what would be the better route for chroma keying, an upgrade to the ex1 or adding the nanoflash to the z7?

Dear Alexander,

I have sent you a private message.

Nothing so far. Will you kindly try again please? I've changed my profile.

Dear Alexander,

I checked, my original email was sent out and has not been returned.

I sent you another email a different way.

If you do not get my email, just post here and I will give you my email.

Dear Dan,

I got it. Thanks. I'll prepare my questions to you shortly.

Regards,
Alex

what would be the better route for chroma keying, an upgrade to the ex1 or adding the nanoflash to the z7?
Likely to be upgrading to the EX (luminance resolution is just as important as chroma resolution).

Ideally, upgrade to the EX AND get a nanoFlash. Obviously more expensive than either of those things alone!

what would be the better route for chroma keying, an upgrade to the ex1 or adding the nanoflash to the z7?

If you can only do one, then get the Nanoflash w/ the Z7. For chroma keying you want 4:2:2 (or even 4:4:4 if you can).

But you can look into other options like the BlackMagic Intensity: Blackmagic Design: Intensity (http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/)

The Matrox MXO2 Mini: HDMI and Analog I/O for Mac and PC - Matrox MXO2 Mini (http://www.matrox.com/video/en/products/mxo2_mini/)

The Blackmagic is only an option if you have a tower w/ PCIe expansion slots. The MXO2 will work with a laptop w/ Expresscard 34 or PCIe. Either one (or even other products) will let you record HD at higher quality like the NanoFlash, although not nearly as portable.

But if you just need better chroma key & you can set up a computer next to the camera, these products would be much cheaper than a Nanoflash.

Is the Matrox MXO2 Mini also suitable for playing my Quicktime HD-video's via HDMI on a full-HD (1920 x 1080) tv ? These edited videoclips are on my MacBook Pro. I'm just wondering how the signal will get from the MacBook to the Matrox?

If you can only do one, then get the Nanoflash w/ the Z7. For chroma keying you want 4:2:2 (or even 4:4:4 if you can).

But you can look into other options like the BlackMagic Intensity: Blackmagic Design: Intensity (http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/)

The Matrox MXO2 Mini: HDMI and Analog I/O for Mac and PC - Matrox MXO2 Mini (http://www.matrox.com/video/en/products/mxo2_mini/)

The Blackmagic is only an option if you have a tower w/ PCIe expansion slots. The MXO2 will work with a laptop w/ Expresscard 34 or PCIe. Either one (or even other products) will let you record HD at higher quality like the NanoFlash, although not nearly as portable.

But if you just need better chroma key & you can set up a computer next to the camera, these products would be much cheaper than a Nanoflash.

I've been reading nothing but complaints about the Matrox mini, and just my luck, i don't have an express card slot on my laptop.

What do you think will hold it's value more 6months from now, the Nanoflash or EX1? I just need the nanoflash until after march, then I'll probably sell it... any forseable chance of it's resale value crashing before then?

Dear Alexander,

My emails to you are being returned.

Could you please send me your current email address?

Dear Dan,

I will send it to you right away.

Thanks for posting.

Alex.

Has anyone seen a comparison of Z7/Nanoflash and EX1/Nanoflash on good monitors? I'm expecting the latter will be better, but how much better?

Dear John,

That is a great question.

We have not compared these two cameras (with a nanoFlash on each).

Maybe someone with these cameras (and a nanoFlash) could comment.

What is nice, is that many modern cameras produce a good or great image, and have a method, such as HD-SDI or HDMI to allow a high-quality recorder, such as our nanoFlash to record these 4:2:2 images.

Ok I am convinced that the Nano Flash is the way to improve the Z7/270.
Just how does it work? With the 270 do you still have to have the tape in the camera to shoot with the Nano flash?

Can you shoot with both the Tape and the Nano Flash for a back up?

What about the compact flash card already on the Z7/270? Do you remove it?

Does the Nano Flash make the Z7/270 a 1920x1080i camera?

I assume that if the tape is in the camera along with the Nano Flash the tape captures 1440x1080i while the Nano Flash captures 1920x1080i. Is that correct?

Thanks

Ronnie Martin
Page 1 (http://www.dirtracingvideo.com)

The only thing the Nanoflash really changes, and where the improvement lies, is in the codec, giving much lower compression (ie 160 mb/s vs 18 mb/s or so). It won't give you any more resolution or dynamic range or anything else. But it should still make a huge difference as it's the codec where the HDV cameras are probably weakest.
You can trigger the Nano from the camera which will then roll the tape as well, or directly from the Nano unit.
You also won't get overcranking (ie slow motion) as this requires a 50P or 60P input (ie from 720 mode).
note: I don't have one so the above comments are just from my understanding, I stand to be corrected but think it's right.
Steve

I beleive you're right Steve.

The only way to have all questions answered is to test the Nano flash device with S270/Z7 and post the results. It is what I'm waiting to happen before buying Nano flash. I know that the Nano flash is the only way to improve quality of the video with these camcorders.

Dan Keaton from Convergent Design explained me that HD-SDI is always 1920x1080. But according to my calculations the sensor in S270/Z7 is not 1920x1080, or maybe I'm wrong? I beleive that the sensor scans images and then stretches them to 1440x1080. How it produces 1920x1080 via HD-SDI? Stretching? But what is the physical resolution of the sensor then? Can someone comment on that please?

Thank you
Alex

I guess that you are right we will not know the answers to these questions until someone gets a Nano Flash and then does some tests with the Z7/270

What about the compact flash card already on the Z7/270? Do you remove it?

Does the Nano Flash make the Z7/270 a 1920x1080i camera?

I assume that if the tape is in the camera along with the Nano Flash the tape captures 1440x1080i while the Nano Flash captures 1920x1080i. Is that correct?

Thanks

Ronnie Martin
Page 1

According to the Sony spec the Z7 has only 1 million pixels, compared to 2 million for their higher end cameras and the likes of the EX1/3. Quite what that means for resolution I don't know.
I think the 1440x1080 comes from the HDV codec, that's its resolution, in the same way that HDCam is 1440x1080 and the pixels are stretched (ie non square) to make it 1920x1080. The same is true of Panasonic's DVCPro HD which is 960x720 or so and stretched into 1280x720.
Most of the newer codecs are going "full raster" so Panny's AVC Intra is full 1280x720 and XDCam HD and EX are both 1920x1080. As is the Nanoflash.
Steve

Its simple.

The Clearvid Cmos uses a non Full HD grid , RGB shifted to each other (pixelshift), interpolated and recorded to 1440x1080.
This grid again is stretched when output via HDMI or HD-SDI or HDanalog out (like HDCAM does too).

The bargain of the nanoflash is that you dont record the 1440x1080 with only 25mbit/s but the NONCOMPRESSED signal (pixelshifted CCD -> 1080) with much higher bitrate, leaving compression artefacts behind.

I am sure the results are better than the HDV recording, but you dont get higher resolution that what is generally capable by the sensor.

BTW: Clearvid is a great technology. Its not full HD but each pixel is bigger and therefore 1/3" can be very lightsensitive (-> Z5, Z7).

ULI

I assume that the results are visually indistinguishable. (ie 1920x1080 from S270/Z7 with a nano flash and EX1/3) Only the test chart could show some difference in resolution. But using ClearVid Technology along with Nano Flash would give fantastic results.

Alex

Alexander, do you mean that the Z7 and EX3 will look the same? If so I think you're very much mistaken. The EX3 has full 1920x1080 chips for a start, and they're 1/2".
Steve

According to the Sony spec the Z7 has only 1 million pixels, compared to 2 million for their higher end cameras and the likes of the EX1/3. Quite what that means for resolution I don't know.
Quite right, it's 1 million pixel chips. The arrangement is complicated as the rows are aligned on the diagonal, but best thought of as two interleaving 960x540 matrices. That means they are easily processed in a 1920x1080 processor, but although the output of that is 1920x1080 pixels, the reolution won't be as high as that. 1440x810 is the generally accepted figure. There's also the progressive/interlaced matter to consider, but this chip arrangement can be processed to interlace very well.
I think the 1440x1080 comes from the HDV codec, that's its resolution, ...
Yes, for HDV, you record 1440x1080 pixels - so the 1920x1080 gets scaled down horizontally. It shouldn't lose any resolution - it wasn't there off the chip - so the HDV subsampling suits these chips very well for resolution.

Use a nanoFlash and you then record the full 1920x1080 off the processor, but don't expect it to be any sharper. The advantage the nanoFlash WILL give (cf HDV) is milder compression, and keep a bit more of the vertical chroma resolution. But I wouldn't expect an S270/nanoFlash to look as good as an EX - the EX won't just give 1/2" chips and full 2 megapixel resolution, it will also give better than HDV compression as well.

Alexander, do you mean that the Z7 and EX3 will look the same? If so I think you're very much mistaken. The EX3 has full 1920x1080 chips for a start, and they're 1/2".
Steve

No Steve, I didn't mean that. I thought that shooting with S270 and nano flash would give very good results. For example using S270 with Nano flash and EX1 without it during multicam shooting would give almost indistinguishable results for a viewer.

Alex

I think you're still wrong though Alexander, I suspect that they'd be pretty different as the EX1 has got twice as many pixels.
Steve

Dear Friends,

If a camera is in 1080 mode, then the HD-SDI output is always 1920 x 1080.

This is great, as the nanoFlash can then record full raster 1920 x 1080, which takes a huge load off of the computer that will perform the editing, as it will already be 1920 x 1080. The processs of converting 1440 x 1080 to 1920 x 1080, in the computer, is completely eliminated.


A computer has a lot of work to do to convert 1440 x 1080 to 1920 x 1080. There is no "magic instruction" that does this; it is a rather intensive computer function to do this.


The beauty of HD-SDI always being 1920 x 1080 is that all cameras have to do this; and they do it in hardware instead of software, so it can be accomplished on the fly.

Dedicated, custom built hardware usually is better than using a general purpose computer for the same purpose.

I suspect that they'd be pretty different as the EX1 has got twice as many pixels.
If a camera is in 1080 mode, then the HD-SDI output is always 1920 x 1080.
Yes Dan, but that's not the same as the picture having a true 1920x1080 resolution if the chips aren't 2 megapixel. It's as Steve says - it's only got half the pixels of such as the EX, so you can only expect about 1440x810 resolution, no matter what the recorded raster is.

I don't doubt a Z7 or S270 will be improved by adding a nanoFlash - it gives a better codec - but the question here is whether the combo will be better than a straight EX. I doubt it will be - for the reasons Steve and I give above.

And the EX gives a 1920x1080 codec straight from the camera, so same here as the nanoFlash.

Dear David,

Yes, I did not mean to imply that 1440 x 1080 was equal to 1920 x 1080.

I just wanted to explain the all HD-SDI, in 1080 mode is always 1920 x 1080, but sometimes created from a sensor that is only 1440 x 1080.

Truth is, shooting outdoors in good light...with original footage, the average person would probably be very hard pressed to see much difference in output, with or without the Nano.

With most of these cams, it seems the issues are more with heavy post work or poor lighting and/or fast movement. CF helps with some things, but can't do the impossible.

DOF and shadow detail are often what cause most people to note "something different" with our final output, so unless we're using 2/3" sensors with some good capture codec, it just doesn't seem things are a whole lot different.

Now, if only we could afford a couple of those PMW-350's...

That's what I was talking about. Stephen, you've cought me well.

Alex

Its simple.

The Clearvid Cmos uses a non Full HD grid , RGB shifted to each other (pixelshift), interpolated and recorded to 1440x1080.
This grid again is stretched when output via HDMI or HD-SDI or HDanalog out (like HDCAM does too).

The bargain of the nanoflash is that you dont record the 1440x1080 with only 25mbit/s but the NONCOMPRESSED signal (pixelshifted CCD -> 1080) with much higher bitrate, leaving compression artefacts behind.

I am sure the results are better than the HDV recording, but you dont get higher resolution that what is generally capable by the sensor.

BTW: Clearvid is a great technology. Its not full HD but each pixel is bigger and therefore 1/3" can be very lightsensitive (-> Z5, Z7).

ULI


Interestingly, I was reading Alan Roberts white paper on the Canon XH G1 for the BBC. He measured the resolution of the HD-SDI image at around 1015 lines vertically. It is slightly lower at around 940 in the F modes). He mentions that the sensor chipset of the camera clearly delivers more resolution than its pixel count due to its spatial offset. This resolution is not recorded fully onto the HDV tapes, but can be recorded from the HD-SDI using a high-quality full raster codec. I can confirm this from my own recordings from my Canon XL H1S's HD-SDI recorded to ProRes HQ using my IO HD. There definitely is a resolution increase with this camera.

I think the Canon XL H1/G1 cameras are the only sub "full raster" HD cameras capable of showing a resolution increase when recording the HD-SDI to a full raster codec. Because the native pixel count of the camera matches 1:1 with HDV, the increased resolution from the spatial offset is not seen in the HDV tape recording. It is definitely noticeable in the HD-SDI recording. But most other HDV cameras, as stated after going through their spatial offset process, create enough resolution to fill or closely fill the 1440x1080 resolution of HDV.

But of course, there are many more advantages to recording the HD-SDI, so a Nanoflash would be a great upgrade for these Sony cameras!

Of course, pixel shift has a lot of disadvantages too.
For example, when you shoot a live concert and the light is not setup for videorecordings, it can happen that the light engineer jumps into red (full red lit stage), bad enough but:

In that case you clearly get lost resolution - since the red cmos chip has not full HD res.

2nd you get more aliasing and resolution/sampling artefacts, that may be not that important for daily shooting, but its there and will have influence on your pictures.

Anyway: If a Z5/Z7 meets your expectations (like it does for me for certain projects), a nanoflash will even improve it. Simple.

ULi

Interestingly, I was reading Alan Roberts white paper on the Canon XH G1 for the BBC. He measured the resolution of the HD-SDI image at around 1015 lines vertically. ........He mentions that the sensor chipset of the camera clearly delivers more resolution than its pixel count due to its spatial offset.
Yes, but it's important to note that the XH G1 has sensors of dimensions 1440x1080 (so approx 1.5 megapixel) and unlike the Panasonic cameras pixel shifting is used in the horizontal axis *ONLY*. (The Panasonics use both H & V.) Consequently, the vertical figure you quote above is due purely to 1080 photosites vertically.

Horizontal pixel shift will improve the luminance resolution above the 1440 that the sensor figures may suggest. The downside is that pixel shift comes with side effects, as Uli says. As Alan says in the report you mention:
However, and as expected, this process also generates some horizontal aliasing, and it is at about 1600 pixels that the wanted and aliased frequencies are equal in amplitude.
Also note that the Sony sensors *DO NOT* employ any pixel shifting. Corresponding R,G,B photosites are all optically in the same place. There is no right and wrong to either method, they just emphasise different compromises.
But of course, there are many more advantages to recording the HD-SDI, so a Nanoflash would be a great upgrade for these Sony cameras!
It would be an upgrade, but I'd still maintain that for the combined cost of this camera and nanoFlash, the money would be better spent on buying a better (more expensive) camera in the first place.

It's a bit like buying a cheap car and spending a fortune on upgrading the performance. You may be far better off just spending the same money on a better spec car in the first place.

Now if we could afford the PWM-350 AND a Nanoflash...that would be something! (Sorry, just dreaming...)

It would be an upgrade, but I'd still maintain that for the combined cost of this camera and nanoFlash, the money would be better spent on buying a better (more expensive) camera in the first place.It's a bit like buying a cheap car and spending a fortune on upgrading the performance. You may be far better off just spending the same money on a better spec car in the first place.

I agree, but sometimes a better camera lead to the same fortune to be spent. For example EX3 -pair of SxS pro cards (or even SxS1), spare large capacity battery and last but not the least a nanoflash. I would keep silent on P2 cards cost. Of course it is better to have more advanced camera, but it may happen, just like Stephen says: Now if we could afford the PWM-350 AND a Nanoflash...that would be something! (Sorry, just dreaming...)

Regards,
Alex