NanoFlash, Ninja or the AJA Ki Pro MINI?

GRENCH said:
Hey Barry,

I read a post by you that spoke of on board recording of the AF100 being more than suitable. I believe you spoke of your editor stating that the differences between the internal recording and external recording being very minimal. Can you elaborate on that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I can offer some of my observations, as I'm the one who's been supervising all the editing and finishing of "A Verse Before Dying."

The NanoFlash is a great product, and I've used it in the past with great results. On "Verse…" we used the Nano for one particular scene, one we thought would be a tough challenge for the onboard AVCCAM codec of the AF-100. What our editor found was that indeed, the differences between the AVCCAM and Nano files were minimal to non-existant.

Another shot where I was particularly "interested" to see what the AVCCAM would deliver was in extremely high-detail aerial shots. The shots involved a rider on a horse riding in a field of blowing tall grass. What we found was that the AVCCAM handled the shot without any problem at all. This is one of those shots that I would have swore we'd have needed an external high bit-rate recorder for, but the fact is, we didn't.

Now, there are most definitely situations where I would want to have a NanoFlash connected, specifically green-screen work for post effects. This isn't a knock against the AF-100, but something true of any 4:2:0 AVCHD-based camera, and something that both our editor and colorist reinforced to me. Some may use these cameras without an external recorder and have great success with keying. But for me, and for my post partners, that extra color depth is going to make their lives a little bit easier.
 
Thanks you Stephen! That was the perfect answer. Very informative. I can't wait to get my hands on this camera. I will be buying the AJA unit in March but to know that I can shoot some great footage without it is some welcome news.

Again thanks :)
 
Stephen has been working with the editor, and can explain further.

What I would say is -- you can get better quality from an external recorder. But you can also get better quality from a better mic, better lighting, better glass, and a better tripod. There are many ways to spend money to improve quality. I do not think most users will find an external recorder a necessity. There are some types of shoots that will benefit more than others, but for general cinematic purposes, I think people will be quite pleased with how the native codec performs, and will not feel the need to spend an extra $2k or $3k on an external recorder. But for those looking for the absolute peak in performance, or those who are shooting for a broadcasters who demands 50mbps (such as the BBC) or those who are doing extensive greenscreen and VFX work, they will find the external recorder a great upgrade.
 
Hi Barry, I was thinking of shooting "everydays shots" on the internal cards and when doing greenscreen or vfx work capturing the hd-sdi direct to my mbp with he sonnet qio and the esata hdds on it .... would this be a good idea, or am i missing something here?
 
Barry_Green said:
EDIT: didn't read to the end of the thread; just now saw that Stephen answered hours ago! Sigh. :)
Click to expand...

No problem Barry,

I won't be able to purchase my AJA until the 1st week of March. I was concerned because I have scheduled a couple of gigs in late January that I was planning to shoot on the AF-100. Based on what I just heard I should be more than happy. My client loves my past DSLR footage so he should be more than happy with the AF-100s final product.

Thanks!
 
Perhaps this will revive an old thread at a time the conversation makes it more relevant (we are getting our cameras and dealing with post). While I find the onboard AVC quite good looking in general in first generation (I have noticed some color banding at times which may become aggravated further into the compression processes) - a big issue not many others have mentioned is the time it takes to transcode this AVC to a format that works well with editing systems of ordinary power. Avid will not allow direct access to these MTS files, so I must first transcode. I transcoded about 1.5 hours of footage today from the camera, and it took at least three hours going to DNX175. This is not a realistic workflow for me in a paid production process, especially for deadline critical projects or in handing footage off for immediate handling. So while the AVC looks pretty good fresh out of the camera, really working with it in a real world way leads me to the necessity of buying a Nano, which will give me the speed in post workflow I had with my P2 HVX, and well worth the cost for that reason alone.
 
Billygoat... You make the point about "post" that I have been concerned about very well.

I am interested to see how it goes for you workflow-wise with a NANO

Can some one link me to the NANO device and info that is being discussed here please.
 
Billygoat said:
... I transcoded about 1.5 hours of footage today from the camera, and it took at least three hours going to DNX175. This is not a realistic workflow for me in a paid production process, especially for deadline critical projects or in handing footage off for immediate handling.
Click to expand...

Someone here remember how long that process with film took?
And they used 16mm for the news back than.

Just saying, Frank
 
ddh said:
I still use my DVX 100 on gigs and up-rez the imagery to HD.
Click to expand...

How do you up-rez an SD image to HD? Isn't it already too late once the image is recorded in SD?

I'm genuinely interested in this, since I'm about to go shoot on one myself.
 
Eddie A said:
How do you up-rez an SD image to HD? Isn't it already too late once the image is recorded in SD?

I'm genuinely interested in this, since I'm about to go shoot on one myself.
Click to expand...

ddh is simply blowing up a standard def anamorphic (presumably) image to 720 or 1080. And yes, it's too late. It doesn't look too good. It may be ok for some. And though it's too late now, the FOX Sunday NFL studio live stuff was all SD up-rezed to HD, and although it was clear to me, many could not tell. (Partly because they're using very good lenses and a clean up-rez process). (and another side note, a producer tells me they may go full HD next season on the studio stuff, if there is a next season)
 
Back on topic, has anyone heard if Convergent Design is having any luck figuring out the AF100 pull down? Right now, you can't use 720 23.976 because it doesn't see the pulldown in the output signal. So if you (like me) have a Nano, and you want 24p, you're locked into 1080p. Kind of a pain if web delivery is your final output and you don't want to waste processor power and render time on a 1080 frame size.
 
no, not yet.
I ordered it on the 14th (and paid already.....) but the distributor said they are still waiting for the new firmware from atomos.
I hope that this is worth the waiting!!
best
 
The concept is great. At no moment one gets the feeling of paying too much. The package is so complete, that one wonders why others haven't do this before. Of course the quality has not yet been proven, but Iam very confident it will be a killer.
 
Q: Does anyone know if the Ki Pro Mini will work with a 25p setting on the AF100?
A: At this time, the Ki Pro Mini does not support frame rates within the larger signal rate; i.e. 720p23.98 from within 720p59.94 or 720p25 from within 720p50. This functionality is supported on other cameras, like the HPX170. The Ki Pro Mini Release Notes document explicitly notes the difference with regards to the AG-AF100. The AG-AF100 uses VITC ancillary data for flagged frame information as opposed to LTC ancillary data and thus the difference in support at this time between this Panasonic camera and others with respect to flagged frame removal.
 
editman said:
Yes, the Atomos recorders has three advantages I like. Records to SSD drives, integrated power solution and possible added future codecs.
Click to expand...

Don't forget it records to standard, commodity-priced spinning drives as well: $50 for 2.5 hours of visually-lossless ProRes HQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top