Wondering if anyone has seen (and has links to) footage that has been captured directly from the HM100 via HDMI to a nanoFlash or computer or whatever. Would love to compare that image to the 35MB/s XDCAM feed.

I've done it with the Intensity Pro. I will be posting those tests to the forum within the week.

You're awesome, Tim! What codec and bitrate?

I've captured with all the codecs available. I'm currently playing with the new ProRes codecs that come with Final Cut Studio 3, which work fine in Scopebox, but there is a scaling issue when using Log & Capture and the new codecs from within FCP7.

See this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/non-linear-editing-mac/268297-new-prores-codecs-lt-proxy-4444-cut-res-half-capture.html) for the details.

Tim, not to be a bother, but any idea when you might be posting those samples of the HM100 through uncompressed HDMI? Or did you already do it and I somehow missed it? Thanks.

Thanks for reminding me.

I've attached a source .MOV from the HM100 in XDCAM EX 35mbps and a few captured live from the HM100 via HDMI and the Intensity Pro. (all are 4:2:2 in 10-bit, 8-bit Uncompressed and ProRes 4:2:2 HQ.)

These are all 1920x1080i but after my initial analysis I think I better try the same experiment on 720p & 1080p and see if there are any differences.

Thanks Tim. I'll check them out when I'm back at home computer. Did you have any thoughts on the subject having now gone through the multiple workflows? Over HDMI, how do you feel the HM100 stacks up against the competition under similar conditions?

There's no doubt that uncompressed (or even a "lossless" codec like ProRes 4:2:2) will retain more information than mpeg-2 compressed 4:2:0, but is it really practical for most of the purposes the HM100 was designed for? Probably not.

If you are shooting green-screen then by all means HDMI capture will have a definite advantage.