Hi:

I just wanted to know what is the compression difference between High and Very High Cineform encoding presets?

That is because I`ve been having some troubles with the RAM buffer when using Very High quality encoding.

There is a difference, however CineForm pushes to quality to the extremes, so you will not likely ever see the difference even under extreme post processing. Silicon Imaging labels CineForm Filmscan2 as "Very High", really this we internal call "OverKill". Filmscan1 (in SI-2K as High) is design to fully reproduce the shape of film grain, so that mode should be fine.

Hi Sergio,

Are you running two monitors or just one?

If you're running two monitors and you need "Very High", use a VGA or DVI splitter so that you don't tax the GPU, which on the SI-2K is using a NUMA architecture with system memory as the frame-buffer. So when you have a lot of resolution trying to be drawn by the GPU, it's robbing memory bandwidth from the host processor. Using an external VGA or DVI splitter solves that issue.

If you're going to run dual-monitors off the internal VGA, our suggestion is that you set the GUI control monitor to 800x600 and the external client monitor to 1280x720.

Is there any way to increase the RAM in the DVR, because for me an output at that resolution is just not optimal. I had issues with matte boxes appearing on the frame. I have many solutions out there in wich i can record on data and have a ful res output, that is important a solution in wich what you see is what you get, is one of the hard points on choosing a digital workflow.

I believe that the decision to use integrated graphics instead of a dedicated video card was the wrong choice, you should remember one of the first rules in computer ingeniering (I know that and im not an ingenier, im a filmmaker) that is that the computer will be as fast as its slower component. And in this case the solution would be use more than the minimun to reach the specs and the goals you offer to your clients, not the opposite.

So what can i do to improve the performance of the Camera, because I can`t compromise a day of shooting using it at is, without knowing if i can shoot a sequence or not, or fighting with the buffer.

I thought this was an issue of CPU speed rather than ram (if the cpu is fast enough it wont use ram buffer). Jason, is it possible to swap out chips and ram in the SI-2K?

I believe that the decision to use integrated graphics instead of a dedicated video card was the wrong choice, you should remember one of the first rules in computer ingeniering (I know that and im not an ingenier, im a filmmaker) that is that the computer will be as fast as its slower component. And in this case the solution would be use more than the minimun to reach the specs and the goals you offer to your clients, not the opposite.

Hi Sergio,

I appreciate the advice and recommendations that you feel need to be given in this area of electronic system design, and am glad to know you feel we made the wrong choice, but if you only knew the effort and constant experiment and test platforms we built before settling on the current hardware, you would understand how this decision was reached. Now I'm sure if our design constraints where to carry around a grotesque 30lbs square fridge on your shoulder that we could start cherry-picking off-the-shelf computer components from CompUSA, but our goal was a solid integrated camera design that both behaved and looked like a camera from an ergonomic, mechanical, and electrical perspective, and was a familiar and welcoming form-factor to cinematographers, while also functioning inside of a heat and power-budget that allowed for an untethered mobile form-factor (not a 15A block-battery), and finally met a certain mechanical-shock tolerance. The electrical components in the current camera are the fastest parts we could obtain that delivered on all these requirements as well as conforming to driver compatibility specs and a number of other related aspects that deal with working in a Windows software environment. If you decide to ever crack the case open, you will notice that the boards inside look nothing like any PC motherboard you've ever seen, and there are a host of customized components integrated into that platform that make it tick that would not be available with off-the-shelf PC motherboards. This is not a New-Egg special. We have built our camera using the same performance-critical components that power the specialized computer systems operating in the Humvee's of Iraq, Railway systems, Fighter Jets, Sattelite systems, etc. Running with an Nvidia graphics card just to jump from a 1280x720 display to a 1920x1080 display would have doubled the power budget (no more little 90W/hr batteries), required extensive cooling, increased the form-factor size, and in the end, increased the price in order to create a bunch of customized components to compensate for the heat and power draw of a graphics card that was not designed to be running around on someone's shoulder anywhere in the world. And as far as notebook graphics cards go, please find for me a notebook that allows you to upgrade the graphics card . . . there aren't many, and the reason for that is that the graphics, such as the Geforce Go series, or Quadro FX mobile editions, are soldered onto a custom motherboard. We explored this solution early on, and found that it would double the price of the camera. It's one thing when you're shipping 100,000 notebooks like OEM Taiwanese manufacturers do per quarter, and its' another thing when your volumes are a lot lower and you are going to design a motherboard from scratch. And of course the big problem with desiging from scratch is that the upgrade-path becomes very limited if not impossible. The components we have chosen on the other-hand use a modular form-factor called Compact-PCI, so as Intel grows in capabilities, our camera can grow in capabilities.

Another thing you fail to realize is that there is an actual lead-time on components, meaning that what you see right now was designed at least 6-8 months ago. I can't sit around and read something on a tech rumors forum and have a working prototype a month later. Parts have to go through revisions by the manufacturer themselves before they are ready for integration. In other words, not only do we have a prototyping path ourselves, integrating components into the camera design, but each and every one of the major components we choose has it's own prototyping pathway, meaning they are trying to work out bugs and design flaws in their products before we get them, so that we're not trouble-shooting their problems and can concentrate on our own. Dropping a prototype motherboard in a camera design like ours just leads to problems that are un-related to our software/hardware architecture . . . so you have to wait around for production parts from the suppliers as well.

I thought this was an issue of CPU speed rather than ram (if the cpu is fast enough it wont use ram buffer).

Because the integrated graphics system is a NUMA architecture, what happens when you heavily load the graphics subsystem is that it starves the CPU of memory bandwidth, so you end up with empty CPU cycles, or missed cycles as the CPU is trying to grab something from memory, but it has to wait for the next available moment because the memory bandwidth it needed on-demand was busy feeding the graphics. It's sort of like missing the train and having to wait around for the next one to arrive. You might be 2 seconds late, but once you missed the train, you missed it. Now if the CPU is faster, what you typically see is the train coming more often, so a missed event is not as critical as far as latencies are concerned, which is the real issue here, not necessarily CPU speed per-se. The latency is the fact that a frame has to be fully encoded within a given frame-time (i.e., 1/24th of a second for 24fps), and if it isn't, then you're a frame behind and that frame ends up in the RAM buffer.

Jason, is it possible to swap out chips and ram in the SI-2K?

Yes, part of our design criteria was that the components of the system needed to be upgradeable. This long-term goal of course meant that the short-term design components may not have fitted the wish-list of Sergio above, and I'm sure that those looking at our system right now could point out other short-comings that if they were to build a simple one-off system could gather a better all-star component list from the available parts on the market right now, but that's simply not how electronic systems like this are designed, and it would mean no upgrade path since it would be a fixed-target platform. Furthermore I challenge anyone to assemble a component list better than ours that would meet the heat, power, and size requirements for a non-tethered mobile digital cinema camera while not running into exhorbant NRE charges due to requiring custom motherboard layout designs (that would send the price through the roof . . . our price target has already been missed, but if we had tossed in the amount of NRE that a custom motherboard would have required, all bets are off how much the camera would have cost).

So what can i do to improve the performance of the Camera, because I can`t compromise a day of shooting using it at is, without knowing if i can shoot a sequence or not, or fighting with the buffer.

Sergio, Steve has already been working with you guys one-on-one all day today, as well as me sending you guys lots of private emails over the same topic . . . airing your troubles here on this forum won't give you a faster or different response. Some of the issues you're seeing seem to actually be a bit of a one-off, meaning that you might be having a system failure in a hardware component, or some software setting has gone very awry. We might need to get a fresh OS install on that system, which at this point in time might mean returning it for evalution (note: while we don't have a way to-do OS re-installs in the field at the moment, we are actively working on a solution, so that even a horribly corrupted XPe install that won't boot can be completed re-flashed using a USB stick with a fresh disk-image on it).

I do apologize if 1280x720 is not enough resolution for you, but with the current graphics chipset in the SI-2K system, that is where we are at for now. You can run the GUI at 800x600, and the external client monitor at 1280x720. If you need to analyze something, you have a 2x and 4x zoom control that lets you pan around the entire screen, enabling you to microscopically analyze the entire scene at greater than 2:1 pixel resolution. We allow you to-do a lot more for image inspection than the typical "2x center-only zoom" that you see with the cameras doing a focus-aide.

Jason:

As Dank said to Steve, I dont think that reinstalling the OS will solve the problem, it isnt a hardware component failing, there is one driver missing though let me check out the device name and I send it out to you because I couldnt recognize the device name. The SMBus driver was missing too, I installed it, I could record more than a minute after it.

I understand perfectly what you are saying to me, im not airing anything here at the forum. In fact the real answers I made were into an e-mail I sent you yesterday and in the Support forum in Cineform. Here I just wanted to know the difference between formats so you or someone at Cineform could clear it out.

I understand the points you are trying to make about the monitor format. That is fine.

But the attacks about not knowing how to correctly design the camera I think are going a bit too far. While my reaction may have been a bit thorough and over-the-top, it's stemming from the fact that I'm a bit irritated this was originally a private opinion solicited by one of your fellow co-workers in an email (which is of course justified . . . you can email me anything you want, and while I might not be happy hearing the criticism, I'll professionally take it), and now it's making it's way to this public forum, despite the fact that I've already answered it once in a nice professional manner. I hope you can see that having to repeat myself and defend our design cycle now on a public forum is not making me too happy.

I like giving people help. I don't like hearing arm-chair quarterbacking on what we did right/wrong and how you would have fixed it when your "fix" is one dead-end routes we actually investigated and even spent months building a dead prototype around. The path to market hasn't been painless, but I believe in the end we've been making the best design decisions we could with the resources we currently have available.

I will be the first to admit that best-fit compromises were made based on what would have been an "ideal" platform on-paper (i.e., our pie-in-the-sky unlimited platform pipe-dream), but compromise is part of every engineering product - reach the best end-goal possible for the resources you have at hand, whether they are limited by the laws of physics, mechanical requirements, functionality, avoiding incompatibilities, and of course budget. The good news is that everything we've done has been forward looking, and as far as performance goes, the road for Moore's law only goes up.

It would be interesting to see if outfits like Sony, Panasonic, JVC, Canon etc., would as frankly and honestly discuss their trade secrets directly with their customers or on an open forum.

Even if it is way way out of my league, it remains refreshing to see the direct interaction between providers and clients that is occurring with entities like Cineform, SI, RED, where the culture of the enthusiast has not been suffocated within a larger corporate mass.

A little self-governance on the part of forum participants might be in order if this openess is to continue.

A little self-governance on the part of forum participants might be in order if this openess is to continue.

Yeah, to be honest, my response was a bit over-the-top (apologies to Sergio), but I'm very passionate in letting people know that our goal is to deliver the best product possible. And when things don't function the way they should, we do the best we can to find out how to make things work right. One unfortunate side-effect of the "openness" of these development projects is that you've seen all the dirty laundry, especially in how much the "ideal" specs can change from start to finish . . . sometimes the change is in the positive direction, and sometimes some compromises need to be made in specific areas in order to make a better overall product that meets as much of the original goal-set as possible.

I can remember last December the anger and frustration after realizing that we had a DOA (dead-on-arrival) product in our hands after building what was suppose to be a fully working prototype based on a GPU-powered system. On paper everything should have worked, and individually the components all worked fine in a test-bench situation. But once it was all assembled, and we attempted to put it though it's paces, it flat-out didn't work for what was required of it, that is a tetherless mobile system that worked like a "real" camera, and could withstand the abuse of a "real" camera. As a result we had to work overtime going through a complete re-design from electronics through the form-factor between then and NAB in April. The good news is that we learned from our mistakes and dead-ends, and we've made a vastly better product as a result.

Jason, is it possible to swap out chips and ram in the SI-2K?

BTW, I should clarify this a little better.

I order to meet the criteria for ruggedness, we ended up having to move away from socket designs (which can come loose over time or during vibration/shock, and cause instabilty issues or crashes that are hard to diagnose), and instead go with a soldered design where the RAM and the processor is soldered onto the motherboard.

That being said, the cPCI form-factor allows you to swap out motherboard for newer designs later. So what we've done with the current set of boards is we've gotten the fastest parts possible, and put them on. When a new chipset/boardset is available, we can swap out the current board and put a new one in (and it's fairly straight-forward since it's the entire board in a socket).

The upgrades of course will cost more than buying a single CPU/RAM combo, but then of course Intel makes sure that you have to purchase a new motherboard every time a new chipset comes out, so this board-swap would end up happening anyways. Going from a slower to a faster processor in a given family is one thing, but in our case we are already at the top tier for this chipset.

Our goal was to use a sub-system that gave us the easiest upgrade path while also maintaining the required rugged form-factor required for the intended abuse that the camera would go through. Using mission-critical and military spec'ed parts would be the logical path to go as those industries have similar requirements as well. While Intel embedded graphics right now are a pain in the butt to work with, the good news is that Intel is on a very aggressive pathway to increase embedded graphics performance by over 10x in the next 18 months, basically making embedded graphics equivalent to what would right now be considered a pretty decent gaming card. Of course 18 months is a long ways off for someone who is shooting right now, so rest assured that we have other near-term options on the table that we are currently developing that will help any performance deficit that is currently in our embedded platform. But I just wanted to let you know that we've tried, and are continually trying to keep the platform as flexible as possible. And then another thing to remember is that every SI-2K is also a MINI as well . . . so if there's something that is simply not working, you can always pull the MINI out and plug it into another box/laptop, etc. That of course is not an intended work-around, but I guess I'm just trying to say there are many ways to stay up with the latest-and-greatest that other camera systems don't offer you the flexibility of taking advantage of.

All of this makes for compelling reading. It would have been better if we'd all been kept in the loop as things progressed (or didn't). Some of us have what for us are not small sums of money tied up in this project, it'd help no end if we knew what was the cause of the seemingly endless delays.
From the outside until today here's how it looked:

NAB 2006 you had a working prototype camera.
You decided to repackage the camera for cosmetic reasons.
NAB 2007 you have the working repackaged camera and 6 months later it's still not shipping.

Should mention I suppose at various points along the way a few announcements of new features but nothing about actually shipping a working camera.

As has been explained, that's so far from the situation as to be laughable but until we're all told otherwise what else are we to think, so please, continue to keep us informed of both the good news and the bad.

I had issues with matte boxes appearing on the frame

What would cause this? I'm planning to use a set of S16 primes and accessories.

What would cause this? I'm planning to use a set of S16 primes and accessories.

I'm actually not sure. I've been using Zeiss Superspeeds and even a converted S16mm Cooke 10-64mm zoom with an Arri MB-16 and have had no such issues with the matte-box in the frame.

In fact with all the films that we've been involved in shooting haven't had that problem either.

I don't know how that happened. Sergio, can you elaborate on your setup that caused this issue?

NAB 2007 you have the working repackaged camera and 6 months later it's still not shipping.

It is shipping, that's why Sergio has one and a couple other people on the list. The only issue right now is that we're trying to ramp production in Germany while weeding out any bugs with the current systems and waiting for volumes from other suppliers as well. This sort of causes a bit of a stop-and-go situation, and it's a bit compounded by the fact that we're now being compared to the power of the latest laptop solutions that people can run with their MINI, when the design cycle on the SI-2K necssitatest that the electronics in it will be a bit older, and not as powerful as the latest laptop on the market. The good news of course thought is that we're upgradeable as well, so when something newer comes out, we can include it as well, it's just that we can't hit market with the latest solution as fast as Dell or Apple.

One thing to note is that SiliconDVR was designed to meet the requirements of the SI-2K electronics. With a more powerful system that has unlimited resources, like gaming laptops or desktops, etc, you can naturally do more, but the SI-2K is not performance starved. Of course if you drop from the gaming laptop to the SI-2K, this might seem like the case, but it's not. In other words, if you hadn't used the powerful laptop/desktop, and you came to the SI-2K natively, you wouldn't be trying to-do on the SI-2K what you can do with the gaming laptop and then call it "performance starved".

The problem is that those artifacts, was not appearing on the preview display, when recording. But I finally discovered them in post produccion, when scaled the frame to fit the workspace.

I had those problems when shooting 2k and previewing with 1920x1200 display resolution. Now that I have to go below that resolution the problem is getting worse.

That mean that the Silicon DVR is not scaling the frame properly. Of course I can always zoom on the image in post to fix it but you have to mess up the framing of the camera, and if you are using very elaborate composition schemes as we were doing you have to compromize your shot. Or loose some extra detail.

I was using zeiss primes as well, and is getting worse with the resolution of the preview going down.

The aspect ratio is not corrected either in the second display so if you`re using widescreen displays you see the frame streched out when usign 1280x720.

The idea of previewing a shot is to be able to feel the atmosphere of a shot right on camera when shooting. Of course you can go back and Shoot like, Hitchcock just looking at your actors in a point view close to the camera, but i feel is a step back, given all the advances in technology. I feel that this problem, is like loosing one eye in your shooting.

The problem is that those artifacts, was not appearing on the preview display, when recording.. . . That mean that the SiliconDVR is not scaling the frame properly.

I hate to say this, but that's not really possible . . . the display is one-for-one with the recorded file. We're uploading the same exact same bit-map to the screen as what's going to the disk. WYSIWYG.

In fact, I'm attaching an example. What has been done in this image, is I've taken a scree-grab of the interface, and I've then taken a frame from the recording of this scene, and I've done a 50/50 overlay of the recorded image with the display image. You will notice that it looks like one image . . . that's because it *is* one image, meaning the display preview and the recorded file are the same.

One thing I have seen in the past is where someone was accidentally zoomed in 2x and didn't realize it. Of course now we have widgets on the screen and an indicator at the top that tells you if you're zoomed in great than 1:1.

The aspect ratio is not corrected either in the second display so if you`re using widescreen displays you see the frame streched out when usign 1280x720.

Just curious, what are your settings, as we can't reproduce this issue, and we're trying. Are you sure you've setup the video card correctly? Which way are you seeing the stretching, horizontally or vertically? What is the mode you're running the first-monitor GUI at? 800x600 or 1280x720? What monitor are you using?

Now I have seen where certain digital input displays, like computer monitors, won't themselves scale an image properly unless you input the native resolution of the monitor, i.e., some 24" LCD's won't scale a 1280x720 input signal correctly because the screen is natively 1920x1200, and it requires that same aspect ratio input which is 16:10, so it will stretch a 16:9 signal incorrectly. But that's not the fault of SiliconDVR.

The idea of previewing a shot is to be able to feel the atmosphere of a shot right on camera when shooting. Of course you can go back and Shoot like, Hitchcock just looking at your actors in a point view close to the camera, but i feel is a step back, given all the advances in technology. I feel that this problem, is like loosing one eye in your shooting.

I completely agree . . . that's why the preview that you see on the screen is 1:1 with the recorded file. If you're experiencing some problems, please let us know, and we'll try to fix the situation. Since I can't reproduce any of the issues you just described with a correctly setup system, I need some more information on your setup to diagnose the issues.

In that shot at the right you can see the matte box showing, that was not in the display, I can say it because I was the one in front of the large display and It is not the first time that happens. A 2x zoom would be a C.U of the horse, and the composition in this shot was a little closer than this so there is no way the DP accidentally press the zoom since I asked a Over Shoulder not a Close Shot, as you say it is a 24" display and it is stretching horizontaly so i guess the answer will be to use a Mini instead to have the display correctly since, I cant change the displays now for a "native 1024x720" so I can monitor on set what i get from the camera.

The strangest of all is that If connect another 720p device to the display, even when its native resolutions is 1920x1200, the aspect ratio is ok, but when I connect the SI2K it isnt.

The configuration is exactly the same you left when the camera was delivered, I just reinstalled the Silicon DVR because the IRIDAS app wasnt working. (After reinstalled it worked)

Thanks for the image Sergio.

From my measurements in Photoshop, and if I'm interpreting correctly what was the matte-box in this image, it seems that somehow 6% of the entire recorded image was cropped from the display so that you could not see what was in the left 6% of the frame. Is this correct? I'm uploading an image here to demonstrate what I'm talking about.

If that is the case, and you say this happens on multiple events, where the left 6% of the screen is cropped from the display, can you give use the settings you're using so that we can diagnose this issue properly? I'm endevouring to reproduce this issue, and I simply can't. I keep getting a 1:1 image on my screen . . . 6% is quite a bit if you think about it. That's over 120 pixels that the image would be cropped on the left in a 2K image.

The strangest of all is that If connect another 720p device to the display, even when its native resolutions is 1920x1200, the aspect ratio is ok, but when I connect the SI2K it isnt.

Then the settings you're using on the video card are somehow incorrect. Can you please send us the settings you're using so we can diagnose this issue? Again, I'm trying to reproduce your issue and I'm simply not able to.

The configuration is exactly the same you left when the camera was delivered, I just reinstalled the Silicon DVR because the IRIDAS app wasnt working. (After reinstalled it worked)

SiliconDVR doesn't control the monitor, the video card does. I would need to know the settings of the video card. Also can you tell us what external monitor model number you're using?

so i guess the answer will be to use a Mini instead to have the display correctly since, I cant change the displays now for a "native 1024x720" so I can monitor on set what i get from the camera.

This is not the answer you are limited to, and if you would work with me and let me know what exactly you are trying to-do, I'm sure we can work through this issue and solve your problems since we have set the camera up here, and have gotten successful results that don't crop the display or stretch oddly, and give 1:1 results on-screen. Alternatively you can call Steve and let him walk you through the monitor setup over the phone.

Thanks,

Jason

The incorrect ratio of the display has happened to me too. I have tried all the settings that there is but never managed to get both the displays to show the correct ratio.

Can you let us know what monitors you are using? We've been testing with Samsung monitors, and haven't had ratio problem issues. So this might depend on the monitor you are using.

Secondly, an aspect ratio issue is not the same as the severe cropping issue that Sergio seems to be suggesting is occurring and we can't reproduce here with our equipment.

Im using 800x600 in the Xenarc using the VGA, and 1280x720 on the HP LP2465 connected trough the HDMI output, In fact in both monitors the image is streched. The GUI on the Xenarc is not using the entire screen as it does when working on 1280x768 (some how is the only mode in wich it fits the entire screen).

The resolution is set to 32bits, DualMonitor is in Extended Mode. The aspect ratio option on the xenarc is set to fullscreen (no borders). Im using Silicon DVR 423.



The driver Im missing is F14BC device in smb-slot2, i couldnt find a driver for that device.

In the image attached you can see what Im saying about the SiliconDVR not sacaling properly. The two upper images are at the same resolution, the desktop is using the entire screen, but when I run the Silicon DVR the image is streched horizontally.

The Image below shows how the monitor is framing the shot at 1920x1200, the aspect is right at that resolution.

The same happens with the Xenarc display, at 800x600 the aspect is not right and I cant use the entire screen.

I forgot the attatchment, sorry.

Okay, the fix for the Xenarc is simple . . . in 800x600 mode hit the "M" button on the from of the Xenarc twice. The first time it should bring up one on-screen-display, the second time you press the "M" button you will get a second screen. At the bottom of the screen is an Aspect Ratio correction setting. It is normally set to 16:9, but you need to set it to 4:3 when working with 800x600 material. To-do so simply hit the "s" button to move down to the Aspect Ratio correction setting, and then press one of the arrow keys to select the 4:3 setting. That should fix the aspect ratio issues with the Xenarc.

For the HP monitor, you have to set the monitor at 1280x1024 (4:3 aspect ratio) in order to get the correct aspect ratio for a 1280x720 image unless you run at the native resolution of the monitor (i.e., 1680x1050 in the case of a 20" and 1920x1200 in the case of a 23-24"). Because you will again be setting a 4:3 resolution in a 16:10 monitor, you will have a black boarder around the picture, but at least the aspect ratio will be correct. This seems to be an odd issue with the HP's, or whatever electronic chipset they are using for the digital input. They don't necessarily like the 1280x720 input from the camera for whatever reason, and prefer a common 4:3 input like 1280x1024, or the native input of the display which would be 1680x1050 for a 20" and 1920x1200 for a 24". Other wide-screen resolutions don't seem to work right and do cause stretching. At least that's what I've experienced when setting up the camera with HP monitors (which we have tested and successfully gotten to work with the correct aspect ratio).

BTW, Sergio, please do not confuse SiliconDVR with the display card. You keep repeating that "SiliconDVR is not scaling properly" . . . SiliconDVR simply is drawing whatever goes to the screen. It has no control over screen aspect ratios or resolutions. The issue is not with how SiliconDVR draws to the screen. The monitor and video card combination are not being interpreted correctly, and that is creating an aspect ratio issue as the monitor is trying to interpret a signal and then display that signal from the video card, and in this case it's doing it wrong. That has nothing to-do with SiliconDVR.

Thanks,

Jason

Jason:

The reason I`m saying that the SiliconDVR software is not working correctly is because, In the build 422 of the software, in the build fixes posted on the SI2K website, you said that the you fixed working in 800x600 resolution, well, working with the image streched down or not being able to use the entire touchscreen is not a correction for me. Scaling to 4:3 makes the working area even smaller, im loosing almost half of the working area of the touchscreen. Maybe if you have a small kid, with very small fingers as camera operator, you will not have trouble with the interface, but my problem is that I use adult crew, It will be very uncomfortable to work that way.

I`ve tried all the above methods you mentioned before telling you I was facing issues with the display, but none of the configurations I used worked for me. Only working 1240x720 on the Xenarc fixed the thing, but the cost is performance, so thats not an option.

There must be a work arround for the problem.

"The issue is not with how SiliconDVR draws to the screen. The monitor and video card combination are not being interpreted correctly, and that is creating an aspect ratio issue as the monitor is trying to interpret a signal and then display that signal from the video card, and in this case it's doing it wrong. That has nothing to-do with SiliconDVR"

Yes It does... Since is preciselly the video card-display config that comes bundled with the camera, and the issue happens even with just the Xenarc attached to the DVR. This is not a custom rig I build to work with the camera, the issues would be understandable in that case.

I believe most of the people will need to have the ability to use at least the entire screen of the touchscreen display, to properly operate the camera.

I guess that then the optimum configuration is not running the SiliconDVR GUI at 800x600, and the second monitor at 1280x720. But both displays at 1280x720. Since the GUI looks right in the Xenarc at that resolution.

And the other is using 17" monitors to have the right aspect ratio and resolution, since I find a real waste of space and money carrying arround 24" and above monitors if you will only see a small box inside. A vga splitter doesnt looks as a great idea for me, since you`ll only be able to output at 1280x720 in clone mode, so you will loose even more area in you video village display, unless operator feels confortable to work without the GUI tools on the primary display.

Did you find the missing driver? Maybe it doesnt affect performance, at all...But I dont think that installing it will harm it either.

The reason I`m saying that the SiliconDVR software is not working correctly is because, In the build 422 of the software, in the build fixes posted on the SI2K website, you said that the you fixed working in 800x600 resolution, well, working with the image streched down or not being able to use the entire touchscreen is not a correction for me. Scaling to 4:3 makes the working area even smaller, im loosing almost half of the working area of the touchscreen.

Sergio,

I feel we are talking past each other here . . . The Xenarc, because it is a 16:9 monitor, when it shows a 4:3 image, must show the image in a "pillar-box", that is the 4:3 image will sit in the middle of the screen, and there will be black on the edges. Please remember that the GUI is 16:9, but there is also a full-screen mode that will blow the image up into the 4:3 area (that would be pillar-box squeezed into the 16:9 area of the Xenarc screen). This "fix" you're talking about in our release notes of SiliconDVR in the 800x600 mode has absolutely nothing to-do with what you're talking about. The Xenarc has always operated this way. That's the way it had to operate in order to show a 4:3 image in the correct aspect ratio on a 16:9 screen.

If you do not like the smaller area of a 4:3 image "pillar-boxed" in the native 16:9 Xenarc, then you will need a native 4:3 aspect ratio 8.4" touchscreen display like this:

http://www.xenarc.com/product/840tsv.html

We can get one for you if you want. Talk to Steve or Ari for pricing info.

I guess that then the optimum configuration is not running the SiliconDVR GUI at 800x600, and the second monitor at 1280x720. But both displays at 1280x720. Since the GUI looks right in the Xenarc at that resolution.

When you say "right", it's because it's filling the screen, and you don't like the way the 800x600 looks in the Xenarc . . . I can understand that, but also please bear with us as we work on optimizations, and if in the end you don't like the way the Xenarc looks, you can get a different one that would be more optimized for 800x600 . . . the other nice advantage of 800x600 Xenarc would be that you can swap the EVF and the Xenarc seamlessly without resetting the video card.

Yes It does... Since is preciselly the video card-display config that comes bundled with the camera, and the issue happens even with just the Xenarc attached to the DVR. This is not a custom rig I build to work with the camera, the issues would be understandable in that case.

What I'm trying to tell you is that there is no setting in SiliconDVR that is causing these issues . . . your VIDEO CARD is setup incorrectly for the monitors you are trying to use. Intel Video Card drivers do not equal SiliconDVR. Since we have no idea what monitors everyone is going to be using with the camera, as you can basically plug in any HDMI/VGA monitor in existance that supports the resolutions from the video card, we can't simply "fix" the settings in the video card drive for one single monitor and ship the camera that way.

We ship the SI-2K for the default configuration of a single monitor set to 1280x720 for the Xenarc touchscreen screen. Alternatively we can set it for a default of a single 800x600 monitor to be natively compatible with the EVF. After that, when it comes to the plethora of multiple monitor setups that are possible with the PC-driven hardware of the SI-2K, it is up to you as the user to use the supplied Intel Video card setup program to properly setup the monitors you are using with compatible formats. We can help you configure the monitors as I am trying to-do here. Unfortunately at this point in time you cannot simply plug-and-play multiple monitors without any setup involved . . . and that means when you plug in a separate monitor, you must set the video card to the correct settings. This again, has absolutely nothing to-do with how SiliconDVR (a software program) draws to the screen. It all has to-do with the video card settings and the monitor scalers that it's hooking up to.

I believe most of the people will need to have the ability to use at least the entire screen of the touchscreen display, to properly operate the camera.

And that is how we ship the camera. You are trying to deviate from that, and so you must setup your video card appropriately for the devices you are trying to hook into. The second video port unfortunately can't be "active" 100% of the time . . . it is like a normal PC video port that requires first the monitor to be hooked up and then your reboot the camera so that the monitor is detected. Then you set the resolution (to the optimum to prevent stretching, etc. as I have outlined for you in this thread), and then you launch SiliconDVR, which, once the video card has been setup correctly, will show the image on the screen in the correct aspect ratio.

As a quick recap, here are you possible "optimum" setups:

1) Factory default of a single 1280x720 monitor out the VGA port (typically reserved for the touchscreen

2) Factory default of a single EVF setup for 800x600

3) Dual monitors with 800x600 for the touchscreen and 1280x720 for a client monitor (pending the frame-buffer format that the destination montior requires . . . some monitors might need a 4:3 aspect ratio to scale correctly, such as the HP's, and that means 1280x1024 to get a 1280x720 image to have the correct aspect ratio).

4) Multiple monitors from configuration #3 using hardware splitters or distribution amplifiers to get additonal monitors at either 1280x720 or 800x600.

"Intel Video Card drivers do not equal SiliconDVR. Since we have no idea what monitors everyone is going to be using with the camera..."

You´re right in that, but I dont have those issues with any other video card here, and I have 14workstations, so maybe I´m wrong.

What Im trying to say is this, you offer me a solution capable of:
Full resolution 2K and HD viewing output
Dual independent video output with HD-SDI compatibility through DVI-to-HD-SDI converters

And you delivered something very diferent than that. And then you tell me it is my fault because I didnt know you were going to deliver me a camera with no output in full resolution, and that the optimum aspect ratio for the display is 4:3, instead of 16:9, wich is by the way the monitor and resolution i´ve been working on with the Mini since september last year.

Why nobody told me that when I went to pick up the camera.

It is so absurd, that i dont know if I have to laugh or to cry...really Jason...

The reality is that i cant use the displays correctly now, because the computer is just not powerfull enough, so now I have to patch the solution...

What Im sugesting to you, is precisely (i dont know how to spell it correctly, sorry, I speak spanish) to optimize the application so at least, my DP can work confortly and I can review my shots in something different than an IPod.

You´re right in that, but I dont have those issues with any other video card here, and I have 14workstations, so maybe I´m wrong.

Are any of your other computers using Intel embedded video cards with the GMA950?

Full resolution 2K and HD viewing output
Dual independent video output with HD-SDI compatibility through DVI-to-HD-SDI converters

I don't mean to sound facisious, but in my suggestions for optimum monitoring configurations, is not 1280x720 monitoring an HD format?

BTW, we do give you the full 2K FOV resolution output on the SI-2K, it's just that there are no 2K displays that don't require dual-link DVI (which doesn't work with HDMI 1.2), so it has to obviously be scaled into some lower-resolution output HDTV monitor (which is actually more ideal to use than a computer monitor since HDTV's can accept more input formats from computers and scale them appropriately) . . . and of course if you take the HDMI and convert it to HD-SDI, you can run a 1280x720 panel . . . which is an HD format. And of course if you have a video card that can do dual-link DVI, you can get 1:1 2K output on a 30" Apple/Dell/etc. monitor (unfortunately cards like that are tremendously heat and power-hungry, so there is no way we could cram a card like that in the SI-2K . . . but that doesn't mean the software can't do it, especially if you pull the MINI out).

What Im sugesting to you, is precisely (i dont know how to spell it correctly, sorry, I speak spanish) to optimize the application

We are working on that as we speak. I think in the end you will be very glad that you have our flexible platform to work and grow with . . . what you are using today is not necessarily what you will have tomorrow because not only does our flexible software platform allow us to grow on the current platform and improve performance, but we are also able to upgrade the hardware as we go along. The SI-2K is not like previous generations of cameras that simply hit the market and that's it . . . it's a growing platform. So whether you're running the MINI off a super-powerful laptop computer with unlimited resources for monitoring, processing, etc., or you're using our embedded platform that will obviously have certain limitations based on it's form-factor and power/heat budget requirements, you have choices with our system that in the end all deliver the same top image quality, and that's not something you're going to find with other systems out there.

And again, rest assured that we are taking your situation very seriously, and are working on optimizations and feature choices that will get you were you want to go in the near-term.

Sergio,
Unless you've got money to burn, you might want to order this yourself. Last week I asked SI to get me their recommended touchscreen monitor for the SI-2K (I've never been able to find a product or price list for their accessories on their website). They charged me $1,046 and sent me a Xenarc 700 TSV, which Xenarc sells for $369 on their own website. Needless to say, I'm sending it back to them today.
Gary Moss

Sergio,
What is at the core of this discussion is whether we should have the SI-2K hardware and SiliconDVR software be open ended or closed. If we release this camera and lock down all configurations that we currently approve of, this discussion would be unnecessary. In a closed camera, you would select either touchscreen (1280x720) or EVF (800x600) mode. Each mode would only put out one secondary video stream that we select - buy the correct monitor or don't use that output. We could even brand the displays "SI" so you would get them from us.

That is not the concept behind this camera. We want you to be able to use third party displays, mass storage and other accessories. We are in early production now and have not experimented with every combination of input and output devices for the camera. As you can see, we are quite willing to spend any amount of time, both publicly and privately to assist you in new configurations. For the most part, our specs for the camera have been improving - major additions like embedded Iridas OnSet and smaller ones like 50% recall mode. At times, we may not meet our original expectations. This has never been to the detriment of the recorded image quality. That is what we strive for first and foremost.

Your group has been on the cutting edge of our products. You are doing great work with them. I recognize that this has caused both of us some pain but I hope you don't doubt that we are trying to resolve your issues.

Best Regards,
Steve Nordhauser

Needless to say, I'm sending it back to them today.

If I'm not mistaken, the one you'll get direct from Xenarc won't be as bright . . . I know we've done some customization work on the back-light with them to get it brighter outdoors.

Of course I have no problems with you getting it direct from Xenarc, but just saying, there should be a difference.

I didn't handle the Xenarc customization stuff so that's why there's some uncertainty in my tone. I'd be curious to know what you find out.

But again, getting everything direct from us is not necessarily the way to go with every item . . . that's why we have an "open" platform.

OK, I did some checking up on the Xenarc monitors. Here is the full story. We were paying a premium for high brightness monitors. The ones from the Xenarc site are now all high brightness - this is recent. In addition to the monitor kit itself, our pricing also includes the flexible arm and a custom Lemo cable for powering the Xenarc off of the 2K power connectors.

Our price includes these items, the ability to sell through discounted distribution channels and the support (handling warranty and repair problems, etc).

Gary is absolutely correct that this price is above the parts cost and we have no problems with his going direct. This is not a "Silicon Imaging" branded monitor - it is an off-the-shelf unit with the above additions.

Same attitude on media. We sell empty carriers or full ones. We will give you Seagate part numbers for the hard drives if you want to build your own.

Regards,
Steve Nordhauser

Gary:

The precise issue in this discussion is that if you use that display and need a secondo output (as most of the people does) you will need to adjust the resolution of the touchscreen to 800x600, loosing almost 40% of the screen area.

You and me are using the recommended hardware, thats why I dont understand, and im not willing to accept an excuse as a solution.

My only sugestion is to make some kind of optimization to preserve all the features that makes the camera functional and interesting.

Steve, the question is not if you have to close the solution, even as open as it is, you have to make it work flawless and smooth at the recommended settings. Im using the recommended display, the app only runs well at 1280x768, and now you tell me that I have to sacrifice the working resolution if I wanto to output to a second monitor wich is the case in almost every production enviroment. You say is the fault of the display manufacturers because they dont support your resolution, but if you`re developing an open solution you are the ones who need to be flexible. Right now im limited to work only at that resolution because otherwise Im not going to be able to record more than a minute. So there is a compromise in flexibility. At the end these kind of limitations makes the solution not as open as you feel it is, thats the point i was trying to make here.

In the Mini version, is another story if we speak about the flexibility of the solution, I can run it in almost any configuration available, even in a Macbook, thats cool. But in the operability side it has disadvantages when compared to the full DVR, but I loose all the flexibility of the Mini, and compromise some features too, of course there has to be a way to solve this, and im shure you`re working on that. But being defensive, and blaming the manufacturers you chose, is certanly not the right approach to a posible solution.

Im using, as Gary and many guys who are using the camera right now, the touchscreen display you recommended me to use, I got it from you last month. Yesterday, Jason told me that I have to change the display you are recommending for another one, as an excuse for the incorrect aspect resolution...thats the main problem, here. It`s absurd. If your recommended display configuration is the Xenarc at 800x600, then you have to fix the app to display correctly in the touchscreen you recommended us to use.

Believe me that I know very well, how to set up a monitor, and I dont use Intel video cards because of all the problems I`ve seen in the past with all the video cards that Intel manufactures. And now I can see that things arent getting better for Intel in the video area. I understand that you were forced to take that path, but that doesnt mean i have to agree with you.

Apart of the resolution issues, wich I wont accept in any way until you find a solution, or give me the video hardware update. I was asking if im able to use more than 2Gb in the camera right now as it is as im trying to find a solution as well as you. I now there will be new software builds, with more features and solutions. If Im telling you my issues, is because maybe you have to check some little bug, or adjust something to make it work better.

I believe that discussing this kind of issues will make the SI2K a better camera, thats the point. And I agree with Bob Grant (i think he was the one who posted it) that it is great if im able to discuss this kind of stuff directly with the guys responsible of making the camera work.

Steve I know you`re working on those issues.

Gary:

And I agree with Bob Grant (i think he was the one who posted it) that it is great if im able to discuss this kind of stuff directly with the guys responsible of making the camera work.




From my reading of all of the above it seems that the issue at hand here goes back to a problem that occurred late last year. The original design wouldn't fly and so the SI-2K's internals were redesigned. That meant some features were lost or compromised. Nothing unusual with that.
What is disturbing is that we weren't told about this, that we've had to wait until a camera was delivered and a user starts jumping up and down for this information to see the light of day.
Winding the clock back, if we'd been told about the issues with the original design back at the end of last year, we might have accepted that the thing needed a bigger box, more fans, a monster battery and the odd connector reseated or an extra 'spare' camera or two on location. I can't speak for anyone else or even really know how we would have reacted to that news but I can only see being told the news and all of us given the opportunity to comment as a positive thing, who knows we might all have been fine with those compromises. Might have saved SI a bundle of money and gotten cameras delivered much quicker.

One of the few things that I do know is that being able to give the client a full raster preview with a Look applied is a pretty big selling point. If that isn't an option with the SI-2K in 16:9 2K @ 24fps, if we need the MINI connected to some number crunching monster or whatever, no problem here with that. What is a problem is not knowing this until this late stage.
And yes, we accept that this is a work in progress, we now have some insight into how hard a road this has been for SI to take. I say again though, knowing just where the progress is at and how hard the road is impacts all of us, keeping us in the dark achieves nothing apart from more 'Sergios' getting understandably upset.

In the Mini version, is another story if we speak about the flexibility of the solution, I can run it in almost any configuration available, even in a Macbook, thats cool. But in the operability side it has disadvantages when compared to the full DVR, but I loose all the flexibility of the Mini, and compromise some features too

As I've mentioned before, there were engineering trade-offs that had to be dealt with in power and heat output as well as weight, size, and ergonomics in order to get the "flexibility" in the mobile SI-2K design that you desire.

But being defensive, and blaming the manufacturers you chose, is certanly not the right approach to a posible solution.

I'm not being defensive and blaming the manufacturers for what you feel are the "faults" of this system. I'm simply saying that choices from Nvidia or ATI that you have gotten used to on a laptop or workstation were not an option to us when we had to create a hardware solution that ran cool, ran with low-power consumption (so you can use LiON batteries that are off-the-shelf - like Anton Bauer or IDX - and not require custom batteries and power-managing features like laptops require so they don't blow-up their batteries), would allow upgradability, and would also fit our required form-factor.

Im using, as Gary and many guys who are using the camera right now, the touchscreen display you recommended me to use, I got it from you last month. Yesterday, Jason told me that I have to change the display you are recommending for another one, as an excuse for the incorrect aspect resolution...thats the main problem, here. It`s absurd. If your recommended display configuration is the Xenarc at 800x600, then you have to fix the app to display correctly in the touchscreen you recommended us to use.

The SI-2K comes pre-configured for use with a single monitor . . . you get to pick whether it's a touchscreen or a EVF. The Xenarc was a great solution that we first started with and built the platform on. It was 16:9, supported HD input resolutions, and when there was only one monitor to use, it happened to be a great, low-cost fit that also enabled a very unique user interface design that no other camera has.

Now you are taking the flexibility of the SI-2K platform and adding more onto it . . . in this case a second monitor. This second monitor of course changes the scenario compared to how an optimal single monitor configuration would be set-up. The flexibility of the SI-2K platform is that you can configure it any way you like with any monitoring solution you like, whether it's provided from us, or from a third-party. Furthermore we knew that people may not want to use Xenarc's at all, they may like monitors from a number of different vendors like Marshall, etc., and they may not even want a touchscreen. So we found a hardware input device that would still let you use the GUI effectively.

I guess what you're faulting us with is the fact that the SI-2K is not a fixed add-on device like other closed-hardware cameras in the past behave, meaning that you add one thing, and then no configuration changes need to be made if you want to tack on anything else . . . that unfortunately isn't the case. The philosophy of the system is "openness", but that also means there are going to be times where if you change the accessory set (in this case adding a second monitor), you are going to have to change the setup of the system's video card for it to still run optimally. If everything was "fixed" and we said you can only use XYZ, then we can't allow you to take advantage of market forces which are perpetually moving forward . . . our camera would be strapped to the weakest accessory. That is not the case with our open platform. You can add any monitor you want. You can upgrade the hardware in the future. You can accessorize as you need with popular and cost-effective third-party solutions that are driven by market forces, not our proprietary and arbitrary standards.

Apart of the resolution issues, wich I wont accept in any way until you find a solution, or give me the video hardware update.

I appreciate your open-mindedness towards working with us towards a solution. I have been spending countless hours on my end finding optimizations with our engineers for what you feel and are claiming is a total-loss predicament. While the electronics hardware is upgradeable, I can tell you honestly right now that you're not going to get a hardware upgrade tomorrow, nor even the rest of this year. We are working on other recording options that I hope you find pleasing, and different optimization techniques that will hopefully generate the resolution requirements that you demand on your monitors . . . but I have to tell you, this is an engineering tit-for-tat on our end, and as we scamble all our resources to help you out, I would appreciate if you could work with us towards a satisfactory solution, not stone-wall for only one solution that meets your needs. So far that is how I feel this thread is developing . . . I give you suggestions and settings, and you pop-back how I'm insane. My goal is to help you shoot, to help you get your film, and to achieve your vision. Whether that means not sleeping at night to find you a solution, or spending hours that could have gone towards other pressing needs and instead concentrating on the needs that you require, I would like you to know that every suggestion I make is for your benefit, either to help you gain the perspective to understand our system better and utilize it to it's strengths while minimizing it's weaknesses, or to make sure that you are not suffering from bugs or other issues that are preventing you from shooting and getting the footage that you need. The question I have for you then is "Can you help me meet these needs?" I feel that the demands for "XYZ solution or-else" will not be condusive to ever finding you satisfactory solution to your needs. You ask us to "optimize", which we are trying to-do with every resource in this company, yet you fail to understand that "opimizations" at this stage are really finding compromise points where we can find a happy common-ground . . . yet instead of being willing to find common ground, you are issuing demands that we might not be able to fulfill. As we iron out the issues, we may in the end still be a dual-monitor 4:3/16:9 display mix of 800x600 for the GUI and 1280x720 for the external monitor, not a "perfect-world" 1920x1080 multi-output solution like you are demanding of us. Now I can tell you that the "perfect world" and beyond is our goal, but we may not be able to get there tomorrow for you, but you have needs today and tomorrow, and so we need to-do what we can to get you through the "now" of today, not wish on what the future will bring.

I can't speak for anyone else or even really know how we would have reacted to that news but I can only see being told the news and all of us given the opportunity to comment as a positive thing, who knows we might all have been fine with those compromises. Might have saved SI a bundle of money and gotten cameras delivered much quicker.

We were working with some very respected names in the industry at that point in time (and still are) . . . they were very honest and told us it was DOA, that it simply wouldn't work for them. And if it didn't work for them, chances are very good it would not have worked for you-guys either. And it was more than simply a monitoring "problem" or short-coming . . . it was a system-wide failure. A Frankenstein of a box that over-heated in around 10 minutes in an air-conditioned room unless loud fans were going full-blast, the mechanicals weren't working right, and that frankly couldn't compete with it's potential contemporaries. What we have now is physically stronger, more stable, more ergonomic, mechanically correct, more power-efficient, etc., etc. . . . it's basically an improvement on all ends except for the monitoring abilities, which unfortunately had to take a step back to achieve these other milestones . . . that step back will be regained in the future. We felt that the compromises to take that one temporary set-back will enable our customers and users a platform that looks to the future, not something that is a fixed-point-in-time solution that may be "best-of-class" now, but will only be good for a door-stop later.

One of the few things that I do know is that being able to give the client a full raster preview with a Look applied is a pretty big selling point. If that isn't an option with the SI-2K in 16:9 2K @ 24fps

We completely agree. The only issue really is recording to CineForm *at the same time*. We actually give you this ability during preview, but the problem is if you have to have all of these same capabilities running during recording (dual HD monitors at full-raster resolutions, etc.), there is simply not enough CPU available. So we're going to have to find some compromises on what is a good balance between display and recording abilities. We're exploring a number of avenues, and we're also working on some short-term functions that well keep people running as efficiently as possible. We are taking this all VERY SERIOUSLY, and I can't stress that enough.

I would appreciate if you could work with us towards a satisfactory solution, not stone-wall for only one solution that meets your needs. So far that is how I feel this thread is developing . . . I give you suggestions and settings, and you pop-back how I'm insane.


I was fixing the resolution, and everybody who was entering the room always said...Whats wrong with the monitor? Isnt that to small?...Is it suppossed to look like that?... I`m going to take a picture of Andy the D.P trying to use the touchscreen at 800x600 with the image scaled down... He was very unconfortable using the interface with his small finger. Another thing is that it is very dificult for the camera operator to adjust the focus using the Xenarc, and lowering the resolution will make it more difficult. So it thats why it is very important to have a second monitor to check critical stuff, as focus, or makeup. I dont believe im the only one that shoots using a second output from the camera (even when shooting on film I always call a video assist).

Now that you tell me that for you a second display is not a primary feature. I tell you it isnt. The primary purpose of the camera is to capture images, compelling and beatiful images, so all the tools that let you mantain the deepest control possible of the quality of the images you`re capturing is primordial. The ability of previewing at a good size is very important to, I cant finish with a blind and arthritic camera operator.

I didn’t read all the responses below so my apologies if this was covered.

Why not make an optional breakout box for multi-monitor/full raster playback. IMO people shooting fast pace documentary could care less and actually appreciate the lower power draw and size. On the other hand you have people on set that absolutely NEED up to 4 full raster monitors at all times. Just give them the option in a breakout box.

So it thats why it is very important to have a second monitor to check critical stuff, as focus, or makeup.

Just curious, in the short-term, is the 2 and 4x zoom-in modes with the pan-widgets (so you can move around the frame) at least enough to get you by with image inspection?

BTW, I'm not saying that a second monitor is not a "standard" accessory . . . what I'm saying is that we can't ship the camera configured for two monitors . . . the second monitor port is not active until you plug-in the second monitor. And once you plug-in the second monitor, you have to reset the video card settings for the optimal configuration. That's just the way it works. Again, if you are having issues with any equipment, or need an exchange, etc., just talk to Steve or Ari and get it arranged . . . although we are again working on some software improvements that will hopefully alleviate the monitoring situation in the near-term. So please be a bit patient with us as we develop a solution and can give you a definitive answer.

John, that was a very good idea, and we will definitely take it into consideration.

Thanks,

Jason

Now that you tell me that for you a second display is not a primary feature. I tell you it isnt. The primary purpose of the camera is to capture images, compelling and beatiful images, so all the tools that let you mantain the deepest control possible of the quality of the images you`re capturing is primordial. The ability of previewing at a good size is very important to, I cant finish with a blind and arthritic camera operator.

Sergio-

For what its worth, I completely agree with you about having peace of mind on set. There is no gray area when it comes to art.

I'm really liking this breakout box idea too.
Would it be possible to simply replicate the data packets between the head and the camera onto a port. An external device just 'sniffs' those packets and drives monitors. That external device could be whatever it needs to be and gets all the big issues out of the camera. This seems to open up some interesting possibilities apart from full raster 2K monitoring, like 3D monitoring from two cameras to head mounted displays.

They charged me $1,046 and sent me a Xenarc 700 TSV Gary Moss

Quick question. How does the Xenarc 705TSV model compair to the 700TSV SI is selling?

It's not as bright as the 700TSV, so you might have problems outside.

Just curious, in the short-term, is the 2 and 4x zoom-in modes with the pan-widgets (so you can move around the frame) at least enough to get you by with image inspection?

We`ve been shooting over a year now and we only use the zoom three or four times. It is a good tool and I think it`s better to have it, you can use it when you`re shooting on a tripod, static shots or on the ocational time the Operator or the DP wants see some specific area of the shot, but I dont it is not very useful when you`re doing shots with complex internal motion, or camera moves, because you get distracted and you risk to waste the shot. In our case we use histogram most of the time, and the focus feature because they can be used while recording, and the camera operator can have a visual reference of the focus in complex shots. It`s like flying with instruments.

Not loosing time repeating shots due to technical glitches is very important above all in very complicated sequences, we`ve found that the focus tool is one of those tools who help you reduce those technical dificulties, operator always knows if the shot is useful or not, and knows preciselly how to correct the problems, or he can simply correct it on the fly with precise visual feedback.

The false exposure its very helpful when lighting a scene, as well as the zoom.

I think most of the toolset the camera has is great, and it is very useful. The tools come really handy at the critical moment, that is when recording the shot. You never have enough time when you`re on the set, so every tool that helps you mantain control of the footage can make a huge difference in the overall quality of the production.

Hi Jason:

I didnt had time to tell you... I´ve been using the last build of the software, I think the ideas you implemented to solve the issues we discussed are great.

The Hexlet preview is a really great idea, and the dinamic encoding, at first i thought otherwise, but after doing some tests its really great.

But it will be good to have the three options, in my opinion, The dynamic, High and Very High, that is for example if youre shooting a scene in wich you cant shoot using the very High encoding, but you need continous recording quality, lets say a shot in wich you will use a difference matte for compositing.

I didnt had time in the past to use the Keyer mode, but playing a little with it and i was amazed by the functionality, I can store the Alpha Matte as a LUT in the matte, right?. Thats awesome, really.

The Player functionality is much better now, I can even use the same toolset to review the material, or change the LUT, thats very useful too.

Ari told me about some other ideas you´re introducing in future revisions. Im always impressed of how the responsiveness of the camera changes with the software optimizations, This is maybe the best one of all i´ve used so far.

You should be happy to know that in the next couple builds we will be breaking out all 4 quality modes . . . so you can run in the "dynamic" (we're actually going to rename it slightly to "adaptive"), or you can lock the camera compression quality to one of the other 4 settings . . . so you'll get the ultimate flexibility. Although again, the "dynamic" or "adaptive" mode is still probably the best-bet for general shooting, especially when RAM-buffering can be an issue with dual-monitors running at HD resolutions and/or darker scenes that have more noise.

BTW, did you play around with the new focus-index tool in the spot-meter? It's a great way to know you're in-focus on a specific spot with no guessing required. You simply dial in the highest index number (the index is not normalized from 0-100, it's simply a measure of sharpness . . . higher numbers are sharper than lower numbers . . . which is nice, for instance, you can focus on a specific spot, change a lens, and see if one lens is sharper than the other . . . I'm not sure if the granularity is that good, but you get the drift, it's an index, not a percent). It's not necessarily a replacement for the edge-detection mode, but it can definitely replace that pesky tape measure ;)

Thanks,

Jason

SPeaking of pesky tape measures, where is the optical plane in the block.
Maybe an engraved mark would be a good idea.