Nanoflash advice for AF101

Sparky874

Sparky874

Well-known member
Hello all.
I am looking into the option of purchasing a nanoflash for the Af100. I have heard mixed reports that there isn't a great deal of difference between shooting with the cameras native codec and say recording 100 mbps through the nanoflash. Could you please share your thoughts on this if you can. Is the difference in image quality worth the extra cost of the nanoflash and extras it entails? Cheers, Sparky
 
The use of the NF is really a personal decision. It depends on what you use your footage for.

For me I really like shooting with the NF, it does make a big difference when you start grading your footage. There is definitely an increase in the quality of the footage that can easily be seen when looking closely at the footage.

The AF native codec is not bad at all, and it is fine for a lot of people. You really have to make up your own mind. I would suggest renting a NF and doing some tests yourself.

One added benefit with the NF is that you can record to both the internal card and NF card at the same time. This is very confidence inspiring when shooting something you only have one shot at.

So for me the NF is a really great tool. As is the AF100 no matter what some here have written lately. Together they are fantastic. But the best way is always to test drive yourself to be sure.
 
I will add that I agree that my Nanoflash improves image quality. It depends on how critical your eye is, and more factors. I see far less banding, especially (and this is a distinction many people fail to realize) later in the workflow process. Your final product is not delivered in the form it comes out of the camera. You are re encoding for DVD, or Blu Ray, so whatever you do with it in your edit process and final export, remember how much compression it had starting out, and that it's not going to get any better. If your footage will stay on the web, then I think you can do just fine without it.
Other big advantages for me include post workflow. Avid requires a transcode (to DNx) of AVCHD, and in my use, it was over 3:1 realtime. That's not acceptable for me. I don't have 3 hours to import an hour of footage. That's a no go. It also takes an enormous amount of disk space after the transcode as well.
The Nanoflash also allows me to use both my TVLogic 5.6 SDI, and a 20" consumer Samsung LCD HD monitor as a client monitor via HDMI. That's while shooting and recording 24 psf output in the Nanoflash. I would otherwise need another SDI monitor as my client monitor.
Are you going to look at your monitor with raw output from the AVC vs Nano and say "wow, what a difference!" No, you will not. But you have the advantages and considerations I mentioned above. It depends on your personal standards, your client's, your final delivery form, etc. I can tell you though that the Nano saved by butt on a job where I needed to capture output from an SDI source, in a hurry, and edit it for a piece that I had to deliver in like 2 hours. I would have been in file conversion hell without the Nano that day. It's a nifty little gadget. But one caution - they still have not figured out how to detect AF100 pulldown, so for now it's 1080 24 psf only, no 720. They're working on it, I'm told.
 
BHDfield
What format do you record to on your Nanoflash to import directly into Avid? Does it do DNx? As an Avid guy unfamiliar with the Nano, this has been one of my worries.
 
The Nano can definitely improve image quality. Starting at 50mbps or above, it delivers a true 4:2:2 color sampling, for twice the color resolution -- and in some scenarios, that can result in a substantial boost in image fidelity (especially for something like greenscreen work, or if you're shooting in a nightclub or stage show that uses heavy red and blue lighting, etc).

I find the native codec on the AF100 to be pretty robust and resilient against artifacting, but if you want even more protection, the Nano can deliver it -- the Nano can be configured to shoot at up to 180 megabits per second long-GoP, and 280mbps in I-frame. While that sounds like a substantial boost, and it pretty much is, I don't use that very much because it just chews through memory cards... at 280mbps a 32GB card lasts for about 11 minutes, whereas on the native codec on the AF100 a 32GB SDXC card will last for three hours or more.

If you're an FCP user the Nano offers another advantage (for now) in that the files are drag-and-drop editable by FCP. With the native AVCCAM codec it (currently) requires a transcode via Log & Transfer, which will inflate the file sizes too. Someday in the summer Panasonic is supposed to release a native .MTS import module for FCP that will eliminate the need for Log & Transfer, but until then the edit-friendly nature of the native .MOV files (or .MXF for Windows users) is a nice benefit.

The Nano does other things for you too, which includes redundancy. Some folks don't like the idea of shooting everything to a single cheap memory card (onboard SDXC or SDHC). With the Nano you can record both. That helps protect you against memory card failure and also gives you a simultaneous duplicate if you wanted to hand footage off to a client and keep one for yourself, for example.

The Nano also enables the ability to shoot true 1080/60p with audio. The AF100 disables audio recording during overcranking, but still outputs the audio over its SDI and HDMI output, and the Nano can record that. You could then "conform" the resulting 1080/60p files from AVCCAM to 60fps, plug in the audio from the Nano, and have true "live" 1080/60p footage.

And, the Nano makes the camera more accessible to certain broadcasters who demand 4:2:2 footage. CreativeVideo.co.uk tweeted already that the BBC has approved the AF100 for use on BBC programming if used in combination with the Nano. The BBC requires 4:2:2 color sampling in their HD footage, and the native codec doesn't record 4:2:2, but through the Nano you can get it. They have a similar restriction for XDCAM-EX, an EX1 isn't approved for use by itself but when combined with the Nano it is.

And, the Nano is portable to other cameras too. You can use it on an F3, you can use it on an HV40, you can use it on an AF100, etc. Only drawback towards true futureproof-ness is that the Nano uses 8-bit recording, which is fine for today but some cameras (like the F3) put out 10 bits, so to take full advantage of what those camera heads can do you'd want 10-bit recording. For an AF100 that's a non-issue because the AF100 outputs 10 bits.

The Nano integrates very, very nicely with the AF100 if you use Olof's excellent NanoFlash bracket, and the new Swit battery that has a power outlet which we believe will be able to support recording on both the camera and the Nano simultaneously for upwards of 100 minutes. The Nano uses very small batteries on its own but there's no decent way to mount them, you have to velcro or rubber-band them on, which is a minor thing but, well, let's say I vastly prefer the notion of a one-battery solution. Too many things happen during a production to worry about keeping track of multiple batteries, if you don't have to. And I really like how tiny it is.

Downsides to the Nano? Well, now this is just me, but personally I hate compactflash memory. I think it's a goofy design, I don't like the billions of easily-bent pins, and there's no way to write-protect it. But, truthfully, the Nano makers didn't have a choice, as at the time they made it there was no such thing as SDXC and CF was the only affordable memory that was available. Also, I was very concerned about how the eject button for the loaded memory card stuck up and could be potentially bumped, ejecting a card during writing which I fear might even damage that card. Fortunately Convergent has a solution for that, they make a little bracket that surrounds the card slots and eliminates the potential for bumping it. I do wish they supported 10 bits, which -- again, for today, ain't a big deal, but years from now I presume 10-bits will be more common and so it'd be nice to have it. And I'd love to see them move to a more modern codec; MPEG-2 can deliver great results at high-enough bitrates (100mbps long-GoP is pretty darn good) but I'd love to see a 50mbps 4:2:2 h.264 implementation. I don't really need or want bigger file sizes (220mbps prores? No thanks). I'd rather have 100mbps AVC-Intra and 50mbps long-GoP, both at 10-bit and 4:2:2. I also wish that if they chose to support HDMI, that they would have chosen full-size HDMI ports instead of the mini-HDMI, but that's a minor gripe -- with the SDI connector there, you will rarely if ever see me even using the HDMI. But I do applaud them for including both -- I just wish it was the full-size HDMI, so we could use locking HDMI cables with it.

So - in short, it's a really excellent product. The question you face is -- is the image quality improvement and other improvements worth the cost? As bhdfield said, you're not going to be wowed by the overwhelming quality improvement on your monitor (because the AVCCAM codec is really quite good, far better than its bitrate would suggest). But there is a reduction in gradient banding, there is double the color resolution (when used >=50mbps), and there is improved resiliency to artifacting (when used at 180mbps long-GoP or 220+ mbps I-frame, definitely). If you're in a super-demanding environment, the Nano is a no-brainer -- get it. If you need the redundancy, get it. If you need it to make your camera acceptable to broadcasters that demand 4:2:2, get it. If you want to extract the maximum possible image quality from an AF100, get it. Or if you use FCP and want the workflow freedom that the native .MOV recording offers, get it.

It's a great product. The only reason I don't give it a "you must absolutely must have this" award, is because of the price as compared to the body price of the AF100, a $4700 body and a $2900 accessory, that's a bit of a big pill for a lot of folks to swallow. There are probably many ways that a low-budget guy could spend $2900 to improve the look (and sound) of the footage they get, and that $2900 would have to be spent wisely among lenses, mics, maybe a mixer, maybe on personnel, a better tripod, or an external recorder. For those who are more flush with money, pick it up, you'll love it.
 
taylormade said:
BHDfield
What format do you record to on your Nanoflash to import directly into Avid? Does it do DNx? As an Avid guy unfamiliar with the Nano, this has been one of my worries.
Click to expand...
Taylormade, you have two choices of recording format when using Nano. Either mxf or mov. I always use mxf. AMA is supposed to work with Nanoflash media, but when I have several really long clips, I have problems with AMA. So I generally import the mxf. The good thing about that, is that no matter what you select in import settings in Avid, it brings the clips in untranscoded - it simply rewraps the clips into Avid mxf media, unaltered, and takes the equivalent time of simply copying the media from one drive or source to another. SO you get to work with it in its original state. I would like to have properly working AMA, but the import is fine too because the media would need to be backed up anyway.
 
Last edited:
Have a look at the ATMOS ninja, HDMI at the moment SDI coming soon, its probably the route i will go..
Click to expand...

Just to let you know that we've briefly tried the Ninja with the AF101, and it seemed to work fine. So you'll be able to go up to 220Mbit/s on very inexpensive storage media. The SDI version is called the Samurai and has some additional features that we haven't announced yet. All will be revealed at or before NAB.

Dave Shapton
President
Atomos EMEA
 
Barry_Green said:
The Nano also enables the ability to shoot true 1080/60p with audio. The AF100 disables audio recording during overcranking, but still outputs the audio over its SDI and HDMI output, and the Nano can record that. You could then "conform" the resulting 1080/60p files from AVCCAM to 60fps, plug in the audio from the Nano, and have true "live" 1080/60p footage.
Click to expand...

Barry, are you sure the Nano can record 1080/60P? Last December at BandPro I spoke with a white hair gentleman from Convergent, and he said the Nano could not record 1080 60P. He said that would require a new product with dual SDI inputs.

Did they do some magic firmware update between then and now?
 
Barry_Green said:
And, the Nano makes the camera more accessible to certain broadcasters who demand 4:2:2 footage. CreativeVideo.co.uk tweeted already that the BBC has approved the AF100 for use on BBC programming if used in combination with the Nano. The BBC requires 4:2:2 color sampling in their HD footage, and the native codec doesn't record 4:2:2, but through the Nano you can get it. They have a similar restriction for XDCAM-EX, an EX1 isn't approved for use by itself but when combined with the Nano it is.

Only drawback towards true futureproof-ness is that the Nano uses 8-bit recording, which is fine for today but some cameras (like the F3) put out 10 bits, so to take full advantage of what those camera heads can do you'd want 10-bit recording. For an AF100 that's a non-issue because the AF100 outputs 10 bits.

Downsides to the Nano? . I'd rather have 100mbps AVC-Intra and 50mbps long-GoP, both at 10-bit and 4:2:2.

It's a great product. The only reason I don't give it a "you must absolutely must have this" award, is because of the price as compared to the body price of the AF100, a $4700 body and a $2900 accessory, that's a bit of a big pill for a lot of folks to swallow. .
Click to expand...

My AF100 infatuation wilted in the wake of Wilt's report that AF100 doesn't output true HD, 600 lines, etc. I stayed out of that conversation because I'm not qualified. I'm simply the kind of guy who is enthusiastic about driving his car but doesn't know anything about its engine.

I'm planning to do grading in Color. I'm shooting for at the very least some art house theatrical release, and I know you say it doesn't matter what I shoot on, (Blair Witch Project anecdote yaddi yadda) but the content of the story. Still, this Wilt stuff makes me wonder, if it's not good enough for BBC is it good enough for theatrical release?

Agree, Nano price is prohibitive, almost the price of another AF100, but enter the ninja...

So Barry, what do you have to say about the Atmos Ninja? http://www.atomos.com/Ninja/ Nano-Killer at $1000? It's 10-bit, output to ProRes HQ et al. I don't see them touting a 4:2:2 color space yet or maybe I'm just remiss. I'm thinking it's also undercutting the $5K HPG20 from Panasonic. What's the verdict?
 
Oh boy.... Lines of resolution has nothing to do do with whatever true hd is. There is no true HD. But on the other note about the Ninja. It's not out yet. It does record 10bit 4:2:2 however but the af100 only spits out 8bit. It's still better than converting it after the fact. Ninja is HDMI and the soon to be released samurai will be hdsi.


dtzfilms said:
My AF100 infatuation wilted in the wake of Wilt's report that AF100 doesn't output true HD, 600 lines, etc. I stayed out of that conversation because I'm not qualified. I'm simply the kind of guy who is enthusiastic about driving his car but doesn't know anything about its engine.

I'm planning to do grading in Color. I'm shooting for at the very least some art house theatrical release, and I know you say it doesn't matter what I shoot on, (Blair Witch Project anecdote yaddi yadda) but the content of the story. Still, this Wilt stuff makes me wonder, if it's not good enough for BBC is it good enough for theatrical release?

Agree, Nano price is prohibitive, almost the price of another AF100, but enter the ninja...

So Barry, what do you have to say about the Atmos Ninja? http://www.atomos.com/Ninja/ Nano-Killer at $1000? It's 10-bit, output to ProRes HQ et al. I don't see them touting a 4:2:2 color space yet or maybe I'm just remiss. I'm thinking it's also undercutting the $5K HPG20 from Panasonic. What's the verdict?
Click to expand...
 
Ralph B said:
Barry, are you sure the Nano can record 1080/60P?
Click to expand...
No, it can't, but the AF100 can. You can use the Nano to record the audio that the AF100 isn't recording. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Record 1080/60p on the AF100, and use the Nano to record the audio. Change the framerate of the AF100 footage from 24 to 60, plug in the Nano audio, and you have "live" 1080/60p.=
 
dtzfilms said:
My AF100 infatuation wilted in the wake of Wilt's report that AF100 doesn't output true HD, 600 lines, etc. I stayed out of that conversation because I'm not qualified. I'm simply the kind of guy who is enthusiastic about driving his car but doesn't know anything about its engine.

I'm planning to do grading in Color. I'm shooting for at the very least some art house theatrical release, and I know you say it doesn't matter what I shoot on, (Blair Witch Project anecdote yaddi yadda) but the content of the story. Still, this Wilt stuff makes me wonder, if it's not good enough for BBC is it good enough for theatrical release?

Agree, Nano price is prohibitive, almost the price of another AF100, but enter the ninja...

So Barry, what do you have to say about the Atmos Ninja? http://www.atomos.com/Ninja/ Nano-Killer at $1000? It's 10-bit, output to ProRes HQ et al. I don't see them touting a 4:2:2 color space yet or maybe I'm just remiss. I'm thinking it's also undercutting the $5K HPG20 from Panasonic. What's the verdict?
Click to expand...

Lets not start this nonsense again. I love to shoot with this cam.

If you are not sure this very affordable camera is good enough, just borrow or rent one for a day and play with it.

It is really a great step forward in cameras. If you don't like it then don't buy it but make an informed choice, not one based on rhetoric not actual experience.

As far as the NF is concerned I normally shoot at long gop 100mb/s, sometimes 50mb/s if I need long recording times. For critical chroma key work you may want to use 280mb/s intra frame. But once again you have to test and decide yourself. Rental is a great way to evaluate.
 
dtzfilms said:
My AF100 infatuation wilted in the wake of Wilt's report that AF100 doesn't output true HD, 600 lines, etc.
Click to expand...
I am unfamiliar with any Adam Wilt report. Are you perhaps confusing him with Alan Roberts, who tests for the BBC?

Still, this Wilt stuff makes me wonder, if it's not good enough for BBC is it good enough for theatrical release?
Click to expand...
Who says it's not good enough for the BBC? Alan said that he thought it might indeed be approved, and creativevideo has already tweeted that it will be approved, if you use the Nano. The BBC has not released their verdict. All they've done is hire a consultant to give them a report.

Besides, lots of cameras aren't "good enough" for the BBC, by the way -- including Super16 film. Yes, the same film that has resulted in two Best Picture Oscars in recent years. The BBC is concerned with how images will look after they've been encoded for broadcast. The BBC doesn't care how something looks on the big screen.

The only people who should be concerned about the BBC approval, is those who are shooting for the BBC specifically.

So Barry, what do you have to say about the Atmos Ninja?
Click to expand...
All I can say about it is -- let's see what it actually does. It is not a product on the market yet, nobody has used or reviewed one, it hasn't shipped, so nobody knows. It does seem awfully surprising that they can offer a unit, with a monitor, for 1/2 to 1/3 what other recorder manufacturers do. If the performance truly lives up to the spec sheet, maybe it'll become a must-have (well, not for me, I don't want anything to do with an HDMI recorder, but I might be interested in their Samurai HD-SDI recorder). But usually there is a situation about getting what you pay for, so ... we will see if it delivers or exceeds or falls short of expectations, once it actually ships and people put it through its paces.
 
Dear Friends,

The nanoFlash cannot record 1080p60. Nor can the AF100 output 1080p60 over HD-SDI.

Single Link HD-SDI cannot handle the bandwidth of 1080p60. Dual-Link HD-SDI or HD-SDI 3G can.

I hope this helps.
 
olof said:
Lets not start this nonsense again. I love to shoot with this cam.

If you are not sure this very affordable camera is good enough, just borrow or rent one for a day and play with it.

It is really a great step forward in cameras. If you don't like it then don't buy it but make an informed choice, not one based on rhetoric not actual experience.

As far as the NF is concerned I normally shoot at long gop 100mb/s, sometimes 50mb/s if I need long recording times. For critical chroma key work you may want to use 280mb/s intra frame. But once again you have to test and decide yourself. Rental is a great way to evaluate.
Click to expand...

You, sir, miss the point. It's from an on-going conversation between myself and Barry. My point was shoot my feature with MY AF100 only or shoot with MY AF100 to Ninja or Nanoflash. I hope I cleared up the nonsense for you?
 
bgundu said:
Oh boy.... Lines of resolution has nothing to do do with whatever true hd is. There is no true HD. But on the other note about the Ninja. It's not out yet. It does record 10bit 4:2:2 however but the af100 only spits out 8bit. It's still better than converting it after the fact. Ninja is HDMI and the soon to be released samurai will be hdsi.
Click to expand...
I'm enlightened. Thank you, but you should also note that "not true HD" and "600 lines" were issues raised and used in the Alan Roberts report and I was simply making a reference to that report and the whole thread it spawned. Maybe you should read it? I wish the knowledgeable on this site wouldn't be so caustic and pompous when educating fledgling filmmakers like myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top