Gemini 4:4:4 feature request - compressed codecs

[Ed David]

Hi guys
going off the other post - I think it would be amazing if you allowed compressed recording onto the Gemini such as the features the Sound Devices recorder will allow - such as Pro Res 422 HQ and Avid DNx and even the nanoflash 8 bit codecs. Just because there are going to be times when you want to preserve on disk space and you want to just have one recorder, instead of buying the Gemini when you're doing 4:4:4 work and then the Sound Devices or Ki Pro Mini when you want to record 10-bit pro res.

let me know what you guys think and if this has been brought up before.

[Chris Medico]

I had this very conversation with the guys in the booth today. The simple answer as told to me is its not possible because the hardware to do that isn't in the case and that was one of the things that had to be left out to keep it small.

This decision puts that recorder out of reach for me at the moment. :(

I need to be able to do both.

[Rafael Amador]

The Gemini works full uncompressed. To record to any other codec would be necessary to add another processor native for that codec.
That would increase the size of the device and the power needs significantly.
rafael

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Friends,

While we do not have the ability to record compressed in the Gemini 4:4:4 we offer a solution that will work for many.

After one has recorded the full uncompressed footage, one can attach the SSD to our transfer station, which is included the our Gemini 4:4:4 kit for $5,995.

Then the footage is available as a mounted drive, an SSD with a 6.0 Gigabits per second interface.

The footage can then be encoded to the codec of your choice using Apple Compressor or Adobe Media Encoder or other software.

For 30 minutes of footage, this encoding occurs in about 15 minutes.

Thus, we use the general purpose computing power of your computer to do the encoding.

If we add the ability to record to multiple codecs in our recorder, the power draw will increase by over 10 watts, and the price will also have to increase.

Thus, we offer two solutions.

The nanoFlash, which allows compressed recording for long events (over 10 hours), and the Gemini 4:4:4 for very high quality recording (but this is limited at this time to 2 hours maximum, unless one wants to "Hot Swap" then the uninterrupted recording time is limited by your resources (number of SSD cards).

If you check the power requirements of all other uncompressed + compressed recorders you will find the power draw to be significantly higher. Ours is 8 to 15 watts, with around 12 watts being typical.

[Lance Librandi]

Dear Dan,
If I was to purchase a Gemini 4:4:4 I would like to edit in uncompressed what editors would you recommend that would allow the quality to be maintained through the editing process. Final Cut Pro will not do it god knows what Final Cut Pro X will do.

Many thanks

[Rafael Amador]

Lance,
Can you explain your statement that Final Cut Pro "editing Uncompressed won't allow maintain the quality through the editing process"?
FC works full Uncompressed (444 time-line) and when rendering required does it at 32b FP.
Can you point to the problem?
rafael

[Barry J. Anwender]

Lance, FCP has since version 5 been able to edit uncompressed HD footage. When you purchase the capture device the drivers come with it. I have been using a BlackMagic Design Multibridge and as you can see in the attached window capture, the drivers and corresponding settings are all there. I currently use FCP 7.0.3. As mentioned elsewhere in these threads, you will also need a wicked-fast RAID array to edit uncompressed whatever.

[Ed David]

Originally Posted by Dan Keaton

Dear Friends,

While we do not have the ability to record compressed in the Gemini 4:4:4 we offer a solution that will work for many.

After one has recorded the full uncompressed footage, one can attach the SSD to our transfer station, which is included the our Gemini 4:4:4 kit for $5,995.

Then the footage is available as a mounted drive, an SSD with a 6.0 Gigabits per second interface.

The footage can then be encoded to the codec of your choice using Apple Compressor or Adobe Media Encoder or other software.

For 30 minutes of footage, this encoding occurs in about 15 minutes.

Thus, we use the general purpose computing power of your computer to do the encoding.

If we add the ability to record to multiple codecs in our recorder, the power draw will increase by over 10 watts, and the price will also have to increase.

Thus, we offer two solutions.

The nanoFlash, which allows compressed recording for long events (over 10 hours), and the Gemini 4:4:4 for very high quality recording (but this is limited at this time to 2 hours maximum, unless one wants to "Hot Swap" then the uninterrupted recording time is limited by your resources (number of SSD cards).

If you check the power requirements of all other uncompressed + compressed recorders you will find the power draw to be significantly higher. Ours is 8 to 15 watts, with around 12 watts being typical.

I wish on a star that in the future - there could be an added feature- the ability to also bring record compressed off the bat. 22minutes (or whatever precisely it is) of recording is not going to cut it for me when I am doing my work. The Ki Pro Mini gives me about 44 minutes on a 64gb compactflash card and I'm feeling like that's my limit.

It's rather unfortuate because I want to get the Gemini but I just don't know how useful it would be for my doc/tv work.

I wish you guys still make a 10 bit recorder as well as efficient as the nanoflash but with the ability to record to Avid DNXhd and Pro Res. For when you need more than the nanoflash but not as much as the Gemini.

I have faith in you guys!
Ed

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Friends,

We try hard to respond to our customers' requests.

We are listening.

[Chris Medico]

Originally Posted by Ed David

I wish on a star that in the future - there could be an added feature- the ability to also bring record compressed off the bat. 22minutes (or whatever precisely it is) of recording is not going to cut it for me when I am doing my work. The Ki Pro Mini gives me about 44 minutes on a 64gb compactflash card and I'm feeling like that's my limit.

It's rather unfortuate because I want to get the Gemini but I just don't know how useful it would be for my doc/tv work.

I wish you guys still make a 10 bit recorder as well as efficient as the nanoflash but with the ability to record to Avid DNXhd and Pro Res. For when you need more than the nanoflash but not as much as the Gemini.

I have faith in you guys!
Ed

This is exactly why I'm going to have to buy the Sound Devices PIX 240 instead of a Convergent Design product.

Uncompressed is a nice idea but my projects won't benefit from it. Nor can I overlook the cost of media using an uncompressed workflow.

[Alister Chapman]

I think the Gemini is aimed fair and square at those that want the very best image quality, nothing less. The PIx 240 is a very nice looking device, a bit on the big side for attaching to a camera for handheld and with much higher power consumption and a big fan on the back. It's somewhere between a Cinedeck and a Ninja or Samurai. The Pix will record ProRes or DNxHD in 10 bit, but it can't do 4:4:4, and if you are planning on using S-Log or any other Log or raw type workflow you really want 4:4:4 as your white balance is fixed in camera to the sensors native response, so you want all the RGB data you can get.

I love the convergent design concept of shooting uncompressed and then encoding on transfer. It does mean that you will need a few nice big SSD's, but as someone used to buying SxS cards for my EX cameras the cost per minute of the media is not completely outrageous and will get cheaper over time. With the encode on ingest approach I can choose the codec for each project without having to change the recording device each time. I might have a cinema commercial shoot one day requiring uncompressed 4:4:4 and then the next day a simple corporate where maybe Cineform or ProRes would be better.

[Chris Medico]

I was asked a month or so ago about my opinions regarding the new field recorders coming out. I would like to share my thoughts here since they are directly related to the equipment under discussion.

Understand these are my thoughts on the subject.

============================

I'll put the summary first. In a single sentence - I'm not interested in this or any uncompressed ONLY product.

Do I think it will sell? Absolutely. I think there to be two types of buyers. The first will be those that truly need what uncompressed has to offer and second will be those that want to brag they shoot uncompressed. The bravado of the second group will stop when they figure out that they can't afford an uncompressed workflow (in time, aggravation, or actual $$). If I pick up a project that needs to capture in uncompressed I'll snag a recorder secondhand from group 2.

1. I'm sure its a GREAT piece of gear that will offer the highest quality possible.

2. That level of quality and its demands are not for everyone and not offering a compressed workflow IN THE RECORDER is a serious oversight in my opinion.

3. The true cost of ownership is not obvious until you start buying RAID systems for your edit systems and LOTS of SSDs for your field capture OR adopt a PROXY workflow. Certainly manageable but more complex depending on your editing platform.

The long version:
1. This one is pretty self explanatory. Quality. I know they make a quality product. I have total respect for the Convergent Design team and know they put out an awesome product.

2. How good is good enough? Simply - I'm not a measurebater and not interested in over collecting data. What it comes down to is this - You should capture the CORRECT amount of data for your application so your end result has the quality attributes you desire. As example - If you are going to shoot a green screen epic such as "Lord of the Rings" then full uncompressed 4.4.4 makes a LOT of sense because it can improve the quality of your keys in post and give you the most latitude in the image to tweak it mercilessly. That amount of data has a purpose. The downside of this workflow is storage size and bandwidth and cost of capture media. If you don't have a RAID setup that reaches into double digit terabytes and a REAL RAID controller card in your computer that gives lots of bandwidth to those drives this workflow will only frustrate you with dropped frames and piss poor playback performance. You have the option to create compressed proxies for doing your editing but that is rendering time on your machine and time for someone to organize all your proxies in the edit system. Not a pain free workflow but if you have a "Lord of the Rings" budget then this doesn't even come into question. You got the cash to make this a non-issue.

From that level we drop into a much larger population of films where 4.2.2 10bit compressed S-log gamma is perfectly good enough to use (and in many cases maybe overkill). This covers just about everything else that doesn't fit into the paragraph above. Riddle me this - Why do I want to shoot 4.4.4 10bit uncompressed video of a tracking shot of a couple of lovers walking in the park talking to each other? Does that make any sense at all? In my book it doesn't. What does make perfect sense to me is this - If you want to use S-log gamma then get a 10bit recorder that supports reasonable compression and if you don't need something as strong as S-log then drop back to an 8bit recorder or use the cameras internal recording media. The media and computer demands fall substantially thanks to responsible compression and the post workflow is helped by being able to work perfectly well with your average multi-core desktop computer.

3. Cost of ownership and use - Wow $1000+/hr for capture media? Makes Sony's SxS cards look a lot more reasonable at a cost of about $350/hr @ 35mbit. I acknowledge that the cost of SSDs will continue to come down BUT we are not there yet. Here is an example using a real project I personally worked on. We captured about 2hrs of footage per day on an Indie feature I shot last year. That means for each 3 day weekend shoot we would have to have about $6,000 in media available. If we wanted to keep the field capture as a safety backup till the end of the shoot then we would have had more than $30k in media alone. That was more than the entire shooting budget for the film. Add the cost using an editor that can handle uncompressed your available choices are reduced and your costs are increased again. An F3 rental may be in reach of many Indie filmmakers budget wise but an uncompressed workflow isn't.

More isn't always better. Sometimes its just more. More headache, more expensive, more time consuming. Plan ahead and use the right tool for the job. These uncompressed tools will be fantastic for a small portion of productions and a headache for the rest.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Chris,

For now, I just want to address Point 3.

We expect that our Gemini 4:4:4 users will either:

1. Copy the footage off the SSD to one or more Hard Disk Drives on a frequent basis so that the SSD can be reused. We expect that this will be done in the field, and we recommend copying to at least two HDD's.

2. Encode to a compressed codec of their choice, using the SSD as the source, and one of their internal or external HDD's as the destination.

This can be done in the field, or other locations.

Option 1 takes approximately one-third real time, 20 minutes for 60 minutes of footage, for one copy.

Option 2 Takes approximately one-half real time, 30 minutes for 60 minutes of footage, for one codec.
And the codec can be almost any codec, it is your choice.

These times are based on tests that we ran months ago.
We will have updated times as soon as we rerun these tests.

Chris, it is very clear that you want either a compressed recorder, or a full uncompressed recorder that also has an option to recorded compressed, if desired.

We are listening to your requests.

We do not expect that most users, except for major Hollywood studios to have enough SSD's for a weekend of shooting.

Please note that for recording S-Log, we do recommend recording 4:4:4 as opposed to 4:2:2, if possible. This recommendation comes from outside sources as well as one of our team members.

Chris, please feel free to call me if you wish.

Support Contacts | Convergent Design

[Chris Medico]

Thanks Dan,

Please don't take my comments as negative on the product you make. Nothing is further from the truth. You guys make AWESOME stuff. It was a pleasure to meet the team at NAB this year on the floor and during the DVInfo get together.

My concern with jumping to uncompressed in general is in using a bigger tool for the job than is necessary. Specifically in this case thinking that more is always better or that more will benefit every production. That just is not true or should I say that it may be true from a pure technical sense but far from true in a practical sense. I only advocate that people consider their application and understand the total costs/benefits before making the jump.

I am VERY interested in knowing the specifics as to why 4.4.4 be used with S-Log vs 4.2.2. The 10bit thing is obvious but why 4.2.2 colorspace is a problem is not so obvious.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your kind words.

We take no offense whatsoever. Your point of view is one that we certainly respect.

Background:

Today there are some amazing cameras.

The Sony F3 and The ARRI Alexa are two examples.

To get the most out of the Sony F3, one can consider using CineGamma's, or S-Log.

With S-Log, to get the most, one should use a very capable recorder.

We started designing the Gemini 4:4:4 prior to learning of the "to be announced" F3.

It was wonderful how the two were almost made for each other.


And I want to mention, as I have before, if one is not going to use S-Log, the nanoFlash has been proven to produce just stunning images with the F3.


The Gemini 4:4:4 also has a place with the ARRI Alexa.

Both before and after we come out with an extra cost option to support ARRIRAW.