BM Capture and/or streaming devices comparison

Hello everyone,

Can anyone explain to me, a green person, what is the difference between:

1. Ultrastudio Mini recorder
2. Ulstrastudio Mini HD
3. Web Presenter

As i see they are all for capture and/or streaming, which I intend to do, but I couldnt find ANYTHING on the net about the difference. Considering I would stream on Mac with Ecamm Live (with 2xBMMSC) what should I get to lessen the CPU load on the MAC and allow me the most overlays? ATEM TV Studio HD as switcher if needed.

I see that mini recorder is just a simple signal capture. I read that Mini HD has
a) "dual link 3G-SDI with simultaneous fill and key"
b) "Thunderbolt 3 so you get incredible 40 Gb/s performance for capture and playback of fully uncompressed video, leaving your computer’s CPU free for more processing tasks."

Does a) mean that I can do more with overlays? I know that this is a really dumb question :/ sorry but i really got no idea what advantage this has over lets say getting smaller mini recorders

What b) means I kind of understand but... if the thunderbolt is such advantage then how do I switch cameras with ATEM tv HD if i connect from camera to ultrastudio hd mini to mac.

Wouldnt it just be better to get WebPresenter that can both switch and seems like lessen the strain on Mac CPU ?

All the possible connections and what they give is really confusing for me... so sorry for dumb questions of a complete newbie.

The general difference is that the Mini Recorder is a simple capture device with Thunderbolt 2 interface (old-school mini-displayport-port). The UltraStudio Mini HD is an input / output-device, which can also be used to output keyable graphics from Premiere or most CG-software. The Web Presenter just presents itself as a web camera.

a) means that the OUTPUTS from the device is a fill and key-setup, which means that you can key moving graphics very well in a live switcher. This has no effect if you use it as an input / capture device.

b) You don't usually connect from camera to UltraStudio to mac, you connect from switcher to UltraStudio to Mac, if you're using a switcher. All of these use an uncompressed video standard called SDI (HD- / 3G- etc). This also means that you only have one input in your software. If you want to switch in your software, you'll need two capture devices, and won't usually need a switcher.

Web Presenter limits the resolution to 720p, and does not deliver very impressive results after what I've seen. It does limit the CPU usage - as long as your software does not re-encode several streams.

---

The question of what is better depends on what you want to achieve and how well you want it done, both in terms of workflow and quality.

b) You don't usually connect from camera to UltraStudio to mac, you connect from switcher to UltraStudio to Mac, if you're using a switcher. All of these use an uncompressed video standard called SDI (HD- / 3G- etc). This also means that you only have one input in your software. If you want to switch in your software, you'll need two capture devices, and won't usually need a switcher.

Web Presenter limits the resolution to 720p, and does not deliver very impressive results after what I've seen. It does limit the CPU usage - as long as your software does not re-encode several streams.

Thank you for explaining it to me!

So if i have two cameras BMMSC and Im thinking of using Ecamm Live, then using all/some of this gear:
A) would lessen the CPU load of my Mac? as some of the encoding work would be done by the boxes? or only WebPresenter eases the load on CPU?

a) means that the OUTPUTS from the device is a fill and key-setup, which means that you can key moving graphics very well in a live switcher. This has no effect if you use it as an input / capture device.

I thought that for videos/stingers there is Hyperdeck Mini? Or both it and Ultrastudio can do that? So i connect cameras to ATEM TV using two ports, then connect Ultrastudio HD mini to two another ports (fill and key) and then with tunderbolt to my Mac?

B) if there are two ways of approaching switching cameras which one is better? I guess I should think "it depends" and so...

Switching with ATEM
If I want to have an animated stinger/opener video at my live streams I would use Hyperdeck Studio Mini? And connecting with two SDI would give me fill and key and so allow me to overlay video over my camera image? Then I would have two SDI left for my cameras?

So if i connect it all this way i got no ports left for ultrastudio? What then? Can i for example use SDI to HDMI converters and connect my BMMSC to those ports thus leaving ports for Ultrastudio?

SWITCHING in Ecamm Live
BMMSC x 2 to Ultrastudio x2 -thunderbolt x2 - Mac would give me a cheaper (about 500 euros) solution, but I would need to switch from Ecamm. What are downsides of switching in software? Is it more burden on CPU?


This is still complicated for me I guess. Sorry! Now i see that both Hardward and Software/Workflow/Connecting things together are problem to understand for me. So lets simplyfy it, if u still have patience with me.

If i wanted to get an opener and closer video for my live streams over fb, have a logo bug in the corner (switchable on and off) and at least one lower third (with my name and/or branding) and second one with episode title.

What gear would I need and how to connect it together?

Opener/closer video i can do with hyperdeck as i see at BM site and that would be the cool ones as they would have alpha channel. In Ecamm there are only full screen without transparency. They are not bad per se, but if I wanted to add a Hyperdeck Mini HD to Switching with Ecamm scenario, where would i connect it between all the gear?