I beleive the original question was about interest. I'm confused, why would you need low compression for run and gun, I mean that's just the point of the whole thing isn't it? You RUN and GUN, it's fast and dirty, You're going into the amazon (in theory) and you're going to lug a huge battery belt and a 10" x 7" x 3" box as well as your tape stock and your camera batteries. Oh and it's an 80gb HD so youv'e really only got 2 hours of footage?

Other then 4 hour trips into remote areas of the world, why would a person want this? If you're an indie movie person you're better off buying an Exensive desktop and pciE card and some storage, to just lug around on set with you. If you happen to have a pick-up shot that takes place in the middle of the desert and you have no power, you can spend another 5k on this device for your one shot which for some reason you need uncompressed for (or lightly compressed for)

I'm sorry I think it's awesome that you were able to create one but it just doesn't make since to me (as a low budget producer) However I wish you the best of luck on your project and I hope it's a HUGE success.

Nick, my English is good but not perfect (ESL). Sometimes I miss the finer points of certain expressions. I didn't mean run and gun TV news style, where fast and dirty is the gold standard. I meant (in line with previous suggested usage) "run and gun" as in mostly outdoorsy, uncontrolled environments (that is - no set, probably one man crew). This can be an outdoor wedding, or a mountain hike, or wildlife doc.
If you're on set, and have the budget, then go for the Wafian! If you don't have the budget, I promise I'll have something you can afford within six months.

Nick,

I totally agree with you. I don't really see a use for this, other than maybe a wild life/tavel doc w/ swappable drives. This thing would have to stand up to some pretty harsh conditions. I would think a firestore or the new sony hdr would be a better solution for this however, at the cost of hdv compression. Could you control this with a pda? That would be pretty cool.

Greg

On the HDD front: I gave up on the internal HDD altogether. It will use USB powered external enclosures like these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817145136
Get as many as you want, buy your own HDDs, and swap them in the field. You can get 3.5'' enclosures for regular HDDs but they need additional power.
A velcro strap can hold in place the capture box and the external HDD enclosure.

We've had some sensor supply issues with the camera, which meant designing a new sensor. So, given that those factors changed the timeline for the camera, and the recording end of the project didn't have any timeline issues, we decided to open the recorder specs so that it could mate to most any digital cinema camera.

The upside of the camera sensor redesign is that now we get to modify our specs a bit to get better performance out of the camera, as well as meet newer demands of the market. There wasn't a 4k version previously.. in the future.. who knows :)

Photos.. of the recorder: we may publicly release some of the early product sketches, but i'd like to save a lot of the look and feel of the recorder for NAB.. we're doing several innovative things, and I'd like people to see them in person. Photos of the camera: if never got past the "some electronics inside a box" stage.. so photos of that won't be very impressive.

Alex: good luck. :)

I disagree.

This product has potential.

And it truly is an indy solution.

Go ahead Alex!

I am definitely going to take a look at this thread for the future.

If you wish to move forward in this market, adding a CineForm encoder to the box is not as you have priced it (for DigitalFilm level -- which assumes end user retail pricing for Prospect HD Ingest with AJA cards.) We do license encoder solutions to hardware vendors just as we have with Wafian and Silicon Imaging (and Sony and Adobe in the past.) We have plenty of value add of capture solutions, including pulldown extraction from HDMI/HDSDI, and 10-bit compression, with a widening range of post tools and platform support. Your recorder can produce streams targeted to a wide range of post solutions, from a free CineForm decoder for Windows and OS X, to the full Prospect HD Edit DI solution (which is only $1499 these days.)

If you product gains momentum, please give CineForm a call.

This thread grows up.

Hmmmm, having Mr. Newman there, it seems an important card. The best you might have ever seen over your own thread. Over your own purpose, your own proposal. Take the chance.

Mathieu, I'm in quiet mode now but you made me smile; David Newmann's goodwill is welcome but it won't solve my engineering hurdles; Cineform might be a no-go after all, it needs too much CPU power for real-time encoding in mobile mode (which was the promise of the thread). I'm eyeing another codec, mentioned by one of the posters.
I'm working out the power budget right now, a fair bit of the initial specs have already changed because of this. I won't go into details as it would become vaporware and bad business practice, so this thread won't grow any more from my contribution.

Do email me if you're potentially interested in the product (as others have already done, silent readers who haven't even posted in the thread).

I will maintain a private mailing list during product development, and recipients will be in on the current spec and feature set.

Alex,

We do have one of the best compute cycle per bit encoding times, so you are unlikely to beat us for quality/compute time at a given bit-rate, yet 1920x1080 10-bit is not easy as you may be finding. I wouldn't rule us out without contacting us first, particularly as a huge avantage we have over all other 10-bit codecs, we have ready-to-go real-time post production solutions, helping the marketability of any compressed aquisition product.

David, I am a poor communicator it seems :) I have nothing but respect for wavelet codecs in general and Cineform in particular. It was my first pro choice.
However, preliminary power budgeting indicates I may have to go with a much higher bitrate, but real-time codec. I am contacting you regardless.

I think you are on the right track. I think you should speak to Dave at Cineform before you make any final decisions... pick his brain so-to-speak. Their approach appears to be the strongest low-cost solution out there for cross-platform HD acquisition and editing for low-budget indie filmmakers.

I believe that the best approach for a low cost solution for indie filmmakers would be a cross platform codec such as Cineform. They will be releasing their Mac codec shortly so the codec will be available for the Mac too. The R&D is done. The base is growing. And the stuff works.

Cineform tells me that they are working directly with Blackmagic to support the Intensity card with Aspect HD. Cineform's Aspect HD product will be available shortly with HDMI support, which I'm told will support 1920 x 1080 as well 4:2:2 8-bit.

Supporting Cineform's codec would give your customer the option of working with Cineform's Prospect HD for lightly compressed 10 bit just like the Wafian Drive. And Cineform's codec allows you to keep the drive size smaller.

I would like to see a recorder that accepts HDMI input and HDMI/DVI output. All new camcorders from JVC, Panasonic, and Sony will be including HDMI in their AVCHD and HDV camcorders. It should have Cineform's new HDMI enabled Aspect HD bundled with it (should be available soon. Speak with Dave about it).

The Blackmagic Intensity card, provides HDMI output for monitoring too. Monitoring is a problem with these camcorders since when you use the HDMI port, the camcorders disable the component, composite and S-video ports on the camera so you are shooting blind unless you think you can see to focus high quality footage with a 3 inch LCD SD monitor.

Just my 2 cents worth.

I wouldn't call ProspectHD "lightly compressed" it is very compressed, and that is why it has such amazingly low disk usage. Of course "compressed" isn't the dirty word many believe it to be as the codec is 10-bit visually lossless, it just means it requires more cpu power to encode.

It is lightly compressed when compared with the whole spectrum of codecs. For the Filmscan modes under Prospect HD/2K, our compression is as light as Panasonic D5 (i.e. 5:1 compressed 10-bit.)

Hi, can you guys provide input on this:

I've concluded that 1920 30p/60i is not technically feasible with current hardware/software in a fully mobile capture box. 24p/50i is, if only just...it really is this tight. I won't go technical on why this is so, my question is does this kill the concept from a marketing perspective?

Your thoughts please.

Do you mean: 24p/60i or 25p/50i, bien sûr, n'est-ce pas?

Of course, not!

See the new Canon's HV20 example. . .where's the 30p mode? There's no 30p.

For sure, an overcranking capability from a 60/72/120fps would be gold but go to the 24p/60i or 25p/50i route and you should be fine.

I don't speak French but somehow I don't think I got my point across.

This is what can be done at 1920x1080:
fully mobile (battery operated): 24p 25p 50i.
tethered (with AC mains): 24p 25p 50i 60i (60i with different storage option)

It's a power budget (and storage bandwidth) constraint. 60i is to HD what 29.97 is to NTSC. Same goes for 50i/HD - 25/PAL.

In your particular case (Europe) I assume you don't care much about 60i. North American customers may feel differently.

The HVX200 and HD100/110/200/250 are native progressive cams and an obvious favorite of the indie film crowd and are most commonly shot using 720p24. How would your set-up handle this?

No problem with one of the DeckLink HD cards (component in). The MOBILE issue comes up only at 1920x1080i60. Even then, it can still be captured (albeit with a stationary unit) at dramatically lower cost than the Wafian and other upcoming solutions.

I encourage you to email me and get updated on the current spec (codec, form factor, storage, battery, total weight) on the private mailing list.

If you're trying to keep the price low, I'd say go with the less expensive black option. People who want something fancier can mod it after they buy it.

By the way, is there any technical reason someone couldn't just make an adapter box which took an HD-SDI input and converted it to an eSATA output, then connect that to an eSATA card on a laptop and use the laptop to convert to a moderately compressed recording format? Why go to all the trouble of building specialized devices with their own processor when good laptops are readily available?

Understood.

Agreed. The filmmakers either. Including the north american filmmakers. 60i is irrelevant.

1920x1080 is present and future. . .lower than that? It's past.

Rant mode on:
I would have to disagree and say that is somewhat of an ignorant statement. Correct, eventually consumer displays will settle on 1080p but we are far from that now, and of new TVset sales, very few are even now true 1080p. With that in mind, one has to separate capture format resolution from the actual resolution captured by the cam. For example many films have/are shot on 720p, by such cameras as a Pana Varicam, which shoots DVCproHD at a capture resolution of only 960x720. Yet few would argue that it doesn't produces an image superior to any sub $10,000 cam regardless if those cams were to capture 1080p. As another example in the Texas shoot-outs, the JVC HD100-250, series despite recording to 720p scored the highest resolution of all under $10,000 HD cams shooting in P or F modes and second only to the Canon XL-H1 when in interlaced mode. Of the two prosumer cams that shoot 1080p (HVX200/HVR-V1) both score lower in resolutions tests then the JVC 720p series. True progressive footage down rez'es and up-rez'es very nicely, especially if it is uncompressed. And in this modern day where you rarely, if ever deliver on what you capture, it is simply best to start out with the best image you can get, and deliver on what they want. Regardless of resolution and format.
Bottom line is that uncompressed 720p, as in what is being discussed in this thread, is in NO way a disadvantage to the filmmaker. What is possible with uncompressed 720p derived from a quality cam head (especially one with removable lens for proper 35mm lens mount) is truly phenomenal, and would literally wipe the floor with any compressed cam regardless of its capture resolution. So the bottom line is all HD formats are the present and the future given they derive from a quality cam. Go shoot with a $1000 consumer cam at 1080i if you think it is all in the "numbers". I'll take 720p uncompressed any day.
Rant mode off ;>)

That makes sense up to a point, but if we could (for example) capture the HD-SDI output from a Canon XL-H1 to something like Prospect HD format at 1920x1080 resolution, that should give most 720p cameras a run for their money...or leave them in the dust. As DSE has noted in some of his posts around the internet, he's finding that 720p source upsampled for playback on the best 1080p displays leaves something to be desired.

In any case, if the goal is to have a portable recording solution which can connect to cameras delivering 1080p data from the sensor, it makes sense to design with 1080p capture in mind. 720p capture also makes sense for cameras delivering that resolution.

Uggg! Slaps head. Uncompressed capture IS what we are talking about. Did you miss read my post? Of course a XL-h1 would give a HD250 a run for its money if they both were recording uncompressed.
As for 720p source lacking upon upscaling, it all depends on how it is upscaled, and what is the source. If your talking about a highly compressed HDTV singal sure. If your talking uncompressed JVC250 vs XL-h1 F mode, uhh, it would be very, very close.

Wow I think this is an amazing idea and I can't believe I am just seeing it. 2 hours of slightly compressed 1080p24 on the go for under 4k would be amazing. I have been asking why wafian hadn't done this for months in fact I even emailed them about this very idea. Even if it isn't battery operated it will be looked at as a low cost wafian box. I think you should go with your original idea of using black magics codec as it doesn't add anything to the price. Also I don't know if I could afford one but I would definitely rent one for any pro work I would have to do. I would prefer it be battery operated with the battery located inside but it should last at least 2 hours. IDEA---- If you could make it so it uses dvx batteries or something like that then you could charge it with a dvx charger.

I don't know what your costs are so
xxxxx+$249 = Price $3000
xxxxx+$999 = Price $4000

You should be able to get a slight discount from Black Magic and your setup costs $2000 or less (adjust price accordingly) you will make $750 from each sale. Not bad if you sell 1,000 of these. that gives you $750,000. And that is possible because it works on analog, hdsdi, and hdmi hd cameras. I think that is a hell of a market.

I think this is an incredible idea and if you need some help with web design or promotional material design let me know I got you. Maranda Mobile HD or Maranda BlackHD. Peace

It is indeed a good idea, something I've been searching for. Blackmagic cards, of course, could be obtained much cheaper in volume. Their cost is probably only a 10th of the card...

Anyway, portable HDMI that you could put on your hip that captures direct from the A1 or HV20 would be beautiful. Seems if a company did it, it shouldn't cost more that a harddrive/enclosure plus conversion card outlet.

However, I wouldn't pay 4k for it. I think the 999.00 price point is when someone would actually buy one.

Not to mention that the camera manufacturers need to fully support 10-bit HDMI. HDMI 1.3 is great, but if all that is pumped through is effectively 8-bit, the inconvenience of even a so-called portable solution makes the idea less compelling.

Can these cams actually output more than 8bit uncompressed?

Fair enough: I wasn't familiar with the HD250 specs with the HD-SDI outputs, so that makes more sense now. :-)

No. All the JVC and Canon cameras only output 8-bit over HDSDI. I think only the GrassValley Infinity and the SI camera offer more than 8-bit for under $20K. Some of the XDCAM HD units may do it, but for market reasons probably not. However most 1/3" cameras have a noise floor that wouldn't make 10-bit all that meaningful, the two bottom bit would contain mostly noise.

Well that really wasn't the point of my post to compare the two. I was only trying to respond to Mathieu's comment "1920x1080 is present and future. . .lower than that? It's past." Uncompressed 720p is immensely capable and I just wanted to illustrate how misguided a statement like that is.

Again, fair enough. But note that in the Texas HD shootout, the Panasonic cameras (including Varicam) didn't score very well in terms of resolution, at least not according to the basic numbers. Only the JVC models showed the full potential of 720p.

http://www.adamwilt.com/HD/4cams-part2.html

Of course resolution isn't everything and not all cameras/lenses are created equal, so let's leave it at that. Most consumers seem to be happy enough with SD images on their HDTVs, so anything we can give them beyond that is gravy.

They are all quite a bit closer then farther apart. The Varicam shoots very close to the detail level of the XL-H1, but of course it has other advantages that make it a superior cam all around.
Of all the sub $20,000 cams, when shot in a progressive mode, the HD-100 has the highest resolution of them all. Which again was my point as to not discount the 720p format. As a side note the tests were done on the older HD100 through component out as opposed to the newer HD-250 through SDI.

There are different levels of demand. And a distinguishing difference between past and present, present/future and future/past. Et bien sûr, different levels of demand. :-)

I agree...................... a small laptop + PCI chassis could probably be configured as a reasonably portable capture system. I'm going to look into this idea.

IMHO, I doubt a dedicated mid-sized 'black-box' (without a display) would sell too well. But that's just MY opinion.............. I've been wrong plenty of times before. ;-)

JohnG

Id be interested in this for sure. I was just pondering what it would take to build one myself. So the issue seems to be that capturing to something like cineform HD is just past the limits of current mobile processors?
based on the requirements listed cineform's website, I can see why 60i might be a problem to capture on such a system. 2.33GHZ Core2Duo Mobile might just barely be able to compress that in real time. I wonder if David Newman from cineform has some insight about how cineform would encode on the fastest modern mobile processor. How about using a desktop CPU?

Does it take more or less CPU to perform an inverse pulldown while encoding? i imagine the operation itself takes cpu time but then thats 20% less data that has to be compressed. I suppose the CPU requirements would be for a codec like bitjazz would be less... i suppose that would put it in RAID territory. Cineform does have a pretty good sweet spot in terms of not needing too much storage speed or CPU time. Perhaps it could be tweaked to work with slightly slower CPUs?

Let me think about how much this would be worth...

Mini-ITX motherboard - $300
Laptop CPU - $650
2GB RAM - $200
80GB 2.5" Hard Drive - $80
Intensity HDMI card - $250
PSU - $200
Battery - $100
Embedded Storage - $100
Custom Chassis, Cooling - ?

So we are talking almost $2000 in off the shelf parts. Not too much Software development costs if it records using some already available software (cineform).

I guess my answer based on these numbers would be ~$3000. Although I think costs could be reduced by using a desktop CPU or increasing the formfactor slightly. Then again, those costs might resurface due to the larger battery and more complex custom cooling system.

are there companies that make expresscard to pcie external adapters? I know i remember seeing one that was expresscard to pci, which wouldnt work too well.

We could do some testing with 2.33GHz Core2Duo Mobile to give a more accurate estimate, but it might work if you limit other processing. Silicon Imaging uses the same processor for encoding 2K CineForm RAW. 1920x1080 4:2:2 8/10bit is a little more data but siginificantly less preprocessing needed. The inverse telecine (or pulldown removed) does use less CPU than the 20% saving achieved through encoding 24p vs 60i. So yes you may find you can encode 1080p24 with a mobile CPU, and no issue for today's dual core desktop CPUs. As for tweaking CineForm further, it is already optimized to the max for Intel procs, likely more than any other codec. You can control the CPU requirement by dropping the bit-rate, but that starts to impact quality if you go too far. I think it would be better to find a CPU that meets your purpose rather than limit the quality from our current levels (http://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/03...en-screen.html)

Update
 

@Mathieu
I did encourage you to email me and sign up to the private mailing list; you haven't missed anything yet but an announcement is coming in the next couple of weeks. Sorry to be so hush-hush about this but it is a competitive landscape.

I will let out a teaser though - we're working not on one but two capture solutions, HD1 and HD2; you can upgrade from HD1 to HD2 by shipping it back for an upgraded unit.
HD1 can do HDMI 4:2:2 8bit capture in a 17x17x5 cm form factor (battery included!).
HD2 can...sign up to the mailing list! :)

Any Update
 

Hey Alex

Its been some time since your last post on this subject.

Do you have any news yet?