HDX900/Nanoflash at DVinfo.net

Jim Bridges · August 1st, 2010, 01:24 PM

Hello my fellow HDX900/Nanoflash users. Myself and another DP here in Atlanta are experiencing some difficulties.
We are finding the tape timecode doesn't match the Nanoflash TC, they are off by 30-32 frames.
I have conducted several tests, let me describe them:
I have set my HDX900 to 1080i/60, used my IPhone with a slate program (in runtime) with a frame display.
I then recorded on tape and Nanoflash. I then ingested the Nanoflash on my IMac.
I matched up the TC visual off the IPhone on the tape as well as the Nanoflash on the computer.
That were off by 32 or so frames.
We have found this to happen with 3 HDX900 at this point.
We tried a combination of drop frame as well as non drop frame- same results.
I am willing to try these tests again.
I have contacted Panasonic, they said there are no problems.
Contact CD- they will look into this.
If anyone is near CD with a HDX900 , please let them try out a test with the camera. It would rake about an hour.
Thanks for your time and help.
Jim Bridges
Type A Media

Skip Brand · August 1st, 2010, 02:04 PM

Are you finding that the tests are always off the same 30 to 32 frames, or does it vary? Is it consistent?

Jim Bridges · August 1st, 2010, 02:08 PM

Hey Skip,
it seems to vary. I adjusted to NDF and DF and got a variable as low a 20 frames.

Daniel Epstein · August 1st, 2010, 03:30 PM

Hey Jim,
Not sure if this helps but does the HDX-900 have a live camera vs VTR output on the HDSDI. My SDX-900 does but I didn't buy the HDX so I don't remember. Is the offset in one direction like the tape Video is ahead of the Nano's.

Jim Bridges · August 1st, 2010, 04:44 PM

Hey Daniel,
I think it does, I will try that on Monday. Thanks for the advice.

Dan Keaton · August 1st, 2010, 07:01 PM

Dear Jim,

We will check this at the office.

Do you have a way to record the 1080 output of your HDX-900 to another device?

I wonder if the HD-SDI out signal with timecode matches what is recorded on tape.

We will do our best to test the nanoFlash in our lab.

Jim Bridges · August 2nd, 2010, 05:42 AM

Unfortunately I do not. We may have narrowed this down to the Quick Time level. It appears another DP noticed that when you play the Nano as well as the tape it has the same TimeCode. When you bring the clip into the computer, the TC is different. I am going to check out this today.
Dan or Mike, if I were to send you a CF card as well as a tape could you play the DVCPRO HD tape back?

Dan Keaton · August 2nd, 2010, 06:09 AM

Dear Jim,

Sorry, but no, we can't not play a DVCPro HD tape. We do not have an HDX900 or a DVCPro HD deck in our lab at this time.

Andy Shipsides · August 2nd, 2010, 07:00 AM

Hey Dan and Jim

Let me know if I can help out anyway with this. I'd be happy to compare the footage if you'd like.

Andy

Dan Keaton · August 2nd, 2010, 07:06 AM

Dear Andy,

Thank you. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

You are in a good position to assist with all the equipment you have at your disposal.

Jim Bridges · August 2nd, 2010, 02:02 PM

Hey Dan,
I made a 8 minute test today. I will FEDEX the raw CF card and tape to Andy this evening.

Tommy Schell · August 2nd, 2010, 04:04 PM

Hi,

Here's a sample file from an HDX-900, recorded to nanoFlash.
The camera produces a window burn timecode.
If you watch the file frame by frame, you will notice a sudden jump in the window burn timecode from
"00:00:30:08" to "00:00:31:06" .
You will also notice that the video is continuous - only the timecode jumps.
For some reason, it appears the camera is producing inconsistent timecode in this particular case.

(12 MBytes)
http://69.15.88.17/downloads/qt_web/skipped_tc.MOV.zip

Thus far in our testing, we didn't find any problem with the nanoFlash handling timecode, except in 720p24 recording mode (this will be fixed in the next update).
But if the camera is moving around the timecode unexpectedly during record, that can potentially cause some discrepancy between nanoFlash timecode and camera's recorded timecode.

Tommy Schell

Dave Sperling · August 2nd, 2010, 08:02 PM

Was this a FCP .mov file (so those of us with PC's just see a blank screen?)
or is my QTPro just giving me nothing?

Dan Keaton · August 2nd, 2010, 10:27 PM

Dear Dave,

Yes, the file is a "MOV" or Quicktime file.

Quicktime player on a PC will not play this file.

Quicktime Pro player on a PC will not play this file.

Quicktime and Quicktime Pro player on a Mac will play this filem if Final Cut Pro is installed on the Mac, otherwise it will not play.

Our File Converter, on a Mac, can convert this file to a ".MXF" file, which is then playable on a PC with various software.

Allen S. Facemire · August 4th, 2010, 08:15 AM

I'm starting a new show for DIY and planned to use the Nano Flash as a logging device, dumbing it down to 18mbs and hitching to my HDX900's. Works really great except the TC on the Nano once mounted to Quicktime Player, doesn't match what's on tape. Thought it was a FCP anomaly but not so much. It seems when in REGEN, the camera likes to jump back a few frames to determine the proper time line and then it skips ahead to catch up. This is why the 5-second pre-roll rule should apply. Me thinks the Nano wants to grab the first TC number is sees because that's what's triggering the RECORD function . The result is at the head of each clip, there is a jump in TC on tape but then it settles out as the TC catches up. The Nano is still recording from the very first TC indicator and is not actually reading the TC as it's being laid down but laying it's own TC down based on the first TC numbers it sees. That's the only explanation I can come up with for the TC variance

Now here's the strange part. If you take the Nano, plug the SDI output into an A/B monitor, take the tape which has a TC burn in window, and plug it into the other port (via a deck) and pause the Nano at a point of the video you can visually count on...in my case a clap slate that I slowly move out of the frame, and then using the deck to find the same TC via the window burn, they will be dead on. You can do that all the way through the tape and they will be dead on. But drop the Nano video into Quicktime, there will be anywhere from a 4 to 28 frame variation.

I've dedicated today and tomorrow to do some comprehensive testing using each of my HDX900's, my HDX2000 P2 camera and my PDW700 XDCAM. The P2 camera should prove to be interesting because with no actual transport, maybe that will make a difference.

But to everyone using the Nano with the HDX900...be forewarned the TC on the device will NOT match that on tape. Not a problem if you are using the Nano as your source but if like me, you planned to use the Nano for logging, they won't match.

The folks at Convergent have been very responsive and now that I have a bit of time, I am going to do as much testing as possible and hopefully furnish them with enough info that this issue can be solved.
__________________
Allen S. Facemire-DP/Director
IA 600 Atlanta

August 1st, 2010, 01:24 PM	#1
Jim Bridges Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 34	HDX900/Nanoflash Hello my fellow HDX900/Nanoflash users. Myself and another DP here in Atlanta are experiencing some difficulties. We are finding the tape timecode doesn't match the Nanoflash TC, they are off by 30-32 frames. I have conducted several tests, let me describe them: I have set my HDX900 to 1080i/60, used my IPhone with a slate program (in runtime) with a frame display. I then recorded on tape and Nanoflash. I then ingested the Nanoflash on my IMac. I matched up the TC visual off the IPhone on the tape as well as the Nanoflash on the computer. That were off by 32 or so frames. We have found this to happen with 3 HDX900 at this point. We tried a combination of drop frame as well as non drop frame- same results. I am willing to try these tests again. I have contacted Panasonic, they said there are no problems. Contact CD- they will look into this. If anyone is near CD with a HDX900 , please let them try out a test with the camera. It would rake about an hour. Thanks for your time and help. Jim Bridges Type A Media

August 1st, 2010, 07:01 PM	#6
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Jim, We will check this at the office. Do you have a way to record the 1080 output of your HDX-900 to another device? I wonder if the HD-SDI out signal with timecode matches what is recorded on tape. We will do our best to test the nanoFlash in our lab. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

August 2nd, 2010, 06:09 AM	#8
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Jim, Sorry, but no, we can't not play a DVCPro HD tape. We do not have an HDX900 or a DVCPro HD deck in our lab at this time. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

August 2nd, 2010, 07:00 AM	#9
Andy Shipsides Sponsor: Abel CineTech Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: New York, NY Posts: 361	Hey Dan and Jim Let me know if I can help out anyway with this. I'd be happy to compare the footage if you'd like. Andy __________________ Andy Shipsides -Camera Technology Specialist AbelCineTech, New York - Visit our Blog - http://blog.abelcine.com

August 2nd, 2010, 07:06 AM	#10
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Andy, Thank you. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. You are in a good position to assist with all the equipment you have at your disposal. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

August 1st, 2010, 02:04 PM	#2
Skip Brand New Boot Join Date: May 2010 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 14	Are you finding that the tests are always off the same 30 to 32 frames, or does it vary? Is it consistent?

August 1st, 2010, 02:08 PM	#3
Jim Bridges Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 34	Hey Skip, it seems to vary. I adjusted to NDF and DF and got a variable as low a 20 frames.

August 1st, 2010, 03:30 PM	#4
Daniel Epstein Trustee Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,267	Hey Jim, Not sure if this helps but does the HDX-900 have a live camera vs VTR output on the HDSDI. My SDX-900 does but I didn't buy the HDX so I don't remember. Is the offset in one direction like the tape Video is ahead of the Nano's.

August 1st, 2010, 04:44 PM	#5
Jim Bridges Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 34	Hey Daniel, I think it does, I will try that on Monday. Thanks for the advice.

August 2nd, 2010, 05:42 AM	#7
Jim Bridges Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 34	Unfortunately I do not. We may have narrowed this down to the Quick Time level. It appears another DP noticed that when you play the Nano as well as the tape it has the same TimeCode. When you bring the clip into the computer, the TC is different. I am going to check out this today. Dan or Mike, if I were to send you a CF card as well as a tape could you play the DVCPRO HD tape back?

August 2nd, 2010, 02:02 PM	#11
Jim Bridges Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Posts: 34	Hey Dan, I made a 8 minute test today. I will FEDEX the raw CF card and tape to Andy this evening.

August 2nd, 2010, 04:04 PM	#12
Tommy Schell Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 65	Hi, Here's a sample file from an HDX-900, recorded to nanoFlash. The camera produces a window burn timecode. If you watch the file frame by frame, you will notice a sudden jump in the window burn timecode from "00:00:30:08" to "00:00:31:06" . You will also notice that the video is continuous - only the timecode jumps. For some reason, it appears the camera is producing inconsistent timecode in this particular case. (12 MBytes) http://69.15.88.17/downloads/qt_web/skipped_tc.MOV.zip Thus far in our testing, we didn't find any problem with the nanoFlash handling timecode, except in 720p24 recording mode (this will be fixed in the next update). But if the camera is moving around the timecode unexpectedly during record, that can potentially cause some discrepancy between nanoFlash timecode and camera's recorded timecode. Tommy Schell

August 2nd, 2010, 08:02 PM	#13
Dave Sperling Major Player Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tinton Falls, NJ Posts: 780	Was this a FCP .mov file (so those of us with PC's just see a blank screen?) or is my QTPro just giving me nothing?

August 2nd, 2010, 10:27 PM	#14
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Dave, Yes, the file is a "MOV" or Quicktime file. Quicktime player on a PC will not play this file. Quicktime Pro player on a PC will not play this file. Quicktime and Quicktime Pro player on a Mac will play this filem if Final Cut Pro is installed on the Mac, otherwise it will not play. Our File Converter, on a Mac, can convert this file to a ".MXF" file, which is then playable on a PC with various software. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

August 4th, 2010, 08:15 AM	#15
Allen S. Facemire Salt Run Productions Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 4	HDX900/Nano issues I'm starting a new show for DIY and planned to use the Nano Flash as a logging device, dumbing it down to 18mbs and hitching to my HDX900's. Works really great except the TC on the Nano once mounted to Quicktime Player, doesn't match what's on tape. Thought it was a FCP anomaly but not so much. It seems when in REGEN, the camera likes to jump back a few frames to determine the proper time line and then it skips ahead to catch up. This is why the 5-second pre-roll rule should apply. Me thinks the Nano wants to grab the first TC number is sees because that's what's triggering the RECORD function . The result is at the head of each clip, there is a jump in TC on tape but then it settles out as the TC catches up. The Nano is still recording from the very first TC indicator and is not actually reading the TC as it's being laid down but laying it's own TC down based on the first TC numbers it sees. That's the only explanation I can come up with for the TC variance Now here's the strange part. If you take the Nano, plug the SDI output into an A/B monitor, take the tape which has a TC burn in window, and plug it into the other port (via a deck) and pause the Nano at a point of the video you can visually count on...in my case a clap slate that I slowly move out of the frame, and then using the deck to find the same TC via the window burn, they will be dead on. You can do that all the way through the tape and they will be dead on. But drop the Nano video into Quicktime, there will be anywhere from a 4 to 28 frame variation. I've dedicated today and tomorrow to do some comprehensive testing using each of my HDX900's, my HDX2000 P2 camera and my PDW700 XDCAM. The P2 camera should prove to be interesting because with no actual transport, maybe that will make a difference. But to everyone using the Nano with the HDX900...be forewarned the TC on the device will NOT match that on tape. Not a problem if you are using the Nano as your source but if like me, you planned to use the Nano for logging, they won't match. The folks at Convergent have been very responsive and now that I have a bit of time, I am going to do as much testing as possible and hopefully furnish them with enough info that this issue can be solved. __________________ Allen S. Facemire-DP/Director IA 600 Atlanta __________________ Allen S. Facemire-DP/Director IA 600 Atlanta