Reel-Stream now taking orders for Andromeda

jrv3034 said:
Also, if you can uprez the Andromeda footage to 2K, why can't you uprez the HVX footage also? Apples to apples.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree....if you got the 1080p from the HVX...you can uprez the Andromeda footage to 1080p. Of course you can uprez both.

If what you guys say is true about the HVX variable frame rate...etc...I misunderstood the FAQ of the HVX.

I'm not trying to put down HVX and boost the Andromeda...I thought they were different options.

So, can you record any format on the P2? Perse can you record DVCPRO HD 1080p on the P2 cards? Or is the 1080p DVCPRO HD only optional when using the harddrive? If you can....that would be a great options.

Because I misunderstood the FAQ....can someone tell me the limitations on using the P2 cards compared to the firestore option...or they're might not me any limitations.

All in all...do I like the features of the HVX? Yes
Am I going to get one? Yes...but not now. I dont have $7k.
Do I regret getting the Andromeda? No
Will I get rid of my Andromeda? Not likely. If the powerbook and firewire drives was only for the Andromeda...then yes. But I'm going to install Final Cut use it as a portable editing station and I can use the firewire drives with my PC computer without any problems.
 
Nope, there's no limitations to P2 cards. Only thing is space since they're only in 2, 4, and 8gb sizes at the moment, which means less recording time the higher the resolution goes. Hence the talk of Firestores and other device solutions to allow for more recording time.

No problem with the Andromeda if you can handle it. Great idea and I hope for the best with future progress onto other cameras.
 
If you use the Andromeda to get latitude, or color, that's greater than the sdv standards then you can only use that footage for hi-def projection-TV's, or film out, right? Because you'll have to clip the whites once you put it on a dvd, or the whites will get clipped by the NTSC standards box maker filter thing in the TV or player, no?
 
I think that the market will dictate pricing in the long term.

I don't see the Andromeda mod as competing with the HVX-200 . . . if you consider what both are best at they're really two different animals.

I'm not likely (unless I get really lucky) to have to worry about either of my current projects making it to 35mm. And while I'm lucky enough to have a decent number on Rush's list and should see a camera in the coming weeks, I am nothing short of impressed by what Juan & Company have accomplished and having done so without the resources of a mega-corporation. As I do each of you, I wish to him all the sucsess possible, and a safe & happy new year!
 
andromeda mod + ps technik mini35 = great looking images.
idk, its alot of money to dump into a camera but if your happy with it why not??
 
I wonder how much it's gonna cost as soon as someone pulls the thing apart and finds out how easy it actually is to make. I bet it's "just" a matter of hooking up a standard-chip somewhere in the compression chain and throw a USB-2 controller into the mix.
 
tlorenzo said:
I wonder how much it's gonna cost as soon as someone pulls the thing apart and finds out how easy it actually is to make. I bet it's "just" a matter of hooking up a standard-chip somewhere in the compression chain and throw a USB-2 controller into the mix.
Click to expand...
and finding out how to do it in the first place and writing a software and testing everything and starting a company to make it available...
yeah seems pretty easy...........................
how many mini35 diy/rival products would there be without the initial p+s technik adapter?
 
Spartacus said:
and finding out how to do it in the first place and writing a software and testing everything and starting a company to make it available...
yeah seems pretty easy...........................
how many mini35 diy/rival products would there be without the initial p+s technik adapter?
Click to expand...

That's a good point, Spartacus... Someone needs to be first-movers - and hats off to the ones that are. I'm just hoping for a more affordable solution in the near future :-)

Tony
 
I thought I would chime in, i'm happy to answer any other questions you may have about Andromeda, Sculptor and how it all works.

A few words about what takes to do this, just about everything was designed from the ground up. The software, the hardware design, etc. It wasn't something you can just buy off the shelf and drop in there, and it has to be custom-designed to fit in the very limited space inside the camera. Our entire hardware is only about 2 mm thick.
It is also Patent Pending. :)

Cheers,
Juan
 
I think I may be in the category of "gear heads" that want to get every bit of goodness from my DVX. But yeah, 3K is pushing it. plus I'd have to buy a new computer.

I think I've seen a setup with a mac mini attached to the back of the DVX, and it looked pretty portable. Would that work well?
 
Hello,

I'd thought i'd chime in and answer a few points about Andromeda. First of all, we did not create Andromeda to compete with prosumer cameras such as the HVX. Andromeda, as you have pointed out, is a different type of system, it has to be connected to a laptop for recording. We never even remotely planned on competing with the HVX and thus competing in sales numbers with Panasonic. That's just not what we are about, and we've made that clear.

I think you have already mentioned the possible disadvantages of Andromeda if you want to be completely portable, you are correct. However, Andromeda still provides some superior specifications over the HVX and other cameras, including increased dynamic range, full color sampling and absence of compression.

To illustrate an example of this, a forum member recently posted a comparison of the chroma channel between Andromeda and HDV and HVX footage here:
http://forum.reel-stream.com/viewtopic.php?t=338

It seems the opinion here that our success is based around how many systems we sell as opposed to Panasonic HVX's. That couldn't be farther from the truth. We know our application is specialized and that an HVX has a wider range of applications because it is a much broader brush so to speak. Our system, however, has some superior specifications at still a unique price point, despite how many $6-$10k+ heavily compressed cameras are released.

If somebody releases a 4:4:4 Uncompressed 10-bit camera with 9.5+ stops of dynamic range at $3-6k tomorrow, then this situation will change. But until then, we're the lowest cost alternative that provides these specifications. If you disagree, i'd like to hear what system produces uncompressed 4:4:4 10-bit footage with this much dyanmic range for even close to this price point.

Simply put, we are providing a tool that didn't exist before. Like every other tool, it isn't -the- tool for everybody, but it certainly is useful to those who want this kind of footage and mold it to match their vision.

Cheers,
Juan
 
What is a good way to sum up the attributes of Andromeda? If the common denominator for video is reproduction quality, what will viewer's notice? Say... compared to the quality of miniDV, dvcpro and HVX, what is Andromeda's obvious appreciable quality?

jmf
 
While you are thinking about the effective difference offered by Andromeda (no artifacts, increase in dynamic range, etc.), can you provide a step by step procedure for editing uncompressed video with Final Cut? I mean will non-linear editors recognize/import uncompressed source material that can be edited in the timeline? If possible I would rather avoid the step of exporting a dv format from sculptorhd and substituting at final copy. Just out of curiosity what is the typical difference in size between the uncompressed file and a dv file?

jmf
 
Hello jmfox,

There are several noticeable qualities when compared to compressed footage, and the link I posted above is one example. The images in that post show the color content of several different compressed formats compared to Andromeda. The color in Andromeda footage is untouched by decimation and compression. The color in compressed(DV, HDV, DVCPRO) footage looks more like chunky blocks and sometimes it is even hard to make up an image without looking at the original.

I'd sum up the added attributes of the uncompressed footage from Andromeda as the following:

- Increased Dynamic Range: Andromeda captures 2-2.5 stops of light more into the highlights. What this means to the viewer is that(for one) you can make your footage more film-like by rolling off the highlights(shoulder) as film does. We are all familiar with the hard clipping that immediately identifies video as opposed to film. By having extra headroom in the highlights this pushes the characteristics of Andromeda footage more towards the desired characteristics which film already has, such as wide dynamic range. Note that this rolloff approach is only one option of what you can do with that extra dynamic range. You dont -have- to use it in that way, as you are free to color-correct as you wish. With compressed footage you are limited to how the camera does it internally and what options the manufacturer chooses to give you in the menus.

- No compression: This not only means that the viewer does not see compression artifacts(blockies, etc)...but more important, the viewer sees what YOU wanted him/her to see. This is because you can do drastic color correction (as is done with film) without degrading the footage, and thus mold it to match YOUR vision, rather than settle for the little room that compressed footage allows, or what the manufacturer decides to give you control over. I am sure that everyone who has tried to color correct compressed footage knows that you can only push it so far before it looks like crap. No compression means you are free to color correct as far as you want, without being limited to what the scene settings allow and doing it at shooting time.

- 4:4:4 Full color sampling: Decimation is responsible for some of the artifacts you see in those chroma image examples, not only compression is to blame. Think about it this way...of the 720x480 pixels the DVX normally records to DV tape, the color only has 180x480 resolution because of the 4:1:1 decimation. I think it is obvious that this compromise is fine for some work, but not if you want to do color correction or emulate the high color definition of film. The decimation originated and is used in the video world to reduce bandwidth, by getting rid of it we move another step closer to the way film is treated digitally.

-Increased resolution: I don't think I have to explain this much, yet this seems to be the only characteristic some people pick up on. Many seem to just throw cameras in the 'SD' or 'HD' bucket, and the performance of all cameras in a bucket are only judged on lines of resolution. I think many would almost cry if the HVX resolved less lines than the Canon XL-H1, etc. There are MANY other characteristics that affect an image besides resolution, and if you add up everything, an increase in something such as dynamic range will yield a more filmlike image than an increase in resolution. This is because the resolution of a cinema print is about 600-800 lines which even good SD cameras approach or match...however if you look at other qualities such as dynamic range and chroma resolution, most cameras(even many very expensive ones) are mediocre at best when compared to film.

-Increased color precision: Andromeda allows you to use the full 12-bits in whatever way you wish by means of user-defined curves(LUTs). What this means to the viewer is smooth colors(no mach banding artifacts, again more film-like), and to you it means even more color-correcting freedom.

Another advantage that generates a significant impact in the quality the viewer sees, is the fact that if you are distributing your work in a compressed format for broadcast, or DVD for example, you only compress -once-. With the usual workflow, you would take already pounded-on compressed footage, pound on it some more with color-correction, edit it, and then pound on it again with DVD compression. With uncompressed footage, color correction doesn't degrade the footage because there are no artifacts, and the footage is only compressed when it is ready for distribution. Again, just like film.

Hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions.
Juan
 
Hello Juan. I've been following your progress since its inception and I am quite excited by the prospects the Andromeda offers. Would you explain to us a real-workflow scenario from shooting to final delivery of let's say a music video which ends up on DVD or possibly broadcasted in cable tv. Also, How would a Decklink Extreme or AJA Kona LHe (on a PC) fit into this workflow.
Thank you.
 
Hello,

When talking about workflow, I like to point out that Andromeda works more like a film camera than a video system. As with a 35mm cineon film scan, you have access to full bandwidth RGB uncompressed images for each single frame, which can be logarithmically encoded.

With a typical film process, there are commonly two types of footage:
1.)High-quality 2K or 4K images, scanned frame by frame: These high-quality scans are typically used for digital color correction or effects work.
2.)Telecine:this is a lower quality video, which is basically a video shot of the projection of the film. This video is a LOT smaller(data size wise) than the high-quality scans, and is commonly used for editing as most computer systems cannot handle 2K or 4K editing in realtime(The same goes for the full-quality Andromeda frames which are about 1.5K frame size.). Once editing is done, an edit-decision-list(EDL) can be generated which is then used to generate the final edit with the actual film.

With Andromeda, you work in a similar manner, except that both the high quality frames AND the 'telecine' video can be exported in the same manner using the Sculptor software.

When you first record using our system, the data is recorded into a raw file. Every time you press Start and then Stop recording, a single file is created which contains all the raw data for that take. Think of this file as your 'film negative'. As long as you don't delete it, it contains all the information and you can export from it as many times as you'd like.

Once you have the raw data or 'film negatives' recorded, you can export standard media files from it using many different formats. For example, you can choose to export individual images for each frame, similar to a film scan. You can export in a multitude of popular image formats such as TIFF, PNG, BMP, GIF, JPG, JPG2K, CIN, etc. If the format is lossless/uncompressed(such as TIFF), then the exported frames will contain all the information available in the original raw data.

You can also choose to export an actual Quicktime movie clip, similar to obtaining a 'telecine' video tape. However, the difference is that Sculptor supports all Quicktime codecs installed on the computer, so the movie clip need not be of inferior quality, as there are lossless/uncompressed codecs such as Apple 'None' or codecs included with video capture cards. Any codec that you normally see in your FCP or Shake export codec box, you can use in Sculptor.

Essentially, we give you total freedom as to what you want to do with the footage. And as such, the workflow options are varied, so I will give you a few examples:

1.) Suppose you are going for a 35mm film-out. Once you have recorded the footage, you export from Sculptor two versions of the footage: one in an uncompressed Cineon(.cin) file sequence, and another in Quicktime compressed clips(say, H.264). You use the Quicktime clips to edit in FCP, and create an EDL. Once you are done editing, you replace the low quality Quicktime footage with the high-quality Cineon frames, which you have color-corrected separately. The process of printing this data to film is identical to the standard final print from 2K/4K scans which have been processed by an effects house, for example. It's done all the time.

2.)Suppose you are going for a DVD, but you want to take advantage of the uncompressed footage for color-correction while mantaining a video workflow. Then, you export from Sculptor at SD resolution a set of Quicktime clips which can be encoded using an uncompressed codec such as 'Apple None' or one of the codecs included with your capture card. The quicktime clips are then just dropped into FCP, and can be color-corrected in FCP, or can be color-corrected in another software such as Shake. Because the video is uncompressed, all the color-correction and editing is done in an uncompressed space so there are no compression artifacts or decimation. The only compression stage is when you compress the final edit with the DVD compression, usually using an app such as 'Compressor' which comes with FCP.

These are only two examples, the workflow you use mainly depends on what distribution format you are targetting.

Cheers,
Juan
 
What would be the size of the Quicktime clip in example number 2 compared to the size of miniDV?

Since the media is already on a hard drive, I assume there is no need for a special capture card, true?

Also, what would be the best tape format to preserve the most quality. I'm trying to get an idea of what it takes to get this stuff to the TV station.

jmf
 
The size would depend on the codec used, and also remember that the chips on the DVX are 770x492, of which only 720x480 is normally used for DV. However, Andromeda allows you to record the full 770x492 CCD area on each chip, so normally it is best to take advantage of all the pixels even when working SD. If, for example, we are talking a codec that is uncompressed 8-bit RGB, then you get about 27MBytes/sec at 24fps with this resolution. If you crop or resize to 720x480 before encoding then it'll be less. Remember that there are lossless compression codecs out there, which can retain all the quality but encode at a smaller size.

You are correct in that you do not -need- a video capture card. However, if you wish to edit in a lossless/uncompressed space, many cards include their own codecs and are already setup for editing in this manner. Thus, you can use your card's codec to export from sculptor and then edit the footage using the hardware on the card for playback, etc. The possibilities are all there, it all depends on how you want to work with the footage, given the resources you have and your target format.

About a tape format, the first thing to remember is that if you are doing any color correction or effects work you already have a gargantuan advantage because normally you would start off with already compressed footage, work on it and then re-compress it again to tape. This repeated degradation of your footage has a huge effect on quality. That said, it is pretty well known what the quality heirarchy of tape formats is...for example we all know DVCPRO50 is better than DVCPRO25, etc. If you are going with a tape format(and have a choice), pick the one that has the least decimation and compression ratio so you retain as much information as possible.

I like to always cite the example of movies most of us watch on DVD. DVD uses some very heavy compression, but the movies look great on most SD monitors not only because the aquisition format is good but because everything is kept clean and uncompressed, and 'mastered' just like audio is, so it performs best on the target compressed format.

I find it funny that this has been common practice and knowledge in the audio world, but manufacturers conveniently tell professionals that it is OK to work on heavily compressed footage and everything will be fine. If some manufacturer told professionals in the audio world to start their next mastering project with lossy samples they'd laugh in their faces. :D

Cheers,
Juan
 
It seems that for an idea to succeed it must fit into the practical world. The lesson of the segway (gyro scooter) is that revolutionary products must create their own way or fit into the world as we know it. Having a perfect picture that cannot be readily deliver is no different than a scooter without a path to follow. Segway's were not accepted on streets or walk ways which frustrated widespread acceptance. Currently the Seqway is being improved with all terrain capabilities but the road to acceptance will be much longer than originally anticipated.

As for Andromeda, SculptureHD is only half the solution. The final step is a means of delivery that interfaces with existing storage equipment. That is, adding $3k to an DV camera that will require a $100k deck (etc.) is not a workable formula. This brings us back to the whole reason for compression in the first place.

So what exactly was the market you envisioned? Was it a well equipped studio that could now buy cheap cameras, or was it a small production company that would be willing to invest in an upgrade of quality at a cost of $3k plus $100k? Neither choice is practical, but the latter has more to gain. All that is needed is a delivery method. For it to make sense for me I would need a device, possibly a portable drive format, that will interface with decks commonly available in station environments to accept the size that quality requires. You see the problem is not only obtaining quality but creating a workable and deliverable process for quality. If your only market is DVX100 to 35 film then you're done, but I suspect that the larger market is quality video.

jmf
 
You seem to be making the assumption that you need a high-quality tape or distribution format to have a considerable increase in final quality. You are also assuming that when somebody shoots on miniDV or DVCPROHD, color-correct the footage and then re-compress it to tape, that they are no repeatedly pounding on the footage and degrading it, or that starting out with uncompressed will not yield a better result. I certainly understand why this is hard to see, as lossy compressed is for the most part all that is available.

The bottom line is this: acquiring in an uncompressed format will yield better results when compared to the same camera going to a native lossy format. This holds true -regardless- of what your target format is, and whether it is compressed or not. It could be a miniDV tape, it could be an internet clip, it could be digiBeta. This is a known fact, which is why digital cinema cameras work uncompressed, and why film DI is done in an uncompressed or lossless space.

Furthermore, you can do things with uncompressed footage that you can't do well or at all with lossy footage, regardless of what format you are finally going to. The quality of the keying and composition is much better. You can achieve looks through color-correction that you can't reach from the same lossy footage because of artifacts and decimation.

I'm an engineer so i'm not going to sit here and talk business strategy, but what I can do is give you examples of who is already using our system:

-Indie Filmmakers. The system gives them an acquisition system with more film-like qualities such as wide-dynamic range that cannot be obtained from any other system under $65k+. This system also gives them a great level versatility in what distribution mediums they can target. They can export to compressed tape formats, internet or even film, only compressing if it is required for distribution.

-Video professionals doing commercial spots and greenscreen work. Our system offers full-bandwidth uncompressed footage which is the optimum type of footage for keyeing and other effects work. The uncompressed footage and the additional qualities also allow a much wider range of creative freedom.

-Professionals working on effects and compositing for high-end films. Cameras such as the DVX are used all the time by effects houses to record elements which are composited on to film. For example, in the movie 'War of the Worlds' DVX's where used to record elements such as walking people to be composited onto hills for wide shots. For these professionals, purchasing a huge complex uncompressed camera system to record a small element to be composited is simply too expensive and not practical. Usually, they deal with the compromise of compressed video footage, but now they do not have to compromise anymore. They can now acquire 4:4:4 uncompressed to be perfectly composited on to a scene to be printed to film. Without having to break the bank or haul a truck full of drives around. They can also give that recorded element(s) the look that best matches their vision without having to be limited by compression and decimation.

Hope this answers some of your questions. As I said before, we are very aware that this is a specialized product, and it is not ideal for everyone. There are many situations in which a camera such as the HVX will work best. But our goal is not to fill the street with Segways, or with HVX's. We offer a specialized product which does many things that no other product in this price range does.

Cheers,
Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top