Anyone using Convergent Design's Nano Flash?

[Lucere]

Is anyone using Convergent Design's Nano Flash? Could you share your experiences so far for those of us who are considering it, but not quite sure yet... Pros, cons (if any). THANKS!

[Stephen Mick]

I've got mine, I'm just waiting on some other accessories to arrive to start using it.

The BIG pro is that it basically takes an EX1 or EX3 (or any HD/SDI-equipped camera) and bypasses the XDCAM-EX 35Mbps codec, instead recording a full 4:2:2 XDCAM HD format, and at up to 220Mbps (I think that's the max). You also have the choice of recording to either .mov or .mxf format, making it easy to integrate into an existing post workflow.

The quality of XDCAM HD 422 at 100Mbps is seen by many to be indistinguishable (or damn close) from full uncompressed HD. In fact, though you can record at higher bitrates than 100Mbps, that seems to be the sweet spot for performance/storage balance. Above that and you really won't see the difference, unless perhaps you're doing heavy grading and/or effects work.

Recording to Compact Flash cards is also a big plus.

Now that the units are hitting the streets, I'm sure more/others will chime in with their experiences, but from what I've seen and heard, the Nano Flash unit offers the codec performance and resolution (I guess that's the best way to put it) of a $50,000 camera in a sub-$3,000 box. Now of course if you're shooting with a 2/3" Sony HD Camera (or similar), you have the advantage of better glass and more. But I see the Nano Flash as being the perfect tool for those of us who either can't afford those cameras or can't work those beasts into our shooting/travel style.

I'll be taking my EX1 and Nano Flash to Costa Rica in two weeks for a "fishing trip," and I'll post some footage when I can.

--SM

[GuyB]

I am hoping mine will arrive this week sometime, can't wait to start playing!

[robbz]

I am hoping mine will arrive this week sometime, can't wait to start playing!

Dont tell me you didnt buy it in Australia!?!

;)

[adamr316]

@stephenmick:

Thanks for the write-up on the Nano Flash! Does the cable from the EX to the unit lock, how long is the battery life and can you record to an SxS card at the same time as backup? Is there a pre-record cachce and is there a record synch or do you have to press record on the unit?

[zijital]

The BIG pro is that it basically takes an EX1 or EX3 (or any HD/SDI-equipped camera) and bypasses the XDCAM-EX 35Mbps codec,

It also has HDMI input, so a camera like a Sony Z7U or even something like a Canon HF10 can bypass the compression & produce a better picture.

I am interested to see the results of some head-to-heads w/ different cameras & the Nano-Flash. I think there is a chance that in good lighting something like a HF10 w/ a Nano Flash could produce cripser HD video than a HVX200 (which doesn't have HDMI or HD/SDI).

[Mike Schell]

@stephenmick:

Thanks for the write-up on the Nano Flash! Does the cable from the EX to the unit lock, how long is the battery life and can you record to an SxS card at the same time as backup? Is there a pre-record cachce and is there a record synch or do you have to press record on the unit?

The HD-SDI cable is a locking BNC. Most users opt for the SWIT battery of the CoCo adapter (for use with the Sony battery). Both of these options have a D-Tap connection. We offer a 4-pin Hirose (the locking power connector on the nanoFlash) to D-Tap cable. Using the large Sony battery you get about 3 hours of operating time for the combination of EX1/3 and the nanoFlash.

There is a 4.5 second pre-record buffer on the nanoFlash. You can record to the SxS cards and the nanoFlash simultaneously, this is in fact the preferred operation. You can set the nanoFlash to start recording on incrementing time-code. So if you set your camera to record-run time-code, the nanoFlash will automatically start recording when you press the record button on your camera.

Best-
Mike Schell
Convergent Design

[Mike Schell]

It also has HDMI input, so a camera like a Sony Z7U or even something like a Canon HF10 can bypass the compression & produce a better picture.

I am interested to see the results of some head-to-heads w/ different cameras & the Nano-Flash. I think there is a chance that in good lighting something like a HF10 w/ a Nano Flash could produce cripser HD video than a HVX200 (which doesn't have HDMI or HD/SDI).

I feel certain this combination will produce a better picture. While I cannont speak for the HF10, I can say that the XDCAM 4:2:2 CODEC used in the nanoFlash is miles ahead of the DVCProHD CODEC in the HVX200. DVCProHD resizes the video to 1280x1080 before compression, while XDCAM maintains the full raster of 1920x1080. XDCAM 4:2:2 is also Long-GOP, which is about 2-3X more efficient than I-Frame only.

Our 100 Mbps footage is virtually indistinguishable from uncompressed, but just in case you need the extra headroom, we also offer 160Mbps rate. If I-Frame only is an absolute requirement, we do offer a 220 Mbps selection.

Best-
Mike Schell
Convergent Design

[cuervo]

I just completed a documentary shoot with the nanoflash mounted on my Sony EX1. I recorded to 100mbps long GOP. Using a Zacuto platform, I mounted a AB Dionic 90 to the aft part of the platform and powered both the nanoflash and the EX1. After four hours of shooting, I still had battery to spare and had used less than the capacity of one 16GB CF card.

My only complaint with the entire system is in the method of ingesting the footage to Avid MC. While Avid will read XDCAM422 codec, it will need to be transcoded before outputting from Avid. In lieu of an Avid transcode, I prefer to disembed (demux) the native mxf files with MXF DESKTOP, then run the m2v files thru VirtualDub to produce Cineform's NeoHD. Alternatively, the m2v files can be run thru Procoder 3 for a direct transcode to Avid's 10-bit DNxHD codec, which will fast-import into Avid. This preserves the pristine files captured by the nanoflash.

[astigmatic]

I think there is a chance that in good lighting something like a HF10 w/ a Nano Flash could produce cripser HD video than a HVX200 (which doesn't have HDMI or HD/SDI).

well, there's a good chance that the hf10 already does have crisper hd video than the hvx200. I'm pretty certain the hf-s10 avchd footage already does at 900 lines resolving power.

[Mike Schell]

I just completed a documentary shoot with the nanoflash mounted on my Sony EX1. I recorded to 100mbps long GOP. Using a Zacuto platform, I mounted a AB Dionic 90 to the aft part of the platform and powered both the nanoflash and the EX1. After four hours of shooting, I still had battery to spare and had used less than the capacity of one 16GB CF card.

My only complaint with the entire system is in the method of ingesting the footage to Avid MC. While Avid will read XDCAM422 codec, it will need to be transcoded before outputting from Avid. In lieu of an Avid transcode, I prefer to disembed (demux) the native mxf files with MXF DESKTOP, then run the m2v files thru VirtualDub to produce Cineform's NeoHD. Alternatively, the m2v files can be run thru Procoder 3 for a direct transcode to Avid's 10-bit DNxHD codec, which will fast-import into Avid. This preserves the pristine files captured by the nanoflash.

I expect the workflow on Avid to improve in the upcoming months, but cannot go into the details. However, I can say that the next release of nanoFlash firmware (now in final test) will add MPG and M2V file formats. This may be an immediate help with ingest into Avid.

Best-
Mike Schell
Convergent Design

[Jim Arthurs]

Is anyone using Convergent Design's Nano Flash? Could you share your experiences so far for those of us who are considering it, but not quite sure yet... Pros, cons (if any). THANKS!

I haven't posted much in the last six months on any forum, but want to give an overview of the value and application of the NanoFlash. First, let me say that I'm from the same town that Convergent calls home (Colorado Springs) and have known these folks for a number of years. So, I'm biased, but I believe they have a product that has arrived at the perfect time, in the perfect form factor, let me explain...

I have an EX1 currently, and like many of you, get camera lust for the Next Greatest Thing every 18 months to 2 years. With a full raster camera like the EX1 that is capable of fantastic HD imagery, the only major room for improvement is in the on-board recording codec. Sony does a great job with 35Mb/sec, but the pristine HD-SDI out on the camera just BEGS to be ingested by some outside recorder with less compression.

First, it's important to understand WHAT the NanoFlash does: It has two of the very same Sony codec chips that the EX1/EX3 use. By ganging two together it is able to move from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 in a jump from 35Mb/sec to 50Mb/sec. But that's not all... the Convergent folks have "un-throttled" the chips, allowing them to work to their maximum data rate. So you can choose 100 Mb/sec and up to the max. And since the chips are able to do I-frame only as well as long GOP Mpeg, then why not offer that as well?

Basically, they have made a device that plays out the Sony Mpeg roadmap for the next couple generations of prosumer cameras and gives you that functionality and improvement in quality TODAY. By Sony's own charts, the Nano un-throttled can best HDCAM in color space, resolution and compression.

That means that one big benefit is that your current camera has new life. If you have HD-SDI out or HDMI out, you can take advantage of recording modes Sony has yet to offer and uncompressed like performance without lugging a desktop around from location to location. I've done that, and never want to do it again.

In addition, you have the recording option of wrapping these clips in either .mov or .mxf options. With .mov, there's even a utility to convert over to .mxf on the Mac for true cross-platform functionality.

Another thing I've found is the joy of picking the data rate for the job at hand; Doing talking head interviews? Then the 50Mb/sec 4:2:2 will up your standard with a minimal impact on storage space. Even long format green screen work is possible with this data rate, and the advantage of greater cable network acceptability in their standards departments. Then you move outside to get b-roll or highly detailed nature work or difficult bluescreen... jump up to 100Mb/sec or 160Mb/sec to suit, and mix these data rates effortlessly on your timeline.

And, there's a HUGE new market looming... for the next generation of DSLR's that will have live HDMI output. The NanoFlash with its small form factor and low power draw will be the ideal answer for a better recording solution for these cameras. And that future is very, very close.

I look at it this way; with the NanoFlash you have a recording solution that will move from camera to camera over the next few years. Start with your prosumer camcorder, and end up with your DSLR and keep a consistent post and file-format workflow between them.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

[chagchag]

Sums up my thoughs exactly, Jim. The Canon 7D looks promising, but I don't know if it has full quality HDMI out.

[cuervo]

Mike...
Thanx for writing the info you provided. This is really really great info. I'm currently performing two separate steps to demux video and audio. if I can export mpg2, I would be really pleased. Would it be a direct copy? I want to preserve the original data until I can save it as 10-bit.
Best regards,
cuervo(Bill Ravens)

[Bokes]

Using ther nanoflash - would I need to upgrade my Gspeed es to a Gspeed espro?
The "pro array" can handle uncompressed.
What is recommended?

[Solomojo]

has anyone used the nanoflash with a panasonic HPX 170? any stills? Very interested in getting full raster footage 422 100mbs movs to work with.

[GuyB]

I had the pleasure of taking my new nanoFlash for a test drive over the weekend. I only had it one day so was flying somewhat by the seat of my pants but in the end it was so dam easy to use its criminal!

I don't have any decent mounting options yet, so I literally put it in my suite pocket. I had on a home made belt with a Vmount battery on it I use to power my on camera light at receptions. That battery (IDX E7S_ didn't drop even a single dot in its power reading with the few hours I used it (unlit I started using the light with it at the same time...)

All I had was a single SDI cable to the belt from the camera. I would prefer to have a fully mounted powering option, but for now this will be fine, I know it works....

Mike might kill me, but the first thing I did when I got the nano was to cut the included AC power supply cable and put a 4pin XLR plug in line (one male and one female). This allows me to have one cable to the nano (with a 4pin male XLR connector on the end), and simply plug that into one of my many 4pin XLR power sources. I also added a female 4pin XLR to the output of my Dolgin EX-V battery adaptor too.

[adamr316]

Thanks for your answers Mike! One last question because I am considering a future Nanoflash purchase. With the increased codec data rate does the Nanoflash get rid of the blurry slow landscape pans that the EX cameras are known for?

In other words will my images stay crisp during camera movement like they do when the camera is locked down or is this a CMOS chip issue?

[Jim Arthurs]

Adam, somewhere on this forum, there's a series of tests I did about this time last year with the FlashXDR (same codec) on this issue with the blurry pans. I don't even remember the outcome or if I'd set up a good enough test case, but I may try it again in a day or two.

The key to the success of this sort of test is to increase the shutter speed high enough that the natural and desired motion blur isn't a factor in the test, only the codec response to change in motion vectors as a pan slows to a stop.

Guy, I've had some requests for pictures of my current NanoFlash mounting setup and I'll post these in another thread soon as well...

Regards;

[Luis Caffesse]

I had the opportunity to shoot with an EX-1/Nanoflash setup this past week (working with Stephen, who posted at the top of this thread) - and I can tell you that it was an awesome combination.

It actually has me reconsidering my entire setup - whatever my next camera is, I will seriously weigh in whether or not I'll be able to take advantage of something like the Nanoflash with it before making my decision. It's a sweet piece of gear that I think anyone would want to use once they use it first hand.

[Fohdeesha]

Using ther nanoflash - would I need to upgrade my Gspeed es to a Gspeed espro?
The "pro array" can handle uncompressed.
What is recommended?


no need to upgrade at all. The nanoflash doesn't record anything near uncompressed. (data rate wise atleast, with how good the footage looks it might as well be uncompressed)

On it's best codec setting of 160mbps, thats still only around 16MB/s, even a usb external drive could play back a couple streams of that at a time. A gspeed raid could probably play back a billion streams

[GuyB]

... With the increased codec data rate does the Nanoflash get rid of the blurry slow landscape pans that the EX cameras are known for?

In other words will my images stay crisp during camera movement like they do when the camera is locked down or is this a CMOS chip issue?
This will depend on the cause of the blur. I would expect the blur is cuased by motion blur, which is something that happens at the imaging stage on every imaging device including your eye. To reduce this you have to in increase the shutter speed. It has nothing to do with compression or sensor type (CMOS vs CCD etc)

If there is some type of compression artefact in the EX codec that is causing the blur then certainly the nanoFlash can improve that, but I am not sure that is your problem.

[Mike Schell]

Thanks for your answers Mike! One last question because I am considering a future Nanoflash purchase. With the increased codec data rate does the Nanoflash get rid of the blurry slow landscape pans that the EX cameras are known for?

In other words will my images stay crisp during camera movement like they do when the camera is locked down or is this a CMOS chip issue?


Hi Adam-
Here's that comparison image that Jim Arthurs created using the Sony EX1 with a high-speed shutter (1/2000) while doing a fast pan and rotate. The 35 Mbps 4:2:0 was captured using the native XDCAM EX CODEC, while the 100 Mbps 4:2:2 was captured using the HD-SDI out to the XDCAM 422 CODEC (found in the Flash XDR and the nanoFlash).

The difference is striking!

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

[Buck Forester]

Hi Adam-
Here's that comparison image that Jim Arthurs created using the Sony EX1 with a high-speed shutter (1/2000) while doing a fast pan and rotate. The 35 Mbps 4:2:0 was captured using the native XDCAM EX CODEC, while the 100 Mbps 4:2:2 was captured using the HD-SDI out to the XDCAM 422 CODEC (found in the Flash XDR and the nanoFlash).

The difference is striking!

Mike Schell
Convergent Design


Mike, I am/was considering the Nano too but the question raised has never been answered and to be honest, it has nothing to do with your fast-pan example. We are talking **slow** pans where high motion is not a factor at all.

[Mike Schell]

Mike, I am/was considering the Nano too but the question raised has never been answered and to be honest, it has nothing to do with your fast-pan example. We are talking **slow** pans where high motion is not a factor at all.

Hi Buck-
So you want us to do a slow pan and compare 35 Mbps to 100 Mbps? I think you will see an improvement in both detail and color.

Best-
Mike Schell

[Buck Forester]

Hola Mike... I've been meaning to get back to Colorado and try out a demo on site, just haven't been able to do it. If you guys get a chance to do a wide-angle slow pan across a landscape with fine details (such as trees with leaves), starting from static to a four or five second pan and then go static, s-l-o-w-l-y (doesn't take much movement for the ultra sharpness to go bye-bye) with and without the Nano would be el fantastico and perhaps save me a trip out there. :^D

[Jim Arthurs]

I thought I'd take one more shot at this slow pan issue... I'm absolutely sure now it's NOT a codec issue, or a CMOS issue. What I believe it is, is a combination of motion blur, monitor refresh and sharpness settings used on the recording.

Here's a test I did today on a busy image, with a slow pan.

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/EX1/EX1_slow_pan_sharpness_test.mov

(please download first... it's a 24meg photoJPG to keep compression artifacts out of the equation.)

I set the shutter to 1/2000th to remove any trace of motion blur from the equation. I motion stabilized in After Effects a sharpness target to preserve it in frame at 1:1 size. Stabilizing it to one location on the screen removes any motion issues from your display device. In addition, I shot it sharpness turned "off".

As you can see, it does not change sharpness throughout the run of the shot in any way.

BTW, one side of the sharpness target is 35Mb original codec, the other is split-screened with 100Mb. There's no sharpness difference in this case between the codec bit rates. With faster motion and bigger vectors you will see an advantage with the Nano, and overall issues of compression and color sharpness are improved, obviously.

I can't do better than this, and if anyone can, please do. In my book, the issue is closed.

I believe if edge sharpness is turned on the "pop" effect is exaggerated. I believe motion blur is 50% of the issue, and monitor update/response time is the other major component. It's not the chip, or the codec at any reasonable bit rate.

Regards,

[dazzdeadmeadow]

Hi there,

My first post on this forum! Seems pretty cool!

Was just wondering if the Nano Flash is only worth it for those delivering for broadcast. How about us that still deliver mostly for non-broadcast clients on SD DVD?

Any benefit there?

[capt chuck]

My first post on this forum! Seems pretty cool!

Was just wondering if the Nano Flash is only worth it for those delivering for broadcast. How about us that still deliver mostly for non-broadcast clients on SD DVD?

First off ... welcome!

There are plenty of benefits for non-broadcast.

- Redundancy to protect from lost footage
- Overall better quality is a good thing in non broadcast
- Depending on what your other format is, this could have a better color space for keying


If my cams output anything but analog, the nanoflash would be very high on my wishlist.

[dazzdeadmeadow]

Thanks for the welcome!

I spose my question really relates to the improvement in motion, with leaves and water, stuff that stretches the codec a bit. If I could get that looking better on an SD DVD I'd consider it!

I down-convert using Compressor form Final Cut so just wondered how much Compressor would lose that the Nano Flash had given me back?

[Lucian]

First off ... welcome!

There are plenty of benefits for non-broadcast.

- Redundancy to protect from lost footage
- Overall better quality is a good thing in non broadcast
- Depending on what your other format is, this could have a better color space for keying


If my cams output anything but analog, the nanoflash would be very high on my wishlist.

But does the nanoflash provide real world perceptible improvment in image quality? Everyone seems to talk around that issue.

[GuyB]

Hi there,

My first post on this forum! Seems pretty cool!

Was just wondering if the Nano Flash is only worth it for those delivering for broadcast. How about us that still deliver mostly for non-broadcast clients on SD DVD?

Any benefit there?

Don't forget the nanoFlash also records SD in the IMX codec. IMX is Sonys name for 50Mbps MP2@ML 4:2:2. This is pretty much the best SD codec you can get short of uncompressed. It was Sony's compeditor to Panasonics DVCPro 50 but being long GOP MPG2 the same 50Mbps can achieve even higher quality results than the IntraFrame DVCPro. You used to have to pay a lot of money for a camera with this codec.

[dazzdeadmeadow]

Sounds really interesting! So you just record in that codec and then edit in FCP with it? No need to down-convert as it is done within the Nano Flash?? Love to see an SD DVD shot with this codec!

[Dan Keaton]

In order to keep the power requirements down in the nanoFlash, we allow the camera to do the downconversion to SD.

Many cameras are capable of this downconversion. So, we record via the SDI out, but if the camera is in SD mode, then the nanoFlash is receiving SD-SDI.

And, we now are able to record directly to ".MPG", at 5 Mbps and 9 Mbps, which saves time and effort if one wants a SD DVD.

If one wants a Blu-ray disk, then we can record in ".MPG" at 19, 25, and 35 Mbps.

[GuyB]

One correction on my post, IMX is I frame MPG2, not long GOP.

As Dan says, the IMX encoding option is for SD sources only, so either putting the SDI out of a HD camera in SD mode, or shooting from a SD camera with SDI out (eg DSR450 etc)

[planetweckesser]

But does the nanoflash provide real world perceptible improvment in image quality? Everyone seems to talk around that issue.

I have the same question - all of my video (after editing) will eventually be authored to Blu-ray movie discs and the blu-ray specs won't allow > 40 mbps.
Will I lose resolution/color etc by eventually downconverting the mxf files?

[Robert Ruffo]

I think there are two questions here:

1 - When you do not grade much, is image quality really better in real world comparisons - will our audience be able to see any difference? (Not just picking a single still from a rotating camera and so on, but being able to say "Hey, that looks better").

2 - When you do grade a lot, and grade in an unwise way (like reducing contrast, or heavily correcting white-balance) ) is there a real difference? How big is it, and when?

I personally think it is worth thr price simply to have 2 recorded copies of all shots, in case the SXS or SD cards fail. Costs a lot less than buying a whole bunch of SXS cards, and offers even more safety. You can even seperate the copies of the rushes on set (have another person carry the compact flash cards, in case of theft, rain damage, etc.)

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Lucian and planetweckesser,

Disclaimer: I am the Director of Sales and Marketing for Convergent Design makers of the nanoFlash.

Yes, you will find a real-world difference, if you choose to record your HD-SDI 4:2:2 using the nanoFlash and selecting one of our high-bit rate options.

But, it means so much more coming from a well respected professional cameraman as opposed to me.

Here is a link to a Blog by Alister Chapman, a Sony Independent Certified Expert.

http://www.xdcam-user.com/?page_id=5

The August 28, 2009 Blog entry addresses your specific questions.

For more info, click on Older Entries at the bottom, then start reading about the nanoFlash in chronicalogical sequence, starting with August 21, going through August 29th.

[planetweckesser]

Dear Lucian and planetweckesser,

Disclaimer: I am the Director of Sales and Marketing for Convergent Design makers of the nanoFlash.

Yes, you will find a real-world difference, if you choose to record your HD-SDI 4:2:2 using the nanoFlash and selecting one of our high-bit rate options.

But, it means so much more coming from a well respected professional cameraman as opposed to me.

Here is a link to a Blog by Alister Chapman, a Sony Independent Certified Expert.

http://www.xdcam-user.com/?page_id=5

The August 28, 2009 Blog entry addresses your specific questions.

For more info, click on Older Entries at the bottom, then start reading about the nanoFlash in chronicalogical sequence, starting with August 21, going through August 29th.

Excellent report - thanks for pointing me toward it.

[da24MK]

I own the NanoFlash. Check out the pics I posted recently. I love this little thing!! 422 160Mbit I frame.....makes my EX1 images comparable to any 20,000+ dollar camera. Also, I got a friend of mine (who is a genius with any camera equipment) tinker with it and has confirmed that with some mods to the firmware and some chips being changed, I'm going to get 10 Bit Log as well.....prolly record AVC Intra, not sure yet....so yeah, very happy Nano buyer here.

Thanks to Mike and Dan for this amazing product!!

[Barry_Green]

? There's no way that an MPEG-2 chipset is going to record AVC-anything. The Nano is built on Sony's MPEG-2 chips, so you can get intraframe MPEG-2, but not h.264 in any flavor.

[da24MK]

Yeah...thats why I think he's going to change the chipset

[Longfellow]

Sorry neophyte techie here. Do you guys think using a letus elite on an Ex1 plus the Convergent's nano flash would produce a better image than a letus elite with no nano flash? I guess I'm wondering how much the image would be downgraded considering it records from letus' screen? Thanks!!!

[GuyB]

One thing I remember is that to get a good quality (low compression artefacts) of a VHS tape you need to use quite a high bit rate. This is because of all the random noise in the image which complicates the image making it more difficult to compress even though it is really lower resolution etc

If the Letus introduces addition image elements due to the rotating round glass then it may actually stress the EX's codec more by its very nature, in which case the nano would definetly be able to help....

This is only a general comment, I don't own a letus nor have I ever used one.

[Pepeds]

I thought I'd take one more shot at this slow pan issue... I'm absolutely sure now it's NOT a codec issue, or a CMOS issue. What I believe it is, is a combination of motion blur, monitor refresh and sharpness settings used on the recording.

Here's a test I did today on a busy image, with a slow pan.

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/EX1/EX1_slow_pan_sharpness_test.mov

(please download first... it's a 24meg photoJPG to keep compression artifacts out of the equation.)

I set the shutter to 1/2000th to remove any trace of motion blur from the equation. I motion stabilized in After Effects a sharpness target to preserve it in frame at 1:1 size. Stabilizing it to one location on the screen removes any motion issues from your display device. In addition, I shot it sharpness turned "off".

As you can see, it does not change sharpness throughout the run of the shot in any way.

BTW, one side of the sharpness target is 35Mb original codec, the other is split-screened with 100Mb. There's no sharpness difference in this case between the codec bit rates. With faster motion and bigger vectors you will see an advantage with the Nano, and overall issues of compression and color sharpness are improved, obviously.

I can't do better than this, and if anyone can, please do. In my book, the issue is closed.

I believe if edge sharpness is turned on the "pop" effect is exaggerated. I believe motion blur is 50% of the issue, and monitor update/response time is the other major component. It's not the chip, or the codec at any reasonable bit rate.

Regards,
Jim, I checked the file you posted, and I see exactly the opposite: It's extremely obvious to me that there is a serious change from the beginning of the shot(when it is still) and when it starts moving (it´s a shame you didn't let it still for a couple of seconds to compare better, but still you can see it). The blur is specially blatant in the small section of the resolution chart, or near the center of the big one, and even in the text. And it feels exactly as the one thing I don't like when I slowly pan on my EX1. If I understand well, the motion stabilized area is a split screen between the 35Mb/s and 100Mb/s???... if this is right, then I think these are really bad news, I mean: if it was a codec issue, I would jump to buy a Nano Flash tomorrow, as it would really renew my love for my EX1, which has been lately very eroded by the slow pan issue...

[Bassman2003]

I watched the clip a few times and it is tough to tell that much as it is on a computer screen and small.

Have you put the results on a blu-ray and watched it on a 1080p television?

This may have been mentioned in this thread as I have not read it all, but I think the EX-1 has an enhancement filter that just can not keep up with the frames as they go by. This has been discussed and by turning detail off or down this effect is lessened.

But I think this effect is also a product of producing so much detail. It is part of HD images. They are so crisp compared to SD that any movement disrupts the apple cart.

When I watch major motion picture releases in a theatre, the pan shots always look poor, jittery and blurry. They certainly have a lot of detail but fall down when the camera pans. Some of this is framerate and shutter, but not all of it.

[adamr316]

I thought I'd take one more shot at this slow pan issue... I'm absolutely sure now it's NOT a codec issue, or a CMOS issue. What I believe it is, is a combination of motion blur, monitor refresh and sharpness settings used on the recording.

Here's a test I did today on a busy image, with a slow pan.

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/EX1/EX1_slow_pan_sharpness_test.mov

(please download first... it's a 24meg photoJPG to keep compression artifacts out of the equation.)

I set the shutter to 1/2000th to remove any trace of motion blur from the equation. I motion stabilized in After Effects a sharpness target to preserve it in frame at 1:1 size. Stabilizing it to one location on the screen removes any motion issues from your display device. In addition, I shot it sharpness turned "off".

As you can see, it does not change sharpness throughout the run of the shot in any way.

BTW, one side of the sharpness target is 35Mb original codec, the other is split-screened with 100Mb. There's no sharpness difference in this case between the codec bit rates. With faster motion and bigger vectors you will see an advantage with the Nano, and overall issues of compression and color sharpness are improved, obviously.

I can't do better than this, and if anyone can, please do. In my book, the issue is closed.

I believe if edge sharpness is turned on the "pop" effect is exaggerated. I believe motion blur is 50% of the issue, and monitor update/response time is the other major component. It's not the chip, or the codec at any reasonable bit rate.

Regards,

Wow, I think this video finally debunks the EX1 sharpness/motion myth. If you pause it the grass and chart is just as tack sharp as when the camera comes to rest.

This video coupled with my own observations leads me to believe it wasn't a camera issue after all. My projection HDTV (which I believe is interlaced) looks much better with EX1 motion than my new LCD 60Hz Sony TV. I am shooting 95% of my footage in 1080/60i HQ mode.

Now the colors on the Sony TV are much better but any panning results in noticeable blur. I used to think it was a camera issue until this video...now I know/postulate that it's related directly to a monitor's ability to handle motion. Come to think of it any 60i material on the Sony TV has this effect but I think because it was my own footage I was looking at I noticed it a lot more.

While I'm at it the best thing I did for my TV was turn noise reduction OFF. If anyone thinks the EX1 at +12dB of gain boost looks soft, this may be a big factor in why (TV noise reduction = softening of the picture). I'd rather look at sharp, grainy footage than soft, still slightly grainy footage.

So I bet if I had a 120Hz or 240Hz LEDTV or something EX1 footage would look stunningly sharp/glass smooth! This is great to know.

[Bram1982]

I looked extensively at the footage posted. The sharpness on the resolution / focus chart does NOT change. Regardless of the camera being in full movement or coming to a halt at the end, it stays sharp.

However, the very first frame looks weird: It's sharper, but with clearly more compression artifacts. It doesn't appear to have more resolution though, more like a sharpening filter has been applied to the very first frame.

p.s I loaded the clip in Vegas Video for frame by frame analyzing.

[imax]

hi!
I'm a little confused... can I ask u something?
Well,

1) Which is the easier way to record with the nanoflash and EX1/R? I can simply push rec on my camera? or I need an sxs card in the slot of camera in order to shoot?

2) Which is the best configuration for mount nanoflash o EX1? I have to find the best solution to put on the camera the nanoflash, the receiver for wireless microfone, the light ...and stay comfortable in the shooting time!
Please explain me what I have to buy:adaptors, cable,special batteries!

Well, thank u very much!
bye
Charles

[planetweckesser]

hi!
I'm a little confused... can I ask u something?
Well,

1) Which is the easier way to record with the nanoflash and EX1/R? I can simply push rec on my camera? or I need an sxs card in the slot of camera in order to shoot?

2) Which is the best configuration for mount nanoflash o EX1? I have to find the best solution to put on the camera the nanoflash, the receiver for wireless microfone, the light ...and stay comfortable in the shooting time!
Please explain me what I have to buy:adaptors, cable,special batteries!

Well, thank u very much!
bye
Charles

With regard to the first question - I have found it easiest to set the Nano to trigger on the timecode of the camera - just push the camera record and both the camera and Nano record. I would always have media in the camera (SxS or SDHC) as a backup.

This guy has everything you will need for mounting the Nanoflash - I am using his setup and am very pleased - he can also handle cables etc. He is very easy to work with and will do custom stuff if you have certain requirements.
http://www.westsideav.com/EX1plate/

[baxton]

Hi,
Has anyone used Convergent design ASI plug in (http://www.spectratech.gr/en/product/26572/Convergent-Design_CD-NF-ASI)
I am planning to use Nano flash as a playback device when testing RF transmitors with ASI inputs. Has anyone tried it?

[Chadfish]

Questions about the NanoFlash:

1. Does anyone know if the Nanoflash has 10bit color?

2. A friend wonders if it comes with a CODEC for Adobe Premiere CS3.

[Stephen Mick]

1. NanoFlash records 8-bit.
2. It records .MXF and .MOV files (your choice).

[Chadfish]

1. NanoFlash records 8-bit.
2. It records .MXF and .MOV files (your choice).


Thanks. Does the codec stand up to heavier grading? I thought the increased bit-stream of 50, 100, or 200 would help, but I don't know how much difference staying at 8 bit will make from going to 10 bit.

[Stephen Mick]

Yes, the codec does stand up well to heavier grading. The increased bit-rate really delivers more detail in situations where lower bit-rate codecs would break down.

The codec (XDCAM 422) is also much more edit-friendly, with files straight out of the NanoFlash being able to be dropped into FCP. I've never worked with the .MXF files, but I assume they're equally easy to work with.

[Chadfish]

Sweet! It's a lot of coin to drop, but the nanoflash on the list.

[philspin]

Old thread, but I was curious - did you ever get your nano flash modified to handle 10 bit? I'd love to get info on the conversion, or a contact to get it done.
Thanks!

[Michael B. McGee]

still 8-bit. their website maybe of some help to you.

http://convergent.contentpros.net/Products/nanoFlash/tabid/1666/Default.aspx

[basspig]

After working with 14-bit RAW images from my wife's Nikon D7000, I realize that any upgrade from 8-bit means a fairly dramatic improvement in stretchability in the shadows. I think 10-bit XDCam would be terrific and would alleviate the last obstacle to getting that perfect Blu-ray picture.

[Fohdeesha]

Chad, check out sound devices new entry. I know you're a sound guy, and this thing is already hot. It will record to either prores or DNXHD (full 10-bit of course), has the same xlr preamps and circuitry as their 7 series equipment (!!) realtime conversion from the sdi input to the hdmi output and viceversa, a very nice screen, aes input, etc

street price is 2595

http://www.sounddevices.com/products/pix.htm

(edit: just realized it wasn't chad that bumped this, LOL)

[Chadfish]

That looks soooo sweet Jon! But then there is the new BlackMagic HyperDeck Shuttle for 350.00! No audio inputs though. The SD thing would be great for working with DSLRs - if they can get a decent signal out of the GH2.