Jump to content


Photo

RIP the DSLR! All hail USB3 Camera!


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Karel Bata

Karel Bata
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 487 posts
  • Director
  • London - a rather posh bit

Posted 05 September 2010 - 05:16 AM

Now this is really interesting! Sony prototypes a USB3 camera that records HD 1080P60 direct to hard drive: http://bit.ly/USB3Camera

So what will we see in a year? HD USB3 cameras recording RAW video direct to some iPad clone? Still a way to go, and I don't see this as competition for the RED (not just yet anyhows) but this is surely the writing on the wall for the DSLR.

And it's also excellent news for 3D folk! You can put two of these together with the proper i/o of 2.5" (something you can't do with DSLRs). In fact it looks like you can get them even closer. In fact, you can put them at any distance you want! And goodbye to those cumbersome mirror rigs! B)

Posted Image

From their site:

"We have no plans to release this particular prototype camera as a product. We built it solely as a technology demonstration to showcase the benefits of SuperSpeed USB (USB 3.0). We have no plans to make it available for sale.

"USB 3.0 will be a key digital interface in the imaging and vision industries in the years to come. By introducing the world's first USB 3.0 camera, we are demonstrating that Point Grey is at the forefront of innovation in imaging (which just happens to be our corporate tag line) and that we are committed to the advancement of USB 3.0 technology. We also hope to raise awareness within the computer and machine vision industries of the performance benefits of SuperSpeed USB."



Interesting to see how quickly other manufacturers get in on this.

Edited by Karel Bata, 05 September 2010 - 05:18 AM.

  • 0

#2 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 05 September 2010 - 11:09 AM

Now this is really interesting! Sony prototypes a USB3 camera that records HD 1080P60 direct to hard drive: http://bit.ly/USB3Camera

So what will we see in a year? HD USB3 cameras recording RAW video direct to some iPad clone? Still a way to go, and I don't see this as competition for the RED (not just yet anyhows) but this is surely the writing on the wall for the DSLR.

And it's also excellent news for 3D folk! You can put two of these together with the proper i/o of 2.5" (something you can't do with DSLRs). In fact it looks like you can get them even closer. In fact, you can put them at any distance you want! And goodbye to those cumbersome mirror rigs! B)

Posted Image

From their site:

"We have no plans to release this particular prototype camera as a product. We built it solely as a technology demonstration to showcase the benefits of SuperSpeed USB (USB 3.0). We have no plans to make it available for sale.

"USB 3.0 will be a key digital interface in the imaging and vision industries in the years to come. By introducing the world's first USB 3.0 camera, we are demonstrating that Point Grey is at the forefront of innovation in imaging (which just happens to be our corporate tag line) and that we are committed to the advancement of USB 3.0 technology. We also hope to raise awareness within the computer and machine vision industries of the performance benefits of SuperSpeed USB."



Interesting to see how quickly other manufacturers get in on this.


This crap is getting completely out of hand.

Everyday, it's a new handheld, semi-professional gadget for professionals that photographs sharper detail than ever before. This emphasis on pristine, high-definition images is simply a reflection of society's desire for complete and total perfection, no matter how superficial it may be.

Think about it...during the 60s and 70s everyone was perfectly content to see grain and artifacts on the screen. It was a film. It was expected. Now it's a big faux pas.

Sorry, but this is a big sore point with me. And it goes way beyond any kind of film vs. digital argument.

Edited by Bill DiPietra, 05 September 2010 - 11:11 AM.

  • 0

#3 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 05 September 2010 - 11:12 AM

I won't be satisfied until there is a camera so small that it can mount on my glasses, functions without the need for lighting and had a stabilizer, so on a shoot, my only job will be having to stare at the scene!
  • 0

#4 Damien Andre

Damien Andre
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Student
  • New Joisey

Posted 05 September 2010 - 01:48 PM

This crap is getting completely out of hand.

Everyday, it's a new handheld, semi-professional gadget for professionals that photographs sharper detail than ever before. This emphasis on pristine, high-definition images is simply a reflection of society's desire for complete and total perfection, no matter how superficial it may be.

Think about it...during the 60s and 70s everyone was perfectly content to see grain and artifacts on the screen. It was a film. It was expected. Now it's a big faux pas.

Sorry, but this is a big sore point with me. And it goes way beyond any kind of film vs. digital argument.

what are you talking about? this is more about the digital interface. Besides the ability to capture RAW, the video specs arent even that "perfect" anyway.

Edited by Damien Andre, 05 September 2010 - 01:50 PM.

  • 0

#5 Karel Bata

Karel Bata
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 487 posts
  • Director
  • London - a rather posh bit

Posted 05 September 2010 - 03:58 PM

Yes, entirely about the digital interface. As Point Grey says "USB 3.0 will be a key digital interface in the imaging and vision industries in the years to come." The camera itself is not for sale and is just a proof of concept. What this interface will mean is no more annoying CF2 cards (or whatever) which must surely be a plus.
  • 0

#6 Shaan Aslam

Shaan Aslam
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Student

Posted 05 September 2010 - 07:43 PM

I won't be satisfied until there is a camera so small that it can mount on my glasses, functions without the need for lighting and had a stabilizer, so on a shoot, my only job will be having to stare at the scene!


I think you've got something there!
  • 0

#7 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1596 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 05 September 2010 - 08:51 PM

I won't be satisfied until there is a camera so small that it can mount on my glasses, functions without the need for lighting and had a stabilizer, so on a shoot, my only job will be having to stare at the scene!


Recently here in Melbourne Canadian filmmaker Rob Spence premiered footage taken with a camera fitted inside his prosthetic eye!

http://www.abc.net.a.../25/2993426.htm

Welcome to the future. At present it's only a medical type camera, like those used in colonoscopies, but wait til the nano Red comes along...

Another camera in his other eye and you'd have a 3d system.. though he might have trouble wandering around the set.

Not sure how his girlfriend feels about it.
  • 0

#8 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 September 2010 - 10:11 PM

Aside from some interesting weirdo stuff that takes advantage of the nature of pixels and data itself ... (which usually happens offline, so no need for the speed)

It's still film for me please
  • 0

#9 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 05 September 2010 - 10:20 PM

Recently here in Melbourne Canadian filmmaker Rob Spence premiered footage taken with a camera fitted inside his prosthetic eye!

http://www.abc.net.a.../25/2993426.htm

Welcome to the future. At present it's only a medical type camera, like those used in colonoscopies, but wait til the nano Red comes along...

Another camera in his other eye and you'd have a 3d system.. though he might have trouble wandering around the set.

Not sure how his girlfriend feels about it.


Oh good lord, next thing you know we'll be LITERALLY carving our eyes out to get ahead and stay on the cutting edge!
  • 0

#10 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 September 2010 - 06:59 AM

I won't be satisfied until there is a camera so small that it can mount on my glasses, functions without the need for lighting and had a stabilizer, so on a shoot, my only job will be having to stare at the scene!


Thought being able to tap into your brain as you play the movie would be even better, cut out all that typing and other stuff.
  • 0

#11 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 06 September 2010 - 10:04 AM

Thought being able to tap into your brain as you play the movie would be even better, cut out all that typing and other stuff.


DPs of the future will exist in a semi-drugged state, floating in a pool and having their visions recorded, ala "Minority Report."
  • 0

#12 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 06 September 2010 - 07:09 PM

what are you talking about? this is more about the digital interface. Besides the ability to capture RAW, the video specs arent even that "perfect" anyway.


The point is you have to look at the bigger picture (no pun intended...actually, maybe it is.) Ask yourself WHY everyone demands a high-definition image. WHY does Kodak's main advertising campaign focus primarily on film stocks with little-to-no grain? WHY is there such a constant push to make digital better and better so that the image looks PERFECT? And no, the final answer is not simply "image quality."

Look at the majority of advertising campaigns (billboards, TV commercials, etc.) you have out there as well as the TV shows. How often do you see any imperfections on the faces of the models on the billboards? And when you have actors on a show like Lost who, on their worst day, look like they just walked out of a modeling competition, that says it all.

Perhaps this isn't the forum for this kind of socio-technological discussion. I'm just pointing out that there are larger social issues (which, in this case, I happen to disagree with) that these innovations are born out of.

Sorry for the rant.
  • 0

#13 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 September 2010 - 02:25 AM

DPs of the future will exist in a semi-drugged state, floating in a pool and having their visions recorded, ala "Minority Report."


I thought some directors are already in that state, although their visions seem to have been lost somewhere
  • 0

#14 Ram Shani

Ram Shani
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • isreal

Posted 07 September 2010 - 02:58 AM

so one thing will never change

MOVIE MAKERS WILL STILL NEED VISION:)

LIKE THE OLED SAYING

"in order to see you don't need eyes you need vision"
  • 0

#15 Karel Bata

Karel Bata
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 487 posts
  • Director
  • London - a rather posh bit

Posted 07 September 2010 - 05:04 AM

Well much as I agree with many of the sentiments expressed here (and the title of the thread is a sarcastic dig at the DSLR fanbois (even if I sloppily left out the word 'the' :huh: ) ) it's not what the thread's about, which is: how pretty soon we'll be able to record direct to some kind of portable computer, thus avoiding all those stupid cards, and doing away with the silly job of data wrangling, which must surely be good news...

I come from a film background, and would be happy if we'd just stuck with that, but it's pretty clear we're not going to. However, once they get digital imaging right (that's 'right', not bigger nor sharper) I'm all for it. But if posting about any advance in digital technology just leads to a series of silly rants... :(
.

p.s. of course you need eyes! :lol:

Edited by Karel Bata, 07 September 2010 - 05:05 AM.

  • 0

#16 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 04:18 PM

In the end, it's a matter of HOW GOOD THE IMAGE ACTUALLLY LOOKS (or more correctly, 'feels').

This bit of quantifying the quality of the device only in terms of its specs, is just an endless masterbatory rat chasing its tail.

It's a marketing ploy. That doesn't mean image quality is irrelevant, but quoting specs, as if that's the end-all of what you're actually going to end up with as far as quality of your footage is absurd.
It's a way to get a whole bunch of people chucking the gear they bought 2 years ago and buying all new stuff, and keep doing it over and over and over again.

My proof is, all you people who were arguing 3 years ago that it didn't matter if you shot on film or MiniDV wouldn't be caught dead shooting MiniDV anymore.
  • 0


Glidecam

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Opal

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam