The DRAKE HD camera

[Jon Allen]

Whether what they're doing makes sense or not, this was still not my point.

The drake is being sold as a SYSTEM, not as a COMPONENT. Which is why I said it more resembles a Z1U as far as a marketing ploy goes. You get everything, not just the camera body.

[Michael Maier]

Whether what they're doing makes sense or not, this was still not my point.

The drake is being sold as a SYSTEM, not as a COMPONENT. Which is why I said it more resembles a Z1U as far as a marketing ploy goes. You get everything, not just the camera body.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But don't you think it's silly to make customers buy lens accessories(rods, focus, mattebox) when they don't even sell a lens with it?

[Jon Allen]

But don't you think it's silly to make customers buy lens accessories(rods, focus, mattebox) when they don't even sell a lens with it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only justification I can give for that is when you're shooting, you usually need one set of rods, one mattebox, one focus puller per camera. Lenses though, are quite a different story, you might have 10+ sitting around for each rig.

I think the idea was that you're not going to want to strip down your other camera just to get the mattebox, yet it's perfectly feasable to exchange a lens once in a while.

Other than that, I have no clue. Your guess is as good as mine.

[Michael Maier]

The only justification I can give for that is when you're shooting, you usually need one set of rods, one mattebox, one focus puller per camera. Lenses though, are quite a different story, you might have 10+ sitting around for each rig.

I think the idea was that you're not going to want to strip down your other camera just to get the mattebox, yet it's perfectly feasable to exchange a lens once in a while.

Other than that, I have no clue. Your guess is as good as mine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, chances are you will not shoot with both cameras at the same time (since they will be different formats) so why not using the accessories?

 

I still think it's just so they can sell it for more.

I still think it's too much for a homemade camera with uncertain tech support and warranty. Also, let's not forget it's 720p 8 bit. Not 1080p or anything. Also the more complex post production path makes it all not all that worth. Might as well shoot super16.

Edited April 27, 2005 by Michael Maier

[Hagen]

Well just some brief notes...

 

Michael: why are you fighting against this Drake camera?

 

I am nearly graduated media technology student and I start cinematography studies at Filmakademie Ludwigsburg in South Germany. So far to my technical background and I just want to note some things to think about:

 

DVCPro HD compresses at least 8,29:1 and there is 3:1:1 color sampling as HD CAM does... means you loose color information for post and keying (ask any online effect operator about 4:2:2 or 3:1:1...).

It is important to see whats on the tape!

 

Well and DOF is the biggest thing! I shoot one short (www.derverdacht.de) with Pro35Digital lens adapter and Digibeta (www.pstechnik.de). I used this adapter mainly to mount 35mm lenses to get focus pulls like 35mm film camera shooting...

 

One chip is no big deal. I am not sure but I think they use Bayer pattern sensor as ARRI D20 does and there is no disadvantage (just much electronics afterwards...). With 3CCD prism you never get 35mm recording sensor size because the sensors are too far away from the lens then.

 

And last but not least: I would never buy a camera. Rent the Drake if possible and I have to congratulate these German fellows! ARRI needs a whole R&D dep. to develop this camera and these guys just did it home made with very good results! (as I never had contact to these guys).

As cinematographer you have to work anyways with so much different cameras and you should be able to operate them. As far as I remember I had DVCPro HD, HD CAM, Digibeta, ARRI SRIII & II ....... and I am just cinematography student and it will be more for sure!

 

Well, we should keep the forum on technical base and not on rumors... ;)

[Michael Maier]

Well, first, I'm not really fighting it. I'm just saying it cost too much for what it is and specially for not being a proved product from a proved company. 20k sounds a lot of money to dump on the uncertain.

Second, the Drake is not and will never be as good as the Arri D20. If you think so, you are fooling yourself. Many have reported seeing a pattern in the Drake's image. Also the Drake is only 720p and 8bit. The D20 will be way better. Although way more expensive too. So comparing them is not really right. The D20 is comparable to the Viper, which the Drake isn't.

Also, maybe, the fact that Arri, a company with years of experience in image aquisition and lots of money for R&D is not in a hurry to release their product should tell you something. They have a reputation and don't want to throw a product in the market which is not ready. They don't want you to beta test it. Which is exactly what you will do buying a Drake now. If Arri can't do it that fast, neither can a group of individuals with no industry back up. They are rushing it in too soon, because they probably have no more money left for R&D and need to sell some cameras to invest more money and continue R&D. Don't think they are just too good and beat Arri. They did not.

The Drake have the same DOF as a Digibeta by the way. Last time I heard it had a 2/3" sensor just like a Digibeta. For 35mm DOF, you also need the Pro35 adapter.

So, while I completely understand your enthusiasm for your countryman, thinking they are better than Arri, because they are rushing a half backed, homemade camera, made out sub-par parts to the market is really short sighted in my opinion.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> The D20 will be way better

 

Just out of interest - and I'm not implying you're wrong - how do you know that?

 

Phil

[Michael Maier]

Hi,

 

> The D20 will be way better

 

Just out of interest - and I'm not implying you're wrong - how do you know that?

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Specs and ARRI behind it as a bonus ;)

[Jason Rodriguez]

After seeing the Arri D20 in person with their new footage on display in the booth at NAB, I too can vouch that the D20 is much better-looking than anything I've seen so-far from the Drake.

 

Of course, you now also have the option of mobility with the D20 via the Venom as well (from Thomson/GV).

[David Frank]

After seeing the Arri D20 in person with their new footage on display in the booth at NAB, I too can vouch that the D20 is much better-looking than anything I've seen so-far from the Drake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very true. That footage at the Arri booth was simply stunning. It's just not a fair comparison. You get what you pay for.

[Hagen]

Okay Michael your are totally right with the 2/3" CMOS Sensor.

http://www.drachenfeder.com/aktuelles/drake_tech.htm

 

The thing is it seems that we talk about different topics. I was at ARRI D20 test shootings early this year in Germany where the D20 still had dual HD-SDI cable interface. I talked to the chief engineer and chief electronic mechanic and saw the shot material with high contrast shoots. They compared with 35mm shoots.

 

It is totally right that ARRI should not destroy their reputation and they wont. The images were incredible good.

 

I think the Drake won't take the market for the ARRI while ARRI has the market already (at least in Germany). And by the way: they are German too, so no patriote discussion required...

 

Anyway what I wanted to say is that the Drake is an low level alternative (especially for independents may be) and should be rented always (see my thread above). And yes it is a little bit hobby filmmaking but why not?

 

Why do you creat such a mystery if they are no competitors against ARRI?

I think there is no doubt that ARRI is the professional one. But there is still the Drake camera...

 

Just in the end to note: 35mm film window sensor is out of discussion any 2/3" is not really digital cinema...

[Michael Maier]

Very true. That footage at the Arri booth was simply stunning. It's just not a fair comparison. You get what you pay for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly. As I said, it's just not right comparing a high end ARRI to a homemade camera :)

[Mike Brennan]

Okay Michael your are totally right with the 2/3" CMOS Sensor.

http://www.drachenfeder.com/aktuelles/drake_tech.htm

 

 

Just in the end to note: 35mm film window sensor is out of discussion any 2/3" is not really digital cinema...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You mean single chip 2/3 inch? 3 chip (any size digital will always outperform single chip bayer of same size.)

 

2/3 inch 3 ccd is already established as worthy for digital cinema.

 

Mike Brennan

[David Mullen ASC]

Why would a 2/3" sensor not quality as "digital cinema"? Does that mean the smaller Super-16 frame also does not quality?

[Stephen Williams]

Why would a 2/3" sensor not quality as "digital cinema"? Does that mean the smaller Super-16 frame also does not quality?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

David,

 

Super 16 frame is larger than 2/3" sensor.

 

Figures from Panavision

 

16 x 9 .3775 X .2123 Digital CCD Area

 

16 x 9 (2.40:1) .3775 X .1579 Digital CCD Extended Area for Anamorphic

 

.486 X .295 Super 16mm Camera Aperture

 

Cheers,

 

Stephen

[Guest rndfilms]

How did you arrive at the figure of $5,000 to build this camera?

 

 

 

That's really not the point here.  Why is it a system if you have to buy accessories with it? Accessories mean, they are optional. You don't need a mattebox to use Darke, you don't need a follow focus, you don't need rods, all you need is the camera, viewfinder and HDDs. The funny thing is that they obrigate you to buy the accessories, which should be optional, but don't even include a lens I tell you why they want to sell it with the accessories only. It's because it's a way to jack the price up. Yep. because that camera can't cost more than 5,000 to build and that's already a lot. So they throw in 2000 in accessories to make it look like you are getting more.  A real system would be camera, viewfinder, HDDs and lens. Accessories are just that, accessories. They are not needed to use a system. They just add to it.

It's very funny though that they want to make you buy lens accessories, but don't seel a lens with it. Hilarious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mike Brennan]

The Drake have the same DOF as a Digibeta by the way. Last time I heard it had a 2/3" sensor just like a Digibeta. For 35mm DOF, you also need the Pro35 adapter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes it will have same depth of field as 3 chip digibetas. However it will be able to use slightly faster lenses as there is no prism to limit effective aperture.

 

A T1.5 HD primes costs around $15k+ but a used T1.6 Switar is available at Chambless Cine for $2k.

 

I have a 180mm T1.3 zoomar that would be fun!

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Guest rndfilms]

Well, it looks like I may be taking delivery on one of these pretty soon....and Marc tells me that they are upgrading to 12-bit as I write. The real point of all this is that it will be available now, rather than later. I hope to be part of the QC process on this camera, I don't foresee any problems editing the footage generated thereby, and I really really like paying half of what Jeff "my 'plaint is that it's another Moller Skycar" Kreines wants for his vaporware. I only wish that I had the hardware expertise of Michael Maier, so I could whip one up out of stone knives and bearskins.

[Michael Maier]

All the drake is is an industrial camera head wich records to a HDD. You can surely buy all the components for about 5k, specially that it doesn't come with a lens. What you are paying for is their development and the software they wrote, which if you know what you are doing, it's free of charge :)

Edited June 10, 2005 by Michael Maier

[Guest rndfilms]

All the drake is is an industrial camera head wich records to a HDD. You can surely buy all the components for about 5k, specially that it doesn't come with a lens. What you are paying for is their development and the software they wrote, which if you know what you are doing, it's free of charge :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Begging the question "why haven't you done so yourself", US prices for 2/3" cmos sensors are hovering around $2k-3k. Machine work for this piece is probably at least $4500. That leaves logic, software, and drives; what do you think those are worth?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

If you really want to do something like this, there's an outfit called Redlake who make (or is it distribute) a variety of machine vision cameras, some of which have promising specs for digital cinematography (1920x1080, 30fps, colour, C mount). I have no idea how well they line up in other areas, particularly dynamic range as they're small-chip, but there's a PCI board available for the standard Cameralink interface and you would the be only a fairly modest amount of software engineering (and a lot less modest RAID) away from a recorder.

 

Phil

[Guest rndfilms]

In the next few days I'll post some clips I shot with a variety of IIDC-type cameras, including the Redlake ES2001. Check this:

 

http://www.tele.ucl.ac.be/PEOPLE/DOUXCHAMP...ee1394/cameras/

The IEEE1394 Digital Camera List

 

I reaaaallllly liked the AVT Dolphin F-201 with a 3-inch Bell & Howell lens...

 

 

 

 

These are all lacking in some way as regards cinematic images, but all usable thanks to Quicktime Pro (so I don't have to build a scaler/frame rate converter by hand).

Hi,

 

If you really want to do something like this, there's an outfit called Redlake who make (or is it distribute) a variety of machine vision cameras, some of which have promising specs for digital cinematography (1920x1080, 30fps, colour, C mount). I have no idea how well they line up in other areas, particularly dynamic range as they're small-chip, but there's a PCI board available for the standard Cameralink interface and you would the be only a fairly modest amount of software engineering (and a lot less modest RAID) away from a recorder.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm not sure I'd be so interested in the 1394 cameras. OK, you can plug them straight into a PC, but the bus simply isn't fast enough for HD work.

 

This product:

 

http://www.ioindustries.com/vs.htm

 

...appears to offer recording of cameralink devices, so it could be that everything you'd need is available off the shelf, give or take a bit of integration work.

 

Phil

[Michael Maier]

Begging the question "why haven't you done so yourself", US prices for 2/3" cmos sensors are hovering around $2k-3k.  Machine work for this piece is probably at least $4500.  That leaves logic, software, and drives; what do you think those are worth?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The camera head the drake is based on cost about 1,500. It's a IBIS sensor based industrial camera with a proprietary debayer. Machine to make a aluminium box costing 4,500? Where are you getting your prices?

[Guest rndfilms]

Let's go 'round and 'round, shall we?

 

The camera head the drake is based on cost about 1,500. It's a IBIS sensor based industrial camera  with a proprietary debayer. Machine to make a aluminium box costing 4,500? Where are you getting your prices?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>