Serge,

The HDMI output on my HV20 runs at 1920*1080/60i.

I have different information from people who have measuring devices :)
Its same mistake as 10 bit output from HV20 and 10 bit input of Intensity.

David Newman wrote on blog: "Other HV20 misinformation : when recording the Canon HV20 to tape, the image is 1440x1080, that is the HDV standard used. It is not 1920x1080, you only get that out of the HDMI port, and even then the image is likely upsized from an internal 1440x1080 image (which is still very nice.) The 1920x1080 native image is only available in the still camera mode." (http://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/07/canon-hv20-24p-or-not.html)

That's part of the reason to record the HDMI output, aside from the higher quality 4:2:2/8 bit color. Only the HDV is 1440*1080.

We have different preferences:) For me is color 4:2:2 with 1440x1080 better than 4:2:0 with 1920x1080. Also i prefer 1280x720p60 to 1920x1080i60.

Yes, thank-you for pointing this out for me. It's likely the HV20 upsamples a 1440*1080 image to 1920*1080 for HDMI output. I found Heinz Bihlmeir's review of this done in March. Luckily this limitation is on the camera, not on my computer.

Kevin, i've seen screenshots. You do not set "remove pulldown" option on HDlink preset for 24p?

I have different information from people who have measuring devices :)
Its same mistake as 10 bit output from HV20 and 10 bit input of Intensity.

David Newman wrote on blog: "Other HV20 misinformation : when recording the Canon HV20 to tape, the image is 1440x1080, that is the HDV standard used. It is not 1920x1080, you only get that out of the HDMI port, and even then the image is likely upsized from an internal 1440x1080 image (which is still very nice.) The 1920x1080 native image is only available in the still camera mode." (http://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/07/canon-hv20-24p-or-not.html)



We have different preferences:) For me is color 4:2:2 with 1440x1080 better than 4:2:0 with 1920x1080. Also i prefer 1280x720p60 to 1920x1080i60.If you read on David only suggests that it "might" be 1440x1080 through HDMI (blown up to 1920x1080). It is still unknown whether it is true 1920x1080 from the sensors to HDMI out. Personally I believe it's the latter.

When considering the whole 1920 vs 1440 debate, it is important to remember that the 1440 pixels are video pixels (i.e. taller than wide) and the 1920 pixels are computer pixels (square.) Remarkably, when you correct the aspect ratio 1440 becomes 1920 ... crazy how that works, huh? ;-)

My point is, you're looking at the relative loss of horizontal detail equivalent to a modest anamorphic squeeze, which is minimal.

That said, after monitoring a test image live via HDMI on a 37" 1080P monitor, and knowing that the HV20's sensor captures and even larger image, I'm left with the opinion that the HV20 is not uprez'ing on the way out to HDMI -- the image is just too clean and sharp. It's really quite amazing how much better the image is before being mangled by HDV ... enough to convince me that I had to buy and Intensity and build a capture station.

If you read on David only suggests that it "might" be 1440x1080 through HDMI (blown up to 1920x1080). It is still unknown whether it is true 1920x1080 from the sensors to HDMI out. Personally I believe it's the latter.

DIGIC DV II processes the HD signal at 1440 x 1080 with 4:2:2 color sampling. (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&tabact=ModelFeaturesTabAct&fcategoryid=175&modelid=14061&pageno=5)

Kevin, could you email me? my email is sc "at" batteryfire.com. I need to get in contact with you and don't have your email address.

I thought there was an link here to an thread on an external PCIE box for laptops, but I can't find it. Here is another, and hopefully much cheaper:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41876

Thank you, Wayne. Good find!

Thank you, Wayne. Good find!

The Advanced Dock (http://www.pcconnection.com/ProductDetail?sku=6084891&srccode=cii_10043468&cpncode=07-30316028-2) that's compatible with a whole range of Core 2-powered IBM/Lenovo notebooks has a PCIe slot...

There's the Magma ExpressBox (http://www.magma.com/products/pciexpress/expressbox1/index.html) we were discussing elsewhere, if that's what you're referring to. That'll fit up to an x16 board, but only at x1 speeds.

DIGIC DV II processes the HD signal at 1440 x 1080 with 4:2:2 color sampling. (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&tabact=ModelFeaturesTabAct&fcategoryid=175&modelid=14061&pageno=5)
Serg...it seems the link you gave me was referring to the XH A1. The following information is in the same read:
The XH A1 is equipped with three 1/3" Native 16:9 CCDs (1440 x 1080 each) -- the same image sensor that is at the heart of Canon's exceptional XL H1. They deliver outstanding picture quality, highly accurate color reproduction, and a wide dynamic range with virtually no color noise.

It says the native sensors on those cams(XH A1 and H1) are 1440x1080 each (3CCD's) while we know the HV20's sensor is a native 1920x1080 CMOS. What this means I really don't know...but it seems to me they are definately different. Also the DIGIC DV ll HD Image preocessor is used in all the cams I believe. Excuse my ignorance but how does that work acually. Is it processed to tape this way? Since the A1 does not have HDMI does it have a SDI (not sure if it's the proper term) out? And with the HDMI on the HV20's CMOS is that before the DIGIC processing...or after? It's still unclear...It doesn't matter to me anyhow...all 3 cams produce stunning pictures.

Ian, you are right about the same DIGIC DV II processor used in all Canon's HDV camcorder.
Only difference is firmware and quantity of buttons on the body of cam:)
To have idea about what is possible to do with proper hack read this:
http://mikey.wordpress.com/2007/01/08/canon-powershot-a620-raw-format-hack/

...and google for more amazing info:) (http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK/FAQ)

Do you think the A1 is better (in image quality) than HV20 ?;)

http://fxsupport.de/pic/07/08/11/k02.jpg

http://fxsupport.de/25.html

Native resolution HV20's cmos image sensor not 1920x1080, but 2048x1536
With properly hack you can get 2K from 1/2,7" sensor:) Yes, its not 2/3" as altasens in SI2K but have good potention
if capture to CineformRAW straight from smos image sensor.

There's the Magma ExpressBox (http://www.magma.com/products/pciexpress/expressbox1/index.html) we were discussing elsewhere, if that's what you're referring to. That'll fit up to an x16 board, but only at x1 speeds.

Andrew, where was that, I wanted to post the link there. The Magma Box is expensive.

I hope GetCatalyst (http://www.getcatalyst.com/adapter_moreInfo_pcie2exp.html) is less expensive than MagmaBox.

BTW, original "Wearable Computer System" based on mini-ITX GM965 looks as better solution than games with these adapters for laptop, imo:)

Wayne, the Intensity Capture Station (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=97526) thread was where the discussion came up before. (Had to look at my own posting history to find it. :-) Agreed that it's expensive, but cost is relative. You're paying for the convenience of being able to use the one board across multiple machines and/or with a laptop.

Here's to hoping more companies come out with more offerings across the board!

Serge, Yep, that adaptor card is just what I was just thinking. This excites me.

If there is an PICO/NANO itx MB with Expresscard, and angle adaptors to turn everything into an small package, it could all fit into the palm of our hands. How much processing power is needed to do basic compression?

If only they had an way to send the sensor image as an grey scale across HDMI, that would be good for compassion. I have brought this issue up before with other cameras. I suspect some cameras do have sensor test modes like this.

Take away MJPEG and CineForm and your only choice for HD capture is Huffyuv. This still uses a fairly large amount of CPU, so the chances of using a Pico or Nano-ATX set-up are somewhat remote.

GetCatalyst also requires a 12v power supply.

Andrew, thanks for that, expensive relative to something that could do the same job cheaper. I should had realised about the adaptor Serge posted sooner. We have an bright chap in the local Office W and he was commenting about how you couldn't get an 3D card running effectively through Expresscard unless the laptop was designed to disable it's internal graphics, but I didn't find any 3D Expresscards.

Additional graphics cards have been running in that IBM/Lenovo PCIe Advanced Dock I linked to earlier, allowing multiple monitors to be used from one laptop.

Take away MJPEG and CineForm and your only choice for HD capture is Huffyuv. This still uses a fairly large amount of CPU, so the chances of using a Pico or Nano-ATX set-up are somewhat remote.

GetCatalyst also requires a 12v power supply.

I wonder what the actual figures are? I am starting to wonder if UMPC, or Car PC's, would have enough processing power for compression.

Take away MJPEG and CineForm and your only choice for HD capture is Huffyuv. This still uses a fairly large amount of CPU, so the chances of using a Pico or Nano-ATX set-up are somewhat remote.

GetCatalyst also requires a 12v power supply.

That's actually a really good thing, being 12V powered. In a Pico/Nano-ITX (not ATX) system you still have to supply it with an ATX-like power supply. That means you'll have regulated 12V (and regulated 5V) at hand to power the usual suspects.

There are lots of PicoPSU and automotive PSU options that can be adapted to run off a wide range of battery voltages and capacities.

Sheervideo is a codec that has traditionally been pretty easy on CPU's. Of course, uncompressed is really easy on the recording CPU ... but the need for a 3-5 drive array kinda negates that!

That's actually a really good thing, being 12V powered. In a Pico/Nano-ITX (not ATX) system you still have to supply it with an ATX-like power supply. That means you'll have regulated 12V (and regulated 5V) at hand to power the usual suspects.

There are lots of PicoPSU and automotive PSU options that can be adapted to run off a wide range of battery voltages and capacities.

Some of the PSU modules we found for x itx are long and thin, smaller then an memory stick in size.

Joseph, what are the actual CPU requirements for 25p/50p at 720p/1080p for sheer, mpeg and cineform etc. That sorts of gives an idea to judge things off of. At the moment UMPC's can be above 1Ghz, and 2Ghz must not be far away. When combined into an UMPC with 5-10inch display, makes for good external monitor/recording/control (Firewire/USB) solution.

Wayne, if you want small dvr for capture to Cineform 1080p24 via Intensity think about santa rosa platform, fsb800, merom T7500-T700...
I don't know any pico, nano motherboards with fsb800 to put T7700.
Real solution today based on mini-ITX like this: http://www.ibase.com.tw/mi910.htm

Socket 478 Core™2 Duo Mini-ITX Motherboard with Intel® GM965 Chipset

Cineform is the best balanced codec with less CPU usage than any other.
Future is CineformRAW ported to FPGA!;)
No need to build the hot and power hungry wintel box:)

Exactly right, that is why I am looking at lower powered platform compared to 965. Along as we have enough processing performance, it is alright, we can put something together in an day, instead of waiting for an FPGA, that might be free, or not, and then putting in an card device?

If people were serious they could start designing an small bigger than cigarette sized capture box today rather than wait for cineform FPGA solution. Using HDMI->two Analog devices JPEG2K codec chips, and usb to IDE chip, or straight to usb.

Here is the problem with that solution. Have you tried playing back HD JPEG2K files, they play at 5-6 fps. JPEG2K has never taken off as an editing format based it is too compute intensive.

OK, but I thought that was really an matter of hardware acceleration support (standard formats have everything, and JP2K is on it's own). How do you guys handle your wavelet encoding/decoding? There must be somebody working on an tricked out 2K encoder/decoder.

Now that I have got you here, any chance of an cheap capture solution like what I am talking about (ie based on free FPGA design or cheap chip) I think that BM could sell an heap at $249+ the price of your software?

Back tracking to the easier solutions, any chance that cineform 10 or 8 bit intensity 720p25/50 capture could work on an nano/pico itx board, what Ghz do you think would be required?

I might point out to people, that the 2K suggestion is only for an quick cheap dirty solution, it does not equal cineform at the same data rates.

How do you guys handle your wavelet encoding/decoding? There must be somebody working on an tricked out 2K encoder/decoder.

There is nothing J2K developer can do to speed it up, other than waiting for faster PC. Our design has wavelet transforms are 2-3 times faster, and our entropy coding even is faster still. We see 4-6 times speed difference between CineForm and JP2K. And of course faster PC benefit CineForm too so J2K is not catching up. ;)

Now that I have got you here, any chance of an cheap capture solution like what I am talking about (ie based on free FPGA design or cheap chip) I think that BM could sell an heap at $249+ the price of your software?

Yes, there is a chance. :)

Back tracking to the easier solutions, any chance that cineform 10 or 8 bit intensity 720p25/50 capture could work on an nano/pico itx board, what Ghz do you think would be required?

720p25 is easy, most of the nano/pico solutions could do it. Whereas 720p50/60 is like 1080p24/25/30/i50/i60 in processing load. You will needing 2+Ghz parts.

Wayne, you'd be lucky to capture and compress 720p using a 1GHz CPU. David obviously knows better but I think you're seriously pushing it ;)

In fact there's a whole host of obstacles to overcome - some insurmountable without a significant firmware upgrade on the board.

Firstly, Blackmagic outputs its own special brand of YPrPb 4:2:2 that barely any codec natively accepts. So you'll need to engineer your own capture tool that converts BMD's colourspace into conventional YUY2, just as CineForm has done. Then once you've done that, if you're capturing using Sheervideo or Huffyuv you'd need a RAID array for 720p/60 or 1080/24+.

There's also the small matter of Intensity's technical limitations. The only 720p modes other than 720p/60 and 720p/59.94 are slowmotion modes. So the 720p/24 option is closed off, I think.

The fact is there's a ready-made, brilliant quality solution out there and it's called CineForm HD. So I'd seriously consider Serge's Santa Rosa plan as it's the best - and certainly the most realistic - option.

Richard, thank you very much for support:)
HDMI output (1440x1080 8bit) from camcorders and Intensity HDMI input (8bit only) really bottleneck for amazing Cineform codec.

Time to push CineformRAW. Every prosumer camcorder must have CineformRAW. HDV and AVCHD 4:2:0 8 bit its a deliver codec for broadcast and optical media as BD/HDDVD.

For acquisition and editing only one quality solution - CineformRAW.

Yes, there is a chance. :)

Yes! ;)

Have an look over at my technical thread about an new c programmable parallel processing chip :) . Ambarella might be cheaper (if it can be reprogrammed to do cineform).

I respect what you say about 2K problems (you think they would have sorted that one out before release). I think by what you say, some DX10 GPU improvement, and multi-processing core, might be able to obtain reasonable numbers, even an PS3 Linux system.

Thanks


Richard,

I thought I might have to give up on anything like an 50fps (until faster boards come in an year) 25fps would do me. Yes, I am saying cineform, and was asking fro comparison with others. I know the data rates and HD capability. Providing you want to pay the power consumption price you can do it dingle storage drive for 25fps 720p (notice I avoid 1080, makes system bigger). To save power, you might have to go 4:2:0 and twin laptop drives, though I think there might be an faster than 30mb/s sustained laptop drive out there. 32GB flash SDHC due in January, so flash IDE drive maybe cheaper by then (still big money fro this low cost rig).

It is an viable option for me, attached to an rig attached to little hand camera (like that post of the Canon HV10 rig) sort of being planning on going for something an bit loopy like that. Still like to do an pixel-shifted digital cinema camera though.

Serge, yes, yes, and the cineform RAW could also be delivery, with my idea. I'd rather 720p at twice quality, than 1080i at half of something. Problem is, that 720p50 would be around 48mb/s, but we have far too many TV stations as it is ;) very inefficient.

Hi, Kevin,

Congratulations. Your system is perfect in my opinion. I would like to know how did you fit the intensity card in horizontal position. Is there an extension PCIe cable? And about the 20MBps BM codec, does it work in the windows xp? I think this datarate can give artifacts results as low as in minidv? Did you try it?

Thanks,

Adriano.

BM's codec is losing frames for Kevin and to put it frankly, CineForm completely outclasses it from a quality perspective.

Putting the card in a horizontal position is achieved using a PCI Express riser.

BM's codec is losing frames for Kevin and to put it frankly, CineForm completely outclasses it from a quality perspective.

Putting the card in a horizontal position is achieved using a PCI Express riser.

thanks for the reply, Did this forum find the reason for drop frames? I read almost everything and I did not find the answer. I just read maybe it is a processor speed not enough. but maybe this motherboard does not have enough architeture for the hd workflow like the intel's does. What do you think?

Putting the card in a horizontal position is achieved using a PCI Express riser.

A Good source for PCI Express Bus Extenders:
http://www.orbitmicro.com/company/pressroom/product_news/022407-pcie_riser_cards.html

In my experience with computers I could never get good performance with onboard graphics to capture and edit video. maybe this can be a reason to droped frames too. But as this board cannot handle the graphics card together with intensity I sugest to disable the the video preview when capturing and turn off the audio output too. this two settings helps very much to avoid drop frames in slow computers when capturing video.

Do you think the A1 is better (in image quality) than HV20 ?;)

.....
Native resolution HV20's cmos image sensor not 1920x1080, but 2048x1536
With properly hack you can get 2K from 1/2,7" sensor:) Yes, its not 2/3" as altasens in SI2K but have good potention
if capture to CineformRAW straight from smos image sensor.You know what Serge...if I answer no to this question I think there will be a lot of A1 owners ready to dispute that answer. But...honestly I don't think the A1's picture is any better (if better at all) than the HV20s. It seems to have a wider angle view but the pictures compliment one another. Now...in low light there should be a difference....but I don't own an A1 (only viewed many of its pictures). But to add...I do believe the HV20 does have the potential of giving a better looking image if there was a way to hack it or andromadize(sp) it using Cineform's codec. This is definately a real 2k camera.

I dont think an external 2.5 drive can handle the capture well if it is pluged in firewire or usb to capture HD. the capture drive must be pluged direct in the sata conection in the motherboard. if user wants to put the drive outside for swap, so user needs to pull the sata and power cables outside the box to plug in the 2.5 drive to get speed on it.

the photo 3 of teh system in first page shows the 2.5 external hd pluged in the usb conector. was the capture tests done in this way or the capture tests was done using sata or e-sata connection in the 2.5 drive?

Hi Jose,

1. The USB interface has a maximum throughput of 60MB/s,

I dont think usb can handle 60MBps. The maximun I can get with external HDD or DVD burner is just 6 (six) MBps. The 480Mbps that gives the 60MBps information is just theoretician in my opinion.

Over USB2 or FireWire 400 you can sustain between 34-38MBytes/s if the drive is is fast enough. We regularly capture 20-25MB/s data directly to FireWire or USB2 drives from HDMI/HDSI sources. The fastest 2.5" drive will sustain up to 30MB/s, most will do 20MB+/s across the entire surface -- the Silicon Imaging SI-2K camera uses a 2.5" drive for all its video captured in CineForm RAW, that can be up to 15MB/s.

I just would like to see test results from this equipment about capturing MJPG, NEO and Sheer using both usb and sata conections in the 2.5 drive to be sure about drop frames. A real test is the best answer. Thanks.

Er, David has done real tests. He's the CTO of CineForm.

His bandwidth measurements are accurate which means that basically only BM and CineForm will work. Sheervideo's stated compression is only 2:1 - way beyond the means of either a USB/Firewire or even 2.5" SATA drive.

If you read the thread earlier you will see that Kevin's reported frame loss using the MJPEG Blackmagic codec was due to inefficient use of the dual core CPU. MJPEG comes in at around 18MB/s, by the way.

Personally I do not see much point pursuing pristine HDMI quality capture if you're going to degrade that quality with the MJPEG codec. In my tests, even CineForm's lowest quality setting significantly outperformed MJPEG.

Ok, so the system needs a more powerfull cpu!

I saw the png files and the neo is very better than the other

Wow, that's a lot of activity here. TO answer some questions:

1. I did all of my tests with the HD (Seagate Momentus 7200.2) connected with the USB cable, not the eSATA (which I could have). The HD will sustain a write speed (for the whole disk surface) of just over 30 MB/s with USB, so it is not the bottleneck for capturing video.

2. The BM codec skipped frames because it was cpu bound, not disk bound, as has been stated. My estimate is 50% more cpu power is need to avoid skipping since 32% of frames were dropped. At this time Intel doesn't make something that fast. The data rate for the MJPEG codec was around 15MB/s. Most people forget that JPEG has variable compression ratios, but the BM codec has a fixed ratio. Codecs that can set the ratio to less compression may provide better quality and require less cpu power. Any suggestions?

3. The BM intensity card is attached with a flexible PCIE extension cable. They are available for 1x,4x,8x, and 16x slots.

It seems everyone much prefers the quality of Cineform compression over MJPEG, so I'll stick to using it. In fact, I'll do some more comparisons and try using a higher quality setting if the cpu can handle it.

I could also set up a striped disk set (might have to use 3.5" disks) to see if the system can handle using HuffYUV to record a lossless video stream in the backpack. Is this worthwhile or interesting to anyone?

Hi, Kevin,

Congratulations. Your system is perfect in my opinion. I would like to know how did you fit the intensity card in horizontal position. Is there an extension PCIe cable? And about the 20MBps BM codec, does it work in the windows xp? I think this datarate can give artifacts results as low as in minidv? Did you try it?

Thanks,

Adriano.

I'm note sure what you mean with artifacts as low as in minidv.

The minidv standard definition has a compression 5:1 this compression generates some mosquito noise but it is intraframe, so it does not have the blocking, the temporal and the posterization artifacts found in MPEG2 HDV. I was thinking about if it was possible to capture using the BM MJPG at 20MBps , so it would be about 6:1, near the minidv ratio and maybe it could give a good quality.

Another point: did you try to turn off the video and sound preview when capturing? it helps avoid drop frames.

And about the onboard graphics card? maybe it is another reason to low performance.

A good question to answer is: wich CPU can handle the BM codec without drop frames in a full size ATX motherboard????? If a full size motherboard can handle the capture with a 2.0ghz core 2 duo, so the reason for drop frames is not the cpu... off board motherboards with audio and video cards are allways better for video capture and editing.

thanks.