Wearable Computer System for HD Capture

[David Newman]

Originally Posted by Dale Backus

Interesting that the pulldown makes it easier on the processor - guess that makes it doubly positive. (BTW, i did some test pulldowns with the HV20 and the trial of Prospect HD i believe, and it was doubling frames to make it progressive - is this normal?)

There is no doubling of frames. Don't be confused by the first 4-8 frames went may be off until the pulldown lock in--this is a live pulldown detection algorithm so it need a few frames to learn the cadence. Once it is locked you get a true 24p (i.e. 23.976p.)

That is unless, someone (ahem... Cineform) with the knowledge and resources to do so could cut out all the unnecessary crap and create a box dedicated to the capture of HDMI sources using the Cineform codec. All streamlined and specialized... oooh bebe.

So how much would the market want to pay for this device? Please answer thoughtfully as we are listening.

[Dale Backus]

Gotcha - i haven't yet done any substantial testing with the realtime pulldown, but it definitely gives the confidence a boost hearing it from you... We're looking to employ the system i describe in a feature in the coming spring.

You pose an interesting question. I really don't know how other filmmakers/video nerds out there would value something like this, and i could see how the question of whether or not a profitable market exists is a huge one at this point. I definitely believe however, that (and i have the footage to prove it), that the HV20 combined with the correct capturing method and a properly used 35mil adapter can produce some outstanding footage.

We're really on the cusp of very HQ HD acquisition at an unprecedented cost point, and i definitely believe developing a waist-side capture device for HDMI (and whatever else) is the next step.

It's all about building awareness i guess...

But to stop rambling and actually answer your question, i would (and this is totally subject to change in the positive or negative depending on the product offering of course) be willing to shell out 2-4k.

Because the bounds of the capability of such a device are so broad, that's just a gander. There is a lot that could be done - oh the ideas.

Hope this helped - and i can't thank you enough... in this industry we spend so much time wishing we had the know-how to invent all the things we'd like to invent.. it's thanks to companies like Cineform that we get to realize some of our dreams...

(if anyone else is listening - an HV20 (andromadization) hack for 2k would be great!)

[Robert Ducon]

To bypass HDV and get some incredible 4:2:2 footage from any HDMI camera will be impressive. I paid $1300 for a Decklink HD, $300 for HD-SDI cables, and $500 for the nanoConnet .. all to get what we're talking about - mind you, I started my purchases before HDMI was an option on HD cameras (I orginally wanted to capture analog HD at uncompressed quality). Add to that a Mac Pro, RAID...

$$$ for something that's become much simpler in only a bit over a year's time. And with the Intensity card and good, fast codecs, much cheaper!

Given that a product like this would work with any HDMI cam, and for time to come, it'd be useful. Cineform's codec has staying power. How much $ for one though...

It'd have to really last, as things are moving so quickly.. a device like this would have to be able to handle resolutions up to 2k IMO. $1200-$1500 is all I'd be willing to spend at this point.. which is proably too little.

Someone will build a unit like this, regardless. Convergent Design's Flash XDR is too expensive for most of us pro-hobbyists, and I like the idea that using a computer like Kevin has allows you not to be locked into one Codec.

[Dale Backus]

You have a good point, Robert.

Recording up to 2k or even 4k, or maybe having different models at different pricepoints might be a good idea.

Features like this are what would really be the deciding factor on where between 2-4k i would spend on this device...

Keep in mind though, it's the portability and convenience of combining the capture cards, the computers, etc.. into one device that's streamlined for that specific task that we're paying for as well. To me that's worth the cost of the hardware plus... really.

Think about it. For instance, we'll be shooting a feature film that will be taking place completely in the woods at night. We REALLY want to shoot full HD, that's NOT HDV. What are our options?

It's worth every penny IMO. Cool to think about...

[Robert Ducon]

Value.. how much for what it does. What we're talking about now is really meant for another thread, and I don't think it'd belong in the HV20 section either - by the time I'm ready to shoot 2k, there'll be some other el cheapo yet powerful camera or mod available! Thngs are moving faaast..

With the surge that alternative high-res sensor chips and 35mm adapters and the like have made, users are becoming more open to the idea of not buying a stock camera to fit their every need, and rather, go custom. Either buy small-business products, or make their own. Capturing 4:2:2 out of an HDMI port is right up there with customized options. Anyhow, it'd have to have a technical form factor that'd last, and of course, meet a price point we'd be willing to drop our bucks on. Price point is where I think the problem would lie.

[Anmol Mishra]

I looked around at logic supply and found these motherboards - they have a matrix
http://www.logicsupply.com/matrix/ma...=39&column4=46

Some are Santa Rosa - and a couple have been discussed in this forum as well..

[Anmol Mishra]

How would one set the CPU affinity ?

Originally Posted by Andrew Plumb

Have you tried playing around with setting CPU affinity?

The encoder may not be multi-threaded, but if you can set the capture process to one core and the encoder process to the other, you might be able to speed things up a bit more.

[Richard Leadbetter]

It's easy. Go into the Task Manager, right click on the relevant applications and do it there.

However, it is highly unlikely that this will help performance that much - if at all - as Windows isn't bad at allocating tasks independently and in this case, the encoder will be doing the vast majority of the work any way.

[Andrew Plumb]

What Richard said. It probably won't help much, but Dumb Things can happen.

Make sure you have minimal other applications running in the foreground and/or background. Last thing you want is to have two instances of the encoder process bouncing around between processors and around memory because a third application is triggering context switches.

[Igor Babic]

http://www.ieiworld.com/en/product_I...odel=NANO-9453
It has PCI-e mini. And is little over 3,5"HDD size. PC/104 is industrial PCI.

Here at bottom of this page is adapter PCI-e mini to PCI-e x1
http://www.adexelec.com/extenders.htm
This way you can probably connect Intensity. (This also enables Laptops to do this)

Motherboard cost around 330$.

Hope this helps someone.

[Henry Olonga]

[QUOTE=Kevin Kondra;723318]Hello Everyone,

The cpu, T7200 with 667 MHz RAM, has enough power to record 60i without dropping frames using BM MJPEG. The data rate seems to be 13 MB/s. What most people may not know is that BM supplies a second MJPEG codec that isn't used with their recording app and has selectable quality values. Upping the bit rate to 20MB/s makes a noticeable difference in visual quality. They number used is similar to JPEG compression quality numbers, where 100 is supposed to be lossless, and 80 is default. 20 MB/s is 92 on the scale.



Hi Kevin and one and all.This is an intriguing thread.I am new to this forum. I am an indie musician who would like to record music videos on a budget and something you wrote caught my eye. I have built my own intensity capture station. HC3 sony Cam @ 1920 X 1080i - HDMI - (Magma expressbox - Intensity) - Laptop Computer. My laptop is not fast enough to encode in the Medium or high settings of Cineform NeoHD ( Core2duo 1.8 Ghz - drops frames consistently ) but handles the BM M-jpeg just fine with plenty of CPU in reserve.I would like to get rid of the fine artifacts that are present in the BM codec and clearly absent in Cineform.If the quality is noticeably better at higher data rates, then that would save me having to upgrade my new laptop.I was wondering where you acquired the second codec that allows quality settings to be adjusted and what capture software you use it with.It would be awesome if I could up the rate to 20 MB/sec.Your help on this is much appreciated.
Kind regards.
Henry

[Andrew Swihart]

David,
As was mentioned in another thread ("Intensity Capture Station") I think before you make a full "capture station" it would be best to have an ExpressCard version of the Intensity card. Maybe you can talk to the BM folks about this. Or is this already in the works?

[Richard Leadbetter]

Surely an Intensity ExpressCard would effectively put the kibosh on the commercial viability of a standalone capture station? Any standalone capture station? By the time such a product hit the market, I could well believe that quad core laptops with 500gb hard disks would be readily available, making a DIY solution far more preferable for the budget conscious.

The Magma box proves that the PCIe and ExpressCard technology are essentially one and the same so you'd think it would be an ExpressCard Intensity would be an easy product to make. However, when I contacted BMD about it, I got the impression it really wasn't on their radar - definitely not in the short term, any way. The only technical issue I can see is the lack of power on the ExpressCard port, which might require a large scale redesign of the silicon.

[Andrew Swihart]

Pretty dumb if you ask me, given that's exactly what everyone in these threads essentially needs to have their dreams come true for recording with the Cineform codec on the go.

[David Newman]

When we are thinking of a capture station, we are thinking of a Firestore sized device that encodes HDMI directly to CineForm, that is much more convenient than using a laptop in mobile camera acquisition.