New nanoFlash / XDR Firmware Released

Dan Keaton · November 29th, 2009, 01:52 AM

Dear Steve,

The intermittent audio/sync issue that Mike referred to was mainly when our units were used with certain Panasonic tape based cameras.

A specific set of circumstances, with certain versions of their tape based cameras caused us problems. When the problem occured, our audio and video were out of sync.

To put this in different words, under certain conditions, we would get either audio or video for a while before the other would start to flow. This caused us problems.

We took steps to ensure that these conditions would not prevent us from recording properly.

As far as I know, these conditions were for HD only.

We like to release firmwire that has no issues or known problems.

However, we felt the need to issue this release, in order for our users to benefit from all of the other features and error corrections, before we had resolved this known issue.

Steve Brown · November 29th, 2009, 12:30 PM

Dan,

Thanks for those answers. Was that related to the problem encountered when an HDX900 operator rewound tape with the nano attached? I seem to recall someone mentioning that problem.

I'm still not clear about the rest of my query though. Under "Known issues", Dan mentioned "Standard def: audio, timecode out of sync by 2 or 3 frames." Was that a separate issue from the first one mentioned? And does that mean audio and time code are out of sync from video or that audio is out of sync with time code? In the case of the latter, I guess that means at least one of them would be out of sync with video.

Thanks,
Steve

Dan Keaton · November 29th, 2009, 02:33 PM

Dear Steve,

One problem reported with a HDX-900 did involve rewinding the tape. The user recorded to the tape and the nanoFlash. Everything was ok.

Then the tape was rewound and played again. Since the nanoFlash was setup to record on incrementing timecode, we recorded the footage again, with the same timecode. So, it appeared that we duplicated the timecode.

However, this was not the only problem. Other problems did exist; and we have attempted to correct these with the latest firmware.

Our SD timecode and audio sync issues are not related to the problems that we had with certain tape based cameras.

I do not know all of the details, at this moment about SD issues. But, as we reported in the Know Problems, one can expect either timecode or audio sync issues with SD recording.

We recommend using a clapper, if at all possible if recording SD at this time.

While it would appear simple for us to add SD to our HD recorders, it is actually very complicated. We will correct these known issues just as soon as possible.

Bob Griffiths · November 29th, 2009, 10:15 PM

Hey Dan,

Steve brings up a question that I had. When you are recording to an HDX-900 ( or any other tape-based camcorder) ...and the cameraman does a typical "tape check", i.e., rewinds the tape to confirm the recording, does the nano record the tape playback as a separate event?

Sorry if this is old territory... I was unable to determine the answer from your response.

Thanks!

Steve Brown · November 29th, 2009, 11:07 PM

Bob,

I can answer that for you. Yes, the nano does record if the camera is rewound for playback check. As soon as the tape rolls, the time code increments and the nano starts to record. I don't know if there is any way for the nano to differentiate between TC from record mode or playback.

For that reason as well as a couple of other reasons, I currently have the HDX900 output set to "Camera" instead of "VTR", so that rewinding for playback check will not start the nano recording. Of course, I usually check playback from the nano if I have a monitor hooked up. But, if you don't have a monitor available for play back and you need to view a take in the viewfinder, this setup won't trigger the nano.

Another reason to use "Camera" instead of "VTR"...

In the Goodman's Guide, Robert Goodman wrote about the difference between the VTR output and the camera output. The VTR output is 8 bit and the camera's output is 10 bit. (FYI, I believe that info is also found in the mostly useless Panasonic manual.) I have not been able to determine whether the EE output (with the switch in the "VTR" position) is 8 bit or if it is still 10 bit unless the tape is actually playing back. So, just to be safe, I keep it in the "Camera" position.

Also, I record from the "Monitor Out" connector instead of the "Video Out" connector. I use the "Monitor Out" because I have all menus, characters and markers for the monitor output turned off in the camera's menus. Turning those back on requires going into the menus and going to some trouble to turn them back on.

The video output (on the back of the camera) is much easier to turn characters on and off and is therefore, much more prone to disaster. I use that for monitoring since it won't matter if characters are superimposed.

FYI, it's a good idea to save your user data file after making changes such as these. If you have to re-set your camera for any reason, you won't have something defaulting to the wrong setting. Remember, your scene files won't change these items, but a card file might, depending on how you have your camera set to read and write to and from the SD cards.

I hope this helps.

Steve

Steve Brown · November 29th, 2009, 11:16 PM

OK, before someone jumps in here and points this out, I'll make a clarification. The nanoFlash doesn't record 10 bit... I know, I know. However, recording the camera's 10 bit output instead of the VTR's 8 bit output should still yield some improvement.

Dan Keaton · November 30th, 2009, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Griffiths

Hey Dan,

Steve brings up a question that I had. When you are recording to an HDX-900 ( or any other tape-based camcorder) ...and the cameraman does a typical "tape check", i.e., rewinds the tape to confirm the recording, does the nano record the tape playback as a separate event?

Sorry if this is old territory... I was unable to determine the answer from your response.

Thanks!

Dear Bob,

If the nanoFlash is armed to record on Incrementing Timecode, then yes. This wiill be a separate file recorded on the nanoFlash or Flash XDR.

One can easily just hit the Play button on the nanoFlash instead to check the last clip.

We are also planning a record-review feature to playback the last 10 seconds of a clip.

We could also program a feature to avoid re-recording the same clip when the camera is rewound and played back.

Dan Keaton · November 30th, 2009, 02:57 AM

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your informative post! I was not aware of the differences in the outputs.

Bob Griffiths · November 30th, 2009, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Brown

I hope this helps.

Steve,

Great post! Yes it is a huge help and answers a long standing question of mine. I personally don't own the camera but it is my camera of choice when I'm on the road... best bang for the buck, IMHO. I will forward this out to all my camera owning friends.

Thanks!

Mark Job · November 30th, 2009, 08:28 PM

Hi Tommy & Mike:
Thanks again for a really significant and great update. I am very impressed with the Jam Sync feature. What impresses me about it is how increadibly accurate it is ! I did a test with Jam Syncing my XL H1 @ 1080i 59.94 Hz with the camera's TC Clock set to Free Run. I Jam Synced my XDR right away and then disconnected the LTC in cable and put the XDR screen right beside my open viewfinder screen so I could compare the TC readouts of both units. I ran my test with the original supplied camera battery and my XDR plugged into its AC Adapter and ran until the camera battery was almost completely exausted (About 2 and a half hours). I can confirm there was no visual way I could detect even the slightest variation in Free Running TC's !

When I get some more time I am planning to run this test again with both the camera and the XDR running on DC power to see if there's still any variance.

Unfortunately, the same test @ Canon 24 F setting in Free Run with XDR's 3:2 pull down Jam Synced initially, but once I disconnected the TC out from the camera from the XDR's LTC in socket the unit's TC Clock quickly drifted away and lost sync from the camera's TC Clock. I am assuming this feature can be made to eventually work @ 24 F, since the camera's Free Run TC Clock works accurately when the camera itself is set to 24 F and used with other XL H1's set to shot @ 24 F.

For regular TV Concert shoots this is the best feature ever ! Jam Sync the cameras to each other, or a master TC Clock and the XDR or a Nano to the same reference and voila ! Great for double system sync sound shooting with my XDR or with a Nano ! As we say in Quebec - "C'est tres cool man !"

Steve Brown · December 1st, 2009, 01:36 AM

In regards to the info I posted above about using the Monitor Out from the HDX900, it occurred to me tonight I probably should have included a couple of additional tidbits. Instead of continuing that on this thread, I'll add that additional info on the thread entitled "nanoFlash with tape based camcorders".

November 29th, 2009, 01:52 AM	#16
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Steve, The intermittent audio/sync issue that Mike referred to was mainly when our units were used with certain Panasonic tape based cameras. A specific set of circumstances, with certain versions of their tape based cameras caused us problems. When the problem occured, our audio and video were out of sync. To put this in different words, under certain conditions, we would get either audio or video for a while before the other would start to flow. This caused us problems. We took steps to ensure that these conditions would not prevent us from recording properly. As far as I know, these conditions were for HD only. We like to release firmwire that has no issues or known problems. However, we felt the need to issue this release, in order for our users to benefit from all of the other features and error corrections, before we had resolved this known issue. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

November 29th, 2009, 02:33 PM	#18
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Steve, One problem reported with a HDX-900 did involve rewinding the tape. The user recorded to the tape and the nanoFlash. Everything was ok. Then the tape was rewound and played again. Since the nanoFlash was setup to record on incrementing timecode, we recorded the footage again, with the same timecode. So, it appeared that we duplicated the timecode. However, this was not the only problem. Other problems did exist; and we have attempted to correct these with the latest firmware. Our SD timecode and audio sync issues are not related to the problems that we had with certain tape based cameras. I do not know all of the details, at this moment about SD issues. But, as we reported in the Know Problems, one can expect either timecode or audio sync issues with SD recording. We recommend using a clapper, if at all possible if recording SD at this time. While it would appear simple for us to add SD to our HD recorders, it is actually very complicated. We will correct these known issues just as soon as possible. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

November 29th, 2009, 10:15 PM	#19
Bob Griffiths Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Carbondale, Colorado Posts: 117	Tape rewind recorded? Hey Dan, Steve brings up a question that I had. When you are recording to an HDX-900 ( or any other tape-based camcorder) ...and the cameraman does a typical "tape check", i.e., rewinds the tape to confirm the recording, does the nano record the tape playback as a separate event? Sorry if this is old territory... I was unable to determine the answer from your response. Thanks! __________________ Bob FireDancer Productions, Inc.

November 29th, 2009, 11:16 PM	#21
Steve Brown Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 96	8 bit vs 10 bit OK, before someone jumps in here and points this out, I'll make a clarification. The nanoFlash doesn't record 10 bit... I know, I know. However, recording the camera's 10 bit output instead of the VTR's 8 bit output should still yield some improvement.

November 30th, 2009, 02:57 AM	#23
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Steve, Thank you for your informative post! I was not aware of the differences in the outputs. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

November 29th, 2009, 12:30 PM	#17
Steve Brown Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 96	Dan, Thanks for those answers. Was that related to the problem encountered when an HDX900 operator rewound tape with the nano attached? I seem to recall someone mentioning that problem. I'm still not clear about the rest of my query though. Under "Known issues", Dan mentioned "Standard def: audio, timecode out of sync by 2 or 3 frames." Was that a separate issue from the first one mentioned? And does that mean audio and time code are out of sync from video or that audio is out of sync with time code? In the case of the latter, I guess that means at least one of them would be out of sync with video. Thanks, Steve

November 29th, 2009, 11:07 PM	#20
Steve Brown Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 96	Bob, I can answer that for you. Yes, the nano does record if the camera is rewound for playback check. As soon as the tape rolls, the time code increments and the nano starts to record. I don't know if there is any way for the nano to differentiate between TC from record mode or playback. For that reason as well as a couple of other reasons, I currently have the HDX900 output set to "Camera" instead of "VTR", so that rewinding for playback check will not start the nano recording. Of course, I usually check playback from the nano if I have a monitor hooked up. But, if you don't have a monitor available for play back and you need to view a take in the viewfinder, this setup won't trigger the nano. Another reason to use "Camera" instead of "VTR"... In the Goodman's Guide, Robert Goodman wrote about the difference between the VTR output and the camera output. The VTR output is 8 bit and the camera's output is 10 bit. (FYI, I believe that info is also found in the mostly useless Panasonic manual.) I have not been able to determine whether the EE output (with the switch in the "VTR" position) is 8 bit or if it is still 10 bit unless the tape is actually playing back. So, just to be safe, I keep it in the "Camera" position. Also, I record from the "Monitor Out" connector instead of the "Video Out" connector. I use the "Monitor Out" because I have all menus, characters and markers for the monitor output turned off in the camera's menus. Turning those back on requires going into the menus and going to some trouble to turn them back on. The video output (on the back of the camera) is much easier to turn characters on and off and is therefore, much more prone to disaster. I use that for monitoring since it won't matter if characters are superimposed. FYI, it's a good idea to save your user data file after making changes such as these. If you have to re-set your camera for any reason, you won't have something defaulting to the wrong setting. Remember, your scene files won't change these items, but a card file might, depending on how you have your camera set to read and write to and from the SD cards. I hope this helps. Steve

November 30th, 2009, 08:28 PM	#25
Mark Job Trustee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada Posts: 1,138	This is a great update ! Hi Tommy & Mike: Thanks again for a really significant and great update. I am very impressed with the Jam Sync feature. What impresses me about it is how increadibly accurate it is ! I did a test with Jam Syncing my XL H1 @ 1080i 59.94 Hz with the camera's TC Clock set to Free Run. I Jam Synced my XDR right away and then disconnected the LTC in cable and put the XDR screen right beside my open viewfinder screen so I could compare the TC readouts of both units. I ran my test with the original supplied camera battery and my XDR plugged into its AC Adapter and ran until the camera battery was almost completely exausted (About 2 and a half hours). I can confirm there was no visual way I could detect even the slightest variation in Free Running TC's ! When I get some more time I am planning to run this test again with both the camera and the XDR running on DC power to see if there's still any variance. Unfortunately, the same test @ Canon 24 F setting in Free Run with XDR's 3:2 pull down Jam Synced initially, but once I disconnected the TC out from the camera from the XDR's LTC in socket the unit's TC Clock quickly drifted away and lost sync from the camera's TC Clock. I am assuming this feature can be made to eventually work @ 24 F, since the camera's Free Run TC Clock works accurately when the camera itself is set to 24 F and used with other XL H1's set to shot @ 24 F. For regular TV Concert shoots this is the best feature ever ! Jam Sync the cameras to each other, or a master TC Clock and the XDR or a Nano to the same reference and voila ! Great for double system sync sound shooting with my XDR or with a Nano ! As we say in Quebec - "C'est tres cool man !"

December 1st, 2009, 01:36 AM	#26
Steve Brown Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 96	In regards to the info I posted above about using the Monitor Out from the HDX900, it occurred to me tonight I probably should have included a couple of additional tidbits. Instead of continuing that on this thread, I'll add that additional info on the thread entitled "nanoFlash with tape based camcorders".