Actually, it's just one feature that would be nice and that is an on screen display, confirming the unit is recording, CF card usage, bit rate, audio meters & any other useful info which one could select to have displayed.

I just bought the DP1 monitor from SmallHD and it would be great to see these features on screen, just like on the EX3 viewfinder.

Is this a feature that is being considered?

Thanks very much.

Dear David,

We are working on a "Status" display, in which all of the information that you mentioned will be displayed on the LCD of the nanoFlash.

This is expected for our November release.

Our next release is not expected to have this, but our release after that will along with many other new features.



But, you may have meant that you want us to send this status information to your external monitor.

If so, then I am sorry, we do not have immediate plans to do so.

To do so would require significant resources in our nanoFlash and quite a long time to develop. We are reserving our resources for some other features. We hope you understand.

Add 3:2 pulldown of 24/23.98Psf files over HDMI to the 'wish list'. This would allow older monitors or consumer panel TV's with HDMI inputs to display 24/23.98Psf files at the 59.94i they're locked into.

Nice feature that would let you watch your work in your living room but I'd imagine the trade show/staging folks would also love to have it for use with the huge inventory of monitors they own.

Dear Paul,

We are currently invstigating this.

Our engineers are working on it.

Thanks Dan,

Yes, I am after the status to be able to be displayed on a monitor if required.
I understand the priorities list you are working on.

Thanks anyway.

Dear David,

Thanks.

That is difficult for us to do at this time.

I agree that it would be nice.

I wish the nanoflash can add a new option.
Recoding in Apply ProRes 422(HQ) Format about 180m/s.
In this encode code, one can edit free in FCS.

Hi Yinan,
That would be great.
There have been many posts about the possibilities of the NANO/XDR, but nobody yet have asked if the the processor can be tweaked to record something that is not MPEG-2.
I'm not sure if is possible.
I understand that there are "MPEG-2 ONLY" processors.
The more capabilities of the processor, the more expensive.
But is not just a matter of processor; Size, heat, power,..
We are just in the beginning of the Solid State Video Recording.
Little by little eveything will arrive.
rafael

What about recording SD to one card and HD to the other? Being able to hand the client a CF card that will play on whatever system they have would be nice, and I would still have the HD clips to edit.

Dear Steve,

We have Sony's latest and greatest MPEG-2 encoder/decoder module in our nanoFlash.

This is a very capable device, but it can not encode to both SD and HD simultaneously.

I know you would like to do this is one nanoFlash, but it currently takes two nanoFlashes to do what you are requesting, one for HD, and one for SD.

I wish the nanoflash can add a new option.
Recoding in Apply ProRes 422(HQ) Format about 180m/s.
In this encode code, one can edit free in FCS.

We can record, in the nanoFlash and Flash XDR, in native Quicktime.

Our files "drag and drop" into Final Cut Pro, provide excellent image quality, and they are easy to edit. In addition, you have the option of I-Frame Only at 100/140/160/220 Mbps and 50/100/140/160 Long-GOP, all 4:2:2.

Dear Steve,

We have Sony's latest and greatest MPEG-2 encoder/decoder module in our nanoFlash.

This is a very capable device, but it can not encode to both SD and HD simultaneously.

I know you would like to do this is one nanoFlash, but it currently takes two nanoFlashes to do what you are requesting, one for HD, and one for SD.

Hello Dan,
I am a bit confused here how can you encode both SD and HD simultaneously to two nanoFlash. I could really use this feature and would buy a second nanoFlash if it was possible. I was under the impression that the nanoFlash can only record the SDI signal sent to it so if the camera output is set for SD SDI how can you record HD to a second nanoFlash?

Dan, so does the Nanoflash architecture not allow storing full resolution frame grabs? I was asking about the possiblity of a 15-60 fps "still" camera that writes to uncompressed TIFF or PNG files.

Hello Dan,
I am a bit confused here how can you encode both SD and HD simultaneously to two nanoFlash. I could really use this feature and would buy a second nanoFlash if it was possible. I was under the impression that the nanoFlash can only record the SDI signal sent to it so if the camera output is set for SD SDI how can you record HD to a second nanoFlash?

Hi Lance, your camera would need to output both HD and SD SDI to two NanoFlash. Otherwise you'd need to convert the HD-SDI out of one Nanoflash to SD-SDI and run into the other Nanoflash.

My camera can output 3 separate SDI outputs but it can't mix format between them. All are HD. I do have a composite out that has an SD signal that I could convert to SDI with my AJA box and then record SD with a Nano. That's a lot of boxes to carry though.

This works for the EX3.

You have an SD downconvert coming out of the "video" connector to one nanoFLASH, the the main SDI with HD going to the other nanoFLASH.

I suspect there's a slight time delay, but shouldn't affect you.

With an EX1 or EX3, can you record out via firewire(25Mb HDV only) AND SDI to Nano?

Dan, so does the Nanoflash architecture not allow storing full resolution frame grabs? I was asking about the possiblity of a 15-60 fps "still" camera that writes to uncompressed TIFF or PNG files.

Hi Gints-
This is outside the capability of the current design. But, if you capture at 160 Mbps Long-GOP, you can grab individual frames from the timeline (and save an tiff, png or jpg). These captures really look quite stunning to my eye. I seriously doubt you would gain very much quality going to an uncompressed format.

Best-

Bummer. It would be cool if future video recording devices would allow for writing an uncompressed frame to the flash card.

Architecture issues aside, wouldn't an uncompressed frame from a 3 CCD Sony EX1 rival that from a 6-8 Megapixel Bayer sensor from a decent DSLR camera in spatial detail? I'm just curious about a low cost, high speed still camera with very high frame rates for the purposes of capturing bursts but selecting the single, perfect frame. Even high frame rate DSLRs such as the Nikon D3 at 9-11 fps still aren't able to go fast enough.

Dear Friends,

If one needs to record both SD and HD at the same time, it currently takes two nanoFlashes, and a good downconverter to convert the HD-SDI output to SD-SDI for the second nanoFlash.

This may make sense for some applications, but for general use I would not recommend it.

Downconverters have to be very sophisticated to be really good. Our experience has shown that some are just not up to the task.

In other areas:

I doubt that we could record a still image and record HD-Video at the same time.

When one records at any of our high bit-rates, say 100 Mbps or higher Long-GOP, and records progressive images, the individual frame captures can look very good.

One interesting side note:

For most recorders, when it says 100 Mbps, you may get 100 Mbps for one format/frame rate, but get a far lower bit-rate for other conditions.

With our recorders, you get 100 Mbps, if you are doing 1080i60 or 1080p24. Thus, if you are using 1080p24 (23.976), you actually get more bits per frame.

So, as Mike said, if you record progressive and use our 160 Mbps Long-GOP, you may find the images to be very good.

Bummer. It would be cool if future video recording devices would allow for writing an uncompressed frame to the flash card.

Architecture issues aside, wouldn't an uncompressed frame from a 3 CCD Sony EX1 rival that from a 6-8 Megapixel Bayer sensor from a decent DSLR camera in spatial detail? I'm just curious about a low cost, high speed still camera with very high frame rates for the purposes of capturing bursts but selecting the single, perfect frame. Even high frame rate DSLRs such as the Nikon D3 at 9-11 fps still aren't able to go fast enough.

Gints, a video stream really is just a collection of still pictures. 220Mb/s or 100Mb/s, either way you look at it, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a frame grab from the video stream and an XDR that could write TIFF images.

If you want to get the still images, export the video file to stills or do frame grabs in your editor.

I've done a ton of stills with my XDR and they look as good as any high end DSLR you can get.

Aaron, while I understand the difference as I work in audio (primarily) and video (lightly)signal processing, I am contesting the difference, be it slight, between stills from 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 and am inquiring about getting closer to "DSLR quality" than 4:2:2 allows with its half rate chroma subsampling, which is a cause of color bleeding and other false color artifacts. A rough analogy to this difference would be choosing an 8 megapixel camera over a 4-6 megapixel camera.

Sounds like a challenge. I'll supply the uncompressed and XDR frames and you all can pick which is uncompressed and which isn't.

I'll take your word that they're close, but I have no opportunity to see this for myself. So, thank you for your efforts.

How are you able to provide exactly the same frame?

Aaron, while I understand the difference as I work in audio (primarily) and video (lightly)signal processing, I am contesting the difference, be it slight, between stills from 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 and am inquiring about getting closer to "DSLR quality" than 4:2:2 allows with its half rate chroma subsampling, which is a cause of color bleeding and other false color artifacts. A rough analogy to this difference would be choosing an 8 megapixel camera over a 4-6 megapixel camera.

Hi Gints-
The nanoFlash can only record a 1.5GHz HD-SDI, which is 1920x1080 4:2:2 8/10-bit at frame rates up to 30p or 60i.. So, anything outside this spec is simply not possible. Given this restriction, I think the compressed images are visually indistinguishable from the original uncompressed source, assuming compression of 100 Mbps Long-GOP (or higher).

That's why we are reluctant to add uncompressed single frame captures, since the incoming source resolution or color depth can not be increased (in the nanoFlash).

Best-

I'll take your word that they're close, but I have no opportunity to see this for myself. So, thank you for your efforts.

How are you able to provide exactly the same frame?

hi Gints. For the challenge I would run one of my camera's SDI into an XDR and one into an uncompressed recorder. I would post Identical frames from each.

If my uncompressed recorder could do 4:4:4 uncompressed I would do that but my third SDI out would not be identical frames since it would be a processed signal.

Doing a single camera test for 4:4:4 uncompressed compared to XDR would really only work for my setup if it were locked down.

I would suggest it be shot against a properly lit green screen with an appropriate foreground subject (possible with motion blur).

Any significant issues will turn up in the key, under magnification.

This would HOPEFULLY settle some of this.

Possibly CD will have a page on their new Web site to show the results.

The 8/10 and data rate issues otherwise will continue to clog the pipes here.

That's why we are reluctant to add uncompressed single frame captures, since the incoming source resolution or color depth can not be increased (in the nanoFlash).


Thanks, Mike. In my enthusiasm for the Nanoflash, I overlooked the fact that HD-SDI was 4:2:2. Ok. Finally, I get it.

hi Gints. For the challenge I would run one of my camera's SDI into an XDR and one into an uncompressed recorder. I would post Identical frames from each.


Aaron, don't worry about it. Mike Schell reminded me that the Nanoflash will only record 4:2:2, so there is no way to record better. I was asking about the Nanoflash doing uncompressed 4:4:4 frame grabs for superior spatial resolution, but that's not possible with my Sony EX1. So, this issue is settled for me. I'll be happy with 4:2:2 still pulled from the MPEG.

Aaron, while I understand the difference as I work in audio (primarily) and video (lightly)signal processing, I am contesting the difference, be it slight, between stills from 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 and am inquiring about getting closer to "DSLR quality" than 4:2:2 allows with its half rate chroma subsampling, which is a cause of color bleeding and other false color artifacts. A rough analogy to this difference would be choosing an 8 megapixel camera over a 4-6 megapixel camera.

You do know that with the exception of one DSLR with a foveon sensor, all the digital sensors used in DSLRs are single chip bayer filter affairs (not three chips with a prism like a high end video camera). And that none of them have as many blue and red assigned pixels as green? As in color sub-sampling...

Billy

Agreed. A modern DSLR (Nikon D90, D300, D3) has about 12 Million photosites, of which 1/4 are blue, 1/4 are red and 1/2 are green. So, that means full color resolution is something between 3 and 6 Million.

A 1920x1080 full raster sensor has about 2 Million photosites, and the Sony EX1 has three sensors. Meaning, the EX1 starts with 2 Million tricolor pixels or the near equivalent of a 6-8 Million Photosite Bayer sensor. Color subsampling by a factor of 2 reduces that to a rough equivalent of a 3-4 MP Bayer sensor. Sure. It's not totally accurate to compare the color spaces this way. Anyone would rather have the 4:4:4 still than the 4:2:2 still.

Anyone would rather have the 4:4:4 still than the 4:2:2 still.

Hi Gints-
Just for clarification, yes your compueter can tell the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:4:4, especially doing green/blue screen work. But the human eye can not discern the difference. The color sampling of the human visual system is no better than 4:2:2.

The real-world requirments for 4:4:4 recording are extremely limited. That's why there is only a handful of video cameras with this capability and they all cost mega dollars.

Best-

Mike Schell wrote "But the human eye can not discern the difference. The color sampling of the human visual system is no better than 4:2:2."

From past study, I recall the statement on color resolution perception to be attached to a distance called "normal viewing distance". Chroma subsampling artifacts, including false colors, out-of-gamut colors, bleeding, all of which can be animated, are not included in that color perception statement.

Modern uses include viewing from a computer (less than a normal viewing distance), printing, cropping, and post-processing. In my case, I am interested in grabbing stills. From my experience with the venerable 4 Megpixel D2H DSLR in telephoto applications, it is easy enough to set a crop that no longer provides adequate resolution for print output even on a 4x6" or even display on monitors with modern sizes 24+"and 1920x1200 pixel densities. Come on guys. Go easy. Higher resolution is appreciated.

Hi Gints-
Understood, but all we can do with the nanoFlash is provide the absolute best quality give the limitations of the incoming HD-SDI signal. That said, look for an announcement next week for yet another improvement in the nano video quality.

Best-

"improve video quality"???

hmm. now this sounds interesting.