Download frame grabs from a parallel recording of Nanoflash (100 MBit/sec Long GOP) and Sony EX1 in 720p60 mode with shutter at 1/250. Full rez frame grabs and original video files included. It appears that the Nanoflash is ahead by 29 frames, meaning the same frame was #317 on the Nano and #346 on the EX1.

Index of /Videos/NanoTest_SquishToy (http://gentlemensfightingclub.com/Videos/NanoTest_SquishToy/)

Yes, I messed up my first Nanoflash recordings by including the display information. Duh. But, I was anxious to inspect and post the results anyway. My impressions are that it is difficult to find differences in the static sections and easy to find grunge on the EX1 footage in motion sections. Other subject matter with greater dynamic range, the video will probably show more blocking.

Also, I find it difficult to evaluate the footage in real-time playback as my only display devices are LCDs, which are known for motion lag. Which video clip looks better to you on a CRT, LED or other display device with faster motion response. One of my image processing friends actually preferred the EX1 footage on an Apple Cinema LCD display.

I recently shot conference speeches using the NanoFlash and SXS cards simultaneously at 1280X720 60p shutter off and have found that if there is no need to play with the images in post ... there is little difference to the eye. That said, once you start post production you'll notice a difference in texture of the image background. A good example is the way backgrounds in conference settings often have white lines on bright backgrounds. As the camera pans I get little light zips along these backgrounds that annoy. The NanoFlash doesn't get this. Any ideas as to why?