CineForm HDMI Recorder Concept Posted

[David Newman]

Originally Posted by David Parks

Davids:

What speed Compact Flash are you engineering for. 20MB/sec or 40MB/sec.? I hope this hasn't already been asked. I looked but couldn't see anything.

David,

We should work on 20MB/s flash.

[Jason Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by David Parks

http://www.siliconimaging.com/Digita...eFormTech.html

Actually, in some ways you'll have better than an F900. F900 is 8 bit, F950 is 10 bit. But, HDCAM is 3:1:1, I think at 144mbit.

It's getting really interesting.

Remember, the link you're referring to is actually for CineForm RAW, *not* CFHD (i.e., the YUV stream version) . . . so, while CineForm RAW runs at around 11-13MB/s max at FilmScan1-2 quality mode settings, the FilmScan1 YUV encoded stream from a HDMI port of a camera could be almost or up to around double the data-rate of CineForm RAW depending on the amount of detail and noise in the scene . . . it would be a HDCAM-killer. You're literally looking at a "pocket HDCAM-SR" deck.

I would imagine this could definitely go nicely with the new 3-chip CMOS removable lens camera that Sony announced at IBC.

[Jason Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Alex Raskin

I have a Xenarc monitor. The booger is 7" diagonal, everything is rather miniature on it.

On its back, the connector is secured by a system of 2 plastic hooks - see image below.

Although Xenarc's cable is not HDMI, principle is the same and I think it would be prudent to engineer the same thing for the Cineform capture box.

The cable retention hooks are a great idea, but I will caution after using them that those plastic hooks on the Xenarc break *really* easily . . . I know we've busted a bunch of them.

That's not to knock the idea . . . just saying that plastic was probably not the best choice they could have made for those hooks . . . it's good for a one-time use setup-monitor-and-keep-cable-out-of-the-way scenario, but on repeated usage, they break in no-time.

[Christopher Barry]

Looking forward to the version with HD-SDI I/O, David.

[Chris Hurd]

Thread now stickified.

[Michael Young]

Hello,
I have two V1Us and I have heard people talk about this concept for quite some time, but I am glad somebody is doing less talk; well we will see if you can actually make the product... Anyway, I have read many people talking about what they want and so forth, but I would like to at least start with the basics first and anything else would be nice.

Note: I noticed on your website that it says the DR60 is not triggered by Firewire, but it is. (Unless there is some wireless connection or telepathy happening because when I hit record on my camera, the DR60 automatically starts working with no problems with the 24a mode, well just the whole m2t thing but that is another story...)

My Dos and Don’ts:

Must have HDMI recording with live pull down in highest possible setting. DUH!

Nice but not needed are 2 XLR connectors. (Most prosumer cameras have XLRs already but many feel that the camera cheapens the audio so having the extra cost is understandable.) Don’t be like the AJA IO HD and overload with connectors, solve the big problem first which is lack of portable HDMI recording, which the AJA is not really portable.

If you want SDI, get an AJA IO! (Lets be realistic.)

Recording the CF cards seems funny to me, just allow a HDD to be connected and I am happy, like the G-Tech RAIDmini. Quite frankly, CF cards do not hold enough for an entire interview so a HDD is the only option…

Do not use FAT32!!! DO NOT USE FAT32! Putting files together from the DR60 is a silly pain because they want to save money on the file system. Again, I should be able to record an entire interview without having to swap CF cards for manual labor post work, considering HDDs are cheap. Even if you want to sell me a CineForm branded HDD, I just want a simple solution.

USB is not enough please also include Firewire 800. (Firewire 400 is nice, but lets go speed!) Depending on ho much we shoot, we need a drive that can get the footage off fast and many drives have less connectors so help us but having the faster options.

The screen is not needed. FireStores do not have them nor does the DR60, yet they work great already. Just do not make an over complicated menu system. Most cameras have LCD screens so I do not need one on this device. I am not buying a media player, but a capture device. When I want to view the footage, I can go to a computer or export to a media player of my choice that I already have. If you put a screen, it should be better than what is on the camera, so an HD screen, about 7 inches… However, I think the cost would not be worth it, I would think. Since you already have HDMI out (live please) why use a small screen like that when you have the camera or a reference monitor?

Finally, if I am stuck with the Cineform codec... arrggh fine. Personally, I would prefer a standard codec... I am more impressed with HDLink's abilities to process, not the proprietary codec that has crashes my system often.

Battery power is a big plus, and use standard type camera batteries as well.

I like the belt mount idea and the HDMI cable hooks.

I doubt this will happen since you can’t afford a decent render of the concept… :)

The price is a bit steep at 2k. No more that 1500 is reasonable overpriced. I think 1k is about right. I guess this is all speculation until it does come out.
M

[Richard Leadbetter]

This is an astonishing project. Effectively an HD acquisition iPod. CineForm effectively revolutionized video compression to the point where four years on, there's still no equivalent codec that can compare. Now they're going to do it again by giving you a pocket-sized tapeless recording device that will annihilate HD decks ten times the price in terms of quality.

Bearing in mind the R&D required for this, and the undoubted quality of the results, $2k is ridiculously cheap - the sale of the century. It's unfair to compare the pricing of this with the actual cameras. It's not as if CineForm is a Panasonic, Canon or Sony, and nor will the device sell to as many people as those cameras.

Indeed, I'd imagine that the price isn't a million miles away from the production cost - the notion being that the hardware will generate more Aspect and Prospect software sales.

If it were any one other than CineForm touting this, I'd be dismissing it as too good to be true. But it is CineForm therefore I can only be hugely excited.

[Alex Raskin]

Originally Posted by Michael Young

Finally, if I am stuck with the Cineform codec... arrggh fine. Personally, I would prefer a standard codec...

Originally, I felt the same.

However, when you are working on a commercial project - any commercial project - you need to deliver good results, on time.

Cineform does that, brilliantly.

Cineform won me over by providing a stable, superfast codec, superslim file sizes (only 2x that of m2t's with Aspect HD), and great quality - I can pull greenscreen matte from Cineform files without a hitch.

Cineform is consistently a leader over the whole HDV renaissance period and probably will hold its positions for time to come.

I'm not connected with Cineform in any way, just recognize great things when I see them. I use Aspect HD every day, it rocks.

I've just built the whole 40Lb "mobile" PC with Intensity, just to record from cam's HDMI into Aspect HD live.

If this could be done with that new Cineform box that'll be 0.5Lb - I'm all for it.

[Bill Ravens]

I just finished building a 16Gb solid state storage device using two 300X, 8Gb CF cards, SATA II interface in a RAID 0 configuration. Total cost was about $400, not including a power supply. Size is about the size of a cigarette pack. Once the CF cards are installed on a SATA interface, they can be formatted as NTFS. It's interesting to note that even when an NTFS CF card is installed on a USB card reader, Windoze XP will still recognize and read it. Hardware RAID 0, with 5 SATA ports are available for a little more $$, and, obviously larger. Thruput is about 70MB/sec read. What's missing here is a front end codec and processor to allow transport control and signal I/O.This, of course, is where the cost will be, no disputing that. I think $2k is a fair price.

[Craig Irving]

That was a good point mentioned earlier about FAT32, which raises a question in my head... why do most manufacturers still use FAT32? Is it more compatible, or somehow cheaper to implement? Why are we still dealing the FAT32 in an HD environment where we rapidly exceed these 4GB restrictions?

On another note, one of the other slight-downsides of HDV camcorders is the MP2 384kbps audio compression. If this device could record uncompressed PCM tracks as well (presumeably via the HDMI) the product would be a must-have (not like it won't be a must-have to most already).

[Alex Raskin]

Originally Posted by Craig Irving

one of the other slight-downsides of HDV camcorders is the MP2 384kbps audio compression. If this device could record uncompressed PCM tracks as well (presumeably via the HDMI) the product would be a must-have (not like it won't be a must-have to most already).

Since the box uses Cineform codec, it is my understanding that it records uncompressed audio 48Khz 16bit.

As per what you feed into it: since there are RCA inputs for analog audio, simply use your Neumann (he he) with Mackie VLZ pre-amp and use Mackie's Tape Out to RCA input on the Cineform box.

Voila - HDMI video plus great uncompressed sound :)

That's why I'm so excited about these RCA inputs!

[Craig Irving]

Maybe I haven't quite thought this through, but couldn't we continue to use the on-board XLR connections on our cameras and record audio digitally to this box through the HDMI as well? The analog inputs are a great idea to have on it as well, but couldn't we also use the HDMI for audio?

[David Newman]

Criag, we expect that audio will be injected using the camera inputs for most situations as that is carried over HDMI.

[David Newman]

If you read the spec, FAT32 is not mentioned (although it will be supported.) Chunking up the files into 4GB clips on the recorder is a big pain in post. Whereas the UDF format (BluRay/HD DVD/DVD/Rev Pro) doesn't have this limitation, and it already a standard (read) format on today operating systems. Writing to UDF disk on XP will require a driver install, otherwise I don't understand why UDF isn't used my widely.

[David Newman]

Originally Posted by Michael Young

Finally, if I am stuck with the Cineform codec... arrggh fine. Personally, I would prefer a standard codec...

That pretty funny to me. What make this device compelling is this is no standard codec that can offer the range of benefits of CineForm. Like at AJA IO, is also uses a Proprietary codec in Apple's ProRes, a similar solution but Apple only. All the standard codecs are poor for this application in one or multiple ways. If you want disk recording for the cameras compression that already exists, we are working to expand camera DDR's into the quality / editing performance space. See my last blog entry on this : http://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/11...m-on-chip.html