Anyone using Convergent Design's Nano Flash?

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


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

On it's best codec setting of 160mbps, thats still only around 16MB/s, even a usb external drive could play back a couple streams of that at a time. A gspeed raid could probably play back a billion streams
 
adamr316 said:
... With the increased codec data rate does the Nanoflash get rid of the blurry slow landscape pans that the EX cameras are known for?

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

If there is some type of compression artefact in the EX codec that is causing the blur then certainly the nanoFlash can improve that, but I am not sure that is your problem.
 
adamr316 said:
Thanks for your answers Mike! One last question because I am considering a future Nanoflash purchase. With the increased codec data rate does the Nanoflash get rid of the blurry slow landscape pans that the EX cameras are known for?

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


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

The difference is striking!

Mike Schell
Convergent Design
 

Attachments

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

The difference is striking!

Mike Schell
Convergent Design
Click to expand...


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

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

Best-
Mike Schell
 
Hola Mike... I've been meaning to get back to Colorado and try out a demo on site, just haven't been able to do it. If you guys get a chance to do a wide-angle slow pan across a landscape with fine details (such as trees with leaves), starting from static to a four or five second pan and then go static, s-l-o-w-l-y (doesn't take much movement for the ultra sharpness to go bye-bye) with and without the Nano would be el fantastico and perhaps save me a trip out there. :^D
 
I thought I'd take one more shot at this slow pan issue... I'm absolutely sure now it's NOT a codec issue, or a CMOS issue. What I believe it is, is a combination of motion blur, monitor refresh and sharpness settings used on the recording.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
 
Hi there,

My first post on this forum! Seems pretty cool!

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

Any benefit there?
 
My first post on this forum! Seems pretty cool!

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

First off ... welcome!

There are plenty of benefits for non-broadcast.

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


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

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

I down-convert using Compressor form Final Cut so just wondered how much Compressor would lose that the Nano Flash had given me back?
 
capt chuck said:
First off ... welcome!

There are plenty of benefits for non-broadcast.

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


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

But does the nanoflash provide real world perceptible improvment in image quality? Everyone seems to talk around that issue.
 
dazzdeadmeadow said:
Hi there,

My first post on this forum! Seems pretty cool!

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

Any benefit there?
Click to expand...

Don't forget the nanoFlash also records SD in the IMX codec. IMX is Sonys name for 50Mbps MP2@ML 4:2:2. This is pretty much the best SD codec you can get short of uncompressed. It was Sony's compeditor to Panasonics DVCPro 50 but being long GOP MPG2 the same 50Mbps can achieve even higher quality results than the IntraFrame DVCPro. You used to have to pay a lot of money for a camera with this codec.
 
Sounds really interesting! So you just record in that codec and then edit in FCP with it? No need to down-convert as it is done within the Nano Flash?? Love to see an SD DVD shot with this codec!
 
In order to keep the power requirements down in the nanoFlash, we allow the camera to do the downconversion to SD.

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

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

If one wants a Blu-ray disk, then we can record in ".MPG" at 19, 25, and 35 Mbps.
 
One correction on my post, IMX is I frame MPG2, not long GOP.

As Dan says, the IMX encoding option is for SD sources only, so either putting the SDI out of a HD camera in SD mode, or shooting from a SD camera with SDI out (eg DSR450 etc)
 
Lucian said:
But does the nanoflash provide real world perceptible improvment in image quality? Everyone seems to talk around that issue.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more info, click on Older Entries at the bottom, then start reading about the nanoFlash in chronicalogical sequence, starting with August 21, going through August 29th.
 
Last edited:
Dan Keaton said:
Dear Lucian and planetweckesser,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to Mike and Dan for this amazing product!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top