In reality, what will the Convergent Design Nano Flash do for me? [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

Buck Forester

10-20-2008, 11:38 AM

I know the Nano Flash bypasses the default camera codec and gets footage straight from the sensors (if I'm understanding it correctly).

But using the Sony EX1, real world what does this translate into in terms of what I'll actually be seeing? Will it make much of a difference? My EX1 is already sharper than a thinly sliced pickle, so in essence what will the extra bit rate provide in the image other than taking up more storage space? It won't eliminate any CMOS limitations because that's the sensors themselves. It won't increase resolution because it's already 1920x1080. Locked down I can't imagine the EX1 being any better because it smokes in sharpness and clarity. If it will make an improvement in motion, specifically how so? I can make the Nano Flash, at $3,500 or so, fit my budget if it'll reeeeeally make a noticeable difference. If not, I'll just put the $3,500 on my Starbucks Card and be set for the next two months of caffeine fixes.

Sumfun

10-20-2008, 12:24 PM

NanoFlash will allow you to capture 4:2:2 color (vs. 4:2:0 on SxS), and higher bit rates of 50, 100, and 160mbps. This will give you a more detailed image with more color resolution - useful especially if you're doing green screen or composites. The improvement is only minor, and you will have to judge for yourself if it's worth the extra cost. I think Convergent Designs may have posted some A-B comparisons. Jim Arthur posted a comparison here a few months ago (but he captured the 4:2:2 HD SDI signal to his computer).

Nanoflash also allows you to record to CF cards, which may save you money over SxS cards if you use lots of them. But considering that some people have figured out how to use SDHC cards with the EX1, that's a moot point.

Buck Forester

10-20-2008, 09:41 PM

Thanks, Sumfun. I guess I'll hold out for some sample "motion" footage from the NanoFlash.

chagchag

10-21-2008, 05:27 AM

To tell you the truth, the nanoflash will not be of very much use, unless you are doing keying. It may also be of benefit if you are doing heavy grading. Othe than that, keep in mind that your output codec ex. Blueray etc are almost always much lower quality than the recording codec, even than the XDCAM EX codec, so the long-gop problems will rear it's head once you put your stuff ot anyway.

Stevet

11-08-2008, 07:44 PM

Blueray etc are almost always much lower quality than the recording codec, even than the XDCAM EX codec, so the long-gop problems will rear it's head once you put your stuff ot anyway.

Yes,
but that's that true with every format played encoded to DVDs and Bluray.
This is just what we have for a viewing media. The main concept here is to minimize the artifacts in the end.
Therefore, always have the highest quality possibly before encoding to our final media, Blu-Ray ot whatever it may be.

Having said that, capturing SDI to the XDR or NanoFlash using 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP sure appears to make a difference when it comes to fast motion. Even, static to slow motion has an improved overall look, lower noise, no nasty macroblocks, improved colorspace.
Here's a EX1 comparison (Thanks to Jim Arthurs) using SDI>XDR 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP verses XDCAM codec

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/attachments/convergent-design-flash-xdr/9581d1225943975-real-codec-torture-test-35mbps-vs-100mbps-35mbvrs100mb_sparks.png
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/attachments/convergent-design-flash-xdr/9580d1225943921-real-codec-torture-test-35mbps-vs-100mbps-35mbvrs100mb_rotate2.png

Sumfun

11-09-2008, 12:35 AM

Those are pretty big improvements.

GuyB

11-09-2008, 02:10 AM

Stevet

11-09-2008, 08:40 AM

Yes they are big improvments, but remember they were both scenes chosen to be close to a worst case senario for the XDCAM EX encoding, lets not let anyone start thinking that all EX footage looks like that on the left... Just something to consider in that big picture we all draw in out minds :-)

Guy is right, these were taken under very fast movement with a high shutter speed (1/2000).

Under normal use, you would not see these compression artifacts.
Defining "normal" use can sometimes be a problem.
Everything, regardless of the footage albeit Sony, Panny, Canon or JVC, can show artifacts (compression, noise,ect..) upon close inspection on a zoomed frame.

I've seen frames from the EX1 (soccer game I posted here eight months ago) with fast motion where you could see these compression artifacts when inspecting a fast motion frame grab. Now, can you see these artfacts when played back, I doubt it.
But, it "may" add to perceived more than the normal loss of image detail under fast motion.
I'm not talking slow to normal pan speeds, but fast pans and/ or fast image movement.
Also, some may mistake motion blur, which adds to "preceived" detail loss, for motion artifacts.
Another problem is not to trust motion on a lot of PC displays. If you pause the playback during high motion and
the image appears sharper upon pause, this is a computer and/or display issue reponse time.

Under "normal" pan speeds and moderate image movement, I do not see any artifacts. But, it's possible that there "could be" a slight loss of image detail. This test has not been proven under "normal" movement.

If Jim Arthurs is reading this post and still has access to the XDR, I'd be intersted in a comparison between the stock XDCAM codec verses the XDR 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP codec under a "normal" pan speed across high detail. It would be interesting to subtract these frames. Also, the same test taken at a slow pan speed. This would answer Buck's question.
I've seen the EX1 example (Jim Arthurs) using XDR 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP codec subtracted from uncompressed. It was a LOT better than I dreamed of. It was virtually equivalent.

basilisk

11-09-2008, 09:20 AM

I get some edge artefacts when keying SxS green screen footage. But as I usually shoot 1080p and finish in 720p or SD, the artefacts really don't cause a problem. If you are using a decent tool like Keylight in AE, you can fiddle with your edges, and I can recommend Red Giant Key Correct Light Wrap.

Doing a big budget glossy piece at full 1080p, I would probably rent a more expensive camera with a better lens, before worrying about codec related issues.

jls4

11-10-2008, 08:38 AM

I don't have an EX1/EX3 as of yet, but I wanted to point out for any "readers" that the concept of "Normal" I think you guys are referring to has more direct relationship to Video Type Applications. I've been watching the Nano Flash and I'm extremely excited, but my work is more in indiependent film. So any resolution/ sharpness /color upgrades even without utilizing green screen are welcomed. I've seen EX1's 35Mbps perform well, but trippling the amount with a larger color space is extremely exciting for me since my main concern is not Blue-ray or DVD, but the big screen. Esepcially when the cost could be a minimal $3,500. It could be argued that at that point one might as well move to the RED, but I think a more used and Sony backed $12K CMOS Camera solution right now for indies is favorable over the $35K minimum for the RED ($18K Camera, + Lenses, Flash Cards, etc)

Mike Schell

11-10-2008, 12:22 PM

I think the use of the nanoFlash with the EX1/EX3 depends on your application. If you are shooting for the BBC, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, Nat Geo, or plan to output to film, then the nanoFlash is an invaluable addition to your camera. All our test suggest that the 100Mbps 4:2:2 Long-GOP CODEC is indistinguishable from uncompressed, even in high-motion applications.

So, I believe that the EX1/EX3 + nanoFlash combination provides video quality equivalent to cameras costing 2X to 3X as much. From that perspective, the nanoFlash can represent considerable savings while allowing you the opportunity to shoot high-end productions.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

zeke

11-10-2008, 01:29 PM

Is the codec 10bit or 8bit?

Mike Schell

11-10-2008, 03:21 PM

Is the codec 10bit or 8bit?

Hi Zeke-
It's 8-bit, but the difference between 8-bit and 10-bit is greatly diminished after any sort of compression. I'll have some comparison shots in the future, but I think you'll be surprised at the small difference.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

GuyB

11-10-2008, 08:39 PM

Don't get me wrong though, while I might defend the EXs native footage I completely see the market for the nano and XDR. If I was shooting anything for film or a lot of grading or colour work, keying etc or even just a high paying creative job and I had the money the nano would be an instant purchase.

Stevet

11-10-2008, 08:54 PM

I'm buying the NanoFlash. I'm sold on how clean the images are coming off the EX1 using the 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP. Also, memory cards will also be inexpensive.

Mike Schell

11-10-2008, 09:21 PM

Hi Stevet-
Thanks! I feel confident you will be pleased with the results. You can play the video directly off the CF cards in FCP without rewrap or transcode. We expect MXF (Avid, Edius, Vegas) support later this month.

Mike Schell

Buck Forester

11-10-2008, 09:40 PM

Is it very easy to switch between the NanoFlash and the SxS cards? From what I understand (which could be wrong) you can't do over/under cranking with the NanoFlash to the CF cards? I was just wondering how simple it is to bypass the NanoFlash when wanting to over/under crank.

AAS2

11-10-2008, 11:16 PM

We just recieved our EX3 and I came acrss this thread about the NanoFlash. Where is there an article or forum thread that gives a full description and details about it?

At Asian Ar Safari we have been using our Panasonic HVX200s and HPX500 to very good effect. I will be interested in how the EX3 can complement our existing setup or replace some of it. The NanoFlash may make the EX3 even more valuable to us.

Sumfun

11-11-2008, 01:07 AM

If you already have P2 cards, you may want to consider Panasonic's newly announced AG-HPG20 recorder. Basically, it takes an HD-SDI input and records it to P2 cards in the AVC-Intra format. AVC Intra is MPEG4 based, so it's more efficient than Sony's EX codec, which is MPEG2 based. It's also an I frame codec, which should make for better pictures (but less efficiency) than Sony's long GOP. And AVC intra is 10-bits, which should take full advantage of the EX1/EX3's 10-bit HD-SDI output. The main downfall in my opinion is that it only records to P2 cards, which is a lot more expensive than CF cards used by the Flash XDR and Nano Flash. But if you already own P2 cards, then you may not have to spend more money on memory.

The HPG20 hasn't been released yet, so we don't really know about the quality of the picture (or price or all the features, for that matter). But I would sure love to see a side-by-side comparison with the Flash XDR.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=152238

Stevet

11-11-2008, 05:16 AM

If you already have P2 cards, you may want to consider Panasonic's newly announced AG-HPG20 recorder.

The main downfall in my opinion is that it only records to P2 cards, which is a lot more expensive than CF cards used by the Flash XDR and Nano Flash. But if you already own P2 cards, then you may not have to spend more money on memory.

Good points.

This would be a hard sell for a Sony EX user, but like you said, it may be a good sale for P2 owners. Has there been any comparisons between this recorder's codec verses DVCPRO HD?

The comparison of the XDR 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP to uncompressed is amazing.

zeke

11-11-2008, 06:26 AM

Hi Zeke-
It's 8-bit, but the difference between 8-bit and 10-bit is greatly diminished after any sort of compression. I'll have some comparison shots in the future, but I think you'll be surprised at the small difference.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

For most circumstances I agree, but if doing color grading for film out, 10bit can help. But then again I could build a bmd/computer/raid based capture setup for that. Though the Flash XDR recording at 160mb would be preferable. I hope you folks can deliver on that, but I certainly don't consider that a deal killer.

GuyB

11-11-2008, 08:15 AM

From what I have heard the 100Mbps long GOP provides higher quality than the 160Mbps I frame. I don't think there is a 160Mbps Long GOP option.

Lester

11-11-2008, 08:27 AM

Everyone is talking about this Nano Flash, is there a web site where this thing is at? I am not a pro but do like to learn more about it. It also seems that other people like to know too.

Sumfun

11-11-2008, 09:54 AM

ny EX user, but like you said, it may be a good sale for P2 owners. Has there been any comparisons between this recorder's codec verses DVCPRO HD?

The comparison of the XDR 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP to uncompressed is amazing.

I attended a Panasonic presentation a few weeks ago about the new 2700 and 3700 cameras. They put up some graphs that showed that the AVC-intra codec was significantly better than DVCpro HD. The pictures backed this up, too. Beautiful pictures with very smooth gradations. I don't remember seeing any samples of fast pans, though.

Someone needs to compare these recorders head to head when the HPG20 comes out. Maybe split an HD-SDI signal from 1 camera to go to both recorders, or record an uncompressed signal to a computer, then output the same signal to both recorders.

Sumfun

11-11-2008, 09:59 AM

Everyone is talking about this Nano Flash, is there a web site where this thing is at? I am not a pro but do like to learn more about it. It also seems that other people like to know too.

Flash XDR and Nano Flash are made by Convergent Design. You can find more info at their website http://www.convergent-design.com/ They also have discussion forums at other sites. Just follow the links from their page.

Mike Schell, who posted on this thread earlier, works for them, and I'm sure he can help with any questions you may have.

Lester

11-11-2008, 05:15 PM

Sumfun: Thanks for the info

Mike Schell

11-11-2008, 05:46 PM

For most circumstances I agree, but if doing color grading for film out, 10bit can help. But then again I could build a bmd/computer/raid based capture setup for that. Though the Flash XDR recording at 160mb would be preferable. I hope you folks can deliver on that, but I certainly don't consider that a deal killer.

Hi Zeke-
Yes, the 160Mbps I-Frame only is definitely on the firmware update roadmap, but probably not until Jan 09. We have MXF and 24p pull-down removal to complete.

I still believe that the 100Mbps Long-GOP will deliver the best video quality, but we'll let you make the final choice, as it's a simple menu selection to choose beteeen 100Mbps Long-GOP or 160Mbps I-Frame only.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

Mike Schell

11-11-2008, 05:59 PM

I attended a Panasonic presentation a few weeks ago about the new 2700 and 3700 cameras. They put up some graphs that showed that the AVC-intra codec was significantly better than DVCpro HD. The pictures backed this up, too. Beautiful pictures with very smooth gradations. I don't remember seeing any samples of fast pans, though.

Someone needs to compare these recorders head to head when the HPG20 comes out. Maybe split an HD-SDI signal from 1 camera to go to both recorders, or record an uncompressed signal to a computer, then output the same signal to both recorders.

I am anxious to compare our 100Mbps Long-GOP to the AVC-I CODEC. We have images posted on our website that clearly show our 100Mbps outperforming DVCProHD. This is not surprising, since our CODEC is full-raster (1920x1080), while DVCProHD is 1280/1440 x 1080. Also, our CODEC is Long-GOP which is about 2-3X times more efficieint than I-Frame only.

Naturally, this comparison gets more complex when you compare our MPEG2 100Mbps Long-GOP 8-bit CODEC to the AVC-I (MPEG4) 100Mbps I-Frame Only 10-bit CODEC. MPEG4 should be more efficient that MPEG2, but this advantage rolls off with higher bit-rates (it's significant at 10-20Mbps, but much less so at 100). And 10-bit should be better than 8-bit, but this difference is also reduced through any compression.

I suspect the overriding advantage of the Long-GOP recording will make our CODEC very competitive aganist the AVC-I CODEC. But, the only way to answer this question is to run some side by side tests.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

Stevet

11-11-2008, 06:59 PM

I have a feeling both of those codecs will be so good it will be hard to determine the best.
Afterall, we've seen the XDR 100mbps long-GOP compared to uncompressed. I really could not see a difference by eye that is...

I looked at the subtracted frames under no light and did not see really any visual difference. These were the fast motion frames posted.

Times are getting better for all!

GuyB

11-11-2008, 07:04 PM

The MPG4 compression would also suck a lot more processing power to encode, and from what I hear it is bit*h to edit and most are having to go back to uncompressed.

I imported a 50Mbps MPG2 MXF file (to simulate the PDW-700) from Clip Browser 2 into Liquid 7.2 and it played it native no problems on my laptop.... I would expect similar results with 100Mbps and Liquid 7.2.

EIREHotspur

11-12-2008, 09:59 AM

Barry_Green

11-12-2008, 10:31 AM

and from what I hear it is bit*h to edit and most are having to go back to uncompressed.
I can edit AVC-Intra in realtime on my laptop. It isn't that hard. AVC-HD is significantly more processor-intensive because it's a long-GOP codec, so I can't get AVC-HD in realtime, but AVC-Intra is realtime on EDIUS 4.6.

Jim Arthurs

11-12-2008, 06:04 PM

If Jim Arthurs is reading this post and still has access to the XDR, I'd be intersted in a comparison between the stock XDCAM codec verses the XDR 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP codec under a "normal" pan speed across high detail. It would be interesting to subtract these frames. Also, the same test taken at a slow pan speed.

Hi Steve... I don't currently have access to an XDR, but at the time I had recorded something at a slow pan speed and high detail to both the SxS media and the XDR... here's a link to a layered Photoshop file you can download and play with. The first glance visual differences are subtle, but you will notice a slight softness when you flick between them on the 35Mb/sec image compared to the 100Mb/sec. Of course differencing can be done between them to reveal the whole story...

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/EX1/SLOW_PAN35MbVRS100MB.zip

This is a very slow pan, coming to a stop 60 frames after this grab...

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

GuyB

11-12-2008, 06:25 PM

I can edit AVC-Intra in realtime on my laptop. It isn't that hard. AVC-HD is significantly more processor-intensive because it's a long-GOP codec, so I can't get AVC-HD in realtime, but AVC-Intra is realtime on EDIUS 4.6.

Is that editing AVCIntra natively or is Edius transcoding to its own intra codec first?

Jim Arthurs

11-12-2008, 06:34 PM

In case anyone is interested, I did do some tests a while ago comparing uncompressed 8bit vrs uncompressed 10bit coming from the EX1's HD-SDI out while live... I have a thread over on Chris Hurds site, but didn't get any feedback, so I'll recap here.

The bottom line is that it's VERY hard to detect any *worthwhile* difference between them... This could just be an EX specific problem, or maybe a comment on the whole 8 vrs 10bit debate sourcing in general.

What I did was set up a grey card with a subtle gradient of light across it... something like 45 IRE to 55 IRE, with the hope of producing some banding over the image and seeing if the banding was less "steppy" on the 10bit material.

I took the 10bit uncompressed image through a heavy levels adjustment, effectively remapping 45 IRE down to black and the 55 IRE up to white... all keeping the work in Digital Fusion in 16bit float space. I did the same image processing steps on the 8bit uncompressed image, but keeping it in an 8bit space the whole time. Finally, after levels, I dropped the 10bit down to 8bit and split screened it over the 8bit. Here's the results...

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/EX1/EX1_8bitVRS10bit_Test.png

Here's a zip of the source files, and another set of 8 vrs 10bit images of colored pencils to play with...

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/EX1/EX1_8bit_vrs_10bit_uncompressed.zip

I don't consider this any sort of final word on the debate, but I've done this a couple of times now and reached the same personal conclusion. I'd love to see someone else take a stab at this sort of test and report back.

What I'm looking for is an example that shows a real-world practical benefit to the 10bit advantage. Please know I'm not arguing the usefulness of a 10bit intermediate file format for color correcting, just the benefit of 10bit original source recording over 8bit in a practical, real world example.

Regards,

Mike Schell

11-12-2008, 08:20 PM

Mike

Your products look very good and the side by side comparison are impressive because thats what counts in the end after all......picture quality.

Can I ask a silly question.
Why can't you shrink the product/codec down to the size of an SDHC card or work with a company who could get it onto such cards?

Having ditched the Sony 60gig HD, which didn't work as was not reliable...I am using SDHC cards now.
It is cumbersome to have to put a HD unit on top of an EX3.

The SDHC cards are limited to 32GB, whereas 64 and 100GB CF cards have already been announced by several manufacturers. Also, the CF cards still offer the highest performance (45Mbytes/sec), although SanDisk now has an SDHC card with 30Mbytes/sec R/W.

In all honesty, I doubt we can make the nanoFlash much smaller, even using SDHC cards. There is a certain amount of circuitry outside of the memory cards that will always be required to make the product work.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

Stevet

11-12-2008, 08:52 PM

Hi Steve... I don't currently have access to an XDR, but at the time I had recorded something at a slow pan speed and high detail to both the SxS media and the XDR... here's a link to a layered Photoshop file you can download and play with. The first glance visual differences are subtle, but you will notice a slight softness when you flick between them on the 35Mb/sec image compared to the 100Mb/sec. Of course differencing can be done between them to reveal the whole story...

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/EX1/SLOW_PAN35MbVRS100MB.zip

This is a very slow pan, coming to a stop 60 frames after this grab...

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

Jim,
thank you! for this example.
If this is a slow pan (and I'm sure it is), the difference was larger than I expected!
This is exactly what's needed for many to see the benefits if using this codec over the stock HQ 35mb/s codec. The difference is more obvious looking at a 24" 1920x1080 monitor. Like you said, subtracting the layers tell the story. If we're able to see a difference with this slow motion, a faster pan would of yielded an even more obvious difference.

This may be just what Buck is looking for. The difference is subtle. But since the EX has such a high detail image, giving up "some" detail during movement and also adding to that normal motion blur, this may be what Buck needed to hear.

Yes, I remember seeing these 10bit verses 8bit. I agree the benefits from these are not obvious. I do not have much experience with 10bit video. I'd like to see some examples that clearly show a difference. I believe I've seen some grading examples on Cineform's website, but it's been a while.

Thanks again Jim!

Barry_Green

11-12-2008, 09:59 PM

Is that editing AVCIntra natively or is Edius transcoding to its own intra codec first?
Native, playing straight from the card. I hate transcoding. :thumbsup:

Jim Arthurs

11-13-2008, 01:47 PM

Jim,
thank you! for this example.
If this is a slow pan (and I'm sure it is), the difference was larger than I expected!

Hi Steve... here's the clip I pulled the grab from so you can see the speed of the pan... I think I pulled about 2 seconds before dead stop...

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/EX1/SLOW_PANexample.mov

In regards to the 8bit vrs 10bit test... I may try it again, but using an IRE ramp range of say, 15 to 25 instead of higher up the food chain (bit-wise) at 45-55. As we get closer to the noise floor the amount of bits per f-stop fall off significantly and any difference should be greater. Yet, the closer you are to the noise floor the more... er... noise you have, masking the banding potential. It's a double-edge sword in testing.

We know for a fact that those extra bits are real coming out of the EX1, not just padding from 8 up to 10. It would be nice if they made a real world difference that we could see and judge.

Regards

EIREHotspur

11-13-2008, 05:23 PM

So the long and the short of these tests are that pans are smoother on the XDR files??

Stevet

11-13-2008, 06:48 PM

I may try it again, but using an IRE ramp range of say, 15 to 25 instead of higher up the food chain (bit-wise) at 45-55. As we get closer to the noise floor the amount of bits per f-stop fall off significantly and any difference should be greater. Yet, the closer you are to the noise floor the more... er... noise you have, masking the banding potential.

Thanks Jim, that would be a great test. It makes sense that low levels would improve. Well, at least this is true in the digitial audio world, you would also think it would apply to video levels as well.

Stevet

11-13-2008, 06:59 PM

So the long and the short of these tests are that pans are smoother on the XDR files??

The XDR has nothing to really do with motion itself, but minimizing or essentially visually eliminating compression artifacts with motion with the EX camera (compared to XDCAM codec).

For that matter motion or not, the EX image will be an improved with 4:2:2 and virtually undetectable compression artifacts using the 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP codec.

EIREHotspur

11-14-2008, 04:38 AM

Mike Schell

11-14-2008, 07:25 PM

The files from the XDR are impressive.
Only thing is of course it triples the amount of storage/archiving space you need for the files.
Hmmmmm......well looks like a return to a HD type configuration on top of the EX3 again sometime in the future for me.

Yes, this is true, but disk drive storage is very cheap nowadays. Also, you can use the NexTo (CF to Hard Disk) box to offload the cards. A 500GB version only costs $329, and it includes an eSATA interface.

Mike Schell