nanoFlash Progress Update at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > External Video Recording Solutions > Convergent Design Odyssey

Convergent Design Odyssey
...and other Convergent Design products.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 20th, 2009, 07:29 PM   #1
Convergent Design
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 869
nanoFlash Progress Update

I am pleased to report that we are making solid progress on the nanoFlash. With Dan Keaton on-board to manage sales and marketing and the progress in code development on the Flash XDR, we can now focus more of our efforts on nanoFlash.

Currently the nanoFlash main board is through PCB (printed circuit board) layout. We should finish the top board by the end of this month, which would allow us to build prototype units in Feb. We are reusing 95% of the code from XDR, so the debug should go very fast.

Some highlights of nanoFlash include:
1) Small size: 4.1x3.7x1.25" in size (four nanoFlashes would fit on a single page of paper).
2) Low-Power: 8 Watts (active) and less than 0.4 Watts in standby.
3) Two Compact Flash slots
4) Same very high quality Sony MPEG2 CODEC with 100 Mbps 4:2:2
5) No analog audio I/O (no room in the box), but full embedded support.
6) Remote Start/Stop, Tally Light, RS-232/485 and LTC Input.
7) Most of the same basic capabilities of XDR, such as QT/MXF support, I-Frame only, 24p removal etc.

That about sums it up. Oh yes, one other minor detail...nanoFlash will have both HD/SD-SDI as well as HDMI In and Out...

Cheers-
__________________
Mike Schell
Convergent Design
Mike Schell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2009, 08:14 PM   #2
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 2,230
HDMI in and out is such good news!

Thank you for your foresight.

I was just about to get a WD TV for viewing and demoing footage, but now the Nano Flash can serve that role even better.

Great for monitoring as well.
Tim Polster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2009, 11:55 AM   #3
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Augusta Georgia
Posts: 5,413
Dear Tim,

The HDMI out is great for viewing the footage wherever an HDMI equipped television is available.

I can see that this would be great for viewing the days footage, either on set, or back at a hotel.
__________________
Dan Keaton
Augusta Georgia
Dan Keaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2009, 12:45 PM   #4
Trustee
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1,138
.....Hmmmmmm ! HDMI Support ! HMMMMMMMMMMMMM ! I vaguely remember humbly suggesting this feature be added. The response I got from you folks at the time was less than enthusiastic ;-) Glad to see you finally understood the basic need for HDMI support. Especially considering the plan revision and future iterations of the HDMI spec about to come along.
Mark Job is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2009, 01:11 PM   #5
Convergent Design
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 869
Hi Mark-

I recall your recommendation. Yes, I response was not overwhelming. It did take us a number of months and lots of head scratching to wedge in the HDMI In and Out, while keeping the same overall box dimensions.

So, we did listen to you recommnedations / thoughts, it just took some extra time to implement.

Cheers-
__________________
Mike Schell
Convergent Design
Mike Schell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2009, 02:50 PM   #6
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: santa fe, nm
Posts: 3,264
Images: 10
This is GOOD news!!
Bill Ravens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2009, 11:49 PM   #7
Trustee
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Schell View Post
Hi Mark-
I recall your recommendation. Yes, I response was not overwhelming. It did take us a number of months and lots of head scratching to wedge in the HDMI In and Out, while keeping the same overall box dimensions.

So, we did listen to you recommnedations / thoughts, it just took some extra time to implement.

Cheers-
...Actually, my suggestion for HDMI was for the Flash XDR, but it's great to see it on the Nanoflash product :-) The thing is Mike, forget all the reasons I gave about industry professionals demanding it, or how it will become the new HD-SDI, rather, think bandwidth. The HDMI spec is capable of quite alot of bandwidth and is a full duplex communication protocol, whereas HD-SDI works only in one direction at a time. If you need to record HD-SDI, then this is one BNC-If you need HD-SDI output, then this is another BNC socket. I don't know what the addition of such a socket will do to the XDR ? Perhaps this is impractical from a manufacturing standpoint, because it would mean you have to add the extra HDMI chip plus socket room and location to the internal MOBO. (??) However, if there were ever to be an option of 24F uncompressed, for example, then playout and record in would be able to pass the huge data rate increase more easily via the HDMI interface versus HD-SDI. Possibly, RAW data could be passed directly to PC via this method.

Last edited by Mark Job; January 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 AM.
Mark Job is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2009, 09:11 AM   #8
Convergent Design
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Andrew Job View Post
The HDMI spec is capable of quite alot of bandwidth and is a full duplex communication protocol, whereas HD-SDI works only in one direction at a time.
Hi Mark-
Where do you find that the HDMI spec supports full-duplex communication? I have thoroughly read the spec as well as designed both the HDMI In and HDMI Out circuits. HDMI as well as HD/SD-SDI are uni-directional protocols.

The extra bandwidth supported in the HDMI spec is great, but since our products are limited to 1.5GHz HD-SDI (1080p30), it's an overkill for our application. Yes, someday, in some future product, we will support 1080p60, which is already allowed in the HDMI 1.3 spec, but not anytime soon.

Best-
__________________
Mike Schell
Convergent Design
Mike Schell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2009, 10:18 AM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Incline Village, Nevada
Posts: 604
Regarding HDMI for recording and editing purposes - I am not sure that this protocol supports much needed timecode addressing of each frame.
John Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2009, 10:28 AM   #10
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Augusta Georgia
Posts: 5,413
Dear John,

As far as I know, the HDMI output on cameras do not include timecode.

However, if one wants to provide external timecode to the nanoFlash, we will incorporate it into our footage.
__________________
Dan Keaton
Augusta Georgia
Dan Keaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2009, 10:43 AM   #11
Convergent Design
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Richard View Post
Regarding HDMI for recording and editing purposes - I am not sure that this protocol supports much needed timecode addressing of each frame.
Hi John-
You are absolutely correct, HDMI does not support time-code. However, we can add time-code (via LTC or internally generated) to the QT/MXF file when we capture the video. If you use LTC timeocde, it won't be 100% perfect as no HDMI camera has genlock input, but it should be very close.

However, on playback out the HDMI, there is no path to transmit the timecode, but still useful for monitoring.
__________________
Mike Schell
Convergent Design
Mike Schell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2009, 11:27 AM   #12
Trustee
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Schell View Post
Hi Mark-
Where do you find that the HDMI spec supports full-duplex communication? I have thoroughly read the spec as well as designed both the HDMI In and HDMI Out circuits. HDMI as well as HD/SD-SDI are uni-directional protocols.

The extra bandwidth supported in the HDMI spec is great, but since our products are limited to 1.5GHz HD-SDI (1080p30), it's an overkill for our application. Yes, someday, in some future product, we will support 1080p60, which is already allowed in the HDMI 1.3 spec, but not anytime soon.

Best-
....Spec 1.4 is coming. The new spec is supposed to be push pull, yes it does support TimeCode in the spec. What have you been reading ? Also, multi-channel audio is also supported and has been from the initial spec.
Mark Job is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2009, 12:16 PM   #13
Convergent Design
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Andrew Job View Post
....Spec 1.4 is coming. The new spec is supposed to be push pull, yes it does support TimeCode in the spec. What have you been reading ? Also, multi-channel audio is also supported and has been from the initial spec.
Hi Mark-
OK, I'll take your word on it, as I have not seen the spec. Until the actual silicon is available, we cannot implement this spec.

Yes, we are aware of the multi-channel audio capability and have long-ago implemented this feature in our nanoConnect (HDMI to HD-SDI) box.

Cheers-
__________________
Mike Schell
Convergent Design
Mike Schell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2009, 08:54 AM   #14
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Incline Village, Nevada
Posts: 604
The reason I noted one of the drawbacks of the currently available HDMI (1.3) was to point out the positives of HD-SDI and why HDMI is not a better replacement for it as I think was being indicated.

Another superior practical use of HD-SDI is cabling and length of cable runs possible. HD-SDI is many times less expensive and can be run up to 200ft from camera source to switcher or recorder. HDMI cabling is expensive with far less limited runs without extender amplifiers.

Then there is the connectors - HDMI is not a solid locking male to female connection compared to BNC used in SDI. There are some hybrid new style locking HDMI connections, but again, they are expensive and limited in cable lengths.

And I don't think HDMI connections were intended for routine plug in/out cycles that would be used in a production cycle like BNC connectors on the SDI.

As I see it, the HDMI implementation in the Nano is a great added value for monitoring as I think it was meant.

It was very interesting to hear that a new upcoming implementation of HDMI 1.4 would be carrying timecode.
John Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2009, 09:39 AM   #15
Trustee
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Richard View Post
The reason I noted one of the drawbacks of the currently available HDMI (1.3) was to point out the positives of HD-SDI and why HDMI is not a better replacement for it as I think was being indicated.

Another superior practical use of HD-SDI is cabling and length of cable runs possible. HD-SDI is many times less expensive and can be run up to 200ft from camera source to switcher or recorder. HDMI cabling is expensive with far less limited runs without extender amplifiers.

Then there is the connectors - HDMI is not a solid locking male to female connection compared to BNC used in SDI. There are some hybrid new style locking HDMI connections, but again, they are expensive and limited in cable lengths.

And I don't think HDMI connections were intended for routine plug in/out cycles that would be used in a production cycle like BNC connectors on the SDI.

As I see it, the HDMI implementation in the Nano is a great added value for monitoring as I think it was meant.

It was very interesting to hear that a new upcoming implementation of HDMI 1.4 would be carrying timecode.
.....Dear Mike & John. The HDMI original spec never was designed for SMPTE TC because you don't need an LTC stream to transmit the TC data anymore. Allow me to explain. With the advent of the Meta Data enabled MXF International Standard, one does not require a seperate data stream transportation technology to deliver the TC data. TC data "is embedded" into the MXF video file structure along with any other meta data as either an XML script or other language. This is what's sooo cool about MXF, and why you want to enter its wonderful world. Avid already uses the MXF file standard's extra information language to include chapter markers and thmbnail buttons in XML script as part of the MXF file (Sequence) for DVD creation without even leaving the timeline. What MXF file structure buys you, is the ability to include other types of programming language in it, such as XML, for example. Also, your point about HD-SDI long runs is moot because HD-SDI is not a push pull auto configuring hand shake protocol, whereas HDMI is an ultra high bandwidth protocol better suited to transport uncompressed, or even RAW data format information. Spec 1.4 will allow for industrial runs. My apologies for not being more clear about the TC transmission issue. If end users require LTC for interface with legacy technology, then the best way is to regenerate this seperately from a seperate output.

The MXF file structure language when utilised with HDMI spec is an awesome force of technical flexibility.
Mark Job is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > External Video Recording Solutions > Convergent Design Odyssey

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:11 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network