AF100 and external recorder

andythefilmer

andythefilmer

Veteran
I couldn't seem to find any other threads when searching or looking around, so I apologize in advance. I just spent the day at a professional video store in LA today, as I am nearing the time to upgrade my camera. I was pretty set on the HPX-170 or HMC-150, but when I explained to the staff there that my primary work consists of weddings and documentaries, they talked me into the AF100. I own a 7D as well, so I have a bunch of Canon glass, and I have already made the decision to purchase the AF100 when they get it in stock in a month or so. My question is: is it worth the extra $2000- $3000 for a Ki Pro Mini or Nano Flash? I was told that the HDSDI outputs uncompressed 4:2:2 video, which would allow for much better quality and such. I can afford one, but is it really worth it?

Also, if I shoot in variable frame rates, say 12p, would it still output through HDSDI?

Thanks
 
My advice is to try it out and see what you think of the native codec, before worrying about spending thousands of dollars for an external recorder. You may find that you're perfectly happy with the native codec. Or, you may find that you really need the external recorder. But there are so many other places where $3,000 could be spent, that it seems like it should be something you buy only if you find it necessary.

And as for variable frame rates -- up to 30p, yes. Any faster than 30p, no, that can't be output on the SDI.
 
I say buy it if your clients demand extremely high-end video or if your business model supports this. Remember, investing in an external recorder (NanoFlash, AJA Ki Pro, etc.) should be viewed as an accessory, sometime accessories take time to pay themselves back. You could "Buy it now" and take it from camera to camera, especially if you are not an owner/operator. I know several camera asst. that have bought these and are making great supplemental income.
I have had my NanoFlash for about a year and a half. I have used it on several cameras (HDX900, EX3, F900R) and my clients like have a ultra-high quality it provides and rather inexpensive media costs, it has been a good investment for me.
 
I think so, the best thing to do is try one out. I would be willing to bet there is one near you.
I would like to try out the AJA Ki Pro Mini as well. I am not sure it is out yet.
 
I have a nanoFlash and think they are great. I don't own an AF-100 but Barry's advice is wise. Unless you are fully kitted out on lighting and sound gear (ohhh and lenses), your money is probably best placed elsewhere. Just ask yourself the question "What will that money do to improve the picture? Can I spend it another way and improve the picture more?

How many fresnels do you have? Do you have a good soft-light like a RIFA or a DIVA 400? Do you have a good set of flags, cucloloises, grips heads and stands? Do you have good mics? Do you have an excellent tripod? If you answered affirmatively to most of these questions and have 4 grand in your pocket after buying the AF-100 then consider an external recorder.
 
Bucknfl said:
The first time you have a sd card failure you will kiss your external recorder.
Click to expand...

This is one thing that worries me when I've been shooting with the AF100. Crossing my fingers. But I think it does have a clip recovery feature. I know it's not the same as P2, but does anyone have any idea what exactly the clip recovery would get you? If your card dies, would the recovery get part of it back, all of it, nothing? Or is the recovery feature only for saving clips that were damaged due to a power loss in the camera?
 
One thing I should mention in defence of BUYING an external recorder aside from the backup benefit already mentioned, is for broadcast purposes. If you are selling your footage to broadcast the typical benchmark is 50kbit 422 which is based on the betacam spec from years back. Once you hit that threshold you can sell footage to a lot of media outlets. Of course, with many of them, as many will know, a camera has to first be sanctioned for acceptance, like BBC forinstance. But as a rule of thumb 50 Mbit 422 is the minimum level for broadcast media outlets.
 
Last edited:
And for those interested in trying before you buy, remember that LensRentals.com offers the Nano for rent. So if you need it for a test, or for a certain project, they can hook you up.
 
How many fresnels do you have? Do you have a good soft-light like a RIFA or a DIVA 400? Do you have a good set of flags, cucloloises, grips heads and stands? Do you have good mics? Do you have an excellent tripod? If you answered affirmatively to most of these questions and have 4 grand in your pocket after buying the AF-100 then consider an external recorder.
Click to expand...

I don't own any fresnels. All my lights are DIY, and frankly, I can still get the light I want with them. When I absolutely need a god Arri kit, I rent them from my school. One thing I am considering though is a good wireless lav set. Maybe two Sennheiser G2 or G3's. For anyone on here who does doc work, is it worth having some wireless lav's? I have several wired ones good for interviews, as well as a great shotgun.
 
I think the NanoFlash is a wonderful tool. It greatly improves your picture quality, in the AF100 and other cameras. It is very compact and uses very little power.

I love the piece of mind I get when I am on a single camera shoot and record both in camera and on the NF. It can be set up to trigger on/off as you start/stop the camera, very convenient. I have been using it for years on EXcams and it has been completely trouble free.

AF100_NF11.jpg
AF100_NF1.jpg


I have made a bracket for the NanoFlash on a AF100, it is very compact and fits in my run-bag all assembled.

If anyone is interested in the NF and bracket they are available at NanoFlash.net or direct from me.
 
Andrew Stone said:
One thing I should mention in defence of BUYING an external recorder aside from the backup benefit already mentioned, is for broadcast purposes. If you are selling your footage to broadcast the typical benchmark is 50kbit 422 which is based on the betacam spec from years back. Once you hit that threshold you can sell footage to a lot of media outlets. Of course, with many of them, as many will know, a camera has to first be sanctioned for acceptance, like BBC forinstance. But as a rule of thumb 50 Mbit 422 is the minimum level for broadcast media outlets.
Click to expand...

Actually this is based on the BBC wanting 50mbs in a long GOP format. Keep in mind that 1. BetaSP was an analog system and could never have qualified as 4:2:2, 2. Beta SP was a standard definition system. And this is only true for the BBC today and these are all specs for guidance for them. Know that in the US many of the broadcasters have been accepting HDV which is 4:2:0 for years..
 
actually it is EBU rec to have at least 50 mbit/422 for long GOP codec and 100mbit/422 for intra codecs. BBC as many major broadcasters in Europe follows the EBU rec.
 
nugat said:
actually it is EBU rec to have at least 50 mbit/422 for long GOP codec and 100mbit/422 for intra codecs. BBC as many major broadcasters in Europe follows the EBU rec.
Click to expand...

Yes, closer, but still not exactly accurate. The EBU recommendation is that if you're going to be using MPEG-2, then you have to have at least 50 mbit long-GoP 422. That 50mbit recommendation is only for MPEG-2. The EBU hasn't issued any recommendation or comment on h.264 acquisition formats as far as I know.

You can see the official recommendation document here. And note, that recommendation is dated December 2008. The HMC150 had barely been on the market a couple of months when that recommendation was released. They said that they had issued this recommendation based on codec tests done between Autumn 2007 and Spring 2008 -- in other words, the whole AVCCAM format wasn't even tested because it didn't exist yet!

I'm sure there will come a recommendation sooner or later from the EBU related to h.264 acquisition, but the existing recommendation they made was specifically and solely related to MPEG-2.

The only thing you can take from that document and apply negatively towards the h.264 cameras is that the EBU did recommend that acquisition should be done at 4:2:2, and the existing AVCCAM and NXCAM products don't meet that (at least, not without using an external recorder).

The only h.264 recommendation I've found from the EBU is regarding HDTV transmission, where they said 1920x1080 HDTV is properly encoded for transmission in h.264 at a bitrate of 12-14mbps for "fixed MUXing" and 10-12mbps for "statistical MUXing".
Page 18 of this document.
 
Last edited:
Anyone have any clue or seen any tests that confirm that banding is less with an external recorder? Does the AVCHD, via noise smoothing or just inherent in the codec, show more banding issues than would a nanoflash device.

Whereas I thought Verse looked really great I was troubled to see some banding issues in one of the very first shots.
 
Andrew Stone said:
One thing I should mention in defence of BUYING an external recorder aside from the backup benefit already mentioned, is for broadcast purposes. If you are selling your footage to broadcast the typical benchmark is 50kbit 422 which is based on the betacam spec from years back. Once you hit that threshold you can sell footage to a lot of media outlets. Of course, with many of them, as many will know, a camera has to first be sanctioned for acceptance, like BBC forinstance. But as a rule of thumb 50 Mbit 422 is the minimum level for broadcast media outlets.
Click to expand...

Dont get caught up in all that gumpf either and heres why. Networks dont generally buy bits and bobs footage without reason, usually ENG and they WILL accept pretty much anything if youve got the best shot on their story.

If your shooting for programming destined for BBC / Discovery etc etc youll know all the specs before hand and well done you for getting that gig. Anything else is pretty open to quality content.

When the AF100 was initially announced so was the ki pro mini. Id always married them together and thought this made sense. After using the pre production AF100 for a day it no longer did. But you know, if I do shoot a gig for discovery !??! I'll be sure to rent one if the AF100 turned out to be the appropriate cam for the job.
 
There's a lot more to the question than video quality. After watchinng Avid take over three hours to transcode 1.5 hours of footage from my first AF100 job, I ordered the Nanoflash. I do this for a living, and I can't afford to take three hours everytime I need to get to the footage on a card. I will say that I also have seen the color banding in the AVC codec after a second transcode from an After Effects export. I doubt very much I will see that in footage recorded with my Nanoflash. You're going to pay a price for that cheap AVC at some point in the process. Nothing is free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top