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.
Then you haven't used an HV20 with a 35mm adapter!

I predict that more and more consumer camera sensors are going to be hampered by onboard consumer-grade "transport" (codec/recording medium) than by the actual capabilities of the capture electronics.

The greatest appeal of this product is to free low budget camcorders from having their signals mangled by HDV.

If the "Cinfeform SOLID" did come in @ $2k, then my kit would still cost HALF of Sony's cheapest "FULL" HD camera, the EX1.

Mangled by HDV? That's going a bit too far :)

Putting aside the wonderful advantages of the "Cineform Solid" (i.e. 4:2:2, 1920x1080, instant pulldown removal into Cineform's great wavelet codec, bypassing HDV mp2 audio compression), HDV is still really really good IMO.

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.

Some of us do not have the money to, ALL AT ONCE, upgrade to this level of performance. I'm really interested in the idea of modular upgrades, that will allow users to incrementally, over time, improve the quality of their video production, without having to throw away their initial investment and start over again. I might not have $8000 to spend today, but I might have $2000-3000 a year for the next 3 or 4 years to spend on incremental upgrades.

So, for example, in Step 1, you buy a decent HDV camera with an interchangeable lens. (The Sony Z7, for example?)

In Step 2, you buy a new lens, or start experimenting with 35mm still-camera optics.

In Step 3, you upgrade the recording system, by adding something like this Cineform Unit.

Even if you end up upgrading the camera itself, you should be able to re-use lenses or external recorders you purchased in Steps 2 & 3.

This is the way it always used to work with 35mm SLRs, and to some extent, still does with digital SLRs.

HDV is still really really good IMO.
I don't see how, objectively, HDV can be considered "really really good." Now, of course, I use it. I have to. It is manageable, acceptable, and certainly better than nothing, but honestly it's not "really really good."

1. It was antiquated before it even became available on the first camera. Many more modern, efficient codecs existed back then, and now the disparity is even greater.

2. It throws away the bulk of the color information.

3. It filters out a lot of low contrast detail.

4. It's not hard at all to get it to show visible macroblocking and other artifacts.

5. It doesn't hold up to any sort generational work.

So, yes, I stand by the loaded term of "mangled." I monitor my HV20 shoots via live HDMI, and it's always a little sad to see what is left over once recorded via HDV.

I don't see how, objectively, HDV can be considered "really really good."

Maybe Craig referred to a 35Mps mpeg compression?

Maybe Craig referred to a 35Mps mpeg compression?

That isn't in the HDV spec is it?

35Mbps is an XDCAM data rate.

XDCAM holds up far better than HDV under every circumstance I've tested. It also has uncompressed audio.

Still XDCAM is in many ways HDV's big brother, so maybe that's what Craig meant?

Still I wouldn't call XDCAM "really really good" either.

I'd say that XDCAM was usable, the same rating I give DVCPRO HD and DV.

I call HDV, "not entirely unusable."

Oh well, this whole post is gonna be off topic. If you want to talk about it more than this, then lets make a new thread somewhere and copy some posts over there.

Then you haven't used an HV20 with a 35mm adapter!

I sure haven't- but I have to say that I am unimpressed with the results of 35mm adaptors I have used with other cameras.

The main thing they add is a nice shallow depth of field.

You still see the limits of the low end sensors.

I predict that more and more consumer camera sensors are going to be hampered by onboard consumer-grade "transport" (codec/recording medium) than by the actual capabilities of the capture electronics.

The greatest appeal of this product is to free low budget camcorders from having their signals mangled by HDV.


Well, you forget your own earlier comment. I think a lot of cameras are hampered by low end glass as well as being mangled by the onboard codec.

Still, sensors will continue to improve very rapidly. So will electronics and storage. As a result I expect we'll see better and better recorder sections and sensors.

Glass however is glass. Optical physics and engineering are very well understood and relatively mature sciences. It will be hard to make quality lenses for a long time. It will take a revolution in manufacturing techniques, like the arrival of a nanotech general assembler- but I stray far off topic.

Let me just say that sensors will improve fastest, the recorder sections will follow fairly rapidly, but glass will lag far behind.

So... we agree generally.

If the "Cinfeform SOLID" did come in @ $2k, then my kit would still cost HALF of Sony's cheapest "FULL" HD camera, the EX1.

Yes. You get what you pay for though.

The HV20 will still exhibit a relatively narrow exposure latitude and you'll still be looking at 8-bit color going out the HDMI port. Oh, and you'll still have 1440x1080 HDV resolution sensors. And the same gain characteristics.

Even a tool as cool as Cineform SOLID can't fix that for you.

You still have a great bit of kit though, and you can certainly upgrade the camera and get a better sensor without worrying about either the glass or the recorder. Something like the Iconix might start looking very attractive- though I think this little bugger is rather expensive:

http://www.iconixvideo.com/products.html

I have never understood why Canon and Nikon haven't made video sensors with a full frame size to attach to their 35mm lenses.

In any case Cineform is making it easier for someone else to come along and do just that.

Eventually I expect to just plunk down my cash on a RED and actually have a real 35mm sized sensor with prime 35mm PL mount glass. (Cooke S4... droooool)

Useable...Unuseable....it all depends..... Its funny how people like to gripe about HDV's artifacts and try to measure it up to other "more professional" platforms but the fact is it has been used on some professional shoots in recent years (the tv show JAG comes to mind) successfully. I would say that is a perfect example of its useability.

From what I have been reading...HDV had a bad reputation from the start with its early blockiness issues and other artifacting problems....but to be honest its current implimentation (especially in a cam like the HV20) has come a long way and is much better than when JVC first came out with it.

I think it is very useful...even more today that it ever was.

You may get your wish sooner than you think from the Nikon-series "Live view" option over HDMI.

At this point it doesn't look like the "Live-view" is real-time on the D3, but at some point in the near future I'm sure it will be. So at that time you'll basically have a down-converted 1080i signal over HDMI that you could feed into the SOLID from your full 35mm-sized Nikon sensor for very low cost. It probably won't be as optimal in use as a dedicated cinema camera, but it would be an option.

Oh, and you'll still have 1440x1080 HDV resolution sensors.
Sorry to hijack this thread, but actually the HV20 has a full 1920x1080 sensor. That's why so many people have adopted lugging a PC around in order to use the Blackmagic Intensity to capture this full-rez 4:2:2 signal, and which is why the Cineform "SOLID" is such a perfect mate.

Yes, there are many things about this cheap little camera that don't live up to professional standards, but for sub-$1k it's a unique beast. For the truly indie filmmaker, it is a godsend. All the money saved can be spent on lighting and everything else that shows on screen.

We all want a RED in the price range of a good DSLR, and the industry will get there, but the big Japanese hardware manufacturers will do it kicking and screaming, so in the meantime we're left with trying to hack their last generation technology (i.e. MPEG-2, tape, etc.) Luckily there are people like Dennis out there, with product ideas like the "SOLID" to do just that.

Luckily there are people like Dennis out there, with product ideas like the "SOLID" to do just that.

Who is Dennis?

Sorry, I meant David! Too much tritophan is muddling my brain. ;-)

Let me just say that sensors will improve fastest, the recorder sections will follow fairly rapidly, but glass will lag far behind.

I disagree that on camera recorder sections will be improving as fast as you suggest. The reason we have MPEG2 and AVC in cameras is a lack of imagination on the part of the camera designers, using distrubtion formats to increase record length, resulting in quality issues is why we are have this thread. There hasn't be a truely development new camera format (putting asside our own CineForm RAW) since DV, and it varients DVCPRO-50 and DVCPRO-HD. The issue has been post support, the catch-22 of having a new format in camera before the NLE is s ready. In CineForm's case we developed a post production format, so it is now ready to move into cameras, with wide NLE support already in place.

Just a couple of thoughts after reading all the above

1) M2T

Everybody seems to hate it, but honestly I think it isn't so bad for its originally intended purpose - which is to compress the video to the point where it could fit on a miniDV tape and still look rather good when played back. I think it has succeeded quite well. The key point is the part about "LOOKING good when played back". In other words it uses a perceptual model of human vision to discard information to which the human eye is less sensitive.

This objective is absolutely not the same as the objective of pulling great keys or holding up well to mutligenrational editing, etc. That's what we have Cineform for. Of course I'd be happier if there were a direct to Cineform option in camera, but that's because I want to edit the footage, not because I think it looks all that horrible if I just want to play it back. Not perfect, but not all that bad either, IMHO

2) Resolution of the HV20

Nothing against the HV20. I'll probably even get one one of these days. But I think there's a point being missed whan discussing its resolution. A three-chip camera has a sensor for each of the primary colors. The only way I know to get a three color image from a single chip camera is to dedicate some of the pixels to each color, thus cutting the effective resolution. There are computational games one can play to minimize the loss in resolution, but there is no free lunch. I think a three-chip "pro" camera will have an advantage here.

Of course I'd be happier if there were a direct to Cineform option in camera.

Eerie!

I just posted on the subject here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=780806

Opened a new thread since didn't want to deviate this thread from its intended purpose.

Well, I kind of like the modular world. Where I can get an adapter for my old set of takumars, a hv20 and a device like this for hdmi capture. You know with a follow focus from there and a matte box from there and maybe a monitor from there. Then maybe in the future I could upgrade the camera or maybe get a PL mount to my Brevis.

If you buy a camera with it all you're stuck with it and when it becomes yesterday's news and you'll have to upgrade the whole camera... Instead of just using the camera as a sensor. Which I think is the future by the way.

Modular design makes a whole lot of sense to me. With a nice set of rails to attach the monster to...

Thanks are due to Nathan Ottley for submitting a professional-looking concept illustration for the CineForm recorder which is now posted on the Recorder product page: https://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm. The concept is still subject to change, but this is a great start!

Lovely!

Is Nathan a member here?

Looks nice - but where is Analog component in? A lot of cameras (ie JVC 110U) don't have HDMI!!!

We starting with HDMI as it is less expensive to design. Analog in is definitely on the list for second generation features.

It may be less expensive to design, but I think it will also cut the potential size of the market quite substantially.

No way I could use it unless I were to get rid of my JVC camera - which I'm not about to do in the next few years:<(

Damn! I already had my checkbook out. Guess I'll have to put it away for a while!

HDMI. HD-SDI. Component.

First iteration of the recorder, obviously, must draw the line somewhere.

Even Cineform can't be good for *everyone*.

...Or can it? :)

There are several ~$300 component to DVI/HDMI adapters around.

To get some idea of scale, that is the size of the LCD display in the concept render?

I know about the component to HDMI, but it sort of defeats some of the key features of the CineForm box I think - it raises the price, adds more opportunity to degrade the signal, and most importantly it's another piece of stuff to schlep around.

Oh well - have to wait for the second release, I guess:<(

Maybe something like this would work along with the Cineform box for those of us wanting SDI sooner.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/504026-REG/Convergent_Design_NANOVIEW_nanoView_HD_SD_SDI_to_HDMI.html

Of course, I'd rather have a direct SDI connection from my Sony EX1.

I also LOVE the idea of two flash cards. It would allow longer shoots.

At first glance it seems less expensive (to an end user) to include component input in the first recoder design. But as soon as we add analog circuitry it adds to the complexity of the design and the cost of the HDMI recorder will increase proportionately (for all users). While we recognize the value of component input, we are "erring" first on the side of design simplicity and low (as we can get it) cost.

We have on our list to investigate possibly including a power connector to drive an external converter box. That would at least simplify the use of an external converter.

To get some idea of scale, that is the size of the LCD display in the concept render?

The illustration is not to scale as it relates to the LCD. Per some earlier discussions in the thread, the color LCD is intended for parameter setup and shot review. It will be an inexpensive panel, perhaps something like on an iPod or on a WM cell phone. In other words, functional pictures for review, but not intended to replace the LCD monitor on your camera.

For me, as a recorder from any of the HDV/DV camcorders the simpler the device that's the lowest cost is preferable. HDMI in only, no analogue input, LED's or VERY simple display to show status, especially record, two bays for flash cards, USB to laptop USB drive( even make this an option if there are two card slots), no play capability. Provide system connector for additional cradle unit with LCD, HDMI out etc. In other words separate the encode from decode functions. Even consider a base unit like a Beachtech that screws under the camcorder. You will be competing against a Blackmagic Intensity in a micro PC that can be put together for less than $1000 including 2G RAM and 250G hard drive including the Intensity card. The difference will be convenience/size. IF one is in the studio I feel the Intensity card is a better solution direct to the editing PC. SO small and low cost is what would be appealing to me.

Ron Evans

I could see the HDMI version as a start and then having a set of new models with perhaps just component and another with just HD-SDI. Price differences between models would be an obvious end result but that way everyone would be happy in the end and the product can be released ASAP.

...You will be competing against a Blackmagic Intensity in a micro PC that can be put together for less than $1000 including 2G RAM and 250G hard drive including the Intensity card.

While the are only a small percentage of technical users that will build their own mini PCs to capture from the Intensity, that little PC has other costs, like a NEO HD license. :) i.e. CineForm wins both ways, and we certainly encourage build your own capture station based on CineForm.

Regard capture only vs capture play. We get the playback pretty much for free (other than the second HMDI connector and driver) so we not going to lose playback for the $15 savings in parts. We see presentation applications for this device. If the addition markets increases the sales volume, prices fall, so likely the device will be cheaper with playback than without.

Any chance of a package deal with either prospect or aspect hd plug-in for CS3?

Any chance of a package deal with either prospect or aspect hd plug-in for CS3?

We certainly have the option, likely there would be discounts offered on software for hardware purchases or visa. Of course multi-platform decoders are free, and may customers will work happily with that.

You will be competing against a Blackmagic Intensity in a micro PC that can be put together for less than $1000 including 2G RAM and 250G hard drive including the Intensity card.

Having built many mini-PC's, this pricing structure does not look realistic for the assoicated specs required for real-time field recording of HDMI.

For instance the basic system you would need:

1x Commell LV-677 with available PCIe x1 slot - $360
2x 1GB SODIMM's - $46
1x 2.33Ghz Core 2 Duo - $642
1x 250GB 7200RPM drive - $150
Case - $142
DC/DC power supply with wide voltage input (for batteries) - $80
Intensity Card - $249
Small LCD display (touchscreen) - $300
Windows XP license OEM - $140

All that together drives the price to over $2000 . . . I'm sure there are some cheaper parts available (such as processors), which could save you some money, but I don't see a fully configured and field-ready system costing less than $1000 that would have the horsepower to encode live video off the HDMI port with no chance of dropped frames. Also the overall interface would not be optimal as well.

So all-in-all, a small, hand-held $2000 dedicated CineForm recording and playback device is quite a grab :)

1x 2.33Ghz Core 2 Duo - $642
... there are some cheaper parts available (such as processors)

OK, for my miniPC with Intensity, I got "Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80557E6850 - Retail" for less than $280, and it's a huge overkill - I could've gotten 2.66Ghz model for $190, and still have *plenty* of processing headroom.

So the processor price should be less than $200, which is $450 less than in Jason's quote.

Quite a difference if you ask me.

I think my calculation was maybe out by $230. From my local computer store
http://www.shoprbc.com/ca/shop/product_details.php?pid=26352
A Nano cube at $560 Can $ complete ready built, OS WIN XP $130,Intensity $247, Xenarc Monitor USB touch screen $299. So total is about $1230. Of course one still has to find AC power!!! This solution is less convenient but a lot more capable so isn't really an alternative for a portable HDMI recorder. The point I was trying to make is that in the studio there are other solutions and for portability the full capability is not needed just record at the lowest cost and smallest size. Playback is another issue. For the field use another unit could be created for those that really want it. The competition for the playback unit is of course a laptop, many of which are less than $1000 with dual core 2g RAM and Flash memory readers. In the studio the editing PC will manage the playback.

Ron Evans

OK, for my miniPC with Intensity, I got "Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Conroe 3.0GHz LGA 775 Processor Model BX80557E6850 - Retail" for less than $280, and it's a huge overkill - I could've gotten 2.66Ghz model for $190, and still have *plenty* of processing headroom.

I agree . . . processing power wise that is a nice combination, but won't really work for battery powered operation, nor quiet or outdoor environments where cooling with minimal fan noise will not be an easy task.

battery powered operation

I thought the miniPC cannot realistically be battery-powered. Due to the rather large size/weight, I cannot "wear" it, and since it sits in its cabinet, I have no problem powering it from the electric outlet.

But in your experience: have you built any wearable PCs? How small? How much does it weigh? Thanks

The first SI-2K prototype was a mini-pc held in a small pelican case powered by Anton Bauer battery units with a big 90mm quite fan on top to suck out all the heat on the CPU (dual-core AMD Opteron back then) We used it to shoot a short-film called "Abigail" . . . if you ever visited the website, it was the clips of the little girl with the mom.

MiniPC's can be very small (a little larger than a deck of playing cards), although if you need an intensity card and PCIe expansion, you're looking at Mini-ITX being the smallest practical configuration, and with a small Dionic90 or IDX-Tek battery, is about the size of a small book (8"x4"x4" + battery which adds another 1-2" on the top). Weight is around 5-7lbs. Using a wide input voltage DC/DC converter, you can input raw battery power (www.opussolutions.com). Of course one typically also needs to hang some type of LCD input device off it, such as the Xenarc touchscreens or something of it's ilk, and then there you have a lot of cables running around. And as I've noted above, a "working" system is going to put you back around $2K . . . and in the end it's not going to be anywhere near as "field-functional" or "device-friendly" as the CineForm SOLID, meaning you're gonna have to muck with Windows quite a bit unless you plan on writing your own software with an easy-to-use interface for touchscreens and embedded input (like either we have at SI or Wafian has with their HR series of recorders).

So my take, after having done this a lot, is now that CineForm has announced this device, save your money, don't waste it on something that is going to cause you a lot of grief unless you're doing this more for the sport rather than the end-result (i.e., you like to tinker).

Thanks Jason.

So I assume the difference in price pertains to the mobo/processor that are suitable for the micro form factor?

In any case, I have already built a Intensity/Cineform cap "mini" PC that weighs freaking 40Lbs (Thermaltake case, 2 HDDs in Raid 1 for data security etc.)

In fact, it is extremely quiet, so no problems there.

The weight is killing me.

OF COURSE I'd rather go for the Cineform box.

Now, I also lug around a 24" HDMI monitor to control the video signal as I record it.

So frankly, ther monitor is still big... so the current rig is not critically limiting... I have built a very good case that holds both PC and a monitor, padded for the transportation. So I'm good for now.

However I'll be the first in line for the Cineform box.

That is, unless Sony starts listening and puts Cineform, instead of the silly mpeg2, as an on-camera recording option on EX1!

So I assume the difference in price pertains to the mobo/processor that are suitable for the micro form factor?

Yes, the smaller you go, the more specialized the application . . . anything below uATX and the prices increase exponentially as you try to miniturize smaller, typically because of specialized industrial or military applications are the chief driver of those markets, and therefore smaller niche markets = higher development costs that are ammortized through the customer.

I think we should split this conversation off to a new thread, and keep this one about ideas/comments on the Cineform recorder, to make it a bit easier for these guys to produce anything from our chatting ;)

Carl

Seems like Cineform recording box, in its HD-SDI version, will compete against Convergent Flash XDR:

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

Flash XDR (which is HD-SDI In only, btw) has XLR audio in; very high quality mpeg2 4:2:2 recording options in 50, 100, 160 Mps; and it flips the image for those who use 35mm adapters a-la P+S Tekhnik.

This image flip (passed through to the monitor) may be a good idea for Cineform's HDMI box, by the way.

I still would rather have Cineform recorder (external box or on-camera), since it lets me edit in real time in the *same format* that the footage is recorded.

I think that the posters, including me, see multiple uses for a tapeless recorder. However there is a big difference between just a tapeless recorder and one that recorders 1920x1080 from the sensors bypassing the encoding in the camera and producing an intra frame coded file for editing at high quality. To my knowledge the analogue out from any of the current HDV cameras will have been encoded already and will be 1440x1080. So in this case the recorder is just a tapeless recorder encoding to the intermediate file format. As a field recorder it thus saves time later rather than use one of the existing hard drive units like Firestore or DR60( or the Compact Flash recorders that will come with the new Sony camcorders next year). In this case the cost must just equate to time saving since one would still need Cineform software to edit. For direct recording of 1920x1080 bypassing the camcorder encoder it has no competition but this implies HDMI or in a more pro version HD-SDI. The only competition for this would be to take a PC along!!!!

Ron Evans

To my knowledge the analogue out from any of the current HDV cameras will have been encoded already and will be 1440x1080.

Sorry, this is incorrect.

Starting with Sony FX1 and up, all of them have real-time Component out that is *before* compression (if captured live of course.)

Alex...

I have yet to see a factory signal flow block diagram that verifies your statement. Considering that there are over 1M pixels, to extract the analog signal from each and port it to the analog output would require massive computational power. I'm afraid every camera digitizes the signal coming from the sensor block in order to condition(amplify, color correct, apply bayer filter, etc) the data stream as digital rather than analog. As such, any output analog signal has been A-D then D-A'ed at least one time. Going to SDI output saves the last D-A conversion. And all this happens before digital compression to HDV format.

Maybe David Newman can shed some light on this? I believe he has stated in previous posts, that some of the cams do have component output that has not been compressed? Does anyone have a way to verify or confirm this?

It would certainly be of interest to those possessing those "certain" cams if that were true! Especially given the purpose of this thread...

Bill, in 2006 I have built a PC for the purpose of capturing the uncompressed Component out from Sony FX1. (And Sony engineering department was very interested in how I did that at the time.)

Before that, there was a lot of discussions on this forum whether that Component out is before or after HDV compression.

Two simple tests show that it is before (and that's what I said in my previous post.)

1. No delay. The signal has no discernible delay vs reality. This would've been impossible if it was mpeg2 encoded, since long GOP introduces about 1/2 sec. delay. Just compare to the FireWire output, which is mpeg2 compressed.

2. Quality of the signal. No artifacts at all on fast pans/movements out of Component, vs blocky/tear artifacts out of tape/firewire. I had side-by-side comparison of live capture posted online, but took it down recently as I thought the subject is already clear :)

Alex...

Let me make the distinction between "compression" and analog to digital conversion, i.e. digitizing the analog video signal. Digitization is not compression, per se. It's the process of converting the analog YUV levels to 1's and 0's. Each time a conversion happens, there's some inefficiency that degrades the signal quality(dithering, etc) My point is that any analog output signal will never be as clean as a digital SDI signal, as long as an A>D and D>A process has occurred.

I am at a loss to explain, otherwise, why the compressed m2t images out of my HD110 show higher resolution than the analog images viewed out the analog ports. I assume that the native sensor signal is 4:4:4 in digital terms, anyway. This is "trimmed" to 4:2:2 somewhere in the signal path. I don't beleive sensors detect in digital 4:2:2 natively.

I, also, think we should move this discussion to another thread so we don't hijack Cineform's basic intent.

I was replying to Ron Evan's post.

My point is that Yes, there would be a very big quality difference capturing from Component (in his case; as well as HDMI or HD-SDI on other cams) into the Cineform recorder box, vs recording on-camera.

So Cineform recorder is not just a firewire capture device in league of FireStore, but rather Cineform provides (will anyway :) a totally different level of quality of signal.