[HN Gopher] Arducam Pi Hawk-eye is a 64MP camera for Raspberry P...
___________________________________________________________________
Arducam Pi Hawk-eye is a 64MP camera for Raspberry Pi 4/CM4
Author : zdw
Score : 40 points
Date : 2022-04-06 18:01 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnx-software.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnx-software.com)
| nyadesu wrote:
| >"Future Raspberry Pi board may be able to take advantage of the
| higher video resolution and framerate enabled by the new camera
| module."
|
| This is interesting, the community it's been asking for more
| powerful Raspberry Pi models, with more PCI lanes too. Models
| like that would be amazing for building NAS, routers and IoT
| devices
| SxC97 wrote:
| I've always wanted to run a small pi box as a router with
| pfsense. Right now my only other option for a small all in one,
| low power pfsense box is maybe an Intel NUC?
| walrus01 wrote:
| For pfsense you'd really do a lot better with a small x86-64
| system (mini-itx motherboard) that has four or more gigabit
| ethernet ports with Intel chipset onboard, attached to PCI-E
| 3.0 bus. In a small mini-itx case it would definitely be a
| lot bigger than a raspberry pi but also a great deal more
| capable.
|
| Depending on your needs you can also get systems that have
| several 10GbE SFP+ cages on-motherboard.
| kube-system wrote:
| If you search "mini firewall appliance" or "pfsense router"
| on your favorite marketplaces you'll get results for some
| custom intel hardware that has all of everything you need
| in a package smaller than mITX.
| walrus01 wrote:
| yes, the usual industrial/embedded motherboard
| manufacturers build such things, some are NUC sized.
| kube-system wrote:
| Your biggest hurdle there is that pfsense requires x86-64
| digitallyfree wrote:
| If you're looking for something cheaper than a Pi try finding
| used thin clients, which are basically x86 industrial PCs.
| With a managed switch behind it you can use seperate VLANs so
| that you can run pfsense with both WAN and LAN on a single
| NIC. Obviously this will cause reduced speed on the WAN-LAN
| interface due to the single shared NIC, but if you're looking
| at a Pi anyways the networking performance of the thin client
| may be adequate for your needs.
| DaveExeter wrote:
| >Sensor - Sensor with 9152 x 6944 pixels resolution
|
| Well, that clears that up!
| milleramp wrote:
| It's very close to a Sony IMX686, which would be really nice.
| atum47 wrote:
| Nice, I'm right now working on a raspberry pi camera solution to
| create a timelapse of something I'm building that will take about
| 6 months. I have the original camera module (raspberry pi camera
| rev 1.3) but I'd love to try this 64mb one out someday.
| dekhn wrote:
| really wish they had put a C-mount for lenses on it. Also, every
| single raspberry pi CSI connector or camera I have (in the tens
| now) has broken under light handling.
| michaelt wrote:
| Eh, C-mount means sacrificing autofocus.
|
| IME many applications get a big performance benefit from
| autofocus - in both home and industrial applications.
| dekhn wrote:
| I want to use this in a situation where I can control the
| focal distance (microscope). In principle you could even make
| an autofocus system with a zoom lens and a servo although the
| engineering is definitely non-trivial.
|
| Is there a standard mount (other than DSLRs) that supports
| autofocus?
| michaelt wrote:
| Does anyone have any idea why this camera is limited to 1080p30
| when playing video?
|
| After all, 1080p30 is only 0.5Gbps, and with the CM4's 4 MIPI
| lanes at 1Gbps each, there's enough input bandwidth for 4k 60fps.
| hatsunearu wrote:
| >1080p30 is only 0.5Gbps
|
| You sure about that? It should be 1920 * 1080 * 3 subpixels * 8
| bits * 30 fps = just under 1.5Gbps
|
| I assume they use chroma subsampling to make it work
| michaelt wrote:
| Yeah, I'm pretty sure.
|
| The sensor will have a Bayer pattern [1] and the data will go
| across the bus in Bayer format. The processor will then
| perform debayering. So no need to multiply by 3 channels per
| pixel :)
|
| While many image sensors _will_ perform debayering for you if
| you want, doing so means you need 3x the bandwidth for not
| much benefit, so very few people do it.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
| jandrese wrote:
| So you are working in monochrome? Even after you have
| applied the Bayer filter you still need 24 bits per pixel
| do you not?
| michaelt wrote:
| No - go check out that Wikipedia link about Bayer
| filters.
|
| For the vast majority of cameras, if you buy a "4
| megapixel" image sensor, you get 1 million red pixels, 2
| million green pixels, and 1 million blue pixels.
|
| When you load the image into your image editor and see 3
| colours per pixel, 2 of the 3 are interpolated from
| neighbouring pixels.
| beembeem wrote:
| I'm hoping this will meet expectations for a home security
| camera. Too bad none of their sample photos have a face in it.
| uuyi wrote:
| You'd want good low light performance there which means a
| smaller number of larger pixels.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Noob question: why can't you aggregate 4 pixel values to
| emulate a single, 4x-larger pixel?
| uuyi wrote:
| Well you still end up with less sensor surface area with 4x
| as many pixels on the same substrate because there's a gap
| around each cell and the micro lenses are smaller. So you
| can aggregate them but you're still getting less light.
|
| There's a happy medium somewhere on density vs performance.
| I think the iPhone 13 pro seems to have it about right for
| "reasonable compromise"
| [deleted]
| MisterTea wrote:
| > Turning your Raspberry Pi into a DSLR-like camera.
|
| This is stretching the truth. From the sample images the low
| image quality is what I expected from a cheap tiny sensor and
| lens. Zooming in just gives you noise instead of detail. It's
| like the cheap "4k" IP CCTV cameras I have at home that aren't
| much sharper looking than HD 1920x1080 cameras I had.
|
| Though perhaps hacks like sensor cooling to reduce noise and
| replacing the cheap optics with quality could improve quality.
| [deleted]
| ruined wrote:
| the 4-camera kit is interesting. seems like a decent way to
| capture high resolution depth images using offset
| zimpenfish wrote:
| Wonder if you can combine it with the multi-flash technique for
| better results?
|
| https://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/NprCamera/
| aberoham wrote:
| "(almost)"
| m4x wrote:
| And multispectral images
| mwambua wrote:
| At what point do you start seeing diminishing return on pixel-
| count with such a small sensor? (Or can you always get value if
| you're willing to bump up your exposure time)
| zimpenfish wrote:
| I guess if you don't mind reducing the resolution, you can e.g.
| average 4 pixels to reduce the noise (but I don't know if that
| gives you a lower noise floor than just a 16MP sensor in the
| first place...)
| tomtom1337 wrote:
| You would actually have more noise, or at least, not less
| noise. There is readout noise associated with reading the
| information out from each pixel. Using one bigger pixel would
| give you less noise than four smaller ones :)
| colechristensen wrote:
| This camera does indeed have too many pixels.
|
| If you use the Rayleigh criterion to calculate the maximum
| angular resolution based on aperture (th = 1.22 * l / d) using
| green light for the wavelength (and focal length / focal ratio
| to get the aperture) and use the resulting angular resolution
| and the given diagonal 84 degree field of view... you end up
| getting that there are about half as many pixels as the maximum
| theoretical angular resolution. Combined with lens
| imperfections and other sources of distortion (as opposed to
| the other commenters talking about exposure times) the result
| is that the extra pixels are really probably not adding any new
| information, or that they're right at the levels of diminishing
| returns where the returns are more or less zero for extra
| pixels.
|
| >can you always get value if you're willing to bump up your
| exposure time
|
| No, there are hard limits on how much extra information you can
| get with more exposure time.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| What about pixel size compared to light wavelength?
|
| If my maths is right, 7.4mm sensor side divided by 9,150
| pixels is about 800nm size. Visible light is 400-700nm. And
| presumably not all of the pixel is actually light-sensitive.
|
| Is this a valid comparison though? I'm not good at quantum...
| tomtom1337 wrote:
| The Rayleigh criterion above is exactly what is used to
| answer the question you're asking :) it tells you what size
| objects you can resolve with a given wavelength of light,
| which if you think about it in a different manner also
| tells you what the smallest useful pixel size you can have
| is. Two smaller pixels next to one another would be able to
| distinguish no more information than a combined one.
| uuyi wrote:
| It's mostly a problem of pixel size. The smaller the pixels the
| less light the pixels get. That means really terrible low light
| performance. And no software can't magically make that as good
| as a pixel 4x the size.
|
| The only advantage here is it allows you to get away with more
| crime like cropping and digital zoom in brighter lights. That
| may be an advantage depending on the application.
|
| I'd rather have a 12MP sensor twice that size with some glass
| in front though for most applications. Far more useful.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| > with some glass in front though
|
| Since it sounds like you're familiar with the field, any
| chance you've come across a CS- or C-mount lens with an
| autofocus motor? I've looked around a bunch and haven't had
| much luck. The current solution is a full C-mount-to-Canon-
| EF-mount adapter that has drive electronics in it, but it's
| eye-wateringly expensive and huge & heavy.
| neetdeth wrote:
| Never had a reason to use them, but I do recall that Edmund
| Optics has some C-mount units with liquid lenses in their
| catalog. The driver modules will allow control over USB or
| I2C.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| I've used them in some industrial vision applications
| with Dalsa cameras. They worked fine, I would have
| preferred a fixed focus and a manual adjustment when the
| requirements changed (it was much more difficult to get
| good real-unit measurements and to compensate for
| distortion) but they worked fine.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| IDK, have you looked at Kurokesu's offerings?
|
| https://wiki.kurokesu.com/shelves/cameras
| uuyi wrote:
| Haven't gone near those mounts. All mine is Z mount
| recently and F mount going back to the dark ages.
| mod wrote:
| My original canon digital rebel XT, I think, is 6MP, and its
| output can be printed poster size with no visible degradation
| at any normal viewing distance (like six inches or farther).
|
| So yeah, I'll take some good glass and literally any sensor
| post-2005 (when I paid $1100 for that 6MP)
| gswdh wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-06 23:02 UTC)