Nanoflash XDCAM vs ProRes (FCPX)

[Ryan Douthit]

This summer I have a project that will require very fast turn-around of edits done in the field - producing 36 videos over 4 months including several videos a day from the Summer X Games.

Right now I have a Sony NX5U primary (and sometimes a Canon XF300) and will likely be adding a FS100 or AF100. My only reason for considering the Nanoflash is speed. I need to be able to quickly start editing captured video in FCP X with minimal delay. Technically, FCP-X can edit AVCHD no problem, however, it's slower than editing native ProRes - especially on my 2009 MacBook Pro. It's even worse with effects and more complicated stuff. Right now, to convert a day of shooting from a single camera from AVCHD to ProRes on this notebook takes about 12 hours. That is not going to work.

Even if I upgrade to the new 2012 Macbook Pro (or tote an iMac to location) I want speed. As much of it as I can get.

That is why I'm considering the C-D Nanoflash or the AJA Ki Pro Mini. I like the AJA because it clearly records in a format I can start editing immediately. However, there's a lot I like about the Nanoflash. Problem is, I don't have any experience with XDCAM wrapped in .mov (I tried to download samples from the C-D site but all the flavors I'm interested in gave errors when I clicked them.)

So, the big question. What's the kind of CPU Load required to edit these XDCam files compared to ProRes? Will transcoding be required?

[Simon Wood]

As well as XDCAm mxf the Nanoflash also records to .mov format, which works straight out of the box with FCPX. You can also transcode it to ProRes if you wish, which seems to be extremely quick with my 2011 Macbook Pro - certainly it transcodes the nano mov footage quicker than the H264 from my DSLR.

I have not tried using the .mxf files from the nano with FCPX, but if you know you will be editing on a mac then just set it to record .mov files (CD also provide a free conversion tool to convert .mov files back to .mxf files, so it makes sense to record to .mov).

Not sure why the files you downloaded did not work?

[Ryan Douthit]

Originally Posted by Simon Wood

Not sure why the files you downloaded did not work?

The links are broken on their .mov samples. They need to fix their web site. I downloaded an MXF just to see if those links worked - they did. Of course, that doesn't help.

If anyone else has a link to a short nanfloash .mov wrapped file I can download to test for myself, that would be much appreciated.

[Ryan Douthit]

It didn't even occur to me that I'd need to "save as" on the .mov link (i.e.: the site coding didn't force download). I now have the samples I was looking for. I'd still appreciate hearing how the NanoFlash has worked for anyone else considering what I'm aiming to do.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Friends,

I have asked our website manager to check for broken links.

[Jack Zhang]

There used to be MXF sample links too, but I had to go back a few directories manually to find them again.

the Nano is a well-rounded solution to quality direct-to-edit acquisition. Even if there are roadblocks, they're minor. The only issues I see at the moment include recording HDMI black, MXF stitching, and export solutions for other NLEs. Final Cut however should work really well, thanks to a MOV stitching tool and export to Nanoflash tool.

[Ronald Jackson]

"Export to nanoFlash tool"

Is this a feature of FCP X?


Ron

[Jack Zhang]

No, this is a feature provided by Convergent via software. You export a XDCAM HD422 50mbps project in MOV and it re-wraps it to a Nanoflash compatible MXF.

[Alister Chapman]

Working with the NanoFlash and FCP is very fast and easy. If you only use 50Mb/s the files are small so transfer from the cards is extremely fast, typically 3 to 4 times faster than if you use ProRes422 or ProRes HQ from a KiPro. The .mov files the NanoFlash generates go directly into the FCP timeline and editing them is painless and easy. I use this very workflow a lot. When we shot the Duran Duran concert with 12 Sony F3's we used NanoFlashes at 80Mb/s to strike a nice balance between great image quality and easily manageable files that were quick to backup and simple to work with. With 12 cams shooting for over 2 hours, each camera generated about 100GB of data, so in total we had to archive 1.2TB. If we had used ProRes that would have jumped to 250GB per camera and 3TB to back up.