nanoFlash Product Comparisons

[Daniel Symmes]

Originally Posted by Mike Schell

Hi Daniel-
Just got an e-mail Cineform. I am happy to report they are making good progress and have the video conversion working. They are now focused on the audio conversion. It sounds like we'll have a tool very soon.

Mike -

They're good people at Cineform. Always quick to respond, in my experience.

NANO and Cineform? I look forward to the dream.

[Steve Kalle]

Daniel,

Have you seen the Cinedeck?

And how do you use Cineform in Nuke? I thought it didn't work.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Mike Schell

Hi Daniel-
Just got an e-mail Cineform. I am happy to report they are making good progress and have the video conversion working. They are now focused on the audio conversion. It sounds like we'll have a tool very soon.

Hi Mike,

You got me interested in the incoming Cineform support, but I'm not sure I understand how it will be implemented - is it going to be an external (i.e. computer based, hopefully also PC) utility like the HDlink is now, or what? If so, will tools like FirstLight be included?

I gave the newest NeoHD trial a go, and HDlink had problems with converting large files with high bitrate nanoFlash clips (while working fine with XDCAM EX format)...

Is it going to be a payable option for us nanoFlash users, and who is going to provide it - Cineform, or Convergent Design?

Thanks,

Piotr

[Mike Schell]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Hi Mike,

You got me interested in the incoming Cineform support, but I'm not sure I understand how it will be implemented - is it going to be an external (i.e. computer based, hopefully also PC) utility like the HDlink is now, or what? If so, will tools like FirstLight be included?

I gave the newest NeoHD trial a go, and HDlink had problems with converting large files with high bitrate nanoFlash clips (while working fine with XDCAM EX format)...

Is it going to be a payable option for us nanoFlash users, and who is going to provide it - Cineform, or Convergent Design?

Thanks,

Piotr

Hi Piotr-
Good questions, I'll try to find some answers from the Cineform folks.

[Daniel Symmes]

Steve -

I don't use Cineform with Nuke. Generally uncompressed in my efx world, even if originated from NANO.

The majority of my work doesn't involve efx (per se) and my clients often complain of the volume of data. Cineform is one of the best solutions.

And I expect it will be a "post process," meaning not likely to come out of the NANO as Cineform. I believe Cineform will "learn" to read the NANO MXF/MOV format(s).

I have seen the Cinedeck on paper (no hands on). I prefer the NANO for its price, features, size and ongoing development. I've used the XDR and Ki Pro and still prefer the NANO, especially the NANO 3D, since a majority of my projects are 3D.

[Steve Kalle]

Don't think this was mentioned but the Aja formats with HFS, which cannot be written to by Windows and Mac OS 10.6+.

Can someone explain how 1080i 29.97 consumes more data than 1080p 23.98? 1080i gives a max 30min vs 1080p / 38 min recording time with the Mini using P-R HQ.

[Dave Sperling]

Just a WAG, but if the compression system uses constant number of bits per frame, then since 30 f/sec uses 25% more fps than 24 f/sec, it would also use that much more data space. (As I recall, this is essentially the way HDcam tape works as well).
However if the system uses a constant bit rate per second (rather than per frame), then it would use the same amount of data space at either 30p, 24p, or 60i.
The correlary to this would be that if using a constant bit rate over time, then 24p actually uses a slightly lower compression ratio than 30p or 60i, and hence should look slightly better.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Steve and Dave,

The nanoFlash and Flash XDR work by providing the bit rate that you have selected, say 100 Mbps.

If there are fewer frames, say as in 23.976, then you get a higher bit-rate per frame.

Since we use the same bit rate per second, regardless of the number of frames, then the bit-rate alone determines how long you can record using a certain size CompactFlash card.

Many other recorders or codecs, assign a bit-rate per frame, (and not per second) thus the recording time varies depending on the Frame Rate, when using a certain size CompactFlash card.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Friends,

We feel that the nanoFlash is a very attractive product, at a reasonable price, with quite a few advantages and unique features.

When one considers media cost, for a given recording time, the cost advantages of the nanoFlash become apparent.

Here is a list that we prepared.

nanoFlash Advantages / Unique Features

• Most efficient CODEC: Sony XDCAM 422 HD CODEC; 18 to 280 Mbps, I-Frame / Long-GOP
• 4:2:2 Broadcast Quality at only 50 Mbps
• High quality at lower bit-rates: 100 Mbps 4:2:2 Long-GOP
• Longest Record Times: 15 hours @ 18 Mbps, 160 Minutes @ 100 Mbps (with two 64GB cards)
• Best Media Management
.... Very Long Uninterrupted Record times (supports spanning of cards)
.... Lowest-Cost CompactFlash cards: 133X (100 Mbps), 400X (220 Mbps)
.... 600x speed CompactFlash cards not needed, except for 280 Mbps
.... Affordable Nexto Drive (500GB HDD) for field backup
.... Supports multiple files / hot-swap (next firmware update)
• Longest Battery Life: 6W Max Power, 5 to 19.5V Range
• Industry Leading Size, Weight (under 1 lb), and Power, Completely Silent (no fans)
• Full Support For PSF, Converts PSF to Progressive for recording, Progressive to PSF for playback
• Comprehensive Support for various frame rates including True 24p, True 30p and True 60i.
• E to E Direct Support
• 3:2 Pulldown Removal (1080p24 over 60i -> 1080p24) for both SDI and HDMI
• 8-Channel Embedded Audio (24-bit / 48K)
• Time Lapse: one frame/second up to one frame/day
• Pre-Record Buffer (7-seconds) – great for wildlife
• Over/Under Crank (Variable Frame Rate) with all cameras: 1080p and 720p
• Universal NLE Support: MXF/MOV/MPG files, no transcode, Play directly off CF card
• MPG file format speeds DVD and Blu-Ray creation; Renders Blu-Ray files in real-time
• Most flexible recorder – numerous trigger options, duration record, internal/external TC, etc.
• Comprehensive software tools / plugins for viewing / converting files
.... MOV ↔MXF Converters, XDCAM Viewer, Calibrated Software Decoder
.... Cineform support coming soon
• Simplest Mounting: Built-In Tripod Mount (1/4”-20)
• History of continuous upgrades:
.... Six Major Firmware Updates since Aug 2009
.... Next Release to include: Canon MXF support, Record Trigger Delay, Hot Swap, Image Flip/Flop
• Field Proven in mission critical applications
.... Over 2300 units in the field
.... Extreme environments: deserts, humid jungles, balloons @ 100K feet, underwater, arctic cold,
.... race-cars, helicopters, jets, acrobatic planes, (-30 to 65 C operating range)
• Upgradeable to 3D
• 24/7 phone support – ready when you need help
• Available today

[Steve Kalle]

Hi Dan,

So Hot-Swap will be enabled in the next firmware update? This has been the only reason that I have not purchased a Nano so this is very very good news.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Steve,

Yes, it is our intention to have Hot Swapping finished so it can be included in the next release.

Our developer feels that he needs about two days to finalize "Hot Swapping". He has been working on this for a long time.

So, it is a very high priority for us to finish this and have it included in the next release. Thus, we are freeing him up so he can concentrate on this.

We do understand why some need Hot Swapping.

Unless one has to have "Hot Swapping" we always recommend against it, as we can record uninterrupted for 5.3 hours at Broadcast Quality (4:2:2, 50 Mbps). And not removing cards while recording is always safer (no possibility of removing the wrong card.).

The good case for Hot Swapping, is for recording an event, such as a football game. where one would remove one card to start the edit process, while continuing to record uninterrupted on the other card.

So, we are doing our best to finish this by the end of next week.

[Lance Librandi]

Hello Dan,
That's really great news as you know this is something that I have been waiting for.

Dan in relation to your comment " not removing cards while recording is always safer (no possibility of removing the wrong card.)."

This is true but one also must consider that the Nanoflash's compact flash card slots have been extremely well designed and thought out with the eject button's separated by offsetting them. This gives you enough room so that your finger can not hit the wrong card slot. The Sony EX3 has the eject button's side by side which is very bad design and it makes it very easy to eject the wrong card. I have also noted that new Kipro Mini also has side by side CF card ejection system.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Lance,

Thanks for the kind words.

As you can tell from my comments, I am concerned about "Hot Swapping".

With the video coming into the nanoFlash at 1,485 Gigabits per second, we have to put it somewhere.

The design features you mentioned, along with a Blinking Red LED next to the card that cannot be removed, will help guide the user to the right card.

[Luben Izov]

Dear Dan,
Thank you for the update!
I was wondering if CD consider creating a program for spanning the files that have been broken during recording at 3.51GB? Also, just curios if CD is going to attack the over 300Mbps level? Thank you
Cheers

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Luben,

Both the Quicktime and MXF files have a "File Header" and a "File Trailer".

Each has an "Index" to each and every frame of video.
One index is located in the trailer, the other in the header.

Thus, each file has "File Header", "Essence" (the video and Audio), and the "File Trailer".

One cannot write a simple program to concatenate the individual files.

We have considered writing a very complex program to combine the individual files together, but for now, we have other higher priority projects.

For your second question:

We prefer not to disclose the maximum potential of the nanoFlash for competitive reasons.

I will say that 280 Mbps is very good footage and major players have approved this level of quality.

Increasing the Bit-Rate to higher levels, while still compressing the images, may have little impact on the visual quality or the robustness of the images.

Our compressed 280 Mbps footage is visually very close to uncompressed, thus the final increase in quality would logically be going to full uncompressed.

To put this in perspective, one can take a HD-SDI signal to a good monitor, then evaluate the image quality, while also recording it to a nanoFlash at 280 Mbps.

Then play back the footage, carefully evaluating the image quality again.

If the above is done as a blind test, we believe it will be very difficult to accurately determine which was live versus recorded.