ext recorder: HPG20 or Ki Pro Mini?

Ldom

Ldom

Active member
Hi there,

I just ordered my AF100, I'm in Europe (France). They said we should receive them by the end of this month.

Anyway, regarding the recorder I'd like to use with it, I'd tend to go for the Panasonic HPG20 because I have plenty of P2 cards from my HVX and I'm used to the P2 workflow. However, I've discovered the Ki Pro Mini from AJA and it looks very interesting.

For what it's worth, I mostly shoot documentaries.

Any advise?

Thanks,
Laurent
 
There's been lots of discussion about the various recorders. The HPG20 is a lot more than just a recorder; it's a playback deck and a director's monitor and an offloading station and all sorts of stuff. And it's huge (compared to the others). It's not something you're going to mount on the camera; it's more like something you'd mount the camera on... :thumbsup: But if you do a lot of P2 work then it's a great addition to your kit.

The Ki Pro Mini isn't out yet, and it looks like it's going to take a little bit of work to get it into a proper mobile configuration. Whereas the HPG20 uses HVX batteries, and the Nano can take cheap 5V batteries, the Ki Pro Mini requires 12V and that's going to mean a bigger outboard battery system. The main appeal to the Ki Pro Mini would be for Apple editors, as it records directly in Quicktime ProRes files. If you're not an Apple user, that's of less benefit.

If you're recording a lot of footage and want a camera-mounted recorder, don't forget the NanoFlash. It's tiny, its batteries are tiny, and it can record in variable file sizes. The HPG20 uses 100mbps AVC-Intra, and the Nano uses ProRes at I think 145 to 220mbps. The Nano can record in as little as 25mbps (or less?) or as much as 280mbps. If you need to record a lot of footage, the 100mbps file sizes of the HPG20 and the Nano would take up less than half the space of the ProRes 220mbps files. While the Nano can record at 25mbps, the quality would be a lot less than what the internal camera's own SDHC cards record at, so there's no point to doing that. You'd really want to use at least 50mbps on the Nano so you're at least matching or exceeding what the AF100's native codec can do.
 
Thanks for the detailed answer (as always).

I'm editing on FCP so Ki Pro Mini seems interesting to me if the form factor is way better than the HPG. I just read that the AF's battery format is different than the HVX, so I'd be left with plenty for the HPG... which is a bonus.

About the 12V on the Ki Pro, I guess that's why on AJA's demo video, the back of the mount has a big battery pack.

I shoot rarely more than 1h/1.5h in one session so the biggest selling point to me is the image quality. Is the HPG that big? Can't you attach it to one of the legs of the tripod?
 
Use neither, the NanoFlash records longer, less power, smaller footprint, flexible Codecs and best of all great looking video.
 
Ldom said:
Is the HPG that big? Can't you attach it to one of the legs of the tripod?
Click to expand...
Sure you could. It's not huge, it's just a lot bigger than the others in discussion. But, unlike the others, it doesn't need some custom powering solution either, as you just snap the HVX battery right onto it. If that's your usage, and you want to integrate it into your existing P2 workflow, then yeah, the HPG20 sounds like it might be ideal for your use.
 
Is there a difference in how the various external recorders deal with variable frame rate output from the camera?
 
Also keep in mind that the HPG 20 does AVC I 50 recordings in 1080, 720, and DVC Pro HD format too, not that it would make that much difference. AVC I 50 does take half the space of AVC I 100.

I have an HPG 20 as well and have not decided whether I will get a Ki pro Mini, Nano flash, keep the HPG or some combination. Since I Have other P2 camera gear the HPG has some utility ], though I have to say I haven't used it much since my last expedition this past June.
 
The NanoFlash seems very interesting and I'm not so rigid that I can't change the workflow. I like the P2 cards format though, it's sturdy and reliable. And a friend of mine had a bad experience with CF cards (actually it was more a problem with the reader).

I believe you can record on the camera's own SDHC cards, as well as what the SDI outputs on an external recorder. Am I Correct?
 
Ldom said:
The NanoFlash seems very interesting and I'm not so rigid that I can't change the workflow. I like the P2 cards format though, it's sturdy and reliable. And a friend of mine had a bad experience with CF cards (actually it was more a problem with the reader).

I believe you can record on the camera's own SDHC cards, as well as what the SDI outputs on an external recorder. Am I Correct?
Click to expand...

Yes you can record to both internal media and the NF or KPM etc. at the same time. This is nice piece of mind in single cam situations.

I have used the NanoFlash for years it is very rugged and I have never had a problem with it. The NF can be triggered by advancing time code so if you set the TC to record run, triggering record in the camera starts the NF as well, very convenient. I have also heard that the NF will read a record signal over HDSDI to start and stop recording from the AF100. I have no experience with how the other units handle record triggering. The NF can also be triggered with a remote cable or the record button on the unit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top