Video Assist on Set

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I have done some more research and have found a new brand of HDMI cable that is not too costly (~$220), support up to 1080p, and has built in amplification with a range of up to 150 feet, from a company called Accell.

There's always wireless HDMI... But still that's only around 150 to 200 ft. max if there are no walls or obstructions. And it's really only hitting the market now so it's not really a proven product.

The best bet is still fiber or HDMI encoder/decoder baluns that use smaller fiber or shielded CAT-5. None of which are that cheap... There's someone out there that makes an HDMI balun, I can't recall, but it works over two standard, UTP CAT-6 cables and support up to 1920x1200@60Hz with a range of over 200ft. Range is extended to 500ft with shielded cables... I wish I could remember who has it ($1000 for the transmitter and receiver pair). Intelix makes some and I think Gefen has them too, but those just use CAT-5 one shielded and one can be UTP, but the range is only 150ft. ...About $450 for the pair. DVI Gear also has long-range, low-impedence HDMI cables that handle up to 165ft without a repeater. Although it seems most installers over on AVSFORUM prefer using the heavier-duty standard cables from monoprice.com -- good stuff and dirt cheap along with a booster. And they're usually talking 100+ft runs in huge homes, sports bars, etc.. for projectors.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

We don't do analogue or SD. That's RED philosophy, and also helps keep the price of the camera down.

Well, ya gotta love THAT philosophy! Yeah, I was kinda hoping for a plain ole' composite out for some cheap monitoring options (for actors, people's moms on set, etc.), but already knew it wasn't in the cards for RED from its published specs.

 

[Rob Lohman]

skip: would you mind explaining what we see in the two photos of the video cart and what each piece of equipment exactly does?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

No analogue composite!

 

[Steve Gibby]

There's always wireless HDMI... But still that's only around 150 to 200 ft. max if there are no walls or obstructions. And it's really only hitting the market now so it's not really a proven product.

I suggested wireless HDMI on Page 7 (Post #70) of this thread. Lots of new wireless HDMI product are hitting the market or about to. Some were just announced at CES. I did some quick checking (I'm not suggesting any of these are an exact solution for wireless HDMI RED One use, but they may be food for thought):

Avocent MPX1000
http://www.avocent.ca/pdf/0906-mpx1000-tp.pdf
http://www.connectivity.avocent.com/products/emerge/mpx1000.asp?WT.srch=1
Carries 720p at distances up to 3,000 ft (914 m) over standard 10/100 Ethernet; 150 ft (45 m) wirelessly through walls; up to 1,000 ft (304 m) line-of-sight with optional directional antenna. Transmitter $1,095, receiver $995.

Philips SWW1800
http://www.cinenow.com/us/news-2257.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Philips-Will-Produce-Wireless-HDMI-Adapters-44064.shtml
(1080p at a 25’ range, costs just $300)

I don’t think it will be long before there are a lot of wireless ultra wide band (UWB)HDMI solutions. UWB technology has been around for a long time with the military. UWB normal range is about 100’, and up to a kilometer with higher antennas. It is secure from interference. It uses frequencies between 3.1 GHz and 10.6 GHz. UWB will also be legal in Europe shortly.

Bottom line is that more wireless HDMI solutions are being introduced, and are forecast to do so, cost is going down, range increasing, and size and mobility of units is decreasing. Somehow a good wireless HDMI system that can be adapted for RED One field use will emerge.

-----------------

HDMI sidelight:
Silicon Image VistaLane HDMI for PC to monitors and HDTV – can drive Apple 30’ Digital Cinema display at 10 bit
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193401196

 

[Thom Steinhoff]

Gibby,

Wireless HDMI is is definately a great technology and will one day make a great wireless monitoring solution.

Looking over the specs I have concerns on how practical the current crop of offerings are for film makers and may be a few years before I think a lot of us (especially Jr. Gorillas like me) cut the cord.

Most are designed to remove the wires to your plasma or LCD so the transmitter is of unlimited size and the receiver is compact--we sort of need it in reverse--compact transmitter, "okay to be bigger" receiver.

Reading the Avocent one, the five pound, ac powered transmitter is 7"x17"x1.7"--sort of painful to deal with on the camera side--the Phillips one looks better but power may still be an issue. Looks like it would be pretty painful in the situations you would want it most (stedicam). Also, as they are not designed with cameras in mind--they may have loud fans cooling a baked in AC converter.

Hopefully someone will take notice and make a wireless transmitter more geared for camera use.

Who knows--maybe at NAB we will all be bowled over with an amazing showing from someone who gets it right that will have us all lining up with our credit cards!

Or maybe it is until next year when Jim and Co. reveal a new RED Wireless Monitor!

Thom

 

[Steve Gibby]

I second those opinions Thom. A battery powered HDMI transmitter that is as small as an audio wireless transmitter would be ideal, especially of it used UWB HDMI for longer range, secure transmission, etc. If added range was needed, an inexpensive relay antenna may be the trick. If the receiver was the size of a small laptop (preferrable much smaller) it should be OK on the other end. A splitter could then tree off to as many monitors as are needed.

Something tells me that there will be some very cool wireless UWB HDMI solutions rolled out at NAB this year, hopefully designed for logical use on the set - something beyond the consumer units in capability and durability, but still affordable. Something designed for cine and EFP use - with mobility kept in mind.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Its a wireless world.

Its a wireless world.

I have been banging the HDMI drum for months and its great to feel like I am part of a band . The industry has been SDI/HD-SDI for so long and the either the chips sets are pricey or they figure the market for such specialty gear will pay more because the cost seems so high.

Wireless HDMI dev for on set use may not be very mature at NAB 2007 but there should be lots of prototypes.

 

[Casey Green]

Lets recap what we have / what we need to have ...

We have "dual link" HD-SDI outputs - always clean feed and can only show the active recording area (they have to if you want to record these outputs) These two HD-SDI outputs must also include embedded audio and timecode.

Then we independently have a signal that is represented physically as both an HDMI and an HD-SDI (lets call it HD Preview to avoid confusion with the other HD-SDI outputs) signal. While in shot setup or recording it shows the record area + look around area, apparently requires some degree of user selection / control over frame guide overlays, and also has embedded digital audio plus timecode. If you choose to hang a Miranda off of the HD Preview output you should get a decent NTSC/PAL feed with burnt in timecode..

Then we have EVF and LCD display, both of which can "show everything"

This looks just about right. I would add that having independent control to toggle frameline options for the HDMI and HD-SDI "Preview" outputs would be ideal. This way you could use the HDMI for monitoring while using HD-SDI for recording and vice versa if desired. So that would be:

Dual-Link HD-SDI: Clean Feed (Active picture area only), w/ embedded audio and TC
HD-SDI: Active Picture (plus look around area / framelines), OR Clean Feed, both w/ embedded audio and TC
HDMI: Active Picture (plus look around area / framelines), OR Clean Feed, both w/ embedded audio and TC
LCD: All Available Viewing Options
EVF: All Available Viewing Options

Does this sound appropriate?

 

[Pete Horvath]

masked borders

masked borders

I agree that the camera (and not a downstream device) should generate framelines since accuracy of those are important (especially to cut down on user error if multiple cameras are being used).

I think in an ideal world each output from the camera would have independant user selectable choices for all the different monitoring aids. I'd also like to see a user selectable mask that gets placed over the image borders outside of the framelines. For example: The area outside of a selected frameline (since multiple framelines may be displayed at once) is masked out or even better, have an adjustable opacity.

And how about this idea for a 21st century camera: Every monitoring feature is added to a clean signal as metadata so people could turn on or off each feature downstream at the display device.

Cheers,
Pete

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

As long as the downstream devices can read that metadata...

 

[Brian Ferguson]

Wow! I made it to the last page. I have been shootong and assisting on commercial shoots for, 26 years.

My Panasonic HD monitors have frameline generators built in. I use them all the time. I think most of the video assist techs I know have frameline generators on their carts already. Just make sure your marks match the operators and you are good to go.

 

[Casey Green]

I have been shootong and assisting on commercial shoots for, 26 years.

My Panasonic HD monitors have frameline generators built in. I use them all the time. I think most of the video assist techs I know have frameline generators on their carts already. Just make sure your marks match the operators and you are good to go.

While alot of HD monitors have frameline generators built-in, they usually are only for 16:9 or 4:3 modes. For most commercial shoots, I agree, this will be adequate. The Red Camera, however, is going to be used on many other types of productions, such as Features and Indy Films, which may need to shoot in other aspect ratios, such as 1.85, or 2.35, (and possibly for more than one aspect ratio at a time). These framelines will not be found on most current HD monitors and will need to come from the camera.

Also, some productions, such as certain Episodic TV shows, will often shoot with no Video Assist operator, since they are not needing to playback takes. In this situation, the Camera Dept. just hooks up a Video Tap to the video village monitors, which will require framelines from the camera.

Attached are some examples of possible Aspect Ratios and Framelines.

I think the key here is to try and accomodate as many shooting environments as possible in camera.

 

[Finner]

Wow! I made it to the last page. I have been shootong and assisting on commercial shoots for, 26 years.

My Panasonic HD monitors have frameline generators built in. I use them all the time. I think most of the video assist techs I know have frameline generators on their carts already. Just make sure your marks match the operators and you are good to go.

This does not help when the video playback person doesn't have a frameline generator(many don't) or when the shoot has no video playback person at all or when the playback person has to run and gun in a car or many other set ups and use a clam shell. Frameline generators in seperate from the camera is simply an aweful situation. A camera without this feature will be looked at as bush league from many working profesionals.

The camera really needs internal frameline choices.

 

[Don Woods]

I had a thought. I know I will be using the HDSID more for actual recording or for playback recording and the HDMI for all of my monitoring. That being said I know most the time I have a frame line generatior but the prob is I don't know of one that is feed by HDMI yet.. Another converter needed...

 

[Evin Grant]

Two words.... Grease pencil!

It's the original frameline generator.

 

[Steve Gibby]

To me, this has been one of the most constructive threads since RED User was created - a true think tank. This is the way a forum should function, where constructive input, filtered through everyone's diverse experience in the field, is offered in a respectful way, for the common good of the community. RED One will be a flexible and versatile camera system - capable of being used in multiple cine style and EFP style environments. We all have the common goal of defining the most streamlined and logical workflow for each of the potential production genres, lens/accessory combinations, and posting options.

Very cool thread, meaningful professional input, solid think tank results, and everyone learning from each other...that's the highest and best function of an online tech forum.

Nobody is born knowing anything. The more we learn, the more we should realize we don't know. The learning should never stop for us in the motion media industry...it's a career long process...and it's necessary if we want to stay competitive in the workplace...

Nobody has all the answers...technology moves too fast, and there is simply too much to know...but RED One owners and users know where to get their RED One answers...right here on RED User...

We're a world community...

Very cool indeed...

And thanks RED, for listening to the needs of those who will be using this new tool...we're not exactly used to being able to give input throughout the development of our tools...it's a breath of fresh air...

 

[Finner]

Two words.... Grease pencil!

It's the original frameline generator.

Hi Evan

Grease pencils worked so so in the times of crt monitors, but I sure would not want to take one to a LCD or a large screen LCD or plasma.

 

[donatello b]

i've used a clear sheet of stiff plastic (very thin - it was shipped with monitor to protect screen ) on 26" LCD (16x9) - used thin tape ( got from AC) on plastic to outline TV area .. it worked better indoors then outdoors ( slight breeze shakes it )

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Dream a little dream

Dream a little dream

I agree that the camera (and not a downstream device) should generate framelines since accuracy of those are important (especially to cut down on user error if multiple cameras are being used).

I think in an ideal world each output from the camera would have independant user selectable choices for all the different monitoring aids. I'd also like to see a user selectable mask that gets placed over the image borders outside of the framelines. For example: The area outside of a selected frameline (since multiple framelines may be displayed at once) is masked out or even better, have an adjustable opacity.

And how about this idea for a 21st century camera: Every monitoring feature is added to a clean signal as metadata so people could turn on or off each feature downstream at the display device.

Cheers,
Pete

This all makes sense to me though I think it may take a while before very many of the downstream devices can read the metadata stream.

Here's a product idea that would rock on the RedOne (and perhaps some other cameras): basically I am thinking of something similar to the Miranda downconverter that lives on the Red Rail somewhere. The design priorities would be a bit different though-

The "box" needs to be kept as small as possible, similar in size to a wireless mic reciever (although it is actually a transmitter). It might have to be limited to HDMI input to keep the size down. It then transmits the signal wirelessly using UWB or some other reasonably standard protocol. A proper kit should include a repeater (a larger box that can boost the RF signal) and a main reciever box that can then re-distrbute the signal all over the set both by wire and wireless to monitors of various types/inputs. On many sets the main reciever box would be a part of the playback tech station.

One of the neat things about this topology is that any monitor could have a reciever piggybacked onto it that could read the UWB wireless signal and drive the monitor. For extreme mobile set ups all you would need is a clamshell or other small monitor with the reciever box on it.

Think of the set up like a wireless mic package only the camera is the sender and monitor(s) are the reciever(s). It all runs on 9volt batteries or AC as the situation dictates. When range is an issue you use the repeaters which could even live on the 1st ACs waist pack if the camera is on the move, I don't want a solution that puts too much weight on the camera rig.

The graticules could simply be a part of the metadata with the HDMI outs and the system designed to read them. The transmitter could include a couple toggle switches to select what goes out with a "pass through" option if that is being handled by the playback tech at the main reciever box / redistribution station.