Just returning from a successful IBC show. We had very good booth traffic throughout the show, with lots of inquiries for both the nanoFlash and the new nano3D. 3D was the clearly the hot topic at the show, with camera rigs everywhere and half of the IBC seminars covered some aspect of 3D production. Yes, you still say that 3D is an experiment, but it sure looks more and more like it's going to "stick" this time.

Yes, we saw the new product announcements from AJA (mini) and the Atomos (Ninja). We expected a number of prognosticators to proclaim the imminent death of the nanoFlash. Not to sound jaded, but we have heard these predictions more than once.

We are not denying that, in general a 10-bit CODEC can be superior to the 8-bit CODEC used in the nanoFlash and Flash XDR. But there are so many factors to consider in making any final judgment. The first, and possibly one of the most important question to ask is whether your video source outputs 10-bit quality video. The new (hot) Panasonic 35mm camera (AG-AF101) is only 8-bit, as is the new Canon XF series cameras, as well as the older XL-H1 and G1 cameras. I am fairly certain that all the Panasonic cameras that use the DVCProHD CODEC (either tape or P2 based) only output 8-bit over HD-SDI. Yes, the Sony EX1/EX3 output 10-bit as do the Panasonic cameras based on the new AVC-I CODEC. But there are many cameras that are limited to 8-bit (effective) HD-SDI output.

Capturing 8-bit video into a 10-bit will, in general, provide no improvement in video quality. There may be other work-flow considerations, but you can't improve the video quality by capturing into a higher bit-depth CODEC.

In our internal tests the ProRes and XDCAM CODEC perform almost identically under identical conditions: I-Frame, 220Mbps, 4:2:2, 8-bit. Both CODECs are clearly a significant improvement over the built-in native CODEC found in the camera. Yes 10-bit would give you a slight improvement, but the most significant improvement comes from going to 4:2:2 color space and more importantly increasing the bit-rate. That trend is true for all CODECs - bit rate is the number one factor determining quality.

Beyond the CODEC question, there are lots of other issues to consider in choosing a portable recorder. How do you mount the recorder to the camera? With nanoFlash it's a simple hot-shoe ball mount for many applications. The competition often requires an (extra cost) exoskeleton or other such fixturing.

How do you power the recorder? With the nanoFlash low 6 Watts you can steal power from the camera's battery via a simple D-Tap cable (SWIT battery). The competition's reported 15-16W (during 220 Mbps recording) will likely eliminate this option. So, you may be forced to attach a separate battery and charger, which adds weight and cost.

How about file management? The nanoFlash records seamlessly across the two Compact Flash cards, opening and closing files as needed. The competition records one long file and then stops. When the card fills up you have to stop the record session. This limits their record time to about 34 minutes, using a 64GB card, at 220 Mbps. If you fill up the card to say 80% and then want to start another record session, you will likely have to swap out the card as it may fill up before the shoot is finished. The nanoFlash, on the other hand will simply swap over to the next card without missing a beat.

Additionally, the nanoFlash automatically closes the files at 4GB boundaries, minimizing the potential loss of video. Writing one long file is inherently more risky, as a power failure, for example, may cause the loss of the entire record session.

What about media management and media costs? With the nanoFlash, you can use a low-cost Nexto device to back up the CF cards in the field. The Nexto won't work with the "mini", forcing the shooter to either purchase more CF cards or bring a laptop, neither is particularly desirable. Convergent spent a considerable amount of engineering time to optimize the CF card performance, so you can use a low-cost 400X card to record 200Mbps. Initial reports indicate that the competition will require 600X cards to achieve the same level of performance. That can be a big cost issue.

For example, if you want to record 2 hours of video at 220 Mbps without backing up to your laptop, you may be forced to purchase four SanDisk 64GB Extreme Pro cards at over $500 each ($2,000 total). With the nanoFlash, you could get by with four 400X cards ($200 each or $800 total). If you are planning a longer shoot, say fours hours, then the difference becomes enormous, as you can use a 500GB Nexto ($350) for backup on nano, but must purchase more CF cards for the competitors product (again assuming you don't want to drag along a laptop).

Let's talk briefly about features. The nanoFlash has been in a constant state of development for the past 18 months, with 6 major firmware releases. The nano is, safe to say, considerably ahead of the competition, offering time-lapse, variable frame rate (over-under crank), pre-record buffer, 3:2 pulldown removal, MXF, MOV and MPG formats, 8-channel audio, XDCAM Optical compatibility, Long-GOP and I-Frame CODEC operating from 18 to 280 Mbps, optional ASI, upgrade-ability to 3D recording, and excellent NLE support. I don't think we have any real competition with regard to the feature set.

I could go on to discuss an even wider range of considerations (such as wide operating environments, the completely silent operation (no fans), or the installed base of over 2200), but needless to say, many factors much be considered. It's not just the CODEC and the cost of the initial product. The features, workflow, media (which can easily cost more than the recorder), mounting, and power are also very important.

Mike Schell
Convergent Design

I forgot to mention one other, very important factor, in considering a portable recorder: after sales support.

While I cannot comment on the competition, I do think that Convergent Design offers excellent customer support. We're not perfect by any means, but Dan Keaton and Tommy Schell, in particular, do respond in a very timely manner and do their very best to find a solution so you can continue your shoot / edit.

I think we also listen to your requests for product improvements and enhancements. Many of the features found in the nanoFlash were first suggested (requested) on this forum.

These are factors not found in a spec sheet or magazine advertisement, but are nonetheless critical for your work.

Mike Schell

Hi Mike - great summary. Agree with everything you have said. Nanoflash will feature on all my next few productions and I think I have my head around what an amazing piece of kit that it is.


Just one small request to make this product the best of the bunch by a mile IMHO ( and I love it's portability above all else ) ........can we play nice with Cineform sometime soon pretty please? How can I easily make a conversion because at this stage it is not possible and which ever forum I ask about it it is the 'other guys' who can fix it. Perhaps a utility to help us along?

Thanks for the post Mike ... support for the Nano has been excellent and that counts for a lot. The unit I bought ... and I bought any early one ... has worked flawlessly. My work mostly consists of corporate videos (work) and my short films (fun.) I'm sure there will be many more portable recorders coming in the future but you guys have provided, for me anyway, just the right kind of unit to make my EX3 recordings capable of a larger latitude in production ... for that I thank you! If I were going to shoot a feature for theatrical release I would shoot it on a Red or comparable camera and use the highest workflow possible to get the best results for that market. Sadly, at this point in time that is not happening but whatever the future holds for any of us, in this most precarious of businesses, the NanoFlash has provided an uplift where none existed before at a reasonable price and has spurred other makers to do the same! My 2 cents.

Hi Mike - great summary. Agree with everything you have said. Nanoflash will feature on all my next few productions and I think I have my head around what an amazing piece of kit that it is.


Just one small request to make this product the best of the bunch by a mile IMHO ( and I love it's portability above all else ) ........can we play nice with Cineform sometime soon pretty please? How can I easily make a conversion because at this stage it is not possible and which ever forum I ask about it it is the 'other guys' who can fix it. Perhaps a utility to help us along?

Hi Henry-
Thanks for words of encouragement! We shipped a nanoFlash to Cineform about 2 months ago and I am told they are diligently working on a translator. I'll send an e-mail to the "David's" and check on the status. We definitely want Cineform support for the nano and XDR.

Best-
Mike

Mike -

This would be a MAJOR advance for your products.

For 3D work...would help solve untold storage capacity issues.

Cineform is the top dog for efficient post work, IMHO.

I'm sure a number of us are eager for progress.

Thanks.

Hi Michael,
Completely agree with you.
Better a solid 8b recording than a weak 10b one.
Both, MPEG-2 and Prores are solid codecs when properly processed.
And sure I agree that there is no point recording a 8b stream with 10b depth.
You give me a bad new about the 8b SDI of the PANA AG-AF101 (I had that camera in mind).
All those cameras process at 12 or even 14b. 10 Unc output is native.
Crunching the output to 8b just shows the mean mind of the manufacturers.
Something I see very positive about the existence of the NANO and other portable recorders is that this can help arise new cameras manufacturers. They won't need to care about compression or formats, just about picture quality and a 10b Unc out of the BNC (no HDMI to work on the field, please).
Best,
rafael

Mike, any plans to release other similar products, for example a thin NF with battery mounts on both sides which pass power through? That would be GREAT!

Thanks Mike. Well said.

Mike.

Mike, any plans to release other similar products, for example a thin NF with battery mounts on both sides which pass power through? That would be GREAT!

Hi Mike-
Good suggestion! I can't really say too much about future product plans, but we will put your recommendation on the feature list for serious consideration.

Best-

Mike - A Cineform conversion utility would be great so thanks for getting onto this. Much appreciated.H

Hey Mike:

-Zero failures on my end
-Excellent picture quality
-Easy post workflow (yes, even I can do it)
-Fantastic customer support

Great product,worth every dime.

Cannot wait to see what you come up with next.

Hi Michael,
You give me a bad new about the 8b SDI of the PANA AG-AF101 (I had that camera in mind).
All those cameras process at 12 or even 14b. 10 Unc output is native.
Crunching the output to 8b just shows the mean mind of the manufacturers.
Something I see very positive about the existence of the NANO and other portable recorders is that this can help arise new cameras manufacturers. They won't need to care about compression or formats, just about picture quality and a 10b Unc out of the BNC (no HDMI to work on the field, please).
Best,
rafael

Hi Rafael-
I suspect that Panasonic will give us a 10-bit output on a higher end version of this camera (AVC-I CODEC + P2). They probably just matched the HD-SDI output to the capabilities of the AVCHD CODEC, which, as we know is 8-bit, 4:2:0, 24Mbps.

Nevertheless, this camera could be a real ground breaker.

Mike -

This would be a MAJOR advance for your products.

For 3D work...would help solve untold storage capacity issues.

Cineform is the top dog for efficient post work, IMHO.

I'm sure a number of us are eager for progress.

Thanks.

Hi Daniel-
Just got an e-mail Cineform. I am happy to report they are making good progress and have the video conversion working. They are now focused on the audio conversion. It sounds like we'll have a tool very soon.

Hi Daniel-
Just got an e-mail Cineform. I am happy to report they are making good progress and have the video conversion working. They are now focused on the audio conversion. It sounds like we'll have a tool very soon.

Hi Mike,

Would you happen to know if this will eliminate the green frames at the beginning of the long GOP recording when pulled into Vegas Pro?

Thanks for all the work on a great product.

-Garrett

Hi Daniel-
Just got an e-mail Cineform. I am happy to report they are making good progress and have the video conversion working. They are now focused on the audio conversion. It sounds like we'll have a tool very soon.

Mike -

They're good people at Cineform. Always quick to respond, in my experience.

NANO and Cineform? I look forward to the dream.

Daniel,

Have you seen the Cinedeck?

And how do you use Cineform in Nuke? I thought it didn't work.

Hi Daniel-
Just got an e-mail Cineform. I am happy to report they are making good progress and have the video conversion working. They are now focused on the audio conversion. It sounds like we'll have a tool very soon.

Hi Mike,

You got me interested in the incoming Cineform support, but I'm not sure I understand how it will be implemented - is it going to be an external (i.e. computer based, hopefully also PC) utility like the HDlink is now, or what? If so, will tools like FirstLight be included?

I gave the newest NeoHD trial a go, and HDlink had problems with converting large files with high bitrate nanoFlash clips (while working fine with XDCAM EX format)...

Is it going to be a payable option for us nanoFlash users, and who is going to provide it - Cineform, or Convergent Design?

Thanks,

Piotr

Hi Mike,

You got me interested in the incoming Cineform support, but I'm not sure I understand how it will be implemented - is it going to be an external (i.e. computer based, hopefully also PC) utility like the HDlink is now, or what? If so, will tools like FirstLight be included?

I gave the newest NeoHD trial a go, and HDlink had problems with converting large files with high bitrate nanoFlash clips (while working fine with XDCAM EX format)...

Is it going to be a payable option for us nanoFlash users, and who is going to provide it - Cineform, or Convergent Design?

Thanks,

Piotr

Hi Piotr-
Good questions, I'll try to find some answers from the Cineform folks.

Steve -

I don't use Cineform with Nuke. Generally uncompressed in my efx world, even if originated from NANO.

The majority of my work doesn't involve efx (per se) and my clients often complain of the volume of data. Cineform is one of the best solutions.

And I expect it will be a "post process," meaning not likely to come out of the NANO as Cineform. I believe Cineform will "learn" to read the NANO MXF/MOV format(s).

I have seen the Cinedeck on paper (no hands on). I prefer the NANO for its price, features, size and ongoing development. I've used the XDR and Ki Pro and still prefer the NANO, especially the NANO 3D, since a majority of my projects are 3D.

Don't think this was mentioned but the Aja formats with HFS, which cannot be written to by Windows and Mac OS 10.6+.

Can someone explain how 1080i 29.97 consumes more data than 1080p 23.98? 1080i gives a max 30min vs 1080p / 38 min recording time with the Mini using P-R HQ.

Just a WAG, but if the compression system uses constant number of bits per frame, then since 30 f/sec uses 25% more fps than 24 f/sec, it would also use that much more data space. (As I recall, this is essentially the way HDcam tape works as well).
However if the system uses a constant bit rate per second (rather than per frame), then it would use the same amount of data space at either 30p, 24p, or 60i.
The correlary to this would be that if using a constant bit rate over time, then 24p actually uses a slightly lower compression ratio than 30p or 60i, and hence should look slightly better.

Dear Steve and Dave,

The nanoFlash and Flash XDR work by providing the bit rate that you have selected, say 100 Mbps.

If there are fewer frames, say as in 23.976, then you get a higher bit-rate per frame.

Since we use the same bit rate per second, regardless of the number of frames, then the bit-rate alone determines how long you can record using a certain size CompactFlash card.

Many other recorders or codecs, assign a bit-rate per frame, (and not per second) thus the recording time varies depending on the Frame Rate, when using a certain size CompactFlash card.

Dear Friends,

We feel that the nanoFlash is a very attractive product, at a reasonable price, with quite a few advantages and unique features.

When one considers media cost, for a given recording time, the cost advantages of the nanoFlash become apparent.

Here is a list that we prepared.

nanoFlash Advantages / Unique Features

• Most efficient CODEC: Sony XDCAM 422 HD CODEC; 18 to 280 Mbps, I-Frame / Long-GOP
• 4:2:2 Broadcast Quality at only 50 Mbps
• High quality at lower bit-rates: 100 Mbps 4:2:2 Long-GOP
• Longest Record Times: 15 hours @ 18 Mbps, 160 Minutes @ 100 Mbps (with two 64GB cards)
• Best Media Management
.... Very Long Uninterrupted Record times (supports spanning of cards)
.... Lowest-Cost CompactFlash cards: 133X (100 Mbps), 400X (220 Mbps)
.... 600x speed CompactFlash cards not needed, except for 280 Mbps
.... Affordable Nexto Drive (500GB HDD) for field backup
.... Supports multiple files / hot-swap (next firmware update)
• Longest Battery Life: 6W Max Power, 5 to 19.5V Range
• Industry Leading Size, Weight (under 1 lb), and Power, Completely Silent (no fans)
• Full Support For PSF, Converts PSF to Progressive for recording, Progressive to PSF for playback
• Comprehensive Support for various frame rates including True 24p, True 30p and True 60i.
• E to E Direct Support
• 3:2 Pulldown Removal (1080p24 over 60i -> 1080p24) for both SDI and HDMI
• 8-Channel Embedded Audio (24-bit / 48K)
• Time Lapse: one frame/second up to one frame/day
• Pre-Record Buffer (7-seconds) – great for wildlife
• Over/Under Crank (Variable Frame Rate) with all cameras: 1080p and 720p
• Universal NLE Support: MXF/MOV/MPG files, no transcode, Play directly off CF card
• MPG file format speeds DVD and Blu-Ray creation; Renders Blu-Ray files in real-time
• Most flexible recorder – numerous trigger options, duration record, internal/external TC, etc.
• Comprehensive software tools / plugins for viewing / converting files
.... MOV ↔MXF Converters, XDCAM Viewer, Calibrated Software Decoder
.... Cineform support coming soon
• Simplest Mounting: Built-In Tripod Mount (1/4”-20)
• History of continuous upgrades:
.... Six Major Firmware Updates since Aug 2009
.... Next Release to include: Canon MXF support, Record Trigger Delay, Hot Swap, Image Flip/Flop
• Field Proven in mission critical applications
.... Over 2300 units in the field
.... Extreme environments: deserts, humid jungles, balloons @ 100K feet, underwater, arctic cold,
.... race-cars, helicopters, jets, acrobatic planes, (-30 to 65 C operating range)
• Upgradeable to 3D
• 24/7 phone support – ready when you need help
• Available today

Hi Dan,

So Hot-Swap will be enabled in the next firmware update? This has been the only reason that I have not purchased a Nano so this is very very good news.

Dear Steve,

Yes, it is our intention to have Hot Swapping finished so it can be included in the next release.

Our developer feels that he needs about two days to finalize "Hot Swapping". He has been working on this for a long time.

So, it is a very high priority for us to finish this and have it included in the next release. Thus, we are freeing him up so he can concentrate on this.

We do understand why some need Hot Swapping.

Unless one has to have "Hot Swapping" we always recommend against it, as we can record uninterrupted for 5.3 hours at Broadcast Quality (4:2:2, 50 Mbps). And not removing cards while recording is always safer (no possibility of removing the wrong card.).

The good case for Hot Swapping, is for recording an event, such as a football game. where one would remove one card to start the edit process, while continuing to record uninterrupted on the other card.

So, we are doing our best to finish this by the end of next week.

Hello Dan,
That's really great news as you know this is something that I have been waiting for.

Dan in relation to your comment " not removing cards while recording is always safer (no possibility of removing the wrong card.)."

This is true but one also must consider that the Nanoflash's compact flash card slots have been extremely well designed and thought out with the eject button's separated by offsetting them. This gives you enough room so that your finger can not hit the wrong card slot. The Sony EX3 has the eject button's side by side which is very bad design and it makes it very easy to eject the wrong card. I have also noted that new Kipro Mini also has side by side CF card ejection system.

Dear Lance,

Thanks for the kind words.

As you can tell from my comments, I am concerned about "Hot Swapping".

With the video coming into the nanoFlash at 1,485 Gigabits per second, we have to put it somewhere.

The design features you mentioned, along with a Blinking Red LED next to the card that cannot be removed, will help guide the user to the right card.

Dear Dan,
Thank you for the update!
I was wondering if CD consider creating a program for spanning the files that have been broken during recording at 3.51GB? Also, just curios if CD is going to attack the over 300Mbps level? Thank you
Cheers

Dear Luben,

Both the Quicktime and MXF files have a "File Header" and a "File Trailer".

Each has an "Index" to each and every frame of video.
One index is located in the trailer, the other in the header.

Thus, each file has "File Header", "Essence" (the video and Audio), and the "File Trailer".

One cannot write a simple program to concatenate the individual files.

We have considered writing a very complex program to combine the individual files together, but for now, we have other higher priority projects.

For your second question:

We prefer not to disclose the maximum potential of the nanoFlash for competitive reasons.

I will say that 280 Mbps is very good footage and major players have approved this level of quality.

Increasing the Bit-Rate to higher levels, while still compressing the images, may have little impact on the visual quality or the robustness of the images.

Our compressed 280 Mbps footage is visually very close to uncompressed, thus the final increase in quality would logically be going to full uncompressed.

To put this in perspective, one can take a HD-SDI signal to a good monitor, then evaluate the image quality, while also recording it to a nanoFlash at 280 Mbps.

Then play back the footage, carefully evaluating the image quality again.

If the above is done as a blind test, we believe it will be very difficult to accurately determine which was live versus recorded.

Also, just curios if CD is going to attack the over 300Mbps level?
That would add nothing but bigger files.
You can get lossless 8b just zipping an 9b Uncompress file.
I think is difficult to improve the NANOs Intraframe at high data rate.
However I think the LongGOPs can be highly improved.
Rafael

Thank you Dan!
I am tuned for some nice surprises down the road.... ;-)
Cheers

Thanks so much, Dan.

So it looks like the Power Save mode has proved to be a serious problem... I miss the feature even more as it never caused problems with my units!

Nevertheless, we're now waiting for it to be restored, and the last couple of features implemented (embedded / analog audio mixing, for instance).

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for CD's success!

Piotr