Convergent Design Nano Flash & Z7 ?

[Mark Pleasant]

Been reading about this device. Looks interesting. Is this going to be something we could use on the Z7? With 4:2:2 recording of the HDMI signal seems it would be a plus...Anybody seem a problem? I guess power would be a hassel...just askin?
mp

[Steve Phillipps]

Will work no problem. Power seems to be simple on the Nanoflash. If you can take power from the camera then great, but if not it can have its own battery (like a little camcorder battery).

The Z7 is HDV which is about 20 megabits/second while the Nano will go upto 220 mb/s, so 10x increase in data rate. This should turn cameras like the Z7 from prosumer cameras to really serious cameras!

Steve

[Mark Pleasant]

That sounds great. That's what I was hoping.
mp

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Mark Pleasant

Anybody seem a problem?

I've just got a feeling that a basic EX1 would be about the same price as the Z7/nanoFlash combo, and be not only a lot easier to use, but a lot higher quality. It's a better codec than HDV (if not the nanoFlash), but the much better camera front end (1/2" and 2 megapixel chips) is what's likely to make the most difference.

[Steve Phillipps]

But if you've already got a Z7 then well worth it I'd say. And on the Z7 you've got interchangeable lenses.

Steve

[Uli Mors]

thats right.

EX1 uses 1920 x 1080 pixels x3 (RGB) natively.

Z5 / Z7 use a very modern way of pixel shifting and is not 1920x1080 pixels - but very great picture for what it is.

The nano makes sense - because it overruns the HDV compression and put compression to a stunning higher level.

I´ll have a try with it, too.

Regards

Uli

[Mark Pleasant]

Thanks for the feedback folks! Yeah I already have the Z7. I really thought about the EX3 very seriously but just wasn't ready to go with a full blown non-tape system. That said I have learned to love the CF cards and really haven't had to go with the tape (backup) at all...well maybe once or twice. Yes I want the bigger sensor but the nano may help bridge the quality gap just a bit..at least until ..The Scarlett??!!!
mp

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

But if you've already got a Z7 then well worth it I'd say. And on the Z7 you've got interchangeable lenses.

A quick look at prices shows me that from one site sponsor, the Z7 is about $5,700, the EX1 about $6,100, the EX3 about $8,300, and a nanoFlash about $3,000. So a Z7/nanoFlash combi is actually about $400 DEARER even than an EX3, let alone an EX1.

I take the points about if you've already got a Z7, but even then I think the $3,000 would be better spent trading up to an EX1, and probably be a cheaper option.

If starting from scratch, just get an EX3. The EX1/3 have 3x 2 megapixel chips, the Z7 has 3x 1 megapixel chips, and it's 1/2" v 1/3" as well.

[Steve Phillipps]

Anyone done real side-by-side comparisons of Z7 and EX1/3? I wonder just how big the difference is? The BBC seems to have a few Z7s, Simon King used one on Springwatch this year I noticed on the little bit of it I saw.
Steve

[Mike Schell]

Originally Posted by Mark Pleasant

Been reading about this device. Looks interesting. Is this going to be something we could use on the Z7? With 4:2:2 recording of the HDMI signal seems it would be a plus...Anybody seem a problem? I guess power would be a hassel...just askin?
mp

Hi Mark-
The nanoFlash should work fine with the Z7. We have not tested the unit specifically with this camera, but we test with the HDMI output form the Canon HV30 on a daily basis.

We are developing a small battery to attach to the nanoFlash, which will provide 3 hours of operating time. The battery should be available later this month.

Best-

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

Anyone done real side-by-side comparisons of Z7 and EX1/3? I wonder just how big the difference is? The BBC seems to have a few Z7s, Simon King used one on Springwatch this year I noticed on the little bit of it I saw.

If the BBC were using a Z7, I suspect they were using it in standard definition mode, recording DVCAM to tape, most likely as a B camera to something like a DSR570 - they certainly have a very large number of Z1s used this way. (And to fit in to such a workflow, the tape/SD/DVCAM capability would here be an advantage of the Z7 over an EX.)

For HD, the BBC HD channel is seen very much as a high end showcase channel, deliberately only showing top end material, and a current requirement to only use top end cameras. I did read a speech recently about what would happen in the next couple of years, as HD production became more the norm, and the requirement for self shot HD on smaller cameras became important to them. I seem to remember that they specifically mentioned the EX in this context, and that they were actively trialling it.

[Alex Goldshteyn]

If you want to see the Z7U in action on cable TV, check out 'Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations' on the Travel Channel. I believe the last two season have been shot exclusively with the Z7U. Below is a snippet from a Q&A with the crew....

Q. I was wondering what camera are you shooting with, and at what rate? HD? FCP or Avid? How many people are shooting/editing and how long does it take to finish an ep? Thanks! - nino224

Adam Lupsha, VFX, Gear Management: Nino -- An episode is usually shot in the space of a week. If two episodes take place near each other, Tony and the guys spend as long as three weeks running around the world. The show tapes (which can be a good 50-90 hours of footage) are either Fedex'd back to us or brought when the crew returns. Usually, Diane Schutz or Emily Mraz will call from the airport on the way home and solicit those of us in the office to welcome them back and carry the 200 pounds or more, of gear up to the office (it's a family affair) where it is reviewed and repaired before the next shoot.

Once we have the tapes, assistant editors load the footage into our Avid servers (rarely but occasionally we use FCP - Final Cut Pro). Over the next nine weeks an assistant editor and show editor piece together the structure of the show. If there are maps or special visual treatments, those are discussed with the VFX/GFX guy and slipped into the cut in the last couple weeks. During this time the show is reviewed by the executive producers at ZPZ, and at Travel Channel and of course by Tony. This doesn't even include the high gloss polish the guys at Postworks do to the color and sound. Those guys seriously could turn your vacation video into "Lord of The Rings 6: The Wrath of Khan."

Technicals -- two main shooters, with a third (commonly a producer) rolling B-roll, typically cut on Avid. Shows are in HD (1080i), shot currently with the Sony Z7U (24P), using Lectrosonics wireless sound, Sennheiser shotguns for ambience. We've also been known to use "weird" lense contraptions and top-secret, non-conventional camera rigs that require a special government license to operate.

[Greg Laves]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

Anyone done real side-by-side comparisons of Z7 and EX1/3? Steve

I have been trying to get a good comparison, but what I have been able to do is not really valid in pure scientific terms. I have shot along side 2 different shooters with their EX-1's and my Z7. The only comparisons that I got to see were on the field monitors (composite input, Sony SD 8" monitors). I wasn't invited into the edit suites and I haven't been able to see the footage displayed back to back on a 50" plasma. On the first shoot, I was the "B" camera. According to the producer, my feed to the field monitor looked better than the EX-1 feed. Later, the editor on the project told me that my footage looked "awesome". But he didn't offer any direct comparison between the 2 cameras. I was really curious about how they compared but I was happy with the positive comments.

I was on another EX-1/Z7 shoot last week. Different EX-1, different shooter, different producer but same type of field monitor set-up. Again, I was the "B" camera. At the first set up, the producer told the EX-1 shooter, "Can you do something with your settings? The other camera (Z7) just looks a lot better. It seems to be more colorful and cleaner looking." After tweaking and fiddling a while, he (EX-1 shooter) really couldn't get what the producer was looking for but made the comment: "The other camera looks better here but mine will look better when it is in the edit suite." At the second set up, the field producer asked for more tweaking again, saying: "Can't you do something to make your camera look better? Your picture just looks so muddy compared to his picture." Even though I was the designated "B" camera, the producer had me tape all of the performance and also had me shoot all of the cut-aways. While the EX-1 only recorded the basic performance. I doubt that I will get any additional feedback from this shoot since the EX-1 shooter is also the editor on the project and he didn't seemed to be very pleased with the comments.

Again, I will stress that this is by no means any valid method of comparison. But I do think the HDMI output from the Z7 will compare very favorably with the EX-1/EX-3. Both are 1920 x 1080 with 4-2-2 color output through the HDMI port. But you would have to think that the 1/2" full raster chips will have an advantage over 1/3" chips using pixel shifting technology. DOF control would be one obvious area, of course.

[Steve Phillipps]

Thanks Greg for the insight, it's sort of as I thought. While I was amazed at the (still) image from the EX cameras as most people were, I've been equally impressed at stuff from the likes of the XL-H1 and I do get the feeling that once you get rid of the HDV compression you might be onto something really good.

I get the feeling that EX vs Z7/XL-H1/HM700 might not be chalk and cheese but rather cheddar vs edam! If so this would be really interesting for those that have issues with rolling shutters- plus of course you get greater magnification from your lenses with the small chip cameras great for wildlife shooters.
Steve

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

The only comparisons that I got to see were on the field monitors (composite input, Sony SD 8" monitors). ......According to the producer, my feed to the field monitor looked better than the EX-1 feed.

As I think you acknowledge, I don't think you can draw many conclusions from this, not if you were taking the downconverted output (especially if composite NTSC) and only looking at it on an 8" monitor. I've heard before that the standard definition output of the EX is far from ideal, but the general feeling seems to be "so what? It's only there for confidence, the EX is an HD only camera". Which is quite true. (Though as I said before, if you're working primarily for an SD workflow, especially a DVCAM one, it's a good reason to go with a Z7 rather than an EX.)

At the first set up, the producer told the EX-1 shooter, "Can you do something with your settings? The other camera (Z7) just looks a lot better. It seems to be more colorful and cleaner looking." After tweaking and fiddling a while, .........

I think that may have been a bit foolish of the producer. If you're going to make quality judgements on a set monitor, make sure it's a good one, and certainly make sure it's HD. Surely making critical adjustments to an HD camera based on an 8" NTSC monitor and downconversion can't be sensible?