Question about the Nano Flash and my EX1

Buck Forester · October 28th, 2008, 02:29 PM

Hey Mike, where is the Full Motion Video Comparison thread? I just scanned the forum and didn't see it? Sorry.

Mike Schell · October 28th, 2008, 02:49 PM

Try this link instead: http://convergent-design.fileburst.c...lity Chart.jpg

Ian Firth · October 28th, 2008, 02:49 PM

Buck,

as one of the lurkers and one who does not have an EX1 yet, but has been following this with great interest, please consider reporting back to this thread with your thoughts after you try the NanoFlash! Please.

Cheers, Ian

Buck Forester · October 28th, 2008, 02:53 PM

Thanks! Does this chart making any assumptions on CCD vs. CMOS? I don't see where it does? I could be mis-reading it. If it doesn't, then the "motion" aspect of CMOS isn't factored in. This spec chart might hold up to static shots from CCD and CMOS, and this chart might fall apart upon motion with CMOS. I don't know.

Buck Forester · October 28th, 2008, 02:54 PM

Ian, that is my goal! I'll be a great proponent of NanoFlash if it solves the issue!

Alexander Kubalsky · October 29th, 2008, 12:30 AM

Buck,

Ive been following your threads since you first bought your EX1 and understand exactly what you want out of it for those slow horizontal pans of nature scenes. As an EX1 owner I also understand your frustration at not being able to get crisp images of static objects as you pan. I had same problem with some detailed artwork I tried panning across last year. The fine pen drawn lines didnt keep their sharpness even when I panned slowly.

So along comes the Nano Flash to solve this problem but then along comes the fear of Rolling Shutter CMOS distortion potentially counteracting this expensive solution.

I wouldnt worry about the CMOS factor here. As you know the EX1 scans at a constant rate of 60 fields per second from top to bottom of screen. I'm sure for your slow pans this rolling shutter wont have any effect on the sharpness of image because you will probably be moving the camera at only a few degrees a second so any straight verticals such as trees for example should not even have a hint of "fringe blurring" that you might be fearing from CMOS unless those verticals were right up close in the shot in which case they would move across the screen at a faster rate. Even then I dont think it would be a problem.

I say "Fringe Blur" not "Vertical Skew" here because we would be talking about very minute loss of sharp edge rather than full skew from a whip pan.

I think the Nano Flash is just what you need. It should give you the sharpness you want unless your hobby is zooming right into black and white barcodes and panning horizontally.

Another cheaper option you might consider is this.......
Buy a telescope motorized mount for your tripod head and set your camera to interval recording at 1 frame a second and set the telescope head to rotate at 1degree a second. The results will give super sharp images on every frame when you play back. But if you dont want sped up movement of clouds and leaf movement from wind etc I can understand you not wanting to consider that option. I personally like the effect, it makes scenery seem like a minature diaroma somehow.

Anyway, Cant wait to see your results whatever you do.

Kubalsky

Steven Thomas · October 29th, 2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Schell

Take a look at the comparison images again. The 100Mbps side is virtually 100% artifact free. I think this is the definitive test for high-motion and Long-GOP recording. If the video looks great under these conditions, I am sure it will look spectacular under a very slow horizontal pan.

Agreed!
Some are speculating way to much that the EX rolling shutter skew is going to add to perceived motion blur. Your fast pan (1/2000 shutter) example observed frame-by-frame certainly looks sharp.

Mike Schell · October 29th, 2008, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Forester

Thanks! Does this chart making any assumptions on CCD vs. CMOS? I don't see where it does? I could be mis-reading it. If it doesn't, then the "motion" aspect of CMOS isn't factored in. This spec chart might hold up to static shots from CCD and CMOS, and this chart might fall apart upon motion with CMOS. I don't know.

Hi Buck-
No assumption about CCD vs CMOS, the chart just considers the overall quality of the compressed video vs uncompressed (which is the HD-SDI video out).

Numerous tests from Jim Arthurs shows that the XDR/nano 100Mbps 4:2:2 CODEC holds up extremely well, even in CODEC busting rotational tests. Take a look at the following comparison images taking from an EX1 with a 1/2000 shutter speed (to eliminate the blur):

http://convergent-design.fileburst.c...0Mb_Rotate.zip

Bill Ravens · October 29th, 2008, 08:10 AM

Mike...

I find it really interesting that compression artifacts in 4:2:0 appear on the macro level as macro-blocking and the micro level as general edge blurring.

The other thing that seems to plague 4:2:0 is intolerance to exposure corrections in post, in the form of macroblocks and grain, especially in the shadows and underexposed areas. Would you expect much improvement in this area with 4:2:2?

edit: In retrospect, the "chroma macroblocks" in shadow areas that are bumped up in post production, may be more related to 8-bit sampling limitations. So the right question would be, will the 10-bit sampling help these very delicate color gradients in the shadows that start to band when exposure levels are raised?

Buck Forester · October 29th, 2008, 10:24 AM

Alexander, thank you so much for that post... it's music to my eyes! It gives me stronger hope that the NanoFlash is my ticket.

October 28th, 2008, 02:49 PM	#62
Mike Schell Convergent Design Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 869	CODEC Quality Chart Try this link instead: http://convergent-design.fileburst.c...lity Chart.jpg __________________ Mike Schell Convergent Design

October 28th, 2008, 02:29 PM	#61
Buck Forester Major Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: California Posts: 230	Hey Mike, where is the Full Motion Video Comparison thread? I just scanned the forum and didn't see it? Sorry.

October 28th, 2008, 02:49 PM	#63
Ian Firth Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 31	Buck, as one of the lurkers and one who does not have an EX1 yet, but has been following this with great interest, please consider reporting back to this thread with your thoughts after you try the NanoFlash! Please. Cheers, Ian

October 28th, 2008, 02:53 PM	#64
Buck Forester Major Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: California Posts: 230	Thanks! Does this chart making any assumptions on CCD vs. CMOS? I don't see where it does? I could be mis-reading it. If it doesn't, then the "motion" aspect of CMOS isn't factored in. This spec chart might hold up to static shots from CCD and CMOS, and this chart might fall apart upon motion with CMOS. I don't know.

October 28th, 2008, 02:54 PM	#65
Buck Forester Major Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: California Posts: 230	Ian, that is my goal! I'll be a great proponent of NanoFlash if it solves the issue!

October 29th, 2008, 12:30 AM	#66
Alexander Kubalsky Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Japan Posts: 172	Buck, Ive been following your threads since you first bought your EX1 and understand exactly what you want out of it for those slow horizontal pans of nature scenes. As an EX1 owner I also understand your frustration at not being able to get crisp images of static objects as you pan. I had same problem with some detailed artwork I tried panning across last year. The fine pen drawn lines didnt keep their sharpness even when I panned slowly. So along comes the Nano Flash to solve this problem but then along comes the fear of Rolling Shutter CMOS distortion potentially counteracting this expensive solution. I wouldnt worry about the CMOS factor here. As you know the EX1 scans at a constant rate of 60 fields per second from top to bottom of screen. I'm sure for your slow pans this rolling shutter wont have any effect on the sharpness of image because you will probably be moving the camera at only a few degrees a second so any straight verticals such as trees for example should not even have a hint of "fringe blurring" that you might be fearing from CMOS unless those verticals were right up close in the shot in which case they would move across the screen at a faster rate. Even then I dont think it would be a problem. I say "Fringe Blur" not "Vertical Skew" here because we would be talking about very minute loss of sharp edge rather than full skew from a whip pan. I think the Nano Flash is just what you need. It should give you the sharpness you want unless your hobby is zooming right into black and white barcodes and panning horizontally. Another cheaper option you might consider is this....... Buy a telescope motorized mount for your tripod head and set your camera to interval recording at 1 frame a second and set the telescope head to rotate at 1degree a second. The results will give super sharp images on every frame when you play back. But if you dont want sped up movement of clouds and leaf movement from wind etc I can understand you not wanting to consider that option. I personally like the effect, it makes scenery seem like a minature diaroma somehow. Anyway, Cant wait to see your results whatever you do. Kubalsky

October 29th, 2008, 08:10 AM	#69
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Mike... I find it really interesting that compression artifacts in 4:2:0 appear on the macro level as macro-blocking and the micro level as general edge blurring. The other thing that seems to plague 4:2:0 is intolerance to exposure corrections in post, in the form of macroblocks and grain, especially in the shadows and underexposed areas. Would you expect much improvement in this area with 4:2:2? edit: In retrospect, the "chroma macroblocks" in shadow areas that are bumped up in post production, may be more related to 8-bit sampling limitations. So the right question would be, will the 10-bit sampling help these very delicate color gradients in the shadows that start to band when exposure levels are raised?

October 29th, 2008, 10:24 AM	#70
Buck Forester Major Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: California Posts: 230	Alexander, thank you so much for that post... it's music to my eyes! It gives me stronger hope that the NanoFlash is my ticket.