nanoFlash & Pro Res at DVinfo.net

Nick Ravich · February 10th, 2011, 06:24 PM

Maybe a dumb question but does any version of NanoFlash firmware do any of FCP's Apple Pro Res 422 flavors? I ask bec/ doing big shoot with Panasonic AF100, editing soon thereafter and would love to record same codec as I'm editing in FCP - Pro Res 422 LT. Or is the Ki Mini Pro only box that's going to let me do that?
Nick.

Dan Keaton · February 11th, 2011, 06:24 AM

Dear Nick,

Our Quicktime files can be dragged and dropped to a Final Cut Pro ProRes timeline.

This is true for the 220 Mbps ProRes and 145 Mbps ProRes and all of the other flavors.

If you have a nanoFlash, may I suggest that you run a test. Use our 50 or 100 Mbps Long-GOP formats, and then compare it to Final Cut Pro 220 Mbps for noise.

The Ki Pro Mini records in AJA's flavor of Apple's Pro Res. We record using Sony's XDCAM 422 codec, if fact we use the same codec module that is in Sony's highly acclaimed PDW-F800 camera.

This is a very advanced codec and it is exceptionally low in noise. Then we wrap it in a Quicktime or MXF wrapper (your choice via a menu item), which then allows the file to be dragged and dropped into a Final Cut Pro, or most any other NLE's timeline, easily.

Nick Ravich · February 11th, 2011, 07:26 AM

Thanks Dan. So you're suggesting I record the 50 or 100 XDCAM 422 codec MXF files and compare it against my FCP Pro Res 422 files.

To be clear - I can just drop these 50 or 100 MXF files in my FCP browser, w/o going thru FCP's log & capture tool, ie WITHOUT transcoding? That's the key for me, the whole reason for using a separate encoder box like the Nanoflash - making my files as FCP-ready/friendly as possible and avoiding long transcode times.

So you know, I'm hoping to use the nanoFlash with the new Panasonic AF100 - which natively shoots 21 Mbps AVCHD files that HAVE to be transcocded. And I'm in turn hoping to mix that with a lot of Canon 5D/7D-generated AVCHD files that I've already shot, that I've in turn transcoded to Apple Pro Res 422 LT in Final Cut (final project is for the web.) So another issue on top of this - picking the right Nano codec that'll help me match Canon HDSLR and Panasonic AF100 footage.

Nick.

Dan Keaton · February 11th, 2011, 08:04 AM

Dear Nick,

Ideally, since you want to compare the nanoFlash to the Ki Pro Mini, one should record using the nanoFlash and Ki Pro Mini for the noise comparison test.

To the best of my knowledge, Ki Pro Mini dealers have not received any units yet. Of course, they may arrive any day now.

A major camera company ran some tests comparing XDCam 422 footage at 50 Mbps versus the Ki Pro (original model) at 220 Mbps. The XDCam 422 50 Mbps footage was lower in noise.

But as always, one should run their own tests, or carefully evaluate the tests run by others.

In answer to your "without transcoding" question:

No you do not need to use "Log and Transfer", just drag and drop our footage into your timeline.

Your timeline could be a Sony XDCam 4:2:2 50 Mbps CBR timeline. If so, our 50 Mbps and even higher bit-rates will just drag and drop onto this timeline. So if you record at 180 Mbps, 220 Mbps, or 280 Mbps, your footage will just drag and drop to the timeline.

Then, if you are doing "Cut's Only", no cropping or panning, and no color correction, the high bit-rate will be preserved, even when you output the edited file.

If you are doing cropping and panning, or color correction, and you keep the Sony XDCam 4:2:2 50 Mbps CBR format for your timeline, the parts that were cropped, panned, or color corrected will be rerendered to 50 Mbps.

But, you can optionally change the timeline to a higher bit-rate timecode, if desired. Then the high bit-rate files from the nanoFlash will be transcoded to the codec of your choice.

If you are using a ProRes timeline, then at some point the parts of the timeline that were cropped, panned or color corrected will be transcoded.

My information is based on published reports by highly qualified and very technical Final Cut Pro editors.

And, of course, I welcome comments, suggestions, and corrections.

Using a nanoFlash will definitely help you obtain higher quality footage and ease your editing workload.

The Sony XDCam 422 codec is much easier to edit than AVCHD on many computers.

No matter how great the image looks from an AF100, if you record in AVCHD, it will be a 4:2:0 image.
No knowledgeable person should argue that 4:2:0 is as good as 4:2:2, as there is more color information with 4:2:2.

If you are going to the web, editing in Sony XDCam 422 50 Mbps CBR is certainly one of the codecs that you could use to achieve quality results. After editing, you can render to the codec of your choice for the web.

A side benefit of using the Sony XDCam 422 50 Mbps CBR is that the files are much smaller than ProRes at 145 Mbps or 220 Mbps.

I hope this helps.

Nick Ravich · February 11th, 2011, 09:47 AM

Thanks Dan. Going to take me a while to digest.
One thing - also seems like I can encode files on Nano in a QT wrapper, as opposed to MXF. Presumably makes the ingest that much quicker.
Nick

Dan Keaton · February 11th, 2011, 09:56 AM

Dear Nick,

If you are going to edit in Final Cut Pro, then record using ".MOV" which is quicktime.

Otherwise there is an extra step involved in converting MXF to MOV.

Nick Ravich · February 11th, 2011, 10:02 AM

Got it, Nick.

February 10th, 2011, 06:24 PM	#1
Nick Ravich New Boot Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York, New York Posts: 15	nanoFlash & Pro Res Maybe a dumb question but does any version of NanoFlash firmware do any of FCP's Apple Pro Res 422 flavors? I ask bec/ doing big shoot with Panasonic AF100, editing soon thereafter and would love to record same codec as I'm editing in FCP - Pro Res 422 LT. Or is the Ki Mini Pro only box that's going to let me do that? Nick.

February 11th, 2011, 06:24 AM	#2
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Nick, Our Quicktime files can be dragged and dropped to a Final Cut Pro ProRes timeline. This is true for the 220 Mbps ProRes and 145 Mbps ProRes and all of the other flavors. If you have a nanoFlash, may I suggest that you run a test. Use our 50 or 100 Mbps Long-GOP formats, and then compare it to Final Cut Pro 220 Mbps for noise. The Ki Pro Mini records in AJA's flavor of Apple's Pro Res. We record using Sony's XDCAM 422 codec, if fact we use the same codec module that is in Sony's highly acclaimed PDW-F800 camera. This is a very advanced codec and it is exceptionally low in noise. Then we wrap it in a Quicktime or MXF wrapper (your choice via a menu item), which then allows the file to be dragged and dropped into a Final Cut Pro, or most any other NLE's timeline, easily. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

February 11th, 2011, 08:04 AM	#4
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Nick, Ideally, since you want to compare the nanoFlash to the Ki Pro Mini, one should record using the nanoFlash and Ki Pro Mini for the noise comparison test. To the best of my knowledge, Ki Pro Mini dealers have not received any units yet. Of course, they may arrive any day now. A major camera company ran some tests comparing XDCam 422 footage at 50 Mbps versus the Ki Pro (original model) at 220 Mbps. The XDCam 422 50 Mbps footage was lower in noise. But as always, one should run their own tests, or carefully evaluate the tests run by others. In answer to your "without transcoding" question: No you do not need to use "Log and Transfer", just drag and drop our footage into your timeline. Your timeline could be a Sony XDCam 4:2:2 50 Mbps CBR timeline. If so, our 50 Mbps and even higher bit-rates will just drag and drop onto this timeline. So if you record at 180 Mbps, 220 Mbps, or 280 Mbps, your footage will just drag and drop to the timeline. Then, if you are doing "Cut's Only", no cropping or panning, and no color correction, the high bit-rate will be preserved, even when you output the edited file. If you are doing cropping and panning, or color correction, and you keep the Sony XDCam 4:2:2 50 Mbps CBR format for your timeline, the parts that were cropped, panned, or color corrected will be rerendered to 50 Mbps. But, you can optionally change the timeline to a higher bit-rate timecode, if desired. Then the high bit-rate files from the nanoFlash will be transcoded to the codec of your choice. If you are using a ProRes timeline, then at some point the parts of the timeline that were cropped, panned or color corrected will be transcoded. My information is based on published reports by highly qualified and very technical Final Cut Pro editors. And, of course, I welcome comments, suggestions, and corrections. Using a nanoFlash will definitely help you obtain higher quality footage and ease your editing workload. The Sony XDCam 422 codec is much easier to edit than AVCHD on many computers. No matter how great the image looks from an AF100, if you record in AVCHD, it will be a 4:2:0 image. No knowledgeable person should argue that 4:2:0 is as good as 4:2:2, as there is more color information with 4:2:2. If you are going to the web, editing in Sony XDCam 422 50 Mbps CBR is certainly one of the codecs that you could use to achieve quality results. After editing, you can render to the codec of your choice for the web. A side benefit of using the Sony XDCam 422 50 Mbps CBR is that the files are much smaller than ProRes at 145 Mbps or 220 Mbps. I hope this helps. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

February 11th, 2011, 09:56 AM	#6
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Nick, If you are going to edit in Final Cut Pro, then record using ".MOV" which is quicktime. Otherwise there is an extra step involved in converting MXF to MOV. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

February 11th, 2011, 07:26 AM	#3
Nick Ravich New Boot Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York, New York Posts: 15	Thanks Dan. So you're suggesting I record the 50 or 100 XDCAM 422 codec MXF files and compare it against my FCP Pro Res 422 files. To be clear - I can just drop these 50 or 100 MXF files in my FCP browser, w/o going thru FCP's log & capture tool, ie WITHOUT transcoding? That's the key for me, the whole reason for using a separate encoder box like the Nanoflash - making my files as FCP-ready/friendly as possible and avoiding long transcode times. So you know, I'm hoping to use the nanoFlash with the new Panasonic AF100 - which natively shoots 21 Mbps AVCHD files that HAVE to be transcocded. And I'm in turn hoping to mix that with a lot of Canon 5D/7D-generated AVCHD files that I've already shot, that I've in turn transcoded to Apple Pro Res 422 LT in Final Cut (final project is for the web.) So another issue on top of this - picking the right Nano codec that'll help me match Canon HDSLR and Panasonic AF100 footage. Nick.

February 11th, 2011, 09:47 AM	#5
Nick Ravich New Boot Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York, New York Posts: 15	Thanks Dan. Going to take me a while to digest. One thing - also seems like I can encode files on Nano in a QT wrapper, as opposed to MXF. Presumably makes the ingest that much quicker. Nick

February 11th, 2011, 10:02 AM	#7
Nick Ravich New Boot Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York, New York Posts: 15	Got it, Nick.