Thanks for your thoughts, farss. The comparison was just my wondering. I'm kind of surprised more people aren't interested in this kind of thing though. If I had a dvx100 or 100a and if this stuff was legitimate, I would be all over it.
They do claim they're working on an HDV version as well. I wonder what kind of laptop and hard drive you'd need to make that work.

Must admit I was more than a bit worried when I saw they were sending the data down USB 2. Also they seem to be recording discreet frames so you'd need a pretty zippy laptop to be writing 25 or 30 fps as discreet files.
Also I don't think it's the 4:4:4 sampling that makes the difference it'd be the bit depth, possibly they're writing 10 or 12 bit. If you look at the Viper which writes raw 9Mb CCD data, to HD that thing uses dual fibrechannel connected to RAID drives to keep up.

I believe they said you have the option of 12 or 10 bit and also 4:2:2. I'm not knowledgable enough to know if this is possible and reliable for SD, but for HD it does seem out of the question right now.
I have to admit, this kind of idea really appeals to me. I think it's about time we start getting some homemade cameras going on here. Seems like the technowledgy is here.
Guess the pricing for decks and a bunch of other equipment has really pissed me off and I'd like to see some people throw a shock to the system.

Good gear is expensive for sure but it's a heck of a lot cheaper and easier to use than it used to be. Homebuilt cameras that record to HDs have been around for years, they're just not very practical though.
Bob.

Im quite interested in this thread... Is there a Picture of this setup...

I shoot 4:2:2 uncompressed 10-bit video regularly. The data rate is about 30 MB/s (that's megabytes, not megabits), which requires a fast workstation (not a desktop PC) and a fast 10,000 rpm SATA or SCSI disk array to function (or a $150,000 D-5 deck with tape cartridges the size of pizza cartons).

If I were to go up to 4:4:4, the data rate would double to about 60 MB/s. Then going from 10-bit to 12-bit would quadruple that, so we end up with 240 MB/s. Still NTSC definition of course.

Not impossible to do, there are some ultraexpensive disk arrays that can do that. The question is how to get the data to the disk array, as not even two Gigabit Ethernet interfaces could keep up with this (I think each 1Gb/s ethernet is good for about 800 Mb/s actual throughput, and even two of those would not be enough for the 1,920 Mb/s needed here).

Of course at that data rate, we are looking at about 750 GB disk storage per hour of video.

Back to reality:
1) There is a far bigger step between 4:1:1 and 4:2:2 than between 4:2:2 and 4:4:4.
2) The standard DVD format uses 8-bit color. More bits primarily help intermediate processing such as color correction and effects, transitions, etc.

Maybe a little bit of compression isn't so bad after all. And 4:2:2 color sampling is cool also because it is closer to the eye's color sampling. We are not 4:4:4 beasts either!

So, what you're saying is that this isn't possible via USB2- which is what this company claims to do. Of course they say it's done as a series of still images and they may claim to get a benefit from recording 24 of them a second rather than 30.
Again, I'm out of my league here. Unfortunately there are no pictures on their site of the adjustment they make to the dvx100, so there's not much to go on.

OK, so let me see if I get this straight. It will turn my DVX100(A) into a 4:4:4 camera, but the camera can't affect the recording after white balance, shutter speed, etc... and then transfers it via USB 2.0 <==( that seems a little fishy (isn't USB2.0 not so great for Video transfer, and how do they transfer that much data via USB2.0 on the fly?)

I would be more interested in 4:2:2 rather than 4:4:4. But, like most others here, I'm very intrigued. I would make it switchable to 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 if it were me.

One of the principals in this company is a regular poster on dvinfo.net. you can get an idea of their thoughts by reading his posts.

It is true that if they record 24 progressive images per second they reduce the bitrate and storage requirements accordingly. Still outlandish.

I think they would have to use a still format with enough compression (site mentions TIFF which may be compressed) to get through a USB2 straw.

The indication is that they grab the digital output from the video A/D converter. They miss the pre-knee circuit on high end video cameras (analog "curve bending" before the limited-bit A/D conversion), but this is the easiest way to get RAW data with lots more picture information.

No matter what they do, it should be a lot better than the 4:1:1 color sampling and 5:1 DCT compression of standard DV.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20332&perpage=15&pagenumber=1


Juan P. Pertierra is the guy's name. It will take you a couple hours to read everything...

One other solution. Go tape to tape or tape to film w/effects, edit linear. The old-fashioned way. Film is expensive? So is the cost factor on a 4:4:4 monster.

All I know is I'm getting a DVX100a this Summer (unless I go with the XL2) and this sounds very very interesting to me. I'm very curious to see what happens.

I beleive you can select 4:2:2 as well as bit rates. I also need to read through the dvinfo.net posts.
But I just thought some of y'all might be interested. I watched a dvd the other day "Visions of LIght" and rewatched "Citizen Kane" as well. They really make me want to try things with shadows and low light that I don't think you can do with minidv. If this works and is reliable, the added latitude would be wonderful.

One thing I notice is that the frame captures from the Andromeda are much more muted. where as the footage from the DV are much brighter. It's like it overexposed while still being over exposed. (ex. the comparison image found here
may have gotten that html coding wrong it's been a few years since I've done any.

anyway, does anyone know why that is?

You could avoid a lot of the technical heartache and just shoot film.
Three Arriflex 16mm cameras with lenses sold at auction for AUD 4,500 each at which price they were probably a steal. A large set of primes went for a steal as well. These things were probably not much younger they me and their in excellent condition, there's very little to go wrong with a film camera, grot in the gate is about all you have to worry about.
The guys who bought them tell me their costs are $1/minute for stock and processing. You'd need to add cost of telecine or scan transfer to that but it's still not outlandishly expensive if you're serious about getting great quality.
There's lots of ways to record great video, but then you've got to do something with it. All the wonderful images mean zip if you cannot preview it properly to see what you're doing. In the end the cost of the camera and stock for it, be it film or tape is a minor factor.


musman,
don't give up on DV25, you could shoot Citizen Kane in that format, sure you've got to watch your lighting, you've got to do a few things with the light before it hits the lens but it's doable with a good camera.
Bob.