<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : Ya, but at least we know it's available at no more that 4 to 7 k now.!!!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! A day to be remembered in my opinion. Soon their will be others to compete, and the more there are, the less expensive they will be. Honestly guys, by the time everyone here builds their own software and everything for capture, we may find the costs end up being close to the same as what the current companies sell as a package. Which sucks, but it's also a great thing . . . true liberation of indie filmmakers. Of course, the hard drive space is going to be a bitch. Let's see what Summix does for us now! -->>>

Remember they need volume to lower costs, but if every company got on board they would have to double prices to make profit, so two or three coimpanies would provide enough competition.

's all i'm sayn . . . by the way . . .

Wayne,

For the longest time now I thought you were "Wayne mm" over at camcorderinfo.com. So I've been having conversations with him that were starting to confuse me (lololol).

So maybe I can remember some of the things I said. I was realizing that I don't trust PC's anymore (far too many times mine has blown up). I'd really like to get a mac with FCP HD. If my observations of the discussions on DVinfo.net are correct, it is a generally accepted opinion that whatever the interfaces we use for our "home made" box camera will be both user friendly and compatable with FCP? In other words, the codec used for capturing footage will be a relatively universally acceptable format for pc and mac, and will be easy to use without conversions? If I'm incorrect about this, please let me know.

One thing I was realizing is that any way you look at it, storage is simply going to be a monster unless the codec we use is a miracle. I know the Prospect HD is terribly expensive because it will only be sold with Boxx systems. I guess the one you're looking to create will have similar "transparent" elements?

Thanks!

Hey Obin,

What's the 4k camera you think is so much better than the 1300?

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : 's all i'm sayn . . . by the way . . .

Wayne,

I'd really like to get a mac with FCP HD. If my observations of the discussions on DVinfo.net are correct, it is a generally accepted opinion that whatever the interfaces we use for our "home made" box camera will be both user friendly and compatable with FCP? In other words, the codec used for capturing footage will be a relatively universally acceptable format for pc and mac, and will be easy to use without conversions? If I'm incorrect about this, please let me know.

One thing I was realizing is that any way you look at it, storage is simply going to be a monster unless the codec we use is a miracle. I know the Prospect HD is terribly expensive because it will only be sold with Boxx systems. I guess the one you're looking to create will have similar "transparent" elements?

Thanks! -->>>

On the interface question I don't know, maybe somebody in the forum that deals with FCP might help. I think if you captured then converted in post it might be less problem, but somebody in the other forum maybe able to help, or Apple themselves.

About the Codec, I don't think anybody has decided yet. I suggested that somebody could make a plugin to support any particular format for capture, and a plugin for any particular editing then support could be programmed for any camera, any codec, any machine and any editor so desired, but of course somebody has to do that sort of work and it is unlikelty that all these combinations will be supported. So it might be a matter to see what the Rob's comeup with first with the SI camera, and see where they want to do any of this from there. Until the camera chioces arrive and you fork out your money, it's relatively free, so we will have to see what happens until then.

I asked David (from Prospect) about his codec, bulk purchase, oem for cameras etc, but got no reply. I think you can arrange special pricing from them, rather than goign through Boxx.

Thanks

Wayne.

Cool,

Thanks for clearing that up.

<<<--- I'd really like to get a mac with FCP HD. -->>>
<<<--- About the Codec, I don't think anybody has decided yet. I suggested that somebody could make a plugin to support -->>>

Wayne/Laurence,

If we do any compression in the camera itself (maybe in version 2.x?) it will need to be an open-source codec ... perhaps a 10- or 12-bit version of HuffYUV. (HuffYUV is 4:2:2, but otherwise lossless and provides about 2:1 compression.)

As far as the codec support goes on the "host" PC or Mac goes, I'd like to see if we can support any codec available on the machine.

I have a cousin in the industry who uses FCP, so I'm planning to work with him to make sure the software is compatible. We'll see ...

A summary of my ideas so far is available at http://www.obscuracam.com/wiki/wiki/...RobScottDesign

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini : I asked David (from Prospect) about his codec, bulk purchase, oem for cameras etc, but got no reply. I think you can arrange special pricing from them, rather than goign through Boxx.-->>>

Wayne, sorry I must have misplaced your correspondence. I have received many inquiries to using the CineForm HD (CFHD) codec for applications like this. Although CFHD is an element of the Prospect HD editing system that BOXX is shipping (soon), we are considering the codec's licensing separately.

Rob, have a look at all my previouse posts and ideas. The problem with compression at the head is that none of the manufacturers (except maybe prosilica??) have indicated they will do it, nor multi-link interfaces, so we are knee capped straight away. That is why I have suggested an itermediatory caspture card (or ITX ref with Camera link) that receives cameralink from any camera (not just this camera) and compresses it to gigabit ethernet or USB2.0. There are better codecs too, look at the ones mentioned in the threads, even Prospect HD. You could even use).

Forgot to mention, the Russian guy (mentioned on the first page of the Home made thread) has openware comrpession circuits he used with his camera. Honestly if we had a PCI-Express/AGP camera link capture board/mainbaord, or 10Gb ethernet, we would not need comrpessed transmission at all then it could all be done in the computer (maybe next year).

Hi David, it was the second post after your last post, I was meaning to follow it up with personal correspondance shortly. I am interested in some of these questions before we get our chioces locked in. As long as the solution is cheap enough to not break the $5K budget. Actually we only need the features for seriouse film/TV work, maybe aZ lite version ;) The big worry I see with Prospect is that the comrpession might take so much CPU time that it will blow the budget for a portable capture device.

Rob, that is what I was trying to ask in the other thread, about estimated CPU performance rather than disc perforamance.

Rob the FCP cousin, good idea, I hope you do well.

Taking the rest of the week off guys see you latter.

Thanks Guys.

Wayne.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini : The problem with compression at the head is that none of the manufacturers -->>>

If we do compression at the head, there is no point unless it's some form of lossy compression. I really don't think even 2:1 lossless (probably doable with a standard CPU) will buy us anything because it will have to be *after* the Bayer filtering, which will require even more CPU, and immediately expands the data by 3x.

<<<-- [Prospect HD codec] ... the compression might take so much CPU time -->>>

Yes, that's a big concern, plus the licensing fees. The project would no longer be fully free/open at that point either. (Assuming that's an important goal.)

<<<-- Russian ... has openware comrpession circuits -->>>

Yeah, that looks cool, but a FPGA board like that is way beyond what what I can manage. And that's probably what it would take to do any sort of lossy (especially "near lossless") compression.

<<<--- about estimated CPU performance -->>>

Ah, missed that, sorry. I'm not sure how to estimate CPU performance.

Have a great week!

Lsy Cmprsn
 

Rob Scott: You nailed it:
<<If we do compression at the head, there is no point unless it's some form of lossy compression. I really don't think even 2:1 lossless (probably doable with a standard CPU) will buy us anything because it will have to be *after* the Bayer filtering, which will require even more CPU, and immediately expands the data by 3x.>>

I did a lot of research work on lossless compression and that is a good number. Absolutely right about Bayer. The only advantage to doing Bayer before storage is for a preview window. I think that you always need two Bayer algorithms: quick and dirty for preview and as good as you can get for post process. As much as I don't want to deal with 6-12 disk drives on the high end, why capture 12 bits of HD and use a nasty Bayer algorithm just because it is faster?

By the way, was my title "lossy compression" or "lousy comprehension"? That was penned by one of my group - Steve Aceto, during a discussion of compression quality. I like it.

Re: Lsy Cmprsn
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Nordhauser :
why capture 12 bits of HD and use a nasty Bayer algorithm just because it is faster? -->>>

Exactly so. I had another idea recently -- a "delayed processing" feature. The camera head captures raw direct to disk; and then during pauses in recording, it executes a background task to do high-quality Bayer filtering and compression. (This would be optional, of course.) Problem is, it would still expand the data unless we used a lossy codec.

<<<-- By the way, was my title "lossy compression" or "lousy comprehension"? -->>>

I like it! I had an idea once for a humorous essay that involved a new technology for business communications known as "idea-based compression". Instead of compressing individual characters or sentences, it would replace entire chunks of text with standard "ideas" from its library. You know, I think it would work on 99% of the memos I get ... :-)

Ahhg, that Bayer filter again (no offense intended), maybe we should look beyond Bayer because we will get options like 3 chip shortly, and Foveon x3 like sometime. Lossless 2:1 compression makes Gigabit Ethernet like 2 Gigabit Ethernet (which is more than 1080, and more than 8mp bayer SHD), and thats all we need. I'll say this again, as far as going RAW for Thearactical work, Bayer is like shooting yourself in the foot, at 1080 and lower. Also lossless compression should require much less computing power than lossy compression. If somebody does direct to disk Raw off of the Sony 3chip HDV1 or Canon, then it would be a bit piontless to do raw 1080 bayer instead.

Prospect HD is only one (commonly talked about) option, if it canbe had cheap enough we shall be doing good. Where is David?

The Russian board, I am not really suggesting that you do it, but if somebody here could, or maybe you could ask him direct. He's a bit busy at the moment (emailed him weeks ago) but maybe he would be interested latter. Seriously unless there is somebody that can do it we might as well just drop the idea. Neither Summix or SI has volunteered to do it though a capture compressor camerlink to Ethernet card may offer price advantages for variouse customers.

Delayed compression Rob, nice idea (Tick symbol).


OK Rob's, I have a suggestion, sponsorship. Why not get somebody like Apple (or one of the editor makers, like that Linux one), or VIA to help develope the hardware or software as an Opensource technology initiative, or maybe fund you to develope it? I think it would be a great coue for Apple's multimedia production initiatives, for them to advertise, press releases etc, or for VIA a modified ITX reference platform with camera link or GB/10GB Ethernet, 2-4 top end processors, and raid, would be a great promotoional platform for them (they have so many reference platforms it isn't funny).

OK

My promissed discussion on my future research plans, I shouldn't really list these, as you don't know what I can do.

I want to look at server Tape backup for cheap storage of HDD matarials and maybe as prime storage item using buffered data.

Find out more about Prospect HD.

Look into special event software and applications, to see if the company involved might like to build support into their systems. Probably worth 10K sales accross the states. This might also form a option for our systems.

Serach out cameras with compression in the head (please somebody take this one from me).

Look for high class sensors, maybe find somebody willing to explain what to look for , and how to read the data sheets correctly.

Research into small PC platfforms, contact manufacturers see about 10 GB Ethernet. Maybe see if there is a form of multiplatter drive that can break the 50MB/s barrier (anybody).

Cameralink boards/itx version

That new consumer HD serial cable standard I saw 5GB/s, beats GB Ethernet or Camera link, something even VIA, and the camera manufacturers could be persuaded to include.

I know of a guy interested in our cameras and the hardware capture side.

Well that upto a months worth of research there allready, if anybody wants to help thanks. There was more but I don't remember.

Well David Newman here is that post again, I was wondering if you could give us some verification.

Thanks

Wayne.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini : Thanks David, I just thought to keep everything tight.

As you can tell there is much camera and computer hardware out there, and everybody has their personal likes and dislikes for editing aswell. I have suggested a general capture board on the hardware side (but nobodies biting on that idea) and on the software side plugins for capture and editing which you maybe able to help. What can your software offer in this respect, or will we have to buy a whole editing/capture package (I have not read the information on your site, I have been snowed under recently).

How much comrpession can you get with vissually near loosless, and how much true lossless?

The processing requirements you quoted, how much more improvement can you expect (I guess they are twin 2.8Ghz chips)? Are you using highly optimised C, or have you gone the final speed step to optimised Machine code, as these can give big gains?

I have not really told people too much about this, but there is a potential cheap technology out there that I want to research in the future that could reduce the pocessig requirement greatly.

As you can tell if people take to what we are expecting (and I might aswell go on the record as saying I will only take to a custom camera myself with specific price and visual performance advantages) then there will be a new market using a variety of datarates, resolutions and bit depths. Could this sort of flexibility be offered in your product for that market?

If people like your package what are the options and purchase options, and are there any attractive bulk purchase options that we could get into in private? Some people here would spend thousands, others would spend much much less.

I have allready located a Linux editing system that captures in HD, but it will be too much trouble for most, and a lot of power users probably would prefer something like your system.

Also there have been a few people wanting to find out more on your product here, maybe they can ask questions.

I would like to say I'm a bit of a novice to the issues in videography, but good on the technical side, so I might not understand all the issues.


Well I have to go to bed, so I hope I can pick up your reply tommorrow.

Thanks for turning up.

Wayne. -->>>

Wayne: I would certainly be interested in some sort of sponsor-
ship. If we develop software / release source code everyone
benefits.

I'm just not sure how to make this happen soon. I personally
do no have such contacts. I'll see if I can get a message out to
some people and see what happens. If someone wants to send
a chip in return for software do let us know! <g>

p.s. this is for the chip / solution we are discussing in this thread!

The software architecture won't rule out any of those options, but version 1.0 must run on a system that is affordable and easy to build today. As an individual, I can't build or afford a 3-chip system, and who knows when Foveon will have a 30+ fps chip? (I've been watching Foveon for a while, hoping they would come out with one.)

There are going to be several performance/price points that people fall into. Some need nothing less than full 1080p x 3 chip for best possible performance when uprezzing to 35mm. Some of us want better performance than DV/HDV but are more concerned about getting great DVD output and perhaps HD-DVD.

I think we'll end up with several camera systems to meet different people's goals. If the software is modular enough, people can pick and choose the components they need to support their specific needs. That's the goal anyway ...

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Morellini : Well David Newman here is that post again, I was wondering if you could give us some verification.-->>>

Sorry I guess I missed this the first time around.

> What can your software offer in this respect, or will we have to buy a whole editing/capture package (I have not read the information on your site, I have been snowed under recently).

We do software only. We have "yet" to bundle our software with hardware, although OEMs like BOXX are bundling our software on their hardware. We are focused on being a software provider.

> How much comrpession can you get with vissually near loosless, and how much true lossless?

Visually lossless with CFHD is achieved between 9 and 10:1 CFHD on 1080p content, we target 8 and 6:1 for extra headroom. Mathematically lossless is around 2.5:1 with 1080p content, although aren't shipping a mathematically lossless codec yet.

> The processing requirements you quoted, how much more improvement can you expect (I guess they are twin 2.8Ghz chips)?

I don't know which quote you are speak of. Aspect HD is always quoted with a single processor system. Prospect HD is typically quoted with a dual Opteron at 2.2Ghz.

> Are you using highly optimised C, or have you gone the final speed step to optimised Machine code, as these can give big gains?

We are primarily SSE2 and MMX optimized.

> As you can tell if people take to what we are expecting ... then there will be a new market using a variety of datarates, resolutions and bit depths. Could this sort of flexibility be offered in your product for that market?

I think so, yes. Although I believe any of our current three products (Connect, Aspect and Prospect HD) could be used for this market, it would be interesting to design a product for a closer fit. This might mean CameraLink support with real-time Bayer compression and/or a lower priced software only 10bit processing solution for Premiere (i.e. Prospect Lite.) These are just random ideas, for concert and available products go to cineform.com.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Scott :
I think we'll end up with several camera systems to meet different people's goals. If the software is modular enough, people can pick and choose the components they need to support their specific needs. That's the goal anyway ... -->>>

Your right, and well see if Sumix delivers a three chip camera at 3K is a few months. It is also preferable (business sense) to have a couple of suppliers, and SI and Sumix seem to be just fine for uncompressed cameras.

Obin I forgot, that Lossless codec referenced in the pluginz link on your thread is doing 110mb/s on a 1 ghz G3, so maybe it is possible for something like that (I referenced a free one in the Viper thread some time back) to serve your need on a 1 ghz nano-itx board?

David, sorry. I will have to leave your reply to my message until tommorrow as it is allready 5am and I have to get some sleep ;). I did read through the Russian camera thread and managed to get some of the info from that.

Thanks

Wayne.

News from Sumix
 

Dear Steve,

We have decided to use Rockwell/Altasens ProCamHD 3560
http://www.altasens.com/products.html#2 It is excellent in many
aspects. It has QE of 70%, almost two times better than other industrial
CMOS sensors and even better than CCD sensors. It has frame rate of 60
progressive (pixel rate of 150 MHz) which would be useful for special
effect needs. The first camera will be a single sensor, later we decide
about 3 sensors version if we can solve the interface problem. Only the
development of digital section of camera, supporting 150MHz, is going to
take another three months. The progress with sensor section depends on
how fast we get the evaluation board from Altasens and other issues. So,
my best estimate is by November of 2004 to have a working prototype.

Best regards
Farhad

And again
 

>Dear Farhad,
>Thank you for the promt reply, ProCamHD is definitely the best choise for the camera. What do you think will be the final approximate price for such a package (camera head + software)?


We are planing for a low cost version with 24fps 10bit uncompressed and
60 fps 12bits compressed. Our target price is about $3K for this. Also
we are planing for a 60 fps uncompressed version with onboard computer.
I am not sure what price we should target for this version.

Farhad

Thanks for answering David.

<<<-- Originally posted by David Newman :

> Are you using highly optimised C, or have you gone the final speed step to optimised Machine code, as these can give big gains?

We are primarily SSE2 and MMX optimized.

-->>>

Sorry, do you mean optimised SEE2 and MMX in C code, optimised C code or optimised machine code? (Sorry, but it can tell me how much more performance you can get with future optimisations).

The compression looks quiet good for our needs, especially if you offer a true lossless codec (for me at least). I understand that it does very good comrpession at 40:1, but I wonder how does it compare to a HD broadcast at 100:1 or 200:1?

I have got your figures on processor requirements from the other thread.

I should have been more clear about how you can help with the software and hardware things. I wasn't really getting at capture cards but I am interested in the prospect (no pun intended) of one software system, like yours, doing everything from capturing the footage (with good, tight, and easy capture supporting external controls) to editing. Alternatively to that, I was wondering if you will have plugins that we could use with capture software and different popular editors (apart from Premier, like Final Cut Pro)? So I should have asked, how possible is this? This is the sort of things that the Robs are trying to put together.

The Prospect Lite initiative is good but to support integration with other cameras footage, and off air or HDDVD footage, DV (DVCAM, MINIDV, DVCPRO50, DIgibeta (maybe) and analogue input) and lowend HD (HDV1/2, and consumer interfaces (component etc).) would be good. As I have argued in the other thread, industry is moving to increased bit depth, 4:4:4, resolutions, and bayer, anyway, so the only special support for us would be cameralink and PC interfaces (USB, Firewire, Gigbit Ethernet) ands extrernal capture controls support (which could simply be a way to pass capture commands to your software).

At the moment everything is up in the air until we see the next generation of HD specific cameras, so we will have to wait and see.

Unfortunately in the time since I orriginally posting the questions, people have moved on and the Robs are trying to develope software. But I see a product like yours as a good quality alternative solution.

Consortium of Alternative Imaging, out.

Re: News from Sumix
 

You should have heard what I just said! Great fantastic ;;;;)))))

Yes Yes Yes, on price target too, with onboard compression (very extremely, extremely smart move, as long as they include true lossless too) and onboard computer version. Have they been reading my posts? I was almost ready to give up and concile myself to a fate of mediocar bayer camera. Now for anyalsys and arguement.

Questions: Maybe you should send an edited version of this to Sumix (with th irrelavent parts and questions deleted):

Firstly, does it have the microlense array that the 3530 has, this should be a better solution, but it doesn't mention it. The way they go on they seem to be making out that the 3530 is better than the 3560 is that right?

Sumix is saying "We are planing for a low cost version with 24fps 10bit uncompressed and 60 fps 12bits compressed." What sort of comrpession is that (lossless), and what interfaces are we talking about? Does that also include 25fps, 50 fps and 30fp? What about 12bits at 24/25/30fps?

How does this chip compare in picture performance, to the 3530 and especially the Micron chip they suggested last time (I haven't even found a propper spec sheet for that, does anybody have one, I would be happy with a 3 chip micron at this price instead, if it was good enough)?

I think everything about it is terrific, but I would like a 3 chip for this price (stuff Bayer), but if the sensitivity and range is going to walk over the Sony HDV box camera, Panasonic and Sony HD ENG cameras, and the Viper, then I could settle for it. I would even prefer a really good three chip 720p. Even a three chip Micron (if good enough). So Steve can you find out how much the three chip version would be, I don't want to spend more then $4K? How would a micron 3 chip compare in performance and price, I understand that prisms start at $1K?

I have some cheap tech that could do the compression without FPGA, and be programmed in weeks. I have spotted it some time ago, it has an array of parralell risc processors with memory and fpu's, at extremely high perfomance and low power, but only just remembered it. That would move developement time of this part of the circuit up 10 times. Steve if you would like to pass it along? This is not the other tech I mentioned before that was mainly for PC's processing. I am such a dope not to remember this earlier, this would let even a low speed PC do all the capture, compression, and editing you like (as long as the software can take advantage of it).

www.clearspeed.com/news.php?page=pr&pr=2

http://www.clearspeed.com/technology...c7694795e722fb

www.clearspeed.com/products.php?page=si

www.clearspeed.com/products.php?page=faq

I have included all these links as it is hard to get an idea of the extent of it's capabilities from one page.

Summary:
- from 10's to thousands of Risc 32-bit processors with Floating Piont untis
- programmable in C (Rob could move code to it).
- can act as main processor, or coproccessor
- very low power at very high performance, or even more performance at higher power levels.
- 64 bit version coming.

With something like this, a cameralink comrpession board could have been within reach of the Robs.

Any information on: "we are planing for a 60 fps uncompressed version with onboard computer." the computer bit (are we talking about my cameralink with itx type idea, or capture/compression/raid storage board).

Altsens calim 12 and 24 bit on the chip, what is that, could you make enquiries on how to read the spec and how the Micron compared?

If the prototype is Nov, when can we expect a production camera?

What is "It has QE of 70%, almost" and "ProCamHD is definitely the best choise for the camera."?

What do you guys make of the spec (is there a data sheet), can you ask them about the variouse performance issues mentioned before (optical: range and S/N (at normal and gain up and doen), sensitivity, low light sensitivity etc (I won't bother with the response curves as they are likely to be among the best out there anyway).

With Sumix on the Altsens compressed high ground, and SI on Micron we should have a great range of cameras prices. Now all I have to do is 'wait", while HDV, DVC, DVCAM, DIgibeta, and even mini-dv owners mock me ;) "No, no, I'm not interested" as they mock me with their single chip Sharps and 3ccd Canon HDV's, not yet realising that when they take those things to a TV station and can't hook it into their systems, the HDDVCPRO100 and cinealta people with be smirking at them ;), at least we got the RAW quality footage out of component (or optioinal HDSDI card ;).

Wayne
 

Hi, Wayne,
I'm sure Sumix is on the project because of this forum. I can't guarantee, though, that they read all the posts :( :)
Wayne, I'm sorry, but I've waited for too long (I guess I'm buying one of the available cams from them or SI), besides, I don't really have time lately.
Nevertheless, the guys will be happy if you offer your help. Just copy your last thread into a message destined to their server :))
http://www.sumix.com
I wish I had patience :))

Re: Wayne
 

Steve don't waste your money, in a couple of months SI will have their HD range, probably Micron based, and a couple of months latter Sumix will based on the better Altsens. So wait around a bit longer, much better quality coming (while the system still gets sorted).

Something I just realised, is that the same cameras will be good for remote video apps in Churches, conferencing, conferences, concerts, sports events, secuirty, community tv studio cameras etc, so they allready have a potential market for them.


Thanks

For all your initiative and help.

Wayne.

When I get around to sending them the post who should I adress it to at Sumix?

OK, this has come up a bunch of times and I've hinted at it. We are getting an Altasens design running. First proto is taking images. Please don't ask too much more but I will release information here when it is appropriate. Figure 6-8 weeks to first shipments.

Ya kicked it over, Steve! :-)

:)
 

Thank you for advice, Wayne.
Just add "camera" in front of the "@" :)

Steve get a SI 1300 like have and start designing a housing for it..once you have that done I bet Rob will have software to drive it! this thing is like a double edge sword..on the one edge it's AWESOME and the other side it stinks because of no system/software support! :0 but that will soon change! and we can leave Sony Panasonic and JVC in the dust fighting over what compressed tape format to shove at us next!
(all the big boys make money on tape sales, not cameras)

<<<--
(all the big boys make money on tape sales, not cameras) -->>>

... and decks, lots of decks

Big boys, Obin :)
 

I'm more than convinced that "big boys" will start shoving tape and decks up their big holes but not this year :(
Eventually, even the national governments will collapse; it's just the amounts of positive time energy.
I think nobody here is conserned whether or not a particular pyramid will cease to exist... We are eager to curve reality to our pleasing.. For that I'll wait SI Altasens solution :)
P.S. I hope SI will give us some kind of capture software platform...

The software that we're building for the SI 1300 should be able to support the AltaSens system as well.

Dear Rob
 

Rob, wish I had enough adjectives to express my gratitude towards folks like you and genuine philanthropy that probably drives you.
United we'll stand (a line from USSR anthemn:)

Re: Dear Rob
 

Heh ... well, it's fun, and I'm hoping to make a little money from it too. :-)

Editing
 

Rob, I forgot whether it was you whom I sent hardware configuration info for a PC based HD NLE... Let me know if it wasn't you. If you're interested, I'll send this .pdf to you.

Re: Editing
 

Yup, I got it. Thanks!

curious
 

Just curious, did you get this 20000 US $ soft?

Re: curious
 

No, I don't have $20K to drop on anything. If I did, I'd probably buy a Kinetta camera and not bother with building my own! :-)

Wayne
 

Wayne, did you get the Cyborg?

Wow guys,

Things seem to really becoming reality. So exciting. Currently, here's where I am. I went over and checked out Mac OSX with FCP HD, and it's beautiful. This is the kind of stability with incredible and user friendly features I was hoping to get in a NLE. My production quality and times will be expotentially increased. Plus, if things go wrong Applecare will take care of me for 3 years, which I'm gonna need in times of trouble (not tech savvy). So as much as I don't want to spend around 10k for the whole editing setup with 2 HD monitors and a terabyte of space, I think that for my knowledge and needs, the price is worth it. So what I'm looking at now is how to intigrate these current cameras with such a system. Hopefully they will also have Mac Camera Link Cards? If not, I assume I could throw together a cheap pc for capture and then transfer the files. Any way you look at it, I'm getting one of these cameras to come. They sound mouth-wateringly awesome. Input anyone?

Thanks.