NANOFLASH, Pan. hpx 500
 

Hello everyone. I am working with Panasonic, and I've read that it is compatible with the hpx 500, but I was wondering what particular virtues provide use with the Nano Flash, since it works in DVCPro HD at a resolution of 1440x1080 ...
In fact, it would be a bloated quality, not a maximization of the response capacity of the camera. I appreciate your information. Thank you all. Greetings

An interesting question. With the Nanoflash, pretty much everything comes down to what it is output from the HD SDI socket. I wonder exactly what that is from the 500?
Steve

Dear Javier,

The nanoFlash does a good job of recording the images that it receives.

With the nanoFlash you have the advantages of a tapeless workflow, which implies no tape dropouts and a faster than real-time transfer to your editing computer is possible.

But, in your specific case, using the Panasonic HPX500, there are many other advantages.

Yes, DVCPro HD is 100 Mbps, but not in all modes. Yes, at 1080i59.94 the bit rate is 100 Mbps, but it is much less when shooting in 24p.

With the nanoFlash, you get 100Mbps, (if you choose 100 Mbps, there are many other options going all the way up to 280 Mbps), and if you choose 24p, you still get 100 Mbps.

Thus, each frame is given a lot more bandwidth to faithfully record your images than DVCPro HD provides at 24p.

While DVCPro HD is full raster, if recording in 720p, it is not full raster if recording in 1080 modes.

The nanoFlash is always recording full raster. In 1080 modes, the nanoFlash records a full 1920 x 1080.


On a less technical side, our customers with the HPX500 and a nanoFlash appear to be very happy that they added a nanoFlash to their kit.

And the nanoFlash will work with many cameras, thus if you upgrade your camera, your investment in the nanoFlash is not lost.

I will chime in here as Dan has helped me with an HPX-500 + Nano setup.

The Nano has some real advantages. What Dan said is true, the Nano records full raster, and to my understanding, the image from the HDSDI port is full resolution (pre-codec). So your recorded footage will in theory extract more detail for you to have in the edit bay.

The Nano also gives you 24bit audio which is beatiful compared to 16bit.

DVCProHD is actually 960x720 and 1280x1080 and the upsampling in the chips for the HPX-500 is optimized to this resolution.

The Nano mounts on the back and I power it from the CD power tap on the back of the camera, so it does not feel like an external device.

If you do not already own a lot of P2 cards, there is no question the Nano is a better investment. If you already own $1,000s of dollars worth of P2 then I do not think that is a wise use of funds to have both. DVCProHD is a very nice codec. there are a lot of people who enjoy the camera using this recording method. I felt like the Nano was a better investment not only because it does give more detail and better audio, it can also be transferred to any camera and time goes on. I do not think 100mbps is going to go out of style from an image quality point of view anytime soon.

P.S. I use the 50mbps long-GOP for longer events and it is really nice as well.

But what is "full resolution" from the HPX500 Tim? It has something like 600x400 chips doesn't it? What is it putting out of the HD SDI?
Steve

Dear Steve,

All HD-SDI signals, for 1080 mode, are a full 1920 x 1080, regardless of which camera or device produces the HD-SDI. And 720P are always full resolution for 720p mode.

However, as you well know, the critical item is how the camera creates the HD-SDI output.

The HPX500 does uprez the data from the sensor to get 1920 x 1080, but I do not know the native resolution of the camera.


Dear Tim,

Thank you for posting your experience. I had forgotten to mention the significant advantage to having 24-Bit Audio in the nanoFlash.

Thanks Dan, I wasn't exactly sure was the situation was.
The HPX500 has something like 620,000 pixels, so to get it upto 1920x1080 is a bit of a stretch! I personally would think that that is where the deficiency is rather than with the codec, which is actually a very good one (DVCPro HD). Because of this I'd think that most of the benefit of the Nano would be lost (in particular the full raster 1920x1080 capture as the resolution is just not there in the first place).
Steve

Steve, you would need to talk to Panasonic or Jan at Panasonic. They pounded the table about how the HPX-500 output over 800 lines shooting a resolution chart. How they get there in Panasonic's eyes does not matter.

I am not here to argue the merits, but given a choice to record a 960x720 or a 1280x720 signal, which would you choose? The Nanoflash just records what it sees, and it sees a full raster image from the HPX-500 HDSDI port.

Thanks Dan, Steve, Tim ..
Will assess in detail the contributions of Nano Flash in my case. In Spain it is difficult to find and make the appropriate test, so buy it or not becomes little more than an "act of faith." In any case I thank you. Greetings.