CineForm HDMI Recorder Concept Posted

[Richard Leadbetter]

Audio can indeed be embedded into the HDMI signal. I would imagine that the inclusion of a separate audio input would be invaluable for audio coming from another source. Surely a dedicated mic would provide better quality sound than a camera-mounted mic?

[Serge Victorovich]

David, what you think about GPU usage for RT encoding to Cineform ?
http://www.elementaltechnologies.com/how_it_works.php

Iridas already use GPU for RT debayer of RAW...

[Richard Leadbetter]

I think from a coolness perspective, use of the GPU would be great. The question is, with a commercial perspective in mind, why CineForm would want to develop it - Intel CPUs are getting ever more powerful and ever more cheaper, and it's safe to assume that by the time development work would be complete on such a project, they'll be even more powerful and even cheaper.

[David Newman]

In addition, while GPUs are very good at certain operations, the large amount of entropy encoding/decoding required by a higher bit-rate compression is not one of the areas they do well at. Our compression would be slower if implemented solely on GPU and deminishing returns for a split CPU/GPU implementation.

[Fredrik-Larsson]

Are there any news on the progress of the recorder, such as decided features and estimated arrival on the market?

[Craig Irving]

I wonder how/if Cineform have revised their plans (if not technically, then perhaps with regard to pricing) with Matrox's announcement of the MX02.

If the Cineform recorder doesn't come out soon the Matrox may have to do. It's just not my preference. But it seems like the Matrox box is format agnostic and would allow recording into Cineform directly, as long as the Cineform codec is installed on your MacBook Pro or Mac Pro. (They use ExpressCard or PCIe) which is probably why they don't mention a regular MacBook as being compatible.

[David Newman]

Nope, we haven't haven't changed our plans. There are just too many reasons for a range portable CineForm capture devices.

[Jason Burkhimer]

Originally Posted by David Newman

Nope, we haven't haven't changed our plans. There are just too many reasons for a range portable CineForm capture devices.

I take it though, that with no announcements at NAB this year, we're still at least a year off? Ever since you guys announced this thing, my HV20 has been begging for a playmate. :)

-burk

[David Newman]

Not a year off. But we knew all along it wouldn't be ready for this NAB. The point on the thread was to collect your feedback to make the best product we can. This not just feedback to CineForm, but to hardware partners that complete this project. CineForm is a software company, yet we are porting our compression to hardware so that will appear in a range of forms (this is just one of them.)

[Richard Leadbetter]

Originally Posted by Craig Irving

I wonder how/if Cineform have revised their plans (if not technically, then perhaps with regard to pricing) with Matrox's announcement of the MX02.

If the Cineform recorder doesn't come out soon the Matrox may have to do. It's just not my preference. But it seems like the Matrox box is format agnostic and would allow recording into Cineform directly, as long as the Cineform codec is installed on your MacBook Pro or Mac Pro. (They use ExpressCard or PCIe) which is probably why they don't mention a regular MacBook as being compatible.

I'm not sure I see the comparison. MX02 is an attachment to your laptop for $1,500 and it's limited to Mac to boot - the CineForm unit would be a complete standalone piece of equipment at $2,000. I know which I'd rather have!

[Craig Irving]

Originally Posted by Richard Leadbetter

I'm not sure I see the comparison. MX02 is an attachment to your laptop for $1,500 and it's limited to Mac to boot - the CineForm unit would be a complete standalone piece of equipment at $2,000. I know which I'd rather have!

They're not 100% identical, no. I guess they're only similar in the fact that both products would allow you to record straight into Cineform via the HDMI, bypassing long-GOP and HDV compression, preserving 4:2:2, and recording straight to hard drive.

I understand that the Cineform box would be a complete stand-alone, and would also allow Compact Flash recording capabilities. They both would have their pros and cons, but to say there's no comparison at all, well...

Don't get me wrong, I want this Cineform Recorder as much as the rest of you. I'd buy it today if I could.

[Alex Raskin]

Another similar hardware solution? Although does not look too mobile:

http://www.telestream.net/products/p...utm_source=NBM

[Richard Leadbetter]

Standard def and SDI only. Watched the presentation and I'm kind of struggling to see the point of it to be honest over and above the obvious coolness factor of capturing over LAN.

[Alexander Ibrahim]

http://ffv.com/products/elite_front_4.pdf

This is an SDI i/o device, it records JPEG2000. (Which they call/abreviate J2K)

It is 10 bit sampling at 4:2:2.

It uses hot swappable 2.5" SATA drives for storage.

I prefer an HD-SDI solution built around Cineform codecs, especially FILMREC. I also prefer commodity solid state storage whenever possible.

[Alex Raskin]

What Alexander said, agreed on all accounts.

Note to Cineform: please don't forget to provide a switch to use your built-in analog audio line in, instead of HDMI-multiplexed audio!