I'm using NeoHD

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.

While it is not totally related to this thread, if you ever see a difference in Filmscan1 quality you are not seeing a CineForm compression issue, you are seeing a difference in MPEG2 decoders (which are all different, HDLink uses a different decoder to Vegas.) This is another good reason to bypass MPEG on capture. At Filmscan1 we can faithly reconstruct everything MPEG does wrong ;)

Interesting comment, David.
You make a good case, then, for recording out SDI.
I've often wondered about the Elecard MPEG2 decoder that HDLink uses. I beleive Vegas uses the Mainconcept codec.

An HDMI version and an SDI version would be totally different products in a certain respect. On the low budget end, the HDMI version avoids HDV compression, with reasonable mini-XLR inputs for audio, and is a low budget $2K product.

A dual link HD-SDI version would need to support a higher level of processing power, and a higher data rate for 444 material, with the accompanying heat etc. This logically puts it farther out in the future. A dual link HD-SDI recorder should probably have AES inputs for high quality, using the camera pre-amps or an external mixer. The big difference will be in price, with the electronics for SDI input being much more expensive. (For example Decklink vs. Intensity) It is likely that an SDI version would be much more expensive, especially if it supported 10bit or dual link. That plus the increased compression required would likely push the price closer to $5K. This is very similar to Convergent design's Flash XBR, and would compete with it. Solid's files can be edited immediately in realtime with Prospect, but XBR's OP1A files should edit in realtime on an AXIO, among other systems. On the otherhand there is no remote competition for an HDMI version of the Solid.

I am not saying that there should never be an SDI Solid, I am just saying that from a technical and business standpoint, HDMI makes much more sense, especially to start with. SDI is a logical second step as the hardware evolves, but it targets a totally different market, with much more competition and higher expectations.

If you're talking dual link HD SDI and 4:4:4, you're looking at a premium level product that should be pitched at very high-end users. Surely this would be a competitor for a mega-expensive HDCAM-SR deck? You'd also be looking at a high bandwidth, very fast, very *large* storage medium to be able to acquire the footage in realtime.

You'd also be looking at a high bandwidth, very fast, very *large* storage medium to be able to acquire the footage in realtime.

Really? FilmScan2 typically runs at around 50MB/s for 444 RGB . . . couldn't that be done now with a single fast 2.5" SSD?

Thanks,

Jason

A quick question with (probably) a long answer...
With this ultra cool way to get a great picture stuffed into a tiny file (eg. HD 1080p+ into Cineform CFHD files)....

Couldn't Cineform's technology be implemented into each end of a HD 1080i broadcast system - like Comcast?

With smaller, better looking files than MPEG-2 1080 flavors being sent over copper, wouldn't that effectively make the whole HD-DVD/BluRay thing moot? (As far as viewing/distribution of HD movies). I mean if its visually lossless.. and you can edit and color correct in 10-bit or higher 4:4:4 color space, then one should never leave this codec... period.

I am just questioning having ANYTHING stored on removable plastic discs these days. And I want to buy a flat panel TV with a "Cineform Inside" logo on it.

Matt: Amen!

Why not start with in-camera recording in Cineform codec.

And I want to buy a flat panel TV with a "Cineform Inside" logo on it.

And you can. CineForm licensed it name to Hitachi ago 4 years ago to use on HDTVs. :)

Seriously speaking though, does Cineform support multichannel sound?

Say, for broadcast - or, for a movie theater digital projection, how would one encode surround sound into Cineform video?

Seriously speaking though, does Cineform support multichannel sound?

Say, for broadcast - or, for a movie theater digital projection, how would one encode surround sound into Cineform video?

We don't care what you put in the audio channels. We are doing projects with 5.1 and stereo mixes, resulting in 8-channel audio in a single AVI/MOV. The only issue remaining in support with the NLEs, which can have limitation for handle audio like that.

We don't care what you put in the audio channels. We are doing projects with 5.1 and stereo mixes, resulting in 8-channel audio in a single AVI/MOV. The only issue remaining in support with the NLEs, which can have limitation for handle audio like that.

I guess a better way to put it is, does the container format in which Cineform is used support multichannel audio.

The answer I think depends entirely on the container. Quicktime supports any number of audio, video and subtitle streams, and so does its derivative MPEG-4 containers .mp4 and .m4a The limits on Quicktime and MPEG-4 are based entirely in practical engineering not the container format.

I mean, after all what exactly would you actually do with a Quicktime file that had 256 video streams and 1024 audio streams, plus 192 subtitle streams? Wait... don't tell me.

Another perhaps more useful question is how many audio inputs does Cineform expect the SOLID to support?

In the HDMI version I would expect a max of 8 channels (which is HDMI's limit). HDMI itself supports 24 bit 192 KHz sampling, but I can't think of a single HDMI camera that does better than 16 bit 48KHz.

An SDI SOLID should probably support 32 channels of 24 bit 48KHz audio, in dual link mode or 16 channels in single link mode.

The AES standard permits sample rates up to 96KHz for signals recorded at 20 bits or higher... but recommends 48KHz. Now, that said, I'd like to see it capable of supporting 96KHz, in case it ends up getting used as a field audio recorder- as some people have already suggested.

Finally another possible question is how many analog audio inputs are planned for solid? The HDMI version seems to have two RCA connectors.

I am guessing the SDI version will be specced with two or four miniXLR connectors, or two XLR connectors.

That means the rest of your audio inputs will have to be from either the HDMI or SDI inputs.

That said, you now have enough channels to do whatever you want. Those channels could be premixed into a 28.4 surround mastering mix on the SDI version... although I think THAT would be silly. More realistically they could be a bunch of mic inputs to be mixed in post.

If you're talking dual link HD SDI and 4:4:4, you're looking at a premium level product that should be pitched at very high-end users. Surely this would be a competitor for a mega-expensive HDCAM-SR deck? You'd also be looking at a high bandwidth, very fast, very *large* storage medium to be able to acquire the footage in realtime.

SOLID competing with HDCAM SR decks?

Yes and No.

There are a number of things HDCAM SR can do that Cineform isn't even proposing. One is real over and undercranking using SR motion.

The Filmscan 1 and Filmscan 2 4:4:4 modes that compare to dual link HDCAM SR are 320Mbps and 384Mbps respectively. That is damned impressive viewed as bandwidth alone- its half the HDCAM SR bandwidth!

There is a price though- The Cineform codec chews up a lot more CPU power than HDCAM SR. Of course if you have a nice system its very usable.

You can't record Filmscan 2 on CF cards right now. So a Filmscan 2 solution would have to be based on something other than SOLID state.

You need 40MB/s for Filmscan 1 4:4:4. Right now the new 300x UDMA CF cards give you that rate- just barely. You'd get about 3 minutes on an 8GB CF card.

That's pretty hard on the ACs folks. Oh but I bet the DP (me!) and Colorist (often me too!) will be mighty pleased! It actually isn't so bad compared to film mags.

Card sizes will increase, and then it will be totally doable. 16GB and 32GB CF cards at 300x- and maybe faster- are on the way.

The SDI SOLID should support both Filmscan modes. Of course I suppose I'll be using it at 4:2:2. 6 minutes per card is much more workable.

I don't expect that we'll see either of those Filmscan modes supported on the HDMI SOLID. I'm guessing that the UDMA CF slot costs a bit more to manufacture. Two 32GB 133x cards will handle the "High" Cineform mode and give you about an hour record time.

Of course if you've been paying attention, Cineform's High mode is good enough to finish 2K projects for projection

After a lot of testing in this area, I recommend FS1 over High when possible. Although High is "Visually lossless" you begin to reach a point where the changes due to compression can be detected on a waveform monitor, while FS1 does not have that issue. (In my experience) It would probably be a good idea to have FS1 available as an option, even on the HDMI Solid. And I figure that it will probably be there among others, since one thing Cineform products are never short on, is a large selection of somewhat ambigious and subjective compression levels :) (Low, Medium, High, Higher, High Optimized, FS1, FS2, FS1 ChromaKey, FS2 ChromaKey...)

Really? FilmScan2 typically runs at around 50MB/s for 444 RGB . . . couldn't that be done now with a single fast 2.5" SSD?

Thanks,

Jason

Nice point. Assuming the interface remains constant by the time a dual link SOLID came along an SSD with enough capacity that isn't stupendously expensive might well be viable.

After a lot of testing in this area, I recommend FS1 over High when possible. Although High is "Visually lossless" you begin to reach a point where the changes due to compression can be detected on a waveform monitor, while FS1 does not have that issue. (In my experience) It would probably be a good idea to have FS1 available as an option, even on the HDMI Solid. And I figure that it will probably be there among others, since one thing Cineform products are never short on, is a large selection of somewhat ambigious and subjective compression levels :) (Low, Medium, High, Higher, High Optimized, FS1, FS2, FS1 ChromaKey, FS2 ChromaKey...)

Well I agree more options is better. I'm too used to Sony et. al and their miserly ways with features.

That said, I don't know if filmscan will really be useful to HDMI users.

I think that most HDMI cameras have more noise in the sensors than High will introduce until you go to 8 or more generations.

In other words you don't need it at acquisition.

It may be smart to convert footage that will be heavily processed selectively in post to Filmscan. Of course you could acquire with the same forethought.

I am not sure about noise levels in low end SDI cameras.

I know that the Canon units have a bit of noise, but I think they are an edge case for filmscan at acquisition. Maybe at negative gain values for them? (Of course that would apply to similar HDMI models as well.)

The EX1 should be able to use Filmscan at 0db and negative gain values. +3dB is my guess at where the value starts to drop off. Otherwise High should be fine.

Next years prosumer HDMI models, maybe even new models at NAB, will probably change the story... so I guess that having the option is a good thing- even if it costs us money.

Will the Sony EX-1 work with the Cineform Portable Recorder?

David,
Convergent Design is trying to have their SDI recorder ready by NAB '08...
any chance Cineform will have their HDMI recorder ready by then?

Not by NAB, sorry.

I just wanted to give some feedback on features Cineform says they are considering.

From Cineform's Solid site (http://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm). What Cineform wrote is bold.

Power: Mounted battery - still TBD

Please. Pretty please. With sugar on top? Pretty please with sugar on top, some whipped cream and a cherry?

I don't know what the power requirements are, but at least make some kind of optional battery/cradle arrangement that can be mounted to the unit.

Requested Features under consideration:

Dual CF slots for continuous recording.

I consider this essential for every version.

I'd like to point out that Convergent Design's Flash XDR is supposed to have 4 CF slots. That might be a good choice on a dual link SDI capable unit.

I don't know if there is enough market to make it worth making an SDI version and a seperate dual link capable version- right now my understanding is that you are looking at one SDI version that can handle dual link. Just thinking about costs.

Component HD input. Comment: We're really tempted to keep the first version of the recorder as a digital-only device. But we realize older camcorders don't have HDMI. So I think we'd like to explore a small form-factor external component-to-HDMI converter with a partner.

I think this is perfectly acceptable. I really want analog i/o support, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Maybe I can put the bug in your ear about a competitor to the AJA ioHD? Basically a big one of these with all the connectors anyone might need that supports Cineform instead of ProRes and has CF cards for recording. Oh, and for goodness sakes give the thing its own battery as well as plug in capability. I'd love something useful to me in the studio and the field- but it is a different product.

Replace dual RCA jacks (shown) with 3mm stereo mini jack (too flimsy?) OR Replace dual RCA jacks with BNC connectors so cords don't become unplugged

Clips to hold HDMI and audio cables in place so they don't fall out

I reordered these because they are related.

3.5mm headphone jacks are far too flimsy so definitely leave them off please. Well... except for connecting headphones of course.

Clips are essential if you use consumer style connectors.

Forget BNC connectors for RCA. You shouldn't be using "weird" connectors for standard connections. If its an RCA connector, then use an RCA connection and some clip arrangement to secure the cable.

If I hand this thing to someone who's never heard of it before and tell them to hook it up I want them to be able to just look at the connectors and know what its about without a manual or instructions. If they see BNC audio jacks they may think its AES/EBU!

On that note... what about AES/EBU connectors? If you want all digital.. that would meet that criterion. Of course the dearth of things equipped with AES connectors right now should keep this in the "no" column. But hey... there will be a version 2 right?

I want to reiterate that pro connectors are a smarter choice. My vote is still for MiniXLR connectors which take up a similar amount of space to the RCA connector. They have positive lock- check them out. They aren't out of bounds given the audience.

If miniXLR doesn't suit you consider 1/4" TRS connectors, which is at least more common. They require a whole bunch of internal space though.

Oh, I want mic level inputs and phantom power too... but expecting a pre-amp in there is too much to ask.

Firewire interface. Comment: Maybe. We wouldn't use FW for data, only for START/STOP control. Although the signaling is present, even Sony doesn't use the FW port on their hard disk recorder (HVR-DR60) for START/STOP control.

I like the idea of remote control... but it may be overkill.

If I am hooked up to the SOLID then I am not going to need the camera's recorders. Starting and stopping the SOLID itself serves my needs. Just so long as the camera stays on. (XL-1 users lament! What.. they aren't the target audience you say? Nevermind.)

If you do put a FW interface on, then don't be shy. Do it right or skip it. Make it a 6 or preferably 9 pin FW connector and that way I can power small devices through the SOLID.

Consider giving users a menu to configure its operation.

I might configure it for camera control as suggested, or I might want to use it to connect to a FW disk or I might want to use it to connect the SOLID to a computer for transfer.

Heck, I know it defeats the main purpose of the device but if I really wanted to, let me record HDV onto the CF cards. I suppose I might desperately need the space or I may need to stay compatible with HDV for some weird reason.

Flexibility.

Belt Mount

I don't know. Belt mount is maybe too specific.

Perhaps you should make a screw mount, and a few accessories.

That way I can screw in a clip and clip it to my belt, or screw in a shoe adapter and attach it to the camera or stick it on its own little tripod or... you get the idea.

Go for flexibility of design.

Regarding the recording media: new generation of CF cards appears to be in the works, called CFast:

http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9877176-1.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=Crave

Should have up to 375MB/s bandwidth.

And, it is *incompatible* with today's CF cards.

Will Cineform recorder be future-proof and support CFast cards?

Should have up to 375MB/s bandwidth.

To be clear they are talking about the interface bandwidth, not the card performance.

You may as well expect a SATA Hard Drive with 300MB/s read/write performance.

And, it is *incompatible* with today's CF cards.

Will Cineform recorder be future-proof and support CFast cards?

I think this sort of answers itself- the Cineform recorder will either support CF cards and be incompatible with CFast or it will support CFast and be incompatible with CF cards.

There is a remote possibility that Cineform could make a unit that had both CFast and CF card slots, but in a device of this size that would be a waste.

Should we care about CFast compatibility at this stage?

I don't think so.

When CFast first appears it isn't going to have much practical advantage over CF cards.

Before I go further let me point out a fallacy in the Crave article. CF cards support 133MB/s peak theoretical bandwidth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactFlash#CF.2B_specification_revisions), not the 80MB/s the article claims.

The various manufacturers aren't making CF cards faster than 300x because the flash chips aren't fast enough.

If faster flash chips were available they could at least get out to 600x CF speeds.

(While the theoretical max speed of the PATA bus is ~900x CF speed, practical signaling issues would limit this to closer to 700x I'm estimating based on peak PATA hard disk performance.)

The proposed Cineform SOLID recorder works with 133x CF cards, as does the Convergent Designs Flash XDR.

I expect that that both of these devices have hardware to take advantage of increased read/write speeds of 300x CF cards- and possibly even faster. If so I expect software/firmware updates will allow us to do a bit more. (like capture at higher data rates)

Finally, while CFast is coming, CF cards won't go anywhere for a long while, just like PATA drives are still readily available.

So... again we don't need to be worried about CFast for the time being.

I am going to keep an eye on the technology, and eventually I expect to purchase and use it, but my guess that eventually is two to three years down the road.

It would be lovely if the DDR supports 1394 as well. For normal wedding video guys like me, most of our cameras don't have HDMI or SDI. Please add this support, we are a big market for this DDR.

It would be lovely if the DDR supports 1394 as well. For normal wedding video guys like me, most of our cameras don't have HDMI or SDI. Please add this support, we are a big market for this DDR.

I think they should add that support too, but you must understand that the Cineform will just be a CF recorder for your regular DV or HDV then... you won't get any quality improvement AT ALL. None... zip zilch nada.

This is because the video signal out firewire is already compressed.

You'd probably be better served with a Firestore.

By CF do you mean CineForm or CompactFlash?

I'd love to have an alternative to Firestore that was already encoded to CineForm - even at a higher price point! The responsiveness and support of the CineForm gang would be worth the price difference!

By CF do you mean CineForm or CompactFlash?

I'd love to have an alternative to Firestore that was already encoded to CineForm - even at a higher price point! The responsiveness and support of the CineForm gang would be worth the price difference!


I mean Compact Flash.

I can also see I was not clear enough... if you use firewire as input to the Cineform Recorder, what you will get is compressed DV or HDV footage exactly as it comes out of the camera.

(I don't know what would happen with DVCPRO or AVC Intra cameras, but I expect they'd have to be recorded in their native output mode.)

This is because the camera outputs COMPRESSED video via firewire.

All Cineform would record is the raw stream exactly as it comes out the camera.

There is no point in decoding and recompressing it again in the recorder. Doing so would actually DECREASE quality.

I would lobby Cineform to make recording whatever comes down the Firewire pipe possible... just because it would occasionally be useful.

I am all for flexibility in the product... so long as it doesn't raise the price unnecessarily.

What I really want is the ability to use firewire for storage, to control the camera, and to hook up to a computer to offload stuff from the Cineform Recorder.

If FW is enabled for all that then recording raw camera data shouldn't be a huge thing.

I think they should add that support too, but you must understand that the Cineform will just be a CF recorder for your regular DV or HDV then... you won't get any quality improvement AT ALL. None... zip zilch nada.

This is because the video signal out firewire is already compressed.

You'd probably be better served with a Firestore.

That's right. I just need a CF recorder with multi CF slots. Unfortunately this thing is currently not available. If Firestore records to CF, that would be great. However, it does not. I like this DDR to record to Cineform avi as well... however, that would eat up the CF capacity.

Is there any way possible to include an "audio recording only" mode in the SOLID?

That's a great idea Robert, I hope they do.

I hope they can tease us with some more info on this product before NAB, but I'm guessing they won't. Hopefully this product is coming out soon though.

Another alternative to CF:

http://www.videography.com/articles/article_15613.shtml

Quote: "Maxell Corp.’s Professional Media Products division will introduce a new lightweight, rugged and shock resistant compact removable hard drive solution for field archive operations at NAB."

"connects directly through a bi-directional USB or e-sata adapter to a shoulder-mounted camcorder capable of delivering 10-bit, 4:2:2 master-quality video and native full HD video. In its current form factor, Maxell iVDR solution can store 160 GB of data and has a transfer rate of 540 Mbps."

Duhhhhhhh. Excuse my ignorance, but since when does any cam have

"bi-directional USB or e-sata" ports with video out? Sounds like any portable USB/eSATA drive!

And even more, why would that replace CF? One of the reasons we use it in the field is to process the video from the SDI or HDMI before it's compressed, thus getting the bump to 10-bit and 4:2:2 and having ready to edit material when we return to the studio.

If they're talking "removable" as in RED or something, this news is in the wrong place.

I think that he ment CF in the term Compact Flash and not CF as in Cineform... it can be a bit confusing... iVDR seem to be a new standard for removable disk. Check out http://www.ivdr.org/iVDR/ivdr_e.html for more info on it. Basically that would be the storage part of the solution. Probably more manufacturers are making solutions that bridges between a camera and the storage in the same fashion the Cineform HDMI recorder will.

I think that he ment CF in the term Compact Flash and not CF as in Cineform... it can be a bit confusing... iVDR seem to be a new standard for removable disk. Check out http://www.ivdr.org/iVDR/ivdr_e.html for more info on it. Basically that would be the storage part of the solution. Probably more manufacturers are making solutions that bridges between a camera and the storage in the same fashion the Cineform HDMI recorder will.

Okay, that makes a whole lot more sense!

Light begins to shine thru the mud of the ruins of my chocolate-clogged neural network.........

iVDR seems like a short-lived bridge technology to me.........(sort of like BluRay will prove to be).

The R&D investment in fast/big, non-magnetic, non-mechanical storage tech is too great and too far advanced in my way of thinking. We've certainly seen a lot of this type mechanical stuff come and go since the mid-80's.

The estimate is for over a 100 SSD OEM's this year in the marketplace, and with Intel's entry, things will most probably continue to go that way.

The newest offerings from BiTMICRO, Memoright, Mtron, and Samsung are 1.8"-2.5" form factors and all do at least 100-120MB sustained writes and all have SATA interfaces.

We still have boxes of cartridge-based disks sitting on a shelf somewhere, that we hope to never pay for again. It's just not as good as SSD, period. It may be cheaper...but I'll bet money you'll live to regret it if you buy into it.

My two bits

23 pages - too much to read, if my question has already been asked then apologies.

Ok, can this unit record the 35mm full frame output of a Nikon D3 liveview via HDMI?

23 pages - too much to read, if my question has already been asked then apologies.

Ok, can this unit record the 35mm full frame output of a Nikon D3 liveview via HDMI?

Yes. Because HDMI limited to HD (1920x1080) resolution :)

"record the 35mm full frame output of a Nikon D3 liveview via HDMI"

Wow, this seems like it basically turns the D3 into a camcorder! How does the D3 compare to the HV20, and what framerate(s) does it record at?

"Wow, this seems like it basically turns the D3 into a camcorder!"

Man, this would be a dream come true! If this is possible, I would strongly advise Cineform to make the analog audio inputs a reality. I would love to see the day when I could set up a Nikon DSLR, a good microphone hooked up to a mic pre-amp and route the HD video and audio signal to a Cineform SOLID unit that recorded both onto Compact Flash.

Talk about revolutionary! Can someone with a D3 please tell us if this is even possible?

Man, this would be a dream come true! If this is possible, I would strongly advise Cineform to make the analog audio inputs a reality. I would love to see the day when I could set up a Nikon DSLR, a good microphone hooked up to a mic pre-amp and route the HD video and audio signal to a Cineform SOLID unit that recorded both onto Compact Flash.

Talk about revolutionary! Can someone with a D3 please tell us if this is even possible?

To me, at first glance, this looks too good to be true, but.........
I'd have some questions like:

What kind of signal is REALLY coming out that HDMI port?
Is there any way to get RAW data out a HDMI port?
What processing is applied to the signal BEFORE it comes out?
Why would a major manufacturer want to threaten their higher end video cam lines by making a HD "solution" that would only need separate audio recording and utilizes all their good lenses?

Something somewhere is just too good to be true ... these guys are too wiley for that...

To the best of my knowledge, neither Cineform nor Nikon make any kind of "higher end" video camera, or for that matter, any "video" camera at all. So, I don't think they'd have much to lose.

It seems like there are a few key things we'd need to find out:

1. Does the Nikon send a live feed off the CMOS sensor out the HDMI port when the camera is in shooting mode? OR

2. Is the HDMI port just for viewing pictures already taken?

If 1., then we'd need to know the frame rate and what kind of processing is done before it sends the video signal out the HDMI port.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Cineform nor Nikon make any kind of "higher end" video camera, or for that matter, any "video" camera at all. So, I don't think they'd have much to lose.

It seems like there are a few key things we'd need to find out:

1. Does the Nikon send a live feed off the CMOS sensor out the HDMI port when the camera is in shooting mode? OR

2. Is the HDMI port just for viewing pictures already taken?

If 1., then we'd need to know the frame rate and what kind of processing is done before it sends the video signal out the HDMI port.

Don't recall refering to or even suggesting Cineform as making cameras...but you're right about the Nikon. Brain spasm for sure...problem was I've been reading about the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III and it has video out and "Live view". The Sony and the Canon got mixed together in my brain.

Must be lack of chocolate...

Anyway, comment on the manufacturers motives aside, the questions still stand.

For those wondering about the video output on the Nikon D3 or, in my case, D300, read my post here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=117734

In short, it's not looking good for practical use.

Since my earlier post, which was sparked by frame grabs I saw on the bottom of this page which look pretty good

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond3/page9.asp

it appears the LV HDMI is only about 15 fps.

As for overheating - this doesnt apply since the on camera display is turned off when HDMI is connected - which is the primary source of heat generation..

So we must wait for the D4...

If Nikon go with the latest FF35mm Sony chip in the D4, then it should get interesting.

D3 output at 6400 ISO is amazing

I've been watching this thread for awhile. It seems like there are a lot of good suggestions to add to the concept and some of those may eventually be incorporated, since Cineform is developing, "a range of recorders". But I would suggest that the concept recorder (on the CF website) might also benefit from having an even simpler little brother, in a fashion similar to the portable audio recorders sold by Sony and Zoom, etc.. Zoom has the bigger H4 and the smaller H2. Sony has the bigger PCM-D1 (~$2K US list) and the smaller PCM-D50 (generally available in the sub-$500 range)

The CF recorder "mini" would only have a small digital numerical display/buttons to indicate status and to control the unit. It would have one 16 GB CF card as the media, only HDMI in and no output ports at all. With a little effort, the size of the unit could be reduced to that of a a pack of playing cards.

BTW, I suspect that someone will soon develop a similar unit, but the codec will be AVCHD.

Just stumbled across this-- awesome little box, I wish it were here today!

Regarding audio connectors... do most of the HDMI camcorders take their audio inputs and embed the signal into the HDMI, or are they lame and don't do that? I'm assuming that that's why this is a discussion at all. Otherwise, there's no point in audio connectors. If you did have them, though, do not settle for anything less than XLR connectors-- Cineform is for professionals, and professionals need to use balanced audio. (you could also try "mini xlr" if you're worried about space, and provide some adapters). Don't use BNC for audio, it's way out of spec to do that.

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

Audio can indeed be embedded into the HDMI signal. I would imagine that the inclusion of a separate audio input would be invaluable for audio coming from another source. Surely a dedicated mic would provide better quality sound than a camera-mounted mic?

David, what you think about GPU usage for RT encoding to Cineform ?
http://www.elementaltechnologies.com/how_it_works.php

Iridas already use GPU for RT debayer of RAW...

I think from a coolness perspective, use of the GPU would be great. The question is, with a commercial perspective in mind, why CineForm would want to develop it - Intel CPUs are getting ever more powerful and ever more cheaper, and it's safe to assume that by the time development work would be complete on such a project, they'll be even more powerful and even cheaper.

In addition, while GPUs are very good at certain operations, the large amount of entropy encoding/decoding required by a higher bit-rate compression is not one of the areas they do well at. Our compression would be slower if implemented solely on GPU and deminishing returns for a split CPU/GPU implementation.

Are there any news on the progress of the recorder, such as decided features and estimated arrival on the market?