Official: HDMI 1080 IS INTERLACED ONLY

[grecner]

Also could the Nikon D800 be hacked like the GH2?

Yes, it can be hacked, like anything which has a computer inside.
The correct question is, will it ever be hacked ?
No idea on that one...

What I can tell you is that there is a group of people working on a Nikon D5100 and D7000 hack, at nikonhacker.com

They have managed to decipher the Nikon firmware on those cameras.
They also know what kinf of Fujitsu RISC processor Nikon uses in its Expeed 2 chipset.
They also have a software simulator and debugger of that processor.
Currently they are digging in the (long) firmware code trying to guess which routine is called when they press a button on the camera, which is not easy at all.
They are also trying to find out how the camera peripherals (LCD display, sensor, USB interface, ...) is addressed and accessed. So far the have found a routine which draws letters on the screen.
They also try to find a routine which accesses Flash card, which is essential on order to be able to put their own code into the camera without the risk of irreversible firmware damage when they tweak the in-camera firmware directly.
I think, if they hold on, in two years there might be a hack for the D5100.
How that relates to D800 is unknown.

Martin

Martin

 

[eteam]

HDMI can be RGB, and it can have color depth up to 16-bits per chanel.

Yes, but not from the D4/D800. My statements were made in the context of the D4/D800 design, and on the basis of what Jon Thorn (AJA), Nikon, and others have reported. In previous posts, I list other HDMI-specified signal formats and their differences (specifically including clock multiplier, a hardware difference in both the source and sink devices).

-- Bob Elkind

 

[bufo55]

I believe Nikon has just let someone who had no solid pro video background design the 1080p24 to 1080i60 conversion, and this is what resulted - he did his best and invented a new format. ;-)


Martin

This may very well be true. There are precedents. For example, Nikon reinvented their own raw developer in Capture NX. They may have decided to reinvent this wheel, too.

I can always hope that there was a good reason for it, and that users who accommodate themselves to their rules will reap some benefit. Unfortunately, Nikon doesn't let us know what the rules are. We are left to play the game and figure it out along the way.

Actively watching and waiting with interest.

 

[grecner]

I have also asked ATOMOS technical support what is the exact reason why they can not record native 1080p24 from the D800 as they state in firmware release notes, but have not received any answer in two days now.

Martin

I have received an update from ATOMOS. They say D800 is only able to output 24p, 25p and 30p in a 1080i format, but they can covert it back, as it seems, on the fly.


I have replied with a hint that there are reports of 1080p output from D800 when memory cards are removed, and asked if they have tried that scenario.
I have also asked for clarification if they really can remove the pulldown on the fly, since they say they are unable to do that and that you need a special software which they provide to do the pulldown.

I will let you know when I have another update from them.

Martin

 

[eteam]

I have received an update from ATOMOS. They say D800 is only able to output 24p, 25p and 30p in a 1080i format, but they can covert it back, as it seems, on the fly.
I have replied with a hint that there are reports of 1080p output from D800 when memory cards are removed, and asked if they have tried that scenario.
I have also asked for clarification if they really can remove the pulldown on the fly, since they say they are unable to do that and that you need a special software which they provide to do the pulldown.
I will let you know when I have another update from them.
Martin

Martin, a little knowledge is a powerful thing!

That Atomos has no plan for the Ninja to provide native D4/D800 support is ... surprising. The answers from Atomos should be very interesting.

All anyone needs is access to any HDMI sink device which does work with the D4/D800 in native signal format. If there is a any "secret sauce" developed with Nikon's assistance, all the necessary details would be embedded in the EDID table of the compatible device. A working EDID table is simple to reverse engineer.

My own designs are FPGA based -- FPGAs are very flexible logic devices easily capable of handling HDMI interfaces, and are commonly used for such devices. Presuming FPGA-based logic, changes to support Nikon native modes should be a 1-day or 2-day task. If Atomos Ninja is incapable of 1080p24 4:2:2, there must be some hardware logic problem which other devices and designs hopefully do not have.

-- Bob Elkind

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

Per Atomos website, for what it's worth:

"... AtomOS 2.1 Ninja Firmware required to record native 24P, 25P and 30P from the Nikon D4/D800 sensor download. You must also ensure the internal memory cards of the camera (Sd and CF) are removed when recording to the Ninja. ..."

http://www.atomos.com/ninja/

 

[eteam]

Per Atomos website, for what it's worth:

"... AtomOS 2.1 Ninja Firmware required to record native 24P, 25P and 30P from the Nikon D4/D800 sensor download. You must also ensure the internal memory cards of the camera (Sd and CF) are removed when recording to the Ninja. ..."

Makes you wonder if Martin Grecner's correspondent at Atomos bothers to read the Atomos website...

-- Bob Elkind

 

[Zephyrnoid]

As I have stated over and over again and really ought to formulate a longer essay and have it made 'sticky'.
Aside from the business of selling product, consumer electronics giants have R&D teams in most business units.
R&D=Innovation>Patents
Any time that you notice a proprietary 'invention' on the marketplace or something that appears to be an omission, glitch or 'dongle', be it a codec, hardware, software or even process; you can bet that the stakeholder is planning on either grasping a closed market share as a result of such an innovation, or they intend to LICENSE the invention to the highest bidder.
So please. Let's refrain from assuming the Camera giants are idiots and understand that WE the customers are only part of the game.

This may very well be true. There are precedents. For example, Nikon reinvented their own raw developer in Capture NX. They may have decided to reinvent this wheel, too.

I can always hope that there was a good reason for it, and that users who accommodate themselves to their rules will reap some benefit. Unfortunately, Nikon doesn't let us know what the rules are. We are left to play the game and figure it out along the way.

Actively watching and waiting with interest.

 

[eteam]

Any time that you notice a proprietary 'invention' on the marketplace or something that appears to be an omission, glitch or 'dongle', be it a codec, hardware, software or even process; you can bet that the stakeholder is planning on either grasping a closed market share as a result of such an innovation, or they intend to LICENSE the invention to the highest bidder. So please. Let's refrain from assuming the Camera giants are idiots and understand that WE the customers are only part of the game.

What are you talking about? The HDMI output of the D4/D800, or something else?

If it's the HDMI output of the D4/D800... this [native, non-interlaced signal format] can be reverse engineered between breakfast and lunch. There are no revenue or control opportunities in this area.

If you are talking about RAW conversion, the marketplace will (and has) strongly resist against proprietary file conversion from the camera. If you are looking for a conspiracy theory rationale from Nikon, here are some thoughts:

• Both Canon and Nikon provide RAW conversion software, and this ensures that there is RAW file support in place at product introduction, without relying on 3rd parties (e.g. Adobe).
• RAW conversion (colour transcoding and de-mosaicing, plus more) is specific to each different camera model. No-one knows the ideal "math" for RAW conversion better than the camera manufacturer, at product introduction.

-- Bob Elkind

 

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Friends,

I would like to add a little to this conversation.

Almost all HD cameras, in 1080 mode, output Progressive Segmented Frames (PSF).

As background, PSF is a progressive frame, with the even scan lines put into one field of a frame, while the odd scan lines are in the other field.

Two fields make up one frame of video in PSF.

PSF was created so that progressive images could be sent out to an interlaced monitor, so they made PSF look like interlaced to the monitor.

A recorder, such as our nanoFlash can properly merge the two fields (in one frame) back together to recreate the exact progressive frame 100% (no artifacts).

PSF is never used for 720p images, they are always true progressive.

Almost all 1080p cameras, except for the Sony F65 and maybe a few others output PSF. It is very rare to find a camera that actually outputs true progressive.
The nanoFlash can handle true progressive as well as PSF.

Now, here is the important part:

Many manufacturers refer to the PSF output of their cameras (at times) as interlaced, not PSF.

There may be a good reason for this, since more people understand interlaced than understand PSF.

An example of this is the Panasonic HDX900 which outputs PSF, but is described in the manual as outputting 1080i59.94.


Now, for some cameras, 1080p24 (or 1080p23.98, or 1080p23.976) output with pulldown frames added.

If this is the case, then one needs to remove the 3:2 pulldown. So the nanoFlash has options to remore 3:2 pulldown.

And I would like to add that we reduced the price of the nanoFlash by $1,000 (US) effective April 2, 2012. The MSRP of a nanoFlash is now $1,995 (US) with the street price being $1,895 (US). World-Wide prices may vary due to customs, duties, taxes and shipping, but the intention is to reduce the price of the nanoFlash, world-wide by approximately $1,000.

Also, we have not yet obtained a Nikon D800 in our lab, so we have not tested it with the nanoFlash yet.

I hope this helps.

Dan Keaton
Convergent Design

 

[grecner]

Now, for some cameras, 1080p24 (or 1080p23.98, or 1080p23.976) output with pulldown frames added.

If this is the case, then one needs to remove the 3:2 pulldown. So the nanoFlash has options to remore 3:2 pulldown.

It is possible that D800 does some unusual pulldown, not 3:2, so it could need some tweaks...

And I would like to add that we reduced the price of the nanoFlash by $1,000 (US) effective April 2, 2012. The MSRP of a nanoFlash is now $1,995 (US) with the street price being $1,895 (US). World-Wide prices may vary due to customs, duties, taxes and shipping, but the intention is to reduce the price of the nanoFlash, world-wide by approximately $1,000.

Great news !

Martin

 

[grecner]

Per Atomos website, for what it's worth:

"... AtomOS 2.1 Ninja Firmware required to record native 24P, 25P and 30P from the Nikon D4/D800 sensor download. You must also ensure the internal memory cards of the camera (Sd and CF) are removed when recording to the Ninja. ..."

http://www.atomos.com/ninja/

This is OK, they still mean 24p, 25P or 30p sent over HDMI as 60i or 50i PsF. This would mean that the Panasonic plasma used for 24p output test was wrong displaying 1080p, or it was so smart that it detected PsF and displayed it a pure 1080o (which I hesitate to believe)...

Martin

 

[Zephyrnoid]

What are you talking about? The HDMI output of the D4/D800, or something else?
-- Bob Elkind

Bob. I was responding to this line
"Unfortunately, Nikon doesn't let us know what the rules are. We are left to play the game and figure it out along the way."

Unlike in the cut & dry world of technical development, the marketing and IP universe does in fact impact the HDMI output discussion if all the pertinent facts are as yet unknown. After all, this entire thread thrives based on a combination of your core knowledge in this domain, combined by our gradual knowledge of how it relates to these as yet untested cameras. Since there's the third party external recorder component to the puzzle, some are left wondering why ..."We are left to play the game and figure it out along the way."
I simply elected to interject the fact that lacking a conspiracy, Manufacturers fabricate obstructions, or at least, obscurity as part of their roll-out strategy.Generic case examples include:
- Dongled hardware (ie impossible to hack firmware)
- Proprietary flavors of standard codec or other software
- proprietary connectors
the list goes on but you get the idea. I was simply stating that manufacturer to consumer sales is only part of the overall revenue model. Conspiracy was not on my mind, IP licensing and transfer was.
This is what I mean....
"RAW conversion (colour transcoding and de-mosaicing, plus more) is specific to each different camera model. No-one knows the ideal "math" for RAW conversion better than the camera manufacturer, at product introduction."
It's possible for the photo/video industry to adopt one standard for each discrete component of the imaging and processing path from object to finished delivery but they don't because they are constantly playing a shell game. Albeit, a lot has to do with improvements (Kaizen) but in many instances, it's just a back room struggle for IP superiority.
We've seem all this before in the personal computer business before it settled down to two paths> Windoze & Mac
But never have I seen more codecs, connectors, variance and complexity than in the motion imaging industry.
The hybrids cameras are nothing but fodder for a percolation of this complexity - creating a management, learning and financial burden for people that should simply be allowed to use the stuff for personal or professional profit.
Also... did you ever answer my question about whether thunderbolt was a viable alternative to HDMI ? Forgive me if it was irrelevant or if you answered already.

 

[eteam]

"RAW conversion (colour transcoding and de-mosaicing, plus more) is specific to each different camera model. No-one knows the ideal "math" for RAW conversion better than the camera manufacturer, at product introduction."
It's possible for the photo/video industry to adopt one standard for each discrete component of the imaging and processing path from object to finished delivery but they don't because they are constantly playing a shell game. Albeit, a lot has to do with improvements (Kaizen) but in many instances, it's just a back room struggle for IP superiority.

You are playing games with your words, and the inference is unfair. For any Bayer-pattern colour filter array, the "R", "G", and "B" colour filters are not "true" R, G, and B. The optical low-pass filter, colour filter dyes, materials, and sensor properties combine for several conflicting purposes. The result is something other than "true" R, G, and B colour values, after conversion from well charge to digital value.

Colour purity out of the sensor is not an important attribute for a camera. Colour purity in the converted image files is an important attribute of the camera (for internally processed image files) and the RAW conversion IP. This distinction needs to be made.

Some (possibly) conflicting sensor + colour filter array attributes, for example:

• UV and IR filtering (rejection)
• low reflection
• high efficiency
• low noise
• spatial matching and consistency (one sensor region matched to another)
• temporal matching and consistency (no colour fading over time)

These attributes are marketable and highly valued, agreed? It is possible to define standards which normalise RAW conversion IP down to a fine level of detail, but this would have prevented the large sensor performance strides gained in the last 5 years. If I misunderstand your comments, perhaps you could provide an example or two which clarifies the point you are making. If I understood what you have in mind a bit better, we might very well be agreeing with each another.

-- Bob Elkind

 

[eteam]

Also... did you ever answer my question about whether thunderbolt was a viable alternative to HDMI ? Forgive me if it was irrelevant or if you answered already.

I completely overlooked your references to Thunderbolt. I apologise for this. What problem(s) with HDMI do you think Thunderbolt would address?

-- Bob Elkind

 

[Zephyrnoid]

I completely overlooked your references to Thunderbolt. I apologise for this. What problem(s) with HDMI do you think Thunderbolt would address?

-- Bob Elkind

What advantages does Thunderbolt offer that would cause Apple to overlook HDMI as their wide/fast I/O interface?


Here's the Apple Blurb on Thunderbolt

 

[eteam]

What advantages does Thunderbolt offer that would cause Apple to overlook HDMI as their wide/fast I/O interface?

I don't know. I don't use any Apple products, other than Quicktime (for Windows).

HDMI devices need not be complex. On the other hand, any devices including PCIe (which is included in Thunderbolt) are complex enough to require an embedded processor, which incurs product cost, development time, and development cost.

You didn't answer the question: "What problem(s) with HDMI do you think Thunderbolt would address?"
Was this a deliberate evasion on your part?

-- Bob Elkind

 

[kawasakiguy37]

I don't know. I don't use any Apple products, other than Quicktime (for Windows).

HDMI devices need not be complex. On the other hand, any devices including PCIe (which is included in Thunderbolt) are complex enough to require an embedded processor, which incurs product cost, development time, and development cost.

You didn't answer the question: "What problem(s) with HDMI do you think Thunderbolt would address?"
Was this a deliberate evasion on your part?

-- Bob Elkind

I think its all pretty obvious we just want SDI.

Definitely would not want any apple proprietary BS. Does anyone really want to be buying mini display port adapters so they can use the output of their Nikon? Don't think so.

edit: It would have been really nice though if Nikon had included some sort of locking interface with their HDMI out and a special cable - easily still could be compatible with normal HDMI. Looks like well have to stick to gaffers tape for now

 

[Zephyrnoid]

I think its all pretty obvious we just want SDI.

Definitely would not want any apple proprietary BS. Does anyone really want to be buying mini display port adapters so they can use the output of their Nikon? Don't think so.

I think you pretty much summed this all up. Sounds like the next chapter in the evolution of the DVSLR is a serious re-think by Nikon/Canon about the I/O interface.
There's only so much suckering you can do of 'trust fund babies' before they realize they've been taken for a ride.
meaning that leading customers to believe that HDMI is the way to go for Uncompressed 8Bit 'RAW' when Nikon at least, knows darn well it's just pushing a display connection to milk whatever they can from customers. The entry cost of near broadcast quality HD at 4:2:2 out of a DSLR is approaching $6K for something like a D800. Add external recorder and you're nudging $8K (no media included).
Me? I just want to at least improve on the lens, rolling shutter and compression artifacts and constraints of this.....
https://vimeo.com/6861235

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

... The entry cost of near broadcast quality HD at 4:2:2 out of a DSLR is approaching $6K for something like a D800. Add external recorder and you're nudging $8K (no media included). ...

Confused by this. A D800 is $3K US.

An external recorder appropriate for use with the D800 can cost as little as $1K US (Ninja), plus the cost of relatively inexpensive HDDs, or if you need it, more expensive SSDs.

The above combination yields 8-bit (in a 10-bit file) 4:2:2 recorded at up to >200 megabits/sec., and doesn't total anywhere near $8K US.

If you were factoring-in the costs of other typical/options, such as add-on EVF/monitors, rigs, etc., then yes, that stuff adds up quickly. But these items are not unique to DSLR video production.

Were you referring to something else? Cheers.