CineForm HDMI Recorder Concept Posted

Craig Irving · November 15th, 2007, 09:50 AM

That's great news.

I think someone also alluded to this question earlier, but could there also be a 1440x1080 recording option for users of Aspect HD who aren't yet ready to move to Prospect HD?

Craig Irving · November 15th, 2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Newman

Criag, we expect that audio will be injected using the camera inputs for most situations as that is carried over HDMI.

Would that then mean uncompressed PCM before encoding to MP2? Or are camcorders like the HV20 and V1U going through an encoding of MP2 384kbps on input, and decoding it back to PCM (from the MP2 file) before sending it out via the HDMI? (This could be a dumb question). Not to mention, an illogical design.

David Newman · November 15th, 2007, 09:58 AM

HDMI is uncompressed for audio and video.

Regard 1440x1080 for Aspect HD. We potentially can add a scaler to the recording, but we don't know if it will fit. 1920x1080 image will work in Aspect HD, they will just run a little slow as the pipeline will scale 1920 to 1440 during timeline playback. However AE and other tools will still benefit from the full 1920x1080 image. So overall the 1920 image will likely be a big benefit, even for Aspect HD users.

Carl Middleton · November 15th, 2007, 10:08 AM

Personally I would find throwing out 500 pixel of resolution on capture extremely painful... If spending around $2k for a capture solution designed mainly around improving quality, why not spend $500 to be able to take full advantage of it?

In my opinion, this device isn't for the consumer-end of the customer base, more for the quality-oriented pro-sumer to pro demographic, am I right?

That being said, everyone's workflow and situation is different, I'm sure there's some people out there who would take advantage of it.

With a hardware scaler, would it also be possible to capture directly to cineform compressed SD or uncompressed SD? One way to future-proof current DV projects, record to SD on the CineformRecorder and HDV to tape for future use if needed.... any thoughts guys?

Carl

Hernan Vilchez · November 15th, 2007, 10:28 AM

please consider seriously the component in. many canon xha1 and hv20 owners (like me) would immediately buy this device.

mobility: a solid case (nothing cheap plastic) with belt. and thread to hot shoes, stabilizers, magic arm

hooks (or whatever is the word in english) for the hdmi

2 CF slots minimum to make possible film interviews and concerts non stop.

easy menus. a lcd screen is useful both for recording and playback. but not a must.

nice rca in and minijackout for headphones

if possible good price, max 1k (we re indies...)

dont forget pal-land and 25p!!!

Craig Irving · November 15th, 2007, 10:43 AM

It depresses me that I can't buy this product now.

I really hope the wait isn't too long. It's perfect.

Michael Young · November 15th, 2007, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Newman

That pretty funny to me. What make this device compelling is this is no standard codec that can offer the range of benefits of CineForm. Like at AJA IO, is also uses a Proprietary codec in Apple's ProRes, a similar solution but Apple only. All the standard codecs are poor for this application in one or multiple ways. If you want disk recording for the cameras compression that already exists, we are working to expand camera DDR's into the quality / editing performance space. See my last blog entry on this : http://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/11...m-on-chip.html

AJA also uses Apple ProRes422, not only uses Apple ProRes422. Big difference. So please offer us the option to not use the CineForm codec... I do not want M2T or CineForm codecs personally since I have not had good experience with either of them. I have been successfully editing with uncompreseed with AJA's uncompressed codec from a KONA2 in full 4:4:4 HD... However, that codec is supported in FCP with no problems, old and new Macs. CineForm simply crashs my systems.

Anyway, I am just hoeping that like the AJA IO, we have the option to chose the codec. I love everything else CineForm does by the way, how to process the files, remove the pulldowns, batching, etc, just not the codec at the end. Personally, I would want uncompressed (With CineForms's HDLink added live) and then I would batch compress to what I want, which maybe Cineform, ProRes422, or whatever.
M

Jeremy Kromberg · November 15th, 2007, 12:19 PM

I am SOOO happy to be "stuck with the CineForm codec" Its is tough to beat for a VFX workflow on a budget. This coming year is going to be Huge for CineForm. Cant wait!!!

David Newman · November 15th, 2007, 12:27 PM

Michael,

You are asking for uncompressed, that is not really a codec in my eyes (codec = compressor / decompressor,) and it certainly wouldn't work for flash or single drive recording and be mobile at this size for HD. Look into the Colorspace Icon DDR, that is more what you are looking for. Selectable compression makes no sense in HD, as all the others are inferior for the market this unit is targeting.

Quote:

I am SOOO happy to be "stuck with the CineForm codec" Its is tough to beat for a VFX workflow on a budget. This coming year is going to be Huge for CineForm. Cant wait!!!

This is more like it. :)

Carl Middleton · November 15th, 2007, 12:31 PM

Agreed. I've been dreaming of this since my post awhile back trying to build a capture solution....

I wake up at night with images of this thing stuck in my head. =D Cineform is perfect for this. No other portable capture solution would even compare.

Carl

Michael Young · November 15th, 2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Newman

Michael,

You are asking for uncompressed, that is not really a codec in my eyes (codec = compressor / decompressor,) and it certainly wouldn't work for flash or single drive recording and be mobile at this size for HD. Look into the Colorspace Icon DDR, that is more what you are looking for. Selectable compression makes no sense in HD, as all the others are inferior for the market this unit is targeting.

The Colorspace Icon DDR would be awesome if it had HDMI.

You have HDMI, but then use the CineForm codec. I would just like the option to choose. Now don't get me wrong, the hardware concept looks awesome and combined with HDLink, it is even better!
M

Note: the Colorspace Icon DDR's website says HDMI is coming!!! Now that is intriguing! I will call them to see how options compare...

Alex Raskin · November 15th, 2007, 01:51 PM

Michael, you seem to be looking for a different device than what is being offered here.

Here Cineform offers a Cineform codec-based capturing box.

That's what most people would want, I think.

If that's not what you want, you are in the wrong bar :)

R. Zane Rutledge · November 15th, 2007, 02:48 PM

Count me in the camp that can see the advantage of having this unit be as small as possible with no screen (and added screen costs). I've been looking for some *superior* (be it Cineform/ProRes/what have you) way of capturing a full 1920x1080 HD sequence without squeezing it to 1440 and subsequently squeezing it onto tape in HDV. But I'd like something that can sit snug under an HV20 or similarly-sized camera and not add weight and bulk to it. (I'd really like to be able to fly the two on a SteadicamJR or a Merlin.)

Having now shot with the additional Brevis35 setup, I *can* see the merits in a screen if you're giving a decent Noga-arm-enhanced way of monitoring your HD, for the sake of shooting with lens-adapters, say. But in this case you're considering a reasonably nice and higher-res display, not a cheap LCD, and possibly combining multiple purposes (after all, there are monitors out there for this.) Otherwise, I just don't see the use of an LCD for menus unless they honestly add no cost to the unit. We just need the smallest replacement for an Intensity-tethered-laptop that we can get.

I say stick to the basics and drive the price as low as possible; small, compact, HD storage via HDMI (or optional alternate inputs if it doesn't bloat the device/cost). I could also support the notion of adding small micro drives if it meets a certain size profile that makes sense...But CF works for me if it reduces weight/size/cost. I think the lower you can get the cost and satisfy the basic needs, the better your chance of success and the broader your potential buyers.

You've got to imagine exactly what the advantage of this is over the clunky RAID-tethered laptop with an Intensity card...that is doable today. And you've also got to come close to the price point of that combo, or beat it.

All in all, though, good thinking...and I can't wait to see what it becomes. Something like this couldn't get here soon enough for me...

Mike McCarthy · November 15th, 2007, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Young

AJA also uses Apple ProRes422, not only uses Apple ProRes422. Big difference. So please offer us the option to not use the CineForm codec... I do not want M2T or CineForm codecs personally since I have not had good experience with either of them. I have been successfully editing with uncompreseed with AJA's uncompressed codec from a KONA2 in full 4:4:4 HD... However, that codec is supported in FCP with no problems, old and new Macs. CineForm simply crashs my systems.

Anyway, I am just hoeping that like the AJA IO, we have the option to chose the codec. I love everything else CineForm does by the way, how to process the files, remove the pulldowns, batching, etc, just not the codec at the end. Personally, I would want uncompressed (With CineForms's HDLink added live) and then I would batch compress to what I want, which maybe Cineform, ProRes422, or whatever.
M

For the record, the AJA IOHD does ONLY use ProRes. It does not support uncompressed HD (FW800). Only the Kona/Xena cards do. Big difference. Uncompressed would be unfeasible for this device due to the high disk datarate it would require.

Jason Rodriguez · November 16th, 2007, 12:15 AM

Just as a quick exploration of the possibilities, I could see instances where the LCD screen could be very useful . . . you're now talking about not only an absolutely revolutionary recording device, but a dedicated CineForm player device as well . . . uses could now range from super-high-fidelity recording to digital projection in digital-cinema-quality 10-bit to something you can quickly export a high-quality edited timeline in Premiere or FCP to and then take to a client for portable playback anyplace/anywhere.

It would be like the super-professional video iPod for indie cinema :)

November 15th, 2007, 09:58 AM	#63
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	HDMI is uncompressed for audio and video. Regard 1440x1080 for Aspect HD. We potentially can add a scaler to the recording, but we don't know if it will fit. 1920x1080 image will work in Aspect HD, they will just run a little slow as the pipeline will scale 1920 to 1440 during timeline playback. However AE and other tools will still benefit from the full 1920x1080 image. So overall the 1920 image will likely be a big benefit, even for Aspect HD users. __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

November 15th, 2007, 10:28 AM	#65
Hernan Vilchez Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Munich, Germany Posts: 135	component in please please consider seriously the component in. many canon xha1 and hv20 owners (like me) would immediately buy this device. mobility: a solid case (nothing cheap plastic) with belt. and thread to hot shoes, stabilizers, magic arm hooks (or whatever is the word in english) for the hdmi 2 CF slots minimum to make possible film interviews and concerts non stop. easy menus. a lcd screen is useful both for recording and playback. but not a must. nice rca in and minijackout for headphones if possible good price, max 1k (we re indies...) dont forget pal-land and 25p!!! __________________ Hernan Vilchez kabopro.com myspace.com/kabopro

November 15th, 2007, 02:48 PM	#73
R. Zane Rutledge I Wanna Be A Cowboy! Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 3	With and Without Screen Options Count me in the camp that can see the advantage of having this unit be as small as possible with no screen (and added screen costs). I've been looking for some superior (be it Cineform/ProRes/what have you) way of capturing a full 1920x1080 HD sequence without squeezing it to 1440 and subsequently squeezing it onto tape in HDV. But I'd like something that can sit snug under an HV20 or similarly-sized camera and not add weight and bulk to it. (I'd really like to be able to fly the two on a SteadicamJR or a Merlin.) Having now shot with the additional Brevis35 setup, I can see the merits in a screen if you're giving a decent Noga-arm-enhanced way of monitoring your HD, for the sake of shooting with lens-adapters, say. But in this case you're considering a reasonably nice and higher-res display, not a cheap LCD, and possibly combining multiple purposes (after all, there are monitors out there for this.) Otherwise, I just don't see the use of an LCD for menus unless they honestly add no cost to the unit. We just need the smallest replacement for an Intensity-tethered-laptop that we can get. I say stick to the basics and drive the price as low as possible; small, compact, HD storage via HDMI (or optional alternate inputs if it doesn't bloat the device/cost). I could also support the notion of adding small micro drives if it meets a certain size profile that makes sense...But CF works for me if it reduces weight/size/cost. I think the lower you can get the cost and satisfy the basic needs, the better your chance of success and the broader your potential buyers. You've got to imagine exactly what the advantage of this is over the clunky RAID-tethered laptop with an Intensity card...that is doable today. And you've also got to come close to the price point of that combo, or beat it. All in all, though, good thinking...and I can't wait to see what it becomes. Something like this couldn't get here soon enough for me...

November 16th, 2007, 12:15 AM	#75
Jason Rodriguez Trustee Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 1,095	Just as a quick exploration of the possibilities, I could see instances where the LCD screen could be very useful . . . you're now talking about not only an absolutely revolutionary recording device, but a dedicated CineForm player device as well . . . uses could now range from super-high-fidelity recording to digital projection in digital-cinema-quality 10-bit to something you can quickly export a high-quality edited timeline in Premiere or FCP to and then take to a client for portable playback anyplace/anywhere. It would be like the super-professional video iPod for indie cinema :) Last edited by Jason Rodriguez; November 16th, 2007 at 12:56 AM. Reason: ipod reference

November 15th, 2007, 09:50 AM	#61
Craig Irving Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 539	That's great news. I think someone also alluded to this question earlier, but could there also be a 1440x1080 recording option for users of Aspect HD who aren't yet ready to move to Prospect HD?

November 15th, 2007, 10:08 AM	#64
Carl Middleton Major Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Fernandina Beach, FL Posts: 562	Personally I would find throwing out 500 pixel of resolution on capture extremely painful... If spending around $2k for a capture solution designed mainly around improving quality, why not spend $500 to be able to take full advantage of it? In my opinion, this device isn't for the consumer-end of the customer base, more for the quality-oriented pro-sumer to pro demographic, am I right? That being said, everyone's workflow and situation is different, I'm sure there's some people out there who would take advantage of it. With a hardware scaler, would it also be possible to capture directly to cineform compressed SD or uncompressed SD? One way to future-proof current DV projects, record to SD on the CineformRecorder and HDV to tape for future use if needed.... any thoughts guys? Carl

November 15th, 2007, 10:43 AM	#66
Craig Irving Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 539	It depresses me that I can't buy this product now. I really hope the wait isn't too long. It's perfect.

November 15th, 2007, 12:19 PM	#68
Jeremy Kromberg New Boot Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Los Angeles CA Posts: 9	I am SOOO happy to be "stuck with the CineForm codec" Its is tough to beat for a VFX workflow on a budget. This coming year is going to be Huge for CineForm. Cant wait!!!

November 15th, 2007, 12:31 PM	#70
Carl Middleton Major Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Fernandina Beach, FL Posts: 562	Agreed. I've been dreaming of this since my post awhile back trying to build a capture solution.... I wake up at night with images of this thing stuck in my head. =D Cineform is perfect for this. No other portable capture solution would even compare. Carl

November 15th, 2007, 01:51 PM	#72
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Michael, you seem to be looking for a different device than what is being offered here. Here Cineform offers a Cineform codec-based capturing box. That's what most people would want, I think. If that's not what you want, you are in the wrong bar :)