Hello,
I have two V1Us and I have heard people talk about this concept for quite some time, but I am glad somebody is doing less talk; well we will see if you can actually make the product... Anyway, I have read many people talking about what they want and so forth, but I would like to at least start with the basics first and anything else would be nice.

Note: I noticed on your website that it says the DR60 is not triggered by Firewire, but it is. (Unless there is some wireless connection or telepathy happening because when I hit record on my camera, the DR60 automatically starts working with no problems with the 24a mode, well just the whole m2t thing but that is another story...)

My Dos and Don’ts:

Must have HDMI recording with live pull down in highest possible setting. DUH!

Nice but not needed are 2 XLR connectors. (Most prosumer cameras have XLRs already but many feel that the camera cheapens the audio so having the extra cost is understandable.) Don’t be like the AJA IO HD and overload with connectors, solve the big problem first which is lack of portable HDMI recording, which the AJA is not really portable.

If you want SDI, get an AJA IO! (Lets be realistic.)

Recording the CF cards seems funny to me, just allow a HDD to be connected and I am happy, like the G-Tech RAIDmini. Quite frankly, CF cards do not hold enough for an entire interview so a HDD is the only option…

Do not use FAT32!!! DO NOT USE FAT32! Putting files together from the DR60 is a silly pain because they want to save money on the file system. Again, I should be able to record an entire interview without having to swap CF cards for manual labor post work, considering HDDs are cheap. Even if you want to sell me a CineForm branded HDD, I just want a simple solution.

USB is not enough please also include Firewire 800. (Firewire 400 is nice, but lets go speed!) Depending on ho much we shoot, we need a drive that can get the footage off fast and many drives have less connectors so help us but having the faster options.

The screen is not needed. FireStores do not have them nor does the DR60, yet they work great already. Just do not make an over complicated menu system. Most cameras have LCD screens so I do not need one on this device. I am not buying a media player, but a capture device. When I want to view the footage, I can go to a computer or export to a media player of my choice that I already have. If you put a screen, it should be better than what is on the camera, so an HD screen, about 7 inches… However, I think the cost would not be worth it, I would think. Since you already have HDMI out (live please) why use a small screen like that when you have the camera or a reference monitor?

Finally, if I am stuck with the Cineform codec... arrggh fine. Personally, I would prefer a standard codec... I am more impressed with HDLink's abilities to process, not the proprietary codec that has crashes my system often.

Battery power is a big plus, and use standard type camera batteries as well.

I like the belt mount idea and the HDMI cable hooks.

I doubt this will happen since you can’t afford a decent render of the concept… :)

The price is a bit steep at 2k. No more that 1500 is reasonable overpriced. I think 1k is about right. I guess this is all speculation until it does come out.
M

This is an astonishing project. Effectively an HD acquisition iPod. CineForm effectively revolutionized video compression to the point where four years on, there's still no equivalent codec that can compare. Now they're going to do it again by giving you a pocket-sized tapeless recording device that will annihilate HD decks ten times the price in terms of quality.

Bearing in mind the R&D required for this, and the undoubted quality of the results, $2k is ridiculously cheap - the sale of the century. It's unfair to compare the pricing of this with the actual cameras. It's not as if CineForm is a Panasonic, Canon or Sony, and nor will the device sell to as many people as those cameras.

Indeed, I'd imagine that the price isn't a million miles away from the production cost - the notion being that the hardware will generate more Aspect and Prospect software sales.

If it were any one other than CineForm touting this, I'd be dismissing it as too good to be true. But it is CineForm therefore I can only be hugely excited.

Finally, if I am stuck with the Cineform codec... arrggh fine. Personally, I would prefer a standard codec...

Originally, I felt the same.

However, when you are working on a commercial project - any commercial project - you need to deliver good results, on time.

Cineform does that, brilliantly.

Cineform won me over by providing a stable, superfast codec, superslim file sizes (only 2x that of m2t's with Aspect HD), and great quality - I can pull greenscreen matte from Cineform files without a hitch.

Cineform is consistently a leader over the whole HDV renaissance period and probably will hold its positions for time to come.

I'm not connected with Cineform in any way, just recognize great things when I see them. I use Aspect HD every day, it rocks.

I've just built the whole 40Lb "mobile" PC with Intensity, just to record from cam's HDMI into Aspect HD live.

If this could be done with that new Cineform box that'll be 0.5Lb - I'm all for it.

I just finished building a 16Gb solid state storage device using two 300X, 8Gb CF cards, SATA II interface in a RAID 0 configuration. Total cost was about $400, not including a power supply. Size is about the size of a cigarette pack. Once the CF cards are installed on a SATA interface, they can be formatted as NTFS. It's interesting to note that even when an NTFS CF card is installed on a USB card reader, Windoze XP will still recognize and read it. Hardware RAID 0, with 5 SATA ports are available for a little more $$, and, obviously larger. Thruput is about 70MB/sec read. What's missing here is a front end codec and processor to allow transport control and signal I/O.This, of course, is where the cost will be, no disputing that. I think $2k is a fair price.

That was a good point mentioned earlier about FAT32, which raises a question in my head... why do most manufacturers still use FAT32? Is it more compatible, or somehow cheaper to implement? Why are we still dealing the FAT32 in an HD environment where we rapidly exceed these 4GB restrictions?

On another note, one of the other slight-downsides of HDV camcorders is the MP2 384kbps audio compression. If this device could record uncompressed PCM tracks as well (presumeably via the HDMI) the product would be a must-have (not like it won't be a must-have to most already).

one of the other slight-downsides of HDV camcorders is the MP2 384kbps audio compression. If this device could record uncompressed PCM tracks as well (presumeably via the HDMI) the product would be a must-have (not like it won't be a must-have to most already).

Since the box uses Cineform codec, it is my understanding that it records uncompressed audio 48Khz 16bit.

As per what you feed into it: since there are RCA inputs for analog audio, simply use your Neumann (he he) with Mackie VLZ pre-amp and use Mackie's Tape Out to RCA input on the Cineform box.

Voila - HDMI video plus great uncompressed sound :)

That's why I'm so excited about these RCA inputs!

Maybe I haven't quite thought this through, but couldn't we continue to use the on-board XLR connections on our cameras and record audio digitally to this box through the HDMI as well? The analog inputs are a great idea to have on it as well, but couldn't we also use the HDMI for audio?

Criag, we expect that audio will be injected using the camera inputs for most situations as that is carried over HDMI.

If you read the spec, FAT32 is not mentioned (although it will be supported.) Chunking up the files into 4GB clips on the recorder is a big pain in post. Whereas the UDF format (BluRay/HD DVD/DVD/Rev Pro) doesn't have this limitation, and it already a standard (read) format on today operating systems. Writing to UDF disk on XP will require a driver install, otherwise I don't understand why UDF isn't used my widely.

Finally, if I am stuck with the Cineform codec... arrggh fine. Personally, I would prefer a standard codec...

That pretty funny to me. What make this device compelling is this is no standard codec that can offer the range of benefits of CineForm. Like at AJA IO, is also uses a Proprietary codec in Apple's ProRes, a similar solution but Apple only. All the standard codecs are poor for this application in one or multiple ways. If you want disk recording for the cameras compression that already exists, we are working to expand camera DDR's into the quality / editing performance space. See my last blog entry on this : http://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/11/cineform-on-chip.html

That's great news.

I think someone also alluded to this question earlier, but could there also be a 1440x1080 recording option for users of Aspect HD who aren't yet ready to move to Prospect HD?

Criag, we expect that audio will be injected using the camera inputs for most situations as that is carried over HDMI.

Would that then mean uncompressed PCM before encoding to MP2? Or are camcorders like the HV20 and V1U going through an encoding of MP2 384kbps on input, and decoding it back to PCM (from the MP2 file) before sending it out via the HDMI? (This could be a dumb question). Not to mention, an illogical design.

HDMI is uncompressed for audio and video.

Regard 1440x1080 for Aspect HD. We potentially can add a scaler to the recording, but we don't know if it will fit. 1920x1080 image will work in Aspect HD, they will just run a little slow as the pipeline will scale 1920 to 1440 during timeline playback. However AE and other tools will still benefit from the full 1920x1080 image. So overall the 1920 image will likely be a big benefit, even for Aspect HD users.

Personally I would find throwing out 500 pixel of resolution on capture extremely painful... If spending around $2k for a capture solution designed mainly around improving quality, why not spend $500 to be able to take full advantage of it?

In my opinion, this device isn't for the consumer-end of the customer base, more for the quality-oriented pro-sumer to pro demographic, am I right?

That being said, everyone's workflow and situation is different, I'm sure there's some people out there who would take advantage of it.

With a hardware scaler, would it also be possible to capture directly to cineform compressed SD or uncompressed SD? One way to future-proof current DV projects, record to SD on the CineformRecorder and HDV to tape for future use if needed.... any thoughts guys?

Carl

please consider seriously the component in. many canon xha1 and hv20 owners (like me) would immediately buy this device.

mobility: a solid case (nothing cheap plastic) with belt. and thread to hot shoes, stabilizers, magic arm

hooks (or whatever is the word in english) for the hdmi

2 CF slots minimum to make possible film interviews and concerts non stop.

easy menus. a lcd screen is useful both for recording and playback. but not a must.

nice rca in and minijackout for headphones

if possible good price, max 1k (we re indies...)

dont forget pal-land and 25p!!!

It depresses me that I can't buy this product now.

I really hope the wait isn't too long. It's perfect.

That pretty funny to me. What make this device compelling is this is no standard codec that can offer the range of benefits of CineForm. Like at AJA IO, is also uses a Proprietary codec in Apple's ProRes, a similar solution but Apple only. All the standard codecs are poor for this application in one or multiple ways. If you want disk recording for the cameras compression that already exists, we are working to expand camera DDR's into the quality / editing performance space. See my last blog entry on this : http://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/11/cineform-on-chip.html

AJA also uses Apple ProRes422, not only uses Apple ProRes422. Big difference. So please offer us the option to not use the CineForm codec... I do not want M2T or CineForm codecs personally since I have not had good experience with either of them. I have been successfully editing with uncompreseed with AJA's uncompressed codec from a KONA2 in full 4:4:4 HD... However, that codec is supported in FCP with no problems, old and new Macs. CineForm simply crashs my systems.

Anyway, I am just hoeping that like the AJA IO, we have the option to chose the codec. I love everything else CineForm does by the way, how to process the files, remove the pulldowns, batching, etc, just not the codec at the end. Personally, I would want uncompressed (With CineForms's HDLink added live) and then I would batch compress to what I want, which maybe Cineform, ProRes422, or whatever.
M

I am SOOO happy to be "stuck with the CineForm codec" Its is tough to beat for a VFX workflow on a budget. This coming year is going to be Huge for CineForm. Cant wait!!!

Michael,

You are asking for uncompressed, that is not really a codec in my eyes (codec = compressor / decompressor,) and it certainly wouldn't work for flash or single drive recording and be mobile at this size for HD. Look into the Colorspace Icon DDR, that is more what you are looking for. Selectable compression makes no sense in HD, as all the others are inferior for the market this unit is targeting.

I am SOOO happy to be "stuck with the CineForm codec" Its is tough to beat for a VFX workflow on a budget. This coming year is going to be Huge for CineForm. Cant wait!!!

This is more like it. :)

Agreed. I've been dreaming of this since my post awhile back trying to build a capture solution....

I wake up at night with images of this thing stuck in my head. =D Cineform is perfect for this. No other portable capture solution would even compare.

Carl

Michael,

You are asking for uncompressed, that is not really a codec in my eyes (codec = compressor / decompressor,) and it certainly wouldn't work for flash or single drive recording and be mobile at this size for HD. Look into the Colorspace Icon DDR, that is more what you are looking for. Selectable compression makes no sense in HD, as all the others are inferior for the market this unit is targeting.


The Colorspace Icon DDR would be awesome if it had HDMI.

You have HDMI, but then use the CineForm codec. I would just like the option to choose. Now don't get me wrong, the hardware concept looks awesome and combined with HDLink, it is even better!
M

Note: the Colorspace Icon DDR's website says HDMI is coming!!! Now that is intriguing! I will call them to see how options compare...

Michael, you seem to be looking for a different device than what is being offered here.

Here Cineform offers a Cineform codec-based capturing box.

That's what most people would want, I think.

If that's not what you want, you are in the wrong bar :)

Count me in the camp that can see the advantage of having this unit be as small as possible with no screen (and added screen costs). I've been looking for some *superior* (be it Cineform/ProRes/what have you) way of capturing a full 1920x1080 HD sequence without squeezing it to 1440 and subsequently squeezing it onto tape in HDV. But I'd like something that can sit snug under an HV20 or similarly-sized camera and not add weight and bulk to it. (I'd really like to be able to fly the two on a SteadicamJR or a Merlin.)

Having now shot with the additional Brevis35 setup, I *can* see the merits in a screen if you're giving a decent Noga-arm-enhanced way of monitoring your HD, for the sake of shooting with lens-adapters, say. But in this case you're considering a reasonably nice and higher-res display, not a cheap LCD, and possibly combining multiple purposes (after all, there are monitors out there for this.) Otherwise, I just don't see the use of an LCD for menus unless they honestly add no cost to the unit. We just need the smallest replacement for an Intensity-tethered-laptop that we can get.

I say stick to the basics and drive the price as low as possible; small, compact, HD storage via HDMI (or optional alternate inputs if it doesn't bloat the device/cost). I could also support the notion of adding small micro drives if it meets a certain size profile that makes sense...But CF works for me if it reduces weight/size/cost. I think the lower you can get the cost and satisfy the basic needs, the better your chance of success and the broader your potential buyers.

You've got to imagine exactly what the advantage of this is over the clunky RAID-tethered laptop with an Intensity card...that is doable today. And you've also got to come close to the price point of that combo, or beat it.

All in all, though, good thinking...and I can't wait to see what it becomes. Something like this couldn't get here soon enough for me...

AJA also uses Apple ProRes422, not only uses Apple ProRes422. Big difference. So please offer us the option to not use the CineForm codec... I do not want M2T or CineForm codecs personally since I have not had good experience with either of them. I have been successfully editing with uncompreseed with AJA's uncompressed codec from a KONA2 in full 4:4:4 HD... However, that codec is supported in FCP with no problems, old and new Macs. CineForm simply crashs my systems.

Anyway, I am just hoeping that like the AJA IO, we have the option to chose the codec. I love everything else CineForm does by the way, how to process the files, remove the pulldowns, batching, etc, just not the codec at the end. Personally, I would want uncompressed (With CineForms's HDLink added live) and then I would batch compress to what I want, which maybe Cineform, ProRes422, or whatever.
M

For the record, the AJA IOHD does ONLY use ProRes. It does not support uncompressed HD (FW800). Only the Kona/Xena cards do. Big difference. Uncompressed would be unfeasible for this device due to the high disk datarate it would require.

Just as a quick exploration of the possibilities, I could see instances where the LCD screen could be very useful . . . you're now talking about not only an absolutely revolutionary recording device, but a dedicated CineForm player device as well . . . uses could now range from super-high-fidelity recording to digital projection in digital-cinema-quality 10-bit to something you can quickly export a high-quality edited timeline in Premiere or FCP to and then take to a client for portable playback anyplace/anywhere.

It would be like the super-professional video iPod for indie cinema :)

My entire interest in this device is VERY MUCH because it would encode directly to a Cineform Intermediate. I have no interest in a device that does otherwise.

Ditto what Bill said

Regarding the LCD screen, I'm torn on the idea. On one hand I would like to get this as economical as possible which means skip the screen. On the other hand, I see the advantages of a nice screen. Would something like an add on screen work? Where the base unit has a simple display screen for menu navigation with a connector for an optional hi-rez screen that can be attached either directly onto it or to the camera and tethered?

Regarding the screen. It isn't intended to signicantly better than the on camera LCD, so it isn't going to be of high cost. Our thinking is a compromise between the two threads about the screen, two make the unit as cheap as possible, or to make the unit as flexible as possible. We feel the flexibility gained will be significant without impacting cost too greatly. Yet also see the potential for a different model with a larger screen so it becomes a combination high res camera monitor and DDR, yet this isn't currently the plan for the first units.

I think I paid $50 retail for my Lilliput 2.5" diag. battery-operated LCD monitor.

Looks like a similar screen should do fine on Cineform box for menus and simple, lo-rez video viewing.

For these "first units", do you expect they may be in production as early as 3 months, 6 months, 12 months?

It is hard to talk about timing at the moment, as there is several factors that will move this timing around. But not as long as 12 months, that way too long for us. We see the need now, and all your interest helps prove that. The more interest there is, the more the product can be pulled in.

Good enough for me.

Although I will cross my fingers that maybe it'll be ready by NAB. =)

1. Option to "flip" the image during acquisition for 35mm adapters.
2. No screen unless it is usable for HD focus.
3. Simple as possible. Don't succumb to feature-itis!
4. Rugged. Metal chassis, rubberized body, threaded for standard tripod mount. (Think Beachtek.)
5. And oh, yeah, definitely XLR connectors over RCA wherever possible.

It definitely gains from the flexibility of the touchscreen LCD. No other input is as easy to use for setup and recording.

I can think of many ways in which it will help. Don't write this one off, it's very useful, just don't think of it as a "monitor". That's not it's function.

Think things like "audio record levels", NEO choices, video signal confirmation, timecode sync, etc.

1. Option to "flip" the image during acquisition for 35mm adapters.
2. No screen unless it is usable for HD focus.
3. Simple as possible. Don't succumb to feature-itis!
4. Rugged. Metal chassis, rubberized body, threaded for standard tripod mount. (Think Beachtek.)
5. And oh, yeah, definitely XLR connectors over RCA wherever possible.

1. We plan on the 180 degree flip, not just for preview, rather the acquired image will be stored with the correct orientation.

2. Sorry, you have to have a screen. :)

3. We plan on it. A simple platform -- with a screen -- allows us to optimize the unit for a range of markets. Without the screen, all we have is a nice disk recorder unit, it has much more potential than that. Wider market servability for the base technology helps lower the price.

4. Yes, sounds good.

5. Unlikely for the first product, but that would be nice for a pro configuration.

Think things like "audio record levels", NEO choices, video signal confirmation, timecode sync, etc.

I think "video signal confirmation" alone is worth the extra expense.

No other input is as easy to use for setup and recording.
Sorry, but physical buttons with tactile response are generally easier to use in the field. Just ask anyone who'd tried to use BMW's iDrive!!! ;-)

David, without physical controls, how would one actually access the screen if the decision was made to mount it under the camera? Seems like if you go the touchscreen route an arm mount will be the only practical config.

Why go with RCA over XLR? Price?
The reason why I'm pestering on this issue is that you can always convert XLR to RCA and not give up anything, but you can't do vice-versa and retain XLR's benefits. Every RadioShack in the country sells adapters for a few bucks, so it's not like this choice would lock anyone or any equipment out.

It seems to me that most consumers willing to drop $2k on a "recorder" are also looking to use quality microphones.

P.S. I didn't say it before, but this thing will ROCK! However the details shake-out, you're gonna sell a bajillion of them.

I think "video signal confirmation" alone is worth the extra expense.

definitely a biggie. But there's more...lots more

Is the issue the actual XLR connectors themselves or the issue of balanced audio inputs vs. unbalanced audio?

XLR's are pretty big . . . other connectors could be suited to work if the issue is mainly having balanced audio inputs over unbalanced.

Is the issue the actual XLR connectors themselves or the issue of balanced audio inputs vs. unbalanced audio?

XLR's are pretty big . . . other connectors could be suited to work if the issue is mainly having balanced audio inputs over unbalanced.

I think the question is "Who is the target group?"

At 2k, I would think professionals are the target group and they normally use XLR. So do you want to make the pro people use adapters or the budget people use adapters?

In my bag of audio cables, 99% are XLRs.

As far as the screen, one should be included, but not for a primary viewing purposes, it should be for menus. If you can also view the video, fine, but that is just "feature-itous" as it was said before. I also prefer actual tactile buttons so that when in the field, I can use the device without ruining or getting dirty the screen.

I agree with one statement, address the main need, not every possible scenerio. Then you would end up with an AJA IO HD, which I already do not want. (I so not need all those connectors, such a big box, and then no HDD...) I do actually prefer ProRes422 over Cineform, (Still testing) but the conceptual design of CineForm is way way super way better.

My guess is a more costly HDSDI unit will have XLR, and a HDMI will have RCA, mini-jacks, or no analog audio. An XLR equipped camera like the V1U or upcoming HVR-Z7U, that have HDMI, can use the camera to feed XLR signals through HDMI. Then the device capture pure digital, simplifing the design. I feel most users will not greatly miss XLR external audio for this market. Additional audio is a form of feature-itous, but still add important one -- that why it is in the base design at least in some form. Full size XLR connectors would have more impact on the physical design than almost any other element, which is the other factor to consider.

I think using menus in the field is much harder than buttons because you have to actually look at the unit.

I also think touch screen is at best OK - I use an iPhone and while they've done reasonably well with the soft keys, a few strategic buttons would be nice. Very nice!

I think people who are really serious about the sound want to keep it out of the camera as much as possible so picking up the sound from the camera would mean that for all intents and purposes there wouldn't be much use for the sound in the new box except reference for post. I rarely ever run a mic into the camera if I can avoid it

On the other hand, if you're already using dual system sound, then I guess it doesn't much matter what kind of analog sound this new box has as people will still use their SD 7XX or whatever, so RCA would be OK.

I think I'd prefer not to have a screen so I'd have more real estate to which I could velcro a couple of 2 1/2" hard drives!

David,

Not much to add other than to say this is a brilliant concept. The LCD monitor is genius. I'm mostly in one man band situations and 90% of the time I just can't carry or have the time to set up a field monitor. I just want to be able simply monitor or play back what's on the hard-drive. This machine will elegantly solve that problem.

And it's going to be the hdmi or hd/sdi made by cineform with their own codec... I'm like Homer looking at donut.

This could be the iPod of the indy production world. Well done.

I just thought of another reason why component in is a great idea. I could use the box with my SD camera as well. (Yes??? No???)

Then I have just one workflow to worry about as everything is in Cineform.

Just one question - when can I order one? Are you taking pre-orders (hopefully at a slight or not so slight discount!). Let me know where to send the check and it will be in the mail.

My guess is a more costly HDSDI unit will have XLR, and a HDMI will have RCA, mini-jacks, or no analog audio. An XLR equipped camera like the V1U or upcoming HVR-Z7U, that have HDMI, can use the camera to feed XLR signals through HDMI. Then the device capture pure digital, simplifing the design. I feel most users will not greatly miss XLR external audio for this market. Additional audio is a form of feature-itous, but still add important one -- that why it is in the base design at least in some form. Full size XLR connectors would have more impact on the physical design than almost any other element, which is the other factor to consider.

If you are going to include analog audio don't mess around, it has to be XLR.

Think about it a $2000 USD device that is intended to upgrade a 4:2:0 8 bit camera to 10 bit 4:2:2.

The people who understand what that means won't want to use RCA for production audio- except maybe for low end confidence monitoring. I suppose those who plan on using his as a playback/presentation device might use RCA outputs sometimes.

If you want audio i/o then do it it right- otherwise its better if you just don't do it at all.

So... I suggest Mini XLR. You get the technical benefits of XLR, including a positive lock connector. You get a small size. You can convert it to full size XLR or RCA readily.

I suggest place two 3 pin females on the chassis,

http://www.futurlec.com/XLR-MiniXLR.shtml

Then include two cables like these in the box:

http://best-tronics.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=BMI&Product_Code=MIC17-XX&Attributes=Yes&Quantity=1

and finally throw two adaptors like these in the box too:
http://earthshakingmusic.com/GXM-133.html

All of the benefits of XLR and a connector that is about the size of RCA, with positive locking.

Again, if you can't make XLR work, then don't bother with analog i/o on this unit.

I think I'd prefer not to have a screen so I'd have more real estate to which I could velcro a couple of 2 1/2" hard drives!

No way... if that is going to be a major way end users are going to use the product then design a real solution.

Maybe a "snap on" enclosure for the drives. Include cable management.

Sell it separately, and without drives.

Let users buy them from you machined to match the main unit.. and then add their own drives.

For the record, the AJA IOHD does ONLY use ProRes. It does not support uncompressed HD (FW800). Only the Kona/Xena cards do. Big difference. Uncompressed would be unfeasible for this device due to the high disk datarate it would require.

It won't do uncompressed... because that requires too much bandwidth.

I think it always sends ProRes down the wire to the Mac in HD. I think it will send SD signals down the wire uncompressed.

You can still capture any format you like. The ioHD will send ProRes down the line, then you can actually use the Mac to record whatever format it can handle in software. So, if ProRes is coming in, nothing is stopping you from transcoding that to DVCPRO HD- except your Mac's processing resources.

Of course this all means you have a Mac... and you bought a $3500 piece of hardware that only works with the Mac... so you might as well stay in ProRes to edit on your Mac which should have Final Cut on it.

I'd only transcode to some other format in this workflow if diskspace was VERY scarce. Then I might choose to drop down to DVCPRO HD or the like.

The point remains that unless your a Mac editor who is fundamentally happy with ProRes, then AJA ioHD is a bad choice.

You'd be better off with some other solution

Like perhaps the Cineform gadget, we are all here to discuss.

My guess is a more costly HDSDI unit will have XLR

Sorry to reply to you twice, but I am eager to talk about this HD SDI unit. I am more likely to buy and use that than the "low end" HDMI unit.

First off, I think miniXLR is still the way to go. The form factor is just too good for this type of product.

Secondly what i/o

I'd like to see HD SDI single link in, HD SDI out. Let the device use the HD SDI output as another HD SDI input for a dual link application for those few with cameras that can output 4:4:4.

I'd like a BNC connector that could swap between the following:
1) TC IN
2) TC OUT
3) Reference Input for: Black, Composite Sync, Tri Level Sync

I want to see HDMI in and out.

Two Mini XLR in and two dedicated Mini XLR outs.

I'd also want two Compact Flash slots minimum.

an eSATA port would be nice, as would USB and Firewire. all should be able to connect external storage.

Both the USB and Firewire should allow the device to connect to a computer and allow the following:

1) let the computer mount all the media attached to the device
2) let the computer control the device
3) let the computer capture directly from the encoders on the device.
4) firmware upgrades

OK that's twelve connectors and two CF slots.

Do you think that can all be done in a package the size of a desktop DVD drive or smaller? I'd love a package the size of a Betcam small cassette.

I found this link yesterday:

http://www.convergent-design.com/downloads/Flash%20XDR%20Spec%20and%20FAQ.pdf

http://www.convergent-design.com/

Flash XDR : The First CompactFlash Based HD XStream Data Recorder

Features
• HD-SDI ↔ 25, 35, 50, 100 Mbps MPEG2 (Long-GOP)
• Also supports MPEG2 4:2:2 @ 160 Mbps (I-Frame)
• 1080i, 720p, 1080p24
• HD-SDI ↔ ASI (19.7 Mbps) for satellite up/down-link
• Embedded or External Audio, Time-Code inputs
• Record trigger input, tally light output
• Four Hot-Swappable CompactFlash Card Slots
• Enables File-Based transfers, 2x-6x real-time
• Rugged, solid-state; silent operation
• Compact, Ultra-Portable, under 1kg

PRICE ==> US $4995