nanoFlash Progress Update

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Friends,

We included an HDMI input on the nanoFlash because people were asking for it.

This allows the use of some very capable low-cost cameras, ones with images far better than can be expected for their extremely low price.

In addition, we added the ability to convert from HDMI to HD-SDI out. When you are connected to an HDMI source, the signal will be sent out both the HDMI output and HD-SDI output.



We included the HDMI output on the nanoFlash since

(1) It allowed for the use of HDMI equipped monitors or television for monitoring on-set.

and

(2) It allowed for any HDMI equipped monitor or television for viewing the footage off-set.

This turns the nanoFlash into a very capable HD player.


HDMI input requires a separate circuit and connector from the HDMI output; one connector and one circuit will not surfice for our needs.

HD-SDI currently has tremendous advanages over HDMI when it comes to long cable runs and professional locking BNC connectors.

But HD-SDI is a pro interface and many lower cost cameras now have HDMI outputs, so we support both in the nanoFlash.

[Mike Schell]

Hi John,
We agree with your comments. Basically we added HDMI out for monitoring to a low-cost LCD / Plasma panel and to support Digital Signage applications, such as trade shows, museums, etc. HDMI-In was added for low-cost cameras and for digital signage applications where the content is streamed from a PC or satellite receiver and then encoded and modulated for transmission over cable.

We are studying techniques to secure the HDMI cable to the nanoFlash box. But it will never be as reliable a connection as BNC.

We look forward to the enhancements from HDMI 1.4, but realistically they are several years into the future as none of the available silicon chips support this spec. HDMI has it's place in the industry as a low-cost cost short-run interconnect, but good old coax-based HD/SD-SDI will have a very long life. Coax will always be much less expensive than HDMI cable and support much greater run-lenghts. Each standard offers advanatages and disadvantages based on the application.

The nanoFlash should offer the best of both worlds.

Best-

[Mark Job]

Originally Posted by Dan Keaton

Dear Friends,

We included an HDMI input on the nanoFlash because people were asking for it.

This allows the use of some very capable low-cost cameras, ones with images far better than can be expected for their extremely low price.

In addition, we added the ability to convert from HDMI to HD-SDI out. When you are connected to an HDMI source, the signal will be sent out both the HDMI output and HD-SDI output.



We included the HDMI output on the nanoFlash since

(1) It allowed for the use of HDMI equipped monitors or television for monitoring on-set.

and

(2) It allowed for any HDMI equipped monitor or television for viewing the footage off-set.

This turns the nanoFlash into a very capable HD player.


HDMI input requires a separate circuit and connector from the HDMI output; one connector and one circuit will not surfice for our needs.

HD-SDI currently has tremendous advanages over HDMI when it comes to long cable runs and professional locking BNC connectors.

But HD-SDI is a pro interface and many lower cost cameras now have HDMI outputs, so we support both in the nanoFlash.

.....Way to go Mike ! Now there's one less conversion box to purchase in addition to this exciting primary unit ! So now the Nanofllash unit is also an HDMI to HD-SDI converter ! Looks like I have to purchase a Flash XDR AND a Nanoflash unit. In some ways, the Nanoflash unit is more sophisticated. Will the Nanoflash be capable of recording HD resolution timelapse ?

[Mark Job]

Originally Posted by Mike Schell

Hi John,
We agree with your comments. Basically we added HDMI out for monitoring to a low-cost LCD / Plasma panel and to support Digital Signage applications, such as trade shows, museums, etc. HDMI-In was added for low-cost cameras and for digital signage applications where the content is streamed from a PC or satellite receiver and then encoded and modulated for transmission over cable.

We are studying techniques to secure the HDMI cable to the nanoFlash box. But it will never be as reliable a connection as BNC.

We look forward to the enhancements from HDMI 1.4, but realistically they are several years into the future as none of the available silicon chips support this spec. HDMI has it's place in the industry as a low-cost cost short-run interconnect, but good old coax-based HD/SD-SDI will have a very long life. Coax will always be much less expensive than HDMI cable and support much greater run-lenghts. Each standard offers advanatages and disadvantages based on the application.

The nanoFlash should offer the best of both worlds.

Best-

...A few points & some thoughts: Many TV stations have gone wireless instead of running long runs of BNC coax cables for on location news and event coverage. The wireless transceivers have finally improved to the point where they are becoming more reliable. I don't really see the 200 foot runs to be practical anywhere other than in a purely closed TV studio environment. 200 ft runs are certainly not essential anymore.

I don't understand your comment about the lack of practical locking HDMI plugs. (??) They have them now. In Montreal, when CBC television goes on location, they walk up to the nearest telephone wall plug, and pull it out, unscrew and fish out the four wire connectors and screw those into a Canon XLR audio box, call a number, then suddenly they have a direct studio quality ballanced sound line to the folks back at the station and they speak back and fourth quite clearly. If they don't have time, then they just go wireless with both the audio and video out to a new kind of Microwave truck (Much smaller now). The producer doesn't even sit in the van anymore. The producer remains at the station. Kinda cool actually. Intel & Microsoft are experimenting with a mobile WIFI internet system with MSNBC right now (video looks like crap), but in a year it won't. I bet the Flash XDR and the Nanoflash will become standard equipment everywhere because it is ready for IP broadcasting, yet seems to be able to bridge the gap between older and newer clip based technologies ! I think this is what gives this kind of device the biggest bang for the buck. Very interesting.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Mark,

Yes, our plans for the nanoFlash include the timelapse feature.

This feature has not yet been developed for either the Flash XDR or the nanoFlash.

[Mark Job]

Originally Posted by Dan Keaton

Dear Mark,

Yes, our plans for the nanoFlash include the timelapse feature.

This feature has not yet been developed for either the Flash XDR or the nanoFlash.

....This is good news indeed ! The only currently available production camera capable of shooting timelapse sequences in HD resolution is the Panasonic HVX 200 A. I've seen the results of this camera's timelapse sequences and they are excellent. An external box which could render any production camera capable of this feature would be more excellent !

[Dean Harrington]

Any news on the progress of the nano flash?

[Mike Schell]

Hi Dean-
Yes, I am pleased to report that we should have actual boards later this month and cabinets in early March. I hope to have a working prototype in about 1 month. Production should follow in April.

We are reusing 95% of the technology from XDR, so debug is expected to proceed quickly. We devoted a considerable amount of design effort in reducing the power consumption, now targeted at 8W active and 0.2W in standby. We'll soon find the actual results.

Best-

[Dean Harrington]

great news and thanks for the heads up!