tony wilson Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 not really a pure ikonoskop example as stanley kubricks diffusion filters as used on barry lyndon where used. but a fine job by daft punk musician thomas bangalter http://vimeo.com/28717821 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birk Kromann Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Wouldn't a quick fix for the tint be to film a ColorChecker, correct it and base your LUT on that? That should remove any tints etc. The LanParte kit is of surprisingly good quality. I've found that Ozirig in Australia is the best, cheapest and fastest even if you live in Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riccardocovino Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Noise under the bridge seems more evident in the Ikonoskop, probably due to the smaller sensor. I prefer BMCC image, althought it is just a subtle feeling.. who knows.. blind tests like Zakuto's Revenge clearly showed that our opinions are driven also by knowing the names! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Mantaras Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Yes It does have it, CCD's still the same: http://vimeo.com/40387639 At 0.53 you have a big smearing. The thing with this camera is that as far as I remember, It is not 1 sensor but 4, each next to the other forming 1 big sensor. Each sensor is called quadrant and have its own operational conditions, as temperature, artifacts, etc, which cause singular problems for this solution. If I got something wrong please correct me. Wow! That was very weird! Ineed, there was light smearing in only the upper left quarter of the frame. That's a nasty artifact. I wonder how good the D16 will finally be among the 16mm sensor options, and how present is the smearing there (I guess just as bad but in the whole frame?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattH Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Yes It does have it, CCD's still the same: http://vimeo.com/40387639 At 0.53 you have a big smearing. The thing with this camera is that as far as I remember, It is not 1 sensor but 4, each next to the other forming 1 big sensor. Each sensor is called quadrant and have its own operational conditions, as temperature, artifacts, etc, which cause singular problems for this solution. If I got something wrong please correct me. Wow! That was very weird! Ineed, there was light smearing in only the upper left quarter of the frame. That's a nasty artifact. I wonder how good the D16 will finally be among the 16mm sensor options, and how present is the smearing there (I guess just as bad but in the whole frame?) I didn't find the "smearing" unpleasant. You could easily call it blooming and say it was attractive. What i DID find unpleasant was the fact that you could see the joins between the sensor quadrants. That totally negates the advantages of this cam really. Edit: Just watched again and realized that the bloom itself only appears in certain quadrants and you were probably talking about this. If it was one big sensor the blooming might not be too bad. but it is, and even without the blooming you can see the joins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Mantaras Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I didn't find the "smearing" unpleasant. You could easily call it blooming and say it was attractive. What i DID find unpleasant was the fact that you could see the joins between the sensor quadrants. That totally negates the advantages of this cam really. Edit: Just watched again and realized that the bloom itself only appears in certain quadrants and you were probably talking about this. If it was one big sensor the blooming might not be too bad. but it is, and even without the blooming you can see the joins. Yes, I was referring to that. If there was only smearing I guess I could live with it, and use a second camera whenever it becomes a real problem (imagine any shot on a short film or a music video where you have lights pointing into the lens!), but the fact that the image (AND the artifacts) happen in a single quadrant at a time is not nice at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riccardocovino Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Definetly quadrants are so evident at 0:54 and in the end.. that's awful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony wilson Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Definetly quadrants are so evident at 0:54 and in the end.. that's awful! what the camera or the shooter or the sensor? do asome tests yourself with the camera then contact kodak and ikonoscope. why watch a moving picture turd and use it as a reference. i doubt very much the issue is with the sensor this was used by nasa for quite a few years. it is not some bmc untested shit the sensor that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Mantaras Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 what the camera or the shooter or the sensor? do asome tests yourself with the camera then contact kodak and ikonoscope. why watch a moving picture turd and use it as a reference. i doubt very much the issue is with the sensor this was used by nasa for quite a few years. it is not some bmc untested shit the sensor that is. There's nothing wrong with the sensor itself, but the artifact that can be seen there fits with the explanation MattH (EDIT: sorry, that was Fergutor!) gave: the camera has not one but 4 sensors in an array, and so in the 0:53 second on that video you can see that the light overload coming from the sun causes smearing in only the upper left sensor (out of that 4 sensor array) and so the smearing is cut in half, which is very odd. Apart from that the sensors look fine to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergutor Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 There's nothing wrong with the sensor itself, but the artifact that can be seen there fits with the explanation MattH gave: the camera has not one but 4 sensors in an array, and so in the 0:53 second on that video you can see that the light overload coming from the sun causes smearing in only the upper left sensor (out of that 4 sensor array) and so the smearing is cut in half, which is very odd. Apart from that the sensors look fine to me. Oh, I though that was me... Anyway, within the issues with this camera is the fact that it needs to be "calibrated", supposedly for avoiding the quadrant artifacts: differences in exposure between quadrants; differences in shadows between quadrants; mirroring, wich is a "ghost" of a light in the opposite quadrant (this is maybe a different problem). When it is working this camera have an amazing look but as I said before this solution creates new problems. Firmware upgrades have addressed the issues though, but I do not know in what extent. The smear artifact cannot be eliminated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Mantaras Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Oh, I though that was me... Anyway, within the issues with this camera is the fact that it needs to be "calibrated", supposedly for avoiding the quadrant artifacts: differences in exposure between quadrants; differences in shadows between quadrants; mirroring, wich is a "ghost" of a light in the opposite quadrant (this is maybe a different problem). When it is working this camera have an amazing look but as I said before this solution creates new problems. Firmware upgrades have addressed the issues though, but I do not know in what extent. The smear artifact cannot be eliminated. Yeah, sorry, I checked in a hurry and missed it. I was talking about you. I corrected it now. So then I guess there are several things to get fixed before the camera can be good enough... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soupkitchen Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 A just shot a clip with an Ikonoskop and tested a BMC. One seems to be a camera designed by and aimed at professionals that know how to shoot and expose and the other is a first take engineering exercise that has a great image with room to save you if you over expose. I'd be interested to know what build of resolve you were using, and what ikonoskop fw as the last resolve update really corrected the magenta issue. (which is a raw setting issue rather than something in the camera). I can't post the clip for copyright reasons (I will when I can) but I was shooting into the light for the whole day and there were no issues with one quadrant smearing more than the others or being able to pick out the join. That video above is also 10 months old which, as we all know is like 5 years in digital. I'd be interested to know if the reason I didn't have any problems is a building refinement or firmware refinement. As a production camera, the ikonoskop wins hands down compared to the BMC. The A-Cam has been designed by people who shoot handheld and it feels that way. The DR is absolutely fine for any DP worth their salt and the way everything you need to access while shooting is right at your fingertips is fantastic. Add to that the IMS mount, which is so incredibly practical and obvious I can't get over that no-one has done it sooner. I w The BMC though, from the way the SSD flops around inside its recess to the odd menu choices and body design, much like DSLRs, it is a camera that makes decent images in spite of itself ;) Pretty much the minute I picked one up I knew I had made the right decision cancelling my order* Anyway they are both pretty incredible for the price but as soon as you pick either one up, you understand why they cost what they cost AND why one is more expensive. (cos it's so much nicer) *disclaimer: I ordered a BMC pretty much on day one. I swapped over to the MFT mount on day one of that. I had already bought a cage, batteries, mounts and lenses for it and it was a sad day when I cancelled my order. In case you think I'm just a hater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soupkitchen Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 So then I guess there are several things to get fixed before the camera can be good enough... the A-cam is plenty good enough right now. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Vogel Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Would just like to clarify one thing about the IR contamination mentioned in the article: IR contamination is primarily noticeable with some synthetic, black materials, showing them as a muddy, dark brown instead of pure black. It can also affect overall image contrast, which is harder to discern. But with a camera like the A-Cam dII, which is already intended to have a flatter look, you'd want to combat this issue as well. Fortunately IR contamination can easily be dealt with through an additional filter such as Schnieder Optics True-Cut IR filters. There's also ND filters with built-in IR cut from others, but you risk accidentally stacking them, which is also a bad thing. So I stick with the single, dedicated one. Just wanted to clarify... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMaximus Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 The 12bit raw Cinema DNG for some reason did not utilise the full 1080p frame in Resolve – as you can see in the sample shots it has a black border. I really have no idea what is going on there! I've talked to a guy working with Ikonoskop, he told me that it's resolution is somewhat bigger than FullHD, so you can crop. That could be the reason for black borders. Right, 1966 x 1092 as stated here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.