Wolverine-Hawkeye Telecine

[Bruce Davis]

Kamel thanks for the lens holders (was not able to access them previously).
Stan thanks for the Manual update.
David wondering how things are working out with the new DFM 37UX226-ML camera (sorry for being impatient) and your 16mm lens - thanks.
Regards - Bruce

[Stan Jelavic]

My DFM 37UX226-ML and lens holder are arriving today. Did not get the cable because concerned that it would not fit (too bulky). Hopefully my cell phone phone 3.1 data cable will work.

[Bruce Davis]

Hi Stan, I assume it is still Thursday in the US (Friday in AU 11.34am), not sure why the cable would make the package too bulky, does the delivery fee increase considerably?
Hope you are as exited to test this camera as I am to see the results.
Regards - Bruce

[Stan Jelavic]

Still Thursday here Bruce but not for much longer. Can we say that I am burning the midnight oil
Well, received the camera and connected it to my Win10 laptop. Downloaded and installed the imagingsource driver and Ic Capture sees the camera but no image.
I used the type C to type A cable from my cell phone and potentially that may be the problem. Will discuss it with imagingsource tomorrow. Possibly get their cable
https://www.theimagingsource.com/pro...causb31acbls3/

The problem with their cable is the size of the C connector end. May hit the top of the front panel opening once the camera is installed.

Tried to mount the camera onto the Hawkeye board. It does fit ok but pretty awkward. Will provide more details tomorrow.

So the first steps not very encouraging but will see how it goes. Curious to hear from David.

Stan

[David Brown]

Yes, the camera came on Tuesday but I couldn't get to it until yesterday. I had trouble with the driver. It complained my "firewire bus did not have enough bandwidth" It was right, I don't use a fire-wire connection! It must be an older error message that did not get updated.

I tried many things but in the end, removing the driver and reinstalling solved the problem.

I have to say I was impressed with the first image! That's not very descriptive, just my first reaction.

I found some of the menu items are buggy. Clicking the up or down arrow to change value will continue to increment if you don't move the cursor!

Gamma values display with the decimal moved 2 places to the left. White balance colors............then I went back to mounting.

I've spent most of my time mounting the camera. I'm probably 80% there. The new lens mount also increases the film to sensor distance, so I went to smaller spacers. I'm using m2 threaded brass standoffs. They come in length multiples of 2.5 and 5mm. I have been using 20mm, now at 15mm plus an m2 nut.

Then I adjusted the lens to sensor distance. It's not far from where it was on the 72buc02. Small distances make large changes!

I printed Kamel's lens mount Monday, mostly good but I do need to use supports, the 2nd time the printer failed. It's some weird thing that don't have time to fix right now so I'm using the IS mount + an extension. 2 of the holes on that are threaded for m2 and 2 are not.

I had trouble getting the sensor and film exactly parallel and went to 3 legs. Tomorrow I might go to 4. It's such a tiny distance, just a little softer on one side. I'm hoping Kamel's resolution frame comes in the mail soon.

I had a right angle USB 3 cable that is smaller than the mini USB we've been using, but here is still a collision with the run switch. I've considered removing that switch and rewiring it to the fan switch. Just let the fan run all the time.

The magnification change almost looks like the 12mm lens on the 72buc02. I can fill the whole 8mm width by changing sensor/lens and sensor/film distance, but then focus is a little soft. The whole point here was to gain some margin!

This is a lot of work!!!!!!!!!

[Bruce Davis]

Stan thanks for the reply, the type-c connector on that USB3.1 cable from Imagesource is huge, its not really suitable for the camera board (unless the plastic casing is reduced in size). Usb3.1 type-A only has 9 pins so I wonder if IS has a propitiatory interconnection method between type-c and type-a.

David thanks for the reply, good to know your first impression was positive. It looks as though the IS lens mount is only meant to be held in place with 2 screws. I have not tried to print Kamels lens mount but imagine it would be very difficult with a thread pitch of 0.5mm. If you are using Simply3D you can set up the support for the first part of the print and then turn it off for the threaded section using Process1 Process2.
Stan mentioned the switch plate would have to be reconfigured, sounds like a lot of time needed to setup the camera and lens. Would larger diameter standoffs provide more stability for the camera board (if only using 2).

Regards - Bruce

[Kamel Ikhlef]

hello everyone,
I designed the lens holder only based on documentation and photos.
therefore to be adjusted according to your experiences. Tell me the changes to make.
for the spacers. I can also design a support of the exact size you need.
It will suffice to integrate small M2 inserts.

David, the SMPTE clip should be arriving soon now. (he's been gone for 12 days)

[Stan Jelavic]

Found out that IC Measure works and Nick's code also works. Sent the message to IS but in the meantime will use Nick's program to evaluate.

[David Brown]

Kamel, Thank you, thank you. It arrived today just in time. here's a couple of samples from the Hawkeye. One is sharpened to 8.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PYh...ew?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nMs...ew?usp=sharing

Had the camera in the microscope mount checking to see if the blurring on one side is a flaw of the chip or caused by the mount in the Hawkeye. I'll be putting the camera back in the Hawkeye next.



It was likely just the film I was using, the test chart looks ok.

Stan, you might try your USBc a couple more times. The next time I used my angled head I got this error????



I disconnected and reconnected 3 times. Now it works again.

Bruce the posts I'm using will be solid. I was thinking I would need to elevate one side. Not much room where I placed the 2 standoffs. I had to wrap the bottom of one brass standoff with electrical tape it's so close to a transistor. The other 2 holes are clear for a larger standoffs, but I can't remove the main circuit board again!!

And no need for a special mount to adjust for 8mm, they both fit in the view.

HDR for video is an important feature, but more so for live events. We are not faced with live events and can always capture a problem scene multiple times at different exposures for more traditional HDR. I'm not looking forward to doing that, but it's an option.

This chip, 37UX226 is not promoting itself with HDR like the 37UX178 is.


Not the exact same images but here is the older capture with the 16mm/72BUOC and the 16mm/37UX226.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EvO...ew?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QZx...ew?usp=sharing

[Stan Jelavic]

Mounted the new camera
https://photos.app.goo.gl/B4FMb6ipKCwB532g7


and did some comparison scans.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/FMvhumq5XYvS9XAu5


Did not see much difference in dynamic range. Pretty much equivalent to the 72BUC02 with WDR which is disappointing. Will check the manual tomorrow to see if all 12bits are used.

Here are some early observations:
Negatives:
- IC Capture performance dismal with the new camera. Very sluggish and awkward to use.
- no apparent improvement in dynamic range
- mounting issues with the new lens holder. Two holes are threaded and two are not.
- no significant difference in image quality
- no improvement in FPS rate (may be caused by laptop speed)

Positives
- 12mm lens now produces 1600x1200 rez
- additional color tweaks possible
- looks like somewhat better auto white balance
- better alignment (larger margins) for S8/R8 and 16mm lens.

[Bruce Davis]

Hi David, Stan, Kamel, was very exited to see David's post, I could not determine any difference between the first two images, sharpened by a factor of 8 or none. David, not sure how well "capture a problem scene multiple times at different exposures" would work out, as the Wolverine does not allow for exact frame placement each time the same frame passes through the gate.
This statement may be of importance "This chip, 37UX226 is not promoting itself with HDR like the 37UX178 is", perhaps HDR is not required with this chip?

The "16mm_37UX226.tiff" does look sharper/crisper overall than the "16mm_72bu02.tiff" but it seems there is a slight difference from side to side in the focus/contrast of the "16mm_37UX226.tiff" image (rotated the image 90 deg. clockwise). But it could just be due to uneven lighting.

Stan's post was deflating, as there is virtualy no difference between the 72bu02 & 37UX226. If Stan was using the 12mm lens, I'm wondering whether a better quality 12mm or 16mm lens would make a difference.

Also wondering if a true USB3.1 cable and computer port are required for faster frame rates.

Regards - Bruce

[Stan Jelavic]

Yes it was 12mm lens Bruce, the one that comes with the 72bu02 camera. I really do not see much difference in image quality on my laptop. But potentially some difference on a large good quality monitor.
The difference in resolution is caused by the pixel density difference.
72bu02 - 2.2um
37UX226 - 1.85um
----------------------
37UX226 being 2.2/1.87 =1.176 times larger

So 1280x1024 image size becomes 1500x1200 for the same optical setup
I measured 1600x1200

This size is not achievable by 72bu02 and the same 12mm optics.

Going with the 16 mm will potentially give even better resolution and possibly reduced lens flare due to lower light incidence angle into the lens.

I will look into the FPS today again. I also have a linux Intel NUC and could try running the setup on it.

HDR can be run with the old or new camera. The MSP code can be changed to run 3 shots for every frame. Then a sw can be run to sort out the images.

[David Brown]

Stan, my immediate problem is - I cannot not capture frames. The trigger is not working. Am I cursed? I'm pretty sure I did some captures after I installed the new sensor, but I've been deleting as I go. My memory is not what it once was!

Yes the timer still works. I have not changed any wiring, maybe I bumped something. Anything come to mind !?

I agree this driver is sluggish and awkward. The runaway values on exposure and others have stopped for me. Are there capture alternatives to IC?

The claims of improved dynamic range are probably a comparison to older sensor performance with this pixel density. Not any better compared to the 72BUC02.

Your comparison captures had some detail improvement, but very little. Like the factor 8 sharpening I did. I could see a small improvement without artifacts. It might not be the best way to add sharpening if any post is being used.

Photoshop can batch multiple files with frame align and exposure stack. There might be freeware that can do that too for Panorama, HDR , or Astro photography. All of that adds complexity and time. Are you saying Hawkeye could bracket exposures with additional code?

The 16mm lens offers more clarity combined with the 37UX226. I'm happy and don't see where this could get better in the Hawkeye. The cost might not be equal to the results for others.

[Stan Jelavic]

David, are you running trigger with the new or old camera? I never tested it with the new cam but will look into it. If it does not work with the old one you can run the tests with a voltmeter and ohmmeter.
Connect the camera. Power the board up and run very slow scan and toggle the run switch if necessary to slow the scan down.
Check the following test points with the voltmeter.


Let me know if you need more help with it.
Yes we have an alternative for IC Capture - Nick's program. We also have the source code for it. Could use that in conjunction with some MSP mods to create 3 frame HDR. All in my mind and nothing on the paper yet.
In order to get IC capture to work I had play with the rez and FPS. Also switched to a 3.1 type C port on my laptop and seems to help a bit. Still very unstable.
When you get the chance can you post some high def pics of the 16mm new cam and 12mm old cam. Also if you could check it on you big monitor.
Just figured out - the trigger pins on the new camera are reversed. Why in a world would they do that.
So in order to trigger the new cam the trigger cable has to be cut and wires reversed.

Played some more with the new camera.
The FPS is limited by the driver so it will depend on the computer used. I cannot get even close to the rates posted in the manual.
Another puzzling thing is dynamic range. Ran 8 bits per pixel and 12 bits per pixel and do not see any difference. Thinking of looking at individual pixels and see how the bits are bits are assigned. BTW - no WDR used in 8 bit mode.

[Stan Jelavic]

Did quite a bit of testing and really there is not much difference in dynamic range between the new and old camera. I did however notice the fine detail difference when viewed on a large monitor. I am including links to two images, one taken with the old and one with the new cam.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y1W...ew?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MS3...ew?usp=sharing

This is most likely caused by the pixel resolution difference. You can zoom in and compare the details between the two photos and will see that. You would need a really large monitor to see the difference when fully zoomed out. Not sure how apparent it would be in the video.

Possibly a better lens could help as Bruce pointed out.

So far the new cam gives some improvement but not significant in my opinion. Here are some of the advantages:

- Better rez 1600x1200 in comparison to 1280x1024 with pretty the same image quality but better details
- Easier to add 16mm lens. 16mm in addition to higher rez may have less lens flare and better contrast

And disadvantages
- usb3.1 driver issues on both windows and linux
- IC Capture issues on both Windows and Linux
- FPS rate

Getting back to dynamic range the new cam does offer better dynamic range. The problem is that the technology is not ready for it yet. The laptop and PC that I use are all 8 bit and cannot fully leverage from 12bit images.
See:
https://fstoppers.com/education/can-...footage-166977
This is just one of the articles but there is a ton of material on this subject out there.

With my setup I can see slightly improved shadows. Also if I try to expand the histogram for shadows I get a noticeable difference (as described in the article):
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ndWXFibKSXnneLLW7
8-bit
https://photos.app.goo.gl/DwTKgrjmMSAmA5i69
12 bit
https://photos.app.goo.gl/uNmfGubBUAofPCRe8

In addition, we use the 8 bit display to adjust the exposure in IC Capture i.e. set it to auto and tweak the reference until we get the nice and vivid mid tones. That tends to clip the bright areas (the clouds disappear). With the 10 bit setup I assume this would be different. You could probably get the clouds and still maintain good mid-tones.

Wonder if anyone has the capability to test this. Possibly David or Bruce.