For these "first units", do you expect they may be in production as early as 3 months, 6 months, 12 months?

It is hard to talk about timing at the moment, as there is several factors that will move this timing around. But not as long as 12 months, that way too long for us. We see the need now, and all your interest helps prove that. The more interest there is, the more the product can be pulled in.

Good enough for me.

Although I will cross my fingers that maybe it'll be ready by NAB. =)

1. Option to "flip" the image during acquisition for 35mm adapters.
2. No screen unless it is usable for HD focus.
3. Simple as possible. Don't succumb to feature-itis!
4. Rugged. Metal chassis, rubberized body, threaded for standard tripod mount. (Think Beachtek.)
5. And oh, yeah, definitely XLR connectors over RCA wherever possible.

It definitely gains from the flexibility of the touchscreen LCD. No other input is as easy to use for setup and recording.

I can think of many ways in which it will help. Don't write this one off, it's very useful, just don't think of it as a "monitor". That's not it's function.

Think things like "audio record levels", NEO choices, video signal confirmation, timecode sync, etc.

1. We plan on the 180 degree flip, not just for preview, rather the acquired image will be stored with the correct orientation.

2. Sorry, you have to have a screen. :)

3. We plan on it. A simple platform -- with a screen -- allows us to optimize the unit for a range of markets. Without the screen, all we have is a nice disk recorder unit, it has much more potential than that. Wider market servability for the base technology helps lower the price.

4. Yes, sounds good.

5. Unlikely for the first product, but that would be nice for a pro configuration.

I think "video signal confirmation" alone is worth the extra expense.

Sorry, but physical buttons with tactile response are generally easier to use in the field. Just ask anyone who'd tried to use BMW's iDrive!!! ;-)

David, without physical controls, how would one actually access the screen if the decision was made to mount it under the camera? Seems like if you go the touchscreen route an arm mount will be the only practical config.

Why go with RCA over XLR? Price?
The reason why I'm pestering on this issue is that you can always convert XLR to RCA and not give up anything, but you can't do vice-versa and retain XLR's benefits. Every RadioShack in the country sells adapters for a few bucks, so it's not like this choice would lock anyone or any equipment out.

It seems to me that most consumers willing to drop $2k on a "recorder" are also looking to use quality microphones.

P.S. I didn't say it before, but this thing will ROCK! However the details shake-out, you're gonna sell a bajillion of them.

definitely a biggie. But there's more...lots more

Is the issue the actual XLR connectors themselves or the issue of balanced audio inputs vs. unbalanced audio?

XLR's are pretty big . . . other connectors could be suited to work if the issue is mainly having balanced audio inputs over unbalanced.

I think the question is "Who is the target group?"

At 2k, I would think professionals are the target group and they normally use XLR. So do you want to make the pro people use adapters or the budget people use adapters?

In my bag of audio cables, 99% are XLRs.

As far as the screen, one should be included, but not for a primary viewing purposes, it should be for menus. If you can also view the video, fine, but that is just "feature-itous" as it was said before. I also prefer actual tactile buttons so that when in the field, I can use the device without ruining or getting dirty the screen.

I agree with one statement, address the main need, not every possible scenerio. Then you would end up with an AJA IO HD, which I already do not want. (I so not need all those connectors, such a big box, and then no HDD...) I do actually prefer ProRes422 over Cineform, (Still testing) but the conceptual design of CineForm is way way super way better.

My guess is a more costly HDSDI unit will have XLR, and a HDMI will have RCA, mini-jacks, or no analog audio. An XLR equipped camera like the V1U or upcoming HVR-Z7U, that have HDMI, can use the camera to feed XLR signals through HDMI. Then the device capture pure digital, simplifing the design. I feel most users will not greatly miss XLR external audio for this market. Additional audio is a form of feature-itous, but still add important one -- that why it is in the base design at least in some form. Full size XLR connectors would have more impact on the physical design than almost any other element, which is the other factor to consider.

I think using menus in the field is much harder than buttons because you have to actually look at the unit.

I also think touch screen is at best OK - I use an iPhone and while they've done reasonably well with the soft keys, a few strategic buttons would be nice. Very nice!

I think people who are really serious about the sound want to keep it out of the camera as much as possible so picking up the sound from the camera would mean that for all intents and purposes there wouldn't be much use for the sound in the new box except reference for post. I rarely ever run a mic into the camera if I can avoid it

On the other hand, if you're already using dual system sound, then I guess it doesn't much matter what kind of analog sound this new box has as people will still use their SD 7XX or whatever, so RCA would be OK.

I think I'd prefer not to have a screen so I'd have more real estate to which I could velcro a couple of 2 1/2" hard drives!

David,

Not much to add other than to say this is a brilliant concept. The LCD monitor is genius. I'm mostly in one man band situations and 90% of the time I just can't carry or have the time to set up a field monitor. I just want to be able simply monitor or play back what's on the hard-drive. This machine will elegantly solve that problem.

And it's going to be the hdmi or hd/sdi made by cineform with their own codec... I'm like Homer looking at donut.

This could be the iPod of the indy production world. Well done.

I just thought of another reason why component in is a great idea. I could use the box with my SD camera as well. (Yes??? No???)

Then I have just one workflow to worry about as everything is in Cineform.

Just one question - when can I order one? Are you taking pre-orders (hopefully at a slight or not so slight discount!). Let me know where to send the check and it will be in the mail.

If you are going to include analog audio don't mess around, it has to be XLR.

Think about it a $2000 USD device that is intended to upgrade a 4:2:0 8 bit camera to 10 bit 4:2:2.

The people who understand what that means won't want to use RCA for production audio- except maybe for low end confidence monitoring. I suppose those who plan on using his as a playback/presentation device might use RCA outputs sometimes.

If you want audio i/o then do it it right- otherwise its better if you just don't do it at all.

So... I suggest Mini XLR. You get the technical benefits of XLR, including a positive lock connector. You get a small size. You can convert it to full size XLR or RCA readily.

I suggest place two 3 pin females on the chassis,

http://www.futurlec.com/XLR-MiniXLR.shtml

Then include two cables like these in the box:

http://best-tronics.com/mm5/merchant...Yes&Quantity=1

and finally throw two adaptors like these in the box too:
http://earthshakingmusic.com/GXM-133.html

All of the benefits of XLR and a connector that is about the size of RCA, with positive locking.

Again, if you can't make XLR work, then don't bother with analog i/o on this unit.

No way... if that is going to be a major way end users are going to use the product then design a real solution.

Maybe a "snap on" enclosure for the drives. Include cable management.

Sell it separately, and without drives.

Let users buy them from you machined to match the main unit.. and then add their own drives.

It won't do uncompressed... because that requires too much bandwidth.

I think it always sends ProRes down the wire to the Mac in HD. I think it will send SD signals down the wire uncompressed.

You can still capture any format you like. The ioHD will send ProRes down the line, then you can actually use the Mac to record whatever format it can handle in software. So, if ProRes is coming in, nothing is stopping you from transcoding that to DVCPRO HD- except your Mac's processing resources.

Of course this all means you have a Mac... and you bought a $3500 piece of hardware that only works with the Mac... so you might as well stay in ProRes to edit on your Mac which should have Final Cut on it.

I'd only transcode to some other format in this workflow if diskspace was VERY scarce. Then I might choose to drop down to DVCPRO HD or the like.

The point remains that unless your a Mac editor who is fundamentally happy with ProRes, then AJA ioHD is a bad choice.

You'd be better off with some other solution

Like perhaps the Cineform gadget, we are all here to discuss.

Sorry to reply to you twice, but I am eager to talk about this HD SDI unit. I am more likely to buy and use that than the "low end" HDMI unit.

First off, I think miniXLR is still the way to go. The form factor is just too good for this type of product.

Secondly what i/o

I'd like to see HD SDI single link in, HD SDI out. Let the device use the HD SDI output as another HD SDI input for a dual link application for those few with cameras that can output 4:4:4.

I'd like a BNC connector that could swap between the following:
1) TC IN
2) TC OUT
3) Reference Input for: Black, Composite Sync, Tri Level Sync

I want to see HDMI in and out.

Two Mini XLR in and two dedicated Mini XLR outs.

I'd also want two Compact Flash slots minimum.

an eSATA port would be nice, as would USB and Firewire. all should be able to connect external storage.

Both the USB and Firewire should allow the device to connect to a computer and allow the following:

1) let the computer mount all the media attached to the device
2) let the computer control the device
3) let the computer capture directly from the encoders on the device.
4) firmware upgrades

OK that's twelve connectors and two CF slots.

Do you think that can all be done in a package the size of a desktop DVD drive or smaller? I'd love a package the size of a Betcam small cassette.

Flash XDR
 

I found this link yesterday:

http://www.convergent-design.com/dow...0and%20FAQ.pdf

http://www.convergent-design.com/

Flash XDR : The First CompactFlash Based HD XStream Data Recorder

Features
• HD-SDI ↔ 25, 35, 50, 100 Mbps MPEG2 (Long-GOP)
• Also supports MPEG2 4:2:2 @ 160 Mbps (I-Frame)
• 1080i, 720p, 1080p24
• HD-SDI ↔ ASI (19.7 Mbps) for satellite up/down-link
• Embedded or External Audio, Time-Code inputs
• Record trigger input, tally light output
• Four Hot-Swappable CompactFlash Card Slots
• Enables File-Based transfers, 2x-6x real-time
• Rugged, solid-state; silent operation
• Compact, Ultra-Portable, under 1kg

PRICE ==> US $4995

One simple practical thing came into mind. In my experience it is important that such a device has proper cover which can be fixed easily on the camera, tripod etc. Say, if one has the XL H1 and the external battery holder on belt, then another device on the belt to store the video signal means another cord. If one also needs an external amplifier for audio, then it becomes already rather messy with all the devices and cords hanging around the camera implying a risk to stumble when the system has to be moved.

Sound creates *more* impact on the movie viewer than visuals.

(As much as we don't want to believe it... it's true.)

That's why noisy way of feeding the sound through the camera into HDMI is not good - both the noise and distortion levels are too bad.

Camera manufacturers do it on purpose, so people could not use a $4K camera instead of professional $25K (SD) / $90K (HD) one.

So for serious sound, we use double system with external preamp and recorder - but it is not sync'd with video at the time of recording, and requires huge post-production time to sync it.

That same audio fed into Cineform box over the analog audio in, multiplexed by Cineform to the HDMI-fed video, would immediately solve the problem.

Since we are at the spec stage, I have to positively insist that the Cineform box *has* to have analog audio In with all versions.

As to which connectors - sure XLRs are great, but realistically I just don't know if even mini-XLRs can be fitted in the box's size, and how will that impact the economics. I'd still settle for the RCA's at least.

I think, it is more important for the Cineform box to have a very low noise, low distortion A/D converter, and ability to multiplex that analog signal to HDMI video on-the-fly in sync.

If XLRs *can* be fitted and afforded, then of course that'd be the best. But *at least* have RCA's and *analog audio in* on all versions! (Alex is making a poster and plans on demonstrating outside of the Cineform headquarters :)

As much as I hate dongles, they are much to be prefered in this type of situation. When your input device is not appropriate as the mounting surface for such large connectors as XLR (both 3-pin audio and 4-pin power), IMO you're much better off suffering with a dongle than not having those important and needed features, or down-grading them.

One advantage with the dongle, is that if you do not need audio i/o, only the SDI or HDMI connection is needed and the dongle could be removed.

I agree, the mid-range model for pro's, needs balanced audio i/o. Video signal verification is necessary for sure, but as was observed, the video is merely for that. A "freebie" actually adding to the overall usefulness.

David,
this is good news for a rocky indian wildlifefilmer and there are lots of us out there! I'm using the Canon XLH1 camcorder and are forced to use tapes and HDV today.
The XLH1 has its HD-SDI slot just sitting there and it's not any HD 4.2.2 solution out there today which is both light and who need only battery-power, for us to use a long way from the nearest power socket.

I will gladly sign up as a beta-tester if you need someone who can bring your product to unreachable places, in cold and wet surroundings.

I request a real-time in-box framerate converter (60i-24p) for the second generation of this recorder.

And a 1080i to 720p60 conversion mode is also a request to make ease of editing in that workflow and lessening render times.

Are two CF slots enough? Let's not forget that I/O errors occur on CF as well as tape. I use an SD 702 and have had glitches caused by errors on the CF mess up the audio. So now I always record to CF and disk simultaneously if it's anything important.

So maybe we would need two PAIRS of CF cards?

Also - how many minutes of recording would we get on a CF card. I use 16 GB cards for audio and if we were recording the hated m2t to CF it would give us a bit over an hour per card, but with Cineform, wouldn't it be more like 20 or 30 minutes per card (depending on Cineform level)

I guess what I'm getting at is that I think we really would need a small HDD with the unit - or maybe two small HDD's in parallel.

And if so, then we need a place to stick the HDD's which is why I was muttering about velcro-ing them to the unit. Unless there were a couple of bays where we could stick them.

Anyhow, would someone at Cineform like to make an estimate of what kind of recording times we'd get under a couple of reasonable scenarios?

What Jim said - except I'd not even mess with CF cards at the present time.

Here's rationale: to have reliable recording, we need Raid1 either with cards or HDDs.

Since cards are so much more expensive, and so much smaller in capacity than HDDs, the choice seems to be clear in favor of HDDs.

Why not simply have eSATA Raid1 connectors on Cineform box, so all one has to do is attach 2 HDDs and be done.

Since the whole thing can be belt-worn, two drives are feasible to carry around.

Granted, the Cineform box needs to take the battery power and transform it into what HDDs need to be powered up as well.

Yes, sounds good, but IMO they are about $2.5K to much.

I'm a bit confused about this concept.

"Most" cam operators that have HDMI don't have a clue what the benefit this portable solution offers. Most of these cameras cost less than the projected price of this recorder.

Now, looking at the JVC HD-250, Canon H1, and especially the upcoming Sony XDCAM EX1 ( This cam is going to sell like hotcakes), there is "real" market from users who are craving to use their SDI output.

There is no small battery operated portable solution that offers SDI.
If you have to "up" the price to $2500-$3000, do so.
Offer HDMI and SDI on one unit and this recorder will be the most popular "must have" for all!

Sign me up for two !

If the SDI happens by next year, I will cancel my plans for the XDR, which I believe is to much $$

I've had this conversation with C-D. Their arguement is that SDI licensing greatly affected their asking price. I agree with you, Steve...too expensive at $5K.

I like the idea of having a "front end" capture box that outputs to SATA II. That way, the user can choose his record media. All types of media are available in SATA II interface.... hard disk, Compact Flash, single disk or RAID X with a port multiplier...and in NTFS or FAT32 to satisfy MAC users.

Doesn't seem like HDMI plus SDI will ever happen. It's either one or the other for a unit that has to compress the input video into HD Cf format...especially when you're uprezing via the HDMI to 1920, 10-bit. That signal has to be processed via silicon and unless the chips that can handle both are available, it has to be done via CPU power as in "embedded" PCs.

Great to think custom chips, but...I would imagine that is a long way off still. It'll come, but not for a good while. Better to do what works first, then make it happen in silicon later. As CF will very soon discover...

And I would say it wouldn't happen for less than what was quoted above. In fact, I'd bet on it. If it was that easy, it'd already be in your hands.

And don't forget those of us who DO understand the benefit but happen to have cameras (like JVC HD110U) that don't have HDMI or SDI. Still a need for component I'm afraid.

I seriously doubt 90% of the people here could tell the dif between component ingest and HDMI or SDI after it's CFed. I probably couldn't either. The component "in" needs to be there too, at least on the HDMI model.

We're already thinking of the second unit. We would like the second unit to add single-and dual-link HD-SDI, with the appropriate up-market features including audio. I suspect we'd also want to have HDMI on this unit. If so then it would do everything this first HDMI unit does plus adds Pro audio and HD-SDI.

Fortunately the compression electronics and controller inside are being designed from the beginning to handle the increased processing needs for the second unit. We'd like the second unit to be mostly software upgrades plus additional physical interfaces. At least that's the thought right now....

May it happen!

This is one of the best posts. Cameras XLR ports tend to be not as good as they should be. Currently, we bypass the camera XLRs when it comes to sound and go straight to our capture device. This way the sound first goes through a mixer were we first make sure we are capturing a good signal.

Real XLRs are much more important than many of the suggestions here. Personally, looking at a HDMI capture device, XLRs are really the only other thing we would really need. All this talk about HDSDI, screens, RCA jacks, component, media player features are really talking about a different type of product. Personally, a HDMI capture device is what makes this product unique, not CineForm. Anything that deviates from HDMI captures raises costs. The only other features I want are things that improve that workflow like XLR jacks.

Also: HDDs over CF any day!!!
M

Then the second device is what I want, mostly because of the pro audio interface. If you are capturing dual link right now, I doubt you are waiting for a device like this. (Even HD-SDI is just extra costs, but understandable if you go that route.)

Personally, if we can only have one device, the second concept seems the direction I would hope you would go.
M

I'd be all for an "all digital" box that had no DAC's at all if it kept the box simple and/or inexpensive and/or small. We could do our audio mixing with a Beachtek-like device, feed it into the camera and send it along the HDMI path ...

... BUT, if there is going to be analog audio conversion, then by all means the connectors should be XLR.

Interesting point about telling the difference between component ingest and SDI/HDMI

I wonder if there really is any difference - or for that matter if anyone could tell the difference between the above and ingest from Firewire via the unversally loathed m2t.

Maybe I'm the kind of guy who isn't really sure that the refrigerator light goes out after closing the door, but I can't escape the uneasy feeling that if I had been a camera engineer in the early days of DV/HDV I would have understood that the camera had two functions. 1) to record m2t video to tape and 2) to playback m2t video from tape

Starting from that premise, I would have compressed everything into m2t as soon as possible and stuffed it into a buffer. Then the tape I/O would have had only two functions a) transfer the buffer to tape and b) transfer tape to the buffer. And my playback function would have just taken the m2t from the buffer and dumped it out its outputs, decompressing or converting D to A or up-rezzing or whatever as appropriate. In other words, there wouldn't have been any path through the camera that didn't involve m2t.

I know everybody believes that some Santa Claus of an engineer devised an m2t-free path through the camera just for us quality conscious guys, but - well, I wonder. Does the refrigerator light REALLY go out?

Regardless, and not to get off on a different topic that's already been flailed to death, the more input types the better - including the hated Firewire.

Anyhow, as long as it has some way for me to hook my camera up to it and doesn't cost much more than $2k, I'll buy one. The value of one and only one capture workflow is worth it.

A suggestion
 

By the way, since the number of people here on the forum must be a rather small subset of all Cineform users, might you consider making up a questionaire of some kind (hopefully including some of the ideas from this forum) and sending a link to it to everybody who has purchased Cineform?