Cesar Rubio

Hi John: For outside work (in a sunny day) this might work, but using 1/300th for interior work is most of the time not possible with current HD sensors. I prefer 30 fps over 24 fps for 3-D stereo work. 60 fps indeed look very much like "soup operas" , but is a necessity with sports....BTW 60p loos better than 60i. Unfortunately, Hollywood dictates the "standards" for 2-D and 3-D movies, at this time 24 and 48 are the norm. (DCI) If we shoot let's say at 1080/24 fps, then a 720/60 fps conversion is easier (just like 24p to 60i) and also it almost carries the same bandwidth for TV broadcasting and a possible future Blu-ray distribution. That way you cover "your bases" of a possible cinema (2-D or 3-D) and a "home viewing" distribution. Thanks, Cesar Rubio. Cambridge Wisconsin, USA. http://www.davidrubio3d.com/

In this review about the F35 they mention a 800% dynamic range and "quieter blacks"..... http://www.if.com.au/2008/08/14/article/So...WVNBZGWVRD.html If I only had $250K for a camera....(I am not sure the exact price, but it could be in the 150-250K range) The CG-1380c in the other hand only cost around $3K....for me is a not brainier decision. ;) CR.

I think that the F35 is even better for the super 35mm sized sensor: http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-F35/ It only has 1080p resolution so the pixels must be "enormous"....probably something like 15 microns. The Pike F-210c or Prosilica GE-1900c cameras have a Kodak 1" CCD, and the individual pixel's size is 7.4 microns. Based in that calculation, I am am assuming the F35's pixel size. I prefer that, larger pixels that can collect light and dynamic range better, than more resolution like 4K which packs more smaller pixels in the same sensor area. Besides the pixels size, I also prefer Uncompressed (RGB or Raw) recordings over any type of compression. The Prosilica GC-1380 or Pike F-145c cameras, have the Sony 2/3" CCD and offer only 720p resolution... But the pixels size is 6.45 microns...much better than most prosumer cameras in the market! Cesar Rubio. Cambridge Wisconsin, USA. http://www.davidrubio3d.com/

The bathroom self taken image was recorded with Cineform Raw, and they look softer and with less contrast than the Uncompressed Raw images. Thanks, Cesar Rubio. Cambridge Wisconsin, USA. http://www.davidrubio3d.com/

Jim: Yes in fact I have a Macbook pro (15.5" past generation) with a rugged laptop case (it has shoulder mount straps like this picture below) running XP (you can have both in boothcamp) with one 80GB Intel SSD...you can have more capacity if you want. http://dr-3dcameraco.com/D&A-R1/BMP/GC...12-bathroom.bmp Streampix 4 (recording software) can de-bayer to QT files when de-bayering to Uncompressed RGB (new feature!). Also besides the Uncompressed Raw workflow, we can use Cineform Raw at the time of recording where they also support QT video files. But with Uncompressed Raw you will get the most clean video possible with the CCD sensor. Thanks, Cesar Rubio. Cambridge Wisconsin, USA. http://www.davidrubio3d.com/

I would recommend you any HD camera that can shoot Uncompressed RGB or Raw. Here you can see our custom made camera images: (720/24p) http://www.davidrubio3d.com/view_topic.php...mp;forum_id=112 This is the camera that they were shot with, it has an excellent sensitivity Sony 2/3" CCD sensor: http://dr-3dcameraco.com/jpegs/D&A-R1-...lete_system.jpg More info about the camera here: http://www.davidrubio3d.com/view_topic.php...amp;forum_id=90 Thanks, Cesar Rubio.

.....Unless is a 120Hz LCD monitor. ;) Soon I will post a 120 fps 720p video here and on our forum David. Thanks, Cesar Rubio. Cambridge Wisconsin, USA. http://www.davidrubio3d.com/

David: You could try two Sumix 12A2c cameras ($5K for both), plus you will have spare money for the PC (or laptops) and software needed to record stereo in perfect sync with the cameras. Here you can see some images of the camera: (they can do up to 1080/60p and 720/120p for slow motion) http://www.davidrubio3d.com/view_topic.php...mp;forum_id=116 Thanks, Cesar Rubio. Cambridge Wisconsin, USA. http://www.davidrubio3d.com/

David: Probably you are right in this one. Norpix and Cineform are working correcting the Log recording because now it looks the same as the Gamma one. When its done I will post a new image recorded in Log. Thanks, Cesar Rubio.

That's why I hear. I really don't have any experience with film. So you might be right. CR.

Not? What? Be specific please. CR.

David: I can record in Log, Gamma or linear with StreamPix using Cineform Raw with my Pike F-210c camera, and I have not seen what you are saying. CR.

Walter: I've worked with other CMOS sensor cameras and all of them deliver unsaturated images out of the camera. CCD based cameras offer better color rendition than CMOS out of the bat. If you Color Correct (CC) CCD images, they look even better. The Red camera produces good images too, but they have to be heavily CC in post to deliver usable images. Not with CCD's, you could use the images with out any CC if needed or wanted. The same for film, it has to be heavily CC to get usable images....that is why I prefer CCD's over both film and CMOS. CR.

Charles: You did not answered me on the other thread. But that's ok, the HVX footage (CCD's), is better saturated than the Red camera (CMOS). I know that film is still better saturated and has better dynamic range than both CCD's and CMOS ...but shooting digital has other advantages that film lacks. Anyways thanks for the tests, they say more than all the discussions of Red vs...(anything). Cesar Rubio.

John and Freya: Hopefully you are right and that can be achievable (I need to see it first to believe that it can be done). In any way, with 720/60p, 3-D TV broadcasting is doable and ready for main stream anyhow. Are you still around Charles? Or it is "strike two" for my offering of a test shoot-out with my Pike F-210c cameras? Silence is the same as a negative.... Thanks, Cesar Rubio.

John: I understand what you are saying, the problem is that every of our eyes needs to see a full image at a time. When the right image is displayed our left eye doest' see a thing, and vice-versa, when the left image is displayed the right eye is "blind". All of this happens so fast that we are not aware of this fact. The brain "fuses" the 2 images to make "one" out of it. With the compression system that you are describing (If I am understanding it correctly), one eye would only see part of one image (the one that is different from the other correct?). CR.

I forgot to mention that a 720/60p bandwidth (like Fox has chosen for digital broadcast), is perfect to send two 720/30 or 720/24 streams for 3-D viewing. CR.

This article describes the differences of 720p vs 1080i in TV transmissions clearly: http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/default.htm Charles: These tests show more than a thousand words. Have you make tests of film vs CCD sensor cameras? CCD have better saturation off the bat than CMOS, please see these 2 extracted frames from a 1" CCD Kodak sensor video recordings at 24 fps: (800x1920 pxs) http://dr-3dcameraco.com/images/David-Red_Hat.tif http://dr-3dcameraco.com/Tiffs/Corona_High_f-1.2.tif I did not applied any post processing at all. The video images came straight out from the camera like that. I just extracted the frames to Tiff's. The videos were recorded with a Pike F-210c camera using the CineForm Raw codec. There are still some "bugs" that need to be worked out to get the best quality from the camera using CineForm Raw. Probably in a month or less they will be finished. It would be interesting to make a 35mm film vc CCD comparison don't you think? We could do also a totally Raw uncompressed test with the camera. So we could have 35mm film (also 16mm film if somebody provides a camera), CCD uncompressed Raw and CCD CineForm Raw of the same images and settings. I could provide one of my Pike F-210c cameras for the testings, and even probably go there to LA do it my-self...or you could come to WI. We can arrange something. I offered a similar challenge to a one RED camera owner here in Milwaukee, but he refused (or ignored my offer, which is the same). I already know that film will beat the CCD in dynamic range and saturation....but probably not as much as in the CMOS sensor test (we have to see this first to be sure, hence the testing). But then we could do a short 3-D movie test with 2 film cameras and my 3-D MVC (Machine Vision Cameras) system. I can assure you that since my MVC 3-D system is so small and the sync of both cameras is perfect all the time, you might consider "giving up" film in favor of digital acquisition..at least for 3-D. What do you think? Thanks, Cesar Rubio.

John: This is the first time that I heard such a thing, in theory sounds great, but in real life and real 3-D, you need 2 totally different streams (Left & Right) to get a good 3-D effect. I think that next 3-D TV generation will be 720p. 3-D digital Cinema will be dominated in most of the world by 1080p and 2K. 4K is more like IMAX venues...very limited...unless you down-convert to 2K or 1080p. I prefer to shoot in the latest in the first place and save me the headaches associated with the 4K workflow. Besides that, 4K cameras requires at least 35mm size sensors, and that size is not well suited to get a good DOF. In 3-D we want everything in focus...the opposite of the current sought out of focus backgrounds in flat photography. CR.

I totally agree with this statement. I think that instead of more resolution, TV as well as Cinema will go for 3-D in the future. And I also think that 720p will be the norm for 3D-TV broadcasts. Sending 2 streams of 720p is comparable in size to 1 stream of 1080p. I don't really think that anaglyph 3-D transmissions in TV will be the future. Probably it will be something like this system: http://edimensional.com/product_info.php?c...products_id=127 Or a glassless 3-D monitor system viewing, which in any case requires double the bandwidth of a single stream. I receive my TV signal over "Dish" Network, and I hate the poor quality so much because of the already heavily compression...and its SD resolution! And like Scott says, for "small" TV viewing who needs 4K? Even for 3-D Cinema, 1080p or 2K is enough. A 35mm Cinema film frame has a comparable resolution of a 1080p or 2K digital camera. 4K is more like 65mm like some have already suggested. Thanks, Cesar Rubio.

I highly doubt it. Just see to what has happen to the same initiative targeting the digital still photography market. Manufacturers are interested only in their workflows and company agenda. They don't want to settle their differences (just like HD-DVD and BR). They don't like to be followers and are more interested in "proprietary" everything to try to "protect" their respective market.... The Adobe CinemaDNG initiative in a perfect and unite world would be excellent...but then Adobe would be probably been sued for anti-trust laws or competition laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust With this initiative, Adobe wants just to secure its position in the market...like ALL companies want. Cesar Rubio.

Honestly this words coming from the heart makes more good, than all the discussions that Jim can engage in with no "winners" in any side. I respect when a man speaks from the heart and of love. Jim was already rich when he started the Red camera project. And I believe in his words, because he has always been passionate with photography and video. He already said that his camera is not perfect, but which one is perfect anyways? I think that Jim deserves our respect for what he's done already. If all of us instead of endlessly criticizing any product, would start making one new (like Jim did), or improve an already one made, this world would be different. One thing is constructive criticism to improve something, and other much different hate towards somebody or something. I really wish the best success to anyone that starts any project out of love and passion for something that he really LOVES. Keep up the good work Jim. What you've done, nobody will take from you ever. It will echo in eternity! Cesar Rubio.

It's funny, Its the first time that I actually see a statement like this one! I agree totally with it. Everybody wants to believe (especially the 4K fanatics), that 4k has the resolution of 35mm film (they want you to overlook all the great 1080p cameras out there). But honestly, 1080p has the resolution of a 35mm (Cinema) film frame. I made some test based in visual comparisons of 35mm film vs. digital origination and the results says it all! I don't care what a (paid BTW) geek has to say about this tests being wrong with a microscope, what it counts its the visual experience. Cinema is about natural visual results, NOT lab (patronized) results that side to the 4K cameras. You can see the details here: http://www.davidrubio3d.com/view_topic.php...amp;forum_id=78 I prefer 1080p for the workflow, and if the sensor is a CCD the better. I don't like the Rolling shutter problems of CMOS (any, not just the 4K ones). Thanks, Cesar Rubio.

Hi all: Here you can see my first HD-3D video: http://www.davidrubio3d.com/view_topic.php...amp;forum_id=60 Any comments will be appreciated. Thanks, Cesar Rubio.

Phil: Do you know if that applies to CMOS as well? Thanks, Cesar Rubio. Cambridge Wisconsin, USA. http://www.davidrubio3d.com/