The nanoflash difference at DVinfo.net

Justin St.Clair Lewis · March 8th, 2011, 06:16 AM

This goes out to all you working TV editors.

All "deliverables" issues etc aside, in edit for a tv travel doco type series, is there a big difference at your end in dealing with xdcam ex 4:2:0 35mbs and 4:2:2 50mbs when it comes to editing and using a normal or usual amount of grading prior to broadcast?

Yes, I know this is very open to interpretation in terms of what is normal, but pls share your experiences. I understand xdcam ex doesn't hold up well to much grading, but how bad is it ( or not)?

I'm planning a shoot and trying to guage the real world difference between these codecs and the possibility of using nano flash.

I'm guessin after using it all this time some of you may have got some opioid based on experience?

Mitchell Lewis · March 9th, 2011, 11:01 PM

I think the SxS card footage is fine. I had to take over a project from one of our competitors and they gave me all the footage that came from the Nano Flash and from the SxS card (they recorded both at the same time). I ended up using the SxS footage because they looked about the same to me.

Our competitor swears that for special effects the Nanoflash is the only way to go. But I do a ton of green screen and it always looks fine to me. See for yourself. (it's not Hollywood but our clients are very happy)

Gary Nattrass · March 10th, 2011, 03:45 AM

Hi Justin the key thing about codec's from the camera end and why broadcasters insist on a minimum spec is not just related to the edit stage.

What you have to bear in mind is that the shooting and editing can be where the least effects on a codec are present so to do a comparison at this stage can not be a true and valid test as the material from a 35mbs source and a 50mbs source may not show very much difference even after some basic grading.

What does matter is what happens to the codec once it has gone through several post production processes and is then transmitted across the delivery network which can be sat or cable.

So a lower bit rate codec with 4.2.0 colour space may hold up OK for news or doco's where minimum post is being applied but for a drama that has a a lot more requirement for post processes will benefit from 50mbs 4.2.2 colour space.

From a practical point of view it is hard to see the effects at the edit end of things but that is why broadcasters have minimum specs that have been tried and tested through the whole delivery process from camera to end viewer.

March 8th, 2011, 06:16 AM	#1
Justin St.Clair Lewis Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Sydney, Australia & London UK Posts: 21	The nanoflash difference This goes out to all you working TV editors. All "deliverables" issues etc aside, in edit for a tv travel doco type series, is there a big difference at your end in dealing with xdcam ex 4:2:0 35mbs and 4:2:2 50mbs when it comes to editing and using a normal or usual amount of grading prior to broadcast? Yes, I know this is very open to interpretation in terms of what is normal, but pls share your experiences. I understand xdcam ex doesn't hold up well to much grading, but how bad is it ( or not)? I'm planning a shoot and trying to guage the real world difference between these codecs and the possibility of using nano flash. I'm guessin after using it all this time some of you may have got some opioid based on experience?

March 9th, 2011, 11:01 PM	#2
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	Re: The nanoflash difference I think the SxS card footage is fine. I had to take over a project from one of our competitors and they gave me all the footage that came from the Nano Flash and from the SxS card (they recorded both at the same time). I ended up using the SxS footage because they looked about the same to me. Our competitor swears that for special effects the Nanoflash is the only way to go. But I do a ton of green screen and it always looks fine to me. See for yourself. (it's not Hollywood but our clients are very happy) Sonic Life - Website Intro on Vimeo The REACH - television commercial on Vimeo __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

March 10th, 2011, 03:45 AM	#3
Gary Nattrass Trustee Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Cornsay Durham UK Posts: 1,992	Re: The nanoflash difference Hi Justin the key thing about codec's from the camera end and why broadcasters insist on a minimum spec is not just related to the edit stage. What you have to bear in mind is that the shooting and editing can be where the least effects on a codec are present so to do a comparison at this stage can not be a true and valid test as the material from a 35mbs source and a 50mbs source may not show very much difference even after some basic grading. What does matter is what happens to the codec once it has gone through several post production processes and is then transmitted across the delivery network which can be sat or cable. So a lower bit rate codec with 4.2.0 colour space may hold up OK for news or doco's where minimum post is being applied but for a drama that has a a lot more requirement for post processes will benefit from 50mbs 4.2.2 colour space. From a practical point of view it is hard to see the effects at the edit end of things but that is why broadcasters have minimum specs that have been tried and tested through the whole delivery process from camera to end viewer. __________________ Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/