9 ms·
Sitina1 Open-Source Camera
- gaudat 2y agoThe design is pretty modern. But what is with the choice of the Kodak CCD sensor? CCD cameras got a resurgence in Chinese communities with second-hand camera prices increased like tenfold. Also see Apertus Axiom where they also used the Zynq but used one hell of a CMOS sensor that can do 4K 300FPS.
- SushiHippie 2y agoHe explained it in this Video at 13:02 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfzjmY9cF8&t=13m02s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfzjmY9cF8&t=13m02s > Why use CCD instead of CMOS? > Well let's say I started this project before the recent CCD camera hype so that's not the reason. Part of me just wanted to be special and fullframe CCD is kind of special.
- dylan604 2y agoBeing a small manufacture means you go to the bottom of the list for the vendors of the sensors. I'm sure the best sensors are pretty much already spoken for, and the lower quality ones are what's available to any one not the likes of Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. Any other reason is pretty much an excuse. We could just go back to full sized cameras with 3 CCDs. j/k
- numpad0 2y agoIIRC the author scored a few trays on local equivalent of eBay. Obsoleted Kodak/OnSemi KAF line of sensors are rare kind of large film-sized sensors with public full datasheets; most manufacturers don't even confirm or deny existences of sensors in public.
- aeturnum 2y agoCCD sensors render differently than CMOS sensors and, if their strengths are what you are looking for they could still make sense. Compared to CMOS they require more light, but when you are capturing an image properly they do a really good job of rendering colors and details. CCD sensors also introduce less noise as part of their pipeline (though again, the ceiling on how sensitive they can be is much lower than CMOS). Basically there has always been a community of photographers who like the "CCD look" and it's not surprising to me that someone who's geeky enough to make his own camera went with one.
- cycomanic 2y agoThat sounds like the stuff you read on audiophile websites where they are trying to sell you a special "audio-tuned" ethernet cable for thousands of dollar. The sensor simply converts photons into electrons binned into colors based on the bayer pattern, how can they "render" colors differently? That's a function of the digital processing pipline. Also I don't understand how a CCD can introduce less noise than a CMOS, but is less sensitive at the same time? Light sensitivity is largely governed by the noise floor of the sensor I would say.
- aeturnum 2y agoI don't really know either. My understanding is that the process of increasing ISO (i.e. boosting signal) works a lot better in CMOS, but also that because of how CMOS works read noise is higher overall. So a CCD will give you a cleaner record at base sensitivity (generally iso 100) or slightly elevated iso, but as soon as you get away from that CMOS sensors will do better. Whatever read noise they introduce is less impactful than the fact that they are much better at amplifying the light you did detect in a clean(er) way. You are also welcome to dismiss me as a goofy photophile. I am not trying to sell you anything, just reporting what I understand people think. Maybe this article seems less snake oil-y[1]? [1] https://petapixel.com/what-is-ccd-cmos-sensor/ https://petapixel.com/what-is-ccd-cmos-sensor/
- cycomanic 2y agoSorry if it came across like it, I didn't mean to accuse you of snake oil pandering. I just read the article and I think you misremembered, the article states CMOS has in fact a significantly lower noise floor (I wondered about this, because I remember when the next gen CMOS sensors came out in the pentax K5 and the Nikon D400(?) it was possible to push the shadows so strongly that you could essentially take a completely black photo and push it up to the same as if you would have taken with higher ISO). CCDs have a "more pleasing/film-like" nonlinearity, but I believe if you shoot raw a linear response is always better, because it gives you more flexibility for post processing.
- dvh 2y agoWhy is there so much vignetting?
- dylan604 2y agoIt's artistic.
- shrubble 2y agoOnly some of the sample images are vignetted; so it appears to be related to post-processing.
- numpad0 2y agoProbably the author is not using digital optimized "telecentric" lenses. It's known that digital sensors are less tolerant with respect to incident angles compared to films.
- dannyw 2y agoA lot of modern (DSLR or mirrorless era) lens intentionally accept a lot of optical flaws that are easy to correct with software (e.g. vignetting; sometimes even mechanical/hard vignetting where the lens does not fully cover the sensor); to prioritise addressing flaws that are difficult to correct with software (i.e. resolution, sharpness). The software in the camera automatically correct these things before you see it; and when it's particularly bad, usually this correction cannot be disabled. On most brands, RAW will tell you something closer to what the sensor is really seeing.
- cyberax 2y agoLove it. I really wish classical mirrorless camera makers would get their head out of their collective asses, and make a camera that is not stuck in the 80-s mentality. Give me a large sunlight-readable touchscreen, with multitouch. Also GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, and 5G/LTE for connectivity and geotagging. Add automatic uploads to Google Photos, iPhoto, WebDAV, etc. Put in a small editor for on-device photo touchups. Also, ditch the old-timey film-camera look. I don't need 15 physical switches, most of which should be automatic anyway. A physical button for the shutter and an analog knob for fine tuning are fine, but I don't need a manual switch for AF/MF. Or a "shutter delay" selector that is too easy to accidentally bump.
- porphyra 2y agoThe Zeiss ZX1 was an interesting foray into this direction: * nice big multitouch screen * on-device Lightroom for retouching * it's an android device But it didn't do very well despite its really outstanding image quality. (Maybe it was the $6000 price tag, maybe it was just the lag)
- akho 2y agoPlenty of companies already make phones with cameras. “Cameraphones”, as young people call them. Why do you want camera makers — who are obviously serving a market you are not interested in — to stop serving their market?
- quuxly 2y agoThis is called a smartphone.
- cyberax 2y agoYes, exactly. But with a better sensor and optics.
- shiroiushi 2y agoAnd without all the things that make it useful as a regular smartphone. So why bother with it? Just use a real smartphone.
- bbbrbb 2y agoNice!
- MaximilianEmel 2y agoVideo showing the making of it: https://youtu.be/OkfzjmY9cF8 https://youtu.be/OkfzjmY9cF8
- 3abiton 2y agoGreat project, I get excited about tools that I didn't expect to get the Open Source treatment pop up on the list.
- 999900000999 2y agoI have interest in assembling this, but I'd love to buy it. I wasted about 1k on trying to design a small backup phone before realizing I couldn't get it down to the dimensions I wanted. I'd need like half a million to actually build this thing. However, I really want to see more hardware with open software. On the other hand you have open firmware for some cannon cameras if you want to do that route.
- xena 2y agoWhere do I get the parts to make one?
- dagw 2y agoAt least for the sensor, you're going to have to go scrounging around on eBay.
- LeafItAlone 2y agoI’ve thought for years that there had been dearth of open source cameras. It’s nice to see them picking up steam, with a few recent posts of them.
- dheera 2y agoHey OP, if you ever plan to turn this into a kit for sale for <$2000-ish I'd be highly interested. I'm sick and tired of microscopic cameras like the RPi "HQ" camera being called HQ. I come from photography land and a full 35mm-ish sensor is the minimum of what I'd call HQ.
- _giorgio_ 2y agoI thought this was about open source outdoor / surveillance camera... Do we have anything on that topic?
- icar 2y agoI want a camera that works digitally, but all is through physical controls and only the photometer is digital as well. Not a single "auto" feature. All manual, but saves to an SD.
- cultofmetatron 2y agofujifim tx cameras and nikon's zf might make you happy. they are digital cameras with a throwback "retro" manual control scheme.
- icar 2y agoI'll take a look. Thanks!
- bjpirt 2y agoNot cheap, but you can get a Leica that doesn't even have a screen, it's all manual and just treats the sensor as though it were film stock. One of the things I like about the Leica digitals is that they are still rangefinder cameras so your experience of using them is still through the viewfinder and much more akin to an analog experience because of the manual focus / exposure / speed control. Now I just need to save up :-) As others have said, the Nikon Zf is a nice manual feeling digital option too.
- icar 2y agoThanks, I'll check it out and probably start saving.
- numpad0 2y agoGood news is that Leica M11D has just launched last month, bad news is it costs $9.3k for just the body.
- icar 2y agoI wonder why there isn't anything more affordable...
- ZiiS 2y agoWhy o why did "Cheep Android phone with a lenses mount" fail.
- nine_k 2y agoBecause the lens mount alone is as thick as the phone, lenses are heavy so the phone's.frame must become stronger and this heavier, and the result becomes a pretty silly phone, heavy and weird-shaped without a lens, and even more weird-shaped with an attached lens.
- ZiiS 2y agoNot as a primary phone. I mean a purpose made mirrorless but reusing the screen, motherboard and battery from some ultra cost-optimised phone. Easy to use SDK, loads of third party photo sharing and camera control apps.
- dannyw 2y agoSmartphone SoC ISPs are simply not capable enough of processing say 24MP (lest 45MP, 61mp) at 30FPS (for burst/sports shooting in RAW). At best, they could probably do 24MP RAW at like... 0.3 FPS? With your latest iPhone, enable ProRAW and hold the camera shutter down, and let me know fast it takes. Then, grab a Canon R5 (or Sony A7 IV, A7R V, etc), hold the shutter down...
- ZiiS 2y agoSure, I can't aford an R5.
- elintknower 2y agoGoodness, why gitlab?
- Coolbeanstoo 2y agoI think this is an incredibly cool project. I think it'd be neat if they did something like MNT do and ran a crowdfunding campaign to try get these some what more mass produced, though I dont get the impression the author is looking to run a business like that and mostly developed it for their own enjoyment. Regardless though, it does feel like open hardware is getting a lot more attainable than it used to be and that is surely a good thing