Convergent design nanodrive for post work

Mark David Williams · August 15th, 2009, 05:39 AM

Hi Alistair

Yes I always use colorista and often MB.

Okay and thanks, in your opinion will the EX1 will give as good or better result than super16mm even when recorded using a cintel ditto scanner which records the image in DPX10 bit files and about 8mb per frame?

The problem with Red is the cost and workflow IE peripherals and editing on a mac as well as having to down rez to 2k Might as well stick with the EX1?

Mark David Williams · August 15th, 2009, 08:45 AM

So I guess out of the cheaper priced recorders there is only the nanoflash 8 bit or the panasonic AG-HPG20 which is 10 bit both record at 100mbps I guess the panny looks like the better option.

Mitchell Lewis · August 15th, 2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

So I guess out of the cheaper priced recorders there is only the nanoflash 8 bit or the panasonic AG-HPG20 which is 10 bit both record at 100mbps I guess the panny looks like the better option.

That's true, if you're happy with using P2 cards as your storage medium. Personally I like the fact that the nanoflash uses more readily available compact flash memory cards. But yeah, it's more expensive, but it's also much more portable.

Personally I would get the AJA Ki Pro before I'd buy the Panasonic AG-HPG20.

Bruce Rawlings · August 15th, 2009, 09:26 AM

I think the NanoFlash will be the best bet as it records at 100 or 160 mbits and in .Mov or MXF formats amonst others. The EX1 output is pretty well future proofed.

Mark David Williams · August 15th, 2009, 09:48 AM

Mitchell the AJA can only be used on a mac and final cut pro?

Bruce I'm thinking here that 10 bits is better for colour correction?

Best

Mark

Mark David Williams · August 15th, 2009, 11:34 AM

What are the pros and cons of an AJA card?

Alister Chapman · August 15th, 2009, 11:42 AM

The AJA Ki pro I would expect to be better than the HPG20.

10 bit will only be better than 8 bit when there is a corresponding increase in the bit rate. The EBU have done many tests comparing 10 bit and 8 bit and their tests have shown that in many cases high compression 10 bit codecs are not offering the advantages they should as they just don't have high enough bit rates to take advantage of the extra bits. You have to remember that to compress 10 bits of data (1024 levels) requires a significantly higher bit rate than for 8 bits (256 levels), not just double or even triple.

Certainly the NanoFlash and Ki pro will improve on the already excellent EX output, I'm not so sure that there is any advantage to using the HPG20, however I have not done any actual comparisons so that is opinion only. It would certainly be an interesting test, anyone with a Mac could generate 50Mb/s XDCAM, ProRes HQ and DVCPRO HD files to compare. In the test I have done I found ProRes to be noisy. I still think that a NanoFlash at 100Mb/s would be hard to beat.

Mark David Williams · August 15th, 2009, 12:04 PM

Hi Alistair

AG-HPG20 for colour correction - Google Search

On the second link down of this google search there is a pdf download that shows the HPG20 10 bit compared to 8 bit colour gradation. This looks impressive to me and would certainly make a difference in cc if true but then it is advertising what do you think?

Mitchell Lewis · August 15th, 2009, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

Mitchell the AJA can only be used on a mac and final cut pro?

Bruce I'm thinking here that 10 bits is better for colour correction?

Best

Mark

I'm pretty sure the answer is Yes. Mainly because the Ki Pro saves everything to ProRes, and I don't think there's a way to use the ProRes codec in a Windows environment.

Mark David Williams · August 15th, 2009, 12:46 PM

Just realised there are no P2 cards with the recorder and how expensive they are.

Everything has its catches..

Nanoflash 8 bits
AG HPG20 Cost of cards and only usable n some nle's
AJA KI Pro only usable with a mac and final cut pro
AJA capture cards need a controller and hard drives so lose portability.

All I want is 10 bit 4.2.2 recorder with a 100mbps codec and flash cards. This surely must be an obvious consumer product?

Alister Chapman · August 15th, 2009, 12:46 PM

Panasonic are hardly going to say that there is no advantage and a simple image of a grey scale tells us nothing about how the codec actually performs.

It's not as simple as 10 bit v 8 bit. Bit rate and codec efficiency are just as significant. Mpeg as used in the NanoFlash uses a long GOP. It's generally accepted that long GOP codecs are much more efficient than I frame only codecs. Depending on the codecs often by a factor of 3 or more. Now if you take the NanoFlash and run it at 50Mb/s it's already almost certainly more efficient than a 100Mb/s I frame only codec by a fair margin. So that begs the question, where does all the extra bandwidth required to encode 10 bits (as opposed to 8 bits) in the AVC I codec come from? The answer is there is no extra bandwidth. As a result the AVC I codec will suffer from more macro blocking and mosquito noise in areas of high detail which wipes out any advantage that having 10 bits may have offered. The requirement for a higher bit rate for 10 bit 4:2:2 is why ProRes HQ as used on the Ki Pro is 220Mb/s, even the lower quality option is 145Mb/s. It's also why the EBU amongst others are perfectly happy with the use of 8 bit codecs for acquisition. Don't forget that the NanoFlash can go upto 160Mb/s using Mpeg2. At 100Mb/s it's pretty much impossible to tell it from uncompressed.

There is no doubt though that a really robust 10 bit codec for post production where storage space is not an issue is preferable.

You should also consider the additional cost of storage when using a 100Mb/s codec over a 35Mb/s or 50Mb/s codec.

Alister Chapman · August 15th, 2009, 12:48 PM

You can view, playback and edit ProRes on a PC provided you have quicktime installed. The only thing you can't do on a PC is encode to ProRes.

Mark David Williams · August 15th, 2009, 12:51 PM

Hi Alastair

From what I've been reading the nanoflash 100mbps is better than the 160 i frames so that sounds like the best option.

I guess I'm back to square one really and that is is the Nanoflash offer any advantage when it comes to colour correction?

What might be an idea is to hire a decent 10 bit portable recorder. Not sure where to get one though and which to go for?

Mark David Williams · August 15th, 2009, 12:55 PM

Hi Alastair

Could I edit with the aja ki pro footage in vegas 9 if so this could be an answer.

Mark David Williams · August 15th, 2009, 01:05 PM

Although vegas is only 8 bit so Id have to use after effects and create a proxy in vegas?

August 15th, 2009, 11:42 AM	#22
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	The AJA Ki pro I would expect to be better than the HPG20. 10 bit will only be better than 8 bit when there is a corresponding increase in the bit rate. The EBU have done many tests comparing 10 bit and 8 bit and their tests have shown that in many cases high compression 10 bit codecs are not offering the advantages they should as they just don't have high enough bit rates to take advantage of the extra bits. You have to remember that to compress 10 bits of data (1024 levels) requires a significantly higher bit rate than for 8 bits (256 levels), not just double or even triple. Certainly the NanoFlash and Ki pro will improve on the already excellent EX output, I'm not so sure that there is any advantage to using the HPG20, however I have not done any actual comparisons so that is opinion only. It would certainly be an interesting test, anyone with a Mac could generate 50Mb/s XDCAM, ProRes HQ and DVCPRO HD files to compare. In the test I have done I found ProRes to be noisy. I still think that a NanoFlash at 100Mb/s would be hard to beat. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

August 15th, 2009, 12:46 PM	#26
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	Panasonic are hardly going to say that there is no advantage and a simple image of a grey scale tells us nothing about how the codec actually performs. It's not as simple as 10 bit v 8 bit. Bit rate and codec efficiency are just as significant. Mpeg as used in the NanoFlash uses a long GOP. It's generally accepted that long GOP codecs are much more efficient than I frame only codecs. Depending on the codecs often by a factor of 3 or more. Now if you take the NanoFlash and run it at 50Mb/s it's already almost certainly more efficient than a 100Mb/s I frame only codec by a fair margin. So that begs the question, where does all the extra bandwidth required to encode 10 bits (as opposed to 8 bits) in the AVC I codec come from? The answer is there is no extra bandwidth. As a result the AVC I codec will suffer from more macro blocking and mosquito noise in areas of high detail which wipes out any advantage that having 10 bits may have offered. The requirement for a higher bit rate for 10 bit 4:2:2 is why ProRes HQ as used on the Ki Pro is 220Mb/s, even the lower quality option is 145Mb/s. It's also why the EBU amongst others are perfectly happy with the use of 8 bit codecs for acquisition. Don't forget that the NanoFlash can go upto 160Mb/s using Mpeg2. At 100Mb/s it's pretty much impossible to tell it from uncompressed. There is no doubt though that a really robust 10 bit codec for post production where storage space is not an issue is preferable. You should also consider the additional cost of storage when using a 100Mb/s codec over a 35Mb/s or 50Mb/s codec. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

August 15th, 2009, 12:48 PM	#27
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	You can view, playback and edit ProRes on a PC provided you have quicktime installed. The only thing you can't do on a PC is encode to ProRes. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

August 15th, 2009, 05:39 AM	#16
Mark David Williams Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Hertfordshire UK Posts: 414	Hi Alistair Yes I always use colorista and often MB. Okay and thanks, in your opinion will the EX1 will give as good or better result than super16mm even when recorded using a cintel ditto scanner which records the image in DPX10 bit files and about 8mb per frame? The problem with Red is the cost and workflow IE peripherals and editing on a mac as well as having to down rez to 2k Might as well stick with the EX1?

August 15th, 2009, 08:45 AM	#17
Mark David Williams Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Hertfordshire UK Posts: 414	So I guess out of the cheaper priced recorders there is only the nanoflash 8 bit or the panasonic AG-HPG20 which is 10 bit both record at 100mbps I guess the panny looks like the better option.

August 15th, 2009, 09:26 AM	#19
Bruce Rawlings Major Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Cardiff, Wales, UK Posts: 410	I think the NanoFlash will be the best bet as it records at 100 or 160 mbits and in .Mov or MXF formats amonst others. The EX1 output is pretty well future proofed.

August 15th, 2009, 09:48 AM	#20
Mark David Williams Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Hertfordshire UK Posts: 414	Mitchell the AJA can only be used on a mac and final cut pro? Bruce I'm thinking here that 10 bits is better for colour correction? Best Mark

August 15th, 2009, 11:34 AM	#21
Mark David Williams Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Hertfordshire UK Posts: 414	What are the pros and cons of an AJA card?

August 15th, 2009, 12:04 PM	#23
Mark David Williams Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Hertfordshire UK Posts: 414	Hi Alistair AG-HPG20 for colour correction - Google Search On the second link down of this google search there is a pdf download that shows the HPG20 10 bit compared to 8 bit colour gradation. This looks impressive to me and would certainly make a difference in cc if true but then it is advertising what do you think?

August 15th, 2009, 12:51 PM	#28
Mark David Williams Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Hertfordshire UK Posts: 414	Hi Alastair From what I've been reading the nanoflash 100mbps is better than the 160 i frames so that sounds like the best option. I guess I'm back to square one really and that is is the Nanoflash offer any advantage when it comes to colour correction? What might be an idea is to hire a decent 10 bit portable recorder. Not sure where to get one though and which to go for?

August 15th, 2009, 12:55 PM	#29
Mark David Williams Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Hertfordshire UK Posts: 414	Hi Alastair Could I edit with the aja ki pro footage in vegas 9 if so this could be an answer.

August 15th, 2009, 01:05 PM	#30
Mark David Williams Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Hertfordshire UK Posts: 414	Although vegas is only 8 bit so Id have to use after effects and create a proxy in vegas?