|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 1st, 2011, 07:26 AM | #16 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 31
|
Re: HDX900 + nanoFlash - Major Announcement
Dan: Is there still a 1 sec TC offset needed on the NanoFlash in order to match TC from the NanoFlash to the recorded tape?
Thanks |
September 1st, 2011, 07:42 AM | #17 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Augusta Georgia
Posts: 5,421
|
Re: HDX900 + nanoFlash - Major Announcement
Dear Dusty,
For the HDX900, we recommend a setting of 1, which is 1 second, in the System|Timecode|Trigger Delay menu item. This value has proven to be useful. This ensures that the timecode values written on tape, for each frame, will match the timecode values saved in the our file for each frame. The 1 second value allows the nanoFlash to ignore the false timecode values from the HDX900 for 1 second prior to starting to record in the nanoFlash. The HDX900 puts out false timecode values pver HD-SDI when it repositions the tape prior to it starting to record actual frames. I will be happy to provide even more detail if desired.
__________________
Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia |
September 2nd, 2011, 10:40 AM | #18 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 31
|
Re: HDX900 + nanoFlash - Major Announcement
Thanks Dan. I have four cameras that I've been using with the NanoFlash and all are different systems. Each one has it's own NanoFlash setup. Just wanted to be sure all was the same with the HDX settings.
Best |
January 21st, 2012, 07:03 AM | #19 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Augusta Georgia
Posts: 5,421
|
Re: HDX900 + nanoFlash - Major Announcement
Bump to bring this to the top
__________________
Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia |
| ||||||
|
|