Don't worry Denis...this is good info that you passed along.

Have you read Cineform's page for the device?

http://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm

"Comment: We anticipate developing multiple members in the recorder product family - each targeting different recording needs. This first device targets HDV camcorder users and offers the ability to bypass the highly-compressed MPEG format. The features specification is below. We imagine a sister device that supports single-link and dual-link HD-SDI recording. "

Its the third paragraph.

So, imagine if you will a production house that has primarily SDI, but does have one or two cameras (say a couple of HVX200's) that don't output SDI.

Now a Cineform SOLID SDI user might happily fork over for a converter rather than buying a whole other SOLID just for their "oddball" cameras.

I got a HVX200 so component input would be great - on the other hand I can buy a $250 box that converts component to hdmi (and I hope id is not messing up the signal).

Image filp is a must, I do almost everything with a lens adapter now.

Having a chance to record to a external disc makes more sese than CF cards for many reasons allready discussed her. A powered drive caddle would be great but I coul live with a external disc of the shelf.

Using camera batteries would be great. Adapters for almost every battery can be purchased from the guys who selling those little chargers. So you only would need a base platte.

If it will have that features I´m selling my firestores in a heartbeat and buy 2 of your recorders.

Frank

Speaking of external HDD support...

My understanding is that the new generation of SATA (Sata III? ) will support power over the data cable.

So no need for an additional HDD power supply, if Cineform box provides Sata III (?) spec connection.

Yes the new eSATA spec would make the device more functional.

As far as that FocusEnhancement box goes, it would be useful if you had an SDI Cineform Solid, but with HDLinks available, there are few reasons to create an SDI version in the first place. HDMI is the way to go. And component can be converted to HDMI as well, via a cheaper box.

I'm kind of tired of this idea. Its been mentioned here a few times.

Short story: Both have their place.

Having HDMI does not obviate the need for SDI, although it might for some users. There are plenty of users who can't be restrained by HDMI.

Why? I'll give 8 reasons.

One: HDMI has relatively short cable runs.

This one matters the most to me.

I might like to run my cable 65 feet from the camera to the monitor where the director is sitting.

I can't do that with HDMI. 49 feet is the limit.

The cable with the longest HD SDI run I could find was Belden 7731A RG11 cable. The cable could run 540 feet in HD SDI. If you were using the same cable for SD SDI it can run 2730 feet.

I did see a 98ft HDMI with a built in repeater listed for $219. I'll believe that works when I see it, but they sell it. I'd want to see their HDMI certification first though. A stand alone HDMI repeater is about $60.

Or you could buy an RG179 100ft cable for about $70. About $49 if you make it yourself. (RG179 cables are limited to about 110 feet for HD SDI use, or 500 feet as SD SDI. Most RG59 cables can run HD SDI over 200 feet)

You can get an SDI repeater as well, but they are ridiculous. B&H has one for $1200. I have to admit however that I am not likely to run over 200 feet often. In the few instances I must, I can certainly use fiber. Past fiber I think I can just use broadcast.

Two HDMI isn't designed to be routable.

In fact HDMI has special features to make it UNroutable. I'm sure you've heard the HDCP horror stories.

So much for the idea of passing my HDMI signal through my SOLID on its way to my Monitor. Or through the monitor to the Cineform AND a separate DDR. Not a separate test unit because...

Three: there aren't test devices for HDMI.

Please point me at a waveform or vectorscope that has HDMI i/o. I can point you at a ton with SDI.

Four: 4K or 2K
HDMI is limited to 1080p

Although to be fair I doubt we'll see a 4K SOLID anytime soon, a 2K SOLID isn't much of a stretch. I could use a SOLID in a 4K pipeline as a 2K or 1080p recorder.

Five: I can make an SDI cable if needed in the field.

While that isn't impossible with HDMI it isn't even close to easy. HDMI has 19 or 29 connectors. The cable lengths have to be within 2/10000 of an inch tolerances, and the connectors have to be soldered.

I'm pretty sure most of us know how to make a BNC co-axial cable, and if you don't I can teach you how in ten minutes. 500 ft of RG59 suited for the task is $168 right now. (RG179 is more expensive at $205, but 500ft of that weights about 10lbs! That's why I use it wherever I can.)

Six: SDI to HDMI boxes are inconvenient.

Seriously, we'd be going from one external box to two in the simplest set ups.

After all, if adding a box is such a wonderful solution why not use one to convert HDMI to SDI? This argument is just as silly in both directions.

Its a tool to be used in odd situations, not as normal operation.

Seven: 16 audio Channels.

HDMI offers just 8.

On the up side for HDMI, its channels could be 24 bit 192KHz. SDI is limited to 24 bit 48KHz AES3 channels. I'd actually use 96KHz, but 192KHz is presently overkill. Of course most of us are recording audio on cameras with 48KHz systems anyway... so its not really a practical advantage yet.

Eight: 32 audio channels

What's that? Dual link, 2 x 16 AES3 channels per cable.

Nine: Positive locking connectors

I get frustrated enough with loose RCA connectors. HDMI connectors slip out VERY easily.

XLR and BNC connectors for my work please.

There is nothing more infuriating than shooting a show, then finding out your recorder wasn't getting your signals because a cable came loose.

************
HDMI is perfectly fine, and I am glad Cineform is undertaking an HDMI version of the SOLID. I even think its a good idea for them to make it first.

SDI has its advantages, and I am glad Cineform plans to make a version with that capability.

Well said.

I think Cineform knows and understands all this and will still have an SDI box for us in the future.

Can't wait to place my order.

The "loose connectors" item is the only issue I can totally agree with you on. Need to find a way to lock HDMI cables in. All of the other "problems" are based on the idea that an SDI-HDMI convertor is "inconvienient." If Cineform includes a power output, it should be reasonable. You are probably going to need an external battery power source anyway, plus a hard drive in most cases. It is still a way better than the current solution of dragging a Xena based capture workstation around. (Or a smaller Intensity based system.)

SOLID is a low budget product, there are many "more convienient" products in a higher price range. SOLID's advantage is in its price class. I am not saying Cineform shouldn't make an SDI version, I am just saying they shouldn't "need" to. SDI is limited to 1080p as well for all practical purposes, so that is not an issue. HDMI 1.3's deep color option is supported, they wouldn't even be limited to 8bit, but all budget cameras are 8bit anyway. And the original idea is to increase the record quality of lower budget cameras. One could argue that this would increase the record quality of an F900, but it would be a much smaller gain than you get from an HV20.

I think the quest for SDI is funny on this product.

Sure SDI has its place and CineForm may decide to cater to that market, but just looking at this device, that doesn't seem to be the focus at all, and would change the target group completely.

The HDMI option is a must and why I think they started this project anyway to cater to the explosion of camcorders that limit the user to M2T or whatever else. They have the most to gain and would buy this product price withstanding. Adding SDI would not benefit them. for most people that want SDI they usually wouldn't need HDMI.

So we either have a hybrid product or two different products. I only care about HDMI.

I just wished we would get professional XLR inputs than RCA... Being forced to route through the camera is just silly considering that audio is just as important as the video and we would all agree that most camcorders have lack luster amps.
M

Oh really? Funny you say.

I think its serious business, but hey, that's just me.

Why do you say that? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Replace the two HDMI ports with SDI ports and you have a device suited to a lot of pro cameras.

That's clearly what Cineform intends, since you need two HD SDI ports for dual link.

Of course if they want to do simultaneous output of dual link then they need 4 HD SDI connectors. Of course they could just support simultaneous input and output in single link mode, that would be an acceptable compromise.

Oh, and for audio we could just use 2 AES connectors instead of RCA.

Why do you say that? I mean I could argue, with merit, that you improve the results of low end cameras much more by replacing them with higher end cameras.

I mean, lets say you stick a SOLID on an HV20. You still have awful sensors, and a crummy lens. If you stick a 35mm adaptor on there then you still have crummy sensors.

So, for about $2000 and the resale value of your camera, you could buy a bunch of nicer cameras like an XH A1, which has much better sensors and will let you do more. Stick a 35mm rig on there and you start to get some pretty pictures, far exceeding a SOLID on a HV20. That's a rig the SOLID can do wonders for.

Oddly enough, an SDI SOLID would do wonders for an XH G1 in exactly the same fashion.

You strike on it without realizing.

"Whatever else" includes DVCPRO HD, AVC Intra, XDCAM and even HDCAM recording. Cineform is an impressive codec- although it certainly isn't flawless. If nothing else moving from 8 bit to 10 bit would be an immense benefit.

Wrong again. SDI cameras have a lot to gain from improved recording codecs. I do agree with the notion that SDI users don't need HDMI though.

An HV20 or comparable camera has an 8 bit signal path. HDMI is there, but the camera is 8 bit. As I already pointed out the sensors suck- in great part because they are built around this 8 bit design. The sensor exceeds 4:2:0 well enough to benefit from 4:2:2 recording, but it won't saturate the 4:2:2 color space.

Step up to a camera like the EX1, and you get a 10 bit HD SDI output. The camera's built in recorder is XDCAM HD at 35Mbps... its just a modernized step above HDV, and its 8 bit. It has a real 4:2:2 sensor- and it can saturate the color space.

As we step up the line of cameras we have the upcoming XDCAM 4:2:2 camera, which is pretty amazing as a camera, but is fairly hobbled by its proposed recorder- which is XDCAM professional disc at 50Mbps. A Cineform SOLID will make that camera competitive with a Sony F950 or F23.

The F900 would even benefit. The F900 is a very very impressive camera, probably the best unit I've had the privilege of using, but its recorder hobbles it.

In other words in direct contravention of Mike MNcCarthy's comment... there is way more data for the SOLID to "save" on a high end camera than on an HV20 or other low end camera.

Also... data saved on a higher end camera is more likely to be usable by people with higher end facilities.

I mean you don't have the ability to monitor 10 bit video even if you could record it right? I mean there is a good chance your monitor doesn't fully support 8 bit video. So how could you use 10 bit in your DI suite? You might get some benefit because the software would work in 10 bit even though you can't see it... but you couldn't intentionally take advantage of it.

So why do you even want a SOLID?

So what? No really. That is great for you- you only want HDMI, fine.

From a business perspective though it sounds like you are a small time operator. You might buy one or possibly two SOLID's.

An outfit that uses HD SDI for live performances might buy 10 HD SDI solids. Even a relatively small operator like me will buy 2-4 units. Large productions with lots of VFX might snap up dozens of them. (Think of the studios that do those awful "SciFi Saturday" movies, of which they have 3-6 in production all the time. Then again, Cineform might refuse to sell them units for the sake of the art of film making.)

Its easy business decision when I consider that I have to buy an HDCAM SR recorder to match Cineform quality.

I agree with you on something at least, but even if the SOLID has XLR inputs we can't expect much in the way of quality mic pre-amps. Its just too tiny to get the kind of clean power needed.

So... what I'd do is run the mics off a mixing board, then feed the mixed audio to the camera. Set the camera up to perform 0dB gain at line level, not mic level- in other words not to alter the signal. That should give decent results if the pre-amp is properly designed.

(It doesn't have to be a good quality pre-amp, just correct. A lot of cameras that ship with XLR meet that low standard.)

Of course if you have an HD SDI SOLID, you can run discreet audio channels from your mixer to an SDI audio embedder. Then you can take up to 16 channels right into the SOLID over its SDI inputs. (32 if you use dual link input, which Cineform plans to support.) That neatly bypasses the camera.

But why would anyone want to do something so funny ?

I am kind of cranky about this... a lot of people who clearly don't understand SDI keep coming on here and bad mouthing those of us who need, want and can use SDI i/o.

No disrespect..to you...but this product is not marketed for users like you. I include myself among these "small-time' users who want a product like this for more reasons that I can jot down. No need for you to be cranky. There are much more options out there for individuals like yourself to choose from... but for the majority of users (and I am talking strictly consumers with prosumer aspirations) this product is the ticket for bypassing the typical compression that we get so aggravated with.

The cool thing about a product like this is..when we outgrow our cams....we will still have this to capture to....until something similar or better comes along. You shouldnt be upset because they (Cineform) are not gearing this product for a more professional crowd....... I say more power to them.... anything to keep the price down so the average joe can get quality (and I know that's subjective) pictures..with their cheap cams....cheap lens and all. You should probably advocate for a more professional higher end unit than this...but...I'll definately take what they are currently dishing out.

I agree
 

I totally agree with Ian. So you are a potential power user of the SOLID, so what. Even if you buy 2-4 or more SOLIDs, I can guarantee you that for everyone in your class of operation there are 5 or more average-joe consumers with Canon HV20's (et al) that will want this. This means we have more buying potential/power. You are not the sweet spot for this product's target market.

While we are speculating about the SOLID and future workflows......

Does anybody have a solution for software-based monitoring/scoping through the HDMI signal? So far, On Location is only compatible with a firewire signal. I have found a company that has monitoing software that can use the Blackmagic Intensity Card to scope an HDMI signal, but the software (Scopebox) only works on a Mac. I am on a PC. I am looking for a solution that will work with the SOLID's HDMI out port so that I can do more than just the rough monitoring that may be available through the SOLID's dispay. Thanks

Well, this is certainly interesting - who wants Solid more, consumers with prosumer aspirations or professionals dipping down into prosumer land?

No, no, no! ME! I want it more!!!

Owning a Sony V1, probably to be replaced by an EX1 in the future, I'd want HDMI now and HDSDI in the future... and XLR input, but no need for preamps, line-level is fine and I'll use a mixer, thank you very much. And, a fully featured timecode generator. So, I guess I'm with Alexander in my preferred usage. And there are many pros who would love to spend less and get equivalent usage to HDCAM, or DVCPRO-HD.

Frankly, I just wasn't aware of the strong HV20 following who are looking for an HDMI recorder. But that's pretty cool.

It's really fascinating that a proposed $2500 HD recorder (with Cineform quality) excites interest from both low-market/hobbiest and high-end users, we just care about it connecting to our respective uncompressed camera outputs.

Maybe Cineform have already answered this thread:

"We anticipate developing multiple members in the recorder product family - each targeting different recording needs. This first device targets HDV camcorder users and offers the ability to bypass the highly-compressed MPEG format. The features specification is below. We imagine a sister device that supports single-link and dual-link HD-SDI recording."

http://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm

Patrick

Fortunately, Cineform disagrees with you and Ian. They are after all making a SOLID HD-SDI dual link. As pointed out now by at least four people in the thread, it says so on their page for the product.

I think Cineform should make BOTH versions. There is plenty of need for BOTH.

I can't understand why you and your ilk want to argue against them making an SDI unit. I need it, there are tons of people like me. What purpose does it serve for you to complain about what I might need, and what Cineform wants to sell me to fill that need? How does it hurt you for me and Cineform to do that bit of business?

So- if you don't want an SDI version, don't buy one. Enough already.

FWIW I may get an HDMI version too- because I can use an HV20 as a disposable camera. Stick it out at the end of a long HDMI cable and run a car right over it. Beat it with a bat - or any number of shots that require breaking a camera.

Of course- those shots often get done as CG, so maybe not.

No, nobody does real picture or technical monitoring over HDMI.

It seems that once again another member of the "NO SDI" crowd needs another feature provided for by SDI. There are tons of waveform/vectorscope combos out there, both hardware and software, for SDI.

Not only that, but I really doubt you'll see anyone spend the R&D dollars to make a HDMI scope or a production monitor. HDMI users aren't likely to spend $4K on a monitor or $7K on a scope if they don't want to spend $6K on the camera.

The Intensity/Scopebox combo is the best you are going to get for a while. I predict there will be competitors, and a Windows software solution.

You won't see a laptop HDMI i/o card until a version of Expresscard comes out that supports uncompressed HD data rates. The Expresscard standard supports a peak bandwidth of 2.5Gbps... but I don't think any real laptop machines can sustain HD bandwidth to the interface yet. Peak TOTAL bandwidth of laptops is ~8.5Gbps, with that they have to handle all disk, USB, firewire, Expresscard and graphics i/o. The same goes for HD-SDI for the same reasons. Maybe 2009.

Of course if you are going to have an Intensity on set with a desktop computer to do monitoring, well it seems like a very small step to just do your capture using a Cineform codec on the Intensity/Scopebox machine. That would obviate the need for a SOLID.

If you need a more mobile solution for technical monitoring of HDMI, then AJA's ioHD has HDMI inputs. You can monitor using Final Cut's scopes while capturing to ProRes. Again this would obviate the need for a SOLID. The bad news there is that you'll be monitoring the ProRes signal not the raw HDMI feed. Its also going to run you at least ~$6K

The two cheapest HD scopes I could find are the Compuvideo 1100HD for $3500. It is analog i/o only and has no outputs, so its the end of your video path. The Compuvideo 1700HDSDP which is $5500, but offers composite and component analog and SDI i/o for both SD and HD. It also offers both analog and SDI output for post monitoring.

The bad news is that while Compuvideo is by far the cheapest hardware scope maker they have a certain reputation. Leader's HD scopes start at $7500. I know Harris makes some HD scopes around there too, but prices for both makes race off into the mid teens pretty fast. I suppose Tektronix is competitively priced, but I haven't shopped them.

For high quality sound, a $600 Core-sound Mic2496 "battery powered 24-bit/96 kiloSamples-per-second two-channel mic pre-amp/A-to-D converter" might be a good match for the Cineform recorder. Digital outputs are: coaxial (RCA jack), optical (Toslink), Output data format: S/PDIF.

http://www.core-sound.com/Mic2496/1.php

Could the Cineform have a digital S/PDIF input?

Patrick

CineForm's 444 format at the FilmScan2 resolution actually *outperforms* Sony's high-end HDCAM-SR format . . . that makes it not only a candidate for users who want to get away from the compression of M2T files, but also for those in very high-end scenarios who would have traditionally used a SR-1 recorder, and will now have other alternatives (that won't require re-digitizing from another $100K deck, and also allow for a tapeless workflow without having to resort to DPX files).

So both HDMI for the low-end and dual-link HD-SDI for the high-end are smart moves, and there is no point in omitting either. Both sets of users can benefit greatly by the workflow improvements that CineForm can provide.

Here's an interesting comparison of framegrabs taken from EX1 footage in HQ mode. This is a Photoshop CS3 file, with layers. The only "processing" done was to convert 32 bit mode to studio RGB in Vegas 8 Pro.

Layer 1: Vegas 8 bit native mxf
Layer 2: vegas 8 bit CFHD avi converted with filmscan1
Layer 3: Vegas 32 bit native mxf
Layer 4: Vegas 32 bit CFHD avi converted with filmscan1

I think the results are fairly conclusive, however, I'll withhold my judgment until others have a chance to look at these frame grabs.
EDIT: hmmm, apparently I can't upload .PSD files. No difference between 32 bit and 8 bit. The CFHD avi is noticeably softer than the native mxf file.

Audio Interface
 

I don't care what type of audio inputs are used, just as long as they are very high quality, they don't have a problem with disconnecting themselves, and they are easily compatible with all the high-quality pre-amps and mixers.

Is there any way possible to have an audio-only recording mode? When I have a SOLID, I would like to use it to do some "in-the-field" recording just for audio sometimes.

Bill, what version of Cineform did you use?

I'm using NeoHD

While it is not totally related to this thread, if you ever see a difference in Filmscan1 quality you are not seeing a CineForm compression issue, you are seeing a difference in MPEG2 decoders (which are all different, HDLink uses a different decoder to Vegas.) This is another good reason to bypass MPEG on capture. At Filmscan1 we can faithly reconstruct everything MPEG does wrong ;)

Interesting comment, David.
You make a good case, then, for recording out SDI.
I've often wondered about the Elecard MPEG2 decoder that HDLink uses. I beleive Vegas uses the Mainconcept codec.

An HDMI version and an SDI version would be totally different products in a certain respect. On the low budget end, the HDMI version avoids HDV compression, with reasonable mini-XLR inputs for audio, and is a low budget $2K product.

A dual link HD-SDI version would need to support a higher level of processing power, and a higher data rate for 444 material, with the accompanying heat etc. This logically puts it farther out in the future. A dual link HD-SDI recorder should probably have AES inputs for high quality, using the camera pre-amps or an external mixer. The big difference will be in price, with the electronics for SDI input being much more expensive. (For example Decklink vs. Intensity) It is likely that an SDI version would be much more expensive, especially if it supported 10bit or dual link. That plus the increased compression required would likely push the price closer to $5K. This is very similar to Convergent design's Flash XBR, and would compete with it. Solid's files can be edited immediately in realtime with Prospect, but XBR's OP1A files should edit in realtime on an AXIO, among other systems. On the otherhand there is no remote competition for an HDMI version of the Solid.

I am not saying that there should never be an SDI Solid, I am just saying that from a technical and business standpoint, HDMI makes much more sense, especially to start with. SDI is a logical second step as the hardware evolves, but it targets a totally different market, with much more competition and higher expectations.

If you're talking dual link HD SDI and 4:4:4, you're looking at a premium level product that should be pitched at very high-end users. Surely this would be a competitor for a mega-expensive HDCAM-SR deck? You'd also be looking at a high bandwidth, very fast, very *large* storage medium to be able to acquire the footage in realtime.

Really? FilmScan2 typically runs at around 50MB/s for 444 RGB . . . couldn't that be done now with a single fast 2.5" SSD?

Thanks,

Jason

A quick question with (probably) a long answer...
With this ultra cool way to get a great picture stuffed into a tiny file (eg. HD 1080p+ into Cineform CFHD files)....

Couldn't Cineform's technology be implemented into each end of a HD 1080i broadcast system - like Comcast?

With smaller, better looking files than MPEG-2 1080 flavors being sent over copper, wouldn't that effectively make the whole HD-DVD/BluRay thing moot? (As far as viewing/distribution of HD movies). I mean if its visually lossless.. and you can edit and color correct in 10-bit or higher 4:4:4 color space, then one should never leave this codec... period.

I am just questioning having ANYTHING stored on removable plastic discs these days. And I want to buy a flat panel TV with a "Cineform Inside" logo on it.

Matt: Amen!

Why not start with in-camera recording in Cineform codec.

And you can. CineForm licensed it name to Hitachi ago 4 years ago to use on HDTVs. :)

Seriously speaking though, does Cineform support multichannel sound?

Say, for broadcast - or, for a movie theater digital projection, how would one encode surround sound into Cineform video?

We don't care what you put in the audio channels. We are doing projects with 5.1 and stereo mixes, resulting in 8-channel audio in a single AVI/MOV. The only issue remaining in support with the NLEs, which can have limitation for handle audio like that.

I guess a better way to put it is, does the container format in which Cineform is used support multichannel audio.

The answer I think depends entirely on the container. Quicktime supports any number of audio, video and subtitle streams, and so does its derivative MPEG-4 containers .mp4 and .m4a The limits on Quicktime and MPEG-4 are based entirely in practical engineering not the container format.

I mean, after all what exactly would you actually do with a Quicktime file that had 256 video streams and 1024 audio streams, plus 192 subtitle streams? Wait... don't tell me.

Another perhaps more useful question is how many audio inputs does Cineform expect the SOLID to support?

In the HDMI version I would expect a max of 8 channels (which is HDMI's limit). HDMI itself supports 24 bit 192 KHz sampling, but I can't think of a single HDMI camera that does better than 16 bit 48KHz.

An SDI SOLID should probably support 32 channels of 24 bit 48KHz audio, in dual link mode or 16 channels in single link mode.

The AES standard permits sample rates up to 96KHz for signals recorded at 20 bits or higher... but recommends 48KHz. Now, that said, I'd like to see it capable of supporting 96KHz, in case it ends up getting used as a field audio recorder- as some people have already suggested.

Finally another possible question is how many analog audio inputs are planned for solid? The HDMI version seems to have two RCA connectors.

I am guessing the SDI version will be specced with two or four miniXLR connectors, or two XLR connectors.

That means the rest of your audio inputs will have to be from either the HDMI or SDI inputs.

That said, you now have enough channels to do whatever you want. Those channels could be premixed into a 28.4 surround mastering mix on the SDI version... although I think THAT would be silly. More realistically they could be a bunch of mic inputs to be mixed in post.

SOLID competing with HDCAM SR decks?

Yes and No.

There are a number of things HDCAM SR can do that Cineform isn't even proposing. One is real over and undercranking using SR motion.

The Filmscan 1 and Filmscan 2 4:4:4 modes that compare to dual link HDCAM SR are 320Mbps and 384Mbps respectively. That is damned impressive viewed as bandwidth alone- its half the HDCAM SR bandwidth!

There is a price though- The Cineform codec chews up a lot more CPU power than HDCAM SR. Of course if you have a nice system its very usable.

You can't record Filmscan 2 on CF cards right now. So a Filmscan 2 solution would have to be based on something other than SOLID state.

You need 40MB/s for Filmscan 1 4:4:4. Right now the new 300x UDMA CF cards give you that rate- just barely. You'd get about 3 minutes on an 8GB CF card.

That's pretty hard on the ACs folks. Oh but I bet the DP (me!) and Colorist (often me too!) will be mighty pleased! It actually isn't so bad compared to film mags.

Card sizes will increase, and then it will be totally doable. 16GB and 32GB CF cards at 300x- and maybe faster- are on the way.

The SDI SOLID should support both Filmscan modes. Of course I suppose I'll be using it at 4:2:2. 6 minutes per card is much more workable.

I don't expect that we'll see either of those Filmscan modes supported on the HDMI SOLID. I'm guessing that the UDMA CF slot costs a bit more to manufacture. Two 32GB 133x cards will handle the "High" Cineform mode and give you about an hour record time.

Of course if you've been paying attention, Cineform's High mode is good enough to finish 2K projects for projection

After a lot of testing in this area, I recommend FS1 over High when possible. Although High is "Visually lossless" you begin to reach a point where the changes due to compression can be detected on a waveform monitor, while FS1 does not have that issue. (In my experience) It would probably be a good idea to have FS1 available as an option, even on the HDMI Solid. And I figure that it will probably be there among others, since one thing Cineform products are never short on, is a large selection of somewhat ambigious and subjective compression levels :) (Low, Medium, High, Higher, High Optimized, FS1, FS2, FS1 ChromaKey, FS2 ChromaKey...)

Nice point. Assuming the interface remains constant by the time a dual link SOLID came along an SSD with enough capacity that isn't stupendously expensive might well be viable.

Well I agree more options is better. I'm too used to Sony et. al and their miserly ways with features.

That said, I don't know if filmscan will really be useful to HDMI users.

I think that most HDMI cameras have more noise in the sensors than High will introduce until you go to 8 or more generations.

In other words you don't need it at acquisition.

It may be smart to convert footage that will be heavily processed selectively in post to Filmscan. Of course you could acquire with the same forethought.

I am not sure about noise levels in low end SDI cameras.

I know that the Canon units have a bit of noise, but I think they are an edge case for filmscan at acquisition. Maybe at negative gain values for them? (Of course that would apply to similar HDMI models as well.)

The EX1 should be able to use Filmscan at 0db and negative gain values. +3dB is my guess at where the value starts to drop off. Otherwise High should be fine.

Next years prosumer HDMI models, maybe even new models at NAB, will probably change the story... so I guess that having the option is a good thing- even if it costs us money.

Will the Sony EX-1 work with the Cineform Portable Recorder?

David,
Convergent Design is trying to have their SDI recorder ready by NAB '08...
any chance Cineform will have their HDMI recorder ready by then?

Not by NAB, sorry.

Requested Features under consideration
 

I just wanted to give some feedback on features Cineform says they are considering.

From Cineform's Solid site. What Cineform wrote is bold.

Power: Mounted battery - still TBD

Please. Pretty please. With sugar on top? Pretty please with sugar on top, some whipped cream and a cherry?

I don't know what the power requirements are, but at least make some kind of optional battery/cradle arrangement that can be mounted to the unit.

Requested Features under consideration:

Dual CF slots for continuous recording.

I consider this essential for every version.

I'd like to point out that Convergent Design's Flash XDR is supposed to have 4 CF slots. That might be a good choice on a dual link SDI capable unit.

I don't know if there is enough market to make it worth making an SDI version and a seperate dual link capable version- right now my understanding is that you are looking at one SDI version that can handle dual link. Just thinking about costs.

Component HD input. Comment: We're really tempted to keep the first version of the recorder as a digital-only device. But we realize older camcorders don't have HDMI. So I think we'd like to explore a small form-factor external component-to-HDMI converter with a partner.

I think this is perfectly acceptable. I really want analog i/o support, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Maybe I can put the bug in your ear about a competitor to the AJA ioHD? Basically a big one of these with all the connectors anyone might need that supports Cineform instead of ProRes and has CF cards for recording. Oh, and for goodness sakes give the thing its own battery as well as plug in capability. I'd love something useful to me in the studio and the field- but it is a different product.

Replace dual RCA jacks (shown) with 3mm stereo mini jack (too flimsy?) OR Replace dual RCA jacks with BNC connectors so cords don't become unplugged

Clips to hold HDMI and audio cables in place so they don't fall out

I reordered these because they are related.

3.5mm headphone jacks are far too flimsy so definitely leave them off please. Well... except for connecting headphones of course.

Clips are essential if you use consumer style connectors.

Forget BNC connectors for RCA. You shouldn't be using "weird" connectors for standard connections. If its an RCA connector, then use an RCA connection and some clip arrangement to secure the cable.

If I hand this thing to someone who's never heard of it before and tell them to hook it up I want them to be able to just look at the connectors and know what its about without a manual or instructions. If they see BNC audio jacks they may think its AES/EBU!

On that note... what about AES/EBU connectors? If you want all digital.. that would meet that criterion. Of course the dearth of things equipped with AES connectors right now should keep this in the "no" column. But hey... there will be a version 2 right?

I want to reiterate that pro connectors are a smarter choice. My vote is still for MiniXLR connectors which take up a similar amount of space to the RCA connector. They have positive lock- check them out. They aren't out of bounds given the audience.

If miniXLR doesn't suit you consider 1/4" TRS connectors, which is at least more common. They require a whole bunch of internal space though.

Oh, I want mic level inputs and phantom power too... but expecting a pre-amp in there is too much to ask.

Firewire interface. Comment: Maybe. We wouldn't use FW for data, only for START/STOP control. Although the signaling is present, even Sony doesn't use the FW port on their hard disk recorder (HVR-DR60) for START/STOP control.

I like the idea of remote control... but it may be overkill.

If I am hooked up to the SOLID then I am not going to need the camera's recorders. Starting and stopping the SOLID itself serves my needs. Just so long as the camera stays on. (XL-1 users lament! What.. they aren't the target audience you say? Nevermind.)

If you do put a FW interface on, then don't be shy. Do it right or skip it. Make it a 6 or preferably 9 pin FW connector and that way I can power small devices through the SOLID.

Consider giving users a menu to configure its operation.

I might configure it for camera control as suggested, or I might want to use it to connect to a FW disk or I might want to use it to connect the SOLID to a computer for transfer.

Heck, I know it defeats the main purpose of the device but if I really wanted to, let me record HDV onto the CF cards. I suppose I might desperately need the space or I may need to stay compatible with HDV for some weird reason.

Flexibility.

Belt Mount

I don't know. Belt mount is maybe too specific.

Perhaps you should make a screw mount, and a few accessories.

That way I can screw in a clip and clip it to my belt, or screw in a shoe adapter and attach it to the camera or stick it on its own little tripod or... you get the idea.

Go for flexibility of design.