I just bought a small converter from Hall Research, called VHD-HDMI. This converter takes either RGB or YPbPr input(via a 15 pin vga), along with an analog audio input; and, outputs HDMI. It does the conversion to digital without rescaling, so that the scale size in equals the scale size out. The box, itself, is very small, about the size of two packs of cigarettes, and it takes 5 volts input. The converter will allow display of a VGA signal on an HDMI monitor.

So, I connected the component output of my HD110 to the box's input and then connected the output to my HDTV HDMI input. The picture produced seems sharper than the picture available directly from the component out. Focus becomes very precise using this monitor. And the best is that I can now feed an HDMI signal to a BMD Intensity card.

Hi Bill,

Sounds very interesting. Do you have any more info on the item i.e. brand, cost where to get one etc, etc ?

Cheers Greg.

do a google search for Hall research. I bought mine at Markertek, $325

Thanks Bill

Bill, where do you get a component out to 15pin connector cable?
And is all the resolution, aspect ratios, etc., still maintained? And what kind of monitor are you judging this by if I may ask? Interesting idea!

Thanks for the ideas,
Lonnie

A cable comes with the box. I also ordered a spare cable from
http://store.a2zcable.com/

As far as I know, complete resolution is maintained. This is, basically, a straight across analog to digital conversion. I am feeding a 32 inch Sony HD television.

I just bought a small converter from Hall Research, called VHD-HDMI. This converter takes either RGB or YPbPr input(via a 15 pin vga), along with an analog audio input; and, outputs HDMI. It does the conversion to digital without rescaling, so that the scale size in equals the scale size out. The box, itself, is very small, about the size of two packs of cigarettes, and it takes 5 volts input. The converter will allow display of a VGA signal on an HDMI monitor.

So, I connected the component output of my HD110 to the box's input and then connected the output to my HDTV HDMI input. The picture produced seems sharper than the picture available directly from the component out. Focus becomes very precise using this monitor. And the best is that I can now feed an HDMI signal to a BMD Intensity card.

Hi Bill-
Be aware that you'll take a hit in the quality by adding this analog conversion. Take a look at post on analog vs digital quality out of the BR-HD50 deck. This difference also holds true for this device.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

Mike...

By the time you're playing back on a BR-HD50 deck, you're already playing back material that's been encoded to HDV. I'm taking a data stream straight off of the camera analog component outs and converting to digital before the data stream has been converted to m2t(HDV). No compression, no loss....it's 4:2:2 uncompressed, analog going into the box, getting digitized, so I assume it's 4:2:2 uncompressed 12 bit digital coming out. If you know this to be untrue, tell me. The image I get is much better than the image produced by the HDV encoded data.

Mike...

By the time you're playing back on a BR-HD50 deck, you're already playing back material that's been encoded to HDV. I'm taking a data stream straight off of the camera analog component outs and converting to digital before the data stream has been converted to m2t(HDV). No compression, no loss....it's 4:2:2 uncompressed, analog going into the box, getting digitized, so I assume it's 4:2:2 uncompressed 12 bit digital coming out. If you know this to be untrue, tell me. The image I get is much better than the image produced by the HDV encoded data.

Hi Bill-
Thanks for the explanation. For the JVC camera w/o HD-SDI, this is probably the best quality video possible. A lot depends on the quality of the A/D converters in the external box. With any analog conversion, you will, of course, see some quality loss, but then again, you also get a quality loss with the MPEG2 compression.

The video quality from HDV camcorders with HDMI output (in live-mode) is absolutely incredible, especially when you consider the price (many are in the $1000 to $1500 range). In this mode, you do get the absolute best possible video quality: no compression, no analog conversion losses.

Mike Schell

Mike...

By the time you're playing back on a BR-HD50 deck, you're already playing back material that's been encoded to HDV. I'm taking a data stream straight off of the camera analog component outs and converting to digital before the data stream has been converted to m2t(HDV). No compression, no loss....it's 4:2:2 uncompressed, analog going into the box, getting digitized, so I assume it's 4:2:2 uncompressed 12 bit digital coming out. If you know this to be untrue, tell me. The image I get is much better than the image produced by the HDV encoded data.

Would you need a hard drive array of some kind to record footage this way? Could a laptop record via this converter?

Hi Brian-
You need a desktop system to record this video, there are no laptops that capture uncompressed HD video. You can capture into a DVCProHD CODEC or the new Apple ProRes CODEC. You won't need a particularly high performance RAID as the data rates are below 20 MBytes/sec.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

Hi Brian-
You need a desktop system to record this video, there are no laptops that capture uncompressed HD video. You can capture into a DVCProHD CODEC or the new Apple ProRes CODEC. You won't need a particularly high performance RAID as the data rates are below 20 MBytes/sec.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

Thanks for the info. What type of capture board is necessary for a PC?

I would recommend an AJA Xena card or a Blackmagic HD Extreme.

I would recommend an AJA Xena card or a Blackmagic HD Extreme.

..and for the Mac people Blackmagic Decklink HD Extreme also works, and AJA's Kona cards.

I've also been looking very closely at AJA's new io HD box (http://www.aja.com/html/products_Io_IoHD.html), which encodes into FCS2's ProRes422 or ProRes 422 HQ codec. PDF white paper for ProRes 422 (http://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/resources/white_papers/L342568A_ProRes_WP.pdf).

I'm thinking that an ioHD combined with a MacbookPro and a Firewire800 drive would provide the ideal portable "lossless 4:2:2" capture solution.

By the time you're playing back on a BR-HD50 deck, you're already playing back material that's been encoded to HDV.
Very true.... but before you dismiss it entirely I'd like to mention how awesome the HDMI output from the BR-HD50U actually looks. Bypassing the D-A converter in the deck has an obvious improvement.

I've also been using the Convergent-Design HDConnect-MI (http://www.convergent-design.com/CD_Products_HDConnectMI.htm) as a HDMI to HD-SDI converter from the BR-HD50 and the improvement over standard component out is spectacular. I've also been using it with a DVI to HDMI converter ($15 Belkin) to monitor HD-SDI out of a Macbook. An awesome solution for those who want HD-SDI review on the set.

What about recording to the DR-HD harddrive???

Tim...

It might be worthwhile, for some folks, to explain that not all HDMI-DVI converters are created equal. DVI, in itself, will accept either analog(as in VGA) or digital (as in DVI), depending on which pinouts are "hot". But, HDMI will accept digital only. If one attempts, for example, to connect VGA to HDMI with one of these cable adapters, it won't work because HDMI requires a digital input and VGA is analog.

Tim...

It might be worthwhile, for some folks, to explain that not all HDMI-DVI converters are created equal. DVI, in itself, will accept either analog(as in VGA) or digital (as in DVI), depending on which pinouts are "hot". But, HDMI will accept digital only. If one attempts, for example, to connect VGA to HDMI with one of these cable adapters, it won't work because HDMI requires a digital input and VGA is analog.

Mine is a DVI-D to HDMI adapter. I should have specified.

A lot depends on the quality of the A/D converters in the external box.l

Which is why the $3xx price seems really low. The AJA HD10A converter is about $1,500.

PS 1: anyone looking for an AJA HD10A, please contact me off-line. I've gone to only PC and Mac laptops and have no need of it.

PS 2: anyone hear of a HDMI I/O board for a MBP? That's what I need now.

Out of curiousity, I removed the PCB from the box to examine the chips. It has a MYSON MTV230 processor, which, according to the manuf. data sheet is 4 channel 6-bit ADC, which would explain the price difference. There's also a Silicon Image memory chip, SI19030 and an EP901/902 chipset used for the HDMI conversion. It looks like 4:4:4 from the manuf. data, but, I'm unsure of that.

What about recording to the DR-HD harddrive???

i think you will need a HDMI > Firewire converter to record on the DR HD drive.

i'm still searching too

I'm curious to find out if anyone has tried a simple comparison test to see the difference in output resolution quality of HDV vs HD-SDI vs HDMI of the same footage. I bought a BlackMagic Studio card to capture the analogue output from my HD-100 and I'm disappointed with the results. Major resolution loss compared to HDV. I tried to capture from the JVC HD-DVD player DVI outputs to the HDMI input of the BM card but can't get it to work, just to compare the same footage in HDV and HDMI. So I'm back to square one.

Doug...
I haven't done the comparison you suggest, but, I can answer your question from some of the data that's published on these formats. Firstly, HDV compressed to m2t and HDMI is 8-bit, 4:2:1 or 4:2:2. HD-SDI is 10-bit, 4:2:2. All HDV cameras are 8-bit. I would expect any 10 bit image to be better than any 8-bit image, primarily in dynamic range. If you're starting with a 720p native video format, HDMI will upscale the image to 1080i,I beleive. So, I would assume any comparison between these digitized formats may be comparing apples to oranges. I would expect HD-SDI to be the best, given a 1080 input signal. Your experience with a softer HDMI image might be related to the rescaling performed by the BMD card.

Doug...
I haven't done the comparison you suggest, but, I can answer your question from some of the data that's published on these formats. Firstly, HDV compressed to m2t and HDMI is 8-bit, 4:2:1 or 4:2:2. HD-SDI is 10-bit, 4:2:2. All HDV cameras are 8-bit. I would expect any 10 bit image to be better than any 8-bit image, primarily in dynamic range. If you're starting with a 720p native video format, HDMI will upscale the image to 1080i,I beleive. So, I would assume any comparison between these digitized formats may be comparing apples to oranges. I would expect HD-SDI to be the best, given a 1080 input signal. Your experience with a softer HDMI image might be related to the rescaling performed by the BMD card.

Hi Bill, Doug,
Actually the video quality from HDMI and HD-SDI (from an HDV or AVCHD camera/deck) will be identical. While the HD-SDI signal is indeed 10-bits in resolution, it's effective resoltuion is only 8-bits if the original signal was taken from either an HDV or AVCHD source. All MPEG2 and MPEG4 CODECs only have 8-bits of resolution.

HDV and AVCHD are both 8-bit 4:2:0 formats. On decompression, the 4:2:0 color space is expanded to 4:2:2 8-bit. When mapped into an 10-bit HD-SDI stream the lower 2 bits are automatically set to zero.

The HDMI stream is normally YCbCr 4:2:2 and can be either 1080i, 720p or 480i/576i. All cameras support their own native resolutions, Sony in particular has built in cross and down-converters to allow 1080i, 720p or SD outputs. We should have an update on our compatibility/capability chart shortly which shows the output options for various cameras and decks.

We are working on a comparison video for HDV-> DVD using DV and uncompressed SD workflows. Next week we plan a comparison video on live uncompressed HD vs HDV (from the Canon HV20 and the Sony HC3). The analog vs digital comparison of some JVC footage is available at on our website now.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

Mike...

Thanx....I have to admit it's hard for me to keep up with all the variations and permutations of HD/HDV. It's not like the older, simpler DV format.

The analog vs digital comparison of some JVC footage is available at on our website now.

Mike,

I've seen this comparison before and I thought it was incredible how soft the D to A converter made the image. Could you please post a direct link to this comparison for the benefit of the members here?
Thanks,

I just downloaded the video so i thought I'd post the link:
http://www.convergent-design.com/MIdownloads.htm#jvc

There is a clear difference between the two examples. One is noticeably softer. It's unclear to me, however, which is which. The implication is that the signal captured thru 1394 (after m2t compression) and the Convergent boxes is the sharper signal? How can a clearer signal be achieved from a compressed source?

I'm curious to find out if anyone has tried a simple comparison test to see the difference in output resolution quality of HDV vs HD-SDI vs HDMI of the same footage. I bought a BlackMagic Studio card to capture the analogue output from my HD-100 and I'm disappointed with the results. Major resolution loss compared to HDV. I tried to capture from the JVC HD-DVD player DVI outputs to the HDMI input of the BM card but can't get it to work, just to compare the same footage in HDV and HDMI. So I'm back to square one.

Doug, the BR-HD50 has HDMI out which would go perfectly with your HD Studio card- but you probably already knew that. Anyway I'm still waiting for the Intensity Pro to arrive so we can start cooking with GAS!

I just downloaded the video so i thought I'd post the link:
http://www.convergent-design.com/MIdownloads.htm#jvc

There is a clear difference between the two examples. One is noticeably softer. It's unclear to me, however, which is which. The implication is that the signal captured thru 1394 (after m2t compression) and the Convergent boxes is the sharper signal? How can a clearer signal be achieved from a compressed source?

Hi Bill-
Here's an even more direct link for the analog vs digital comparison: http://convergent-design.fileburst.com/AvD.wmv

The analog and digital captures both originate from a compressed HDV tape. But the analog capture (thru the component outputs of the HD50 deck) is softer and shows color shifts due to the bandwidth limitations of the digital to analog converter (in the deck) followed by the analog to digital converter (in the HD-SDI box). The digital capture (HDMI -> HD-SDI) does not suffer from these limitations.

Mike Schell

Mike...
ahhh, I understand, now. A signal coming directly from the camera CCD block to the component outs would avoid that extra conversion to analog by the tape deck, not to mention the loss experienced by compression to MPEG2 when it was written to tape; and would, theoretically be better than any of these taped clips. Provided, of course that a suitably fast and large enough uncompressed storage medium could be had. And therein lies HDV's soft spot, a lossless storage medium for approximately the same cost as the camera.
Thanx for the explanation.

The reason I'm asking for the quality Resolution differences between HDV vs HD-SDI vs HDMI is that I'm not made of money. It costs alot just to try something out, and when you find that it doesn't quite give you the results you wanted well you know what I mean. I have a JVC HD-100 and I love the camera, I bought the JVC HD DVD player to view the video on the big screen. The HD Player and the camera can Up-convert the video to 1080I, sometimes that would be nice to capture at 1080I. So I tried the BM card using analog outputs but that doesn't make it in my book. I don't have the JVC HD Tape Deck so I'm looking for some opinions, that might lead me to the next step in my quest. I looked at the analog vs digital comparison video and I found out for myself the hard way that analog is not the way I want to go. Thanks Mike.

I was just hoping that someone may have tried the HDV vs HD-SDI vs HDMI resolution tests to see which format had the highest results. The HDV vs HD-SDI test would be simple, one might take let's say a JVC HD-250 record the HD-SDI to a BM or similiar card, and capture a mt2 file by tape or firewire at the same time. The HDMI test might be harder to do, so Bill have you tried a HDV vs HDMI comparison of your setup to see if your on the right track.

Doug,

If you are simply comparing HD-SDI/HDMI vs. COMPONENT vs. native HDV via FIREWIRE from material that has already been recorded to tape, then HDV or HD-SDI/HDMI would have the advantage because there is no analog conversion step. Capturing HD-SDI or HDMI to a lossless codec can be advantageous over native HDV simply because you wouldn't have the headaches associated with posting in mpeg2.

However, if you are talking live capture from the HD-250's HD-SDI vs COMPONENT vs HDV, then HD-SDI will win hands down. There is no D to A conversion and no compression/decompression to and from mpeg. It's a win-win situation, but requires a HDCAM recorder or some sort of lossless digitizing (Venom, ICON, ioHD, Wafian, or a desktop with AJA BM card.)

However, there is still an advantage to capturing 'live' from the component outputs vs HDV because you are skipping the mpeg2 step. You'll still have a hit from the A to D to A conversion, but it is a "lesser of two evils" situation.

Doug...
(Tim beat me to it)

At this point in time, I can monitor via component out to HDMI, but, I can't record. Which means all I can do is try to A-B compare live monitored signal with a recorded(compressed) video stream. Not really a good test, IMHO, since too many other variables get introduced for the test to be valid. If the info I posted above re: 4-bit ADC with the Hall Research box, is correct, I'd wait for the BMD Intensity Pro card to get released in June.

What's really lacking, here, is a Wafian type of portable HD recorder that costs under $10k. The Wafian uses the Cineform intermediate codec to record lightly compressed digital signal, such as that available from HDMI straight from the camera out. I think, just my humble opinion, users are being stonewalled by the major manufacturers to protect their high end systems. Even with the Intensity Pro, it's extremely difficult to carry a PCIe equipped computer into the field to record. So, as you pointed out, you can spend vast amounts of money on a system that's pretty much tied to the studio with an umbilical for minimal to no gain in picture quality over the native m2t data. Top that off with no consumer way to distribute HDV video and you have a format that's going nowhere.

Mike...
ahhh, I understand, now. A signal coming directly from the camera CCD block to the component outs would avoid that extra conversion to analog by the tape deck, not to mention the loss experienced by compression to MPEG2 when it was written to tape; and would, theoretically be better than any of these taped clips. Provided, of course that a suitably fast and large enough uncompressed storage medium could be had. And therein lies HDV's soft spot, a lossless storage medium for approximately the same cost as the camera.
Thanx for the explanation.

Hi Bill-
I may not have explained the signal flow clearly, as you actually get the best image by avoiding both the MPEG compression and the digital to analog conversion that occurs on the component outputs. The new HDV camcorders with HDMI produce a fantastic image quality (in live mode), by forgoing both the HDV compression and any analog conversions (except of course for the one analog to digital conversion coming off the CCD/CMOS imager).

Take a look at the white paper I wrote "HDMI in HDV and AVCHD cameras", available from our web site. On page four I show a block digaram of the signal flow inside a deck/camera. Hopefully this will clarify the process.

Best-
Mike Schell
Convergent Design

Mike...

I understand...thanx.

Bill:
Well I have the BM Studio Card (Analog & HDMI) and the computer to capture with, but no HDMI device to use yet to try the HDMI route. And yes the 720-60p captured through the analog inputs using the BM card is better then the 480-60p to tape. I am hoping that I could find a solution to make the camera that I have now the HD-100 more versatile, 720-60p and 1080I capture without breaking the bank or buying another camera.

After reading Bill Ravens' message about the Hall Research VHD-HDMI, I'm very curious if Bill or anyone has any new information regarding using this component to HDMI interface with the HD100.

I saw Mike's post and video on the difference between the BR50 analog out vs HDMI. It was day and night. The BR50's D/A conversion destroyed the high frequency detail. Apparently the D/A coverters on the BR50 are questionable.

Like Bill (and I'm sure most of us), I do not want to buy a load of stuff only to find out it looks worse than the HDV original.

Bill, at the time, you were not able to capture the HDMI, have you been able to? I'm real interested in the difference between the HDV vs component>HDMI. For $350, it seems like a good deal. Since I've used the component out on the HD100 straight to a 50" pioneer plasma, I believe it mantains decent quality, but without a direct comparison to HDMI, it's hard to tell.

Of course not only do we have the HD100's D/A conversion, but also the A/D conversion on the Hall Research.

Any more info on this?
I'm real interested in bypassing HDV compression. I realize it's not a very portable solution. Are there any reasonable HDMI capture soultions?

Nothing on this ?

The signal available from the component outputs of my HD110, when fed to a 32inch Sony HDTV via the converter box, looks absolutely beautiful. I've not tried to record from this signal, simply because the recording data rate and HD capacity needed are significant. I assume the signal could be injested via a BMD Intensity Pro card, however, the current state of the art for storage media with the ability to record from HD (note: NOT HDV) is not yet practical, either for cost or for reliability.

Thanks Bill.

I'd like to see a simple HDMI capture program that has cineform NEO nested in it. I'd love to capture 720 60P from the HD100.

Obviously HDMI is only one avenue.
I'm not hearing much about the component to SDI solutions.

Steve

I believe that Cineform will work with the BMD Intensity card. Could be a killer combo. If it works, I will purchase for my own use.

Has anyone using a JVC HD100/110, or HD200 checked out the component capture using Blackmagic Intensity Pro?
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/

I'm wondering if it's smarter to buy a seperate Component>HDMI converter, then buy the Intensity HDMI only card
instead of the Pro version.

I'm really interested in the answer to this as I'm considering getting an HD110 and am confused about the best way to capture the video.

I've thought about 1) skipping tape and bringing the analog signal into a BlackMagic card but have seen some comments elsewhere in DVINFO saying that the color wasn't so good this way and 2) bringing firewire into the PC, but this would involve MPEG compression and de-compresssion.

In either case I was thinking of capturing to Cineform.

I guess in the end it all depends on the quality of the D to A conversion and whether the D to A in the camera is (or isn't) better than the D to A on the Blackmagic card. Regardless of what path one uses, there has to be D to A somewhere in the path!

And I suppose there are also issues with noise on the analog connectors and breakout cable etc etc etc.

Jim,
I agree about the analog component run. This is one reason why I'm considering buying a component to HDMI converter. I could keep the converter within 3 to 6 ft of my camera.

I'm hoping to hear more about the Intensity Pro component capture.

Given the choice, I would opt for the Intensity Pro Card. Using an intermediate conversion box, such as the one I originally posted about here, risks reduction in signal quality due to poor analog to digital conversion(i.e. lower sampling rate (bits) than the intensity pro uses)

Given the choice, I would opt for the Intensity Pro Card. Using an intermediate conversion box, such as the one I originally posted about here, risks reduction in signal quality due to poor analog to digital conversion(i.e. lower sampling rate (bits) than the intensity pro uses)

Bill, I hear you on this, but I have not heard or seen much regarding the component capture quality on the Intensity Pro card.

Like Jim, the only thing I've heard was the color was not so good.
I'd like to hear more and hopefully see some comparision frame grabs or footage.

I sure wish someone from Blackmagic would read these posts and give a good answer.

"Inquiring minds want to know", so to speak.
I've had a few e-mails from the blackmagic tech support folks on a different question - maybe I should send them a link to this thread and see if i can get a response!

I did a test using Adobe CS3 to capture analog component 1280 x 720 8bit 60p through a BM studio card, and at the same time captured 30p to tape, them imported through 1394 port into Avid Liquid. The difference is very noticeable. I posted a mp4 file, because of file bandwidth issues, to show people what they can expect to get out of this combination. Even the HDV portion of the mp4 has more resolution then the analog component capture.

http://www.portstanleynews.com/TV/JVCTest.mp4

I will do another test with a Canon HV20 to check the difference of HDV vs HDMI

Doug,

Thanks much!

The more I think about it, the more reasonable this sounds.

I was in error in my previous post talking about the relative quality of converter box A to D vs Blackmagic A to D vs camera A to D.

Because the camera is already D from the get go and to produce analog it would have to first do a D to A conversion. So inputting analog would then effectively have a D to A step followed by an A to D step. At least going via firewire, the whole process is digital.

It would be really nice if there were a nice block diagram showing what happens where in the path within the camera.

Thinking about it this way, I suspect that a lot of chroma info has already been thrown away - or in fact never captured from the sensor, so expecing to get better color or anything else by picking up the analog outputs is probaby just wishful thinking. It really isn't the direct path through the camera I think.

The intended path in the camera would be direct to MPEG-2 and then to tape, so this is probably the path that has the best components and the best algorithms, hence probably the best quality.

At least this is what occurs to me on rethinking.

And again, sincere thanks for actually making the test! (were you also going to post the capture via Blackmagic, by the way?)

Thanks Doug,

You did this comparison with the BM studio card. I'm wondering how different the results would be using the Intensity Pro card component inputs? It seems hard to believe the A/D conversion can be this bad.

Doug, Sorry - I didn't wait long enough to see the picture switch to component.

Now I see how it looks - pretty bad indeed!