameras that respond in time. Ikonoskop have done so, but its engeniering was aim to do so. Red was not thinking about that the first time they bought red one. They put all their energy on cost savings maybe, and image quality. Ikonoskop on the contrary cos ITS CONTRARY has made a camera thats is light no time booting, no movig parts, less ress, etc etc, for the filmaker an cinematographer NOT FOR ENTERPRISE OR MEGAPRODUCTION TECH HUNGRY COST EATING COMPANYS. So, comparison is good, and is always better to compare thifereng things in diferent aspects, its the real way of creating new argumens and all. But acting like child for a boot time? COME ON, RED IS NO GOD.

Desahuevense.
 
Holy cow! Have you seen the "grain" (instead of video noise) on the speedometer closeup?
Most filmlike texture I evar seen from a video camera.
Also latitude looks verry fine to me. If I would not know it better, I would bet my arse it´s 16mm.

Frank
 
Hi, everybody, this is my first post.

The more I think about the Ikonoskop the more I like this camera. I'll end forgettin' the Scarlett and going after the A-cam for sure. I even like the noise/grain and the texture of the images... The color is very "Kodak" and it reminds me the one I get from my Leica DMR files.
 
The CCD noise likes uncompressed recording. In this case though, there shouldn't be visible noise in the shadows. You would need lots of gain to get visible noise.
 
That´s what I figured out.

I like my DVCPRO HD workflow, but always had the feel that the codec don´t likes noise.
It looks to me, like it needs so much efford to deal with the noise, picture quality got corrupted.

I recorded straight from the HVX200 RGB output to uncompressed Deck Link and the quality went up - thou lot´s of folks keep telling me that the analog output must be worse cause it´s not digital.

I trust my eyes and over 20 years of experiance stearing at pixels/colorgrading and I say it´s better because it´s uncompressed.

To be honest, even if recorded to Cineform via RGB/Black Magic, it looks better than DVCPRO HD.

Frank
 
Postmaster, those who prefer digital compressed over uncompressed via analog link are probably pixel peeping comparing sharpness of static images. There is a small loss. But everything else is superior. Boost a shadow, shoot with high gain, it's a while new world. Even in i-frame formats.

13th Judas, You can actually use noise creatively in uncompressed recording. CCD noise is analog and a very good statistical distribution actually, similar to color film grain as a phenomenon. When the compression does not mess with noise it can look very natural. Take into account that the ikonoskope sample is 2:1 reduction though (9640x540). At 1:1 the bayer will interfere a little bit. A problem with compression is that noise becomes a mess if you compress heavily. This was shot uncompressed from a sensor board using very high gain and is very low bitrate:

http://www.archive.org/download/timelapseUNC/timelapse.wmv

NOT IKONOSKOPE FOOTAGE
 
I don't know where you got that timelapse from, but it's stunning!!, fluid and with great shapes, that's what I call a great timelapse!
 
Pretty impressing footage Otis.
Exactly what I found in my tests.

The whole - digital this - shmigital that - hype is on my nerves anyway.
Like high end audio went back to tubes, I predict that video in the future will be as analog as possible in the signal chain, without multiple AD/DA YUV/RGB andwhatnot transformations.

Just because it pleases the (analog) human eye, like music of a tube amp pleases the ear.

The technology is already there. All we need is a genius that make it a out-of-the-box product, with a slick "shoot to deliver" workflow that just works.

Do you hear me Otis? :beer:



Frank
 
I wish these companies would upload 1 or 2 full HD clips. I know bandwidth is an issue, but even a 3-4 second clip could give us a far better idea of quality.

It's like they have something to hide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top