NanoRaw anyone?
 

Your NanoFlash looks like an amazing product but some people seem to not make the connection that it is close to uncompressed 8bit 4:2:2. Seems like you need a little buzz word like RAW. I think it would be worth considering calling your 140/160 Mbps 4:2:2 Long-GOP Full-Raster settings NanoRaw. Basically if it is over 100Mbps it is like a smaller version of Uncompressed. Then you will get people shooting with it and saying they shoot "Raw". Other codecs aren't exactly raw but they market them that way.

Anyway I am sure with the New Sony cameras you will be selling more than you can make!

:)

Well, firstly, calling it RAW would be a lie. Secondly, RAW has implications among professionals (and who else is going to be buying a $3k recording device) that the Nanoflash can't do. Thirdly, RAW is proprietary per camera, whereas the Nanoflash records an industry standard HDSDI signal. Two VERY different things.

Uncompressed /= RAW

Are you really suggesting that a company lie to it's customers to get more sales?

Not to be picky, but raw is normally MORE than just merely 'uncompressed.'

Raw out of RED or Cunima, for example, require processing to BECOME 'uncompressed,' assuming that's your goal.

Frankly, the industry isn't warming to the raw concept.

Even uncompressed is taking a hit.

The nanoFLASH is the wonder gadget of the decade, in my book. For me, it all comes down to how it LOOKS. Otherwise you're playing a numbers game.

What the ????
 

.....What the 923456356gfnjfbncv AKdbj fklfam, nfe53 !!!!!! @@@@@@ ??

.....RAW is just an unprocessed pure signal which comes from the imager. RAW usually has to be processed before it becomes uncompressed. I would settle for the uncompressed only, because I don't want to spend any computer time processing the RAW into uncompressed. Many shooters are no longer calling for uncompressed because in most circumstances you simply don't need it. Even the independent horror feature "The Signal" was shot on Canon XLH1's in all singing all dancing in camera HDV cassettes and output to 35 mm film. Check out the trailer by clicking Apple - Trailers - The Signal . It looks pretty darn good. (Although I haven't seen it at the cinema off of a 35 mm print yet.)

......You do still need uncompressed for film out as far as I'm concerned - especially if you are doing multi-layer and green screen special effects. Going to 10 bit also helps in this specialized area. Don't get me wrong, you can certainly green screen and do digital composites quite well in 8 bit compressed and get quite acceptable results. The result just looks sooo much better when you go full out uncomp and 10 bit. The Nano and the XDR are the best device extent to bridge the gap between low end cameras and high end digital cinema.

Mark -

I did the first "DIGITAL" 3D, live action feature (NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 3D) with a Z1-based system of my design, which was put out on 35mm film.

We had a special screening of the film at the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood and on that big screen...I am STILL very impressed by what this highly compressed/interlaced stuff can look like if you're careful.

That was WAY back in 2005!

Night of the Living Dead 3D

Shot at 1080 50i.

In my own studio I prefer everything uncompressed, 10 bit. Non nonsense. No loss. I leave the loss to my clients.

But compression codecs and equipment are, especially with the nanoFLASH, a very serious improvement over even a year ago.

The talk of "raw" isn't progressive, in my opinion. Even on-set DI is straining things. Sorry, I come form a film background, and we sure didn't need the extra personnel (and equipment) to make beautiful images. Pick up and move without all the cables and video village circus.

Again, the nanoFLASH is a major paradigm shift to get away from a lot of this bloated "because you can" nonsense.

Let's get back to making FILMS.

An excellent summation, Daniel, and a great way to conclude a thread that was really just a drive-by to begin with. I would have ganked it out of view completely if it didn't already have such great responses, but we are definitely done with it now.

Nothing to see here, folks... move along...

When RAW is not RAW
 

A little miffed I spent 20 minutes typing a response and then reply to a closed thread!

Raw is actually better than uncompressed in my estimation. If there were any way to record RAW, the raw sensor data would take up less space than uncompressed 4:4:4 RGB video in most cases. Raw would also be easier to store than uncompressed video since it not only takes up less space, but requires no processing to store the raw sensor data to storage / recorder.

Mark is right though, turning Raw data into uncompressed video data would be CPU intense in post production.

Also, no camera is capable of outputting raw sensor data on any standardized interface since there is no standard for this. RED comes close, but that's not raw exactly (although they incorrectly market it as raw). It's also not standardized in any way, it's a closed system that only RED can play in. That's why you don't see any 3rd party recorders that can record redcode.

The closest you're going to get to raw with any kind of video camera that I know of, is dual link HD-SDI 10 bit 4:4:4 uncompressed (or single link HD-SDI 4:4:4 10 bit uncompressed, but this is a newer standard). But again, uncompressed video is not raw,... it's sensor data that's already been processed to become uncompressed video.