Question regarding file structure on NanoFlash CF Cards at DVinfo.net

Perrone Ford · December 27th, 2009, 01:25 PM

I have a question regarding the file structure on the NanoFlash CF Cards.

I understand that the chipset for the codec comes from Sony, and is essentially XDCam. My question is does the Nano simply write raw MXF/MOV files to the directory, or are those recording placed in the familiar (to XDCam users) BDAV folder structure.

This isn't a show stopper, BUT would have a huge bearing on my workflow should I switch to this recorder.

Olof Ekbergh · December 27th, 2009, 01:28 PM

The Nano just puts .mov files in a folder (if you set it for QT). No need to use XDcam transfer and no BPAV BS.

I love it.

Perrone Ford · December 27th, 2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olof Ekbergh

The Nano just puts .mov files in a folder (if you set it for QT). No need to use XDcam transfer and no BPAV BS.

I love it.

The "BPAV BS" is *VERY* helpful to those on AVID systems. I wonder if this is something that could be fit into a firmware choice.

Olof Ekbergh · December 27th, 2009, 02:00 PM

You can set NanoFlash to save as MXF files instead of QT.

From manual available at the CD website:
Avid Media Composer (3.1.1 or better)
I-Frame only formats are supported (MXF files).
Long-GOP formats up to 50 Mbit are supported.
Long-GOP 100 Mbit and above is not yet supported.
Standard Def is supported.

Perrone Ford · December 27th, 2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olof Ekbergh

You can set NanoFlash to save as MXF files instead of QT.

From manual available at the CD website:
Avid Media Composer (3.1.1 or better)
I-Frame only formats are supported (MXF files).
Long-GOP formats up to 50 Mbit are supported.
Long-GOP 100 Mbit and above is not yet supported.
Standard Def is supported.

Thanks Olaf, but it's not quite the same :)

Dave Chalmers · December 27th, 2009, 06:12 PM

I agree Perrone, I think now that the NanoFlash media is directly compatible with XDCAM optical disc, there is a STRONG case for an option to mimic the XDCAM disc folder tree on the NanoFlash.

This would, in theory, make a whole bunch of NLE tools treat the NanoFlash media like an XDCAM disc and handle it natively.

Of course there may be some flaws in this theoretical approach, as there are lots of other files on an XDCAM disc that may be hard to re-create but prove vital to pulling off the trick.

I've already suggested this to CD as something to consider in future.

Regards

Dave C

Dan Keaton · December 27th, 2009, 06:26 PM

Dear Dave and Perrone,

We will look into this, we will have to study the ramifications.

Perrone Ford · December 27th, 2009, 07:00 PM

Thanks Dan,

I will make an important distinction here.

The XDCamHD disks are not the same as the XDCamEX cards. There is no proxy written to the cards. In Avid's AMA, when you load a disk, you can very quickly bring the proxies in for an offline edit. Someone in the field could even upload the proxies, the editor can start cutting, and when the disks come in from the field, you can link to the HD sources for the online.

The cards work differently. When Avid scans the cards, it only brings in the metadata. It is directly accessing the cards for the cut. My 16GB disks are ready to cut in about 4 seconds. If I am doing a quick assemble edit, like a long form conference where I am dropping in lower thirds, an opener and a closer, and exporting, this workflow is incredibly fast. I can be exporting on the AVID, where I would still be ingesting in Sony Vegas.

Since I assume the Nano is not writing proxies during recording, it might make more sense to emulate the structure of the cards. Provided of course that the NLE will recognize the underlying codec as XDCam even though the bitrate is vastly different.

The benefit of doing this, is that any NLE updates that get made to make XDCam workflow faster or easier, will directly benefit the Nanoflash. If the Nano could directly stand in for XDCam cards or disks, I would imagine broadcasters would be MOST interested. Maybe not in the workflow where the XDCamHD opticals get archived, but in a place that transfers all footage to SAN, or where the cards are the primary acquisition format.

Just me brainstorming, but it seems like a win for CD, and a major coup for clients.

Dan Keaton · December 27th, 2009, 08:42 PM

Dear Perrone,

Thank you for the added information and insight.

Piotr Wozniacki · December 28th, 2009, 10:26 AM

Perrone,

I'm not using XDCAM HD optical, just XDCAM EX - and I can tell you it would be nice to have the nanoFlash write the same directory structure as the EX cameras do. However, this structure contains no proxies; to have the nano mimic all possible directory structures (including the XDCAM optical structure with proxies), CD would have to considerably expand the current capability of this wonderful device. Dan please correct me if I'm wrong, but this would require quite a lot of effort (as all the options would need to be configurable through the nanoFlash menu).

But, why not ask? Perhaps in some future firmware upgrade (along with the extended metadata support)...

Perrone Ford · December 28th, 2009, 10:33 AM

Piotr, I was nnly asking if they could do what the XDCam cards do, not the opticals.

Piotr Wozniacki · December 28th, 2009, 11:00 AM

Ah, OK Perrone.

So we're in the same boat, and we would like to have the option of nanoFlash creating the whole BPAV structure...

Suppose it's easy for CD to implement ANY directory structure instead of the single {clp} folder; the questions remain though:

- why favor the EX cam users?
- they would need to come up with mp4 wrapper, in addition to mov and mxf

So, I guess we'd be asking too much.

Piotr

Dan Keaton · December 28th, 2009, 11:20 AM

Dear Friends,

We may be able to set up the BPAV directory structure.

We will not be able to create the MP4 proxies.

Piotr Wozniacki · December 28th, 2009, 11:30 AM

Thanks Dan. So I thought; writing to any directory structure is easy while providing yet another container (mp4) is not.

Personally, I don't see any advantage of having the BPAV structure when the CLP folder's content is MXF rather then MP4; it wouldn't be compatible with NLEs capable of reading SxS native - thus negating the purpose of the additional effort...

Having MXFs ready is absolutely fine with me (I'm using Vegas).

Oh, while we're on that, Dan: could you please comment in this thread of mine:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/converge...egas-9-0c.html

Thanks in advance!

Piotr

Perrone Ford · December 28th, 2009, 11:39 AM

Piotr,

He said they would not be able to do mp4 proxies (So they can't replicate the disks). He said nothing of a re-wrap to MP4. That should be trivial.

December 27th, 2009, 01:25 PM	#1
Perrone Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Posts: 4,100	Question regarding file structure on NanoFlash CF Cards I have a question regarding the file structure on the NanoFlash CF Cards. I understand that the chipset for the codec comes from Sony, and is essentially XDCam. My question is does the Nano simply write raw MXF/MOV files to the directory, or are those recording placed in the familiar (to XDCam users) BDAV folder structure. This isn't a show stopper, BUT would have a huge bearing on my workflow should I switch to this recorder. __________________ DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels.

December 27th, 2009, 06:12 PM	#6
Dave Chalmers Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: GLASGOW, UK Posts: 71	Mimic of XDCAM folder tree I agree Perrone, I think now that the NanoFlash media is directly compatible with XDCAM optical disc, there is a STRONG case for an option to mimic the XDCAM disc folder tree on the NanoFlash. This would, in theory, make a whole bunch of NLE tools treat the NanoFlash media like an XDCAM disc and handle it natively. Of course there may be some flaws in this theoretical approach, as there are lots of other files on an XDCAM disc that may be hard to re-create but prove vital to pulling off the trick. I've already suggested this to CD as something to consider in future. Regards Dave C

December 27th, 2009, 06:26 PM	#7
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Dave and Perrone, We will look into this, we will have to study the ramifications. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

December 27th, 2009, 07:00 PM	#8
Perrone Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Posts: 4,100	Thanks Dan, I will make an important distinction here. The XDCamHD disks are not the same as the XDCamEX cards. There is no proxy written to the cards. In Avid's AMA, when you load a disk, you can very quickly bring the proxies in for an offline edit. Someone in the field could even upload the proxies, the editor can start cutting, and when the disks come in from the field, you can link to the HD sources for the online. The cards work differently. When Avid scans the cards, it only brings in the metadata. It is directly accessing the cards for the cut. My 16GB disks are ready to cut in about 4 seconds. If I am doing a quick assemble edit, like a long form conference where I am dropping in lower thirds, an opener and a closer, and exporting, this workflow is incredibly fast. I can be exporting on the AVID, where I would still be ingesting in Sony Vegas. Since I assume the Nano is not writing proxies during recording, it might make more sense to emulate the structure of the cards. Provided of course that the NLE will recognize the underlying codec as XDCam even though the bitrate is vastly different. The benefit of doing this, is that any NLE updates that get made to make XDCam workflow faster or easier, will directly benefit the Nanoflash. If the Nano could directly stand in for XDCam cards or disks, I would imagine broadcasters would be MOST interested. Maybe not in the workflow where the XDCamHD opticals get archived, but in a place that transfers all footage to SAN, or where the cards are the primary acquisition format. Just me brainstorming, but it seems like a win for CD, and a major coup for clients. __________________ DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels.

December 27th, 2009, 08:42 PM	#9
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Perrone, Thank you for the added information and insight. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

December 27th, 2009, 01:28 PM	#2
Olof Ekbergh Sponsor: Westside AV Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Mount Washington Valley, NH, USA Posts: 1,365	The Nano just puts .mov files in a folder (if you set it for QT). No need to use XDcam transfer and no BPAV BS. I love it.

December 27th, 2009, 02:00 PM	#4
Olof Ekbergh Sponsor: Westside AV Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Mount Washington Valley, NH, USA Posts: 1,365	You can set NanoFlash to save as MXF files instead of QT. From manual available at the CD website: Avid Media Composer (3.1.1 or better) I-Frame only formats are supported (MXF files). Long-GOP formats up to 50 Mbit are supported. Long-GOP 100 Mbit and above is not yet supported. Standard Def is supported.

December 28th, 2009, 10:26 AM	#10
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	Perrone, I'm not using XDCAM HD optical, just XDCAM EX - and I can tell you it would be nice to have the nanoFlash write the same directory structure as the EX cameras do. However, this structure contains no proxies; to have the nano mimic all possible directory structures (including the XDCAM optical structure with proxies), CD would have to considerably expand the current capability of this wonderful device. Dan please correct me if I'm wrong, but this would require quite a lot of effort (as all the options would need to be configurable through the nanoFlash menu). But, why not ask? Perhaps in some future firmware upgrade (along with the extended metadata support)... __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

December 28th, 2009, 10:33 AM	#11
Perrone Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Posts: 4,100	Piotr, I was nnly asking if they could do what the XDCam cards do, not the opticals. __________________ DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels.

December 28th, 2009, 11:00 AM	#12
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	Ah, OK Perrone. So we're in the same boat, and we would like to have the option of nanoFlash creating the whole BPAV structure... Suppose it's easy for CD to implement ANY directory structure instead of the single {clp} folder; the questions remain though: - why favor the EX cam users? - they would need to come up with mp4 wrapper, in addition to mov and mxf So, I guess we'd be asking too much. Piotr __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

December 28th, 2009, 11:20 AM	#13
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Friends, We may be able to set up the BPAV directory structure. We will not be able to create the MP4 proxies. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

December 28th, 2009, 11:30 AM	#14
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	Thanks Dan. So I thought; writing to any directory structure is easy while providing yet another container (mp4) is not. Personally, I don't see any advantage of having the BPAV structure when the CLP folder's content is MXF rather then MP4; it wouldn't be compatible with NLEs capable of reading SxS native - thus negating the purpose of the additional effort... Having MXFs ready is absolutely fine with me (I'm using Vegas). Oh, while we're on that, Dan: could you please comment in this thread of mine: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/converge...egas-9-0c.html Thanks in advance! Piotr __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

December 28th, 2009, 11:39 AM	#15
Perrone Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Posts: 4,100	Piotr, He said they would not be able to do mp4 proxies (So they can't replicate the disks). He said nothing of a re-wrap to MP4. That should be trivial. __________________ DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels.