NanoFlash, Ninja or the AJA Ki Pro MINI?

[GRENCH]

NanoFlash, Ninja or the AJA Ki Pro MINI

So which would be your choice to go with the AF-100? They all seem to do pretty much the same thing.

I like the Ki Pro MINI myself. But the price of the ninja is pretty tempting. I just don't like the idea of a hard drive.

[ATL Media Group]

Nano. I'm a CS5 and Edius user so Prorez is not an option I want.

[Jarek Zabczynski]

NanoFlash, Ninja or the AJA Ki Pro MINI

So which would be your choice to go with the AF-100? They all seem to do pretty much the same thing.

I like the Ki Pro MINI myself. But the price of the ninja is pretty tempting. I just don't like the idea of a hard drive.

Well you can use an SSD. I know I will if I go with the Ninja. Hard to decide between that and and AJA. I'm hoping one of them will miraculously figure out how to record VFRs in 1080p out of the AF-100.

[mrmoe]

Cinedeck Extreme for me :)

[GRENCH]

I just checked out an article on the Cinedeck Extreme. It sounds pretty sweet other than the over heating issues. It also doubles as a monitor as ......Hold up....Wait a minute!

Priced at nearly $10,000.00. No thanks. I'm good with my 1st selections :banned:

http://www.dv.com/article/95460

[Noel Evans]

They all seem to do pretty much the same thing.

Pretty much. The nano records to XDcam codec to CF via HD-SDI

The ninja is records prores via HDMI to a 2.5" HDD. And offers touchscreen.

The ki pro mini records prores to CF via HD-SDI or HDMI. Has additional two balanced XLR ins for audio.

Anything I missed?

[Zak Forsman]

One consideration for me between the Ninja and Ki Pro Mini is to look into what the limitations are on HDMI cable runs and limits on a BNC for an HD-SDI run. Could I go 50' with either? 100'?

Although now I see that the ninja doesn't have a video out, so I'm likely to go with the Ki Pro Mini given that the my ideal set-up would be to monitor what's being recorded on a large screen, with the unit as part of video village.

[bgundu]

One consideration for me between the Ninja and Ki Pro Mini is to look into what the limitations are on HDMI cable runs and limits on a BNC for an HD-SDI run. Could I go 50' with either? 100'?

Although now I see that the ninja doesn't have a video out, so I'm likely to go with the Ki Pro Mini given that the my ideal set-up would be to monitor what's being recorded on a large screen, with the unit as part of video village.

Af100 can output through the hd-sdi and hdmi at the same time. If your monitor can handle that, the ninja is still an option.

[Amr Rahmy]

the ki pro mini seams really rugged and more built to purpose, to be attached to the camera. both hdmi and hd-sdi, in and out, and ltc, and from what it seams you can actually add the ability to control the ki pro from a distance (not sure if the control would mean anything the buttons can do or include record or not, but definitely something worth looking into. if the web server control has record/stop functionality, you can make the device wireless).

and the separate xlr input.

and you probably don't want a touch screen on something mounted on the camera where you might press something by accident. and having keys that you can actually feel is much better than a touch screen when your filming on location and you need to look at a monitor or the talent.

[mcgeedigital]

I'll take the proven reliability of AJA products in this case.

Having normal xlr inputs is also a bonus.

[Elton]

I use the nano a lot and I would go with the Ki mini. I definitely can vouch for the quality of AJA products. (Kona user)

Love the nano but if you actually have a true 10-bit SDI output from your camera, this is the most affordable/practical way to record 10-bit video.

Incidentally, the nano can record via HDMI too.

Let's hope the AF100 outputs true 10-bit via SDI.

[Mikungfu]

I still haven't purchased any of them since I am also trying to decide. Does the fact that Ninja and AJA both record in Apple ProRes codec make it obsolete for PC based workflows.

Just like our friend ATL Media Group, I also use Edius and CS5... On PC. Does this mean that the Nano is still the only otion I have? You see... There's a huge difference between 2500 Euros and 800 euros.:undecided

[powervideo]

Let's hope the AF100 outputs true 10-bit via SDI.

Jan just stated on the other thread that the camera is 8-bit HD-SDI. Definite bummer.

[Amr Rahmy]

8bit? was that intentional? seems fishy.

[Elton]

A bummer but certainly not a deal-breaker IMO.

[xmephestox]

the camera isn't finished yet, i'm sure barry will convince them to make it 10 bit!

[Elton]

Come on, the codec is an obvious product differentiator, and true 10 bit acquisition with their higher priced lineup is one of the selling points.

I wouldn't hold your breath...

[Amr Rahmy]

so the price difference is for?

a repackaged gh1 that looks like a camcorder?

xlr input?

the hd-sdi was the selling point. without it, what do you get for paying that much more than a gh1?

[xmephestox]

well there's nothing to stop people from using ki pro's on their avc intra cameras, but keep in mind Intra is mac/pc, all NLE compatible.

pro res doesn't fit the bill under every category, though it does for a lot. but you lose PC support, and older version of avid don't support pro res/quicktime natively. thus is still makes more sense to record to p2 (a professional recording standard opposed to CF, a consumer recording standard) which may be great for us, but a no no for broadcast networks, where they use Panny's ENG line. Not to mention 2/3 will always has its place, including the points of, having a in focus shot is MORE important, and the style/build of the camera is well respected.

If anything, it will accompany the bigger cameras as a secondary or third camera very nicely, and offer up 10 bit to coincide. It's not a big stretch, it's just whether or not Panny is generous enough. A lot of the targeted demographic has no interest in getting a hpx 3700, or even a hpx 370. They crave larger sensor, high quality acquisition.

IMHO, 8 bit needs to DIE, 10 bit needs to be the new 8 bit, 12 bit and 16 bit recording are the new, 10/12. once 16 bit trickles down to the indie level it's gonna be amazing.

[Mikungfu]

So, is the Ninja useless for PC based workflows like Edius and such?

[Barry_Green]

Wait - did Jan confirm 8-bit? I hadn't heard that.

And no, it's not likely any sort of "fishy" business - they have 10-bit on the HPX370, and it's not THAT much more expensive. It's more likely that they have an existing chipset for the AG series cameras, and that chipset has 8-bit output. Remember, even the HPX500 2/3" camcorder has 8-bit output, and so does the XLH1 and XHG1. I don't know about the XF300 series, whether they're 8-bit or 10-bit.

Anyway, I didn't know that it had been confirmed one way or the other. Disappointing if it ends up being 8-bit, I'd really rather it be 10-bit.

[Barry_Green]

Hey, I just looked at this thread's title... and made the following post in the other thread. Oh well, I guess I'll cross-post it here:

Understood. I looked at the Ki Pro Mini. I can see why Apple users would be amped on it; it's a little less appealing for Windows users but still -- it's a grand less than the NanoFlash. It's thicker and I think overall bigger than the Nano. Nano needs a price reduction to remain competitive, but I think I liked the design of the Nano better, when thinking about mounting it on the camcorder itself.

See, the AF100 would be ideal for use with one of those, because you can remove the side grip and it reveals a flat plane with four mounting holes and even a cold shoe. Someone will undoubtedly make a mounting plate for one or the other.

I think the Ki Pro requires a 12v XLR, whereas the Nano can be driven off a little plug-in jack on as little as, what, 7 volts? Which means there may even be a way to power the Nano off the camcorder's battery, if someone makes a tap off the battery. And actually I spoke to a dealer in, I think, Italy, who has already launched a line of batteries that have power taps on them. I don't think it was a D-tap, but some sort of power tap available, which might be appropriate for driving a Nano with little to no hassle.

Then there's the low-budget Ninja. Didn't see it on the show floor, but ... I get the appeal of the price, but its use of HDMI-only is really disappointing to me. HD-SDI is so much better -- it's a locking BNC connector and it outputs timecode. HDMI is a non-locking connector and no timecode. Micro-budget guys might be tempted by the Ninja, but I would think working pros would prefer the AJA or the Nano if, for no other reason, because they support proper HD-SDI. Plus, the Ninja uses hard drives, and the idea of recording to a spinning hard drive is extremely unappealing to me, I much prefer solid state. The others use solid-state media. But there's no denying the Ninja's price!

[timbook2]

yes the ninja is really appealing ... harddrive? no problem, I have used the Focus FS100 without problems so for me thats the first choice ( also price wise). And they are swappable!!!
I agree on the connector but the ninja looks really tempting to me.

whatever....a new GH2 will come, others will follow.....but panny made the first move and comes out in 3 months! They truly won the race for me!

[powervideo]

pro res doesn't fit the bill under every category, though it does for a lot. but you lose PC support,

That's not really true; we transfer ProRes clips from our Mac to our CS4 and CS5 Windows 7 PC's all the time and Premiere plays and edits them real time, no render bars. Incompatibility may have been a problem in the past but not anymore (for Adobe users at least)

[Mikungfu]

That's not really true; we transfer ProRes clips from our Mac to our CS4 and CS5 Windows 7 PC's all the time and Premiere plays and edits them real time, no render bars. Incompatibility may have been a problem in the past but not anymore (for Adobe users at least)

Yes! I have checked it and in fact, Apple ProRes 422 can be used in Windows/PC workflows, like Adobe CS5 or Edius, provided the you have Quicktime installed with this decoder:

http://support.apple.com/downloads/Apple_ProRes_QuickTime_Decoder_1_0_for_Windows

Basicly, any NLE will play your Apple ProRes files as long as Quicktime can read them.

[Ben_B]

Plus, the Ninja uses hard drives, and the idea of recording to a spinning hard drive is extremely unappealing to me, I much prefer solid state. The others use solid-state media. But there's no denying the Ninja's price!

Ninja uses a hotswappable 2.5" SATA bay so you can put whatever you want in there, including SSDs.

[David Saraceno]

so the price difference is for?

a repackaged gh1 that looks like a camcorder?

xlr input?

the hd-sdi was the selling point. without it, what do you get for paying that much more than a gh1?

Have you read the threads here?

[Amr Rahmy]

Have you read the threads here?

on the af 100? yeah.

from what i have read,

8bit through sdi

hd viewfinder and hd lcd(not sure that it would swivel)

xlr input

24mbps avchd

detachable handle

rotating nd

micro 4/3 sensor

6k price tag

the only interesting feature would have been the 10bit hd-sdi output.

did i miss anything?

[Amr Rahmy]

as an indie(film or tv drama) affordable camera, i don't see any features better than the gh1 other than the xlr input, do you?

[David Saraceno]

Looks like you need to stick with the GH1.

My point is that you keep posting the same "repackaged GH1 at higher price" comments at these discussions.

If the AF100 isn't for you, that's great. But why keep telling us?

[xmephestox]

aliasing, moire, mud. higher grade codec, with the option of a even better codec out of the sdi.

SDI and HDMI monitoring, at 1080p.

real time code, better noise floor, roll over recording.

hd view finder and lcd screen isn't important to you?

don't need a million accessories to make this camera comfortable or make it like a video camera, it's already one.


no problems with recording images with a lot of detail, gh13's can have issues with that at high bitrate hack.


the extra money isn't going into nothing.

[Amr Rahmy]

i think this thread started before the 8bit announcement in another thread, and someone asked something similar to one in this thread about the sdi, that's all.

[Amr Rahmy]

i think there are 3 threads at least for now going about the same subject, even if this one is titled differently they all discuss the af 100 camera. one of witch(this one) was about the output capability through sdi, but the others still discuss the camera in general including this feature that a large number of members i think wanted. this thread was created by one of these members.

[Barry_Green]

on the af 100? yeah.

from what i have read,

8bit through sdi

hd viewfinder and hd lcd(not sure that it would swivel)

xlr input

24mbps avchd

detachable handle

rotating nd

micro 4/3 sensor

6k price tag

the only interesting feature would have been the 10bit hd-sdi output.

did i miss anything?
Yes, you missed a whole lot of things. I'll make a list and post it later.

[Amr Rahmy]

trying to defend a camera by referencing star wars episode 2 should be an indication of loosing a battle, i think it's time to acknowledge that.

[Barry_Green]

as an indie(film or tv drama) affordable camera, i don't see any features better than the gh1 other than the xlr input, do you?
Um, yes. Are you kidding? The ability to use a monitor, if nothing else!

Seriously, the list of features that the AF100 has, that the DSLRs don't, is about three pages long. Let me get it together, and THEN you can decide which one might be more appropriate for your needs.

[Amr Rahmy]

well, you can use a monitor on the other cameras. that does not change the image quality from the cameras. if you can't focus on one monitor, you can't on the other. or maybe you need glasses or something.

you can't argue the price difference with the specs provided.

it's like a car salesperson trying to sell a new model car by saying the engine performs better because the car has an all new improved stereo system, and now the car costs 100 million times more because of the performance boost and the all new improved paint job that was made specifically for the car.

[Joe Walker]

Oh look who decided to move his trolling from one forum to another.

[Homunculus]

trying to defend a camera by referencing star wars episode 2 should be an indication of loosing a battle, i think it's time to acknowledge that.
LMAO! funny I gotta admit

[Barry_Green]

trying to defend a camera by referencing star wars episode 2 should be an indication of loosing a battle, i think it's time to acknowledge that.
Fine. Star Wars II is pretty lousy, but -- okay, you want other examples? ANYTHING shot on the F900. SWEPII was just the first one I thought of.

But, seriously, your tirade about the AF100 is a lost battle already, and I do hope that you would at least acknowledge that you haven't used one, you don't know what it's capable of, and your constant attacking on it is bordering on trolling and should be stopped.

Thanks.

[Homunculus]

opinions on star wars 2 artistic value aside, it still looks good compared to any DSLR's visually speaking and I doubt gh1, canon 5d, or whatever can do a better image

[Amr Rahmy]

well, i do know that you are a moderator and i do respect the fact that you have about 40,000 posts on this forum and that you are providing people with valuable information. and the fact that i might soon be banned from this forum.

with that said, i don't think i said anything that was not true.

and i'm not attacking the camera, in fact i was looking forward to all the s35 or thereabout size sensors in camcorder form factor.

'i think the next paragraph would be the one to ban me, if you were looking for an excuse.'

but it seems to a lot of members and not myself alone that you are trying too hard to make this camera into something it isn't and in the same time diminishing the dslrs to make this camera look better. in desperate attempt you continuously stated that members of these forums don't know what they were talking about including the guy that made the gh1 hack, and portraying the 'all new improved' 24mbps avchd as something flawless that could not have been any better to the guy that just made the gh1 hack, continuously portraying the camcorder like form factor like it was a broadcast shoulder mount like camera where in reality it's just an awkward consumer camcorder like body(and not even a consumer camcorder from this decade). stating a definite dynamic range number to the 5d and then stating that you did not test it but never the less concluding that the 'all new improved' camera is x many stops better. did i mention some of the feature that you are stating include "live monitoring" as if the dslrs did not have either a monitor or a connection to connect a monitor. and a headphone jack?.

you kept going miles off the truth twisting facts and insulting members of this forum trying to defend this camera. saying we don't know what we are talking about because we did not use this camera. i can assure you some of the members on this forum have much higher iq than others. i don't need to touch fire to know that it will burn me if i do. and i don't need to test a camera to deduct it's merits.

and like someone asked you a very specific question about the price difference in relation to the image quality and if it was worth it. i will ask you the same.

[Amr Rahmy]

constantly stating that the 4/3 sensor is similar or close to s35 size sensor really pissed me off by the way

[David Saraceno]

Amr:

With all due respect, it getting tiresome.

You might want to rethink participating further in this thread and others relating to the AF100.

I have indicated as much in another thread where your posts are uniformally negative.

Stay with the cam the works for you.

Thanks for understanding.

best

[Amr Rahmy]

:laugh: this camera is the best thing since sliced bread, trying to be joyful and positive.

brain wash complete.

[David Jimerson]

Amr, saying this as someone who doesn't care about DSLRs . . . knock it off.

[Barry_Green]

with that said, i don't think i said anything that was not true.
And that's fine. But you're dragging it into other threads, as if it's some sort of vendetta for you.

State your opinion, and leave it at that. Notice which thread this is? This is the Nano/Ninja/Ki Pro thread, but you had to drag in "the AF100 is just a GH1" stuff in here. Why?


but it seems to a lot of members and not myself alone that you are trying too hard to make this camera into something it isn't and in the same time diminishing the dslrs to make this camera look better.
Really? Because it seems to me that that's exactly what you're doing. Trying too hard to turn the AF100 into something it isn't (a glorified DSLR) in a "desperate attempt" to make the DSLRs look better.

Funny.


in desperate attempt you continuously stated that members of these forums don't know what they were talking about including the guy that made the gh1 hack
No, I said they hadn't used both, and I had. So do you really think someone who has never seen a certain product and never used it, has a better idea of what the truth is, than someone who has? Repeatedly I've asked folks to hold their condemnation until they've at least seen and/or used the product they're in such a rush to discredit.


, and portraying the 'all new improved' 24mbps avchd as something flawless that could not have been any better to the guy that just made the gh1 hack
Do you think you might be misrepresenting my opinion, just a little bit?

I've said that the 24mbps AVCHD is superior to the hacked GH1 codec. I only said it because it's a fact, and I sincerely doubt even Vitaliy would disagree with me on that.


, continuously portraying the camcorder like form factor like it was a broadcast shoulder mount like camera
Continuously? Can you even point to one example where I've ever implied anything like that?


stating a definite dynamic range number to the 5d and then stating that you did not test it but never the less concluding that the 'all new improved' camera is x many stops better.
I pointed to Art Adams' definiteve dynamic range test for the 5D. Do you have a problem with Art's testing methodology?

And I said that the "all new improved" camera is 2 stops better than the GH1, because I did the testing on both the GH1 and the AF100.


did i mention some of the feature that you are stating include "live monitoring" as if the dslrs did not have either a monitor or a connection to connect a monitor.
You cannot monitor a GH1 when it's recording. Or are you disputing that?


and a headphone jack?.
Niether the GH1 nor the Canon DSLRs have headphone jacks. What is your problem with me saying that they don't have headphone jacks?


you kept going miles off the truth twisting facts
I have never gone one iota off the truth nor have I twisted any facts. Your rant here is rather a complete twisting of everything I've said.


and i don't need to test a camera to deduct it's merits.
Okay, well, if you're able to somehow psychically divine something's merits, then bully for you. But you're still not allowed to go trolling around here, that's one of the basic rules of this place.


and like someone asked you a very specific question about the price difference in relation to the image quality and if it was worth it. i will ask you the same.
I answered that question definitively.

[Barry_Green]

constantly stating that the 4/3 sensor is similar or close to s35 size sensor really pissed me off by the way
Then I have little sympathy for you, because I have NEVER said it was the same size as S35. I've said it's very close to REGULAR 35, and it is. 22x12 vs. 19x10, those are very similar.

S35 is bigger. And I have never compared the AF100 to the S35 sensor.

So if you're letting your own misunderstanding and misinterpretation of my words "really piss you off" then I think you might indeed want to take a break from the site and get yourself a reality check.

If you're going to argue what I'm saying, at least be sure that you're arguing what I <actually said>. I think if you go and re-read it, you might be surprised, and that you were reading a lot into it that simply isn't there.

[Mister Stocks]

Barry, I am really looking forward to that list. I sense a sticky coming on. I think people sometimes forget what an EX-3 goes for.

[Barry_Green]

I think people sometimes forget what an EX-3 goes for.
And that in the professional/broadcast camcorder world, it's pretty cheap considering all that it does.

[Amr Rahmy]

i was not going to type anything, but since you insist on quoting and dissecting things

i wont copy/paste your quotes if that's what you want.

yes, you definitely stated numerous times the size difference between the gh1 and the 7d is negligible and close to 35mm what ever form or size that may be, including today.

7d or t2i fov is not in no way shape or form really close to 4/3. it's like a difference between a sea and an ocean they are both big, but not really close to each other.

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

... I think people sometimes forget what an EX-3 goes for.

A-frick'n-men!!! :2vrolijk_08:

[Barry_Green]

yes, you definitely stated numerous times the size difference between the gh1 and the 7d is negligible and close to 35mm what ever form or size that may be, including today.
The 7D/t2i are not S35-sized. They're 35mm sized. And yes, of course I said the GH1 is close to the 7D/t2i/cinema size, because it is. The 7D/t2i sensor is 22mm wide, and the GH1 is 19mm wide. Where I come from, that difference is minor, not "huge".


7d or t2i fov is not in no way shape or form really close to 4/3. it's like a difference between a sea and an ocean they are both big, but not really close to each other.
That's silly. The difference between them is a Cinema Crop Factor of 1.18. Use a 100mm lens on a T2i, and you'll get the same FOV from an 85mm lens on the GH1. If that amounts to an ocean of difference for you, then obviously we can't agree. I think it's a minor difference. It's there, and it does make a differnece, but it's a minor concern.

The difference between them is a crop factor of 1.18. It's there, yes. There is a difference, yes. But it is nowhere near as big as some folks seem to think, and if it makes that big of a difference to you, why, feel free to go for a different product.

[Barry_Green]

but since you insist on quoting and dissecting things
I insist upon it because you are accusing me of being a liar, and that's a serious accusation and I wanted to show how it was baseless.

[Amr Rahmy]

i don't think i said anything other than twisting the facts, dissecting and taking text out of context is a form of twisting the facts. i apologies if you took that as an accusation, i'm not accusing you, just stating the facts.

going by your math, you think going from one lens to the next in the set is a negligible difference.

that's would be like saying 1/2" and 2/3" are really only a few millimeter difference that they are close enough, or 1/2" to 1/3"

[David Saraceno]

This thread is directed to using external capture devices with the AF100, not issues relating to lenses.

Please stay on topic with the thread.

[xmephestox]

back on topic, anybody other than me has an eyebrow raised for the touchscreen? It's look to be be using consumer grade touchscreen, same stuff you find on your phone. I'm warry about using such a device in the extreme cold or even heat. If it's pressure maybe not so bad, but they can get annoying really fast, if it's capacitive, you're not getting any response when your fingers are like ice...

[bgundu]

this reminds me of the firestore days. Great idea but it took a long time to mature. Don't get seduced by the Ninjas price. I would go with the other proven devices before the Ninja. People complain about the SD cards being flakey and then would settle on an unknown company using notebook drives? Hmmmm, time will tell. I really hope it does prove itself right out of the gate!

Bob

[Nektonic]

I think I'll hobble along on the AF100's standard SDHC dual card slots, then pick up the AJA device summer or fall of 2011.

[nyvz]

The 7D/t2i are not S35-sized. They're 35mm sized. And yes, of course I said the GH1 is close to the 7D/t2i/cinema size, because it is. The 7D/t2i sensor is 22mm wide, and the GH1 is 19mm wide. Where I come from, that difference is minor, not "huge".


That's silly. The difference between them is a Cinema Crop Factor of 1.18.

Where are you getting your sensor dimensions? Most specs I've seen put Canon APS-C at 22.3mm wide and Micro 4/3rds at 17.3mm (imaging area). This would give the AF100 about a 1.44 crop factor compared to Super 35 imaging area. Where Canon 7D or Red 4k would be about a 1.12 crop factor compared to Super 35. Do you have some other information about the GH1 sensor? 19mm seems too wide for micro 4/3rds.

[ddh]

And that in the professional/broadcast camcorder world, it's pretty cheap considering all that it does.

I've had the Ex3 since it came out and I love it. I bought it because Panasonic did not offer anything remotely related for the money. I have not been disappointed but I certainly will consider the AF 100 as a next purchase because I love the Panasonic cinema codecs in camera. I still use my DVX 100 on gigs and up-rez the imagery to HD. The AF 100 is going to be a very exciting camera! As an aside, I use the NanoFlash on almost all gigs ... it's a beautiful piece of kit.

[Barry_Green]

Where are you getting your sensor dimensions? Most specs I've seen put Canon APS-C at 22.3mm wide and Micro 4/3rds at 17.3mm (imaging area). This would give the AF100 about a 1.44 crop factor compared to Super 35 imaging area. Where Canon 7D or Red 4k would be about a 1.12 crop factor compared to Super 35. Do you have some other information about the GH1 sensor? 19mm seems too wide for micro 4/3rds.
The GH1 uses an oversized sensor, to equalize out the image diagonal between 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9. Using the expanded pixel count of the sensor and the appropriate math, we've calculated that it's approximately 19mm wide. Then I've used field of view comparisons to verify that yes, indeed, it is delivering a field of view compatible with 19mm wide.

[GRENCH]

i think this thread started before the 8bit announcement in another thread, and someone asked something similar to one in this thread about the sdi, that's all.

Nope. I started this thread after hearing about the 8bit announcement. From what I understand even though the sdi outputs in 8bits it still will deliver far better quality to a 10 bit device than simply sending it through the camera's internal processor to CF. And at 8 bits minus the aliasing, moire, and artifacts it will definitely trump the GH1, and 7D.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Dino]

@Amr Rahmy,

The only way somebody would think a proper video camera isn't worthwhile is probably somebody who hasn't used pro or even prosumer video cameras very often. If the only cameras you have used are DSLR's, then the prospect of video camera features would not be a priority. It's similar to the many younger filmmakers who have only used palmcorders and not ENG broadcast form factor cameras. It's not a question of what's right or wrong or good value or bad value, it's just a question of priorities and prior experience/perspective.

I never had any interest in shooting with DSLR's, even though I love some of the imagery I've seen when used by talented DP's. I've been using high-end 2/3" cameras for decades, so a DSLR's compromises kept me away. I have used 35mm DOF adapters, which are in themselves full of compromises and hassle, but at least the cameras were familiar and comfortable. The AF100 ticks a lot of boxes for me and I hope my clients(we will be adding two to our rental inventory). The camera will probably rent for under $300/day, so a fantastic bargain in my book. YMMV.

[themagickite]

a couple of questions about the ki pro mini,

on the site it doesn't really say anything regarding formats and framerates and so on, i'm wondering if this will just automatically record the output from the af100 to the appropriate prores codec or if you manually select thing like resolution or 60/50i, 24/25p etc?

i'm also wondering if anyone has any idea of the quality of sound from this device's pre-amps compared to the on board pre-amps in the af100?
would you guys plug your mics into the camera or the ki pro mini?
personally i like the idea of having the ki pro mini set up with a monitor in a corner with the XLR cable running into it as opposed to the camera.

[SPZ]

One thing i hardly see published from Panasonic is signal to noise ratio. This has been the achiles heel of most ag series cameras when going through broadcast exams like the BBC tests- the aj series pass with honours. Since this uses new technology, will we have a first and see Panasonic publish this cam's signal to noise ratio? This is the field that normally Sony excels at. Having a good signal to noise ratio means a more robust picture to go through broadcast terrible recompression processes, for example. Having such a big sensor, I'm sure the potential for having very good signal to noise is there, at least compared to the ex series and the hpx300 series of cameras!

Edit- this was way of topic. Something to bring this back in track. The Kipro seems to have a disadvantage, which is it's power requirements. What does it require to power up? Being bigger than the other offerings, this would mean that the kipro including battery would be a much more cumbersome alternative than the others...nanoflash seems like the winner, at least for me right now...

[agcohn]

Considering the SDI output will be 8-bit, which will be the higher possible quality codec: ProRes 422 HQ (220Mbps) from the AJA or 280Mbps from the Nano?

[xmephestox]

. The Kipro seems to have a disadvantage, which is it's power requirements. What does it require to power up? Being bigger than the other offerings, this would mean that the kipro including battery would be a much more cumbersome alternative than the others...nanoflash seems like the winner, at least for me right now...

good point, but the specs on the website says it needs 12 v. more than nanoflash, but pretty much a industry standard for power consumption on a lot of accessories, right down to monitors. I would consider it no different then looking for a proper power adapter for a monitor or some other accessory for the camera. Whether it's gonna be vmount IDX, or something else, there will be plenty of options.

[xmephestox]

Considering the SDI output will be 8-bit, which will be the higher possible quality codec: ProRes 422 HQ (220Mbps) from the AJA or 280Mbps from the Nano?

i believe nanoflash is 8 bit recording only, and twice the price of the ki pro mini, and does half the things the ki pro mini can do. independent audio, timecode. Even if you have to buy idx batteries for it ( i'm sure there are more options ) it will still be cheaper than the nano flash.

[Stephen Mick]

The big plus for the NanoFlash (having used it) is that you have the choice of recording formats (.mxf or .mov). Depending on your workflow and partners in production, this could be a very important factor in deciding between the two.

[xmephestox]

yes, it's more PC friendly, and older version Avid friendly along with any Apple workflow. it's also a lot smaller and lower profile, important for some.

[Mike Schell]

i believe nanoflash is 8 bit recording only, and twice the price of the ki pro mini, and does half the things the ki pro mini can do. independent audio, timecode. Even if you have to buy idx batteries for it ( i'm sure there are more options ) it will still be cheaper than the nano flash.

Please take a closer look at the specs. The Ki Pro mini is $1995 and the nanoFlash is $2995. The nanoFlash offers 280Mbps I-Frame, which in our tests is superior to ProRes 220 (not surprising) at 8-bit. (Yes, the nanoFlash is 8-Bit, but if your camera is 8-Bit, a 10-bit CODEC offers no advantage).

The nanoflash also offers 3:2 PullDown removal, over/undercrank, pre-record buffer, and time-lapse. I think these are missing on the mini. The nanoFlash uses 6 Watts of power while recording at 280Mbps, which is considerable less than the mini and accepts a 5 to 20V power supply (the mini is spec'd at 12V). On the nanoFlash, you can share power off the camera battery, there's no need to lug along another battery.

The nanoFlash does have an independent (analog) audio input (yes, it's consumer level, not XLR), but it does have LTC as well as embedded time-code input.

I can't find any specs on the AJA site regarding power, weight, or physical size, which seems a little odd to me.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

[xmephestox]

it takes 12 volts of power, it's on the website, the price i was looking at was on b&h, it might have been a bundle thing which was the price variance, either way it's still a solid 1000 dollars more. recording 10 bit from a 8 bit source does have advantages, nothing you can't accomplish in post even from a nano flash, but oversampling never hurts, and is in fact very common. The advantage of the ki pro is it's saving you the step in post in the oversample, and brings to the direct to edit along with the audio and LTC features.

as for power, i would just imagine it sharing power with on board monitor if you so desire, i've seen power rigging options of various kinds, if it's an issue for some people, than nanoflash is a better deal. but the kind of set up i'm imagining is something a long the lines of maybe a v-mount battery power ki pro, and perhaps d-tap to a external monitor . May not work for other people, but it's not insane either.

i'm sure you can argue pro res vs anything else all day, pro ress actually is a fairly lossy codec, it's the price variance, direct to edit overampled footage there for you already that makes it something good to look at. In a perfect world, cineform would be everywhere, and everybody would be using that.

I don't discount the nanoflash in anyway, it's been a staple item even before the ki pro came out. AJA is a staple company two and both are offering great products. Both will produce great results.

[Mike Schell]

recording 10 bit from a 8 bit source does have advantages, nothing you can't accomplish in post even from a nano flash, but oversampling never hurts, and is in fact very common.

Thanks for the explanation and clarification, but not sure I understand your concept of oversampling. As an engineer, I understand how you can oversample an analog signal, for example use a 12-bit A/D converter to produce a very accurate 10-bit digital result. But this same concept does not apply to a digital signal like HD-SDI.

By definition, HD-SDI always has a 10-bit word length. However, the actual video signal is not required to have 10 effective bits. In the case of many (most) cameras, the lower two-bits are simply set to zeroes. So if you capture 8-bit video using a 10-bit CODEC, all you will do is compress the lower two zeros, there is no gain on the quality of the video. You can't oversample data that does not exist in the first place.

Mike Schell

[GRENCH]

So if you capture 8-bit video using a 10-bit CODEC, all you will do is compress the lower two zeros, there is no gain on the quality of the video. You can't oversample data that does not exist in the first place.

Mike Schell

So are you saying the quality would remain in the 8 bit realm?
Meaning no more quality but more importantly no less quality either.

[Retrospective]

Why is it all of these solutions are only specializing in the Final Cut workflow? How about Adobe CS workflow or the ones who don't use ProRes?

[Amr Rahmy]

i think the prores 422 can be achieved using a hardware chip that is somewhat available and affordable,
there are other solutions, for example the cinedeck extreme. it's more expensive but offer more in terms of recording format among a lot of other features.

but even in case of cinedeck, if it's more than one camera shoot, you would probably only use one cinedeck and a few ki pro mini or nano. the cost is somewhat prohibiting.

[Dan Keaton]

Why is it all of these solutions are only specializing in the Final Cut workflow? How about Adobe CS workflow or the ones who don't use ProRes?

The nanoFlash does record to both ".MOV" (Quicktime) for Final Cut Pro and the Mac World, and a few other Non-Linear Editors, and to ".MXF" for the PC World.

Thus one can use the nanoFlash with all of the common professional Non-Linear Editors and one can record in ".MOV" and we provide a free File Converter if one needs to switch to ".MXF" at a later time. This is a file re-wrap, and not a transcode, no image quality is lost.

The nanoFlash can be used with CS5.

CS3/CS4 Supports our 35 Mbps 4:2:0 footage natively, and requires MainConcept codec to support 50 Mbps and higher 4:2:2 since the Sony XDCam 422 codec is not present in CS3/4.

The nanoFlash is very versatile.

[Barry_Green]

So are you saying the quality would remain in the 8 bit realm?
Meaning no more quality but more importantly no less quality either.
Exactly.

HD-SDI is always 10-bit, but almost all of the camcorders in the under-$10,000 price bracket output 8 bits worth of data. They get there by "padding" the last two bits with zeroes. So while the camcorder is creating info that looks like "10101111", when output on the HD-SDI it becomes "1010111100", with those two extra zeroes added to round it out to 10 bits.

When an 8-bit recorder encounters 10-bit SDI data, it just lops those last two zeroes off, recording the upper 8 bits out of the 10-bit data. (presumably a more-intelligent recorder would "round off" the last two bits, either lopping off 00 and 01, or incrementing the 8-bit data for 10 and 11, but that's irrelevant for this discussion).

So the net result is -- the 8-bit recorder is recording exactly what the camera output.

[Steve Kahn]

CS3/CS4 Supports our 35 Mbps 4:2:0 footage natively, and requires MainConcept codec to support 50 Mbps and higher 4:2:2 since the Sony XDCam 422 codec is not present in CS3/4.

This one? http://www.mainconcept.com/products/apps-plug-ins/plug-ins-for-adobe/mpeg-pro-hd/xdcam.html
I edit on CS3. $359 for a codec?

Ouch!

[xmephestox]

Thanks for the explanation and clarification, but not sure I understand your concept of oversampling. As an engineer, I understand how you can oversample an analog signal, for example use a 12-bit A/D converter to produce a very accurate 10-bit digital result. But this same concept does not apply to a digital signal like HD-SDI.

By definition, HD-SDI always has a 10-bit word length. However, the actual video signal is not required to have 10 effective bits. In the case of many (most) cameras, the lower two-bits are simply set to zeroes. So if you capture 8-bit video using a 10-bit CODEC, all you will do is compress the lower two zeros, there is no gain on the quality of the video. You can't oversample data that does not exist in the first place.

Mike Schell

I'm not saying you are gaining information that isn't there, in the form of oversampling i'm describing here comes from a workflow where you overshoot the existing source quality and information so when you start pushing it around through the vigors of post, it has more room to get pushed around.

8 bit color gamut gives you a 0-255 amount color information, 10 bit gives you about 4x more. Converting your 8 bit source to 10 bit, will stretch out the 0-255, it's the same amount of color, but when you start let's say, adding blue to balance your very warm scene. Working natively with a 8 bit codec a slight nudge and you may move let's say for the sake of saying it, 20-30 increments in the color. Stretching it out will let's say let you move in increments of 5 rather than 20. (the math is not exact i'm just saying it as a brief example) Now the you may not have as many shades of blue, but you have finer control over what you do have.

It's the same when it comes to your shadows and luminance. You gain more control, not information, which is why in a lot of VFX software, they work in 32 bit float with their filters, plugins, etc. even when they are only work with a 8, 10, 12 bit source. They need the extra head room to make finer calculations, they are clear and proven results.

You can say well you can convert in post, and that's true, but that's transcode time you could have got in one step, on set, without redundant hard drive usage, and adds a generational loss. Now you can sit there and just look at the footage comparison, and start at avchd native, nanoflash xdcam intra frame, and pro res all day and not see much of a difference if any, nor am I saying that you will. But as an editor, and colorist I always want to be working with the highest quality footage I can, which every weapon in my arsenal as allowed, and it's my firm belief that productions if solid high standards should want that as well.

Even if you bring 8 bit footage to a finishing house to get it color corrected, they'll always convert it to 10 bit before working on it. The advantages are there, even if it's just a technical stand point.

[Steve Kahn]

My laptop has an e-sata port.

Would it be theoretically possible to capture just using a laptop and encoding software via laptop? HD-SDI to e-sata

[Amr Rahmy]

I'm not saying you are gaining information that isn't there, in the form of oversampling i'm describing here comes from a workflow where you overshoot the existing source quality and information so when you start pushing it around through the vigors of post, it has more room to get pushed around.

8 bit color gamut gives you a 0-255 amount color information, 10 bit gives you about 4x more. Converting your 8 bit source to 10 bit, will stretch out the 0-255, it's the same amount of color, but when you start let's say, adding blue to balance your very warm scene. Working natively with a 8 bit codec a slight nudge and you may move let's say for the sake of saying it, 20-30 increments in the color. Stretching it out will let's say let you move in increments of 5 rather than 20. (the math is not exact i'm just saying it as a brief example) Now the you may not have as many shades of blue, but you have finer control over what you do have.

It's the same when it comes to your shadows and luminance. You gain more control, not information, which is why in a lot of VFX software, they work in 32 bit float with their filters, plugins, etc. even when they are only work with a 8, 10, 12 bit source. They need the extra head room to make finer calculations, they are clear and proven results.

You can say well you can convert in post, and that's true, but that's transcode time you could have got in one step, on set, without redundant hard drive usage, and adds a generational loss. Now you can sit there and just look at the footage comparison, and start at avchd native, nanoflash xdcam intra frame, and pro res all day and not see much of a difference if any, nor am I saying that you will. But as an editor, and colorist I always want to be working with the highest quality footage I can, which every weapon in my arsenal as allowed, and it's my firm belief that productions if solid high standards should want that as well.

Even if you bring 8 bit footage to a finishing house to get it color corrected, they'll always convert it to 10 bit before working on it. The advantages are there, even if it's just a technical stand point.

thank you for that.

and that 8bit to 10bit comparison thing. the one with the zeros at the end of an 8 bit sequence(not sure if it was on this thread), to be polite was questionable.

[GRENCH]

I belive the AJA is going to be my choice!

[Jim Brennan]

For those of us already in the P2 world, is the HPG-20 an option?

[trez]

Wait - did Jan confirm 8-bit? I hadn't heard that...
...Disappointing if it ends up being 8-bit, I'd really rather it be 10-bit.

Panasonic stated it clearly in their presentation:

http://mirrorlessforum.com/microfourthirds-rumors/2755-download-ag-af100-presentation-file.html

Really disappointing, but... I'm gonna buy one anyway...

Speaking about Ninja vs AJA - don't really understand why people consider touchscreen to be an advantage. I'd much prefer to have solid buttons. No accidental stops etc... Ninja still seems appealing, though (considering its price). If it had HDMI passthrough I'd probably get one to save some $. Without this feature I won't be able to connect my DP1 monitor :(

[trez]

Thanks for the explanation and clarification, but not sure I understand your concept of oversampling. As an engineer, I understand how you can oversample an analog signal, for example use a 12-bit A/D converter to produce a very accurate 10-bit digital result. But this same concept does not apply to a digital signal like HD-SDI.
Mike Schell

You both seem to confuse things. Oversampling means using higher sample rate - in case of video it relates to resolution. Bitdepth of single pixel has nothing to do with oversampling. Converting 8-bit to 10-bit should be called zero-padding. Of course it doesn't produce new information.

[Barry_Green]

For those of us already in the P2 world, is the HPG-20 an option?
Yes, and it's the option Panasonic is promoting for those who want a higher-end recording format. You would get two of the major benefits of AVC-Intra, being the higher bitrate/better quality compression, and the 4:2:2 color sampling. But you wouldn't be able to take advantage of the 10-bit bit depth that AVC-Intra is capable of.

[GRENCH]

Yes, and it's the option Panasonic is promoting for those who want a higher-end recording format. You would get two of the major benefits of AVC-Intra, being the higher bitrate/better quality compression, and the 4:2:2 color sampling. But you wouldn't be able to take advantage of the 10-bit bit depth that AVC-Intra is capable of.

Is the Panasonic unit as portable and lite weight as the AJA, Nano or Ninja for that matter? It looks a bit bulkier and is a bit more expensive at $4,000.00.

[GRENCH]

I may be switching from the AJA mini to a Nano Flash. Nano just looks alot more portable and customizable.

[James Bridges]

"I may be switching from the AJA mini to a Nano Flash. Nano just looks alot more portable and customizable."

I think you will really like it. I have had mine for over a year now and the footage looks great. Contact me if you have any questions.
Jim

[Yak]

Has anyone compared the Codec between these recorders? I Know the AJA mini records in ProRess while the Nano is based on Sony's Mpeg2 Codec. While size does matter if one will be using a external recorder on the AF-100 the the Codec of the recorder should also be considered.

[Bandido]

Panasonic AG-HPG20 msrp is $5,560, the average street price is $4,520. CD Nanoflash msrp is $2,995, AJA Ki pro mini msrp is $1,995 and the Atomos Ninja msrp is $995. As you can see, they all compete at different price levels. The closest competitors, based on price and features are the Nanoflash and the Ki Pro Mini.

I can see Convergent Design lowering the msrp on the nanoflash to compete better against the Ki Pro mini. Panasonic will have to come up with a new P2 portable recorder to complement better the AF100; more compact and affordable than the current version. There is a huge market out there for this kind of devices and a matching AVC-Intra P2 portable recorder would be a good option until they release a version of the AG-AF100 with AVC-Intra and P2 media on-board, especially if they make the HD-SDI output 10 bit to match the AVC-Intra codec.

[Duke M.]

The Nano can record in QuickTime, MXF or MPG file formats. The others can't making the Nano more versatile IMHO.

The Nano is 4.2 x 3.7 x 1.4". The Ki Mini pro is 1.8 x 5.4 x 3.5" so they are both small enough to mount on the camera and avoid a tether.

[mcgeedigital]

Just having manual pots on the Ki Pro mini, XLR audio inputs and hard physical buttons are the reasons I will use it.

[James Bridges]

The Nano can record in QuickTime, MXF or MPG file formats. The others can't making the Nano more versatile IMHO.

The Nano is 4.2 x 3.7 x 1.4". The Ki Mini pro is 1.8 x 5.4 x 3.5" so they are both small enough to mount on the camera and avoid a tether.

I couldn't agree more, the video quality, recording flexibility and the fantastic customer support is reason enough (good luck calling AJA at 2am with a question, thanks Dan Keaton!!)
Lack of xlr inputs shouldn't sway you on the purchase of one over the other.
Also, the Nano uses very little power, a major plus for me. I agree price could come into play, a grand more can be a bit steep for some.
But, I feel at this point it is the best flexible option.
So far my clients have been very happy with this.
I use this on my HDX900 and so far no issues.

[mcgeedigital]

XLR inputs ARE a big thing, especially when you want to use the recorder on a source that has analog outputs. Not every device has SDI embedded audio.

I have never had anything but great CS from AJA.

[GRENCH]

XLR inputs ARE a big thing, especially when you want to use the recorder on a source that has analog outputs. Not every device has SDI embedded audio.

I have never had anything but great CS from AJA.

Great point mcgeedigital. I was taking for granted that the Nano had XLR inputs. I am an audio guy 1st and for most so that is a shocker for me. I'm just having a problem thinking up a proper on camera mounting solution for the AJA due to it's size and build. I need to have this thing and my AF-100 as 1 unit.

[David Saraceno]

The Nano can record in QuickTime, MXF or MPG file formats.

Which QuickTime codecs will the Nano record to? QT, again, is a container for codecs. It would be great to identify which codecs.

thanks

[Postmaster]

XLR inputs ARE a big thing, especially when you want to use the recorder on a source that has analog outputs.

What´s the reason to have XLR inputs on the recorder, when you have them on the camera you use with the recorder?
Do I miss something?

Frank

[mcgeedigital]

Great point mcgeedigital. I was taking for granted that the Nano had XLR inputs. I am an audio guy 1st and for most so that is a shocker for me. I'm just having a problem thinking up a proper on camera mounting solution for the AJA due to it's size and build. I need to have this thing and my AF-100 as 1 unit.

I saw photos somewhere with the Ki Pro Mini on 15mm rod mounts with an AB battery on it. That is what I am shooting for.

My main reason for wanting XLR inputs is top also use the Ki Pro Mini as an HD DDR to record the main feed in HD live switched events.

[Duke M.]

Which QuickTime codecs will the Nano record to? QT, again, is a container for codecs. It would be great to identify which codecs.

thanks

The Nano uses the module from Sony's $30,000 PDW-700, which is a proprietary solid state XDCAM 4.2.2 module, with some optimized code to let it run faster. This module contains two of Sony's sixth generation MPEG-2 encoder and decoder chips. (According to convergent design)

The regular XDCAM EX NLE settings don't handle it. On a PC you have to install a plug in to handle it. I imagine its the same on a Mac.

I'd also like to point out that the Nano records uncompressed sound.

[mcgeedigital]

http://www.aja.com/video/AJA_KiProMINI.jpg

[bgundu]

Has anyone considered using Dolgin products to power the Ki Pro Mini?

http://www.dolgin.net/VDoubler.htm

[Barry_Green]

Which QuickTime codecs will the Nano record to? QT, again, is a container for codecs. It would be great to identify which codecs.
The Nano is only an MPEG-2 device. The only codec it offers is MPEG-2, but you can change various things about the MPEG-2 (intraframe, long-GoP, 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, and the bitrate from 18 to 280) and you can select the file format (Sony-compatible XDCAM-style Op-1A MXF, or Quicktime .MOV).

[Barry_Green]

What´s the reason to have XLR inputs on the recorder, when you have them on the camera you use with the recorder?
Do I miss something?
Not every camera records sound. And even those who do, don't necessarily do a good job of it. It's possible the connectors and pre-amps on the Ki Pro may be substantially superior to, for example, the 1/8" minijack on a DSLR.

[GRENCH]

What´s the reason to have XLR inputs on the recorder, when you have them on the camera you use with the recorder?
Do I miss something?

Frank

For me it's a huge deal. If I buy an external unit I would also want to be able to use it with other cameras that might not have balanced uncompressed audio recording capabilities.


*Sorry Postmaster. I didn't see that Barry already covered it.

[Postmaster]

Not every camera records sound. And even those who do, don't necessarily do a good job of it. It's possible the connectors and pre-amps on the Ki Pro may be substantially superior to, for example, the 1/8" minijack on a DSLR.

Oh, I thought we are talking only AF100.

I usually have a field mixer between mic and camera, so I go line in and skip the camera preamps.

Frank

[RieniO]

Panasonic AG-HPG20 msrp is $5,560, the average street price is $4,520. CD Nanoflash msrp is $2,995, AJA Ki pro mini msrp is $1,995 and the Atomos Ninja msrp is $995

The price of the Ninja is tempting but the lack of SDI isn't. I'm thinking about getting the AJA Ki Pro mini which costs 2033 euro (ex VAT) here in Europe (= $2904). Advantage of the Nanoflash is the timecode on SDI, does the AJA support timecode as well? Also I know this is not supposed to be an AF100 thread but is it possible to record to both SDHC cards and SDI output at the same time? So if something goes wrong within the external recorder, at least there are still the SDHC cards?

[bgundu]

The price of the Ninja is tempting but the lack of SDI isn't. I'm thinking about getting the AJA Ki Pro mini which costs 2033 euro (ex VAT) here in Europe (= $2904). Advantage of the Nanoflash is the timecode on SDI, does the AJA support timecode as well? Also I know this is not supposed to be an AF100 thread but is it possible to record to both SDHC cards and SDI output at the same time? So if something goes wrong within the external recorder, at least there are still the SDHC cards?

Yes to everything :)

[RieniO]

That's very good, so I will probably go the AJA way :happy:

[bgundu]

I think only Barry can answer this question about audio. I know you can record video to the internal SD cards and through the HD-SDI simultaneously. I'm going to assume that is the case for audio too? I'm hoping that audio is also transferred through SDI to an external recorder at the same time. I hope it's not one or the other.

On a side note about the Pro Mini. Since it does have it's own XLR's, you can record 4 separate channels of audio by also using the AF100 audio inputs.

[Barry_Green]

Yes, audio is embedded on the HD-SDI and HDMI outputs, whether you're recording or not.

[bgundu]

Cool. Too bad the Mini Pro can't record the audio from SDI, while also recording from it's own XLR's to get 4 channels of audio on one media type. At least you can record 2 channels to the SD's. though.

thanks Barry.


Yes, audio is embedded on the HD-SDI and HDMI outputs, whether you're recording or not.

[Julienmassie]

The Ninja hard disk .... is really for controled environement, inside shooting, good temperature ... Im not a fan of a touch screen for my primary recorder. Have you already tryed touchscreen at 30degree under the sun ? I had and sometime it just dosent work well at all.

If im not happy whit the 24mbs ... i will probably go whit the AJA
But i will make a lot of test before since it will kinda change all my shoulder mounted set-up, batteries, balance .... $$

[ddh]

I also use the nano with a EX3 and would consider getting a KI Pro mini as the EX3 out-puts 10 bit but the AF 100 doesn't ... so it seems the NanoFlash and the AF 100 may fit together nicely as both are 8 bit.

[Dan Keaton]

Disclaimer: I am the Director of Sales and Marketing for Convergent Design.
This is intended to be a fair presentation of the advantages that our nanoFlash offers.

We feel that the AJA Ki Pro Mini and the nanoFlash can both co-exist in the marketplace.

We welcome the recent competition from AJA.

We congratulate AJA on introducing the Ki Pro Mini at an attractive price.

After careful analysis, we feel that the nanoFlash holds up well to the competition.

We strongly feel that the nanoFlash will remain the premium product, especially when one compares features and media costs.

While the nanoFlash presents a un-unassuming exterior, the technology inside is very advanced.

For example, the nanoFlash only requires a 400x CompactFlash card, for recording up to and including 220 Mbps.
A 600x card is required by the nanoFlash, only if one selects our ultimate quality 280 Mbps bit-rate for recording.

And even lower performance 133x cards may be used for Broadcast Quality and 100 Mbps recordings, for even lower media costs.

The Ki Pro Mini requires a 600x CompactFlash card for 220 Mbps, which is far more expensive.

At B&H using todays prices a 64 GB 600x CompactFlash card costs $524.99 while a 64 GB 400x card is available at $165.85. If you purchase just two cards, the saving is $718.28.

And the nanoFlash achieves Broadcast Quality at 50 Mbps which allows a maximum uninterrupted recording time of 5.3 hours.

Broadcast Quality on the Ki Pro is 145 Mbps or higher and is limited to an uninterrupted recording time of 45 to 57 minutes.

As of this writing, the Ki Pro Mini can not span from one CompactFlash card slot to the next. This is an important feature of the nanoFlash that is used every day.

As the unique advantages and the low media cost of the nanoFlash become more widely known, we expect the sales of the nanoFlash to continue to be strong.

The nanoFlash is ideally suited for use with the soon to be released Panasonic AF100/AF101 and the nano3D is ideal for use with the Panasonic 3DA1 3D camera.

Each of the following points cover features of the nanoFlash that are not available in the Ki Pro Mini.

nanoFlash Advantages / Unique Features
·Most efficient CODEC: Sony XDCAM 422 HD CODEC;
18 to 280 Mbps, I-Frame / Long-GOP
·4:2:2 Broadcast Quality at only 50 Mbps
·Very high quality at lower bit-rates: 100 Mbps 4:2:2 Long-GOP
·Longest Uninterrupted Record Times of any professional recorder
·Best Media Management
oVery Long Uninterrupted Record times (supports spanning of cards)
§14.9 hours @ 18 Mbps (Proxy Mode)
§5.3 Hours, Uninterrupted, at Broadcast Quality (50 Mbps 4:2:2)
§1 Hour at Maximum Quality (280 Mbps 4:2:2)
oLowest-Cost CompactFlash cards: 133X (100 Mbps), 400X (220 Mbps)
o600x speed CompactFlash cards not needed, except for 280 Mbps
oAffordable Nexto Drive (500GB HDD) for field backup
oSupports multiple files for safety
oHot-swap (due in next firmware release)
·Longest Battery Life: 6W Max Power, 5 to 19.5V Range
·Industry Leading Size, Weight (0.85 Pounds, 385 grams), and Power
·Completely Silent - No Fans
·Full Support For PSF, Converts PSF to Progressive for recording, Progressive to PSF for playback
·Comprehensive Support for various frame rates including True 24p, True 30p and True 60i.
·E to E Direct Support
·3:2 Pulldown Removal
Example: 1080p24 over 60i -> 1080p24, for both SDI and HDMI
·Time Lapse: one frame/second up to one frame/day
·Pre-Record Buffer (up to 7 seconds) – Great for wildlife shoots
·Over/Under Crank (Variable Frame Rate) with all cameras: 1080p and 720p
·Universal NLE Support: MXF/MOV/MPG files, no transcode, Play directly off CF card
·MPG file format speeds DVD and Blu-Ray creation; Renders Blu-Ray files in real-time
·Most flexible recorder – numerous trigger options, internal/external Timecode
·Comprehensive software tools / plugins for viewing / converting files
oMOV ↔MXF Converters, XDCAM Viewer, Calibrated Software Decoder
oCineform support coming soon, currently in beta and working well
·Simplest Mounting: Built-In Tripod Mount (1/4”-20)
·History of continuous upgrades:
oSix Major Firmware Updates since Aug 2009
oNext Release to include: Canon MXF support, Record Trigger Delay,
Hot Swap, Image Flip/Flop
·Field Proven in mission critical applications
oOver 2300 units in the field
oExtreme environments – desert, humid jungles, balloons @ 100K feet,
underwater, arctic cold, race-cars, helicopters, jets, acrobatic planes,
(-30 to 70 C operating range)
·Upgradeable to 3D, 3D upgrade available now
·24/7 phone support – knowledgeable support when you need it
·Available today – In-Stock

The above list was created with the publicly available information on the Ki Pro Mini.
I will be happy to post updates as appropriate.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Friends,

In response to some audio questions.

Our initial HD/SD recorder had XLR inputs and Outputs.

In order to reduce the size down drastically, and to lower the power requirements substantially, we removed XLR inputs and outputs from the nanoFlash.

Many of our nanoFlash users like to record redundantly. This is a great advantage of using an external recorder such as a nanoFlash.

Thus, with the nanoFlash, one uses the XLR inputs and Phantom Power of the camera. The camera then processes the audio and sends it over the HD-SDI cable with the video to the nanoFlash.

Please note that this has many advantages and one disadvantage.

Advantage: The audio is input into the Camera's XLR inputs, the audio level meters in the viewfinder work, and the audio gain controls, in-camera, are readily available.

Advantage: The audio is recorded in-camera and reduntantly in the external recorder.

Advantage: The external audio recorder can draw signifcantly less power.

Disadvantage: If the audio circuits of the camera are noisy, then the quality of the audio can suffer.

If one wants higher quality, if the external recorder has great audio circuits with 24-Bit / 48K support, then one can use the analog audio inputs of the external recorder.

Please note that while the Ki Pro Mini has XLR audio inputs, it does not have XLR audio outputs, thus the audio signal would not normally be feed back into the camera, thus preventing the redundant recording in-camera from having audio, and thus preventing the user from seeing the audio levels in the viewfinder.

The Ki Pro Mini draws 16 to 18 watts, and the nanoFlash draws approximately 5.6 watts and accepts 5 to 19.5 Volts DC.

If one is using a mixer, then one can take the "Tape Out" of the mixer, which is typically on a 1/8" / 3.5mm mini-plug, and plug it directly into the nanoFlash's stereo analog audio input.

The nanoFlashes audio input is via a single 3.5mm mini-jack, and supports one balanced mic or line input, or two un-balanced mic or line level inputs. Audio is processed as 24-Bit / 48K and yields high quality audio.

Most of our nanoFlash users plug their XLR sources into their camera and send audio over HD-SDI to the nanoFlash. But, they like the ability to have analog audio input available at times.

The HD-SDI embedded audio option supports up to 8 channels, all 24-bit / 48K audio.

Dan M. Keaton
Director of Sales and Marketing
Convergent Design

[Barry_Green]

All good points, and in my breakdown (in another thread) I say that the Nano still has a competitive position in the marketplace.

But, Dan, you know we gotta ask -- it's a grand more than the Ki Pro Mini, it's only 8-bit, and it's using a comparatively ancient codec. When can we expect to see a counterpunch from Convergent -- a 10-bit h.264 version at $1995 or less?

The Nano is definitely a viable product for today, but when the Ninja (and I have my doubts about that, by the way) is offering a modern codec at $995, it makes it harder to justify the 3x higher price of the Nano. Not for me; if I had to buy one of them I'd definitly go for either the Ki Pro or the Nano, and the Nano's portability and easy power options make it probably the leading contender for me, but -- even so, I gotta kinda grit my teeth at the idea that it's $3k when the Ki Pro is $2K and the Ninja is $1k, so ... it feels like I'm paying more, for yesterday's tech, and that surely you're going to respond with a today's-tech product soon, right?

[vcfilms]

When does the Ki Pro Mini actually ship?

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Barry,

I greatly appreciate your response to my post.

Yes, the nanoFlash uses MPEG-2, we actually use the same Sony Codec Module that is in the Sony PDW-700 and PDW-F800.

While all MPEG-2 is 8-Bit, just as all broadcast is 8-bit, MPEG-2 has some advantages.

Specifically, MPEG-2 is typically (but not always) easier to edit than MP4 or H.264. Of course, for some, or for many, they have powerful systems that allow MP4 or MPEG-2 with ease.

As much as I would like to wave a magic wand and make MPEG-2 10-Bit, or make the nanoFlash immediately 10-bit, i cannot do so.

While there are many cameras on the market, and today there are quite a few that output 10-bit over HD-SDI, there are none that output 10-bit over HDMI, as far as I know.
Thus while the Ninja promotes itself as a 10-bit recorder, it will have to wait for an HDMI camera to come on the market with a 10-Bit HDMI output.

And, of all of the cameras that have 10-bit HD-SDI, only some of them output a low enough noise image over the HD-SDI to make 10-bit really beneficial.

As do many companies, Convergent Design does not discuss the possibliities or features of future products. I can say that if we started today on such a product, it would take many months to design and build. The complexity of these products should not be underestimated.

As far as price, yes we were surprised when the Ki Pro Mini came out at $1,995. At this time, the nanoFlash has many more features, but, of course, this could be expected to change over time as more features are added to the Ki Pro Mini. After carefully evaluating our feature set versus theirs, we decided to keep our price the same.

If one needs to record at 220 Mbps for more than 31 to 38 minutes, the nanoFlash is your best option.

If one needs to record at 145 Mbps for more than 45 to 57 minutes, the nanoFlash is your best option.

If one needs to record Broadcast Quality, for up to 5.3 hours, then the nanoFlash is your best option. (Sony XDCAM, 50 Mbps, 4:2:2, CBR, two 64 GB cards)

If one wants low cost media, say $55 for a 32 GB 133x card, one can use the nanoFlash to record Broadcast Quality for 80 minutes. (Newegg, Transcend 133x 32 GB card, $55, single card)

If you want over or under-cranking, time-lapse, full support for all common formats and quite a few rather rare ones such as true frame rates, including progressive and PSF formats, then nanoFlash is a good choice.

If you want 3:2 Pulldown Removal or to convert 720p60 to 72Op30 or 720p50 to 720p25, again it is the nanoFlash.

Yes, the initial cost of the Ki Pro Mini is lower at $1,995, and the nanoFlash is $2,895, a $900 difference.

If one wants to record at 220 Mbps, the cost of the Ki Pro plus two 64 GB CompactFlash 600x cards is $3,044.98. (Maximum uninterrupted recording time of 31 to 38 minutes)

If one wants to record at 220 Mbps, the cost of the nanoFlash plus two 64 gb 400x cards is $3,226.70. (Maximum uninterrupted recording time of 77 minutes)

While many many never envision themselves shooting 3D, any nanoFlash may be upgraded to a nano3D without any loss in one's investment.

Barry, I know that I did not directly answer your question, when are we going to come out with a H.264 or MP4 recorder for $1,995?

I hope I explained why we still think that the nanoFlash is very viable in the marketplace and is a reasonable value when one considers media cost and maximum un-interrupted recording time.

Respectfully,


Dan M. Keaton
Director of Sales and Marketing
Convergent Design

[Barry_Green]

I think it's a reasonable response. Only thing I'd really dispute is the notion that there are a lot of 10-bit HD-SDI camcorders out there... because in the under-$15,000 market, I think there's only two (the EX1 and EX3). All the others are 8-bit; all the Canons, all the JVCs, and all the AG-series Panasonics. Well, that's not entirely true, the HPX370 is 10-bit, but then again that doesn't need an external recorder as it has AVC-Intra on-board.

So I don't see 8-bit as nearly the drawback that some do, because today's world, for use on today's equipment, it's all 8-bit.

And, okay, I can read between the lines -- you said "if we started today, it would take many months"... so, I'll choose to believe that you didn't start today, you started many months ago, so it should be imminent, right? ;)

Thanks for the response.

[derbrocks09]

FWIW. I'll be going with the Ki Pro Mini whereas had the Nano been priced lower I would have gone with the Nano. $1000 buys another nice lens. They both accomplish basically the same task. Hopefully the boys at CD are listening. My camera won't arrive for awhile. Still plenty of time to lower the price on the Nano to 2011 standards. Otherwise AJA will be getting my $.

Just my 2 cents

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Derbrocks09,

The Ki Pro Mini may be great for you and your type of shooting.

When comparing the cost of the two devices, please included the cost of powering the units.

The nanoFlash draws under 6 watts, our last measurement was 5.6 watts. This low power requirement allows one to use small, low-cost batteries. A small 2-Cell Lithium-Ion battery wights 3.8 ounces and costs $59.95. And the charger costs $49.95. This battery powers the nanoFlash for approximately 3 hours. (www.nanoFlash.net (http://www.nanoFlash.net))

The best information that we have is that the Ki Pro Mini is that it requires 16 to 18 watts. This usually requires a larger, more expensive battery, and a more expensive charger.

For some applications, the same battery can power the camera and the nanoFlash. Since the nanoFlash can go as low as approximately 5 volts and as high as 19.5 volts, there is a very wide range of power solutions available including very low cost options.

[adolgin]

"there is a very wide range of power solutions available including very low cost options"
Just to expand on what Dan said, in practical terms the low power reqirement of 5.6W/5V-19.5V means that any DV battery (Canon, Sony, Panasonic) which is nominally 7.2V 35-50WH can natively power the Nano for several hours, using one of our adapter plates (http://dolgin.net/zen_dolgin/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=16&zenid=af50011b24cb61a23b524fec37cff44b). So the same battery that one already owns to power the camera, can be used to power the Nano. As Nano accepts voltage up to 19.5V, it can also be natively powered by the 14V Sony EX style batteries. There is no need for voltage conversion, regulation etc. making the battery adapter soution simple and reliable. When one wants to power a 12V device using a 7.2V DV battery, a voltage booster is needed. But just boosting 7.2V to 12V is not such a great idea, as when the device needs lots of watts, a 7.2V battery gets overloaded - it is not meant to power high power devices. Run time will be shortened.

[Duke M.]

Only thing I'd really dispute is the notion that there are a lot of 10-bit HD-SDI camcorders out there... because in the under-$15,000 market, I think there's only two (the EX1 and EX3). All the others are 8-bit... So I don't see 8-bit as nearly the drawback that some do, because today's world, for use on today's equipment, it's all 8-bit.

In the EX1/3 forums the EX1/3 are always discussed as having 8bit HD-SDI output. Some people have claimed to have tested it. I have no way of measuring, but if true that would make it literally true that all the sub $15k cameras are 8 bit.

That makes 10 bit recording rather meaningless. It would be like recording 4.2.0 into a 4.2.2 file format. You can do it but it doesn't add any new data.

Have a look at the Nano's development history. They are continuously adding new features with upgraded firmware. Most companies make you buy new hardware instead.

Also, I shot all day yesterday at CML Studios with one U95 EX1 type battery with a D tap powering the nano and the camera on only one charge. Since a BP-U60 is about the same price and the U95 has about double the power its like powering the Nano for free.

[mico]

In this video, Atomos Ninja seems to imply that if you can do without redundancy and record only to its device in liveview mode you can record off the sensor and eliminate the red dot and white square getting full 1920x1080 over HDMI out of the Canon dslr cameras. I'd like to hear what Dan thinks of this because if that is possible that would be huge, including the ninjas added benefits of cost, ability to use dual switch over affordable batteries, and hot swappable media. Regardless of it being only 8 bit or not.

http://vimeo.com/16246480

[derbrocks09]

Dan

I think the main issue with powering the Ki Pro vs the Nano isn't the cost as much as it is the weight. There are many inexpensive 12v batteries available. But they are rather heavy. I can see that the Nano is likely the best solution for many types of shooting. But I think it might be aimed at a different type of shooter and I think that the majority of AF100 owners considering the two will either opt for the hdmi only solution or at best the Ki Pro. Spending $3k on a device for a $4800 camera? Just a bit much IMO.

I'm certain that the AF100 is going to be a HUGE hit just as the DVX100 was and Panasonic is going to sell a ton of them to guys like me who aren't working pros. It's affordable enough to justify owning vs renting.

I'm just curious now but how many owners will just go with the on board recording? Probably a lot is my guess.

I think my only point here is that I think even $2k is going to be hard for many AF100 owners like myself to justify let alone $3k. The Nano will likely be a great choice for working pros but for the thousands of Indie Filmmakers out there who are on a tight budget I predict the Nano will get killed by the Ki Pro if not the Ninja. Plus the 10bit vs 8bit thing is pretty important IMO. Not for the AF100 obviously but someday we will want 10 bit and someday the Nano will have to be replaced where the Ki Pro won't.

Again, just my 2 cents.

[vcfilms]

I do not think that's true about recordning uncompressed from hdmi on the canon cameras.
He may be misinformed, but I so hope this somehow magically happens, would make me enjoy my 7d
a little more

[mico]

I do not think that's true about recordning uncompressed from hdmi on the canon cameras.
He may be misinformed, but I so hope this somehow magically happens, would make me enjoy my 7d
a little more

Did you watch the video? Thats the CEO of Atomos.

[Barry_Green]

I think the main issue with powering the Ki Pro vs the Nano isn't the cost as much as it is the weight. There are many inexpensive 12v batteries available. But they are rather heavy. I can see that the Nano is likely the best solution for many types of shooting. But I think it might be aimed at a different type of shooter and I think that the majority of AF100 owners considering the two will either opt for the hdmi only solution or at best the Ki Pro. Spending $3k on a device for a $4800 camera? Just a bit much IMO.
Agree totally. I think the Nano is the most flexible device, and frankly the battery powering options are a huge factor in its favor. But you can't fight the numbers, and no matter which way you argue it, people are going to see "$2895" vs. "$1995" and the battle's over. I think a Nano at $1995 would be a no-brainer.


I'm just curious now but how many owners will just go with the on board recording? Probably a lot is my guess.
My guess is that while a lot of people are talking about external recorders, when the actual credit card hits the counter, 95% are going to go with the onboard AVCCAM recording and never bother with an external recorder. $3,000 buys a lot of additional gear, and the quality improvement over the native codec is going to be quite minimal for that outlay.

[Barry_Green]

In the EX1/3 forums the EX1/3 are always discussed as having 8bit HD-SDI output. Some people have claimed to have tested it.
I have tested it and can verify that it's 10.

[Dan Keaton]

In this video, Atomos Ninja seems to imply that if you can do without redundancy and record only to its device in liveview mode you can record off the sensor and eliminate the red dot and white square getting full 1920x1080 over HDMI out of the Canon dslr cameras. I'd like to hear what Dan thinks of this because if that is possible that would be huge, including the ninjas added benefits of cost, ability to use dual switch over affordable batteries, and hot swappable media. Regardless of it being only 8 bit or not.

http://vimeo.com/16246480

Dear Mico,

At this point in time, almost all DSLR's were not designed to put out a quality image over the HDMI port (while recording, or during Live View).

In an ideal video camera, there would be large pixels, and the effective number of pixels would match the output format, such as 1920 x 1080.
(Of course the sensor could be a little larger, and window down to the correct number of effective pixels.)

The outstanding Canon 5D Mark II camera has 21.1 million effective pixels.

In the ideal camera, for 1080 mode, one needs 2,073,600 effective pixels.

Thus, a very sophisticated system is needed to convert the 21.1 million t the 2.073 million.

But, since the HDMI output circuitry was never designed for an external video recording device, such as a nanoFlash or Ki Pro Mini, a simplier technique was used.

Line Skipping eliminates some of the pixels, and what I call Pixel Skipping is used horizontally to obtain the lower resolution image (lower resolution than the native still camera mode) that is needed for 1080 video mode.

This reduces the quality of the HDMI output, but please remember, the HDMI output was designed for live viewing, for framing, and other needs, but not for recording.

As such, I have never recommend that one use the nanoFlash to record the output of DSLR's for serious recording.

Note: while I have used Canon as an example, this applies to all DSLR's.

Please note that we are anxiously waiting for DSLR's to incorporate more sophisticated circuitry so that the nanoFlash can be used.
Also, there may have been some recent DSLR cameras introduced that do have clean HDMI outputs. I may have missed them.

And one of the reasons that we, and many others are so excited about the Panasonic AF100 is that it does have clean HDMI and HD-SDI outputs!

Respectfully,


Dan M. Keaton
Director of Sales and Marketing
Convergent Design

[Barry_Green]

you can record off the sensor and eliminate the red dot and white square getting full 1920x1080 over HDMI out of the Canon dslr cameras.
I watched that video, and the conclusion you're drawing is not correct. He never said anything about the white square or red dot. What he did say, repeatedly, was that it's recording "straight off the sensor", which leads to the confusion. What he means to say is that it's uncompressed, but the part he's leaving out, and the part that makes everything much more obvious, is that it's going to record whatever a monitor would show. There's no magic. Whatever the HDMI shows, is what the Ninja will record. And on the DSLRs, it shows a white box when in pause, and therefore the Ninja will record the white box. And it shows a red dot when recording, and therefore the Ninja will record the red dot.

Now, if Canon were to issue a firmware change that eliminated the white box and red dot, then you could get a clean recording, but that's the only way you can get it. The Ninja can't do anything magical, it can only record what the HDMI is giving it.

And, for that matter, the Nano has HDMI input, so it could record the 7D/5D exactly as the Ninja does. What Dan is saying is that the HDMI output isn't of sufficient quality to bother recording, but if you did want to record it, the Nano could do it just the same as the Ninja.

[dcloud]

its great to see these new recorders. keeps the competition on their toes. it may also push competitors to lower their prices :) cant wait to see a year from now what new technology we will see :)

[jpmulligan]

Cineform support coming soon, currently in beta and working well

Dan, can you tell a little bit more about this beta feature? Are you saying then that once this change is implemented into production firmware releases, that the nano will record to Cineform intermediate format as a selection in addition to XDCAM? If so, while the XDCAM support seems to be hardware based, would the Cineform be a conversion from the XDCAM to Cineform format?

And here is a question that will really show my ignorance: when over / under cranking, does that actually change the recording format, or is overcranked / undercranked footage embedded in the native video stream, e.g. 1080p/30 or 720p/60? Does the nano have an advantage in this area compared to competitor products?

[GRENCH]

What Dan is saying is that the HDMI output isn't of sufficient quality to bother recording, but if you did want to record it, the Nano could do it just the same as the Ninja.

So Barry what your saying is even if canon did issue firm ware update for the 7D to eliminate the red dot and white square you still wouldn't get a full 1080p image?

But will the image be better than the h264 one that records to the CF card, is the bigger question.

[bgundu]

So Barry what your saying is even if canon did issue firm ware update for the 7D to eliminate the red dot and white square you still wouldn't get a full 1080p image?

But will the image be better than the h264 one that records to the CF card, is the bigger question.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/146644-capturing-hdmi-dont-bother.html

[Barry_Green]

So Barry what your saying is even if canon did issue firm ware update for the 7D to eliminate the red dot and white square you still wouldn't get a full 1080p image?
I'm not the one saying it, I'm trying to interpret what Dan Keaton of Convergent Design is saying. And it sounds to me like he's saying "don't bother, it's not worth it."

EDIT - and having read the link Bob Gundu supplied, yeah, Jon Fairhurst and Art Aldrich seem to agree.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Friends,

We have a very close relationship with Canon and a few other camera manufacturers.

We have been wanting to record, via the HDMI output of the Canon cameras, for some time now.

If we felt that the quality was there, we would be recommending the nanoFlash to thousands of DSLR users.

I would just love to answer the 100 to 200 questions that we get every month about this in a more positive way, but it would not be the right thing to do.

On a more positive note, we fully expect this situation to change, as we expect a clear HDMI output in future cameras from multipe camera manufaturers.

Multiple manufactures are working to provide high quality outputs from their cameras.

In other matters, Panasonic and the AF100 team are certainly to be commended for providing HD-SDI in addition to the HDMI.

I just read in another professional cinematographers forum that someone performed surgery to add HD-SDI to a Canon DSLR!

Of course, the nanoFlash is nice in that if one provides HDMI in, one gets HDMI and HD-SDI out. And if one provides HD-SDI in, one gets both outputs as well.
I assume that the Ki Pro Mini will do the same thing.

Respectfully,


Dan Keaton
Director of Sales and Marketing
Convergent Design

[Dan Keaton]

Dan, can you tell a little bit more about this beta feature? Are you saying then that once this change is implemented into production firmware releases, that the nano will record to Cineform intermediate format as a selection in addition to XDCAM? If so, while the XDCAM support seems to be hardware based, would the Cineform be a conversion from the XDCAM to Cineform format?

Dear JP Mulligan,

I am sorry for the delay in responding.

Cineform has provided firmware updates for their products, in the form of Beta Releases, that support our file (MXF Format).

All of the feedback that I have received has been very positive. Our users are very happy about this.

Thus, to answer you question, the nanoFlash does not record in CineForm, but CineForm reads our files just fine. Thus, one can convert to CineForm, if desired, while copying the files from a CompactFlash card to your computer's disk subsystem.

To be clear, the process to convert to CineForm occurs external to the nanoFlash.

The products are:

Neo3D
Neo4K
NeoHD
NeoScene


And here is a question that will really show my ignorance: when over / under cranking, does that actually change the recording format, or is overcranked / undercranked footage embedded in the native video stream, e.g. 1080p/30 or 720p/60? Does the nano have an advantage in this area compared to competitor products?

Over and under-cranking is performed in the nanoFlash.

This allows one to over and under-crank in the camera and in the nanoFlash separately, if you wish. One could over crank at one rate and the other could perform different over or under-cranking.

In the nanoFlash, one specifies the base frame rate for the over and under-cranking. Most users choose 1080p24 or 720p24, but any of the common frame rates are possible.

The Non-Linear Editor will see this base rate as the frame rate of your clips (files).

Then, one selects the "Crank Rate" from 1 to 60 for 720p or 1 to 30 for 1080. (The camera needs to send out progressive frames for over and under-cranking to work best.)

The way that the nanoFlash performs over and under-cranking, is to record just the correct number of frames, bypass all others, according to the "Crank Rate" you specified.

My explanations may make this appear complicated to the user, but it is very easy, and very useful.

Of the portable external recorders mentioned in this thread, I beleive that the nanoFlash is the only one that offers this feature.

As always, I hope this helps.

Respectfully,


Dan M. Keaton
Director of Sales and Marketing
Convergent Design

[Barry_Green]

Okay, so, for clarification -- I believe that what Dan is saying is that no, the Nano will not be updated to allow in-Nano Cineform recording. Instead, the update he's referring to is that Cineform's software will now properly work with Nano MPEG files, so that you can use Cineform's software to convert the NanoFlash's MPEG-2 files into Cineform files.

[jpmulligan]

Thanks Dan & Barry, exactly the information that I was looking for! Gosh I love this website!!!

[Barry_Green]

And I appreciate Dan coming on and explaining things. Always nice to have a manufacturer's rep who's willing to answer end-user questions.

[GRENCH]

Here is a question that I have been wanting to ask but it kept slipping my mind. Are there any external recorders that can record over 120 fps for extremely smooth slo-motion shooting? I would think this would be a really cool feature. If there are no units currently on the market my 2nd question is is it doable at an affordable price? And being that the unit is external does the camera unit (AF-100) play a part other than being the image conduit?

Hope these question makes sense :)

[Barry_Green]

No it's not possible at all, because there's no video output that supports 120fps, because there's no video signal standard that supports 120fps. There are computer monitor standards that support those high framerates, but not video signals.

[Bucknfl]

Will all of these units start recording when they detech the host camera is recording thru hdmi or hdsdi cable?

[Duke M.]

Most people set the Nano up for a time code trigger. If the Nano detects the time code is changing it runs and matches its own time code to the incoming time code signal. That helps tremendously when lining up Nano clips with regular clips as you match the time codes. You don't need a clap board to sync them.

You'll have to look up the manuals on the other two, if they are available. One of them I don't think is out yet.

[BobbyMurcerFan]

...
I think my only point here is that I think even $2k is going to be hard for many AF100 owners like myself to justify let alone $3k. The Nano will likely be a great choice for working pros but for the thousands of Indie Filmmakers out there who are on a tight budget I predict the Nano will get killed by the Ki Pro if not the Ninja. Plus the 10bit vs 8bit thing is pretty important IMO. Not for the AF100 obviously but someday we will want 10 bit and someday the Nano will have to be replaced where the Ki Pro won't.

Again, just my 2 cents.

Don't forget about the cost of recording media. If you want to do 220, you can use MUCH cheaper cards on the nanoFlash than you can with the Ki Pro. I believe the difference in price for two 64 cards is something like $700. This brings the price difference down to $200. Add to that cheaper batteries w/ longer life and a product that has been battle tested, and I don't see much of a difference.

Yes the Ki Pro is cheaper to get into, but both will cost about the same if you want record at high bit rates, which is kind of the whole point of the product anyway.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Friends,

To add to what Duke has said:

The nanoFlash can detect when the camera's timecode is incrementing and then start recording. And recording stops when the timecode stops.
This is one of many ways to trigger the nanoFlash.

But, while HD-SDI carries embedded timecode, HDMI never carries timecode, it is not in the HDMI spec.

An optional cable can be used to connect the nanoFlashes timecode input to a camera, if the camera has a timecode output.

If not, the nanoFlash can generate internal timecode in multiple varieties.

I hope this helps

[Barry_Green]

Dan, can the Nano detect the HD-SDI record flag?

I know you have the timecode trigger thing, but that's not usable when doing free-run timecode (such as multi-camera shoots or time-of-day timecode). The AF100 has a flag in its timecode stream (or elsewhere?) that sends a record signal to any external recorder; I've used it with the HPG20. If the Nano could sense that record flag, it wouldn't have to rely on running timecode and it'd then become usable on multi-camera shoots or time-of-day timecode, such as what nature cinematographers might want to use.

[Duke M.]

A semi direct answer to your question; the Nano does a JAM sync and 'time of day' time code too.

[Dan Keaton]

Dan, can the Nano detect the HD-SDI record flag?

We have the necessary technical details from Panasonic, which they graciously provided, and we will be implementing this as soon as possible.

I fully expect that we will have this working, and in our firmware, before the AF100 is shipped.

[Duke M.]

We have the necessary technical details from Panasonic, which they graciously provided, and we will be implementing this as soon as possible.

I fully expect that we will have this working, and in our firmware, before the AF100 is shipped.

Double cool.

[Barry_Green]

We have the necessary technical details from Panasonic, which they graciously provided, and we will be implementing this as soon as possible.

I fully expect that we will have this working, and in our firmware, before the AF100 is shipped.
Sweet!

[Bucknfl]

If the ninja is HDMI only, then theres no way for it to roll automatically when the camera rolls?

[BobbyMurcerFan]

Dear Friends,

We have a very close relationship with Canon and a few other camera manufacturers.

We have been wanting to record, via the HDMI output of the Canon cameras, for some time now.

...

On a more positive note, we fully expect this situation to change, as we expect a clear HDMI output in future cameras from multipe camera manufaturers.

Multiple manufactures are working to provide high quality outputs from their cameras.

...


Dan, can you say if Nikon is one of those manufacturers?

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Friends,

Sorry, but I do not have any direct knowledge of Nikon plans.

With all of the questions being posted about "Does it have Clean HDMI" for every new camera, one would think that every DSLR manufacturer at least knows about the issue.

[TheReverend]

Any word on a Atomos Ninja release date? Not to be mean but they are a brand new startup and this is their first product, right? I'm just wondering if they have a solid date or at least an accurate timeframe. The best I've seen is "hoping to ship in December", which is vague.

I love all the ideas of Ninja - choose your hard drive, straight to ProRes, hard drive mounts to edit... To me, this stuff is so superior to cards in terms of workflow. And as I've used a Firestore for a long time, hard drive recording is pretty darn reliable. And Ninja with SSD would be incredible.

[GRENCH]

Hey Barry,

I read a post by you that spoke of on board recording of the AF100 being more than suitable. I believe you spoke of your editor stating that the differences between the internal recording and external recording being very minimal. Can you elaborate on that.

[Stephen Mick]

Hey Barry,

I read a post by you that spoke of on board recording of the AF100 being more than suitable. I believe you spoke of your editor stating that the differences between the internal recording and external recording being very minimal. Can you elaborate on that.

Perhaps I can offer some of my observations, as I'm the one who's been supervising all the editing and finishing of "A Verse Before Dying."

The NanoFlash is a great product, and I've used it in the past with great results. On "Verse…" we used the Nano for one particular scene, one we thought would be a tough challenge for the onboard AVCCAM codec of the AF-100. What our editor found was that indeed, the differences between the AVCCAM and Nano files were minimal to non-existant.

Another shot where I was particularly "interested" to see what the AVCCAM would deliver was in extremely high-detail aerial shots. The shots involved a rider on a horse riding in a field of blowing tall grass. What we found was that the AVCCAM handled the shot without any problem at all. This is one of those shots that I would have swore we'd have needed an external high bit-rate recorder for, but the fact is, we didn't.

Now, there are most definitely situations where I would want to have a NanoFlash connected, specifically green-screen work for post effects. This isn't a knock against the AF-100, but something true of any 4:2:0 AVCHD-based camera, and something that both our editor and colorist reinforced to me. Some may use these cameras without an external recorder and have great success with keying. But for me, and for my post partners, that extra color depth is going to make their lives a little bit easier.

[GRENCH]

Thanks you Stephen! That was the perfect answer. Very informative. I can't wait to get my hands on this camera. I will be buying the AJA unit in March but to know that I can shoot some great footage without it is some welcome news.

Again thanks :)

[Barry_Green]

Stephen has been working with the editor, and can explain further.

What I would say is -- you can get better quality from an external recorder. But you can also get better quality from a better mic, better lighting, better glass, and a better tripod. There are many ways to spend money to improve quality. I do not think most users will find an external recorder a necessity. There are some types of shoots that will benefit more than others, but for general cinematic purposes, I think people will be quite pleased with how the native codec performs, and will not feel the need to spend an extra $2k or $3k on an external recorder. But for those looking for the absolute peak in performance, or those who are shooting for a broadcasters who demands 50mbps (such as the BBC) or those who are doing extensive greenscreen and VFX work, they will find the external recorder a great upgrade.

[Barry_Green]

EDIT: didn't read to the end of the thread; just now saw that Stephen answered hours ago! Sigh. :)

[look696]

Hi Barry, I was thinking of shooting "everydays shots" on the internal cards and when doing greenscreen or vfx work capturing the hd-sdi direct to my mbp with he sonnet qio and the esata hdds on it .... would this be a good idea, or am i missing something here?

[bgundu]

Looks like the Ninja is now looking at a January release.

[GRENCH]

EDIT: didn't read to the end of the thread; just now saw that Stephen answered hours ago! Sigh. :)

No problem Barry,

I won't be able to purchase my AJA until the 1st week of March. I was concerned because I have scheduled a couple of gigs in late January that I was planning to shoot on the AF-100. Based on what I just heard I should be more than happy. My client loves my past DSLR footage so he should be more than happy with the AF-100s final product.

Thanks!

[Billygoat]

Perhaps this will revive an old thread at a time the conversation makes it more relevant (we are getting our cameras and dealing with post). While I find the onboard AVC quite good looking in general in first generation (I have noticed some color banding at times which may become aggravated further into the compression processes) - a big issue not many others have mentioned is the time it takes to transcode this AVC to a format that works well with editing systems of ordinary power. Avid will not allow direct access to these MTS files, so I must first transcode. I transcoded about 1.5 hours of footage today from the camera, and it took at least three hours going to DNX175. This is not a realistic workflow for me in a paid production process, especially for deadline critical projects or in handing footage off for immediate handling. So while the AVC looks pretty good fresh out of the camera, really working with it in a real world way leads me to the necessity of buying a Nano, which will give me the speed in post workflow I had with my P2 HVX, and well worth the cost for that reason alone.

[Shooter]

Billygoat... You make the point about "post" that I have been concerned about very well.

I am interested to see how it goes for you workflow-wise with a NANO

Can some one link me to the NANO device and info that is being discussed here please.

[Postmaster]

... I transcoded about 1.5 hours of footage today from the camera, and it took at least three hours going to DNX175. This is not a realistic workflow for me in a paid production process, especially for deadline critical projects or in handing footage off for immediate handling.

Someone here remember how long that process with film took?
And they used 16mm for the news back than.

Just saying, Frank

[Eddie A]

I still use my DVX 100 on gigs and up-rez the imagery to HD.

How do you up-rez an SD image to HD? Isn't it already too late once the image is recorded in SD?

I'm genuinely interested in this, since I'm about to go shoot on one myself.

[bhdfield]

How do you up-rez an SD image to HD? Isn't it already too late once the image is recorded in SD?

I'm genuinely interested in this, since I'm about to go shoot on one myself.

ddh is simply blowing up a standard def anamorphic (presumably) image to 720 or 1080. And yes, it's too late. It doesn't look too good. It may be ok for some. And though it's too late now, the FOX Sunday NFL studio live stuff was all SD up-rezed to HD, and although it was clear to me, many could not tell. (Partly because they're using very good lenses and a clean up-rez process). (and another side note, a producer tells me they may go full HD next season on the studio stuff, if there is a next season)

[bhdfield]

Back on topic, has anyone heard if Convergent Design is having any luck figuring out the AF100 pull down? Right now, you can't use 720 23.976 because it doesn't see the pulldown in the output signal. So if you (like me) have a Nano, and you want 24p, you're locked into 1080p. Kind of a pain if web delivery is your final output and you don't want to waste processor power and render time on a 1080 frame size.

[diegocervo]

no, not yet.
I ordered it on the 14th (and paid already.....) but the distributor said they are still waiting for the new firmware from atomos.
I hope that this is worth the waiting!!
best

[GRENCH]

Ninja and Samurai look really promising.

[Osslund]

Yes, the Atomos recorders has three advantages I like. Records to SSD drives, integrated power solution and possible added future codecs.

[Kenny_G]

The concept is great. At no moment one gets the feeling of paying too much. The package is so complete, that one wonders why others haven't do this before. Of course the quality has not yet been proven, but Iam very confident it will be a killer.

[Tanner Stauss]

Does anyone know if the Ki Pro Mini will work with a 25p setting on the AF100?

[Jon Thorn]

Q: Does anyone know if the Ki Pro Mini will work with a 25p setting on the AF100?
A: At this time, the Ki Pro Mini does not support frame rates within the larger signal rate; i.e. 720p23.98 from within 720p59.94 or 720p25 from within 720p50. This functionality is supported on other cameras, like the HPX170. The Ki Pro Mini Release Notes document explicitly notes the difference with regards to the AG-AF100. The AG-AF100 uses VITC ancillary data for flagged frame information as opposed to LTC ancillary data and thus the difference in support at this time between this Panasonic camera and others with respect to flagged frame removal.

[David Shapton]

Yes, the Atomos recorders has three advantages I like. Records to SSD drives, integrated power solution and possible added future codecs.

Don't forget it records to standard, commodity-priced spinning drives as well: $50 for 2.5 hours of visually-lossless ProRes HQ.

[Osslund]

Yes. that's also a great feature! I might opt for one SSD and one spinner.

[adolgin]

Has anyone considered using Dolgin products to power the Ki Pro Mini?

http://www.dolgin.net/VDoubler.htm

Actually our single plate adapte (http://dolgin.net/zen_dolgin/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=4&products_id=54)r (XLR4 plug configuration) was tested with the Mini, powers the device just fine.