First tests: it's not THAT sensitive

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Hi Doug,

After my couple of years of experience with nF, I'd say your advise is sound - but I already have one, so would like to use it. It's important to know though that fed from HDMI, the nanoFlash cannot be triggered on TC increment which calls for some sort of remote control.

Also, I find the 100Mbps L-GoP mode not useful even with my EX1, so I'll probably be recording in 220Mbps I-Fo. Or, just the 50Mbps XDCAM HD codec for broadcast compliance.

Piotr

[Brian Drysdale]

This would depend if a commissioning broadcaster has a minimum specification for the acquisition codec. The Nanoflash allows a number of cameras to meet their requirements. If you're not going through their transmission chains it's probably not worth while for many productions.

[Garrett Low]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

I did some FS100 vs. Nano tests that I showed in my workshop at NAB -- and can be seen someplace on line. There is absolutely no visible between recording to a Nano at 100/Mbps and the internal memory cards. No difference at all, and it is a pain to roll the Nano manually. The only benefit I found to the Nano with an FS100 is that at least I could skip the AVCHD workflow and record the clips as XDCAM instead.
My advice is not to wast your time with an external recorder
Mastering the Sony NEX-FS100 training DVD

Thanks Doug but I'm interested in I-Frame only max bitrate. The reason is for maximum ability to do post color correction (done by a colorist not by my clumsy hacking) and FX work (again done by some dedicated FX folks). Interested because of low budget movies I work on and some commercial work where interesting FX are added in post (think talking M&M's type of stuff).

Also, so I can get a reference, do you see a difference between the EX1/3 native vs. EX1/3 + nano?

Your point about not needing to deal with AVCHD is a pretty big one for a lot of the shoots I do since the NF can produce mov files that are directly importable and work well in FCP. Most of the editors I deal with are happy to have those even though they still take them and convert them into ProRes files right away. I scratch my head but but they like them so who am I to argue. I agree that the manual triggering would be a pain.

Thanks,
Garrett

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Garrett Low

Your point about not needing to deal with AVCHD is a pretty big one for a lot of the shoots I do since the NF can produce mov files that are directly importable and work well in FCP. Most of the editors I deal with are happy to have those even though they still take them and convert them into ProRes files right away. I scratch my head but but they like them so who am I to argue.

Exactly my way of thinking too, Garret - only in my case I myself am the colorist/editor (a lousy one I should add), and having everything in XDCAM mxf files (even if different bitrate, as I only have one nanoFlash) will be very helpful indeed (I'm on Vegas Pro).

Piotr