[HN Gopher] Sitina1 Open-Source Camera
___________________________________________________________________
Sitina1 Open-Source Camera
Author : zdw
Score : 100 points
Date : 2024-09-29 15:27 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gitlab.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gitlab.com)
| gaudat wrote:
| The 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 wrote:
| He explained it in this Video at 13:02
| 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 wrote:
| Being 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
| dvh wrote:
| Why is there so much vignetting?
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's artistic.
| cyberax wrote:
| Love 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.
| quuxly wrote:
| This is called a smartphone.
| cyberax wrote:
| Yes, exactly. But with a better sensor and optics.
| progbits wrote:
| I'm not sure I want any of that in my camera. Maybe fast wifi
| for photo sync at home but still faster to plug in the
| cable/card.
|
| You know what I want and have? A sub half second power on time.
| Probably sub one second from turning on to first photo. I don't
| want any "smart" crap slowing that down.
| cyberax wrote:
| > I'm not sure I want any of that in my camera. Maybe fast
| wifi for photo sync at home but still faster to plug in the
| cable/card.
|
| Well, that's a reason why camera makers are struggling. You
| don't want these features, but a lot of people do. So they
| vote with their smartphones instead:
| https://petapixel.com/2024/08/22/the-rise-and-crash-of-
| the-c...
|
| > You know what I want and have? A sub half second power on
| time. Probably sub one second from turning on to first photo.
| I don't want any "smart" crap slowing that down.
|
| You can do that while still retaining smart features. For
| example, use a small OS to control the camera while the full
| OS boots up. Or use suspend-to-disk to speed up loading, with
| suspend-to-RAM for instant startup.
|
| This is a solvable problem.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| There have been a few different attempts that look like this.
| Samsung Nx, Samsung Galaxy Camera, Sony has tried phone add on
| accessories. Basically they all sort of flop in the market.
|
| People that don't want to think about their photos use a
| smartphone. People that want to think about their photos still
| want a camera that they can control. I use a mirrorless Nikon
| camera and to take a single picture I normally want physical
| controls that can handle exposure, focus, zoom level and
| shutter release independently, but simultaneously without
| having to remove my attention from the image. The ability to do
| all that with physical, not menu controls, is a tremendous
| asset for most people that want to spend the money on a camera.
| If you slapped the latest technology inside a camera that
| didn't have all the physical controls, photographers wouldn't
| want anything to do with it.
|
| I wouldn't say that camera design is stuck in the 80s, either.
| The form factor is necessarily constrained by needing a tubular
| lens projecting in front of a flat imaging plane. The
| photographer is going to want to view the image from the
| opposite side as the lens. There's only so much you can change
| the form factor with those constraints. Camera companies do
| have a few retro models, but even stodgy old Leica is making
| modern designs these days.
|
| If you take tens of thousands of photos per year, you sort of
| realize that all cameras have more or less the same interface
| and form factor as they have for a while because it is what
| works best.
| _0xdd wrote:
| I would add that Zeiss (ZX1) and Leica (T typ 701, TL2) tried
| this modern touch-first approach at a premium and both
| products weren't exactly hits. The Zeiss was even running
| Android with Lightroom preinstalled.
| cyberax wrote:
| I mean... It's a camera that was retailing for $6k without
| lenses. It's already a niche market, and a pretty
| conservative one.
| m463 wrote:
| I agree. Maybe the breakdown is between:
|
| 1) taking a picture
|
| 2) doing something with the picture
|
| People coming to photography from smartphones want the
| priorities reversed.
|
| But the deeper you get into it, the more you want #1 and the
| more control you want over #1. The worst is #2 getting in the
| way of the shot.
|
| And actually, lots of people into photography think it is
| about the camera, but it is really about the lenses.
|
| You buy lenses, then buy/upgrade bodies around them.
| cyberax wrote:
| > There have been a few different attempts that look like
| this. Samsung Nx, Samsung Galaxy Camera, Sony has tried phone
| add on accessories. Basically they all sort of flop in the
| market.
|
| There was exactly ONE attempt. One. And it was pretty
| successful, at that: Samsung NX1. I had it, it was pretty
| good, but with a first-gen teething issues.
|
| Phone add-on accessories don't work because they're clumsy
| and connectivity just sucks. And ultra-professional $6k
| cameras from Zeiss miss the mark entirely, you need to target
| a prosumer market (i.e. me).
|
| > I wouldn't say that camera design is stuck in the 80s,
| either. The form factor is necessarily constrained by needing
| a tubular lens projecting in front of a flat imaging plane.
|
| But why do you need a large protrusion on the right? You
| don't have a film canister anymore. I already wrote about a
| myriad of physical controls. Just make it large enough to
| hold the camera.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Half of the point of having a dedicated camera is better
| ergonomics. I'm finding current smartphones good enough for
| most uses, but they are simply awkward to use and very slow to
| control without an external grip.
| bbbrbb wrote:
| Nice!
| MaximilianEmel wrote:
| Video showing the making of it: https://youtu.be/OkfzjmY9cF8
| 3abiton wrote:
| Great project, I get excited about tools that I didn't expect to
| get the Open Source treatment pop up on the list.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| Where do I get the parts to make one?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-29 23:00 UTC)