Wireless HD options at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > Support Your Local Camera > Stabilizers (Steadicam etc.)


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 6th, 2011, 05:36 AM   #1
Sponsor: Camera Motion Research
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 55
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
Rich Greb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2011, 09:34 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!
Buba Kastorski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2011, 04:47 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?
Dave Gish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2011, 05:09 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.
Mark Schlicher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2011, 05:19 PM   #5
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Efland NC, USA
Posts: 2,315
Re: Wireless HD options

Will see ya there Rich!
__________________
http://www.LandYachtMedia.com
Chris Medico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 7th, 2011, 05:31 PM   #6
Sponsor: Camera Motion Research
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 55
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
Rich Greb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 7th, 2011, 07:58 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?
Mark Schlicher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 7th, 2011, 08:42 PM   #8
Sponsor: Camera Motion Research
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 55
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 08:43 PM. Reason: added "different" in first sentence
Rich Greb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2011, 08:13 AM   #9
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,414
Re: Wireless HD options

thanks Rich!
__________________
I love this place!
Buba Kastorski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2011, 07:15 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.
Dave Gish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20th, 2011, 12:48 PM   #11
Sponsor: Camera Motion Research
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 55
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
Attached Thumbnails
Wireless HD options-img_2021size.jpg   Wireless HD options-img_2022size.jpg  

Wireless HD options-img_2023size.jpg   Wireless HD options-img_2155size.jpg  

Wireless HD options-img_2158size.jpg   Wireless HD options-img_2060rotsize.jpg  

Rich Greb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2011, 06:18 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.
Adam Palomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2011, 06:37 PM   #13
Sponsor: Camera Motion Research
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 55
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.
Rich Greb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2011, 01:53 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.
Adam Palomer is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > Support Your Local Camera > Stabilizers (Steadicam etc.)

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:23 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network