Apple IO-HD

Barlow Elton · April 27th, 2007, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron Burtle

Everyone's opinion of what an acceptable loss in PSNR is will be different. I would personally not group ProRes/DNxHD with Cineform. As Cineform will have significantly less loss at equal bit rates than ProRes or DNxHD.

I like to leave the vague descriptions at the door, and simply refer to truly lossless formats as such. Some wavelet codecs probably are, "visually lossless", but I don't think I would stick that term onto 7:1/10:1 DCT based ones.

Good point. The demo of ProRes I saw on an HD plasma was quite good. I even looked at the material blown up (on the Mac Cinema Display) to look for artifacts and they were difficult to detect. And I was looking at at multi-generationl render of material compared to an uncompressed version.

When we see the full release of FCP Studio 2 and have both CineForm and ProRes to work with, it will be very interesting to compare the two.

John Benton · April 27th, 2007, 11:31 AM

but the Aja IO-HD is ProRes specific yes?

Robert Sanders · April 27th, 2007, 01:56 PM

Has anyone priced a Cineform license? Is frickin' expensive and it only works on ONE box.

So your capture station has to have a license. You're producer's MacBook has to have a license. And then there's your editor's workstation (and let's hope he doesn't work on more than one box).

Don't get me wrong. The Cineform folks have created a wonderful product. But it's all about cost and scale.

ProRes 422 HQ may be a DCT codec, but it looks damn good and it's FREE.

Nick Hiltgen · April 27th, 2007, 11:02 PM

Barlow, I'm wondering if that miranda box might come into play finally (the HD-sdi, video+timecode+ audio embedder?) I mean yeah it's like 2k vs spending I don't know 100 bucks on cable, but then everything travels down one cable and that's sooo cool! ...hmm maybe not 1900 dollars cooler though.

Robert, I think the other thing to consider is that we are talking about a thing that many of us will never really need. (I know, I know, it's great to go uncompressed, it's the next generation, uncompressed saved my life, blah blah blah) The canon HDV codec holds up really well and I can't help but think that if I really needed something better then I could go prores and that would be more then enough for me. But that's just me.

That being said I totally could see the icon or the indie, if I was needing uncompressed run and gun, but to be honest, if I'm getting run and gun footage I'm probably more worried about focus/frame/white balance and an uncompressed setup will only help me with one of those.

Barlow Elton · April 28th, 2007, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

Barlow, I'm wondering if that miranda box might come into play finally (the HD-sdi, video+timecode+ audio embedder?) I mean yeah it's like 2k vs spending I don't know 100 bucks on cable, but then everything travels down one cable and that's sooo cool! ...hmm maybe not 1900 dollars cooler though.

The one cable thing is nice, but I can definitely think of a lot of stuff I'd rather spend the $1900 on. The Miranda box is useful, but a bit of a luxury in my book.

Nick Hiltgen · April 28th, 2007, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barlow Elton

The Miranda box is useful, but a bit of a luxury in my book.

Barlow, yeah totally, of course you do realize that we're talking about capturing "uncompressed"ish so isn't everything a luxury? ;)

One day the miranda boxes will drop down to something that I can justify (like 300 bucks) and when that day comes I'll be really upset that I had sold my xl-h1 20 years prior...

Zsolt Gordos · May 1st, 2007, 09:35 AM

Pardon me if the question is too stupid. Is it correct that IO HD would send the captured video signal to a Mac via Firewire800 cable?
So once one has an IO HD, no other AJA (or the kind) video card will be necessarily built in the Mac?

One more: AJA refers to Macbook Pro and MacPro in their website. If the transfer is via Firewire, I can't see why a G5 cannot handle that.
According to the description of FCS2 in the Apple website, G5-s are compatible with FCS2 - that includes the new ProRes format.
So I assume older Macs will not become obsolete.

Anyone has more detailed info on these? Thanks.

John Benton · May 4th, 2007, 01:42 PM

Now Avalable...

http://www.magma.com/products/pciexpress/expressbox1/

So you would have to capture to something like Sheer

I wonder how ProRes stands up to Sheer?

seems slightly more portable and slightly less expensive...749$ + card
Albeit slightly less functional in certain areas, more in others (if you can only capture to Pro Res from the Aja HD-IO)

I am specifically thinking of capture from the H1.
Have to wait until I see ProRes & Sheer.

J

Barlow Elton · May 5th, 2007, 01:18 AM

I'm sure ProRes would be very comparable, but Sheer is actually bit-for-bit the same info as uncompressed. That said, the full quality mode of ProRes is a little more than half the bit rate of Sheer 4:2:2 so it could theoretically work ok with a single SATA drive, whereas Sheer needs a 2 drive SATA RAID typically. Something to consider if ultimate portability is desired, in which case I'm not sure if an internal laptop drive could even keep up with ProRes.

You could always go with DVCPRO HD 1080 if you wanted a decent I-frame codec at a lower data rate, but it's not a perfect format either.

John Benton · May 5th, 2007, 01:29 PM

Thanks B,
ok so looks like Aja IO-HD is the way

Robert Sanders · May 9th, 2007, 05:11 PM

Does anyone know if the AJA IO HD will properly read the pulldown flag of the XLH1 when shooting in 24F. In other words, can I shoot in 24F and then select ProRes 422 HQ and have it work?

Or is this a Final Cut Pro thing and independent of the actual hardware?

Will Griffith · May 9th, 2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Sanders

Does anyone know if the AJA IO HD will properly read the pulldown flag of the XLH1 when shooting in 24F.

I don't think they have stated that yet, but it is just standard 3:2 pulldown from the 1080i stream and I believe the Wafian recorder does that already, so I hope so.

However, up to this point Final Cut has yet to support pulldown in any capture input other than direct deck/camera firewire connection.

My fingers are crossed.

Robert Sanders · May 10th, 2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Griffith

I don't think they have stated that yet, but it is just standard 3:2 pulldown from the 1080i stream and I believe the Wafian recorder does that already, so I hope so.

However, up to this point Final Cut has yet to support pulldown in any capture input other than direct deck/camera firewire connection.

My fingers are crossed.

Yeah, that's my concern to. It's because the ProRes encode is built into the AJA hardware that I'm concerned about how the pulldown will be handled.

Salah Baker · May 31st, 2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Sanders

Has anyone priced a Cineform license? Is frickin' expensive and it only works on ONE box.

ProRes 422 HQ may be a DCT codec, but it looks damn good and it's FREE.

3 boxen with deactivate /activate. Also I can attest to the Quality of the footage.(kicks ass)
Have 2 CineForm machines and have had no issues going from box A to Lappy B in a few e-mails

Mark Kenfield · June 20th, 2007, 04:38 AM

If I ever got one of these, I'd build a custom backpack/suitcase that would hold the MacBook Pro, AJA I/O, and an external HDD in place; power them through a portable battery/power pack; and had some retractable legs that would allow you to set the kit up close to the camera. Would make for one hell of an ultra-portable setup for capturing 422 ProRes. Wouldn't cost the earth either.

I have to say, the idea of being being able carry around a small pack with you that can capture your footage without the usual "prosumer" compression artifacts is pretty exciting.

April 27th, 2007, 01:56 PM	#33
Robert Sanders Starway Pictures Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Studio City Posts: 581	Has anyone priced a Cineform license? Is frickin' expensive and it only works on ONE box. So your capture station has to have a license. You're producer's MacBook has to have a license. And then there's your editor's workstation (and let's hope he doesn't work on more than one box). Don't get me wrong. The Cineform folks have created a wonderful product. But it's all about cost and scale. ProRes 422 HQ may be a DCT codec, but it looks damn good and it's FREE. __________________ http://www.starwaypictures.com http://starwaypictures.blogspot.com/

April 27th, 2007, 11:02 PM	#34
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	Barlow, I'm wondering if that miranda box might come into play finally (the HD-sdi, video+timecode+ audio embedder?) I mean yeah it's like 2k vs spending I don't know 100 bucks on cable, but then everything travels down one cable and that's sooo cool! ...hmm maybe not 1900 dollars cooler though. Robert, I think the other thing to consider is that we are talking about a thing that many of us will never really need. (I know, I know, it's great to go uncompressed, it's the next generation, uncompressed saved my life, blah blah blah) The canon HDV codec holds up really well and I can't help but think that if I really needed something better then I could go prores and that would be more then enough for me. But that's just me. That being said I totally could see the icon or the indie, if I was needing uncompressed run and gun, but to be honest, if I'm getting run and gun footage I'm probably more worried about focus/frame/white balance and an uncompressed setup will only help me with one of those. __________________ I have a dream that one day canon will release a 35mm ef to xl adapter and I'll have iris control and a 35mm dof of all my ef lenses, and it will be awesome...

May 1st, 2007, 09:35 AM	#37
Zsolt Gordos Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Budapest, Hungary Posts: 414	Pardon me if the question is too stupid. Is it correct that IO HD would send the captured video signal to a Mac via Firewire800 cable? So once one has an IO HD, no other AJA (or the kind) video card will be necessarily built in the Mac? One more: AJA refers to Macbook Pro and MacPro in their website. If the transfer is via Firewire, I can't see why a G5 cannot handle that. According to the description of FCS2 in the Apple website, G5-s are compatible with FCS2 - that includes the new ProRes format. So I assume older Macs will not become obsolete. Anyone has more detailed info on these? Thanks. __________________ Sony XDCAM EX1r, Canon 5DMkII, Røde NTG2, Røde NT1000, Røde Stereo Videomic, Sachtler DV6 SB on Gitzo 1325V, Steadicam Merlin, Omnitracker, Hackintosh 3.5Ghz Quad 8Gb RAM

May 4th, 2007, 01:42 PM	#38
John Benton Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 658	PCI Express (PCI-E) card to a laptop Now Avalable... http://www.magma.com/products/pciexpress/expressbox1/ So you would have to capture to something like Sheer I wonder how ProRes stands up to Sheer? seems slightly more portable and slightly less expensive...749$ + card Albeit slightly less functional in certain areas, more in others (if you can only capture to Pro Res from the Aja HD-IO) I am specifically thinking of capture from the H1. Have to wait until I see ProRes & Sheer. J

May 9th, 2007, 05:11 PM	#41
Robert Sanders Starway Pictures Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Studio City Posts: 581	Does anyone know if the AJA IO HD will properly read the pulldown flag of the XLH1 when shooting in 24F. In other words, can I shoot in 24F and then select ProRes 422 HQ and have it work? Or is this a Final Cut Pro thing and independent of the actual hardware? __________________ http://www.starwaypictures.com http://starwaypictures.blogspot.com/

April 27th, 2007, 11:31 AM	#32
John Benton Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 658	but the Aja IO-HD is ProRes specific yes?

May 5th, 2007, 01:18 AM	#39
Barlow Elton Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UT Posts: 945	I'm sure ProRes would be very comparable, but Sheer is actually bit-for-bit the same info as uncompressed. That said, the full quality mode of ProRes is a little more than half the bit rate of Sheer 4:2:2 so it could theoretically work ok with a single SATA drive, whereas Sheer needs a 2 drive SATA RAID typically. Something to consider if ultimate portability is desired, in which case I'm not sure if an internal laptop drive could even keep up with ProRes. You could always go with DVCPRO HD 1080 if you wanted a decent I-frame codec at a lower data rate, but it's not a perfect format either.

May 5th, 2007, 01:29 PM	#40
John Benton Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 658	Thanks B, ok so looks like Aja IO-HD is the way

June 20th, 2007, 04:38 AM	#45
Mark Kenfield Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 470	If I ever got one of these, I'd build a custom backpack/suitcase that would hold the MacBook Pro, AJA I/O, and an external HDD in place; power them through a portable battery/power pack; and had some retractable legs that would allow you to set the kit up close to the camera. Would make for one hell of an ultra-portable setup for capturing 422 ProRes. Wouldn't cost the earth either. I have to say, the idea of being being able carry around a small pack with you that can capture your footage without the usual "prosumer" compression artifacts is pretty exciting.