Yes it does! :) If you need proof, stick your camera in there and record yourself closing the door. As a joke, I did do it once.

If I understood your post, the camera does not sense video in M2T, but in full HD 4:2:2, and then that is compressed to M2T which is the HDV 4:2:0 60i. I believe the audio does not as nicely bypass the audio compression. I can understand not having pro audio jacks at all and force me to use the XLRs on the camera, but if CineForm is going to have audio anyway, why not have pro audio interfaces? Isn’t the whole point about quality capture? Then why not quality audio capture?

If the refrigerator light does not go out, then it is the “audio” that comes into question. Does cameras like the V1U compress or pick up any extra noise by using the camera’s on board XLRs. If yes, then the CineForm product should be helping fix that was well while fixing the whole HDMI workflow.

Of course I am assuming that CineForm’s purpose is to make HDMI and HDV have an easy workflow but then we should overcome all of HDMI and HDV’s problems. Bypass all compression, audio and video and store that information in an easily accessible way.

(As much as I am un-thrilled with CineForm’s codec, I really hate M2T so much more to the point of disgust.) I mention HDV since that is where HDMI can really shine since higher HD cameras already have an established workflow.

M

But of course it will go out if it knows that someone or something is watching!

The question is whether it will go out if theere is nothing to observe the event! Or is the light secretly waiting for us all to go away and forget about it so it can turn on and feast on our electricity.

We could probably do a full length feature about the secret life of the refrigerator lamp! Obedient by day, a wild thing by night, lurking and feigning off-ness to reassure us, then springing back to malicious on-ness when we turn our backs.

Who knows what evil lurks behind the refrigerator door!

OK back to Cineform recorder speak!

XLR jacks are nice, but, they do consume a fair bit of real estate. For those who must have XLR, there are a number of places that will sell you an 12" cable with XLR female on one end and RCA male on the other end. 12" of unbalanced line isn't gonna hurt your audio and might even help it by preventing ground loops.

Mini XLR is about the same size as an S-Video port.

I think they are the way to go. It'll keep the size down and solve a lot of audio problems.

Michael, for most of our customers, CineForm overcomes the problems of HDV in a substantial way as it relates to visual fidelity and post workflow. Similarly, CineForm helps overcome the obstacles of uncompressed workflows, which have a different set of issues, with no visual degradation. Face it, compressed workflow are a reality, and they are the future, especially as spatial resolutions zoom upwards to 4K - it's not really practical any other way except for the highest (price) end workflow.

Is there a visual disadvantage using a compressed CineForm workflow? The answer is no, at least not in our analysis, which has been both qualitative and quantitave - theatrical film prints made from CineForm files, and PSNR analysis that shows CineForm compression exceeds the PSNR of the respected HDCam SR format.

As we've discussed earlier in this thread, it seems you prefer an uncompressed recorder and workflow, and we absolutely respect that, but that's not what we're planning to build. And I am perplexed about why you're "un-thrilled" with our codec as I think you're in a relative minority.

OK, enough talk! When can we order one!!!!!

Don't make us beg guys, SDI, SDI...please.... LOL

Component and SDI don't seem to be appropriate for this particular product, IMHO.

COMPONENT: Adding analog to digital conversion will up the dev time, the complexity and the price of the product. I envision a forward looking product positioned to capitalize on the fact that more and more, "consumer" camcorders (like the HV20) will house high quality sensors that are crippled by aged, consumer codecs (MPEG) and antiquated recording technologies (tape.)

SDI: If you're buying a camera that offers SDI, then you're likely capable of procuring recording solutions that are priced out of anything I'm envisioning.

An small, cheap, rugged HDMI recorder using a modern codec, file-based workflow. That is the simple, inexpensive product that will sell in droves to indie-filmmakers and curious prosumers.

Well, I think that they are planning an SDI version... but that it won't be what comes out of the labs first.

From the responses here though an HD-SDI to Cineform recorder is the product that is in desperate demand- more so than the HDMI device.

Bingo.

Just look at Intensity card: they have 2 versions... one HDMI only, another HDMI+Component, at higher cost...

That's exactly the model for the Cineform box, IMHO... base model HDMI video + analog audio; upgraded model HDMI + Component video I/O + analog audio.

Honestly, I don't understand why SDI folks are insisting on that option.

Small Convergent nanoView box does HD-SDI -> HDMI for less than $350, as far as I understand. Do you expect that adding HD-SDI option to the Cineform box will cost much less?

Also, let's remember here that Cineform box covers (ok, will cover when it stops being a vaporware) a very specific market: semi-pros with good HDMI cams that want to avoid horrors of low-bitrate mpeg compression, while utilizing the wonderful (I mean it) Cineform codec.

I do it now with a 40Lb custom PC that houses Intensity card. I'd rather have a Cineform box of course.

If you can afford an SDI-enabled camera, you are well outside the demographic of serious--and seriously budget-constrained--indie filmmakers and prosumers who appear to have been the inspiration for this product, at least in its first iteration. Don't co-opt our fifteen minutes of patiently awaited recognition when there already numerous reduced-compression recording options available within your price range, but none in ours!

I am so grateful to Cineform for what they are attempting here... And, as Canon did with the HV20, for recognizing that there is a highly neglected yet very legitimate, eager, and (let's admit it) demanding segment of the market buried between the opposing extremes of average consumers and film & broadcast professionals. In the world of media and culture, the distinction between the "moneyed elites" and the rest of us is growing ever more faint--a trend which I believe, on whole, will be to the benefit of media and culture for elites and everymans alike--and we have innovators like Cineform to thank for this.

So, to everyone at Cineform, I have nothing but praise and thanks and this one humble request: an optional accessory-shoe-to-tripod-screw adapter for mounting atop my HV20!

I think SDI is affordable at $6,500 with the new Sony XDCam EX1.

Affordable is also a VERY relative term.

I can't afford a $10,000+ box that does SDI, but I could afford a $3,000+ ish box that records Cineform intermediate.

Purchasing an additional conversion box to drag along with the Cineform box defeats the purpose of being very easy to use and portable.

I want something I can hook on my rail system or whatever, and record Cineform right to compact flash cards. Hopefully there will be at least 2 cards, not just one.

Looking forward to whatever SDI box Cineform comes up with.

Jim

I am VERY interested in something like this for an HV20 set-up. And I knew it was must a matter of months before some smart, entrepreneurial folks took it on. Right on Cineform! You guys rock.

An HDMI input would seem to be in Cineform's best interest, in that there is currently no competition in that market. There are other SDI options, and SDI can easily be converted to HDMI. The only HDMI device to come close would be a BMD Intensity in a Magma box AND a Laptop. One thing I would recommend to really push the limits, would be for Cineform to support HDMI Deep Color in their box, to record 10bit or 12bit color, once cameras begin to support it.
I offer this advice as one who has two SDI cameras and zero HDMI cameras. HDMI just makes better business sense for a product like this. To cater to the SDI crowd, they could offer a DC output to power a separate SDI to HDMI adaptor off the same battery system. (Strap a BMD HDLink to the side)

Wrong (read my response below!)

If you define SDI folks as one unit with the same requirements your are wrong!

Wrong again!
You folks asuming that people who buy a SDI enabled camcorder works like professionals in environments with big budgets and resources. Myself is a indie wildlifephotographer, who works alone out in the field with I think less money and resources than you guys!
The main reason I bought this camcorder the Canon XLH1 is for it's interchangeable lenses, but also good quality on optics etc...
There is no way that I can afford nor take with me any stationary SDI storage equipment.

Enlighten me please !?

A Canon HV20 or HG10 with a few accessories is close to $1000 today. This Cineform product is targeted for sale at $2000. Your camera budget is thus $3000.

Canon XH-A1 is $3499. Add this cineform box and you are at $5500.

The Canon XH-G1, which is the same as the XH-A1 but adds HD SDI, is $6299. The Sony XDCAM EX1 is $6699.

Those prices are in the same ballpark, and we are both playing in the "under $10k league."

In other words being able to afford such a camera is far from an indication of unlimited budgets. In fact its safe to say a lot of people considering such equipment are very cash constrained.

I shudder to think what you feel about people who own a pair of Sony F23's and an HDCAM SR deck with a BVM series monitor so you can actually see the images the camera makes. That's about a half million worth of equipment once you add in lenses and such- and doesn't include tripods, mics or lights.

So, am I saying that this is a useless concept? No- its absolutely wonderful. I think the product is going to be awesome.

That's why I am interested in an HD-SDI version.

In general I'd say the camera you are using should cost more than this Cineform box before you will get the best advantage out of the Cineform box.

This thing needs a name
 

I hereby nominate Cineform SOLID.

The basic SOLID would have HDMI i/o and 2 miniXLR.

Follow on versions might be called
"SOLID Pro" for an HD SDI version with 2 miniXLR. This is actually a unit I'd want, in fact I might take two.

"SOLID Analogue" would be a bigger version that forgoes digital i/o for BNC component and S Video. One of the BNC should be software switchable to composite.

If those work in the market here's a few more for the family.
"SOLID +" for a version with HDMI and analog video i/o
"SOLID Pro+" for an HD SDI version with analog i/o.
"SOLID Extreme" might be a version with HDMI, HD SDI and analog- the whole enchilada you might say. I'd like one of these as well.

I grant permission for Cineform to use that name, so long as I get credit.

Include Cineform Codec licenses!
 

It just occurred to me that users may well need Cineform codec licenses.

Hopefully you might see your way clear to include one license of NEO HD with each SOLID. (I made that name up, and I'm sticking to it!)

I like this idea....

I think as far as external adapters, if HDMI offers quality as high as/comparable to/greater than HD-SDI and Component, etc... that inexpensive adapters would really be the way to go.

I could capture using Component into this device via an adapter, and also use it to play back via nice, simple HDMI to use for presentations, etc... or hook it up to an HD-SDI camera if I upgrade, without replacing the whole unit....

I don't own an HDMI or HD-SDI camera, so I'm not sure exactly how those technologies stack up against one another. I do think, though, that if HDMI is sufficient, adapters would be fine for other inputs. Any thoughts, guys?


Carl

I like SOLID.

While each PC/Mac license could in included with the product, it wouldn't be required as the CineForm decoders are freely available for post-production application.

I don't think there are really SDI guys and HDMI guys and Component guys as much as there are guys who for whatever reason have cameras that have one or another, but not all of the above connection capabilities.

My JVC 110 has component or firewire. I guess that eliminates me from the customer set unless they support either firewire or component input (and not sure why they wouldn't support firewire - it's such a tiny little connector and I think they have one there already for camera control. Why not ingest the hated m2t like HDLink already does so well? I'd bet that a lot of people would like an alternative to Firestore that also happens to eliminate the additional step of conversion to Cineform)

I don't think of myself as a firewire guy, I'd love to have HDMI or SDI - but I'm not about to scrap my cameras to get them. The next big $ item in my plan is another lens for the JVC, not a nice new camera with HDMI or SDI.

I don't think I'm alone!!! I'd rather have the Cineform box because it simplifies the workflow, but let's face it, I can live with tape (and Firestore) for a few more years if I have to.

Yes, but...
The BM HDLink only supports the following output via HDMI:

HD Format Support via HDMI 1080p25, 1080i50, 1080i59.94, 1080i60, 720p50, 720p59.94 and 720p60.

No 1080p30, 1080p23.976, and it appears no 720p 23.976, 720p 30.
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/pro...ink/techspecs/

Am I looking at this incorrectly..

BM HDLink?????

I was referring to Cineform HDLink.

Sorry for any confusion.

I guess it can happen when two different companies use the same name for two different products.

Sorry, I was commenting to Mike McCarthy's post in this thread regarding the BM HDLink

Remember CineForm used the name first. :)

However the BM HDLink could be used to convert HDSDI to HDMI.

You issues:

1080p30 -- same as 1080i60.
1080p23.976 -- prosumer cameras put 24p over 60i, although 24psf would have been nice (I'm not sure HMDI has support though.)
720p 23.976, 720p 30 -- transmitted as 720p60 with pulldown (removable.)

This is very unlikely = not going to happen. We would add analog input way before doing that (solving the issue.) M2T quality is what we are working to avoid, yet to support it would mean we would have to add an MPEG2 decoder to the hardware design.

Inputs via HDMI, HDSDI and Analog all make good market sense, as all come from a pre-compressed source. Also only supporting uncompressed inputs mean simplied hardware.

A range of Blu-ray and HD DVD players can output 1080p/24 from HDMI, so I'm sure it is a standard. Although those devices will be HDCP encrypted.

I can analyse the signal if you want, but gut feeling is that it's actually outputting 72fps.

Until the camera sources do 24p at 24Hz (or over 72Hz) we don't need to worry about it. We will be implementing HMDI I/O with flexibility in mind, if a new mode is used, we can upgrade the units in the field. But of the internal feature will be software/firmware upgradable by an image on a USB thumb drive.

Spectacular product! I'm very interested in this as an adjunct to the recently announced Sony Z7 HDV camera (which will ship with Sony's own CF-recorder). First, recording "true" 1920x1080 video, plus uncompressed audio through HDMI would be an obvious advantage over either tape-based or flash-based HDV recording. Secondly, with a unit like this, you could create instantaneous triple-redundancy, by recording to tape, and to two CF recorders. It's even conceivable you could record in SD, HDV and Cineform simultaneously!

I'm torn on the LCD screen. On one hand, I really want this baby to be as affordable, small, light, portable and error-free as possible. On the other hand, I can see how having a screen could be a godsend for reviewing footage in the field without tying up the camera, or lugging a laptop around. So, perhaps you're spot-on in giving it a basic LCD, but not overdoing it on resolution or quality.

A couple of other thoughts:

On the topic of weight: I would lean toward portability over heavy analog audio connectors. Mini-xlr may be fine (I've never seen them), but standard XLR are way too heavy for a unit like this. I'd be OK with stereo-mini, if it is made out of solid materials, and has the little screw-top fastener seen in some of the Sennheiser wireless microphones. If I have critical audio, I typically use an external preamp and feed it through the XLR line inputs of the camera, and simultaneously output through the pre-amp's unbalanced auxiliary stereo-mini output to a portable digital recorder. Under this scenario, I don't think I'd be losing too much going analog to HDMI through the camera.

Power options: A slot to attach a Sony battery would be great. Even better, how about adaptor plate that fits between the camera battery and the camera, with a small cable out to power the recorder? It may be worth taking a look at Sony's new CF recorder that will fit over the NPF-970 battery of the new Z7 camera to see how it accesses the camera battery for power, and design something compatible. Failing that, I'd like to see a standard 4-pin XLR power attachment, and a wide range of voltage requirements, so it could be powered off of any power source.

Data ports: A couple people have mentioned a SATA connection, so you could attach, and record to, external hard drives. The problem with SATA is that you still need a separate power source for the drive, which could be a problem in the field. Could you connect 6-pin firewire or USB drives instead? This would help minimize the number of cables needed. Or is the throughput insufficient for HD?

Will camera sync be possible with this unit, so it starts and stops recording when the camera RECORD button is pressed?

Overall, for efficient field use, there should be at least an option to connect this with an absolute minimum number of cables. In a perfect world, I'd be able to solidly attach this unit on the back of a Sony Z7 instead of the Sony HDV CF recorder, have it draw power directly from the camera's NPF-970 battery (with no or extremely short cables, if possible), connect a short HDMI cable, and be off and running.

Also, make sure that the slots for the CF cards are designed so they cannot be inadvertently ejected. Perhaps some kind of door over the CF slot? I have a laptop with a card reader that is forever popping out the flash card when it's being carried around.

Finally, what would I need to edit the recorded files in Vegas Pro 8?

This project is a godsend! I look forward to seeing it released soon!

Then you haven't used an HV20 with a 35mm adapter!

I predict that more and more consumer camera sensors are going to be hampered by onboard consumer-grade "transport" (codec/recording medium) than by the actual capabilities of the capture electronics.

The greatest appeal of this product is to free low budget camcorders from having their signals mangled by HDV.

If the "Cinfeform SOLID" did come in @ $2k, then my kit would still cost HALF of Sony's cheapest "FULL" HD camera, the EX1.

Mangled by HDV? That's going a bit too far :)

Putting aside the wonderful advantages of the "Cineform Solid" (i.e. 4:2:2, 1920x1080, instant pulldown removal into Cineform's great wavelet codec, bypassing HDV mp2 audio compression), HDV is still really really good IMO.

Some of us do not have the money to, ALL AT ONCE, upgrade to this level of performance. I'm really interested in the idea of modular upgrades, that will allow users to incrementally, over time, improve the quality of their video production, without having to throw away their initial investment and start over again. I might not have $8000 to spend today, but I might have $2000-3000 a year for the next 3 or 4 years to spend on incremental upgrades.

So, for example, in Step 1, you buy a decent HDV camera with an interchangeable lens. (The Sony Z7, for example?)

In Step 2, you buy a new lens, or start experimenting with 35mm still-camera optics.

In Step 3, you upgrade the recording system, by adding something like this Cineform Unit.

Even if you end up upgrading the camera itself, you should be able to re-use lenses or external recorders you purchased in Steps 2 & 3.

This is the way it always used to work with 35mm SLRs, and to some extent, still does with digital SLRs.

I don't see how, objectively, HDV can be considered "really really good." Now, of course, I use it. I have to. It is manageable, acceptable, and certainly better than nothing, but honestly it's not "really really good."

1. It was antiquated before it even became available on the first camera. Many more modern, efficient codecs existed back then, and now the disparity is even greater.

2. It throws away the bulk of the color information.

3. It filters out a lot of low contrast detail.

4. It's not hard at all to get it to show visible macroblocking and other artifacts.

5. It doesn't hold up to any sort generational work.

So, yes, I stand by the loaded term of "mangled." I monitor my HV20 shoots via live HDMI, and it's always a little sad to see what is left over once recorded via HDV.

Maybe Craig referred to a 35Mps mpeg compression?

That isn't in the HDV spec is it?

35Mbps is an XDCAM data rate.

XDCAM holds up far better than HDV under every circumstance I've tested. It also has uncompressed audio.

Still XDCAM is in many ways HDV's big brother, so maybe that's what Craig meant?

Still I wouldn't call XDCAM "really really good" either.

I'd say that XDCAM was usable, the same rating I give DVCPRO HD and DV.

I call HDV, "not entirely unusable."

Oh well, this whole post is gonna be off topic. If you want to talk about it more than this, then lets make a new thread somewhere and copy some posts over there.

I sure haven't- but I have to say that I am unimpressed with the results of 35mm adaptors I have used with other cameras.

The main thing they add is a nice shallow depth of field.

You still see the limits of the low end sensors.

Well, you forget your own earlier comment. I think a lot of cameras are hampered by low end glass as well as being mangled by the onboard codec.

Still, sensors will continue to improve very rapidly. So will electronics and storage. As a result I expect we'll see better and better recorder sections and sensors.

Glass however is glass. Optical physics and engineering are very well understood and relatively mature sciences. It will be hard to make quality lenses for a long time. It will take a revolution in manufacturing techniques, like the arrival of a nanotech general assembler- but I stray far off topic.

Let me just say that sensors will improve fastest, the recorder sections will follow fairly rapidly, but glass will lag far behind.

So... we agree generally.

Yes. You get what you pay for though.

The HV20 will still exhibit a relatively narrow exposure latitude and you'll still be looking at 8-bit color going out the HDMI port. Oh, and you'll still have 1440x1080 HDV resolution sensors. And the same gain characteristics.

Even a tool as cool as Cineform SOLID can't fix that for you.

You still have a great bit of kit though, and you can certainly upgrade the camera and get a better sensor without worrying about either the glass or the recorder. Something like the Iconix might start looking very attractive- though I think this little bugger is rather expensive:

http://www.iconixvideo.com/products.html

I have never understood why Canon and Nikon haven't made video sensors with a full frame size to attach to their 35mm lenses.

In any case Cineform is making it easier for someone else to come along and do just that.

Eventually I expect to just plunk down my cash on a RED and actually have a real 35mm sized sensor with prime 35mm PL mount glass. (Cooke S4... droooool)

Useable...Unuseable....it all depends..... Its funny how people like to gripe about HDV's artifacts and try to measure it up to other "more professional" platforms but the fact is it has been used on some professional shoots in recent years (the tv show JAG comes to mind) successfully. I would say that is a perfect example of its useability.

From what I have been reading...HDV had a bad reputation from the start with its early blockiness issues and other artifacting problems....but to be honest its current implimentation (especially in a cam like the HV20) has come a long way and is much better than when JVC first came out with it.

I think it is very useful...even more today that it ever was.

You may get your wish sooner than you think from the Nikon-series "Live view" option over HDMI.

At this point it doesn't look like the "Live-view" is real-time on the D3, but at some point in the near future I'm sure it will be. So at that time you'll basically have a down-converted 1080i signal over HDMI that you could feed into the SOLID from your full 35mm-sized Nikon sensor for very low cost. It probably won't be as optimal in use as a dedicated cinema camera, but it would be an option.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but actually the HV20 has a full 1920x1080 sensor. That's why so many people have adopted lugging a PC around in order to use the Blackmagic Intensity to capture this full-rez 4:2:2 signal, and which is why the Cineform "SOLID" is such a perfect mate.

Yes, there are many things about this cheap little camera that don't live up to professional standards, but for sub-$1k it's a unique beast. For the truly indie filmmaker, it is a godsend. All the money saved can be spent on lighting and everything else that shows on screen.

We all want a RED in the price range of a good DSLR, and the industry will get there, but the big Japanese hardware manufacturers will do it kicking and screaming, so in the meantime we're left with trying to hack their last generation technology (i.e. MPEG-2, tape, etc.) Luckily there are people like Dennis out there, with product ideas like the "SOLID" to do just that.