nanoFlash Public Beta 1.6.226 Firmware Comments

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Billy,

I wish to personally thank you for your post!

For many applications / situations, putting one configuration file, on one configuration card is a great way to go.

And this technique makes it very easy, and helps prevent menu option errors. "Just load the configuration file from this card, then shoot...".

For others, having multiple config files on one card is very desirable.

While we may, or may not have made it clear, we actually support up to 20 custom configuration files per CompactFlash card.

You can setup your nanoFlash for a specific configuration, then save it.

Then you can load it by number, or you can rename each config file using a computer.

If you need more than 20 different setups, just use another card.

You can save any number of config files on a computer. Just be careful not to overwrite previous files, if you have not renamed them.

My nanoFlash is on assignment, thus I have not expanded on how to use this new feature.

I tested it before and found it very workable, one just needs to rename the files or keep a list of the purpose of each config file.

In the situation where one is handing a nanoFlash to a new person, one with very little training or experience with the nanoFlash, one confiig file per card can make things very easy.

Thank you for your support.

Please feel free to call me any time. Just send me an email and I will send you my phone numbers.

[John Richard]

Guess I will pile on here...

As someone who is not constantly using the NF, this ability to easily and correctly configure the NF for the myriad of setups now possible with the NF is supremely valuable.

A month may pass before the NF is needed for a shoot and I am always fumbling around and having to test to be sure. I can remember an early shoot (actually on the XDR with an original XLH1) where I screwed up the audio settings and all I captured was hum - 1 man job and I didn't bring headphones - so stupid. So now I am in the middle of taking audio off the HDV tape and synching it to the video edit. Lots of stupidity here. If I were using our NF with this easy config ability I would have been done with the edit.

It is just so reassuring and am thankful for it. As the NF capabilities have grown, the value of such a sure-fire config setup is greatly appreciated. Even if you work with the NF every day, there is still the chance of screwing up an intended setting.

Hope this config capacity comes to the XDR soon.

I don't know how these guys keep this feature improvement pace up, but so many of us are quietly grateful.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Since this thread is about comments on the latest Beta software, here is some from me - but please do not treat them as ranting :)

After placing on Vegas timeline, and synchronizing by TC, clips recorded simultaneously to SxS (XDCAM EX HQ) and nanoFlash (220 Mbps I-Fo), I have noticed 2 things:

1. The nanoFlash embedded audio is lagging by 4 milliseconds. Not a big deal, but when mixing the two for any reason, there is a slight echo (empty bucket effect)

2. The video scopes differ for the two clips; the difference is very subtle, but if you compare e.g the histograms (take a close look at the very left side, for the blacks), or the Vectorscopes - you will see there IS a difference.

Now a little quiz: which of the 2 pics below is for the XDCAM EX, and which for the nanoFlash 220 Mbps I-Frame, do you think? If you agree they differ, why do you think is that?

I'm very curious about your explanation, cheers

Piotr

[John Richard]

I'm wondering if the software scope sampling is creating the very slight differences in the scopes? Software scopes use sampling vs. hardware scopes which look at the whole image. Can you see this difference with the naked eye. For example, do you see a very slight deeper red saturation that matches the software scope showing the higher red in the vectorscope shown in your photo? interesting

[Paul Cronin]

Could this have to do with 420 vs. 422?

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

Could this have to do with 420 vs. 422?

Of course this seems to be the only logical explanation, as the 2 pics should be identical otherwise - but does it also explain different black levels?

And, which is which - still waiting for your votes :)

[Paul Cronin]

My vote is lower black 422.

[Olof Ekbergh]

JPG 1 is 422 is my guess. Seems to show more color and black info. They are very close though, could change that much from one frame to another, because both are compressed.

[Rafael Amador]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Since this thread is about comments on the latest Beta software, here is some from me - but please do not treat them as ranting :)

After placing on Vegas timeline, and synchronizing by TC, clips recorded simultaneously to SxS (XDCAM EX HQ) and nanoFlash (220 Mbps I-Fo), I have noticed 2 things:

1. The nanoFlash embedded audio is lagging by 4 milliseconds. Not a big deal, but when mixing the two for any reason, there is a slight echo (empty bucket effect)

2. The video scopes differ for the two clips; the difference is very subtle, but if you compare e.g the histograms (take a close look at the very left side, for the blacks), or the Vectorscopes - you will see there IS a difference.

Now a little quiz: which of the 2 pics below is for the XDCAM EX, and which for the nanoFlash 220 Mbps I-Frame, do you think? If you agree they differ, why do you think is that?

I'm very curious about your explanation, cheers

Piotr

Thats due to the so call "Presentation".
SxS clips and NANO files use different "Aperture" , so QT display both pictures in a different fashion.
This also affects how FC canvas display the picture, and how look on the VideoScope. The difference is small but noticeable when you shift between pictures.
rafael

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Keep guessing guys - this is becoming interesting :)

I won't tell you which is which at this point - but I will inform you that the same can be seen with other nanoFlash formats (like 100 Mbps L-GoP), and with the previous nF firmware...

[Peter Moretti]

My guess is that scopes2.jpg (the first image that shows when you click on the pictures) is the nano. It has a wider vectorscope trace which I think is a result of having more chroma info.

I'm not sure why you say except for 422 the pictures should be identical? They use different data rates as well, so the images should be somewhat different, hence there should be minor variations in the scopes as well.

[Billy Steinberg]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Since this thread is about comments on the latest Beta software, here is some from me - but please do not treat them as ranting :)

What on earth does this have to do with the new firmware? Why didn't you just include it in the thread that refuses to die ("Noise comparison: 35/4:2:0 vs. 180/4:2:2"); you know, the one where no one is willing to make the only realistic evaluation, where both codecs are compared to an uncompressed frame?

Why are you surprised that there is a difference between the two codecs? And if you felt they should be the same, why did you bother getting a nano in the first place?

Who cares which scope picture is which, and why didn't you include a picture of each of the frames you captured, which would at least make it a reasonable question? All the scope pictures tell us is that the frames aren't the same, not which one is more accurate.

Billy

[Billy Steinberg]

Originally Posted by Dan Keaton

... While we may, or may not have made it clear, we actually support up to 20 custom configuration files per CompactFlash card...

You made it very clear, in both the current manual and your original online post; I just managed to miss it, and my nano is out in the field, running production firmware.

This is great news, at least for me, as having a handful of configuration settings on a single card is just what I need.

I took a quick look on amazon, and there are a number of San Disk Ultra (and Ultra II) cards in small sizes that are under $25; some are under $15. There's even a 2GB Extreme III for under $30. When I get the nano back in my hands, and load the beta firmware, I'll see if I can "qualify" some, at least to my satisfaction (though one anecdotal experience does not make for an unqualified recommendation). If you happen to have some small CF cards lying around the shop, and some free time one day, you might consider some testing... :)

Billy

ps Is UDMA a nano requirement, even for a custom-configuration-only CF card? If so, it'll make it easier for me to rule out a bunch of small capacity CF cards when I go hunting.

[Andrew Stone]

Originally Posted by Olof Ekbergh

JPG 1 is 422 is my guess. Seems to show more color and black info. They are very close though, could change that much from one frame to another, because both are compressed.

I am with Olof. Vectorscope shows more color spatter. It should be noted that there is probably a filter on the blacks "in camera" as there is on many CMOS chipped cameras. We don't know how it is implemented so I would suggest if this is going to turn into a debate on Piotr's scope images and the way his camera spits out data that this be spun out into a new thread so this thread stays as a reporting of issues with the firmware in question.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Billy,

Yes, as far as I know, UDMA is a requirement, even for Config files.

But, there are some relatively low cost UDMA cards.

Please note that they do not have to be fast UDMA cards, just UDMA.

(I have not asked this specific question to our engineers. I do feel that our whole system is built around using UDMA cards, and I just doubt that we used something different for our Config files.

I like being able to keep a Config directory or folder on a computer with a backup of all of my config files.