Wayne I think the card needs that much because it does in and out at the same time. Therefore it would need to be able to push 240 MB/S just for 4:2:2 due to a stream in and out of the card if you want to monitor what you are capturing.

While PCI Express may increase the bandwidth in the future that doesn't help those who already have systems built. The Intensity card is clearly aimed at a lower end market of those who already have decent systems and want to add in a card. If you want 4:4:4 you can move up to the Declink Studio card. I'm not sure if the HDMI will do 4:4:4 but the component will. Even if the HDMI did 4:4:4 the jpeg codec will not. The only codec that could be used right now for compression would be photojpeg at 100%.

I do agree with you that it sure would be nice to have a bayer based video format kind of like how the Cineform version works for the Silicon Imaging camera. By recording the bayer pattern we would get data equal to 4:2:2 but with video that would be easier to convert to 4:4:4 with the correct bayer processing. In order for this to work however a camera would have to be designed to push a bayer pattern out of the DSP which no video camera will do so this is a little pointless right now.

I really like what this Blackmagic Intensity and new HDMI cams bring to the market. I just wish it could be incorporated into a laptop. I am a big fan of HDVrack type monitoring, is there anything like this available for a solution like this?

Thomas, I know that they have separate path for each direction, is it for sure that the bandwidth is split between the two paths? You could use component for monitoring.

HDMI 1.3 does support 4:4:4. 1.2x had extensions, but I am not sure wherever that included 4:4:4.

I read Jpeg supports 4:4:4 above something like 80%, doesn't it. You can use whatever codec you want with it.

I think there will be cameras out there already that could reconfigure their outputs to be grey-scale bayer, or some other pattern. But it is really an industry suggestion, because it would make sense from the production side, and even on the distribution display side. If they could use something like HDMI as the basis for an general I/O interface, it could handle most things and new devices. I used to advocate HDMI as an possible target for USB 3.0 (10.2GB/s versus 480Mb/s, but with more host independent I/O management like Firewire and USB GO (but preferably not, Firewire was better)). But now I realise that the external desktop bus version of PCI-Express (finally coming) is probably meant to be this, but need to be plug and play like firewire and preferably much faster like modern HDMI speeds).

In coincidence, information on the external PCI-E cabling has just come.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37528

Looks a bit more than would be cheap for USB3.0, but still a start in the smallest version.

I read Jpeg supports 4:4:4 above something like 80%, doesn't it.

100% supports 4:4:4

Below 99% supports 4:2:2

That's right, below 80% is 4:2:0? What's the compression ratio at 4:4:4 again?

below 75% is 4:2:0. Photojpeg quicktime files are usually captured as 75% because that is the starting point for 4:2:2 color. Anywhere between 75% and 99% is 4:2:2. This only applies to mac users however. The AVI codec cannot be adjusted and it adjusts itself based on the footage.

On another note some of you may have noticed that Cineform just announced support for the Intensity card. This means those of you using Premiere and Cineform now have another codec to use on the PC. Of course the Cineform codec and software costs lots of money but if you have it that is great. Those of you already using Cineform to edit HDV will have files that are the exact same size on your hard drive but much higher quality if captured live over HDMI. The AVI files captured live will be the same size and work exactly the same as video captured as HDV. This means your level of workflow will be exactly the same. The only bad part is that right now the Intensity card will not work for live HDMI output from Premiere with the Cineform files but I guess that should change in the near future. So if HDTV live output is important you may want to stick with the jpeg codec for now until the drivers are updated.

I've been able to get excellent keys by taking interlaced HDV, magic bulleting and deartifacting it...

Wes, how are you "deartifacting" the HDV footage? If with Magic Bullet, how?

Do we know if the signal coming out of the hv20 is 10bit or 8bit?

Having problems - and I think it's a simple answer as I don't mean to hijack the thread further than it already has been.

Just wondering what preset to use to transcode my HDV project to a JPEG-based one.

I just exported an HDV clip I had in FCP to a QT movie and chose the preset "Blackmagic HDTV 1080i 59.94 - JPEG" and there was no option for the percentage of compression. There was no 90%, 75% or 100%. And, it looked like crap in the end - macroblocks.

Now, should I have just chosen "Photo - JPEG" or "Motion JPEG B" or "JPEG 2000"?

I want great 4:2:2 quality with little or no perceived digital grain or artifacting (no gradient banding) - and space savings of course when compared to uncompressed. I have a Decklink HD card, so if there is an advantage to using a Blackmagic Codec, I will.

So, I've captured full HDMI from the HV20..

It's 4:2:2, as suspected.

It's 8bit, as suspected.

My workflow is now ProRes 422 which works well with the high-output of the HV20.

Case closed!

So, I've captured full HDMI from the HV20..

It's 4:2:2, as suspected.

It's 8bit, as suspected.

My workflow is now ProRes 422 which works well with the high-output of the HV20.

Case closed!
Give us a looky look!! If you don't mind.

Svyatoslav Pylypchuk's thread will show the same thing and it's ready to go!

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=104431

I'll have something ready in a month or so lol. Mr. Pylypchuk's footage is tack sharp!

Robert,

IS that 1440x1080 or 1920x1080?

The signal that comes out of the HDMI port when looking at any content off the HV20 is 1920x1080. However, I don't know if the image is internally processed at 1440x1080 or 1920x1080. Frankly, it looks just great.

When I captured LIVE video via HDMI to the computer, when viewing on playback, the chroma looked very good.

Looking Svyatoslav's footage, I see the same thing with the red's as in my footage - small horizontal lines. While 4:2:2 is bound to have this (as it's not 1:1 luma to chroma mapping), because I don't have footage from any higher-end 4:2:2 camera's to view, I'm not sure if this is 100% normal for 4:2:2 or if this is particular effect is due to the camera internally processing the image at 1440x1080.

Someone else care to prove if the cam is processing it's true 1920x1080 from the chip?

It captures 1440 tall "video" pixels, which when corrected for a computer's square pixels equals, wait for it, exactly 1920.

Looking for proof here..

The HV20's sensor as Canon states, is and uses 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels, square pixels.

Without referring to HDV at all, and rather, the way that the video signal is internally processed, then if anyone can provide proof that the sensor is seeing/using only 1440 rectangular pixels, please do. Likewise with the 1920 square pixel internal processing. Perhaps seeing that the chroma is 'stretched' is proof enough.

Personally I believe this is where their claim for "True" 1920x1080 comes into play. Why would it be otherwise?

In the end it does not matter...just look at the magnificent picture it produces.

In additon to my experience shooting charts, I'm pretty sure that I've read definitively that the signal is 1440 (remember, it's a debayered CMOS reconstruction, so there isn't a 1-to-1 relationship between sensor pixels and RGB signal pixels.)

If I'm confusing cameras, I apologize, but I think this is the case.

Maybe, maybe, but HV20 is very good:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=104431

I agree, it looks incredible. My point, exactly, actually. I think people get way too hung-up on this 1920 vs 1440 concern. It's important to remember that until very recently NO camera recorded 1920. Its also important to understand the difference between tall video pixels and square computer pixels, because the difference between 1440 video and 1920 computer is even smaller than the raw number suggests.

This thread isn't about the merits of square-to-rectangle pixels. It's about whether anyone knows/can prove either way. If no one is able to prove, it's a non-issue. If someone can prove, then it's proven and then known, and then a non-issue. Just seeking knowledge, trying to avoid debating if it's a debatable issue or not.

If Svyatoslav could shoot a chart, we could see if HDMI uncompressed resolved any more actual horizontal resolution.

My understanding is....

its 1920 - non compressed straight from the HDMI port (pre-tape)
its 1440 - compressed from the firewire port (post tape)
and its back to 1920 - un-compressed from the HDMI port ( post tape )

So the camera will un-compress the 1440 tape footage out of the HDMI
port at 1920...

so if your workflow is 1920, just stay with the HDMI port ( pre or post tape )

if your workflow is 1440, just stay with the firewire port ( pre or post tape )