I have been using my Nano for the last two months on all of my shoots. I have stopped using the footage off my EX S&S cards. After doing multiple tests I have found that not only does the bit rate make a huge difference, which we all discuss. But the color spacing is huge, I mean huge if you view it properly.

I did this yesterday at a production studio while delivering footage to a client. Take a clip shot at the Nano’s sweet spot Long GOP 100Mbps and the same clip off the S&S card and either split screen or use two identical corrected monitors, then view the clip. With the aerial fall colors of New England in my viewing yesterday at my clients production studio with great monitors is was easy to see. The clients comment was “Did you shoot with two cameras at once?” The difference is stunning.

Also of course the bit rate makes a big difference but don’t discount the color spacing that alone is worth the purchase.

Now my S&S cards are just emergence back up of footage until I pull the clips off the CF cards and back them up on a Raid 1 then put the working clips on my Raid 3 and start editing.

Now the next step is waiting on my pre-ordered PMW-350 to go up one more step.

Dear Paul,

Gints would love for you to post some of the original Sony 4:2:0 footage, and the corresponding nanoFlash 4:2:2 footage for comparison purposes.

He has asked for this in this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/convergent-design-flash-xdr/466613-xdr-nano-parallel-recordings.html

Hi Paul,

I read somewhere that the Flash only records 8 bit colour. It seems a pity since the EX1's HDSDI port provides a full 10 bit 4.2.2. Why not go the extra mile?

it would be great if devices like the Flash also offered additional audio inputs so that more sound sources could be recorded in-sync. on dedicated channels.

I like the compactness of my EX1, I would need to see some more compelling features to justify sacrificing any of that.

I look forward to the next generation of Convergent Design products.

Dan I can not send to Gints client footage that is against my contracts. As for the clip I am sending you with watermark if I did not already delete the S&S card I could send that clip. But they both will have a watermark in the middle of the clip.

Paul the Nano raises the quality of the footage to the level so I can no longer live with the 4.2.0 that comes out of the camera at 35Mbps. The XDR I think has extra XLR connections but you need to check. Also my client base would not hang around waiting for the next CD product they would go to someone with a current product and be happy.

As for the 8bit to 10bit debate that will not hold me back at this point. I can't spend my time waiting for the next best product. The time for me to shoot is now and live my passion with the best product that fits my business. And for now that is the EX with Nano.

Dear Paul,

The watermark, on both clips, will be fine. And I understand that you may have already deleted the SxS 4:2:0 35 Mbps footage, as is your usual custom.

Paul,

Of course, if the the clients demand it...

I would like the extra versatility of the XDR but it's a bit of a luxury at this point. I can afford to wait. It certainly doesn't stop me shooting anything.

I guess I'm lucky - my clients are very pleased with the current results.

Hi Paul. MPEG-II is 8 bit. If they want to do 10 bit, it won't be with MPEG-II.

Perhaps a STICKY in this group laying down the simplicity of the 8/10 bit deal will help put that one to bed.

People who've never seen or worked with the XDR/Nano footage, fret about the 8 vs. 10 bit. I must admit, I did too. When you actually work with the footage, you'll realize that the 8 bit footage is superb. I transcode during color correct to get the extra bits required for CC, so the original 8 bit files work just perfectly for me.

We're all gonna be 8 bit for a while I believe (assuming we don't have huge budgets).

For my pro projects I bring 8 bit in, convert to 10 bit and stay that way specifically for critical color work and/or efx.

That act does not ADD to the image, but prevents further loss.

Otherwise, 8 bit is fine.

Hi Aaron,

I'm sure you're right however, I have worked with both and the difference between 8 and 10 bit has been worth fretting over - particularly when it comes to process work.

Obviously other factors are important too.

Dan I will look for the clip today if I have time. If not it will have to wait till the week of the 9th since I am off on a shoot out your way for a week.

Dan I have two examples I will send shortly the same way I sent the clips last week.

Both are aerial shots of Lighthouses and they are in 4.2.0 35Mbps.
For the Nano record one is 4.2.2 I-Frame 220Mbps and the other is 4.2.2 Long GOP 100Mbps. One shot is on a overcast low ceiling day and the other is with sun just prior to sunset.

Clips are exported from Final Cut as Final Cut quicktime files.

I hope this helps people see what we are discussing.

Sorry about the watermark but the client agreed to let me send along but they needed the watermark.

Dear Paul,

Thank you.

We appreciate your efforts to help others.

(Paul is sending these files to our server. We will then have to make them available.)

Dan I can not send to Gints client footage that is against my contracts. As for the clip I am sending you with watermark if I did not already delete the S&S card I could send that clip. But they both will have a watermark in the middle of the clip.


How is the watermark added? Does its addition require recompression of the clips or alter the original video in any way?

In the interest of showing off the abilities of the Nanoflash, a few short clips (10-30 Seconds) of parallel recordings should be available, complete with screen grabs of the same time slice. While some grandiose clips make for great demos, even pictures of a home aquarium, a spinning bicycle wheel, water from a faucet or something with motion.

I saw the Nanoflash/EX1 demo frame grabs with the rotating frame on the house and the welder sparks. Are the original parallel recordings available?

Gints you bring up a good point. For me to watermark I have to bring the clips into FC and that will compress the clips. I have not had enough time in the day to shoot clips that do not produce dollars. So I think holding off on sending compressed clips is my move for now.

Gints you should shoot some clips and if you don't own a Nano rent one you will not want to bring it back.

When I am back from this trip on the week of the 9th I can make time to shoot some clips just for a test unless you find someone sooner.

As soon as I get my HDV camera back from repair, I will be able to shoot some HDV vs. XDR parallel recordings. My HDV camera only does 720p though so hopefully that is good enough for you guys. I'll post up the raw clips for you guys to analyze.

I would be glad to send off these clips but I don't know how to water mark and not compress the clips. If there is a way let me know.

Bring them into an uncompressed format, add your watermark, and export in uncompressed format. The watermark will be 'rendered' onto the frame, but no compression should be happening.

-gb-

Thanks Greg I will give this a go now.

This seems to work.

Dan Clips on the way.

Bring them into an uncompressed format, add your watermark, and export in uncompressed format. The watermark will be 'rendered' onto the frame, but no compression should be happening.
-gb-

How is it possible to add data to a compressed frame without decompression, addition and recompression? Is the watermark added with a short duration so that only a few groups of frames is recompressed?

Not sure Gints but I have given it a try and will send to Dan so at least I followed through. If it is not what he wants I will shoot something when I am back from a week on the road. On the road this time it is not my gear I am shooting with so not able to pull clips.

This seems to work.

Dan Clips on the way.

Paul, if you would like to use a web server for faster delivery to Dan, please use the ftp server account I sent you. ( I think I sent it to you.)

Dear Gints,

Paul has already started sending the files directly to our server.

Some of the uncompressed files are huge, as would be expected.

Paul mentioned that one, 7-second file, was 1.7 GB.

Gints you should shoot some clips and if you don't own a Nano rent one you will not want to bring it back.


Paul,

Thanks for your comments. I am intrigued by the Nano's high bitrate recording especially after I observed the differences between my previous work with Sony Z1U HDV and new work with Sony EX1. Since there is almost no material available to convince me that the Nano provides a visual benefit over my EX1, I'm having fun searching for other high-tech justifications such as "crash cam" via HDMI, high frame rate stills, buffered cache, etc.. But, the $3k will only be spent when the visual results are in.

Gints

Dear Gints,

Paul has already started sending the files directly to our server.

Some of the uncompressed files are huge, as would be expected.


Thanks, Dan. Large files are no problem with us. Are they uncompressed for the sake of the watermark? Frame grabs from both streams would be even more useful. We want to see actual target files.

I will be posting original files, straight HDV and straight out of the XDR. No watermarks, compression or anything else.

The files will be reasonably small.

Sorry guys to send such big files but it is the only way with footage I don't own. Last file is finishing up now. Hope it show what people are looking for to compare. It sure does on corrected monitors off the original files.

Gints no FTP info sent my way.

Hi Aaron,

I'm sure you're right however, I have worked with both and the difference between 8 and 10 bit has been worth fretting over - particularly when it comes to process work.

Obviously other factors are important too.

So you prefer to keep working in 36Mbps 420.
160 Mbps 422 is not good enough because is just 8b.
Or 10b Uncompress or nothing.
I don't understand nothing. Suddenly everybody wants 10b Uncompress.
How many of us can afford an Uncompress workflow in HD?
If I would be able to maintain a 10b Unc workflow I would be looking for a different solution than the NANO.
Rafael

S.two does 4:4:4 10bit Uncompressed. So does the Thomson Venom. I think the KG UDR-D100 does too. If you want to tether you have lots more options too.

Since there is almost no material available to convince me that the Nano provides a visual benefit over my EX1, I'm having fun searching for other high-tech justifications such as "crash cam" via HDMI, high frame rate stills, buffered cache, etc..

Do you spend much time grading EX1 material in post?

As soon as you have some material that is very motion intensive (i.e. very codec stressful, and yes, you can still break XDCAM EX 35mbs fairly easily) and have to push the image a great deal because it's underexposed and desaturated, then have to render back out from your multi-generational ProRes or CineForm intermediate to mp4 at less than 19 mbs for your final Blu-ray distribution copy....welll, you may appreciate starting out with full 4:2:2 uncompressed quality acquisition.

Barlow, Thanks for the vote of confidence for the Nanoflash. I do some color balancing and exposure correction, but usually, not more than that. So far, I have little need for an intermediate format. My material is motion intensive, so that is my interest in the Nanoflash over native EX1.

Glints,
I'm not trying to sell any NANO, and no need of any vote of confidence for the NANO-Flash.
Many of us we are working with the NANO already since a couple of months ago.
Don't need to be an engineer to see the difference NAO/No-NANO.
Nothing easier than what Paul suggests:
Record whatever you want in the SxS and in the NANO and make an split-screen with both pictures.
No more tests needed, believe me.
Rafael

Dear Gints,

Just the week, Paul Cronin was in a customers office and they have two high-quality, calibrated identical monitors.

He showed the native 35 Mbps 4:2:0 footage and the nanoFlash 4:2:2 footage.

The client asked, "Did you use two different cameras for this shoot?"

Side by Side, the difference is readily obvious on good equipment.


Last year, Paul, in his own editing suite, with two identical monitors had two frame grabs up. His wife walked in: "Paul, why did you color correct one image and not the other?"
His answer, "Neither was color corrected, one is 4:2:0, one is 4:2:2". (an approximate quote).

Thanks Dan and Rafael. If only the frame grabs from your experiences were available to those that do not already have a Nanoflash or XDR ...

Dear Gints,

We are working on your request.

1. Paul Cronin sent us some files on Friday. These are on our server and our plans are to work with these on Monday, so we can setup links to the files.

2. Alister Chapman sent us some files today.

We will also work with these on Monday.

Dan your quotes are accurate. Hope the files work out. I am on the road shooting through next Sunday so not FTP while on the road. If you need more files let me know, happy to help.