Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apertus, the Open Source HD Movie Camera

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the now-that's-a-project dept.

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'."

10 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Cinema on a Sensor that Small? by bieber · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Cinema on a Sensor that Small? by rduke15 · · Score: 2, Informative

      the only true advantage of a larger sensor is having potentially larger pixels

      Not at all.

      The large sensor gives you long focal lengths, which give you small depth of field, which is extremely important for cinema.

      While this camera may be a very interesting project, and may end up being useful for certain things, it doesn't look like it's real use will be anywhere in the realm of professional film making.

      The small sensor is an essential drawback. The C-mount for lenses is absurd (that was used on "high-end" Super 8 cameras, and amateur 16 mm. cameras several generations ago. Good luck trying to rent modern C-mount lenses...), etc.

      Looking at the photo in the article, I also notice a ridiculously large monitor, none of the usual accessories on the camera, and the whole thing screwed onto a tripod for stills photography. The people who set up that camera in the article's photo are certainly not thinking of professional cinematography, or if they are, they don't have a clue.

  2. I don't see much of an advantage... by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:I don't see much of an advantage... by theJML · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd also like to add the T2i or the 7D. It's "Good Enough" for 1080p, continues to use great EOS lenses, does it cheaper than the 5D mk II and is $1k or less. As TFA points out, the cost of the system their pitching has a camera that STARTS at $2k and "More advanced sensor frontends could drastically increase this price". To me, Drastically increasing $2k puts you closer to a RED camera, and not quite so drastic, the 5D mk II, so the $2k camera is close to the same as the T2i or 7D and they cost quite a bit less, have chdk firmware (or will soon) and are proven systems with support lines and easily found warranty replacements. Because the last think you want to do is shoot a few perfect takes and then find out that the 'open source hardware' wasn't quite up to snuff.

      --
      -=JML=-
    2. Re:I don't see much of an advantage... by rduke15 · · Score: 2, Informative

      the Red One can use Nikon and Canon lenses

      You can do that, but in practice you almost never do it, except for some very special single shots. These are photo lenses which are not well suited for cinematography. The RED has a standard PL mount that takes any of the standard film camera lenses (Zeiss, Cooke, ...) from your local renting company.

  3. Re:Open hardware? by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think you are wrong. In "GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CORP. V. WESTERN ELEC. CO., 304 U. S. 175 (1938)" the SCOTUS found that a patent holder CAN authorize a manufacturer to only manufacture for a particular market (home use vs commercial), and that any subsequent purchasers only get the same authorization that the manufacturer had. For example, if MPEG-LA authorized Canon to use MPEG patents in consumer cameras only, and you bought one of those cameras and used it for commercial use, you are infringing the patent.

  4. Re:Open hardware? by Abu+Hurayrah · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is not correct. I am not defending MPEG-LA, but I think it's important that we get the facts straight. Once video has been converted from H.264 to another format, MPEG-LA cannot assert anything over it. This e-mail exchange which I archived on Libre Video explains this point using their own, documented words.

    --
    Kindness is not to be found in anything but that it adds to its beauty...
  5. Re:CODECs? by Abu+Hurayrah · · Score: 2, Informative

    Details about the JP4 codec can be found here: http://wiki.elphel.com/index.php?title=JP4

    --
    Kindness is not to be found in anything but that it adds to its beauty...
  6. Re:Open hardware? by bws111 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You need authorization to make, sell, offer to sell, or use any patented invention. If a manufacturer has a license to use a patent for a specific thing (say home use), and you have that manufactured thing, then you automatically have authorization to use that thing for it's intended purpose (patent exhaustion). If you buy the thing and use it for a different purpose (say commercial use), which the manufacturer had no license for, then you have no license. It does not matter if you were a party to the agreement (the manufacturer does need to inform you that the product is only licensed for certain use), because in the absence of specific authorization you have no authorization.

  7. Re:Free or Open by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.