Paul Hudson
Vacuum Tube Member
Is it possible to output an HDMI and SDI signal at the same time? If so, how?
AF100 HDMI and SDI
- Thread starter Paul Hudson
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, they're always active simultaneously, unless you do one of these two things:
1) turn 24PsF to "ON" -- that particular setting will disable the HDMI. Or
2) turn SDI OUT to "OFF" -- that will of course disable the SDI output.
Other than that, they're always simultaneously enabled.
You lose the viewfinder if SDI out in on, correct?
RJS
Well-known member
No but the LCD viewfinder needs to be shut to view through the vf.
Paul Hudson
Vacuum Tube Member
Hmmmm? Let me check it out. I can't seem to get both signals.
Barry_Green
Moderator
As RJS said -- you can have the viewfinder *or* the LCD when SDI is on, but you can't have the viewfinder *and* the LCD when SDI is on.
HDMI is always always on no matter what you do, *unless* you set 24PsF to ON.
SDI is always on no matter what, unless you set SDI OUT to OFF.
The LCD is always on when it's open.
The viewfinder is always enabled when the LCD is closed.
The viewfinder *can* be enabled when the LCD is open, but only if SDI OUT is set to OFF, and EVF MODE is set to ON.
HDMI is always always on no matter what you do, *unless* you set 24PsF to ON.
SDI is always on no matter what, unless you set SDI OUT to OFF.
The LCD is always on when it's open.
The viewfinder is always enabled when the LCD is closed.
The viewfinder *can* be enabled when the LCD is open, but only if SDI OUT is set to OFF, and EVF MODE is set to ON.
Gotcha. Haven't used this cam yet but I'd like to keep in the loop for when I do end up using one of these. My production partner is toying with the idea of buying an HMC150 like mine or an AF100 with the free 14-250 lens.
Paul Hudson
Vacuum Tube Member
Yep. I now have both signals. Thanks, Barry. BTW what is your opinion of Atomos Ninja for a recorder? Should I just go ahead and get the KiPro Mini?
bgundu
Veteran
My guess Barry will say don't waste your money, and then say to get the Samurai if you really need one. Ninja only has HDMI instead of the upcoming Samurai with SDI. Just guessing Barry!
Barry_Green
Moderator
For an AF100? Bob's dead-on right, I wouldn't recommend an HDMI recorder (any HDMI recorder). Get an SDI recorder, not an HDMI recorder. If all you have is HDMI (like on the FS100) then the Ninja might be fine, but I believe it's completely the wrong product for the AF100. Not saying that it's a bad recorder, just saying that it's not a great match, there are others that I think people will be happier with.
Again, for an AF100? Nope. No way would I want to go with the Ki Pro Mini. Not that it's a bad recorder (I'm sure it's excellent) but it's not the best MATCH to the AF100. Just like the Ninja -- I'm not saying it's bad, I'm sure it's lovely, but it's not a good FIT.
The decision, in my mind, for an AF100 owner, should be among these three:
1) Nano
2) Samurai
3) PIX 240
The Nano, if you need something now, you need something proven, you need something that is guaranteed to be accepted by the major broadcasters, etc. It's really a great fit for the AF100. It's tiny, lightweight, and can be powered off the AF100's battery. Only knock against the Nano is that it's more expensive than the newer recorders, and it's only 8-bit. Then again, the AF100 outputs 8-bit, so I still think it's a quite viable option. I do think it's not price-competitive against the SD PIX 240 or the Samurai, but then again, neither of them is on the market yet.
The Samurai, if you want an Atomos product, is a much better choice for the AF100. It's inexpensive, it's SDI, it'll take advantage of 24PsF, it'll strip out variable frame rates, and it doesn't make you use that hateful H-dummy connector (HDMI). It's a little more expensive than the Ninja, but it's also more powerful with more features and seems like it's just a better fit.
The Ki Pro, nothing bad about it, but it's (compared to the others) huge and not easily mountable, and it requires 12V power. That's really my knock against it. It's not a good fit with the AF100. You need to have a big ol' Anton Bauer battery, and a big shoulder rig or rails system, to mount it. And that battery and charger will set you back a grand. Now, if you're using it with an HPX3700, heck, it's a perfect fit -- you may already have rails, and you already have the 12V battery, so yeah, grab the Ki Pro Mini and go. But for an AF100, the recorder and battery are going to double your camera's weight, and it just defeats the whole idea of a low-cost lightweight solution IMO.
The PIX is, based on features, the big winner, to me. Does everything the others do as good or better than they do, and it does some things that the others don't do. Like, it has the ability to record both ProRes and DNxHD. It can record to CF (like the Nano), or to SSD (like the Samurai), but where those only do one of those, the PIX does both. And it can also record to eSATA drives. And it has a monitor like the Samurai (Nano doesn't have a monitor), and it can be powered by cheap camcorder batteries so it doesn't need a 12V power supply like the Ki Pro Mini. And, it has XLR inputs and can function as a timecode audio recorder(!) The others haven't even really thought about that, but the PIX is from Sound Devices, and it uses the same kind of hardware their professional mixers and recorders use.
They do make a less-expensive version of the PIX, the PIX 220, which has only HDMI inputs, but I wouldn't want that one, I'd want the SDI version.
I'm not convinced that most folks with an AF100 need an external recorder, but if I was to advise someone on which to buy, the top two for me are the Nano (because you actually CAN buy it), and the PIX 240 (because it does a million things, it's from a well-established premium company, and it's even less expensive than the Nano).
David Shapton
Well-known member
Always great to see Barry's opinions, which are never wrong. My opinion is slightly different - of course - and it is that HDMI in practice turns out pretty well, and we should know because we have so many Ninjas in use now. Manage it properly, use tight-fitting, flexible cables, and you'll be fine. We have a large number of AF1-101/100 users with Ninjas now. One other thing to throw into the comparison is that only one of the above-mentioned products can store 8 hours visually-lossless video on a single drive that costs $70. Are hard drives safe? You bet. Again, we should know; we've got a lot of people using them now, who also know that if you're on a motorcycle or powerboat, you'd be better off with an SSD, but, not wishing to make a political point here - just for interest; many, many people now are shooting direct to spinning hard drives, and it just works.
Dave Shapton
President
Atomos EMEA
Dave Shapton
President
Atomos EMEA
Paul Hudson
Vacuum Tube Member
I was not even aware that Sound Devices made a video recorder. I think this makes my decision easier. Sound Devices has proven there reliability and ruggedness with their audio
recorders one would have to assume this quality continues in their video recorders.
recorders one would have to assume this quality continues in their video recorders.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Dave and I will never see eye to eye on the Ninja, and that's okay -- we have different priorities. In my mind, the absolute most important priority in an external recorder is reliability. Would I use a spinning hard drive in an external recorder? Never. Never ever ever. But that's me. If someone wants to do that, hey, go right ahead -- but to me that's not a valid idea. The Ninja can do it. And the Ninja appeals to the low-cost crowd, being (by far) the lowest-cost recorder out there, so maybe for that group, a spinning hard disk is a reasonable choice. But as for me and my projects and my clients, no thanks. I would never use an old FireStore, and I would never use a spinning hard disk in a PIX 240 (can it use a spinning drive? If not, why not?) and I would never use a spinning drive in the Ninja.
Secondly, HDMI. Dave says "it's fine". Okay, for you, and for those of your customers who are happy with it. To me, it is not fine. It is not acceptable. It is a consumer connector that was designed to connect a blu-ray player to a TV. It is not a ruggedized, time-tested, battle-proven BNC on high-quality coax. Yes, you can get a locking connector to minimize some of the patheticness inherent in the HDMI connector, but ... why? When you have an SDI port sitting there, why bother?
Third, there are places and times when the Ninja would be the exact right recorder. The FS100, for example. It doesn't have HD-SDI, so an SDI recorder isn't necessary. It's solely HDMI, so ... as long as you're already pigeonholed into using HDMI, there's no reason to pay more for a Samurai when the Ninja is the only one that will work with your camera, right? Or if someone for some reason really wanted to hook up a recorder to a GH2, the Ninja is the way to go.
But this thread, and this question, wasn't about those. It was about the AF100. And paired with the AF100, I think the benefits of a Samurai or PIX over a Ninja are just so substantial that it's not even worth discussing an alternative. HDMI doesn't support timecode, SDI does. Game, set, match for the SDI recorder. HDMI doesn't support 24PsF, and the SDI recorder does. Game, set, and match for the SDI recorder. HDMI is HDMI, whereas SDI is SDI... game, set, and match for SDI. I currently have a Nano, which offers both HDMI and HD-SDI. No way on earth, no force in heaven or hell, could get me to use the HDMI connector, when SDI is readily available.
Again, my perspective is one of ultimate reliability being the paramount concern. One reason why I am an advocate for P2 over any other recording media. And why I constantly tell people to avoid the cheapo no-name or discount brands of SD cards, and instead to spring for the top-of-the-line SanDisk and Panasonics which offer advanced error detection and error correction. And why, even though I don't think an external recorder is all that mandatory for an AF100, I still use one, because I love the idea of redundancy. And I am very comfortable in offering the following observation: HDMI is for monitoring. If your cable glitches on you in a monitor, it's an inconvenience. If your cable glitches on you in your recorder, it's a disaster. External recorders should be SDI, period.
It's not that you couldn't use a Ninja with an AF100. You could. And if you want the absolute cheapest way to go, while still enjoying the benefits of 4:2:2 and a higher-bitrate codec, the Ninja is an option. I just think there are much better options that are more homogenous with the camera and make a better fit.
Secondly, HDMI. Dave says "it's fine". Okay, for you, and for those of your customers who are happy with it. To me, it is not fine. It is not acceptable. It is a consumer connector that was designed to connect a blu-ray player to a TV. It is not a ruggedized, time-tested, battle-proven BNC on high-quality coax. Yes, you can get a locking connector to minimize some of the patheticness inherent in the HDMI connector, but ... why? When you have an SDI port sitting there, why bother?
Third, there are places and times when the Ninja would be the exact right recorder. The FS100, for example. It doesn't have HD-SDI, so an SDI recorder isn't necessary. It's solely HDMI, so ... as long as you're already pigeonholed into using HDMI, there's no reason to pay more for a Samurai when the Ninja is the only one that will work with your camera, right? Or if someone for some reason really wanted to hook up a recorder to a GH2, the Ninja is the way to go.
But this thread, and this question, wasn't about those. It was about the AF100. And paired with the AF100, I think the benefits of a Samurai or PIX over a Ninja are just so substantial that it's not even worth discussing an alternative. HDMI doesn't support timecode, SDI does. Game, set, match for the SDI recorder. HDMI doesn't support 24PsF, and the SDI recorder does. Game, set, and match for the SDI recorder. HDMI is HDMI, whereas SDI is SDI... game, set, and match for SDI. I currently have a Nano, which offers both HDMI and HD-SDI. No way on earth, no force in heaven or hell, could get me to use the HDMI connector, when SDI is readily available.
Again, my perspective is one of ultimate reliability being the paramount concern. One reason why I am an advocate for P2 over any other recording media. And why I constantly tell people to avoid the cheapo no-name or discount brands of SD cards, and instead to spring for the top-of-the-line SanDisk and Panasonics which offer advanced error detection and error correction. And why, even though I don't think an external recorder is all that mandatory for an AF100, I still use one, because I love the idea of redundancy. And I am very comfortable in offering the following observation: HDMI is for monitoring. If your cable glitches on you in a monitor, it's an inconvenience. If your cable glitches on you in your recorder, it's a disaster. External recorders should be SDI, period.
It's not that you couldn't use a Ninja with an AF100. You could. And if you want the absolute cheapest way to go, while still enjoying the benefits of 4:2:2 and a higher-bitrate codec, the Ninja is an option. I just think there are much better options that are more homogenous with the camera and make a better fit.
Barry_Green
Moderator
To be fair, the Sound Devices recorders are not on the market yet, I believe they're supposed to start shipping in the next few weeks. And therefore, they aren't proven and battle-tested yet. Much of my optimism for them does come from their reputation on their audio recorders and audio mixers, so I have high hopes for the PIX, I think it's the best combination of features, usability, best match for modern cameras, and hopefully the reputation of SD will provide reason to expect a bulletproof product when it comes out. But as with any brand-new product, if there are issues they'll be found in the earliest-release models, so -- I would try to wait as long as possible before buying, to make sure the trial run and the shakedown has cleared any potential issues.
But that is speculation on an unreleased product. Whereas we have documented evidence and years of experience with the Nano. The Ninja has been out for a few months and they seem to have sorted out the early issues that users reported. I don't think we see many Ninja complaints anymore, so it seems like they've got that running quite smoothly now.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I've done that, I've used an HPG20... it works, but it's about as big & clunky as the Ki Pro Mini with Anton Bauer battery situation. The HPG20 doesn't need a big separate battery, it can run off a DVX battery, but ... it's huge. It's as big and bulky as the camera itself, practically. So if it's something that you're going to be using in a studio setting, sure, it's a totally valid way to go, and it's the best quality at the lowest bitrate (nothing is going to look as good, at 100 megabits, as AVC-Intra). And it records on the best recording medium.
But for handheld, it's not practical. You're not going to mount an HPG20 on the camera's flash shoe! I mean, the NanoFlash is probably literally 1/20th the size and weight of an HPG20. The Nano can easily be mounted on the camera, or on your belt... the HPG20, not so much.
Another thing I didn't care for on the HPG20 is that it can't record 24PsF. It always records embedded in 60i, so you'll always have to run some post process to strip out pulldown. The other SDI recorders avoid that annoyance, so it'd be nice if they'd update the HPG20 to a newer model that got around it. The new HPD24 does it the right way.
In short -- it's a great studio recorder/deck/offload station/monitor/playback/waveform/vectorscope/multipurpose production tool, but unless you're in a stationary environment like a studio, it wouldn't be my first pick for an external recorder for a small camera like the AF100. It makes a lot more sense in context with one of the big/full-size shoulder-mount cameras, because you can get a cage and mount it off the back of the camera, and it's a lot more size/weight/cost-appropriate for that combo. But with an AF100, the recorder literally costs more than the camera does, and is as big, and I think it even weighs more, so ... all together, not the best fit.
But for handheld, it's not practical. You're not going to mount an HPG20 on the camera's flash shoe! I mean, the NanoFlash is probably literally 1/20th the size and weight of an HPG20. The Nano can easily be mounted on the camera, or on your belt... the HPG20, not so much.
Another thing I didn't care for on the HPG20 is that it can't record 24PsF. It always records embedded in 60i, so you'll always have to run some post process to strip out pulldown. The other SDI recorders avoid that annoyance, so it'd be nice if they'd update the HPG20 to a newer model that got around it. The new HPD24 does it the right way.
In short -- it's a great studio recorder/deck/offload station/monitor/playback/waveform/vectorscope/multipurpose production tool, but unless you're in a stationary environment like a studio, it wouldn't be my first pick for an external recorder for a small camera like the AF100. It makes a lot more sense in context with one of the big/full-size shoulder-mount cameras, because you can get a cage and mount it off the back of the camera, and it's a lot more size/weight/cost-appropriate for that combo. But with an AF100, the recorder literally costs more than the camera does, and is as big, and I think it even weighs more, so ... all together, not the best fit.
Ill'be using the HPG20 in a stationery environment in he field or in my studio process, so no problem for the weight. I'm interested in the quality of the 422 recording. So the lack of the 24Psf doesn't bother me because I'm in the 50Hz european world. The HPG20 could be a good chance for me, I trust in P2 recording environment. So many thanks for your help.
erniediaz
Well-known member
Barry, What do you think abut this: http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/hyperdeckshuttle/ ?
Barry_Green
Moderator
I haven't paid attention to it since the initial announcement. It was greeted as the greatest thing ever, until people started figuring out just how massively expensive it would be to record to, and how huge the files would be, and that it apparently isn't designed for field use.
Seems like it could make a nice little unit for certain short shots like maybe vfx shots, but as a general-purpose recorder I doubt it's going to be a general-purpose-enough tool to make it a daily use device.
Seems like it could make a nice little unit for certain short shots like maybe vfx shots, but as a general-purpose recorder I doubt it's going to be a general-purpose-enough tool to make it a daily use device.