Top 10 Reasons to Buy Matrox MXO2 Mini – Not Intensity Pro

Andrew Clark · June 26th, 2009, 04:44 PM

Nice!! I'll check your website.

Many thanks again for posting this (top 10 list); very helpful!!

Jack Falbey · June 26th, 2009, 05:16 PM

Gary, do you have a ballpark idea of when the Mini will be able to capture to Cineform on the PC? I realize the testing is still underway, but I'm just wondering are we talking weeks or months?

Jack Falbey · June 29th, 2009, 03:55 PM

I saw the Press Release today about NeoScene codec playback through the Mini. Looks like the guys at Cineform & Matrox are working well together so far. Any word or speculation about HDMI capture through the Mini to a Cineform codec?

Sorry if I seem impatient... I've been putting off investing in an HD workflow until the time was right for cameras & editing gear to capture, edit, and deliver in full 1920x1080 10-bit 4:2:2, and with the Mini it looks like the time may be right! I just want to make sure it does what I hope it does before I spend the $$.

Harm Millaard · June 29th, 2009, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Falbey

Any word or speculation about HDMI capture through the Mini to a Cineform codec?

Why would you want to 'capture' with HDMI? It gives no improvement in picture quality, it is still the same but it looses all metadata, like exposure data, date and timestamp and disables scene detection.

Just keep in mind that HDMI is a video display oriented protocol, not a data protocol which is needed for video editing, like firewire.

Despite all the hype about HDMI, there is no advantage but only drawbacks from using HDMI over firewire.

Jack Falbey · June 29th, 2009, 04:44 PM

Hi Harm,

I read with great interest your discussion on another thread about the advantages/disadvantages of Firewire vs. HDMI capture, and it seems from what I have found that HDMI does give a better end result by bypassing any AVCHD or HDV compression. I don't have any personal experience to back this up, but from posts by Mike Schell and others, it appears that HDMI capture preserves the pre-compression signal from the imaging sensor. Since I am getting more requests for greenscreen work these days, I'd like to preserve as much of the original resolution & color space as possible. To me, the metadata is less important than having the best source video to begin keying.

BTW, I'd like to say thanks to you for your very informative posts on all subjects video-related both here and at the Adobe forums over the years. I've learned a ton from you.

Adam Gold · June 29th, 2009, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Falbey

... it appears that HDMI capture preserves the pre-compression signal from the imaging sensor.

Only if you are recording live via HDMI to PC, not if you are capturing video that has already been recorded to tape. I think most of us mean the latter when we use the term "capture," so there is no advantage to HDMI "capture."

Harm Millaard · June 30th, 2009, 05:18 AM

Jack,

Maybe this scheme can show you the advantages of HDMI, if it is located before the DSP. Then of course the next problem is you can only use your workstation and not your laptop, because a laptop is just too slow to handle the data stream. With the limited cable length you are more of less required to only stationary shots.

Ron Evans · June 30th, 2009, 05:57 AM

Recording from HDMI, as your diagram shows, gives the opportunity to record using a different codec than HDV. This is where boxes like MXO2 mini or the Intensity card come into play to reduce the data rate using a better codec than HDV all the way up to full uncompressed. For instance a box with 25mbps AVCHD would be better or VBR MPEG2 at 35mbps like the XDCam. It doesn't have to be uncompressed to make a difference and the data rate can be made to be within the limits of a modern laptop to an external hard drive especially with USB3 on the way. Better yet to a dedicated box with recording capability.

Ron Evans

Gary Bettan · June 30th, 2009, 07:47 AM

It's not a better CODEC, it's better CODEC for editing and post production.

The whole concept of Cineform / ProRes / DNxHD i/ Canopus HQ is that camera acquisition CODECs are not always very good for editing. When you convert a file (AVCHD) into a DI CODEC (Cineform) you get some loss no matter what. But the DI holds up so much better during editing, and it requires far less CPU to handle the compressed files.

When you go from an uncompressed video stream (vie HDMI / SDI or analog) to a DI, you end up with the best possible picture. The more bits you start with, the better the final compressed file will look. This is especially important with color space 4:2:2 vs other schemes.

Gary

Jack Falbey · June 30th, 2009, 11:43 AM

Yes, Adam is correct. I meant recording live via HDMI, not capturing from tape via HDMI. I understand that the data is compressed as it is laid down on tape (or recorded to HDD, CF, SDHC, etc.) That's why I like the idea of getting the data straight from the sensor block. Until recently, this required an expensive workflow using something like HD-SDI and was impractical for taking out in the field. Also, the cameras and PC hardware were way out of my price range. Now, with prosumer cams offering HDMI output bypassing the compression scheme, and devices like the MXO2 Mini offering live HDMI recording to a laptop, the whole process has become affordable to me.

Where I'm having difficulty in understanding this is the post-recording workflow. The Mini currently offers Uncompressed (which is far too large for laptop capture on location) or Matrox MPEG2 I-frame. In my discussions with Matrox, they have told me that in order to edit the Matrox I-frame codec in realtime I would need to move up to an Axio system because my RT.X2 is only designed for HDV, not full-HD video. That's why I'm so interested in the Cineform option.

And thanks also to Gary, Adam, Ron, and all of the other big-league video experts here; without your posts, articles, and advice I probably wouldn't even be in this business.

June 26th, 2009, 05:16 PM	#32
Jack Falbey Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Cleveland, TN Posts: 45	Gary, do you have a ballpark idea of when the Mini will be able to capture to Cineform on the PC? I realize the testing is still underway, but I'm just wondering are we talking weeks or months? __________________ "We'll fix it in post," said no videographer, EVER!

June 29th, 2009, 03:55 PM	#33
Jack Falbey Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Cleveland, TN Posts: 45	I saw the Press Release today about NeoScene codec playback through the Mini. Looks like the guys at Cineform & Matrox are working well together so far. Any word or speculation about HDMI capture through the Mini to a Cineform codec? Sorry if I seem impatient... I've been putting off investing in an HD workflow until the time was right for cameras & editing gear to capture, edit, and deliver in full 1920x1080 10-bit 4:2:2, and with the Mini it looks like the time may be right! I just want to make sure it does what I hope it does before I spend the $$. __________________ "We'll fix it in post," said no videographer, EVER! Last edited by Jack Falbey; June 29th, 2009 at 04:04 PM. Reason: added info

June 29th, 2009, 04:44 PM	#35
Jack Falbey Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Cleveland, TN Posts: 45	Hi Harm, I read with great interest your discussion on another thread about the advantages/disadvantages of Firewire vs. HDMI capture, and it seems from what I have found that HDMI does give a better end result by bypassing any AVCHD or HDV compression. I don't have any personal experience to back this up, but from posts by Mike Schell and others, it appears that HDMI capture preserves the pre-compression signal from the imaging sensor. Since I am getting more requests for greenscreen work these days, I'd like to preserve as much of the original resolution & color space as possible. To me, the metadata is less important than having the best source video to begin keying. BTW, I'd like to say thanks to you for your very informative posts on all subjects video-related both here and at the Adobe forums over the years. I've learned a ton from you. __________________ "We'll fix it in post," said no videographer, EVER!

June 30th, 2009, 05:18 AM	#37
Harm Millaard Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands Posts: 1,832	Jack, Maybe this scheme can show you the advantages of HDMI, if it is located before the DSP. Then of course the next problem is you can only use your workstation and not your laptop, because a laptop is just too slow to handle the data stream. With the limited cable length you are more of less required to only stationary shots. Attached Thumbnails

June 30th, 2009, 07:47 AM	#39
Gary Bettan Sponsor: Electronic Mailbox Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Glen Cove, NY Posts: 757	It's not a better CODEC, it's better CODEC for editing and post production. The whole concept of Cineform / ProRes / DNxHD i/ Canopus HQ is that camera acquisition CODECs are not always very good for editing. When you convert a file (AVCHD) into a DI CODEC (Cineform) you get some loss no matter what. But the DI holds up so much better during editing, and it requires far less CPU to handle the compressed files. When you go from an uncompressed video stream (vie HDMI / SDI or analog) to a DI, you end up with the best possible picture. The more bits you start with, the better the final compressed file will look. This is especially important with color space 4:2:2 vs other schemes. Gary __________________ Check out http://www.videoguys.com 800 323-2325 We are the video editing and live video production experts! DV InfoNet members save 5%! Use Coupon Code DVINFO5OFF

June 26th, 2009, 04:44 PM	#31
Andrew Clark Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 477	Nice!! I'll check your website. Many thanks again for posting this (top 10 list); very helpful!!

June 30th, 2009, 05:57 AM	#38
Ron Evans Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 4,220	Recording from HDMI, as your diagram shows, gives the opportunity to record using a different codec than HDV. This is where boxes like MXO2 mini or the Intensity card come into play to reduce the data rate using a better codec than HDV all the way up to full uncompressed. For instance a box with 25mbps AVCHD would be better or VBR MPEG2 at 35mbps like the XDCam. It doesn't have to be uncompressed to make a difference and the data rate can be made to be within the limits of a modern laptop to an external hard drive especially with USB3 on the way. Better yet to a dedicated box with recording capability. Ron Evans

June 30th, 2009, 11:43 AM	#40
Jack Falbey Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Cleveland, TN Posts: 45	Yes, Adam is correct. I meant recording live via HDMI, not capturing from tape via HDMI. I understand that the data is compressed as it is laid down on tape (or recorded to HDD, CF, SDHC, etc.) That's why I like the idea of getting the data straight from the sensor block. Until recently, this required an expensive workflow using something like HD-SDI and was impractical for taking out in the field. Also, the cameras and PC hardware were way out of my price range. Now, with prosumer cams offering HDMI output bypassing the compression scheme, and devices like the MXO2 Mini offering live HDMI recording to a laptop, the whole process has become affordable to me. Where I'm having difficulty in understanding this is the post-recording workflow. The Mini currently offers Uncompressed (which is far too large for laptop capture on location) or Matrox MPEG2 I-frame. In my discussions with Matrox, they have told me that in order to edit the Matrox I-frame codec in realtime I would need to move up to an Axio system because my RT.X2 is only designed for HDV, not full-HD video. That's why I'm so interested in the Cineform option. And thanks also to Gary, Adam, Ron, and all of the other big-league video experts here; without your posts, articles, and advice I probably wouldn't even be in this business. __________________ "We'll fix it in post," said no videographer, EVER! Last edited by Jack Falbey; June 30th, 2009 at 11:46 AM. Reason: added comment