Convergent Design

[Barry_Green]

Is it the 720 like RED outputs or 1080?

It's both, depending on which mode you set the camera in.

I'm basing this off the HPX500's SDI output port; it outputs 720/60p (with flagged frames) or 1080/60i (with 2:3 pulldown embedded).

8-Bit is enough indeed, especially if it really does outshine DVCproHD.

Well, we'll have to see. "Outshine" is relative, of course. You're talking about recording 50% more data (1920 vs. 1280) in 60% more space. Perhaps because it's a more modern chip, it'll be more efficient (reflecting the huge jump from XDCAM-HD to XDCAM-EX in codec efficiency?) If not, it's possible that the 100mbps interframe could perform very well indeed as well. Interframe/long-GOP is only a really bad idea when you don't have enough bandwidth; with tons of bandwidth it should be quite good. I don't know that 50mbps is enough, but 100mbps should be enough to be rock-solid resilient to codec overloading, while using the GOP efficiency to afford encoding that extra 50% of data (1920 pixels wide instead of 1280).

As with everything, it remains to be seen. I think the XDR looks like a quite promising device, but it costs the same as another HPX170 will, so it'd better be incredible for the price. But the idea of a cheaper recording box, that starts to get quite tantalizing. Even so, it'd have to have the full performance (100mbps long-gop, 160mbps i-frame) or what's the point, why not just use the built-in P2 recording and not have to run around with a tethered recorder?

Oh, and kudos to Convergent for avoiding the siren call of the hard disk and instead going with affordable flash memory!

 

[Mike Schell]

It's both, depending on which mode you set the camera in.

I'm basing this off the HPX500's SDI output port; it outputs 720/60p (with flagged frames) or 1080/60i (with 2:3 pulldown embedded).


Well, we'll have to see. "Outshine" is relative, of course. You're talking about recording 50% more data (1920 vs. 1280) in 60% more space. Perhaps because it's a more modern chip, it'll be more efficient (reflecting the huge jump from XDCAM-HD to XDCAM-EX in codec efficiency?) If not, it's possible that the 100mbps interframe could perform very well indeed as well. Interframe/long-GOP is only a really bad idea when you don't have enough bandwidth; with tons of bandwidth it should be quite good. I don't know that 50mbps is enough, but 100mbps should be enough to be rock-solid resilient to codec overloading, while using the GOP efficiency to afford encoding that extra 50% of data (1920 pixels wide instead of 1280).

As with everything, it remains to be seen. I think the XDR looks like a quite promising device, but it costs the same as another HPX170 will, so it'd better be incredible for the price. But the idea of a cheaper recording box, that starts to get quite tantalizing. Even so, it'd have to have the full performance (100mbps long-gop, 160mbps i-frame) or what's the point, why not just use the built-in P2 recording and not have to run around with a tethered recorder?

Oh, and kudos to Convergent for avoiding the siren call of the hard disk and instead going with affordable flash memory!

Hi Barry and Everyone-
I will try my best to answer your questions in one reply, but please feel free to post additional questions if my answers are incomplete.

First, we use the latest generation MPEG2 CODEC module from Sony. This is the same CODEC as used in the EX1 and the PDW-700 cameras. The EX1 has a 4:2:0 CODEC, while our module and the PDW-700 have the 4:2:2 CODEC. This is the 5th or 6th generation CODEC from Sony, which has seen considerable improvement over the original HDCAM 3:1:1 CODEC.

This MPEG2 CODEC supports a very wide range of compression rates, from 18 Mbps to 160 Mbps. In Long-GOP mode, we can go from 18 to 100 Mbps 4:2:2 full-raster (1920 x 1080). In I-Frame only, we support 100 and 160 Mbps 4:2:2 full-raster.

The compressed MPEG2 video and uncompressed PCM (16/24 - bit) audio is stored on Compact Flash cards in the MXF file format. For bit-rates up to 100 Mbps, you can use the very low-cost Transcend 32GB 133X CF cards, which retail for $150 each (1/10 the price of SxS or P2). For data-rates above 100 Mbps, you'll need the 300X CF cards, which cost around $240 (Transcend 16GB card). More expensive, but still 1/3 the cost of other solid-state media. We are looking into a firmware update to stripe across two of the lower-cost cards (for 160 Mbps support), but that's still in development.

We do support the removal of duplicate frames (24p) using the time-code flag. We can accept 1080i59.94 and then record in 1080p23.98 and simultaneously output (E-E) 1080p23.98 for monitoring.

We have not tested against the AVC-Intra CODEC. All of our tests have compared the various CODECs against an uncompressed image (the gold standard). All tests show the 50 Mbps Long-GOP outperforms DVCProHD, at least on a still image. The 100 Mbps Long-GOP is virtually identical to uncompressed, at least on a still image. We plan tests with the 160 Mbps I-Frame in the next week or so.

Later this year we will introduce an uncompressed upgrade to Flash XDR, which will record uncompressed 10-bit 1080p24 at 10-bit or 1080i60 at 8-bit, both 4:2:2 full-raster, by striping across the four CF cards. The record time is around 8 minutes using four 16GB CF cards.

The lower cost, smaller nanoFlash (now in design) will support these same bit rates, with the exception of uncompressed. It will
only have 2 CF card slots and no analog audio. It will accept (as does XDR) embedded audio (4-channels) and embedded time-code.

Both of these boxes simply record the incoming HD-SDI signal, how the camera produces variable frame rates is outside of our control. (Please excuse my lack of understanding of variable frame rates, but I believe the HD-SDI signal is basically the same when the camera changes the frame rate).

If you need information outside this forum, you can send an e-mail to mike@convergent-design.com

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

 

[Barry_Green]

We do support the removal of duplicate frames (24p) using the time-code flag. We can accept 1080i59.94 and then record in 1080p23.98 and simultaneously output (E-E) 1080p23.98 for monitoring.

Big question is: do you support removal from the 720p signal? That would be sweet. It's excellent that you already have the removal from 1080i/59.94; do you actually reverse out the pulldown?

In 1080, is it limited to 24p? What about variable frame rates from the EX1, does it know to sample and store only the valid frames? I don't even know if the EX1 flags its frames in 1080 "slow & quick" mode, so this may or may not even be possible...

What we would love to see is duplicate frame removal from 720p footage, so that you could have instant playback of variable-speed footage.

All tests show the 50 Mbps Long-GOP outperforms DVCProHD, at least on a still image.

Well, yeah, I'd certainly expect that. GOP is only ever an issue for motion footage.

The 100 Mbps Long-GOP is virtually identical to uncompressed, at least on a still image.

I'd expect that as well. What I'm curious to know is how it performs on motion footage. I bet the 100mbps is pretty solid.

The lower cost, smaller nanoFlash (now in design) will support these same bit rates, with the exception of uncompressed. It will
only have 2 CF card slots and no analog audio. It will accept (as does XDR) embedded audio (4-channels) and embedded time-code.

Through HD-SDI? Or through HDMI? This is where all the excitement is, is in a low-cost ($2000?) option. The XDR looks fantastic but might be too expensive for most of our users, seeing as it costs as much as the camera does. But an HDMI or HD-SDI (or both!) box that sells at about the same price as the CineForm box, boy, that'd be a big hit.

Both of these boxes simply record the incoming HD-SDI signal, how the camera produces variable frame rates is outside of our control. (Please excuse my lack of understanding of variable frame rates, but I believe the HD-SDI signal is basically the same when the camera changes the frame rate).

The HD-SDI signal is the same, yes. What changes is the flags. If you can establish the timebase somehow for VFR recording, and then ignore flagged frames, you'd have a very handy device there indeed.

 

[Kholi]

Through HD-SDI? Or through HDMI? This is where all the excitement is, is in a low-cost ($2000?) option. The XDR looks fantastic but might be too expensive for most of our users, seeing as it costs as much as the camera does. But an HDMI or HD-SDI (or both!) box that sells at about the same price as the CineForm box, boy, that'd be a big hit.


The HD-SDI signal is the same, yes. What changes is the flags. If you can establish the timebase somehow for VFR recording, and then ignore flagged frames, you'd have a very handy device there indeed.

Yes on both. At 2500 it'll be quite a great deal, spending another 500 - 800 on high speed CF cards won't be bad either. I'd sure welcome it to my 170 setup!

So, the possibility of VFR is still unknown.

I do have a question about the HD-SDI port, in that it's uncompressed so that means it's before the compression of DVCproHD. Could that mean much more resolved detail or a sharper image?

 

[Barry_Green]

I do have a question about the HD-SDI port, in that it's uncompressed so that means it's before the compression of DVCproHD. Could that mean much more resolved detail or a sharper image?

From an HPX3000, unquestionably. In 720p mode on an HPX170, almost definitely. In 1080 mode? Probably not. Maybe a little, but probably not anything earth-shattering. The 1080 codec in the 170 already captures just about all the detail the HVX200 can deliver; I doubt we'll be seeing much more resolved detail in the 170. But yes, the 720p should be sharper because the camera's capable of delivering about 1400 x 800, both of which are higher detail than the 960x720 of 720p DVCPRO-HD.

 

[Kholi]

From an HPX3000, unquestionably. In 720p mode on an HPX170, almost definitely. In 1080 mode? Probably not. Maybe a little, but probably not anything earth-shattering. The 1080 codec in the 170 already captures just about all the detail the HVX200 can deliver; I doubt we'll be seeing much more resolved detail in the 170. But yes, the 720p should be sharper because the camera's capable of delivering about 1400 x 800, both of which are higher detail than the 960x720 of 720p DVCPRO-HD.

Now that's odd-sounding. I suppose that you would STILL want to use 1080 but an actual sharper 720 wouldn't be all that bad. I wouldn't expect something like EX-1 clarity/detail but a little more goes a long way. And, even if it's a "little more" in 1080, again, still is a gain worth having. Even the 720 to 1080 is only 15% or so, if it's another 15% then hell, why not?

Another question I had got answered in the H1 thread where this was brought up and that was about continuous recording. It seems that the XDR (and hopefully the Nano version) will switch over to the second card so you can roll continuously. Very nice. Makes it well worth having four or more cards in the arsenal.

STILL want to know about getting native VFR or at least 720p60p out of it. Having 1080/60i won't be bad for doing some slow-mo work with Twixtor but so used to having in-camera Slow-mo.

So it reads like-- Mini XDR/NanoXDR

HDMI or HD-SDI or Combined
2 Slots
No ANALOG audio, but will accept embedded audio (Yay for 170!)
Mpeg-2 100mb Long-Gop or 160mb I-Frame 4:2:2 Compression Scheme
Hot Swappable. Automatically Switches when one card is done to continue recording.
Lower Price tag than existing XDR's 5000.00

What else needs to be added?

 

[Kholi]

By the way, thanks Naylor for re-opening this discussion. I had been following the XDR about the same time as HYDRA but the price of the original XDR was out of my range, that and we had no HD-SDI for our beloved Pana cameras.

This is really exciting stuff.

 

[Arrik]

Hot swappable?

 

[Mike Schell]

Big question is: do you support removal from the 720p signal? That would be sweet. It's excellent that you already have the removal from 1080i/59.94; do you actually reverse out the pulldown?

In 1080, is it limited to 24p? What about variable frame rates from the EX1, does it know to sample and store only the valid frames? I don't even know if the EX1 flags its frames in 1080 "slow & quick" mode, so this may or may not even be possible...

What we would love to see is duplicate frame removal from 720p footage, so that you could have instant playback of variable-speed footage.


Well, yeah, I'd certainly expect that. GOP is only ever an issue for motion footage.


I'd expect that as well. What I'm curious to know is how it performs on motion footage. I bet the 100mbps is pretty solid.


Through HD-SDI? Or through HDMI? This is where all the excitement is, is in a low-cost ($2000?) option. The XDR looks fantastic but might be too expensive for most of our users, seeing as it costs as much as the camera does. But an HDMI or HD-SDI (or both!) box that sells at about the same price as the CineForm box, boy, that'd be a big hit.


The HD-SDI signal is the same, yes. What changes is the flags. If you can establish the timebase somehow for VFR recording, and then ignore flagged frames, you'd have a very handy device there indeed.

Hi Barry-
Yes, we do support all the various flavors of 720p including 720p24 with the pulldown removal. Our current code does not add back in the frames on playback. This is a possibility in the future.

We can detect redundant / duplicate frames in either 720p or 1080i/p, we don't actually need the flags in the time-code area to detect these frames.

The nanoFlash will have HD-SDI I/O and an option for HDMI input. Don't know the final price yet, but don't forget the significant cost savings of using CF cards over P2 or SxS; this can add up quickly.

Let me discuss the VFR encoding concept, on paper this does not sound difficult to develop.

Mike Schell

 

[Mike Schell]

Very cool. I am unfamiliar with the CODEC, naturally, and would like to find some samples/examples in comparing it to DVCProHD, sounds like it's a lot better in general.

I know that you've said it'll outshine DVCproHD, how about computing horsepower needed?

Also, is the unit switchable between 100 and 160? That's the confusing bit, and striping is something I have no idea about. Could you explain what you mean so the not-so-savvy like myself understands? Will the two ports themselves have the ability to span over to the second card? So you could potentially do constant recording?

Lastly, the option card that you mentioned for HDMI. Is it exactly like the SDI nanoFlash unit but with audio and video? And is it going to be priced similarly?

Just so everyone knows, I tracked down the emails from Convergent Design from a while back and Mike was actually one of the guys that helped me! Timely response at a time when I'm sure they were being bombarded by the users over at DVinfo.net with redundant questions. Definitely another great company to watch out for.

Good to have you on DVXuser!!!

Hi Kholi-
Great questions! The required computing power for MPEG2 I-Frame will be nearly identical to DVCProHD, the long-GOP mode will be virtually the same requirement as native HDV editing.

The recording bit-rate is switchable over a wide range (from 18 Mbps to 160 Mbps). You can't change the bit-rate in the middle of a record session, but you can have different rates on the same card.

The recording will automatically switch form one card to the next and the cards are hot-swappable, so you can record indefinitely. If you don't mount the XDR to the camera directly, you can actually switch cards without bumping the camera, which is not possible with built-in solid state recorders.

The HDMI support for nanoFlash will be an add-on box which can be mounted to the nanoFlash. You will then be able to record video/audio from your HDMI camera also.

Mike Schell

 

[Kholi]

Hi Barry-
Yes, we do support all the various flavors of 720p including 720p24 with the pulldown removal. Our current code does not add back in the frames on playback. This is a possibility in the future.


The nanoFlash will have HD-SDI I/O and an option for HDMI input. Don't know the final price yet, but don't forget the significant cost savings of using CF cards over P2 or SxS; this can add up quickly.

Let me discuss the VFR encoding concept, on paper this does not sound difficult to develop.

Mike Schell

So that DOES include 720p60p. Sweet. I wouldn't expect more frame rates than that of course but 60p would be good to have available.

If you could go into how the unit will incorporate the ability to overcrank (undercranking doesn't seem to be in the specifications, but is it?) that would be great.

Hi Kholi-
Great questions! The required computing power for MPEG2 I-Frame will be nearly identical to DVCProHD, the long-GOP mode will be virtually the same requirement as native HDV editing.

The recording bit-rate is switchable over a wide range (from 18 Mbps to 160 Mbps). You can't change the bit-rate in the middle of a record session, but you can have different rates on the same card.

The recording will automatically switch form one card to the next and the cards are hot-swappable, so you can record indefinitely. If you don't mount the XDR to the camera directly, you can actually switch cards without bumping the camera, which is not possible with built-in solid state recorders.

The HDMI support for nanoFlash will be an add-on box which can be mounted to the nanoFlash. You will then be able to record video/audio from your HDMI camera also.

All of the above sounds fan-freakin'-tastic. Although perhaps it may not be beneficial to record anything less than say 100Mbps or even 110-120, with 160 being the prime objective, it's still cool to know that you could go as low as 50mb. AND having it on the same card is great.

In dealing with the I-Frame and how easy it is to cut 1080 DVCproHD this only makes it sound better. Could you tell me, for FCP, how the import or log and transfer process works? Is it similar to what I've been used to using DVCProHD?

I also figure that actual PLAYBACK will not be a possibility in-camera. I can't seem to figure out how you would go about playing back through an HPX-170 once you've captured footage. However, that's no sort of deal breaker. If you CAN playback then it's more than welcomed.

 

[Mike Schell]

Safe to expect 720p60p? I wouldn't expect more frame rates than that of course but 60p would be good to have available.

If you could go into how the unit will incorporate the ability to overcrank (undercranking doesn't seem to be in the specifications, but is it?) that would be great.



All of the above sounds fan-freakin'-tastic. Although perhaps it may not be beneficial to record anything less than say 100Mbps or even 110-120, with 160 being the prime objective, it's still cool to know that you could go as low as 50mb. AND having it on the same card is great.

In dealing with the I-Frame and how easy it is to cut 1080 DVCproHD this only makes it sound better. Could you tell me, for FCP, how the import or log and transfer process works? Is it similar to what I've been used to using DVCProHD?

I also figure that actual PLAYBACK will not be a possibility in-camera. I can't seem to figure out how you would go about playing back through an HPX-170 once you've captured footage. However, that's no sort of deal breaker. If you CAN playback then it's more than welcomed.

Hi Kholi-
We support 720p60/50 as well as 720p25/24. I'll have to think about the overcrank / undercrank question a bit more.

I think you can inter-cut video from different CODECs on FCP with relative ease as long as everything is on the same resolution and timebase.

We do playback out the HD-SDI port, but there's no way to playback through the camera.

Mike Schell

 

[Kholi]

Hi Kholi-
We support 720p60/50 as well as 720p25/24. I'll have to think about the overcrank / undercrank question a bit more.

I think you can inter-cut video from different CODECs on FCP with relative ease as long as everything is on the same resolution and timebase.

We do playback out the HD-SDI port, but there's no way to playback through the camera.

Mike Schell

So 720p up to 60p, 1080p24p, 1080/60i, What about 1080 30p? Or even crazier, 1080p60p. HEHEHE.

What I was asking about in regards to FCP was the import process. With DVCproHD or P2 Cards it's as simple as Log and Transfer. XDR's based on MXF as well, similar to the EX-1 and HVX200, HPX500 etc etc... do you just Log and Transfer after connecting the FW800 drive? When dealing with I-Frame compression or Long-GOP.


Thanks a HEAP, Mike, for hangin' around and answering questions.

 

[Mike Schell]

So 720p up to 60p, 1080p24p, 1080/60i, What about 1080 30p? Or even crazier, 1080p60p. HEHEHE.

What I was asking about in regards to FCP was the import process. With DVCproHD or P2 Cards it's as simple as Log and Transfer. XDR's based on MXF as well, similar to the EX-1 and HVX200, HPX500 etc etc... do you just Log and Transfer after connecting the FW800 drive? When dealing with I-Frame compression or Long-GOP.


Thanks a HEAP, Mike, for hangin' around and answering questions.

Hi Kohli-
We can do the 1080p30 rate also, not not 1080p60..that's dual link or 3G HD-SDI and outside our design. (You can download the full specs from our website: www.convergent-design.com).

I'll have a complete story on the integration with FCP in the next week or so, just need to get some final papers signed before saying anything official.

Mike Schell

 

[Kholi]

I'm definitely up for it, then! One LAST question (I think): Any projected delivery date of the nanoFlash? I know that you've just begun to sell your XDR and you did mention you're about 4 months booked on orders.

 

[Mike Schell]

I'm definitely up for it, then! One LAST question (I think): Any projected delivery date of the nanoFlash? I know that you've just begun to sell your XDR and you did mention you're about 4 months booked on orders.

Hi Kholi-
We're targeting for IBC (mid September) release.

Mike Schell

 

[Kholi]

Hi Kholi-
We're targeting for IBC (mid September) release.

Mike Schell

This is for the XDR, correct? Not hte NanoFlash?

That'd be insane if that was for the nanoFlash. That's perfect timing to grab that and an HPX-170 simultaneously.

 

[Mike Schell]

This is for the XDR, correct? Not hte NanoFlash?

That'd be insane if that was for the nanoFlash. That's perfect timing to grab that and an HPX-170 simultaneously.

Hi Kholi-
Yes, that's the target release (Sept 08) for the nanoFlash. The Flash XDR is going into production late this month.

Mike Schell

 

[Kholi]

Definitely on your side for the targeted release date!!! Here's to hoping the release dates of the 170 and NanoFlash are close. Sweet.

 

[Kholi]

So while I'm daydreaming here about the nanoFlash and 170 combination I'm gonna post up some thoughts. Namely on the HPX170 image in regards to DVCproHD and Sony's I-Frame and Long-GOP MPEG2 codec being used by convergent to deliver media from High-Speed CF Cards.

Resolution

Using the 200A now I think I have a very good idea of how the 170 image will look and I think it'll be just as fantastic (and maybe better if there's been upgrades in the actual lens/glass) as the 200A. Particularly at a price point that's quite nice. The final frontier for the 200A and HPX170, however, is resolution or "resolved detail". Not talking about sharpness here, I got a mini-lesson on sharpness versus resolution and what I'm really talking about is detail.

Let's face it: The PMW-EX1's resolved detail is still quite stunning. Forget about "looking through the window" and all of that. Resolved detail is a GOOD thing and I can't see where it could be bad for narrative, interviews or anything else. The RED ONE's resolved detail, I feel, gets it closer to the film-like appeal. Go and watch Transofrmers in HD... the amount of detail is incredible. "Soft" in terms of the "film look" doesn't really refer to a low amount of detail, just a pleasantly soft and not so harsh image. So, to be honest, the EX-1 gets a little closer to the film-look in that regard. The A1 is even seems to resolve a bit more detail than the HVX, that might be due in part to the lens or hell even HDV itself. I still want my Panasonic camera to resolve detail with EX-1 clarity. This is why I'm so interested in Convergent Design's nanoFlash unit. Granted, it won't arrive at the same resolution as a 1/2" Sensor but how far off will it be when you're comparing full frame to full frame?

As someone on the boards explained to me: The combination of the 170 and NanoFlash will see increases in resolution by capturing a FULL FRAME, similar to the EX-1 and other FullHD cameras (even the lil HF10 and HV20 cameras). I might be wrong about this breakdown but it sorta works like this--

DVCProHD -- 720p = 960x720 @ 100mbps (if you shoot 24pN you strip out sixty percent of that, so you're left with 40mps. If I got this right it's simply because the spec for 720p is always 60p, so no matter which way you slice it once you get rid of the unneeded frames you'll always be at 40mps) and 1080p = 1280 x 1080 @ 100mbps.

Sony 4:2:2 I-Frame Codec -- 720p = 1280 x 720 @ 160mbps and 1920 x 1080 @ 160mbps.

The immediate and apparent differences are in the numbers. The Sony 4:2:2 I-Frame (and Long-GOP) allow for a Full Frame capture, instead of only 960 lines we now have a complete 720. Same goes for 1080p. Instead of 1080 lines we get the full 1920. Couple this with a higher bit rate (comparing DVCproHD i-Frame to Sony's 4:2:2 i-Frame codec) and you should see the camera now resolving detail that it wasn't before.

SO! That's my very first reason to grab a nanoFlash for pairing with my HPX170. Some might argue that the difference in resolution is minute, but hell I want everything I can out of the camera and it's my way of staying with Panasonic flavor, even if I'm turning it into a hybrid camera by utilizing a Sony Codec.

Noise Characteristics

I'm a lil slow, a lot of people probably already figured this out but it took me two years. Sue me. So DVCproHD drops your frame size to 960x720 when putting it to card or recording. It also records your noise signal at that same frame size. I never look at my footage in it's native size which is about 960x720 (oddlly enough, Quicktime says 960x702. Strange huh?) but I had an epiphany today that made me go n'have a gander.

The noise pattern at 960x720 looks pretty thin, very tiny and of course the image "seems" sharper in this sort-of-anamorphic format. The main point, though, is that the noise is there and when it goes back to 1280x720 then the noise gets stretched. Durrr. This leads me to believe that the HVX imagers aren't to blame but the codec for the noise (and I know that people have been saying this, I just kinda got it though).

So, if I've got the friggin' 1280x720 image already then the noise pattern is a lot less noticeable, just like the EX-1. Too bad the DVCproHD spec doesn't allow for a full frame image, although I think the AVC-Intra codec does. =\

Although the HPX170 will still have "1/3 CCDs" (size not accurate) the question I find myself asking is "What does the footage look like with a similar XDCam EX codec, long-GOP or not". My guess is, sadly, it's pretty damned nice. DVCproHD is great for it's efficiency and still turns out a great image all things considered, having the options on hand won't be a bad thing. With the nanoFlash you'll get an HDV flavor with 4:2:2 color sampling from 35 - 100mbps (you could actually go lower than 35 if you wanted to save space and I bet it wouldn't look to bad at say 24mbps) and along with that an I-Frame flavor from 40mpbs - 160mpbs, and finally the camera's native format DVCproHD. All three allowing 720p and 1080p or i recording. To note, the nanoFlash does 1080p/24p, 1080p/30p and 1080i/60i. Very cool to get 1080p/24p full frame goodness.

The question is: if the Sony Codec outruns the DVCproHD codec then why use DVCproHD? That's yet to be seen. I have no idea how this stuff plays in Final Cut Pro and DVCproHD's client base is unfuckwitable. You won't catch me selling my P2 Cards until I know for sure.

Card Stock

Now if I did choose to sell my P2 Cards I could get a WHOLE mess of high speed 32GB CF Cards to use. For the price of one new 8gb Card I get about 3 32gb CF Cards. Now THAT is nice. I pass off my 16's and 8's and I grab 6 - 10 High Speed 32gb CF cards... well I wouldn't have to offload for days and the media is so cheap that tacking on a cost for client archival could actually be a realistic vision! They could simply pack them away in tidy lil cases with the project name on them and never have to worry about them thanks to solid state. And I wouldn't have to worry as much about expensive archival solution, the nanoFlash's recording media already takes care of it for me since it's a low-cost solution.

Currently, Convergent mentions the TRANSCEND 32gb Card which costs about 150 I think. They say that they're confident that it will support SONY's 4:2:2 Long-GOP codec @ 100mbps. That would equate to 30 minutes of footage on one card @ 1080/24p. Delicious? The nanoFlash also sports two card slots, so that's 60 minutes of 1080/24p at 100mbps, full frame. Again, for the price of say one 8gb card brand new you're gonna get 3 or more 32gb CF cards to use with this thing. Can't deny that sounds really nice.

That's about it right now. The questions I'll have to answer for myself immediately when the HPX170 comes out (might even have to just use an HPX500 in the interim to test) are:

1) How does DVCproHD compare to SONY's 4:2:2 codec @ various bitrates and between Long-GOP and I-Frame?

2) What's the resolution increase "look like" when it's all said and done? The numbers say nice things, but does it "look" that much better?

3) What kind of package do you end up with as far as media and recording? 4 CF Cards and 3 P2 Cards for ultimate versatility? Or do you migrate completely to CF cards in an abundant number equivalent to the cost of P2 Cards and simply use your package as a "modified" Panasonic HPX170, the best with even BETTER benefits than before?

September's so far off, can't wait for these two products to hit!

Also, I hope that Convergent will put up a sheet on the nanoFlash outlining the specifics of the unit. That way I can stare at it once a day.