We use three EX3's and recently we have been doing extensive color correcting using Apple's Color, the results are quite amazing. But as much as I've been able to push the colors I can't help but wonder how much better it would be if it were 4:2:2.

I have read a bit about Convergent Designs nanoFlash, which claims to record 4:2:2 - Convergent Design, experts in HDMI, SD, HD, and HDV (http://www.convergent-design.com/CD_Products_nanoFlash.htm)

Has anyone tried this? Are there alternatives to this that we could check out? Do you think there would be a noticeable difference from the regular XDCAM EX 4:2:0?

I recently viewed some footage from the new Panasonic, HVX300 (something like that). Wow its amazing how quickly all of this is improving. Anyway, I'd love to hear from anyone who has captured 4:2:2 video from the EX3 and get opinions about ways to improve the image quality. Please this is not intended as a comparison between manufacturers, we absolutely love our EX3's but we are looking at getting three or four new cameras and would really like to continue raising the quality bar. If we can do that by capturing 4:2:2 from what we have that would be great.

Hi Chuck,
there is a dedicated site for the nano flash, there you should find answers to all your questions:
Convergent Design Flash XDR - The Digital Video Information Network (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/convergent-design-flash-xdr/)
Best regards,
Jürgen

If you capture the 4:2:2 HDSDI Output and record it using less compression you can push the image much harder in post production. The color space is just one factor that gets improved, the more important thing is that by using a lower compression ratio there is much less mosquito noise and it is this factor more than any other that limits what you can do with EX material in post. I have a NanoFlash and by recording the EX output at 100Mb/s I can grade the pictures much harder and they stay cleaner. To be honest the first generation footage doesn't look all that different, it's only when you start to grade it that you see a big difference.

"Are there alternatives to this that we could check out?"

Well since you asked, I'd be sure to check out the AJA Ki Pro. It has features that the Nanoflash does not. Just google "Ki Pro or Nanoflash" and you be the judge based on your needs.

I would really only consider the KiPro if you are Mac FCP based. THe CD design seems more universal to me..

I would really only consider the KiPro if you are Mac FCP based. THe CD design seems more universal to me..

Very true.

The NanoFlash or Flash XDR are different beasts than the KiPro.

There are many differences and you have to weigh your needs very carefully against what each respective product does. The OP is Mac based so the KiPro is an option. The KiPro is not as portable but it produces the recording in ProRez. The NanoFlash recording options are largely LongGOP based but there is the ability to record at some bitrates using iFrame. NanoFlash is more portable but doesn't offer balanced audio inputs. The KiPro offers lots of cross conversion options and the unit plays like a VTR allowing easy cross conversion and easy selection of clip segments. The NanoFlash/FlashXDR only offers a few of these conversion options and you cannot preview bits of video from the unit as you can with the KiPro. To many things to continue to rattle off.

You have to spend some time pouring over the PDFs on the Convergent Design site as well as study the material on the AJA site but more importantly with the KiPro product read the material here on this forum. Jon Thorn, from AJA, has posted lots of info about the KiPro.

When the time (and money) is right I'm getting the Ki Pro. By that time I'm sure vendors
(Portabrace, etc) will respond to the mobility issue. Just look at the 3 party markets that blossomed for the Canon 5DM2. Timing is everything.