Has someone ever done a test recording from a camera to a nanoflash and then also to a KI Pro to see what the difference was in terms of color space and noise, etc? I would love someone to end any argument going around between the two acquisition formats? This will be especially useful now that the KI Pro Mini will come on the scene, which I see as a direct alternative to the Nanoflash.

Dear Ed,

We welcome the competition between the nanoFlash and the Ki Pro and the Ki Pro Mini.

The Ki Pro Mini, appears to be an excellent product with very aggressive pricing.

We congratulate AJA on producing a very attractive product.

We also feel that the nanoFlash is a very attractive and versatile product with many applications.

One advantage that the Ki Pro and Ki Pro Mini have is the fact that ProRes is 10-Bit codec.

Thus, if one has a low-noise 10-bit or higher camera, this theoretically can be an advantage.

But, there are two things to take into consideration, the noise level of the camera and the codec itself.

In December 2009, Sony had a special presentation in New York City for "heavy hitters".

The 220 Mbps AJA ProRes files were compared directly, on $25,000 Sony monitors, to Sony's 50 Mbps XDCam Optical Disk Format, which is the codec that we use.



Since I was not there, and since I am obviously biased, I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to disclose hearsay.

I do feel that head to head tests will show just how good the nanoFlash is and how competitive both products are.

I also want to keep this discussion and comparison accurate, polite, and respectful to both AJA and Convergent Design.

This is the Convergent Design nanoFlash forum. I would prefer to read about AJA products in the appropriate AJA forum.

I get the feeling that there's no real need for a head to head test here - I'm sure the outcome would be that there's very to separate them on image quality, and that both are more than good enough for any broadcast application - after all even the 50 mb/s 8 bit 422 XDCam codec is accepted at the highest broadcast levels and by the EBU. Both these products have specs well above that.
The differences will likely be operational and compatibility ones - Nano looks a little more compact, Ki Pro maybe a bit more rugged etc. And then I suppose - but saying that for broadcast kit both are amazing value for money.
Steve

I think this is the right forum to talk about KI Pro vs Nanoflash since I have two nanoflashes and no KI Pro. Anyway I also think a test is relevant.

If you are shooting a feature film, which device to use for the highest quality look for the grading? Or for T.V. No offense to the BBC and EBC and all those standards - but I am not an engineer, I'm a cinematographer and I want my cameras to look the best. Just because some engineer says 8-bit 50mbps is the "silver" standard doesn't mean I'm going to shoot a television show at that bitrate - I will do what looks best. And I can't wait to use either the nanoflash or the KI Pro Mini with the new Panasonic AF100 - and thousands of others can't either. If there was a test that shows which device gives the best quality - people will work around the form factor.

At the end of the day quality wins. Bulkiness doesn't. Furthermore I found out the KI Pro Mini weighs 1 lb and uses around the same amount of energy as the Nanoflash. So the decision between the two becomes harder and harder.

I hate seeing everyone jumping on the bandwagon of KI Pro so quickly especially when they don't remember the delays of the big daddy KI Pro.

We are the pioneers of recording to a higher-quality acquisition format and we should be on top of different devices to record to when our producer asks us too and should know how to defend our choice of using the xdr or the nanoflash. There is no better forum than this.

If you're going to do what looks best to you then the only way is for you to do the test. If you're not going to listen to the BBC and EBU then why would you listen to someone on an internet forum?

Steve

I think this is the right forum to talk about KI Pro vs Nanoflash since I have two nanoflashes and no KI Pro.Sorry Ed, but that's not how this site works.

We organize topics based on what those topics are, not on what you own. It doesn't matter that you have two Nanos and no Ki Pro. On this site, a Ki Pro topic belongs in our AJA forum, not our Convergent Design forum. If the topic concerns both, then post it one level up, in http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/tapeless-video-recording-solutions/

One of the biggest battles I face daily in managing this site is getting folks to post in the correct forum, for the benefit of those who come in later looking for something and expecting to find it in its proper place. Please, please, please use the *entire* site. It doesn't matter what gear you have at home. Thanks in advance,

oh okay. sorry about that. will do.

Even though the Aja is $800 cheaper, there is the recording capacity that needs to be factored into the cost. Pro Res 422 is 220Mb/s (I think) and is roughly equivalent to XDCAM 50/422 in image quality. Factor in the added cost of lets say 4 32GB with the Nano and for equivalent recording time in the Aja, you'd need 16 32GB or 8 64GB cards which adds a significant cost.

At $190 each for SanDisk 32GB 60MB/s cards, that is an additional $2280. So subtract the $800 difference of the Nano & Aja, and now the Aja costs $1480 EXTRA! I know someone will bring it up, so lets equate the difference with the Nano recording at 100Mb/s L-GOP. The Nano still wins on cost at roughly $700 less.

However, does the Aja support hot-swap? If it does, then that is an important advantage for some including me.

Also, the 10 bit of Pro Res eats up wasted space with most cameras under $20k because they have more noise.

Pro Res 422 is 220Mb/s (I think) and is roughly equivalent to XDCAM 50/422 in image quality.

I'd love to know more about this test Dan mentioned, and I'll try to ask my Sony friends in the broadcast division when they get back from IBC. I have some ProRes tests I want to make myself, but I am a huge fan of the 100Mb Long GOP CD/Sony codec. I have recorded a lot of stuff from 10-bit cameras with very low noise (actually 12 or 14 bit cameras, but 10 bit HDSDI), and the 100Mb CD codec produces essentially the same picture as the raw uncompressed stuff.

If you'd like to learn more about Apple's ProRes codec, they have a pretty nice white paper (http://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/docs/Apple_ProRes_White_Paper_July_2009.pdf) on it. There are four bit rates available, all VBR. 220, 147, 102, 45.

does the Aja support hot-swap? If it does, then that is an important advantage for some including me.

And me. Sorry to say, the answer is No. And I have a question in to the aja rep about whether the KiProMini can seamlessly transition from one card to the other while recording. If you have KiProMini specific quesions, you should take advantage of the aja forum here. You can get a pretty good feel for what the company and their products are all about, and how they respond to their customers. I'll warn you that nobody lets you into the thoughts of the company like CD does...

And that said, I wouldn't mind a really good, in-depth comparison between the (Convergent Design controlled) Sony hardware MPEG2 codec and the Apple ProRes codec...

Billy

Pro Res 422 is 220Mb/s (I think) and is roughly equivalent to XDCAM 50/422 in image quality.

Also, the 10 bit of Pro Res eats up wasted space with most cameras under $20k because they have more noise.
Hi Steve,
I don't know where you get those ideas from.
You are comparing the lowest XDCAM 422 option (8b Long GOP at 50 Mbps) with what is becoming the industry quality standard (10b Intraframe at 220 Mbps).
You can compare Prores with the NANOs Intraframe or with the AVC-Intra.
But in the end, the codec is not the only think to consider, but the processor. The capability of compressing a 10b Uncompress stream in RT at full quality and without tricks (the blurring that we are seeing in XDCAM).
If the process is properly done, you can NEVER compare a picture with 10b Y' with a picture with 8b Y'. The luminance makes the picture. The color is not that important for our eyes.
Another thing to consider is that Prores has become the production & intermediate codec for all the Apple platform: Whatever the acquisition format, people end up in Prores.
Also any PC can open Prores just having QT installed And don't forget neither, that Prores offers 4 levels of quality for 422.
On your comment about noise/space, I really don't see the relation.
rafael

I don't really know the answer to the codec comparison but I'd guess that the regular ProRes 422 would be the equivalent of the XDCam 50 mb/s. From what I've heard from the editing side of things ProRes HQ is ultra-high quality, and near the quality of uncompressed so should easily compare to the MPEG 100 mb/s Long GOP codec or Panasonic's AVC Intra 100. I don't have evidence of this though - but suffice to say I'm sure that the codecs within the Nano and the Ki Pro are both way above anything most users could ever need.
Steve

You may be interested in this test I did recently, if anyone wants to bring along a nanoflash, we can compare that too:

XDCAM EX vs Prores (http://mikemarriage.lunarfilm.co.uk/Blog/files/category-xdcam-35mb002fs-vs-prores-test.html)

The advantage of the Ki and Prores is that you are shooting straight to a reliable post format. That is great if you are going through a multi-stage post environment as Prores is designed for multiple generation use, MPEG2 is not. Of course you can convert XDCAM to Prores but that takes a lot of time and takes up more space as you still want to keep your original files. I often need to produce 24fps and 25fps versions of commercials and trailers. If I shoot XDCAM, I have to convert everything to Prores in order for Cinema Tools to change the frame rate; which takes ages!

Both will produce excellent results but with a low noise camera I'd guess that the Ki would have a slight advantage. However the Nano offers a substantially less data hungry workflow for very little loss in quality - the choice is yours!

My thoughts exactly Mike.

I get the feeling the Nano may have the advantage if you want variable frame rates? The over/under crank function will give you slow motion etc. from any 720/60 stream, where as on the Ki Pro I think your options are limited.

Steve

Dear Mike,

Thank you for posting your test results.

I would like to make one thing clear.

While the title of this thread is Ki Pro versus nanoFlash, your test compares Sony XDCam EX footage versus Apple ProRes footage.

To be clear, no nanoFlash footage appears to have been used in your testing,

Your test compared 35 Mbps 4:2:0 footage to Apple ProRes 4:2:2 footage.

A different test, one which uses nanoFlash 4:2:2 footage, using bit-rates from 50 Mbps to 280 Mbps may produce different results.

Dear Mike,
To be clear, no nanoFlash footage appears to have been used in your testing,


Yes, sorry Dan, I should have made that clearer. I actually did the test a few weeks ago for a different purpose but thought it was relevant here too.

Like I said, I'd like to do the same with the Nano @ 50 and 100Mbps vs Prores if you have a test unit in the UK? I played around with extreme grading on that test but I'd like to experiment more to try and establish any difference between the 8 bit and 10 bit.

Dear Mike,

Someone near you may have a nanoFlash.

We may be able to arrange a unit for testing.

Please contact Symbiosis, our European distributor.

Symbiosis | Authorised Apple, Adobe Training | Find Us (http://www.symbiosis.com/findus_venues)

Hey Mike,

In your test, I opened both in Photoshop CS5 and expanded to 400% using the progressive images. For image quality, I noticed only slightly better detail in some areas such as the wind muff. However, I noticed what appears to be noise in the Pro Res image and there seems to be a fair amount of it. Another reason I believe there is a fair amount of noise is because I used the Noise Reduction filter in PS and was able to remove most of it which made both images (35Mb & Pro Res HQ) look 99% identical at 400%.

I predict that 50Mb XDCAM will be equivalent to Pro Res HQ but the Pro Res will have more noise.

I believe that a test with the EX1/EX1r/EX3 will show a better image with its native 35Mb versus Pro Res due to the cameras having more noise than the 350.

Many people much smarter than me, including Alister Chapman, have declared that recording 10bit from the EX cameras has no benefit, and wastes roughly 20% of recorded bandwidth.

Don't get me wrong, I really really like the price of the Aja and its 10bit recording, but many including me have been under the impression that recording 10bit automatically makes the recorded image better - but it doesn't with noisier cameras including my EX1s.

For me, I want both but neither support hot-swap and that is a deal breaker for me as I shoot many events. Furthermore, because the Aja has less than 25% of the recording length per card, swapping cards will happen much more often, which makes hot-swapping even more important.

However, if the Aja can record the embedded SDI audio AND the 2 XLR inputs for 4 separate channels, that alone makes it much much more appealing to me as I can avoid using my Mackie mixer in addition to recording 4 channels separately (my Mackie 1220i has 12 inputs but outputs to only 2 XLR).

One last thought: the Aja is good news because it finally introduces competition to the nanoFlash, and what does competition do....it forces companies to build better products. Now, maybe the nanoFlash 2 might arrive sooner than later.

On a side note, when will an AVC-Intra portable recorder arrive? To me, this would be the ultimate recorder as 100Mb AVC-I 10bit should be better quality than 100Mb MPEG2 and Pro Res HQ (220Mb). However, if it required P2, then I wouldn't even consider buying it.

Hi Steve,
Recording 10b gives us 1024 levels of bright instead of the 256 that offers 8b recording.
Aside of this, and with all my respects, this test has not any validity.
You can not judge 10 YUV stuff through 8b RGB screen captures.
About the AVC-Intra: Just another mistake of codec.
This will be really eaten by any Prores recorder.
rafael

I've talked w/ one of the designers of Sony's F35 who has done extensive codec testing. His personal feeling is that the codecs are the "low quality pass filters" of digital video.

He was decidedly unimpressed with 10-bit ProRes 4:2:2, and felt it did not compare to the other ten bit codecs like HDCAM-SR, Cineform or DNxHD. "I know it's a ten bit codec, but I find it difficult to think of it as such." Now the ProRes 4:4:4:4 codec is another story.

I don't know about the other but SR is double or quadruple the data rate (440 or 880 mb/s) of even ProRes HQ, so it's not really a fair test. Maybe it's fairer to compare it to AVC Intra 100.
Steve

Dear Friends,

Rafael is absolutely correct when comparing 10-Bit (1024 levels) to 8-Bit (256 levels).

But, this is per color.

8-Bit offers around 16.7 million colors.

10-Bit offers around a billion colors.

I mention this because sometimes the impression is that 8-Bit has only 256 colors.

That's right dan, but our eyes are much more sensible to the changes in bright than in color.
The best of a 10b codec is the 10 Luma. That gives real definition. For the Chroma 8b are enough.
With all the possible shortcomings, Prores is clearly an step forward.
I don't care if there are better codecs are not (will always bee), but that 10b acquisition is at the reach of every pocket. I'm working on this since 27 years and for me this is a dream comes true.
rafael

Just to put in my 2 cents.

I own the Nano and it has not failed me in some very tough shooting conditions. Also I have found Dan and Mike to be first class when I have been in need of support.

But with all of my testing I find XDCAM 422 100Mb/s about the same as I-Frame 220Mb/s. But either way at 50Mb/s XDCAM 422 I have never had a customer even flinch. This is a broadcast standard with a lot of my clients and I do not find a need to go higher, unless we are shooting VERY fast motion close.

Would it be nice to shoot 10 bit, Yes. But is it needed at this time, No not for me and I bet most of the people on this forum. But should we not check out the Ki Pro, No by all means we should check it out and stay informed with the fast changing industry. But be careful to just chase new Tech gear unless you have the funds and are not concerned with the bottom line. For me for now the Nano helps me make money and that keeps it in the work bag ready to go.

I think the lower bit rate 420 cameras need to catch the Nano not the other way around.

I'll talk to my guy at my local Abel Cine and see when he gets the Aja in so we can do a Nano vs Aja test with their EX1r and 350. I assume it should be easy since I can take SDI into Nano and its output into Aja.

I'll talk to my guy at my local Abel Cine and see when he gets the Aja in so we can do a Nano vs Aja test with their EX1r and 350. I assume it should be easy since I can take SDI into Nano and its output into Aja.

Well, first I'd wonder about the loopthrough on the Nano... With the internal structure of the device, will it pass full 10 bit as output from the camera?

It would best be tested with a clean HDSDI DA, with neither handling the signal in line before the other.

Some of this has been discussed and done to death in my opinion. Neither manufacturer seems anxious to try to dump on the other...I talk to, and work with both companies and have worked with both devices and still believe that they each have a sweet spot.

As far as some of the comparisons that are flying around regarding codecs, I'm in favor of embargoing comments on image quality for codecs you have not worked with personally. Some of the opinions being repeated here are so broad and vague that they serve no purpose.

These passing remarks about "better" or "worse" don't note whether it's in context of acquisition (and for that matter, what camera? Does anyone here believe that the lastword on HDcamSR quality can be determined by piping an EX1 into it and comparing the image to the internal SxS?), or editing, effects, color correction, archive... Runnability with a certain NLE? Transportability in a mixed OS environment?

There are so many factors to consider... Run time in the field, file compatibility with your chosen workflow (which stretches wider than just the NLE app these days), type of device it's packaged in for field use and the datarate for storage and post...and time investment in conversion along the way if it becomes necessary.

Not to mention asking about simpy how one plans to display the images and the various biases different devices can have...as well as who will be doing the critical viewing and what they're focused on... Somone with a film background and someone with a television background can look at the exact same characteristic and declare it "good" or "bad". I've witnessed it happen. Even restricting the test to two cameras from a single manufacturer as sources limits the actual information one can gain from such a test.

I'd add an F23 to the test to test a really clean signal...and I'd use at least four different high end monitors to view the result...and make sure you have at least one 10 bit LCD in there and you know you are actually feeding 10 bit all the way to the display.

...but overall I'd still say that this topic has been more or less beaten to death.

Hi Tom,
I agree with you very much.
There is no point to make a general comparisons between the NANO with the Mini Ki-Pro.
There are tools with two different purposes: one to record in 8b 422 and the other to record in 10n 422.
Is to the user to know if its needs one or the other other.
I've been recording Prores from my EX-1 through my AJA ioHD, for ore than two years.
Is great.
I use my NANO to record on the field. Is SUPER.
I've been very excited with the arrival of the Ki-pro, because I think is a huge leap forward for all of us.
But I don't gonna run to buy one. The NANO gives me what I need. Is perfect for my job.
The day I will need the extra quality that 10b can add, I will consider to get one.
Best,
rafael