2009Forum Cameras (Film/Video/HD)
S.Two OB-1 Bord-Flash-Recorder für digitale Kinokameras
17 Jahre alt. Geräte und Preise können sich seitdem geändert haben.
Was die Diskussion ergab
- Der OB-1-Prototyp zeichnete unkomprimierte 4:4:4-Videos für bis zu 30 Minuten pro Flash-Magazin mit 24 fps auf, wiegte nur 5 Pfund und verbrauchte minimale Leistung.
- Der Recorder ermöglichte einen vollständig drahtlosen Betrieb, wenn er mit drahtlosen Videoübertragungssystemen gekoppelt war, wodurch Kabelverbindungen während der Luft- und Handaufnahmen eliminiert wurden.
- Dual link BNC connectors proved to be a potential weak point causing occasional recording issues, though they were necessary for compatibility across different camera bodies.
- The OB-1 lacked timecode and audio recording capabilities at the prototype stage, with these features planned for production versions.
- File verification required downloading footage into main S.Two recorders rather than being available directly on the OB-1 unit itself.
- A dedicated docking station was needed for downloading footage, but the prototype required using the recorder itself for this task.
- The recorder only supported fixed frame rates of 24, 30, or 60fps without variable frame rate or ramping options.
- On-board flash recording with the OB-1 provided superior balance for aerial platforms compared to tape-based alternatives, allowing better camera positioning.
- The hybrid workflow combining S.Two D-Mag recorders for conventional shots with OB-1 units for aerial and handheld work proved practical on productions.
Hängt ab von
- This was an early prototype, described as barely beta stage with picture-only recording and no timecode or audio capability.
- The dovetail mounting system had excessive play and looseness requiring attention.
- Direct frame-rate and workflow comparisons were limited to S.Two D-Mag recorders and SRW-1 systems, with no practical experience with SSR-1 recorders.
- No LUT monitoring output was available on the OB-1, unlike S.Two D-Mag recorders.
- The unit required additional workload for data capture and management compared to traditional tape workflows.