OT: HD (1080) video cameras

Recording streams take more bandwidth than display streams, so it is likely that ALL video cameras put out video, and very low likelihood that it is anything other than "real time".

I'm a bit out of date on HDTV, but check the industrial video sites, panasonic, jvc, hitachi, rather than high end inspection stuff. There is a lot of woo on hd, on how they misrepresent the ccd resolution, somewhat confusing, I must admit.

Just wondering, why do you need HD, can't you just zoom in closer?

Martin

Because pixel array size is akin to film grain size, regardless of the optics in front of it.

640x480 image planes are lame by today's standards.

Those mars rovers pics look good on 1 megapixey thingummies

Martin

That would depend on the application, wouldn't it? There are any number of situations where a true, fully-resolved

480 lines/frame provide more than adequate resolution.

Bob M.

Sure, but is the video full (1080) quality?

There's a note in the manual for the Canon that you can NOT record to an external device using HDMI (page 71).

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it\'s the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

I'd like to be able to use all the resolution of a 1920 x 1200 LCD at

30 frames/sec (at a reasonable price) but I don't think it's possible.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it\'s the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

I would look at using component video. If not the Canon, then something else. You would not really be giving up anything.

Tam

Perhaps you could purchase an inexpensive video inspection system and modify it. You could change the camera to an HD unit. Rigid manufactures one that sells for under $300.00.

[8~{} Uncle Monster

Just found this

no idea of price though:(

Martin

DV camcorders are inexpensive, and video comes out on Firewire in real time. HDMI is deliberately crippled, and component video is less convenient than a digital stream for most subsequent operations.

Thanks. The Firewire option is possible, and the cost of a DV camcorder plus a PC is a lot less than the cost of an industrial camera.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it\'s the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

I have a cheap ($139) Fujicam that, interestingly, has live NTSC video out whenever it's powered up in "camera" mode. That might be something to keep an eye out for. (It's just NTSC, not HD, but I got it a couple of years ago.)

Good Luck! Rich

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that HDMI has its problems, but I'm curious - what part do you think is "deliberately" crippled?

Bob M.

Look up DRM for Digital Rights Management and HDCP. That would be Hollywood telling you you're not allowed to record anything in HD. HDMI checks that your monitor is just that and not a recorder. So it was 'crippled' intentionally.

I wonder how long it will be before somebody builds a box to intercept HDMI, reply properly to get the data and the send it to your recorder. Lawyers would probably be all over you like ugly on a bear.

You don't get to buy anything for yourself any more. You just get rights to use it once or twice.

GG

With the low quality of some modern electronics, you're lucky if it lasts THAT long.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On a sunny day (Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:52:58 -0700) it happened Glenn Gundlach wrote in :

Those boxes have been available for about 2 years from some place in Germany. They took the website with that model down, but perhaps google still has the link.

HDCP is an optional feature of HDMI.

DVD-HD/Blu-Ray can require HDCP for HDMI output. If content is labelled as requiring HDCP[1], players will degrade digital output to a lower resolution when the receiver doesn't support HDCP.

[1] The first HD DVDs aren't being so labelled to avoid a backlash from people who spent a lot of money on HDTV setups which don't support HDCP.

However, none of this is relevant to a camcorder. The camcorder isn't going to insist upon an HDCP-capable receiver before it hands over the video. There's no reason for it to do so; the MPAA really doesn't care about your home video being copied.

Unless they made a mistake in the design of HDCP, or you can extract the authentication key from an HDCP-capable product, it can't be done.

I wouldn't count upon the former. Most of the issues involved in providing end-to-end security over an untrusted connection have been well-worn with SSL, and the PKI issues are a lot simpler for HDCP.

The most fruitful avenue of attack is likely to be software-based players. As time goes on, expect the "authorities" (i.e. the people who hand out HDCP authentication keys) to raise the bar on what is considered sufficient protection.

Right now, players which rely upon software protection (e.g. code obfuscation) are considered acceptable. Once relevant hardware features (e.g. TPM) become more widespread, use of such features is likely to be compulsory to get a key, and newer DVDs are likely to refuse to play on less-protected players.

There are a lot of fruitcakes advising Hollyworld on encryption, and HDCP / HDMI was even cracked before it was implemented (see sci.crypt old postings). I am not going to lookup the paper for you, but I have it. The outrageous amount of money wasted on encryption is bigger then what they even claim to lose by copying. Do not sound like one of those fruit[les]cakes. And, if you are one of them by any chance, try growing flowers or something. Maybe you will be successful there.