Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/9/2007, 8:47 PM
it works great with FCP, but struggles with Premiere, even though the Premiere drivers were created first (or so I'm told).
Expect to see a LOT of HDMI capture solutions at NAB in April.
It surely would be nice having this in Vegas, you can see a definite difference in HDMI capture vs 1394 capture.
John_Cline wrote on 2/9/2007, 9:03 PM
Thanks for the reply Spot. I plan to be at NAB this year, so I guess I'll wait until then before I do anything. The thought of capturing live, full-up 1920x1080 HD from the V1u without HDV compression artifacts has me pretty jazzed.

When you say it struggles with Premiere, is this a horsepower issue? I have a Quad-core machine that is pretty zippy and as much as I hate to admit it, I also have Premiere Pro v2.

John
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/9/2007, 9:07 PM
I think it's a driver issue. I've not installed it on the faster machine we've got, because it's been a beta test for us. I don't believe it's a horsepower issue, but I could be wrong.
Looking forward to seeing you at NAB. It's gonna be very special for Vegas users this year.
Serena wrote on 2/9/2007, 10:11 PM
Yes, this has raised interest also in other circles
farss wrote on 2/9/2007, 11:53 PM
Doesn't the Sony cameras require a HDCP compliant device on their HDMI ports before they'll output HD. If so and the Intensity card includes HDCP so it'll work with them doesn't this kind of leave a gaping hole in the DRM for HD DVD and BD?
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/10/2007, 9:38 AM
By way of adding more info...
All of CineForm products have just been updated with several Sony V1 related enhancements such as :

* support for capture via the Black Magic Intensity card (http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/) within HDLink (currently a beta feature.) This includes pulldown extraction from 1080p24 cameras like the Sony V1, allowing effects shooters to bypass MPEG camera compression and go directly to 4:2:2 CineForm files. For those with Intensity cards with would like your feedback (and yes we are adding live preview.) Read more details here

* Other major upgrade include features designed for the Sony HVR-V1 and the HVR-DR60 drive unit. Batch converting files from the DR60 and P2 media is now much easier.
David Newman wrote on 2/10/2007, 10:05 AM
Spot,
Wow you were quick. I was going to post myself.
Bill Ravens wrote on 2/10/2007, 4:45 PM
I would be rather surprised to see much visible difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2.
No arguement from me that it makes a significant difference on the processing level, particularly for chroma keying. But, visually, especially on a conventional SD display, I would not expect any noticeable visual difference.
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/10/2007, 4:56 PM
There is a difference, Bill, due to the decoding. Not sure of *everything * taking place there, but there is a noticable difference. I'll try to make time to create/post some pix
John_Cline wrote on 2/10/2007, 8:43 PM
"Doesn't the Sony cameras require a HDCP compliant device on their HDMI ports before they'll output HD."

Hmmm, I wonder if this is the reason that the V1 only outputs 480i when I hook it up to my Dell 2407 monitor using an HDMI to DVI cable?

John
David Newman wrote on 2/10/2007, 9:13 PM
It doesn't use HDCP, the Sony V1 transmits HDMI in the clear at 1080i60. The Sony may have a down convert option that is interfering.

David Newman
CTO, CineForm
farss wrote on 2/11/2007, 1:41 AM
This might only be an issue when playing back from tape. Certainly I think Spot has seen this as has others. I've only tried the component outputs and they seem OK live from the camera, haven't tried the HDMI to the 2407 however the 2407's DVI input is supposed to have HDCP.
Bill Ravens wrote on 2/11/2007, 7:54 AM
Spot...

Interested to see your frame grabs. Intriguing possibilities, even if 4:2:2 isn't discernible on SD, one could surely see the diff on an HD monitor. I think capturing HDMI with Cineform would be cheaper than converting to SDI, then ingesting. Converting to HDMI from component (my HD110 ouputs RGB)out is still an unknown to me.
JJKizak wrote on 2/11/2007, 8:37 AM
Could someone explain why capturing with HDMI is better than 1394 in simplistic terms? You have to draw a picture for old people.
JJK
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/11/2007, 8:51 AM
Capturing via HDMI means you're getting the image from a different part of the decoder block, plus it's 1920 x 1080, so there is more actual information in the image vs the 1440 x 1080. Additionally, it's 4:2:2 straight out of the camera vs being 4:2:0 from the 1394 connection. It's a MUCH fatter signal, and requires faster HDDs and more of them, though.
JJKizak wrote on 2/11/2007, 9:41 AM
Thanks, I get it now.

JJK
David Newman wrote on 2/11/2007, 4:23 PM
Spot & JJK

on the V1 block diagram the camera's internal 1920x1080 4:2:2 has been down-res'd to 1440x1080 4:2:2 before it hits the HDMI output (which upreses it to 1920x1080 4:2:2 again -- this is unfortunate, yet the diagonal 960x1080 sensors weren't going to resolve 1920 anyway.) So at best you only have 1440x1080 4:2:2 worth on information -- 1440x1080x2x30x8 = 712Mbits/s, vs a 1440x1080 4:2:0 MPEG stream at 25Mbits/s over FireWire. Something has to give with near 30:1 compression. So capturing 4:2:2, even to other (lighter) compressor will have it advantages.

David Newman
CTO, CineForm
aussiemick wrote on 2/11/2007, 5:43 PM
At such a high rate of transfer, what speed hard drives would you need to handle the transfer rate without problems?
Mick.
David Newman wrote on 2/11/2007, 6:22 PM
For uncompressed from Intensity you need 120+ MBytes/s a 3 to 4 drive RAID 0. For CineForm compressed any single 7200RPM will do it as the datarate will be between 12-18MB/s.

David Newman
CTO, CineForm
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/11/2007, 11:14 PM
I'm aware of how the downsample/upsample works in the camera; the HDMI is outputting 1920 x 1080 in the 4:2:2 colorspace no matter how you slice it, even though it's upsampled from the 1440 x 1080 image after DSP. It's also bypassing part of the decoder staging, according to Kanta, international HDV product manager at Sony. I haven't tried the CineForm/BMD solution yet, but have tried other, soon to be shipping HDMI solutions. Very interested in trying the CineForm solution.
The 960 x 1080 diagonals *do* resolve 1920, in spite of what many believe. The pixels aren't resampled, nor are they interpolated, they're a blend/sum of surrounding samples, akin to how you see the middle dot in the "5" side of a rolling dice. The addressable CMOS pixels allow for this to take place simultaneously as physical pixels are read. In other words, the sensor block has 960 physical pixels like other cams do, but you can't really cross-compare with CCD or earlier CMOS sensors. It's a different, and somewhat revolutionary technology that while Sony didn't invent, they've developed it over several years. Canon uses this same tech in their still cams, so does/did Minolta, and other still cam companies.
Serena wrote on 2/12/2007, 1:02 AM
Hmmm....I'd like to see the proof of that resolution. One can see the maths for scanning a constant frequency series of lines, but resolving a single pair would be very clever.
farss wrote on 2/12/2007, 1:48 AM
And I wonder how all this interpolation pans out at low light when noise becomes significant.
kimgr wrote on 2/12/2007, 5:25 AM
Will this card work as a third monitor for fullscreen preview in Vegas?
JJKizak wrote on 2/12/2007, 5:33 AM
And will we have to purchase another converter (old Canopus ADVC 300 firewire) for the HDMI captures?
JJK