|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 26th, 2010, 11:56 AM
|
#1 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Augusta Georgia
Posts: 5,421
|
Second Public Beta Discussion Area
Dear Friends,
Our engineers have been working very hard to prepare our Second Public Beta. For the nanoFlash, the firmware number of the Second Public Beta is expected to be 1.5.126. We are finishing the documentation so we can post this firmware today. When it is posted, we will also post information on what has been improved. We have attempted to address all reported issues with the First Public Beta (1.5.31). Firmware for both the nanoFlash and Flash XDR should be posted today, so stay tuned. The Flash XDR firmware numbers will be different due to the way that we number our firmware builds. This firmware has been undergoing substantial testing in our labs. We now feel that it is time to post it so our friends can test it with their cameras and their workflow. Please note that we have made major improvements with this release, especially in the way that we work with the CompactFlash cards and audio support. More information will be posted as soon as possible. Please post all comments, concerns, and any problems with this Second Public Beta in this thread.
__________________
Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia |
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 12:03 PM
|
#2 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1,138
|
Can't Wait to Test ! :-)
Hi Dan:
OK. I will test as thoroughly as possible and post all XDR 2nd Public Beta results in this thread :-) Thank you and the folks at CD for all of their hard work to bring us this update beta firmware. Dan, if this beta is favourable, will CD then post an *Official-Non_Beta release following ? |
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 12:10 PM
|
#3 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: White Rock
Posts: 254
|
Dear Dan,
Is there any reasons why the new firmware is a lower number then the old one? Is it a typo or that is the real number? Thank you Luben |
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 01:34 PM
|
#4 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Augusta Georgia
Posts: 5,421
|
Dear Luben,
The First Public Beta was 1.5.31, or build number 31 of our firmware version 1.5. The Second Public Beta is 1.5.126, or build number 126 of our firmware version 1.5.
__________________
Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia |
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 01:58 PM
|
#5 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: White Rock
Posts: 254
|
Dear Dan,
Thank you for the explanation! I guess this is a just a numbering issue than anything else. I apologize for the input here, but, isn't instead 1.5.31 to be read/numbered 1.5.031? The way I learn math and numbering 1.5.126 is a smaller number than 1.5.31 and could be confusing down the road if someone wanna roll back to that firmware. I know it's a beta version, but, could happened to the official version too. Cheers Luben |
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 02:07 PM
|
#6 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Augusta Georgia
Posts: 5,421
|
Dear Luben,
Think of it like the Dewey Decimal System.
__________________
Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia |
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 02:14 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: White Rock
Posts: 254
|
Quote:
Is not a big think at all. Last post on that from me. Just wanna say that Dewey Decimal System uses .0xx to clarify the number under 100. Anyway, glad that I'll be testing the new firmware tomorrow. Thank you Luben |
|
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 02:40 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rancho Santa Margarita
Posts: 590
|
Quote:
Nearly ALL software revision systems that I've seen, number releases this way. At least least those that are run by experienced developers. I've run a few dev shops in my day and maintained my own code too. The numbering scheme typically goes something like: [major version] . [ minor version ] . [ build ] each time you increment the major version, the number in position 1 would be incremented. like from 1 to 2. each time you increment the number in the middle position, that increments the minor revision. yes, a minor revision of 152 is indeed greater than minor revision 2,.. by 150 revisions! when the build is incremented, the third number is incremented. again, a build number of 75 is much greater than a build number of 9. zero filling any of these numbers would be senseless. you'd be supposing that there are a maximum number of digits for each field (which there shouldn't ever be), and adding extra digits to the version number for no good reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 03:29 PM
|
#9 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 218
|
Tough Love... Version Numbers
Nothing gets by this crowd!
|
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 05:24 PM
|
#10 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 427
|
Ok - first test (going on a cruise tomorrow morning) so thought I would do a brief trial - this new beta exhibits some of the same behavior as I have reported with the previous beta: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/converge...ml#post1498952 - there are some differences - there is still the 1-4 second delay from pressing record to the Nanoflash actually starting to record. When I press clip review button on the camera (have it set for entire clip) - the Nano doesn't record right away but for the last 2-3 seconds (of a 10 second clip) it will record. This time however, when I go to record again it will start recording - either right away or with a couple of seconds delay.
Looks like you guys are close but not quite there yet! Have you tested the firmware on an EX1 with the new v. 1.20 firmware installed? Before you ask: - The camera is set to record 1080 30p and Mode: Preset & Run: Rec-Run The Nano is set to record MXF 1080 30p @ 100mbps, Trigger>TC>Last TC; prebuffer is on, psf on, timecode: embedded. Using Photofast 64 GB card and also Sankisk Extreme iii - 32 GB Going back to 1.1.154 for my trip. |
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 06:50 PM
|
#11 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 218
|
SD sync.. looks good.
Audio sync in SD SDI recordings seems spot on... more testing in the AM. EX-3 with SD downconversion via SDI. MOV recorded GOP.
|
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 07:10 PM
|
#12 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Augusta Georgia
Posts: 5,421
|
Dear Barry,
Have a great trip. We will be attempting to test everything you mentioned in our lab. We have an EX3 in our lab, but not an EX1 or EX1R.
__________________
Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia |
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 07:12 PM
|
#13 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Augusta Georgia
Posts: 5,421
|
Dear George,
Thank your for testing and your report.
__________________
Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia |
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 08:04 PM
|
#14 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 427
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26th, 2010, 11:18 PM
|
#15 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 975
|
Barry, I have an EX3 and have updated the Sony firmware to 1.10 (which activates the full overcrank on the SDHC cards)
Just loaded up the new beta firmware and will put it through it's paces. Pretty sure the EX1 and 3 are fundamentally the same camera as far as the electronics go. Like you, I am very interested in the SD functionality of the nanoFlash. I will make a point of shooting some SD footage over the coming days to see if I can replicate what you did and see if the issues are the same on my end. Last edited by Andrew Stone; March 27th, 2010 at 01:04 AM. Reason: correcting a mistake pointed out by Dean in a subsequent post |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
