Ikonoskop RAW DII 1st Camera Delivered!

Some new footage:



Exactly as I said, that camera is an ergonomic nightmare. At the night scenes, you can see all that extra micro shakes (plus the normal hand held shake of course) because of the awkward way you have to hold it.

forum_attach.php


Picture quality is hard to judge at Vimeo compression, but the skin tones need some extra work.

Frank
 
They seem to have resolved the problem of the odd color cast on clipped highlights at least. Definitely looking better.

I don't like the form factor either.
 
Razz16mm said:
They seem to have resolved the problem of the odd color cast on clipped highlights at least.
Click to expand...

You know the difference in sheer power between the sunlight and artificial lights?
Maybe there is a reason why they shoot at night or under controlled conditions with studio lights.

....just saying
 
Any here planning on buying one of these? and I would especially want to hear someone from the New England area like Massachusetts for example so I can either rent the camera or hire a shooter who owns one for a project.
 
Postmaster said:
You know the difference in sheer power between the sunlight and artificial lights?
Maybe there is a reason why they shoot at night or under controlled conditions with studio lights.

....just saying
Click to expand...

Good point. Haven't been very impressed with the footage from this camera so far anyway.
 
Postmaster said:
After years of developing steadycams, dollys, cranes, motion control rigs, tripods, fluid heads andwhatnot, we nailed the camera in every possible situation.
Now that we have achieved that, we gonna trow it over board and go shaky hand held without any motivation in the scene/story.

Well, to each his own - I hate any shaky camera, but that´s just me.

Frank
Click to expand...

It's actually got pretty impressive mounting options, has both sizes of tripod mounts on the top as well as the bottom.

Postmaster said:
LOL! I don't have any emotional relation to my tools. Did you ever really "hated" a Hammer or a jigsaw?
I´m brand agnostic. I usually pick the tool that does the job.

Frank
Click to expand...

That's probably why you hate (oops, wrong choice of words...) feel the need to rag on this camera: it's made specifically for people who emotionally relate to their tools (in my opinion anyway).

I think this is the most interesting camera released by anyone, I have had definite plans to buy one for a long time now..... but i still haven't started saving yet :(
 
Its really odd that there isnt more buzz on this camera. Odd ergonomic form aside this has amazing potential. especially strange that there is a gazillion pages for scarlet camera that may never be delivered to paying customers. Ikonoskop is:close to super 16 CCD, completely raw, small form factor, c-mount, PL mount, leica among others. with everything you need to get it running it would be around 13k US dollars. The footage is among some of the more natural stuff out there. Is anyone here on the pre-order list?
 
It has taken Ikonoscope far longer to get this camera to production than Scarlet will have taken when it is released this year. Going on four years now.

Nice little camera though, if they can get their color purity issues with highlights worked out.
 
Razz16mm said:
It has taken Ikonoscope far longer to get this camera to production than Scarlet will have taken when it is released this year. Going on four years now.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but the DII was announced at IBC in Sept 2008... some months after the 3k for $3k Scarlet announcement at NAB ´08
 
I don't know why people are grumbling about colour cast. What are they refering to? This is RAW footage, so more colour-correctable than anything else on the market, except film perhaps.

I think that the short dof possibilities of 35mm sensors are why there isn't such a massive interest in this camera. People love short dof, partly because it is actually nice, but also becasue traditionally it immediately seperates out the amateur video look from the pro film look.

I've shot quite a few films on 16mm, and whilst I really like it, I would have shot 35mm every single time had I had the money and equipment. I think the same goes for most people in the market for a camera like this. It is a great camera though, and top notch cine lenses will be much cheaper than for a 4/3 or other 35mm sized sensor camera.
 
Last edited:
Regarding stabilization, mount it to a Spiderbrace and call it a day. And as previously reminded... It's CCD, no jello to make handheld look bad.

Lucas Adamson said:
I don't know why people are grumbling about colour cast. What are they refering to? This is RAW footage, so more colour-correctable than anything else on the market, except film perhaps.

I think that the short dof possibilities of 35mm sensors are why there isn't such a massive interest in this camera. People love short dof, partly because it is actually nice, but also becasue traditionally it immediately seperates out the amateur video look from the pro film look.

I've shot quite a few films on 16mm, and whilst I really like it, I would have shot 35mm every single time had I had the money and equipment. I think the same goes for most people in the market for a camera like this. It is a great camera though, and top notch cine lenses will be much cheaper than for a 4/3 or other 35mm sized sensor camera.
Click to expand...

IDK man, I think the price appeals more to people already experienced in video/cinema that are looking for a classy and small alternative imaging device. This is great for old schoolers who happen to have great 16mm glass as well. People love short DOF because people love the cheap way to make things good, "just blur it all, it's cinema!".
 
stockfuel said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but the DII was announced at IBC in Sept 2008... some months after the 3k for $3k Scarlet announcement at NAB ´08
Click to expand...

They were taking customer preorder deposits for 2008 delivery at IBC. So they are a couple of years behind their original schedule. But unlike Red, the Dii had to have been in development long before the IBC announcement if they thought they could ship in 2008.

The current Scarlet modular camera system, as it has been developed, was first announced in November 2008. Red issued an updated formal announcement of the modular line in December with anticipated release time frames of Summer/Fall 2009 thru Spring/Summer of 2010. The original 3k for $3k concept had no development or release schedule associated with it and did not go beyond the original concept pitch and request for potential customer input as to features wanted.

It is obviously not easy to develop native raw format motion cameras like this to market ready status, even when you start with off the shelf commercial sensors like Ikonscop has. Not knocking Ikonscop at all, just pointing out the realities of truly innovative product engineering and development by small companies. They don't conform to rigid predictable schedules like products from the major manufacturers that are up dates of existing well developed technologies.
I miss Otis Grapsas and his camera development discussions on this board. He is using the same Kodak sensor as Ikonoscop. I may have picked up the four year timeline from his comments.
 
Lucas Adamson said:
I don't know why people are grumbling about colour cast. What are they refering to? This is RAW footage, so more colour-correctable than anything else on the market, except film perhaps.
Click to expand...

Specifically the magenta cast to hard clipped highlights, not a color cast for the whole image. Not something that is easily correctable even with raw images, just as black spot clipping for specular highlights like the sun is not easy to deal with in some raw still camera images without locally hand painting each frame. Not something you want to have to do with motion files for sure. But I expect they will get it corrected in their firmware color matrix before too long.
 
Razz16mm said:
The original 3k for $3k concept had no development or release schedule associated with it and did not go beyond the original concept pitch and request for potential customer input as to features wanted.
Click to expand...

It had a release date of early 2009... and a full spec. This was not just some concept, it was a solid product announcement..... that only changed when vDSLRs came around.
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m197/Digigenic/ScarletscreencapinfoNAB1.jpg

Unfortunately, I don't think either will be available in great numbers in 2011. Hopefully I am proved wrong, both systems interest me.
 
stockfuel said:
It had a release date of early 2009... and a full spec. This was not just some concept, it was a solid product announcement..... that only changed when vDSLRs came around.
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m197/Digigenic/ScarletscreencapinfoNAB1.jpg

Unfortunately, I don't think either will be available in great numbers in 2011. Hopefully I am proved wrong, both systems interest me.
Click to expand...

The move to a new modular camera systems approach by Red had little to do with the VDSLR's and everything to do with the massive list of improvements and features for Scarlet requested by both existing Red One owners and potential new customers at Reduser. It was not possible to accommodate much of that within the scope or price of the original design, which was just a 3d concept rendering and a machined mockup of solid aluminum at NAB, not even a partially developed camera. What started out as a single 2/3" fixed lens pocket camera turned into an entire line of cameras incorporating virtually every feature that was asked for plus some, from interchangeable lenses to larger format higher resolution sensors. The product line and the company have evolved very rapidly in just two years. The wait has been frustrating, but following the development process has been pretty fascinating too. I hope they can produce substantial numbers this year. Or at least enough for me to get one.:thumbsup:
 
Well, neither of us really know.... but I will stick with my theory. I'm no RED hater though, just a RED pessimist.

Anyway, back to Ikonoskop......
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Regarding stabilization, mount it to a Spiderbrace and call it a day. And as previously reminded... It's CCD, no jello to make handheld look bad.



IDK man, I think the price appeals more to people already experienced in video/cinema that are looking for a classy and small alternative imaging device. This is great for old schoolers who happen to have great 16mm glass as well. People love short DOF because people love the cheap way to make things good, "just blur it all, it's cinema!".
Click to expand...

You think people like short dof because it's a cheap way to make things look good? Surely it's about subject isolation. In photography, it's such a big part of my love for the art-form, and was right from the start. In film, traditionally it has been the principal possession of the 35mm film-makers, and so now we have sensors that size, that's great for us paupers too, and it blurs the distinction between what's possible on the cheap and with a big budget (image wise). Going back to a 16mm sensor these days is quite a bold aesthetic move, and not one I'd like to take, as it's a bold move mostly towards deeper dof.
 
Lucas Adamson said:
You think people like short dof because it's a cheap way to make things look good? Surely it's about subject isolation. In photography, it's such a big part of my love for the art-form, and was right from the start. In film, traditionally it has been the principal possession of the 35mm film-makers, and so now we have sensors that size, that's great for us paupers too, and it blurs the distinction between what's possible on the cheap and with a big budget (image wise). Going back to a 16mm sensor these days is quite a bold aesthetic move, and not one I'd like to take, as it's a bold move mostly towards deeper dof.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind though that in motion there are other ways of isolating subjects, or directing attention...with the right composition, mise en scene and through motion. These are typically harder to achieve but also have the potential to be really effective, which I think is where the idea that relying on shallow DOF for everything is "lazy". I think there is truth to that idea...shallow DOF is a great tool and there's nothing innately wrong with it, but it seems like most people go straight to it instead of using things like...well, motion especially. The thing that makes cinema special in the first place.

EDIT: And just to be clear, one of the things that I have in mind when I say motion is its ability to show depth through parallax. This is a good way to direct attention without sacrificing scene detail.
 
Motion production is not like shooting stills. The 2/3" , 16mm size format is now and likely will remain the most popular professional broadcast production format in the world. For a single general purpose all around production camera it is still my preferred format. It has enough creative flexibility to produce nice shallow depth of field in close ups when needed. It also allows a solo camera operator especially to cover a wide range of dynamic shooting situations, especially in low light conditions, with enough depth of field to reliably focus by eye and follow action with predictable good results. Shallow depth of field is just one tool in the box and certainly not the only defining quality of "cinematic" style.

The image formats derived from the original Academy 35mm film frame, including the current standard S35 wide screen format offer more shallow DOF flexibility at working apertures in the f2.8-f5.6 range typical of most narrative film production, especially for medium wide shots in relatively tight spaces, but need far more skill and attention by the operators to follow focus on fast moving action. But still flexible and practical enough to work for most situations. Moving to something like FF35/Vistavision sized image formats creates enough problems that it is rarely used for motion production. When it is used it is more for big screen epic style films with wide angle deep focus anamorphic lenses.

I added the Blu-Ray of Jacque Tati's classic "Play Time" to my film collection this week. It is a pure example of visual story telling, a satirical social comedy expressed through cinematography as fine art where every element of production design, staging, composition, color, and movement were choreographed down to the last detail like a fine ballet. There was not a shallow focus shot in the entire film.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top