Record uncompressed 14-bit (4:4:4) on your HVX200

Well, assuming that the selected shutter speed is valid at 60fps, off the top of my head I see no reason why that same shutter speed cannot be mantained across the entire ramp. The maximum possible frame rate of 60fps has the tightest open-shutter time restrictions, obviously because the frames are closer to each other in time. However, if you have a valid shutter time setting at 60fps, ramping to/from lower frame rates is not an issue with exposure because it allows for even more slack time between frames which permits that exact same shutter time.

Cheers,
Juan
 
Thanks Juan, cleared my own confusion. Reboot the brain, dispelled syncroscan thinking. :badputer: When we did the Varicam/Varispeed test, DP likely had the shutter set to degrees.
 
I've just spent a couple of hours reading through this thread... OMG! A 2k RAW HVX! A mini-Red?! :)

Hell, I'd be happy with an older DVX with the andromeda mod - use the money I saved on getting the HVX to built a workstation that can handle it!
 
Question: Would you prefer...

1.)The standard REC button on the HVX to be linked to the Hydra record control,

2.)A new 'RUN' button be added on the side of the camera solely to control uncompressed recording, separately from P2/miniDV recording.

Cheers,
Juan
 
Just wondering though - How would a Hyrda HVX200 compare to the Canon XH-G1 (with its built in ability to output RAW HD)? I would of thought that after the Hydra conversion the cost would come out fairly similar (but with a voided warranty on the Panasonic).

Thoughts?
 
pertierr said:
Question: Would you prefer...

1.)The standard REC button on the HVX to be linked to the Hydra record control,

2.)A new 'RUN' button be added on the side of the camera solely to control uncompressed recording, separately from P2/miniDV recording.

Cheers,
Juan
Click to expand...

I'd vote for option 1
 
Originally Posted by pertierr
Question: Would you prefer...

1.)The standard REC button on the HVX to be linked to the Hydra record control,

2.)A new 'RUN' button be added on the side of the camera solely to control uncompressed recording, separately from P2/miniDV recording.

Cheers,
Juan
Click to expand...

I would like option 1.
 
Grug said:
Just wondering though - How would a Hyrda HVX200 compare to the Canon XH-G1 (with its built in ability to output RAW HD)? I would of thought that after the Hydra conversion the cost would come out fairly similar (but with a voided warranty on the Panasonic).

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
XHG1 is going to be putting out 8-bit video, Hydra does 14-bit. And XHG1 is going to be 24F or 30F or 60i only, whereas Hydra is variable-frame-rate.

On the other hand, XHG1 uses an industry-standard HD-SDI connection, vs. Hydra's proprietary connection, so if you're wanting to use it in conjunction with something like an HD-SDI switcher then the XHG1 would have an advantage there.
 
pertierr said:
Question: Would you prefer...

1.)The standard REC button on the HVX to be linked to the Hydra record control,

2.)A new 'RUN' button be added on the side of the camera solely to control uncompressed recording, separately from P2/miniDV recording.

Cheers,
Juan
Click to expand...
Seems like option 1 makes more sense, and is simplest to use.

I can't think of a production scenario in which I'd want Hydra uncompressed footage only,
with no P2 footage for audio/reference or off-line. Plus, I'd want my P2 "backup" or reference
audio clips to exactly match the timecode of my uncompressed clips.
Wouldn't having to hit two separate REC buttons complicate that?
In what scenario would it be useful to have a separate 'REC' button?

Thanks for the great work Juan! :thumbsup:
 
1 please.

I don't want another button on me camera. =( That Auto Iris button makes too much trouble for my hands as i tis.
 
Barry_Green said:
XHG1 is going to be putting out 8-bit video, Hydra does 14-bit. And XHG1 is going to be 24F or 30F or 60i only, whereas Hydra is variable-frame-rate.

On the other hand, XHG1 uses an industry-standard HD-SDI connection, vs. Hydra's proprietary connection, so if you're wanting to use it in conjunction with something like an HD-SDI switcher then the XHG1 would have an advantage there.
Click to expand...


and why do you think that after pertierr and his crew did all that work to come up with this awesome product had to choose ethernet as the output connector why not the industry standard HD-SDI ?
and why not offer a version of it with both outputs?

I guess this question is for pertierr.
 
How would you connect HD-SDI to a laptop without extra hardware?
The good thing about ehternet is that virtually any computer/laptop already has it or it can be equiped with one at a very low cost.....
 
I think it's Gigabit Ethernet... not every computer or laptop has this. I think within the last two years maybe, last year or so?
 
3xm said:
How would you connect HD-SDI to a laptop without extra hardware?
The good thing about ehternet is that virtually any computer/laptop already has it or it can be equiped with one at a very low cost.....
Click to expand...


that is well known but tell me have you ever seen or known of a Gigabit ethernet video switch.
 
Hello,

and why do you think that after pertierr and his crew did all that work to come up with this awesome product had to choose ethernet as the output connector why not the industry standard HD-SDI ?
Click to expand...

First I should point out that gigE Vision is an industry standard just like HD-SDI is, it is not proprietary.

Second, taking into consideration that this system is meant to be affordable, there is no advantage whatsoever to using HD-SDI:

1. It would make the setup more expensive. Instead of being able to use the system on any laptop or computer that has gigabit ethernet, you would need a desktop computer and purchase an HD-SDI capture card that is capable of dual-link RGB. It is hard to imagine a setup where the computer you have to work with has dual HD-SDI but no gigabit ethernet! And if for some weird space-time paradox you don't have it, you can run to best-buy and get a gigabit ethernet card for peanuts. :cheesy:

2. There are no image quality advantages, both links would transfer all the data. HD-SDI will be more inefficient because we would have to format our data to fit into one of the SMPTE standards, so the signal would be 'fatter' but not any better. Fitting the non-standard 2.2k image into a SMPTE standard will also be an unwanted challenge.

3. It would require a dual-link HD-SDI which means two coaxial cables as opposed to one gigabit ethernet cable. Lots more data overhead with no increase in quality.

and why not offer a version of it with both outputs?
Click to expand...

No advantages, yet makes the system more expensive for the end customer.

vincent65 said:
How long can the cable be?
Click to expand...

Up to 328 feet (100 meters).

Cheers,
Juan@reel-stream.com
 
Well my laptop has a gigabit Ethernet interface. It's a PC, though. Core 2 Duo make a difference?

And it's all ones and zeros. Right?
 
That's why I'm hoping the Reel-Stream team can support both platforms this go around, seeing as how their test platform is Intel based, it should be totally plausible yeah?

Being able to run a PC laptop would be good. My only qualm with Macbooks or any laptop is the max ram you can cram into one. 2gb's is just not enough for me while using Mac programs.
 
Kholi said:
That's why I'm hoping the Reel-Stream team can support both platforms this go around, seeing as how their test platform is Intel based, it should be totally plausible yeah?

Being able to run a PC laptop would be good. My only qualm with Macbooks or any laptop is the max ram you can cram into one. 2gb's is just not enough for me while using Mac programs.
Click to expand...

Mac really ought to start utilizing NTFS on their hard drives...

...Another reason for Juan to support PCs?:cheesy:

I bought a WD MyBook 1 TB RAID drive for on-the-road SD editing and a IOMEGA 500 Gig USB2 for storage. Niether one would store my finished files (because they were too big). It took me a while to realize they were both Mac/PC ready with FAT32 file system.

Reformatted and they both work great now.
 
BigMike said:
Mac really ought to start utilizing NTFS on their hard drives...

...Another reason for Juan to support PCs?:cheesy:

I bought a WD MyBook 1 TB RAID drive for on-the-road SD editing and a IOMEGA 500 Gig USB2 for storage. Niether one would store my finished files (because they were too big). It took me a while to realize they were both Mac/PC ready with FAT32 file system.

Reformatted and they both work great now.
Click to expand...

Actually, Mac has supported NTFS for several years now for reading capablilites as well as full support for FAT32. The reason there is no full support for writing to NTFS is that MicroSoft is MicroSoft and won't release the specs.

NTFS is a risky file-format in any case as there is no journaling option and directory linking is shaky at best. If you want uber compatability, capture on MAc in HFS+ format and pick up a copy of MacDrive for the PC. It will allow you to read and write to the HFS+ format on your PC.

Another reason why Apple rocks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top