Alex,

We do have one of the best compute cycle per bit encoding times, so you are unlikely to beat us for quality/compute time at a given bit-rate, yet 1920x1080 10-bit is not easy as you may be finding. I wouldn't rule us out without contacting us first, particularly as a huge avantage we have over all other 10-bit codecs, we have ready-to-go real-time post production solutions, helping the marketability of any compressed aquisition product.

David, I am a poor communicator it seems :) I have nothing but respect for wavelet codecs in general and Cineform in particular. It was my first pro choice.
However, preliminary power budgeting indicates I may have to go with a much higher bitrate, but real-time codec. I am contacting you regardless.

I think you are on the right track. I think you should speak to Dave at Cineform before you make any final decisions... pick his brain so-to-speak. Their approach appears to be the strongest low-cost solution out there for cross-platform HD acquisition and editing for low-budget indie filmmakers.

I believe that the best approach for a low cost solution for indie filmmakers would be a cross platform codec such as Cineform. They will be releasing their Mac codec shortly so the codec will be available for the Mac too. The R&D is done. The base is growing. And the stuff works.

Cineform tells me that they are working directly with Blackmagic to support the Intensity card with Aspect HD. Cineform's Aspect HD product will be available shortly with HDMI support, which I'm told will support 1920 x 1080 as well 4:2:2 8-bit.

Supporting Cineform's codec would give your customer the option of working with Cineform's Prospect HD for lightly compressed 10 bit just like the Wafian Drive. And Cineform's codec allows you to keep the drive size smaller.

I would like to see a recorder that accepts HDMI input and HDMI/DVI output. All new camcorders from JVC, Panasonic, and Sony will be including HDMI in their AVCHD and HDV camcorders. It should have Cineform's new HDMI enabled Aspect HD bundled with it (should be available soon. Speak with Dave about it).

The Blackmagic Intensity card, provides HDMI output for monitoring too. Monitoring is a problem with these camcorders since when you use the HDMI port, the camcorders disable the component, composite and S-video ports on the camera so you are shooting blind unless you think you can see to focus high quality footage with a 3 inch LCD SD monitor.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Supporting Cineform's codec would give your customer the option of working with Cineform's Prospect HD for lightly compressed 10 bit just like the Wafian Drive.

I wouldn't call ProspectHD "lightly compressed" it is very compressed, and that is why it has such amazingly low disk usage. Of course "compressed" isn't the dirty word many believe it to be as the codec is 10-bit visually lossless, it just means it requires more cpu power to encode.

I wouldn't call ProspectHD "lightly compressed" it is very compressed, and that is why it has such amazingly low disk usage. Of course "compressed" isn't the dirty word many believe it to be as the codec is 10-bit visually lossless, it just means it requires more cpu power to encode.

It is lightly compressed when compared with the whole spectrum of codecs. For the Filmscan modes under Prospect HD/2K, our compression is as light as Panasonic D5 (i.e. 5:1 compressed 10-bit.)

Hi, can you guys provide input on this:

I've concluded that 1920 30p/60i is not technically feasible with current hardware/software in a fully mobile capture box. 24p/50i is, if only just...it really is this tight. I won't go technical on why this is so, my question is does this kill the concept from a marketing perspective?

Your thoughts please.

Do you mean: 24p/60i or 25p/50i, bien sûr, n'est-ce pas?

Of course, not!

See the new Canon's HV20 example. . .where's the 30p mode? There's no 30p.

For sure, an overcranking capability from a 60/72/120fps would be gold but go to the 24p/60i or 25p/50i route and you should be fine.

I don't speak French but somehow I don't think I got my point across.

This is what can be done at 1920x1080:
fully mobile (battery operated): 24p 25p 50i.
tethered (with AC mains): 24p 25p 50i 60i (60i with different storage option)

It's a power budget (and storage bandwidth) constraint. 60i is to HD what 29.97 is to NTSC. Same goes for 50i/HD - 25/PAL.

In your particular case (Europe) I assume you don't care much about 60i. North American customers may feel differently.

The HVX200 and HD100/110/200/250 are native progressive cams and an obvious favorite of the indie film crowd and are most commonly shot using 720p24. How would your set-up handle this?

The HVX200 and HD100/110/200/250 are native progressive cams and an obvious favorite of the indie film crowd and are most commonly shot using 720p24. How would your set-up handle this?

No problem with one of the DeckLink HD cards (component in). The MOBILE issue comes up only at 1920x1080i60. Even then, it can still be captured (albeit with a stationary unit) at dramatically lower cost than the Wafian and other upcoming solutions.

I encourage you to email me and get updated on the current spec (codec, form factor, storage, battery, total weight) on the private mailing list.

For example, the more expensive manufacturer (but better quality and with solid reputation in the business) can deliver vivid colors like Yellow, Deep Blue, Flaming Red, Pale Green, whereas the cheaper one will give me nondescript black. We're not talking thousands of $ difference, but a couple hundred in production price.

If you're trying to keep the price low, I'd say go with the less expensive black option. People who want something fancier can mod it after they buy it.

By the way, is there any technical reason someone couldn't just make an adapter box which took an HD-SDI input and converted it to an eSATA output, then connect that to an eSATA card on a laptop and use the laptop to convert to a moderately compressed recording format? Why go to all the trouble of building specialized devices with their own processor when good laptops are readily available?

I don't speak French but somehow I don't think I got my point across.

This is what can be done at 1920x1080:
fully mobile (battery operated): 24p 25p 50i.
tethered (with AC mains): 24p 25p 50i 60i (60i with different storage option)

It's a power budget (and storage bandwidth) constraint. 60i is to HD what 29.97 is to NTSC. Same goes for 50i/HD - 25/PAL.

In your particular case (Europe) I assume you don't care much about 60i. North American customers may feel differently.

Understood.

Agreed. The filmmakers either. Including the north american filmmakers. 60i is irrelevant.

The HVX200 and HD100/110/200/250 are native progressive cams and an obvious favorite of the indie film crowd and are most commonly shot using 720p24.
1920x1080 is present and future. . .lower than that? It's past.

Rant mode on:
I would have to disagree and say that is somewhat of an ignorant statement. Correct, eventually consumer displays will settle on 1080p but we are far from that now, and of new TVset sales, very few are even now true 1080p. With that in mind, one has to separate capture format resolution from the actual resolution captured by the cam. For example many films have/are shot on 720p, by such cameras as a Pana Varicam, which shoots DVCproHD at a capture resolution of only 960x720. Yet few would argue that it doesn't produces an image superior to any sub $10,000 cam regardless if those cams were to capture 1080p. As another example in the Texas shoot-outs, the JVC HD100-250, series despite recording to 720p scored the highest resolution of all under $10,000 HD cams shooting in P or F modes and second only to the Canon XL-H1 when in interlaced mode. Of the two prosumer cams that shoot 1080p (HVX200/HVR-V1) both score lower in resolutions tests then the JVC 720p series. True progressive footage down rez'es and up-rez'es very nicely, especially if it is uncompressed. And in this modern day where you rarely, if ever deliver on what you capture, it is simply best to start out with the best image you can get, and deliver on what they want. Regardless of resolution and format.
Bottom line is that uncompressed 720p, as in what is being discussed in this thread, is in NO way a disadvantage to the filmmaker. What is possible with uncompressed 720p derived from a quality cam head (especially one with removable lens for proper 35mm lens mount) is truly phenomenal, and would literally wipe the floor with any compressed cam regardless of its capture resolution. So the bottom line is all HD formats are the present and the future given they derive from a quality cam. Go shoot with a $1000 consumer cam at 1080i if you think it is all in the "numbers". I'll take 720p uncompressed any day.
Rant mode off ;>)

What is possible with uncompressed 720p derived from a quality cam head (especially one with removable lens for proper 35mm lens mount) is truly phenomenal, and would literally wipe the floor with any compressed cam regardless of its capture resolution.

That makes sense up to a point, but if we could (for example) capture the HD-SDI output from a Canon XL-H1 to something like Prospect HD format at 1920x1080 resolution, that should give most 720p cameras a run for their money...or leave them in the dust. As DSE has noted in some of his posts around the internet, he's finding that 720p source upsampled for playback on the best 1080p displays leaves something to be desired.

In any case, if the goal is to have a portable recording solution which can connect to cameras delivering 1080p data from the sensor, it makes sense to design with 1080p capture in mind. 720p capture also makes sense for cameras delivering that resolution.

That makes sense up to a point, but if we could (for example) capture the HD-SDI output from a Canon XL-H1 to something like Prospect HD format at 1920x1080 resolution, that should give most 720p cameras a run for their money...or leave them in the dust. As DSE has noted in some of his posts around the internet, he's finding that 720p source upsampled for playback on the best 1080p displays leaves something to be desired.

Uggg! Slaps head. Uncompressed capture IS what we are talking about. Did you miss read my post? Of course a XL-h1 would give a HD250 a run for its money if they both were recording uncompressed.
As for 720p source lacking upon upscaling, it all depends on how it is upscaled, and what is the source. If your talking about a highly compressed HDTV singal sure. If your talking uncompressed JVC250 vs XL-h1 F mode, uhh, it would be very, very close.

Wow I think this is an amazing idea and I can't believe I am just seeing it. 2 hours of slightly compressed 1080p24 on the go for under 4k would be amazing. I have been asking why wafian hadn't done this for months in fact I even emailed them about this very idea. Even if it isn't battery operated it will be looked at as a low cost wafian box. I think you should go with your original idea of using black magics codec as it doesn't add anything to the price. Also I don't know if I could afford one but I would definitely rent one for any pro work I would have to do. I would prefer it be battery operated with the battery located inside but it should last at least 2 hours. IDEA---- If you could make it so it uses dvx batteries or something like that then you could charge it with a dvx charger.

I don't know what your costs are so
xxxxx+$249 = Price $3000
xxxxx+$999 = Price $4000

You should be able to get a slight discount from Black Magic and your setup costs $2000 or less (adjust price accordingly) you will make $750 from each sale. Not bad if you sell 1,000 of these. that gives you $750,000. And that is possible because it works on analog, hdsdi, and hdmi hd cameras. I think that is a hell of a market.

I think this is an incredible idea and if you need some help with web design or promotional material design let me know I got you. Maranda Mobile HD or Maranda BlackHD. Peace

It is indeed a good idea, something I've been searching for. Blackmagic cards, of course, could be obtained much cheaper in volume. Their cost is probably only a 10th of the card...

Anyway, portable HDMI that you could put on your hip that captures direct from the A1 or HV20 would be beautiful. Seems if a company did it, it shouldn't cost more that a harddrive/enclosure plus conversion card outlet.

However, I wouldn't pay 4k for it. I think the 999.00 price point is when someone would actually buy one.

I think the 999.00 price point is when someone would actually buy one.Not to mention that the camera manufacturers need to fully support 10-bit HDMI. HDMI 1.3 is great, but if all that is pumped through is effectively 8-bit, the inconvenience of even a so-called portable solution makes the idea less compelling.

Can these cams actually output more than 8bit uncompressed?

Of course a XL-h1 would give a HD250 a run for its money if they both were recording uncompressed.

Fair enough: I wasn't familiar with the HD250 specs with the HD-SDI outputs, so that makes more sense now. :-)

Can these cams actually output more than 8bit uncompressed?

No. All the JVC and Canon cameras only output 8-bit over HDSDI. I think only the GrassValley Infinity and the SI camera offer more than 8-bit for under $20K. Some of the XDCAM HD units may do it, but for market reasons probably not. However most 1/3" cameras have a noise floor that wouldn't make 10-bit all that meaningful, the two bottom bit would contain mostly noise.

Fair enough: I wasn't familiar with the HD250 specs with the HD-SDI outputs, so that makes more sense now. :-)

Well that really wasn't the point of my post to compare the two. I was only trying to respond to Mathieu's comment "1920x1080 is present and future. . .lower than that? It's past." Uncompressed 720p is immensely capable and I just wanted to illustrate how misguided a statement like that is.

I was only trying to respond to Mathieu's comment "1920x1080 is present and future. . .lower than that? It's past." Uncompressed 720p is immensely capable and I just wanted to illustrate how misguided a statement like that is.

Again, fair enough. But note that in the Texas HD shootout, the Panasonic cameras (including Varicam) didn't score very well in terms of resolution, at least not according to the basic numbers. Only the JVC models showed the full potential of 720p.

http://www.adamwilt.com/HD/4cams-part2.html

Of course resolution isn't everything and not all cameras/lenses are created equal, so let's leave it at that. Most consumers seem to be happy enough with SD images on their HDTVs, so anything we can give them beyond that is gravy.

Again, fair enough. But note that in the Texas HD shootout, the Panasonic cameras (including Varicam) didn't score very well in terms of resolution, at least not according to the basic numbers. Only the JVC models showed the full potential of 720p.

They are all quite a bit closer then farther apart. The Varicam shoots very close to the detail level of the XL-H1, but of course it has other advantages that make it a superior cam all around.
Of all the sub $20,000 cams, when shot in a progressive mode, the HD-100 has the highest resolution of them all. Which again was my point as to not discount the 720p format. As a side note the tests were done on the older HD100 through component out as opposed to the newer HD-250 through SDI.

There are different levels of demand. And a distinguishing difference between past and present, present/future and future/past. Et bien sûr, different levels of demand. :-)

What David said.

I'm not trying to discourage you. Form factor is a huge thing for some people. I know a lap top is just too much baggage for some. I think it's a great idea.

I agree...................... a small laptop + PCI chassis could probably be configured as a reasonably portable capture system. I'm going to look into this idea.

IMHO, I doubt a dedicated mid-sized 'black-box' (without a display) would sell too well. But that's just MY opinion.............. I've been wrong plenty of times before. ;-)

JohnG

Id be interested in this for sure. I was just pondering what it would take to build one myself. So the issue seems to be that capturing to something like cineform HD is just past the limits of current mobile processors?
based on the requirements listed cineform's website, I can see why 60i might be a problem to capture on such a system. 2.33GHZ Core2Duo Mobile might just barely be able to compress that in real time. I wonder if David Newman from cineform has some insight about how cineform would encode on the fastest modern mobile processor. How about using a desktop CPU?

Does it take more or less CPU to perform an inverse pulldown while encoding? i imagine the operation itself takes cpu time but then thats 20% less data that has to be compressed. I suppose the CPU requirements would be for a codec like bitjazz would be less... i suppose that would put it in RAID territory. Cineform does have a pretty good sweet spot in terms of not needing too much storage speed or CPU time. Perhaps it could be tweaked to work with slightly slower CPUs?

Let me think about how much this would be worth...

Mini-ITX motherboard - $300
Laptop CPU - $650
2GB RAM - $200
80GB 2.5" Hard Drive - $80
Intensity HDMI card - $250
PSU - $200
Battery - $100
Embedded Storage - $100
Custom Chassis, Cooling - ?

So we are talking almost $2000 in off the shelf parts. Not too much Software development costs if it records using some already available software (cineform).

I guess my answer based on these numbers would be ~$3000. Although I think costs could be reduced by using a desktop CPU or increasing the formfactor slightly. Then again, those costs might resurface due to the larger battery and more complex custom cooling system.

are there companies that make expresscard to pcie external adapters? I know i remember seeing one that was expresscard to pci, which wouldnt work too well.

We could do some testing with 2.33GHz Core2Duo Mobile to give a more accurate estimate, but it might work if you limit other processing. Silicon Imaging uses the same processor for encoding 2K CineForm RAW. 1920x1080 4:2:2 8/10bit is a little more data but siginificantly less preprocessing needed. The inverse telecine (or pulldown removed) does use less CPU than the 20% saving achieved through encoding 24p vs 60i. So yes you may find you can encode 1080p24 with a mobile CPU, and no issue for today's dual core desktop CPUs. As for tweaking CineForm further, it is already optimized to the max for Intel procs, likely more than any other codec. You can control the CPU requirement by dropping the bit-rate, but that starts to impact quality if you go too far. I think it would be better to find a CPU that meets your purpose rather than limit the quality from our current levels (http://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/03/quality-results-and-green-screen.html)

@Mathieu
I did encourage you to email me and sign up to the private mailing list; you haven't missed anything yet but an announcement is coming in the next couple of weeks. Sorry to be so hush-hush about this but it is a competitive landscape.

I will let out a teaser though - we're working not on one but two capture solutions, HD1 and HD2; you can upgrade from HD1 to HD2 by shipping it back for an upgraded unit.
HD1 can do HDMI 4:2:2 8bit capture in a 17x17x5 cm form factor (battery included!).
HD2 can...sign up to the mailing list! :)

Hey Alex

Its been some time since your last post on this subject.

Do you have any news yet?

Hey Alex

Its been some time since your last post on this subject.

Do you have any news yet?

Hi Jonty, thank you for posting. The news is...we're still working on this. I've made a decision early on not to hype the product (too much) until it is announced (vaporware and all).

I can make a few statements that are harmless enough:
- there is a team working on this
- there is no target date for series production, certainly not for this year; we do have something working, but in dev board form factor.
- we know how to make it quite small, small enough to mount the DDR underneath or on the side of the camera (external dimensions 160 x 120 x 52 mm); battery is internal, storage is external.
- we've largely finalized the BOM (Bill of Materials) and have contacted suppliers for volume pricing
- we won't be using Intensity cards, but our own custom HDMI aquisition design (this allows us to shrink the form factor, but lengthens the R&D time)
- a larger form factor using Intensity Pro can also be built around the same design (storage is internal); external dimensions are 220 x 160 x 52 mm
- the codec is Cineform Neo HD
- recording time on one battery charge is estimated at 2 1/2-3 hrs.
- it will record 1920x1080p24 4:2:2 8bit; it won't do i60, but it will do i50.
- it may be able to do pulldown removal from i60 to p24 at 1920x1080; yet to be determined.
- the enclosure is black and stylish
- it's going to run hot; the enclosure is the heatsink

Hi Jonty, thank you for posting. The news is...we're still working on this.

Damn, this sounds good. I might very well buy one if the price is reasonable.

question for those in the know; we need to test 60i->24p pulldown removal for the DDR project; my acquisition options are very limited (PAL land). As it stands, we either:

1) rent a F-950 and hire a DP to operate it; go off and find some complex outdoor scenery to see if the codec holds up. More than once, difficult logistics, on rental's place schedule; cost is 500 EUR/day with the DP.

2) buy a HV-20 from an US outlet (only E models over here of course). We get to use the cam whenever we need it, and the cost is a couple of days of F-950 rental.

Aside from the 8 bit vs 10 bit resolution in F-950 (which doesn't matter as *this* version of the DDR is 8 bit), is there a compelling reason not to go with 2) ?

We're looking for scenes with lots of detail and color, as I said stress-testing the real time compression. Would one cam's 8 bit 4:2:2 HDMI signal be (significantly) different than another's? (I do expect a 10 bit signal to be different, but that's not what we'll be testing).

Looking forward to your replies; it will help us make major decisions in this project.
As a side note, how um..unfortunate would be if pulldown removal didn't work 100% of the time (like very complex scenes)? I know the situation is close with our current part choices.

Any update?

Any guess on delivery? Weight? Price?

Any update?

Any guess on delivery? Weight? Price?

Mathieu, I do value your continuing interest; put yourself in my place for one moment please. Yes I do have projections for those questions, they're part of the business plan. However making this information public - for a yet to be announced product - will paint ourselves in a corner. There are also features I'm not disclosing before announcement to maintain competitive advantage.

As I mentioned before, there will be no series production this year. The thing is this project has snowballed in terms of engineering to the point where it bears little resemblance to how this thread started. We gain a lot in form-factor by doing this, at the expense of lenghtened R&D.

It's a HDMI DDR and it uses Cineform, but beyond that, it is (literally) going to be a small black box, attachable to a cam like Sony V1.