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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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-

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

David, I readily acknowledged that this was not a valid comparison. But I still feel that the HDMI output from both cameras will be pretty similar. I am not an engineer but from the Sony propaganda I have read, it is my understanding that both cameras are "full HD" through the HDMI port. It is not HDV out of the HDMI port on the Z7 and HD from the EX-1. David, I am curious if you have actually compared the outputs from both cameras directly?

As for the cost comparison, any Z7 owner would loose a considerable amount of money by selling the Z7 he already owns and buying a new EX-1 or EX-3. The dollars do not compare. Which gets back to the original question of "Is this (NanoFlash) going to be something we could use on the Z7?" From what I have read and what I know, it seems like it would definitely be something to consider.

But I still feel that the HDMI output from both cameras will be pretty similar. I am not an engineer but from the Sony propaganda I have read, it is my understanding that both cameras are "full HD" through the HDMI port. It is not HDV out of the HDMI port on the Z7 and HD from the EX-1.
Firstly, I don't think the EX has an HDMI output - it's HD-SDI - but OK, that's a bit irrelevant here. It's quite true that the HDMI output of the Z7 will bypass the HDV compression, so yes, that's a good benefit for using a nanoFlash to improve what a Z7 gives you. But whilst you may get a full HD signal through HDMI (in respect that it's 1920x1080 per frame) it won't be - can't be - 1920x1080 resolution. To get that level of resolution you need 3 2 megapixel chips (which the EX has), whereas the Z7 only has 1 megapixel chips.

The actual layout is complex, best described as two 960x540 diamond arrays interleaved. (Think black/white tiles on a bathroom floor!!) It's clever - effectively giving equal horizontal/vertical resolution, effectively equivalent to about 1440x810 from a conventional sensor. But it's not 1920x1080, even if carried in a 1920x1080 signal. Anymore than 16mm blown up to 35mm film can give the true resolution of native 35mm film. It's uprezzing to get the "full HD", and that's not the same as getting it natively.

It should also be obvious that any resolution difference will only be really obvious on a high res monitor, but nowadays there are a great many 1920x1080 panels about.
David, I am curious if you have actually compared the outputs from both cameras directly?.
I've not personally compared the two cameras side by side, though have used the EX quite a lot. But I have seen zone plate and other test results, done very scientifically (to a far higher standard than any test I could do) - and they pretty well confirm what the theory predicts. As example, see the results of the tests done by the BBC R&D labs on the EX cameras - http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP034_ADD30-rev1-Sony-PMW-EX1-and-EX3.pdf . (Look at the zone plates towards the end.)
As for the cost comparison, any Z7 owner would loose a considerable amount of money by selling the Z7 he already owns and buying a new EX-1 or EX-3. The dollars do not compare.
I disagree. To add a nanoFlash to a Z7 will cost about $3,000. If you traded a Z7 in for an EX, I doubt you'd have to pay as much as $3,000 in difference - trading in for an EX is a cheaper option than adding a nanoFlash.

I'd still argue that it's also a better option for quality than the Z7/nanoFlash *if the primary interest is HD*. If you do a lot of SD native work, especially with a tape workflow, the Z7 obviously makes a lot of sense.

I disagree. To add a nanoFlash to a Z7 will cost about $3,000. If you traded a Z7 in for an EX, I doubt you'd have to pay as much as $3,000 in difference - trading in for an EX is a cheaper option than adding a nanoFlash.
.

Always value your learned opinion David, some good points. But I kind of assumed Greg was meaning that it'd be cheaper to get a Nanoflash on the Z7 than a Nanoflash on an EX3, I thought this was what we we talking about. The basic idea is that the compression systems on both cameras are not great and that the Nano is the way to go, just a question of how much difference the camera heads are making.

One more important note I'd say, especially for wildlife shooters is the EX ability to do slomo, and with that in mind I'd be interested in how the new JVC 700 performs, as it'll do slomo and with CCDs so no rolling shutter problems.
I thnik we also have to be carfeul about placing too much emphasis on the numbers and even on things like zone plates. This discussion has happened here before, comparing say the Varicam HPX2700 to an EX camera or even the Z7 and you've got more pixels in the latter two but would you then expect it to have a better picture than the Varicam? I wouldn't have thought so.
Steve

But I kind of assumed Greg was meaning that it'd be cheaper to get a Nanoflash on the Z7 than a Nanoflash on an EX3, I thought this was what we we talking about.
If that's what he meant, then I misunderstood, but that's not what I've been referring to. My point was that if you've got a Z7 and $3,000 burning a hole in your pocket, that money *MAY* be better spent against an upgrade to an EX than adding a nanoFlash to the Z7. I strongly feel that it's at least worth considering. So the comparison is a basic EX versus a Z7/nanoFlash combination.
The basic idea is that the compression systems on both cameras are not great and that the Nano is the way to go, just a question of how much difference the camera heads are making.
I'd say the 35Mbs codec is a big leap up on HDV, the steps up to the higher codecs much less significant proportionally. Adding a nanoFlash to a Z7 will certainly improve the codec situation, but do nothing about the front end. Upgrading it to an EX will improve the codec situation significantly (to 35Mbs), AND give a superior front end. The question is whether the front end difference is more significant than the difference between 35Mbs and the nanoFlash codecs. My suspicion is that the answer is "yes".
I thnik we also have to be carfeul about placing too much emphasis on the numbers and even on things like zone plates.
In principle, I agree. I've long felt that numbers can fairly accurately predict a "ceiling" performance, above which you can be pretty sure a camera just won't (can't) perform. What they won't do is predict how close to that ceiling they will get in practice. (Expensive ones are likely to get a lot closer than cheap ones!)

But here we are comparing two Sony cameras with very, very similar technologies in their front ends, even with pixels of the same individual size. The big difference is that the EX chips have twice the area (1/2" v 1/3"), so twice the pixel count. It's also worth noting that the EX is higher up the Sony tree than the Z7, so all in all it'd be very surprising if it didn't outperform the Z7. The question is by how much, and whether it's far more significant than 35Mbs v 50/100Mbs codec differences. My guess is that it will be, but obviously the only real test is for someone with an EX, a Z7, and a nanoFlash to do the test.

All fair points.
About the codec though, presumably due to the EX's greater amount of real pixels (ie twice as many) and the fact that it has twice the data rate, does that not mean they have the same (or similar) compression? I suspect the answer is no, but maybe it's closer than the numbers suggest?
And I think the key is definitely what you said, that the EX front end image is likely to be better, but by how much - I suspect not enough to be a big deal even a big HD TV. Could be wrong though!
Steve

About the codec though, presumably due to the EX's greater amount of real pixels (ie twice as many) and the fact that it has twice the data rate, does that not mean they have the same (or similar) compression?
The EX has twice as many imaging pixels on the chips as the Z7, but after processing the number of recorded pixels per frame is only 33% higher than the Z7 (1920x1080 v 1440x1080) for luminance. Equally, the EX data rate is 35Mbs v 25Mbs for HDV, so an increase of 40%.

In practice these numbers don't tell the whole story, the benefits are greater than simple percentages predict, a lot being down to being able to make use of more redundancy within a higher definition image. Same principle as why an HD picture with 5x the number of pixels per frame as an SD image doesn't require as much as 5x the bandwidth for transmission, assuming the same basic codecs etc. Similarly why 1080p/50 wouldn't require twice the transmission bandwidth of 1080p/25 - even though it's twice the original data.

Yes, the 50Mbs codec will be better still (it's 4:2:2 for one thing), but I don't think the difference between 35Mbs and 50Mbs will be as pronounced as between HDV and 35Mbs.

David, while it is true that the EX-1 "records" 1920 x 1080 and the Z7 "records" 1440 x 1080 (BTW, just like the high end XDCAM's), the actual output of both (HD-SDI port, EX-1 and HDMI port, Z7) is exactly the same, 1920 x 1080. Surely, you are not thinking that anyone would record video in the camera first and then put it out to the NanoFlash later. The resolution that each camera "records" internally is not an issue at all here. And from what I understand the difference in data rate has to do with how many frames are included in each long GOP segment when the data is recorded. It has no bearing on the HDMI or HD-SDI output. The internal compression would be completely bypassed if you are recording into an external device at a higher data rate, so it has no bearing on this discussion that I can see.

Sorry Greg, we've made a slight deviation from the thread in talking about ex vs z7 codecs! David's points from what I understand do seem correct.
Steve

The resolution that each camera "records" internally is not an issue at all here. And from what I understand the difference in data rate has to do with how many frames are included in each long GOP segment when the data is recorded. It has no bearing on the HD MI or HD-SDI output.
As Steve implies, the comments I made in post #21 were in direct response to Steve's questions in post #20, (hence the quotation box) so yes, how HDV is recorded is not an issue for most of the thread.

I haven't got the notes to hand, but I'm pretty sure that the GOP length doesn't vary between HDV/XDCAM-EX. It does vary between framerates IIRC (for both of them), 12 frames for 25fps systems, 15 for 30fps. (so half a second in each case).

Steve - I really can't emphasise too much just how many variables come in to play, and how much more there is than simple numbers indicate. In particular, that different coders can give widely different results with the same input, same bitrate, same codec. Hardly surprisingly, the more you pay, the better you get. In practical terms, I was very, very impressed with the EX codec.

David, I don't know if you say the Convergent Designs tests, but their 100 mb/s showed a massive improvment over the EX codec, maybe enough to close the Z7/EX gap even. I don't use either camera so I can't say for sure, but I still get the feeling that to the eye on a big screen your viewer would be equally happy with the pics from either Z7 or EX when combined with the Flash recorders.
Steve

David, I don't know if you say the Convergent Designs tests, but their 100 mb/s showed a massive improvment over the EX codec, ......
I've seen some tests - not sure if they're the ones you refer to. Fact is, the EX codec is pretty good in it's own right, to the extent that I haven't been able to see any artifacting at all on basic viewing, even stepping frame-frame through fast action. (Whereas I certainly could with HDV and AVC-HD.) I don't dispute the higher bitrate codecs will be better still, the 50Mbs version gives 4:2:2 for one thing, but I doubt I'll see glaring differences in straightforward viewing. (The benefits are more likely to come when codecs are cascaded or post work done.)
........maybe enough to close the Z7/EX gap even.
I just feel that's a gap you will be able to easily see with straightforward viewing, certainly on a 1920x1080 screen. But enough paper debating, it needs somebody to try it for real!

The other point which needs making is that it's not just about "quality". Using the extra money to fit a nanoFlash to a Z7 means another box to mount, more cables, worsening ergonomics etc etc. Using the money to trade a Z7 in for an EX means none of that.

The other point which needs making is that it's not just about "quality". Using the extra money to fit a nanoFlash to a Z7 means another box to mount, more cables, worsening ergonomics etc etc. Using the money to trade a Z7 in for an EX means none of that.

To me the advantage of an EX1 over a Z7 has nothing to do with image quality. It has more to do with perhaps getting some jobs with the EX1 that you might not get with the Z7. Some producers are going to want that "higher end" camera because of technical snobbery, not because the image quality blows the Z7 into the weeds, because it simply does not blow the Z7 image into the weeds. Besides, I know of 2 EX1's I can rent if I really have to shoot with an EX1.

I have seen my footage on the biggest and best HD home entertainment systems that money can buy and it looks absolutely awesome. I have a partner that took an extended trip to Europe. The local high-end home entertainment retailer uses his footage every day to demo their big screens. He gave them some of his footage on Blu-ray and it easily looks as good as the demonstration footage that Sony and others supply to their retailers. They certainly would not be using it if didn't look terrific.

I had a V1 previously. I wanted an EX1 so bad I just couldn't stand it. But I wound up getting a deal I couldn't refuse on this Z7, instead. Since I have gotten the Z7, I have not been tempted once to get an EX1. Frankly, I just don't see it as a big enough step up. David, you seem to think it is a night and day difference but that leads me to believe that you have never actually seen any Z7 footage in a good HD environment. But I could be wrong about that.

What I want is to be able to keep my Z7 until something clearly better comes along that makes it really worth changing camcorders. But in the mean time I would like to be able to record my Z7's HDMI output in 1920 x 1080 and 4.2.2 color. Since that is what it puts out. And it would be nice to record in a higher bit rate to eleminate the HDV codec. It would be nice if it recorded on inexpensive CF cards. And having dual card slots would be nice. I hope something like that becomes available sometime soon. It doesn't seem to be too much to ask. Oh yeah. And it would be OK if I could use that external recorder on those rental EX1's also, if the occasion came up. It would also be nice if I could later move it to a newer, better camcorder somewhere down the line, if I want to. Right now, my partner in crime is looking at getting a BlackMagic stand alone box to hook up to a laptop so we can record 1920 x 1080, 4,2,2 color. It will be a much bulkier solution. But maybe we can get what we want by going down that path instead.

What I want is to be able to keep my Z7 until something clearly better comes along that makes it really worth changing camcorders.

Greg, I think that's an interesting point, wanting to hang onto the Z7 until something a lot better comes along, and one of the strong points of the Nanoflash, the fact that if you bought one for the Z7 then changed camera the Nano would still be useful - you could even hook it up to a Sony F23!

Be careful when talking about seeing your footage on a big screen and thinking it looks great, if you're talking about the raw tape footage played straight from the camera or a deck, I know other people that have done the same and it does look great, but once it goes through the chain of editing then transmission to TV it hardly looks like the same footage. I have always assumed this is something to do with the codec and the reason why the 100 mb/s 422 type codecs are preferred for broadcast.
Steve

Be careful when talking about seeing your footage on a big screen and thinking it looks great, if you're talking about the raw tape footage played straight from the camera or a deck,
Steve

Typically what I am viewing is footage that has been edited in Premier Pro and output to Blu-ray disc through Encoder. And then played back at the local high end retailer through various Blu-ray players, including Play Station 3. So it should be what an end user would see if they wanted HD material. We used to take them to Best Buy for playback testing but their manager finally said something about messing with their equipment, so we have made friends with a more exclusive retailer and all is good.

David, you seem to think it is a night and day difference but that leads me to believe that you have never actually seen any Z7 footage in a good HD environment.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything like "the Z7 is rubbish, and the EX is fantastic".

What I AM saying is that the front end difference between a Z7 and an EX is likely IMO to be greater than the difference between the 35Mbs codec and something like the 50 or 100Mbs codec. Hence, if you want to spend money on improving the quality of your Z7s output, I suspect it would be far more cost effective to upgrade to an EX rather than get a nanoFlash for it.
I have always assumed this is something to do with the codec and the reason why the 100 mb/s 422 type codecs are preferred for broadcast.
Not quite - the EBU recommendations are as a proposed minimum for future acquisition, and they specifically state the minimums to be 100Mbs for an I-frame codec, 50Mbs for a long-GOP codec, the two reckoned to give equivalent quality. (The benefit to long-GOP is lower bitrate, the downside more processing needed to edit etc, in both cases for a given level of quality. It would be totally wrong to describe either as "better" than the other - the advantages of one are the disadvantages of the other.)

For top end acquisition, money no object, it's likely that something better may be preferred, HDCAM-SR being an obvious example.

Wow. Don't know about you guys, but this has been a very good thread for me. Lots of info and food for thought...and I might add, in a very respectful manner (wouldn't expect anything less from you all)

When I heard about the Nano it really peaked my interest in a lot of ways and hope to explore it at some point but all points are well taken. The Z7 has been a good system for me at this time and I love the workflow with the CF cards. As I said, my idea was to maybe get a little bit more out of it with the Nano. And hopefully the Nano would have a relatively long shelf life as well.

I shoot/edit short films and corporate videos and the Z7 is a great fit at this time until the next gen cameras like the Scarlet or Sparta come along if/when?? But I do like the idea of maybe breathing life in the 7Z. I just hate havin' all those old cameras around that I don't want to give up or sell but don't use just because the I have newer better model now....oh well what a problem to have.
mp

Since I have gotten the Z7, I have not been tempted once to get an EX1. Frankly, I just don't see it as a big enough step up. David, you seem to think it is a night and day difference but that leads me to believe that you have never actually seen any Z7 footage in a good HD environment. But I could be wrong about that.
In another thread on this forum (about the 5D2) a link has been provided to the BBC test reports, and amongst them are the ones for the Z7 and the EX1.

See: http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/WHP034-ADD34_rev1_Sony_HVR-Z5_and_Z7.pdf for the Z7 and http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/WHP034-ADD30_rev2_Sony_PMW-EX1_and_EX3.pdf for the EX1.

I consider the differences between the two may now indeed be considered night and day. That's not to say the Z7 isn't capable of good results - it's to say that the EX is capable of even better. I am virtually certain after seeing those that my initial feelings - upgrading a Z7 to an EX will give a bigger quality boost than adding a nanoFlash to a Z7 - are correct.

David, sorry if this is a bit off thread, but in light of these tests, I have to ask a somewhat ambiguous question:

in your opinion (maybe based on what Alan Roberts tested) is the EX3 worth the difference in price over the EX1 for field production? It seems from Alan's data, that the lens of the EX1 is quite good, "as is"? Where is the real gain, except ergonomics?

in your opinion ...... is the EX3 worth the difference in price over the EX1 for field production? Where is the real gain, except ergonomics?
The answer has to be "depends what you're using it for".

I get the impression that you're willing to pay the higher price of the EX3 if you can see a quality difference on screen, and in that case the answer is probably "no". What you get for the extra money are what can best be described as "more professional features".

One example which was relevant to a job I worked on was timecode and genlocking abilities. That ability was *ESSENTIAL* for this particular job, and it was something the EX3 did fully, the EX1 didn't. For other people, that ability might be completely irrelevant. Same with the ability to change lenses, proper HD-SDI output, and various other things I don't remember offhand.

I also wouldn't dismiss the ergonomics too lightly, though it depends how often you expect to use it handheld. It affects other things too though, since it's far more satisfactory to use an adaptor to use pro V-lock batteries on an EX3 than an EX1. That makes the use of accessories such as on-camera lights, radio mic receivers etc far easier.

Thanks for the honest answer. I'd have been disappointed if it had of been different! I was purposely vague, and was curious as to any new light you might shed on your take of the two cams.

For sure it would depend on our needs. We are a non-profit, and our current, long term, international productions are mostly a mix of teaching/documentary style with somewhat cinematic outdoor "film" style.

We usually use a production box (with a custom capture unit/audio receivers/mixer/19" HD mon) utilizing the Cineform codec (currently from HDMI outs on cams, but easily switchable to HDSDI in unit) where practical, but also use a Merlin (which would have to be switched to something heavier duty) and 12ft crane. The HDMI really only benefits our current workflow for chroma work, but any gain in quality is always appreciated.

I've been struggling with this EX3 vs EX1 question as the difference in price would pay for a decent new HD lens with some other cam configurations. A Cineform workflow is very much a part of our 4 person operation, especially with a good deal of VFX in AE with color grading. The lack of lighting control in outdoor shooting means any gain in exposure range is quite welcome, as is the better DOF control , so the upgrade for us from little Sony V1's could be significant. The genlock would be used if we can swing the upgrade to two cams, and obviously then so would the timecode.

For non-profits, upgrades like this can be a serious stretch, but we'd certainly welcome gaining the lower end pro feature set of the EX series.

BTW, our NTSC HD output is expanding in outreach and currently needs to cover everything from DVD/Bluray, to web, and more recently to direct satellite broadcasts to some Middle Eastern countries (in PAL SD).

Thanks again for your comments, any words of wisdom are quite welcome!

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-

Dear Mike,

I was seeking for a good info regarding the problem I have clashed with. I have found it on this forum. Thanks for that guys. Recently I've purchased S270 Sony camcorder. Before that I worked in SD with my DSR-400 as in our country (Ukraine) we almost had no "Blu-ray" orders. But things change very quickly and I had to go HD. So I was looking for an HDV camera that resembles my DSR-400. I found that S270 was a good one for me because of the price and quality aspect. But, actually, maybe it was my mistake, I have not tested it in different shooting situations before buying: disco, flashing lights of photocameras, fireworks, quick zooming in and out etc. I didn't know that MPEG codec has an ability to disintegrate into micro and macroblocks when shooting HDV in situations I've mentioned. I was shocked when I saw a face that went into pieces for a second after a photoflash. I understand that for some people my post will seem funny but everybody makes mistakes sometimes and gains experience on that. Anyway I have some questions regarding the product of yours: nanoflash and flash XDR. I beleive, no I hope, that these recorders will help me to overcome this problem.

1. The Problem. Will it disapper if I begin to work with a recorder? I beleive higher bitrates will give more "freedom" to codec and it will be able to record fast changing events without frames disintegration?
2. 1440x1080 or 1920x1080 on the output?
3. Does image go directly from CMOS to HD-SDI bypassing camera HDV codec?

I would appreciate your comments and answers very much.

Best Regards,
Alex

1. Yes, your problems with blocking should disappear. The difference between heavily compressed HDV and 100 mb/sec Long GOP on the Nanoflash should be night and day.
2. You should see a small increase in resolution as you'll be recording full raster (if your camera can do it)
3. Yes, it goes straight from SDI to Nano bypassing HDV codec.

With flashes there is the issue of CMOS rolling shutters, could that be part of your problem? Do a search for EX1 and flashes.
Steve

Steve,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

As far as I understood rolling shutter itself does not cause image blocking, does it? I believe it is "a part of the blocking problem". First there's a photo flash (disco lights, scanners, fast manual zoom) + rolling shutter+ mpeg2 codec's constant bitrate + no capability to increase bitrate during major and fast image change (due to tape recording) = micro and macro blocks appear as it is mpeg's nature.

I've red about rolling shutter issue but there was no info regarding blocking caused by it.

You're quite right, the rolling shutter cuts off part of the picture on flashes I believe, no effect on blockiness.
Steve

Steve,

Thanks for your message.

Rolling shutter does not bother me to much (I mean the issue with cutting picture in half). This defect does not catch an eye of a regular viewer I believe. Blocking is the biggest problem for me and I believe for many other cameramen too. And I hope NANO devices can solve this "Sony's marketing move" perfectly. It would be great if someone from Convergent Design runs Sony's HVR-S270 or Z7 full test with nanofalsh and flash XDR and posts results here for better understanding. For example I could not find exact information regarding HD-SDI output of my S270. I don't know wether it outputs 1440 or 1920 at HD-SDI. Manual does not have it. Maybe you know?

Regards,
Alex

Alexander,
Try posting a question in the forum for the Flash XDR as Dan and Mike keep eagle eyes on it and will answer your questions straight away I'm sure.
Steve

Ok, Steve. I'll follow your advice.
Once agian I would like to thank you for your comments and recomendations.Had some good practice of English with you as well. ;-)

Regards,
Alex

Dear Alexander,

I can answer your last question.

HD-SDI is always 1920 x 1080 in 1080 mode.

Even if your camera has a 1440 x 1080 sensor, the HD-SDI is always 1920 x 1080.

This is part of the magic of the nanoFlash and Flash XDR, but is not of our doing, HD-SDI was just designed that way. Someone was thinking properly.

Dear Alexander,

Our recorders can not help with rolling shutter, or problems with flashes, with CMOS sensors, but we can help with almost everything else.

Recording at 4:2:2 is dramatically better, especially with a higher bit-rate, full raster efficient codec.

Dear Dan,

Thank you for your answer. You've inspired me, because I was almost broke with this blocking issue. I really hoped that your answer would be that way. Rolling shutter does not bother me. The only question is: blocking after a flash or fast changing lights? Will it dissapear due to higher bitrate used in nanoflash?
An one more thing: how I can get nanoflash in Ukraine?

Regards,
Alex

Dear Alexander,

We will be happy to assist.

I see that your profile does not have an email address.

Could you please send me an email. Just click on my name to the left to start.

"Dear Dan,

Thank you for your answer. You've inspired me, because I was almost broke with this blocking issue. I really hoped that your answer would be that way. Rolling shutter does not bother me. The only question is: blocking after a flash or fast changing lights? Will it dissapear due to higher bitrate used in nanoflash?
An one more thing: how I can get nanoflash in Ukraine?

Regards,
Alex "

I'm guessing it would. If you're seeing compression after a camera flash, it should be similar to compression after / during a quick camera move. When there is a lot that changes on screen the Long GOP has a lot of catch up to play. The more Mbps the Long GOP has, the better it is at keeping up.

Dear Alexander,

With an appropriate bit-rate, the nanoFlash can keep up with any image that is sent to it. No blocking will occur, under almost all circumstances, when using the nanoFlash with the right bit-rate.

Dan and Zach,

Thank you for your answers I appreciate it. Dan, I have sent you a message already to your e-mail address. I thouhgt you would not be able to answer so I decided to sent you a PM.

to Zach: you're absolutely right about artifacts. I'm seeing things just like you describe. This is terrible. Imagine: I had two S270 shooting stage with lots of fast changing lights sometimes coming directly into lens... Guess how surprised and frustrated I was when I saw all this during post.

I would like to thank you for your detailed description on how it works. I hope I will be able to get nano as soon as possible.

Kind Regards,
Alex

Dear Alexander,

I have sent you a private message.