CineForm HDMI Recorder Concept Posted

[Bill Ravens]

I'm using NeoHD

[David Newman]

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

I think the results are fairly conclusive, however, I'll withhold my judgment until others have a chance to look at these frame grabs.
EDIT: hmmm, apparently I can't upload .PSD files. No difference between 32 bit and 8 bit. The CFHD avi is noticeably softer than the native mxf file.

While it is not totally related to this thread, if you ever see a difference in Filmscan1 quality you are not seeing a CineForm compression issue, you are seeing a difference in MPEG2 decoders (which are all different, HDLink uses a different decoder to Vegas.) This is another good reason to bypass MPEG on capture. At Filmscan1 we can faithly reconstruct everything MPEG does wrong ;)

[Bill Ravens]

Interesting comment, David.
You make a good case, then, for recording out SDI.
I've often wondered about the Elecard MPEG2 decoder that HDLink uses. I beleive Vegas uses the Mainconcept codec.

[Mike McCarthy]

An HDMI version and an SDI version would be totally different products in a certain respect. On the low budget end, the HDMI version avoids HDV compression, with reasonable mini-XLR inputs for audio, and is a low budget $2K product.

A dual link HD-SDI version would need to support a higher level of processing power, and a higher data rate for 444 material, with the accompanying heat etc. This logically puts it farther out in the future. A dual link HD-SDI recorder should probably have AES inputs for high quality, using the camera pre-amps or an external mixer. The big difference will be in price, with the electronics for SDI input being much more expensive. (For example Decklink vs. Intensity) It is likely that an SDI version would be much more expensive, especially if it supported 10bit or dual link. That plus the increased compression required would likely push the price closer to $5K. This is very similar to Convergent design's Flash XBR, and would compete with it. Solid's files can be edited immediately in realtime with Prospect, but XBR's OP1A files should edit in realtime on an AXIO, among other systems. On the otherhand there is no remote competition for an HDMI version of the Solid.

I am not saying that there should never be an SDI Solid, I am just saying that from a technical and business standpoint, HDMI makes much more sense, especially to start with. SDI is a logical second step as the hardware evolves, but it targets a totally different market, with much more competition and higher expectations.

[Richard Leadbetter]

If you're talking dual link HD SDI and 4:4:4, you're looking at a premium level product that should be pitched at very high-end users. Surely this would be a competitor for a mega-expensive HDCAM-SR deck? You'd also be looking at a high bandwidth, very fast, very *large* storage medium to be able to acquire the footage in realtime.

[Jason Rodriguez]

You'd also be looking at a high bandwidth, very fast, very *large* storage medium to be able to acquire the footage in realtime.

Really? FilmScan2 typically runs at around 50MB/s for 444 RGB . . . couldn't that be done now with a single fast 2.5" SSD?

Thanks,

Jason

[Matt Moses]

A quick question with (probably) a long answer...
With this ultra cool way to get a great picture stuffed into a tiny file (eg. HD 1080p+ into Cineform CFHD files)....

Couldn't Cineform's technology be implemented into each end of a HD 1080i broadcast system - like Comcast?

With smaller, better looking files than MPEG-2 1080 flavors being sent over copper, wouldn't that effectively make the whole HD-DVD/BluRay thing moot? (As far as viewing/distribution of HD movies). I mean if its visually lossless.. and you can edit and color correct in 10-bit or higher 4:4:4 color space, then one should never leave this codec... period.

I am just questioning having ANYTHING stored on removable plastic discs these days. And I want to buy a flat panel TV with a "Cineform Inside" logo on it.

[Alex Raskin]

Matt: Amen!

Why not start with in-camera recording in Cineform codec.

[David Newman]

Originally Posted by Matt Moses

And I want to buy a flat panel TV with a "Cineform Inside" logo on it.

And you can. CineForm licensed it name to Hitachi ago 4 years ago to use on HDTVs. :)

[Alex Raskin]

Seriously speaking though, does Cineform support multichannel sound?

Say, for broadcast - or, for a movie theater digital projection, how would one encode surround sound into Cineform video?

[David Newman]

Originally Posted by Alex Raskin

Seriously speaking though, does Cineform support multichannel sound?

Say, for broadcast - or, for a movie theater digital projection, how would one encode surround sound into Cineform video?

We don't care what you put in the audio channels. We are doing projects with 5.1 and stereo mixes, resulting in 8-channel audio in a single AVI/MOV. The only issue remaining in support with the NLEs, which can have limitation for handle audio like that.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by David Newman

We don't care what you put in the audio channels. We are doing projects with 5.1 and stereo mixes, resulting in 8-channel audio in a single AVI/MOV. The only issue remaining in support with the NLEs, which can have limitation for handle audio like that.

I guess a better way to put it is, does the container format in which Cineform is used support multichannel audio.

The answer I think depends entirely on the container. Quicktime supports any number of audio, video and subtitle streams, and so does its derivative MPEG-4 containers .mp4 and .m4a The limits on Quicktime and MPEG-4 are based entirely in practical engineering not the container format.

I mean, after all what exactly would you actually do with a Quicktime file that had 256 video streams and 1024 audio streams, plus 192 subtitle streams? Wait... don't tell me.

Another perhaps more useful question is how many audio inputs does Cineform expect the SOLID to support?

In the HDMI version I would expect a max of 8 channels (which is HDMI's limit). HDMI itself supports 24 bit 192 KHz sampling, but I can't think of a single HDMI camera that does better than 16 bit 48KHz.

An SDI SOLID should probably support 32 channels of 24 bit 48KHz audio, in dual link mode or 16 channels in single link mode.

The AES standard permits sample rates up to 96KHz for signals recorded at 20 bits or higher... but recommends 48KHz. Now, that said, I'd like to see it capable of supporting 96KHz, in case it ends up getting used as a field audio recorder- as some people have already suggested.

Finally another possible question is how many analog audio inputs are planned for solid? The HDMI version seems to have two RCA connectors.

I am guessing the SDI version will be specced with two or four miniXLR connectors, or two XLR connectors.

That means the rest of your audio inputs will have to be from either the HDMI or SDI inputs.

That said, you now have enough channels to do whatever you want. Those channels could be premixed into a 28.4 surround mastering mix on the SDI version... although I think THAT would be silly. More realistically they could be a bunch of mic inputs to be mixed in post.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Richard Leadbetter

If you're talking dual link HD SDI and 4:4:4, you're looking at a premium level product that should be pitched at very high-end users. Surely this would be a competitor for a mega-expensive HDCAM-SR deck? You'd also be looking at a high bandwidth, very fast, very *large* storage medium to be able to acquire the footage in realtime.

SOLID competing with HDCAM SR decks?

Yes and No.

There are a number of things HDCAM SR can do that Cineform isn't even proposing. One is real over and undercranking using SR motion.

The Filmscan 1 and Filmscan 2 4:4:4 modes that compare to dual link HDCAM SR are 320Mbps and 384Mbps respectively. That is damned impressive viewed as bandwidth alone- its half the HDCAM SR bandwidth!

There is a price though- The Cineform codec chews up a lot more CPU power than HDCAM SR. Of course if you have a nice system its very usable.

You can't record Filmscan 2 on CF cards right now. So a Filmscan 2 solution would have to be based on something other than SOLID state.

You need 40MB/s for Filmscan 1 4:4:4. Right now the new 300x UDMA CF cards give you that rate- just barely. You'd get about 3 minutes on an 8GB CF card.

That's pretty hard on the ACs folks. Oh but I bet the DP (me!) and Colorist (often me too!) will be mighty pleased! It actually isn't so bad compared to film mags.

Card sizes will increase, and then it will be totally doable. 16GB and 32GB CF cards at 300x- and maybe faster- are on the way.

The SDI SOLID should support both Filmscan modes. Of course I suppose I'll be using it at 4:2:2. 6 minutes per card is much more workable.

I don't expect that we'll see either of those Filmscan modes supported on the HDMI SOLID. I'm guessing that the UDMA CF slot costs a bit more to manufacture. Two 32GB 133x cards will handle the "High" Cineform mode and give you about an hour record time.

Of course if you've been paying attention, Cineform's High mode is good enough to finish 2K projects for projection

[Mike McCarthy]

After a lot of testing in this area, I recommend FS1 over High when possible. Although High is "Visually lossless" you begin to reach a point where the changes due to compression can be detected on a waveform monitor, while FS1 does not have that issue. (In my experience) It would probably be a good idea to have FS1 available as an option, even on the HDMI Solid. And I figure that it will probably be there among others, since one thing Cineform products are never short on, is a large selection of somewhat ambigious and subjective compression levels :) (Low, Medium, High, Higher, High Optimized, FS1, FS2, FS1 ChromaKey, FS2 ChromaKey...)

[Richard Leadbetter]

Originally Posted by Jason Rodriguez

Really? FilmScan2 typically runs at around 50MB/s for 444 RGB . . . couldn't that be done now with a single fast 2.5" SSD?

Thanks,

Jason

Nice point. Assuming the interface remains constant by the time a dual link SOLID came along an SSD with enough capacity that isn't stupendously expensive might well be viable.