Hi Dan & Mike:
I hope it is appropriate to start a new thread which very specfically discusses the operational functionality and specfic application of the Nanoflash device. I have been researching and reading up on the Convergent-Designs website all preliminary specification information I can find on the Nanoflash. So far, I have not been able to confirm wether or not Nanoflash can accept a firewire input.

In case this feature is not considered at this point, I wish to make the argument for including full firewire support. I believe there would be a strong market for folks who want to record via firewire stream to a solid state CF card. If there is any doubt as to market demand for firewire stream recording, then I point to all the folks who continue to shoot with Firewire recording solutions by Rolland, Firestore, and others.

Also, the price point of this device would be closely comparable to those markets. Adding this simple functionality will make the Nanoflash more compatible with more camcorders, thus leveraging a greater market share. I would think there would be enough room in the box to put a firewire socket. Perhaps you could make it Firewire 800 MB, so as to be backward compatible with FW 400 MB, yet allowing an output interface for all recorded data modes to a laptop or PC, or MAC. Once again, this would extend this devices flexibility and functionality. Since you already list low Mb recording capabilities sich as 18 and 50, why not add HDV-DV recording at 25 Mbps ?

Dear Mark,

We agree with you that a nanoFlash that was capable of Firewire input would be nice.

Our design goal for the nanoFlash was to make it as small as possible along with low power consumption.

We currently manufacture the HD-Connect SI which converts Firewire to HD-SDI. This HD-SDI can then be feed into a nanoFlash or Flash XDR for recording.

I fully realize that you want a single-unit solution, but we do not have room in the nanoFlash to add this circuitry.

It may not be obvious, but the nanoFlash is completely full. We do not even have room for just a simple Firewire connector.

Dear Mark,

We agree with you that a nanoFlash that was capable of Firewire input would be nice.

Our design goal for the nanoFlash was to make it as small as possible along with low power consumption.

We currently manufacture the HD-Connect SI which converts Firewire to HD-SDI. This HD-SDI can then be feed into a nanoFlash or Flash XDR for recording.

I fully realize that you want a single-unit solution, but we do not have room in the nanoFlash to add this circuitry.

It may not be obvious, but the nanoFlash is completely full. We do not even have room for just a simple Firewire connector.......OK Dan. I didn't know if you folks had already finalized the circuit board design yet. It's good to know Convergent has a firewire to HD SDI converter solution. To my point of view from the production end of life, firewire seemed like the next logical step, since you already built in an HDMI to HD-SDI converter inside of Nanoflash, so why not have it accept firewire streams as well ? I'd be happy if it just did timelapse in HD resolution ! :-)

Dear Mark,

Both the Flash XDR and nanoFlash will do timelapse in HD resolution.

This will be done using the I-Frame Only option and not available with any Long-GOP option.

When we implement this, you will be able to specify the timelapse interval.

If you specify a long interval, you will need an appropriate way to power the unit over the expected period of time that you wish to record.

Dear Mark,

Both the Flash XDR and nanoFlash will do timelapse in HD resolution.

This will be done using the I-Frame Only option and not available with any Long-GOP option.

When we implement this, you will be able to specify the timelapse interval.

If you specify a long interval, you will need an appropriate way to power the unit over the expected period of time that you wish to record.Hey Dan. I have a shoot coming up in late Spring which must be timelapse and must be full HD resolution. Do you think this feature will be enabled by this time (Say May-June) ?

Dear Mark,

I am hopeful, but I cannot make a promise at this time.

We expect to implement quite a few new video formats prior to that time.

These include more frame rates and I-Frame Only modes. These will probably be implemented as a group.

Each one has to be tested. We do have a very versatile camera that can do all of the frame rates, so we can test in-house.

I-Frame Only mode is a prerequisite for Time-Lapse recording.

I have reviewed our development schedule prior to posting.

Dear Mark,

Both the Flash XDR and nanoFlash will do timelapse in HD resolution.

This will be done using the I-Frame Only option and not available with any Long-GOP option.

When we implement this, you will be able to specify the timelapse interval.

If you specify a long interval, you will need an appropriate way to power the unit over the expected period of time that you wish to record.

Is the nano going to have I-Frame capabilities? If so, I'm very happy ~ will the upgrade path be the same as the XDR?

Dear Dean,

Yes, the nanoFlash will have I-Frame only support.

ASI is the only planned extra cost upgrade, at $995.00.

Full uncompressed option will not be available on the nanoFlash.
We need four CompactFlash cards to record uncompressed and the nanoFlash only has two.

We only put two CompactFlash card slots in the nanoFlash to keep the size as compact as possible.

Dear Dean,

Yes, the nanoFlash will have I-Frame only support.

ASI is the only planned extra cost upgrade, at $995.00.

Full uncompressed option will not be available on the nanoFlash.
We need four CompactFlash cards to record uncompressed and the nanoFlash only has two.

We only put two CompactFlash card slots in the nanoFlash to keep the size as compact as possible.

Will allow for ramping up and down = slow mo?

Dear Dean,

I have not tested slo-mo, with any camera, with the Flash XDR.

Thus I have a hard time fully answering your question since we have not tested these modes yet.

(I just do not know how these modes work over HD-SDI.)

But, I can tell you, that if the Flash XDR will support these modes, so will the nanoFlash.

The nanoFlash will never be restricted in any way as compared to the Flash XDR, except:

1. The nanoFlash has only two CompactFlash card slots preventing us from implementing full uncompressed support,

and

2. The nanoFlash does not have analog audio inputs or outputs of any kind.

To make the nanoFlash as compact as possible, the multiple power supplies for analog audio were removed, as well as the XLR input and output connectors, the analog circuits, and the headphone jack.

The nanoFlash will record audio using the embedded audio that is passed over the HD-SDI/HDMI inputs. Our HD-SDI/HDMI outputs will also have audio, thus allowing the audio to be monitored via any HD-SDI or HDMI monitor (as long as the monitor has audio capabilities).

Both the Flash XDR and nanoFlash will have audio level meters implemented via the LCD Display.

For professional audio inputs and outputs we recommend the Flash XDR.

The Flash XDR is better suited for the original Canon XL H1 and most all POV cameras.

For long recording times, we recommend the Flash XDR.

Perhaps it is now time for a third CF recorder design ? One Flash device could be made to be even smaller, or possibly even with a "modular" type pluggin design. Allow me to explain. Instead of two CF sockets, put one. With the higher density CF cards slowly becoming available, then this might make sense. If a client wanted to record firewire, then they could purchase the optional FW plugin interface. If a shooter required HD-SDI, then they could purchase this optional pluggin interface. If another client wanted to use analogue ballanced audio I/O, then they could add this modular piece. If HDMI was required, then this modular pluggin box is purchased and attached. Think of the recorder part as the main engine containing the essential circuitry, then features being built into the seperate interface attachments. In this way, you don't have to design or purchase and pay extra for features one dosn't want, or will never use.

Mark, I still think your first suggestion: DV25 via Firewire in, to a single CF card, is the killer device for market sales.

This is just what I and a lot of collegues are looking for.

Alan

Mark, I still think your first suggestion: DV25 via Firewire in, to a single CF card, is the killer device for market sales.

This is just what I and a lot of collegues are looking for.

Alan....I agree. It's unfortunate that Convergent Designs seems to have already finalized their Nanoflash design spec without any way to facilitate the inclusion of FW streaming functionality. This of course, opens the door for other local US & Canadian enterpaneurs to build a box which will accommodate this heavy market demand function.

Also, why use CF cards ? One can now use SDHD or USB 2.0 (or USB 3.0) High Speed flash drives plugged into such an external box. You can now get high speed 16 GB mini SD cards. Do you know how small this recording media is ? The recording box size can somewhat be reduced further based on the size of the media.

I think the whole point of Convergent Design's Flash and nanoFlash units are to bypass the on-board camera compression and allow recording less compressed or uncompressed footage to compact flash cards giving you better quality than HDV.

DV25 to a Convergent Design box doesn't offer any advantages other than a tapeless workflow if your camera shoots on tape. You won't experience any bump in image quality.

I believe there are other options out there for recording direct from firewire to hard drive, etc. although I'm not sure how robust they are.

I'm glad CD is trying to make the nanoFlash unit as small as possible and look forward to using it with my EX1.

As to Compact Flash cards, I'm sure Dan or Mike can answer that. However, I do know that my Nikon D700 (as well as most all other pro level cameras) use Compact Flash cards for a reason. Not sure what it is, but they do. There must be a good reason for it.

....I agree. It's unfortunate that Convergent Designs seems to have already finalized their Nanoflash design spec without any way to facilitate the inclusion of FW streaming functionality. This of course, opens the door for other local US & Canadian enterpaneurs to build a box which will accommodate this heavy market demand function.


#1. Sorry guys - the product is already out there. It's called the Sony HVR-MRC1K.
Look it up here.

Sony Product Detail Page - HVRMRC1K (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-hdv/product-HVRMRC1K/)


Also, why use CF cards ? One can now use SDHD or USB 2.0 (or USB 3.0) High Speed flash drives plugged into such an external box. You can now get high speed 16 GB mini SD cards. Do you know how small this recording media is ? The recording box size can somewhat be reduced further based on the size of the media.

#2. The reason for CF cards is at any given time you can buy them in sizes about double the competition and in speed grades that are far, far higher. That latter point is what makes doing uncompressed with the XDR and 100 Mbps MPEG2 with the Nanoflash possible. It isn't happening with SDHC. And I have yet to see a USB thumb drive with a speed spec. on it. So you are going to have to do a hell of a lot of research to verify a particular one is really fast enough to work.

You seem to have missed that both the XDR and Nanoflash are pointed at folks who are wanting a far better codec than the HDV/AVCHD that is coming out of their cameras. That's the core reason why they command the price premium they do over something like the above Sony product.

I think the whole point of Convergent Design's Flash and nanoFlash units are to bypass the on-board camera compression and allow recording less compressed or uncompressed footage to compact flash cards giving you better quality than HDV.

DV25 to a Convergent Design box doesn't offer any advantages other than a tapeless workflow if your camera shoots on tape. You won't experience any bump in image quality.

I believe there are other options out there for recording direct from firewire to hard drive, etc. although I'm not sure how robust they are.

I'm glad CD is trying to make the nanoFlash unit as small as possible and look forward to using it with my EX1.

As to Compact Flash cards, I'm sure Dan or Mike can answer that. However, I do know that my Nikon D700 (as well as most all other pro level cameras) use Compact Flash cards for a reason. Not sure what it is, but they do. There must be a good reason for it.....There is a whole maket with strong demand for tapeless HDV/DV 25, and folks are demanding to stream HDV to solid state removeable media. Adding such functionality would open a whole new market of considerable size. BTW, I happen to own a Canon XL H1, which produces in camera HDV to tape compressed images of what I consider to be stunning quality. We were streaming to a Firestore HDV capable unit, but couldn't get rid of it fast enough since its dependability was flakey. To be able to stream HDV straight to a stable solid state removeable media would be a wonderful gift.

Regarding the CF card format, there are now SDHC cards which are closely approching the speeds of Transcend CF! I know Panasonic and Samsung and (Sorry I can't remember the company's name at time of writing, but their SD cards are blue in Color) all have fast, fast, fast SD HC and Keydrive Memmory comming out in Q2 this year. The cell phone micro SD cards are getting fast and dense and they are only as large as my pinky's fingernail !)

I certainly understand the Flash XDR and Nanoflash are aimed at shooters who want to have ultra high quality file recording capabilities, and I don't take issue with this stated concept. I believe in flexibility and affordability of use also. What's the use of having full uncompressed 24 fps file recording capability, if I wind up having to pay in Canadian Dollars nearly the purchase price of my camera once again just to get it ? (XL H1) I do agree it's cheaper and smaller than a Wafian Recorder. Quality is important, but so is price.

Perhaps it is now time for a third CF recorder design ? One Flash device could be made to be even smaller, or possibly even with a "modular" type pluggin design. Allow me to explain. Instead of two CF sockets, put one. With the higher density CF cards slowly becoming available, then this might make sense. If a client wanted to record firewire, then they could purchase the optional FW plugin interface. If a shooter required HD-SDI, then they could purchase this optional pluggin interface. If another client wanted to use analogue ballanced audio I/O, then they could add this modular piece. If HDMI was required, then this modular pluggin box is purchased and attached. Think of the recorder part as the main engine containing the essential circuitry, then features being built into the seperate interface attachments. In this way, you don't have to design or purchase and pay extra for features one dosn't want, or will never use.

Hi Mark-
I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions, but it's not a simple task to create a low-power, portable box with all these optional features. We have targeted some very specific applications for the Flash XDR and nanoFlash, namely videographers and cinematographers who want very high-quality video/audio with the benefits of tapeless workflow.

The nanoFlash in particular is targeted for on-camera mounting, which means low-power, small size and lightweight. To achieve these goals, we have to keep the number of IOs and associated circuitry to a minimum.

So, if you want HDV to a CF card, then buy the Sony recorder, I am sure it's a great product. But, if you goal is very high quality video / audio, then the nanoFlash / XDR are certainly very compelling products.

My guiding principle is: "Good Engineering is knowing what to leave out" We can't be everything to everyone, else we'll never get the product shipped.

Best-

Hi Mark-
I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions, but it's not a simple task to create a low-power, portable box with all these optional features. We have targeted some very specific applications for the Flash XDR and nanoFlash, namely videographers and cinematographers who want very high-quality video/audio with the benefits of tapeless workflow.

The nanoFlash in particular is targeted for on-camera mounting, which means low-power, small size and lightweight. To achieve these goals, we have to keep the number of IOs and associated circuitry to a minimum.

So, if you want HDV to a CF card, then buy the Sony recorder, I am sure it's a great product. But, if you goal is very high quality video / audio, then the nanoFlash / XDR are certainly very compelling products.

My guiding principle is: "Good Engineering is knowing what to leave out" We can't be everything to everyone, else we'll never get the product shipped.

Best-...First allow me to compliment the acheivement you and your design team at Convergent-Designs have made in creating the Flash XDR & the Nanoflash SSR's. I do believe you have an excellent, excellent technology. Let us continue to discuss ways in which this technology could be made more excellent.

Sir, I started this thread to discuss creating operational features that shooters like yours truly require and want to use. Streaming firewire to a CF card is certainly one of those features. I don't consider it a step backward in logic or practicality to add a feature which will allow the Nanoflash device to have greater end user production flexibility (Thus greater market penetration). Earlier in this thread, another shooter wanted the Nanoflash to accept firewire streams as well. I also stated earlier I considered the FW could well be of the 800 MB variety, so as to add the greater benefit of high speed transfer of data recorded in "any" format from the CF cards using the Nanoflash without the need of an extra FW 800 CF card reader ($85.00), as well as compatibility to any camcorder with a FW interface in the world.

I did not know there already was a device on the market made by Sony which records FW streams to CF cards, and I will for sure go check this out. As someone who is looking at using this technology in production, rather than manufacturing it, and is looking for a cost effective and practical solution, are you suggesting I have to purchase a Sony FW to CF card recorder at what price ? - At least $1,000.00 plus US + A Flash XDR at $4,995.00 US retail + an additional $995.00 US if I want a future upgrade for uncompressed recording because I also require analogue audio input + a Nanoflash at $3,995.00 US retail just because I also need it to be low power and small enough to attach to my camera for a grand total of $11,000.00 US ? I use Canadian currency, so if you calculate the additional exchange rate on the purchase of all of these items, then I'm sure you will understand perhaps a little more of where our production company is coming from ? Ironically, this total would at least equal, if not surpass, what we were quoted for a Wafian DDR ! I don't believe in spending money endlessly.

Also, I do not participate here to offend or to facilitate the sale of your company's products. I participate because I am in the market for an affordable solid state recording solution to use with our production Canon XL H1 camera. Our independent digi-underground production company's requirements to produce our web Tv series are financially challenging. It is in the spirit of wanting to purchase a solution that best serves our production needs in which I'm offering feedback and expressing ideas.

#1. Sorry guys - the product is already out there. It's called the Sony HVR-MRC1K.
Look it up here.

Sony Product Detail Page - HVRMRC1K (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-hdv/product-HVRMRC1K/)

You seem to have missed that both the XDR and Nanoflash are pointed at folks who are wanting a far better codec than the HDV/AVCHD that is coming out of their cameras. That's the core reason why they command the price premium they do over something like the above Sony product......Hey Bill. I had a thorough look at the Sony HVRMRC1K CF card recorder. This device requires it to sit on its cradle to complete the FW streaming circut, and the cradle it sits in is designed to mate with Sony CamCorders. It does not look like this device would be easly mountable on our Canon XL H1 production camera. (??) However the price point Sony is suggesting is more consistent with that market sector.

I have not missed the purpose or the market direction the XDR and Nanoflash are directed at. I simply proposed firewire streaming capability be added to the Nanoflash to make it more adaptable to lower end cameras. I find it somewhat ironic that this was the stated thinking behind adding the HDMI interface from Convergent Designs, which they baucked at when I first suggested it be added last year.

Mark,

Check out: nNovia (http://www.nnovia.com)

I just visited their site and they have solid state recording available.

Almost as much as a nanoFlash though.

Mark,

Check out: nNovia (http://www.nnovia.com)

I just visited their site and they have solid state recording available.

Almost as much as a nanoFlash though....Oh Yeah ? OK. Will do. Thanks for the heads up on this ! :-) I am thinking I "may" go for the Sony CF recorder (HVRMRC1K), if I can ascertain a way to mount it on my XL H1 and it's Interval Timelapse function "also works in the HDV mode."

Dear Mark,

Timelapse recording usually requires an I-Frame mode.

Thus, the Firestore FS-4 could only record timelapse in DV mode, not HDV mode.

So, check the spec's carefully, if you want HDV material, recorded via a firewire connection, recorded as timelapse. I will be surprised (and 100% wrong) if it does.

HD timelapse will be a feature of the nanoFlash and Flash XDR.

.....Hey Bill. I had a thorough look at the Sony HVRMRC1K CF card recorder. This device requires it to sit on its cradle to complete the FW streaming circut, and the cradle it sits in is designed to mate with Sony CamCorders. It does not look like this device would be easly mountable on our Canon XL H1 production camera. (??) However the price point Sony is suggesting is more consistent with that market sector.

I have not missed the purpose or the market direction the XDR and Nanoflash are directed at. I simply proposed firewire streaming capability be added to the Nanoflash to make it more adaptable to lower end cameras. I find it somewhat ironic that this was the stated thinking behind adding the HDMI interface from Convergent Designs, which they baucked at when I first suggested it be added last year.

HDMI & HD/SDI on nano is designed for 1920X1080 recording ... firewire, at least on the EX1/3 will not do that. I bought into the nano flash because of it's lightness and to get 4.2.2 at high bit rates. That's the point for me. AJA IO is a better route for those who need a larger number of in/outputs, me thinks!

I have a nNovia QCDeck. It will record m2t(19mbps) in timelapse mode. It has a removeable 120Gb mediapac storage drive, composite and firewire input and output.

Dear Mark,

Timelapse recording usually requires an I-Frame mode.

Thus, the Firestore FS-4 could only record timelapse in DV mode, not HDV mode.

So, check the spec's carefully, if you want HDV material, recorded via a firewire connection, recorded as timelapse. I will be surprised (and 100% wrong) if it does.

HD timelapse will be a feature of the nanoFlash and Flash XDR....Thanks for the tip Dan ;-) Yes I'm well aware both your CF card recording products will do timelapse eventually at a premium price ! Sony seems to be "insuating" their CF recorder does "Interval" recording @ 0.5 seconds. I'm speaking with Sony reps now to get confirmation of Interval Record Mode function. 0.5 seconds would equal at least one Long GOP set in HDV would it not ?

I have a nNovia QCDeck. It will record m2t(19mbps) in timelapse mode. It has a removeable 120Gb mediapac storage drive composite and firewire input and output.Hey Bill. Wow ! HDV Timelapse (m2t) files ! This is doable. Here's how I think timelapse could be accomplished in HDV m2t files.

STEP 1. Clock passes off a Canon XL H1 3 CCD chip head, for example, via the FW cable.

STEP 2. Record a series of these frames to a built in cache memmory (Not directly to tape)

STEP 3. Once the cache fills up, then start writing a series of Long GOP's, out to an HDV file.

STEP 4. Make the writing of these HDV files deliverable to FW, or to built in SDHC card socket (Smaller foot print & way cheaper). Thanks for this info Bill. This seems to confirm what I was researching about timelapse to HDV file. I thought it could be done to Nanoflash, but Mike and Dan say no way. I think it maybe time to call an electrical engineer friend and do a patent search to start building our own device ;-) I have this vision of a small external SDHC card recording box which accepts FW and HDMI and can record HDV, MPEG 4, Quicktime MXF, Xvid and Divx. It would embed TC and at least 8 channels of audio.

.....Hey Bill. I had a thorough look at the Sony HVRMRC1K CF card recorder. This device requires it to sit on its cradle to complete the FW streaming circut, and the cradle it sits in is designed to mate with Sony CamCorders. It does not look like this device would be easly mountable on our Canon XL H1 production camera. (??) However the price point Sony is suggesting is more consistent with that market sector.


Quoting from the page I linked to:

"...For all other existing Sony professional HDV and DVCAM users, the HVR-MRC1K comes supplied with a mounting bracket to mount the unit on the accessory shoe of the camcorder..."

As an example that relates fairly directly to you, there is a thread here on DV Info Net where Canon XH-A1 users are happily using this recorder. So it is a reasonably safe bet it will work on your Canon XL-H1.

Here's the link:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-xh-series-hdv-camcorders/116520-awesome-news-canon-users.html

Quoting from the page I linked to:

"...For all other existing Sony professional HDV and DVCAM users, the HVR-MRC1K comes supplied with a mounting bracket to mount the unit on the accessory shoe of the camcorder..."

As an example that relates fairly directly to you, there is a thread here on DV Info Net where Canon XH-A1 users are happily using this recorder. So it is a reasonably safe bet it will work on your Canon XL-H1.

Here's the link:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-xh-series-hdv-camcorders/116520-awesome-news-canon-users.html....OK. Thanks Bill :-) Looks like it "will" work on a non Sony Camera. I see there is a Firestore type hotshoe gymbal mount which would seem to be fine as well.

Mark...

IMHO...you need to take a deep breath dude. You want to buy my nNovia hardware, I 'd be glad to sell it to you. But, be advised, this may not, ultimately, be the quality you expect. It works pretty nicely at 19mbps. If that's good for you, go for it. In the mean time, I humbly suggest you give the guys at C-D a break. My experience is that they're doing the best they can.....and they deserve a bit more respect than you've been offering...so back off.

Mark...

IMHO...you need to take a deep breath dude. You want to buy my nNovia hardware, I 'd be glad to sell it to you. But, be advised, this may not, ultimately, be the quality you expect. It works pretty nicely at 19mbps. If that's good for you, go for it. In the mean time, I humbly suggest you give the guys at C-D a break. My experience is that they're doing the best they can.....and they deserve a bit more respect than you've been offering...so back off.Ouch !...I didn't think I was being disrespectful in asking for a particular feature. I started this thread to discuss "possible" features for the Nanoflash Bill. I'm only making suggestions from the point of view of an end user. They don't have to do it just because I ask for it, of course. I didn't realise folks would feel offended. My mistake.