10 ms·

Axiom Beta – Digital cinema camera built around FOSS and open hardware

264 points by jarmitage 9y ago

flyinglizard 9y ago
It's a great effort but such development is too slow and resource limited to really challenge commercial solutions. They don't get to make their own ASICs (e.g. Canon DIGIC) so they need to use limited and expensive FPGAs; they can't make their own sensors (e.g. RED Dragon) so they need to use CMV12000 which is a sensor for scientific and industrial applications - fast, but not optimized for image quality (from my limited knowledge! I could be wrong). Most likely they won't get access to latest and greatest OEM sensors like Sony BSIs. By the time it's out, you could buy either a fully integrated solution that's far ahead technically - from the likes of RED, Canon, Blackmagic etc - or if you're after some exotic application you could just use an industrial camera from IDS or Ximea. Yes the customization and the abilities around this camera could be endless, but it'd take something really special on that end to overcome to hardware limitations coming from the development model and to make it a viable professional tool.
- binarymax 9y ago
  Give it some time - they just launched! If it becomes popular they will have more funding to work with and have the ability to advance the tech. You don't enter a patent briarbush market with the best solution the world has ever seen, you make a good enough showing and grow.
  - eropple 9y ago
    I use Panasonic's midrange GH3 and GH4 cameras for video. 16MP sensor, Micro Four Thirds mount. For general purpose cinema, they will shoot better than the sensor in this camera will (which isn't to say it's the best thing in town, it's not, but that's kind of my point) and the stuff they're flogging, like on-the-fly color conversion, is not particularly useful in the center or edge cases compared to getting high-quality, raw, as-ungraded-as-you-can-get material to work with in post. It's a neat idea. Your implication that it's good-enough doesn't scan to me, as even a prosumer videographer. Maybe I'll be wrong--but Blackmagic is already vastly ahead in the pure-cinema space, so...
    - binarymax 9y ago
      But isn't the point of this to be able to hack it and add things that you need for your use case? Nobody said the arduino or raspi was meant to replace your day to day compute. This is targeted as a hackable base system to learn about the technology and stimulate innovation. Right now hacking cameras requires insanely niche knowledge and reverse engineering skills.
      - eropple 9y ago
        If the point is to hack, you totally should buy an Arduino. (I just bought my college-age EE brother one. He's messing with it right next to me. It's cool.) It is also orders of magnitude cheaper. But for video and video specifically, a "hackable base system" is not a raison d'etre to exist beyond the niche-of-a-niche hacker community who's not going to pay you materially for the thing in the first place. This stuff is expensive! Near as I can tell, something like this needs a reason for videographers, and not computer people, to pay for it to get the traction needed to allow it to expand and progress. The set of people who need to "add things" to a video camera for their use case is small because there are few use cases that are not better undertaken by getting the highest quality, cleanest raw footage you can (which is not helped by adding, like, inline color correction), storing it in the least-lossy format you can, and then taking that output and transforming it down-the-line either in post/editing for recorded media or in your better-equipped visual mixer for live. The most interesting "hardware hacks" I can think of for cameras would be in the focus/image stabilization arena, but I don't think you get much insight into that with the passive E-mount (could be wrong, I don't use Sony) as opposed to an active E-mount or Panasonic's Power/Mega OIS stuff in the MFT. For Power/Mega OIS in particular, my understanding is that the sensors are in the lens but the brains are in the camera--could be some novel things to do there.
        gt_ 9y ago
        This is opinion, but opinion from a passionate cine nerd: Good stabilization techniques don’t happen in the lens and passive E mount is perrrfect for this camera. Stabilization is a mount’s job, and not really a hack. Most camera hacking these days is done with SLRS which are not “real” video cameras, for lack of a list of technical explanations. Magic Lantern is a popular DSLR hacking tool and it’s problematic to use. Think trying to use Windows as if it were Linux.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    In the interests of accuracy, the Axiom project has been in gestation for >5 years so they're off to a slow start. But they have a lot of good will in the pro cam community because they were careful to keep delivery expectations low and warned people not to structure projects around the hardware any time soon.
- empath75 9y ago
  Stuff like that seems like it would be nice for people who like to hack around with internals, but you’re talking about a tiny tiny fraction of users.
  - UncleEntity 9y ago
    Like most things methinks...but the majority non-hacking users get to benefit from the ones who do like to hack around with internals. Plus its (user) hardware/software upgradeable, some fancy new thing comes out you just have to bust out the toolkit instead of having to buy a whole new camera. I'm thinking something like a light-field sensor with the "LSD simulation" firmware would be a perfectly sensible upgrade.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    That's what everyone said about Linux in 1993.
- vvanders 9y ago
  Yup, agreed. You're also giving up a huge compromise in lenses when going with this approach. When it comes to photography lenses mean more than the camera 95% of the time(unless you're doing sports/action photography, where you need good AF). With this it's all manual + adapters which always has compromises compared to use in their native format. It's super-cool technically but I don't see it taking over anytime soon.
  - dylan604 9y ago
    I think you might have missed the part where this is a digital cinema camera. Cinema cameras rarely have AF, and are almost always manual lenses with a dedicated person assigned to pull focus. Also, being able to adapt lenses is a huge bonus. Look at the Micro Four Thirds market. There are so many adapters available and in wide use to be able use a wider selection of lenses. Pretty much the only way Sony cameras are used. The selection of Sony native mount lenses limited, but adapt that to a PL mount or EF mount, and the world opens up significantly
    - vvanders 9y ago
      Ah, good call. It was missing from the title so I was assuming they were going after the traditional camera market. For cinema they might have a better shot. I've got a non-trivial amount of Canon gear(300F4, 35F1.4, 135F2, etc) and looked into the Sony route since their A7 line looks killer. In the end all the adapters had compromises so I decided to stick with Canon. From all reports the AF drive on the adapters still have a bunch of edge cases.
      - mschuster91 9y ago
        > and looked into the Sony route since their A7 line looks killer They are. I recently tried out an A7S, nice thing, but getting the A7S2 in about two months. 4K in camera recording is worth getting the Mk2 for.
        dylan604 9y ago
- mmastrac 9y ago
  I'm not sure your concerns are completely valid here. We've reached the point where consumer phone cameras are good enough for 90% of photography. At this point there's huge value in giving better access to the platform itself to start applying machine learning techniques directly on the camera. In addition, the FPGA you call limited I'd argue gives access to powerful reprogrammable logic. Why hard-code image processing algorithms when you can update them as new techniques come out? Not only is this an amazing sensor (180fps, global shutter) but it's using cutting edge technology. I'd argue that it's possible sensor technology is reaching some of its limits and an industrial sensor here can match the quality of DSLR sensors. It may only be 12MP but Google and Apple have both shown that intelligent algorithms can produce amazing results from sensors that size. The video on the properties of the sensor itself is quite impressive: http://vimeo.com/17230822 http://vimeo.com/17230822
  - phkahler 9y ago
    >> At this point there's huge value in giving better access to the platform itself to start applying machine learning techniques directly on the camera. What does machine learning have to do with photography? If there's an explanation for that, then I'd add why does it need to happen on the camera?
    - bri3d 9y ago
      I worry this is going to go the "computer aided photography isn't the one true photography" direction, but check this out: https://research.googleblog.com/2017/10/portrait-mode-on-pixel-2-and-pixel-2-xl.html?m=1 https://research.googleblog.com/2017/10/portrait-mode-on-pix... ML has thousands of applications in photography, from HDR to mask creation to feature removal to subtle aids like noise reduction.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      I'd agree with parent that ML is one of the killer apps of more open professional camera hardware. Nowhere I can think of (other than Android, but a lot of caveat there) has an open hardware upstart challenged entrenched commercial players for legacy needs and won. Where you do win is by targeting emerging needs, especially ones legacy commercial players are ill equipped to take advantage of (due to institutional inertia or ugly tech stacks). As for why ML on edge devices: a large amount of work is going into running models (or first passes) on edge devices with limited resources (see articles on HN). I would assume they have business reasons. But offhand, almost everything about vision-based ML in the real world gets better if you can decrease latency and remove high-bandwidth internet connectivity as a requirement.
- marci 9y ago
  One of the roots of the axiom is elphel, a company that's been selling open hardware cameras for more than 15 years with similar features. http://elphel.org http://elphel.org The Axiom angle is more cinematographically oriented.
- foolrush 9y ago
  > they can't make their own sensors (e.g. RED Dragon) so they need to use CMV12000 which is a sensor for scientific and industrial applications - fast, but not optimized for image quality > from the likes of RED, Canon, Blackmagic etc Guess which sensor in in some of BlackMagic's offerings?
  - flyinglizard 9y ago
    I think they rely heavily on customized Fairchild sensors for their Ursa line: http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2015/04/blackmagic-super-35-sensor-features-15.html http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2015/04/blackmagic-s... (great blog BTW!) I'm not aware of any pro cinema camera using the CMV12000 as-is, but I've been out of the loop for some time.
    - dharma1 9y ago
      Image sensors world is a great blog indeed. I'm pretty sure the Blackmagic used CMOSIS sensors at least on the 4K Production Camera. On Axiom - I think it's great to have open source cameras like this, but the price point needs to come down significantly before it will get traction. Also, with indie camera companies expect long delays - Axiom's been years in the making, as have KineFinity cameras (another independent RAW cinema camera brand). From a practical POV for indie filmmakers, the resale value of these cameras is also questionable when compared to BlackMagic or RED. I think much of the benefits of RAW (dynamic range) will actually come from 10bit HEVC cameras shooting HDR. GH5 is one of the first of those, in 1-2 years I expect every smartphone will shoot 10bit HEVC that will have significantly more latitude than current 8bit video, even at small sensor sizes. I would actually love to see mobile SoC's like Qualcomm 845 (4K 60fps, 10bit HDR, Rec 2020 color gamut) and Android used on semi/pro cameras, with a good OLED touchscreen, relatively large (1" or larger) sensor and maybe m43 mount lenses. Something like BMPCC but with updated sensor and chipset, running Android.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Latest and greatest is severely overrated - that's something you throw money at if you already have a hot project and need additional hype. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not (eg Collateral was a very successful ad for the Viper camera's relatively good low-light performance; Public Enemy not so much for a different model). I've been following this project for a few years and while it's got a slow development/adoption curve it's on the right track both economically and technologically; eventually it'll become the Linux of cameras. The thing is, we're already in an era of technological abundance where digital photography is concerned; commodity solutions are already good Enough for pretty much all commercial purposes. You can shoot an indie feature on an iPhone; even huge budget films like the Avengers franchise use Blackmagic pocket cameras as crash cams (cheapish cameras that you set up to run automatically stunt cars to provide a second or two of dramatic first-person footage). There will of course always be more highly engineered offerings out there, that will be important for highly specialized tasks like astronomy and scientific work. And ultradense sensors might be deployed to allow photography at multiple focal depths - but even that is likely to find its way into consumer gear before lone. At this point the industry focus is no longer on which camera has the best specifications as on workflow and support. Blackmagic ave done incredibly well for themselves with a (relatively) technologically inferior sensor/package but by being more open than Red and thus building a larger and stronger community at a somewhat lower price point, for example. It's a good example of the tortoise beating the hare over the length of the race.
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  The Chronos high-speed camera[1] is a lot more interesting as a product, though not fully open-source. The software is FOSS, the hardware isn't. It has the advantage of being for a niche application (high-speed photography) and substantially cheaper (about 0.1x the price) than similarly capable commercial cameras. [1] http://www.krontech.ca/ http://www.krontech.ca/
sandworm101 9y ago
Magic lantern? An interesting choice of name for anyone familiar with the history of spyware, encryption, and government surveillance .
- nekopa 9y ago
  I think their history is this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_lantern https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_lantern
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  Magic lantern has been around for years, possibly decades. It might as well be a brand name at this point. I have almost no interest in photography and I recognize it and associate it with cameras instantly just from osmosing knowledge about it from the camera nerds around me.
- qmarchi 9y ago
  Magic Lantern has been a Canon CFW for years. We used it in High School for our TV classes on our 5Ds. I'm interested to see the implementation on the AXIOM, and I'm debating placing down an order.
luckydude 9y ago
So I do photography as a hobby as well as some semi professional stuff (I shoot for the pros at hockey tournaments, I'm not as good as they are but close, they get keepers every 13 seconds I'm more like 20-25 seconds; seems like a long time but that includes the time to look at each shot and delete the crap. They are faster because they know when they take the shot if they missed and they delete without looking at it. I'm not that good, I have to look.) I shoot hockey with a Canon 1DX II, before I got that body I used a 5DIII. If I'm shooting for me, I use a Canon 200mm f2; if I'm shooting for the pros, they want more like a 300mm so I add a 1.4x teleconverter. For the people who don't know what any of that means, this might help: the 1DX II is Canon's best sports body, it retails for about $6000. The 200mm + the 1.4x is another $6000. So truth in advertising, I've got a lot invested in my current kit (not just that stuff, I have a number of other Canon lenses, some Sigma, Rokinon). So perhaps I'm not objective. All that said, I don't get this camera at all. No auto focus, no viewfinder, those are complete deal breakers for me (electronic viewfinder doesn't count unless it is 100% as fast as a normal view finder. I'm timing shots so I get the puck going into the net, that means a lag as small as a few milliseconds screws me up. And when I say "me" I really mean any sports photographer, or action photographer where the work flow doesn't allow you to use burst to hopefully get the right shot by accident). It looks like lots of cool technology but I'm definitely not interested in owning one. So who is interested in owning one and what would you do with it? Where does this camera shine?
- pmilla 9y ago
  I think this is a video camera that’s supposed to compete with something like RED.
- pault 9y ago
  I think it's meant to compete with cameras like those manufactured by Red, which cost $50,000 for the base model, and a few accessories will put you into six figure territory pretty quickly.
- wgj 9y ago
  This is going to be for people (companies, startups) that want to build on top of it. It's going to accelerate development and/or create opportunities in specific verticals.
mrstone 9y ago
Why does a camera need ethernet?
- nine_k 9y ago
  Download what you shoot instantly. Also, complete remote control when you need it.
  - phkahler 9y ago
    Isn't auto-focus a little more important?
    - sethhochberg 9y ago
      AF isn't typically used for cinema. The camera operator or an assistant will manage focus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_puller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_puller
      - Andrey_Filippov 9y ago
        A focus puller is already built using FPGA+GNU/Linux - https://github.com/Qinematiq https://github.com/Qinematiq
    - marci 9y ago
      With Linux on board, it's a no brainer to implement it. Most lenses need reverse engineering to implement auto§focus.
- phkahler 9y ago
  Because technology.
- s-berwick 9y ago
  They are using a devboard from Avnet (Microzed) - I assume If they were designing the board themselves they wouldn't bother.
- 9y ago
mtgx 9y ago
A while ago a bunch of makers of documentaries and journalists asked camera manufacturers to support encryption, but most of the companies, if not all, ignored them. Does this project support encryption? https://freedom.press/news/over-150-filmmakers-and-photojournalists-call-major-camera-manufacturers-build-encryption-their-cameras/ https://freedom.press/news/over-150-filmmakers-and-photojour...
- UncleEntity 9y ago
  Its reprogrammable so it most likely could be patched to support encryption between the sensor and storage module in the FPGA firmware. Though, I have to say, that sounds like an anti-feature -- instead of just taking a few shots they'll just take all your photos and throw you in jail for espionage because "if you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide."
  - erric 9y ago
    Unless it's stored in an obfuscated vault. Not saying this is immune from detection etc, but it may offer journalists some form of plausible deniability.
- RCine 9y ago
  The project should support encryption if this is something that some members of the community expect or require. Encryption isn't being pursuing as closed protocols constitute what the camera is designed to steer away from, but it may be relatively straight forward to implement where required, eg. CryptSetup and Linux Unified Key Setup.
rhn_mk1 9y ago
I wish them all the best - it's high time people had actual control of their cameras. I mean both control over the hardware and repairability. While CHDK [0] may offer the first, they do nothing about the second. As much as this is important, I am convinced Open things are most useful at the lower end, opening doors to people who would otherwise just not be able to participate. I would have a hard time justifying getting one of those for myself, because of the price, as a non-pro. Still, I hope they succeed.
- privong 9y ago
  CHDK link for those interested: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
- gt_ 9y ago
  6-7 years ago, I would have been saving up for this. That was a very different market for video production professionals. I never liked hacking cameras that were not made to be hacked, but this one is. It’s not the first, but the other projects appeared to be barely getting by. The sad part is just how long this has taken to come to fruition, and how little sense it makes economically at this point.
  - deftturtle 9y ago
    > how little sense it makes economically at this point. Please elaborate.
    - gt_ 9y ago
      Sure. For one, many of the problems this solves in a holistic and better way have found standard solutions widely implemented in the indie production market. RED cameras are fairly prolific and accessible to a lot of people these days, and other imperfect solutions are popularly adopted as well. While this option is all-around more capable, the modding workflow is still foreign and will take some time to adapt. Purely economically, there is a lot less money flowing into indie production outfits, particularly from advertising and indie entertainment enterprises like Youtube-online media channels. Advertising is embracing data based decision models that override costly creative production efforts that would properly utilize a camera like this. In short, this thing is for artists, and artists are screwed.
ataturk 9y ago
I would like to see a printer done similarly--open source printer without all the ink and DRM drama. It would be glorious.
rwmj 9y ago
These are the company building a RISC-V processor from an FPGA I think. Edit: a downvote? It's true, see this presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyJ8PoASWdw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyJ8PoASWdw
SpliffnCola 9y ago
If you are wondering who the target audience this cine camera is for then you are not the target audience. To those asking why it doesn't have AF: no cine camera has AF. In regards to lens selection; the camera seems to be modular so there shouldn't be much stopping Axiom or yourself from getting a different lens mounting plate.
- bprater 9y ago
  While it's accurate that cine cameras use a human focus puller, its an oversight in this cameras engineering not to include a way to drive the len's focus or the aperture. (Blackmagic's early cinema cameras used these 'dumb' mounts, too, but it frustrated users because they couldn't electrically run the len's controls.) Having an API for the lens and aperture would have opened it up for developers to use these creatively, such as focusing on one point in the frame and then zipping focus to another point using easing functions.
  - SpliffnCola 9y ago
    Agreed on all points. Due to the modular design, and I'm assuming here, it seems wireless (and on camera) focus pulling could be added onto the cam. Something like http://www.rtmotion.com/lens-control-system http://www.rtmotion.com/lens-control-system or https://cinegears.com/product/cinegears-single-axis-wireless-follow-focus-express-kit/ https://cinegears.com/product/cinegears-single-axis-wireless... Not sure about aperture adjustment from the cam body itself; usually, not always though, cine lenses are constant aperture primes or zooms.
    - frostburg 9y ago
      Cine lenses almost universally have variable aperture. When a zoom is "constant aperture" what is means is that the maximum aperture is the same across the entire focal range, not that you cannot close it down when needed.
      - SpliffnCola 9y ago
brndnmtthws 9y ago
This is interesting, however, in my experience it's the lens that makes the camera. It would be pretty cool to have a body that is 100% open source, but the best lenses (which IMO are Leica and Fujinon lenses) tend to have proprietary mounts and autofocus systems. If they could also produce a high quality set of prime lenses, that'd be nice. I think the real magic (and difficulty) lies in producing great lenses, which is an entirely analogue process.
rasjani 9y ago
Swapping sensors - wouldn’t that also require hefty software changes?
zrth 9y ago
Wow, congratulations to everyone involved! How absolutely fantastic that there is another completely open device we can hack and enjoy! Looking forward to seeing what ingenious modifications and applications people will be coming up with!
agjacobson 9y ago
Price point is everything. Good luck.

264 points by jarmitage 9y ago

It's a great effort but such development is too slow and resource limited to really challenge commercial solutions. They don't get to make their own ASICs (e.g. Canon DIGIC) so they need to use limited and expensive FPGAs; they can't make their own sensors (e.g. RED Dragon) so they need to use CMV12000 which is a sensor for scientific and industrial applications - fast, but not optimized for image quality (from my limited knowledge! I could be wrong). Most likely they won't get access to latest and greatest OEM sensors like Sony BSIs. By the time it's out, you could buy either a fully integrated solution that's far ahead technically - from the likes of RED, Canon, Blackmagic etc - or if you're after some exotic application you could just use an industrial camera from IDS or Ximea. Yes the customization and the abilities around this camera could be endless, but it'd take something really special on that end to overcome to hardware limitations coming from the development model and to make it a viable professional tool.

binarymax 9y ago
Give it some time - they just launched! If it becomes popular they will have more funding to work with and have the ability to advance the tech. You don't enter a patent briarbush market with the best solution the world has ever seen, you make a good enough showing and grow.
- eropple 9y ago
  I use Panasonic's midrange GH3 and GH4 cameras for video. 16MP sensor, Micro Four Thirds mount. For general purpose cinema, they will shoot better than the sensor in this camera will (which isn't to say it's the best thing in town, it's not, but that's kind of my point) and the stuff they're flogging, like on-the-fly color conversion, is not particularly useful in the center or edge cases compared to getting high-quality, raw, as-ungraded-as-you-can-get material to work with in post. It's a neat idea. Your implication that it's good-enough doesn't scan to me, as even a prosumer videographer. Maybe I'll be wrong--but Blackmagic is already vastly ahead in the pure-cinema space, so...
  - binarymax 9y ago
    But isn't the point of this to be able to hack it and add things that you need for your use case? Nobody said the arduino or raspi was meant to replace your day to day compute. This is targeted as a hackable base system to learn about the technology and stimulate innovation. Right now hacking cameras requires insanely niche knowledge and reverse engineering skills.
    - eropple 9y ago
      If the point is to hack, you totally should buy an Arduino. (I just bought my college-age EE brother one. He's messing with it right next to me. It's cool.) It is also orders of magnitude cheaper. But for video and video specifically, a "hackable base system" is not a raison d'etre to exist beyond the niche-of-a-niche hacker community who's not going to pay you materially for the thing in the first place. This stuff is expensive! Near as I can tell, something like this needs a reason for videographers, and not computer people, to pay for it to get the traction needed to allow it to expand and progress. The set of people who need to "add things" to a video camera for their use case is small because there are few use cases that are not better undertaken by getting the highest quality, cleanest raw footage you can (which is not helped by adding, like, inline color correction), storing it in the least-lossy format you can, and then taking that output and transforming it down-the-line either in post/editing for recorded media or in your better-equipped visual mixer for live. The most interesting "hardware hacks" I can think of for cameras would be in the focus/image stabilization arena, but I don't think you get much insight into that with the passive E-mount (could be wrong, I don't use Sony) as opposed to an active E-mount or Panasonic's Power/Mega OIS stuff in the MFT. For Power/Mega OIS in particular, my understanding is that the sensors are in the lens but the brains are in the camera--could be some novel things to do there.
      - gt_ 9y ago
        This is opinion, but opinion from a passionate cine nerd: Good stabilization techniques don’t happen in the lens and passive E mount is perrrfect for this camera. Stabilization is a mount’s job, and not really a hack. Most camera hacking these days is done with SLRS which are not “real” video cameras, for lack of a list of technical explanations. Magic Lantern is a popular DSLR hacking tool and it’s problematic to use. Think trying to use Windows as if it were Linux.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  In the interests of accuracy, the Axiom project has been in gestation for >5 years so they're off to a slow start. But they have a lot of good will in the pro cam community because they were careful to keep delivery expectations low and warned people not to structure projects around the hardware any time soon.
empath75 9y ago
Stuff like that seems like it would be nice for people who like to hack around with internals, but you’re talking about a tiny tiny fraction of users.
- UncleEntity 9y ago
  Like most things methinks...but the majority non-hacking users get to benefit from the ones who do like to hack around with internals. Plus its (user) hardware/software upgradeable, some fancy new thing comes out you just have to bust out the toolkit instead of having to buy a whole new camera. I'm thinking something like a light-field sensor with the "LSD simulation" firmware would be a perfectly sensible upgrade.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  That's what everyone said about Linux in 1993.
vvanders 9y ago
Yup, agreed. You're also giving up a huge compromise in lenses when going with this approach. When it comes to photography lenses mean more than the camera 95% of the time(unless you're doing sports/action photography, where you need good AF). With this it's all manual + adapters which always has compromises compared to use in their native format. It's super-cool technically but I don't see it taking over anytime soon.
- dylan604 9y ago
  I think you might have missed the part where this is a digital cinema camera. Cinema cameras rarely have AF, and are almost always manual lenses with a dedicated person assigned to pull focus. Also, being able to adapt lenses is a huge bonus. Look at the Micro Four Thirds market. There are so many adapters available and in wide use to be able use a wider selection of lenses. Pretty much the only way Sony cameras are used. The selection of Sony native mount lenses limited, but adapt that to a PL mount or EF mount, and the world opens up significantly
  - vvanders 9y ago
    Ah, good call. It was missing from the title so I was assuming they were going after the traditional camera market. For cinema they might have a better shot. I've got a non-trivial amount of Canon gear(300F4, 35F1.4, 135F2, etc) and looked into the Sony route since their A7 line looks killer. In the end all the adapters had compromises so I decided to stick with Canon. From all reports the AF drive on the adapters still have a bunch of edge cases.
    - mschuster91 9y ago
      > and looked into the Sony route since their A7 line looks killer They are. I recently tried out an A7S, nice thing, but getting the A7S2 in about two months. 4K in camera recording is worth getting the Mk2 for.
      - dylan604 9y ago
mmastrac 9y ago
I'm not sure your concerns are completely valid here. We've reached the point where consumer phone cameras are good enough for 90% of photography. At this point there's huge value in giving better access to the platform itself to start applying machine learning techniques directly on the camera. In addition, the FPGA you call limited I'd argue gives access to powerful reprogrammable logic. Why hard-code image processing algorithms when you can update them as new techniques come out? Not only is this an amazing sensor (180fps, global shutter) but it's using cutting edge technology. I'd argue that it's possible sensor technology is reaching some of its limits and an industrial sensor here can match the quality of DSLR sensors. It may only be 12MP but Google and Apple have both shown that intelligent algorithms can produce amazing results from sensors that size. The video on the properties of the sensor itself is quite impressive: http://vimeo.com/17230822 http://vimeo.com/17230822
- phkahler 9y ago
  >> At this point there's huge value in giving better access to the platform itself to start applying machine learning techniques directly on the camera. What does machine learning have to do with photography? If there's an explanation for that, then I'd add why does it need to happen on the camera?
  - bri3d 9y ago
    I worry this is going to go the "computer aided photography isn't the one true photography" direction, but check this out: https://research.googleblog.com/2017/10/portrait-mode-on-pixel-2-and-pixel-2-xl.html?m=1 https://research.googleblog.com/2017/10/portrait-mode-on-pix... ML has thousands of applications in photography, from HDR to mask creation to feature removal to subtle aids like noise reduction.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I'd agree with parent that ML is one of the killer apps of more open professional camera hardware. Nowhere I can think of (other than Android, but a lot of caveat there) has an open hardware upstart challenged entrenched commercial players for legacy needs and won. Where you do win is by targeting emerging needs, especially ones legacy commercial players are ill equipped to take advantage of (due to institutional inertia or ugly tech stacks). As for why ML on edge devices: a large amount of work is going into running models (or first passes) on edge devices with limited resources (see articles on HN). I would assume they have business reasons. But offhand, almost everything about vision-based ML in the real world gets better if you can decrease latency and remove high-bandwidth internet connectivity as a requirement.
marci 9y ago
One of the roots of the axiom is elphel, a company that's been selling open hardware cameras for more than 15 years with similar features. http://elphel.org http://elphel.org The Axiom angle is more cinematographically oriented.
foolrush 9y ago
> they can't make their own sensors (e.g. RED Dragon) so they need to use CMV12000 which is a sensor for scientific and industrial applications - fast, but not optimized for image quality > from the likes of RED, Canon, Blackmagic etc Guess which sensor in in some of BlackMagic's offerings?
- flyinglizard 9y ago
  I think they rely heavily on customized Fairchild sensors for their Ursa line: http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2015/04/blackmagic-super-35-sensor-features-15.html http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2015/04/blackmagic-s... (great blog BTW!) I'm not aware of any pro cinema camera using the CMV12000 as-is, but I've been out of the loop for some time.
  - dharma1 9y ago
    Image sensors world is a great blog indeed. I'm pretty sure the Blackmagic used CMOSIS sensors at least on the 4K Production Camera. On Axiom - I think it's great to have open source cameras like this, but the price point needs to come down significantly before it will get traction. Also, with indie camera companies expect long delays - Axiom's been years in the making, as have KineFinity cameras (another independent RAW cinema camera brand). From a practical POV for indie filmmakers, the resale value of these cameras is also questionable when compared to BlackMagic or RED. I think much of the benefits of RAW (dynamic range) will actually come from 10bit HEVC cameras shooting HDR. GH5 is one of the first of those, in 1-2 years I expect every smartphone will shoot 10bit HEVC that will have significantly more latitude than current 8bit video, even at small sensor sizes. I would actually love to see mobile SoC's like Qualcomm 845 (4K 60fps, 10bit HDR, Rec 2020 color gamut) and Android used on semi/pro cameras, with a good OLED touchscreen, relatively large (1" or larger) sensor and maybe m43 mount lenses. Something like BMPCC but with updated sensor and chipset, running Android.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Latest and greatest is severely overrated - that's something you throw money at if you already have a hot project and need additional hype. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not (eg Collateral was a very successful ad for the Viper camera's relatively good low-light performance; Public Enemy not so much for a different model). I've been following this project for a few years and while it's got a slow development/adoption curve it's on the right track both economically and technologically; eventually it'll become the Linux of cameras. The thing is, we're already in an era of technological abundance where digital photography is concerned; commodity solutions are already good Enough for pretty much all commercial purposes. You can shoot an indie feature on an iPhone; even huge budget films like the Avengers franchise use Blackmagic pocket cameras as crash cams (cheapish cameras that you set up to run automatically stunt cars to provide a second or two of dramatic first-person footage). There will of course always be more highly engineered offerings out there, that will be important for highly specialized tasks like astronomy and scientific work. And ultradense sensors might be deployed to allow photography at multiple focal depths - but even that is likely to find its way into consumer gear before lone. At this point the industry focus is no longer on which camera has the best specifications as on workflow and support. Blackmagic ave done incredibly well for themselves with a (relatively) technologically inferior sensor/package but by being more open than Red and thus building a larger and stronger community at a somewhat lower price point, for example. It's a good example of the tortoise beating the hare over the length of the race.
SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
The Chronos high-speed camera[1] is a lot more interesting as a product, though not fully open-source. The software is FOSS, the hardware isn't. It has the advantage of being for a niche application (high-speed photography) and substantially cheaper (about 0.1x the price) than similarly capable commercial cameras. [1] http://www.krontech.ca/ http://www.krontech.ca/

sandworm101 9y ago

Magic lantern? An interesting choice of name for anyone familiar with the history of spyware, encryption, and government surveillance .

nekopa 9y ago
I think their history is this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_lantern https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_lantern
Sir_Substance 9y ago
Magic lantern has been around for years, possibly decades. It might as well be a brand name at this point. I have almost no interest in photography and I recognize it and associate it with cameras instantly just from osmosing knowledge about it from the camera nerds around me.
qmarchi 9y ago
Magic Lantern has been a Canon CFW for years. We used it in High School for our TV classes on our 5Ds. I'm interested to see the implementation on the AXIOM, and I'm debating placing down an order.

luckydude 9y ago

So I do photography as a hobby as well as some semi professional stuff (I shoot for the pros at hockey tournaments, I'm not as good as they are but close, they get keepers every 13 seconds I'm more like 20-25 seconds; seems like a long time but that includes the time to look at each shot and delete the crap. They are faster because they know when they take the shot if they missed and they delete without looking at it. I'm not that good, I have to look.) I shoot hockey with a Canon 1DX II, before I got that body I used a 5DIII. If I'm shooting for me, I use a Canon 200mm f2; if I'm shooting for the pros, they want more like a 300mm so I add a 1.4x teleconverter. For the people who don't know what any of that means, this might help: the 1DX II is Canon's best sports body, it retails for about $6000. The 200mm + the 1.4x is another $6000. So truth in advertising, I've got a lot invested in my current kit (not just that stuff, I have a number of other Canon lenses, some Sigma, Rokinon). So perhaps I'm not objective. All that said, I don't get this camera at all. No auto focus, no viewfinder, those are complete deal breakers for me (electronic viewfinder doesn't count unless it is 100% as fast as a normal view finder. I'm timing shots so I get the puck going into the net, that means a lag as small as a few milliseconds screws me up. And when I say "me" I really mean any sports photographer, or action photographer where the work flow doesn't allow you to use burst to hopefully get the right shot by accident). It looks like lots of cool technology but I'm definitely not interested in owning one. So who is interested in owning one and what would you do with it? Where does this camera shine?

pmilla 9y ago
I think this is a video camera that’s supposed to compete with something like RED.
pault 9y ago
I think it's meant to compete with cameras like those manufactured by Red, which cost $50,000 for the base model, and a few accessories will put you into six figure territory pretty quickly.
wgj 9y ago
This is going to be for people (companies, startups) that want to build on top of it. It's going to accelerate development and/or create opportunities in specific verticals.

mrstone 9y ago

Why does a camera need ethernet?

nine_k 9y ago
Download what you shoot instantly. Also, complete remote control when you need it.
- phkahler 9y ago
  Isn't auto-focus a little more important?
  - sethhochberg 9y ago
    AF isn't typically used for cinema. The camera operator or an assistant will manage focus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_puller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_puller
    - Andrey_Filippov 9y ago
      A focus puller is already built using FPGA+GNU/Linux - https://github.com/Qinematiq https://github.com/Qinematiq
  - marci 9y ago
    With Linux on board, it's a no brainer to implement it. Most lenses need reverse engineering to implement auto§focus.
phkahler 9y ago
Because technology.
s-berwick 9y ago
They are using a devboard from Avnet (Microzed) - I assume If they were designing the board themselves they wouldn't bother.
9y ago

mtgx 9y ago

A while ago a bunch of makers of documentaries and journalists asked camera manufacturers to support encryption, but most of the companies, if not all, ignored them. Does this project support encryption? https://freedom.press/news/over-150-filmmakers-and-photojournalists-call-major-camera-manufacturers-build-encryption-their-cameras/ https://freedom.press/news/over-150-filmmakers-and-photojour...

UncleEntity 9y ago
Its reprogrammable so it most likely could be patched to support encryption between the sensor and storage module in the FPGA firmware. Though, I have to say, that sounds like an anti-feature -- instead of just taking a few shots they'll just take all your photos and throw you in jail for espionage because "if you have nothing to fear you have nothing to hide."
- erric 9y ago
  Unless it's stored in an obfuscated vault. Not saying this is immune from detection etc, but it may offer journalists some form of plausible deniability.
RCine 9y ago
The project should support encryption if this is something that some members of the community expect or require. Encryption isn't being pursuing as closed protocols constitute what the camera is designed to steer away from, but it may be relatively straight forward to implement where required, eg. CryptSetup and Linux Unified Key Setup.

rhn_mk1 9y ago

I wish them all the best - it's high time people had actual control of their cameras. I mean both control over the hardware and repairability. While CHDK [0] may offer the first, they do nothing about the second. As much as this is important, I am convinced Open things are most useful at the lower end, opening doors to people who would otherwise just not be able to participate. I would have a hard time justifying getting one of those for myself, because of the price, as a non-pro. Still, I hope they succeed.

privong 9y ago
CHDK link for those interested: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
gt_ 9y ago
6-7 years ago, I would have been saving up for this. That was a very different market for video production professionals. I never liked hacking cameras that were not made to be hacked, but this one is. It’s not the first, but the other projects appeared to be barely getting by. The sad part is just how long this has taken to come to fruition, and how little sense it makes economically at this point.
- deftturtle 9y ago
  > how little sense it makes economically at this point. Please elaborate.
  - gt_ 9y ago
    Sure. For one, many of the problems this solves in a holistic and better way have found standard solutions widely implemented in the indie production market. RED cameras are fairly prolific and accessible to a lot of people these days, and other imperfect solutions are popularly adopted as well. While this option is all-around more capable, the modding workflow is still foreign and will take some time to adapt. Purely economically, there is a lot less money flowing into indie production outfits, particularly from advertising and indie entertainment enterprises like Youtube-online media channels. Advertising is embracing data based decision models that override costly creative production efforts that would properly utilize a camera like this. In short, this thing is for artists, and artists are screwed.

ataturk 9y ago

I would like to see a printer done similarly--open source printer without all the ink and DRM drama. It would be glorious.

rwmj 9y ago

These are the company building a RISC-V processor from an FPGA I think. Edit: a downvote? It's true, see this presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyJ8PoASWdw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyJ8PoASWdw

SpliffnCola 9y ago

If you are wondering who the target audience this cine camera is for then you are not the target audience. To those asking why it doesn't have AF: no cine camera has AF. In regards to lens selection; the camera seems to be modular so there shouldn't be much stopping Axiom or yourself from getting a different lens mounting plate.

bprater 9y ago
While it's accurate that cine cameras use a human focus puller, its an oversight in this cameras engineering not to include a way to drive the len's focus or the aperture. (Blackmagic's early cinema cameras used these 'dumb' mounts, too, but it frustrated users because they couldn't electrically run the len's controls.) Having an API for the lens and aperture would have opened it up for developers to use these creatively, such as focusing on one point in the frame and then zipping focus to another point using easing functions.
- SpliffnCola 9y ago
  Agreed on all points. Due to the modular design, and I'm assuming here, it seems wireless (and on camera) focus pulling could be added onto the cam. Something like http://www.rtmotion.com/lens-control-system http://www.rtmotion.com/lens-control-system or https://cinegears.com/product/cinegears-single-axis-wireless-follow-focus-express-kit/ https://cinegears.com/product/cinegears-single-axis-wireless... Not sure about aperture adjustment from the cam body itself; usually, not always though, cine lenses are constant aperture primes or zooms.
  - frostburg 9y ago
    Cine lenses almost universally have variable aperture. When a zoom is "constant aperture" what is means is that the maximum aperture is the same across the entire focal range, not that you cannot close it down when needed.
    - SpliffnCola 9y ago

brndnmtthws 9y ago

This is interesting, however, in my experience it's the lens that makes the camera. It would be pretty cool to have a body that is 100% open source, but the best lenses (which IMO are Leica and Fujinon lenses) tend to have proprietary mounts and autofocus systems. If they could also produce a high quality set of prime lenses, that'd be nice. I think the real magic (and difficulty) lies in producing great lenses, which is an entirely analogue process.

rasjani 9y ago

Swapping sensors - wouldn’t that also require hefty software changes?

zrth 9y ago

Wow, congratulations to everyone involved! How absolutely fantastic that there is another completely open device we can hack and enjoy! Looking forward to seeing what ingenious modifications and applications people will be coming up with!

agjacobson 9y ago

Price point is everything. Good luck.