Reel-Stream now taking orders for Andromeda

Not yet, although there very well might be in the future.

This is not because we simply decided so, it's because the NTSC version already uses the maximum bandwidth over USB currently supported by the hosts. That extra frame and the few extra lines kinda push it such that we could have to sacrifice some lines(letterbox) in order to make a PAL version with the current USB speeds.

Another point that many people don't realize, however, is that once you're working with Andromeda, there isn't really any NTSC/PAL since what you get are 24 uncompressed images per second. The difference is that you would get 25 images per second with the PAL version.

With PAL chips there are also some extra lines vertically, however, our tests of the NTSC DVX100 version show it resolving over 800 lines horizontally and about 750 vertically using a standard EIA resolution chart. Considering the output frame size is about 1540x984, there is plenty of room to mold the footage to target just about any distribution format.

Cheers,
Juan
 
That extra bit of latitude and colour would just be awesome, I honestly dont care that much for the resolution. People get more hung up on the numbers than what they can see with their own eyes. In photo land the amount of resolution you need depends upon the size of the print you make. The same should apply to video, if you view stuff on small screens at home you dont need the same resolution that you would require to project in a theatre. I know people down convert to get better images but that has as much to do with latitude and color not just resolution.
I would be very interested to see what people will produce with your great tool.I'm hoping that you will get a pal model running.
 
Hi Pertierr

First off I do agree with you that lattitude is more important than pure resolution in delivering a film -look.

Here's a question for you. It may be slightly defeating the object, but have you cosidered a way of streaming DVCPROHD out of your firewrie out? is that even possible. Just thinking, if you can get your andromeda to work with the upcoming firestore or the cineporter, it would make your solution portable. It would still have more dynamic range than the HVX and a similar pixel count. Existing DVX users may prefer the $3000 andromeda upgrade to purchasing a HVX (if variable frame rates were not an issue).

Just a thought - I dont know where I stand on this myself untill I see some more HVX footage. I mean, if you can get 9.5 stops out of a DVX with a HD image size, why could Panasonic not get this from the HVX? Is it to do with 8 bit codecs? if thats the case how come all films on DVD dont have their highlights clipped like video?
 
Hello Darkline,

You can export DVCPROHD once you have captured the uncompressed footage...however I wouldn't even consider streaming compressed footage because I think that just defeats the purpose like you say. Having 4:4:4 Uncompressed footage is a huge advantage and a unique one at that, because it allows a level of color correction freedom and quality that you can't get with the compressed cameras, among other things.

The limitation in dynamic range on the HVX(and other cameras) can arise from several things. First, the 'pixels' on the sensors are smaller than those on the DVX, so that could easily yield less dynamic range. Second, the fact that the camera is a pre-packaged solution designed to comply with standards, it is not uncommon to compromise dynamic range to make data fit on those 8-bits, given that there are a very limited number of settings available to the user.

In fact, the reason why the films don't have clipped highlights on DVD as you say, is a result of working with uncompressed footage with wide latitude, a quality that you get with Andromeda(but you wouldn't get if it streamed some compressed format). With film, you get uncompressed, full color scans which you can color correct and 'master' for the distribution format, in this case DVD. You are right in that it is hard to fit all X stops of film onto a DVD, but having uncompressed footage allows you to decide which of those X stops make it on the DVD so it matches your vision. You only compress once(the DVD compression), instead of repeatedly pounding on the footage and adding more artifacts.

Cheers,
Juan
 
Cameras are designed to fit into practical work-flows. No doubt, the DVX100 design process was limited by miniDV tape storage. The HVX is the DVX concept updated without tape limitations. Practically speaking, uncompressed video is unworkable for all except deep pocket producers. The trick here is not to obtain quality at any cost, but to obtain quality in practical fashion. That is, new ideas must not only be inventive but must fit in to the current system in a way that advantages accepted technology. The typical DVX user cannot handle footage that is 4meg per frame. The cheapest storage would be DVD, but speed is a problem, the next best option is hard drive. Andromeda will have a very limited market unless it acknowledges and accommodates non-linear editing and delivery issues.

Could you imagine the excitement, if the DVX internal miniDV tape could be used to save higher quality Andromeda video; albeit a much shorter segment (maybe as much as a P2 card). Granted, it would not be uncompressed video, but it could be as good or better than the widely accepted DVCPRO.

jmf
 
Hello jmfox,

The typical DVX user cannot handle footage that is 4meg per frame.
Click to expand...

That's not what we've seen so far. Since Andromeda records on a hard disk, a standard, inexpensive 100Gb hard disk will hold an hour of footage. As far as I know we don't have a single user who has had to purchase a new editing system to handle the footage. They've used what they already have, PC or Mac.

This is not my opinion, it's what i've seen from experience. I speak with users of our system all the time who are not 'deep pocket producers' as you say, by any means. They are editing Andromeda footage using the exact same computer hardware they used to edit so far. I think you may be erroneously thinking that you actually have to edit using the full-quality footage.

For example, are you aware that there have been plenty of Hollywood movies originated on 35mm edited on standard off-the-shelf mac systems using the same FCP software many of us use? It's done all the time. This whole idea that you HAVE to edit the full-quality footage online is a myth. Hard disk storage is cheap.

There are different levels of practicality. In the current digital acuisition market, the tradeoff is usually between the level of practicality and creative freedom. For example, you can achieve a high level of portability and a practical delivery format with prosumer tape and ENG cameras, but you are sacrificing creative freedom by using a highly compressed format.

On the other end of the spectrum are high-end uncompressed cameras, such as the Thomson Viper. If you look at the setup used in actual movie shoots such as on the set for "Collateral", the setup was far from portable, it was hooked up to several trunk-sized raid arrays among other things. 35mm cameras themselves are more often than not tethered.

However, in a situation where the importance is on creative freedom and quality, rather than running the tape to a broadcast station, it is common to sacrifice some 'video world practicality' for greater quality in the output.

In the end, the people who watch your commercial, or effects shot, or movie, are not going to pay you based on how practical it was for you to shoot it. They are going to pay you based on how it looks, the message it conveys, how effectively it conveys it, and its artistic value. If you feel that you can convey your message with compressed footage, then you don't need our system.

I am plenty aware that there are many who use compressed cameras in situations where they need portable solutions and quick-to-broadcast footage. However, this is NOT what this system was designed for. This system was designed to provide the maximum possible QUALITY for the minimum cost. It's a tool. If you don't need the quality it provides, then this tool is not for you.

However, there are those who have been calling(for years) for more quality, for footage they can actually color-correct, for more dynamic range, for more resolution, for no artifacts, for an end to decimation, etc. To them, having a laptop hooked up to the camera is not really a point which justifies presenting a lower-quality final product.

Cheers,
Juan
 
You make an eloquent argument that your product is not for everyone. But is this an 'argument' you would like to win? Wouldn't your interests be better served by facilitating a storage solution? You see, there are many who would like to eliminate artifacts and decimation and obtain smart looking HD using DVX100s. I typically shoot 2 hours of video a day with each camera. The added expense would be two additional computers and field storage. Since there are no tapes I will need to be concerned about backup. Currently when my video is delivered, I delete digital copies and rely upon tape for backup. There is also the problem of delivering projects for broadcast. Currently miniDV tapes are used for transport.

It is not the price of Andromeda, but the expense of 4:4:4 and the chance of more things going wrong in a delicate chain of dependent electronics. What would be helpful is a smart enclosure with a solitary purpose. Many options are proprietary but what about things like this: http://www.mwave.com/mwave/skusearch.hmx?SCriteria=AA30310&CartID=done&nextloc=

This would mean that SculptureHD operate from firmware. Would this be a monumental task? As to having choices, why couldn't a customer select or choose DVCPRO quality, earlier rather than later? Is it possible to have a switch on the camera to choose between uncompressed (requires a computer) and DVCPRO (which requires only a hard drive). Such a switch would turn on a lot of business.

BTW, I see this more as brainstorming than argument.

jmf
 
jmfox:

Definitely. You are absolutely right that any increase in practicality would probably increase the size of the target user group. However, if there are any characteristics of the current design that might make it impractical for some people, it is not because I intended to make it impractical for anybody. Obviously we would like the product to go to as a wide number of users as possible. There is a good reason why it works as it does.

Andromeda is designed in this manner because this is a hard problem to solve, and this was the way that we could keep the cost as low as possible. As i've said before, of course I can sit down and design a completely custom raid array that you carry around on a separate bag, and a box under the camera that acts as a host, and has a screen for recording options, monitoring, etc. However, this is exactly the same as designing an HD camera, without including the sensors and lens! So you can imagine how much that would cost, and how much more complicated it would be to design(i.e. +time). It usually makes the concept impractical, because once done, you have 90% of a camera, and might as well add a lens mount and a sensor.

We wanted to keep this as affordable as possible, and if you look at how much the other Uncompressed 4:4:4 10-bit solutions cost, I think anybody will agree that we succeeded in doing this. Furthermore, if you look at the size and setup of those other 4:4:4 uncompressed solutions you will see that having a small laptop connected to an already tiny camera is not really that impractical a setup, considering the quality of the output.

Like I said, look at any movie set, you'll see tons of cables coming off the cameras. Do any of the directors decide to use a compressed camera just so there are no cables coming off of it? Of course not, because the cost in final quality would be too great, and it's all about what the final product looks like, not how practical it was for the operators.

You are also correct that a USB On-the-go solution (as the one you posted) should theoretically work, from a consumer point of view. However, what consumers don't know is that even though the box says "USB 2.0 480Mbps!!", in reality it is more like 200Mbps in the best of cases.

I specifically designed Andromeda to be capable of streaming up to the full USB 2.0 capability which is over 50Mbyte/sec. However, I haven't found a -single- other USB device or host that can do this, or even come close. In fact, i believe Andromeda to be the one of (if not the) fastest continuous-bandwidth USB 2.0 device in existence. What this means is that as the capability of USB 2.0 devices increase with time, Andromeda will be able to exploit them with no hardware changes.

USB allowed us to fit the entire device inside the camera, with only a port visible to the user. It also allowed us to make it bus-powered, and inexpensive. Instead of creating a complex, bulky and expensive new camera based around a DVX, we kept the same form-factor which everybody already loves, and simply expanded its capabilities. Our system gives complete access to the full quality available inside the camera. The user normally only sees about 13% or less of the 100% original information on the DV output.

Cheers,
Juan
 
Virum said:
One more question:

Can you record 30p and 60i for slow motion with the Andromeda?
Click to expand...
I did a search on your forums, and it seems that USB 2 doesn't have enough bandwidth.

Do you see yourself using Firewire 800 in the future and supporting at least 30p, and hopefully 60i?

I hope to be able to buy this in the future, but my feature calls for some slight slow motion (30p is perfect). I suppose I could rent an HVX for the day, but I won't have the 4:4:4 color space....
 
Well, Juan, this looks like the must-have add-on for DVX owners and I hope that it is successful and development can go into an HVX version for that user base and maybe other cameras both new (JVC HD100U, XLH1, FX1/Z1, ect.) and old (GL1/2, XL1S, JVC HD1/HD10U, Sony VX2100, ect.).

Really, if anybody has a DVX, I don't see why they don't take advantage of this optional upgrade while they can regardless of the price, it just seems like it would be really useful down the road especially for greenscreen work.
 
Juan,

You have climbed a very high mountain indeed, and deserve a long look; but my hope is that you will continue your pursuit of the holy grail of video. Just as you have revolutionized a revolutionary camera, I hope you will do the same for tapeless storage. Even an enhancement of SculptureHD to bring some of the features of DV Rack to OSX would go a long ways in giving wide acceptance to the Andromeda system.

jmf
 
Is there anyone currently using this technology for HD production? It would be interesting to hear an example of work-flow and see some results, maybe even a clip.

jmf
 
jmf,


We do have testers who have used Andromeda specifically for HD production.
I am in the process of compiling a detailed report of their workflow. Expect to
see this on our site in the next month or so.

Jeremy.
 
jmfox:

Ryan at Orocomo Pictures used Andromeda in shooting his short film "Lagrimas" which won 1st Prize and Best In Show at the Rasquache Film Festival.

In the next issue of 'Post' there is going to be an interview with one of our beta testers who is using Andromeda in a 2K workflow for a major motion picture that will be hitting theaters in 2007.

Another of our current users is planning on using Andromeda combined with an amazing setup and his very own Z-Box 35mm adapter to shoot his short film "The Amature":
http://www.reel-stream.com/gallery_individual.php?gallery_type=3&image_id=188

These are only a few people off the top of my head. A good place to ask other Andromeda users about what workflow they are currently using is our forum:
http://forum.reel-stream.com/

Hope this helps,
Juan
 
I did check out the forum and the site but did not find much on the subject of HD.

Looking forward to the work-flow report, and the next issue of 'Post'.

I'm surprised there isn't something to look at by now. If I had an Andromeda camera I would have something to look at in a day. Maybe not a Best In Show or a major motion picture but some kind of .mov. I guess I'm just too excited.

jmf
 
jmfox:

What do you mean by 'something to look at'? Maybe I can point you in the right direction. For example we've already had the system used to shoot parts of a popular network show which I believe already aired. The problem with posting clips online as you may imagine is that the size is huge. It's not only a problem for most people to download, but for us to host. It's not quite as simple as posting compressed footage, and sometimes that's even a challenge.

Cheers,
Juan
 
I guess the web is not a good vehicle for 4:4:4, but even 20 seconds of HD would be telling and worth a big download. What TV Show used Andromeda to produce HD? DVDs are cheap enough to send out, probably enough media for 2 minutes. Satellite TV shows are mpeg4 (I believe). Gee, as I think about it, there are not that many ways to deliver quality these days. But then, if you start with uncompressed, shouldn't it look better even if it is compressed for distribution?

jmf
 
Hello jmfox:

Andromeda was used in shooting the current season of "Extreme Makeover Home Edition".

20 seconds of 1540x984 24P Andromeda output in an uncompressed RGB frame sequence is over 2GB. It's not only an issue of actual space to hold the data, but bandwidth. When you pay for hosting you normally pay for two things, space and bandwidth. As you can imagine, even a few people downloading a 2GB file will consume a lot of bandwidth.

You are correct about the quality of compressed distribution, and we have several compressed clips on our website created by various users of our system.

Cheers,
Juan
 
Juan - I dropped you a line the other day about including the Andromeda in the upcoming camera test in Texas. Just wanted to make sure you got my email.

Drop me a PM or an email when you get a chance.
Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top