HDMI from HD110

Tim Dashwood · May 24th, 2007, 06:12 PM

Doug,

If you are simply comparing HD-SDI/HDMI vs. COMPONENT vs. native HDV via FIREWIRE from material that has already been recorded to tape, then HDV or HD-SDI/HDMI would have the advantage because there is no analog conversion step. Capturing HD-SDI or HDMI to a lossless codec can be advantageous over native HDV simply because you wouldn't have the headaches associated with posting in mpeg2.

However, if you are talking live capture from the HD-250's HD-SDI vs COMPONENT vs HDV, then HD-SDI will win hands down. There is no D to A conversion and no compression/decompression to and from mpeg. It's a win-win situation, but requires a HDCAM recorder or some sort of lossless digitizing (Venom, ICON, ioHD, Wafian, or a desktop with AJA BM card.)

However, there is still an advantage to capturing 'live' from the component outputs vs HDV because you are skipping the mpeg2 step. You'll still have a hit from the A to D to A conversion, but it is a "lesser of two evils" situation.

Bill Ravens · May 24th, 2007, 06:15 PM

Doug...
(Tim beat me to it)

At this point in time, I can monitor via component out to HDMI, but, I can't record. Which means all I can do is try to A-B compare live monitored signal with a recorded(compressed) video stream. Not really a good test, IMHO, since too many other variables get introduced for the test to be valid. If the info I posted above re: 4-bit ADC with the Hall Research box, is correct, I'd wait for the BMD Intensity Pro card to get released in June.

What's really lacking, here, is a Wafian type of portable HD recorder that costs under $10k. The Wafian uses the Cineform intermediate codec to record lightly compressed digital signal, such as that available from HDMI straight from the camera out. I think, just my humble opinion, users are being stonewalled by the major manufacturers to protect their high end systems. Even with the Intensity Pro, it's extremely difficult to carry a PCIe equipped computer into the field to record. So, as you pointed out, you can spend vast amounts of money on a system that's pretty much tied to the studio with an umbilical for minimal to no gain in picture quality over the native m2t data. Top that off with no consumer way to distribute HDV video and you have a format that's going nowhere.

Mike Schell · May 24th, 2007, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

Mike...
ahhh, I understand, now. A signal coming directly from the camera CCD block to the component outs would avoid that extra conversion to analog by the tape deck, not to mention the loss experienced by compression to MPEG2 when it was written to tape; and would, theoretically be better than any of these taped clips. Provided, of course that a suitably fast and large enough uncompressed storage medium could be had. And therein lies HDV's soft spot, a lossless storage medium for approximately the same cost as the camera.
Thanx for the explanation.

Hi Bill-
I may not have explained the signal flow clearly, as you actually get the best image by avoiding both the MPEG compression and the digital to analog conversion that occurs on the component outputs. The new HDV camcorders with HDMI produce a fantastic image quality (in live mode), by forgoing both the HDV compression and any analog conversions (except of course for the one analog to digital conversion coming off the CCD/CMOS imager).

Take a look at the white paper I wrote "HDMI in HDV and AVCHD cameras", available from our web site. On page four I show a block digaram of the signal flow inside a deck/camera. Hopefully this will clarify the process.

Best-
Mike Schell
Convergent Design

Bill Ravens · May 24th, 2007, 06:44 PM

Mike...

I understand...thanx.

Doug Harvey · May 24th, 2007, 07:15 PM

Bill:
Well I have the BM Studio Card (Analog & HDMI) and the computer to capture with, but no HDMI device to use yet to try the HDMI route. And yes the 720-60p captured through the analog inputs using the BM card is better then the 480-60p to tape. I am hoping that I could find a solution to make the camera that I have now the HD-100 more versatile, 720-60p and 1080I capture without breaking the bank or buying another camera.

Steven Thomas · July 9th, 2007, 10:56 AM

After reading Bill Ravens' message about the Hall Research VHD-HDMI, I'm very curious if Bill or anyone has any new information regarding using this component to HDMI interface with the HD100.

I saw Mike's post and video on the difference between the BR50 analog out vs HDMI. It was day and night. The BR50's D/A conversion destroyed the high frequency detail. Apparently the D/A coverters on the BR50 are questionable.

Like Bill (and I'm sure most of us), I do not want to buy a load of stuff only to find out it looks worse than the HDV original.

Bill, at the time, you were not able to capture the HDMI, have you been able to? I'm real interested in the difference between the HDV vs component>HDMI. For $350, it seems like a good deal. Since I've used the component out on the HD100 straight to a 50" pioneer plasma, I believe it mantains decent quality, but without a direct comparison to HDMI, it's hard to tell.

Of course not only do we have the HD100's D/A conversion, but also the A/D conversion on the Hall Research.

Any more info on this?
I'm real interested in bypassing HDV compression. I realize it's not a very portable solution. Are there any reasonable HDMI capture soultions?

Steven Thomas · July 15th, 2007, 09:01 AM

Nothing on this ?

Bill Ravens · July 15th, 2007, 02:30 PM

The signal available from the component outputs of my HD110, when fed to a 32inch Sony HDTV via the converter box, looks absolutely beautiful. I've not tried to record from this signal, simply because the recording data rate and HD capacity needed are significant. I assume the signal could be injested via a BMD Intensity Pro card, however, the current state of the art for storage media with the ability to record from HD (note: NOT HDV) is not yet practical, either for cost or for reliability.

Steven Thomas · July 15th, 2007, 08:20 PM

Thanks Bill.

I'd like to see a simple HDMI capture program that has cineform NEO nested in it. I'd love to capture 720 60P from the HD100.

Obviously HDMI is only one avenue.
I'm not hearing much about the component to SDI solutions.

Steve

Joe Carney · July 21st, 2007, 06:29 PM

I believe that Cineform will work with the BMD Intensity card. Could be a killer combo. If it works, I will purchase for my own use.

Steven Thomas · August 28th, 2007, 08:01 PM

Has anyone using a JVC HD100/110, or HD200 checked out the component capture using Blackmagic Intensity Pro?
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/

I'm wondering if it's smarter to buy a seperate Component>HDMI converter, then buy the Intensity HDMI only card
instead of the Pro version.

Jim Andrada · August 28th, 2007, 09:26 PM

I'm really interested in the answer to this as I'm considering getting an HD110 and am confused about the best way to capture the video.

I've thought about 1) skipping tape and bringing the analog signal into a BlackMagic card but have seen some comments elsewhere in DVINFO saying that the color wasn't so good this way and 2) bringing firewire into the PC, but this would involve MPEG compression and de-compresssion.

In either case I was thinking of capturing to Cineform.

I guess in the end it all depends on the quality of the D to A conversion and whether the D to A in the camera is (or isn't) better than the D to A on the Blackmagic card. Regardless of what path one uses, there has to be D to A somewhere in the path!

And I suppose there are also issues with noise on the analog connectors and breakout cable etc etc etc.

Steven Thomas · August 29th, 2007, 06:16 AM

Jim,
I agree about the analog component run. This is one reason why I'm considering buying a component to HDMI converter. I could keep the converter within 3 to 6 ft of my camera.

I'm hoping to hear more about the Intensity Pro component capture.

Bill Ravens · August 29th, 2007, 07:08 AM

Given the choice, I would opt for the Intensity Pro Card. Using an intermediate conversion box, such as the one I originally posted about here, risks reduction in signal quality due to poor analog to digital conversion(i.e. lower sampling rate (bits) than the intensity pro uses)

Steven Thomas · August 29th, 2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

Given the choice, I would opt for the Intensity Pro Card. Using an intermediate conversion box, such as the one I originally posted about here, risks reduction in signal quality due to poor analog to digital conversion(i.e. lower sampling rate (bits) than the intensity pro uses)

Bill, I hear you on this, but I have not heard or seen much regarding the component capture quality on the Intensity Pro card.

Like Jim, the only thing I've heard was the color was not so good.
I'd like to hear more and hopefully see some comparision frame grabs or footage.

May 24th, 2007, 06:12 PM	#31
Tim Dashwood Wrangler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 3,637	Doug, If you are simply comparing HD-SDI/HDMI vs. COMPONENT vs. native HDV via FIREWIRE from material that has already been recorded to tape, then HDV or HD-SDI/HDMI would have the advantage because there is no analog conversion step. Capturing HD-SDI or HDMI to a lossless codec can be advantageous over native HDV simply because you wouldn't have the headaches associated with posting in mpeg2. However, if you are talking live capture from the HD-250's HD-SDI vs COMPONENT vs HDV, then HD-SDI will win hands down. There is no D to A conversion and no compression/decompression to and from mpeg. It's a win-win situation, but requires a HDCAM recorder or some sort of lossless digitizing (Venom, ICON, ioHD, Wafian, or a desktop with AJA BM card.) However, there is still an advantage to capturing 'live' from the component outputs vs HDV because you are skipping the mpeg2 step. You'll still have a hit from the A to D to A conversion, but it is a "lesser of two evils" situation. __________________ Tim Dashwood

May 24th, 2007, 07:15 PM	#35
Doug Harvey New Boot Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Port Stanley, Canada Posts: 23	Thanks Again Bill: Well I have the BM Studio Card (Analog & HDMI) and the computer to capture with, but no HDMI device to use yet to try the HDMI route. And yes the 720-60p captured through the analog inputs using the BM card is better then the 480-60p to tape. I am hoping that I could find a solution to make the camera that I have now the HD-100 more versatile, 720-60p and 1080I capture without breaking the bank or buying another camera.

July 21st, 2007, 06:29 PM	#40
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	I believe that Cineform will work with the BMD Intensity card. Could be a killer combo. If it works, I will purchase for my own use. __________________ Boycott Guinness, bring back the pint!!!

May 24th, 2007, 06:15 PM	#32
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Doug... (Tim beat me to it) At this point in time, I can monitor via component out to HDMI, but, I can't record. Which means all I can do is try to A-B compare live monitored signal with a recorded(compressed) video stream. Not really a good test, IMHO, since too many other variables get introduced for the test to be valid. If the info I posted above re: 4-bit ADC with the Hall Research box, is correct, I'd wait for the BMD Intensity Pro card to get released in June. What's really lacking, here, is a Wafian type of portable HD recorder that costs under $10k. The Wafian uses the Cineform intermediate codec to record lightly compressed digital signal, such as that available from HDMI straight from the camera out. I think, just my humble opinion, users are being stonewalled by the major manufacturers to protect their high end systems. Even with the Intensity Pro, it's extremely difficult to carry a PCIe equipped computer into the field to record. So, as you pointed out, you can spend vast amounts of money on a system that's pretty much tied to the studio with an umbilical for minimal to no gain in picture quality over the native m2t data. Top that off with no consumer way to distribute HDV video and you have a format that's going nowhere.

May 24th, 2007, 06:44 PM	#34
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Mike... I understand...thanx.

July 9th, 2007, 10:56 AM	#36
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	After reading Bill Ravens' message about the Hall Research VHD-HDMI, I'm very curious if Bill or anyone has any new information regarding using this component to HDMI interface with the HD100. I saw Mike's post and video on the difference between the BR50 analog out vs HDMI. It was day and night. The BR50's D/A conversion destroyed the high frequency detail. Apparently the D/A coverters on the BR50 are questionable. Like Bill (and I'm sure most of us), I do not want to buy a load of stuff only to find out it looks worse than the HDV original. Bill, at the time, you were not able to capture the HDMI, have you been able to? I'm real interested in the difference between the HDV vs component>HDMI. For $350, it seems like a good deal. Since I've used the component out on the HD100 straight to a 50" pioneer plasma, I believe it mantains decent quality, but without a direct comparison to HDMI, it's hard to tell. Of course not only do we have the HD100's D/A conversion, but also the A/D conversion on the Hall Research. Any more info on this? I'm real interested in bypassing HDV compression. I realize it's not a very portable solution. Are there any reasonable HDMI capture soultions?

July 15th, 2007, 09:01 AM	#37
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Nothing on this ?

July 15th, 2007, 02:30 PM	#38
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	The signal available from the component outputs of my HD110, when fed to a 32inch Sony HDTV via the converter box, looks absolutely beautiful. I've not tried to record from this signal, simply because the recording data rate and HD capacity needed are significant. I assume the signal could be injested via a BMD Intensity Pro card, however, the current state of the art for storage media with the ability to record from HD (note: NOT HDV) is not yet practical, either for cost or for reliability.

July 15th, 2007, 08:20 PM	#39
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Thanks Bill. I'd like to see a simple HDMI capture program that has cineform NEO nested in it. I'd love to capture 720 60P from the HD100. Obviously HDMI is only one avenue. I'm not hearing much about the component to SDI solutions. Steve

August 28th, 2007, 08:01 PM	#41
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Has anyone using a JVC HD100/110, or HD200 checked out the component capture using Blackmagic Intensity Pro? http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/ I'm wondering if it's smarter to buy a seperate Component>HDMI converter, then buy the Intensity HDMI only card instead of the Pro version.

August 28th, 2007, 09:26 PM	#42
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	I'm really interested in the answer to this as I'm considering getting an HD110 and am confused about the best way to capture the video. I've thought about 1) skipping tape and bringing the analog signal into a BlackMagic card but have seen some comments elsewhere in DVINFO saying that the color wasn't so good this way and 2) bringing firewire into the PC, but this would involve MPEG compression and de-compresssion. In either case I was thinking of capturing to Cineform. I guess in the end it all depends on the quality of the D to A conversion and whether the D to A in the camera is (or isn't) better than the D to A on the Blackmagic card. Regardless of what path one uses, there has to be D to A somewhere in the path! And I suppose there are also issues with noise on the analog connectors and breakout cable etc etc etc.

August 29th, 2007, 06:16 AM	#43
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Jim, I agree about the analog component run. This is one reason why I'm considering buying a component to HDMI converter. I could keep the converter within 3 to 6 ft of my camera. I'm hoping to hear more about the Intensity Pro component capture.

August 29th, 2007, 07:08 AM	#44
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Given the choice, I would opt for the Intensity Pro Card. Using an intermediate conversion box, such as the one I originally posted about here, risks reduction in signal quality due to poor analog to digital conversion(i.e. lower sampling rate (bits) than the intensity pro uses)