Cheap HiDef Digital Capture?

[t_2]

We are currently filming a low budget DV format drama film, but doing research for future HD project. Problem: Money

JVC has a new CMOS chip based HiDef box camera which outputs uncompressed digital HD-SDI video at up to 1920x1080 & 60fps.

QUESTION: Assuming we can afford this camera what is the cheapest way to record from it using a PC? I first thought about compressing it on the fly with a MPEG-2 card so that we could use an Ultra 133 based IDE raid system to capture at data rates of about 125 Mb/s (for 24p), but the only one I could find (Orca)sold for $22,000 US. I have found Mac based Kona card for about $4000 but I use PC and it would require expensive Ultra320 HDDs because it captures uncompressed video.

Anybody know of a way to use huffyUV codec in a fast 1 or 2 processor system to record 1080/24p in real time??

Anyone got any other ideas?

I am aware of the new JVC 1CCD 720p camera (under $4000 US)and may be forced into such a solution, but I would rather have much more resolution and really good color space even if forced to pay 3 times the price. Just can't afford 10 times the price!

Thanks,

t_2

[jggimi]

Moved to the DV forum, which is probably more applicable to answering questions on transfer and editing of DV content than the Analog Capture forum.

[SomeJoe]

Originally posted by t_2
uncompressed digital HD-SDI video at up to 1920x1080 & 60fps

That right there is immediately going to push you out of your price range. SDI interfaces are only available on the professional editing stuff.

Besides, I don't think you are going to be able to avoid an Ultra320 SCSI disk array. The data rates you're talking about here are astronomical:

For 1920x1080, 24p:

Data rate = 1920 pixels x 1080 pixels x 24 frames/sec x 3 bytes/pixel x 0.5 HuffYUV compression / 1,048,576 bytes/MB = 71.1 MB/sec to disk.

Your disk array needs to be able to handle 3 times that to adequately edit (2 streams coming from disk for a transition, plus seek times between the two files):

3 * 71.1 = 213 MB/sec sustained reads.

First, this data rate exceeds the maximum capabilities of any IDE RAID card I've seen (including the top 3Ware models).

Second, it exceeds PCI bus maximum data rates, so the card needs to be a PCI-X card.

Third, required seek times will exceed any IDE drives that I've seen. 15,000 RPM SCSI will be required, and those drives come in a maximum capacity of 73.4 GB.

Let's assume your project will be 2 hours, 3 cameras. That's 6 hours of footage at 71.1 MB/sec.

6 hours x 60 min/hr * 60 sec/min * 71.1 MB/sec = ~ 1.6 TB needed on the array.

1.6 TB / 73.4 GB/drive = ~ 22 drives needed in the array to hold all of your assets.

There's only a maximum of 15 drives allowed on a wide SCSI bus, so your RAID card will have to be 2-channel at minimum, and be able to extend the RAID array across both channels.

A suitable RAID card will be about $600-$700, and the drives are $700 each.

700 * 23 = ~ $16,000.

You'll also need a suitable enclosure or two, ~ $1500, and a serious motherboard, probably with dual Xeons to handle the HuffYUV compression, ~$3000. (Assuming that's even going to work. The editing card might not allow it, it might require uncompressed footage for editing. In which case the drive sizes and costs would double.)

I'm thinking ~ $20K before you even stick the editing card in there. :eek:

I've built several "prosumer" editing systems around Windows machines using midrange DV editing cards like the Matrox RT.X100. They're a pain to get groomed just right so that you don't have editing difficulties. Personally, I wouldn't even attempt to build a Hi-Def SDI system like this myself. Too much $ for me to take the risk that it might not work or might not be stable once I got it built. I would simply spend the $ to have someone else's professionally constructed vertical solution provided for me. At least I know that the ROI would then be there for sure.

I think you're going to have to look at the 720p camera (which I believe can deliver the video via 1394, compressed with MPEG-2) to be within your budget.

[dar1us]

Excuse me, I have tried not to pay attention to HDTV as it will only make me pine for it but:

Why capture to huffyuv, why not record the stream as HDTV is recorded nativley on the device (mpeg2?). It will save a lot of room as - yeh, HuffYUV is nice, but mpeg2 at a good rate should suffice right. Sorry, I am not to familure with technical aspects hdtv and the way it is produced (of anything at the moment as I have felt the need to give the forum a rest as I must think about my future, career wise. Photojournalism sounds fun!).

doubt this has helped at all:)


harrison

[2ZOD.COM]

Why are you doing it in such a high resolution? What's wrong with good ol' 720x480 for a DVD or something. If you're in low budget stuff now, I don't know why you'd want to jump right into that crazy shit.

[FredThompson]

I don't know what the original poster will tell you. I'd do it because rounding errors would be minimized. If you're making an audio CD, it's far better to sample at 96 of better with 24 or more bits of resolution. Same thing with video. If your source is 2x+ greater resolution, downsampling after all your edits will yield a far better image.

[SomeJoe]

He said he was shooting a low-budget drama film in DV. I think he means exactly what he says -- DVD or TV is not the final output medium, the final output medium is 24 fps 35mm film for projection in the theater.

There are some low-budget films that are shot and edited on DV like this. I believe the Hollywood film "28 Days Later" was one that was partially shot in progressive DV. The cameras and editing hardware are so inexpensive compared to 35mm film cameras that it's worth it for many low-budget studios to go that route.

Obviously, 720x480 doesn't look so hot on the big screen. That's why he wants to go to a Hi-Def camera ... realize the cost savings of still using prosumer equipment to shoot and edit, while being able to deliver something closer to actual shot-on-film 35mm.

[t_2]

@SomeJoe: Thanks for the mathmatics, OK, HuffyUV isn’t the solution either, (besides after writing that I realized that it only does 8 bit color) All this seems to point back to MPEG-2 capture of HD content as the way to get the best bang for the buck. After all, isn’t this how the first affordable HD camera does it? The recent Star Wars Film (1080/24p) was saved to tape with only intra frame compression (DV style) at 125Mb/sec. Therefore, MPEG-2 compression (intra + interframe compression) at similar rates should yield even better quality and can be edited off line (i.e., make SD copies of all the HD files, edit them and then substitute back the HD files into the project file and compress further) on a standard PC. (I think Premire Pro supports 10 bit editing)

Since writing my first appeal for advice I have found 2 more PCI cards that capture 10 bit HD-SDI in MPEG-2. Summing up:

This is what I have found:

Doremi Labs Orca HD PCI encoder: www.doremilabs.com
The only thing I can add to what is on the web page is what one of their representatives told me in responce to my question about file formats and the price $22-28K US!

„Through the PCI drivers, commercial software will be able to save the MPEG2 file in any format. Since our PCI driver is not ready yet, our current customers are using DVB/ASI capture cards to save the files as MPEG2 files. Within a month, we will have our ethernet streaming ready and the transport stream can be sent to a PC through ethernet.”


JVC HDTVxpress: Couldn’t find anything about this on JVC’s sites but here is what I found elsewhere on the Net. No price, but it has the aura of big bucks about it.

„Using the LSI Logic DoMiNo(TM) network media processing architecture, JVC has created the industry's first high-definition television (HDTV) real-time encoder PCI board, the HDTVxpress(TM) Compressor. The HDTVxpress Compressor PCI encoder board includes an HD-SDI input (SMPTE 292M) and a DVB-ASI (Transport) output. Leveraging the field-proven LSI Logic DoMiNo architecture, the HDTVxpress Compressor encoder board supports real-time MPEG-2 (HL@MP) encoding and provides high-quality video compression for 1920 x 1080 pixels/59.94i, 1440 x 1080 pixels/59.94i, 1280 x 1080 pixels/59.94i, and 1280 x 720 pixels/59.94p resolutions. The DoMiNo architecture is also capable of 4:2:2 LGOP encoding, as well as audio compression. The HDTVxpress Compressor PCI encoder board is available for evaluation to qualified customers. For a demonstration by appointment only next week at NAB 2003 in Las Vegas, please contact a local LSI Logic marketing or sales associate.”

The Duma Video DV1-Encoder: www.dumavideo.com You can download a pdf brochure about it at their site. Here is a quote from it: „The Duma Video DV1-Encoder is complete and ready for shipment. This real-time encoder is the first PCI board to encode and compress high speed, high definition contend in real-time and has all of the other fratures necessary to manipulate high-definition video.” I am excited about this but their rep hasn’t quoted me a price yet. He suggested a teleconfrence to talk over my needs and propoesed application. If someone in the States could get ahold of them and find out a price, etc. I’d be very interested to hear about it here.

Films are so much time, work, work, work and all of your money, so when you're finally done the feeling is all this fuss and just 720x576 pixels!!! So much work to make everything look realastic and then you push the little red button and loose mose of your reality! Besides, even if it never makes it to celluloid, by the time we finish the next film a bare bones PC will be able to play in real time an HD mpeg-4 file saved to DVD. Since "economy" video cards, like the Fx5200 already give you this capability today.

[morsa]

Try a MEDEA disk array.It has a SCSI interface.It is recommended by Apple for its Cinewave and costs around 10 thousand bucks.
Ohh, The drives it has are IDE.Also Raid cards nowadays support perfectly sustained data i/o or more than 200 MB/s.The only problem is you'll need between 12 and 16 disks to be sure (IDE) in RAID 0.
Also these boards have a PCI X interface (64 bits, 133 MHZ).
I guess a normal Dual Processor Workstation can do this task very well.
For Editing HD content with Premiere I suggest you to use Cineform codec.It costs 1,500 but will save you a lot of many, letting you edit in full resolution and realtime on a normal Desktop PC.
Good Luck.(I've been using HDCAM for 3 years by now).If you have budget constrains think about going to Argentina.A complete final edition of HDCAM on AVID for High Definition included color grading costs around U$ 10,000.(www.cinemagotika.com).
A blow up to 35mm will cost you another 10,000 to 20,000 included sound (without material)

[hanfrunz]

Hello t_2,

why don't you rent a Camcorder and record to Tape (for example a Sony HDW-900, see www.cinealta.com). Then use a Miranda DVC-800 (www.miranda.com) and record to DV on Set. Make your editing in a "cheap" DV-system like Avid DV or this apple prog... For the Online editing go to a posthouse of your choice. I think this is maybe cheaper than buying some JVC-Camera nobody uses (Sony HDW-F900 is standard!) And how do you want to edit a movie in HD-resolution, online?? You should ask somebody who has done somehing like this before (a producer), if you like write me a message i can give you some name in germany, if this helps you.

hanfrunz

[morsa]

I agree with Hanfrunz.
Although I don't think HDCAM could be considered standard yet.
HDCAM and HDCAM SR are quite different, and believe me, they won't last too many years.The standard is still to come.(sorry if I misunderstood you).

[FredThompson]

Long-term use wasn't the topic, was it?

I'd still do this in some form of high definition and downsample after all the edits are done to reduce artifacts...

[t_2]

Just got an email from JVC rep regarding new camera:

"The HD CMOS camera is not a selling product yet. I do not have pricing or availability at this time. I would watch our website for an announcement."

No problem, because by the time we finish our current film it will be for sale if not obsolete. Renting is WAY too expensive for us. Ours is a High school not a Hollywood production. Although we are striving for professional quality and hope that our film will be aired on National TV here in Hungary. We have been filming for almost 2 years. We build a set, make the costumes, and then film. But it is not so easy. Although the students, parents, teachers are supportive they are all busy, you have to negotiate with them about everything, and then expect about 2 or 3 minor crisis every time you have a filming session. We often set up for 6 hours, all so that we can film for an hour or two, and the result is 2 scenes for a total of 20 seconds of final-cut time. We bought a Sony PD-150 + anamorphic lens but if I had rented we would have paid for the camera 100x over by now with the end still no where in sight. No, our budget is so low, and our planning so plagued with the unexpected that renting is out.

Box cameras are a lot cheaper because all they are is a camera head($$$$), we already have the computer, so all we need is a good lens($$), a raid controler card, a dozen cheap 200 GB ultra133 hard disks and a good MPEG2 capture card($$). MPEG2 is already a very well established format and we should be able to edit with it off line. Correct me if I'm wrong but one 200 G hard disk which sells for just over $100 is almost as expensive as one Sony HD cassette.

@Fred Thompson. Interesting thought. Compared to a professional camera the new JVC 720p camera may have a soft lens and 4:1:1 color but if one were to film with it, edit in Huffy and downsize in that same format, then the result would probably be a crisp 4:2:2 picture for a fraction of the cost of a 4:2:2 camera. The color resolution of 4:1:1 stuff is one quarter of the luma res, but if one reduces in a format with full color space such as huffy, then even though the luma res decreases the color resolution should remain the same until you reach the saturation point of that particular color space. For 4:4:4 stuff the saturation point resolution is the same as the luma res, for 4:2:2 stuff it is half the luma res, for 4:1:1 it is one quarter the luma resolution. Here are some numbers:

HD (720p)
For 4:1:1 luma res = 1080x720, color res = 540x360
For 4:2:2 luma res = 1080x720, color res = 720x540
For 4:4:4 luma res = 1080x720, color res = 1080x720

SD
For 4:1:1 luma res = 720x540, color res = 360x270
For 4:2:2 luma res = 720x540, color res = 540x360
For 4:4:4 luma res = 720x540, color res = 720x540


Therefore, after reducing the above HD to SD res in Huffy (4:4:4), the color res would remain what it was, i.e., 540x360, which is the same color resolution as 4:2:2 SD fare. (Of course we are still talking about video shot from a 1CCD camera)

What I don't know is if stand alone DVD players play 4:2:2 MPEG2?


Does any of this make sense?

[morsa]

Not much:)

If you gonna capture in Mpeg2, then you don't need a disk array of 12 disks.
If you go PAL, then your color resolution in Mpeg would be 4:2:0 or 4:0:2 (they are the same).You can enhance color planes later with Avisynth.
I guess I can't get your point, sorry.

[FredThompson]

Don't know if the colorspace will really behave as you suggest. I was thinking about artifacts due to compositing/editing. Harsh edges will tend to get softened when you downsize by half.

[morsa]

Here is your solution for HD capture

http://www.decklink.com/productsdeckhd.asp

It lets you capture in many formats, compressed and uncompressed and only costs U$2000

Also Panasonic has a new HD camera body (no recorder)that supports 1920 x 1080 at U$35,000.

If you capture with it and record though Declink card in Jpeg format it will go really cheap.

[t_2]

@Morsa

Thanks a lot, that is really a good solution, and unless anybody has anything else to add I think that just about answers my original question. Your solution requires a G5 but I don't have a PC with PCI-X, so would probably have to buy a new computer anyway. I also read at their site that they are working on Windows driver support, so maybe they'll have them by the time I need one.

I couldn't find what data rate the card was able to compress in jpeg, do you happen to know?? Do you know if the Jpeg capture is also 10 bit? I guess it is a hardware compression?? I'll try to get in touch via e-mail with one of their reps.Once again, thanks for the tip!

Re: acquisition, that $35,000 is still out of my ballpark, I don't think I'll have much more than $10 maybe 15k to throw around. Any ideas? But I guess this is a topic for a new thread.."cheap" HD acquisition.

t_2

[Foambullet]

What is the standard, I believe, out here in LA is to take your HD masters to a posthouse and have them downsample it to a DV tape format of your choice (MiniDV would probably be cheapest). Then edit offline in DV, and take your EDL to the posthouse and have them reconstruct a final print from your HD masters.

[morsa]

Well I guess is the standard all over the world:)

[morsa]

Well I guess is the standard all over the world:)

@t_2

I believe we've reached an ending point.There is no way up today to capture HD through the usual ways using a professional HD Camera (included suitable lenses ) which costs less than a regular standard definition pro camera.Sorry.

If you want a HD camera under 35,000 you'll need to go outside HiDef domains and try, may be Machine Vision Cameras, this includes using frame grabbers, a really fastdisk array, etc,etc,etc to finally reach a really high cost equipment, much higher than 40,000.

So, in my own opinion , the cheapest way would be as described above.

[t_2]

@Morsa

Ok, you solved the capture problem with your www.decklink.com link above. One question: I've heard that an analog Sony Beta SP camera can do 800 lines of resolution if you come out through the analog outputs and save to HDD. Is this true? This isn't HD but it's getting closer and it's great color space. Otherwise, I will probably wait until Sony or Panasonic releases a 3CCD 720p prosumer camera, which shouldn't be too far off in the future.

With this new CMOS technology prices should be falling drastically in the next few years. I've heard that it is much cheaper and these CCD alternative chips do more/most of the signal processing themselves, so the rest of the camera is alot simpler. The picture quality should be better as well. I have a lot of hope for this technology.

Just for the sake of satisfying my curiosity, could you tell me a little more about this machine vision idea?


Thanks again,

t_2

[morsa]

About Beta SP or anyother else camera body.

A camera is just that: The Camera, and its resolution has nothing to be with the resolution a VTR can store on tape.
So it doesn't matter if your camera body was designed for Beta SP or anything else, what really counts is if it resolves a higher number of lines.
Here another problem appears, because the camera body´s video output, if it is standard, is supposed to be standard definition and so limited to, e.g. 768 x 576 for PAL, no matter how much resolution the CCD has.
On the other side, if you record directly to a PC in uncompressed 10 bit format from an analog camera body you'll get a much higher image quality, comparable to DigiBeta with the advantage of no compression, giving you the best resolution possible in StandardDefinition.
Anyway it isn't even close to HD, just think about it, 1920 against 800.
Why don't you use the JVC's camera ?,it is really good.

About Machine vision.

Machine vision cameras are really high def video camera with a mechanical shutter most of the times.
Look for www.dalsa.com.
There are many with a resolution of 4K.
The problem is you'll need a frame grabber and a lot of really fast Fiber channel storage to record their data.
So, although these cameras have prices of around 7,000, the final equipment will cost not less than 50,000 and won't be easy to use for a film production crew even in studio location.
Think about it again.Filming HD with Argentinian equipment and complete post-production is really cheap.I guess is the cheapest place in the world and with the same quality than any other one..

[theReal]

I guess you still have to spend less if you're filming on 16mm or even 32mm (and this will definitely give you the desired resolution and contrast)

[morsa]

it isn´t 32mm ,it´s 35!! ;)
And going film is really expensive unless you made only one take for every scene, which never happens.

[theReal]

it isn´t 32mm ,it´s 35!!

Oops, it seems I'm too much into computers - my fingers are so much used to the 16,32,64,128... numbers, so even I think "35", my fingers type "32" ;)