Hi. I haven't posted in ages. Basically, I'm going from a Sony V1 to the PMW F3K, which Im thinking on
purchasing at Expandore, Singapore, which has the same price as BHPhoto. I have a budget of 20.000 usd for investing on a cam to shoot a UN miniseries in ASIA. Sorry for the intro, but going to the point,

with that budget, I am really torn between what should I get. I'm really thinking on lending money to get the NANO FLASH, which from what I have been reading is a must have, unless I want to spend half of the amount on a couple of SxS Pro memory cards. But then I read that I will have better image recording 4:2:2 rather that 4:2:0.

And what about the Vocas MB-255, is there anything cheaper out there?

But my main doubt is if I should go for the Nano flash or the SxS Pro memory cards.

Oh, also, I have never worked in post with XDCAM's footage. Is a macbook pro able to handle those files?

THANK YOU!

Martin,
Not yet an F3 owner, but speaking from EX1 experience,
I've been very happy with the footage I've shot using the NanoFlash, particularly blue or green screen stuff.
On the other hand, I still always record simultaneously on SxS cards as well.
In fact, I can't imagine not shooting on SxS cards. (With cards in the camera, I can use timecode to trigger the Nano, otherwise I'd have to trigger the Nano from a button press or a remote.)
When assembling your package, don't forget about lenses, batteries, tripod, etc. If you're really strapped for cash, you could get a couple of the SDHC-SxS card adapters and some decent SDHC cards.
At this point some of the older or smaller SxS pro cards may be available used as well, and very reasonably priced.
Start with SxS cards and then do a comparison test with the NanoFlash. The NanoFlash is an exceelent recorder, but you want to make sure that you actually need it.
As far as computers, just make sure you have one with an expresscard slot. SxS drivers are available for both Macs and PCs, and the workflow is fairly easy as long as you pay attention.
Best,
Dave S

I've done a direct comparison on an F3:

shot recorded on SxS and simultaneously on Prores
directly fed to HD SDI on a Mac and the difference was very little.

In 99% of the time you don't need the extra bits unless you're heavily grading.
The space required is also 5-6 times more.

The picture is so noise-free that the 35mb codec is doing an excellent job.

Thanks. In some way its a relief,

I will go for the SxS pro then.

cheers

Thank you Tony for this feedback.
Did you do this versus under different kinds of light ?
I'm wondering if a dim scene would need the extra bits and bitrate fed by SDI, because 35 mbits XDcam shows more artifacts in dark gradients.

Which version of Pro Res did you use: LT, regular or HQ? I believe regular is 140Mb and HQ is 220Mb and both are I-frame which makes a big difference versus L-GOP. Also, 140Mb 10bit Pro Res is actually equal to ~112Mb I-frame 8bit which is equivalent to 50Mb L-GOP on the nanoFlash. I have even seen a test of 220Mb Pro Res vs 50Mb L-GOP from a Sony PMW350 and I couldn't see any difference.

Another way to look at this SxS vs nanoFlash: will you have future projects that would benefit from having a nanoFlash?

Also, I believe the MOV files from the nanoFlash import directly into FCP whereas the XDCAM EX from the F3 do not without log & transfer.

I used the HQ Pro-res and used a split screen.
I could see a very very small difference but no-one in the room saw any difference on a 40inch display.

Using Pro-res on CF cards(Ki-pro mini) is crazy as you would need many 32GB.
Using the Sony Xdcam Transfer is very easy and is near realtime, so no problem there.

Now for longer projects i would go to HD workflow like the Ninja if the quality is good.
(Waiting for reviews)

Using the Sony Xdcam Transfer is very easy and is near realtime, so no problem there.

Now for longer projects i would go to HD workflow like the Ninja if the quality is good.
(Waiting for reviews)

A 32GB SxS card then takes 2hrs to xfer just from the card and then you need to download it for backup. That's quite a bit of time. For FCP users, that might seem 'normal' but I couldn't imagine waiting hours just to begin editing (as I use Premiere).

The Ninja can only record 8bits because all camera HDMI ports are 8bits only. Also, it lacks many framerates such as 720 24p and 1080 30p.

For long continuous recordings, the nanoFlash works greats as it supports hot-swap and when a card gets full, the next card begins recording - something the Aja Mini cannot do.

Back to the OP's $20k: do you have batteries, microphones, a tripod, bags, mattebox & filters, lenses?

[QUOTE=Steve Kalle;1620042]A 32GB SxS card then takes 2hrs to xfer just from the card and then you need to download it for backup. QUOTE]

Steve, I'm getting confused here. Are you talking about 'Log and Transfer' time, or just transfer time?

The great thing about the SxS cards is their fast transfer speed, so a basic backup of a 16GB SxS card to my NEXTO drive takes just over 3 minutes (almost 5GB/min). And even using an old vaio computer and transferring to a slower USB-powered portable drive transfer speeds are above 1GB/min,
The new SxS G1a cards are supposed to be 50% faster (1200Mbps vs. 800Mbps), though I haven't done any transfer speed tests on them yet.

I did a test between Prores HQ and XDCAM EX which may be of interest:

Prores vs XDCAM EX (http://mikemarriage.lunarfilm.co.uk/Blog/files/category-xdcam-35mb002fs-vs-prores-test.html)

I was surprised how small the difference was. For many jobs I think XDCAM EX is more than capable but for certain productions the small differences could be an issue. For instance, for chroma-key work, Prores is probably worth the extra effort and cost.

Well, I'm going for the F3K so lenses are in the box.
I have mics, tripod, bag

no filters (not sure about what should I get yet)

After what you guys said, I'm forgetting about the Nano Flash and going for 2 SXS pro
+
Vocas MB-255 matebox, a bit expensive though.

I read the battery lasts an absurd amount of time, so maybe no need for extra batterie.

And one last question; I work with FCP, so do the SxS pro go directly into the expresscard slot of a Mac Book Pro (new one), or should I buy an card reader...

THANKS

I would choose KiPro if it were only for the workflow ease and not quality. Take the drive out, plug it in and you're editing. (no transcoding, no file manipulations, etc.)

I've used a KiPro with my EX for quite some time...excellent device. (NEVER missed a beat or gave me a bit of trouble).
Since I don't do long-format shoots and don't need up/down convert, I'm switching to KiPro mini and will be selling-off my KiPro.

Kipro mini. Why do you say "not quality"?. Can you really see the difference? Otherwise sounds like a very good practical option to me.

thx

Well, I'm going for the F3K so lenses are in the box.
I have mics, tripod, bag

no filters (not sure about what should I get yet)

Vocas MB-255 matebox, a bit expensive though.



My own minimum filter set for docu-shooting would be a Pola + 3 soft-edge graduated ND filters - .3, .6, .9. I usually keep the Pola on all day long in exterior shoots, and the ND-grads are extremely helpful to balance the light in the left/right side of the frame as well. For example, if you're shooting an interview indoors, with the person next to a window, just rotate the graduated ND sideways to compensate for the extra light.

Vocas are great matte boxes, but the MB-255 won't do for such a scenario: you need at least one more rotating stage to be comfortable with both Pola and an ND grad on the lens.

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that the KiPro quality is not better than the onboard XDCAM. 10 bit with a max data rate that's appx. 7 times that of the onboard codec has to be better--it is. From what I've experienced shooting with an EX, the images are cleaner (less noise and artifacts) and hold up a lot better in grading.

I shot some EX stuff that, when lit right, is absolutely stunning off the KiPro. When I compared it to my 5D stuff, I liked it better. However, it is absolutely easier to get great shots off the 5D. My ratio of great looking shots off the 5D was better than the EX. EVERYONE HEAR ME NOW: this is in no way a scientific assessment and is related to the operator and not the gear! All it is capable of producing images the exceed my skills.

I've been running to catch up to the wonderful tools that are available and reachable/affordable these days. Many thanks to all the visionaries who helped to make this happen. To think that the time is here when we can shoot 35mm "film" on near-disposable solid state cameras is exciting.

What I was attempting to point out is that the workflow is VERY sweet (if you are on Mac) since it encodes right to ProRes. So, you can edit the files as they are on the KiPro drive...no encoding, etc.

So, for me, I'd take the KiPro just for that fact, even if the quality were the same as onboard recording. I don't often record long format stuff, but a couple of months ago I agreed to capture a conference for a good client. It was 14 hours of footage! If I shot it on XD Cam, I'd be paying off the SxS cards for 5 years and still be re-encodign the footage! ;-)

Hey Steve, (echo echo echo :)

What is your PP settings where you see LESS noise on the higher bitrate Pro Res encoding? My EX3 and EX1 are really noisy and my nanoFlash recordings only show more of the noise. I always use -3db and crispening and frequency are adjusted to soften the image a bit (supposed to reduce noise). I have been trying this with greenscreen and I find the extra noise to hurt my keys a bit.

Steve , what IRE do you put your green screen at when shooting with the EX?

Steve , what IRE do you put your green screen at when shooting with the EX?

About a stop below or above the talent, usually below. Here is a screenshot with very quick test to show my producer/talent something I can do; so, understand that this clip isn't exactly how I usually set it up. I use 2 Kino Barfly 200's for the GS and 2 Diva 401s for the talent, but for this shot, I forgot to remove the louvers from the Diva's. And I didn't have time to setup a SolaENG 3 for backlight and I haven't received a new gel pack yet so I can use magenta.

I did fine tune the PP settings and noise has been reduced a good amount. Rather than large blocks of noise, its more like mosquito noise but I have only checked 50Mb 422 L-GOP vs 35Mb.

I did a test between Prores HQ and XDCAM EX which may be of interest:

Prores vs XDCAM EX (http://mikemarriage.lunarfilm.co.uk/Blog/files/category-xdcam-35mb002fs-vs-prores-test.html)

Mike, by contrast, I am really surprised by how big the difference is. Detail and micro-contrast in the tree branches is immense in comparison with the native EX footage and makes it look like a far better camera. I know the 4:2:2 is essential for a good Croma-key and helps with grading, but I did not expect to see this for 'everyday' footage.

Thanks for doing this!

Mike, by contrast, I am really surprised by how big the difference is. Detail and micro-contrast in the tree branches is immense in comparison with the native EX footage and makes it look like a far better camera. I know the 4:2:2 is essential for a good Croma-key and helps with grading, but I did not expect to see this for 'everyday' footage.

Thanks for doing this!

Hi Nick,

The shot of the trees is quite a torture test and almost a worst case example. I would say that the difference was slightly less noticeable on a moving image. On most shots the difference would be less, more like the other example where I introduced some controlled movement into the frame.

The only time that MPEG artifacting has annoyed me whilst editing was when using 12dB of gain and the noise makes the encoder choke. I have also had issues with the 8bit nature of the codec but as most delivery is 8 bit it is often hard to avoid stairstepping in certain cases.

Well my experience is this. The use of a better codec than the 35Mb/s EX codec always results in a better image. BUT the difference is far from night and day.

Compared to 35Mb/s EX..........

Using a NanoFlash at 100Mb/s produces a cleaner image with fewer artefacts and less mosquito noise. The lower noise level allows me to push my images further in post before I get issues with banding etc. Viewing un-touched interlace material on a large screen you can see the difference in the chroma sampling between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2. The 4:2:0 produces some very fine banding on highly saturated edges. With progressive material that banding disappears and the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 is extremely hard to see.

Recording to ProRes HQ via a decklink card on my MacPro appears to introduce additional fine noise to the image that is not present in the cameras HDSDi output. The ProRes recordings are very good otherwise, again with less mosquito noise and blockiness than the EX codec. However the additional noise is noticeable and can get exaggerated during post production. I have not tried a Ki-Pro mini so don't know whether this same noise gets introduced by the Ki-Pro.

Recording uncompressed onto the MacPro produces a very clean image, no additional noise. This is easily the best image and grades the best, as you would expect. I find the NanoFlash 100Mb/s footage to be closer to the uncompressed than the ProRes HQ due to the additional noise I see in the ProRes content.

Having said all of the above, the 35Mb/s footage from the F3 has noticeably fewer artefacts than I get with an EX1. This is almost certainly due to the lack of noise from the camera. I think the 35Mb/s footage looks remarkably good and would have no qualms personally about using it for my own productions and stock footage. However, as I don't set the tech standards I will have to tow the line as much as possible, so for external projects and stock footage I will continue to use my NanoFlash at either 50 or 100 Mb/s.

Hi Alister,

Which PP settings in an EX3 are the best for lowering noise? As a new nanoFlash owner, I am finding much more noise encoded in the 180Mb L-GOP and 280Mb I-frame; so, I have dialed in the frequency and crispening quite a bit to reduce noise. I want to reduce as much noise as possible without causing other problems with the image quality by adjusting certain settings too much.

Thanks

Raising the crispening to a positive value around +35 will help prevent detail correction from being applied to noise. Using slightly reduced detail level also helps a little at say -10. Overall these only make a small difference. Always avoid Std Gamma 1, very noisy. I also like to raise the frequency setting to around +40 which can help a little.

Crispening is an odd setting. Raising to a positive value above +35 will help reduce overall noise. However going the other way to -45 will add detail correction into flat parts of the picture, in particular grass and foliage and shadow areas which tends to make the pictures look less "muddy" in these areas. A trade off is to run crispening at -60 and then turn the detail level down to -18.

Sadly there is no magic noise eliminating setting for the EX1/EX3.

Sorry, a bit confused here. I was about to go for the KiPro mini. But now with all this technical discussion and positive comments about the Nano Flash I wonder which one is a better option for the F3 considering price, practicality when transferring to FCP, and image quality. Anyone who has experience with both maybe?

Thank you!

Martin,

There may be a few people here that have a Ki Pro Mini... maybe. I have only seen a couple of references in forums to people who actually have them. It is going to take a while before you hear credible "battle field" tested reports on the Ki Pro Mini.

One thing the nanoFlash has going for it over most other outboard recorders is it works reliably and consistently.

True, but the Ki Pro has been out for over a year. I have one and use it regularly. Excellent quality and easy to use. I've never used a Nano.

Interesting information Alister, thank you.

I'm going to hire in an F3 shortly and it was going to be used with a KP mini, but I will explore options.

You may be able to clarify: output via SDI is currently 4.2.2, but there is a lot of talk (or is it fact?) about an additional card or firmware upgrade to give the 4.4.4, near-RAW output. Has this been officially announced and are there any guide prices?

Thanks.

/Nick

Currently single 1080/30p 4:2:2 or dual link 1080/60p 4:2:2 via HD-SDI. Not sure if 3G single 1080/60P is working?

Latest twitter from CineAlta: PMW-F3 firmware upgrade, Dual Link RGB / S-Log / 3G / Pre-Loaded 4 LUTS & 5 User LUT's for monitoring in S-Log mode, approx $3500.00

Thanks David,

Specs sound enticing and the pricing is realistic (at least in USD).

Nanoflash vs Aja Mini:

1) Hot swap - ONLY recorder with hot swap which means your record times can be unlimited.

2) Files automatically close and continue recording onto other CF card. With the Aja, you must STOP recording before the CF card is full and then switch to the other card.

This issue with the Aja is big enough for me not to ever want to use it. Just imagine yourself during a shoot. You must constantly check the Aja to see how much space the CF card has left and you must make sure you are not shooting something that will take more time than the CF card has available. There are many instances where this can rear its ugly head: shooting an interview or corporate client. Most of us are already performing multiple jobs during a shoot; so, remembering to check constantly could be a PITA. Because the Aja records 220Mb/s, you get far less record time per clip.

3) 50Mb 422 Long-GOP on the Nano is very similar in image quality to the 220Mb I-frame on the Aja; thus, considerable amounts of space can be saved when recording. (this is according to Mike Marriage's test)

4) The Aja is MORE expensive with equal recording times than the nanoFlash because it uses more than 4 times the space. And even at the nanoFlash's 100Mb Long-GOP, the Aja is still slightly more expensive. This is including the cost of CF cards.

5) the nanoFlash uses very little power when recording. I know the Aja Mini can't come close; thus, you would need more batteries for the Aja.

6) The nanoFlash is a PROVEN and RELIABLE tool.

7) New features are added to the nanoFlash multiple times a year for FREE thru firmware updates.

For FCP workflow: both can import directly. You set the nanoFlash to record into MOV instead of MXF. There is also a convertor from MOV to MXF if you need to share files with non-Mac users.

I look at the whole 10bit issue this way: most of us don't need it and for the once or twice a year I might need it, I can rent the Aja. Also, if you don't have a 10bit pipeline, then how will you see the benefit? I have a 10bit pipeline with Adobe CS5 on a PC and a 10bit Eizo but I understand the 8bit nanoFlash works for 99% of what I do.

However, after seeing the quality of the internal 35Mb, I don't even know if us in America really need an external recorder.

I think you're letting your politics get in the way of truth. There's a lot of misinformation and assumptions in the above post that have NO MERIT AT ALL.

I think you're letting your politics get in the way of truth. There's a lot of misinformation and assumptions in the above post that have NO MERIT AT ALL.

Are you talking about my post? If so, then you didn't read it correctly because all of it is true.