Waveform Monitor with Cinecap/Capturemate?

[johnnhud]

Recently started transferring films again, however I have downgraded my camera since I'm leaving my Workprinter XP and the camera permanently set up. This camera does not have a waveform monitor or really any type of camera controls.

At first I though, Not a problem, I can use Monitor Magic http://www.bigmugsoftware.com/monitor/ to view all that stuff while I capture into Cinecap or Capturemate.

The problem is that it seems that you can only have one program using your DV device at a time.

Has anyone figured out a way to monitor waveforms while simultaneously capturing with Cinecap or Capturemate? I don't want to have to purchase a separate external monitor to run the signal through.

Suggestions? Thoughts?

thanks!

Johnnhud

[MovieStuff]

Hi, John!

Why not just use the analog output of your camera to feed a stand-alone waveform monitor and vector scope? They're practically free on ebay these days. Handy to have around, too.

Roger

[johnnhud]

I'm not interested in adding any more hardware to my desk area. My workshop is small and cluttered already.

It would seem though that there would be a way to do this internally in the computer. I can monitor waveforms and vectroscopes with monitor magic, but then I lose the ability to capture the image with cinecap or capturemate.

[johnnhud]

This issue leads me to a theoretical question regarding the workprinters ability to capture a "still" image.

The workprinter itself operates by stopping the frame while it's in the gate for a micro second, while the timing disk triggers a mouse click to capture the image. The whole unit is dependent upon the timing of the mouse click & the frame stopping for a microsecond.

However, let's pretend that there was no "switch" to trigger the mouse click. Instead, the camera just recorded raw, the entire motion of the frame entering, stopping then exiting. You would have a very bad video initially. However there would be parts where the frame stopped that would be the same as if they had been captured the traditional way.

As the workprinter depends on timing to produce a clear image, one could find the frame of video that represents the best image of their film and extrapolate to export from there, counting and deleting the number of frames between each "perfect" image. As the number of frames between the perfect images should always remain the same, you would only have to count it once.

By stringing these "perfect" images together you could then produce the same effect as the mouse click had, yet without having to worry whether the timing was perfect during capture.

I beleive this would work nicely, albeit slower than the traditional method.

The advantage of this is that it would allow you to capture your film with any capture program to take advantage of additional capture tools such as waveforms, RGB parades etc. Videos could then be "batch" processed to extrapolate the wanted frames and playback of those frames could be set at a specific frame rate.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

I'm not interested in adding any more hardware to my desk area. My workshop is small and cluttered already.

It would seem though that there would be a way to do this internally in the computer.

In the same computer that does the mouseclicking and frame-by-frame capturing... that would seem like a bad idea. You don´t want to put any stress on the computer, it could give you pulldown/timing problems.

You could use another of your computers with some kind of software (if you have several computers). If you don´t have more computers and you don´t want any hardware scopes... Perhaps you will have to transfer without using waveform monitors and such. Or switch back to the expensive camera that has a waveform monitor.

[MovieStuff]

However, let's pretend that there was no "switch" to trigger the mouse click. Instead, the camera just recorded raw, the entire motion of the frame entering, stopping then exiting. You would have a very bad video initially. However there would be parts where the frame stopped that would be the same as if they had been captured the traditional way.

As the workprinter depends on timing to produce a clear image, one could find the frame of video that represents the best image of their film and extrapolate to export from there, counting and deleting the number of frames between each "perfect" image. As the number of frames between the perfect images should always remain the same, you would only have to count it once.

By stringing these "perfect" images together you could then produce the same effect as the mouse click had, yet without having to worry whether the timing was perfect during capture.

I beleive this would work nicely, albeit slower than the traditional method.

Actually, that is how we have been doing it on the Sniper units for several years now. The Sniper units actually run at about 15fps and use the Velocity software to capture with and then automatically harvest the frames via sync pulses that are part of the recorded video stream. In April, we released the very popular Velocity Box

http://www.moviestuff.tv/velocity_box.html

The Velocity Box is used with existing MovieStuff WorkPrinters to capture in a streaming fashion using the Velocity or the Velocity-HD software. The WorkPrinter still runs at about 8.5fps but the Velocity Box and Velocity Software eliminates the need for the sync mouse or setting the timing disk. A Raid is only required if you capture in HD (but still no mouse is used). Velocity runs on 32 bit XP or Vista. A 64 bit version will be available after the new year, to give us time to incorporate Windows 7 as well.

The WorkPrinter-HD has the Velocity circuit built in and also has two transfer speeds of 5 and 8.5fps. It can also be used in the traditional sync-mouse mode and has a variable preset for the light output.

http://www.moviestuff.tv/wp_hd.html

Contact me off-list if you want to chat.

Roger

[Justin Lovell]

I know you're under 'space constraints'.. but for what you want.. just make some more desk space!

I suggest a 2nd computer with a blackmagic SDI/hmdi/analog (whatever your camera can output or capture computer can output) input card.

Run the software Hamlet VIDSCOPE (they're releaseing a new BX ? version that will be much cheaper and great for a monitoring solution. You could also check out 'scopebox' which runs on a mac, or blackmagic's ultrascopes.

We have a similar setup at our transfer suite at http://www.framediscreet.com for uncompressed SDI monitoring.

[cpaire]

Hello, question for Roger about 64 bit velocity hd version. Is this for software I mean vista 64 ? Or hardware ? Last and former velocity versions can capture but not postprocess on my lenovo D10 which is 64 but running a 32 vista. I checked and repaired the .dot v2, put system to us english, but no way, the soft quit when I launch process. I have to transfer captured files to xp pc to postprocess.
Image is gorgeous (Pana HVX 200, BM multibridge pro, velobox) but postprocess hd to hd or down is sloooooooow, much slower than clickaclick process. Doesn-t use multi cores ?
Regards

[MovieStuff]

Hello, question for Roger about 64 bit velocity hd version. Is this for software I mean vista 64 ? Or hardware ? Last and former velocity versions can capture but not postprocess on my lenovo D10 which is 64 but running a 32 vista. I checked and repaired the .dot v2, put system to us english, but no way, the soft quit when I launch process. I have to transfer captured files to xp pc to postprocess.
Image is gorgeous (Pana HVX 200, BM multibridge pro, velobox) but postprocess hd to hd or down is sloooooooow, much slower than clickaclick process. Doesn-t use multi cores ?
Regards

There is no 64 bit version of Velocity or Velocity-HD. We do not recommend using a 64 bit system in the 32 bit mode for this application. Theoretically it should work but the reality is that some things are different. We specify 32 bit on the website and in the instructions. For Velocity-HD, you must have your system set up according to specs that we provide or it simply will not work reliably. The post processing is obviously slower because you are dealing with a much, much larger file. Please contact me off-list for more information as this is a customer service issue. I will be happy to assist you in any way that I can.

My best,
Roger

[cpaire]

Thanks for your answer. No problem, I know I'm not in the recomanded process and I-m not trolling But was happy to see you project a 64 version.

[Tscan]

Any news on a 64 bit version of velocity HD?

[MovieStuff]

Any news on a 64 bit version of velocity HD?

Not likely any time soon. Jeff is working on the software to make it more efficient on 32 bit but going to 64 bit creates some issues. First off, the driver support for BlackMagic is markedly different in 64 bit than in 32 bit and this eliminates some features in the BlackMagic card that we require. The second is that reworking the software to be 64 bit compatible doesn't make a lot of sense for our target market. 99% of everyone we sell to is running a business. If you are transferring enough films to make it worth while, then you are pretty much transferring all day long and then processing over night. Clients may have a super fast 64 bit PC that benefits editing but they certainly don't want to tie it up for capture and processing, which would create a bottleneck. So they will want a dedicated PC to capture and process with and they want it to be as cost effective as possible.

As it stands, the only difference one would see in using a more expensive 64 bit system over a 32 bit system would be a marginal increase in processing speed that might, at best, mean that the files finish processing at 1:00 in the morning instead of 3:30 in the morning. If you aren't waiting around for the processing to complete, who cares? And if your company runs a double shift, then it makes more sense to simply have a second PC to capture on while the first is processing. That gives you redundancy and twice the output, all for the cost of another cheap 32 bit PC.

But, eventually, we recognize that the world is going to all 64 bit and there will be a 64 bit version when that time comes but we suspect there will be many other improvements in the software and scanning method that will make the 64 bit conversion incidental.

Roger

[carllooper]

It's possible to have multiple clients on a firewire data stream but you only need one of the clients holding an indefinite lock on the stream to destroy that possibility.

Clients must hold a lock for at least some of the time if they want to access to the data.

The tech spec defines arbitration between devices but the problem is that the computer will be treated as a single device. Arbitrating between applications running on the same computer becomes the problem. You would need some standard (an agreement between software developers) on how each application got it's time slice on the resource.

And you wouldn't want an application getting and releasing a lock evey x milliseconds if there were no reason to so ( no other apps waiting on the data).

Carl