|
|
02-01-2008, 04:55 AM
Would you buy a kind of HV20 with a 2/3 inch sensor?
Perhaps it will need bigger lenses, but not too much. Think that the HV20 CMOS is really big compared to other 1/5 or 1/6 inch camcorders, and its lenses are small.
With CF instead of tape, 4:4:4 1080p .... would be a "pocketALTA"
Simon.
02-01-2008, 06:14 AM
If I could record RAW from the HV20 to flash card on-board the way RED One does then I'd be very happy.
02-01-2008, 08:28 AM
Yes I would.
But I don't want just regular 4:4:4 or RAW. I want the intermediate. I want RED to make an RGB sensor like a foveon but better. That records all channels seperatley like the RAW images from Sigma's cameras. But I want it to be both 4:4:4 and RAW or something. I'm asking for too much...
But I'd buy the camera you described. Even though you didn't give a price.
02-13-2008, 02:46 PM
I was thinking that very thing recently. I mean, how hard can it be?Originally Posted by simonfilm
Actually, I would buy this: http://combatentropy.com/a_cam_for_all_seasons
What do you think?
02-14-2008, 11:03 AM
Its better dont give any lcd viewfinder or old display on scarlet i prefer detachable system same like red one that is better to use for proffessional works (like mainstream cinema) with scarlet 2k
02-14-2008, 11:34 AM
CombatEntropy -- Well done. Your design has the essential ingredients I'm looking for: super-35 imaging sensor, 24fps, 2K recording. Like others, I'd be willing to forgo some of the features (extra XLR inputs, fewer framerates) for the sake of economy. I would also prefer not to have a flip out LCD in order to make the overall camera more rugged.
02-14-2008, 01:06 PM
Yes, the hinge of a flip-out screen is the weakest link. But it could also be an arm with a ball-joint on each end.
Anyhow, movie cameras -- even film cameras nowadays -- have at least a small LCD for timecode, battery charge, frame rate, etc. So even if you went with an optical viewfinder, you would still want an LCD somewhere. I figured, again for the sake of simplicity, to combine all displays.
Notice my design does not have even an electronic viewfinder. That would be redundant. The newer displays, like on the Sony handycams, have some kind of reflectiveness so that they are clear even outdoors. And given a choice between a screen and a VF, resolution being equal, a screen is more freeing. You can see better when you hold the camera above your head or at your feet, two people can watch at the same time, and, for documentaries, people see you as less of a weirdo if you're gazing down at a screen than if you have viewfinder sticking into your head. So non-actor subjects look more at ease and more natural.
See, there's a reason for everything. I thought everything through, over and over and over.
02-14-2008, 01:58 PM
Compatentrophy -
Send the blueprints on to red's HQ stat! If anyone can do it, they can.
Our one point of disagreement may revolve around the MXF format. If redcode is more efficient, yet raw and lossless, by all means let them wrap it in their own format.
Nonetheless, I think your dream plans are well thought out and articulate. Now if only we could find "someone" to actually make it.
02-14-2008, 04:08 PM
MXF wraps the video and audio streams together into one file. Efficiency is not an issue. The video is first encoded with whatever compression you want (in this case, some wavelet-based compression). Then it is bundled with the audio into an MXF file.
It's like a QuickTime file. With QuickTime you can choose from a number of video and audio codecs.
So, first I want the video encoded in some open-source version of wavelet compression. I want the audio not compressed at all. And then I want the video stream and all four audio streams wrapped into one file, in the MXF format -- or any format as long as it is open source.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
