Video Sync Genlock

Jarred Land

President/Founder
Staff member
Stuart English just confirmed that Red will have tri-level sync input via BNC.. which is very good news for alot of people that have been wondering about sync issues as of late.
 
...or even just an RCU port for the panel/paintbox - if not the CCU (which is the big base station)

USB would work, but there's cable limitations - how about Firewire 2? (if not something proprietary, or maybe use one of the exisiting RCU standards if possible?

- Mikko
 
I like the whole idea of a usb box. The advantage of a USB port is that it can be powered, so you can use a cable extender to extend another 50 meters if need be. this would also allow either a third party or RED to make a usb control/color box that could have a screen that was bus powered.

Going usb also allows you to ad a wireless usb link in the to go completely wireless.
 
I like the way your mispellings think Jarred, in case you didn't pickup what your mispellings were thinking, they're sudgesting:

ad-hoc and router based 802.11n support built into the RED for the future in wireless genlock.
 
You can't genlock with ethernet (or any other data protocal) there's too much lag. Genlock is about EXACT timing (nanoseconds).

- Mikko
 
Still a good idea - at least for RCU, though lag is again a killer. Analog does have some benefits!

We are having enough trouble in the Steadicam world trying to work with WiFi video transmistters. It's hard to direct a music video when your video assist is ½sec behind the action.

- Mikko
 
im.thatoneguy said:
I like the way your mispellings think Jarred, in case you didn't pickup what your mispellings were thinking, they're sudgesting:

ad-hoc and router based 802.11n support built into the RED for the future in wireless genlock.

dont know what you are refering too.. i never mispel woords.

Wireless built inside red is a waste of time I think.. too many dedicated 3rd parties do such a good job at wireless support equipment i dont see the need for them to intigrate that. Its kinda like having built in GPS.. if your not using motion control you probally would never use it.
 
It looks to me like Jarred's probally using some kind of phonetic dictionary. But then I wonder why it isn't "probly".

I agree about the built-in wireless, though. Wireless standards change so fast that it'd be a shame to take up space in the camera with non-upgradable technology that's destined to be outdated within a few years. Plus, it seems to me desirable to limit how much noise-generating equipment is inside the camera.

Ports galore, that's what I vote for.
 
Last edited:
im canadian.. i spell funny. You got a problem with that?

ha ha ha.

Ill second the ports galore.
 
And I'll sure as heck third it.


In fact I want the camera to be nothing but connectors and 1/4-20 holes. :grin:


- Mikko ... wants to be able to throw a cable at it and it to just stick to a socket.
 
Back
Top