Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Raspberry Pi Announces The $50 High Quality Camera

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by polarathene View Post

    Mod it mate: https://www.kurokesu.com/main/2017/0...-instructions/

    You can pay the guy to do the mod for you if that's not your thing, but cost wise, kinda silly amount for a webcam.
    https://www.kurokesu.com/shop/lenses/L058-FZA-5Z50-CS
    If you check what that mod maker is recommending in lens you find this one with a 3MP rating. Yes for the full 4k logitech-brio and its tested that make of lens and it works.

    You will find others around with 1 and 2MP rating stuff on 4K sensors. RPi lens is not that far out the ball park really just the ratings on CS/C/M12 lens that are MP are basically always wrong question is how far under.

    https://www.kurokesu.com/shop/M12-TO-CS-ADAPTER

    Other reason why I don't mind CS as the fitted lens mount is this. So M12 can be used in a CS mount just like C lens can be used in a CS mount with adaptor. CS mount allows you to use the most lens without needing to be changing the mount. Changing the mount you risk damaging the sensor every single time. Do be aware M12 to CS adaptor here also has the locking grub screw on the M12 that can result in getting the M12 stuck in the adaptor for good.

    CS mount is basically you best choice if you are going for cheap changeable lens. Just make it a really good CS mount so you are not getting lens stuck in it.

    This is one of the reasons why I don't see the RPI HQ camera piece as too expensive. Few times having to change the CS/M12 mount because you locked the back focus by a grub screw and the lens now would not come out is nightmare when you consider you are now changing the full mount on and off every-time you want to use that lens and change back to another lens for now on and its locked only to that sensor because its only correctly focused for that sensor. 50 dollars alone for a well designed CS mount is kind of worth it over time not to have those troubles if you are going to be using the camera with more than 1 lens/device.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
      Really you cannot compare a smartphone main camera to one designed for a changeable lens. The silicon area of the sensor for one made for a lens is on a totally different scale and totally different production.
      Well, if you read recent phone camera reviews, they're comparing phone cameras to full-frame DSLRs these days. The 600 megapixel monster phones compensate the lack of interchangeable lenses with multiple sensors etc. And they do all sorts of pixel binning algorithms to produce high ISO sensitivity.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
        Sorry to say this is not true but there is a cost reason. MIPI_CSI-2 does not forbid camera side processing. Its just simpler to build a MIPI_CSI-2 to usb than what it is to build a MIPI_CSI2 to MIPI_CSI2 as you have to insert a middle processing item between camera and device and add driver to kernel to support this.
        I wasn't talking about the bandwidth of MIPI-CSI2 vs USB (nor specifically USB 2, the ones I was thinking of were USB 3). I'm not aware of MIPI-CSI2 camera modules / boards that have their own ISP, can you link to one?

        You can see a product here, these have been available since 2016/2017, so ignore the recent blog post date and mention of RPi4:
        https://www.e-consystems.com/blog/ca...aspberry-pi-4/

        It offers [email protected] MJPEG, or around half that via V4L2 uncompressed. The image sensors are rather old(2015), so these obviously don't compare to the IMX477. However, as mentioned they have their own ISP on board, the Pi HQ cam does not have this, thus it's limited by the ISP on the board it's connected to. Thus the device is capable of processing video at a higher resolution than the RPi is capable of at with the IMX477 (not that it means better quality though).

        This type of thing doesn't appear that uncommon with USB camera modules, at least with comparable prices (these cost a fair bit, that you're better off getting a board that is capable of doing the processing on it's end instead). I've not come across any with onboard ISP that interface over MIPI-CSI to the board.

        So yes.... it is true. In the sense there are boards that will handle the processing on their end and be capable of handling better performance than the Pi can offer with it's GPU based ISP which as we both know by now is quite limited.


        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
        Unstable back focus makes it basically impossible to get front focus right. Remember changing back focus looks like changing front focus. So its quite important your back focus is stable(locked) and right.

        That is the shocking bad back focus lock design is that hole. You put a grub screw or equal in that hole that tightens down on the thread of the lens possible deforming it so the lens possible never comes back out and you can never adjust that back focus ever again if that happens you better hope you had it right.

        Good looks like the raspberry pi HQ camera mount. So all CS mount lens expect you have some form of back focus be it that horrible grub screw or a proper locking bolt design that does not damage the lens thread. Yes if you force undo a CS mounted lens with a grub screw or equal lock you can basically de-thread the lens.
        Good to know, thanks for explaining all that

        I found plenty of CS-mount lens holder, but they all have this side hole for the screw instead of the side design like the Pi HQ cam is offering, I guess if I want to add one of those I'd need to DIY it..or perhaps buy an HQ cam and take the component from that.

        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
        I was not aiming to drive it that low but it would work.
        Not sure what you meant here. The Pi boards are only capable of processing video at [email protected] max, you need external processing with product like the one I linked above if you want more than that.


        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
        You need a lens with a MTF rating suitable to the sensors pitch for it to work well to it full function and that is not printed on the lens you only find that out when you dig into the lens specification sheets and if you can get them in the first place.
        I already mentioned this information a couple times now when talking about a linked Basler lens. Here is the docs for it if you want more technical docs, I'm linking to the 16mm version as it's displaying better/sharper results on their MTF test image than the other focal lengths:

        https://docs.baslerweb.com/c125-1620-5m-p.html

        They mention plenty of information there including about details of camera tested, such as their 5MP model here:
        https://www.baslerweb.com/en/product.../aca2500-14gc/

        I assume that is where the 5MP rating assigned to it comes from. But the main takeaway for me as I've been saying is not the MP rating, but the lp/mm rating when paired with the pixel pitch. The docs mention this too with 230 lp/mm at 2.2 pixel pitch(the camera that was tested with on the lens). As 2.2 micron pixel pitch matches almost to 230 lp/mm (500/2.2), I guess the value is taken from that... in which case I suppose it doesn't really say much about the lens quality with other image sensors anymore than the MP rating does..

        I suppose that may also mean those MTF test images that are included in the docs aren't particularly helpful either? They're all taken at an 0.5m working distance, and if I understand correctly, that would bias certain focal lengths? (the docs for each assign the same 0.5m as an optimal working distance, so I don't know..)

        I also learned that I was mistaken with this choice of lens as 1/2.5" as the docs point out is a image circle/diagonal of 7.3mm, and the 1/2.3" IMX477 is 7.9mm, thus not all of the sensor would be covered right?

        Confusing still for me, is that looking at the other larger format lenses in those Basler docs show a decreasing lp/mm, although they up the associated MP rating, like with the 2020 release of their "12MP" line. Take this 12mm variant for 1.1" format:

        https://docs.baslerweb.com/c11-5020-12m-p.html

        It's specified 142 lp/mm at 3.52 um pixels... 500/3.52 == 142 lp/mm, ok.. so this lp/mm value is purely linked to the pixel pitch getting lower as the pixel pitch increases, regardless of format size of the lens. Their MP rating seems to go up though based on format size, but I've seen other vendors assign higher MP rating to smaller formats, so I don't know where that metric comes from other than just what camera it's tested against. Not really clear how any of this is meant to be useful for evaluating the quality of a lens then, or it's compatiblity with image sensors.

        With that 1.1" format sensor, that covers over 2x the area of the IMX477, so what will happen there? Over half of the light from the lens won't reach the sensor right? So is that considered a bad match as the amount of detail/quality from the lens would be reduced? Or since the lp/mm and MP associated values of the lens for it's resolving power seem meaningless, is there no loss in quality vs a larger format sensor?


        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
        The issue here is technical you will find 4K sensor ~12MP security cameras with 1-3MP rated lens. MP rating on lens is on specification sheet and printed on does not mean much really of what the lens can do at all.
        I clearly can't debate this with you, everything I've tried to understand about it seems to be invalid (despite all the technical information online that talks about such, so I must be misunderstanding something there).

        All I know is that RPi Foundation did design the lens products, they're not just re-packaged existing ones. Given the 3 year development period and knowledge involved, one would assume the lens being specifically designed/tailored for the HQ cam, along with lens optics selection, they'd have chosen those that would suit the IMX477 best, as it's their own lens products, the MP rating would be thought to be linked to their own camera and testing on it, thus makes no sense why they'd label one with 3MP as that is of no benefit to them.

        The linked blogpost with the reply from James also confirmed the 3MP effective resolution with the HQ cam, without the hardware on hand, I can't really investigate or debate that further and you seem to be dismissing it. I can understand what you mean when comparing third-party products in general as the metrics meaning little, but this doesn't make sense to me when looking at the Pi HQ cam and it's lenses, if it was anything like the Basler ones, they'd just say 12MP 6mm, and 12MP 16mm at 1.55 um pixel pitch.

        My understanding is that with the 6mm, your 6mm lens would produce the image at 3MP and while it can output a 12MP image, it'd have no additional detail than if you had upscaled a 3MP image.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by caligula View Post
          Well, if you read recent phone camera reviews, they're comparing phone cameras to full-frame DSLRs these days. The 600 megapixel monster phones compensate the lack of interchangeable lenses with multiple sensors etc. And they do all sorts of pixel binning algorithms to produce high ISO sensitivity.
          Really that don't compare. Full frame DSLR with changeable lens can basically be by enough adaptors connected to anything doing that with a phone camera does run into all sorts of issues.

          Also you said something that is kind of important.
          https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3922435
          DSLR use pixel skipping it is not that they could not using pixel binning people do this when they are doing raw capture then processed on a PC.

          This should now have you thinking. If a phone camera with a so called higher sensor megapixel camera is needing to pull all these stunts to keep up with your DSLR what do you think a DSLR produces when you apply the same stunts remember you can apply most of the same stunts of pixel binning on a DSLR with the software when using on raw image data and PC processing.

          Yes people are careful to compare phone cameras to DSLR without raw processing profiles applied even that 600 megapixel camera. Yes DSLR do really need to increase in camera processing so you simple get the best out the sensor you have instead of leaving a stack on the table for post processing to catch.

          If you are needing speciality filtering you have to go back to what the raw sensors give once you do on a 600 megapixel phone you start finding the results are not that great because there are so much processing being done to compensate for the issues that the larger DSLR sensor don't have.

          I am not saying you cannot take a decent photo with a 600 megapixel phone camera but is more going a great job against pure adversity caused by the limitations.

          Lot of ways you could say DSLR development is being done at the slow lazy snail pace.

          Sorry to say calibula I have read those reviews and know enough to see how they managed to-do a apples to oranges compare and effectively call a apple a orange. So completely skipping of the issues. So end users get told they are like the same without being informed of the different issues that those corrections cause.

          DSLR cameras have historic gone for the least modification to what they capture as possible to leave correction to post processing. Where you phone camera are trying to capture image and do all the post processing. So comparing a general DSLR photo with no post processing and the phone camera with auto post processing is only kind of level you are not really level. DSLR makers could decide at some point to add more post processing to cameras.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by polarathene View Post
            I wasn't talking about the bandwidth of MIPI-CSI2 vs USB (nor specifically USB 2, the ones I was thinking of were USB 3). I'm not aware of MIPI-CSI2 camera modules / boards that have their own ISP, can you link to one?
            Problem here is I have deployed the board. It was HDMI video capture on HIPI-CSI2 1,1 that was in fact connected to a camera. The MIPI-CSI2 raw was H.264 30fps 4K stream. This is camera controller side processed not the ISP that got fun when boards with 4K H.264 playback was rare. Yes that had to be compressed because raw 4K HDMI uncompressed was not going to fit down the MIPI-CSI2 1.1.

            It would be possible to man in middle the MIPI-CSI2 camera module and pull the same thing off. You see people man in middle the MIPI-CSI2 to allow more cameras to be connected and to make MIPI-CSI2 2 channel from like the protoboards RPi be 4 channel to the camera because the camera will run faster when it has 4 channels but those 4 channels is not more than the boards 2 channels can carry(yes these boards have ISP and a fake camera in the middle these are commonly fpga). You could place a encoded in as well the protocol of MIPI-CSI2 allows you to offer more than 1 raw type from a sensor so you just add a raw modes for the encoded outputs.

            Its kind of annoying that you have to have a 4K camera on an end of a HDMI cable to get compressed 4K H.264 over HIPI-CSI2.


            Originally posted by polarathene View Post
            It offers [email protected] MJPEG, or around half that via V4L2 uncompressed.
            That depends on your MIPI-CSI2 sensor a lot the ISP very little. [email protected] MJPEG should be achievable by the RPi 4 with the right MIPI-CSI2 sensor. Because the sensor encodes image to JPEG sending that jpeg to the ISP and the software on the cpu makes MJPEG. MJPEG just collects the JPEG images of every frame up into a single file. But you will need RPi 4 processing power and most likely a decent heat-sink to keep up.

            VPU hardware encoder is to help you realtime H264 on the RPi if you are using simpler formats like MJPEG you don't have this complexity or need.

            This is being aware that the camera side chips don't have to be dumb. When the compression is done camera side on MIPI-CSI2 what you can pull of simply increases.

            Licenses for H.264 and the like have seen camera modules mostly only have JPEG and that means MJPEG is what you are stuck with unless you have some accelerator.

            Good part is new rockchip coming out this year will come with full blown 4k H264 encoders.

            So this is not a ISP of VPU limit its a mixture of CPU and sensor limit.


            Originally posted by polarathene View Post
            Not sure what you meant here. The Pi boards are only capable of processing video at [email protected] max, you need external processing with product like the one I linked above if you want more than that.
            Hardware accel process [email protected] is Pi limit but that is not Pi boards absolute limit if you are willing to go the lighter less complex and more raw formats like MJPEG.


            Originally posted by polarathene View Post
            I also learned that I was mistaken with this choice of lens as 1/2.5" as the docs point out is a image circle/diagonal of 7.3mm, and the 1/2.3" IMX477 is 7.9mm, thus not all of the sensor would be covered right?
            You have to learn to take lens makers information with a serous grain of salt. 7.3mm perfect zone by lens maker in specification sheet can in fact be putting light out to 7.9mm perfectly fine. This is party why you need good back focus because increasing distance between lens and sensor makes output circle bigger has it blurred the lens makers docs don't tell you that. . Will very quickly start understanding why you need up needing to buy sample lens.

            Even the data sheets with sample photos they most likely wasted no time taking them. So back focus and front focus to the test camera can both be off and the picture looked good enough so they put it on the specification sheet. Do those test yourself can be good to see where your lens calibration is and if it going to work right.


            Originally posted by polarathene View Post
            INot really clear how any of this is meant to be useful for evaluating the quality of a lens then, or it's compatiblity with image sensors.
            You are starting to learn how nightmare lens matching is. As I wrote before often no other choice than buy a sample lens that looks close on specification and pray. If it right note down that model for next time.

            Originally posted by polarathene View Post
            With that 1.1" format sensor, that covers over 2x the area of the IMX477, so what will happen there? Over half of the light from the lens won't reach the sensor right?
            You hope the light that misses does not make it way back to the sensor bright enough as it can basically cloud out the image.

            Originally posted by polarathene View Post
            All I know is that RPi Foundation did design the lens products, they're not just re-packaged existing ones. Given the 3 year development period and knowledge involved, one would assume the lens being specifically designed/tailored for the HQ cam, along with lens optics selection, they'd have chosen those that would suit the IMX477 best, as it's their own lens products, the MP rating would be thought to be linked to their own camera and testing on it, thus makes no sense why they'd label one with 3MP as that is of no benefit to them.
            The odd 3MP ratings and lack of exact branding is the lens are not made specially for RPi Foundation but are chosen good matches. Chosen good matches is still not easy.

            Getting the machining for the CS lens mount that the RPi camera has right was not exactly simple. Even that its the design that is in the CS specification. As you have seen lot of people are not using CS lens mounts to specification. Remember you make a CS mount not to specification you have 1 bit of metal. A correctly made CS mount as the RPi HQ has you have to use 2 bits of metal yes the inner back focus and the outer locking ring that have to fit with each other absolutely correctly. Remember this is extra metal and extra assembly steps..

            Originally posted by polarathene View Post
            My understanding is that with the 6mm, your 6mm lens would produce the image at 3MP and while it can output a 12MP image, it'd have no additional detail than if you had upscaled a 3MP image.
            That the problem lens are analog. So you put a 12MP capture surface behind a 3MP lens you would always get more detail the question is how usable. How much of the detail will not be usable due to blur depending on the quality of the lens that make up the lens itself that blur could basically be nothing or absolutely deal breaking. Remember factory they tested with a 3/5MP camera that lens was up to quality and up to quality does not mean they tuned it into perfect back and front focus so how much has the maker left off the specification sheet.

            If you just upscale the 3MP image there would be no more detail at all. You have seen people with old flim and being able to blow it up a long way past what was the recommend projection level and find details that were hidden with digital processing. Lens are not much different to film this way.

            This is part of the problem 3MP is a digital measure and lens is a analog beast. Yes once you are truly past what the lens can do properly the blur out starts looking like you upscale but you can still run filters on that blur and at times pull more detail out where a up-scaled image there is nothing but random garbage there. The idea that once you are past limit of lens its like a upscale image is wrong its just at that point getting more details has got way harder not that they are not there for the getting.

            Basically people get it backwards. Upscale image was designed to attempt to replicate the look of using a lens past limit. Please note replicate not duplicate.

            Get the problem here people think when you see a lens giving you something that looks like a upscaled image that there is no more detail there. Anti-blur and refocus filters have been designed for reasons so you can pull detailed out of blurred by lens images. Yes blurred by lens and upscaled look very much the same until you apply filters
            1) then the blurred by lens starts giving more details because the details are in fact there just taking a lot of processing to get them.
            2) upscale gives you nothing or worse than where you started.
            So you get a really clear separation here if something was blurred by lens or upscaled. Of course you want to avoid having to run filters to remove blur particularly if you are filming as you have enough processing time without having to waste days on removing blur.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by polarathene View Post
              Umm if you were in the tinker market and wanted to use some nice sensors, especially at a lower cost, using MIPI-CSI modules instead of USB ones is probably quite useful. Lower cost SBC generally aren't going to support as high of a bandwidth of the interface, nor provide an ISP(I don't even know if the RPi does? At least I'm pretty sure the 3 and earlier had specific GPU driver to handle the responsibility). You can find more expensive SBC than the Pi 4 that provide this camera interface, even nvidia Jetson which is $99.

              USB equivalent products tend to cost more, mostly for the convenience and added cost to being more of a consumer product(proper enclosure and all that, less knowledge required). Definitely not redundant functionality by including MIPI-CSI.
              Umm... Have you looked at how cheap USB webcams have been for what, the last 15 or so years? Because better quality webcams than the original official camera module and the improved one from 2016 have been under $20 for years while the official camera module has cost about $35.

              The fact that more expensive boards also have the port is not really an argument when it's a redundant port anyway. Particularly on the latest model that does away with both the USB and ethernet sitting behind the same USB 2.0 controller.
              "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                Really that don't compare. Full frame DSLR with changeable lens can basically be by enough adaptors connected to anything doing that with a phone camera does run into all sorts of issues.

                Also you said something that is kind of important.
                https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3922435
                DSLR use pixel skipping it is not that they could not using pixel binning people do this when they are doing raw capture then processed on a PC.

                This should now have you thinking. If a phone camera with a so called higher sensor megapixel camera is needing to pull all these stunts to keep up with your DSLR what do you think a DSLR produces when you apply the same stunts remember you can apply most of the same stunts of pixel binning on a DSLR with the software when using on raw image data and PC processing.

                Yes people are careful to compare phone cameras to DSLR without raw processing profiles applied even that 600 megapixel camera. Yes DSLR do really need to increase in camera processing so you simple get the best out the sensor you have instead of leaving a stack on the table for post processing to catch.

                If you are needing speciality filtering you have to go back to what the raw sensors give once you do on a 600 megapixel phone you start finding the results are not that great because there are so much processing being done to compensate for the issues that the larger DSLR sensor don't have.

                I am not saying you cannot take a decent photo with a 600 megapixel phone camera but is more going a great job against pure adversity caused by the limitations.

                Lot of ways you could say DSLR development is being done at the slow lazy snail pace.

                Sorry to say calibula I have read those reviews and know enough to see how they managed to-do a apples to oranges compare and effectively call a apple a orange. So completely skipping of the issues. So end users get told they are like the same without being informed of the different issues that those corrections cause.

                DSLR cameras have historic gone for the least modification to what they capture as possible to leave correction to post processing. Where you phone camera are trying to capture image and do all the post processing. So comparing a general DSLR photo with no post processing and the phone camera with auto post processing is only kind of level you are not really level. DSLR makers could decide at some point to add more post processing to cameras.
                And, IMHO, if DSLR/Mirrorless/Digital camera started adding in all those post processing features it would come with a mixed reception since most photographers won't want those features at all since they'd only make the camera take less pictures due to the extra CPU cycles all the extra PP and small screen editing time it would potentially add.

                Most people with an actual camera want the picture as pure as possible so they can be the algorithm that does the post processing. Most people with a cell camera want the picture to not look like ass while including some filters so they look cool on social media. They're made for completely different markets.

                That said, I've always thought it would be neat AF to combine a Mirrorless with an Android Phone or Tablet. I'd pay good money for a decent phone with Pentax K-Mount or a Canon EF mount. DSLR would work too, but mirrorless seems like it would integrate into Android better since that's what it has already. I prefer DSLR because relying on a screen when the sun is bright sucks.

                But either setup would be the best of both worlds. Damn good camera sensor? Check. Interchangeable lenses? Check. An OS with a lot of advanced imaging features? Check. Options for DIY editing or Instatard Filters? Check. GIMP and Darktable on the go? Check.

                And some of y'all -- A camera tablet? Is he really serious?

                Yes I am. It's called "buy a tripod" because it would be really awesome to have a studio camera with a high quality 14" screen that a person could do quick adjustments on over wireless camera to PC options where the photographer has to go back and forth from camera to PC or has to dick around on a 3-4 inch screen.

                This thread really went off on a tangent. It was a really nice tangent compared to other Phoronix threads.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                  And, IMHO, if DSLR/Mirrorless/Digital camera started adding in all those post processing features it would come with a mixed reception since most photographers won't want those features at all since they'd only make the camera take less pictures due to the extra CPU cycles all the extra PP and small screen editing time it would potentially add.
                  Depends on the types of post processing and how it it done. The correction matrixs for len issues and general colour correction can be done rapidly some of your non changeable lens cameras already have this processing onboard does not come at a major power cost.

                  Screen issue is coming less of a problem as more of the DSLR in fact connect to smart phones and tablets by applications.

                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                  Most people with an actual camera want the picture as pure as possible so they can be the algorithm that does the post processing.
                  I agree that has to remain option. Put default option on the auto dial to have processing done by default would basically stop the claims from those making smart phone cameras in track.


                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                  Most people with a cell camera want the picture to not look like ass while including some filters so they look cool on social media. They're made for completely different markets.
                  True they are made for different markets and those reviewing phones normally like to skip over the fact that phones don't give them control of the colour correction so can make a photo look like an ass and it lost data due to the first application of colour correction. Yes this is one of the symptoms on phones of the auto apply of post-processing but there is a lot more post processing being applied with sensor and lens correction stuff.

                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                  That said, I've always thought it would be neat AF to combine a Mirrorless with an Android Phone or Tablet. I'd pay good money for a decent phone with Pentax K-Mount or a Canon EF mount. DSLR would work too, but mirrorless seems like it would integrate into Android better since that's what it has already. I prefer DSLR because relying on a screen when the sun is bright sucks.
                  I would not pay for a phone with a decent camera mount. One of the nightmares is when you place stuff on tripods you have to do this when you have a heavy lens. Lot of DSLR and Mirrorless these days support wifi to andorid/ios phone/tablet for remote control. There are reasons why you cannot put a decent changeable lens on back of phone it is big one that it makes it too large for your general pockets.

                  What would be more interest to me is a mirror-less that does not bother having a connected screen. Instead the screen on the back of camera is a docked tablet that you can connect back to the camera by USB cable or by wifi or by pins in mount. Reality here is all those rotate screen around stuff ends up with broken screen cables. This would be nice on tripod work in all areas. Yes some areas are radio noisy and wifi does not work.

                  Heck just a screen that can take off camera and reconnect to camera by 5m USB cable would be down right handy. Even better if camera vendors could agree on some universal USB control protocol to end the nightmare of needing individual applications per camera..

                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                  Yes I am. It's called "buy a tripod" because it would be really awesome to have a studio camera with a high quality 14" screen that a person could do quick adjustments on over wireless camera to PC options where the photographer has to go back and forth from camera to PC or has to dick around on a 3-4 inch screen.
                  https://entangle-photo.org/ By cable to PC or kind of. You have a board like a rasberypi plugged into camera. You you usb/ip to convert this to network then you can cross the room to laptop over wifi. This is one of my setups. If you have full power drive lens you only need to touch the camera to change where it pointing. If you can guess the screen in these setups on the back of the camera is next to useless and might as well be turned off or not there at all once you are using to controlling direction of camera by large screen. Of course I want to be able to-do these setups without needing any custom hardware and possible with fully generic drivers.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                    I prefer DSLR because relying on a screen when the sun is bright sucks.
                    Mirrorless cameras have an electronic viewfinder. It doesn't leak any ambient light so it's perfectly visible in bright sunlight.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by caligula View Post
                      Mirrorless cameras have an electronic viewfinder. It doesn't leak any ambient light so it's perfectly visible in bright sunlight.
                      Sorry not all do. Some Mirrorless just have a screen on the back without antiglare coating. Yep you have to add a protective layer to them to get antiglare then a shroud so you can see the screen in bright light. Please note these are all quite pricey added extras at times. One of the mirrorless cameras I use by remote control does not have a electronic viewfinder.

                      Something horrible here like the sony ones with electronic viewfinder if you turn the electronic view finder off you will get roughly 50 more shots per battery change. So from around 350 to 400 shots.. So even when you have electronic viewfinder on mirrorless cameras does not mean its a wise move to be using it. Does this now explain why you are seeing more cases with people with full shrouds on the back of their cameras around the LCD screen and the shroud render the viewfinder useless because it covers it.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X