We are going to test one! ... your questions needed

[Joe Carney]

Tommy I don't know about wireless, but there are component to cat 5 baluns (both ways) that let you extend your signal over 150 feet. Maybe Spot can expand on that. Wireless has some way to go to get enough bandwidth as far as I know. (I'm referring to uncompressed HD, not SD).

[Axel Mertes]

Hi Barry,

I jump in lately here:

Originally Posted by Barry Green

You cannot record the 50p mode unless you have some sort of analog uncompressed HD capture station. [..] That's going to mean a RAID of hard disks, probably at least six. And a fast enough computer to handle the throughput. And an HD capture card. And that's all going to be expensive -- a wild guess says maybe $15,000. And it's not going to be portable at all -- this is going to be a desktop station.

And, on top of that, you'll need enough storage, because a gigabyte will only get you about 5 seconds of footage.

In other words, trying to record the uncompressed analog 50p output is pretty much fantasy. It ain't gonna happen, for the vast, vast, vast majority of circumstances.

You are pretty right in most points. But I would deny on saing its aint gonna happen. It simply depend on what type of shooting you are doing.

For ENG type work, ie. camera guys hunting for latest news stuff, the cable bound camera is definetly a problem.

For guys shooting feature films, commercials, documentaries I see nearly no problems with on-set harddisk recording. In fact, guys who used a 35mm camera so far and had the video preview option running are simply used to a cable bound camera system.

If you have power lines to feed some lamps on-set you have more than enough power to feed an on-set recording system too.

It all will not be a complex thing to handle, its taking place often when large feature HD shootings run. Looking at Viper, Origin, Arri D20 you will always live with the cable. No one is angry about it.

Obviously a 6,000 US$ HDV gear won't match a 100,000 US$ Varicam in results. But the cost saving involved here allows those who need the best possible output (low compression or uncompressed HD720p) to utilize on-set recording systems when applicable. If one needs green screen or blue screen I'd even recommend uncompressed recording when using a Varicam (we do so). The compression of Varicam and HD CAM is basically not better than keying DV25 signals, just larger images.

I believe that on-set recording systems with HDV gears will shake the market of indy movie making with some unexpected results.

The idea of using a deck is also very valid to me (we will check with JVC GY-HD100 and Panasonic AJ-HD1200ae in a few days).

I know so many poeple who shot commercials originally on 35mm and now don't hesitate to use a Canon XL1s with Mini35 for the same kind of projects. The budgets forced them to do this, and it keeps their profit in acceptable ranges. After all: Why not. If one want the ultimost quality - go on and do IMAX recordings. For all others HDV & on-set recording (btw. its also on-set editing then...) is a neat option.

Regards,
Axel

[Barry Green]

Hi Axel,

Hey, I have no problem whatsoever with being cabled to a computer -- that's the way I shoot nearly everything nowadays, running a firewire cable to DV Rack (or HDV Rack, as the case may be).

What I'm talking about is the computing hardware necessary to handle uncompressed output. I figure it's on the order of $20,000 of hardware to get a desktop computer that can handle it. Then you'll have to have some sort of cart to haul it around in, etc. In other words, like I said -- it isn't gonna happen, for the vast, vast majority of people.

A $1000 laptop running a $495 product like HDV Rack -- yes, that's within people's reach. But a $20,000 desktop with a RAID of hard disks -- not practical. Yes it can be done, but it's just not practical.

[Axel Mertes]

Hi Barry,

you are right for most of the intended customers on HDV camera systems, thats quite sure.

Obviously companies like Sony don't like the idea to use an HDV camera as uncompressed quality camera head, surpassing recording quality of high end gears.

But on the other hand exactly this will happen for serious low budget projects where quality of recording is an issue (like bluebox/greenbox keying etc.) and where even high end gears start to get problems.

Look at the Mini35 from P+S. How many poeple use them? How many of them own it? That vast majority here rents the device on demand. I believe the same will happen with adequately equipped recording systems.

Your estimate on 20,000 for the system is comfortable. I know it can be done cheaper (we work on that) and you will end up with something that is totally helpful on-set, because with it you have:

- uncompressed recording
- compressed recording with various codecs
- native HD monitoring
- editing
- keying
- compositing
- immediate backup
- optional RAID 3/5/6/50/60 security features
- no extra ingest sessions
- immediate best takes review and selection
- dailies reviewing "anywhere"
- delivery in various preview codecs and formats from WWW to DVD to HD
- all the other neat stuff a computer brings on-set

All this for 20,000? All this for 20,000!

Given a serious larger project, say a documentary of feature, you can save the complete amount during post production alone, which you will have to pay for the whole hardware.

More and more often I run into projects where the "G5 with Final Cut Pro HD" is part of the project budget and will be simply bought for on-set ingest/edit/review of DVC PRO HD or HDV material. Thats simply a fact. When they leave the set, the rough cut is online on their disks. In final image quality. That is the future of production and not just on low budget projects.

What would one pay per day for such a system? Something like 150 to 300 bucks? Like one rents the HDV for 100 and the P+S for another 100? How many days in post will be saved, time (and money) for ingest of material, selection of takes, matching CGI/VR elements with life shots, recapturing from EDL's etc. etc. etc.

It always depends on the projects. I have spoken to many film production houses recently, and not a single one was not interested in using this.

Clearly, it would be even better if it was cheap and small and still does uncompressed. Wait some time. There are thing to come that fit even the cable free workflow, higher quality expectations and potentially even the budgets.

Regards,
Axel