In reality, what will the Convergent Design Nano Flash do for me?

Buck Forester

Buck Forester

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

But using the Sony EX1, real world what does this translate into in terms of what I'll actually be seeing? Will it make much of a difference? My EX1 is already sharper than a thinly sliced pickle, so in essence what will the extra bit rate provide in the image other than taking up more storage space? It won't eliminate any CMOS limitations because that's the sensors themselves. It won't increase resolution because it's already 1920x1080. Locked down I can't imagine the EX1 being any better because it smokes in sharpness and clarity. If it will make an improvement in motion, specifically how so? I can make the Nano Flash, at $3,500 or so, fit my budget if it'll reeeeeally make a noticeable difference. If not, I'll just put the $3,500 on my Starbucks Card and be set for the next two months of caffeine fixes.
 
NanoFlash will allow you to capture 4:2:2 color (vs. 4:2:0 on SxS), and higher bit rates of 50, 100, and 160mbps. This will give you a more detailed image with more color resolution - useful especially if you're doing green screen or composites. The improvement is only minor, and you will have to judge for yourself if it's worth the extra cost. I think Convergent Designs may have posted some A-B comparisons. Jim Arthur posted a comparison here a few months ago (but he captured the 4:2:2 HD SDI signal to his computer).

Nanoflash also allows you to record to CF cards, which may save you money over SxS cards if you use lots of them. But considering that some people have figured out how to use SDHC cards with the EX1, that's a moot point.
 
To tell you the truth, the nanoflash will not be of very much use, unless you are doing keying. It may also be of benefit if you are doing heavy grading. Othe than that, keep in mind that your output codec ex. Blueray etc are almost always much lower quality than the recording codec, even than the XDCAM EX codec, so the long-gop problems will rear it's head once you put your stuff ot anyway.
 
chagchag said:
Blueray etc are almost always much lower quality than the recording codec, even than the XDCAM EX codec, so the long-gop problems will rear it's head once you put your stuff ot anyway.
Click to expand...

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


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

9581d1225943975-real-codec-torture-test-35mbps-vs-100mbps-35mbvrs100mb_sparks.png

9580d1225943921-real-codec-torture-test-35mbps-vs-100mbps-35mbvrs100mb_rotate2.png
 
Last edited:
Yes they are big improvments, but remember they were both scenes chosen to be close to a worst case senario for the XDCAM EX encoding, lets not let anyone start thinking that all EX footage looks like that on the left... Just something to consider in that big picture we all draw in out minds :-)
 
GuyB said:
Yes they are big improvments, but remember they were both scenes chosen to be close to a worst case senario for the XDCAM EX encoding, lets not let anyone start thinking that all EX footage looks like that on the left... Just something to consider in that big picture we all draw in out minds :-)
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

If Jim Arthurs is reading this post and still has access to the XDR, I'd be intersted in a comparison between the stock XDCAM codec verses the XDR 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP codec under a "normal" pan speed across high detail. It would be interesting to subtract these frames. Also, the same test taken at a slow pan speed. This would answer Buck's question.
I've seen the EX1 example (Jim Arthurs) using XDR 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP codec subtracted from uncompressed. It was a LOT better than I dreamed of. It was virtually equivalent.
 
Last edited:
I get some edge artefacts when keying SxS green screen footage. But as I usually shoot 1080p and finish in 720p or SD, the artefacts really don't cause a problem. If you are using a decent tool like Keylight in AE, you can fiddle with your edges, and I can recommend Red Giant Key Correct Light Wrap.

Doing a big budget glossy piece at full 1080p, I would probably rent a more expensive camera with a better lens, before worrying about codec related issues.
 
I don't have an EX1/EX3 as of yet, but I wanted to point out for any "readers" that the concept of "Normal" I think you guys are referring to has more direct relationship to Video Type Applications. I've been watching the Nano Flash and I'm extremely excited, but my work is more in indiependent film. So any resolution/ sharpness /color upgrades even without utilizing green screen are welcomed. I've seen EX1's 35Mbps perform well, but trippling the amount with a larger color space is extremely exciting for me since my main concern is not Blue-ray or DVD, but the big screen. Esepcially when the cost could be a minimal $3,500. It could be argued that at that point one might as well move to the RED, but I think a more used and Sony backed $12K CMOS Camera solution right now for indies is favorable over the $35K minimum for the RED ($18K Camera, + Lenses, Flash Cards, etc)
 
EX1/EX3 + nanoFlash = Camera at 2X to 3X Cost?

EX1/EX3 + nanoFlash = Camera at 2X to 3X Cost?

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

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

Mike Schell
Convergent Design
 
zeke said:
Is the codec 10bit or 8bit?
Click to expand...

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

Mike Schell
Convergent Design
 
Don't get me wrong though, while I might defend the EXs native footage I completely see the market for the nano and XDR. If I was shooting anything for film or a lot of grading or colour work, keying etc or even just a high paying creative job and I had the money the nano would be an instant purchase.
 
I'm buying the NanoFlash. I'm sold on how clean the images are coming off the EX1 using the 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP. Also, memory cards will also be inexpensive.
 
Hi Stevet-
Thanks! I feel confident you will be pleased with the results. You can play the video directly off the CF cards in FCP without rewrap or transcode. We expect MXF (Avid, Edius, Vegas) support later this month.

Mike Schell
 
Is it very easy to switch between the NanoFlash and the SxS cards? From what I understand (which could be wrong) you can't do over/under cranking with the NanoFlash to the CF cards? I was just wondering how simple it is to bypass the NanoFlash when wanting to over/under crank.
 
We just recieved our EX3 and I came acrss this thread about the NanoFlash. Where is there an article or forum thread that gives a full description and details about it?

At Asian Ar Safari we have been using our Panasonic HVX200s and HPX500 to very good effect. I will be interested in how the EX3 can complement our existing setup or replace some of it. The NanoFlash may make the EX3 even more valuable to us.
 
If you already have P2 cards, you may want to consider Panasonic's newly announced AG-HPG20 recorder. Basically, it takes an HD-SDI input and records it to P2 cards in the AVC-Intra format. AVC Intra is MPEG4 based, so it's more efficient than Sony's EX codec, which is MPEG2 based. It's also an I frame codec, which should make for better pictures (but less efficiency) than Sony's long GOP. And AVC intra is 10-bits, which should take full advantage of the EX1/EX3's 10-bit HD-SDI output. The main downfall in my opinion is that it only records to P2 cards, which is a lot more expensive than CF cards used by the Flash XDR and Nano Flash. But if you already own P2 cards, then you may not have to spend more money on memory.

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

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=152238
 
Sumfun said:
If you already have P2 cards, you may want to consider Panasonic's newly announced AG-HPG20 recorder.

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


Good points.

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

The comparison of the XDR 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP to uncompressed is amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top