Slashdot Mirror
Apertus, the Open Source HD Movie Camera
osliving writes "This article takes a tour of the hardware and software behind the innovative Apertus, a real world open source project. Led by Oscar Spierenburg and a team of international developers, the project aims to produce 'an affordable community driven free software and open hardware cinematic HD camera for a professional production environment'."
Oh silly me, I read the summary as "Led by Oscar [winner Steven] Speilburg..."
Is open hardware really that big a problem? It's not like opening a Fab is cheap.
Didn't I read someplace that MPAA, in collusion with camera equipment manufacturers and the camera operators' unions, is looking to place patents on these devices so as to preclude competition?
I never understood all the hate towards open source by trolls here on Slashdot. Like anything, the way the open source community operates has flaws just like any other community....but what about it butthurts people so badly that they have to troll about it?
Living With a Nerd
Last time I checked, .mov was a container, not a CODEC.
A .mov file can use a lot of things. Quicktime 7 gives me PNG, JPEG, JPEG 2000, DV, DVCPro, Apple Pixlet, MPEG-4 and H.264 as video CODEC options. Older Quicktime versions would have offered me older CODECs too.
And what's JP4? Never heard of it. I sure hope they don't mean their camera runs on jet fuel.
In OSS, if everyone can't agree on something, it either stalls or splits projects into forks which isn't always a good thing. Stalling means you can't rely on whatever the group is/was working on, and forks means the workforce of the old and the new forked project has been split too, sometimes leading to the death of the original, the fork or both.
In a company, someone or at least a group usually has the last say in how something should be done so that things can move forward. Like Oracle buying everything left and right and closing doors to projects used world-wide. Oh wait...
Unfortunately, while the camera will have some interesting features and can do some things well, it will be hampered by an interface that only a CS grad student could decipher. Further development on future models will come to a standstill as the developers engage in fierce, unyielding debates about minutia. Eventually the camera will be forked into four different projects, with only one making it to market and carrying the same flaws as the first.
Reading through the article, I'm loving just about everything about this camera, except the most important part of all...the sensor, which is absolutely tiny. Forget about a camera for cinema, with a sensor that size you're going to be struggling to get it not to look like a webcam video. Looking at the company that makes the actual camera element, though, it looks like they also sell a model with a more reasonably sized sensor, but it can only do 5fps. If they really want to pass this thing off as a motion picture camera, they need to find a solution that will give them a big sensor at a respectable frame rate. Hopefully that will be possible in the near future, because the rest of this project looks downright awesome.
I don't get it. The crux of image acquisition is the lens and they don't include one?
I don't see how that contraption could possibly penetrate the production side of entertainment industry. What is the market for this device?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
There was this startup called Red (http://www.red.com/)....
I love how the article uses crappy low-res, heavily compressed flash video to demonstrate the quality of the camera.
I never understood all the hate towards open source by trolls here on Slashdot. Like anything, the way the open source community operates has flaws just like any other community....but what about it butthurts people so badly that they have to troll about it?
The fact that they don't have to participate in it if they don't want to has never stopped the less-enlightened from railing against something and hoping it fails and ceases to exist. It's not good enough for them that they don't have to participate; they cannot rest until no one else may participate either. This is by no means limited to Open Source, software, or computing. It was in fact a huge driving force behind movements like Prohibition.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3407
Canon XF300 / XF305 Camcorder. BBC approved broadcast quality camera. $7000.
SOLD.
This thing is trying to compete with the RED camera system and the 5D Mk. II. As others have said, the sensor is already behind. Everyone doing 2K on the cheap is using the 5D Mk. II as a video camera - it has a bigger, better sensor than anything anywhere in that price bracket, plus Canon's awesome lenses. The next step up is the RED system for 4K, which is just on fire right now because of its revolutionary modularity. This thing is pretty small potatoes compared to either of those two. It might be good for student filmmakers though. A school could buy a batch of them.
Or is this really the Elphel opensource/openhardware camera, and how Apertus hopes to add things around the edges. The camera is Elphel, as is the sensor and the software. The only thing that seems to be community-designed/built is the "rod" packaging, and maybe the battery rig.
The one that intrigued me was Stanford's computer science professor Marc Levoy Camera 2.0 Project.
Um, no. I think very few people here have a beef against the idea of open source. I use some open source software when it suits my needs and works well enough. If it does what you want it to do, why not?
I think the anger is lashing out at the FOSS community. While some are level-headed, some are not and come off like raving zealots. I've never seen tech zealotry on the level of a FOSS fanatic. Even the most obnoxious Apple yuppie fanboy can't hold a candle to the lunatic ravings of the FOSS nuts. It's sad, really, because we get some good stuff out of the FOSS community, but there are just too many asperger's-riddled neckbeards who refuse to budge on the smallest, stupidest things and will sure as hell let you know it.
It's not open source we mock. It's the hardline element of the open source community.
Or it could be that you implied everybody who isn't a fan of open source is less-enlightened and your general bullshit attitude like mac fans. Bitches love to bitch, haters love to hate, and bitches and haters aren't just open or closed source.
A casual perusal of any open forum on the Internet will readily show that zealotry just as intense is plenty rampant. See: Politics, sports, cars.
Pretty much every closed source software is in it to do business. That doesn't mean they always play nice when maximizing profit like lock-in and forced obsolescence, but most of the time they're looking to satisfy the customers because it leads to more sales and being able to take higher prices. The project shapes to meet the demands of the users. Open source on the other hand, for the most part goes in whatever damn direction they feel like, and being a user gets you essentially very little say-so. You want it? Fine, you code it or hire us for $$$ to do so. And if the people behind it lose their motivation, it's unlikely someone will come up with enough cash to change their minds.
Hiring a good developer at market rates is expensive - maybe short term in the financial crisis you can get something good for "cheap" but it's certainly the exception. Just think what your own contract rates would be, and you won't get many hours work on GIMP before you could have bought Photoshop for less. For most people on their own desktop hiring people to code something custom for them personally is completely out of the question. That's the problem, there's not one person willing to pay $100 (that'll get you less than two days at minimum wage, and the contractor still has to cover expenses and social costs) but there's probably 100 people willing to give $1. Except there's no working micropayment system and it turns into a waiting game hoping someone else will pay.
That's the big difference between closed and open source. Open source is free if it already does what you want and ridiculously expensive if it doesn't. With closed source software, you're paying even if you only use features they've had for years. That cash goes into funding development so the costs are spread among more users, not that the first user must pay everything. The first person gets the pleasure of trying to plow the road, everyone else just follows.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Aw. come on, RMS isn't _that_ bad, is he?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
bieber is absolutely right. What makes the Canon 5D Mark II amazing is the large sensor (even larger than 35mm motion picture film), enabling good control of depth of field.
The Mark II only captures 29 seconds of video though. Because of the sensor size, 35mm full-frame, I've thought about getting one. That or a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, but that's more than twice the price of the 5D Mark II.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So...it has the size of a medium format or even large-format camera...but the resolution of a DSLR that is 5 years out of date. Doesn't seem too impressive to me.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The hardline is entirely the point of it for a lot of people. And to me, it makes sense. The defining characteristic of being a vegetarian is not eating meat. The defining characteristic of open source is not being closed. You don't compromise on your most central reason for being, you work to advance it.
A screw-mount lens ain't necessarily the one you want for production. On the other hand, there is some very nice tiny glass they make in c-mount.
This thing sounds like a video Kras. But with so many low-end video options, who needs something like that?
I can't be the only one reading the name Apertus and humming that tune, right?
Or it could be that you implied everybody who isn't a fan of open source is less-enlightened and your general bullshit attitude like mac fans. Bitches love to bitch, haters love to hate, and bitches and haters aren't just open or closed source.
I actually don't think you're trolling so I'll answer this.
There are reasonable people who can decide that something doesn't suit them. They don't also feel a need to make negative posts all about how something is terrible for everyone else merely because it does not meet their personal needs.
As a contrast, there are the less-enlightened. It's not good enough for them that they don't have to use whatever it is that doesn't suit their needs (be that Open Source or anything else). No, they also have to hate the fact that anyone else would use something that doesn't suit their needs. That's what a fanboy is.
I very much enjoy and appreciate Open Source. If asked, I can help someone to better understand both the philosophy and the software to the best of my ability. If it's relevant to a discussion, I might weigh in with my opinions about it. However, I acknowledge that for various reasons, it is not for everyone. The freedom of others to do what they wish with their own property (computers/hardware they own, in this case) is more important to me than any personal admiration of Open Source I may have.
That's why I am not a "fan" in the sense of viewing everything in terms of "my team vs. everyone else". That's a mindless and in my opinion, childish way to look at the world.
So no, I did not imply that everyone who doesn't like Open Source is less enlightened. You may have a strong desire to read that into my message but it is not actually there. You are supplying that all on your own. What I described as less-enlightened are those people who are not content to do what works for them; they have to also convert the other guy. Try reading my post next time. If you did read it, try addressing your issues with reading comprehension.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
The EU defines devices that can record 30 minutes or more of continuous video as "camcorders", and subjects them to special taxation. This is the reason for the 29:59 limit on SD.
Are you adequate?
Is there efficient transcoding from h.264 to WebM? The two codecs are so similar that it may be possible to transcode without decompression and the associated quality loss.
If there is efficient transcoding, that would greatly reduce the problem.
And you struggle to find software that does what you want without an archaic interface or simply do without many, many things that others are able to enjoy. It's more like joining a cult that heavily restricts your actions.
You do, because you believe the tradeoff is worth it. Things done for the sake of principles are rarely easy.
Fortunately in this area it's possible and quite easy to make a contribution and help fix the problems.
That's the same kind of sensor you get in a small compact camera like an IXUS, you'll never get anywhere near cinematic quality with that because of noise, lack of dynamic range and most of all the small sensor gives a large depth of field, so no fancy depth of field effects. For comparison a 1/2.5" sensor is about the same size as Super8 film.
For cinematic image quality (at least in terms of shallow depth of field) you need at least a 4/3rds size sensor (which is a bit larger than 16mm film), even better would be an APS or full frame sensor.
The hardline is entirely the point of it for a lot of people.
And those are the ones getting mocked.
You don't compromise on your most central reason for being, you work to advance it.
When your main figurehead/Most Illustrious Prophet tells the world that people who don't like his particular brand of Kool-aid are sociopaths because they get paid to write closed-source software, you've moved beyond "working to advance" anything and are firmly entrenched in the "raving fucking nutter" zone.
Please feel free to, I don't mind.
Free Software isn't a religion, and RMS isn't its prophet. I'm a member of the FSF and never spoke to the guy and haven't looked at anything he wrote in the last few years, simply because of a lack of need. He did a fine job of starting things, and at this point everything seems to be working fine on its own.
Free Software isn't a religion, and RMS isn't its prophet.
Not all members/supporters of the FSF are as level-headed, unfortunately. Take a look at any of the flamewars on ./ (or wait 20 minutes and another one will come up.)
As for the RMS interview I spoke of, ca 2005 I think... http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484 (Not trying to convince you of anything one way or another, but just so you know I'm not making this shit up).
JA: What about the programmers...
Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.
Well, I've seen him speak, and based on that can tell you two things:
1. He's very strange. As in socially awkward, and this is obvious within less than 5 minutes from when he shows up.
2. He's very true to what he believes in, and as far as I can tell what he professes is very internally consistent.
This for example has a quite consistent explanation. The way I understand it, in his view, the current copyright enforcement infringes on what he considers to be basic human decency. It forbids helping your fellow man.
For instance, it'd be rather odd to claim that your neighbour must buy his own drill if he needs a hole made somewhere, and that there would be something deeply wrong about borrowing it from you. Most people would also think you'd be a bit of a jerk to refuse on the grounds that each tool must be owned and used by one person only, and that it'd be wrong to deprive the company of the profit it would have if everybody who ever needed a drill even for a short time had to buy one. And of course, the idea of the government making it illegal to lend tools without the company's permission would be deeply offensive to most people.
So what if instead of a drill your neighbour has to write a letter and is in need of a word processor?
So for him, basically it goes against basic decency to refuse to help a friend in the name of a corporation's profits.
This way of seeing things may not agree with the way things works currently, but I don't think that there's anything especially crazy about it. So taking this further, if you participate in this system you're yourself doing evil by helping perpetuate something that's antisocial.
It's not like the FSF doesn't have its share of nutballs. Remember the whole, "Let's DDoS the Apple genius bars and ask all these questions" idiocy? Yeah, because low-level tech support guys have total control over company policy, and grandma certainly isn't going to get a negative view of the FOSS community when the fat, smelly neckbeard is taking up time at the genius bar. I couldn't believe that ANYONE, even FOSS zealots, would find that to be a good idea. I guess some are completely lacking in any social graces and don't do things to help the community, just fulfilling their own warped sense of self-righteousness.
There are far, FAR greater atrocities going on in the world, but RMS chooses to whine about software. Yeah, because copyright and closed-source are certainly the worst things going on right now! People are being brutalized and subjugated all over the world, but dammit, he wants people to stop making a living writing code with licenses he doesn't like!
RMS knows software, so he talks about software. It's not possible to have everybody work on "the world's largest problems", whatever you think those are, because people have very different competencies. I don't think RMS would make a good social worker for instance.
BTW, if you believe people's subjugation is such an urgent matter, what are you doing arguing with me here? Go do something to fix it already. Exactly the same thing your're criticizing him for is applicable to you, right now.