Welcome to the new 8mm Forum!
The forum you are looking at is entirely new software. Because there was no good way to import all of the old archived data from the last 20 years on the old software, everyone will need to register for a new account to participate.
To access the original forums from 2003-2019 which are now a "read only" status, click on the "FORUM ARCHIVE" link above.
Please remember registering with your first and last REAL name is mandatory. This forum is for professionals and fake names are not permitted. To get to the registration page click here.
Once the registration has been approved, you will be able to login via the link in the upper right corner of this page.
Also, please remember while it is highly encouraged to upload an avatar image to your profile, is not a requirement. If you choose to upload an avatar image, please remember that it IS a requirement that the image must be a clear photo of your face.
Thank you!
Stan I'm only using a microscope holder as a rack focus. The 12mm lens is mounted on the 72buco2. I will investigate the magnification. No board today, it is in Mississippi now.
Kamel glad to hear your are able to get out of the house! The SMPTE clip will be also exciting to receive!
Thanks for the clarification David. Hope your board arrives tomorrow.
Bruce, you have a good point. The 16mm images do look better.
It is definitely worth looking into this. The 12mm seems to have that lens flare that Mike complained about and I can see it in some scenes when there is lots of black and white mix. This could also be caused by the 12mm being too close to the film.
David, that's a nice looking microscope stand/mount, the 12mm lens we are using from OEMCameras does not have very much detail available. I would prefer not to have soft corners, but I guess it depends on how much of the frame is cropped.
Kamel, is there still room for the switches at 70mm, a better result sounds good, are you using the same 16mm lens as David.
David, the smpte clip got off to a good start this morning.
Stan, thanks for the news on the progress of the kits.
Bruce, I'm using the imaging source 16mm low distortion TBN 16 C 5M.
I have not yet done 16mm tests on the wolverine, I am waiting for the V12.
I will calculate the space left for the switches and modify the front panel accordingly.
Well, the 12mm and 72buc02 were at the right spacing in the earlier post. I was fooled
because of the full frame capture. It was a late night!
Once I put the film on the holder, it was obvious the magnification was correct. I could not improve the lens flare by moving the light source. A little contrast in post should help.
This is not backlit!
I can't believe there is a worldwide shortage of the plastic camera standoffs!
I'm using M2 brass standoffs. 10mm is pretty close to 3/8".
Stan, if you have a coping saw and could make a tiny jig to cut these in half, they are in stock.
Standoff - Nylon (4-40; 3/4"; 10 pack) https://www.sparkfun.com/products/11796
I'm intrigued by the 4k sensor price!!! I expected it to be way more expensive.
Other manufactures offer this resolution at similar prices, but they are not compatible with Hawkey's firmware and they don't have triggers.
I'm in with the 37ux228, unless, you can think of any other problems Stan.
I will lose some magnification, but gain more pixels. Sensor diagonal is larger, 9.4mm up from 7.19mm. The board & mounting holes are the same, but the lens mount will add a challenge. I hope it not $100!!! Maybe it can be printed?
pixel size is smaller H: 1.85 µm, V: 1.85 µm down from 2.2 µm. Less light.
Yes that camera looks very good. Don't think the lens holder will be that expensive. Should get the quote next week. If similar to this one then it could be around $20 https://www.oemcameras.com/lens-holder-tlh10-11-12s.htm
A few issues. The lens holder will need an extension unless they have different lengths.
The usb connection will have an issue with the extender cable with 16mm lens. But teh current camera that we use may have the same issue. Hitting teh switches PCB. Means redesign of the front panel.
Hi Stan, David, Kamel, its difficult to decide which of the two sensors would give a better result. If one were to rely on physics the IMX178LQJ sensor with 2.4 µm pixel size is going to capture more light (per pixel) and should do better overall with light/dark areas of a frame, also would generate less noise.
I wonder if the small price difference is a reflection on image quality between IMX178LQJ and IMX226CQJ, more pixels does not always mean better overall results, only going by what I have read.
Do any of the companies that sell these cameras have test images (they must have tested their products) for comparison.
I would be inclined to lean towards the MX178LQJ due to larger pixel size, David may lean towards the IMX226CQJ due to improved resolution and this sensor is a better fit in regards to the frame ratio of 1.33.
I have done some reading on these two sensors. Here are some preliminary inputs:
IMX178LQJ doc: https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/produ..._LQJ_Flyer.pdf
In this doc it says:
Sony developed back-illuminated structure 2.4 μm unit pixel and accomplished the equivalent sensitivity as the existing back-illuminated structure 2.8 μm unit pixel, "IMX136LQJ"
In IMX226CQJ document: https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/produ..._CQJ_Flyer.pdf
It says:
These characteristics are extremely important for security camera which often opens lens diaphragm during night-time shooting. And at the lower F-number better low light performance is possible than front-illuminated structure 2.8 μm unit pixel, the IMX136LQJ.
This indicates that IMX226CQJ is better at low light than IMX178LQJ. The picture in
On the other hand IMX178LQJ has 14 bit DAC and IMX226CQJ 12 bit. Probably better dynamic range which is also important. So no decision yet.
Stan thanks for the reply, are the below statements contradictory? Seems as though Sony make changes/upgrade their sensors and keep the same basic model number. There is a considerable difference between front and rear illumination as far as I am aware.
The image you posted definitely shows a considerable difference between IMX226CQJ and IMX136LQJ at low light.
1. the equivalent sensitivity as the existing back-illuminated structure 2.8 μm unit pixel, "IMX136LQJ"
2. than front-illuminated structure 2.8 μm unit pixel, the IMX136LQJ.
Assume that 1. is the correct statement.
Regards - Bruce
Hello Stan,
will it be complicated to replace usb 2 with usb3.1 on the V12 in case we change the camera (4K)?
The cost would be how much for this option if it is feasible.
Bruce, you have a valid point. The document was done sloppily and is not to be trusted too much.
The specs indicate exactly what you are saying.
So, better low light performance, higher dynamic range. Although 2 bits do not make that much difference judging by the images.
See https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/produ..._LQJ_Flyer.pdf
at the bottom.
Kamel, the usb would require a new pcb and the opening in the back cover would have to be enlarged.
Another note, not directly related to the new camera - 16mm lens will require new front panel.
Tweet
Comment