Is there any good reason that the nano's stop button response is instantaneous?

It's just too easy to accidentally hit it, and stop the recording. The one second delay that the remote start/stop button or the main power button has would be MUCH appreciated in the stop button as well. Some of us can't depend on timecode start/stop to stop and start the recorder, and it seems pretty silly to have to rig an external start/stop cable just to deal with possible accidental momentary pushes of the stop button on the nano.


Also, a note that with the latest firmware, the backlight setting is not remembered from power down to power up. It always comes up without the timeout checked when you power up.

Billy

Billy,

For what it's worth, I have the remote cable and just used it the other day. The nano starts up pretty much instantly, which is what we all want, the nano needs about 5 seconds of record time and then you have to press and hold the cable button for at least 2 full seconds to stop the nano from recording. Perhaps the cable may help but no doubt the CD engineers can attend to your issue fairly easily I expect.

Dear Billy,

We used to require that the Stop button be held down for x seconds prior to us stopping the recording.

Our users asked us to eliminate this delay.

Our users were tired of having to hold the button down to effect the stop.



Note: For safety sake, the remote control starts instantly, but all short presses of the remote control switch will be ignored, if we are already recording. One must hold it down for 2 seconds or so, then release it to stop.

Don,

I am not a Nanoflash owner, but can certainly see both sides of this one. Since this is not a mechanical process, would it be possible to alter this behavior with a menu setting? Something like "Stop Behavior > Instant / 2 Sec / 5 Sec ??

Dear Billy,

We used to require that the Stop button be held down for x seconds prior to us stopping the recording.

Our users asked us to eliminate this delay.

Our users were tired of having to hold the button down to effect the stop.



Note: For safety sake, the remote control starts instantly, but all short presses of the remote control switch will be ignored, if we are already recording. One must hold it down for 2 seconds or so, then release it to stop.

Well, at the risk of offending "our users", this strikes me as a very very BAD change. Why on earth would someone mind a one second delay in stopping the recording. Did the same users complain of the one second delay in the power off function? And why does it make sense to put the delay function in the remote control's stop function, but not in the nano itself. It's just too easy to accidentally hit the nano's stop button, which is flush mounted with the case.

There is a lot of thought put into the nano's interface that protects the user from easily made mistakes, and I can't think of anything more important that protecting against an accidental stopping of the recording. If you had a ten or fifteen second delay, maybe I could understand the request, but a one second delay is hardly a hardship.

I wouldn't think that a preference setting is necessary for a "record stop delay", but if that's the only way to please everyone, I'm not averse.

Billy

Clearly Dan is trying too hard. Dan, would you make a note that you're just doing too much to please people? At the risk of over-inflating the egos working at CD, the Nano/XDR is a very, very GOOD change to my workflow (and those of many others, it seems) and I'm grateful that they take the time to listen to their users.

There's nothing "BAD" about such a decision aside from the fact that it doesn't track your particular tastes. Maybe it is assumed, ergonomically, that the remote is more likely to find itself in the hands of a user during production than the Nano unit itself (depending on CF card size). Hence the disparity. "Six of one, half a dozen of the other".

I'm sure that, if you ask nicely, CD would be happy to oblige and insert a menu option. Or maybe not. For goodness sake, we're lucky that they listen to us and have forums like this. Think of the alternative!

Justin.

Dear Billy,

Yes, we do try to listen, and we do try to make everyone happy.

I just checked how easy or hard it is to accidently press the Stop buton on my nanoFlash.

One can rub their hand, fingers, etc., over the nanoFlash and the Stop button is not activated.

It takes a deliberate press, immediately over the "Stop" button area to cause it to stop.

Has the stop button been accidently pressed in actual use?

Do you have a nanoFlash handy so you can perform the same test?

Dear Justin,

Thank you for your support.

Dan,

I accidentally pressed the Play button once when I was picking up the nano, not the Stop button, and I have not accidentally pressed the Stop button while recording. I've been very careful ever since I accidentally pressed the Play button. :)

Yes, I have the nano right in front of me, and you do have to press right on the button. Sliding your finger across the surface doesn't press the button unless you are pressing pretty hard while you slide your finger. But note than many of us don't use the nano mounted to a camera. My nano sits on a flat surface and I put little rubber feet on the bottom to keep it from sliding around.

Picking up the nano while not paying sufficient attention makes it pretty easy to hit the Stop (or Record or Play) button. I would normally pick the nano by the sides when I want to move it, but it's not easy to do because one side has the connectors and the 90° side to that has the CF card slots. So if you hold the top and bottom sides to pick it up, you're holding one side with connectors; if you pick it up by the right and left sides, you're holding one side with the CF cards. Neither is a good idea if you're recording at the time. Still, as I said in my previous message, I am fine if a "one second recording stop delay" is a preference.

Justin:

I'm trying not to take your comments as patronizing to Dan and condescending to me, because sometimes feelings don't come across properly in a forum message. "There's nothing "BAD" about such a decision aside from the fact that it doesn't track your particular tastes." yeah, maybe, until the first time you accidentally hit the Stop button and lose a take. I'm not talking about the color of the nano case or the wording of a menu here, I'm talking about designing the interface to make it difficult to make a mistake that causes you to lose a take. "I'm sure that, if you ask nicely, CD would be happy..." This comment really pissed me off. I thought I was being nice; I didn't call anyone names, or say that they were stupid, I just said I thought it was a bad decision. I still think it's a bad decision. I do appreciate what Dan and the people at CD do. I do appreciate that they listen to their users, and that they implement changes as rapidly as they do. And I also appreciate that others will use their nano's differently from the way I use mine. I absolutely think that the nano is a ground breaking device at a ground breaking price; that's why I own one.

Do you even own a nano? How do you use yours?

Billy

Dear Billy,

We will seriously consider your request.

Dear Billy,

I just discussed this with Mike Schell.

We will consider this when we revamp our menu system.

This is one of our major enhancements that we have planned for November.

Our new Menu system will be much more logical.

While a new menu system does not seem like much, it is a precursor to some very nice features that we have planned.

Thanks Dan,

I am looking forward to the improvements you have mentioned in your messages, and I am in no rush for them, except perhaps, for the hot swappable cards. :) I am especially looking forward to "presets". Have you considered the ability to put a presets "file" on the CF card, so that inserting the card presets the nano to the settings you want? This would require the nano to be able to temporarily store the file internally while it formatted the card, and then save it back when it was done (so that you could always be sure you were about to record on a freshly formatted-by-nano card). It would be especially useful for cards that were to be used for playback only, as the "record inhibit" function could be automatically turned on when the card was inserted.

One of the uses I have found for the nano is a test signal generator. I just recorded a bunch of test signals I use all the time on a card, and when I need to test out video lines or calibrate monitors and projectors, it's invaluable. In particular, one of the test signals is used to test video/audio delays. We send signals all over the world, frequently with differing paths (out of our control) with different delays between the audio and video at the other end. We have (expensive!) hardware boxes that send synchronized video with audio beeps, though we often just shoot a person with a clapboard and microphone. I can just plunk the nano down anywhere, and send out the proper synchronizing signals without tying up a tape machine (or even use it before the main video truck is finished hooking up to the e.g., satellite truck).

The nano is turning out to be a most useful device in the remote television production arena.

Thanks!

Billy

I'd like to get some of those test signals on my cards :-)

To playback true HD from the palm of your hand???

Take this back in a time machine to 1961 and they'd burn you at the stake!*





*More likely if you also brought a 50" monitor with you :o)

Hello Mike & Dan,
I have now truly become a NanoFlash Junkie and as I read this forum users will always have different requirements. May I make a suggestion for CD offer a paid customising service. While I would want a particular feature others may not and if I think that feature important enough then I would be prepared to pay for it as a custom build in firmware.

Hi Lance, knowing a little bit about software development, I can say that even the simplest feature you could think of *could* cost more to develop than the entire cost of a nano.

The testing matrix for the Nano is already ridiculously large I'm sure. Regression testing added features through iterations of Q/A and development is *really* expensive. It's very unlikely that the CD developers are working on the low end of the pay scale for that type of work.

Yes, sad to say that these features that everyone clamors for costs thousands of dollars. Without the economies of scale, they simply would not happen (just ask Mark how tough going it is for his box). Or at least, that's my thought.

A documented SDK for the hardware might not be bad though. Lance and other nano owners could hire other developers to program the features they want if that were available.

Dear Friends,

I like your suggestions.

In this post I will add more insight into the nanoFlash than ever before.

The nanoFlash has a microprocessor and a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA).

The microprocessor uses standard programming techniques, i.e., one develops software one instruction at a time and one instruction is executed at a time.

With this microprocessor, once a software routine is developed and tested, then it can be generally expected to run flawlessly until it is changed, or another routine, or design change, interferes with the original software routine.

This is the standard world of programming.

But, microprocessors have major limitations when one needs to do a massive amount of work in a very short period of time. For one "core" or hyperthread, generally only one instruction at a time is executed. Of course, there may some situations where some microprocessors execute just a few instructions at a time.



The FPGA world is entirely different. One programs the FPGA by building up logic blocks and one can have many logic blocks, but there is a finite number allowed for a given FPGA.

Once a logic block is setup, for one cycle of the FPGA, all of the logic blocks operate in parallel. This would be like a microprocessor that executed all of the program's instructions at once, as opposed to "in sequence, one instruction at a time".

While, with a microprocesor, once a routine is programmed and tested, it can generally be assumed to work if a change to another routine is made, the opposite is true with the FPGA.

Once any change is made, to any part of the FPGA, such as adding a new, unrelated feature, one has to test everything! This explains why we are always testing!


To be clear, some feature requests go into the microprocessor, some go into the FPGA, and quite a few involve both.

A simple request, such as adding a delay to the Stop button, probably goes into the microprocessor alone, but I am quite frequently surprised when some feature requests unexpectedly involve the FPGA.


Due to the nature of the beast, I know of no company that offers a Software Development Kit for their FPGA; it is just too complex.

I hope this helps explain why we test so much and why such a small box is so powerful.

I completely omitted a discussion of the main codec engine, which also does a great deal of the very complex tasks in the nanoFlash.

Thanks Dan and Aron great insight into the testing and program structure of the NanoFlash.

Yes, sad to say that these features that everyone clamors for costs thousands of dollars. Without the economies of scale, they simply would not happen (just ask Mark how tough going it is for his box). Or at least, that's my thought........Right on brother ! I feel as though I've been forced into also adding the special feature of my nervous system to my box ! Man ! This project is not easy. First, it's freakin expensive. Secondly, it's incredibly complex. Thirdly, it's fun to work at, but really stressful. We keep intermittently running out of cash, then we start up again. There's so much about my project I want tio share with the people on this forum, but I am sworn to secrecy about allot of it at this point. However, I won't be silent on the details for ever to be sure.

....There's so many questions we need to answer, like, Do we add a complex MPEG 4 encoding engine or do we just make the box a full uncompressed recording device ?

.....Do we release a product to market which does a few basic things and slowly enable it bit by bit via firmware releases to the end users or wait a really long time and just drop it on the market in the end with everything it can possibly do and that's it ? Time is money.

.....How many bloody SD card slots ? 1, 2, 4, or 6 ? You wouldn't believe the panic of this question !

.....How many bits ? 8, 10, or 12 ? I say 12 bit to facilitate 4:4:4 cameras such as Sony's SRW 9000 and Vipers, and Red 1 and a half's.

A documented SDK for the hardware might not be bad though. Lance and other nano owners could hire other developers to program the features they want if that were available....This is good for the end user but bad for the company selling it because then they lose control over design. Funky third party compny could design something which is not part of original designer's vision but would be forced into supporting.

Do you even own a nano? How do you use yours?

Billy

Billy - apologies if I came on too strong. My own fault for posting when tired.

In fact I own an XDR and not a Nano, although I have played with a Nano. My XDR is toted about in a Portabrace bag. I've had an XDR from early on.

I don't have the same frequent (?) studio/signal requirements as you clearly do and can see why an instant stop might not work for you. My use is far more pedestrian and smaller in scope but I'm finding the output of the XDR excellent - so much so that like others I tend to rely on my EX3 SxS output as back-up.

You're completely entitled to find the decision re the 'stop action/button' a bad one but it's clear others don't. I feel sure Dan, Mike and the crew will come up with a solution for you.

Cheers,

Justin.

Sometimes when deciding which way to go with features, they may have to side with the masses. Which is scary though, since "the masses" are the ones who picked VHS over Beta,.. if anyone remembers that battle.

Dear Aaron,

I remember the Betamax well.

I bought my first Betamax, the original Beta 1 Betamax, on November 16, 1976.

I always liked the quality of Betamax. Of course, it does not compare to what we can offer today, but for a home VCR it was just great.