Fast Motion 100mbs vs 160mbs

[Paul Cronin]

Has anyone tested fast motion and or high vibration with 100mbs vs 160mbs?

[Mark Job]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

Has anyone tested fast motion and or high vibration with 100mbs vs 160mbs?

...I've tested 140 Mbps vs 100 Mbps on fast motion and noticed an ever so slubtle improvement. I imagine 160 Mbps would be an incremental improvement once again. I will have to go test that rate out as well. So far, I'm utterly amazed at what we're getting at the 100 Mb setting.

[Paul Cronin]

Thank you Mark I appreciate the response.

I agree 100 Mbps is great. Just looking at the trade off with quality vs extra storage on certain jobs.

I will do the same and test but again thanks for your input.

[Paul Cronin]

Mark I just did two test with 100 Mbps and 160 Mbps and you can notice but you have to really be looking. We fly tonight so that will be the best test.

[Mark Job]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

Mark I just did two test with 100 Mbps and 160 Mbps and you can notice but you have to really be looking. We fly tonight so that will be the best test.

...I thought you would see some level of overall improvement at 160 Mbps. Paul, you mentioned flying tonight. What's the shoot you're using your XDR for ?

[Paul Cronin]

The difference was not huge but at 200% I could see it.

I fly about three days a week with 3 different helicopter companies doing a wide range of shoots as part of my business. Also I don't have a XDR I have a Nano.

Last night I used the Nano in a rehab pool shoot. The 100 Mbps worked great.

Will let you know what I find out.

[Mark Job]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

The difference was not huge but at 200% I could see it.

I fly about three days a week with 3 different helicopter companies doing a wide range of shoots as part of my business. Also I don't have a XDR I have a Nano.

Last night I used the Nano in a rehab pool shoot. The 100 Mbps worked great.

Will let you know what I find out.

...If I didn't need the extra two channels of analogue audio, then I would have gone for a Nano as well. But 64 GB CF media is on its way, so four slots are always good to have :-)

[Paul Cronin]

Mark I had an XDR last winter and it is fantastic. The size of the Nano is working well for me now. I agree 64GB will be a treat.

Tomorrow I will look at todays footage at 16 Mbps. We had a blade tracking problem today so not expecting the best results.

[Mark Job]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

Mark I had an XDR last winter and it is fantastic. The size of the Nano is working well for me now. I agree 64GB will be a treat.

Tomorrow I will look at todays footage at 16 Mbps. We had a blade tracking problem today so not expecting the best results.

Hi Paul: I assume you meant 160 Mbps. Did you sell your XDR or do you still use it ? I'm confident the 160 Mbps footage will look sweet.

[Paul Cronin]

Correct I did mean 160 Mbps. It always seems when I write on DVinfo I am in a hurry and do not take the time to proof read my post. Part of the problem being so busy with my life.

Yes I sold the XDR last winter when I purchased a Red One which was a huge mistake for my business. Now back with the EX/Nano and rolling again.

[Paul Cronin]

Looking at the footage from yesterday when I was set at 160 Mbps the quicktime inspector never shows the Data Rate over 142.38 mbits/s.

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Paul,

That is interesting.

Were you using a SanDisk Extreme III card and our 1.0.64 firmware?

If so, we limit the speed of the SanDisk Extreme III card to 140 Mbps to improve reliability.
This was based on our extensive testing. We found 160 Mbps for this card to be too close to the maximum performance of this card, thus we thought we may have reliability problems with this combination.


If you were using the SanDisk Extreme IV card, which supports 160 Mbps Long-GOP since it is a faster card, there may be another explanation for the reported maximum bit rate.

I will check with our engineers.

I wonder if the codec did not need more that 142.38 Mbps amount to fullly encode the image.

The other explanation may be that we have a mistake in our firmware. We will check.

[Paul Cronin]

You are correct Dan I am using SanDisk Extreme III cards and the latest 1.0.64 frimware.

I had read in the manual that the prior to purchasing cards that Extreme III can handle 160 so that is what I set the Nano at for the shoot. Hum, wonder if I should have purchased the Extreme iV cards instead of the III's. I have purchased 12 cards only only one iV.

There is a jump that runs through the whole footage that I have not experienced before onto the SxS cards. Some if it is blade tracking problem on the machine that I am familiar with. But there is also a non stop jump no mater what speed we were traveling that seems to be codec not keeping up. Could this be because I was set at 160 and the card is limited to 140?

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Paul,

Could you please run two simple tests for us?

Test 1

Put just one SanDisk Extreme III in your nanoFlash, leaving the other slots empty.

Then change the HD Bit Rate to 160 Mbps.

Please check if it changes it to 140 Mbps.

If it does, then we were trying to record 160, and it appears that it could not keep up.


Test 2

Could you record some footage, say 10 to 20 minutes, with the SanDisk Extreme III at 140 Mbps?

Please let us know if it jumps or not.

[Paul Cronin]

Dan,

Test 1
I put one Extreme III 32 GB card in slot one only.
Then changed the Bit rate to 160 Mbps. What do you mean HD Bit Rate there is only one choice when on Long GOP?
It does not change it to 140 Mbps it stays at 160 Mbps on the Nano.

Test 2
When I have the time.