Would you like HD-SDI output on your HVX?
- Thread starter Draccan
- Start date
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Draccan said:
The reason that anyone would want it is to record an uncompressed signal or to use in a studio for switching. The only place I have seen the Canon Camera use this is when they record to a DVCPRO HD machine. And the HVX does this natively so not really necessary To record the uncompressed signal, well those solutions are not as portable. That may change over the upcoming years. For the low cost studio, which would be the other application there needs to be a low cost switcher, and as of today there is not one.
So all things in due time.
Best,
jan
Joe_Digital
Well-known member
I would love to see HD-SDI out instead of the component out that currently exists. We've used in feature shoots and have already had to replace one component cable because the connector is really not all that solid. Notes for users: to take pressure/stress off this cable, please wrap once around the handle before taking to a monitor. This will save you money.
Also, HD-SDI out means one cable to video village instead of a three cable snake. It may seem like a small thing, but in the cine world it makes a huge difference.
It's an additional cost however.
Also, HD-SDI out means one cable to video village instead of a three cable snake. It may seem like a small thing, but in the cine world it makes a huge difference.
It's an additional cost however.
The Sarlacc
Well-known member
Joe_Digital said:
I am in agreement with this statement.
The component plug to the actual camera is extremely wonky. And its just an added stress to users. I'm always wondering when its just going to snap and break.
And one single BNC is so much easier to deal with then 3 individual BNCs or a fat snake that is heavy, harder to deal, and puts weight on said wonky connector.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Joe_Digital said:
Depends on how it's implemented. In the Canon solution, for example, only video is transported on the HD-SDI cable. No timecode, no audio. So if you want to also record audio and the timecode signal, you'd have four cables instead of one.
Joe_Digital
Well-known member
I was referring to picture reference only -not time code or audio. For sound we use a wireless from the mini jack to monitor.
Ernest_Acosta
Well-known member
Jan I'm reading in between the lines but I won't elaborate. But having both connectors is a plus.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Draccan said:
Actually the 1/3" chip set is the point where the dynamic range is set and if there is noise or gain put into the picture, it goes out in uncompressed or not. See the sales point on the Canon camera is that they can go to an AJ-HD1200 and record in DVCPRO HD. This is obviously not uncompressed. Keep in mind that uncompressed HD going to a raid array is equal 994Mbs. This is a serious amount of data. Frankly to work out a solution to record uncompressed from a 1/3" imager seems counter intuitive. The 1/3" imager is the biggest limitation.
Been able to do this for years, but it is more expensive than what the quality of the signal should be for the expense, IMHO
As I said there are no, I repeat no low cost switchers at this point in time. So why would I use a $40,000+ switcher to switch a bank of $6000 cameras, it doesn't make production business sense. It isn't a sellable production solution. Eventually this will change, but it may be several years.
No this is not possible and the Canon can do it as a upgrade, but frankly the Canon cannot do 1/2 of what the HVX can. I -Frame only recording, True Progressive Capture, Variable Frame Rates, Uncompressed Audio recording and your choice of Standard Definition formats, DV, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50 and any of these can be 24P, 30P or 60i and HD formats 720P, 60P, 30P or 24P or 1080i, 60i24P or 30P.
There is a lot more going on in this product than the Canon. Keep in mind that the price of the Canon is reflecting the price of that I/O with a list price around $9900. HD/SDI is an expensive chip set, last I knew it was about $2000. So if we look at the price of the HVX that would make the camera cost $7995 instead of the $5995.
Hope that helps,
Jan
mark.burton
Well-known member
Jan_Crittenden said:
I think Blackmagic may be looking into this area:
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/multibridge/on-air
An SDI spigot for me means a much stronger, more rugged connection. I wish it had this for monitoring. But this applies to the FW port also which could have done with being side mounted so a protruding FW connector is somewhat shielded against the side of the camera.
gunleik
Well-known member
as I have bought the Panny 17" for on set monitoring, and this has dual HD-SDI ins and outputs, I'm sorta amazed about the 2000$ price figure. The LCD doesn't really seem that cheap over all -
I wouldn't mind the ability to monitor over HD SDI on a single cable instead of having a 10 meter extension to the very short supplied cable with HVX-200...
Gunleik
I wouldn't mind the ability to monitor over HD SDI on a single cable instead of having a 10 meter extension to the very short supplied cable with HVX-200...
Gunleik
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Draccan said:
Couldn't do it if I didn't believe it.
Getting better, not quite 100%, but maybe 90%. thanks for asking.
Well I could say that the 4GB cards already have, this time last year they were $1400, now $550. ;-)
Best,
Jan
The main issue is cost, I was told by someone in the know that the license and tech for HD-SDI that carries video, audio and TC is $6K per unit. Canon gets around this by offering just video. It is EXCELLENT for monitoring and record out and there are many options to record out to. I generally use the 1200A deck myself but there are a couple tapless options like the Wafian which are quite impressive. There are also a few products in development that will be small and portable direct to disk HD-SDI solutions like the Firestore...
Dont dismiss it as a worthless add-on, it is indeed quite valuable to many but you DO pay for it.
ash =o)
Dont dismiss it as a worthless add-on, it is indeed quite valuable to many but you DO pay for it.
ash =o)
Sure you pay for it but it might be less than you think. Canon have created a demand for low cost HD-SDI switchers, they're certainly in the works. This means Canon get to shift more units for affordable OB vans and hence can afford to keep the costs down. Also they don't see every sale as a lost sale of a higher end camera, rather they see it as a potential sale of more lenses so even the cost of interchangeable glass can be offset.
mark.burton
Well-known member
AshG said:
Seriously? So anyone you wants to use HD-SDI in their product and have all three going across it has to pay $6000 for every unit they ship? Does this only apply to camera manufacturers, as there are plenty of capture cards and BOB's with HD-SDI all over them with these three and they are starting at $995. I'm confused!
I know this is a bit off the topic of the thread, but reading the above, I become very curious. Is it possible to put larger chips inside a camera the size of the HVX 200? Maybe by leaving the tape section away (it seems like an interims solution anyway). If not, is it a question of space available or is it a question of price?
I wouldn't want the HVX 200 to become any bigger or heavier, but if it was possible to have larger chips in the same size camera, I would be very happy.
By the way, at least this user is in no need for an HD-SDI output, but durable I/O connections are of course desirable.