AF100 / AF101 + nanoFlash

D

Dan Keaton

Well-known member
Dear Friends,

Disclaimer: I am the Director of Sales and Marketing for Convergent Design, and the nanoFlash is one of our products.


I am one of the many people that are very excited about the AF100 / AF101 Cameras.


A few very lucky experts have had the opportunity to work with the camera. In general, it appears that they are very satisfied with the images, even though they may be improved upon before the production models are released.

Thus, recording in-camera, using AVCHD, is certainly a viable option for many.

From what I have seen, this very impressive new camera produces very nice images using AVCHD.


For some, recording in-camera will be satisfactory and I fully respect the opinions of the experts that have actually used the camera.


For others, adding a nanoFlash will greatly extend the capabilities of this wonderful camera.


I have made a list of the reasons why one may consider adding a nanoFlash.
(Obviously, I think the nanoFlash will be a great addition.)

1. By adding a nanoFlash, your images will be in 4:2:2, as opposed to 4:2:0 when recording
in-camera. 4:2:2 images provide much more Chroma detail.

This is, by far, the number one reason to add a nanoFlash to the AF100/AF101.

4:2:2 provides more chroma information than 4:2:0.

2. With the nanoFlash recording in 4:2:2, Chroma Keying (greenscreen work) will be much cleaner and easier.

Recording in 4:2:2 as opposed to 4:2:0 for Greenscreen work can be a real help in post.


3. The nanoFlash’s images will hold up much better in post, especially in serious color grading and other multi-generation post work. The nanoFlash images can hold more detail in the shadows and in the highlights.

With other cameras that have been tested at higher bit rates, the nanoFlash has improved the handling of shadow detail and highlights. This will be an unknown until the nanoFlash is actually tested with the production version of the camera.


4. The high-bit rate options of the nanoFlash provide insurance against an image with excessive detail, or a shooting situation where there is excessive motion in the image or in the camera. These are situations where a lower bit-rate codec may produce less than stellar results.

The nanoFlash records up to 280 Mbps.

5. The nanoFlash records in native Quicktime for Final Cut Pro. The files are easily edited and do not tax the processing power of one’s editing computer. Also, the workflow is “Drag and Drop” simple, and thoroughly proven.

6. The nanoFlash, via a menu option, can also record in native MXF for easy editing in Avid,
Sony Vegas, Edius, or Adobe CS5 and other NLE’s (Non-Linear Editors).

7. The nanoFlash uses the more professional CompactFlash card media. CompactFlash cards have larger capacity, and a faster transfer speed.

A professional quality CompactFlash card will always transfer faster to your NLE, than a SDHC or SDXC card. The SD cards have a 4-bit interface while the CompactFlash cards have a 16-bit interface. There are no 90 Megabyte per second read or write speed SDHC or SDXC cards.

This speed advantage can be very important when one has a tight editing deadline.

8. While advances have been made in editing AVCHD, the nanoFlashes files are easier to edit and may provide a much more pleasant post experience.

9. The nanoFlash can record in Long-GOP up to 180 Megabits per second (Mbps) or I-Frame Only up to 280 Mbps. A wide range of bit-rates are available to meet the needs of every shooting situation.

In the AF100/AF101 cameras, recordings are 21 Mbps average and 24 Mbps max.

10. The nanoFlash supports Time-Lapse Recordings.

11. The nanoFlash supports Image Flip, Image Flop, Image Flip + Image Flop.

12. The nanoFlash supports Hot Swapping of CompactFlash cards.
Thus, while recording, one can request that the nanoFlash switch to the next card,
then one can remove the other card. This allows one to continue editing while starting to edit the earlier footage.

13. Adding a nanoFlash offers Redundant Recording Capability, in-camera recording becomes the backup. It is certainly desirable to be able to record redundantly and have a backup.

In summary, a nanoFlash is a perfect accessory to improve the image quality and versatility of the Panasonic AF100/AF101 cameras.
 
Dear Yak,

The nanoFlash is built around the Sony XDCAM Codec Module, the same exact one used in the Sony PDW-700 and PDW-F800 cameras.

Thus, the basic flavor of the nanoFlash is XDCam, but we, of course, extend it quite a bit.

We can wrap our footage in native Quicktime or MXF.

The native Quicktime files are easily dragged and dropped into a ProRes timeline.

If no color correction or cropping is done, then the files will not be renderd into ProRes. Otherwise they will.


With that said, to directly answer your question, the nanoFlash, in its present form, can not record to ProRes, it can record to native Quicktime.
 
To be clear, Quicktime isn't "native" per-se. It is just a container.

So, Nanoflash uses the XDCam CODEC within the quicktime container, correct?
 
Dan Keaton said:
A professional quality CompactFlash card will always transfer faster to your NLE, than a SDHC or SDXC card. The SD cards have a 4-bit interface while the CompactFlash cards have a 16-bit interface. There are no 90 Megabyte per second read or write speed SDHC or SDXC cards.
Click to expand...

Yes. However, the files on the SD card are potentially 10x smaller... making the transfer times shorter. (I don't think CF has a 10x advantage over SD).

-X
 
xbourque said:
Yes. However, the files on the SD card are potentially 10x smaller... making the transfer times shorter. (I don't think CF has a 10x advantage over SD).

-X
Click to expand...
Yes, but for those of us using Final Cut Pro, there's the extra step of converting the AVCHD files into Pro Res, so any time gained by smaller file size is lost during the conversion step. The Nanoflash would eliminate this extra step.
 
But I for one like to archive my original camera raw files and this is where there's a huge space saving option. 16 gig SD card vs say 100 gig quicktime files..


Will be great to see how this unit works and if there's a major improvement. From early reports it's looking like a the AVCHD camera codec is pretty good... I for one love the HMC150 and have done quite a lot of post processing with great results... If I do need a better compression then I would bring out my mac pro. Not very portable but certainly works like a charm...
 
I trust Dan will clear this up.

"Native QuickTime," with all due respect, provides no useful information. What codec does the nanoFlash record to in a QT container?

Is it the XDCam CODEC as suggested by Mike?
 
The Sony MPEG 2 codec used in the NanoFlash is the XDcam codec. This is from their manual available for download. Showing different recording options.

MPEG2 Profiles
· 422P@HL: 100/140/180/220 Mbps VBR 4:2:2 I-Frame Only, 1920x1080i/p,
1280x720p (XDCAM 4:2:2)
· 422P@HL: 50/80/100/140/180 Mbps VBR, 4:2:2 Long GOP, 1920x1080i/p,
1280x720p (XDCAM 4:2:2)
· MP@HL: 18/35 Mbps VBR, Long GOP 4:2:0 (XDCAM EX), 1920x1080i/p,
1280x720p
· MP@HL: 18/35 Mbps VBR, Long GOP 4:2:0 (XDCAM HD), 1440x1080i/p,
1280x720p (ver1.5.31)
· MP@HL: 19/25 Mbps VBR, 4:2:0, Long GOP, 1440x1080i (MPG files only)
· MP@ML: 50 Mbps CBR, 720x486/720x576, 4:2:2, I-Frame, IMX
· MP@ML: 5/9 Mbps VBR, 720x486/720x576, 4:2:0, Long-GOP (MPG files only)

When I edit in FCP I set the sequence to render as ProRes, this way renders are very high quality.
 
Last edited:
I use the nano quite a bit. It records QT files that FCP sees as the XDCAM codec. They are instantly editable.

Technically, FCP interprets the files as XDCAM 50 mbs 4:2:2 and you will be editing in this format in a 'native timeline'. Your footage may indeed be recorded at a much higher bit rate, but whenever you process/filter the image and hit render, it will be processed at the lower bit rate.

That's the only drawback, but it's really minor. I tend to edit in 'native' XDCAM, but then setup a ProRes HQ sequence, and nest my XDCAM timeline within it and render out (at first generation) as ProRes HQ.

Quality is perfectly preserved, but I benefited from not needing to transcode footage. As a matter of fact, if you have a burly MacPro you can just drop the nano files into a ProRes timeline and they edit very well if unlimited RT is enabled.

I love the nano. It is XDCAM recording on super-'roids. Something not often talked about with the product--rather than focusing on (overkill) super-high bit rates is the ability to choose a bit rate that works as a nice compromise between true uncompressed quality and moderate storage requirements. In most situations, 80 mbs long GOP is totally fine and more is just...more, particularly with cameras that can only output 8 bit. Standard ProRes is something like 145 mbs, and doesn't really offer anything beyond nano XDCAM recording, other than more bits.

The way I see it: If you're shooting something challenging in terms of motion and detail and want codec peace of mind, going redundant with an outboard recorder like the nano is a no-brainer. If you don't like 'iffy' codecs, go with SDI recording and let the AVCHD be a convenient safety/backup recording.
 
Last edited:
Dear Friends,

I am sorry for the delay in responding.

I attended the Showcase/Panasonic AF100 event yesterday in Atlanta. It was a very worthwhile event.

The "Essense" (the actual video) is Sony XDCam at any of the bit rates we support.

The container is Quicktime or MXF, or none (our MPG files are not in a container).

By native Quicktime, i mean that our ".MOV" files can be dragged and dropped into the Final Cut Pro timeline, and instantly edited.

Some choose a XDCam 50 Mbps 4:2:2 CBR timeline, some choose ProRes, others choose something else.

I do agree with the comment that our files are wrapped in the Quicktime container (as one of our options).

I hope this helps.

I greatly appreciate others jumping in to answer the question.
 
A DSLR with clean HDMI is something a lot of us have been waiting for. So we can use the NanoFlash instead of the subpar codecs currently available.

I think now we have it and a lot more, a video cam with the DSLR lens choices and sensor size.

I love what the NanoFlash has done for my EXcams, and I think the NF/AF100 combo is going to be fantastic. I can't wait!

The AF100 is exactly the cam I have been waiting for, to truly empower my NanoFlash.
 
What about power source?

What about power source?

Ok, I have read your posts, and I am convinced that the nanoFlash would meet our needs. However, especially for cameras like the AF100 or the HMC150, I am concerned about powering the unit. Is there a battery pack that is not cumbersome or extra heavy or hard to mount/carry? I am thinking of field use, of course, rather than studio use. Any recommendations would be deeply appreciated. Thanks.
 
Dear Luciano,

We are working on ways to use a small battery to power both the nanoFlash and AF100.

On Wednesday, I spoke with an engineer at Panasonic and obtained some good solid information to help us in this regard.

While it is certainly nice to use one battery, another option is very viable.

We offer some very small, lightweight, and low cost batteries.

One is a 2-Cell Lithium-Ion battery, 3.8 ounces, low cost, and powers the nanoFlash for approximately three hours.

Another is a 4-Cell Lithium-Ion battery, also moderate cost, and powers the nanoFlash for over six hours.

And for all day use (including overtime) an 8-cell battery is also available.

Fast chargers, at low cost, are available.

We will be offering battery systems that power the camera and nanoFlash simultaneously as soon as possible.

You can see these batteries at one of our dealers, www.nanoFlash.net.

The AF100 draws 12.5 watts and requires approximately 7.2 volts, but probably works from 6 to 8.4 volts, the normal voltage range for a 2-Cell Lithium-Ion battery.

The nanoFlash works with 5 volts to 19.5 volts, so a wide range of battery types may be used. The optimum voltage, in other words, the most efficient battery voltage for the nanoFlash is around 6 to 8 volts, so it is ideally suited for a two-cell Lithium-Ion battery. By Optimium, I mean the most effieicent, technically, but all voltages from 5 to 19.5 work fine.

With the camera drawing 12.5 watts, and the nanoFlash drawing only 5.6 watts, and automatically going into very low-power standby (0.2 watt) when the camera is turned off, a low-cost, light-weight battery solution is very easily accomplished. Other recorders draw substantially more power, requiring much more expensive battery solutions.
 
Hi Dan, As a nanoflash user may I just say - hey wonderful product, elegant,portable,light and reliable.

Power - I love DIY. Here is another view for anyone wondering. The small battery I got from nanoflash.net ( got two ) is just the ticket and that gives me 6 hours total. They are small. The nanoflash has a wide voltage tolerance so I also made my own power supply by getting a Hi-rose connector fitted with the battery terminals of a Sealed lead acid battery. That has allowed me to be flexible enough to get any size of 12 volt battery to power the Nano - could even go for days if you get a big enough one. I also had a cigarette lighter placed on the end of a hi-rose connector so I can use the nanoflash in a car or indeed on the road with any battery. All the cables were made professionally by an engineer by the way so the pinout was correct. The only restriction then is storage and with huge Compactflash cards coming out all the time the nanoflash is a product that well - just rocks.

I have read that the GH2 outputs uncompressed HDMI albeit some have had some trouble getting it to work on an intensity. It may well produce images on par with the AF100 paired to a nanoflash I suppose - suspect there will be some aliasing but the images I have seen from the GH2 are amazing.
 
I used my Nanoflash during the Panasonic AG-AF100/101 test in Japan: it works great!
In my opinion, is the right choice for the new Panny!
 
Dear Henry and Filippo,

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

For those that want to build their own, a 4-Pin Female Hirose cable with bare leads at the other end is available from www.nanoFlash.net.

It does appear that the nanoFlash and AF100 were just made for each other.

I am working on specific power solutions for the AF100 and nanoFlash.
 
And assuming the resolution tests high enough, and artifacts low enough, when we get final version tests the AF100/Nano combination should meet all Discovery, BBS and other HD broadcast standards. :-)

@Dan, I know about the forum for the Nano, but I've often thought there should be a 'Tips' page. For example, the Nano very accurately captures noise that the EX1 produces in certain circumstances, that the standard 35Mbps XDCam hides in its lesser resolution.

I found Perrone's tip of not doing an in camera white balance (just set it for 5600k sunlight) and adjusting in post works far better. Apparently the in Camera white balance is just an electronic boost of certain color channels, especially the blue channel on tungsten, and gain equals noise.

Recently I shot under florescents this way, which made everything green. I dropped the green channel in post to 87% and it looks beautiful.

I'm sure others have found 'best practices' when using the Nano that I'd sure like to hear about without reading through every post on the forum.
 
Hi Dan,
has the nanoflash special requirements for the power supply? I am thinking of a supply out of LiPo batteries ....
Thank you for your time ....
 
Dear Duke,

The nanoFlash has full approval from the BBC, National Geographic, Sky HD, many broadcast networks, and many others.

And the nanoFlash and nano3D have been used in films by major Hollywood studios.

While we do not yet have official approval from Discovery, as far as I know, it has been used on multiple Discovery Channel productions.

I always respect Perrone's opinons and tips. However, I had not hear that one before, I do not doubt it in the least, I just was not aware of this tip.

If it is proven that the white balance causes noise, then it may certainly prove useful to set the camera to native white balance setttings (whatever is neutral).

On the other hand, I have always recommended that one white balance in camera unless there is an over-ridding reason not to. This may be a special case where it is appropriate to not white balance.

Sony XDCam EX codec(35 Mbps 4:2:0) can certain hide some noise, but this is also true of other codecs.

And the Sony EX1 / EX3 can be put into modes, usually by maladjusting the camera, where it will create a noise image.

A very long, detailed thread was generated on another website by a person intentionally creating a noisy image.

It appears that he expected the nanoFlash to magically eliminate the noise.

But a great codec, recorded at a high bit-rate, will preserve detail, not eliminate it.

When the original poster decided to put his EX1 back to factory settings, and he recorded at our 100 Mbps Long-GOP, he was then amazed at the quality.

The moral of this story is that one should use good techniques to reduce the noise, in-camera, then record.

By good techniques, I mean good picture profiles, not ones that create noise, good lighting, low or minus gain, proper use of ND filters when appropriate, etc.
(In general, just good shooting techniques.)



I think a thread on nanoFlash Tips would be very nice. We could all add to this as we think of tips. Where should we put this thread?

My first two tips are fairly obvious.

1. My number one tip is to ensure that the viewfinder data is turned off on the HD-SDI output!
This has tripped up many a shooter, even if they have a monitor connected to the HD-SDI output of the nanoFlash, since they are used to seening this data into their viewfinder.

2. My number two tip is to use qualified cards and use a bit-rate appropriate for the card.
If one shoots 280 Mbps on a card qualified for 220 Mbps, at some point the nanoFlash may stop recording, downshift, then restart.

Qualified cards are found on our website: http://www.convergent-design.com/Media/tabid/1841/Default.aspx


3. For Broadcast Quality, we recommend 50 Mbps Long-GOP.

If one wants better, we typically recommend 100 Mbps Long-GOP. (I almost never recommend 100 Mbps - I-Frame Only)

140 or 180 Mbps I-Frame Only is fine, just not 100 Mbps I-Frame Only.

For the ultimate in quality one can shoot 280 Mbps I-Frame Only, and 220 Mbps I-Frame Only is almost the same quality.

But, this is overkill for most types of shooting.

I recommend trying 100 Mbps Long-GOP and see if that meets your need for quality before jumping to higher bit-rates.


4. If one is shooting for Avid, shoot 50 Mbps Long-GOP or 140 Mbps or Higher I-Frame Only. (This advice is not necessary for the latest versions of Avid.)


5. If shooting for FCP, use our Quicktime format (.MOV).

If shooting for the PC World, ".MXF" is typically best.

If one is not certain how it is going to be edited, I recommend ".MOV" mode.

6. We provide free File Converters, for both the PC and the Mac, to convert ".MOV" to ".MXF" if necessary. These are not transcodes, but a nice clean rewrap of the files.

If one does shoot MXF, and needs to edit in FCP, then one can use the free Sony FCP Plug-In to convert to ".MOV".
The free Sony XDCam Clip Viewer, Version 2.30 is a wonderful PC program to view our ".MXF" files.

7. The free VLC Media Player, 1.1.4 or above, on the PC, will now play ".MOV" files (but please do not judge the quality of the images using this player.)

Duke, I hope these tips help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top