One simple practical thing came into mind. In my experience it is important that such a device has proper cover which can be fixed easily on the camera, tripod etc. Say, if one has the XL H1 and the external battery holder on belt, then another device on the belt to store the video signal means another cord. If one also needs an external amplifier for audio, then it becomes already rather messy with all the devices and cords hanging around the camera implying a risk to stumble when the system has to be moved.

Sound creates *more* impact on the movie viewer than visuals.

(As much as we don't want to believe it... it's true.)

That's why noisy way of feeding the sound through the camera into HDMI is not good - both the noise and distortion levels are too bad.

Camera manufacturers do it on purpose, so people could not use a $4K camera instead of professional $25K (SD) / $90K (HD) one.

So for serious sound, we use double system with external preamp and recorder - but it is not sync'd with video at the time of recording, and requires huge post-production time to sync it.

That same audio fed into Cineform box over the analog audio in, multiplexed by Cineform to the HDMI-fed video, would immediately solve the problem.

Since we are at the spec stage, I have to positively insist that the Cineform box *has* to have analog audio In with all versions.

As to which connectors - sure XLRs are great, but realistically I just don't know if even mini-XLRs can be fitted in the box's size, and how will that impact the economics. I'd still settle for the RCA's at least.

I think, it is more important for the Cineform box to have a very low noise, low distortion A/D converter, and ability to multiplex that analog signal to HDMI video on-the-fly in sync.

If XLRs *can* be fitted and afforded, then of course that'd be the best. But *at least* have RCA's and *analog audio in* on all versions! (Alex is making a poster and plans on demonstrating outside of the Cineform headquarters :)

As much as I hate dongles, they are much to be prefered in this type of situation. When your input device is not appropriate as the mounting surface for such large connectors as XLR (both 3-pin audio and 4-pin power), IMO you're much better off suffering with a dongle than not having those important and needed features, or down-grading them.

One advantage with the dongle, is that if you do not need audio i/o, only the SDI or HDMI connection is needed and the dongle could be removed.

I agree, the mid-range model for pro's, needs balanced audio i/o. Video signal verification is necessary for sure, but as was observed, the video is merely for that. A "freebie" actually adding to the overall usefulness.

David,
this is good news for a rocky indian wildlifefilmer and there are lots of us out there! I'm using the Canon XLH1 camcorder and are forced to use tapes and HDV today.
The XLH1 has its HD-SDI slot just sitting there and it's not any HD 4.2.2 solution out there today which is both light and who need only battery-power, for us to use a long way from the nearest power socket.

I will gladly sign up as a beta-tester if you need someone who can bring your product to unreachable places, in cold and wet surroundings.

I request a real-time in-box framerate converter (60i-24p) for the second generation of this recorder.

And a 1080i to 720p60 conversion mode is also a request to make ease of editing in that workflow and lessening render times.

Are two CF slots enough? Let's not forget that I/O errors occur on CF as well as tape. I use an SD 702 and have had glitches caused by errors on the CF mess up the audio. So now I always record to CF and disk simultaneously if it's anything important.

So maybe we would need two PAIRS of CF cards?

Also - how many minutes of recording would we get on a CF card. I use 16 GB cards for audio and if we were recording the hated m2t to CF it would give us a bit over an hour per card, but with Cineform, wouldn't it be more like 20 or 30 minutes per card (depending on Cineform level)

I guess what I'm getting at is that I think we really would need a small HDD with the unit - or maybe two small HDD's in parallel.

And if so, then we need a place to stick the HDD's which is why I was muttering about velcro-ing them to the unit. Unless there were a couple of bays where we could stick them.

Anyhow, would someone at Cineform like to make an estimate of what kind of recording times we'd get under a couple of reasonable scenarios?

What Jim said - except I'd not even mess with CF cards at the present time.

Here's rationale: to have reliable recording, we need Raid1 either with cards or HDDs.

Since cards are so much more expensive, and so much smaller in capacity than HDDs, the choice seems to be clear in favor of HDDs.

Why not simply have eSATA Raid1 connectors on Cineform box, so all one has to do is attach 2 HDDs and be done.

Since the whole thing can be belt-worn, two drives are feasible to carry around.

Granted, the Cineform box needs to take the battery power and transform it into what HDDs need to be powered up as well.

I found this link yesterday:
http://www.convergent-design.com/downloads/Flash%20XDR%20Spec%20and%20FAQ.pdf

PRICE ==> US $4995


Yes, sounds good, but IMO they are about $2.5K to much.

I'm a bit confused about this concept.

"Most" cam operators that have HDMI don't have a clue what the benefit this portable solution offers. Most of these cameras cost less than the projected price of this recorder.

Now, looking at the JVC HD-250, Canon H1, and especially the upcoming Sony XDCAM EX1 ( This cam is going to sell like hotcakes), there is "real" market from users who are craving to use their SDI output.

There is no small battery operated portable solution that offers SDI.
If you have to "up" the price to $2500-$3000, do so.
Offer HDMI and SDI on one unit and this recorder will be the most popular "must have" for all!

Sign me up for two !

If the SDI happens by next year, I will cancel my plans for the XDR, which I believe is to much $$

I've had this conversation with C-D. Their arguement is that SDI licensing greatly affected their asking price. I agree with you, Steve...too expensive at $5K.

I like the idea of having a "front end" capture box that outputs to SATA II. That way, the user can choose his record media. All types of media are available in SATA II interface.... hard disk, Compact Flash, single disk or RAID X with a port multiplier...and in NTFS or FAT32 to satisfy MAC users.

...If you have to "up" the price to $2500-$3000, do so.
Offer HDMI and SDI on one unit and this recorder will be the most popular "must have" for all!...

Doesn't seem like HDMI plus SDI will ever happen. It's either one or the other for a unit that has to compress the input video into HD Cf format...especially when you're uprezing via the HDMI to 1920, 10-bit. That signal has to be processed via silicon and unless the chips that can handle both are available, it has to be done via CPU power as in "embedded" PCs.

Great to think custom chips, but...I would imagine that is a long way off still. It'll come, but not for a good while. Better to do what works first, then make it happen in silicon later. As CF will very soon discover...

And I would say it wouldn't happen for less than what was quoted above. In fact, I'd bet on it. If it was that easy, it'd already be in your hands.

And don't forget those of us who DO understand the benefit but happen to have cameras (like JVC HD110U) that don't have HDMI or SDI. Still a need for component I'm afraid.

And don't forget those of us who DO understand the benefit but happen to have cameras (like JVC HD110U) that don't have HDMI or SDI. Still a need for component I'm afraid.

I seriously doubt 90% of the people here could tell the dif between component ingest and HDMI or SDI after it's CFed. I probably couldn't either. The component "in" needs to be there too, at least on the HDMI model.

We're already thinking of the second unit. We would like the second unit to add single-and dual-link HD-SDI, with the appropriate up-market features including audio. I suspect we'd also want to have HDMI on this unit. If so then it would do everything this first HDMI unit does plus adds Pro audio and HD-SDI.

Fortunately the compression electronics and controller inside are being designed from the beginning to handle the increased processing needs for the second unit. We'd like the second unit to be mostly software upgrades plus additional physical interfaces. At least that's the thought right now....

May it happen!

Sound creates *more* impact on the movie viewer than visuals.

(As much as we don't want to believe it... it's true.)

That's why noisy way of feeding the sound through the camera into HDMI is not good - both the noise and distortion levels are too bad.

Camera manufacturers do it on purpose, so people could not use a $4K camera instead of professional $25K (SD) / $90K (HD) one.

So for serious sound, we use double system with external preamp and recorder - but it is not sync'd with video at the time of recording, and requires huge post-production time to sync it.

That same audio fed into Cineform box over the analog audio in, multiplexed by Cineform to the HDMI-fed video, would immediately solve the problem.

Since we are at the spec stage, I have to positively insist that the Cineform box *has* to have analog audio In with all versions.

As to which connectors - sure XLRs are great, but realistically I just don't know if even mini-XLRs can be fitted in the box's size, and how will that impact the economics. I'd still settle for the RCA's at least.

I think, it is more important for the Cineform box to have a very low noise, low distortion A/D converter, and ability to multiplex that analog signal to HDMI video on-the-fly in sync.

If XLRs *can* be fitted and afforded, then of course that'd be the best. But *at least* have RCA's and *analog audio in* on all versions! (Alex is making a poster and plans on demonstrating outside of the Cineform headquarters :)

This is one of the best posts. Cameras XLR ports tend to be not as good as they should be. Currently, we bypass the camera XLRs when it comes to sound and go straight to our capture device. This way the sound first goes through a mixer were we first make sure we are capturing a good signal.

Real XLRs are much more important than many of the suggestions here. Personally, looking at a HDMI capture device, XLRs are really the only other thing we would really need. All this talk about HDSDI, screens, RCA jacks, component, media player features are really talking about a different type of product. Personally, a HDMI capture device is what makes this product unique, not CineForm. Anything that deviates from HDMI captures raises costs. The only other features I want are things that improve that workflow like XLR jacks.

Also: HDDs over CF any day!!!
M

We're already thinking of the second unit. We would like the second unit to add single-and dual-link HD-SDI, with the appropriate up-market features including audio. I suspect we'd also want to have HDMI on this unit. If so then it would do everything this first HDMI unit does plus adds Pro audio and HD-SDI.

Fortunately the compression electronics and controller inside are being designed from the beginning to handle the increased processing needs for the second unit. We'd like the second unit to be mostly software upgrades plus additional physical interfaces. At least that's the thought right now....

Then the second device is what I want, mostly because of the pro audio interface. If you are capturing dual link right now, I doubt you are waiting for a device like this. (Even HD-SDI is just extra costs, but understandable if you go that route.)

Personally, if we can only have one device, the second concept seems the direction I would hope you would go.
M

I'd be all for an "all digital" box that had no DAC's at all if it kept the box simple and/or inexpensive and/or small. We could do our audio mixing with a Beachtek-like device, feed it into the camera and send it along the HDMI path ...

... BUT, if there is going to be analog audio conversion, then by all means the connectors should be XLR.

Interesting point about telling the difference between component ingest and SDI/HDMI

I wonder if there really is any difference - or for that matter if anyone could tell the difference between the above and ingest from Firewire via the unversally loathed m2t.

Maybe I'm the kind of guy who isn't really sure that the refrigerator light goes out after closing the door, but I can't escape the uneasy feeling that if I had been a camera engineer in the early days of DV/HDV I would have understood that the camera had two functions. 1) to record m2t video to tape and 2) to playback m2t video from tape

Starting from that premise, I would have compressed everything into m2t as soon as possible and stuffed it into a buffer. Then the tape I/O would have had only two functions a) transfer the buffer to tape and b) transfer tape to the buffer. And my playback function would have just taken the m2t from the buffer and dumped it out its outputs, decompressing or converting D to A or up-rezzing or whatever as appropriate. In other words, there wouldn't have been any path through the camera that didn't involve m2t.

I know everybody believes that some Santa Claus of an engineer devised an m2t-free path through the camera just for us quality conscious guys, but - well, I wonder. Does the refrigerator light REALLY go out?

Regardless, and not to get off on a different topic that's already been flailed to death, the more input types the better - including the hated Firewire.

Anyhow, as long as it has some way for me to hook my camera up to it and doesn't cost much more than $2k, I'll buy one. The value of one and only one capture workflow is worth it.

By the way, since the number of people here on the forum must be a rather small subset of all Cineform users, might you consider making up a questionaire of some kind (hopefully including some of the ideas from this forum) and sending a link to it to everybody who has purchased Cineform?

Does the refrigerator light REALLY go out?


Yes it does! :) If you need proof, stick your camera in there and record yourself closing the door. As a joke, I did do it once.

If I understood your post, the camera does not sense video in M2T, but in full HD 4:2:2, and then that is compressed to M2T which is the HDV 4:2:0 60i. I believe the audio does not as nicely bypass the audio compression. I can understand not having pro audio jacks at all and force me to use the XLRs on the camera, but if CineForm is going to have audio anyway, why not have pro audio interfaces? Isn’t the whole point about quality capture? Then why not quality audio capture?

If the refrigerator light does not go out, then it is the “audio” that comes into question. Does cameras like the V1U compress or pick up any extra noise by using the camera’s on board XLRs. If yes, then the CineForm product should be helping fix that was well while fixing the whole HDMI workflow.

Of course I am assuming that CineForm’s purpose is to make HDMI and HDV have an easy workflow but then we should overcome all of HDMI and HDV’s problems. Bypass all compression, audio and video and store that information in an easily accessible way.

(As much as I am un-thrilled with CineForm’s codec, I really hate M2T so much more to the point of disgust.) I mention HDV since that is where HDMI can really shine since higher HD cameras already have an established workflow.

M

But of course it will go out if it knows that someone or something is watching!

The question is whether it will go out if theere is nothing to observe the event! Or is the light secretly waiting for us all to go away and forget about it so it can turn on and feast on our electricity.

We could probably do a full length feature about the secret life of the refrigerator lamp! Obedient by day, a wild thing by night, lurking and feigning off-ness to reassure us, then springing back to malicious on-ness when we turn our backs.

Who knows what evil lurks behind the refrigerator door!

OK back to Cineform recorder speak!

XLR jacks are nice, but, they do consume a fair bit of real estate. For those who must have XLR, there are a number of places that will sell you an 12" cable with XLR female on one end and RCA male on the other end. 12" of unbalanced line isn't gonna hurt your audio and might even help it by preventing ground loops.

As to which connectors - sure XLRs are great, but realistically I just don't know if even mini-XLRs can be fitted in the box's size, and how will that impact the economics. I'd still settle for the RCA's at least.


Mini XLR is about the same size as an S-Video port.

I think they are the way to go. It'll keep the size down and solve a lot of audio problems.

Yes it does! :) Of course I am assuming that CineForm’s purpose is to make HDMI and HDV have an easy workflow but then we should overcome all of HDMI and HDV’s problems. Bypass all compression, audio and video and store that information in an easily accessible way.

(As much as I am un-thrilled with CineForm’s codec, I really hate M2T so much more to the point of disgust.)

Michael, for most of our customers, CineForm overcomes the problems of HDV in a substantial way as it relates to visual fidelity and post workflow. Similarly, CineForm helps overcome the obstacles of uncompressed workflows, which have a different set of issues, with no visual degradation. Face it, compressed workflow are a reality, and they are the future, especially as spatial resolutions zoom upwards to 4K - it's not really practical any other way except for the highest (price) end workflow.

Is there a visual disadvantage using a compressed CineForm workflow? The answer is no, at least not in our analysis, which has been both qualitative and quantitave - theatrical film prints made from CineForm files, and PSNR analysis that shows CineForm compression exceeds the PSNR of the respected HDCam SR format.

As we've discussed earlier in this thread, it seems you prefer an uncompressed recorder and workflow, and we absolutely respect that, but that's not what we're planning to build. And I am perplexed about why you're "un-thrilled" with our codec as I think you're in a relative minority.

OK, enough talk! When can we order one!!!!!

Don't make us beg guys, SDI, SDI...please.... LOL

Component and SDI don't seem to be appropriate for this particular product, IMHO.

COMPONENT: Adding analog to digital conversion will up the dev time, the complexity and the price of the product. I envision a forward looking product positioned to capitalize on the fact that more and more, "consumer" camcorders (like the HV20) will house high quality sensors that are crippled by aged, consumer codecs (MPEG) and antiquated recording technologies (tape.)

SDI: If you're buying a camera that offers SDI, then you're likely capable of procuring recording solutions that are priced out of anything I'm envisioning.

An small, cheap, rugged HDMI recorder using a modern codec, file-based workflow. That is the simple, inexpensive product that will sell in droves to indie-filmmakers and curious prosumers.

Don't make us beg guys, SDI, SDI...please.... LOL

Well, I think that they are planning an SDI version... but that it won't be what comes out of the labs first.

From the responses here though an HD-SDI to Cineform recorder is the product that is in desperate demand- more so than the HDMI device.

Component and SDI don't seem to be appropriate for this particular product, IMHO.

COMPONENT: Adding analog to digital conversion will up the dev time, the complexity and the price of the product. I envision a forward looking product positioned to capitalize on the fact that more and more, "consumer" camcorders (like the HV20) will house high quality sensors that are crippled by aged, consumer codecs (MPEG) and antiquated recording technologies (tape.)

SDI: If you're buying a camera that offers SDI, then you're likely capable of procuring recording solutions that are priced out of anything I'm envisioning.

An small, cheap, rugged HDMI recorder using a modern codec, file-based workflow. That is the simple, inexpensive product that will sell in droves to indie-filmmakers and curious prosumers.

Bingo.

Just look at Intensity card: they have 2 versions... one HDMI only, another HDMI+Component, at higher cost...

That's exactly the model for the Cineform box, IMHO... base model HDMI video + analog audio; upgraded model HDMI + Component video I/O + analog audio.

Honestly, I don't understand why SDI folks are insisting on that option.

Small Convergent nanoView box does HD-SDI -> HDMI for less than $350, as far as I understand. Do you expect that adding HD-SDI option to the Cineform box will cost much less?

Also, let's remember here that Cineform box covers (ok, will cover when it stops being a vaporware) a very specific market: semi-pros with good HDMI cams that want to avoid horrors of low-bitrate mpeg compression, while utilizing the wonderful (I mean it) Cineform codec.

I do it now with a 40Lb custom PC that houses Intensity card. I'd rather have a Cineform box of course.

Well, I think that they are planning an SDI version... but that it won't be what comes out of the labs first.

From the responses here though an HD-SDI to Cineform recorder is the product that is in desperate demand- more so than the HDMI device.

If you can afford an SDI-enabled camera, you are well outside the demographic of serious--and seriously budget-constrained--indie filmmakers and prosumers who appear to have been the inspiration for this product, at least in its first iteration. Don't co-opt our fifteen minutes of patiently awaited recognition when there already numerous reduced-compression recording options available within your price range, but none in ours!

I am so grateful to Cineform for what they are attempting here... And, as Canon did with the HV20, for recognizing that there is a highly neglected yet very legitimate, eager, and (let's admit it) demanding segment of the market buried between the opposing extremes of average consumers and film & broadcast professionals. In the world of media and culture, the distinction between the "moneyed elites" and the rest of us is growing ever more faint--a trend which I believe, on whole, will be to the benefit of media and culture for elites and everymans alike--and we have innovators like Cineform to thank for this.

So, to everyone at Cineform, I have nothing but praise and thanks and this one humble request: an optional accessory-shoe-to-tripod-screw adapter for mounting atop my HV20!

I think SDI is affordable at $6,500 with the new Sony XDCam EX1.

Affordable is also a VERY relative term.

I can't afford a $10,000+ box that does SDI, but I could afford a $3,000+ ish box that records Cineform intermediate.

Purchasing an additional conversion box to drag along with the Cineform box defeats the purpose of being very easy to use and portable.

I want something I can hook on my rail system or whatever, and record Cineform right to compact flash cards. Hopefully there will be at least 2 cards, not just one.

Looking forward to whatever SDI box Cineform comes up with.

Jim

I am VERY interested in something like this for an HV20 set-up. And I knew it was must a matter of months before some smart, entrepreneurial folks took it on. Right on Cineform! You guys rock.

An HDMI input would seem to be in Cineform's best interest, in that there is currently no competition in that market. There are other SDI options, and SDI can easily be converted to HDMI. The only HDMI device to come close would be a BMD Intensity in a Magma box AND a Laptop. One thing I would recommend to really push the limits, would be for Cineform to support HDMI Deep Color in their box, to record 10bit or 12bit color, once cameras begin to support it.
I offer this advice as one who has two SDI cameras and zero HDMI cameras. HDMI just makes better business sense for a product like this. To cater to the SDI crowd, they could offer a DC output to power a separate SDI to HDMI adaptor off the same battery system. (Strap a BMD HDLink to the side)

SDI: If you're buying a camera that offers SDI, then you're likely capable of procuring recording solutions that are priced out of anything I'm envisioning.Wrong (read my response below!)

Honestly, I don't understand why SDI folks are insisting on that option.If you define SDI folks as one unit with the same requirements your are wrong!

If you can afford an SDI-enabled camera, you are well outside the demographic of serious--and seriously budget-constrained--indie filmmakers and prosumers who appear to have been the inspiration for this product, at least in its first iteration. Wrong again!
You folks asuming that people who buy a SDI enabled camcorder works like professionals in environments with big budgets and resources. Myself is a indie wildlifephotographer, who works alone out in the field with I think less money and resources than you guys!
The main reason I bought this camcorder the Canon XLH1 is for it's interchangeable lenses, but also good quality on optics etc...
There is no way that I can afford nor take with me any stationary SDI storage equipment.

Don't co-opt our fifteen minutes of patiently awaited recognition when there already numerous reduced-compression recording options available within your price range, but none in ours!
Enlighten me please !?

If you can afford an SDI-enabled camera, you are well outside the demographic of serious--and seriously budget-constrained--indie filmmakers and prosumers who appear to have been the inspiration for this product, at least in its first iteration. Don't co-opt our fifteen minutes of patiently awaited recognition when there already numerous reduced-compression recording options available within your price range, but none in ours!

A Canon HV20 or HG10 with a few accessories is close to $1000 today. This Cineform product is targeted for sale at $2000. Your camera budget is thus $3000.

Canon XH-A1 is $3499. Add this cineform box and you are at $5500.

The Canon XH-G1, which is the same as the XH-A1 but adds HD SDI, is $6299. The Sony XDCAM EX1 is $6699.

Those prices are in the same ballpark, and we are both playing in the "under $10k league."

In other words being able to afford such a camera is far from an indication of unlimited budgets. In fact its safe to say a lot of people considering such equipment are very cash constrained.

I shudder to think what you feel about people who own a pair of Sony F23's and an HDCAM SR deck with a BVM series monitor so you can actually see the images the camera makes. That's about a half million worth of equipment once you add in lenses and such- and doesn't include tripods, mics or lights.

So, am I saying that this is a useless concept? No- its absolutely wonderful. I think the product is going to be awesome.

That's why I am interested in an HD-SDI version.

In general I'd say the camera you are using should cost more than this Cineform box before you will get the best advantage out of the Cineform box.

I hereby nominate Cineform SOLID.

The basic SOLID would have HDMI i/o and 2 miniXLR.

Follow on versions might be called
"SOLID Pro" for an HD SDI version with 2 miniXLR. This is actually a unit I'd want, in fact I might take two.

"SOLID Analogue" would be a bigger version that forgoes digital i/o for BNC component and S Video. One of the BNC should be software switchable to composite.

If those work in the market here's a few more for the family.
"SOLID +" for a version with HDMI and analog video i/o
"SOLID Pro+" for an HD SDI version with analog i/o.
"SOLID Extreme" might be a version with HDMI, HD SDI and analog- the whole enchilada you might say. I'd like one of these as well.

I grant permission for Cineform to use that name, so long as I get credit.

It just occurred to me that users may well need Cineform codec licenses.

Hopefully you might see your way clear to include one license of NEO HD with each SOLID. (I made that name up, and I'm sticking to it!)

To cater to the SDI crowd, they could offer a DC output to power a separate SDI to HDMI adaptor off the same battery system. (Strap a BMD HDLink to the side)
I like this idea....

I like this idea....

I think as far as external adapters, if HDMI offers quality as high as/comparable to/greater than HD-SDI and Component, etc... that inexpensive adapters would really be the way to go.

I could capture using Component into this device via an adapter, and also use it to play back via nice, simple HDMI to use for presentations, etc... or hook it up to an HD-SDI camera if I upgrade, without replacing the whole unit....

I don't own an HDMI or HD-SDI camera, so I'm not sure exactly how those technologies stack up against one another. I do think, though, that if HDMI is sufficient, adapters would be fine for other inputs. Any thoughts, guys?


Carl

It just occurred to me that users may well need Cineform codec licenses.

Hopefully you might see your way clear to include one license of NEO HD with each SOLID. (I made that name up, and I'm sticking to it!)

I like SOLID.

While each PC/Mac license could in included with the product, it wouldn't be required as the CineForm decoders are freely available for post-production application.

I don't think there are really SDI guys and HDMI guys and Component guys as much as there are guys who for whatever reason have cameras that have one or another, but not all of the above connection capabilities.

My JVC 110 has component or firewire. I guess that eliminates me from the customer set unless they support either firewire or component input (and not sure why they wouldn't support firewire - it's such a tiny little connector and I think they have one there already for camera control. Why not ingest the hated m2t like HDLink already does so well? I'd bet that a lot of people would like an alternative to Firestore that also happens to eliminate the additional step of conversion to Cineform)

I don't think of myself as a firewire guy, I'd love to have HDMI or SDI - but I'm not about to scrap my cameras to get them. The next big $ item in my plan is another lens for the JVC, not a nice new camera with HDMI or SDI.

I don't think I'm alone!!! I'd rather have the Cineform box because it simplifies the workflow, but let's face it, I can live with tape (and Firestore) for a few more years if I have to.

Yes, but...
The BM HDLink only supports the following output via HDMI:

HD Format Support via HDMI 1080p25, 1080i50, 1080i59.94, 1080i60, 720p50, 720p59.94 and 720p60.

No 1080p30, 1080p23.976, and it appears no 720p 23.976, 720p 30.
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/hdlink/techspecs/

Am I looking at this incorrectly..

BM HDLink?????

I was referring to Cineform HDLink.

Sorry for any confusion.

I guess it can happen when two different companies use the same name for two different products.

Sorry, I was commenting to Mike McCarthy's post in this thread regarding the BM HDLink

Remember CineForm used the name first. :)

However the BM HDLink could be used to convert HDSDI to HDMI.

You issues:

1080p30 -- same as 1080i60.
1080p23.976 -- prosumer cameras put 24p over 60i, although 24psf would have been nice (I'm not sure HMDI has support though.)
720p 23.976, 720p 30 -- transmitted as 720p60 with pulldown (removable.)

Why not ingest the hated m2t like HDLink already does so well? I'd bet that a lot of people would like an alternative to Firestore that also happens to eliminate the additional step of conversion to Cineform)

This is very unlikely = not going to happen. We would add analog input way before doing that (solving the issue.) M2T quality is what we are working to avoid, yet to support it would mean we would have to add an MPEG2 decoder to the hardware design.

Inputs via HDMI, HDSDI and Analog all make good market sense, as all come from a pre-compressed source. Also only supporting uncompressed inputs mean simplied hardware.

Remember CineForm used the name first. :)

However the BM HDLink could be used to convert HDSDI to HDMI.

You issues:

1080p30 -- same as 1080i60.
1080p23.976 -- prosumer cameras put 24p over 60i, although 24psf would have been nice (I'm not sure HMDI has support though.)
720p 23.976, 720p 30 -- transmitted as 720p60 with pulldown (removable.)

A range of Blu-ray and HD DVD players can output 1080p/24 from HDMI, so I'm sure it is a standard. Although those devices will be HDCP encrypted.

I can analyse the signal if you want, but gut feeling is that it's actually outputting 72fps.

Until the camera sources do 24p at 24Hz (or over 72Hz) we don't need to worry about it. We will be implementing HMDI I/O with flexibility in mind, if a new mode is used, we can upgrade the units in the field. But of the internal feature will be software/firmware upgradable by an image on a USB thumb drive.

Spectacular product! I'm very interested in this as an adjunct to the recently announced Sony Z7 HDV camera (which will ship with Sony's own CF-recorder). First, recording "true" 1920x1080 video, plus uncompressed audio through HDMI would be an obvious advantage over either tape-based or flash-based HDV recording. Secondly, with a unit like this, you could create instantaneous triple-redundancy, by recording to tape, and to two CF recorders. It's even conceivable you could record in SD, HDV and Cineform simultaneously!

I'm torn on the LCD screen. On one hand, I really want this baby to be as affordable, small, light, portable and error-free as possible. On the other hand, I can see how having a screen could be a godsend for reviewing footage in the field without tying up the camera, or lugging a laptop around. So, perhaps you're spot-on in giving it a basic LCD, but not overdoing it on resolution or quality.

A couple of other thoughts:

On the topic of weight: I would lean toward portability over heavy analog audio connectors. Mini-xlr may be fine (I've never seen them), but standard XLR are way too heavy for a unit like this. I'd be OK with stereo-mini, if it is made out of solid materials, and has the little screw-top fastener seen in some of the Sennheiser wireless microphones. If I have critical audio, I typically use an external preamp and feed it through the XLR line inputs of the camera, and simultaneously output through the pre-amp's unbalanced auxiliary stereo-mini output to a portable digital recorder. Under this scenario, I don't think I'd be losing too much going analog to HDMI through the camera.

Power options: A slot to attach a Sony battery would be great. Even better, how about adaptor plate that fits between the camera battery and the camera, with a small cable out to power the recorder? It may be worth taking a look at Sony's new CF recorder that will fit over the NPF-970 battery of the new Z7 camera to see how it accesses the camera battery for power, and design something compatible. Failing that, I'd like to see a standard 4-pin XLR power attachment, and a wide range of voltage requirements, so it could be powered off of any power source.

Data ports: A couple people have mentioned a SATA connection, so you could attach, and record to, external hard drives. The problem with SATA is that you still need a separate power source for the drive, which could be a problem in the field. Could you connect 6-pin firewire or USB drives instead? This would help minimize the number of cables needed. Or is the throughput insufficient for HD?

Will camera sync be possible with this unit, so it starts and stops recording when the camera RECORD button is pressed?

Overall, for efficient field use, there should be at least an option to connect this with an absolute minimum number of cables. In a perfect world, I'd be able to solidly attach this unit on the back of a Sony Z7 instead of the Sony HDV CF recorder, have it draw power directly from the camera's NPF-970 battery (with no or extremely short cables, if possible), connect a short HDMI cable, and be off and running.

Also, make sure that the slots for the CF cards are designed so they cannot be inadvertently ejected. Perhaps some kind of door over the CF slot? I have a laptop with a card reader that is forever popping out the flash card when it's being carried around.

Finally, what would I need to edit the recorded files in Vegas Pro 8?

This project is a godsend! I look forward to seeing it released soon!