HDV Rack 1.2 update available
 

For those who use HDV rack, there is a new update available which corrects the 709 colorspace problem, and flip mode functions for RedRock Micro users. And new full screen options.

There is also a new zoom capability to assist with focus? I'm looking forward to trying it out.

-Jay

I tried it today (the new Zoom function) while shooting a product presentation. It's nice, it zooms within the HD monitor. This saves many manipulations going to full view with Alt+Enter.
Keep in mind, that the new options to process and view full resolution do take more resources. On my P4 3,4 GHz Laptop I had to lower it again to make a reliable capture.

If I don't capture "live" - is there any use for DVRack at all?

Yes sure, the main reason I use HDVrack is to check the live camera input through firewire to check white balance, vectorscope, and waveforms.
And I use it as my HD monitor. All in one package on my Laptop without the need to travel with a lot of equipment.
I use it most of the time without capturing. Capturing is nice to compare shots and to navigate very quickly between them.
Check it out at www.dvrack.com. They have an explanation video.

Ram, I second what Marc C. just said: the main reason I bought DVRack was to have my own portable calibrated monitor with WFM and VScope integrated. Now that 709 colorspace is fully supported, it's the easieast way of checking your camera on the field. I compared the colors from my $900.00 HP Laptop running DVRack, against a $3500 Sony monitor and, except for the screen size, they were the same.

Paolo was using his on last week's location shoots and his accuracy was very precise. Remember, though, you're still capturing in a 4:2:0 colorspace when you're using a firewire into a laptop irrespective of the fact that you're coming out the back of the camera.

It's a shame DVrack is not compatible with the one computer that would make it the (nearly) perfect portable monitor/hardrive system: the MAc Mini. I can only dream. Imagine the DVrack on a MacMini and a touch screen. BTW, with respect to what Jonathan Ames says about capturing 4:2:0, the folks at Serious Magic should figure out some type of concoction to interrupt the compression process inside the HD100u and make it so that we can record uncompressed footage. I'm not even sure if I'm wording this correctly, but someone please come up with a way to record footage the way the folks at Reelstream are doing with their Andromeda system. Imagine recording the 24p HDV image from the HD100u's lens straight to the computer with Dvrack. That would be stupendous. Is it so hard to figure out a way to do that? In fact I'm going out on a limb with this one. I suspect that given the relative affordability of the upcoming RED camera and the Silicon Imaging cameras, when they become available, some of us are gonna start feeling "camera envy." But if DVrack (or anyone out there) can figure out a way to record the images from the lens of a camera like the HD100u(hardware modification) straight to the computer (software), then we'd have less of a reason to feel camera envy. And it would still be a more affordable option than getting rid of our cameras and buying new ones...I don't know, I think I've had too many beers tonight...

There are reasons for it. Mac works only with OpenGL. A XP machine works with DirectX which can do this stuff you see on DVRack.

DVracks pulls the video out of the Firewire. This is a protocol, you cannot go behind that and pull other data out of the camera. The only solution would be that serious magic starts supporting BlackMagic cards for example.

Paolo and I were talking about this and it really has to do with the limitations on the laptop. Deesktops can carry the horsepower, real estate and cooling needed for 4:2:2; something that laptops are a ways away from. Thus, even the AJA following the exit from the camera is not a solution for a laptop as it is for a desktop. I'm not really well-versed in the suject as Paolo is. I just keep hoping for a laptop solution like you because it would be great to be able to go out to a truly portable solution and not have to carry out a desktop-sized system.

Marc, I'm pretty sure that OpenGL can easily be used to do the same, namely color calibration of the display. The fact is Seious Magic didn't spend one minute in thinking how to design the program for portability. There are dozens of programs out there, some even cheaper than SM's products, and are multiplatform. Multiplatform design, as internationalization, two things that I've done extensively, is tougher than just writing the damn software for wathever platform you're familiar with. But it's entirely possible. To draw a parallel, it's similar to mix the dialogues for a film into a separate track so that you can give the score and Foley and sound design tracks to the international market for transalted versions of your movie. SM decided to go for the single track mix.

yes, this subject came out in another thread in this forum. The PCMCIA bus of old laptops does not have enough bandwidth to carry the SDI signal so, even if we built a card for component or SDI acquisition, the laptop's BUS cannot pipe the data fast enough.
With the new card interface found on modern laptops and the Macbook Pro we basically have PCI express speed and so it's probably just a matter of time for manufacturers to built acquisition cards that will enable laptops to acquire 4:2:2 signal.

Hi Paolo,
In theory indeed it can be possible, but the development time is much longer to do so. And DirectX is getting much more horsepower out of the graphics cards, because they support DirectX features in hardware. OpenGL is a rather simple language which is far behind DirectX stuff. So writing thuff which is developped and available in DirectX is many many times more effective.
Myself I'm involved in the R&D for Media servers (Maxedia) and we have big advantage over the Mac based systems because we can develop real-time rendering and frame blending for example which is simply not supported in graphics card without using DirectX.

Well, don't mean to sound mean here but the way I see it, if DAZ can make a product like Studio, which is free, multiplatform, then I don't see many excuses for not doing multiplatform developement. Don't mean to make any personal attacks but that's the way I see it. As I said, I've been in multi-platform developement, I've been involved in porting the JVM to Linux, had the first version of JBuilder running on Linux, used cross-compilers etc. It can be done. If Apple has made OS X crossplatform then smaller apps like DVRack can easily be designed for both Windows and Mac OS. In the entertainment industry, for what I saw, Macs are *the* platform of choice for the creative professional. I love Serious Magic's stuff but their decision of not developing for the Mac is, IMHO, inexcusable. Just bad planning from whoever made the decision.

OK, that's why Apple has released Core Image+Core Video. They provide the type of rendering that you mentioned and then some.
Some of the services available: Color Dodge, Difference Blend, Soft light, Saturation blend, Hard light blend. Dissolves, Swipes, Disintegrate with mask. Gaussian blur, Crop, Perspective transform, Pixellate, Glass distortion, etc.

These are all hardware optimized operations that are performed directly by the OS with the help of the GPU.
I use both PCs and Mac, some of the PCs I tried are nominaly faster in CPU frequency but my G4 Powerbook still moves video better, faster and smoother than any of the the PCs with all their DirectX glory.
That's why the Mac has the acceptance in the industry that it has. When editing a feature film the choices are pretty much only two: Avid or Final Cut Pro.
To ignore the Mac in this industry is not a wise decision. This of course, is just my not-so-humble opinion :)

Respectfully ...

Paolo,

I couldn't agree more, we are about to start shooting a feature with two HD100's and we looked closely at DV Rack, but couldn't justify picking up a Windows laptop with firewire for a ten day shoot.

(Our editing system is all MAC based)

However, if there was a MAC version, I would have dropped the $500 bucks. Instead we pulled a monitor in from Boston Camera.

Tom