Did my first History Channel shoot with the Nanoflash

[Ed David]

Just shot for the History Channel piece for the Smithsonian museum with my Sony EX1 hooked up to the Nanoflash. Did a dual record.

nonstop recording - 57 minutes - no hiccups or anything!
audio sounds great - not going into the camera's preamps I think makes it sound better!

then i took the nanoflash and with HD SDI out I sent it off to DVCPRO HD tape with no hiccups!

very happy!!

[Alister Chapman]

Shame you had to cripple the output by sending it to DVCPRO HD. Is there no way you can edit from the NanoFlash files, the quality will be much better.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Ed,

Congratulations!

I agree with Alister, but I also understand that you have to deliver what they specify.

And I understand the inertia of business, but it would be great if they took advantage of the much higher quality images that you created.

While DVCPro HD 100 is 100 Mbps, and our 100 Mbps Long-GOP is 100 Mbps also, there is a dramatic increase in image quality if you use our 100 Mbps Long-GOP.

DVCPro HD 100 is an Intraframe codec.

Our Long-GOP 100 Mbps is about 2 to 2.5 times as efficient.

Also, DVCPro HD 100 is only 100 Mbps for certain framerates. 1080i60 is 100 Mbps, others, such as 24p will not be 100 Mbps.

All of our 100 Mbps modes, with all frame rates, are such that the entire 100 Mbps is used.

[Rafael Amador]

I agree.
From a high data rate MPEG-2 we have to go to, at least, 8b Unc to keep the quality.
If in Mac, Prores would have been the best option.
rafael

[Alister Chapman]

The big shame is that DVCPRO HD is only 1280x1080 at 30P/60i or 1440x1080 at 25P/50i. So you get wonderful full frame 1920x1080 from the EX/Nano and then throw a third of the resolution away dubbing to DVCPRO HD.

I wish those that set the rules at the Networks would make more effort to keep up with the improvements in technology. Back in it's day DVCPRO HD was a great format, it was easy to handle and edit, but time and technology has moved forward by fair margin and there is no longer the need to sub-sample and use inefficient I frame codecs, methods originally adopted as computers struggled with full frame and long GoP. These days editing full frame long GoP is easy, heck I can do it on my laptop.

Sorry Ed, don't mean to put down your achievement, congratulations. I hope this is the first of many for you. I think the EX and NanoFlash are capable of great things. Maybe you could have a word with the production co and try to bring them over from the "dark side" of inefficient tape based production to the new world of ultra quality, fast, file based production.

I think there is a serious lack of knowledge in many areas of HD production and a lot of "if it aint broke why fix it" attitude. In the US in particular the step from SD to HD, even 720P or other sub-sampled HD results in pictures that do look much better. In Europe the step from good PAL SD to 720P or subsampled HD isn't so big. It isn't until you start to look at full frame 1920x1080 on a BIG full resolution monitor that you really see how incredible HD can be.

[Mark Job]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

It isn't until you start to look at full frame 1920x1080 on a BIG full resolution monitor that you really see how incredible HD can be.

...Many broadcasters in Canada are not actually broadcasting the Full HD raster and resolution they advertise they are !!! I have to agree that 1920 x 1080 properly broadcast via satellite looks trully stunning. So called digital cable Tv technologies often compress and multiplex down to give you only about 800 lines of HD (Around 70 %) of the HD resolution. Although it looks sharper, it's still fairly crippled.

[Alister Chapman]

Ouch! I guess we are spoilt here. Sky are full 1920x1080 but they do use a lot of compression on some channels or even individual shows. The BBC HD channel has double the bandwidth of most of the other satellite HD channels and it really shows.

[Tim Polster]

Originally Posted by Ed David

nonstop recording - 57 minutes - no hiccups or anything!
audio sounds great - not going into the camera's preamps I think makes it sound better!

Ed, did you put the sound direct into the Nanoflash or into the camera?

If you put it into the camera, I would think the camera's preamps were still involved with the audio, just the recording medium and bitrate changed by using the Nano.

[Ed David]

Wow! Hilarious! I did everything wrong - basically negating any positive I got from the nanoflash - but maybe 4:2:2. Next time I will see if I can deliver as MXF to them and that it will work okay.

Thanks guys!
Ed

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Ed,

Personally, I do not think you did anything wrong.

I have come to accept that certain institutions are still using certain workflows.

For example, once you have shot with the nanoFlash, you have your files, in high quality, in a medium that does not need to be captured.

Since a CompactFlash card reader, is an insignificant expense, I would like for these insitutions to accept CompactFlash based media.

In this case, the quality would be better and there is no time-consuming real-time capture.


But, on the other hand, if they want to archive on tape, I understand.


I do expect this to change over time.