April 6th, 2011, 04:36 AM | #1 |
Sponsor: Camera Motion Research
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 57
|
Wireless HD options
Perhaps of interest to stabilizer operators, we’ll have wireless HD rigs based on both the Brite-View Air-SynchHD and Asus Wicast sets working at our booth (C11837) at NAB. We’ve been playing with both systems for a few months because they can be very effective low cost wireless options.
Rich Greb Camera Motion Research |
April 6th, 2011, 08:34 AM | #2 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,414
|
Re: Wireless HD options
Rich, which one in your opinion has better, more stable signal?
__________________
I love this place! |
April 6th, 2011, 03:47 PM | #3 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Riverdale, NJ
Posts: 468
|
Re: Wireless HD options
Can either system use multiple receivers with a single transmitter?
|
April 6th, 2011, 04:09 PM | #4 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 189
|
Re: Wireless HD options
Dave, I believe the answer is no, but the Brite-view has HDMI wired loop-through on the transmitter, from what I've read.
|
April 6th, 2011, 04:19 PM | #5 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Efland NC, USA
Posts: 2,322
|
Re: Wireless HD options
Will see ya there Rich!
__________________
http://www.LandYachtMedia.com |
April 7th, 2011, 04:31 PM | #6 |
Sponsor: Camera Motion Research
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 57
|
Some answers to questions
I’m reluctant at this point to make any kind of blanket judgment regarding the question of which system has a “better, more stable signal” for two reasons. First, I would want to do a lot more real world testing than we have done. For example I don’t really know, but I suspect our use of the systems has usually been in relatively low interference environments. It will be interesting to see how they perform at the NAB exhibit hall where there should be a lot more potential for interference. Second there is a question about just how to define a better, more stable signal. It could mean at what operating distances will they never drop out, or it could mean what are the maximum operating distances where they would be very unlikely to drop out.
And for both systems the effective range is highly dependent on unique features of the operating environment including walls and building construction. They seem to behave quite similarly in regard to the environment variables, but again more testing should be done. With that preface, I’ll say that in our experience to date the Bright-View always holds the edge, but often the differences are not very significant. And the Bright-View does have the convenient HDMI splitter built into the transmitter. But the Wicast is smaller in size and has a significantly lower power consumption which is important for battery operation. And there are a few other operational differences which may or may not be important. Both are reliable low latency, low cost systems because they are both based on the same Amimon chip sets that were developed for the high volume home entertainment market. And with batteries and cables and mounting finesse, they are both very effective for on-camera wireless HD up to 1080P and operating distances from about 30 ft. to over 100 ft. depending on the operating environment. Neither product can be used with multiple receivers and one transmitter because they are essentially matched pairs of transmitter/receiver. But there are a number channels available and multiple pairs can be operating close together on different channels. We have also verified they are capable of daisy-chaining, as in transmitter 1 to receiver 1 and output of receiver 1 is split between a monitor and transmitter 2 which connects with receiver 2, etc. Since the latency of both units is so low (1 msec) you still don’t notice any lag on a monitor on the 2nd receiver. Rich Greb |
April 7th, 2011, 06:58 PM | #7 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 189
|
Re: Wireless HD options
Thanks, Rich. On another forum there has been a fierce debate, one party insisting they are both equal, and another party insisting that the Brite-view is better due to better antenna design and a newer chipset.
Have you been able to quantify the difference in power draw? |
April 7th, 2011, 07:42 PM | #8 |
Sponsor: Camera Motion Research
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 57
|
Re: Wireless HD options
I'm not sure that different Amimon chip sets are used, but they are certainly implemented differently with regard to firmware and very probably antenna design.
One of the first things we did was measure power consumption in transmitters and receivers under different operating conditions for both products. Even when the power requirement of a typical external HDMI splitter is added to the Asus transmitter, the total power consumption of the Asus transmitter and splitter will be typically roughly 30% to 50% less (depending on whether the Brite-View is set to “Wide on” or “Wide off”) than the Brite-View transmitter according to our measurements. Rich Greb Last edited by Rich Greb; April 7th, 2011 at 07:43 PM. Reason: added "different" in first sentence |
April 18th, 2011, 07:13 AM | #9 |
Trustee
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,414
|
Re: Wireless HD options
thanks Rich!
__________________
I love this place! |
April 18th, 2011, 06:15 PM | #10 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Riverdale, NJ
Posts: 468
|
Re: Wireless HD options
I really don't understand why they can't design a wireless system that does multicast (one transmitter to many receivers). Internet Protocol supports secure multicast through IGMP. Standard stuff.
With my analog SD wireless system, I often transmit to 3 receivers, two 7" handheld monitors (typically for director and DP), and a 19" monitor for other crew. Moving down to a single receiver seems really limiting for me. |
April 20th, 2011, 11:48 AM | #11 |
Sponsor: Camera Motion Research
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 57
|
Report from NAB
Both the Brite-View and Asus products worked well for us at NAB. No rigorous testing was done, but as far as I could tell both performed about the same in the show hall environment as in our previous testing in Raleigh.
The transmitters on both systems were used in combination with a Panasonic GH2 and SmallHD DP6 monitor. Because the GH2 view-screen stays on when streaming from the camera’s HDMI port (unlike the Canon DSLRs), the DP6 was not really needed, but it is really nice to use on the GH2 and it provided a convenient way to mount the transmitters and batteries. With the Asus transmitter the SmallHD HDMI accessory splitter was used, but no separate splitter is need for the Brite-View because it has one built in. The receivers were mounted on the back of a Lilliput 10 inch monitor which makes for a decent quality portable handheld director’s monitor with 1024x600native resolution, or they could be plugged into the LCD TV we had at the booth. As you can see in the pics everything was cobbled together with Velcro, which worked just fine and particularly on the Blackbird rig where you don’t want anything to shift during use. The nice guys at Trailex allowed us to do a short feed into their giant Toshiba big screen trailer (very cool). The Asus system was used for this test. The receiver was inside at the front end of the trailer. Incidentally, there was no moiré visible on the Toshiba giant display. The terrible moire seen in the video was produced by the combination of the T2i used to record the video and the LED display. You’ll notice that toward the end of the clip the signal does start to break up. In another test with the receiver mounted outside on the roof of the trailer we could just get to our booth a distance of about 90 ft. as the crow flies before the signal would start to break up. Link to video YouTube - Wireless HD test at NAB 2011 Pics note: pics with wood panel background are Brite-View systems, all others Asus Rich Greb |
May 24th, 2011, 05:18 PM | #12 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Summit, NJ
Posts: 169
|
Re: Wireless HD options
Does anyone know the SyncHD's FCC ID?
The FCC ID can usually be found on the back of the product, printed on a white label. I have searched Brite-View's website, but found no mention of the FCC ID. Just to clarify, with an FCC ID I can search the FCC's website and get more technical information about the product as I'm interested in researching it before purchasing one. |
May 24th, 2011, 05:37 PM | #13 |
Sponsor: Camera Motion Research
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 57
|
Re: Wireless HD options
Checking the back of one of our units I have at home I see: FCC ID: YG7ZRF32100
Perhaps you might share what you learn by looking it up. |
May 25th, 2011, 12:53 PM | #14 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Summit, NJ
Posts: 169
|
Re: Wireless HD options
According to the FCC, the ID you posted is for the receiver module. I was also able to find the FCC ID for the transmitter module.
Receiver: YG7ZRF32100 Transmitter: YG7ZRF31100 The product is made by a company named Zinwell. As you can see on the Grant Authorization page, the first four channels transmit at a lower power output than the last two: Frequency..........| Output.......... ----------------------------------------------------------- 5180.0 - 5240.0 | 0.04539 Watts (45.39 mW) 5190.0 - 5230.0 | 0.03681 5270.0 - 5310.0 | 0.04666 5510.0 - 5670.0 | 0.03981 As opposed to the last two channels: 5745.0 - 5825.0 | 0.57809 Watts (578.09 mW) 5755.0 - 5795.0 | 0.44565 In addition, there seem to be two revisions of the transmitter, one is labeled YG7ZRF31100 and one is labeled YG7ZRF31100F. The difference is a slight reduction in the 5745.0 - 5825.0 channel. This channel puts out 0.5176 Watts (517.6 mW), as opposed to the previously mentioned 578.09 mW figure above. If anyone is interested in more information, like the internal photos of the product, it can all be found here. |
| ||||||
|
|