nanoFlash Intermittent Video and Firmware 1.5.249

Eric Liner · June 15th, 2010, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Schell

We just posted new nanoFlash public beta firmware, version 1.5.249, available for download at: http://69.15.88.17/downloads/nanoFla...sh_1.5.249.zip

1) Intermittent Video Source - we added an auto-correction routine to fix SDI bit-errors, which caused the nanoFlash to unlock and report an intermittent source.

-

Mike,

I'm still running 1.1.154 and have been seeing (inexplicable) intermittent source warnings for some time.

Will updating to1.5.126 help with this or do I need to use the public beta? I tend not to jump on the latest firmware releases...

Thanks,

Dan Keaton · June 15th, 2010, 09:26 AM

Dear Eric,

We will have a new release out soon. I recommend that you test the new release.

Dan Keaton · June 15th, 2010, 09:28 AM

Dear Eric,

We are getting in one of the pro cameras today so we can perform significant tests for intermittent source.

What camera are you using?

Eric Liner · June 15th, 2010, 10:12 AM

I'm shooting with an HDW-730.

When you suggested the latest release did you mean 1.5.126 or the public beta 1.5.249?

Thanks,

Dan Keaton · June 15th, 2010, 10:17 AM

Dear Eric,

We will release new firmware, 1.6.6 (or higher) soon, in a few days or earlier, just as soon as we finish all fo the testing.

This new firmware is what I would like for you to test.

Eric Liner · June 16th, 2010, 09:32 AM

I head back into the field on the 24th of June. If it's not tested and available by then, do you think it makes sense to revert back to the original firmware that shipped with the Nano in late July '09? I don't believe the intermittent video issue occurred with that version. Of course, I suppose I'd lose some of the additional bit rates and features available in recent updates. Might not be a bad trade off though...

Thanks,

Jeff Silverman · June 16th, 2010, 10:40 AM

Eric,

If you are a fan of Russian Roulette use a version of firmware that is brand new. We found 1.5.249 to be fatally flawed and unreliable and CD agrees with our assessment based on problems reported. While CD tests their firmware before releasing it, there is no doubt that I wouldn't use it for critical footage for about a month of other people finding the inevitable bugs. If those bugs are minor, then go for it.

Just my 2 cents.

Jeff

Eric Liner · June 16th, 2010, 11:34 AM

Agree completely, Jeff. And it's a good reality check.

As I mentioned earlier in the post, I tend not to upgrade firmware too quickly. I've actually only done it once since purchasing the unit one year ago. In addition to getting the time-lapse features and higher bit rate codecs, I also seem to have picked up this intermittent video error.

I only wish I had reported earlier...laziness on my part, and for some time I've been under the assumption I had some faulty cables.

I'll be interested to hear from Dan if the best bet is to revert back to the older firmware...I never found any problems with it.

Cheers,

Dan Keaton · June 16th, 2010, 02:00 PM

Dear Eric,

We are busy working on the intermittent source issue right now.

Yesterday, we got in an HDX900, since some of our HDX900 users were reporting this problem.

Our engineers are very busy testing it now.

The HDX900 has multiple HD-SDI outputs, and they can be configured different ways.

We know of many HDX900 users with a nanoFlash that never have the problem. Others do. There are many ways to setup the multiple HD-SDI outputs on this camera. Personally, I believe that the camera setup has something to go with these errors.

But, we have had this error reported on other cameras also.

What we do not know is if this is a camera problem or our problem. We, of course, are assuming that it is our problem until we prove otherwise.

Last night, recording all night with a live feed from the HDX900, we did not get any "Intermittent Source Errors". While the camera was manned, we tried starting and stopping the recording of the HDX900 many times. We could not get the nanoFlash to report the error message.

Last night, on our burn-in (heat cycling of new nanoFlashes), we were running around 50 nanoFlashes with firmware 1.6.6 (release candidate) and did not have a single intermittent source.

Background:

The Panasonic Varicam F model, had a problem, where it would send out a clean HD-SDI signal, then glitch whenever the camera went into record. This was corrected in the Varicam H model.

We believe the intermittent source problem to be real.

However, it gets complicated.

The purpose of the intermittent source message is to indicate that "a glitch or loss of the HD-SDI signal occurred once, no matter how brief, while the nanoFlash was recording, since power up.)

Thus, one glitch, or one case of the cable being loose, or the camera powered off, etc., will cause the nanoFlash to report "Intermittent Source" and this will blink continuously until the nanoFlash is powered off.

So, we could have real, valid reasons for displaying "Intermittent Source", or we could have a hardware/firmware issue.

We are working hard, as I said before, to resolve this issue.

Eric, please feel free to call me and we will discuss your specific case, and make recommendations.

Jeff Silverman · June 16th, 2010, 05:12 PM

Dan,

Let me be crystal clear. We have had multiple, repeatable "Intermittent Source" errors that were coming straight and directly from a broadcast quality frame synch output which was fed from multiple broadcast quality cameras. No wire was being touched, no unit was being moved. None included that model of camera. The room was climate controlled and the power was filtered. The units were all running side by side but no 2 ever had the problem at the same moment in time. We were using 1.5.126.

I offered at the time to fly at my expense anyone from CD to the truck in Las Vegas.

Jeff

Mike Schell · June 16th, 2010, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Silverman

Dan,

Let me be crystal clear. We have had multiple, repeatable "Intermittent Source" errors that were coming straight and directly from a broadcast quality frame synch output which was fed from multiple broadcast quality cameras. No wire was being touched, no unit was being moved. None included that model of camera. The room was climate controlled and the power was filtered. The units were all running side by side but no 2 ever had the problem at the same moment in time. We were using 1.5.126.

I offered at the time to fly at my expense anyone from CD to the truck in Las Vegas.

Jeff

Hi Jeff-
We are actively working on this problem now. We have an excellent test bed for code development - our burn-in table which holds 48 nanoFlash units, all recording in parallel for 36 hours straight. We cycle the temperature from 30 to 80 degrees C during the burn-in to really stress the components and the recording.

We do see a limited number of intermittent source failures, but not as many as expected. That said, we are continuing to track down the issues. We are adding code to make the nanoFlash much more error tolerant, so if the incoming signal has a single bit failure, we can correct the error on the fly and continue to properly record.

We're not doubting that the intermittent source problems are real, it's just a real needle-in-a-haystack sort of problem to find and fix.

Best-

Herb Forsberg · June 18th, 2010, 11:43 AM

Anything new? I had the same problem with an HDX900 recording 720/60. I had the problem from both the video out and the monitor out. I don't feel that I can use the nanoFlash again until this is resolved.
Thanks,
Herb Forsberg

Dan Keaton · June 18th, 2010, 12:07 PM

Dear Friends,

In our tests, we have not been able to get an "Intermittent Source" problem on 1080.

We have been able to make it fail on 720p, and we have found the problem and fixed it.

This fix will be included in our next firmware release.

Mike Schell · June 18th, 2010, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herb Forsberg

Anything new? I had the same problem with an HDX900 recording 720/60. I had the problem from both the video out and the monitor out. I don't feel that I can use the nanoFlash again until this is resolved.
Thanks,
Herb Forsberg

Hi Herb-
Just to expand on Dan's reply, we have an HDX900 on loan from Camera Department. We plan to drive 10 nanoFlash units from this source over the weekend for an extended test of the new code. We did find a definitive problem associated with 720p (but also remotely possible with 1080i). Our code fix appears to alleviate the problem, but a massive test over the weekend should provide confirmation. I'll post the results early next week.

Best-

Robin Probyn · June 18th, 2010, 06:31 PM

Ok thanks from another HDX900 owner.. anything else u can test while you have the beast.. :)

June 15th, 2010, 09:26 AM	#17
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Eric, We will have a new release out soon. I recommend that you test the new release. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

June 15th, 2010, 09:28 AM	#18
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Eric, We are getting in one of the pro cameras today so we can perform significant tests for intermittent source. What camera are you using? __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

June 15th, 2010, 10:17 AM	#20
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Eric, We will release new firmware, 1.6.6 (or higher) soon, in a few days or earlier, just as soon as we finish all fo the testing. This new firmware is what I would like for you to test. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

June 16th, 2010, 02:00 PM	#24
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Eric, We are busy working on the intermittent source issue right now. Yesterday, we got in an HDX900, since some of our HDX900 users were reporting this problem. Our engineers are very busy testing it now. The HDX900 has multiple HD-SDI outputs, and they can be configured different ways. We know of many HDX900 users with a nanoFlash that never have the problem. Others do. There are many ways to setup the multiple HD-SDI outputs on this camera. Personally, I believe that the camera setup has something to go with these errors. But, we have had this error reported on other cameras also. What we do not know is if this is a camera problem or our problem. We, of course, are assuming that it is our problem until we prove otherwise. Last night, recording all night with a live feed from the HDX900, we did not get any "Intermittent Source Errors". While the camera was manned, we tried starting and stopping the recording of the HDX900 many times. We could not get the nanoFlash to report the error message. Last night, on our burn-in (heat cycling of new nanoFlashes), we were running around 50 nanoFlashes with firmware 1.6.6 (release candidate) and did not have a single intermittent source. Background: The Panasonic Varicam F model, had a problem, where it would send out a clean HD-SDI signal, then glitch whenever the camera went into record. This was corrected in the Varicam H model. We believe the intermittent source problem to be real. However, it gets complicated. The purpose of the intermittent source message is to indicate that "a glitch or loss of the HD-SDI signal occurred once, no matter how brief, while the nanoFlash was recording, since power up.) Thus, one glitch, or one case of the cable being loose, or the camera powered off, etc., will cause the nanoFlash to report "Intermittent Source" and this will blink continuously until the nanoFlash is powered off. So, we could have real, valid reasons for displaying "Intermittent Source", or we could have a hardware/firmware issue. We are working hard, as I said before, to resolve this issue. Eric, please feel free to call me and we will discuss your specific case, and make recommendations. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

June 18th, 2010, 11:43 AM	#27
Herb Forsberg New Boot Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ridgewood, NJ Posts: 15	Intermittent source Anything new? I had the same problem with an HDX900 recording 720/60. I had the problem from both the video out and the monitor out. I don't feel that I can use the nanoFlash again until this is resolved. Thanks, Herb Forsberg

June 15th, 2010, 10:12 AM	#19
Eric Liner Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Ithaca, NY Posts: 39	I'm shooting with an HDW-730. When you suggested the latest release did you mean 1.5.126 or the public beta 1.5.249? Thanks,

June 16th, 2010, 09:32 AM	#21
Eric Liner Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Ithaca, NY Posts: 39	I head back into the field on the 24th of June. If it's not tested and available by then, do you think it makes sense to revert back to the original firmware that shipped with the Nano in late July '09? I don't believe the intermittent video issue occurred with that version. Of course, I suppose I'd lose some of the additional bit rates and features available in recent updates. Might not be a bad trade off though... Thanks,

June 16th, 2010, 10:40 AM	#22
Jeff Silverman Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Jacksonville, VT USA Posts: 100	Eric, If you are a fan of Russian Roulette use a version of firmware that is brand new. We found 1.5.249 to be fatally flawed and unreliable and CD agrees with our assessment based on problems reported. While CD tests their firmware before releasing it, there is no doubt that I wouldn't use it for critical footage for about a month of other people finding the inevitable bugs. If those bugs are minor, then go for it. Just my 2 cents. Jeff

June 16th, 2010, 11:34 AM	#23
Eric Liner Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Ithaca, NY Posts: 39	Agree completely, Jeff. And it's a good reality check. As I mentioned earlier in the post, I tend not to upgrade firmware too quickly. I've actually only done it once since purchasing the unit one year ago. In addition to getting the time-lapse features and higher bit rate codecs, I also seem to have picked up this intermittent video error. I only wish I had reported earlier...laziness on my part, and for some time I've been under the assumption I had some faulty cables. I'll be interested to hear from Dan if the best bet is to revert back to the older firmware...I never found any problems with it. Cheers,

June 16th, 2010, 05:12 PM	#25
Jeff Silverman Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Jacksonville, VT USA Posts: 100	Dan, Let me be crystal clear. We have had multiple, repeatable "Intermittent Source" errors that were coming straight and directly from a broadcast quality frame synch output which was fed from multiple broadcast quality cameras. No wire was being touched, no unit was being moved. None included that model of camera. The room was climate controlled and the power was filtered. The units were all running side by side but no 2 ever had the problem at the same moment in time. We were using 1.5.126. I offered at the time to fly at my expense anyone from CD to the truck in Las Vegas. Jeff

June 18th, 2010, 12:07 PM	#28
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Friends, In our tests, we have not been able to get an "Intermittent Source" problem on 1080. We have been able to make it fail on 720p, and we have found the problem and fixed it. This fix will be included in our next firmware release. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia

June 18th, 2010, 06:31 PM	#30
Robin Probyn Major Player Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tokyo Posts: 590	Ok thanks from another HDX900 owner.. anything else u can test while you have the beast.. :)