nanoFlash and FS100 Questions

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Cees,

Did you set System|Source to HDMI?

[Cees van Kempen]

I am afraid I did not :-)

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Cees,

Just to put your mind at ease, we have thoroughly tested the nanoFlash with the Sony FS100.

It works just fine.

While we have not yet implemented our planned feature to extract the FS100's timecode from HDMI, there is a simple workaround that will work for some:

Just setup the nanoFlash to generate timecode internally.

I fully realize that this is not a perfect solution.

I hope we will be able to extract the HDMI timecode in October.

[Andrew Stone]

In the event there is someone out there dealing with this issue and they haven't heard of PluralEyes software, I think it is worth mentioning. Plural Eyes allows you to sync multiple sound sources from the same sound stage without the use of timecode. People using DSLRs for video work are familiar with this product. It has been getting lots of positive response from users and reviewers. Here's the product page....

Singular Software - PluralEyes

[Cees van Kempen]

Originally Posted by Dan Keaton

Dear Cees and Dave,

I just want you to know that we are listening.

You want a small, low power device that can record 1080p60, in great quality, using a compressed codec.

A built in, high quality monitor would also be desirable, but you have not specifically said that.

Dan, Just wondering if this means there is something around the corner?

Cees

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Cees,

I am sorry but I cannot talk about it right now.

We do not want to announce something now, and not be able to deliever it within 60 to 90 days.

We just started shipping of the Gemini 4:4:4's, and our plate is full right now.

[Didier Perrichon]

Hi,

Can you give us some good fresh news about the FS100'S timecode via HDMI ?

Didier

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Dieder,

Mike Schell and I discussed this yesterday.

We want to work this in as soon as possible.

Background:

Last monnth we started shipping our Gemini 4:4:4 with initial firmware.

But, this initial firmware lacked some very important features.

We are just about done with a firmware update for the Gemini 4:4:4; final, thorough testing remains.

Now that this release is almost done, we want to add support for the FS100 timecode over HDMI to the nanoFlash firmware.

[Didier Perrichon]

Thank's
Good news !

[Cees van Kempen]

Originally Posted by Dan Keaton

Dear Dieder,

Mike Schell and I discussed this yesterday.

We want to work this in as soon as possible.

Background:

Last monnth we started shipping our Gemini 4:4:4 with initial firmware.

But, this initial firmware lacked some very important features.

We are just about done with a firmware update for the Gemini 4:4:4; final, thorough testing remains.

Now that this release is almost done, we want to add support for the FS100 timecode over HDMI to the nanoFlash firmware.

Dan,

One month further now. Is there any progress to report? Very much looking forward to it.

Cees

[Cees van Kempen]

Hi Dan,

Another attempt. Can you give us an update on the status?

Cees

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Cees,

I would like to give you a much more positive report, but I cannot at this time.

The ability to extract the Timecode from HDMI depends on the ability of the HDMI receiver.

We have to spend a lot of engineering time to prove whether we can extract the timecode or not.
Then we have to extract the timecode. This is much more complicated that it would appear, and it all depends on the specific HDMI receiver that we are using. Sony warned us about this issue.

We have been swamped and I am sorry that we have not been able to devote the necessary time to this project so far.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Well, all I can say is that myself and many FS100 users are really looking forward to the ability to extract TC - please do not forget that out of all cameras nowadays, it's the FS100 which is best suited for recording with the nanoFlash (both are 8 bit only, so no extra capabilities are "wasted" - they're like a perfect match). With the F3 and other cameras outputting 10bit through HD-SDI, the nanoFlash is starting to become obsolete - but not with the FS100!

And even though the internal AVCHD codec in this fine camera is really good, recording to he nanoFlash expands its capabilities to meet and surpass the HD broadcast minima (50 or more Mbps at 4:2:2). Also important (especially with multi-camera projects) is that the MPEG-2 codec (in mxf or mov wrapper) can be edited easier in most NLEs than AVCHD...

[Cees van Kempen]

Dear Poitr,

Since you seem to be an experienced FS100/nano user I have two questions.

Yesterday I captured my first footage and noiced that the footage had significantly more banding (in the sky, from dark to light blue) than in the footage of my EX3, shot at about the same time/place. Both with nanoflash. it also seemsed that the FS100 footage was noisier, insteand of cleaner. Do you have a clue?

Second question: which PP do you use on your FS100? Do you have a PP that matches with your EX1/3?

Thanks, Cees

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Cees van Kempen

Dear Poitr,

Since you seem to be an experienced FS100/nano user I have two questions.

Yesterday I captured my first footage and noiced that the footage had significantly more banding (in the sky, from dark to light blue) than in the footage of my EX3, shot at about the same time/place. Both with nanoflash. it also seemsed that the FS100 footage was noisier, insteand of cleaner. Do you have a clue?

Second question: which PP do you use on your FS100? Do you have a PP that matches with your EX1/3?

Thanks, Cees

Hi Cees,

I can confirm your observations of the FS100 recorded to the nanoFlash being prone to banding - however, I can't agree it's noisier!

In fact, when recorded in 220 Mbps I-frame, the FS100 it's noticeably less noisy and this might also explain the increased tendency to color banding. Normally, noise can be a limiting factor to banding (which is inevitable with 8 bit recording) - it acts as sort of "natural dithering"...

As to PP: no, I haven't found anything that would make my FS100 and EX1 pictures close enough for me to feel happy, and frankly I've given up trying. In my shooting scenario (90% of my gigs is multi-camera classical music recording), I'm deliberately using the 2 cameras to show different angles of the same scene. A typical stage lighting make those angles different enough to make the additional discrepancy between the 2 cameras almost unnoticeable...