It won't. But the Acam DII uses a new filter pattern by Kodak called Truesense, they make CMOS versions as well.
Ikonoskop has temporarily stopped the production of the A-Cam
- Thread starter Postmaster
- Start date
It won't. But the Acam DII uses a new filter pattern by Kodak called Truesense, they make CMOS versions as well.
LyleGorch
Well-known member
Like I said, I was being cynical and sarcastic. I always loved the Ikonoskop concept, and thought it made a good looking image. I guess however, I am glad I didn't buy one when I had the chance, but there really wasn't a better game in town for anyone already invested in good 16 and s16 glass. . .at least until now. I don't think anyone wants to own an EOL'd product, or worse a not unexpensive camera from an insolvent company. That would almost be as bad as owning last year's best Sony. Oops, there I go again.
FWIW I also loved Saabs and Volvos.
DII uses the standard Kodak patent Bayer pattern filter as does the Digital Bolex. The Truesense filter pattern replaces half the green filters with a clear filter. Increases IR and monochrome sensitivity, but at the expense of color quality. Those are typically used for special machine vision applications.
The color gamut of different manufacturers Bayer filters vary widely. It is the spectrum bandwidth and relative sensitivity of each color, which typically is not primary red, blue, green that makes the difference. Most CMOS cameras are more sensitive in the red channel and infrared region than the Kodak patent Bayer filters. The tradeoff for more accurate saturated color is lower conversion efficiency which translates to about a stop less base sensitivity compared to most current CMOS designs. Kodak, being a film manufacturer, had far more experience in dye formulation than most sensor makers. Kind of like choosing to shoot Kodachrome over faster Ektachrome reversal films for its unique color reproduction qualities.
hawaj
Well-known member
Interesting camera but with very high starting price tag so they couldnt keep with brutal price drops started with Red hype. Now you can buy F35 on ebay for fraction of its price (less than two 5D3 bodies 
). They must develop a cheaper camera or close the shop. Paradigms are shifting just now.
). They must develop a cheaper camera or close the shop. Paradigms are shifting just now.Interesting camera but with very high starting price tag so they couldnt keep with brutal price drops started with Red hype. Now you can buy F35 on ebay for fraction of its price (less than two 5D3 bodies
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9559/sony-f35-reaches-12000-on-ebay-from-250000-in-2008
Sony F35 reaches $12,000 on eBay from $250,000 in 2008
Did not know that. Very interesting.
When you look at this is it any wonder Canon releases small incremental changes in their camera lines and tries to milk them for all they are worth? Maybe that's how you stay in business in this rapidly changing market place.
Last edited:
Interesting camera but with very high starting price tag so they couldnt keep with brutal price drops started with Red hype. Now you can buy F35 on ebay for fraction of its price (less than two 5D3 bodies
So Sony may as well not bother with introducing the PMW300 replacement for the EX series 1/2" cams? It is really way too expensive for a small format camera given the paradigm shift. Please. I mean Leica may as well close its doors since Canon just introduced the D70. No reason for it to exist either.
Just because there is a healthy market for cheap 35mm format video cameras and sub $1k handycams doesn't mean the Ikonoskop is not an exceptional value in the under $10k market for its practical 16mm format, rugged simplicity, handiness, and image quality potential. The Walmartization of mass market consumer video doesn't mean there isn't significant niche market potential for something different. I for one hope Ikonoskop makes it through this rough patch because the market for raw cinemaDNG format cameras is just now maturing and they were the first, the leader.
http://christoforou.blogspot.gr/2013/06/why-ikonoskop-two-years-after.html
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Absolutely. I think its a waste of cash and will keep my EX1 .. as I said on the sony board.
hawaj
Well-known member
You stay in bussines when you sell, hopes and wishes usualy dont generate money. Unfortunately or thankfully Red already walmartized cinema camera bussines (they slayed price to 1/10!) and Canon did the rest with lower segments. Black magic started to do the same with RAW cameras than came that Magic Lantern RAW "miracle", and right now other group just started to pull some RAW footage from Nikon ... 
Not to forget that you can buy refurbrished Red Ones for 4K. How many people will really buy Digital Bolex? Or what about chinese Kineraw...? Delays in development a production take their toll. There was small window for their camera, but they were late, very late.
I think that Canon is allways waiting what others will come with and then they react with something better, similar or just dont care and take their time (like in case of mirrorless bodies). They have allways all possibilities in their sleeves and just choose what will get green light or not or which features zhey enable in firmware. Nikon was very first with video in DSLR but you have to wait for Canon which stole whole scene even they dont want this development.
Not to forget that you can buy refurbrished Red Ones for 4K. How many people will really buy Digital Bolex? Or what about chinese Kineraw...? Delays in development a production take their toll. There was small window for their camera, but they were late, very late.I think that Canon is allways waiting what others will come with and then they react with something better, similar or just dont care and take their time (like in case of mirrorless bodies). They have allways all possibilities in their sleeves and just choose what will get green light or not or which features zhey enable in firmware. Nikon was very first with video in DSLR but you have to wait for Canon which stole whole scene even they dont want this development.
Last edited:
According to Kodak, that is not what Truesense is for, it is for better light sensitivity in colour cameras, in fact, they build in an IR filter so that camera manufacturers don't need to. The Hasselblad H3dII and the Leica S2 used Kodak truesense CFA sensors. From what I have read, the Digital Bolex uses a Truesense sensor as well.
It seems I was wrong about Ikonoskop though.
The Bayer pattern sensor is for high quality color rendition. The Truesense pattern sensor is for high sensivity, IR, and night vision apps. You lose any ability to render color for 25% of the pixel array since those pixels have a clear filter. Picture a 4 pixel Bayer block where one of the green pixels has no filter. Ikonoskop and Digital Bolex both use the traditional Bayer pattern version. It is the spectral response of the RGB filters that is patented and unique to this sensor line and produces the rich accurate saturated colors. But that comes at the price of conversion efficiency, roughly equal for all three colors at 43%. This compares to 65% for the Fairchild sensor used in the BMCC. Leica and Hassy also use the traditional Bayer pattern version. Leica used them in the M8 and M9 too.
It takes custom demosaic software to use the Truesense pattern. Traditional photo processing apps don't recognize it.
With nearly 80 years of experience in producing dyes for color films, nobody has the filter chemistry and color science knowledge that uncle yellow has. Kodachrome slide films are still the historic pinnacle of photographic color reproduction IMO. Think of that spectral response applied to a digital sensor.
Last edited:
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
IMO, it's expensive for what it delivers in 2013, because you can get much more value for your money for far less. Also, you can get a DSLR with no moire/aliasing and great low light for under a grand, the Nikon D5200. Also, now there are also post fixes for rolling shutter that work quite well unless you operate the camera as if you're having a seizure. lol. The Canon 5D Mark III, moire/aliasing is not a problem, shoots full frame RAW video with Magic Lantern, crops lenses to give them extra value, has tons and tons of features, for a fractions of the price. BMPC 4k Global Shutter, 12-stop dynamic range + DaVinci Resolve/Ultrascope for $3,995 and Pocket Cinema for $995. These all, in combination, put the nail in their coffin; Not just under $1,000 DSLRs. In fact, I believe it has less to do with the under $1,000 moire/aliasing ridden DSLRs (though they certainly didn't help, because they do offer big bang for the buck despite their flaws). Clearly they didn't get with the times & price it aggressively enough to compete and they got weeded out. Nice camera, but not enough value for the money in 2013. I appreciate their efforts, but it's BlackMagic Design's time now.
But then again, who knows, maybe they're working on a new camera. We shall see. Dun dun dunnnnn!
I wouldn't say the MkIII has no aliasing - it simply has less. Texture rendition and image smoothness are still way less clean than from any dedicated video camera. I don't like the "good enough" trend, where finer details and attention to subtlety are thrown out in favor of only focussing on cheap fast good enough. this pollutes not only cameras, but other areas. never before did I see so many directors who up on set with no shotlist, just some cheap cameras to shoot "lots fo stuff" - not of it stellar, just tons and tons of mediocre under-planned , and more often than not artless and craft-less - nothing stellar, nothing aiming for perfection, no notion of the sublime or reaching for it. I find the Walmart-ization of filmmaking depressing, in general.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
Yes, on a technical forum, people talk about cameras and lights. It is bizarre that this offends or even surprises you.
This forum is not called "Final Draft User" where I'm sure screenwriting is discussed at length. Some people here actually work in pro environments where the DP and the writer are not the same person. Would you have DPs simply never discuss their the technical aspects of their craft because it's not as important as the story? Should no one talk about heir tools and techniques at any length except the writer? What is your &^%$ point!?
BTW - that said, you're wrong.
Audiences may not be able to describe why, but they know ugly when they see it. One of the reasons stated by test audiences as to why they hate Canadian films (and why virtually every one flops) is how dingy and ugly they look, regardless of story. Some forms of filmmaking, like music videos, are as much or more about form and look than story.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
No, low-end highly replaceable DPs who get hired in bulk because they need "shooters" don;t care. the best (and highest paid) people shooting national commercials and Hollywood features care very, very much and fight for their favorite medium. It's like saying margarine is the same as butter - well not if you're a serious chef, but maybe if you work at a cheap hot dog stand. Deadliest Catch is reality-TV doco, aimed at a low-brow low income, almost 100% male blue-collar audience. It doesn't really have much concern for aesthetics one way or another. That's not all of cinematography. And thank God.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
"Know what needs to be done" doesn't sound very artistic or passionate or inspiring. It sounds like you're fixing a fence. My clients would laugh you out of the room with that attitude. There's an expression: "Rent-A-DP". That's what you sound like. Except people don't pay much for that. They pay for unique vision and artistry.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Some of the best directors in the world have a "know what needs to be done" outlook. Some are more art oriented, saying they all have to be the same is effing pretentious and ludicrous.
I don't think anyone is saying we all have to be the same.Quite the opposite. Those who think that low end CMOS video camera mush is an adequate solution for any film making purpose would seem to be the ones holding that view. We are not all shooting cheap lowest common denominator reality TV or even for TV at all, much less narrative work or utility grade commercial work where image quality doesn't matter to at least some degree. A cinematographer skilled in both art and science can deliver what is most appropriate for any situation. Those that are true visual artists rise above the merely utilitarian craft and some cameras are a more appropriate tool for realizing that level of visual sophistication. In the digital age the camera is the flim stock and they all have unique qualities.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I appreciate that people would like to shoot the highest quality possible, just like any musician would like to record with the best pre amps and mics available. But the fact of the matter is this
Under $7,000 what can one buy if one wants to make an independent short film/film or video project:
A smaller chip cam with good resolution, but usually limited DR.
An FS100, AF100, or C100. All AVCHD cams unless recorder is used...plus lens expenses
A BMC cam - Raw, but they have their own set of issues
DSLRS and mirrorless cams - Issues as well plus bad implementations of codec, except the 5D MK3 which shoots raw now
These are ALL CMOS cameras
Available to buy large sensor CCD cams for that price.
ZERO. The D Bolex ain't out yet and it's the only one.
So what should people do? Sit and dream of perfect image quality instead of shoot.
Many really good short films and features have been done on these "compromised" cameras had they waited for some dream cam that as of yet DOES NOT EXIST in this price range.
resonance_image
Active member
My participation in this discussion was initiated because there was commentary that Ikonoskop should have failed and they got what they deserved because they weren't offering a good enough deal. The debate between CMOS and CCD comes up because people seem to think that if Blackmagic offers a super 16 camera for $1000 it will leave DB and Ikonoskop in the dust. Two years ago if someone said they were releasing a camera with a sensor that small everyone with a 5D would have scoffed but now its the saving grace for indie filmakers.
I don't think everyone should be shooting on a CCD sensor especially if one isn't available at their pricepoint. I personally don't care about slomo I think it looks stupid, I'm not investing in 4K since HD is what i'm going to deliver in for the foreseeable future. What I do care about is a beautiful, organic, film like image with no rolling shutter. CCDs like the Ikonoskop, DB or the F35 (under 10k for body) offer something that sets them apart, i was going to say the intangible qualities but its really just a different set of specs and because these qualities were overlooked by the DSLR crowd they have been deemed irrelevant.
4k, slo mo, cheap memory cards get peoples attention more than color fidelity, and motion cadence, strangely rolling shutter is so prevalent that its accepted and dismissed as a pitfall of CMOS but that was a huge factor for my consideration of the Ikonoskop. So no one has to wait for the perfect camera and I shot on a 7D until I bought an Ikonoskop which is far from perfect but I'm glad that they didn't take recommendations that may have lowered their price but compromised their vision.
Beyond issues of image quality and creative control, there are currently no S16mm/16mm format sized video cameras of any kind in the under $7k space other than a few consumer point and shoots. There are no 2/3" video format cameras in this range either, the closest equivalent to 16mm in sensor size but slightly smaller. The Sony 1/2" EX series are 1/4 the image area of an S16mm frame.
The format itself is woefully overlooked as the handy compact optimum solution for a broad range of shooting needs along with significant creative DOF control. One could with the Ikonoskop pop a vintage Angenieux 12-120 16mm zoom on it, and carry the camera with all necessary accessories and a light tripod on a day hike nature shoot with an all up weight for the rig including tripod under 20 lbs total and a 35mm equivalent focal length range of 35-350mm at F2.2 in one lens. The Ikonoskop would need no external rigging or accessories beyond the tripod. It is a robust solid machined aluminum block chassis with excellent weather resistance. IMO for the solo shooter it is the ideal all around single camera format.
The format itself is woefully overlooked as the handy compact optimum solution for a broad range of shooting needs along with significant creative DOF control. One could with the Ikonoskop pop a vintage Angenieux 12-120 16mm zoom on it, and carry the camera with all necessary accessories and a light tripod on a day hike nature shoot with an all up weight for the rig including tripod under 20 lbs total and a 35mm equivalent focal length range of 35-350mm at F2.2 in one lens. The Ikonoskop would need no external rigging or accessories beyond the tripod. It is a robust solid machined aluminum block chassis with excellent weather resistance. IMO for the solo shooter it is the ideal all around single camera format.