E to E Direct Menu Item
 

E to E Direct
Sets the SDI loop-through output to the exact same format as the incoming video format. This
is particularly useful for looping through a psf input. Note: in E to E mode, only embedded
video/audio/timecode are looped to the output (not analog audio, nor LTC/internal timecode).

Would appreciate more details on the usage of this feature. Is this feature used when looping out to an external monitor?

Hi John,

We've just posted a new user manual with a bit more detail (ran out of time last week to get it in to the original one) :

http://www.convergent-design.com/dow...ash_Manual.pdf

***
E to E Direct (SDI Output loop-through only)
Sets the SDI loop-through output to the exact same format as the incoming video format (such
as psf). This is particularly useful for looping through a PSF input. However, in E to E mode,
only embedded video/audio/timecode are looped to the output (not analog audio, nor
LTC/internal timecode). ( Note: some SDI monitors only accept 1080PSF video, not
progressive. In this case, set E to E “On” to loop out PSF from a PSF input.)
***

So this feature is specifically about looping video out of the SDI port when taking in a live input. Some SDI monitors only accept PSF video, this is a way to provide PSF loop-through (from a PSF source). If this is turned off, we will either output progressive or interlaced on the SDI loop-through, depending on the input and PSF In[] setting.

Tommy

Can I then assume that when not using E to E, the analog audio input will be embedded into the SDI out?

Tommy, Mike, Dan... I love that you guys are supporting these products as you do, so please don't consider this as a complaint. You guys rock!

The frequent updates, while welcome of course, make it difficult to keep a printed manual around the shop that is up-to-date. I am causing more trees to be killed these days because of this :-(

I wonder if you could provide replacement pages instead of complete updates unless there are major changes. That might mean arranging the pages for a current version of the manual with a little room to spare. Users could even do manual strike-outs for out-of-date info and a section of updated pages.

Anyway... just a thought... if you have time to consider that, it would be helpful and appreciated. Sorry, but I'm a confirmed tree-hugger!

And speaking of manuals, I'm just a tad confused about the numbering. My first nano manual was 1.0.19. My next update was the 1.0.64. And this new update seems to have gone backwards, since it is now numbered 1.0.112. I always assumed these numbering systems to be normal linear sequences, but I suppose that isn't the case, eh? This isn't .19, .64 and .112 as much s it is 19, 64 and 112... is that right? I just want to be sure I have the latest version before I start killing more trees :-)

Software revision numbers can be confusing. The third number is incrementing higher on later revisions.

64 is less than 112.

112 is a later revision.

Thanks, Aaron! My dad always said, "You learn something new every day... if you're not careful"!

Dear Aaron,

The E to E mode is an almost instaneous replication of the HD-SDI input to the HD-SDI output.

This provides the lowest possible latency so that you monitor shows what is coming out the HD-SDI signal without the usual processing delay in the nanoFlash. The latency is about one microsecond, which is not noticable.

If E to E mode is active, we do not have time to embed external timecode, nor analog audio into the HD-SDI output stream. These and other process contribute to the normal latency when E to E mode is not in use.

Also, E to E mode is a mode that allows a PSF signal to be input via HD-SDI and looped out, still in PSF mode, to the HD-SDI output.

When E to E mode is off, and one has a PSF HD-SDI input, the HD-SDI output (the loop through) will be true progressive. This is fine for some monitors, but not others, including all that require PSF mode to work for progressive modes.

Dear Steve,

Our firmware numbering system is similar to the Dewey Decimal System.

Our first nanoFlash release was 1.0.19, then we had 45 different internal builds of the firmware before we came out with 1.0.64. Then we had 45 more internal versions of the firmware before we came out with 1.0.112.

Each one of these internal versions were used to test new features internally in our lab. Then the final one was put through over a week of solid testing, using multiple nanoFlashes, to help ensure that everything was working.

We will consider your suggestions for the manual.

We had expected for most users to not print out the manual, but to use it electronically via a laptop or netbook.

This subject of the updates to the manual holding back the release of the new feature/bug fix firmware has come up before.

I agree with Steve in his opinion that these folks at C-D are AWESOME. Both the Nano and the XDR were giant leap tools for the Canon XLH1/s, XHG1, Sony Ex1 from the day we got them in our grubby little mitts.

The fact that C-D built in a user firmware updating system to add features so quickly was a blessing. The follow-thru of C-D that they actually fulfilled so many, many new features via this path has also led to some latency in the official documentation. But at the end of the day, I think the majority would still like C-D to follow the path they have chosen of a little latency in OFFICIAL documention of new firmware realized capacities so we can use them versus holding back being able to use new features they have developed sooner.

And a little reading on this forum kind of clues us in at the time of a firmware release.

If you think about the slow poke methodology of most companies and their releases of new promised features, I think one can appreciate the gung-ho attitude of C-D.

And if you ever have any questions, look at how fast they respond... no one I know of comes close. Whether you ask a question here, via email to the folks at C-D, or a phone call, they are right there with answers if they have them or followups. It is a big unrealized value of these 2 products - true customer support.

I have to agree with Steve, this is one great company - great product -great customer service and response.

I think Dan meant 48 for the second one... could be wrong of course - often am!

Dear John,

Either my math was off, or I made a typo.

Either way I was wrong.

John, we appreciate all of you posts. You add a lot to this forum.