The price of a GX2300 is hard to find out without making phonecalls and
pretending to be a manufacturer of an inspection machine, or somesuch. But I
did find one price lists of sorts that has it down at around $6,000 So...
Anyway, in their Q&A they explained that they had made that early prototype by
converting a GX2300, by putting their sensor and electronics inside it. Er...
but it seems that the GX2300 already has the same sensor. Plus what does that
leave of the GX2300 anyway, a box, a lens mount and an ethernet board ? Bit of
a costly box that, if you're only using it as a box. Also, this adds an
interesting light to them also saying that they had been recording from the
camera directly to a PC. I would like this project of theirs to succeed, and I
hope that others that are trying to deliver a good raw camera with off the
shelf tech for cheap (like Kineraw) do to. They would change the current
landscape quite a lot.
I concur that a really good codec such as Prores 444 would be good enough for
most things. If apple allowed Prores to be used on PCs I'd use it. H264/AVC
does actually support 2K and 4K resolutions at level 5+, so thats an option for
camera makers, as is Avids DNxHD for HD resolution work. There are also
external HDMI or SDI SSD recorders that use Prores and DNxHD. I think they
would do well just to deliver a clean HDMI output from this digital bolex and
let the customer get their own recording device (could make it even cheaper).
Your right, the real benefits of raw capture are overkill for the target market
of this camera (and similar cameras). In fact, it's going to slow their process
down a lot. It would speed me up as I could skip the stage of converting my AVC
stream to still images, but I'm an exception. As it goes I can playback dpx
still sequences on Premiere at the correct framerate, and thats not too unusual
with current hardware either so
maybe there won't be that much of a need to transcode before delivery for the
users of this camera. Depends how many things they cram on top of it,
processing wise. Disk space is still pretty cheap too.
I'd also say that while there are a lot of positives to be gained from raw
capture, there is some weird myth/hype around the flexibility it gives you. Its
still all down to the sensor, and how the software creating the frames
interprets and filters the results of the sensor (and lighting of course). You
have a lot of latititude, but its still within a given range that the camera
has provided of course.
Yes, that lens setup does look interesting. Thing is, every lens type is being
used/tried by people shooting video with DSLRs not just 35mm. C-Mount 16mm
lenses are becoming commonly used too. Though you'll need to know a good lens
tech for some of those earlier C-Mount lenses. CCTV C-Mount plastic lenses are
also being used by some to get extraordinarily wide shots (albeit with some
vignetting on cameras without crop modes). Experimentation with many types of
legacy lenses and modern PL lenses is a huge thing really now, stepless
aperture and a softer image being some of the drivers (softer because the
DSLRs, particularly the GH2, are just too sharp for motion really, it adds
problems/aliasing etc). I actually saw some footage shot with those fixed
aperture lenses that the little pentax 110 SLR used recently, I think it was on
a 5D.
- Stray.
>________________________________
> From: David Tetzlaff <[email protected]>
>To: Experimental Film Discussion List <[email protected]>
>Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2012, 18:16
>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] digital Bolex - Well, there isnt one.
>
>> In the behind the scenes video for shooting 'one small step', which they
>> claim to have shot with the prototype, you can see that their shooting with
>> a Prosilica GX2300 machine vision camera.
>
>Well, their 'digital Bolex' would be adding a variety of stuff to that camera,
>a sort of conversion.
>
>Maybe they should call it a Digital Yoder, move the viewfinder to the side,
>and put a mount for that SSD 'mag' on the top.
>
>I guess that explains the RAW, too.
>
>Alistair: I get the limitations of AVCHD 4;2:0 etc., but still don't see the
>point of RAW versus a more limited high quality compression, on the order of
>ProRes 422 or ProRes 444 (though I know those are Apple proprietary). My point
>about the DSLR is that for most of what would seem to be their potential
>customers, the larger sensor and compatibility with 35mm lenses is a fair
>trade off for the compression, since they want the 35mm selective focus and
>bokeh for narrative. And their test project is a narrative feature, right?
>Maybe if all you want to do is that fake 'found footage' genre... Or will
>Digital Bolex users be throwing a RedRock on the front to get 35mm lenses on
>the thing. I mean, what the heck is that monster piece of class in that BTS
>shot, and it looks likes there's some kind of fairly large adapter between
>that lens and the Prosilica body that seems more than a mere mechanical mount
>adapter and might contain some optics???
>
>What do those Prosilica bodies cost?
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
