DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Alternative Imaging Methods (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/alternative-imaging-methods/)
-   -   Please make inexpensive HDSDI recorder (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/alternative-imaging-methods/44984-please-make-inexpensive-hdsdi-recorder.html)

Radek Svoboda May 21st, 2005 02:52 AM

Please make inexpensive HDSDI recorder
 
7 prosumer HD cameras, 1500-5,000 USD street price, with uncompressed analog HD output, maybe all outputs are 14 bit and can be converted easily to HDSDI.

Sony has already sold over 35,000 HDV cameras, added one in Qualia brand, is adding two more ones, all with uncompressed analog outputs.

Panasonic will have P2 camera with 1080p24 uncompressed output.

JVC HD100 HDV camera head will have 720p24-60 uncompressed output.

If you make such recorder that is popularly priced, I'll buy one, so will thousands of others. If you make 1000 USD on each, you'll make more in one year than in lifetime working for someone else.

I'm praying for some genius to make good money on me.

Radek

Obin Olson May 21st, 2005 08:48 AM

it can be done and I will work on it.

Radek Svoboda May 21st, 2005 10:40 AM

Obin,

Thank you. You're making this amazing camera that you started making before new low cost HD camcorders with uncompressed output. Your work is amazing. If you however want make some real money, concentrating on available cameras may be lot more profitable than trying create one. By year's end there will be probably 100,000 such cameras omong shooters, if 10% buy your recorder, and you make 1,000 USD each, it is 10,000,000 USD profit, probably in a year.

I think you should do some marketing reasearch, ask people here if they would buy your camera with recorder or camera that they can use for casual shooting and when need arives shoot uncompressed.

I paid for my FX1E less than raw industrial cameras cost. I would buy your recorder but not your camera with recorder, even though it may have better DOF, low light, etc.

Radek

Obin Olson May 21st, 2005 11:01 AM

your HDV camera is not even close to what we are working on, 8bit vs 12bit uncompressed vs compressed with DVD mpeg2 real lenses vs cheap prosumer lenses 2/3rd inch chip vs 1/3rd inch and the list goes on and on...

Obin Olson May 21st, 2005 11:03 AM

what it comes down to is movie/high end production vs prosumer high res video

Radek Svoboda May 21st, 2005 02:38 PM

http://www.computermodules.com/broad...onverter.shtml

Is this any good?

Keith Wakeham May 21st, 2005 05:56 PM

The hd10ad can get the componet yuv to hd-sdi. A little expensive, but it will work.

It is actually easier to implement hd-sdi along with a component yuv analog input into a recorder than having to convert to hd-sdi first. The recorder would have to convert the hd-sdi back to parallel digital anyway.

Radek Svoboda May 22nd, 2005 05:23 AM

It certainly seems there are people here that know how to do it. FX/Z1 camera A/D converter is 14 bit. CCD output is analog, then is digitized and converted to analog for uncompressed output? Am I right? But quality should be high enough because it comes off of 14 bit system. Am I correct?

Radek

Graeme Nattress May 22nd, 2005 06:38 AM

You've got to look at the noise figures though. Just because it's being digitized at 14bit or DSP at 14 bit doesn't mean that there's 14 bits of information there. I'd reckon you're lucky if there's the 8bits of information actually there, 10bits at most. Also, the analogue link will reduce resolution somewhat.

Graeme

Keith Wakeham May 22nd, 2005 08:51 AM

I'm almost 100% sure that the fX1, while the data coming off the ccds is 14 bit, what the component outputs is actually after the compression (so reduced down to 8bit and heavily compressed), so with the fx1 you can never get any higher quality than what goes to the minidv tape. Now other hdv cameras are different. The hd100u actually is uncompressed output and would greatly benefit. The Z1U, I don't know if they changed it so it actually output uncompressed instead of decompressed mpeg2 but i suspect it wouldn't be changed since its so similar to the FX1.

I think people really believe that analog is a big quality reducer, but in controlled enviroments it can be pretty amazing. Just take an analog lcd, running at native resolution but through analog, if you change a pixel colour, that colour doesn't smear into the next one and even if it does it will make minimal impact, a 1 - 2 shade difference.

I wouldn't go saying analog bad digital good, when the 1920 x 1080 frame is being compressed at 25mbits/second or 720 @ 19mbits and then ditch analog because its bandwidth is 1.485 Gbits/s but there could be a little colour bleeding.

Graeme Nattress May 22nd, 2005 08:59 AM

14 bit would imply a dynamic range of what, about 84db? I don't think CCDs have either that dynamic range or low enough noise levels to warrant that kind of quantisation. It certainly won't harm it, but sounds rather bit-wasteful.

Graeme

Keith Wakeham May 22nd, 2005 12:07 PM

it is indeed wasteful in some respect, but it doesn't stay 14 bit. But for all the digital processing it would be a bit more useful because it provides some more accuracy before the down resing it to 8 or 10 bit.

Just like it is better to work in 10 or 12 bit even if your final product is going to be 8 bit, it just gives you the little room before you have to output.

Graeme Nattress May 22nd, 2005 12:48 PM

Sure, processing in 16bit or floating point has great advantages, but we're talking about recording and digitising here, and there is zero point in recording a dynamic range that's greater than the noise floor of the analogue signal or else you'll be wasting disc space on noise.

Graeme

Keith Wakeham May 22nd, 2005 02:44 PM

I was never intending to say to record more bits than needed, just that analogue is not the almighty evil its made out to be by the corporations.

Until you see test waveforms on an oscilliscope it is impossible to say weather or not that the amount of noise on the analog outputs is to much. I've seen high frequency (Ghz range) analog waveforms on oscillascopes at my university, and over short runs (about a meter) the degradation is minimal and dac's could reproduce the exact signal produced by adc's with almost no error.

Their are to many variables in analog to just say it has to much noise. ADC's. DAC's, cable impedance, emf's, how the cables are arrange can affect the "noise".

Graeme Nattress May 22nd, 2005 05:56 PM

Analogue isn't inherently evil, but converting back and forth between A and D can lead to issues. Anyway, what I'm getting at are the inherent noise levels in a CCD and that 14bits is way more than you can really get off a CCD.

Graeme

Radek Svoboda May 23rd, 2005 02:52 AM

HDSDI is 10 bit and even HDCAM images look better through HDSDI port than recorded to tape. Sony announced HDSDI Miranda will be available for FX/Z1. The image through uncompressed output of FX/Z1 looks superior to recorded images. I'm sure uncompressed analog output is sufficient quality for HDSDI 4:2:2 output. HDSDI brings superior 10 bit quality. It be all I need. If compressed 8 bit 3:1:1 good enough for Lucas and Rodriguez, uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 should be good enough for all filmmakers on this board.

Please make someone 10 bit recorder for new low cost HD cameras. 12 bit is better for sure, but available 10 bit is good enough for me.

Radek

Graeme Nattress May 23rd, 2005 05:43 AM

"HDSDI is 10 bit and even HDCAM images look better through HDSDI port than recorded to tape."

This is correct. You can get 10bit 4:2:2 uncompressed off the SDI port on the camera and record direct to disc.

"Sony announced HDSDI Miranda will be available for FX/Z1."

And other companies have products too, but this will only deal with compressed HDV video over firewire being decompressed and then sent over SDI, so you don't get any quality improvement with it, but it will allow you to interface an HDV camera or deck with standard broadcast equipment or NLEs.

"The image through uncompressed output of FX/Z1 looks superior to recorded images."

I'm sure it does.

"I'm sure uncompressed analog output is sufficient quality for HDSDI 4:2:2 output. HDSDI brings superior 10 bit quality."

Probably. All depends on the DtoA converter. Avoiding the HDV codec probably is more beneficial than the analogue link. It would be nice to avoid the analogue link and have an SDI port on the camera, but Sony are not going to do that! Whether we will get 8bit or 10bit quality is unknown though.

"If compressed 8 bit 3:1:1 good enough for Lucas and Rodriguez, uncompressed 10 bit 4:2:2 should be good enough for all filmmakers on this board. "

Te he te he :-) Even though HDCAM is compressed 3:1:1, you'll still get better pictures off that and uncompressed off a little HDV camera due to the better lenses and bigger chips on the HDCAM, and of course, as you point out, recording direct off the camera head of the HDCAM elevates your picture quality still further, and indeed, that was uses a lot by Lucas, and only a small part was recorded to tape.

"Please make someone 10 bit recorder for new low cost HD cameras. 12 bit is better for sure, but available 10 bit is good enough for me."

Very few NLEs handle >10bit, so going beyond that would be hard to sell. A box with a Y'PbPr to HDSDI to hard drive RAID would be very interesting and ever-so-useful for some people. I'd see it being more useful still if you could compress with a mild codec lilke PhotoJPEG which would save on the drive requirements too.

Graeme

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn May 23rd, 2005 06:11 AM

You are all talking nonsense guys.
How on earth would HDSDI give you 10 bit Y from a source which was recorded using just 8 bit Y????????
If you have 256 shades of gray at the beginning, HDSDI won't make miracles.
BTW, if nobody knows it, SDI is 10 bit and also 8 bit.Both bitdepths are supported.
Anyway I know some Einstein "wannabe" will come after me telling me I'm wrong, so everybody is free to do it.

Graeme Nattress May 23rd, 2005 06:32 AM

That's because people are talking about going out from the analogue Y'PbPr connections live, before the video ever gets recorded to tape with the HDV codec. That said, I don't think anyone knows exactly how the analogue output is made and what kind of quality it contains, but it's fair to reckon you might well get a better picture off it than after HDV compression, which is rather harsh on video.

Graeme

Radek Svoboda May 23rd, 2005 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress
Very few NLEs handle >10bit, so going beyond that would be hard to sell. A box with a Y'PbPr to HDSDI to hard drive RAID would be very interesting and ever-so-useful for some people. I'd see it being more useful still if you could compress with a mild codec lilke PhotoJPEG which would save on the drive requirements too.

Graeme

Exactly. Or could compress CineForm. Now, if Andromeda guy can break into DVX and tap ADC and feed into laptop drive, and he does not encounter noise problems by doing, it may be as easy get some mini computer with RAID and new AMD dual core processo that compress on fly and feed into local RAID. I would not mind carrying this battery powered thing on my back. Or maybe could separate th camera and feed to staionary camputer. How long can be HDSDI cable?

Maybe all parts and software are available off shelf, maybe all is needed is buld minicomputer with HDSDI in and big battery pack. Maybe some genius could figure it over weekend, make some good money to sell systems, as technology improves, would soon become not mini-desktop computer but laptop, eventually palmtop.

Can someone figure how big would the thing be, how much weigh and how much would cost to buy now, then build one and offer for sale. As orders come in, he could build systems as he goes, he would not need invest more money than build one. I'm sure would make much much more money than having regular job.

What is Obin building may be superior but this could available much quicker and there would not be LCD monitor issues. The camera could be used for regular shhoting, with minicomputer backpack for filmmaking, the backpack could be used for field editing, or for amateur like me as main editing computer.

Andromeda guy has nice system but camera viewfinder does not have proper brightness, etc.

Maybe different more expensive model could be used for editing too.

Radek

Radek Svoboda May 23rd, 2005 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn
You are all talking nonsense guys.
How on earth would HDSDI give you 10 bit Y from a source which was recorded using just 8 bit Y????????
If you have 256 shades of gray at the beginning, HDSDI won't make miracles.
BTW, if nobody knows it, SDI is 10 bit and also 8 bit.Both bitdepths are supported.
Anyway I know some Einstein "wannabe" will come after me telling me I'm wrong, so everybody is free to do it.

I don't think Sony would advertise their camera with HDSDI converter if signal would not have 10 bit quality. They well aware of DIY projects here and of Altasens CMOS, etc. They are getting ahead of these guys.

Radek

Keith Wakeham May 23rd, 2005 08:34 AM

I've been thinking about it, and sony makes chips that do pretty much only a handful of things. It might be possible to see if any of their hdv cameras have an dac just before output. If it does a serializer could tap into the signal before hand and with a little skill your hdv camera now has hd-sdi out.

Personally, I think that companies like sony would not include hd-sdi for the reason that the price point doesn't warrant it. It would be bad marketing if their is a hint of possibility that a 5k camera could compete with the same companies 100k camera.

Wayne Morellini May 23rd, 2005 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Wakeham
I've been thinking about it, and sony makes chips that do pretty much only a handful of things. It might be possible to see if any of their hdv cameras have an dac just before output. If it does a serializer could tap into the signal before hand and with a little skill your hdv camera now has hd-sdi out.

Personally, I think that companies like sony would not include hd-sdi for the reason that the price point doesn't warrant it. It would be bad marketing if their is a hint of possibility that a 5k camera could compete with the same companies 100k camera.

Good idea Keith. A separate dac opens up the digital data path way for easy access. I hope there is more than 8 bits uncompressed, but I also would be surprised if there is, knowing the way they think.

You can test chart/oscilloscope levels when the cameras arrive, and see what signal is there also. I think the camera companies might be offering more in this generation to swing people away from the Andromeda scheme, and alternative raw cameras.

Quiet frankly, the control offered by this sort of arrangement is much better for me (and many) for docos than the pie in the sky Cinema stuff that has taken over this forum.

Keith Wakeham May 23rd, 2005 06:12 PM

I agree. The companies must be feeling some pressure and threat that someone outside the big names might steal some of their business so they might be trying to curb it by offering up some of the stuff we want to see in a camera.

I'd be interested in seeing the inside of a hdv camera, but I have no intention of ever purchasing one in the immediate future so my ideas are just pipe dream ideas of hacking.

Their definetly could be some real benefits to this method over the ccd hacking method, essentially the camera is still intact. ccd hacking is pretty much just using the entire body of the camera full of electronics to control a simple semiconductor

Wayne Morellini May 23rd, 2005 06:39 PM

You could ask a local service centre if you could take a peek, probably would not show you schematics or anything, but looking inside might be fine.

It would probably be a much better business strategy for Andromeda to sell a component to hard disk/HDSDI products based on their recorder as well. What do you think?

Actually, with your system, you could design a component direct to disk (GigE) a lot easier than making a platform. Which could be plugged straight into a computer for copying, or the drives could be. All you would have to do is record to an industry standard uncompressed file format. How much would a simpler FPGA board with component IC circuit on one end and GigE IC on the other cost? This would cut the cost of a capture computer, or the expensive HDSDI receiving card. Would this be a better idea?

Keith Wakeham May 23rd, 2005 07:33 PM

hard drive capture is possible in fpga, i know this for certain, gige isn't as easy as it sounds from my understanding - although I could be wrong. Network stuff is a protocol packet based interface so you need to know how to respond to requests and pack data and stuff like that. Makes gige more complicated. All the gige based cameras I've seen use an embedded processor to handle all that tcp/ip stuff and that is really what makes it too complicated for me.

But if your thinking something like converting hd-sdi directly to gige, you'll actually have to give up right now and why, because HD-SDI is 1.485 gbps continous. Even with special drivers gige will max out at 800 mbps. This is a technical limitation and in the end the money for a hd-sdi card I think would be well spent.

If someone can afford a 6k - 10k camera I don't think a decklink hd-sdi card at $600 is a huge stretch for anyone then.

Certain designs could benefit with doing away with hd-sdi and use some computer interface instead, but this application is much better suited for hd-sdi all around since what comes out of those component outputs is smpte 274 compliant

Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn May 23rd, 2005 10:17 PM

Keith, could you point me to some info about interfacing to CMOS sensors?

Wayne Morellini May 24th, 2005 04:21 AM

Hi guys

I just remembered something that might help. I think Mike over at http://www.hdforindies.com/ might be working on a similar project, so he might be worth contacting. Keith for your project, Mike probably is also worth contacting.

Keith, I was more thinking of an integrated GigE chip solution (used on cards or MB, or FPGA/processor with it built in) but I see what you mean about the protocols. I don't particularly know how much is needed past the IC for this too work, but as the drive is the only thing on the GigE, and you are just issuing commands directly from camera to the drives, it should be a portion of the normal GigE protocol complexity. The other alternative would be to output to SATA drives directly. If you can work with one of the open source people familiar with SATA/GigE drivers, it should not be very difficult for them. It comes down to where ever you want to do drive interfacing or HDSDI interfacing and carry around a capture computer.

Bandwidth, there is a couple of things. If the camera is 4:2:0 8-bit 1080 25p, that's 75MB/s buffered/packed signal (1080*1440 and 720p less). If you wanted more you could use the work on the first channel and duplicate it (to dual channel/caddy software raid). I have thought of a simple differential lossless compression scheme, but this is probably much more than your looking for.

According to Radek, the cheapest Sony camera with uncompressed component out maybe $1500, if true, a blessing.

Of side interest, I have also started a specific thread for discussion of Sumix HD stuff, you are all welcome to come attend:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=315959

Keith Wakeham May 24th, 2005 07:04 AM

Juan:
I don't really know where to point you to information on interfacing a cmos sensor. Cmos really only comes down to powering it, a serial register system, and an output. Their used to be a website for stanford class ee392 that had a simple project online with a cmos sensor and explained a lot but I can't get to the site and they are using a new ccnet thing that means only their students can get access now. I'm still looking to see if the old site is up but no luck so far

Wayne:
I see the advantages of some of the newer technologies, but the newer something is the more complicated it gets. I would love to goto sata, but the standard is, in one word, insane. It took me a few weeks of research to figure out ata, but sata, that needs a team of people to figure it out - or at least someone better than me.

So until I'm a little smarter (or at least more knowledgable) I'll hold these other methods in a pocket for some other time.

I know sony released a nother camera, I think its a hdv in a pdx10 body or something. Not sure on pricing, but if it is true then their could be all sorts of possibilities

Radek Svoboda May 24th, 2005 04:24 PM

Guys,

You can buy service manuals for FX/Z1 cameras, but they could be available for free over net. They are free in Japan and I actually had one of Japanese eBay seller getting me service manual for free. There are usaually two versions, Japanese and English. The English covers Export, US, European models. Export means model that is sold in Japan for foreign travelers and tourists. Sony normally prints and distributes Tourist model catalogs in Japan. Sony, Panasonic, etc. also extremely willing to send free service manual if you're strapped somewhere in Afrika or somewhere where there is no service. They also very helpful to filmmakers, schools, etc., will even send free parts from Japan. Don't expect this kind curteousy from local Sony or Panasonic headquarters.

New Sony HDV camera was announced in Japan at 1,500 street and $1.700 street in US. The pro version with XLR mic jacks will cost lot more.

FX/Z1 has analog output after ADC, from that point is also fed MPEG2 processor.

Radek

Radek Svoboda May 24th, 2005 04:31 PM

There was a thread in FX1 forum of Italian guy who takes camera apart and replaces lens with manual one. He posted complete pictures of disassembling and assembling camera. You can see CCD chips and everything.

Also please check this camera. If you make recorder for this camera, you'll compete against 100,000 USD cameras. Camera has HDSDI and other outputs:

http://www.ggvideo.com/sny_hdcx300k.htm

Radek

Radek Svoboda May 24th, 2005 04:36 PM

http://www.eidomedia.com/hdv/

Here's Italian guy's site.

Keith Wakeham May 24th, 2005 10:45 PM

I actually saw that, he had that site up the first couple of weeks the fx1 was out and I was so impressed. The aftermarket lenses almost completely eliminated colour fringing that was visible with the zeiss.

I had read a bunch of places that the output from the current sony hdv cameras are after compression but when you guys said it was pre compression I went digging again. It wasn't as pronounced as the articles about it possibly being after compression so I say, I was wrong, and apoligize for my above comment that I was almost sure.

Now, their is one thing I am sure about in life, and that is - The shower curtain goes on the inside of the bath tub. Thats all the wisdom I have. ;)

Steven Mingam May 25th, 2005 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Wakeham
I'm still looking to see if the old site is up but no luck so far


Did you look on http://www.archive.org ? there is a "time portal" for the web :)
If it was a uni website, there is a high probability that it was archived there.

Wayne Morellini May 25th, 2005 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Wakeham
Wayne:
I see the advantages of some of the newer technologies, but the newer something is the more complicated it gets. I would love to goto sata, but the standard is, in one word, insane. It took me a few weeks of research to figure out ata, but sata, that needs a team of people to figure it out - or at least someone better than me.

So until I'm a little smarter (or at least more knowledgable) I'll hold these other methods in a pocket for some other time.

Good idea to keep the information in your pocket, I do that too. But I'm curious what you mean by ATA and SATA. If you are talking about building your own interface hardware from scratch, that will be much more difficult. You can greatly reduce complexity by using a pre-made chip and circuit reference platform, with example reference driver code and programming docs from a SATA/GIGE IC manufacturer. As they have done most of the hard work already, you could take advantage of it. You can reduce complexity further by interfacing it to a reference platform (with software development tools and software library/Linux) for a high speed embedded controller, then interface a component ADC chip (using their reference circuit) to that. Depending on the manufacturers, you should have a free license to use their reference circuits/softwares as long as you buy their chips to use in it. There is the slim chance you will find a micro-controller, or reference, with GIGE/SATA, or GIGE/SATA chip, or reference, with that sort of micro-controller in it, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Still, if anybody is interested, maybe thee is a micro-controller board with GIGE/SATA out thee already that a component ADC could be interfaced to (actually the most recent VIA ITX chipset might have SATA and a component in, but let's not go there).

Keith Wakeham May 25th, 2005 09:59 AM

I've spent weeks with my froot loops decoder ring (I'm just joking about the ring) and the ata specs and I think I have a good working understanding of the theory of how it should work. And it isn't that bad once you slim down what you want the thing to do. Their are a handful of projects that interfaced ata hard drives to pic microcontrollers and the like.

Sata - That is another ball game altogether. The spec sheet is 200 pages lighter than ata 6 but I think in order to understand it you need to send away for special decoder ring set and a pair of retro blue/red stereoscopic movie glasses. So, what i'm trying to say is I blatantly don't understand sata so that is why I avoid it. The only way it seems anyone will interface with sata with embedded is with a sapis compliant chip - so not only do you have to decode sata 1.0a spec, you need to decode the sapis spec (I think this is why the stereoscopic glasses are needed - You put the sheets side by side and then you see the answer). And even if you solve that then getting a sapis chip is going to be a little difficult unless you want to solder onto the pins of a pci sata card and hope the chip on it is sapis compliant.

I hope the joking around didn't offend anyone - I though I understood the ata spec in depth but clearly its kicking my butt in some things so it's just got me a little dis-heartened so I'm trying to lighten my mood about it.

Wayne Morellini May 26th, 2005 12:31 AM

;)
.......

Steven Mingam May 26th, 2005 03:29 AM

found that while lurking around : http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...SerialSATA.pdf

Is it hard to use an ASIC like that in a design ?
i'm a software guy, i don't have any clues about electronic design.

Btw, a cmos sensor output is parallel, right ? wouldn't it make more sens to use PATA then, instead of serializing it for SATA ?

Keith Wakeham May 26th, 2005 07:02 AM

Its more that the command sturture of sata is so strange. It doesn't use registers like pata, it sends data in a more packet like form called "frames" and these have a different structure and command set then any of the ata 1-7 command sturcture.

I don't pretend to know how sata works so i can't make any real good judgements. All I know is that right now given a chip like that I still need to know how to frame the data. All that does is convert it to a serial stream really so without understanding the sata spec its useless. Now if you understand the sata spec then that might actually be a good device to start with.

As for the pata vs sata question. Since its parallel coming off the chip you would expect it to be easier. Actually its a might bit harder. When data is being transfered pata will always use a 16bit wide bus. If you got 10 bit and you don't want to waste space you have to pack the data. So every 5 words sent you save 8 pixels, but that means a lot of data suffling. You have to have buffers and stuff to handle the data and take it from 10 bit to 16bit. On the first data transfer you have 1 pixel plus 6 bits of the next, and on the next you have 4 bits of the last, 10 of the next, and 2 of the next.

Its not nice to handle data that way. With sata it being an 8 or 10 bit protocol it could be perfect to handle 10 bit hd, but I don't have a clue how. Oh well

Wayne Morellini May 26th, 2005 07:32 PM

Yes, Pity, I only suggested it, because SATA cables are smaller and are easy enough to eliminate a caddy. Still if you can find yourself a experienced Open-source programmer, you can solve most of these.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:59 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network