Just found this thread - hats off to Cineform for recognizing the value of the user community in developing product functionality.

My background is in broadcast/corporate production... cameras costing many tens of thousands of dollars are commonly used. Like many in that market, I don't want to own such a camera, because the next project will require something different - I'll rent.

However (like many in that market), I do own a V1 and am giving serious consideration to an EX1 in the future, cameras that can work well on lower-budget and self-funded projects.

Speaking for this type of user, there are a few pro/broadcast features that make it much more likely that I'd integrate the "Solid" in more projects.

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....

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

Couldn't agree more with Alexander. A robust balanced connector for low-impedance audio interfaces with the pro world. Anything else doesn't. There's not a lot of wiggle room here - audio is extremely important to working pros; including the industry-standard connection system helps open up a larger market.

Will the Cineform file container support multichannel audio? Getting camera audio in 2 channels and 2 more channels with mixer output line-level and A-D would be pretty cool.

...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...
Likewise, a robust power system is essential. The Sony prosumer battery system is very good and not very expensive (good enough for Sound Devices)... and compatibility with 11-30v 4-pin XLR systems also brings Solid into the world that pro/broadcast people understand.

Timecode!!! I tried to read every post in this thread and could find nobody talking about timecode! My understanding is that camera timecode is not present in the HDMI interface spec. (?) PLEASE don't have every clip start at "0:00.00" and call it good. You'd cut off a significant piece of the market that uses timecode for sync of multiple cameras (that'd be sales of multiple Solids!) and dual-system sound. Ideally there would be a jammable TC generator that would timestamp each clip.

Finally, and I know this has been touched on above, there are lots of event videographers out there who need media for 4 hours or so. CF is great, don't get me wrong, but only represents the piece of the market that either work on short-form projects, or can dump to laptop frequently (not as portable as some need), or can afford lots of CF. An internal or strap-on hard drive would be essential for many purchasers.

An internal or strap-on hard drive would be essential for many purchasers.

And here's the name for this product: Strap-On Solid!

Hmmm...

Smells of Steely Dan... :)

**SIGNS UP** for beta testing!

Anybody related to Oprah or Bono ? Please ask them to donate towards
African Filmmakers.

I need one of those / The HDSDI version.

Will send postcard of me, shooting whatever ..........

Hi Guys,

We wanted to keep the momentum moving on the proposed CineForm HDMI Recorder. I've posted a page on our website with the proposed feature specs and a conceptual diagram: http://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm. You cannot navigate to the page from our website other than through this direct link.

We'd enjoy any comments....

David.

Put a Firewire port (6-pin) on it and I will sell both my Firestores tomorrow.
EDIT: Okay okay, I'd actually go for it with component I/O too...either way, just don't
forget the folks sitting on the border with the 110's.

Jeffery Haas
shooter-editor-JVC 110 owner
Mansfield TX

Having a Canon XH-A1 I would have to wait for the component in version but here are my thoughts.

I would like to be able to have four tracks of audio. I am not a pro on this but I guess that for they who have HDMI they get 2 audio tracks from the HDMI signal and 2 for the additional audio inputs. When using component in there is only video and hence I would only get 2 tracks of audio (using up the analogue inputs). Having four analogue inputs with the components in makes it much more interesting for me.

Make the AD-converters 24 bit and 96 khz sampling if possible. Of course make sure the AD-converters is of good quality and with excellent S/N-ratio.

Balanced audio would be very, very nice but I would accept RCA if I had to. As an alternative to XLR you can use balanced 1/4" phonejackets (very common in the music industry). I would prefer them instead of mini-XLRs. However an additionally option to keep a low profile of the device is to use a breakout cabling bunde similar to what M-Audio has on their Delta 1010LT
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Delta1010LT-main.html

In the same way you provide output power for an alternative HD-SDI to HDMI converter it would be nice to get the power to drive one (or two if I get my 4 channel audio) of these babies:
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/DMP3-focus.html

It would be interesting if it can generate and receive timecode. I would imagine a scenario of having 2-3 cameras and 2-3 of these recordes syncing up with each other. It would generate more sales and what a neat flow it would be in post to not have to sync up all of the files. Midi devices (music instruments) have had MTC (Midi Time Code) since the 80s and I can't imagine it too be very expensive to add. It can even be propriety Cineform time code so that your devices talk with each other but then perhaps a pro version where it can generate external timecode for they who need it. Maybe firewire does this already with some cool gadget but I haven't heard of any though...

It might be obvious but running by both chord and battery would be nice especially if they are used in a studio scenario with multiple devices.

Make it possible to set naming convention of the files. A Fostex portable recorder has a nice way of doing it. I can set prefix e.g. x_03a_nnn where nnn is the take counter that adds one for each press on record. Of course I can reset that counter to 1. I think the Cineform HDLink does something similar when capturing from tape but if it's in this device I would actually rename the scene and angle.

I guess that's all I can think of now concerning the specs. Would I buy it for 2k if it had my additional specs? Mmm... most likely. I currently don't make a living on moviemaking so it's stretching it a bit. But I can't see why a pro or a semi pro wouldn't buy it. It saves precious capturing time and in a multi recording scenario it would be gold. The greatest benefit I see would be in combination with the audio since you save time in post and can get a feed different sources such as a mixer in a live concert situation.

So far, I would buy the device as it is described on the Cineform website.

Sure, dual XLR inputs would make it just a bit more perfect, but as it is, my sound mixer can output 2 tracks rca audio as well as XLR. I could live with that !

Let's hope I can buy one soon !

Awhile back on this thread I mentioned a $999.00 price point to be a "magic" price for me. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that this device will NEVER be a standard accessory to an HDMI consumer camcorder. The general public can't even discern HDTV from SD broadcasts!

Getting this done for $2000.00 makes a $999.00 HDV camera not that much different (image quality due to lossless compression, not lens characteristics) from any of the $6000.00 pro-sumer cams... so $2k is a pretty good deal... Even turning a new SONY HVR-Z7U into a decent Pro rig.

** I would definitely BUY THIS CINEFORM RECORDER before I buy a new camera!


:)

Interestingly, of all people who commented on audio input options for this recorder, almost no-one (including me) mentioned the Quality of AD converter.

Quality is hugely important, so:

> 24-bit 48Khz processing
> 105dB+ dynamic range
> better than -100dB THD + noise
> Flat frequency response 40-16,000 (+/- 0.1dB)

is what we need.

All this is needed to preserve the quality of the double-system audio to be fed in from the pro mic preamp/mixer at the time of recording.

Am I asking too much?

For the reference: $120 Emu 0202 standalone AD/DA box does even better than aforementioned specs, so it's very doable and should be planned.

I hope :)

Interestingly, of all people who commented on audio input options for this recorder, almost no-one (including me) mentioned the Quality of AD converter.

I totally agree that the quality of the AD converters are important. With 4 channel audio it can be that little thing that tilts us to buy this instead of something else. And like you mentioned I can only guess that there is a lot of fairly priced high quality AD converters on the component market that makes sense to add to this kind of product.

I am eagerly awaiting what the people at Cineform will say and.. when... :)

I guess I'm still a little confused over the need for XLR connections, or even the analog connections for that matter. What application would you use these for?

I suppose it'd be great if it would allow more inputs than what the camcorder offers for recording, or better quality A/D conversion. But aren't we still using the camcorder to plug the mics into? Isn't that A/D conversion still happening at the camera end with its pre-amps and sending it out through the HDMI? Aren't we still recording the same audio to the HCR-1 that the camcorder would record to tape?

I suppose it *would* be great if the HCR-1 could improve on its pre-amps and offer something better audio-wise than what the camcorder provides, but I didn't think that was the intended purpose of the recorder. And if we were sending mics directly to the HCR-1 w/ XLR or 1/4-inch or whatever, wouldn't that mean we would need to battery-power our mics, or go through a mixer that supplies phantom power? I think I'm missing something here...

I too am eager to hear what the latest development has been at Cineform on this product. Hopefully they can tease us with a few more details to hold us over until NAB.

aren't we still using the camcorder to plug the mics into?

Yes, and on-cam mic preamps are subpar by manufacturers' design.

The video community consensus seems to be that on-cam audio is artificially kept low quality by the manufacturers of the prosumer cameras to protect their pro model lines. Remember, quality of audio makes more significant impact on the movie viewer than quality of visuals. So camera makers don't want us to get the same audio for less than $10K that they equip their $80K cams with.

On the other hand, quality audio is actually, truly difficult to achieve, and only a few reasonably priced mic preamps are available that feature good specs.

So the name of the game right now is to get a sub-$10K cam that has pretty good video quality, and pair it with the quality external mic preamp, and then multiplex these video and audio streams into one synchronized video file.

That's why Cineform Recorder box must have quality audio bus, on top of video.

That's why Cineform Recorder box must have quality audio bus, on top of video.

He he.. you beat me to it. :)

Additionally I would like to add that the more audio inputs you have the more mics you can use e.g. wireless, boomoperator, ambience, feed from mixers et.c.

The obvious benefit of what Alex mentioned is that you save a lot of time in post production since you don't need to sync video+sound manually.

Yeah all those advantages sound great.

But if we suppose that Cineform will stick with the analog audio connections, if I don't use them, can I still count on it to record the audio in sync with what's coming from the microphones I've attached to the camera. While still being identical in audio quality with what I would be recording to the tape?

I guess I just want to make sure that there wouldn't be any drawback.

Yeah all those advantages sound great.

But if we suppose that Cineform will stick with the analog audio connections, if I don't use them, can I still count on it to record the audio in sync with what's coming from the microphones I've attached to the camera. While still being identical in audio quality with what I would be recording to the tape?

I guess I just want to make sure that there wouldn't be any drawback.

If you are using HDMI it will be the same quality (already digital). Don't know if it will be post sound compression in this case or not.

If you have component i.e. no audio transmitted you will probably loose some quality since it will go like this: mic --> camera --> recorder
There will be a quality loss but it might not be audiable.

but, while I've learned a lot from this thread alone, the more I learn, the more I realize how little I still know. It seems the "benefit" of every little tidbit I learn results in more questions in an inverse degree of magnitude to my newly learned info. (In simple terms, I'm uncertain that I "know" anything at all)!

If you have component i.e. no audio transmitted you will probably loose some quality since it will go like this: mic --> camera --> recorder
There will be a quality loss but it might not be audiable.

I've never worked w/component. But, for the lack of audio,
what would be lost/sacrificed if the chain were
mic -> mixer -> recorder?

TC maybe?

(Any replies will be my lesson for today).

Thanks.

But, for the lack of audio,
what would be lost/sacrificed if the chain were
mic -> mixer -> recorder?

TC maybe?


Well, that would be a nice flow but you would probably use a dedicate mic pre-amp with better quality. A mixer has the option of sending the signal all different routes to sound effects, inserts et.c. so it will probably have a longer signal chain than a clean pre-amp. Though it might be a field-mixer which is I guess somewhere in between a pre-amp and a fullblown mixer...

The best flow would be:
mic -> pre-amp -> recorder

since inside your camera you will probably have poorer mic pre-amps and it might even be encoded to digital signal on the input and then decoded to analog on the output (maybe not since the video signal is uncompressed on the output).

BTW, you have to watch-out with the specs on those small, cheap "24/48" recorders . . . often times the specs they list as far as dynamic range, etc. are based more off the combination of parts in laboratory and spec-sheets vs. the "real-world" scenario . . . not that they're not "good", but just that a lot of times when they list 105dbA, etc., it could be more along the lines of the theoretical dynamic range of the chip inside that is doing the A/D conversion rather than the actual measured response from the recorder. This is not disengenuous, I mean the A/D converter, and even the electronics themselves might have that theoretical limit, but that may not be what you really get once everything is combined into one package and you're recording in the "real-world".

Also sometimes total dynamic range is measured by the absence of signal, and then the maximum signal, vs. what the possible "captureable" dynamic range is (i.e., what the electronics can capture in dynamic range all at once) . . . for instance some LCD manufacturers get their higher dynamic range numbers not by making a darker display with better black levels, but by making a brighter one and then measuring from when the monitor has been dimmed all the way down to the brightest the monitor can deliver . . . but the "true" full-swing dynamic range when the monitor is on is less than the advertised numbers since the backlight washes out the black-levels (i.e., black against white on the same screen at the same time).

Another thing to consider is that you can get a very high-dynamic range A/D converter, but if you do not properly isolate those electronics, and there is something noisy near-by on the PCB, you're going to lose the benefit of the higher-dynamic range gain that 24-bits gets you over 16-bits . . . in other worlds it does not take much noise (and for most intents and purposes, it would be hardly noticeable) to eat up those lower bits with an A/D converter that has a linear response, making the gain in bit-depth simply a gain in the ability to digitize noise.

I would have to agree with the comments about non-HDMI cameras like the Z1.

Carl

Just to mention that my Z1 does have a HDMI plug !

all the best

Hervé

Please offer AES audio inputs. That is the only way to preserve the quality of audio collected by audio professionals.

Please offer AES audio inputs. That is the only way to preserve the quality of audio collected by audio professionals.

I agree, I would prefer AES inputs instead of any analog, simplifies the design. That is not the only driving factor.

I agree, I would prefer AES inputs instead of any analog, simplifies the design. That is not the only driving factor.

I have no problem with only digital inputs and I can imagine that it's a lot easier to develop an all-digital version than one that need to consider the digitization of analog data. However I think it's important is to consider how it can fit into a reasonable flow and who is the target market for this product. I did a search on field mixers that provides digital outputs and it landed on 3800 USD as I recall it. That is definately out of my budget and I couldn't find much else on it. It would be nice to have suggested flows and what products to use.

In my opinion, the whole point for Cineform recorder is to accept Analog audio and process it in high quality into Digital audio.

It's not about what's easier, it's about what users actually need.

Sony implements mpeg2 compression because it is easier, but users really need Cineform on-cam.

Cineform recorder should have high quality analog audio inputs (whether xlr or rca, balanced or unbalanced) because analog output is what most of the mic preamps' provide.

Any ETA on this baby?

I agree, and I still say that XLRs are the way to go. Most pro mics are this way and there is no logical reason to go with another type of plug.

Then if the CineForm box doesn't take analogue, then we need an A2D converter which would make the "workflow" more cumbersome.

Forcing the audio to go through the camera seems like a great idea if camera makers would make great pre amps in their lower end cameras which they clearly do not because of tiered pricing for their products. HDMI will be top notch video quality, lets make sure we have top notch audio as well.

The CineForm product only becomes cool because it could allow quality at a certain price point of cameras. Add quality XLRs to the HDMI workflow, we will get an unprecedented level of quality and portability.
M

Second the motion for high quality analogue audio input even if it costs a bit more. I'd be willing to compromise on the connector type in the interest of compactness - ie mini XLR or 1/4" TRS - but, of course, XLR is first choice.

Would a multi-pin connector (eg Hirose) and breakout cable like you would use with a mixer (2 x balanced audio + mic return) be a way of simplifying connections, if this is the problem?

Not to hijack this thread, or take away from the promise of the CF recorder, but to point out our options are growing. (I'm looking forward to the CF box; I just hope they've decided on the final version and it doesn't end up in perpetual design mode, meeting the same end as the CinePorter). This seems to be the newest tool from Focus Enhancements:

http://www.focusinfo.com/solutions/catalog.asp?id=183

I got this in an e-mail yesterday. While it's not the same as the CF recorder, hence not really competition for it, and is intended for a different purpose, I think it proves that the manufacturers realize we're serious about wanting the ability to produce better images to capitalize on the promise of HD.

It takes either component-out or HDMI and converts it to SDI, for both SD and HD. It doesn't create a CineFormed output, and it has no USB or firewire ports to record to an external drive; the web page describing it shows the intended flow to be either:
cam -> firestor converter -> switcher, or
cam -> firestor converter -> VTR, or
cam -> firestor converter -> monitor.

and it attaches between the cam and tripod head. It takes 2 audio inputs and embeds them in the SDI out. MSRP = $ 699.

I wasn't aware they were working on this. I don't have SDI, so likely would not have paid attention to announcements about it, but it could prove helpful for those who do.

I take it as a good sign that we are likely to see more similarly helpful tools in the future.

Sorry, I fail to see how the aforementioned device correlates to Cineform recorder box, or it's concept, in any way at all.

While it's not the same as the CF recorder, hence not really competition for it, and is intended for a different purpose, I think it proves that the manufacturers realize we're serious about wanting the ability to produce better images to capitalize on the promise of HD.

and

I take it as a good sign that we are likely to see more similarly helpful tools in the future.

I like the fact that we're being presented with more tools to make better/broader use of equipment that many of us already own. If FE is willing to do this, what else might they, or others, have on the drawing board? It's not earthshaking, for sure, but, speaking for myself, I find it encouraging. I thought others might, too. (Didn't mean to annoy w/my naivete).

I like the fact that we're being presented with more tools to make better/broader use of equipment that many of us already own. If FE is willing to do this, what else might they, or others, have on the drawing board? It's not earthshaking, for sure, but, speaking for myself, I find it encouraging. I thought others might, too. (Didn't mean to annoy w/my naivete).
Don't worry Denis...this is good info that you passed along.

Sorry, I fail to see how the aforementioned device correlates to Cineform recorder box, or it's concept, in any way at all.

Have you read Cineform's page for the device?

http://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm

"Comment: We anticipate developing multiple members in the recorder product family - each targeting different recording needs. This first device targets HDV camcorder users and offers the ability to bypass the highly-compressed MPEG format. The features specification is below. We imagine a sister device that supports single-link and dual-link HD-SDI recording. "

Its the third paragraph.

So, imagine if you will a production house that has primarily SDI, but does have one or two cameras (say a couple of HVX200's) that don't output SDI.

Now a Cineform SOLID SDI user might happily fork over for a converter rather than buying a whole other SOLID just for their "oddball" cameras.

I got a HVX200 so component input would be great - on the other hand I can buy a $250 box that converts component to hdmi (and I hope id is not messing up the signal).

Image filp is a must, I do almost everything with a lens adapter now.

Having a chance to record to a external disc makes more sese than CF cards for many reasons allready discussed her. A powered drive caddle would be great but I coul live with a external disc of the shelf.

Using camera batteries would be great. Adapters for almost every battery can be purchased from the guys who selling those little chargers. So you only would need a base platte.

If it will have that features I´m selling my firestores in a heartbeat and buy 2 of your recorders.

Frank

Speaking of external HDD support...

My understanding is that the new generation of SATA (Sata III? ) will support power over the data cable.

So no need for an additional HDD power supply, if Cineform box provides Sata III (?) spec connection.

Yes the new eSATA spec would make the device more functional.

As far as that FocusEnhancement box goes, it would be useful if you had an SDI Cineform Solid, but with HDLinks available, there are few reasons to create an SDI version in the first place. HDMI is the way to go. And component can be converted to HDMI as well, via a cheaper box.

As far as that FocusEnhancement box goes, it would be useful if you had an SDI Cineform Solid, but with HDLinks available, there are few reasons to create an SDI version in the first place. HDMI is the way to go. And component can be converted to HDMI as well, via a cheaper box.

I'm kind of tired of this idea. Its been mentioned here a few times.

Short story: Both have their place.

Having HDMI does not obviate the need for SDI, although it might for some users. There are plenty of users who can't be restrained by HDMI.

Why? I'll give 8 reasons.

One: HDMI has relatively short cable runs.

This one matters the most to me.

I might like to run my cable 65 feet from the camera to the monitor where the director is sitting.

I can't do that with HDMI. 49 feet is the limit.

The cable with the longest HD SDI run I could find was Belden 7731A RG11 cable. The cable could run 540 feet in HD SDI. If you were using the same cable for SD SDI it can run 2730 feet.

I did see a 98ft HDMI with a built in repeater listed for $219. I'll believe that works when I see it, but they sell it. I'd want to see their HDMI certification first though. A stand alone HDMI repeater is about $60.

Or you could buy an RG179 100ft cable for about $70. About $49 if you make it yourself. (RG179 cables are limited to about 110 feet for HD SDI use, or 500 feet as SD SDI. Most RG59 cables can run HD SDI over 200 feet)

You can get an SDI repeater as well, but they are ridiculous. B&H has one for $1200. I have to admit however that I am not likely to run over 200 feet often. In the few instances I must, I can certainly use fiber. Past fiber I think I can just use broadcast.

Two HDMI isn't designed to be routable.

In fact HDMI has special features to make it UNroutable. I'm sure you've heard the HDCP horror stories.

So much for the idea of passing my HDMI signal through my SOLID on its way to my Monitor. Or through the monitor to the Cineform AND a separate DDR. Not a separate test unit because...

Three: there aren't test devices for HDMI.

Please point me at a waveform or vectorscope that has HDMI i/o. I can point you at a ton with SDI.

Four: 4K or 2K
HDMI is limited to 1080p

Although to be fair I doubt we'll see a 4K SOLID anytime soon, a 2K SOLID isn't much of a stretch. I could use a SOLID in a 4K pipeline as a 2K or 1080p recorder.

Five: I can make an SDI cable if needed in the field.

While that isn't impossible with HDMI it isn't even close to easy. HDMI has 19 or 29 connectors. The cable lengths have to be within 2/10000 of an inch tolerances, and the connectors have to be soldered.

I'm pretty sure most of us know how to make a BNC co-axial cable, and if you don't I can teach you how in ten minutes. 500 ft of RG59 suited for the task is $168 right now. (RG179 is more expensive at $205, but 500ft of that weights about 10lbs! That's why I use it wherever I can.)

Six: SDI to HDMI boxes are inconvenient.

Seriously, we'd be going from one external box to two in the simplest set ups.

After all, if adding a box is such a wonderful solution why not use one to convert HDMI to SDI? This argument is just as silly in both directions.

Its a tool to be used in odd situations, not as normal operation.

Seven: 16 audio Channels.

HDMI offers just 8.

On the up side for HDMI, its channels could be 24 bit 192KHz. SDI is limited to 24 bit 48KHz AES3 channels. I'd actually use 96KHz, but 192KHz is presently overkill. Of course most of us are recording audio on cameras with 48KHz systems anyway... so its not really a practical advantage yet.

Eight: 32 audio channels

What's that? Dual link, 2 x 16 AES3 channels per cable.

Nine: Positive locking connectors

I get frustrated enough with loose RCA connectors. HDMI connectors slip out VERY easily.

XLR and BNC connectors for my work please.

There is nothing more infuriating than shooting a show, then finding out your recorder wasn't getting your signals because a cable came loose.

************
HDMI is perfectly fine, and I am glad Cineform is undertaking an HDMI version of the SOLID. I even think its a good idea for them to make it first.

SDI has its advantages, and I am glad Cineform plans to make a version with that capability.

Well said.

I think Cineform knows and understands all this and will still have an SDI box for us in the future.

Can't wait to place my order.

The "loose connectors" item is the only issue I can totally agree with you on. Need to find a way to lock HDMI cables in. All of the other "problems" are based on the idea that an SDI-HDMI convertor is "inconvienient." If Cineform includes a power output, it should be reasonable. You are probably going to need an external battery power source anyway, plus a hard drive in most cases. It is still a way better than the current solution of dragging a Xena based capture workstation around. (Or a smaller Intensity based system.)

SOLID is a low budget product, there are many "more convienient" products in a higher price range. SOLID's advantage is in its price class. I am not saying Cineform shouldn't make an SDI version, I am just saying they shouldn't "need" to. SDI is limited to 1080p as well for all practical purposes, so that is not an issue. HDMI 1.3's deep color option is supported, they wouldn't even be limited to 8bit, but all budget cameras are 8bit anyway. And the original idea is to increase the record quality of lower budget cameras. One could argue that this would increase the record quality of an F900, but it would be a much smaller gain than you get from an HV20.

I think the quest for SDI is funny on this product.

Sure SDI has its place and CineForm may decide to cater to that market, but just looking at this device, that doesn't seem to be the focus at all, and would change the target group completely.

The HDMI option is a must and why I think they started this project anyway to cater to the explosion of camcorders that limit the user to M2T or whatever else. They have the most to gain and would buy this product price withstanding. Adding SDI would not benefit them. for most people that want SDI they usually wouldn't need HDMI.

So we either have a hybrid product or two different products. I only care about HDMI.

I just wished we would get professional XLR inputs than RCA... Being forced to route through the camera is just silly considering that audio is just as important as the video and we would all agree that most camcorders have lack luster amps.
M

I think the quest for SDI is funny on this product.

Oh really? Funny you say.

I think its serious business, but hey, that's just me.


Sure SDI has its place and CineForm may decide to cater to that market, but just looking at this device, that doesn't seem to be the focus at all, and would change the target group completely.

Why do you say that? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Replace the two HDMI ports with SDI ports and you have a device suited to a lot of pro cameras.

That's clearly what Cineform intends, since you need two HD SDI ports for dual link.

Of course if they want to do simultaneous output of dual link then they need 4 HD SDI connectors. Of course they could just support simultaneous input and output in single link mode, that would be an acceptable compromise.

Oh, and for audio we could just use 2 AES connectors instead of RCA.

The HDMI option is a must

Why do you say that? I mean I could argue, with merit, that you improve the results of low end cameras much more by replacing them with higher end cameras.

I mean, lets say you stick a SOLID on an HV20. You still have awful sensors, and a crummy lens. If you stick a 35mm adaptor on there then you still have crummy sensors.

So, for about $2000 and the resale value of your camera, you could buy a bunch of nicer cameras like an XH A1, which has much better sensors and will let you do more. Stick a 35mm rig on there and you start to get some pretty pictures, far exceeding a SOLID on a HV20. That's a rig the SOLID can do wonders for.

Oddly enough, an SDI SOLID would do wonders for an XH G1 in exactly the same fashion.

and why I think they started this project anyway to cater to the explosion of camcorders that limit the user to M2T or whatever else.

You strike on it without realizing.

"Whatever else" includes DVCPRO HD, AVC Intra, XDCAM and even HDCAM recording. Cineform is an impressive codec- although it certainly isn't flawless. If nothing else moving from 8 bit to 10 bit would be an immense benefit.

They have the most to gain and would buy this product price withstanding. Adding SDI would not benefit them. for most people that want SDI they usually wouldn't need HDMI.

Wrong again. SDI cameras have a lot to gain from improved recording codecs. I do agree with the notion that SDI users don't need HDMI though.

An HV20 or comparable camera has an 8 bit signal path. HDMI is there, but the camera is 8 bit. As I already pointed out the sensors suck- in great part because they are built around this 8 bit design. The sensor exceeds 4:2:0 well enough to benefit from 4:2:2 recording, but it won't saturate the 4:2:2 color space.

Step up to a camera like the EX1, and you get a 10 bit HD SDI output. The camera's built in recorder is XDCAM HD at 35Mbps... its just a modernized step above HDV, and its 8 bit. It has a real 4:2:2 sensor- and it can saturate the color space.

As we step up the line of cameras we have the upcoming XDCAM 4:2:2 camera, which is pretty amazing as a camera, but is fairly hobbled by its proposed recorder- which is XDCAM professional disc at 50Mbps. A Cineform SOLID will make that camera competitive with a Sony F950 or F23.

The F900 would even benefit. The F900 is a very very impressive camera, probably the best unit I've had the privilege of using, but its recorder hobbles it.

In other words in direct contravention of Mike MNcCarthy's comment... there is way more data for the SOLID to "save" on a high end camera than on an HV20 or other low end camera.

Also... data saved on a higher end camera is more likely to be usable by people with higher end facilities.

I mean you don't have the ability to monitor 10 bit video even if you could record it right? I mean there is a good chance your monitor doesn't fully support 8 bit video. So how could you use 10 bit in your DI suite? You might get some benefit because the software would work in 10 bit even though you can't see it... but you couldn't intentionally take advantage of it.

So why do you even want a SOLID?

So we either have a hybrid product or two different products. I only care about HDMI.

So what? No really. That is great for you- you only want HDMI, fine.

From a business perspective though it sounds like you are a small time operator. You might buy one or possibly two SOLID's.

An outfit that uses HD SDI for live performances might buy 10 HD SDI solids. Even a relatively small operator like me will buy 2-4 units. Large productions with lots of VFX might snap up dozens of them. (Think of the studios that do those awful "SciFi Saturday" movies, of which they have 3-6 in production all the time. Then again, Cineform might refuse to sell them units for the sake of the art of film making.)

Its easy business decision when I consider that I have to buy an HDCAM SR recorder to match Cineform quality.

I just wished we would get professional XLR inputs than RCA... Being forced to route through the camera is just silly considering that audio is just as important as the video and we would all agree that most camcorders have lack luster amps.
M

I agree with you on something at least, but even if the SOLID has XLR inputs we can't expect much in the way of quality mic pre-amps. Its just too tiny to get the kind of clean power needed.

So... what I'd do is run the mics off a mixing board, then feed the mixed audio to the camera. Set the camera up to perform 0dB gain at line level, not mic level- in other words not to alter the signal. That should give decent results if the pre-amp is properly designed.

(It doesn't have to be a good quality pre-amp, just correct. A lot of cameras that ship with XLR meet that low standard.)

Of course if you have an HD SDI SOLID, you can run discreet audio channels from your mixer to an SDI audio embedder. Then you can take up to 16 channels right into the SOLID over its SDI inputs. (32 if you use dual link input, which Cineform plans to support.) That neatly bypasses the camera.

But why would anyone want to do something so funny ?

I am kind of cranky about this... a lot of people who clearly don't understand SDI keep coming on here and bad mouthing those of us who need, want and can use SDI i/o.

I am kind of cranky about this... a lot of people who clearly don't understand SDI keep coming on here and bad mouthing those of us who need, want and can use SDI i/o.
No disrespect..to you...but this product is not marketed for users like you. I include myself among these "small-time' users who want a product like this for more reasons that I can jot down. No need for you to be cranky. There are much more options out there for individuals like yourself to choose from... but for the majority of users (and I am talking strictly consumers with prosumer aspirations) this product is the ticket for bypassing the typical compression that we get so aggravated with.

The cool thing about a product like this is..when we outgrow our cams....we will still have this to capture to....until something similar or better comes along. You shouldnt be upset because they (Cineform) are not gearing this product for a more professional crowd....... I say more power to them.... anything to keep the price down so the average joe can get quality (and I know that's subjective) pictures..with their cheap cams....cheap lens and all. You should probably advocate for a more professional higher end unit than this...but...I'll definately take what they are currently dishing out.

I totally agree with Ian. So you are a potential power user of the SOLID, so what. Even if you buy 2-4 or more SOLIDs, I can guarantee you that for everyone in your class of operation there are 5 or more average-joe consumers with Canon HV20's (et al) that will want this. This means we have more buying potential/power. You are not the sweet spot for this product's target market.

While we are speculating about the SOLID and future workflows......

Does anybody have a solution for software-based monitoring/scoping through the HDMI signal? So far, On Location is only compatible with a firewire signal. I have found a company that has monitoing software that can use the Blackmagic Intensity Card to scope an HDMI signal, but the software (Scopebox) only works on a Mac. I am on a PC. I am looking for a solution that will work with the SOLID's HDMI out port so that I can do more than just the rough monitoring that may be available through the SOLID's dispay. Thanks

...I am kind of cranky about this... a lot of people who clearly don't understand SDI keep coming on here and bad mouthing those of us who need, want and can use SDI i/o.

There are much more options out there for individuals like (Alexander) to choose from... but for the majority of users (and I am talking strictly consumers with prosumer aspirations) this product is the ticket for bypassing the typical compression that we get so aggravated with...

I totally agree with Ian. So you are a potential power user of the SOLID, so what. Even if you buy 2-4 or more SOLIDs, I can guarantee you that for everyone in your class of operation there are 5 or more average-joe consumers with Canon HV20's (et al) that will want this. This means we have more buying potential/power. You are not the sweet spot for this product's target market...
Well, this is certainly interesting - who wants Solid more, consumers with prosumer aspirations or professionals dipping down into prosumer land?

No, no, no! ME! I want it more!!!

Owning a Sony V1, probably to be replaced by an EX1 in the future, I'd want HDMI now and HDSDI in the future... and XLR input, but no need for preamps, line-level is fine and I'll use a mixer, thank you very much. And, a fully featured timecode generator. So, I guess I'm with Alexander in my preferred usage. And there are many pros who would love to spend less and get equivalent usage to HDCAM, or DVCPRO-HD.

Frankly, I just wasn't aware of the strong HV20 following who are looking for an HDMI recorder. But that's pretty cool.

It's really fascinating that a proposed $2500 HD recorder (with Cineform quality) excites interest from both low-market/hobbiest and high-end users, we just care about it connecting to our respective uncompressed camera outputs.

Maybe Cineform have already answered this thread:

"We anticipate developing multiple members in the recorder product family - each targeting different recording needs. This first device targets HDV camcorder users and offers the ability to bypass the highly-compressed MPEG format. The features specification is below. We imagine a sister device that supports single-link and dual-link HD-SDI recording."

http://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm

Patrick

No disrespect..to you...but this product is not marketed for users like you.

I totally agree with Ian.

Fortunately, Cineform disagrees with you and Ian. They are after all making a SOLID HD-SDI dual link. As pointed out now by at least four people in the thread, it says so on their page for the product.

I think Cineform should make BOTH versions. There is plenty of need for BOTH.

I can't understand why you and your ilk want to argue against them making an SDI unit. I need it, there are tons of people like me. What purpose does it serve for you to complain about what I might need, and what Cineform wants to sell me to fill that need? How does it hurt you for me and Cineform to do that bit of business?

So- if you don't want an SDI version, don't buy one. Enough already.

FWIW I may get an HDMI version too- because I can use an HV20 as a disposable camera. Stick it out at the end of a long HDMI cable and run a car right over it. Beat it with a bat - or any number of shots that require breaking a camera.

Of course- those shots often get done as CG, so maybe not.

Does anybody have a solution for software-based monitoring/scoping through the HDMI signal?

No, nobody does real picture or technical monitoring over HDMI.

It seems that once again another member of the "NO SDI" crowd needs another feature provided for by SDI. There are tons of waveform/vectorscope combos out there, both hardware and software, for SDI.

Not only that, but I really doubt you'll see anyone spend the R&D dollars to make a HDMI scope or a production monitor. HDMI users aren't likely to spend $4K on a monitor or $7K on a scope if they don't want to spend $6K on the camera.

The Intensity/Scopebox combo is the best you are going to get for a while. I predict there will be competitors, and a Windows software solution.

You won't see a laptop HDMI i/o card until a version of Expresscard comes out that supports uncompressed HD data rates. The Expresscard standard supports a peak bandwidth of 2.5Gbps... but I don't think any real laptop machines can sustain HD bandwidth to the interface yet. Peak TOTAL bandwidth of laptops is ~8.5Gbps, with that they have to handle all disk, USB, firewire, Expresscard and graphics i/o. The same goes for HD-SDI for the same reasons. Maybe 2009.

Of course if you are going to have an Intensity on set with a desktop computer to do monitoring, well it seems like a very small step to just do your capture using a Cineform codec on the Intensity/Scopebox machine. That would obviate the need for a SOLID.

If you need a more mobile solution for technical monitoring of HDMI, then AJA's ioHD has HDMI inputs. You can monitor using Final Cut's scopes while capturing to ProRes. Again this would obviate the need for a SOLID. The bad news there is that you'll be monitoring the ProRes signal not the raw HDMI feed. Its also going to run you at least ~$6K

The two cheapest HD scopes I could find are the Compuvideo 1100HD for $3500. It is analog i/o only and has no outputs, so its the end of your video path. The Compuvideo 1700HDSDP which is $5500, but offers composite and component analog and SDI i/o for both SD and HD. It also offers both analog and SDI output for post monitoring.

The bad news is that while Compuvideo is by far the cheapest hardware scope maker they have a certain reputation. Leader's HD scopes start at $7500. I know Harris makes some HD scopes around there too, but prices for both makes race off into the mid teens pretty fast. I suppose Tektronix is competitively priced, but I haven't shopped them.

For high quality sound, a $600 Core-sound Mic2496 "battery powered 24-bit/96 kiloSamples-per-second two-channel mic pre-amp/A-to-D converter" might be a good match for the Cineform recorder. Digital outputs are: coaxial (RCA jack), optical (Toslink), Output data format: S/PDIF.

http://www.core-sound.com/Mic2496/1.php

Could the Cineform have a digital S/PDIF input?

Patrick

CineForm's 444 format at the FilmScan2 resolution actually *outperforms* Sony's high-end HDCAM-SR format . . . that makes it not only a candidate for users who want to get away from the compression of M2T files, but also for those in very high-end scenarios who would have traditionally used a SR-1 recorder, and will now have other alternatives (that won't require re-digitizing from another $100K deck, and also allow for a tapeless workflow without having to resort to DPX files).

So both HDMI for the low-end and dual-link HD-SDI for the high-end are smart moves, and there is no point in omitting either. Both sets of users can benefit greatly by the workflow improvements that CineForm can provide.

Here's an interesting comparison of framegrabs taken from EX1 footage in HQ mode. This is a Photoshop CS3 file, with layers. The only "processing" done was to convert 32 bit mode to studio RGB in Vegas 8 Pro.

Layer 1: Vegas 8 bit native mxf
Layer 2: vegas 8 bit CFHD avi converted with filmscan1
Layer 3: Vegas 32 bit native mxf
Layer 4: Vegas 32 bit CFHD avi converted with filmscan1

I think the results are fairly conclusive, however, I'll withhold my judgment until others have a chance to look at these frame grabs.
EDIT: hmmm, apparently I can't upload .PSD files. No difference between 32 bit and 8 bit. The CFHD avi is noticeably softer than the native mxf file.

I don't care what type of audio inputs are used, just as long as they are very high quality, they don't have a problem with disconnecting themselves, and they are easily compatible with all the high-quality pre-amps and mixers.

Is there any way possible to have an audio-only recording mode? When I have a SOLID, I would like to use it to do some "in-the-field" recording just for audio sometimes.

The CFHD avi is noticeably softer than the native mxf file.

Bill, what version of Cineform did you use?