FORUMS: list search recent posts

Wireless Cameras?

COW Forums : Blackmagic Design

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Ronak Desai
Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 3, 2012 at 3:32:52 am

What equipment would be needed to send a camera signal wirelessly without any quality loss (or at least noticeable quality loss)? The camera would be 1080i59.94.


Return to posts index

Richard Crowley
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 3, 2012 at 7:04:24 am

Over what distance?
Under what circumstances?
With what budget?

Full broadcast quality digital transmission links quite easily cost more than the camera. Do you REALLY need wireless? How are you powering the camera? How are you controlling it?


Return to posts index

Ronak Desai
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 3, 2012 at 8:50:30 pm

Is there any other way that you guys recommend getting a camera signal from one room to another? It will probably be about 300ft. I wanted to try and do wireless but it seems that it probably won't work unless I purchase equipment that will cost way too much for our budget.


Return to posts index


David Eaks
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 3, 2012 at 9:08:50 pm

HD-SDI, I like Belden 1505a.


Return to posts index

Shaun Roemich
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 3, 2012 at 7:05:52 am

I've never seen wireless video with no noticeable quality loss. ACCEPTABLE quality loss is a far more accurate term. And remember, there is significant delay in wireless video, especially if cut against wired (and ESPECIALLY genlocked) video sources.

Big Dog - Technical Director - Switcher
Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC Canada
roaddogmedia@gmail.com


Return to posts index

Shaun Roemich
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 3, 2012 at 7:08:59 am

Colour phase and/or tearing is common in wireless video even at the professional/broadcast level as is macro blocking in solid colours.

Big Dog - Technical Director - Switcher
Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC Canada
roaddogmedia@gmail.com


Return to posts index


Tom Sefton
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 3, 2012 at 7:29:12 am

http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=product/idx_cw-5hd

Signal quality loss is inevitable - we have used these with good results though.


Return to posts index

Justin Strauber
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 3, 2012 at 8:27:14 am

Teradek makes some promising gear as well. I managed to get LOS about 120 yrds 1080i with a decent antenna on the receive side. Fairly low latency, but not insignificant.


Return to posts index

Shaun Roemich
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 3, 2012 at 6:37:22 pm

If memory serves, Teradek is advertising 120ms delay, which is about 4 frames at 60i. Enough to notice if cut against the same subject in a multi camera live switched scenario. Of course, if all you are looking for is long distance monitoring, that may be good enough. I have seen it in operation and certainly wouldn't use it to pull focus or anything... Again, fit for purpose depends on what your actual application is...

Big Dog - Technical Director - Switcher
Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC Canada
roaddogmedia@gmail.com


Return to posts index


Ronak Desai
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 3, 2012 at 8:52:17 pm

The cameras on wireless will actually be our focus for most of the production so if that is the case I would rather it use wires or potentially another solution.


Return to posts index

Richard Crowley
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 5, 2012 at 8:34:03 pm

You did not identify the cameras or even the connection signal.

I regularly use 300-ft lengths of cheap RG6 cable to run SDI from my Sony EX1 and NX5 cameras to my video switcher. This is the kind of cable used for satellite and cable TV installations and 1000 ft reels generally cost ~$50 in my area.


Return to posts index

Ronak Desai
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 5, 2012 at 8:47:01 pm

Sorry, they are Canon HF G10's with a Blackmagic HDMI to SDI Converter with SDI. I guess it would have to be a SDI run all the way to the switcher.


Return to posts index


Shaun Roemich
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 5, 2012 at 9:42:41 pm

Remember that HD-SDI has a cable length limit that changes depending on cable used, both cable gauge (RG59 or RG6) and by cable type/ballistics...

I'm sort of surprised Richard is getting signal integrity at 300 feet with CHEAP RG6... but RG6 IS more "forgiving" than RG59, at the cost of heavier, stiffer cable...

Belden 1505a, which my system will eventually be built around, has a theoretic limit at 1.5GHz of 300 feet and is considered a "premium" cable for HD-SDI use.

Big Dog - Technical Director - Switcher
Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC Canada
roaddogmedia@gmail.com


Return to posts index

Richard Crowley
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 6, 2012 at 1:30:06 am

The cable I am referring to is cheap/inexpensive only because of the economy of scale. Miles of this cable are purchased and installed every day. Else it would cost several times more.

This cable is made for use at higher frequencies (satellite IF frequencies) than we need for HD-SDI. To be sure, it is quite stiff and not very practical for portable use. 300ft (100m) is the textbook limit for HD-SDI through RG6. One of these days I'm going to try even longer runs just to see where the threshold is.


Return to posts index

Shaun Roemich
Re: Wireless Cameras?
on Jul 6, 2012 at 2:22:44 am

I understand completely Richard, as someone who used to fabricate all his own cables "back in the day"...

The "formulation" of a specific cable of course figures in shielding, capacitance and resistance and how it attenuates specific frequencies over a given length. The Belden 1505a (RG 59) and 1694 (RG6) are optimized for HD-SDI implementations.

Satellite cable is built for it's specific properties and I'm pleasantly surprised to hear you have had such luck. Again, we are talking about THEORETICAL limits here... The point beyond which the signal is sufficiently attenuated so as to no longer meet "spec" and may fail to pass the required "peaks and valleys" adequately. There are also many factors into what the initial signal integrity is in the first place: at NAB, there was a matrix router manufacturer that was showcasing a LONG length of cable (post matrix router) which was showing proper burst on a scope even after approximately 450 METRES. (my dear American friends, 1 metre equals 39 inches) So well in excess of 3 times the theoretical limit of the cable, which I believe was 1694.

Big Dog - Technical Director - Switcher
Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC Canada
roaddogmedia@gmail.com


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]