FORUMS: list search recent posts

IO HD vs. Blackmagic Multibridge

COW Forums : AJA Video Systems

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Brady
IO HD vs. Blackmagic Multibridge
on Apr 18, 2007 at 9:12:06 pm

I'm considering buying some sort of IO device. The IO HD looks great, but my question is this: Why not go with a Kona or BM multibridge (for 2k less) and just do the pro-res 422 conversion in the software? It seems to me like you're sort of limiting yourself to always working with the 422 by going with the new box (because of the fw connection). I understand that it's great for location work or with a macbook, but if I'm looking for something for a studio, what's the advantage? With one of the other devices, wouldn't you at least always have the option of going back to the uncompressed clips for film out online (assuming you have raided drives)? Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly, but it seems like it would make more sense to compress to 422 in FCP, and still have the original uncompressed clips just in case? Am I totally off base here?


Return to posts index

JeremyG
Re: IO HD vs. Blackmagic Multibridge
on Apr 19, 2007 at 1:25:24 am

Not at all. The portability of the Io HD is what's key. If you have a macbook pro and need to capture from a camera, the ioHD is your number (since it accepts LTC in). If you are using it strictly in a studio, a PCIe card might be more beneficial to you. ALso, it remains to be seen just how great (or not great) ProRes 422 is, but I have a feeling it must be alright if Apple and AJA have designed a whole workflow around it, also the fact that it's 10 bit is thrilling to me, but I'm a nerd. Perhaps it's the end all be all codec, then an ioHD will suit you just fine in a studio environment as you won't have to go anywhere else but ProRes. Remember the ioHD also has more input and output options than a Kona. If we are having the Blackmagic vs AJA debate, I will say that you get what you pay for.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: IO HD vs. Blackmagic Multibridge
on Apr 19, 2007 at 1:37:17 am

Brady -
your comparison should be the AJA I/O HD, vs. the NEW Blackmagic
Eclipse - both $3495 retail price. STOP making comparisons, trying to save 2 cents. These are 2 new products - you may like one or the other, but they are both the same price - do not put the Multibridge in this conversation.

Bob Zelin


Return to posts index


Andy Taplin
Re: IO HD vs. Blackmagic Multibridge
on May 16, 2007 at 5:43:24 pm

$3,495?

I just saw it for sale in the UK at


Return to posts index

Jerry Hofmann
Re: IO HD vs. Blackmagic Multibridge
on May 17, 2007 at 6:02:10 pm

Don't the brits pay VAT? on this? I'd think so, and that's why the cost difference. You're getting taxed by your governemnt... we don't have those taxes but probably have others that offset this too... just not on imported goods.

Jerry

Apple Certified Trainer

Author: "Jerry Hofmann on Final Cut Pro 4" Click here

Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D


Return to posts index

Andy Taplin
Re: IO HD vs. Blackmagic Multibridge
on May 18, 2007 at 6:57:27 am

Actually nearly $6,000 is the price without VAT.VAT @17.5% adds another $1,000!

Most pros would be VAT registered and therefore be able to claim the VAT back.

There might be a different power supply fitted for the UK but even so the price differential seems unfair.

Andy


Return to posts index


Cofe
Re: IO HD vs. Blackmagic Multibridge
by
on Apr 19, 2007 at 4:04:41 am

yes it all depends on how good the ProRess codec is.

My guess is if you do broadcast work only (deliver 720 or 1080) it is Apple's answer to the Avid DnxHD codec which is the same principle. In order to efficiently handle HD footage both use compression to not depend on super raid setups and get a lot of RT functionality. Avid's codec seems to be accepted by the industry so I doubt Apple will have taken the risk to come up with anything less.

If you're extremly fuzzy (only accept uncompressed) and if you need to do 2K work for film output the IoHD is not for you.

Looking what broadcaster actually transmit and what consumer LCD/Plasmas actually display, I think the ProRes codec will be just fine and could save you a lot of money in Raids etc. And if working ok (I'm thinking latency here) it also makes your I/O purchase more future proof in regards to changing hardware specs (PCIx vers PCIe and what ever comes next?)

But some testing needs to be done to be sure.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: IO HD vs. Blackmagic Multibridge
on Apr 19, 2007 at 3:49:06 pm

After seeing the ProRes codec on several systems including big screen projection and the new Sony high-end pro monitors I think everyone is gonna like ProRes a lot and start using it right away. I saw no reason to ever use uncompressed HD again for normal production work - fx and green screen stuff may still use uncompressed but we won't know until it is run through it's paces in a pro workflow.

Lance Bachelder
Southern California



Return to posts index

Jerry Hofmann
Re: IO HD vs. Blackmagic Multibridge
on Apr 26, 2007 at 1:18:50 pm

There IS an advantage to the Io HD even in a studio environment. It offloads the compression and the decompression from your CPU whether it's a Mac Pro or a Powerbook... so seems to me that this alone will help with RT playback of effects etc, because the CPU isn't involved doing the heavy lifting the codec will requre to compress for capture and de compress for external output to a montior or deck...

None of the Decklink products perform this. Io HD is the only game in town that does this...

Jerry


Return to posts index


David Zimmerly
Re: IO HD vs. Blackmagic Multibridge
on May 18, 2007 at 4:28:28 am

I have a big concern about seamless cross-platform (Mac/PC) capability with any "professional" codec. DNxHD has it, DVCPRO-HD doesn't, BlackMagic does, ProRes doesn't. Maybe this doesn't matter to some people, but it does to us as a full-service, multi-platform company. Any thoughts?

David


Return to posts index

JeremyG
Re: IO HD vs. Blackmagic Multibridge
on May 18, 2007 at 5:54:04 am

AJA also provides uncompressed windows codecs that are 'cross platform' and read in Quicktime:

http://www.aja.com/ajashare/AJASoftwareCodec111Setup.exe

Avid has the advantage in developing software for both platforms and a unified codec structure that is written by avid, Final Cut Pro on it's own as a standalone application is at a loss there. Luckily, companies like AJA provide solutions for facilities that need it. The question is, on your windows side, what do you capture to and with what hardware? Remember that DVCPro HD is a Panasonic codec (not an Apple developed one), and supposedly they are a "WIndows company" but nobody at Microsoft is listening to the needs of Windows editors wanting to edit in the native codec? I don't know. Perhaps the money to license a DVCPro HD windows codec is not there, I'm not sure what the deal is either. What about HDV? Is there a codec for that in AVI land? Could be some sort of reason for the Adobe "open hd" campaign.

What specific concerns might you have?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

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