FS100 and Nanoflash

F

finaleditor

Member
I just bought a nano flash for using with FS100. I am trying to figure out how nanoflash works. It seems not very user friendly. After working on nanoflash a little bit, I achieved to record it. But after putting to footage to fcp, it shows data rate as 12.2 mb/s (I thought I am recording 100 mb/s) with xdcam hd422 compressor 1080p30 (50 mb/s). Even fs100's avchd files has bigger data rate than this one. 16.5 mb/s and more. Is avchd records better quality than nanoflash?
 
finaleditor said:
I just bought a nano flash for using with FS100. I am trying to figure out how nanoflash works. It seems not very user friendly. After working on nanoflash a little bit, I achieved to record it. But after putting to footage to fcp, it shows data rate as 12.2 mb/s (I thought I am recording 100 mb/s) with xdcam hd422 compressor 1080p30 (50 mb/s). Even fs100's avchd files has bigger data rate than this one. 16.5 mb/s and more. Is avchd records better quality than nanoflash?
Click to expand...
The nanoflash is considerably better with the FS100 than the native AVCHD recording, IMHO. However, the quality of the MPEG2 HD422 codec increases as the recording bitrate increases. One of the nuances of the Nanoflash is that it will automatically reset the bitrate you select if the CD cards you're using can't match the bitrate you selected. Iff the nano does this, you get a warning on the LCD display screen.

So, first thing to check is what bitrate your CD cards can support.
 
Check the file recorded directly out of the nano, before you do anything with fcp, with a free program like mediainfo to see correct data rate info. Don't rely on FCP for data rate info.

Also check a file that has alot of detail and movement in it to make sure its not a VBR issue

http://mediainfo.sourceforge.net/en
 
Last edited:
I have checked with media info, it shows at 100mbps, but it shows for avchd files 137mbps. Which one has better quality. I think I will decide as visually.
 
I don't think the AVCHD file is right obviously. Heres a screen shot of a AVCHD file from the fs100 in mediainfo

testahf.png
[/URL] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

This comes up all the time. You will only see a difference in the nano footage when you are shooting alot of motion or alot of detail or both. If your shots consist of still images like headshots or such the AVCHD will look just like the nano footage. But if you shoot images like running water, fast motion, anything will alot of detail then the nano will save you.
 
Yes you are right, instead of checking original avchd files I have checked converted files they were 137 mbps but original avchd files were just 20mbps and 15.5 mbps. I think my cf cards are fine, just fcp doesn't give right information.
 
finaleditor said:
Yes you are right, instead of checking original avchd files I have checked converted files they were 137 mbps but original avchd files were just 20mbps and 15.5 mbps. I think my cf cards are fine, just fcp doesn't give right information.
Click to expand...

FCP reads the header info. MediaInfo actually measures the bitrate during playback. C-D Nanoflash writes a default bitrate of 50mbps into the header so that legacy apps read the file. Used to be, NLE's wouldn't read the files if the header was over 50mbps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top