Jump to content



Photo

Boxx Meridian


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 brooksrobinson

brooksrobinson

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 267 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 May 2010 - 12:09 AM

I’m thinking about getting the Boxx Meridian HD transmitter/receiver and I’m wondering if anyone has any experience with it in the field now that it has been available for a while. I read the positive reviews of Jason and Lars a while back and I’m wondering if anyone else has anything to add.

I suppose I am most concerned with the fact that I live in Los Angeles, and it is made and serviced in England, so reliability is a huge factor. I’m also wondering about customer service and turn-around times on gear that goes in for repair.

It seems as though it works very well, but again, since I live in LA, this would be something I’d be purchasing sight unseen, and is essentially an expensive leap of faith. Hearing comments from others who have used it would be very useful in making an informed decision.

I got a very thorough run-through by fellow operator and Forum member Stephen Consentino who is a rep for Boxx here in the US regarding the unit and how he has been using it. I’m also hoping for insight into how others are using it and mounting it to their rigs. I believe the transmitter now has somewhat smaller, orient-able antenna and the antenna on the receiver can be separated via cable from the unit for long shots. Just wondering if anyone can speak to this and what their experience is.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Sincerely,

Brooks Robinson
brooksontheroad@pacbell.net
  • 0

#2 Jason Torbitt

Jason Torbitt

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 401 posts
  • Manchester, London UK

Posted 01 June 2010 - 08:06 AM

I emailed Brooks about this off-forum, but for other's info, I've pasted it below - a very quick rundown of how I've found the system so far...any questions I'm happy to answer.


I'll start off by saying that I love it. It has a good range. Within 80 metres it does really well. Outside of that, digital break-up starts, where the odd small square here and there doesn't arrive. This does also occasionally happen when you're in closer range but is not a regular occurance. Just yesterday I had it on a RED inside a set built in a studio. Video village was through 2 woodens walls, about 20 metres away, and it worked fine, just the occasional glitch.

The biggest selling point for me is that it is full uncompressed HD-SDI, so the signal outputted is identical to if a cable was hardwired from the sled to video village. At the receiver, it also automatically changes channel, if you change the TX the RX automatically senses it. Also another great feature is that it simultaneously downconverts at the RX. So as well as outputting HD-SDI, it can also output a composite at the same time - ideal for continuity and other people who may have clamshells and other SD monitors.

I have used this for live events on 66metre screens, and the quality is fantastic.

I have also used it on an SR3, SR2 and an ST. No problems at all. Composite standard def transmits just as well as HD. It tends to look dirtier, but that's the difference between composite and HD-SDI I guess.

Surface area of the TX is a bit of problem sometimes. It's very light but it is quite wide and flat. Velcro is OK but it often needs tape to hold it in place too. I didn't get a v-lock battery plate version as I operate with so many different cameras, so I opted to save weight and do it in that way.

Power input is a 4-pin hirose. BNC connectors are for HD-SDI / SDI and composite. There are component connectors on phono / RCA connectors, and also audio can be sent on mini 5-pin XLR. There is also a 12-pin hirose which can be used for data for racking video and broadcast cameras.
  • 0

#3 Lars Erik

Lars Erik

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 543 posts
  • Norway

Posted 09 July 2010 - 01:33 PM


  • 0

#4 RonBaldwin

RonBaldwin

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 July 2010 - 01:59 PM




wow. I just watched 3 of the additional videos and it is amazing, and HUGE, and amazing!
  • 0

#5 Jens Piotrowski SOC

Jens Piotrowski SOC

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 1656 posts
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 09 July 2010 - 02:29 PM




wow. I just watched 3 of the additional videos and it is amazing, and HUGE, and amazing!



to my knowledge, all three or four (teletest) sytems are using the same chipset and obey by the same FCC rules, therefore fighting the same limitations.....the difference is really in the antenna array size...again we should do a side by side test, just like we did with the LCD monitors
  • 0

#6 Thomas K. Jensen

Thomas K. Jensen

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 150 posts
  • Denmark, Europe

Posted 09 July 2010 - 04:49 PM

Hey everyone.
It was me who did the demo of the Boxx at the Danish Monitor Expo.
And I must say that the image quality was really as great as if it was hard wired.
There were no major drop outs, even when I did some longer runs and even throug thick concrete walls - just some small glitches.

My Steadicam was turned on for a full day (2 x 160wh for 8 hours)
I didn't shut it off at any time. So it isn't very power consuming either.

Great system.
  • 0

#7 Mike Germond SOC

Mike Germond SOC

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 468 posts
  • Orlando Steadicam LLC

Posted 09 July 2010 - 06:45 PM

Thomas, is that blue cable powering the Boxx unit? Am I mistaken or did you use the camera's 4pin Hirose DC out?

I'd be interested to know because those things usually have a 1A limit, but it obviously worked for you..
  • 0

#8 Lawrence Karman

Lawrence Karman

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 896 posts

Posted 09 July 2010 - 09:50 PM

Nice and huge. Can they make my iPhone work better?
  • 0

#9 RonBaldwin

RonBaldwin

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 July 2010 - 10:05 PM

Nice and huge. Can they make my iPhone work better?


No one is able to do that!
  • 0

#10 Ken Nguyen

Ken Nguyen

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 244 posts
  • California & Viet Nam

Posted 09 July 2010 - 11:43 PM

Hi all,
We just finished taping (HDcam) a live concert multi-cam in Las Vegas.
We used 2 wireless systems for steadicam: Boxx and Lynx.
The Lynx gave us a better image than Boxx, so we opted to use Lynx as main unit and Boxx as a backup.

When comparing both wireless signals to wired signal, both wireless video signals were not as sharp as the wired signal.
Both signal from the same camera fed into the switcher; used vertical and horizontal wipe to compare the signals.
Yes, we can cheat the viewer but not a trained-eye person.
For me, I say the different is between 8.5 and 10. 10 is the resolution of the wired video signal.
Cheers,
Ken Nguyen.
  • 0

#11 Thomas K. Jensen

Thomas K. Jensen

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 150 posts
  • Denmark, Europe

Posted 10 July 2010 - 12:24 AM

Thomas, is that blue cable powering the Boxx unit? Am I mistaken or did you use the camera's 4pin Hirose DC out?

I'd be interested to know because those things usually have a 1A limit, but it obviously worked for you..

Hey Mike.
I did use the 4 pin Hirose. It worked fine.
The transmitter dosent use that much power.
  • 0

#12 Lars Erik

Lars Erik

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 543 posts
  • Norway

Posted 10 July 2010 - 04:26 AM

Hi all,
We just finished taping (HDcam) a live concert multi-cam in Las Vegas.
We used 2 wireless systems for steadicam: Boxx and Lynx.
The Lynx gave us a better image than Boxx, so we opted to use Lynx as main unit and Boxx as a backup.

When comparing both wireless signals to wired signal, both wireless video signals were not as sharp as the wired signal.
Both signal from the same camera fed into the switcher; used vertical and horizontal wipe to compare the signals.
Yes, we can cheat the viewer but not a trained-eye person.
For me, I say the different is between 8.5 and 10. 10 is the resolution of the wired video signal.
Cheers,
Ken Nguyen.



Well Ken,

it's a good thing that 99% of TV and feature viewers don't have a trained eye then. Sure I can operate wired. But only after I explain to the client that the operating will suffer. Then 9/10 goes for the wireless signal. For me, operating with wire is like a 5.0. Wireless is 10.
  • 0

#13 Ken Nguyen

Ken Nguyen

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 244 posts
  • California & Viet Nam

Posted 10 July 2010 - 03:23 PM

Hi all,
We just finished taping (HDcam) a live concert multi-cam in Las Vegas.
We used 2 wireless systems for steadicam: Boxx and Lynx.
The Lynx gave us a better image than Boxx, so we opted to use Lynx as main unit and Boxx as a backup.

When comparing both wireless signals to wired signal, both wireless video signals were not as sharp as the wired signal.
Both signal from the same camera fed into the switcher; used vertical and horizontal wipe to compare the signals.
Yes, we can cheat the viewer but not a trained-eye person.
For me, I say the different is between 8.5 and 10. 10 is the resolution of the wired video signal.
Cheers,
Ken Nguyen.



Well Ken,

it's a good thing that 99% of TV and feature viewers don't have a trained eye then. Sure I can operate wired. But only after I explain to the client that the operating will suffer. Then 9/10 goes for the wireless signal. For me, operating with wire is like a 5.0. Wireless is 10.


Hi Lars,
Just take it easy man. No offend!
I've looking for a better wireless system for quite a long time, since the analogue era.
None of us, steadicam ops, want to be wired.
And, this post is not taking about wired and wireless operating.
My post as well as others is talking about the technical specs of the wireless system; again, nothing to do with operating.
So far, LINK (not Lynx, sorry for my mistake as previously posted) and then Boxx are 2 best systems.
In case you don't know, or pretending not to know, or trying to hide the fact, the fact is wireless hasn't provide the video resolution as best as wired.

Ken Nguyen.
  • 0

#14 Ken Nguyen

Ken Nguyen

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 244 posts
  • California & Viet Nam

Posted 10 July 2010 - 03:30 PM

Hi all,
We just finished taping (HDcam) a live concert multi-cam in Las Vegas.
We used 2 wireless systems for steadicam: Boxx and Lynx.
The Lynx gave us a better image than Boxx, so we opted to use Lynx as main unit and Boxx as a backup.

When comparing both wireless signals to wired signal, both wireless video signals were not as sharp as the wired signal.
Both signal from the same camera fed into the switcher; used vertical and horizontal wipe to compare the signals.
Yes, we can cheat the viewer but not a trained-eye person.
For me, I say the different is between 8.5 and 10. 10 is the resolution of the wired video signal.
Cheers,
Ken Nguyen.


Hi all,
Sorry for my typo. It should be LINK not Lynx.
Ken Nguyen.
  • 0

#15 Charles Papert

Charles Papert

    Advanced Member

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2224 posts
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 August 2010 - 05:09 PM

Hello all:

I spent a couple of weeks on a job in Italy with the Boxx system. Vincent Laforet and I were shooting a food and travel show pilot and the Boxx chaps (Mark and Scott--many thanks and kudos for getting it together on such notice) sent us a couple of systems. My DSLR setup is configured so that everything stays onboard regardless of shooting mode so my camera remained untethered whether on sticks, handheld or Steadicam. What I had learned a couple years back with the Camwave was that an uncompressed HD wireless system simply eliminates the hassles of cabling--you quickly forget about the tangling and patching/repatching process as you move around a set, as the image remains just as good on the monitor as if hardwired. However the Camwave proved to be inconsistent, so on the days it chose not to work, back to the wire. On this particular shoot, my first with the Boxx, we never had any interference issues whatsoever and so the concept of HD wireless as "invisible" was finally achieved. I had my mind on the big picture so I can't speak to any of the functional particulars (ease of menus, flexibility of setup etc) but having a rock-solid image at all times was good enough.

After a series of different versions as seen at trade shows over the past few years, the transmitter antennas have settled down into a series of soft foam paddles that can be articulated as required. While it's easy to look at an array of antennas and wish they were smaller/fewer/hidden etc, in practice they don't get in your way and you quickly ignore them. The unit is a somewhat similar size to the Camwave.

This isn't really a comprehensive review as I said but I wanted to mention that the unit is a solid one and worked well for us on this shoot.
  • 0




Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

PLC - Bartech

IDX

GPI Pro Systems

Betz Tools for Stabilizers

Omnishot Systems

BOXX

Ritter Battery

Boland Communications

PLC Electronics Solutions

rebotnix Technologies

SkyDreams

Varizoom Follow Focus

Engineered Cinema Solutions

Teradek

Wireless Video Systems