Reel-Stream now taking orders for Andromeda

Juan, I've always thought Andromeda looked awesome. I ordered my DVX100b about a week ago (haven't received it yet, though :undecided ), so I'm plum broke so you can't expect an order from me anytime soon.

However, I'd like some clarification on the size ouput it gives. On the website, you say "up to 1540x990"

Can you adjust that so that it outputs a DV pixel sized image (still in the 4:4:4 color space of course)?

I'd love to have this, but I know I don't have the storage space to store HD files, but I'd still love 4:4:4 color space.

The price does seem a bit high to me, but I could see myself paying it for such awesome features.

Also, why isn't it possible to hook the andromeda to a "smart" recording device instead of a computer? I'm guessing that the program Sculptor HD captures the video as opposed to it just being written to a hardrive, but I'm not sure.

Wouldn't it be possible to make a small box that could attach to the base of the DVX that would do the same thing? It seems you did at one point, why'd you change it?
 
I see it as a smart enclosure that can accommodate any hard drive, maybe with a removable tray. The variations can include a dual setup to enable two cameras. Even better would be on-board firmware that provides on the fly conversion to usable formats. Delivery could then follow a normal path. Hmm... I guess I am forgetting about "pounding." So the smart enclosure would be best used to create a lossless conversion that a non-linear editing system can handle, and only then, after editing say a Quicktime movie, as you suggested, compression is used for output.

Here seems to be the greatest benefit of your accomplishment -Limiting, by controlling, the consequences of compression. By compressing only once, at output, the quality is improved and the path is unchanged. The only price is the additional hard drive space (I'm guess a factor of 5 and greater over miniDV and 3 or greater over DVCPro), and the time to load and render large files in a non-linear editing system. Can you suggest how much larger uncompressed files are compared to compressed (I guess I'm asking you to do the math, e.g. 50 minutes of miniDV footage is about 10gig versus... 81gig for uncompressed 8bit? So a 50 minute uncompressed quicktime clip will be 81 gig? Have you tried to put this into a Final Cut timeline? (Actually, rather than a factor of 8, I have heard by those who work with 1080p24 4:4:4 that the multiple factor is more like 53x to 132.7x as much. This would be a very high price indeed to pay in disk space and rendering time, etc.)

jmf
 
jmfox:

A 100Gb HD will give you about 1hr of 4:4:4 Uncompressed 24P footage at 1540x984(NTSC pixels).

About dropping a 81GB file into a timeline, that's just not done. What you are talking about here is not specific to Andromeda, it is an issue with any system that records Uncompressed and thus the files are large because they contain a lot of information. There are plenty of techniques used everyday by professionals to handle large footage, one of them is to use offline footage which is encoded such that it is manageable. Again, this is done all the time with film and high-end digital cinema systems, and all the editing software systems support it, including FCP.

The issues you talk about are always going to be there when you have good quality uncompressed footage. Files ARE going to be large, and if you want to render to full-quality uncompressed, then processing times will be longer than if you are rendering to, say, DV.

The point is, with our system YOU have the options. If you are going to DV, you can render to DV, while keeping far superior quality, color and latitude than the standard DV footage workflow from tape. We give you access to the maximum possible quality that the hardware can capture. The standard DV output throws away over 85% of the information originally captured. We just give you access to all of it, and you decide what to do.
 
Virum:

The CCD's on the DVX are NTSC, so the maximum 1540x984 frame size is indeed at NTSC pixels. This means that if you resize the 1540x984 image while mantaining the aspect ratio, the image will look correct on an NTSC monitor.

If you wish to go to a square pixel format such as HD, it is a simple matter of resizing by a factor of 90% in the horizontal direction. You can also expand in the vertical direction. The resulting image will look correct in square pixel displays. For example, resizing a 1540x984(NTSC) image to 1386x984 will give you square pixels.

The reason why you can't connect Andromeda to a 'smart' device such as a USB On-The-Go device is because they can't handle the bandwdith. USB is capable of supporting up to 56Mbyte/sec. We designed Andromeda to support this. However, we found that none of the USB devices out there come even close to supporting the full bandwidth...the fastest of them peak out at 30Mbyte/sec.

When we began commerical development of Andromeda, we presented the public with the two possible setups, one of which was a box under the camera. The box was met with thorough rejection because it changed the form-factor of the camera and prevented mounting accessories such as a mini35 adapter. Everybody wanted the form-factor to remain intact, and just have an extra port to use if they needed 4:4:4 Uncompressed. They wanted the device to not affect any functionality or battery usage of the camera. This is exactly what we did.
 
Juan, I wish you'd kept that box design, or at least created both options. I think there's a lot of people out there who would've put up with the box under the DVX, or even with a portable box connected with a cable rather than having a more cumbersome Macmini solution.
 
Hello Isaac,

I understand your point, however when you start thinking about the other things that box would need to do, here are a few:

-It needs it's own battery.
-It needs controls on it for recording, mode selection, and a screen.
-It needs outputs to monitor HD, analog? HD-SDI? etc.
-It probably would've needed to be at least a 2-drive RAID array...you can imagine the battery it would need to drive those drives. It would've made the camera a LOT heavier and clumsier.

These are just a few concerns...add that up with the fact that it would've cost a LOT more than the current approach, and it would've end up being considerably more expensive, which really was a big reason for using this approach. We wanted this to be as affordable as we could make it.

We realize that it is considerably less expensive for those who already own a DVX, and even already own a mac computer...we took that into consideration.

However, if you think about it, building a box under the DVX that does these things is exactly the same as building an HD camera, minus the CCD's and lens mount! It would've been considerably more expensive, so we decided to make it as affordable as possible.

Like I said, we are aware that this is not -the- solution for everybody, but then again, what is? :D

BTW, still a big fan of your old avatar. :)

Cheers,
Juan
 
In order to obtain maximum quality in a miniDV format, would it be necessary to edit uncompressed video, or would it be just as good to edit in a lossless or lesser compressed format and output to miniDV? (E.g. begin with uncompressed, edit in DVCPRO and output as miniDV.) Can you provide an example of miniDV output that compares normal miniDV images with those that began as uncompressed footage? The niche here may be DVX100 to HD.

jmf
 
jmfox:

In order to mantain the maximum amount of information when targetting miniDV, you want to work in an uncompressed/lossless space. This does not mean that you HAVE to edit with actual uncompressed footage, although this is not a feat when working SD. You can always use compressed offline footage and render the final with uncompressed footage.

I'm not really sure what you mean by an example of miniDV output, can you please clarify the question?
 
I would like to compare the difference between the output produced by the typical process (miniDV captured, edited and printed) as oppose to Andromeda uncompressed capture, edit and output to miniDV). You have many comparisons of results produced from a totally uncompressed process, compared to the typical compressed process; I would like to see the quality that is possible in a mixture that begins as uncompressed and leaves as compressed. Your previous posts suggest increase quality for Andromeda to miniDV. An example of this is what I would like to see.

jmf
 
Ah, i see what you are saying.

What normally occurs inside the camera is that the raw RGB footage is first converted to (usually) uncompressed 4:2:2 YUV in 10 or more bits, and then all the operations are done on the footage, the last of which is the MPEG compression layer. All these hard-coded operations have pre-set parameters, and a very small level of variation given to the user, for example in the scene settings, etc.

For example, the DVX normally cuts off about 2 stops of top-end information and you have no say about that.

It's easy to find out how miniDV output looks. We have several uncompressed samples on our website, some are even included raw log so you can do your own color correction. You can drop these in your software, resize it down, and export in DV to get an idea of what it looks like. I suggest using the log RAW, as many codecs tend to have an effect on the tonality of the footage( make it darker, etc), so you can color correct the uncompressed frame to make it look exactly like you want it to look once it is compressed.

Cheers,
Juan
 
That much I new. Where exactly are the downloads is the problem. When I follow your web site links to the designated download page, nothing is listed.

jmf
 
Must be a bug in the page, what link exactly are you clicking on?

Alternatively, you can download a full-quality uncompressed still from the Gallery->Still samples. You can download a color-corrected sample, or I suggest you download the raw log version and color-correct it your self. You can drop it in a timeline and export it as DV to get an idea of what the DV output will look like.

Cheers,
Juan
 
Here's a direct link to the still page:

http://www.reel-stream.com/gallery_thumbs.php?gallery_type=0

Remember that at full size and quality, each frame is about 4.3MByte. Even posting a short clip in a frame sequence is very large. There for, our beta testers have sent in their clips in compressed formats. These formats themselves are good examples of what you are asking, how it all looks once compressed. Take a look at the "New commercial by Obin - shot on green screen" available on this page:

http://www.reel-stream.com/gallery_thumbs.php?gallery_type=1

This was shot and composited/color corrected in uncompressed, and then compressed to WMV standard definition. I think even through the high compression you can see how good the keying is due to the 4:4:4 and absence of artifacts, and how clean the color correction is.

Cheers,
Juan
 
Hey Juan congrats on completing the mission. I followed you way back when you first started on dvinfo. Being that the R&D is done relating to the DVX, what are the obstacles you face doing this mod for the HVX. I mean Panasonic has left a window open with regards to the 4:4:4 uncompressed world. I think if it is feasible you should accelerate a mod for the HVX200. If its doable in a 6 month time window, you should definitely move ahead and offer both models. Keep up the good work. Regards.
 
Hello Ernest,

Thanks for your comments. :)

The situation with the HVX is tricky for several reasons. First of all, from all the information we know so far(and i'm still waiting for good resolution charts from the HVX), the DVX100+Andromeda yields much wider dynamic range and at this point seems to resolve more lines both vertically and horizontally than the DVCPROHD output from the HVX.

There is no doubt that a mod for the HVX will yield some advantages such as the variable frame rates, and more color information. However, the amount of information due mainly to the 60fps is not manageable using standard computer technology as is the case with the DVX100 in 24fps. Instead of hooking to a standard computer or external hard drive using a consumer standard, we would probably have to make a compeltely custom recording solution which could end up being as complicated (and expensive) as building an actual camera. However this is just a preliminary comment, I will know better when I get to perform an autopsy on one. :)

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