Matrox I-Frame 100Mbit vs Nanoflash at DVinfo.net

Steve Kalle · October 1st, 2009, 11:02 AM

I am getting the Matrox Mini very soon and then eventually will need to record green screen (using my EX1). I can get a SDI-HDMI converter for $500 and use the Matrox Mini to record from the EX1's HD-SDI (Mini records 422 10bit thru HDMI) using Matrox's 100Mbit I-Frame codec. Has anyone recorded using this codec? Anyone know of samples to download?

And what are your thoughts about this vs using the Nanoflash 100Mbit L-GOP?

Ned Soltz · October 1st, 2009, 12:48 PM

I use the Matrox MXO2 Mini only on the Mac side so I presume you are using it on a PC since that codec only exists for PC.

My guess is that 100 Mbps long-GOP MPEG2 would be significantly more efficient than any 100 Mbps I-frame codec.

I'm currently testing a NanoFlash and the results are nothing short of stunning. At 100 Mbps I'm seeing next to no artifacting. Have not attempted a key yet but unquestionably it will be superior to native 35 Mbps from the EX.

The Matrox codec is pretty good, though. It might just do the trick for you.

Ned Soltz

Nathan Hudson · October 1st, 2009, 01:36 PM

While it's nice to have a beefier codec and bitrate, I have ZERO problems greenscreening people with my stock EX1. It's all in the lighting, not the codec.

Paul Cronin · October 1st, 2009, 06:31 PM

100Mbps I-frame is not up to snuff with 100Mbps long GOP on the Nano. I have shot 220Mbps I-frame on the Nano and that is closer to 100Mbps long GOP. Do not underestimate long GOP on the Nano at higher bit rate of 100 up to 160. And if and when I shoot I-Frame I never shoot under 220Mbps.

I would suggest you go for a Nano you will not be disappointed.

Alister Chapman · October 2nd, 2009, 12:57 AM

Nathan, while you are certainly correct that the most important thing for chroma key is lighting and I too can get very good keys from 35Mb/s EX footage, keying from 100Mb/s NanoFlash footage is so much easier and cleaner. There is much less mosquito noise in the NanoFlash footage and this really cleans up fine edges.

John Mitchell · October 5th, 2009, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

I am getting the Matrox Mini very soon and then eventually will need to record green screen (using my EX1). I can get a SDI-HDMI converter for $500 and use the Matrox Mini to record from the EX1's HD-SDI (Mini records 422 10bit thru HDMI) using Matrox's 100Mbit I-Frame codec. Has anyone recorded using this codec? Anyone know of samples to download?

Steve are you sure about this? My research on the Matrox mini says it doesn't record anything - you need to hook it up to a PC or a laptop. Morevover when the "max" function which does the live crunching is operating the IO function does not work - therefore you cannot use it as "live" transcoder. You have to buy a separate "compress" card to be able to live transcode and you still need a PC/Mac hanging off the whole thing.

I don't think I'd trust so many variables to a shoot scenario. I would say that CD's Nanoflash, while more expensive, is far more suited to your purpose.

October 1st, 2009, 11:02 AM	#1
Steve Kalle Trustee Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,554	Matrox I-Frame 100Mbit vs Nanoflash I am getting the Matrox Mini very soon and then eventually will need to record green screen (using my EX1). I can get a SDI-HDMI converter for $500 and use the Matrox Mini to record from the EX1's HD-SDI (Mini records 422 10bit thru HDMI) using Matrox's 100Mbit I-Frame codec. Has anyone recorded using this codec? Anyone know of samples to download? And what are your thoughts about this vs using the Nanoflash 100Mbit L-GOP?

October 1st, 2009, 06:31 PM	#4
Paul Cronin Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Rhode Island Posts: 4,048	100Mbps I-frame is not up to snuff with 100Mbps long GOP on the Nano. I have shot 220Mbps I-frame on the Nano and that is closer to 100Mbps long GOP. Do not underestimate long GOP on the Nano at higher bit rate of 100 up to 160. And if and when I shoot I-Frame I never shoot under 220Mbps. I would suggest you go for a Nano you will not be disappointed. __________________ Paul Cronin www.paulcroninstudios.com

October 2nd, 2009, 12:57 AM	#5
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	Nathan, while you are certainly correct that the most important thing for chroma key is lighting and I too can get very good keys from 35Mb/s EX footage, keying from 100Mb/s NanoFlash footage is so much easier and cleaner. There is much less mosquito noise in the NanoFlash footage and this really cleans up fine edges. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

October 1st, 2009, 12:48 PM	#2
Ned Soltz Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: Teaneck, NJ Posts: 659	I use the Matrox MXO2 Mini only on the Mac side so I presume you are using it on a PC since that codec only exists for PC. My guess is that 100 Mbps long-GOP MPEG2 would be significantly more efficient than any 100 Mbps I-frame codec. I'm currently testing a NanoFlash and the results are nothing short of stunning. At 100 Mbps I'm seeing next to no artifacting. Have not attempted a key yet but unquestionably it will be superior to native 35 Mbps from the EX. The Matrox codec is pretty good, though. It might just do the trick for you. Ned Soltz

October 1st, 2009, 01:36 PM	#3
Nathan Hudson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Winter Park, FL Posts: 55	While it's nice to have a beefier codec and bitrate, I have ZERO problems greenscreening people with my stock EX1. It's all in the lighting, not the codec.