DVX+Andromeda, a budget HVX for the rest of us?

craigbowman

craigbowman

Veteran
Considering that many of us shelled out already for our DVXs and the real price for the HVX with a pair of P2 cards is about $10K just to get a seat at the HD table, Reel-stream's Andromeda upgrade for the DVX at $3K is starting to look like a nice intermediate alternative for us budget minded folks that want to squeeze all the life we can from our original investment. In particular, those of us who are already used to using tools like DV Rack and long Laird cables and/or do lots of green screen work.

I've seen some of the 4:4:4 test footage from the Andromeda beta testers and it looks pretty sweet.

Anyone else thinking along these lines?
 
craigbowman said:
I've seen some of the 4:4:4 test footage from the Andromeda beta testers and it looks pretty sweet.
Click to expand...

Being curious I'd like to see that test footage. any links?
 
But if you're using Andromeda and Reel-Stream, you're already tied to a laptop to capture the footage, right? Why not do the same with an HVX WITHOUT P2? It costs around $6000 without P2. DVX + Andromeda is about $6000. They both have their pro's and cons'...

HVX200:
Record directly to laptop via firewire or USB2
Native 16x9 CCD
Full warranty and support
longer telephoto lens
improved user interface
True DVCProHD 1080/24p and 720/60p for Slo-mo
4:2:2 compression
$6000

Andromeda:
Record directly to laptop via USB2
Native 4x3 image, would need Anamorphic adapter for widescreen
Uncompressed 4:4:4 image possible, can also do DVCProHD 4:2:2 compression
Almost 1080/24p resolution
Supposedly greater dynamic range
Shorter telephoto lens
Voids warranty
$3000 DVX + $3000 Andromeda = $6000 total

I think the HVX is a better value in the long run.
 
The ability to "over crank" the camera capability plus native 16:9 tips the scales in favor of the HVX for me.
 
if you don't have P2 cards with the HVX you cannot capture HD

the image from the Andromeda is actually wider than 4x3

the Andromeda's 4:4:4 uncompressed colour is from Standard Definiton. thus near the equivilandt of the HVX's colours depth

to capture the footage you need a Mac - most likely a notebook $$$$

if you sell the DVX you lose money - so i'm sticking with it for now. plus i like uncompressed
 
I spoke to Juan at Reel-Stream in the early days, and I believe overcranking/undercranking was going to be integrated within the software...
 
I don't see how they're capturing Uncompressed 4:4:4 data to a laptop - let alone via a USB2.0 interface - unless it's only capturing the standard defintion footage. There website doesn't really provide enough information regarding their capturing methodolgy.

Uncompressed 1280x720/60fps @ 4:4:4 requires a minimum sustained data rate of 211MBps.
Uncompressed 1280x720/60fps @ 4:2:2 requires a minimum sustained data rate of 141MBps.

USB 2.0 = 480Mbps which equals a theoretical maximum of 60MBps

There has to be something funky going on with their device in order to capture a full 211MBps Uncompressed 4:4:4 1280x720 clip via a 60MBps max throughput USB 2.0 interface.

Definitely seems like a neat gadget. I've been following it off and on since they first put up their website, but it's not something I'd invest in personally. If you were working primarily in an SD workspace, sure it may be kinda cool then, but issues like the SD Lens on the DVX100 and the fact that the DVX's chips are 410,000 Pixels (hardly half that of HD) would keep me at bay from purchasing this for anything other than SD work.

Their little Sculptor software seems cool though.
 
jrv3034 said:
...
$3000 DVX + $3000 Andromeda = $6000 total

I think the HVX is a better value in the long run.
Click to expand...


Why are you adding in the cost of a DVX. The idea of the post is aimed at folks who have already invested in their DVX, running DV Rack etc. Why on earth would you go out and buy a DVX from scratch and add Andromeda to replace getting an HVX from scratch?

Buying an HVX means a minimal outlay of $6K. Adding Andromeda to what you already have is an outlay of $3K. They're not equal. You're extending the life of your current investment along with the added bonus of uncompressed footage for greenscreen work. Even the HVX doesn't supply raw 4:4:4 video.
 
craigbowman said:
Why are you adding in the cost of a DVX. The idea of the post is aimed at folks who have already invested in their DVX, running DV Rack etc. Why on earth would you go out and buy a DVX from scratch and add Andromeda to replace getting an HVX from scratch?
Because many of us still have our DVXs under warranty with the Andromeda voids. Also, you always much carry around a laptop with decent hard drives for every shot unless you want it to not match well. Think about that for steadicam, handheld, dolly, crane, car, outdoors etc. I use my laptop whenever possible but I have tape for backup (not possible with andromeda since tape signal is very different, wont match) and often I shoot shots where I can't capture direct to laptop.

Secondly, the mod is $3000 for a $3000 cam just for 4:4:4 and a few more pixels. The best thing about andromeda is the extra latitude - however, it's only practical for limited uses and users.

Finally, it's not actually even shipping yet. Until a number of people have cams with the mod and report back on if it was worth $3000 and loss of warranty, we really don't know anything yet.

So, no, it's no a poor man's HVX - its a rich man's DVX mod. Unless it changes and the HVX has some real issues, HVX will suit most people. Juan (the guy who invented it) is a super nice guy and very talented but 4:4:4 uncompressed is not suitable for mass market until we got business card size fast 100 GB flash cards for $500. It will happen, just not now.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Great feedback everyone. I'm really glad I brought this up.

Other than the steadicam issue, working with a laptop on long laird to camera on dolly, crane or even handheld has never been a problem in the least.

However, with an HVX without the P2 cards as was suggested earlier in this thread, would face the same issues if you wanted full HD. Otherwise add an additional $3500.

The warranty issue doesn't factor in the way it sounds, because if your DVX purchase was very recent, you would already know the HVX was coming out so neither makes sense. I wouldn't void the warrany on a new DVX either.

So I see image quality as the main item. I have only seen Andromeda footage, some standard and some uprezzed. I haven't seen any HVX footage to see how close the Andromeda comes.

I don't myself think that the Andromeda is necessarily an "as good as" solution as having a genuine HVX but I can't see myself dismissing it either at the moment.
 
harlan said:
I don't see how they're capturing Uncompressed 4:4:4 data to a laptop
Click to expand...
They don't capture uncompressed HD at 4:4:4 -- the only way to get 4:4:4 from the Andromeda is at SD sizes.

Okay, for those who've used it -- here's what I would like to know... what's the deal with the claims of "extended dynamic range"? I've downloaded and played with a few of their clips, and compared them to the DV clips, and it just looks like the Andromeda clips are darker. Not more information, just underexposed. So, on this picture for example:

vegas3_cc_sm.jpg

vegas3_dv_sm.jpg


The top is Andromeda, the bottom is the DVX. There doesn't appear to be any more information in the Andromeda picture, it's just underexposed vs. the DVX being overexposed. If you look in the dark sections (i.e., the green detail in the carved woodwork at the bottom) there's much more info in the DVX picture; the Andromeda picture just crushes it all to nearly black. (go to their site and download the full-size pictures if you want to see the actual detail).

Has anybody done any sort of comprehensive test, with/without the Andromeda, getting *proper* exposure on each shot, that demonstrates any additional latitude? Doesn't seem that hard to do -- just set up a still life, and set the iris for proper Andromeda exposure, and grab a frame. Then re-set exposure for a proper DV exposure, and grab a frame. Then let us compare and see if there's any additional latitude. I haven't seen anything yet to back up that claim.

I don't mind 'em claiming 4:4:4, as that seems possible. And IINM, the way they get HD is not out of the camera, but is a software algorithm in the computer, but the results seem pretty good. But the dynamic range claim is one that's puzzled me ever since I first heard about the product, and unless I'm blind, I'm not seeing the results of that claim...
 
From what I understand, all the Andomeda gives you is 4:4:4 output because you're getting the raw data before it hits the compression circuit in the DVX. Without compression artifacts in your source data it should uprez a bit cleaner. Greenscreen work should also look better. Without HD CCD there is no way the output could be HD at the camera side.

It isn't logical that someone could claim better dynamic range either.
 
(back from holidays)

They claim better dynamic range because the DV compression really reduce it
while Andromeda keep it preserved.

So, Andromeda record the "real native" dynamic range of DVX CCD.
 
hvpz said:
So, Andromeda record the "real native" dynamic range of DVX CCD.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see a proper comparison picture that demonstrates this. I understand what they're claiming, but I'm saying that nothing they've shown publicly has demonstrated it.

Obin, or anyone else with access: would you care to make a comparison shot so we can see the effects?
 
Barry_Green said:
They don't capture uncompressed HD at 4:4:4 -- the only way to get 4:4:4 from the Andromeda is at SD sizes.
Click to expand...
According to this page, it looks as if HD output is only at 4:4:4. I don't know how they can do it, especially since they pixel-shift the hell out of the CCDs (not the 1.4 maximum factor often cited as the practical maximum, but more like 2.0!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top