NanoFlash, Ninja or the AJA Ki Pro MINI?

Dear Barry,

I greatly appreciate your response to my post.

Yes, the nanoFlash uses MPEG-2, we actually use the same Sony Codec Module that is in the Sony PDW-700 and PDW-F800.

While all MPEG-2 is 8-Bit, just as all broadcast is 8-bit, MPEG-2 has some advantages.

Specifically, MPEG-2 is typically (but not always) easier to edit than MP4 or H.264. Of course, for some, or for many, they have powerful systems that allow MP4 or MPEG-2 with ease.

As much as I would like to wave a magic wand and make MPEG-2 10-Bit, or make the nanoFlash immediately 10-bit, i cannot do so.

While there are many cameras on the market, and today there are quite a few that output 10-bit over HD-SDI, there are none that output 10-bit over HDMI, as far as I know.
Thus while the Ninja promotes itself as a 10-bit recorder, it will have to wait for an HDMI camera to come on the market with a 10-Bit HDMI output.

And, of all of the cameras that have 10-bit HD-SDI, only some of them output a low enough noise image over the HD-SDI to make 10-bit really beneficial.

As do many companies, Convergent Design does not discuss the possibliities or features of future products. I can say that if we started today on such a product, it would take many months to design and build. The complexity of these products should not be underestimated.

As far as price, yes we were surprised when the Ki Pro Mini came out at $1,995. At this time, the nanoFlash has many more features, but, of course, this could be expected to change over time as more features are added to the Ki Pro Mini. After carefully evaluating our feature set versus theirs, we decided to keep our price the same.

If one needs to record at 220 Mbps for more than 31 to 38 minutes, the nanoFlash is your best option.

If one needs to record at 145 Mbps for more than 45 to 57 minutes, the nanoFlash is your best option.

If one needs to record Broadcast Quality, for up to 5.3 hours, then the nanoFlash is your best option. (Sony XDCAM, 50 Mbps, 4:2:2, CBR, two 64 GB cards)

If one wants low cost media, say $55 for a 32 GB 133x card, one can use the nanoFlash to record Broadcast Quality for 80 minutes. (Newegg, Transcend 133x 32 GB card, $55, single card)

If you want over or under-cranking, time-lapse, full support for all common formats and quite a few rather rare ones such as true frame rates, including progressive and PSF formats, then nanoFlash is a good choice.

If you want 3:2 Pulldown Removal or to convert 720p60 to 72Op30 or 720p50 to 720p25, again it is the nanoFlash.

Yes, the initial cost of the Ki Pro Mini is lower at $1,995, and the nanoFlash is $2,895, a $900 difference.

If one wants to record at 220 Mbps, the cost of the Ki Pro plus two 64 GB CompactFlash 600x cards is $3,044.98. (Maximum uninterrupted recording time of 31 to 38 minutes)

If one wants to record at 220 Mbps, the cost of the nanoFlash plus two 64 gb 400x cards is $3,226.70. (Maximum uninterrupted recording time of 77 minutes)

While many many never envision themselves shooting 3D, any nanoFlash may be upgraded to a nano3D without any loss in one's investment.

Barry, I know that I did not directly answer your question, when are we going to come out with a H.264 or MP4 recorder for $1,995?

I hope I explained why we still think that the nanoFlash is very viable in the marketplace and is a reasonable value when one considers media cost and maximum un-interrupted recording time.

Respectfully,


Dan M. Keaton
Director of Sales and Marketing
Convergent Design
 
I think it's a reasonable response. Only thing I'd really dispute is the notion that there are a lot of 10-bit HD-SDI camcorders out there... because in the under-$15,000 market, I think there's only two (the EX1 and EX3). All the others are 8-bit; all the Canons, all the JVCs, and all the AG-series Panasonics. Well, that's not entirely true, the HPX370 is 10-bit, but then again that doesn't need an external recorder as it has AVC-Intra on-board.

So I don't see 8-bit as nearly the drawback that some do, because today's world, for use on today's equipment, it's all 8-bit.

And, okay, I can read between the lines -- you said "if we started today, it would take many months"... so, I'll choose to believe that you didn't start today, you started many months ago, so it should be imminent, right? ;)

Thanks for the response.
 
FWIW. I'll be going with the Ki Pro Mini whereas had the Nano been priced lower I would have gone with the Nano. $1000 buys another nice lens. They both accomplish basically the same task. Hopefully the boys at CD are listening. My camera won't arrive for awhile. Still plenty of time to lower the price on the Nano to 2011 standards. Otherwise AJA will be getting my $.

Just my 2 cents
 
Dear Derbrocks09,

The Ki Pro Mini may be great for you and your type of shooting.

When comparing the cost of the two devices, please included the cost of powering the units.

The nanoFlash draws under 6 watts, our last measurement was 5.6 watts. This low power requirement allows one to use small, low-cost batteries. A small 2-Cell Lithium-Ion battery wights 3.8 ounces and costs $59.95. And the charger costs $49.95. This battery powers the nanoFlash for approximately 3 hours. (www.nanoFlash.net)

The best information that we have is that the Ki Pro Mini is that it requires 16 to 18 watts. This usually requires a larger, more expensive battery, and a more expensive charger.

For some applications, the same battery can power the camera and the nanoFlash. Since the nanoFlash can go as low as approximately 5 volts and as high as 19.5 volts, there is a very wide range of power solutions available including very low cost options.
 
Last edited:
"there is a very wide range of power solutions available including very low cost options"
Just to expand on what Dan said, in practical terms the low power reqirement of 5.6W/5V-19.5V means that any DV battery (Canon, Sony, Panasonic) which is nominally 7.2V 35-50WH can natively power the Nano for several hours, using one of our adapter plates. So the same battery that one already owns to power the camera, can be used to power the Nano. As Nano accepts voltage up to 19.5V, it can also be natively powered by the 14V Sony EX style batteries. There is no need for voltage conversion, regulation etc. making the battery adapter soution simple and reliable. When one wants to power a 12V device using a 7.2V DV battery, a voltage booster is needed. But just boosting 7.2V to 12V is not such a great idea, as when the device needs lots of watts, a 7.2V battery gets overloaded - it is not meant to power high power devices. Run time will be shortened.
 
Barry_Green said:
Only thing I'd really dispute is the notion that there are a lot of 10-bit HD-SDI camcorders out there... because in the under-$15,000 market, I think there's only two (the EX1 and EX3). All the others are 8-bit... So I don't see 8-bit as nearly the drawback that some do, because today's world, for use on today's equipment, it's all 8-bit.
Click to expand...

In the EX1/3 forums the EX1/3 are always discussed as having 8bit HD-SDI output. Some people have claimed to have tested it. I have no way of measuring, but if true that would make it literally true that all the sub $15k cameras are 8 bit.

That makes 10 bit recording rather meaningless. It would be like recording 4.2.0 into a 4.2.2 file format. You can do it but it doesn't add any new data.

Have a look at the Nano's development history. They are continuously adding new features with upgraded firmware. Most companies make you buy new hardware instead.

Also, I shot all day yesterday at CML Studios with one U95 EX1 type battery with a D tap powering the nano and the camera on only one charge. Since a BP-U60 is about the same price and the U95 has about double the power its like powering the Nano for free.
 
Last edited:
In this video, Atomos Ninja seems to imply that if you can do without redundancy and record only to its device in liveview mode you can record off the sensor and eliminate the red dot and white square getting full 1920x1080 over HDMI out of the Canon dslr cameras. I'd like to hear what Dan thinks of this because if that is possible that would be huge, including the ninjas added benefits of cost, ability to use dual switch over affordable batteries, and hot swappable media. Regardless of it being only 8 bit or not.

http://vimeo.com/16246480
 
Dan

I think the main issue with powering the Ki Pro vs the Nano isn't the cost as much as it is the weight. There are many inexpensive 12v batteries available. But they are rather heavy. I can see that the Nano is likely the best solution for many types of shooting. But I think it might be aimed at a different type of shooter and I think that the majority of AF100 owners considering the two will either opt for the hdmi only solution or at best the Ki Pro. Spending $3k on a device for a $4800 camera? Just a bit much IMO.

I'm certain that the AF100 is going to be a HUGE hit just as the DVX100 was and Panasonic is going to sell a ton of them to guys like me who aren't working pros. It's affordable enough to justify owning vs renting.

I'm just curious now but how many owners will just go with the on board recording? Probably a lot is my guess.

I think my only point here is that I think even $2k is going to be hard for many AF100 owners like myself to justify let alone $3k. The Nano will likely be a great choice for working pros but for the thousands of Indie Filmmakers out there who are on a tight budget I predict the Nano will get killed by the Ki Pro if not the Ninja. Plus the 10bit vs 8bit thing is pretty important IMO. Not for the AF100 obviously but someday we will want 10 bit and someday the Nano will have to be replaced where the Ki Pro won't.

Again, just my 2 cents.
 
I do not think that's true about recordning uncompressed from hdmi on the canon cameras.
He may be misinformed, but I so hope this somehow magically happens, would make me enjoy my 7d
a little more
 
vcfilms said:
I do not think that's true about recordning uncompressed from hdmi on the canon cameras.
He may be misinformed, but I so hope this somehow magically happens, would make me enjoy my 7d
a little more
Click to expand...

Did you watch the video? Thats the CEO of Atomos.
 
derbrocks09 said:
I think the main issue with powering the Ki Pro vs the Nano isn't the cost as much as it is the weight. There are many inexpensive 12v batteries available. But they are rather heavy. I can see that the Nano is likely the best solution for many types of shooting. But I think it might be aimed at a different type of shooter and I think that the majority of AF100 owners considering the two will either opt for the hdmi only solution or at best the Ki Pro. Spending $3k on a device for a $4800 camera? Just a bit much IMO.
Click to expand...
Agree totally. I think the Nano is the most flexible device, and frankly the battery powering options are a huge factor in its favor. But you can't fight the numbers, and no matter which way you argue it, people are going to see "$2895" vs. "$1995" and the battle's over. I think a Nano at $1995 would be a no-brainer.

I'm just curious now but how many owners will just go with the on board recording? Probably a lot is my guess.
Click to expand...
My guess is that while a lot of people are talking about external recorders, when the actual credit card hits the counter, 95% are going to go with the onboard AVCCAM recording and never bother with an external recorder. $3,000 buys a lot of additional gear, and the quality improvement over the native codec is going to be quite minimal for that outlay.
 
mico said:
In this video, Atomos Ninja seems to imply that if you can do without redundancy and record only to its device in liveview mode you can record off the sensor and eliminate the red dot and white square getting full 1920x1080 over HDMI out of the Canon dslr cameras. I'd like to hear what Dan thinks of this because if that is possible that would be huge, including the ninjas added benefits of cost, ability to use dual switch over affordable batteries, and hot swappable media. Regardless of it being only 8 bit or not.

http://vimeo.com/16246480
Click to expand...

Dear Mico,

At this point in time, almost all DSLR's were not designed to put out a quality image over the HDMI port (while recording, or during Live View).

In an ideal video camera, there would be large pixels, and the effective number of pixels would match the output format, such as 1920 x 1080.
(Of course the sensor could be a little larger, and window down to the correct number of effective pixels.)

The outstanding Canon 5D Mark II camera has 21.1 million effective pixels.

In the ideal camera, for 1080 mode, one needs 2,073,600 effective pixels.

Thus, a very sophisticated system is needed to convert the 21.1 million t the 2.073 million.

But, since the HDMI output circuitry was never designed for an external video recording device, such as a nanoFlash or Ki Pro Mini, a simplier technique was used.

Line Skipping eliminates some of the pixels, and what I call Pixel Skipping is used horizontally to obtain the lower resolution image (lower resolution than the native still camera mode) that is needed for 1080 video mode.

This reduces the quality of the HDMI output, but please remember, the HDMI output was designed for live viewing, for framing, and other needs, but not for recording.

As such, I have never recommend that one use the nanoFlash to record the output of DSLR's for serious recording.

Note: while I have used Canon as an example, this applies to all DSLR's.

Please note that we are anxiously waiting for DSLR's to incorporate more sophisticated circuitry so that the nanoFlash can be used.
Also, there may have been some recent DSLR cameras introduced that do have clean HDMI outputs. I may have missed them.

And one of the reasons that we, and many others are so excited about the Panasonic AF100 is that it does have clean HDMI and HD-SDI outputs!

Respectfully,


Dan M. Keaton
Director of Sales and Marketing
Convergent Design
 
mico said:
you can record off the sensor and eliminate the red dot and white square getting full 1920x1080 over HDMI out of the Canon dslr cameras.
Click to expand...
I watched that video, and the conclusion you're drawing is not correct. He never said anything about the white square or red dot. What he did say, repeatedly, was that it's recording "straight off the sensor", which leads to the confusion. What he means to say is that it's uncompressed, but the part he's leaving out, and the part that makes everything much more obvious, is that it's going to record whatever a monitor would show. There's no magic. Whatever the HDMI shows, is what the Ninja will record. And on the DSLRs, it shows a white box when in pause, and therefore the Ninja will record the white box. And it shows a red dot when recording, and therefore the Ninja will record the red dot.

Now, if Canon were to issue a firmware change that eliminated the white box and red dot, then you could get a clean recording, but that's the only way you can get it. The Ninja can't do anything magical, it can only record what the HDMI is giving it.

And, for that matter, the Nano has HDMI input, so it could record the 7D/5D exactly as the Ninja does. What Dan is saying is that the HDMI output isn't of sufficient quality to bother recording, but if you did want to record it, the Nano could do it just the same as the Ninja.
 
its great to see these new recorders. keeps the competition on their toes. it may also push competitors to lower their prices :) cant wait to see a year from now what new technology we will see :)
 
Dan Keaton said:
Cineform support coming soon, currently in beta and working well
Click to expand...

Dan, can you tell a little bit more about this beta feature? Are you saying then that once this change is implemented into production firmware releases, that the nano will record to Cineform intermediate format as a selection in addition to XDCAM? If so, while the XDCAM support seems to be hardware based, would the Cineform be a conversion from the XDCAM to Cineform format?

And here is a question that will really show my ignorance: when over / under cranking, does that actually change the recording format, or is overcranked / undercranked footage embedded in the native video stream, e.g. 1080p/30 or 720p/60? Does the nano have an advantage in this area compared to competitor products?
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
What Dan is saying is that the HDMI output isn't of sufficient quality to bother recording, but if you did want to record it, the Nano could do it just the same as the Ninja.
Click to expand...

So Barry what your saying is even if canon did issue firm ware update for the 7D to eliminate the red dot and white square you still wouldn't get a full 1080p image?

But will the image be better than the h264 one that records to the CF card, is the bigger question.
 
GRENCH said:
So Barry what your saying is even if canon did issue firm ware update for the 7D to eliminate the red dot and white square you still wouldn't get a full 1080p image?
Click to expand...
I'm not the one saying it, I'm trying to interpret what Dan Keaton of Convergent Design is saying. And it sounds to me like he's saying "don't bother, it's not worth it."

EDIT - and having read the link Bob Gundu supplied, yeah, Jon Fairhurst and Art Aldrich seem to agree.
 
Dear Friends,

We have a very close relationship with Canon and a few other camera manufacturers.

We have been wanting to record, via the HDMI output of the Canon cameras, for some time now.

If we felt that the quality was there, we would be recommending the nanoFlash to thousands of DSLR users.

I would just love to answer the 100 to 200 questions that we get every month about this in a more positive way, but it would not be the right thing to do.

On a more positive note, we fully expect this situation to change, as we expect a clear HDMI output in future cameras from multipe camera manufaturers.

Multiple manufactures are working to provide high quality outputs from their cameras.

In other matters, Panasonic and the AF100 team are certainly to be commended for providing HD-SDI in addition to the HDMI.

I just read in another professional cinematographers forum that someone performed surgery to add HD-SDI to a Canon DSLR!

Of course, the nanoFlash is nice in that if one provides HDMI in, one gets HDMI and HD-SDI out. And if one provides HD-SDI in, one gets both outputs as well.
I assume that the Ki Pro Mini will do the same thing.

Respectfully,


Dan Keaton
Director of Sales and Marketing
Convergent Design
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top